Well that's a pretty amazing endorsement of autonomous vehicles, if *already* 25% of the population is accepting of a new technology they haven't yet experienced.
Strikingly similar to the 20 percent voting paradigm.
It's a matter of public health - if self driving cars will save lives, they should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be the anti-robot-cars movement, but they'll have to stay on private property with their old fashioned manually driving cars -- with steering wheels if you can imagine such a thing! How quaint!
I have a suspicion that for 99 percent of the time, they will reduce accidents to a amazing minimum.
That one percent is going to be a spectacular bloodbath. Might be interesting to watch a few thousand cars slam into each other at 80 miles per hour. Just don't think about the carnage.
Let's say you have a computer controlling the car that is never ever going to fail. 100 percent reliable.
So do we have any cars that are 100 percent reliable mechanically?
I've been in 4 accidents that were the result of plain old mechanical failure - a driveshaft failure, a master cylinder freeze-up, a lower A arm failure, and a young lady behind me had a brake failure and slammed into me from behind.
Any of those accidents coud have been very spectacular, and all of them would have happened in an autonomous vehicle as well.
Now don't get me wrong - I really really want lane assist, tailgating radar, and a lot of other helping devices.
But the concept of us getting into our car, enjoying our cappuccino, and updating our facebook page while the car delivers us to work, travelling sans traffic jams bumper to bumper at 80 miles per hour, sorry, not remotely practical.And very safe, until it isn't.
And I wonder if the ethics questions have been ironed out. If Bambi walks onto the highway, will the car decide to sacrifice you and hit it full speed, in odrer to not have apileup behind you? There are probably multiple scenarios where you might have to die, so that others may live. If your brakes fail will it run you off the mountain rather than cause a chain reaction collision?
Sometimes tech oriented people forget that the computer and the software is only part of the equation.
I didn't miss it at all. I fully appreciate that people who have been exposed to public attention, right or wrong, desire and even should expect a right to rebuild their life. Barbara Streisand similarly should expect privacy and not have her address (home) posted for all the world to see. However, what her predicament showed us is that suing to keep something private backfires. It's exactly analogous to this alleged sex offender's plight.
Yes, kerosene is gods sacrament to interstellar space travel
Probably not Kerosene. LOX/Kerosene is the fuel du jour for launching heavy loads from ground level, although syntin has a little higher specific impulse.
But after getting to outer space, the balls to the wall aspect of LOX/Kerosene is more of a drawback than a feature.
Does it matter? It threatens oil companies' revenues, and therefore it should be made a death penalty offense to even think about solar panels.
Sorta trollish, sorta true.
There's been a lot of articles lately that are anathema to the right thinking crowd.
Some advances in batteries recently, now this. Imagine if you will, a automobile body with this ultra flexible solar cell. Can't be done? I dunno, reading the article makes me think it or some advance upon it will make just such a thing not only possible but likely.
Concrete decomposes under high heat. It is largely a hydrate, and watch out when temps get high enough for it to start releasing it's water. A couple years ago, a fuel truck hit and destroyed a bridge in Harrisburg, PA. Not so much from the impact, but the fire damage to the concrete and steel
Did they not have the "Fast Passes"? You can get a ticket for a designated time for the most popular rides and skip the "Stand-by" line.
The last time I was there was in the early 90's. And I just don't care enough to go again. I'm much more of a Kennedy Space Center type person to tell the truth.
Take the busiest ride, on a busy day. Stand in line, and immediately get back in line after you get off. You still saying you can go on 15 rides a day with a 45 minute wait for each? I'm not bullshitting you, I have no need to. but not accounting for ride time, a 45 minute wait gets you to around 11 and a half hours of waiting. Even a 30 minute ride is getting toward 8 hours of waiting.
Having gone there many years ago - and once was more than enough, Disney's pinnacle achievement was not the rides, the infrastructure or any of the things most people would attribute to them.
Its the fact that they have managed to get a lot of people to spend a lot of money to spend a lot of time waiting in line.
I remember incredible lines to ride on space mountain,and the mostly teenagers who came out of the ride, only to get back in line for another. I figure even at that time, they were paying something like 25-30 dollars per ride.
talks big? silly as he is Trump has actual accomplishments unlike say that empty suit in the whitehouse that delivered on nothing. The federal level politicians are such puny shits that even Trump towers above them (as would admittedly a pissant)
Trump's foreign policy?
Trump's economic policy?
Trump's energy policy?
And your hero has gone bankrupt a number of timaes as well.
Now it's your turn to answer my questions with specifics, and give the track record of Trump to add veracity.
That's not true at all. IoT simply means an embedded device connected to Internet.
That's a definition, not a principle.
Now in an ideal world, this simple device would be under your control, secure, and the limit of phoning home would be checking for updates (under your control) and sending diagnostics when requested, and also under your control.
But is that what these devices are doing? We don't even know why they are seeking out other cameras. We do know that they phone home even when told not to. So right away, not as simple as you claim. No security, doing odd things.
So then we move on to the established Internet of things. Hospital equipment. That's a hot steaming mess and going to get worse. already hacked multiple times, and ransom paid in at least one case. Or are you going to deny like some, that the embedded systems that hospitals use are magically not part of the IoT?
That core principle was never meant to define IoT as some company monetizing your data.
But it has become that.
Because an IoT device could probably function just as well without phoning home and selling your data.
Or in the cameras case, they don't have to punch through firewalls (I'd really like some more data on that one) in search of other cameras and constantly phone home. But they do, for some mysterious reason.
At some point we'll probably end up with a Gattaca or Brave New World style approach where future humans are only created such that they will be capable of the kind of work that robots cannot yet do as there isn't much point in keeping around large groups of people that can't really add much to society. Whether that occurs peacefully or violently remains to be seen.
Is it a race to the bottom scenario? As human population drops, there will follow less need for robots doing things for them.My guess is the end result will be exactly 1 - 120 year old woman spending the last moments of her life surrounded by an army of idle robots that haven't had anything to for for a long, long time.
Possible scenario 2. Robots mining, building roads and cars and maintaining all the other things that humans use, but since there are no more humans, merely recycling everything until the sun becomes a red giant and crisps them all.
Its a little like the concept many have that almost all of us have to be a poor as possible, in order for the success of the corporate ecosystem. Upon success of the concept, no one has enough money to buy whatever the company can produce.
Short version, of what use is a robotic ecosystem that can produce everything humans need if there are no longer any humans to produce anything for?
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
I wonder what size campaign contribution that took?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's a pretty amazing endorsement of autonomous vehicles, if *already* 25% of the population is accepting of a new technology they haven't yet experienced.
Strikingly similar to the 20 percent voting paradigm.
It's a matter of public health - if self driving cars will save lives, they should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be the anti-robot-cars movement, but they'll have to stay on private property with their old fashioned manually driving cars -- with steering wheels if you can imagine such a thing! How quaint!
I have a suspicion that for 99 percent of the time, they will reduce accidents to a amazing minimum.
That one percent is going to be a spectacular bloodbath. Might be interesting to watch a few thousand cars slam into each other at 80 miles per hour. Just don't think about the carnage.
Let's say you have a computer controlling the car that is never ever going to fail. 100 percent reliable.
So do we have any cars that are 100 percent reliable mechanically?
I've been in 4 accidents that were the result of plain old mechanical failure - a driveshaft failure, a master cylinder freeze-up, a lower A arm failure, and a young lady behind me had a brake failure and slammed into me from behind.
Any of those accidents coud have been very spectacular, and all of them would have happened in an autonomous vehicle as well.
Now don't get me wrong - I really really want lane assist, tailgating radar, and a lot of other helping devices.
But the concept of us getting into our car, enjoying our cappuccino, and updating our facebook page while the car delivers us to work, travelling sans traffic jams bumper to bumper at 80 miles per hour, sorry, not remotely practical.And very safe, until it isn't. And I wonder if the ethics questions have been ironed out. If Bambi walks onto the highway, will the car decide to sacrifice you and hit it full speed, in odrer to not have apileup behind you? There are probably multiple scenarios where you might have to die, so that others may live. If your brakes fail will it run you off the mountain rather than cause a chain reaction collision?
Sometimes tech oriented people forget that the computer and the software is only part of the equation.
Sorry to hear about your failure problem. There are drugs that might help that.
Now now, A sense of humor, so lacking in many these days, is a great help in getting through life happily. And alas, there are no drugs for that.
Well, maybe Nitrous oxide.
I didn't miss it at all. I fully appreciate that people who have been exposed to public attention, right or wrong, desire and even should expect a right to rebuild their life. Barbara Streisand similarly should expect privacy and not have her address (home) posted for all the world to see. However, what her predicament showed us is that suing to keep something private backfires. It's exactly analogous to this alleged sex offender's plight.
All home addresses should be secret right?
Yes, kerosene is gods sacrament to interstellar space travel
Probably not Kerosene. LOX/Kerosene is the fuel du jour for launching heavy loads from ground level, although syntin has a little higher specific impulse.
But after getting to outer space, the balls to the wall aspect of LOX/Kerosene is more of a drawback than a feature.
Typically?
Has any other fuel ever actually gotten anything to space?
LOX and Liquid Hydrogen?
Aluminum and a perchlorate?
Syntin? (synthesis
C-Stoff?
You are of course thinking of LOX/Kerosene, which is a fossil fuel. But non-fossil fuels abound.
Does it matter? It threatens oil companies' revenues, and therefore it should be made a death penalty offense to even think about solar panels.
Sorta trollish, sorta true.
There's been a lot of articles lately that are anathema to the right thinking crowd.
Some advances in batteries recently, now this. Imagine if you will, a automobile body with this ultra flexible solar cell. Can't be done? I dunno, reading the article makes me think it or some advance upon it will make just such a thing not only possible but likely.
Actually, abuse explicitly includes that the use is bad or harmful.
If the chip fails in a few minutes of that, it is abuse.
Except for self abuse. Then it's just fun.
Kids love it. They take a picture and see it fade into view like magic. Polaroid makes a whole line of instant cameras with film.
One of the magic moments of my life was the first time in a darkroom, watching the black and white image come up on the paper I was developing.
I don't want to return to those days - I'm a complete digital ho now, but it's kind of a pity that so few get to experience that moment any more.
Concrete just doesn't burn.
Concrete decomposes under high heat. It is largely a hydrate, and watch out when temps get high enough for it to start releasing it's water. A couple years ago, a fuel truck hit and destroyed a bridge in Harrisburg, PA. Not so much from the impact, but the fire damage to the concrete and steel
http://www.pennlive.com/midsta...
http://www.pennlive.com/midsta...
And once the concrete is damaged, the steel isn't far behind.
Your basic premise is pretty much true, but it's as long as the fire doesn't have an external fuel source.
We need a +5 pulling everyone's leg mod.
I really hope.
Bah ... in capitalist America, presidential candidates on moonshine.
You just let them set you up, then lowered the boom. Damn well played, sir.
This really needs to be at least a + 5.
Did they not have the "Fast Passes"? You can get a ticket for a designated time for the most popular rides and skip the "Stand-by" line.
The last time I was there was in the early 90's. And I just don't care enough to go again. I'm much more of a Kennedy Space Center type person to tell the truth.
Ridiculous.
Take the busiest ride, on a busy day. Stand in line, and immediately get back in line after you get off. You still saying you can go on 15 rides a day with a 45 minute wait for each? I'm not bullshitting you, I have no need to. but not accounting for ride time, a 45 minute wait gets you to around 11 and a half hours of waiting. Even a 30 minute ride is getting toward 8 hours of waiting.
Having gone there many years ago - and once was more than enough, Disney's pinnacle achievement was not the rides, the infrastructure or any of the things most people would attribute to them.
Its the fact that they have managed to get a lot of people to spend a lot of money to spend a lot of time waiting in line.
I remember incredible lines to ride on space mountain,and the mostly teenagers who came out of the ride, only to get back in line for another. I figure even at that time, they were paying something like 25-30 dollars per ride.
talks big? silly as he is Trump has actual accomplishments unlike say that empty suit in the whitehouse that delivered on nothing. The federal level politicians are such puny shits that even Trump towers above them (as would admittedly a pissant)
Trump's foreign policy?
Trump's economic policy?
Trump's energy policy?
And your hero has gone bankrupt a number of timaes as well.
Now it's your turn to answer my questions with specifics, and give the track record of Trump to add veracity.
While a slab of Brachio-bacon sounds tempting, I'm pretty sure that DNA manipulation isn't kosher.
I'll bet the rebbes have discussed the kosherness of dna altered food.
Seems like the appropriate name for it.
Even more exciting, I hear they were able to extract DNA form some of the bones they found there.
Combined it with DNA from a pig, and implanted the resulting embryo.
When the resulting pig/dinosaur was born, they knew they had Jurassic Pork.
That's not true at all. IoT simply means an embedded device connected to Internet.
That's a definition, not a principle.
Now in an ideal world, this simple device would be under your control, secure, and the limit of phoning home would be checking for updates (under your control) and sending diagnostics when requested, and also under your control.
But is that what these devices are doing? We don't even know why they are seeking out other cameras. We do know that they phone home even when told not to. So right away, not as simple as you claim. No security, doing odd things.
Nest Thermostats phoning home with unencrypted data http://mashable.com/2016/01/20...
Are you talking in front of your smart TV? Better watch what you say. http://www.computerworld.com/a...
And what could be cuter than a IoT teddy bear for your kids? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
So then we move on to the established Internet of things. Hospital equipment. That's a hot steaming mess and going to get worse. already hacked multiple times, and ransom paid in at least one case. Or are you going to deny like some, that the embedded systems that hospitals use are magically not part of the IoT?
POS systems,
Hey, he's got his smugly-sarcastic-narrative-that-makes-him-feel-smart-on-teh-internet and he's sticking with it.
What really pisses people of is when I'm smug, sarcastic, and right.
Sorta like an honest feedback mechanism for me.
That core principle was never meant to define IoT as some company monetizing your data.
But it has become that.
Because an IoT device could probably function just as well without phoning home and selling your data.
Or in the cameras case, they don't have to punch through firewalls (I'd really like some more data on that one) in search of other cameras and constantly phone home. But they do, for some mysterious reason.
"An offer you can't refuse".
I've often thought that politicians should wear NASCAR style jumpsuits, so we could see who owns them.
Yep, nobody likes a Cassandra.
Not when she warns of impending risk...
And CERTAINLY not when she points out her prior (unheeded) warnings.
And so it goes.
So, might as well just grab the popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show - except for the ending.
At some point we'll probably end up with a Gattaca or Brave New World style approach where future humans are only created such that they will be capable of the kind of work that robots cannot yet do as there isn't much point in keeping around large groups of people that can't really add much to society. Whether that occurs peacefully or violently remains to be seen.
Is it a race to the bottom scenario? As human population drops, there will follow less need for robots doing things for them.My guess is the end result will be exactly 1 - 120 year old woman spending the last moments of her life surrounded by an army of idle robots that haven't had anything to for for a long, long time.
Possible scenario 2. Robots mining, building roads and cars and maintaining all the other things that humans use, but since there are no more humans, merely recycling everything until the sun becomes a red giant and crisps them all.
Its a little like the concept many have that almost all of us have to be a poor as possible, in order for the success of the corporate ecosystem. Upon success of the concept, no one has enough money to buy whatever the company can produce.
Short version, of what use is a robotic ecosystem that can produce everything humans need if there are no longer any humans to produce anything for?
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
I wonder what size campaign contribution that took?