IT’S DIFFICULT to make sense of Columbia City Council’s recent decision to acquire six aged and ailing trolleys from the Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority even as this community braces for a proposed 40 percent cut in bus service.
How is it that resurrecting a trolley system that has failed multiple times — once under the guidance of the city and again under the direction of the transit authority — has become a priority at such a pivotal moment in the life of the bus system? The trolleys were put to rest because they simply couldn’t be run efficiently and were too much of a drain on public coffers.
While the city will receive the trolleys at no cost from the transit authority, it’s going to cost a projected $30,000 to $40,000 to get them ready for the road — if not more. In a memo to city manager Steve Gantt, general services director David Knoche wrote: “As a reminder, there are six trolleys, none have run in the last year, four have not run in the last several years and were used to rob parts off of for the last two that were running.”
So, although the city takes over the trolleys at no cost, it remains to be seen exactly what it’s going to cost to get and keep them on the road.
The success of this endeavor is questionable enough considering the past failures and the condition of the trolleys. But the bigger concern is the city’s insistence on developing a separate plan to run, fund and manage the trolleys outside of the overall transit system. Using local tax dollars to put the trolleys back on the road should be out of the question, especially considering the state of the bus system — and all the other unmet service needs in these lean times.
Mayor Steve Benjamin said in an email that the city will seek grant funding to help put the trolleys back in service. It’s unclear exactly how a newly configured trolley system would work. Mr. Benjamin said the hope is to develop a downtown circular trolley service that would not only serve tourists but also help planned “park and ride” efforts. He said it’s important to develop various devices aimed at getting people out of their cars. An effective trolley service, he said, would “help with parking, traffic, air quality and the growth of the regional transit system.”
He also noted that citizens already have paid for the trolleys and that, in an effort to return them to use effectively, ”it was important to me to have them under our control again until a meaningful, big picture, fiscally conservative plan could be developed for them.”
If the trolley system is going to have a reasonable chance of success, it must work hand-in-hand with a viable bus system, which would bring people into town who would use the trolleys. It’s odd that the city is concentrating on the trolleys when the overall transit system is in danger of falling apart. Although Columbia and Lexington and Richland counties are providing funding for the bus system, the total allocation falls short of what it takes to keep the system operating at its current inadequate level, let alone supporting the kind of service this community actually needs.
The transit authority is considering potentially debilitating cuts to bus service as a result of a $3 million funding gap. Before those cuts could go into effect, the public must be allowed to comment. Anyone who cares about the bus system shouldn’t miss this opportunity. The first of three public hearings was held on Tuesday. The second begins at 5:30 p.m. today at the main Richland County library, 1431 Assembly St. The final one will be held at 11 a.m. Saturday at the transit authority headquarters, 3613 Lucius Road, off River Drive.
The direction and future of the bus system are in limbo. The system hasn’t had an executive director in months, the current board is on its way out, and it is hurting for money. The most immediate response on the part of local officials should be to spend more time and effort — and money — saving the bus system, not trying to salvage a defunct trolley system.
2011年10月19日星期三
2011年10月12日星期三
Council must explain its thinking
Walter Markham’s criticisms of PKC planning (PA, September 23) will resonate with many people.
The council has a raft of stated aims and policies, but it is unclear just how it applies those in development management.
It seems that staff are left to decide what to use and how, while adding “policies” of their own.
Differences of opinion between staff and members and among the latter are also often evident at committee meetings.
Since providing some level of certainty as to what will happen is a key role of the planning system this is grossly unsatisfactory.
A plan should not be a kind of “menu” from which members, officers, applicants or objectors can select whichever aims or policies support their opinions, while ignoring those which do not.
Even individual policies can be interpreted in many ways, since no criteria for their use are indicated.
An example is Policy 41 of the Perth Area Plan, the gist of which is that “infill” in housing areas should not “significantly” increase area densities. Since it is not said whether the area is the immediate environs, the street, or a larger unit and just what percentage eg. 5, 15, 25, or more is deemed “significant” this policy can mean anything the council chooses.
In some areas densities have increased by well over 100% through “infill” suggesting the council has not applied the policy at all. It seems to be left to staff to choose whether or not to use it, and if so, how. Yet in the 15 years since the plan was adopted there has been no seemingly no clarification of the matter. Officials should have sought such.
Mr Markham noted that no reference was made to pedestrian and bus accessibility in the report on the monastery land, although providing such is one of the government’s, and the council’s, priorities.
SPPs 3 and 17 and the new “Tactran” transport strategy as well as the development plans state this.
However, a reason offered for refusal was that views of “listed” buildings would be obscured by the proposed development. Yet the Council has no official policy for this matter. Perhaps it is an officers’ (“under the counter”) policy.
Moreover, it is a long established principle that planning consent cannot be refused to maintain views, nor to keep land in its existing condition. One would expect members and staff to know this.
Views of the monastery, and the open field, anyway, could easily be blocked by planting an evergreen hedge on its land close to the road. The council has no power to prevent this. Those who objected because they liked the existing landscape obviously did not realise this.
If councillors, officials and others had a proper understanding of these matters then a great deal of their time and public money would be saved.
The problems are exacerbated by the council’s failure to make clear, what its priorities are.
As with education, housing, recreation, etc planning decisions are “political” as well as “technical” and councils must explain how they interpret national and local policies and what their priorities are.
All proposals for public projects are subject to benefit/cost analyses, to indicate who will pay and who will gain. Development applications should be similarly assessed.
In Brighton, where I am temporarily based, the local council’s stated priorities are to provide much more housing and greatly reduce car use.
Its planning policies reflect this.
Although there are many “conservation areas” and “listed” buildings protection of these comes second to housing provision. Councillors and staff must follow this dictum in making development decisions. It requires them to be creative and imaginative in making recommendations/decisions.
In regard to car use, parking is not required on housing sites, since it is believed such encourages car ownership. A maximum of one stall per home is permitted. There is no parking for most staff at Council HQ.
Most then travel to work by bus, bike, or on foot.
PKC is, according to its website, preparing “supplementary guidance” on reduction of carbon emissions in development. These will focus on reducing energy use by locating, siting and designing buildings in particular ways.
Yet this key concern seems not to be addressed in development management, or by those making comments thereon.
I agree that the council should indicate to intending applicants what matters will be considered in assessing their proposals and ask them to provide statements showing how these will be addressed.
Those offering opinions, whether for or against, should also refer to these.
Many public comments ignore policies, except where these relate to their own interests, and offer no hard evidence to support their views. These are not then useful in making decisions.
Applicants must pay highly to have their proposals decided upon.
The council has a raft of stated aims and policies, but it is unclear just how it applies those in development management.
It seems that staff are left to decide what to use and how, while adding “policies” of their own.
Differences of opinion between staff and members and among the latter are also often evident at committee meetings.
Since providing some level of certainty as to what will happen is a key role of the planning system this is grossly unsatisfactory.
A plan should not be a kind of “menu” from which members, officers, applicants or objectors can select whichever aims or policies support their opinions, while ignoring those which do not.
Even individual policies can be interpreted in many ways, since no criteria for their use are indicated.
An example is Policy 41 of the Perth Area Plan, the gist of which is that “infill” in housing areas should not “significantly” increase area densities. Since it is not said whether the area is the immediate environs, the street, or a larger unit and just what percentage eg. 5, 15, 25, or more is deemed “significant” this policy can mean anything the council chooses.
In some areas densities have increased by well over 100% through “infill” suggesting the council has not applied the policy at all. It seems to be left to staff to choose whether or not to use it, and if so, how. Yet in the 15 years since the plan was adopted there has been no seemingly no clarification of the matter. Officials should have sought such.
Mr Markham noted that no reference was made to pedestrian and bus accessibility in the report on the monastery land, although providing such is one of the government’s, and the council’s, priorities.
SPPs 3 and 17 and the new “Tactran” transport strategy as well as the development plans state this.
However, a reason offered for refusal was that views of “listed” buildings would be obscured by the proposed development. Yet the Council has no official policy for this matter. Perhaps it is an officers’ (“under the counter”) policy.
Moreover, it is a long established principle that planning consent cannot be refused to maintain views, nor to keep land in its existing condition. One would expect members and staff to know this.
Views of the monastery, and the open field, anyway, could easily be blocked by planting an evergreen hedge on its land close to the road. The council has no power to prevent this. Those who objected because they liked the existing landscape obviously did not realise this.
If councillors, officials and others had a proper understanding of these matters then a great deal of their time and public money would be saved.
The problems are exacerbated by the council’s failure to make clear, what its priorities are.
As with education, housing, recreation, etc planning decisions are “political” as well as “technical” and councils must explain how they interpret national and local policies and what their priorities are.
All proposals for public projects are subject to benefit/cost analyses, to indicate who will pay and who will gain. Development applications should be similarly assessed.
In Brighton, where I am temporarily based, the local council’s stated priorities are to provide much more housing and greatly reduce car use.
Its planning policies reflect this.
Although there are many “conservation areas” and “listed” buildings protection of these comes second to housing provision. Councillors and staff must follow this dictum in making development decisions. It requires them to be creative and imaginative in making recommendations/decisions.
In regard to car use, parking is not required on housing sites, since it is believed such encourages car ownership. A maximum of one stall per home is permitted. There is no parking for most staff at Council HQ.
Most then travel to work by bus, bike, or on foot.
PKC is, according to its website, preparing “supplementary guidance” on reduction of carbon emissions in development. These will focus on reducing energy use by locating, siting and designing buildings in particular ways.
Yet this key concern seems not to be addressed in development management, or by those making comments thereon.
I agree that the council should indicate to intending applicants what matters will be considered in assessing their proposals and ask them to provide statements showing how these will be addressed.
Those offering opinions, whether for or against, should also refer to these.
Many public comments ignore policies, except where these relate to their own interests, and offer no hard evidence to support their views. These are not then useful in making decisions.
Applicants must pay highly to have their proposals decided upon.
2011年9月29日星期四
ILS Proton-M launches with QuetzSat-1
International Launch Services (ILS) have launched their Proton-M rocket on Thursday, on a mission which is marking their first ILS launch since the Russian workhorse returned to flight. Launch was on schedule at 18:32 GMT from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, with the Proton tasked with deploying the QuetzSat-1 telecommunications satellite for SES, after what will be nine hours of flight.
The Proton booster is 4.1 m (13.5 ft) in diameter along its second and third stages, with a first stage diameter of 7.4 m (24.3 ft). Overall height of the three stages of the Proton booster is 42.3 m (138.8 ft).
The first stage consists of a central tank containing the oxidizer surrounded by six outboard fuel tanks. Each fuel tank also carries one of the six RD-276 engines that provide first stage power. Total first stage vacuum-rated level thrust is 11.0 MN (2,500,000 lbf).
Of conventional cylindrical design, the second stage is powered by three RD-0210 engines plus one RD-0211 engine and develops a vacuum thrust of 2.4 MN (540,000 lbf).
Powered by one RD-0213 engine, the third stage develops thrust of 583 kN (131,000 lbf), and a four-nozzle vernier engine that produces thrust of 31 kN (7,000 lbf). Guidance, navigation, and control of the Proton M during operation of the first three stages is carried out by a triple redundant closed-loop digital avionics system mounted in the Proton’s third stage.
The Breeze-M upper stage is the Phase III variant, a recent upgrade which utilizes two new high-pressure tanks (80 liters) to replace six smaller tanks, along with the relocation of command instruments towards the centre – in order to mitigate shock loads when the additional propellant tank is being jettisoned.
It was a problem with that upper stage which resulted in the loss of the Ekspress-AM4 communications satellite last month – which was not an ILS mission – when the stage, otherwise known as the Briz-M, failed to insert the satellite into the correct transfer orbit due to a problem with the last of the mission profile burns.
A Russian government launch using the Proton-M and Briz-M has since successfully returned the duo to launch action ahead of the ILS mission.
Once again, the mission will be utilizing a 5-burn Breeze M profile after lift-off from Pad 39 at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, with the QuetzSat-1 satellite on board.
The first three stages of the Proton will use a standard ascent profile to place the orbital unit (Breeze M upper stage and the QuetzSat-1 satellite) into a sub-orbital trajectory. From this point in the mission, the Breeze M will perform planned mission maneuvers to advance the orbital unit first to a circular parking orbit, then to an intermediate orbit, followed by a transfer orbit, and finally to a geosynchronous transfer orbit.
Separation of the QuetzSat-1 satellite is scheduled to occur approximately 9 hours, 13 minutes after liftoff.
QuetzSat-1, part of the 45+ satellite fleet of SES, will be located at the 77 degree west orbital location at which the Mexican Government has granted the DTH frequency rights to QuetzSat S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican-controlled company comprised of SES and Mexican investors.
The spacecraft will provide coverage over Mexico, North America and Central America. The spacecraft is fully contracted to EchoStar Corporation and will be used in part by Dish Mexico, an EchoStar joint venture, for DTH services in Mexico and to a subsidiary of DISH Network for use in connection with its U.S. DTH business.
Sporting 32 Ku-band transponders, the spacecraft is expected to conduct a 15 year tour of duty in its Geostationary orbit at 77 degrees West.
“ILS is dedicated to the success of SES and its customer, EchoStar, with the selection of ILS Proton to launch QuetzSat-1,” said Frank McKenna, President of ILS. “This is the fourth SES satellite entrusted to ILS this year, and we look forward to providing outstanding quality, service and schedule assurance to support the continued growth of the SES satellite fleet.”
“We are pleased that ILS is partnering with SES, Space Systems/Loral and EchoStar in the QuetzSat-1 mission and look forward to a flawless, on-time and on-spec launch for QuetzSat-1 with ILS Proton,” added Martin Halliwell, President of SES ENGINEERING, the procurement and operations division of SES.
The Proton booster is 4.1 m (13.5 ft) in diameter along its second and third stages, with a first stage diameter of 7.4 m (24.3 ft). Overall height of the three stages of the Proton booster is 42.3 m (138.8 ft).
The first stage consists of a central tank containing the oxidizer surrounded by six outboard fuel tanks. Each fuel tank also carries one of the six RD-276 engines that provide first stage power. Total first stage vacuum-rated level thrust is 11.0 MN (2,500,000 lbf).
Of conventional cylindrical design, the second stage is powered by three RD-0210 engines plus one RD-0211 engine and develops a vacuum thrust of 2.4 MN (540,000 lbf).
Powered by one RD-0213 engine, the third stage develops thrust of 583 kN (131,000 lbf), and a four-nozzle vernier engine that produces thrust of 31 kN (7,000 lbf). Guidance, navigation, and control of the Proton M during operation of the first three stages is carried out by a triple redundant closed-loop digital avionics system mounted in the Proton’s third stage.
The Breeze-M upper stage is the Phase III variant, a recent upgrade which utilizes two new high-pressure tanks (80 liters) to replace six smaller tanks, along with the relocation of command instruments towards the centre – in order to mitigate shock loads when the additional propellant tank is being jettisoned.
It was a problem with that upper stage which resulted in the loss of the Ekspress-AM4 communications satellite last month – which was not an ILS mission – when the stage, otherwise known as the Briz-M, failed to insert the satellite into the correct transfer orbit due to a problem with the last of the mission profile burns.
A Russian government launch using the Proton-M and Briz-M has since successfully returned the duo to launch action ahead of the ILS mission.
Once again, the mission will be utilizing a 5-burn Breeze M profile after lift-off from Pad 39 at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, with the QuetzSat-1 satellite on board.
The first three stages of the Proton will use a standard ascent profile to place the orbital unit (Breeze M upper stage and the QuetzSat-1 satellite) into a sub-orbital trajectory. From this point in the mission, the Breeze M will perform planned mission maneuvers to advance the orbital unit first to a circular parking orbit, then to an intermediate orbit, followed by a transfer orbit, and finally to a geosynchronous transfer orbit.
Separation of the QuetzSat-1 satellite is scheduled to occur approximately 9 hours, 13 minutes after liftoff.
QuetzSat-1, part of the 45+ satellite fleet of SES, will be located at the 77 degree west orbital location at which the Mexican Government has granted the DTH frequency rights to QuetzSat S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican-controlled company comprised of SES and Mexican investors.
The spacecraft will provide coverage over Mexico, North America and Central America. The spacecraft is fully contracted to EchoStar Corporation and will be used in part by Dish Mexico, an EchoStar joint venture, for DTH services in Mexico and to a subsidiary of DISH Network for use in connection with its U.S. DTH business.
Sporting 32 Ku-band transponders, the spacecraft is expected to conduct a 15 year tour of duty in its Geostationary orbit at 77 degrees West.
“ILS is dedicated to the success of SES and its customer, EchoStar, with the selection of ILS Proton to launch QuetzSat-1,” said Frank McKenna, President of ILS. “This is the fourth SES satellite entrusted to ILS this year, and we look forward to providing outstanding quality, service and schedule assurance to support the continued growth of the SES satellite fleet.”
“We are pleased that ILS is partnering with SES, Space Systems/Loral and EchoStar in the QuetzSat-1 mission and look forward to a flawless, on-time and on-spec launch for QuetzSat-1 with ILS Proton,” added Martin Halliwell, President of SES ENGINEERING, the procurement and operations division of SES.
2011年8月18日星期四
Driver crashes Google’s 'driverless' robot Prius
I knew this would happen. It seems like Google’s much-ballyhooed driverless robot Prius was involved in a crash.
According to the website Jalopnik.com, the car – which uses radar sensors, a roof-mounted camera and lasers as a Parking guidance system – engaged in some “Prius-on-Prius” violence last week. Robocar bumped into the back of another Prius parked outside Google’s Mountain View, Calif., headquarters. The smack allegedly triggered a chain reaction fender bender with three other cars.
At first it seemed like a great day for people who hate the idea of self-driving cars (also known as “car lovers”) to get their gloat on. But faster than you could say, “Illogical! Illogical!,” in a vibrato computer voice, Google announced that a human was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Well, isn’t that just like a robot.
Burn around town bragging about how you are, according to Google’s chief autonomous car researcher Sebastian Thrun, “the perfect driving mechanism,” but the minute you get in a fender bender it’s blame the human time.
The incident reminded me of another robot car, one that would never have thought to blame its master, and one that would never have allowed that driver to be in accident in the first place – namely the Knight Industries Two Thousand (KITT), a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am driven by detective Michael Knight (actor David Hasselhoff) in the NBC 1980s television series Knight Rider.
KITT was endowed with enough artificial intelligence to know that it was probably best that the Hoff be relieved of any difficult driving duty. He could also converse eloquently (unlike Google’s prize Prius), refrained from using the contraction “ain’t” and often cracked dry jokes at his owner’s expense.
For example, from the “Knight Flight to Freedom” episode:
Michael: What’s with the darkened windows pal?
KITT: This is Hollywood, Michael. I’m wearing sunglasses.
How did we go from a wisecracking, kick-ass, supercomputer Trans Am to a laser-guided nerd-ride Prius with a camera stuck on its head? And who’s responsible?
That’s the big question, isn’t it? If a robot Prius hits my ride in a parking lot is it programmed to leave a note? Or does it do a quick calculation on my finding out and then peel away? Who knows? It might wait around and vaporize me.
Robots and computers are not known for their empathy or mercy and, if my interactions with the Internet, mobile phones, PCs, ad hoc genre, are anything to go by, then their prime directive is to inflict as much suffering and frustration on us carbon-based life forms as computerly possible.
Sure, human drivers are awful but at least a human can be fined and sent to jail. If you tell a robot car it’s in trouble it would just give you a “does not compute” and turn itself off. We already have enough problems with people not taking responsibility for their driving without the added excuse “the robot made me do it.”
Robot lovers will argue that computers are less likely to make mistakes. The Prius, for instance, went 250,000 kilometres without an accident. That does not impress me. My grandfather drove his entire life without an accident. Sorry, correction. He flipped a jeep over once, but that was in Italy in 1944 and he was fighting the Germans, so he gets a pass.
Why build a driverless car at all? I’d say it’s because it gets our global technocrats one step closer to realizing their ultimate fantasy – having us infantilized inside our steel rolling wombs - free to be enslaved by our distractions.
I can hear the marketing people now: “Distractions aren’t the problem. It’s the driving. We need to get rid of the driving. Think of it. Every minute a person is driving is a minute he could be buying something!” We could Google ourselves silly in our no-brainer robot cars.
Roboholics will argue that computer cars will save lives. Most accidents are caused by human error. So are most births. If it weren’t for half-a-pint of gin and poor judgment, most of us wouldn’t be here. You want to make the roads safer? Make driving a privilege (don’t give a licence to just anyone who can walk and chew gum), spend money on public transit, stop trying to solve transportation problems with solutions and thinking that are 50 years old.
If you insist on creating robot cars, at least make them like KITT. I want a Trans Am loaded with Turbo Boost, Etymorphic and Anamorphic equalizers, olfactory sensors and molecular bonded shell. But who am I? I’m only human. I should just shut up, stick a burger in my mouth and leave the thinking to the computers.
I think KITT and the Hoff put it best in the “Knight Song” episode. “Michael, I may not be flesh and blood, but I am a friend. And I wish you happiness, but I still don't understand.”
“In a way,” Michael replied. “Neither do I.”
According to the website Jalopnik.com, the car – which uses radar sensors, a roof-mounted camera and lasers as a Parking guidance system – engaged in some “Prius-on-Prius” violence last week. Robocar bumped into the back of another Prius parked outside Google’s Mountain View, Calif., headquarters. The smack allegedly triggered a chain reaction fender bender with three other cars.
At first it seemed like a great day for people who hate the idea of self-driving cars (also known as “car lovers”) to get their gloat on. But faster than you could say, “Illogical! Illogical!,” in a vibrato computer voice, Google announced that a human was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Well, isn’t that just like a robot.
Burn around town bragging about how you are, according to Google’s chief autonomous car researcher Sebastian Thrun, “the perfect driving mechanism,” but the minute you get in a fender bender it’s blame the human time.
The incident reminded me of another robot car, one that would never have thought to blame its master, and one that would never have allowed that driver to be in accident in the first place – namely the Knight Industries Two Thousand (KITT), a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am driven by detective Michael Knight (actor David Hasselhoff) in the NBC 1980s television series Knight Rider.
KITT was endowed with enough artificial intelligence to know that it was probably best that the Hoff be relieved of any difficult driving duty. He could also converse eloquently (unlike Google’s prize Prius), refrained from using the contraction “ain’t” and often cracked dry jokes at his owner’s expense.
For example, from the “Knight Flight to Freedom” episode:
Michael: What’s with the darkened windows pal?
KITT: This is Hollywood, Michael. I’m wearing sunglasses.
How did we go from a wisecracking, kick-ass, supercomputer Trans Am to a laser-guided nerd-ride Prius with a camera stuck on its head? And who’s responsible?
That’s the big question, isn’t it? If a robot Prius hits my ride in a parking lot is it programmed to leave a note? Or does it do a quick calculation on my finding out and then peel away? Who knows? It might wait around and vaporize me.
Robots and computers are not known for their empathy or mercy and, if my interactions with the Internet, mobile phones, PCs, ad hoc genre, are anything to go by, then their prime directive is to inflict as much suffering and frustration on us carbon-based life forms as computerly possible.
Sure, human drivers are awful but at least a human can be fined and sent to jail. If you tell a robot car it’s in trouble it would just give you a “does not compute” and turn itself off. We already have enough problems with people not taking responsibility for their driving without the added excuse “the robot made me do it.”
Robot lovers will argue that computers are less likely to make mistakes. The Prius, for instance, went 250,000 kilometres without an accident. That does not impress me. My grandfather drove his entire life without an accident. Sorry, correction. He flipped a jeep over once, but that was in Italy in 1944 and he was fighting the Germans, so he gets a pass.
Why build a driverless car at all? I’d say it’s because it gets our global technocrats one step closer to realizing their ultimate fantasy – having us infantilized inside our steel rolling wombs - free to be enslaved by our distractions.
I can hear the marketing people now: “Distractions aren’t the problem. It’s the driving. We need to get rid of the driving. Think of it. Every minute a person is driving is a minute he could be buying something!” We could Google ourselves silly in our no-brainer robot cars.
Roboholics will argue that computer cars will save lives. Most accidents are caused by human error. So are most births. If it weren’t for half-a-pint of gin and poor judgment, most of us wouldn’t be here. You want to make the roads safer? Make driving a privilege (don’t give a licence to just anyone who can walk and chew gum), spend money on public transit, stop trying to solve transportation problems with solutions and thinking that are 50 years old.
If you insist on creating robot cars, at least make them like KITT. I want a Trans Am loaded with Turbo Boost, Etymorphic and Anamorphic equalizers, olfactory sensors and molecular bonded shell. But who am I? I’m only human. I should just shut up, stick a burger in my mouth and leave the thinking to the computers.
I think KITT and the Hoff put it best in the “Knight Song” episode. “Michael, I may not be flesh and blood, but I am a friend. And I wish you happiness, but I still don't understand.”
“In a way,” Michael replied. “Neither do I.”
订阅：
博文 (Atom)