Assuming that the question is about neighborhoods to avoid, of course the computer wouldn't care. But the people who take the cab's might. I know a woman who lives in a gated neighborhood, has a saferoom and an ADT system and she's still fearful of people. Especially you know.... those people. Throw in a touch of racism, and now you have a group of people who won't use the services because they don't want to be in a driverless vehicle in a part of town they are afraid of.
And now you have a problem. Look at Amazon - they have their promised 1 day delivery system, and have been found out that in the cities they rolled it out in, they don't offer it to...... you guessed it. - the poorer parts of town. Has been causing thm some negative feedback.
You can already rent a car and shit in it and avoid darkies if you are so inclined. I don't see why you would want to do either, but whatever floats your boat.
Whooshes. Using driverless vehicles as latrines is not something that many people at all are going to do. But unless humanity has underwent some massive change, yeah, there are someweirdos out there that will. Some people are just like that. Maybe angry at the world, who knows. Even without purposeful vandalism events, there are people who have pets or children who aren't that good about cleaning up after themselves. Hell, there are people who change their children's diapers on top of restaurant tables. A fair number of people are just disgusting pigs. Or considering that drunk people often use cabs, puke is going to be a problem. The nicer thing about having a human in the loop is that the driver can clean up mishaps. So even without malice, you stand a good chance of having to sit with a shitty diaper or with vomit.
Unless the people problems are solved, you can have a perfect technical system and it will fail. Maybe post a cop in every self driving taxi......
Do you seriously think that Lyft would deploy cars that don't video-record every second of interior and exterior activity from multiple angles, indexed against the full contact information of each user?
As I wrote in another post, they could inadvertantly record kiddie porn as well. As well, if someone decided to take a piss, they better have cameras trained on all passenger's crotches. They could have a side business of selling the resulting porn to online companies.
Seriously, the fact that so many are focusing on technical issues to the questions is just proving my point that everyone is ignoring the human issues.
I asked this very question a couple months ago in a thread and people insisted there would be smell sensors and cameras so that the car could drive itself somewhere and clean itself before being used again.
Sure. Many public buses already have cameras observing the passengers. Security cameras are also common on elevators. If someone soils or damages a car, the car can drive itself somewhere to be cleaned or repaired. The cost will be billed to the credit card of the passenger who caused the damage, with the camera recording kept as evidence in case they dispute the charge.
You figure they will have a camera trained on every passengers crotch? As well, there will probably be minors flashing the cameras so that Lyft is recording kiddie porn.
After the driver is eventually ditched, how does lyft intend to maintain the structural integrity of the vehicles interiors? I can see a fun new game called "Shit in a Lyft".
Possibly invented by the now out of work ex-drivers.
While everyone is concentrating on the technical aspects of the driverless vehicle revolution, I see precious little about the human aspects.
Even aside from the destructive folks making a mess out of the vehicles, what about preferences? There are otherwise normal people who have an aversion to going through areas with a high population of "chocolate" people, and would shit themselves being in a driverless car in an area populated by them. Yeah, that will go over well.
And will Lyft try to emulate the traditional taxi experience, by programming the vehicles to ignore African Americans? http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Technical factors can sometimes be the easy part - human factors? Not so much.
You are barely in your 60s and collecting SS? Wow. My grandfather used to collect SS too, but that was in '44 in Europe. He collected some italian blackshirts as well.
And in a few months, I expect to have the whole SS set! Spiffy uniforms even if some have a few quirks.
Especially middle-aged guys in denial of their failing bodies and brains. At 41 you're better off on one of those three-wheel contraptions for retirees.
You are at least two decades off the mark. "Failing bodies and brains at 41?" Hardly.
Lifestyle choices can come into play, but 41 was wa-a-ay better than 21 as far as both physical and intellectual prowess. I've had 25 years to practice and refine skills in my various, regular activities. For example, 25 years of dancing experience makes one a highly sought-after dance partner. You can't get 25 years of practice by age 21.
You must be 21.
And he's not too bright either.
I'll be 62 and collecting SS in a few months. And I ride my bike all the time. A Honda VTC-1100 Shadow Spirit. PS - to the stupid young whipper snapper the standard 3 wheel setup two in back and one in the front is inherently unstable, so two wheels works just fine for most of us. If you want three wheels you want a CanAm setup, or like my 65 year old sister's vehicle, a Polaris Slingshot. http://www.polaris.com/en-us/s...
As my sig reads, life is too short to try to lengthen it as long as possible. If I die in a morotcycle accident, it only means I don't die of something else, like colon cancer or Alzheimer's dementia. No one gets out of here alive.
Rest in peace Jory Prum, I understand. Others might not, but I do.
And now in 2016 we can emulate the Amiga on a $5 Raspberry Pi zero which is smaller than a credit card!
Isn't progress amazing?
Oh yeah, I had several, from the 500 on up.. It took years and non-linear editing for the rest of PC's to catch up. My favorite was the 3000, although my 4000 was great as well, I preferred the form factor of the 3K.
Comments like these remind us of the cost of supporting AC's.
Just move that slider on the right hand side of the screen to 1 or 2, and most will be blocked. I usually read em all, but whne ACs are being jerks, the reading list goes down.
They say it costs twice the amount to win a customer back than to keep and existing one .
HOWEVER, the marketing people know their bonuses come from winning a customer back and they get nothing for keeping one.
It's a silly way to do things It's lie unsucscribing from something like Comcast every so often, then re-upping when they have a deal. My better half is freaking out at their lates 30 dollar price increase, but they have the internetz speed I need - I do multiple websites and a lot of remote access work. I pretty much have to go to fiber if we dump them.
Me, I have ghostery turn up to the max, I also have a large hosts list, I have zero interest in being tracked/spammed/harassed . If I can't get to their site...I go else where....easy choice to make.
And how! I have some times had to disable blocking, and I have to say, the internet is just not worth that shitstorm of suck.
The key problem with sites like Tucows was the deliberate deception. There's a huge difference between advertising a product or service that might be relevant to the user and trying to make people click on an ad by tricking them.
And some of those Download buttons are downloading stuff you don't want on you're computer.
Having 16 buttons that pretend to be the download button is just stupid. I don't understand what advertiser would pay for that, unless they're also shonks.
Even consumer reports which is supposed to be above the commercial fray was only a hair from sending missionaries to my door to convert me back to their flock of subscribers. One science publication kept sending me letters of ever growing desperation saying that these letters were killing them and that it would be better if I renewed my subscription earlier than cost them so much sending these out.
Sounds familiar. I was at one time, during the dark ages, , a subscriber to AOL. My bills became outrageous. I tried to figure it out with them, but they took a "Not our Problem" approach. Finally, I figured out they were not giving me the X number of minutes free that I was paying for, and charging me for every minute I was on line. So With more effort than unsubbing to Comcast, I unsubscribed. Then the onslaught began. Weekly letters, weekly AOL Diskettes, then CD's. Phone calls. "We want you back" relentless pressure. As I explained to them in one of the phone calls, they were spending more to get me back than if they had just adjusted my incorrect bills.
For you tracking will be so last year, it will be stalking, hunting, and all around sharks who smell blood behaviour.
Perhaps for him. If the intertoobz get that bad for me, I'll do something else with my time. When I've tried accessing the internet without ad and script blockers, it feels like I'm on a 14.4 modem. Do not want.
If you don't like their business practices, then don't do business with them. If they have something you want, they don't have to give it to you under your terms. But if enough people refuse to accept their terms, they'll have to change their model.
That's how free enterprise works.
Or it could work by listening to customers as well.
Each time there was a Tsunami it was unlikely to be as large as the one that damaged Fukushima. So people correctly guessed that they were protecting against a larger Tsunami than was likely to hit. And they were right. But it was the unlikely event that hit them.
At any given moment, the odds agains a large seawall topping Tsunami are pretty nil. Over a long period of time, they are inevitable.
Tell me, would you build a reactor on top of the San Andreas fault? Of course you would. There hasn't been a big one in years, so using your logic yep, it's pretty safe. So there might be a hundred years of stability, and only a few minutes of one side dropping several feet. 99.999 some percent stable.
Or here's an automobile analogy. People seldom get in accidents. So what's the point of wearning seat belts? 99.9999 percent of the time, they aren't needed, and can even be a nuisance at times. You don't design cars to be impervious to impact, but you do take prudent safety precautions.
Now afterwards it's easy to look and say there are historical records of even larger ones. But it's almost always easy to find ignored earlier signs of danger...afterwards.
It was painfully easy to do the research earlier. I'm not certain where you come from, but here in America, where large structures are built, you have to do a site and geological survey. If only to determine the type of footers the buildings rest on.But earthquake, tornado and hurricane mitigation structures are required in some places. It strains credulity that people in Japan would not know that the eastern coast is fairly often hit with huge Tsunamis. I knew bout Fukushima before it became front page news, and first I thought - this might be a bad idea, then after another hour of easily available internet research, it was confirmed - a really bad idea.
Clearly you need protection, but how important is it that you be able to survive a direct strike by a large airliner?
I'm amazed that you try to use a 9-11 refernce as justifying the unfortunte placement of the Fukushima destruction. A group of peopple could easily destroy most places when flying an airliner into them but now that I have debunked your tasteless equivalence, here is a teaching moment.
One does not design a structure to be indestructible One does not design a structure to be invincible to bomb or airliner attack unless that is it's function. And unless the function of Fukushima was to provide us with fireworks when a predictable Tsunami hit it - if not know to the date, but over a period of time an inevitable occurrence, then it was a woefully underdesigned facility, and despite your protests of allowing under design because it doesn't happen often, it did, and will.
Not too long ago, fewer than 10 years ago, people here used to get excited about developments like this and all the new technologies it would enable. Print a monitor or any sort of electronic circuit on a piece of cheap paper for pennies, no more big polluting factories. Download and print a cell phone, print a wall size monitor. It's what all the nerds wanted.
The people who used to get excited about that are now 10 years older and their idea of excitement is coming up with ways to keep teenagers off their lawns. Somewhere in that whole proper progression from enthusiasm to bitterness, I screwed up and remained enthusiastic, while it appeas that most at slasdot have claimed any bitterness I might have gained.
But there are still people like me, and younger ones who enjoy new stuff.
all the massive subsidies that solar/wind get? How about we remove subsidies from ALL and then wait and see what and who can stand on their own?
Well just what do you expect when we run low on petrofuel? The idea is not always to let things stand or fall on their own, because yes despite your infatuation and petrolust, it will not last forever as a cheap fuel. Not subsidising energy sources of the future simply means a collapse before the new ones take over.
But let me guess - you haven't saved a thing for retirement because you are working at this moment in time. I know well the outlook.
People and societies that plan ahead, get ahead. Simple as that.
By the way, didi you ever break down the renewable energy subsidies. IIRC, the majority goes to ethanol production, the ersatz petrofuel.
You know causes brain cancer? Reading texts from people who claim that cell phone surely must cause brain cancer!
The whole "brain cancer" thing was just using the scariest thing they could dig up. And since UHF radio is not ionizing radiation, it simply wasn't going to cause brain cancer.
That being said, it is possible to have some effects from placing your head in the near field of an RF device. Otherwise microwaves and diathermy wouldn't work. Just not brain cancer - some folks think it might make people temporarily stupid - that's a joke there son....
Eventually, we should be able to rule out another Fukushima-scale incident by building newer and much safer reactors, but they'll probably have a failure mode we didn't anticipate, and we'll get some sort of incident not up to Fukushima scale.
My concept, which has been roundly opposed by many, is a lot of smaller reactors, instead of the HFR (huge freaking reactor) paradigm in place now. Think of SL-1's without the dangerous part. Of course that goes against economies of scale. But with the available energy I don't see that as a problem.
Now if we separate the radiation part of nuclear, and consider only the thermal aspects - what we have is a hellava lot of energy working in a small place. Concentrating more and more of that energy in small places makes for outcomes that are not pretty when things go south. It's difficult to come up with a good analogy for this, but if any other system we had concentrated and stored that much energy, it would still make for a really bad day.
My concept would have less of that huge energy source in each location, so the results of an oopsie would be less of a problem. As well locations closer to the users would make for less line losses. Finally, and less often addressed, the many location paradigm is inhernetly more secure from a strategic standpoint.
If that one needs explained, allow me to say if I had a country I was at war with, I would be very happy if they had as few generating plants as possible. Taking out 2 or 3 big plants is much easier - not to mention cost effective than trying to take out hundreds of smaller generation plants.
The problem is that every incident actually *IS* a fluke. And flukes are a lot more common that most people are willing to accept.
a fluke is an unlikely chance. The problem is, unless plate tectonics suddenly stops, there was no chance that Fukushima would not at some point endure a Tsunami that would breach it's seawalls. That's the criminal part of the whole disaster. A fluke would be for the reactor to go through it's life cycle, be decommissioned, and taken apart with out a Tsunami.
It does make you wonder what Snapchat was thinking with this feature. Did nobody anticipate that jerks would drive crazy speeds because of this thing?
Jerks do crazy things in any event. Perhaps the automaker should be sued because it created a vehicle that was capable of going 107 miles per hour.
I use an amateur radio operation called APRS. It tracks my vehicle via sending my GPS location to VHF repeater towers, that in turn broadcast the position to other radios and also to stations known as iGates. The iGates send the info to the internet, to sites like http://aprs.fi/ . Location, speed weather conditions, and twitter-like messages can be sent all over the world.
But just because my speed is easy to see, doesn't mean I'm going to speed. I have no desire to document myself driving at 107 miles per hour, as yes, if getting into an accident at that speed, that easily findable info would be used as evidence against me. Just proves I am dumb enough to document my stupidity.
It is a stupid feature on snapchat - which is a stupid application in the first place. But there has to be stupid things for stupid people to do, and an asshole who would drive that fast on the highway is likely to do so anyhow.
So let's ban Snapchat, APRS, dashboard Cams, or anything that documents the speed someone is going because some asshole dirves too fast using them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would a computer care?
Assuming that the question is about neighborhoods to avoid, of course the computer wouldn't care. But the people who take the cab's might. I know a woman who lives in a gated neighborhood, has a saferoom and an ADT system and she's still fearful of people. Especially you know.... those people. Throw in a touch of racism, and now you have a group of people who won't use the services because they don't want to be in a driverless vehicle in a part of town they are afraid of.
And now you have a problem. Look at Amazon - they have their promised 1 day delivery system, and have been found out that in the cities they rolled it out in, they don't offer it to...... you guessed it. - the poorer parts of town. Has been causing thm some negative feedback.
You can already rent a car and shit in it and avoid darkies if you are so inclined. I don't see why you would want to do either, but whatever floats your boat.
Whooshes. Using driverless vehicles as latrines is not something that many people at all are going to do. But unless humanity has underwent some massive change, yeah, there are someweirdos out there that will. Some people are just like that. Maybe angry at the world, who knows. Even without purposeful vandalism events, there are people who have pets or children who aren't that good about cleaning up after themselves. Hell, there are people who change their children's diapers on top of restaurant tables. A fair number of people are just disgusting pigs. Or considering that drunk people often use cabs, puke is going to be a problem. The nicer thing about having a human in the loop is that the driver can clean up mishaps. So even without malice, you stand a good chance of having to sit with a shitty diaper or with vomit.
Unless the people problems are solved, you can have a perfect technical system and it will fail. Maybe post a cop in every self driving taxi......
Do you seriously think that Lyft would deploy cars that don't video-record every second of interior and exterior activity from multiple angles, indexed against the full contact information of each user?
As I wrote in another post, they could inadvertantly record kiddie porn as well. As well, if someone decided to take a piss, they better have cameras trained on all passenger's crotches. They could have a side business of selling the resulting porn to online companies.
Seriously, the fact that so many are focusing on technical issues to the questions is just proving my point that everyone is ignoring the human issues.
I asked this very question a couple months ago in a thread and people insisted there would be smell sensors and cameras so that the car could drive itself somewhere and clean itself before being used again.
Sure. Many public buses already have cameras observing the passengers. Security cameras are also common on elevators. If someone soils or damages a car, the car can drive itself somewhere to be cleaned or repaired. The cost will be billed to the credit card of the passenger who caused the damage, with the camera recording kept as evidence in case they dispute the charge.
You figure they will have a camera trained on every passengers crotch? As well, there will probably be minors flashing the cameras so that Lyft is recording kiddie porn.
See - we can all play that game.
Possibly invented by the now out of work ex-drivers.
While everyone is concentrating on the technical aspects of the driverless vehicle revolution, I see precious little about the human aspects.
Even aside from the destructive folks making a mess out of the vehicles, what about preferences? There are otherwise normal people who have an aversion to going through areas with a high population of "chocolate" people, and would shit themselves being in a driverless car in an area populated by them. Yeah, that will go over well.
And will Lyft try to emulate the traditional taxi experience, by programming the vehicles to ignore African Americans? http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Technical factors can sometimes be the easy part - human factors? Not so much.
You are barely in your 60s and collecting SS? Wow. My grandfather used to collect SS too, but that was in '44 in Europe. He collected some italian blackshirts as well.
And in a few months, I expect to have the whole SS set! Spiffy uniforms even if some have a few quirks.
... on "Star Wars Yodas Challenge Activity Center" and "Poker Night 2". He will be missed. SCNR â I figure he had some humor too. RIP!
Reading your sig, and your other posts, you need to know that your English is better than most native speaker's English.
Especially middle-aged guys in denial of their failing bodies and brains. At 41 you're better off on one of those three-wheel contraptions for retirees.
You are at least two decades off the mark. "Failing bodies and brains at 41?" Hardly.
Lifestyle choices can come into play, but 41 was wa-a-ay better than 21 as far as both physical and intellectual prowess. I've had 25 years to practice and refine skills in my various, regular activities. For example, 25 years of dancing experience makes one a highly sought-after dance partner. You can't get 25 years of practice by age 21.
You must be 21.
And he's not too bright either.
I'll be 62 and collecting SS in a few months. And I ride my bike all the time. A Honda VTC-1100 Shadow Spirit. PS - to the stupid young whipper snapper the standard 3 wheel setup two in back and one in the front is inherently unstable, so two wheels works just fine for most of us. If you want three wheels you want a CanAm setup, or like my 65 year old sister's vehicle, a Polaris Slingshot. http://www.polaris.com/en-us/s...
As my sig reads, life is too short to try to lengthen it as long as possible. If I die in a morotcycle accident, it only means I don't die of something else, like colon cancer or Alzheimer's dementia. No one gets out of here alive.
Rest in peace Jory Prum, I understand. Others might not, but I do.
You mean motorcycle accident. Every Spring there are tons of deaths as guys pull their motorcycles out for their first Spring ride.
fortunately, in recent years, the first spring ride is only the day after my last winter ride.
The Amiga truly was ahead of its time.
And now in 2016 we can emulate the Amiga on a $5 Raspberry Pi zero which is smaller than a credit card!
Isn't progress amazing?
Oh yeah, I had several, from the 500 on up.. It took years and non-linear editing for the rest of PC's to catch up. My favorite was the 3000, although my 4000 was great as well, I preferred the form factor of the 3K.
Comments like these remind us of the cost of supporting AC's.
Just move that slider on the right hand side of the screen to 1 or 2, and most will be blocked. I usually read em all, but whne ACs are being jerks, the reading list goes down.
Do people still say 'asshat'?
Only asshats do that now.
They say it costs twice the amount to win a customer back than to keep and existing one . HOWEVER, the marketing people know their bonuses come from winning a customer back and they get nothing for keeping one.
It's a silly way to do things It's lie unsucscribing from something like Comcast every so often, then re-upping when they have a deal. My better half is freaking out at their lates 30 dollar price increase, but they have the internetz speed I need - I do multiple websites and a lot of remote access work. I pretty much have to go to fiber if we dump them.
Me, I have ghostery turn up to the max, I also have a large hosts list, I have zero interest in being tracked/spammed/harassed . If I can't get to their site...I go else where....easy choice to make.
And how! I have some times had to disable blocking, and I have to say, the internet is just not worth that shitstorm of suck.
The key problem with sites like Tucows was the deliberate deception. There's a huge difference between advertising a product or service that might be relevant to the user and trying to make people click on an ad by tricking them.
And some of those Download buttons are downloading stuff you don't want on you're computer.
Having 16 buttons that pretend to be the download button is just stupid. I don't understand what advertiser would pay for that, unless they're also shonks.
Dunno what a shonk is, but it sounds about right!
Even consumer reports which is supposed to be above the commercial fray was only a hair from sending missionaries to my door to convert me back to their flock of subscribers. One science publication kept sending me letters of ever growing desperation saying that these letters were killing them and that it would be better if I renewed my subscription earlier than cost them so much sending these out.
Sounds familiar. I was at one time, during the dark ages, , a subscriber to AOL. My bills became outrageous. I tried to figure it out with them, but they took a "Not our Problem" approach. Finally, I figured out they were not giving me the X number of minutes free that I was paying for, and charging me for every minute I was on line. So With more effort than unsubbing to Comcast, I unsubscribed. Then the onslaught began. Weekly letters, weekly AOL Diskettes, then CD's. Phone calls. "We want you back" relentless pressure. As I explained to them in one of the phone calls, they were spending more to get me back than if they had just adjusted my incorrect bills.
For you tracking will be so last year, it will be stalking, hunting, and all around sharks who smell blood behaviour.
Perhaps for him. If the intertoobz get that bad for me, I'll do something else with my time. When I've tried accessing the internet without ad and script blockers, it feels like I'm on a 14.4 modem. Do not want.
If you don't like their business practices, then don't do business with them. If they have something you want, they don't have to give it to you under your terms. But if enough people refuse to accept their terms, they'll have to change their model.
That's how free enterprise works.
Or it could work by listening to customers as well.
Each time there was a Tsunami it was unlikely to be as large as the one that damaged Fukushima. So people correctly guessed that they were protecting against a larger Tsunami than was likely to hit. And they were right. But it was the unlikely event that hit them.
At any given moment, the odds agains a large seawall topping Tsunami are pretty nil. Over a long period of time, they are inevitable.
Tell me, would you build a reactor on top of the San Andreas fault? Of course you would. There hasn't been a big one in years, so using your logic yep, it's pretty safe. So there might be a hundred years of stability, and only a few minutes of one side dropping several feet. 99.999 some percent stable.
Or here's an automobile analogy. People seldom get in accidents. So what's the point of wearning seat belts? 99.9999 percent of the time, they aren't needed, and can even be a nuisance at times. You don't design cars to be impervious to impact, but you do take prudent safety precautions.
Now afterwards it's easy to look and say there are historical records of even larger ones. But it's almost always easy to find ignored earlier signs of danger...afterwards.
It was painfully easy to do the research earlier. I'm not certain where you come from, but here in America, where large structures are built, you have to do a site and geological survey. If only to determine the type of footers the buildings rest on.But earthquake, tornado and hurricane mitigation structures are required in some places. It strains credulity that people in Japan would not know that the eastern coast is fairly often hit with huge Tsunamis. I knew bout Fukushima before it became front page news, and first I thought - this might be a bad idea, then after another hour of easily available internet research, it was confirmed - a really bad idea.
Clearly you need protection, but how important is it that you be able to survive a direct strike by a large airliner?
I'm amazed that you try to use a 9-11 refernce as justifying the unfortunte placement of the Fukushima destruction. A group of peopple could easily destroy most places when flying an airliner into them but now that I have debunked your tasteless equivalence, here is a teaching moment.
One does not design a structure to be indestructible One does not design a structure to be invincible to bomb or airliner attack unless that is it's function. And unless the function of Fukushima was to provide us with fireworks when a predictable Tsunami hit it - if not know to the date, but over a period of time an inevitable occurrence, then it was a woefully underdesigned facility, and despite your protests of allowing under design because it doesn't happen often, it did, and will.
Not too long ago, fewer than 10 years ago, people here used to get excited about developments like this and all the new technologies it would enable. Print a monitor or any sort of electronic circuit on a piece of cheap paper for pennies, no more big polluting factories. Download and print a cell phone, print a wall size monitor. It's what all the nerds wanted.
The people who used to get excited about that are now 10 years older and their idea of excitement is coming up with ways to keep teenagers off their lawns. Somewhere in that whole proper progression from enthusiasm to bitterness, I screwed up and remained enthusiastic, while it appeas that most at slasdot have claimed any bitterness I might have gained.
But there are still people like me, and younger ones who enjoy new stuff.
And get back to us when you've all that worked out...shouldn't take you more than an afternoon.
Sorry, I gave up when I found out just how hard it is not living in caves.
all the massive subsidies that solar/wind get? How about we remove subsidies from ALL and then wait and see what and who can stand on their own?
Well just what do you expect when we run low on petrofuel? The idea is not always to let things stand or fall on their own, because yes despite your infatuation and petrolust, it will not last forever as a cheap fuel. Not subsidising energy sources of the future simply means a collapse before the new ones take over.
But let me guess - you haven't saved a thing for retirement because you are working at this moment in time. I know well the outlook.
People and societies that plan ahead, get ahead. Simple as that. By the way, didi you ever break down the renewable energy subsidies. IIRC, the majority goes to ethanol production, the ersatz petrofuel.
It was probably XP. A lot of equipment, from Casino slot machines to medical equipment use XP as the base operating system. That is still true today.
Never got a BSOD in XP?
You know causes brain cancer? Reading texts from people who claim that cell phone surely must cause brain cancer!
The whole "brain cancer" thing was just using the scariest thing they could dig up. And since UHF radio is not ionizing radiation, it simply wasn't going to cause brain cancer.
That being said, it is possible to have some effects from placing your head in the near field of an RF device. Otherwise microwaves and diathermy wouldn't work. Just not brain cancer - some folks think it might make people temporarily stupid - that's a joke there son....
Eventually, we should be able to rule out another Fukushima-scale incident by building newer and much safer reactors, but they'll probably have a failure mode we didn't anticipate, and we'll get some sort of incident not up to Fukushima scale.
My concept, which has been roundly opposed by many, is a lot of smaller reactors, instead of the HFR (huge freaking reactor) paradigm in place now. Think of SL-1's without the dangerous part. Of course that goes against economies of scale. But with the available energy I don't see that as a problem.
Now if we separate the radiation part of nuclear, and consider only the thermal aspects - what we have is a hellava lot of energy working in a small place. Concentrating more and more of that energy in small places makes for outcomes that are not pretty when things go south. It's difficult to come up with a good analogy for this, but if any other system we had concentrated and stored that much energy, it would still make for a really bad day.
My concept would have less of that huge energy source in each location, so the results of an oopsie would be less of a problem. As well locations closer to the users would make for less line losses. Finally, and less often addressed, the many location paradigm is inhernetly more secure from a strategic standpoint.
If that one needs explained, allow me to say if I had a country I was at war with, I would be very happy if they had as few generating plants as possible. Taking out 2 or 3 big plants is much easier - not to mention cost effective than trying to take out hundreds of smaller generation plants.
The problem is that every incident actually *IS* a fluke. And flukes are a lot more common that most people are willing to accept.
a fluke is an unlikely chance. The problem is, unless plate tectonics suddenly stops, there was no chance that Fukushima would not at some point endure a Tsunami that would breach it's seawalls. That's the criminal part of the whole disaster. A fluke would be for the reactor to go through it's life cycle, be decommissioned, and taken apart with out a Tsunami.
It does make you wonder what Snapchat was thinking with this feature. Did nobody anticipate that jerks would drive crazy speeds because of this thing?
Jerks do crazy things in any event. Perhaps the automaker should be sued because it created a vehicle that was capable of going 107 miles per hour.
I use an amateur radio operation called APRS. It tracks my vehicle via sending my GPS location to VHF repeater towers, that in turn broadcast the position to other radios and also to stations known as iGates. The iGates send the info to the internet, to sites like http://aprs.fi/ . Location, speed weather conditions, and twitter-like messages can be sent all over the world.
But just because my speed is easy to see, doesn't mean I'm going to speed. I have no desire to document myself driving at 107 miles per hour, as yes, if getting into an accident at that speed, that easily findable info would be used as evidence against me. Just proves I am dumb enough to document my stupidity.
It is a stupid feature on snapchat - which is a stupid application in the first place. But there has to be stupid things for stupid people to do, and an asshole who would drive that fast on the highway is likely to do so anyhow.
So let's ban Snapchat, APRS, dashboard Cams, or anything that documents the speed someone is going because some asshole dirves too fast using them.