Captchas may be easily solvable for a specific type of obfuscation. But it is extremely computationally intensive and still the best generic systems struggle below 90%, sometimes well below, when it comes to solving any generic type and not a specific method. The article from the verge about Google posted above a 96% success rate for house numbers lmao how many literate and sober humans are that bad at reading straight forward numbers? Humans are still better going into 2016 hence the croudsourced software models still in use today.
If he means he is willing to accept full liability for any and all problems that's one thing. But I doubt we will have autonomous cars that can replace drivers in anything but freeway and some limited pre mapped city driving situations any time soon. It's difficult for computers to solve visual captchas humans solve easily, likewise humans navigate better than computers today with far inferior sensors. We can essentially duplicate the computational power of a common housefly, but that housefly has superior navigation and SLAM to any man made machine we have today, using far inferior sensors. But hey if it's just a stunt to raise money for research that's not really a bad thing.
Agreed.... but that is saying something different than saying that electric cars have emissions
Most Americans don't understand grade school level physics and don't realize it is impossible to have a zero emission vehicle.
Electric vehicles *ARE* zero emission.... it is the production of electricity in the first place that may not be.... Electric cars do *NOT* directly cause any emissions, and suggesting that they are not zero emission just because the production of electricity may not be is *FAR* more misleading about the nature what is actually causing harm to the environment.
By your reasoning, light bulbs are a zero emission device and these newfangled efficient LED ones are a waste of money
The LED ones use electricity more efficiently.... if the production of electricity in the first place causes emissions, then at the very least, using LEDs instead of light bulbs will at least contribute less pollution to that end. If somebody made light bulbs that used electricity as efficiently as LED's and could produce just as much illumination and were cheaper than LED's, then LED's would indeed just be a waste of money, as you said.
The point being led bulbs are mandated for enviornmental reasons and the enviornmental impact argument is often right on the box. I have not seen this for electric cars, i live in an area of the us where electrics get 38 mpg, and are marginally better to not better for the enviornment than efficent gas/diesel. Yet this is never made transparent to customers. Agreed that you at least understand decoupling the power generation and impact from devices is disingenuous.
Some people are actually buying electric cars because they believe things like they have no CO2 impact (completely false) or that the human noticable soot and smell from some diesels (older ones that need maintainance) are worse for you than the non noticable nano particle laden emissions from gas vehicles(also false).
I didn't say that electric cars have no CO2 impact.... Certainly their CO2 impact could be substantial (albeit still far less than a gasoline vehicle) if the production of electricity in the first place causes CO2, and there is a CO2 impact for their manufacture as well, although that impact is not any larger than the CO2 impact for the industrial manufacturing of anything, per kilogram of manufactured and produced goods. However, I am specifically talking about *vehicle emissions* here, that is, the gasses that would actually be emitted directly from the vehicle itself. An electric vehicle produces none of those. Certainly it's fair to say that electric vehicle vehicles have CO2 impact, and if you want to draw attention to that point, then don't be talking about emissions at all, because that only confuses the issue.
It does noting of the sort. You admit the importance and sanity of declaring light bulbs to be coupled to the power generation source, electric cars are absolutely no different. Pretending its someone else's problem while actively usng the energy is two faced. If anything this should be clear so more people vote to reduce the emissions of their electric cars
Like I said before.... if you want to simplify things for the person who is too dumb to understand the difference between emissions caused by the production of electricity in the first place and emissions that are directly caused by the usage of that electricity, then stick to your opening phrase.... "there is no such thing as a free lunch". It's concise, entirely true, and very well understood by most people.
Sure but if we are talking transparency it needs to be clear. Where i live, and it's not uncommon in the us, electrics get 35-40mpg. This wont change substantially over the next 10 years eit
It's not easy to burn humans, skin is usually covered by a film of moisture and skin is composed of mainly water which has a high specific heat. Eyes on the other hand are easily blinded by lasers orders of magnitude less energetic that those causing burns. Even reflections from objects can cause temporary or permenant blindness. A technology for hologram displays that blinds it's users is of limited value.
No there is no such thing as a free lunch. Electric cars are just the equivelant of a regular gas powered car where you can hide the tailpipe. Most Americans don't understand grade school level physics and don't realize it is impossible to have a zero emission vehicle. By your reasoning, light bulbs are a zero emission device and these newfangled efficient LED ones are a waste of money As I said in the op it should be made transparent and people should not be lied to. Some people are actually buying electric cars because they believe things like they have no CO2 impact (completely false) or that the human noticable soot and smell from some diesels (older ones that need maintainance) are worse for you than the non noticable nano particle laden emissions from gas vehicles(also false).
When they use energy produced by coal power plants the emissions are roughly equivalent to driving a regular gas powered car. In most places, they range somewhere between an efficient gasoline powered car and a hybrid. There are also emissions involved with the manufacturing and recycling of the car.
Actually when powered solely by coal, they are the same as, or in extreme cases worse than, a regular car. Places like India and China have terrible emissions per kWh and this translates to bad environmental impacts for electric cars. The USA has a decent mix of power and also emission standard but a large portion comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. It really depends on your regional power grid, there isn't a one size fits all explanation.
In general the recycling isn't too much worse at all for today's cars that use lithium batteries as these are relatively non toxic. It's the NiMh packs that are the environmental disaster.
But this is completely unfair to the people who have been lied to. Release them from fixing the cars, require them to produce electric cars and then also give vouchers for discounts to free new vehicles to existing owners. Further there is no such thing as zero emission vehicles, and as part of this transparency, they need to provide reasonable details as to the regional pollution the electric vehicles will cause. In terms of CO2 this means generally 50-60 mpg equivalent in the USA but some regions are less and some more. Note that this is better than the mpg promised on their clean diesels but not by a huge amount. For example if used in Finland they may be around 100+ while if charged in India may only be 20mpg. They can even tie it into solar installations where appropriate and subsidies exist. Finally, if we are still talking transparency, the cost of replacement batteries and the expected lifetimes should be made clear. Battery technologies do not evolve quickly and early adopters of hybrid and electrics are just now suffering from this very large cost. Spreading this out in a payment plan, possibly guaranteeing government subsidy up front at purchase for a future replacement, would likely make more sense for many customers, rather than be slapped with a 4-8k replacement charge 8-10 years from rolling off the assembly line and help to increase resale values as well.
I do not know the specific details of this battery, but it seems to imply it not only has a greater energy density but has a similar power density. Energy density is just the total energy of the battery, typically discharged at an extremely slow rate like 20 hours, divided by the volume. Power density is how fast you can discharge the battery, essentially energy per unit time, with the density also being per volume. What will make these batteries successful is if the actual capacity at a typical discharge rate needed for these devices is better than current batteries, with similar or greater cycle lifespans, and for nearly the same cost or less cost.
If someone accuses for no reason accuses my ordinary backpack of being a bomb (sold with a convenient bomb-holder!) I'm going to say , "that's right, it's a bomb" and then think "idiot".
Now I go to jail? And I am, what, 12?
At what point does this obsession with controlling people's speech for fear of bombings and mass murder start to shade into a violation of the 1st Amendment right to be fucking sarcastic, ironic and otherwise you know, conscious?
You know how many people died due to acts of terrorism and mass shootings compared to falling in the fucking tub ? Know what your odds are wrt getting shot / bombed by strangers anywhere in America?
I know both sides are rolling around in th mud of current events in order to achieve their desired legislative ends - the left gun control and the right cessation of Muslim immigration but to both sides I say, in the spirit of Madison and Jefferson- fucking blow me.
Fucking wake the fuck up and see how you're both being played for goddamn fools by the people who want to have more control over your speech , your privacy, YOUR KIDS and all your "inalienable" rights.
It's pretty much a fact teddy bear deaths involving infants far exceeds the deaths due to terrorist activity in the USA over the last 10 years. It's about time we threw these guys in prison too.
The paper simply cites that on a per calorie basis many vegtables like lettuce, cucumbers, celery, etc are worse for the enviornment. It's actually obvious because these foods have no nutritional value with respect to calories, yet require water and other resources to bring to the table. The same paper states nutrition rich plant materials are actually better. The "debunking" article is just a knee jerking response and addresses "issues" that were never brought up in the paper. What we need to help fix this planet are people that run off of logic, not emotions.
A workaround for overreaching governments and individuals abusing their power. It's metabullshit because you aren't obfuscating who the data is comming from, where it is going to, or even how often. Supposedly that was all that was important right? The American government couldn't secure their own data, idiocy is rampant. How exactly is compromising all business and personal transactions to intercept a nearly non-existent threat even helping at all, except to perhaps facilitate your own illegal agenda? FFS the day the government actually addresses issues in the order of deaths per year, or even in financial damages per year to the American public is the day hell will freeze over.
The potential for misuse seems pretty small to me.
The hell there isn't potential for misuse. Registering drones means now the gubermint has a list of names and addresses. First they will come and demand my drones. Then they will do it with guns! Hell they are even trying to say i can't have guns on my drones - how stupid is that?
Yep and according to article 21 it wont even go into force until 30 days after at least 55 parties accounting for at least 55 percent of emissions sign. The only teeth are for the tiny developing nations that would receive financial support, so the United States, China, and India, among others, will see no real complications from just signing and doing whatever they want.
Until I get the time to painstakingly go over the document and we see some real results across the board I'm just going to assume its all pillow talk. Besides the USA doing their own usual workarounds (changing locations for manufacturing), letting China and India do their own thing wont really pan out for this whole 2C thing. 2C is likely an unachievable fantasy at this point.
How much of this is actually just video advertisements? Without ad blocking software on im just spammed with video on every page. Moreover you have to sit through advertisements on many of the popular streaming services. I would be interested to know the total bandwidth involved as a percentage of total bandwidth.
More importantly the cost now, and possible costs in the future necessitate unbiased and well funded research niether of which is happening to the extent it probably should.
We could really use more capable satalletes, better land and sea based data acquisition, and other hardware. Similarily we could use more research as the problem is quite difficult and the cutting edge today is determining what will happen regionally; this is something we need if we are to prevent resource wars likely to happen no matter the actual cause of warming.
As the taste usually tells you about the nutrient content, you are right to pursue a natural taste, not just for taste.
The taste dosent tell you much about the nutritional content actually, if you look at scientific studies. Simply storing the produce properly results in relatively low nutritional difference between peak and consumed states assuming it was not frozen (due to often being balanced first), or cooked. In many cases peeling (such as apples and peaches), and cooking are far and away the largest factors in reduced nutritional value. In some cases, with some nutrients, the content available for human absorption actually increases with storage. Even being harvested early and shipped for long periods dosent affect nutrition that much, often far less than processing such as cooking it. So taste, while important for enjoyment, is a poor indicator of actual nutritional value.
Slashdot Mirror
Captchas may be easily solvable for a specific type of obfuscation. But it is extremely computationally intensive and still the best generic systems struggle below 90%, sometimes well below, when it comes to solving any generic type and not a specific method. The article from the verge about Google posted above a 96% success rate for house numbers lmao how many literate and sober humans are that bad at reading straight forward numbers? Humans are still better going into 2016 hence the croudsourced software models still in use today.
If he means he is willing to accept full liability for any and all problems that's one thing. But I doubt we will have autonomous cars that can replace drivers in anything but freeway and some limited pre mapped city driving situations any time soon. It's difficult for computers to solve visual captchas humans solve easily, likewise humans navigate better than computers today with far inferior sensors. We can essentially duplicate the computational power of a common housefly, but that housefly has superior navigation and SLAM to any man made machine we have today, using far inferior sensors. But hey if it's just a stunt to raise money for research that's not really a bad thing.
Agreed.... but that is saying something different than saying that electric cars have emissions
Electric vehicles *ARE* zero emission.... it is the production of electricity in the first place that may not be.... Electric cars do *NOT* directly cause any emissions, and suggesting that they are not zero emission just because the production of electricity may not be is *FAR* more misleading about the nature what is actually causing harm to the environment.
The LED ones use electricity more efficiently.... if the production of electricity in the first place causes emissions, then at the very least, using LEDs instead of light bulbs will at least contribute less pollution to that end. If somebody made light bulbs that used electricity as efficiently as LED's and could produce just as much illumination and were cheaper than LED's, then LED's would indeed just be a waste of money, as you said.
The point being led bulbs are mandated for enviornmental reasons and the enviornmental impact argument is often right on the box. I have not seen this for electric cars, i live in an area of the us where electrics get 38 mpg, and are marginally better to not better for the enviornment than efficent gas/diesel. Yet this is never made transparent to customers. Agreed that you at least understand decoupling the power generation and impact from devices is disingenuous.
I didn't say that electric cars have no CO2 impact.... Certainly their CO2 impact could be substantial (albeit still far less than a gasoline vehicle) if the production of electricity in the first place causes CO2, and there is a CO2 impact for their manufacture as well, although that impact is not any larger than the CO2 impact for the industrial manufacturing of anything, per kilogram of manufactured and produced goods. However, I am specifically talking about *vehicle emissions* here, that is, the gasses that would actually be emitted directly from the vehicle itself. An electric vehicle produces none of those. Certainly it's fair to say that electric vehicle vehicles have CO2 impact, and if you want to draw attention to that point, then don't be talking about emissions at all, because that only confuses the issue.
It does noting of the sort. You admit the importance and sanity of declaring light bulbs to be coupled to the power generation source, electric cars are absolutely no different. Pretending its someone else's problem while actively usng the energy is two faced. If anything this should be clear so more people vote to reduce the emissions of their electric cars
Like I said before.... if you want to simplify things for the person who is too dumb to understand the difference between emissions caused by the production of electricity in the first place and emissions that are directly caused by the usage of that electricity, then stick to your opening phrase.... "there is no such thing as a free lunch". It's concise, entirely true, and very well understood by most people.
Sure but if we are talking transparency it needs to be clear. Where i live, and it's not uncommon in the us, electrics get 35-40mpg. This wont change substantially over the next 10 years eit
It's not easy to burn humans, skin is usually covered by a film of moisture and skin is composed of mainly water which has a high specific heat.
Eyes on the other hand are easily blinded by lasers orders of magnitude less energetic that those causing burns. Even reflections from objects can cause temporary or permenant blindness. A technology for hologram displays that blinds it's users is of limited value.
No there is no such thing as a free lunch. Electric cars are just the equivelant of a regular gas powered car where you can hide the tailpipe. Most Americans don't understand grade school level physics and don't realize it is impossible to have a zero emission vehicle. By your reasoning, light bulbs are a zero emission device and these newfangled efficient LED ones are a waste of money
As I said in the op it should be made transparent and people should not be lied to. Some people are actually buying electric cars because they believe things like they have no CO2 impact (completely false) or that the human noticable soot and smell from some diesels (older ones that need maintainance) are worse for you than the non noticable nano particle laden emissions from gas vehicles(also false).
When they use energy produced by coal power plants the emissions are roughly equivalent to driving a regular gas powered car. In most places, they range somewhere between an efficient gasoline powered car and a hybrid. There are also emissions involved with the manufacturing and recycling of the car.
Actually when powered solely by coal, they are the same as, or in extreme cases worse than, a regular car. Places like India and China have terrible emissions per kWh and this translates to bad environmental impacts for electric cars. The USA has a decent mix of power and also emission standard but a large portion comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. It really depends on your regional power grid, there isn't a one size fits all explanation.
In general the recycling isn't too much worse at all for today's cars that use lithium batteries as these are relatively non toxic. It's the NiMh packs that are the environmental disaster.
But this is completely unfair to the people who have been lied to. Release them from fixing the cars, require them to produce electric cars and then also give vouchers for discounts to free new vehicles to existing owners.
Further there is no such thing as zero emission vehicles, and as part of this transparency, they need to provide reasonable details as to the regional pollution the electric vehicles will cause. In terms of CO2 this means generally 50-60 mpg equivalent in the USA but some regions are less and some more. Note that this is better than the mpg promised on their clean diesels but not by a huge amount. For example if used in Finland they may be around 100+ while if charged in India may only be 20mpg. They can even tie it into solar installations where appropriate and subsidies exist.
Finally, if we are still talking transparency, the cost of replacement batteries and the expected lifetimes should be made clear. Battery technologies do not evolve quickly and early adopters of hybrid and electrics are just now suffering from this very large cost. Spreading this out in a payment plan, possibly guaranteeing government subsidy up front at purchase for a future replacement, would likely make more sense for many customers, rather than be slapped with a 4-8k replacement charge 8-10 years from rolling off the assembly line and help to increase resale values as well.
I do not know the specific details of this battery, but it seems to imply it not only has a greater energy density but has a similar power density. Energy density is just the total energy of the battery, typically discharged at an extremely slow rate like 20 hours, divided by the volume. Power density is how fast you can discharge the battery, essentially energy per unit time, with the density also being per volume.
What will make these batteries successful is if the actual capacity at a typical discharge rate needed for these devices is better than current batteries, with similar or greater cycle lifespans, and for nearly the same cost or less cost.
If someone accuses for no reason accuses my ordinary backpack of being a bomb (sold with a convenient bomb-holder!) I'm going to say , "that's right, it's a bomb" and then think "idiot".
Now I go to jail? And I am, what, 12?
At what point does this obsession with controlling people's speech for fear of bombings and mass murder start to shade into a violation of the 1st Amendment right to be fucking sarcastic, ironic and otherwise you know, conscious?
You know how many people died due to acts of terrorism and mass shootings compared to falling in the fucking tub ? Know what your odds are wrt getting shot / bombed by strangers anywhere in America?
I know both sides are rolling around in th mud of current events in order to achieve their desired legislative ends - the left gun control and the right cessation of Muslim immigration but to both sides I say, in the spirit of Madison and Jefferson- fucking blow me.
Fucking wake the fuck up and see how you're both being played for goddamn fools by the people who want to have more control over your speech , your privacy, YOUR KIDS and all your "inalienable" rights.
It's pretty much a fact teddy bear deaths involving infants far exceeds the deaths due to terrorist activity in the USA over the last 10 years. It's about time we threw these guys in prison too.
The actual catalogue
I liked the robot chicken take on this.
The paper simply cites that on a per calorie basis many vegtables like lettuce, cucumbers, celery, etc are worse for the enviornment. It's actually obvious because these foods have no nutritional value with respect to calories, yet require water and other resources to bring to the table. The same paper states nutrition rich plant materials are actually better. The "debunking" article is just a knee jerking response and addresses "issues" that were never brought up in the paper. What we need to help fix this planet are people that run off of logic, not emotions.
A workaround for overreaching governments and individuals abusing their power. It's metabullshit because you aren't obfuscating who the data is comming from, where it is going to, or even how often. Supposedly that was all that was important right? The American government couldn't secure their own data, idiocy is rampant. How exactly is compromising all business and personal transactions to intercept a nearly non-existent threat even helping at all, except to perhaps facilitate your own illegal agenda? FFS the day the government actually addresses issues in the order of deaths per year, or even in financial damages per year to the American public is the day hell will freeze over.
You must be new to business. You keep applying logic and reason. This is actually typical behavior.
The potential for misuse seems pretty small to me.
The hell there isn't potential for misuse. Registering drones means now the gubermint has a list of names and addresses. First they will come and demand my drones. Then they will do it with guns! Hell they are even trying to say i can't have guns on my drones - how stupid is that?
Elon must love terrifying himself with all his talk of AI lately.
Yep and according to article 21 it wont even go into force until 30 days after at least 55 parties accounting for at least 55 percent of emissions sign. The only teeth are for the tiny developing nations that would receive financial support, so the United States, China, and India, among others, will see no real complications from just signing and doing whatever they want.
Until I get the time to painstakingly go over the document and we see some real results across the board I'm just going to assume its all pillow talk. Besides the USA doing their own usual workarounds (changing locations for manufacturing), letting China and India do their own thing wont really pan out for this whole 2C thing. 2C is likely an unachievable fantasy at this point.
The recent sources i have seen state the continuation of radiation heating is 50% or more of the total heat.
Yes organic diamonds are far superior. Did you ever go to get a synthetic one appraised and find a disturbing lack of carbon?
How much of this is actually just video advertisements? Without ad blocking software on im just spammed with video on every page. Moreover you have to sit through advertisements on many of the popular streaming services. I would be interested to know the total bandwidth involved as a percentage of total bandwidth.
If its free for all count me in - i love free stuff!
More importantly the cost now, and possible costs in the future necessitate unbiased and well funded research niether of which is happening to the extent it probably should.
We could really use more capable satalletes, better land and sea based data acquisition, and other hardware. Similarily we could use more research as the problem is quite difficult and the cutting edge today is determining what will happen regionally; this is something we need if we are to prevent resource wars likely to happen no matter the actual cause of warming.
As the taste usually tells you about the nutrient content, you are right to pursue a natural taste, not just for taste.
The taste dosent tell you much about the nutritional content actually, if you look at scientific studies. Simply storing the produce properly results in relatively low nutritional difference between peak and consumed states assuming it was not frozen (due to often being balanced first), or cooked. In many cases peeling (such as apples and peaches), and cooking are far and away the largest factors in reduced nutritional value. In some cases, with some nutrients, the content available for human absorption actually increases with storage. Even being harvested early and shipped for long periods dosent affect nutrition that much, often far less than processing such as cooking it. So taste, while important for enjoyment, is a poor indicator of actual nutritional value.
Through microlensing of objects located behind the filiments. So yes by the lensing effects.