David Lochrin wrote:
>
> Call me over-cautious, but it will be a while before I entrust my nearest
> & dearest to a driverless car.
How do you feel about them getting in a car with a human driver? It's not
like they are accident proof. People have all kinds of irrational fears,
eg, fear of fl
On 5/04/2016 9:53 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
On 05/04/2016 08:59, David Boxall wrote:
How far it can go in the century-or-so anticipated service life, it's
our duty to find out.
David, you've mentioned this "anticipated service life" a few times now.
...
Originally, it was a response to the "short
On 05/04/2016 10:52, Scott Howard wrote:
Do you have any references to fiber cabling having a lifespan of "vastly
longer than a century"? Most cable manufacturers give a stated lifetime of
somewhere in the 20-40 years, with a general industry expectation that it
will normally last more than tha
On 2016-04-05 10:03 Jim Birch wrote:
> Driverless cars have a better record than human drivers. Their most common
> accident is being rear-ended by human drivers who are running red lights and
> expect the driverless car in front of them to do the same.
>
> A week in a spinal ward might bring
How do you work one of these things when you can't specify an address?
- Talk to it
You might be trying to avoid a traffic incident
- The car will probably know before you
looking for a space in a car park, closest to a particular entrance/shop,
- Parking is not required, the car drops you off.
At 10:03 AM 5/04/2016, Jim Birch wrote:
>A week in a spinal ward might bring home the benefits of driverless cars.
>It's a no brainer when considered in terms of relative risks, rather than
>risk elimination.
>
>They are also likely to improve traffic flow and ease congestion.
>Especially when huma
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Andy Farkas wrote:
> David, you've mentioned this "anticipated service life" a few times now.
>
> None of us can see into the future, but what would replace something
> that can go at the (constant) speed of light? The life of a fibre cable
> is vastly longer than
On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 09:53 +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> None of us can see into the future, but what would replace something
> that can go at the (constant) speed of light? The life of a fibre
> cable is vastly longer than a century. They will probably only have
> to replace broken/crushed cables
On 5/04/2016 10:03 AM, Jim Birch wrote:
> Driverless cars have a better record than human drivers.
How do you work one of these things when you can't specify an address?
You might not remember an address but know how to get there, you might
be wandering around a neighboughhood seeing if it's wor
Hi Andy,
It is a risk - I have seen the cables being pulled from buildings which
are to be demolished.
In the 1980s, the catchcry was to future proof buildings with optic
fibre. I wonder how much of fibre pulled out of buildings has never been
used.
The question is whether you run a fibre op
Driverless cars have a better record than human drivers. Their most common
accident is being rear-ended by human drivers who are running red lights
and expect the driverless car in front of them to do the same.
A week in a spinal ward might bring home the benefits of driverless cars.
It's a no br
On 05/04/2016 08:59, David Boxall wrote:
How far it can go in the century-or-so anticipated service life, it's
our duty to find out.
David, you've mentioned this "anticipated service life" a few times now.
None of us can see into the future, but what would replace something
that can go at the
On 04/04/16 18:56, JanW wrote:
At 02:20 PM 4/04/2016, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
And Nine estimates most people have MPEG-4 decoding ability already:
http://www.mediaweek.com.au/nine-is-broadcasting-its-channel-in-hd-but-not-for-everyone/
Just going through the whole channel line-up:
13 TenHD -
On 1/04/2016 8:16 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
[In computation we trust:
The conditions are reported as being] apply to the state transport minister for
approval, and meet certain insurance benchmarks. Period.
...
There are risks, no doubt. Stepping back and taking a broad view of the
road toll as
On 4/04/2016 2:04 PM, JanW wrote:
... My HD tv doesn't do MPEG4, evidently just MPEG2.
Decoding MPEG4 is substantially more resource-intensive than MPEG2.
Unless your TV is very old, the hardware is probably up to the job. You
might find that a solution is only a firmware upgrade away. Worth as
At 02:20 PM 4/04/2016, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>And Nine estimates most people have MPEG-4 decoding ability already:
>
>http://www.mediaweek.com.au/nine-is-broadcasting-its-channel-in-hd-but-not-for-everyone/
Just going through the whole channel line-up:
13 TenHD - dead
74 TV4ME USED to work but no
16 matches
Mail list logo