Absolutely agreed. The idea of trying to score political points, mostly that “we win, and the other guys lose,” is what’s hurting us most. Why did a candidate need to campaign on dismantling his predecessor’s programs even if he planned to keep the majority of them? Why are we so adversarial, when instead we could be…

Jury nullification is still a thing, no matter how stone guilty they are.

The electonics suite is incredible, and it makes it an ideal battlefield coordinator. However, a lack of combat readiness and reported mediocre (or worse) wargame results, coupled with replacing other capable airframes instead of using the electronics suite as a force multiplier, means that it could cause a reduction…

It’s my understanding the F-35 houses the minority of its armament internal, currently just four missiles with the next block to increase that to six. The F-22 can carry eight in stealth configuration.

Well, we had probably won the war in the Pacific by that point, but the atom bomb saved a whole bunch of soldier’s lives (including my grandfather’s who was preparing to board a boat to Japan a few days after the bomb was dropped) by bringing a swifter end than a ground invasion of mainland Japan.

In this case they mention that the kangaroo appears further away because its feet are off the ground. I’m saying that’s not a problem any system with LIDAR would ever have because it’s never guessing how far away an object is, LIDAR gives an exact range (that’s what the R stands for).

But again, this is only a problem if you depend on cameras for object detection and ranging. LIDAR would give you an accurate distance measurement whether they’re on the ground or not.

No, I think the argument against is that it sounds like carte blanche exemption from the regulations, rather than appropriate regulation to match the technology.

Hammond was in the Rimac Concept One electric supercar, and crashed off the top of the hill after his last run of the day.

My point is that if that’s a software problem, it’s because they don’t have sufficient hardware. LIDAR gives an exact distance from the car, they’ll only have this problem if they’re trying to do it entirely with cameras.

WHY DID YOU TURN!?

when it’s in the air it actually looks like it’s further away, then it lands and it looks closer

Depends how you define ‘close’ and ‘commonplace’.

Yes, and:

Yup, and North Korea definitely doesn’t have tens of millions sitting around to host F1. They’re either spending it on their military, or doing things on the cheap.

And I think that the rules especially around Le Mans mean that they intend for them to limit serviceability as well. Going back to the first race when it was about proving that cars were practical replacements for horses, needing to drill a hole in your car to make it work runs counter to that goal.

Right, and unfortunately the way they chose to kludge it was against the rules. Just like starting the car with the engine cover off and then putting it on (they got a stop and go penalty for that) or push-starting the car.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/null-and-void/

They were disqualified for the hole even before the parc ferme violation was known.