A judge cannot easily deny obvious claims, though of course there is plenty of grey area
A judge can easily do just that, with or without grey area.
Yes, this building is in violation and needs an elevator. But putting one in would take 2 years and require eliminating 18 units which are currently occupied by rent-paying families. Also in case of a fire, you'd be fucked anyway, so I'm not going to order them to do anything, but I am going to note that the building is a piece of shit and maybe in 80 years we can get it condemned and torn down.
It's the headline that says that the telcos will sue states that enact Net Neutrality. That's not what the telcos are saying, it's the flamebait headline... and you fell hook, line, sinker.
Then what did they mean by "we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts..."?
He meant: "Mmmmm, AT&T your shit tastes extra good today. Great texture too. I love the corn."
Probably not if the conditions were as presented in the video. But if you look at the other videos posted, it's clear that Uber's video is bullshit. The street is nowhere near that dark.
If Uber wasn't using lidar sensors yeah... that's entirely on Uber.
Yes.
If the software failed catastrophically, can't they figure out why it did?
If Windows has a bug, can't MS figure out how to fix it?
It's a computer... they should be able to run simulations to figure out what went wrong, and then be able to to alter the software to account for the possibility so that at least there can be some assurance that it won't happen again.
Maybe you would have seen her, maybe you would have slowed/swerved enough to avoid fatality. But would you be willing to risk life in prison that you could safely have avoided (or not killed) the pedestrian?
I risk being punished for my reckless driving every time I drive. I mitigate that risk by not driving recklessly. I'm not aware of many cases where people have been sentenced to life in prison for unintentionally shitty driving that kills people. I am aware of people getting off scott free for intentionally shitty driving that kills people. And that's bullshit.
That's the real question isn't? Whether an average driver would have typically handled this better. That only a negligent driver would be held fully responsible.
No, that's not the real question. The "real questions" are Why did Uber's car fail?", "Why is Uber releasing shitty video that doesn't match what the street looks like at night?", and "Why are cucks like yourself defending them?".
Old structures are not grandfathered if they're part of a business (such as an apartment building) open to the public. Your only saving grace will be the fact that your building is too old/shitty/cramped to physically put a ramp/elevator in. it's not so much that you're exempted by the law, it's that you're exempted by circumstance and each time a judge looks at it you're rolling the dice.
I'd say it would extend to anything. I get to choose who lives with me, full stop. Try me in court if I'm ever stupid/destitute enough to regress into "roommate needed" status.
Create a public bulletin board that lets people post fliers for their Harry Potter fan club and see how long it takes for J. K. Rowling to sue you for erecting a public bulletin board?
A toilet rigged to "on" will be useless. The fill rate is not high enough to remove waste effectively. That's why we fill the bowl to near the tipping point, then add a bit more to reach it and flush it clean.
Since the driver was unable to detect this incident too, they better remove all drivers as well!
If a driver was caught behaving like the one in the Uber video - not holding the wheel, concentrating on something in their lap and only glancing occasionally at the road, or otherwise not fully in control of their vehicle - they probably would be removed (and/or have their house removed by the civil courts if death/injury was involved).
Why are people implying that there is some double standard being applied against Uber here? They were already granted an exception that allowed them to test cars in "hands off" mode provided theyn had a safety driver ready to intervene - they've blown that by not taking steps to ensure that their safety drivers stayed on task (which anybody with a grain of nous knew was likely to be an issue).
Option A: the dashcam shows that there was nothing physically blocking the pedestrian from view, and in a street-light area either the driver's Mk1 eyeball or the car's sensors should have spotted them long before the low-sensitivity dashcam or, Option B: Uber's dashcam video does give an accurate impression of visibility at the time (flap, oink) - in which case the car was dangerously outdriving its headlamps and should have slowed down (or been slowed down by the driver) without needing to see the pedestrian. Pick one. If a human-driven car had had that accident, the driver would stand a good chance of facing - at least - careless charges and/or a civil lawsuit.
I mostly agree. I don't think a human driver would be deemed at fault if they had dash cam footage similar to the video we saw. Unless they were speeding. (I've heard various reports on the speed limit in the area, some say it was 35 and others say it was 40, and I believe the car was going 38.)
I sure as fuck don't think the footage released is representative of what the car saw or what the human driver would have seen (had he not been texting). Look at the clear, night-vision image we get of the human driver. Where's that quality of video for looking at the road? Where's the LIDAR data?
Uber has clearly put out a video designed to exonerate themselves and pin the blame on the pedestrian and the human driver. I would NOT put it past them to alter the footage, or intentionally omit better quality footage / sensor data.
If the camera footage released resembles what a human would have seen, sure, I agree. I would have hit the person. I doubt I would have killed them, though - I think I would have been able to react in some fashion to minimize the impact.
But the footage released is fucking shitty as hell, and the human eye can see much better than what that camera shows. If that's the kind of footage they're relying on at night then they need to be stopped from all activities regardless.
The car is supposed to have LIDAR on it, and LIDAR is actually better at night. I want to see the actual sensor data, not the world's crappiest regular camera footage. A mid range smartphone would produce a better image. Notice how we got a nice clear night-vision image of the Uber employee behind the wheel, texting. Yet we got the crappiest, non-night-vision image possible to represent what the self-driving car saw.
Uber's mission here is to pin this on the pedestrian (which I'm mostly fine with, self-driving car or not) and, failing that, their employee behind the wheel (which I'm also fine with - these cars are in testing and are clearly not ready, so a human driver is still required).
What I would NOT be fine with is Uber getting out of this without a full investigation into what the sensors saw and why the car didn't do shit. Because regardless of the pedestrian or human driver being at fault, we have clear proof that Uber's self-driving shit failed.
Because Uber doesn't know what they're doing. The car is supposed to have LIDAR sensors. So either Uber wasn't using them or the software failed catastrophically. (Or both.)
I'm sure they've been busy doctoring logs and sensor data.
It does make sense if the vehicle was supposed to be equipped with LIDAR, because that person being in the shadows in the middle of the night would make it easier to see them. We already have the LIDAR manufacturer on record as saying it wasn't their fault. Either the Uber car didn't use the LIDAR sensor it had, or it used it and the software failed hard.
We proactively suspended self-driving operations in all cities immediately following the tragic incident last week.
proactive - adjective (of a person, policy, or action) creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has happened.
Because any sane knowledgeable human knows interoperability must be a right and consequently, copyright on API is ridiculous.
Meaning you are either insane or an idiot.
Interoperability is one thing. Copying all of Java is another. Google didn't have a right to copy Java's functions wholesale to make their own version just so people could port Java to Android with minor changes. Just as MS can't copy all the functions Sony exposes on the PS4 to make it easier to port PS4 games to Xbox One.
People loooooooooooooove to say this fight is about the API and then pretend that it's about function signatures and names so that everyone is gonna be sued if Oracle wins. It's not. It's about the whole damn thing. Google essentially copied all of Java and made their own JVM and slapped it on Linux and ran with it. Oracle is pointing to the API at a high level when introducing examples that show early Android was basically Java.
And if Oracle wins, they'll sue your ass because you're simply copying the Java API and replicating it in HTML.
In the case of Android, Oracle should win. Early Android essentially was Java. It's more flagrant than Compaq copying IBM's BIOS. (Yes, they claimed they made a functional equivalent in a "clean room" way where there was no chance of actual copying and won in court. Everyone knows that's total bullshit.)
I just wish they could both lose. Java continues to be awful and Oracle continues to sit on its fat ass about it. It's fundamentally the same mess that they inherited from Sun.
There were tons of reports of it tanking again today early this morning. Yet minutes after those reports hit, the stock rallied.
It's basically flat for the day. Google and Twitter are up significantly.
I'd like for nothing more than all 3 to tank and die, but it's not happening unless Congress makes it happen. And Congress regulating them will simple establish them further, as competition will be much harder.
lol buddy I think you might be getting faceid confused with some other facial unlock feature from a different manufacturer. There is only 1 exploit for faceid, and it requires the person to be alive and available, and to submit to a 3d infrared facial scan. The resulting mask that is created also needs to simulate specific temperatures at the specific points and still resemble the person.
The resultant mask costs $50,000 and the hardware required to make it several hundred thousand.
Oh yes and the target still has to voluntarily submit to a facial scan.
A 10 year old Kinect and a 4 year old FLIR One will copy any face well enough to fool Face ID in a couple of seconds.
Making the mask is trivial. You 3D print a rough mold, then glob silicon on it and paint it. Recreating temperature zones is the "hard" part, but only because you need to actually build something to to that. It doesn't have to be very accurate or precise. FaceID's matching is incredibly fuzzy.
Slashdot Mirror
Should be, yes.
Will be? Hell no. See medical devices. Drug trials. Imported steel for military craft.
A judge cannot easily deny obvious claims, though of course there is plenty of grey area
A judge can easily do just that, with or without grey area.
Yes, this building is in violation and needs an elevator. But putting one in would take 2 years and require eliminating 18 units which are currently occupied by rent-paying families. Also in case of a fire, you'd be fucked anyway, so I'm not going to order them to do anything, but I am going to note that the building is a piece of shit and maybe in 80 years we can get it condemned and torn down.
The east coast is full of that shit.
LOL WHAT?
It's the headline that says that the telcos will sue states that enact Net Neutrality. That's not what the telcos are saying, it's the flamebait headline... and you fell hook, line, sinker.
Then what did they mean by "we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts..."?
He meant: "Mmmmm, AT&T your shit tastes extra good today. Great texture too. I love the corn."
Probably not if the conditions were as presented in the video.
But if you look at the other videos posted, it's clear that Uber's video is bullshit. The street is nowhere near that dark.
If Uber wasn't using lidar sensors yeah... that's entirely on Uber.
Yes.
If the software failed catastrophically, can't they figure out why it did?
If Windows has a bug, can't MS figure out how to fix it?
It's a computer... they should be able to run simulations to figure out what went wrong, and then be able to to alter the software to account for the possibility so that at least there can be some assurance that it won't happen again.
See all computers ever.
Maybe you would have seen her, maybe you would have slowed/swerved enough to avoid fatality. But would you be willing to risk life in prison that you could safely have avoided (or not killed) the pedestrian?
I risk being punished for my reckless driving every time I drive. I mitigate that risk by not driving recklessly. I'm not aware of many cases where people have been sentenced to life in prison for unintentionally shitty driving that kills people. I am aware of people getting off scott free for intentionally shitty driving that kills people. And that's bullshit.
That's the real question isn't? Whether an average driver would have typically handled this better. That only a negligent driver would be held fully responsible.
No, that's not the real question. The "real questions" are Why did Uber's car fail?", "Why is Uber releasing shitty video that doesn't match what the street looks like at night?", and "Why are cucks like yourself defending them?".
Facebook's role is quite different in this case.
How so? (Hint: It isn't.)
Housing probably shouldn't be commercially advertised anyways.
Why do you want to deflate our bubble? We're only several times the size we were when we last popped!!
Old structures are not grandfathered if they're part of a business (such as an apartment building) open to the public. Your only saving grace will be the fact that your building is too old/shitty/cramped to physically put a ramp/elevator in. it's not so much that you're exempted by the law, it's that you're exempted by circumstance and each time a judge looks at it you're rolling the dice.
I'd say it would extend to anything. I get to choose who lives with me, full stop.
Try me in court if I'm ever stupid/destitute enough to regress into "roommate needed" status.
Create a public bulletin board that lets people post fliers for their Harry Potter fan club and see how long it takes for J. K. Rowling to sue you for erecting a public bulletin board?
A toilet rigged to "on" will be useless. The fill rate is not high enough to remove waste effectively. That's why we fill the bowl to near the tipping point, then add a bit more to reach it and flush it clean.
>>599607
Q
are we going to have more freedom of speech on "private" public speech services or not?
please answer this question
>>599614
100%
Regulated.
Some platforms will collapse under their own weight of illegal activities.
Q
March 9th, 2018, 6:20 EST
Since the driver was unable to detect this incident too, they better remove all drivers as well!
If a driver was caught behaving like the one in the Uber video - not holding the wheel, concentrating on something in their lap and only glancing occasionally at the road, or otherwise not fully in control of their vehicle - they probably would be removed (and/or have their house removed by the civil courts if death/injury was involved).
Why are people implying that there is some double standard being applied against Uber here? They were already granted an exception that allowed them to test cars in "hands off" mode provided theyn had a safety driver ready to intervene - they've blown that by not taking steps to ensure that their safety drivers stayed on task (which anybody with a grain of nous knew was likely to be an issue).
Option A: the dashcam shows that there was nothing physically blocking the pedestrian from view, and in a street-light area either the driver's Mk1 eyeball or the car's sensors should have spotted them long before the low-sensitivity dashcam or, Option B: Uber's dashcam video does give an accurate impression of visibility at the time (flap, oink) - in which case the car was dangerously outdriving its headlamps and should have slowed down (or been slowed down by the driver) without needing to see the pedestrian. Pick one. If a human-driven car had had that accident, the driver would stand a good chance of facing - at least - careless charges and/or a civil lawsuit.
I mostly agree. I don't think a human driver would be deemed at fault if they had dash cam footage similar to the video we saw. Unless they were speeding. (I've heard various reports on the speed limit in the area, some say it was 35 and others say it was 40, and I believe the car was going 38.)
I sure as fuck don't think the footage released is representative of what the car saw or what the human driver would have seen (had he not been texting). Look at the clear, night-vision image we get of the human driver. Where's that quality of video for looking at the road? Where's the LIDAR data?
Uber has clearly put out a video designed to exonerate themselves and pin the blame on the pedestrian and the human driver. I would NOT put it past them to alter the footage, or intentionally omit better quality footage / sensor data.
If the camera footage released resembles what a human would have seen, sure, I agree. I would have hit the person. I doubt I would have killed them, though - I think I would have been able to react in some fashion to minimize the impact.
But the footage released is fucking shitty as hell, and the human eye can see much better than what that camera shows.
If that's the kind of footage they're relying on at night then they need to be stopped from all activities regardless.
The car is supposed to have LIDAR on it, and LIDAR is actually better at night. I want to see the actual sensor data, not the world's crappiest regular camera footage. A mid range smartphone would produce a better image. Notice how we got a nice clear night-vision image of the Uber employee behind the wheel, texting. Yet we got the crappiest, non-night-vision image possible to represent what the self-driving car saw.
Uber's mission here is to pin this on the pedestrian (which I'm mostly fine with, self-driving car or not) and, failing that, their employee behind the wheel (which I'm also fine with - these cars are in testing and are clearly not ready, so a human driver is still required).
What I would NOT be fine with is Uber getting out of this without a full investigation into what the sensors saw and why the car didn't do shit. Because regardless of the pedestrian or human driver being at fault, we have clear proof that Uber's self-driving shit failed.
Because Uber doesn't know what they're doing.
The car is supposed to have LIDAR sensors. So either Uber wasn't using them or the software failed catastrophically. (Or both.)
I'm sure they've been busy doctoring logs and sensor data.
Yeah. Makes sense.
It does make sense if the vehicle was supposed to be equipped with LIDAR, because that person being in the shadows in the middle of the night would make it easier to see them. We already have the LIDAR manufacturer on record as saying it wasn't their fault. Either the Uber car didn't use the LIDAR sensor it had, or it used it and the software failed hard.
We proactively suspended self-driving operations in all cities immediately following the tragic incident last week.
proactive - adjective
(of a person, policy, or action) creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has happened.
Because any sane knowledgeable human knows interoperability must be a right and consequently, copyright on API is ridiculous.
Meaning you are either insane or an idiot.
Interoperability is one thing. Copying all of Java is another. Google didn't have a right to copy Java's functions wholesale to make their own version just so people could port Java to Android with minor changes. Just as MS can't copy all the functions Sony exposes on the PS4 to make it easier to port PS4 games to Xbox One.
People loooooooooooooove to say this fight is about the API and then pretend that it's about function signatures and names so that everyone is gonna be sued if Oracle wins.
It's not. It's about the whole damn thing. Google essentially copied all of Java and made their own JVM and slapped it on Linux and ran with it. Oracle is pointing to the API at a high level when introducing examples that show early Android was basically Java.
And if Oracle wins, they'll sue your ass because you're simply copying the Java API and replicating it in HTML.
In the case of Android, Oracle should win. Early Android essentially was Java. It's more flagrant than Compaq copying IBM's BIOS. (Yes, they claimed they made a functional equivalent in a "clean room" way where there was no chance of actual copying and won in court. Everyone knows that's total bullshit.)
I just wish they could both lose. Java continues to be awful and Oracle continues to sit on its fat ass about it. It's fundamentally the same mess that they inherited from Sun.
There were tons of reports of it tanking again today early this morning. Yet minutes after those reports hit, the stock rallied.
It's basically flat for the day. Google and Twitter are up significantly.
I'd like for nothing more than all 3 to tank and die, but it's not happening unless Congress makes it happen. And Congress regulating them will simple establish them further, as competition will be much harder.
lol buddy I think you might be getting faceid confused with some other facial unlock feature from a different manufacturer. There is only 1 exploit for faceid, and it requires the person to be alive and available, and to submit to a 3d infrared facial scan. The resulting mask that is created also needs to simulate specific temperatures at the specific points and still resemble the person.
The resultant mask costs $50,000 and the hardware required to make it several hundred thousand.
Oh yes and the target still has to voluntarily submit to a facial scan.
A 10 year old Kinect and a 4 year old FLIR One will copy any face well enough to fool Face ID in a couple of seconds.
Making the mask is trivial. You 3D print a rough mold, then glob silicon on it and paint it. Recreating temperature zones is the "hard" part, but only because you need to actually build something to to that. It doesn't have to be very accurate or precise. FaceID's matching is incredibly fuzzy.
Mortal Kombat on Sega Genesis, is the best video game ever.
I disagree, it's a very good game, but I think Donkey Kong is the best game ever.
Donkey Kong sucks.
You know something? YOU SUCK!