http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/technology/googles-next-phase-in-driverless-cars-no-brakes-or-steering-wheel.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw
I searched Google in the New York Times and found an article about the Google self-driving car. I was thinking "How can a car drive itself?" I was even more confused when I read that the car had only two buttons, start and emergency stop. I should've known that, being Google, they would have made it controlled by a smartphone app. I don't think this self-driving car is a good idea, because even though there is no wheel turning, and people will like that, how does it know, without any delay, that another car is switching lanes or about to crash into the self-driving one? Also, this car is really small, and it looks (awesome!!!!) like a smart car. I think it looks like it has eyes.
quarta-feira, 3 de setembro de 2014
KC - 135 Crash
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/asia/2-bodies-found-at-crash-of-military-tanker-in-kyrgyzstan.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As
My grandfather used to be in the U.S. Air Force. He flew a KC-135, which is a (the coolest) tanker plane. Basically they can refuel fighters and other planes in the air. They're pretty important. Anyway, I searched that plane up in the New York Times, and found an article about a crash of this plane that happened last year. I clicked on this article because it's my grandad's plane (and he's awesome!!!). He told me about another KC - 135 crash, 5 years ago. I'll make another post about that later. Anyway, this crash doesn't have the reason the plane crashed, and that was disappointing. But, here's the link so you can read it yourself:
My grandfather used to be in the U.S. Air Force. He flew a KC-135, which is a (the coolest) tanker plane. Basically they can refuel fighters and other planes in the air. They're pretty important. Anyway, I searched that plane up in the New York Times, and found an article about a crash of this plane that happened last year. I clicked on this article because it's my grandad's plane (and he's awesome!!!). He told me about another KC - 135 crash, 5 years ago. I'll make another post about that later. Anyway, this crash doesn't have the reason the plane crashed, and that was disappointing. But, here's the link so you can read it yourself:
Why Star Trek: Into Darkness Wasn't a Bad Movie
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/mohvies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw
I was searching through the New York Times and found a review of the newest Star Trek movie, Into Darkness. It was pretty clear to see that the author of this article wasn't a big fan on this movie. He called the plot dumb, and was upset due to the militarization of Starfleet. I did not agree with him on this. I did watch some of the older movies and episodes of Star Trek, and their goal was just exploration. There were lots of battle scenes , but that was defense. In this new movie, Kirk is sent on a mission to fire 72 torpedoes at a criminal on a different planet. That doesn't sound like an exploration does it? But I think this was totally necessary to the story. Kirk doesn't realize it's a trap, and doesn't care it's a military operation because this guy killed his friend. Spock says this is immoral and against Starfleet regulations, but no one cares. This is why they end up talking to Khan, which gets them on the Vengeance and to admiral Marcus, where he is killed and Khan gets away. If this mission was not there, the movie would have been ruined. Also, Starfleet wasn't militarized, it was just that one assignment to the Enterprise that was.
I also think the plot was great, from the bombing of the archive (Weapons Facility), to Kirk dieing in the warp core. It was cool to see Kirk die in the warp core in Into Darkness after seeing Spock die in the warp core in Wrath of Khan, where the same enemy threatens the ship.
The author of the New York Times review thinks that Into Darkness was disappointing, but I think it was a great movie and that people should remember that this movie, along with the 2009 Star Trek, is an alternate timeline, so everything is different. And this movie fit that timeline very well.
I was searching through the New York Times and found a review of the newest Star Trek movie, Into Darkness. It was pretty clear to see that the author of this article wasn't a big fan on this movie. He called the plot dumb, and was upset due to the militarization of Starfleet. I did not agree with him on this. I did watch some of the older movies and episodes of Star Trek, and their goal was just exploration. There were lots of battle scenes , but that was defense. In this new movie, Kirk is sent on a mission to fire 72 torpedoes at a criminal on a different planet. That doesn't sound like an exploration does it? But I think this was totally necessary to the story. Kirk doesn't realize it's a trap, and doesn't care it's a military operation because this guy killed his friend. Spock says this is immoral and against Starfleet regulations, but no one cares. This is why they end up talking to Khan, which gets them on the Vengeance and to admiral Marcus, where he is killed and Khan gets away. If this mission was not there, the movie would have been ruined. Also, Starfleet wasn't militarized, it was just that one assignment to the Enterprise that was.
I also think the plot was great, from the bombing of the archive (Weapons Facility), to Kirk dieing in the warp core. It was cool to see Kirk die in the warp core in Into Darkness after seeing Spock die in the warp core in Wrath of Khan, where the same enemy threatens the ship.
The author of the New York Times review thinks that Into Darkness was disappointing, but I think it was a great movie and that people should remember that this movie, along with the 2009 Star Trek, is an alternate timeline, so everything is different. And this movie fit that timeline very well.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)