Katawa Shoujo Forums

flurk wrote: WHERE IS MY COLD UNCARING HEART?

In a jar on some desk.

Nightdragon wrote:I still dont think with all this high tech stuff it would be safe for both the blind driver and other motorists to drive on the same road, much less our precious Lilly. My job just reinforces the fact that the more complicated and more moving parts means it is more likely to break down, often at a critical time. Despite how awesome this stuff sounds, it just seems too unreliable and complex. Besides, isn't Lilly kinda rich? Couldn't she just have a driver pick you and her up?

I agree with this post while it may be an interesting technology it is too complicated and is probably only useable in closed terrain and not in real city traffic. Could be of use for the military though.

russianspy1234 wrote:i didnt recognize him either. its black & white, and hes wearing a suit.

So is Toph, but she's still recognizable from her hat. Even if you don't recognize DD right away, you can probably conclude that everyone in the car is blind. Who's a blind guy who wears a mask with horns? Daredevil.

IMO this isn't advanced enough to drive with the amount of idiots on to road to be blunt, also it only takes one angry driver knowing that the person who they smashed their car into is blind to hit them in the face and get away with it and parking and many other things. When we get cars like in iRobot is when the blind will drive, not to be harsh.

XtC wrote:IMO this isn't advanced enough to drive with the amount of idiots on to road to be blunt, also it only takes one angry driver knowing that the person who they smashed their car into is blind to hit them in the face and get away with it and parking and many other things. When we get cars like in iRobot is when the blind will drive, not to be harsh.

It's not harsh. Didn't some study cite how we rely on almost 80% of our input through sight? When it comes to emergencies, you could mandate a blind vehicle come with On-Star, but some situations will always fall to plain old sight to save your life... but then there was the case of that blind man that walked out of the world trade center when it got hit, and made it down 80 flights of stairs with his dog. It's hard to draw a line when there are so many life anecdotes to support and detract from an argument.

Here's my official opinion on this. The implementation for something like this to work would (and should) be limited to essential places - off the freeway - like grocery stores, gov't buildings, libraries. Anything more extravagant and they can caddy with somebody who can see.

Deimos wrote:I agree with this post while it may be an interesting technology it is too complicated and is probably only useable in closed terrain and not in real city traffic. Could be of use for the military though.

Nope, that wont work either. The only real use for unmanned vehicles in the military is for recon and immediate strike capabilities (Predator drone and other smaller hand held models), and bomb disposal (EOD guys loves these, same with police bomb squads). I can see what you are getting at though. Unmanned trucks and Humvee's can be used to transport supplies between a set route of bases and/or fire bases, or say take wounded troops from a Casualty Collection Point to a Field hospital. The only way we could field them though is if we are against a large traditional army, with actual fronts. The current way of war though would make these vehicles sitting ducks to the insurgents. While it isn't the prettiest option out there, nothing can beat a couple sets of eyes and brains. The amount of training we get on detecting IED's and ambushes (to a lesser extent) is immeasurable in the amount of lives saved. No piece technology can replace that.

tl;dr Technology can never replace humans in decision making situations like driving a vehicle, especially at war.

Nightdragon wrote: Nope, that wont work either. The only real use for unmanned vehicles in the military is for recon and immediate strike capabilities (Predator drone and other smaller hand held models), and bomb disposal (EOD guys loves these, same with police bomb squads). I can see what you are getting at though. Unmanned trucks and Humvee's can be used to transport supplies between a set route of bases and/or fire bases, or say take wounded troops from a Casualty Collection Point to a Field hospital. The only way we could field them though is if we are against a large traditional army, with actual fronts. The current way of war though would make these vehicles sitting ducks to the insurgents. While it isn't the prettiest option out there, nothing can beat a couple sets of eyes and brains. The amount of training we get on detecting IED's and ambushes (to a lesser extent) is immeasurable in the amount of lives saved. No piece technology can replace that.

I did not say I would use it for combat situations especially when asymetrical warfare revolves more and more around the capabilities of the infantry, armoured troops and navy patrols since the human part of these aspects of any of their war machine are irreplaceable. No automated system could make quick tactical decisions and act upon them like a human could. We could take the navy as an example of how low-tech is still used (think of signalling with flags and morse-code light signs).
I saw some documentary about automated vehicles in US army storage houses - they would probably like to see some of the patents this blind driving system has and I think the braille-map as described in the opening post could be (with some modifications of course) implemented as a tactical map in vehicles.

And for the people who do not bother to read long paragraphs:
The military can use anything - even some things and a few people society has no other use for.

Envy wrote:

Caesius wrote:Women can't drive.

Women can drive just fine, they just can't park. I don't even want to imagine where Lilly would end up parking.

It'll be like that part in the Dilbert television series where he builds a parking spot finding visor. It keeps leading him past all the good spots until it tells him to park in an elevator.

Deimos wrote:I did not say I would use it for combat situations especially when asymetrical warfare revolves more and more around the capabilities of the infantry, armoured troops and navy patrols since the human part of these aspects of any of their war machine are irreplaceable. No automated system could make quick tactical decisions and act upon them like a human could. We could take the navy as an example of how low-tech is still used (think of signalling with flags and morse-code light signs).
I saw some documentary about automated vehicles in US army storage houses - they would probably like to see some of the patents this blind driving system has and I think the braille-map as described in the opening post could be (with some modifications of course) implemented as a tactical map in vehicles.

And for the people who do not bother to read long paragraphs:
The military can use anything - even some things and a few people society has no other use for.

Well as a command and control kind of vehicle, this tech could be helpful. Or if there was a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack or even a downed pilot, this could possible be used for Search and Rescue. And every branch uses low tech stuff. Hell, the Marine Corps is just starting to generally issue M-16A4's (we previously had A2's), which the Army is starting to phase out for the M4 carbine, and the Marine Corps still uses the CH-46 helicopter (the last one was built in the mid 1970's). Still, I dont see this kind of technology being used for anything other then I already listed (the tech which uses the ability to touch to maneuver). And why would we need it to be used as a tactical map? At least in the Corps, everyone knows how to navigate on land, and for those that have trouble with it, we got GPS's. And in the other branches, if they dont know how to land nav or use a GPS, they shouldn't be in a situation to need it anyways. Suggest all you want, which is a good thing mind you, leads to innovation and such, but I'm just telling you possible uses of this and how it would not ever be issued military wide, except for given situations I already listed. Maybe in the future, past my time, a practical application could be developed for this tech. But as the military works now, this tech would hinder more then help.

Nightdragon wrote:And why would we need it to be used as a tactical map? At least in the Corps, everyone knows how to navigate on land, and for those that have trouble with it, we got GPS's. And in the other branches, if they dont know how to land nav or use a GPS, they shouldn't be in a situation to need it anyways. Suggest all you want, which is a good thing mind you, leads to innovation and such, but I'm just telling you possible uses of this and how it would not ever be issued military wide, except for given situations I already listed. Maybe in the future, past my time, a practical application could be developed for this tech. But as the military works now, this tech would hinder more then help.

Agreed. As yet, the most highly programable unit is still the "Mark I, Private, (E-2)". Though they most often come from the factory defective and the ass kick... errrr, investment in programming is very high initialy; once online, they are remarkably flexible and adaptable for use in all kinds of climate and terain under close supervision.
In land manuver, from map and compass wilderness orientering (which is major suckage in brush), to road convoy operations, there is nothing yet that can beat a human.

I read somewhere that a car that had been driving extremely recklessly was finally caught by the police after a several mile chase, ending when it crashed into a pole. Turned out the driver was blind, and had always wanted to drive a car, visual impairment notwithstanding. He had a friend (who was drunk) in the passenger seat directing him.

Anyway, that seems like a very interesting idea, and it would be pretty neat. I can't really see it getting through legislature though, and even then, one crash, one lawsuit, and the whole thing is fucked.

Bara wrote:As yet, the most highly programable unit is still the "Mark I, Private, (E-2)". Though they most often come from the factory defective and the ass kick... errrr, investment in programming is very high initialy; once online, they are remarkably flexible and adaptable for use in all kinds of climate and terain under close supervision.

Well thats a very...ummm.... scientific way of putting it

Nightdragon wrote: At least in the Corps, everyone knows how to navigate on land, and for those that have trouble with it, we got GPS's. And in the other branches, if they dont know how to land nav or use a GPS, they shouldn't be in a situation to need it anyways. Suggest all you want, which is a good thing mind you, leads to innovation and such, but I'm just telling you possible uses of this and how it would not ever be issued military wide, except for given situations I already listed. Maybe in the future, past my time, a practical application could be developed for this tech. But as the military works now, this tech would hinder more than help.

I am sorry, being in the navy for some time has destroyed what little expertise I had of modern land warfare but I am still quite enthusiastic about it. I just thought IFVs could use that kind of technology when optical sights are destroyed or unuseable but I am certainly no expert on this field and therefore trusting your judgement as a member of a competent army.