Was enlightenment: Now the future of transportation
pullo
large.
To be on-topic: What will be the future of transportation?
Mass Transit vs. Personal automobiles?
I think the movie Minority Report had a lot of good tidbits about near term
developments.
Consider the development in automated automobiles already. Fully automatic
vehicles will be able to functions at higher speeds, densities and hence
volumes. Accidents may still occur but would be far less prevalent than
'human error' allows for today.
Borrowing the concept of mass segmentation in production; we will have
personal vehicles that are private and at the users' convenience and
schedule yet will benefit from mass transit efficiencies. Imagine private
automobiles that 'hook up' and 'connect' in trains on high density roadways
for as long as they are going in the same direction. When your stop comes
your and everyone else vehicle decouples to take that exits. The process
continues down to the individual vehicle.
Certainly there will be a bias against 'machine' caused accidents compared
to human caused but the much greater safety of the former will eventually
win out.
Manual driving will become a quaint hobby relegated to closed courses - no
more acceptable on public roads than travelling by horse is permitted on
freeways.
Thoughts?
Matthias Warkus
> I don't know if anyone will follow this but the old thread was way too
> large.
>
> To be on-topic: What will be the future of transportation?
>
> Mass Transit vs. Personal automobiles?
>
> I think the movie Minority Report had a lot of good tidbits about near term
> developments.
>
> Consider the development in automated automobiles already. Fully automatic
> vehicles will be able to functions at higher speeds, densities and hence
> volumes. Accidents may still occur but would be far less prevalent than
> 'human error' allows for today.
in a time loop! Help, I'm trapped
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Die Kolumne zur Eisenbahn. Jeden Donnerstag neu.
Jack May
"pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eu8pc0$nqa$1...@news.datemas.de...
>I don't know if anyone will follow this but the old thread was way too
>large.
>
> To be on-topic: What will be the future of transportation?
>
> Mass Transit vs. Personal automobiles?
>
> I think the movie Minority Report had a lot of good tidbits about near
> term developments.
>
> Consider the development in automated automobiles already. Fully automatic
> vehicles will be able to functions at higher speeds, densities and hence
> volumes. Accidents may still occur but would be far less prevalent than
> 'human error' allows for today.
This is called Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and the US
Government is spending about a billion dollars per year on it. A lot of
other countries and automobile companies are also spending a lot of money on
it.
There is a communication standard to send digital data between cars to
produce "trains" and produce major reductions in accidents and deaths.
This communication standard may start appearing in cars in roughly 5 years.
There is already Radar collision avoidance, lane drift prevention,
electronic stability control to prevent roll over, and parallel parking (it
needs more work)
Congress will be pushing this as zero accident technology which of course
impossible but it will make accidents far more rare as more cars are bought
with the technology installed (possibly mandatory like stability control)
Ken from Chicago
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WKWdnW_yuOUI15Xb...@comcast.com...
That's a mistake of think of as a "system" but more of a cooperative
network, with the flexibility of forming "convoys", but not needing a
central control.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/5836d7f4e6435b33?hl=en&
After all planes with autopilots don't have a central control.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/9f843486ef8dc0fa?hl=en&
-- Ken from Chicago
Jack May
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3fqdnaesA4AgQZXb...@comcast.com...
>
> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:WKWdnW_yuOUI15Xb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:eu8pc0$nqa$1...@news.datemas.de...
> That's a mistake of think of as a "system" but more of a cooperative
> network, with the flexibility of forming "convoys", but not needing a
> central control.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/5836d7f4e6435b33?hl=en&
>
> After all planes with autopilots don't have a central control.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/9f843486ef8dc0fa?hl=en&
I have seen nothing calling for central control. "System" does not mean
central control, but an architecture of interaction. Having central
control would be too slow and far too complex to ever be used.
After all the entire Internet is run with a very large number of routers,
computers, and communication links by using standards that allow every thing
to cooperate with everything else. Anything as big a transportation system
would have to be a cooperative network instead of being centrally
controlled.
The data link between cars will pass information between each other and each
car will make decisions on what it needs to do to avoid accidents and to
keep up with all the other cars. The present standard will be able to relay
information from car to car about a mile or two.
Cars may eventually have a goal, for example, to keep following distance at
about half a car length to maximize road capacity while minimizing fuel
consumption and CO2.
Testing has found that minimum drag occurs at about a half car length
separation. The present communication standard also would also like
information from stoplights and road side markers which are probably the
equivalent of road signs. Stop light information would give information to
other cars when a car is coming to an intersection in a way that could cause
a collision.
Maybe pedestrians and bike riders will have identification devices to keep
from being hit by cars.
Ken from Chicago
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/ee218b2c2c1e1b26?hl=en&
I think it wouldn't need to be that complicated. Robocars could be designed
to be totally independent of any infrastructure. I think they could be
designed to have a combination of radar, sonar, infrared, motion detection
and video would enable a robocar to travel on its own. Such sensors would
constantly scan around it and maintain a sensor "bubble", a perimeter whose
breach would automatically alert the robocar of potential imminent
collision. Longer range sensors would alert the robocar of possible
collision. Moreover video sensors would allow the robocar to read highway
signs, street signs and addresses to enable it to get its bearings.
IOW, the robocar could function like a human driver.
But wait, there's more. Adding GPS would enable the robocar to know its
location without surrounding signage, addresses, or asking pedestrians.
Wireless networking would enable the robocar to be alerted of upcoming
traffic conditions and reroute accordingly. Onboard, preprogrammed maps,
constantly updated by direct sensor recordings and wireless networking, in
addition to onboard gyroscopes could act as a backup to GPS in severely
inclimate weather.
Long story short(er), there need be NO infrastructure changes, no magnetic
signs, no electronic towers, no RFID badges installed, erected or carried in
order for a robocar to be used. The GPS and wireless networking would be
entirely optional.
I would envision you be the sole robocar owner "driving", well, directing,
your robocar across country thru cities, towns, villages and countrysides
and you are the only one in a robocar and it would matter significantly.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Yes, it would be more convenient if there were other robocars
travelling in the vicinity or even wireless networked manual cars that
transmitted local sensor data of the traffic. After all, if it made NO
difference then why have the wireless networking in the first place? And
knowing about local road construction or changes to roadways not on the map
could save some time, but again, the effect would be minimal--at least if
you're travelling THRU town, as opposed to travelling to a specific address
in the immediate vicinity. Then you might have to ask a pedestrian if
pinging the official address result in an inaccurate GPS coordinates.
pullo
> I think it wouldn't need to be that complicated. Robocars could be
> designed to be totally independent of any infrastructure.
'Could' but possibly not 'would'. Why? Part 'Please think of the children!'
safety. Part, 'Protect us from the terrorists!'
People - not all but enough - will demand such controls to end high speed
police chases, suicide bombers and the like. Think Lo-Jack taken one step
further.
Libertopists, Anarchists and whatever the current rebellious class is, will
bemoan the loss of liberty. Really clever criminals, both common and
political will devise ways around Lo-Jack 2.0. But most will end up starring
in Fox's 40th year of Cops when the police simply remotely turn off the car
engine of some fleeing shirtless hick.
Ken from Chicago
Added emergency police override (which triggers an automatic recording and
transmission of the event from both the robocar's and the robocopcar's POVs)
would be possible.
Then again, planes have autopilots without similar police restrictions.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jack May
>
> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ObGdnUFk6_wq9pTb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:3fqdnaesA4AgQZXb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:WKWdnW_yuOUI15Xb...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eu8pc0$nqa$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/ee218b2c2c1e1b26?hl=en&
>
> I think it wouldn't need to be that complicated.
Proabably be far simpler than a cell phone and maybe even part of cell
phones.
Robocars could be designed
> to be totally independent of any infrastructure. I think they could be
> designed to have a combination of radar, sonar, infrared, motion detection
> and video would enable a robocar to travel on its own. Such sensors would
> constantly scan around it and maintain a sensor "bubble", a perimeter
> whose breach would automatically alert the robocar of potential imminent
> collision. Longer range sensors would alert the robocar of possible
> collision. Moreover video sensors would allow the robocar to read highway
> signs, street signs and addresses to enable it to get its bearings.
The stop light and signs are not required for the communication between cars
and for passing information back down the line of cars. The stop light info
and personal devices would reduce the accident and death rate which is what
is driving Congress. Even those devices need no infrastructure more than
acting as a communication node like on the cars.
>
> IOW, the robocar could function like a human driver.
>
> But wait, there's more. Adding GPS would enable the robocar to know its
> location without surrounding signage, addresses, or asking pedestrians.
> Wireless networking would enable the robocar to be alerted of upcoming
> traffic conditions and reroute accordingly. Onboard, preprogrammed maps,
> constantly updated by direct sensor recordings and wireless networking, in
> addition to onboard gyroscopes could act as a backup to GPS in severely
> inclimate weather.
GPS will almost certainly be part of the system but even airports use ground
based GPS extension to increase location accuracy which is probably like the
road side beacons. They may also warn of problems ahead.
> Long story short(er), there need be NO infrastructure changes, no magnetic
> signs, no electronic towers, no RFID badges installed, erected or carried
> in order for a robocar to be used. The GPS and wireless networking would
> be entirely optional.
The wireless network in the cars is not optional because cars must be able
to pass information between each other to prevent reactions passing down a
line of cars resulting in a pile up series of accidents.
Also the communication link will provide information on car spacing that
will allow cars to drive at high speed half a car length apart. A very safe
120 MPH commute in a dense urban area would be very nice.
> I would envision you be the sole robocar owner "driving", well, directing,
> your robocar across country thru cities, towns, villages and countrysides
> and you are the only one in a robocar and it would matter significantly.
It has to work in dense urban areas to be of much use.
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. Yes, it would be more convenient if there were other robocars
> travelling in the vicinity or even wireless networked manual cars that
> transmitted local sensor data of the traffic. After all, if it made NO
> difference then why have the wireless networking in the first place? And
> knowing about local road construction or changes to roadways not on the
> map could save some time, but again, the effect would be minimal--at least
> if you're travelling THRU town, as opposed to travelling to a specific
> address in the immediate vicinity. Then you might have to ask a pedestrian
> if pinging the official address result in an inaccurate GPS coordinates.
The communications is the biggest factor in reducing accidents and deaths.
I think you are really understanding the real problem yet.
John
>
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3fqdnaesA4AgQZXb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:WKWdnW_yuOUI15Xb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eu8pc0$nqa$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> That's a mistake of think of as a "system" but more of a cooperative
>> network, with the flexibility of forming "convoys", but not needing a
>> central control.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/5836d7f4e6435b33?hl=en&
>>
>> After all planes with autopilots don't have a central control.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/9f843486ef8dc0fa?hl=en&
>
> I have seen nothing calling for central control. "System" does not mean
> central control, but an architecture of interaction. Having central
> control would be too slow and far too complex to ever be used.
>
> After all the entire Internet is run with a very large number of routers,
> computers, and communication links by using standards that allow every
> thing to cooperate with everything else. Anything as big a transportation
> system would have to be a cooperative network instead of being centrally
> controlled.
>
> The data link between cars will pass information between each other and
> each car will make decisions on what it needs to do to avoid accidents and
> to keep up with all the other cars. The present standard will be able to
> relay information from car to car about a mile or two.
Until some company figures out what to communicate to make the other
vehicles give them precendence (e.g. sending out the "I'm an ambulance! let
me through!" signal), leading to a programming arms war.
John
And the clever and evil criminal will look at the programming of other
vehicles, and determine how to prompt other vehicles to crash, or decide
they're about to crash and turn off the road, or speed up to dangerous
speeds...
Keith Morrison
exercise fingers and typed:
>That's a mistake of think of as a "system" but more of a cooperative
>network, with the flexibility of forming "convoys", but not needing a
>central control.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/5836d7f4e6435b33?hl=en&
>
>After all planes with autopilots don't have a central control.
Planes are also usually separated by several miles from other aircraft
while on autopilot. They are also required to follow the instructions of
central control facilities (called appropriately enough "air traffic
control") telling them how those autopilots have to be set and changed.
--
Keith
Ken from Chicago
The robocar would detect the stoplights and stop signs like human drivers
would and react accordingly.
>> IOW, the robocar could function like a human driver.
>>
>> But wait, there's more. Adding GPS would enable the robocar to know its
>> location without surrounding signage, addresses, or asking pedestrians.
>> Wireless networking would enable the robocar to be alerted of upcoming
>> traffic conditions and reroute accordingly. Onboard, preprogrammed maps,
>> constantly updated by direct sensor recordings and wireless networking,
>> in addition to onboard gyroscopes could act as a backup to GPS in
>> severely inclimate weather.
>
> GPS will almost certainly be part of the system but even airports use
> ground based GPS extension to increase location accuracy which is probably
> like the road side beacons. They may also warn of problems ahead.
True, they increase safety and efficiency but are not required. You simply
distance the planes further when such GPS and beacons are not present.
>> Long story short(er), there need be NO infrastructure changes, no
>> magnetic signs, no electronic towers, no RFID badges installed, erected
>> or carried in order for a robocar to be used. The GPS and wireless
>> networking would be entirely optional.
>
> The wireless network in the cars is not optional because cars must be able
> to pass information between each other to prevent reactions passing down a
> line of cars resulting in a pile up series of accidents.
>
> Also the communication link will provide information on car spacing that
> will allow cars to drive at high speed half a car length apart. A very
> safe
The communication would increase safety and efficiency, allowing for even
greater traffic density, but would not be required. Robocars would be safer
than human drivers simply due to faster reaction times, 360-degree field of
view (aka no blind spots), and continous monitoring of the road (aka no cell
phone, radio, billboard, passenger, grooming, eating, etc. distractions).
Networking would simply allow for even MORE safety and traffic density and
traffic speed. However when dealing with cars without networking then the
robocar would simply slow down and maintain a greater driving distance
between it and the preceding vehicle--just as a human driver would do (tho
not as great a distance due the robocar increased driving skill).
> 120 MPH commute in a dense urban area would be very nice.
>
>> I would envision you be the sole robocar owner "driving", well,
>> directing, your robocar across country thru cities, towns, villages and
>> countrysides and you are the only one in a robocar and it would matter
>> significantly.
>
> It has to work in dense urban areas to be of much use.
I said "cities". The point is robocar would NOT REQUIRE dense urban traffic
filled with networked robocars to get around. It could get around the
crowded streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Tokyo, Paris,
London, etc. or all alone off-road in Death Valley. The point is there would
be no infrastructure required.
Networking would boost robocar's efficiency but not be required. Take out
the GPS and networking and it would simply drive like a human driver,
reading signs, addresses, landmarks and compass headings to approximate its
bearing and location--as well as comparing its built in maps and gyroscopes
and distance traveled as backup.
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>> P.S. Yes, it would be more convenient if there were other robocars
>> travelling in the vicinity or even wireless networked manual cars that
>> transmitted local sensor data of the traffic. After all, if it made NO
>> difference then why have the wireless networking in the first place? And
>> knowing about local road construction or changes to roadways not on the
>> map could save some time, but again, the effect would be minimal--at
>> least if you're travelling THRU town, as opposed to travelling to a
>> specific address in the immediate vicinity. Then you might have to ask a
>> pedestrian if pinging the official address result in an inaccurate GPS
>> coordinates.
>
>
> The communications is the biggest factor in reducing accidents and deaths.
> I think you are really understanding the real problem yet.
Communication helpful but not required for increased safety and efficiency.
Human driver > Robocar > Networked robocar.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Keith Morrison" <kei...@idontwantnosteenkingspam.qiniq.com> wrote in
message news:l0eh03l2ddokis280...@4ax.com...
Just like traffic cops, but the planes are not slaved to an air traffic
computer. The planes cooperate with air traffic controllers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"John" <jo...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:eud0tl$1l2$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
That would be illegal and punishable by law enforcement to fake an emergency
siren--worse, you'd have a series of RECORDED sensory data available from
robocars upon warrant of someone faking said signal.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jack May
>
> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:O56dnYhqa4Tonpfb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:8NadnW5M4_rXPpTb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ObGdnUFk6_wq9pTb...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:3fqdnaesA4AgQZXb...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:WKWdnW_yuOUI15Xb...@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eu8pc0$nqa$1...@news.datemas.de...
> The robocar would detect the stoplights and stop signs like human drivers
> would and react accordingly.
A very expensive, unreliable approach compared to using a cheap
communication chip. The car would also have to see both sides of all stop
lights in an intersection. An impossible task. You also need time to see
when a car is going to run a red light which really becomes complex and
unreliable. Communications is very cheap and very reliable.
> True, they increase safety and efficiency but are not required. You simply
> distance the planes further when such GPS and beacons are not present.
The planes are required to be able to land totally hands off. With GPS
accuracy the plane would land in the grass a lot.
>
> The communication would increase safety and efficiency, allowing for even
> greater traffic density, but would not be required.
The biggest problems are both safety and congestion. Higher density is one
of the main requirements in the real world instead of everybody driving by
themselves in your illusionary world.
Robocars would be safer
> than human drivers simply due to faster reaction times, 360-degree field
> of view (aka no blind spots), and continous monitoring of the road (aka no
> cell phone, radio, billboard, passenger, grooming, eating, etc.
> distractions).
All this incredibly expensive, incredibly unreliable approache just to not
use a short range digital data link is an absurd approach that is way beyond
the state of the art for a long time.
>
> Networking would simply allow for even MORE safety and traffic density and
> traffic speed. However when dealing with cars without networking then the
> robocar would simply slow down and maintain a greater driving distance
> between it and the preceding vehicle--just as a human driver would do (tho
> not as great a distance due the robocar increased driving skill).
As cars are replaced the system will get better and better over the typical
decade replacement period.
>
> I said "cities". The point is robocar would NOT REQUIRE dense urban
> traffic filled with networked robocars to get around. It could get around
> the crowded streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Tokyo, Paris,
> London, etc. or all alone off-road in Death Valley. The point is there
> would be no infrastructure required.
So what. You propose a very inexpensive, deadly system just to add cheap
infrastructure makes no sense. The road is infrastructure also. If your
ides is correct, then eliminate the roads also. That would be nuts also.
The present Radar, lane sensing, electronic stability control all work
without communications, but the accident and death rate will be much higher
than also using short range digital communications
>
> Networking would boost robocar's efficiency but not be required. Take out
> the GPS and networking and it would simply drive like a human driver,
> reading signs, addresses, landmarks and compass headings to approximate
> its bearing and location--as well as comparing its built in maps and
> gyroscopes and distance traveled as backup.
You are just talking about the usual design approach. Nobody is going to
try and sell a car that only works in a city.
Jack May
> Until some company figures out what to communicate to make the other
> vehicles give them precendence (e.g. sending out the "I'm an ambulance!
> let me through!" signal), leading to a programming arms war.
A digital communications for cars is already in place. Cars have to pass a
Federal test run by a Government organization to place the com link in cars
on the road. Lawyers would have to sue the Government instead af the car
companies if they are looking for deep pockets.
There will be no programming arms war, only meeting Government standards.
Jack May
> emergency siren--worse, you'd have a series of RECORDED sensory data
> available from robocars upon warrant of someone faking said signal.
The Government communication standard has requirements for preventing
spoofing and providing other security measures.
No 33 Secretary
There is no computer system that cannot be hacked. If you believe
otherise, you are an idiot. The hacking war might well be between
individual hackers, but it will most certainly happen.
--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."
Terry Austin
No 33 Secretary
And as we all know, the government is perfect at designing security
systems, and has perfect security on the secrets it depends on.
Yeah, right.
Jack May
"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99017372544...@216.168.3.64...
> systems, and has perfect security on the secrets it depends on.
If you want perfection on everything guaranteed before anything starts, then
nothing will ever get done. The rule is that you start and solve the
problems as they occur.
We all use the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) on the Internet to protect
transmitting credit card information and other sensitive information. I
don't think SSL has ever been broken at the level where it is used to for
example intercept credit card numbers as they are sent over the Internet.
That is very good security. It is very possible to make it very difficult
for a hacker to take over cars to cause crashes or spoof traffic to go
around other vehicles.
Your view that everything is easy to break is mainly urban legend.
Jack May
> There is no computer system that cannot be hacked. If you believe
> otherise, you are an idiot. The hacking war might well be between
> individual hackers, but it will most certainly happen.
Oh, the most widely used security on the Internet is the Secure Socket Layer
(SSL). Where is the evidence that SSL is routinely broken to get credit
card transactions and other sensitive data over the Internet.
Your argument is we can't do anything because it may not be perfect. In
the real world we just get started to make progress and fix the problems as
we go along.
If the world took your attitude, we would still be in the caves.
BTW learn about quantum security approaches and one time pads before making
such statements. All you are doing is repeating the urban legend passed
around by script kiddies.
Hackers love to brag when breaking some very simple system like DVD's but
fail when they go after more sophisticated security. A lot of this bragging
is by open source advocates who usually want to believe they can steal
anything, but their inflated opinions of themselves is far greater than
their real capabilities.
Paul Arthur
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>
>>>
>
>> There is no computer system that cannot be hacked. If you believe
>> otherise, you are an idiot. The hacking war might well be between
>> individual hackers, but it will most certainly happen.
>
> Oh, the most widely used security on the Internet is the Secure Socket Layer
> (SSL). Where is the evidence that SSL is routinely broken to get credit
> card transactions and other sensitive data over the Internet.
Wow, that's so far from right it's not even wrong. One layer of security
(SSL) being fairly good does not equal a secure system. As an example
of an extremely widely used and trusted site having security issues, do
a search for "ebay vladuz". Does eBay use SSL? Yes. Does that mean
they have wonderful security? No.
Also see http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/threats/480.php
for some information that you might find useful when thinking about the
infallible security or lack thereof of SSL.
> Your argument is we can't do anything because it may not be perfect. In
> the real world we just get started to make progress and fix the problems as
> we go along.
Yes, but with the subject at hand being something that will kill people
if you get it wrong, as opposed to the severe inconvenience caused when
your personal information is stolen, the standards are much higher.
eBay was not yanked off the market the first time a user's account was
compromised; the hypothetical robocar will be yanked hard the first time
it's involved in a serious collision.
> Hackers love to brag when breaking some very simple system like DVD's but
> fail when they go after more sophisticated security. A lot of this bragging
> is by open source advocates who usually want to believe they can steal
> anything, but their inflated opinions of themselves is far greater than
> their real capabilities.
Ah, I see; you're a retard. Great.
--
Faith is under the left nipple.
-- Martin Luther
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns99017372544...@216.168.3.64...
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:WbudncNJ5_IrLZfb...@comcast.com:
>>
>> And as we all know, the government is perfect at designing
>> security systems, and has perfect security on the secrets it
>> depends on.
>
> If you want perfection on everything guaranteed before anything
> starts, then nothing will ever get done. The rule is that you
> start and solve the problems as they occur.
The libertoonian plan seems to be to chuck the system entirely, and
start over with a system that depends on puppies and sunshine,
which is to say, that everyone - and I mean absolutely *everyone* -
will voluntarily cooperate.
Which is pretty fucking stupid.
>
> We all use the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) on the Internet to
> protect transmitting credit card information and other sensitive
> information. I don't think SSL has ever been broken at the
> level where it is used to for example intercept credit card
> numbers as they are sent over the Internet.
>
> That is very good security. It is very possible to make it
> very difficult for a hacker to take over cars to cause crashes
> or spoof traffic to go around other vehicles.
>
> Your view that everything is easy to break is mainly urban
> legend.
>
Can you explain what the fuck you're talking about, and how it
relates to the current subject? Because - seriously - I can't
figure it out.
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>
>>>
>
>> There is no computer system that cannot be hacked. If you
>> believe otherise, you are an idiot. The hacking war might well
>> be between individual hackers, but it will most certainly
>> happen.
>
> Oh, the most widely used security on the Internet is the Secure
> Socket Layer (SSL). Where is the evidence that SSL is
> routinely broken to get credit card transactions and other
> sensitive data over the Internet.
What is the MessageID in which I postulated that SSL is *routinely*
cracked, retard? I didn't. Is it your claim that the only two
*possible* states are "impossible to crack" and "routinely cracked"?
Or are you simply lying about what I said, because what I said was
correct, but you're too aroused masturbating over me to give up the
chance to insult me?
Fucking retard. Wipe the semen off your screen, and perhaps you'll be
able to read what you are responding to.
<Retarded drivel based on a response to something I didn't say
snipped.>
> BTW learn about quantum security approaches and one time pads
> before making such statements. All you are doing is repeating
> the urban legend passed around by script kiddies.
Are you really so fucking retarded that you don't know the difference
between a computer and an encryption system? (And mathematically
unbreakable encryption systems are broken all the time, just not
mathematically. Kevin Mitnik didn't go to prison for cracking
encryption. If you can't crack the encryption, crack the people.)
>
> Hackers love to brag when breaking some very simple system like
> DVD's but fail when they go after more sophisticated security.
So it's your claim that nobody has ever succeeded at cracking more
sophisticated security? What a retard.
> A lot of this bragging is by open source advocates who usually
> want to believe they can steal anything, but their inflated
> opinions of themselves is far greater than their real
> capabilities.
>
Were I you, I'd be more embarassed by various criminal cases that
have been in the news, wherein supposedly very secure systems have,
in fact, been cracked. But you're far too retarded to understand how
retarded you are.
No 33 Secretary
news:slrnf0lqac.m5f...@shasta.marwnad.com:
> On 2007-03-28, Jack May <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> There is no computer system that cannot be hacked. If you
>>> believe otherise, you are an idiot. The hacking war might well
>>> be between individual hackers, but it will most certainly
>>> happen.
>>
>> Oh, the most widely used security on the Internet is the Secure
>> Socket Layer (SSL). Where is the evidence that SSL is
>> routinely broken to get credit card transactions and other
>> sensitive data over the Internet.
>
> Wow, that's so far from right it's not even wrong. One layer of
> security (SSL) being fairly good does not equal a secure system.
> As an example of an extremely widely used and trusted site
> having security issues, do a search for "ebay vladuz". Does
> eBay use SSL? Yes. Does that mean they have wonderful
> security? No.
>
> Also see
> http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/threats/480.php for
> some information that you might find useful when thinking about
> the infallible security or lack thereof of SSL.
He doesn't know the difference between a computer an an encryption
algorithm. What makes you think he's gonna understand a paper that
has, like, words on it?
>
>> Your argument is we can't do anything because it may not be
>> perfect. In the real world we just get started to make
>> progress and fix the problems as we go along.
>
> Yes, but with the subject at hand being something that will kill
> people if you get it wrong, as opposed to the severe
> inconvenience caused when your personal information is stolen,
> the standards are much higher. eBay was not yanked off the
> market the first time a user's account was compromised; the
> hypothetical robocar will be yanked hard the first time it's
> involved in a serious collision.
We'd like to think that, anyway. (I'd bet it would take more than
one. Probably quite a few more. After all, we have decades of
experience with auto makers incorporating flaws in their vehicles
that do, in fact, kill people, and covering it up, and fighting
recall orders by the government even when forced to.)
>
>> Hackers love to brag when breaking some very simple system like
>> DVD's but fail when they go after more sophisticated security.
>> A lot of this bragging is by open source advocates who usually
>> want to believe they can steal anything, but their inflated
>> opinions of themselves is far greater than their real
>> capabilities.
>
> Ah, I see; you're a retard. Great.
>
Yes, he is.
Scott Lurndal
>
>"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns99017372544...@216.168.3.64...
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:WbudncNJ5_IrLZfb...@comcast.com:
>>
>> And as we all know, the government is perfect at designing security
>> systems, and has perfect security on the secrets it depends on.
>
>If you want perfection on everything guaranteed before anything starts, then
>nothing will ever get done. The rule is that you start and solve the
>problems as they occur.
>
>We all use the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) on the Internet to protect
>transmitting credit card information and other sensitive information. I
>don't think SSL has ever been broken at the level where it is used to for
>example intercept credit card numbers as they are sent over the Internet.
So, don't crack SSL, bypass it. The current zombie bots hook into Internet
Exploder's cert cache and transport to monitor the SSL connection prior
to encryption. They send any credentials captured this way to a server
in russia; hits a mysql database and they sell the credentials on the black
market.
>Your view that everything is easy to break is mainly urban legend.
For every defence there is developed a new offence.
scott
No 33 Secretary
news:wsCOh.19340$uo3....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:
Except stupidity. It is the ultimate defense. As Jack will
demonstrate.
Ken from Chicago
>
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nIadnWY0gcYnyZfb...@comcast.com...
<snip>
>> I said "cities". The point is robocar would NOT REQUIRE dense urban
>> traffic filled with networked robocars to get around. It could get around
>> the crowded streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Tokyo, Paris,
>> London, etc. or all alone off-road in Death Valley. The point is there
>> would be no infrastructure required.
>
> So what. You propose a very inexpensive, deadly system just to add cheap
> infrastructure makes no sense. The road is infrastructure also. If
> your ides is correct, then eliminate the roads also. That would be nuts
> also. The present Radar, lane sensing, electronic stability control all
> work without communications, but the accident and death rate will be much
> higher than also using short range digital communications
What part of "required" means "used"? as in something is not "required"
somehow magically becomes rephrased as something is not "used"?
Where did I say added infrastructure would not be "used"? Despite the added
safety benefits, having an expert trained professional chauffer is not
"required" by car owners, but they are sometimes indeed "used". Just like
anti-lock brakes are "used" but they are not "required", even tho they do
increase safety and allow for high traffic density since it allow cars to be
driven closer together on wet roads.
Why? Because we travel around NOW without that added infrastructure and have
done so for decades--altho SOME have GPS and wifi or wi-max wireless
networking to get information on the fly--or at least on the move.
Oh and yeah, some vehicles can travel without the "infrastructure" of roads.
That's why they are called "off-road" vehicles. In fact most land vehicles
can travel without roads--but some do so very poorly while others manage the
task quite easily. However roads *already* exist as infrastructure. Whether
one was using robocars or manual cars wouldn't change the road (aside from
increased wear and tear on said roads due to the robocars being able to
travel faster and in greater density than manual cars for a given level of
safety). Thus said roads would NOT be "*added* infrastructure"--the way
installing RFIDs to stoplights, street signs and highway markers.
>> Networking would boost robocar's efficiency but not be required. Take out
>> the GPS and networking and it would simply drive like a human driver,
>> reading signs, addresses, landmarks and compass headings to approximate
>> its bearing and location--as well as comparing its built in maps and
>> gyroscopes and distance traveled as backup.
>
> You are just talking about the usual design approach. Nobody is going to
> try and sell a car that only works in a city.
What I'm talking about is a design that works IN SPITE of the lack of added
infrastructure. Oh and people ALREADY sell cars design for mainly city life,
small electric cars with low ranges, or for corporate or governmental use
where they are only travelling locally.
My point is sure, add all the extra infrastructure you want. I have no
problem with. The added infrastructure would be an added layer of benefit to
the robocar just as having current GPS systems boosts current driving, but
you can still manage without them. I'm just saying that conceptually, a
robocar would not need added infrastructure to be functional. You can drive
today without GPS, without wireless networking (i.e. without a wifi
notebook, cell phone and radio), without a map. All of those are great to
have, but you can still travel without them.
Moreover nor would added infrastructure be needed to be better than merely
human drivers. Having machine reflexes, 360-degree field of view and 24-7
attention to the road, those 3 factors all by themselves would improve on
driving.
I'm not proposing having robocars that could only be directed forward,
backward, turn left, turn right, by the occupants--altho that would be a
functional vehicle. I'm saying that naysayers who claim that exorbitant
installation costs of added infrastructure, or that the breakdown of one of
these systems, or that the lack of same in small village or in open rural
areas would bring the robocar to a screeching halt, such claims are simply
wrong.
-- Ken from Chicago
Robert Carnegie
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:nIadnWY0gcYnyZfb...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:O56dnYhqa4Tonpfb...@comcast.com...
>
> >> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:8NadnW5M4_rXPpTb...@comcast.com...
>
> >>> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:ObGdnUFk6_wq9pTb...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:3fqdnaesA4AgQZXb...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>>> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:WKWdnW_yuOUI15Xb...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>>>> "pullo" <pullo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'd allow robot cars to negotiate with each other to exchange data,
including each other's video and/or computed object identification.
But not to depend on getting that information from everything on the
road.
I'd also expect traffic lights to communicate with vehicles directly,
to show a map of the junction and the traffic sequence for, oh, the
next ninety seconds. You might be able legally to "bribe" them.
What's one green light worth? Five bucks through PayPal? On the
other hand, once traffic lights are on the take, motorists probably
will rebel. I mean, corrupt town officials will give you a five
minute wait at lights if you don't pay up. Okay, bad idea. Bound to
happen, therefore.
On the other hand, I expect greater use of telepresence.
I think I recently read about a German prototype project for cars here
and now (or there and now) to exchange data about accidents, traffic
jams, and speed traps - uh, the government may not give its blessing
to that one...
Jack May
"Paul Arthur" <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf0lqac.m5f...@shasta.marwnad.com...
> On 2007-03-28, Jack May <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>
> Wow, that's so far from right it's not even wrong. One layer of security
> (SSL) being fairly good does not equal a secure system. As an example
> of an extremely widely used and trusted site having security issues, do
> a search for "ebay vladuz". Does eBay use SSL? Yes. Does that mean
> they have wonderful security? No.
Software can be patched as security problems are found and the security
problem goes away until the next problem. The question is the core
encryption secure because if it is broken, it will take a lot more than a
software patch to solve the problem
>
> Also see http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/threats/480.php
> for some information that you might find useful when thinking about the
> infallible security or lack thereof of SSL.
>
>> Your argument is we can't do anything because it may not be perfect. In
>> the real world we just get started to make progress and fix the problems
>> as
>> we go along.
>
> Yes, but with the subject at hand being something that will kill people
> if you get it wrong, as opposed to the severe inconvenience caused when
> your personal information is stolen, the standards are much higher.
People are killed now on the roads. The question is will the death rate go
down with the system and will the death rate continue to decline as the
technology is improved over time
Jack May
>>
>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>>
>
> Wow, that's so far from right it's not even wrong. One layer of security
> (SSL) being fairly good does not equal a secure system. As an example
> of an extremely widely used and trusted site having security issues, do
> a search for "ebay vladuz". Does eBay use SSL? Yes. Does that mean
> they have wonderful security? No.
Software can be patched and made secure again until the next security
problem occurs. If the core encryption is broken that is a much worse
problem that will take a lot longer than a software patch.
Your comment was that anything can be broken which in reality has been wrong
and proven mathematically wrong for some encryption methods.
> Yes, but with the subject at hand being something that will kill people
> if you get it wrong, as opposed to the severe inconvenience caused when
> your personal information is stolen, the standards are much higher.
> eBay was not yanked off the market the first time a user's account was
> compromised; the hypothetical robocar will be yanked hard the first time
> it's involved in a serious collision.
People die on the road now. If the new system reduces the death rate and
over time continues to drop the death rate, then the system should be put in
place. No the cars will not be yanked off of the road the first time there
is an accident. Nobody expects everything to be perfect but things can be
improved over time.
Airbags and seat belts have not been yanked off of the market after people
were killed by those devices. They were not yanked off because overall they
decrease deaths and injury. The same will happen with electronic safety
systems.
The car companies can not be taken to court if they correctly implemented
following Government standards. The car companies will not be bankrupted in
court just like they were not bankrupted by seat belt and air bag problems
Jack May
> Paul Arthur <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:slrnf0lqac.m5f...@shasta.marwnad.com:
>
>> On 2007-03-28, Jack May <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>> Also see
>> http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/threats/480.php for
>> some information that you might find useful when thinking about
>> the infallible security or lack thereof of SSL.
>
> He doesn't know the difference between a computer an an encryption
> algorithm. What makes you think he's gonna understand a paper that
> has, like, words on it?
The encryption is implemented in software on a computer. The paper is also
is a "maybe this will work" and the guy apparently never tried to do it.
Man in middle attacks are well known. SSL is still widely used and I don't
think anyone seems to be too worried about it being a problem since the
"attack" has apparently been ignored by Internet crooks who are sometimes
very sophisticated.
No 33 Secretary
>
> "Paul Arthur" <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnf0lqac.m5f...@shasta.marwnad.com...
>> On 2007-03-28, Jack May <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>> Wow, that's so far from right it's not even wrong. One layer
>> of security (SSL) being fairly good does not equal a secure
>> system. As an example of an extremely widely used and trusted
>> site having security issues, do a search for "ebay vladuz".
>> Does eBay use SSL? Yes. Does that mean they have wonderful
>> security? No.
>
> Software can be patched as security problems are found and the
> security problem goes away until the next problem.
You should google on "zero day exploit." Or not. You're obviously
too fucking stupid to comprehend the idea.
> The
> question is the core encryption secure because if it is broken,
> it will take a lot more than a software patch to solve the
> problem
Why do you think that? An update to your web browser is an update
to your web browser.
>>
>> Also see
>> http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/threats/480.php
>> for some information that you might find useful when thinking
>> about the infallible security or lack thereof of SSL.
>>
>>> Your argument is we can't do anything because it may not be
>>> perfect. In the real world we just get started to make
>>> progress and fix the problems as
>>> we go along.
>>
>> Yes, but with the subject at hand being something that will
>> kill people if you get it wrong, as opposed to the severe
>> inconvenience caused when your personal information is stolen,
>> the standards are much higher.
>
> People are killed now on the roads. The question is will the
> death rate go down with the system and will the death rate
> continue to decline as the technology is improved over time
And the answer to both is "not with any technology we have right
now, or can expect to have in the near future, but we hope to make
a breakthrough."
If you believe otherwise, you're a 'tard.
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns99019E7929...@216.168.3.64...
>> Paul Arthur <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:slrnf0lqac.m5f...@shasta.marwnad.com:
>>
>>> On 2007-03-28, Jack May <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>
>>> Also see
>>> http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/threats/480.php
>>> for some information that you might find useful when thinking
>>> about the infallible security or lack thereof of SSL.
>>
>> He doesn't know the difference between a computer an an
>> encryption algorithm. What makes you think he's gonna
>> understand a paper that has, like, words on it?
>
> The encryption is implemented in software on a computer.
Then why did you reply to a post about computers with an irrelevant
point about encryption? Was it deliberate deceit? Or are you just
*stupid*?
(That's a rhetorical question. We already know the answer.)
Jack May
> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:TpWdnb0Nwf-ieZfb...@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
> What is the MessageID in which I postulated that SSL is *routinely*
> cracked, retard? I didn't. Is it your claim that the only two
> *possible* states are "impossible to crack" and "routinely cracked"?
> Or are you simply lying about what I said, because what I said was
> correct, but you're too aroused masturbating over me to give up the
> chance to insult me?
I have not insulted you. You guys have constantly acted with constant
attacks against me while making false statements.
To answer you question, there are encryption techniques that are known to be
impossible to break even with infinite computing power. SSL could be
broken with brute force techniques but it would probably require very large
amounts of computation power
Obviously there are encryption techniques that vary from trivial to break to
requiring very sophisticated approaches with very large amounts of
computation.
This is getting off of the topic and is irrelevant to using electronics to
reducing the accident and death rates.
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns99019E08F8D...@216.168.3.64...
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:TpWdnb0Nwf-ieZfb...@comcast.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>>>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>
>> What is the MessageID in which I postulated that SSL is
>> *routinely* cracked, retard? I didn't. Is it your claim that
>> the only two *possible* states are "impossible to crack" and
>> "routinely cracked"? Or are you simply lying about what I said,
>> because what I said was correct, but you're too aroused
>> masturbating over me to give up the chance to insult me?
>
>
> I have not insulted you.
Liar. You've insulted my intelligence, acting like you think people
will buy your retarded bullshit.
> You guys have constantly acted with
> constant attacks against me while making false statements.
Liar.
>
> To answer you question, there are encryption techniques that are
> known to be impossible to break even with infinite computing
> power. SSL could be broken with brute force techniques but it
> would probably require very large amounts of computation power
>
> Obviously there are encryption techniques that vary from trivial
> to break to requiring very sophisticated approaches with very
> large amounts of computation.
>
> This is getting off of the topic and is irrelevant to using
> electronics to reducing the accident and death rates.
>
This has been off topic since you joined in, with your retarded
bullshit and drooling stupidity.
John Schilling
wrote:
>
>"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns990173466E6...@216.168.3.64...
>> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:KbWdnbZilI4MMpfb...@comcast.com:
>>
>>>
>
>> There is no computer system that cannot be hacked. If you believe
>> otherise, you are an idiot. The hacking war might well be between
>> individual hackers, but it will most certainly happen.
>
>Oh, the most widely used security on the Internet is the Secure Socket Layer
>(SSL). Where is the evidence that SSL is routinely broken to get credit
>card transactions and other sensitive data over the Internet.
SSL is a protocol, not a system. The most readily exploitable security
breaches in most systems, are usually at the interfaces *between* various
protocols, subsystems, etc. As a result of which,
A: Hackers rarely bother to attack security protocols in isolation, on
account of that's an unnecessarily hard way to get the job done, and
B: Purveyors of protocols get to go around saying, "Our security is
ironclad, see, there's nobody out there breaking it!", and
C: People who aren't paying attention get a sense of false security out
of all their unbreakable security protocols, and
D: Systems get compromised on a disturbingly regular basis *anyhow*, and
E: Whenever D happens, the security protocol purveyors disclaim, "It's
not *our* fault, someone else screwed up, our protocol is perfect"
and,
F: No matter how many times E happens, people keep falling for it such
that C and D keep happening as well.
Credit card transactions and other sensitive data *are* routinely obtained
over the Internet by hackers. This *does* happen, *even though* SSL is
widely used to "secure" the relevant systems. Deal with it.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Terry Austin
news:hopp03pvuaq4rmfdg...@4ax.com:
Yesterday's news was about 45 million credit card numbers being stolen
from a "secure" web site. One that, I have no doubt, used the perfect,
unbreakable SSL security system that Jackass is so horny over.
--
Terry Austin
Your worst inhibitions tend to psych you out in the end.
Jack May
>
> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UsWdnajV_P60M5fb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:nIadnWY0gcYnyZfb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> My point is sure, add all the extra infrastructure you want. I have no
> problem with. The added infrastructure would be an added layer of benefit
> to the robocar just as having current GPS systems boosts current driving,
> but you can still manage without them. I'm just saying that conceptually,
> a robocar would not need added infrastructure to be functional. You can
> drive today without GPS, without wireless networking (i.e. without a wifi
> notebook, cell phone and radio), without a map. All of those are great to
> have, but you can still travel without them.
There is no need to have external infrastructure for communications when you
are out in the country. The electronic stability control system that is
mandated by Congress will not require any external infrastructure. My guess
is the communications will be mandated by Congress because it is needed for
the radical reductions in injuries and accidents that will be achieved. If
it does not communicate with something in country, the car will act just
like present cars.
Added layers is all we have been seeing so far.
>
> Moreover nor would added infrastructure be needed to be better than
> merely human drivers. Having machine reflexes, 360-degree field of view
> and 24-7 attention to the road, those 3 factors all by themselves would
> improve on driving.
You are describing something that is beyond the state of the art and would
be very inferior to communications with a higher death rate with the com
being very cheap. Again it would just be an added layer which would improve
in performance if you were in an area that had external infrastructure.
>
> I'm not proposing having robocars that could only be directed forward,
> backward, turn left, turn right, by the occupants--altho that would be a
> functional vehicle. I'm saying that naysayers who claim that exorbitant
> installation costs of added infrastructure, or that the breakdown of one
> of these systems, or that the lack of same in small village or in open
> rural areas would bring the robocar to a screeching halt, such claims are
> simply wrong.
The systems would not be installed in existing cars. That is not
technically or economically practical. It would be chips like all the other
chips and computers put in at the factory the way they are now.
Jack May
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1175178604.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 28, 7:04 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:nIadnWY0gcYnyZfb...@comcast.com...
>
> to show a map of the junction and the traffic sequence for, oh, the
> next ninety seconds. You might be able legally to "bribe" them.
> What's one green light worth? Five bucks through PayPal? On the
> other hand, once traffic lights are on the take, motorists probably
> will rebel. I mean, corrupt town officials will give you a five
> minute wait at lights if you don't pay up. Okay, bad idea. Bound to
> happen, therefore.
Interesting ideas I have not seen before. Of course Governments love
anything that will give them more money.
>
> On the other hand, I expect greater use of telepresence.
>
> I think I recently read about a German prototype project for cars here
> and now (or there and now) to exchange data about accidents, traffic
> jams, and speed traps - uh, the government may not give its blessing
> to that one...
GPS receivers in the US and Europe now provide info about accidents and
traffic jams to route you around the problems.
Robert Carnegie
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175178604.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 28, 7:04 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> messagenews:nIadnWY0gcYnyZfb...@comcast.com...
>
> > I'd also expect traffic lights to communicate with vehicles directly,
> > to show a map of the junction and the traffic sequence for, oh, the
> > next ninety seconds. You might be able legally to "bribe" them.
> > What's one green light worth? Five bucks through PayPal? On the
> > other hand, once traffic lights are on the take, motorists probably
> > will rebel. I mean, corrupt town officials will give you a five
> > minute wait at lights if you don't pay up. Okay, bad idea. Bound to
> > happen, therefore.
>
> Interesting ideas I have not seen before. Of course Governments love
> anything that will give them more money.
I realised what a bad idea it could be while writing it out... I
remembered one of Martin Gardner's maths puzzles - I think - from the
recreational mathematics column in _Scientific American_, way back.
This won't work without the diagram, sorry.
>From memory:
Small American town on what isn't yet a freeway, grid layout, new
mayor and/or sheriff takes it into his head to erect unnecessary
traffic signs all over town, like no entry / no left turn / no right
turn. Citizens are outraged.
By the end of the first week, it turns out that everyone who drove
through the town paid at least one traffic fine and the treasury is
looking its healthiest in years. Citizens get interested.
Now the richest landowner in the area is known to drive into town once
a month, and anticipation is high. the law is on every junction.
You were to look at the diagram of restrictions and figure out how the
rich guy got through the town without one violation.
(I forget whether he saw the plan in the newspaper, or sneaked into
town the night before and drew himself a map, or just wore a blindfold
and followed his mammon-sense. The last wouldn't be very Gardner.)
Keith F. Lynch
> A lot of this bragging is by open source advocates who usually want
> to believe they can steal anything, but their inflated opinions of
> themselves is far greater than their real capabilities.
Name one open source advocate who is interested in stealing anything.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Robert Carnegie
> GPS receivers in the US and Europe now provide info about accidents and
> traffic jams to route you around the problems.
They also tell you where speed traps are. The innovation that I just
read about seems to be to compile information from subscribers' own
data, how vehicles are moving. I don't know how it does speed traps.
Conceivably it could be a misunderstanding, maybe mine, for "speed
limits", but of course those usually don't move around. So maybe
there are buttons for "speed trap" and "accident". If you want to
cross the road on foot, it might be appropriate to carry one of these
boxes in your pocket and press the "speed trap" button, then watch
cars slow down...
Incidentally, speed trap technology now includes taking start and end
points miles apart and calculating a car's average speed from A to B.
Of course this depends on identifying the car, often automatically.
Jason Maxwell
doing the math, and a number of reasons for going over the speed limit that
would only be verifiable by eyewitness/video evidence.
Jason
Peter Meilinger
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > Incidentally, speed trap technology now includes taking start and end
> > points miles apart and calculating a car's average speed from A to B.
> > Of course this depends on identifying the car, often automatically.
>
> Does that hold up in court? It seems like there's a disconnect between
> doing the math, and a number of reasons for going over the speed limit that
> would only be verifiable by eyewitness/video evidence.
Not to mention it doesn't do anything to stop the guy who was
driving like a maniac but got off the road before hitting point B.
I suppose you could do it on highways with long distances between
exits, but in my experience speeding isn't nearly as problematic
there as it is on inhabited roads.
Are there only one each of points A and B, or is it a big network
that tries to keep track of all the cars using a whole bunch of
sensors?
Pete
Bob Scott
>"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:1175377528.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> points miles apart and calculating a car's average speed from A to B.
>> Of course this depends on identifying the car, often automatically.
>>
>Does that hold up in court?
Oh aye, at least it does here in the UK.
> It seems like there's a disconnect between
>doing the math, and a number of reasons for going over the speed limit that
>would only be verifiable by eyewitness/video evidence.
>
Ah, our wonderful, sensible government hold that there is no valid
reason for going over the speedlimit.
If you want more detail google SPECS - it measures the average speed of
vehicles as they pass a number of ANPR devices. I'm told it gets
confused if you change lane between cameras but I can't swear to that.
It's mostly used on Motorways where there are roadworks in progress to
try and keep the vehicle speeds down to protect the workers. In effect
this usually seems to mean that you amble past miles of cones at a
steady 40mph without ever catching sight of a workman.
--
Bob Scott
Jack May
"Terry Austin" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9902BB8C42...@216.168.3.64...
> from a "secure" web site. One that, I have no doubt, used the perfect,
> unbreakable SSL security system that Jackass is so horny over.
The theft did not use SSL in anyway. It did the usual finding a site that
had a vulnerability where much of the data was not even encrypted with
anything.
Terry Austin
Indeed. But all those credit card numbers were submitted using SSL, which,
you claimed was perfect, and anyone using it was completely protected and
thus safe.
Which is to say, you're still a 'tard.
Paul Ian Harman
> You are describing something that is beyond the state of the art and would
> be very inferior to communications with a higher death rate with the com
> being very cheap. Again it would just be an added layer which would
> improve in performance if you were in an area that had external
> infrastructure.
No, Ken is describing a system that does not rely on a complex multi-node
communications system - which despite your assertions would not be 100%
reliable. Depending on the communications system is a safety nightmare
waiting to happen.
Ken proposes that the car be stand-alone in the first instance, so that it
can mingle with human-driven cars.
Adding complex comms on top of that might assist the car (or rather a
collection of such cars)to be more space-efficient, but the robocar would
always be able to operate stand-alone.
Paul
Paul Ian Harman
news:Vc9$p8Avr2...@loud-n-clear.com...
> Ah, our wonderful, sensible government hold that there is no valid
> reason for going over the speedlimit.
And I happen to agree with them.
If it were a life-and-death kind of emergency - you were rushing a
critically ill relative to hospital, say - then having to pay the traffic
fine after the fact wouldn't be a factor in whether I chose to speed.
[If I were a driver that is, which I'm not]
What kind of valid reasons can you think of for speeding? And none of this
"I know better, I can speed safely because I'm a brilliant driver" rubbish,
thank you very much.
Paul
Robert Carnegie
<chatter...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> "Bob Scott" <b...@bobandaileen.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:Vc9$p8Avr2...@loud-n-clear.com...
>
> > Ah, our wonderful, sensible government hold that there is no valid
> > reason for going over the speedlimit.
>
> And I happen to agree with them.
>
> If it were a life-and-death kind of emergency - you were rushing a
> critically ill relative to hospital, say - then having to pay the traffic
> fine after the fact wouldn't be a factor in whether I chose to speed.
>
> [If I were a driver that is, which I'm not]
I think in such a case the legal defence would be what's called
"necessity", but I am /so/ not a lawyer.
Incidentally, it often is much better to summon qualified medical
personnel to your home. They have appropriate equipment, can begin
many emergency treatments at once, and either have a vehicle which is
better suited for transporting an patient, or else arrive on
motorcycles which are better able to get through busy traffic, or
both. And while they don't have a legal right to break the speed
limit, in practice they are tolerated both doing that, and using their
special signals to cause other drivers, and often traffic signals as
well, to give way to them.
Back in court - if you do go to court instead of accepting what
perhaps amounts to a plea bargain by default, I suppose it's a matter
of establishing reasonable doubt as to the facts of the case,
including necessity. A penalty also would take account of mitigating
circumstances.
Peter Meilinger
<chatter...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> What kind of valid reasons can you think of for speeding? And none of this
> "I know better, I can speed safely because I'm a brilliant driver" rubbish,
> thank you very much.
Driving along at the speed limit, you notice that the hillside next to
you
is starting to collapse, and that very large rocks and other debris
will
be on the roadway in a very short amount of time. You slam on the
gas to get the hell out of the way. Personally, I don't think you
should
be given a ticket.
We actually had a rockslide onto a highway near here last week. I
don't think any cars were on that stretch at that exact moment. I
know no one was injured, at least
Pete
Ken from Chicago
"Paul Ian Harman" <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote in message
news:57ha9lF...@mid.individual.net...
Exactly.
I'm not against having networks ADDED to stand-alone robocars that use
onboard sensors to drive, however said network would not be necessary for a
robocar to function.
Yes, I agree a networked robocar would be better than stand alone robocar.
Then again, I think a stand alone robocar would be better than human drivers
given its faster machine reflexes, 360-degree field of vision and always-on
surveillance that wouldn't be distracted by cell phones, passengers, eating,
shaving, putting on makeup, etc. Plus I would envision robocars would have
multiple sensors, not just video, but radar, sonar, infrared and
nightvision. They would allow it to tell in detail about the 3d environment
surrounding it, detect potholes underneath puddles or snowpatches, detect
almost invisible patches of ice on the roads, see thru fog or heavy
precipitation.
Having a network would allow robocars to be updated about traffic
conditions, if not in real time, at least before arriving in bottlenecks and
reroute accordingly, thus easing traffic woes, smoothing out an overall
metropolitan or regional traffic grid in a way robocars couldn't do so
isolated.
However, the robocars would function without a network, not as well as
networked robocars, but better than merely human drivers.
In fact, we have independent, stand alone robocars now--but they are just
really slow. They top out around 20 mph. Conceptually robocars are possible.
Now the challenge is to SPEED up the processing so they can do the real-time
analysis comparable to, to say nothing of faster than, human drivers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jack May
You assume there is only one car in front of you that can cause the
accident. That is wrong. Accidents often start multiple cars in front of
you and propagate back down the line until there is a car can not prevent
from having an accident. A 360 degree field of view and all the extra
sensor you mention will then not work since it will not be able to see
through semi-trucks and other cars. That is why the industry has no desire
to use something like your approach.
A communication network link will probably be one chip in the car. Maybe
the antenna is on top of the car. I don't know how the vehicles under test
now configure the antenna.
> Having a network would allow robocars to be updated about traffic
> conditions, if not in real time, at least before arriving in bottlenecks
> and reroute accordingly, thus easing traffic woes, smoothing out an
> overall metropolitan or regional traffic grid in a way robocars couldn't
> do so isolated.
>
> However, the robocars would function without a network, not as well as
> networked robocars, but better than merely human drivers.
>
> In fact, we have independent, stand alone robocars now--but they are just
> really slow. They top out around 20 mph. Conceptually robocars are
> possible. Now the challenge is to SPEED up the processing so they can do
> the real-time analysis comparable to, to say nothing of faster than, human
> drivers.
The present cars under test now only use a fraction of the bandwidth
assigned to them by the FCC because the data rates are not very high. I
seem to remember that 70 MHz is allocated for digital car communications.
The amount of computation inside each car to understand which cars might
hit your and what your car should do also seems fairly small. The algorithms
are things like are cars that might hit you actually going to cause an
accident. The checks are made ten times per second. The two algorithms
described in the article I read were both very low complexity.
Jack May
"Paul Ian Harman" <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote in message
news:57ha9lF...@mid.individual.net...
> news:YJCdnSr12-5p9ZHb...@comcast.com...
> No, Ken is describing a system that does not rely on a complex multi-node
> communications system - which despite your assertions would not be 100%
> reliable. Depending on the communications system is a safety nightmare
> waiting to happen.
The complexity is probably one chip and probably a self forming network just
like the home network that have already started appearing for connecting
computers, audio video, and most things in the house.
It replaces wifi and has an "n" at the end of the network type identifier
It is a single chip except when being use to pass HDTV signal around the
house. It then adds a video compression chip to get the data rate below
400 Mbps.
> Ken proposes that the car be stand-alone in the first instance, so that it
> can mingle with human-driven cars.
>
> Adding complex comms on top of that might assist the car (or rather a
> collection of such cars)to be more space-efficient, but the robocar would
> always be able to operate stand-alone.
Ken's 360 sensor idea can not work because you must have information from
several cars ahead to prevent accidents.. You can't do 360 sensing when big
trucks and other things block the view of what is happening
Jack May
> "Bob Scott" <b...@bobandaileen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Vc9$p8Avr2...@loud-n-clear.com...
>> Ah, our wonderful, sensible government hold that there is no valid
>> reason for going over the speedlimit.
>
>
> And I happen to agree with them.
The safest speed is not the speed limit but driving at the same speed as the
flow of traffic.
In many places in the US they give you a ticket for excessive differential
speed, plus or minus, instead of not following the speed limit. In
California you will get ticket if you are driving too slow and obstructing
traffic.
Paul Ian Harman
news:1175706096.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Driving along at the speed limit, you notice that the hillside next to
> you is starting to collapse
Granted };*)
Paul
Jason Maxwell
news:1175706096.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> <chatter...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>
> > What kind of valid reasons can you think of for speeding? And none of
this
> > "I know better, I can speed safely because I'm a brilliant driver"
rubbish,
> > thank you very much.
>
> Driving along at the speed limit, you notice that the hillside next to
> you
> is starting to collapse, and that very large rocks and other debris
> will
> be on the roadway in a very short amount of time. You slam on the
> gas to get the hell out of the way. Personally, I don't think you
> should
> be given a ticket.
>
and swerving around me"
Jason
Robert Carnegie
Jack May wrote:
You are considering how vehicles are controlled /now?/
Also that the car can have better than 360 degrees - eyes on every
corner if we want, near road level to see between tyres of cars ahead
- on stalks, even on robot motorcycle outriders...
Robert Carnegie
What, by driving above the government-approved safe speed? Did I miss
a joke, because unless you can put /them/ off the road, leaving them
additionally irritated on the road behind you, in a functioning
vehicle, seems unwise. Instead, get out of their road, slow down...
let'em run along ahead and make trouble for other people.
John Schilling
wrote:
>"Peter Meilinger" <p_mei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1175706096.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> > What kind of valid reasons can you think of for speeding? And none
>> > of this "I know better, I can speed safely because I'm a brilliant
>> > driver" rubbish, thank you very much.
>>
>> Driving along at the speed limit, you notice that the hillside next to
>> you is starting to collapse, and that very large rocks and other debris
>> will be on the roadway in a very short amount of time. You slam on the
>> gas to get the hell out of the way. Personally, I don't think you should
>> be given a ticket.
>My idea was "Trying to get away from the road raged/drunk idiot tailgating
>and swerving around me"
And then what? As soon as you slow down again, he's right back on your
tail again.
If the plan is to complete your entire journey at "greater than road
raged drunken idiot speed"[1], on account of there's a road-raged
drunken idiot behind you, then no. Pulling over and letting him pass
represents only a momentary danger, with the added advantage of being
an unambigously legal solution to the problem.
An annoyingly unsatisfying one, yes, but the law strangely prefers
minimum body count.
[1] That's probably somewhere between "ridiculous speed" and "ludicrous
speed". Most notable for the argyle-shifted output of the speeding
vehicle's tail lights.
Jason Maxwell
news:v4le13d8s6t6t16f3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:36:37 -0700, "Jason Maxwell" <jaso...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Peter Meilinger" <p_mei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1175706096.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >> > What kind of valid reasons can you think of for speeding? And none
> >> > of this "I know better, I can speed safely because I'm a brilliant
> >> > driver" rubbish, thank you very much.
> >>
> >> Driving along at the speed limit, you notice that the hillside next to
> >> you is starting to collapse, and that very large rocks and other debris
> >> will be on the roadway in a very short amount of time. You slam on the
> >> gas to get the hell out of the way. Personally, I don't think you
should
> >> be given a ticket.
>
> >My idea was "Trying to get away from the road raged/drunk idiot
tailgating
> >and swerving around me"
>
> And then what? As soon as you slow down again, he's right back on your
> tail again.
>
police station or other location you feel safe to slow down in, you've
improved the situation.
> If the plan is to complete your entire journey at "greater than road
> raged drunken idiot speed"[1], on account of there's a road-raged
> drunken idiot behind you, then no. Pulling over and letting him pass
> represents only a momentary danger, with the added advantage of being
> an unambigously legal solution to the problem.
>
Pulling over for a road raged idiot is only advisable if you feel you're in
a safe area. It would probably work to get away from a drunk though.
Jason
Jack May
>
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Paul Ian Harman" <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote in message
>> news:57ha9lF...@mid.individual.net...
>> > "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:YJCdnSr12-5p9ZHb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Also that the car can have better than 360 degrees - eyes on every
> corner if we want, near road level to see between tyres of cars ahead
> - on stalks, even on robot motorcycle outriders...
The goal is to eventually have the vehicles spaced as closely as possible
such as half a car length. Visibility of several cars ahead will be mainly
blocked in heavy rush hour traffic.
We have yet to get a car to sense things around it when it is driving with
few cars around it. The first test of a fully automated car will be in a
DARPA challenge in a few months to go from SF to LA using only onboard
sensors.
I think the decision has already been made to use communications instead of
a lot of onboard sensors. Communications is simple and cheap. ABC news
this week described what is being developed now. They were showing
communications between cars and between a stop light and cars.
They also talked a lot about the electronic stability control which is
mandated for 2012 cars and beyond. They said it takes about 5 years to
design electronics in cars. The companies running tests with the
communication link are also saying it could be in cars about 5 years from
now
John Schilling
wrote:
>"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
>news:v4le13d8s6t6t16f3...@4ax.com...
>> >> > What kind of valid reasons can you think of for speeding? And none
>> >> > of this "I know better, I can speed safely because I'm a brilliant
>> >> > driver" rubbish, thank you very much.
>> >> Driving along at the speed limit, you notice that the hillside next to
>> >> you is starting to collapse, and that very large rocks and other debris
>> >> will be on the roadway in a very short amount of time. You slam on the
>> >> gas to get the hell out of the way. Personally, I don't think you
>> >> should be given a ticket.
>> >My idea was "Trying to get away from the road raged/drunk idiot
>> >tailgating and swerving around me"
>> And then what? As soon as you slow down again, he's right back on your
>> tail again.
>But if, in the intervening time you've gotten to an area with an exit or a
>police station or other location you feel safe to slow down in, you've
>improved the situation.
A: The necessity defense requires more than an "if...", you need to be
highly (and plausibly) confident that breaking the law will prevent
great harm, and,
B: Police station, maybe, but how does an exit help you? The hypothetical
road-raged driver will of course put on as much speed as he needs to
follow you, and he will follow you off the exit and wherever it is
you try to flee. Or not, but...
>> If the plan is to complete your entire journey at "greater than road
>> raged drunken idiot speed"[1], on account of there's a road-raged
>> drunken idiot behind you, then no. Pulling over and letting him pass
>> represents only a momentary danger, with the added advantage of being
>> an unambigously legal solution to the problem.
>Pulling over for a road raged idiot is only advisable if you feel you're in
>a safe area. It would probably work to get away from a drunk though.
...you seem to be assuming that the road-raged idiot is so intent on
violence that, if you stop, he'll stop and attack you by the side of
the road. This is almost certainly false; most road-raged idiots will
be satisfied if you simply cede them the road. On the off chance that
it isn't false, that you've run into the guy from "The Duel", then your
"It's OK to speed" argument falls apart. You'll be (hypothetically)
duelling it out with a guy who wants to kill you either way, but at
100+ miles per hour rather than standing at the side of the road.
Your version implicitly assumes that the road-raged idiot will stop
and try to kill you if and only if you yourself stop, but will just
drive along on his usual course at his usual speed and ignore you
completely if you speed out ahead of him. That's about the least
likely scenario and the most transparently obvious "I just want to
speed and this makes it OK" excuse around.
Pulling over for a road-raged idiot is *always* advisable if there's
enough of a shoulder to pull over on. If it doesn't work, *then* you
can try alternatives, though challenging him to a race probably still
isn't the best of those.
More generally, if the driver of the car behind you wants to be ahead
of you, it's safest to *let him*, as soon as practical.
Robert Carnegie
> Pulling over for a road-raged idiot is *always* advisable if there's
> enough of a shoulder to pull over on. If it doesn't work, *then* you
> can try alternatives, though challenging him to a race probably still
> isn't the best of those.
>
> More generally, if the driver of the car behind you wants to be ahead
> of you, it's safest to *let him*, as soon as practical.
Generally - but I suppose you /could/ drive faster than they /can/ -
if /you/ can -
John Schilling
wrote:
You could, but you really, really shouldn't. Unless they're driving
something horribly underpowered, they almost certainly *can* drive
fast enough to get themselves killed. Which will just get you killed
that much faster, if you insist on driving that much faster.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
No Man
if /you/ can -]
Best similar advice on one-lane traffic I had was from a jock about riding
bicycles downhill. He said, "You want to take the whole lane, because if you
pull towards the side, cars will try and pass you, and you're going as fast
as they are."
He never did see anything funny about his advice.
--
"Let no man write my epitaph."
"No Man is an island."
"No man takes my gun."
"No Man has blinded me!"
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Best similar advice on one-lane traffic I had was from a jock about riding
> bicycles downhill. He said, "You want to take the whole lane, because if you
> pull towards the side, cars will try and pass you, and you're going as fast
> as they are."
>
> He never did see anything funny about his advice.
That's because it's good advice.
The guy in the car knows a bicycle can't be going very fast, so he
goes as fast as he needs to to get around you, then as soon as he's
snugly in front of you, he looks down at his speedometer and slams on
the brakes.
Take the lane. You need it, and it doesn't slow traffic in the
slightest.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:21:11 -0700, "No Man" <woe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Best similar advice on one-lane traffic I had was from a jock about riding
>>bicycles downhill. He said, "You want to take the whole lane, because if you
>>pull towards the side, cars will try and pass you, and you're going as fast
>>as they are."
>>
>>He never did see anything funny about his advice.
>
>
> That's because it's good advice.
>
> The guy in the car knows a bicycle can't be going very fast, so he
> goes as fast as he needs to to get around you, then as soon as he's
> snugly in front of you, he looks down at his speedometer and slams on
> the brakes.
>
> Take the lane. You need it, and it doesn't slow traffic in the
> slightest.
>
> Joy Beeson
Depends on the location. I've never seen a bike doing 50+mph. I know
they CAN, but I've never seen it on the local roads -- and in most
cases I wouldn't recommend trying it; even a small Albany pothole will
wreck your day at that speed.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
John Schilling
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:21:11 -0700, "No Man" <woe...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Best similar advice on one-lane traffic I had was from a jock about riding
>> bicycles downhill. He said, "You want to take the whole lane, because if you
>> pull towards the side, cars will try and pass you, and you're going as fast
>> as they are."
>>
>> He never did see anything funny about his advice.
>
>That's because it's good advice.
>
>The guy in the car knows a bicycle can't be going very fast, so he
>goes as fast as he needs to to get around you, then as soon as he's
>snugly in front of you, he looks down at his speedometer and slams on
>the brakes.
Except for the part where it's based on a false premise. The bicyclist
is almost certainly *not* going as fast as the automotive traffic[1].
Not even going downhill. Maybe if he's going downhill on an absurdly
steep hill on a racing bike working his ass off trying to set a personal
speed record, *then* maybe he'd equal the speed of sedate city or suburban
traffic[1].
Mostly, the biker is just travelling at 25-30 mph, which *to him* seems
like such a blindingly fast speed that he must, finally, for once, be on
a level playing field with those damned motorists. But he isn't, and if
he acts like he is he's rather more likely to get himself killed for it.
[1] "Traffic" meaning a modest number of automobiles travelling at their
preferred speed on a generally open road. Otherwise the whole debate is
moot.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Keith F. Lynch
> Except for the part where it's based on a false premise. The
> bicyclist is almost certainly *not* going as fast as the automotive
> traffic[1]. Not even going downhill. Maybe if he's going downhill
> on an absurdly steep hill on a racing bike working his ass off
> trying to set a personal speed record, *then* maybe he'd equal the
> speed of sedate city or suburban traffic[1].
> Mostly, the biker is just travelling at 25-30 mph, which *to him*
> seems like such a blindingly fast speed that he must, finally, for
> once, be on a level playing field with those damned motorists. But
> he isn't, and if he acts like he is he's rather more likely to get
> himself killed for it.
I've exceeded 40 mph (according to a GPS unit). That's on a hybrid
bike, not pedaling at all, coasting down a not particularly steep hill.
> [1] "Traffic" meaning a modest number of automobiles travelling at
> their preferred speed on a generally open road. Otherwise the whole
> debate is moot.
During rush hour, which is when I've done most of my riding, traffic
is usually going a lot less than 40 mph. Indeed, I've been slowed
down by cars a lot more than they've been slowed down by me.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
James Gassaway
The legal speed limit on most city streets is 25 or 30 mph.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
Peter Meilinger
> John Schilling wrote:
> > Mostly, the biker is just travelling at 25-30 mph, which *to him*
> > seems like such a blindingly fast speed that he must, finally, for
> > once, be on a level playing field with those damned motorists. But
> > he isn't, and if he acts like he is he's rather more likely to get
> > himself killed for it.
>
> The legal speed limit on most city streets is 25 or 30 mph.
Quite a few non-city streets, too, including several I can
think of that have hills that a bike could make some serious
speed on.
I'm reminded of a "Herman" comic strip where a jogger
is standing in front of a sign that indicates the speed
limit is five miles per hour. The jogger is glaring at a
cop who's writing him a speeding ticket. The cop
says something to the effect of "Quit griping. You
know you're going to be bragging about this for
the rest of your life."
Pete
John Schilling
wrote:
Right, but what matters is the speed cars actually drive at. That
speed is, barring heavy traffic, at least 5-10 mph faster than the
speed limit.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Joy Beeson
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> Depends on the location. I've never seen a bike doing 50+mph. I know
> they CAN, but I've never seen it on the local roads -- and in most
> cases I wouldn't recommend trying it; even a small Albany pothole will
> wreck your day at that speed.
An Albany pothole can wreck your day regardless of *what* you are
driving. There's the one on 155 I hit with my Jeep Cherokee on a day
when it was raining so hard that there were standing waves around the
drains in the Colonie Center parking lot -- and I'm sure I wasn't
going anywhere near fifty. (Didn't help that it turned out that my
wheel had damaged lugs and not even the tow-truck fellow could get
them off.) (That's when I learned that you should step on a lug
wrench if you aren't strong enough to turn it. Hope I never have any
use for the information.)
I'm pretty sure I never went 50+ on my bike -- I did measure 30 mph on
a long downhill stretch of good road with mile markers, once, and a
tandem team I used to know said their speedometer sometimes registered
more than fifty.
The conflict arises because long, steep descents tend to be in the
mountains, mountain roads tend to be twisty, and on twisty roads the
maximum safe speed for a bike is well over the maximum safe speed for
a four-wheeled vehicle. Bikes are *supposed* to go around corners on
two wheels.
When coming back from Thatcher Park by way of New Salem Hill,
I often had to ride the brakes to keep from running up somebody's
tailpipe. I don't, however, recall being overtaken on that road.
Sea Wasp
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:53:52 -0400, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Depends on the location. I've never seen a bike doing 50+mph. I know
>>they CAN, but I've never seen it on the local roads -- and in most
>>cases I wouldn't recommend trying it; even a small Albany pothole will
>>wreck your day at that speed.
>
>
> An Albany pothole can wreck your day regardless of *what* you are
> driving. There's the one on 155 I hit with my Jeep Cherokee on a day
> when it was raining so hard that there were standing waves around the
> drains in the Colonie Center parking lot -- and I'm sure I wasn't
> going anywhere near fifty.
That's why I specified a SMALL Albany pothole. A LARGE Albany pothole
will swallow your car and spit out your remains. If you're lucky.
>
> When coming back from Thatcher Park by way of New Salem Hill,
> I often had to ride the brakes to keep from running up somebody's
> tailpipe. I don't, however, recall being overtaken on that road.
Odd. I don't remember *ANY* road (with appropriate speed limits) that
I didn't do at 30+, in decent weather (though in areas where I expect
lots of pedestrians, I slow down -- but I'd expect bikes to do the
same). There's two curves in the Capital District I know of that I
CAN'T take at that speed, but both are "exit" roads from a major
highway. So by your statement of max speeds there's no way you could
end up catching me.
Robert Carnegie
> John Schilling wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:26:00 -0400, Joy Beeson
>
> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:21:11 -0700, "No Man" <woes...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Best similar advice on one-lane traffic I had was from a jock about
> >>> riding bicycles downhill. He said, "You want to take the whole
> >>> lane, because if you pull towards the side, cars will try and pass
> >>> you, and you're going as fast as they are."
>
> >>> He never did see anything funny about his advice.
>
> >> That's because it's good advice.
>
> >> The guy in the car knows a bicycle can't be going very fast, so he
> >> goes as fast as he needs to to get around you, then as soon as he's
> >> snugly in front of you, he looks down at his speedometer and slams on
> >> the brakes.
>
> > Except for the part where it's based on a false premise. The
> > bicyclist is almost certainly *not* going as fast as the automotive
> > traffic[1].
> > Not even going downhill. Maybe if he's going downhill on an absurdly
> > steep hill on a racing bike working his ass off trying to set a
> > personal speed record, *then* maybe he'd equal the speed of sedate
> > city or suburban traffic[1].
>
> > Mostly, the biker is just travelling at 25-30 mph, which *to him*
> > seems like such a blindingly fast speed that he must, finally, for
> > once, be on a level playing field with those damned motorists. But
> > he isn't, and if he acts like he is he's rather more likely to get
> > himself killed for it.
>
> The legal speed limit on most city streets is 25 or 30 mph.
It may only apply to motor vehicles. This isn't to say that pedal
cyclists can act crazy, but you're not going to impose a speed limit
on a vehicle that doesn't have a legally required speedometer.
The paradox I saw was that a motor vehicle travelling at the exact
same speed obviously isn't overtaking or even catching up, but I think
I have Asperger's syndrome. More to the point, when you're moving at
traffic speed, any implied obligation of courtesy to give way to
vehicles behind does not apply.
In other cases, and as a cyclist I will even bore people who agree
with me on this as you may remember, the best and well recommended way
to ride is along the middle of a highway lane, but obviously this
blocks vehicles behind you which is /not/ good, so this is one use of
a rear view mirror to see there /are/ vehicles behind you. If not,
you're king of the road. If yes, then read the road ahead for a good
place to ease off effort and ease towards the road side to allow
overtaking, and do /not/ give way to overtakers where overtaking is
not safe - instead, keep to the centre of your lane, pushing as hard
as you can. When you let vehicles overtake, the reward is that once
they're past, you "own" the lane again. Riding at the side of the
road is a lousy experience, with usually a worse surface, badly made
drain holes, and parked cars that may open doors or pull out in front
of you - worth avoiding.
I find that a well sized mirror with a slight convex curve - i.e. not
like the back of a spoon - is effective for reducing blur due to
shaking around as you ride, that you will get with a flat mirror. And
it's useful in situations other than just monitoring what's behind you
as you ride along.
dwight...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:34:44 -0700, "James Gassaway" <dtra...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >John Schilling wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:26:00 -0400, Joy Beeson
> >>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:21:11 -0700, "No Man" <woes...@yahoo.com>
No. It's not. In my town, if the speed limit says 30 mph (20
downtown), motorists drive anywhere from 30 to 35 mph (or 20 to 25).
James Gassaway
road, not just motorized ones.
Joy Beeson
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> I find that a well sized mirror with a slight convex curve - i.e. not
> like the back of a spoon - is effective for reducing blur due to
> shaking around as you ride, that you will get with a flat mirror. And
> it's useful in situations other than just monitoring what's behind you
> as you ride along.
I prefer a very small flat mirror mounted on my helmet, so that the
mirror and eye shake in unison.
Most commercial helmet mirrors are too large, and block off your field
of view. Mine -- hand made by a fellow whose name I've forgotten --
appears to be a dentist's mirror, and attaches to the helmet by a wire
holder that appears to have been a stainless spoke. I wore it while
sitting in the driver's seat of my car once, and verified that it's
exactly the same visual size as an outside rear-view mirror.
But it does require that I tie my orange linen scarf carefully, and
tuck in the ends.
Robert Carnegie
> I prefer a very small flat mirror mounted on my helmet, so that the
> mirror and eye shake in unison.
Interesting. I don't think I've tried that, mine's mounted on the end
of the handlebar (had to saw off the end of the rubber handgrip), and
from what you say it's difficult to get right. And then you have a
mirror mounted on your helmet, which maybe you /don't/ want. (Say, if
you crash land and it goes in your eye.) But if it's effective - well
done you!
I think you can get cheap hobby tool sets that include a little mirror
on a stick - probably from places where they try to round out the kit
to a perceived $2 value.
> The above message is a Usenet post.
> I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Greetings from Google Groups ;-)
Joy Beeson
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > The above message is a Usenet post.
> > I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
>
> Greetings from Google Groups ;-)
I used to find my name on scam sites a lot -- they like to steal posts
from needlework groups. I thought that when the sig line wasn't
snipped, I could give a hint that I didn't endorse the product.
Just ego-scanned on Alta Vista . . . nothing embarrassing on the first
five pages of hits, but three or more of those "joy beeson"s aren't
me. And the sig line turned up only once.
I was gratified that the first hit was my web site.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
Robert Carnegie
> I used to find my name on scam sites a lot -- they like to steal posts
> from needlework groups. I thought that when the sig line wasn't
> snipped, I could give a hint that I didn't endorse the product.
Needlework??....
I wondered if it arose from the other day when we got into a confusing
discussion with someone who was using a Web site running an interface
to - I think - the rec.arts.sf.* newsgroups appearing as in-site
forums, without realising it. And selling a new bonk with a cosmic
philosophy plot-line.
And some time ago, the rec.arts.comics.* groups were picked up by
someone else who wanted to run them as his local site discussion
forums and increase site traffic. It was done badly and
disrespectfully. Feathers were ruffled. And people equipped
themselves with disclaimers like that.
That sounds like the sort of people that you describe "stitching you
up", as we say.
Joy Beeson
have crawled off the right edge of my display.
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:53:52 -0400, Sea Wasp
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> Depends on the location. I've never seen a bike doing 50+mph. I know
> they CAN, but I've never seen it on the local roads -- and in most
> cases I wouldn't recommend trying it; even a small Albany pothole will
> wreck your day at that speed.
This deserves a more-serious answer than I gave it last time.
A cyclist climbing a hill converts a great deal of muscle power into
potential energy -- I recall calculating, once, how many liters of
icewater I could boil with my potential at the high point of one of my
favorite rides.
When conditions are right, you can get a great deal of this potential
energy back and use it to climb the next hill -- perhaps making it
easy to climb a hill where you would have to get off and walk if you
started at the bottom.
I did know one club rider who always walked down hills for fear of the
bike running away with her, but most of us hate to turn any of that
hard-earned energy into heat without a good reason. So yes, cyclists
*do* come down hills very fast -- I've no idea how fast, because I've
never had a speedometer. I did clock myself at thirty miles per hour
once -- when I was coasting slowly enough that I had brain to spare
for watching my watch.
(This was in my escarpment-climbing youth. I live in flat country
now, and I'd be impressed if I were clocked at fifteen miles per
hour.)
Yes, the Capital District is noted for neglecting roads -- and when
they do rebuild a road, it's usually the wrong road. But the
most-neglected roads tend to be the least-used roads. (Causation runs
both ways, I'd imagine.) Moreover, motor vehicles make themselves
known well over a mile away.
So most of the time, if you can see the road far enough ahead, you can
steer around the potholes.
Roads that are *all* pothole, dirty pavement, and visual obstructions
on curves do call for heavy braking. (Stop every mile or so to feel
your brake pads and rims. Or stand up and spread yourself out;
aerobraking can shed a surprising amount of energy, and doesn't heat
your rims.)
Robert Carnegie
Joy Beeson wrote:
> I did know one club rider who always walked down hills for fear of the
> bike running away with her, but most of us hate to turn any of that
> hard-earned energy into heat without a good reason. So yes, cyclists
> *do* come down hills very fast -- I've no idea how fast, because I've
> never had a speedometer. I did clock myself at thirty miles per hour
> once -- when I was coasting slowly enough that I had brain to spare
> for watching my watch.
It takes what I consider a good hill, plus pedalling, to get me over
30 mph - and that too is in the good old days, for the most part. I
know one city hill that could give me more but it would probably be
the last thing I did in this world.
Blantyre to East Kilbride - in Scotland - is a long slog up dual
carriageway. Downhill the other way it's exhilarating, at least by my
standard.
> most of the time, if you can see the road far enough ahead, you can
> steer around the potholes.
Subject to light conditions. The latter part of the ride back to
Blantyre is off the dual carriageway, unlit, and quite bumpy and
potholed; intimidating. And still sloped. I'm considering fitting an
overpowered light - maybe not legal in this jurisdiction, shh - to get
a decent view at night, only on that section of road. I haven't yet
found a reason why household halogen lamps aren't fitted to bicycles
(besides battery life, I guess), I hope it doesn't become apparent at
an inconvenient time. ;-)
Andy Leighton
>
> Joy Beeson wrote:
>> I did know one club rider who always walked down hills for fear of the
>> bike running away with her, but most of us hate to turn any of that
>> hard-earned energy into heat without a good reason. So yes, cyclists
>> *do* come down hills very fast -- I've no idea how fast, because I've
>> never had a speedometer. I did clock myself at thirty miles per hour
>> once -- when I was coasting slowly enough that I had brain to spare
>> for watching my watch.
>
> It takes what I consider a good hill, plus pedalling, to get me over
> 30 mph - and that too is in the good old days, for the most part.
Downhill I have seen some people claim 50mph+ on certain hills. However
I live in the fens and there are no hills at all and the fastest I have
gone is 24mph on the down slope of a railway bridge with tail-wind.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
pullo
>
> Joy Beeson wrote:
>> I did know one club rider who always walked down hills for fear of the
>> bike running away with her, but most of us hate to turn any of that
>> hard-earned energy into heat without a good reason. So yes, cyclists
>> *do* come down hills very fast -- I've no idea how fast, because I've
>> never had a speedometer. I did clock myself at thirty miles per hour
>> once -- when I was coasting slowly enough that I had brain to spare
>> for watching my watch.
>
> It takes what I consider a good hill, plus pedalling, to get me over
> 30 mph - and that too is in the good old days, for the most part. I
> know one city hill that could give me more but it would probably be
> the last thing I did in this world.
Really? I find I can attain burst speeds of 30 mph on a mountain bike
[knobby tires and all] on flat pavement. ['Burst' being defined as a very
few tens of seconds]
On a decent hill 50 mph is no problem though at that speed I tend to stare
at the front wheel quick release bolt and consider the ramifications of a
catastrophic failure of said bolt. Someone once told me that similarly helos
have an equivalent 'Jesus bolt' in its' rotor assembly that if it fails will
result in an immediate unplanned ground interface.
Keith F. Lynch
> Stop every mile or so to feel your brake pads and rims.
If you're going down a long steep hill, you'd better stop more often
than that.
> Or stand up and spread yourself out; aerobraking can shed a
> surprising amount of energy, and doesn't heat your rims.
Not so surprising, considering that the Space Shuttle is slowed from
18,000 miles per hour by aerobraking.
Harry Erwin
> On 23 Apr 2007 18:50:50 -0700, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Joy Beeson wrote:
> >> I did know one club rider who always walked down hills for fear of the
> >> bike running away with her, but most of us hate to turn any of that
> >> hard-earned energy into heat without a good reason. So yes, cyclists
> >> *do* come down hills very fast -- I've no idea how fast, because I've
> >> never had a speedometer. I did clock myself at thirty miles per hour
> >> once -- when I was coasting slowly enough that I had brain to spare
> >> for watching my watch.
> >
> > It takes what I consider a good hill, plus pedalling, to get me over
> > 30 mph - and that too is in the good old days, for the most part.
>
> Downhill I have seen some people claim 50mph+ on certain hills. However
> I live in the fens and there are no hills at all and the fastest I have
> gone is 24mph on the down slope of a railway bridge with tail-wind.
I rode down the face of a flood control dam when I was 11. I don't know
how fast I was going at the bottom, but I ended up about three miles
down a dirt road when I finally slowed.
--
Harry Erwin <http://www.theworld.com/~herwin>
My neuroscience wikiwiki is at
<http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw/phpwiki/index.php>
Anthony Nance
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Apr 2007 18:50:50 -0700, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > Joy Beeson wrote:
>> >> I did know one club rider who always walked down hills for fear of the
>> >> bike running away with her, but most of us hate to turn any of that
>> >> hard-earned energy into heat without a good reason. So yes, cyclists
>> >> *do* come down hills very fast -- I've no idea how fast, because I've
>> >> never had a speedometer. I did clock myself at thirty miles per hour
>> >> once -- when I was coasting slowly enough that I had brain to spare
>> >> for watching my watch.
>> >
>> > It takes what I consider a good hill, plus pedalling, to get me over
>> > 30 mph - and that too is in the good old days, for the most part.
>>
>> Downhill I have seen some people claim 50mph+ on certain hills. However
>> I live in the fens and there are no hills at all and the fastest I have
>> gone is 24mph on the down slope of a railway bridge with tail-wind.
>
> I rode down the face of a flood control dam when I was 11.
"Oh look - there goes Harry. Surely he'll be a computational
neuroscientist someday."
"Well, either that or a mathematician."
Tony
Robert Carnegie
pullo wrote:
Hmm.... it may be you're a lot better than I am - 40 and substantially
overweight and out of training, and on a relatively ordinary bicycle -
or you could be reading in km/hr instead of mph. ;-)
In town traffic these days, with some hills, and stops, I seem to come
in around 12 miles per hour mean speed over 4 miles. Earlier in my
life, 15 mph would be the mean. I guess I could work at it more, in
several senses.
pullo
I think I might be somewhat more fit but 'better'? The multitude of aspects
summing up to that sort of judgement are for the gods.
:)
The burst speed is based on a bike speedometer that I've otherwise found
reasonably accurate. I'm referring to _short_ bursts.
> In town traffic these days, with some hills, and stops, I seem to come
> in around 12 miles per hour mean speed over 4 miles. Earlier in my
> life, 15 mph would be the mean. I guess I could work at it more, in
> several senses.
The downhill 50+ mph is on a good hill with a good surface.
15 mph _sustained_ is a decent pace for me, assuming a mix of surface type
and the odd hydration stop, depending on the loadout.
Y-Enc Enhancement
Jack May wrote:
> "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eu8pc0$nqa$1...@news.datemas.de...
> >I don't know if anyone will follow this but the old thread was way too
> >large.
> >
> > To be on-topic: What will be the future of transportation?
> >
> > Mass Transit vs. Personal automobiles?
> >
> > I think the movie Minority Report had a lot of good tidbits about near
> > term developments.
> >
> > Consider the development in automated automobiles already. Fully automatic
> > vehicles will be able to functions at higher speeds, densities and hence
> > volumes. Accidents may still occur but would be far less prevalent than
> > 'human error' allows for today.
>
> This is called Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and the US
> Government is spending about a billion dollars per year on it. A lot of
> other countries and automobile companies are also spending a lot of money on
> it.
>
> There is a communication standard to send digital data between cars to
> produce "trains" and produce major reductions in accidents and deaths.
> This communication standard may start appearing in cars in roughly 5 years.
> There is already Radar collision avoidance, lane drift prevention,
> electronic stability control to prevent roll over, and parallel parking (it
> needs more work)
>
good solution since the majoroity cant drive, zip up their pants,
or even thread a needle!
>
> Congress will be pushing this as zero accident technology which of course
> impossible but it will make accidents far more rare as more cars are bought
> with the technology installed (possibly mandatory like stability control)
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>I haven't yet
>found a reason why household halogen lamps aren't fitted to bicycles
>(besides battery life, I guess), I hope it doesn't become apparent at
>an inconvenient time. ;-)
Big 12V halogens do sometimes get fitted on bikes, but battery life is in
fact the issue. A fairly heavy lead-acid battery won't power a 20W halogen
all *that* long, and you have to drag that weight uphill.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
> On a decent hill 50 mph is no problem though at that speed I tend to stare
>at the front wheel quick release bolt and consider the ramifications of a
>catastrophic failure of said bolt. Someone once told me that similarly helos
>have an equivalent 'Jesus bolt' in its' rotor assembly that if it fails will
>result in an immediate unplanned ground interface.
A good thing you haven't heard of the Annan controversy then, I suppose.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Hmm.... it may be you're a lot better than I am - 40 and substantially
>overweight and out of training, and on a relatively ordinary bicycle -
>or you could be reading in km/hr instead of mph. ;-)
Downhill, heavier = faster. I should know.
Jasper
pullo
"Jasper Janssen" <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote in message
news:hou253dc3pdfb94o6...@4ax.com...
Top Google result gives a site that is summed up as: 'A disagreement
between two leading educators as to the nature of real civilization is
analyzed in detail. (CK)'
Lesser results refer to former Sec Gen Kofi Annan in numerous and various
contexts including the Dutch cartoon Mohammed kerfuffle.
Jasper Janssen
pullo
>>"Jasper Janssen" <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote in message
>>news:hou253dc3pdfb94o6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:07:27 -0400, "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a decent hill 50 mph is no problem though at that speed I tend to
>>>> stare
>>>>at the front wheel quick release bolt and consider the ramifications of
>>>>a
>>>>catastrophic failure of said bolt. Someone once told me that similarly
>>>>helos
>>>>have an equivalent 'Jesus bolt' in its' rotor assembly that if it fails
>>>>will
>>>>result in an immediate unplanned ground interface.
>>>
>>> A good thing you haven't heard of the Annan controversy then, I suppose.
Ah, that involves using brakes.
'Brakes? We doan need no st-e-e-e-nking brakes!'