Aircraft already have enough accuracy to land automatically. Below a certain visibility, we're not even allowed to land manually. Pilots are still required to set everything up, but in principle the technology is there.
The problem is, things fail. Frequently. Short circuits, computer failures, software bugs, mechanical failures, leaks, etcetera. You should see a crew in action during a simulator training session, and you'd be immediately convinced that we're nowhere near fully automatic airplanes no matter how sophisticated the automation has become. The positioning part is not what's holding us back, in fact that's the easy part that's already been solved long ago.
Worse, apparently. They can try a whole bunch of possible combinations of words from a dictionary, and for each one, check the block chain to see if the resulting address has been used. They don't have to guess anyone's password in particular, just guess a combination of words that has been used by someone, anyone at all. Instead of trying combinations of userIDs and passwords, you just have to try passwords.
And the funny thing is that Bitcoin is actually incredibly easy to monitor since the entire blockchain containing all transactions is public. I would imagine intelligence agencies actually love bitcoin. It gives the impression of anonimity (anyone can just make a new wallet without needing any kind of identification) but the money flows can easily be followed and as soon as someone uses the wallet to order a pizza, all the previous "anonymous" transactions for that wallet suddenly become tied to you.
The only problem for intelligence agencies are the tumblers, but merely using those can probably put you onto the list of suspicious people to be tracked. Receiving money from a tumbler is just as suspicious as carrying a bag full of cash. Not illegal, but suspicious anyway.
If it's intelligence they want, they should be encouraging Bitcoin.
Cash transactions over a certain amount are already prohibited. Here in Belgium, you're not allowed to use cash to buy a new car, for example. There's a maximum amount in euros, and a maximum percentage of the total price that can be paid in cash.
Your lack of reading skills is quite surreal, you know. Especially when you keep insisting you're right when you're obviously not. The words you added in square brackets are entirely your own fantasy yet you're using them to somehow "prove" your point?!
The (incorrect) summary of that article indeed says "the bike she was riding" but the actual text of the article (and any other source I've heard so far) makes it clear she did not actually ride that bike. After her chain broke, she "saw that bike standing there" (i.e. a different bike, not the one she was riding) and she didn't know how it got there. It belonged to a friend of hers, looked identical to her own, and was accidentally placed there by a mechanic who thought it was hers. She didn't know that her friend used a motor in his bike.
Now it's entirely possible that she's lying, and she did ride that bike on some other occasion during the season. But she never actually admitted to that.
By the way, I saw the actual interview in the original Dutch language, not some bad translation bordering on ambiguity. She clearly said she did not ride the bike. Her friend already apologized a hundred times for leaving his bike there. (That's not in the article, but was said in the actual interview).
But why does a webcam have to run Linux? Why do even the simplest of devices need full blown operating systems? Can't they just program the thing for whatever it needs to do and nothing more? No wonder al these IoT-devices are full of security holes. These days, if you ask an engineer to make you an alarm clock, the first thing he'll do is slap some chips together and install Linux on it. I wish I were exaggerating.
Well, it can also do highway driving with someone in the car monitoring it (even from the back seat as demonstrated by some idiot on youTube). They still have some ways to go, sure, but "can barely back itself out of a garage" isn't really fair.
That would actually be really cool: you buy a car online, and once it's ready, it simply drives itself straight to your home instead of being delivered by a truck.
Well, they are working on Model 3 which should be even less than that (for the bare bones version). Current schedule is 2018 if I'm not mistaken, so that's two years from now (give or take a few years if Model X is any indication).
Human learning is non-deterministic as well, yet they've issued hundreds of milliions of diver's licenses. If they can thoroughly demonstrate the cars driving at least as well as humans, they'll get approval.
And they would understand the limits of their sensors and capabilities and pull over until the weather is conducive, rather than push on into conditions which were too treacherous for the capabilities of the vehicle or driver.
At which point the driver switches to manual and carries on anyway.
They probably wouldn't have been sued if they just used the song in the show. But that's not all they did. Printing T-shirts with that particular line and making profit off of it directly, starts to get a bit murkier. Merchandise with those lyrics and "written by Bill Prady" underneath is just asking for a lawsuit.
Not that the article is all that great to begin with because of the wonderful grammatical fail of "the hospital police took the woman to wanted to release her immediately". (Yes, that is from TFA!)
It took me three attempts to read it correctly, so it's definitely poor style, but is it actually wrong?
The hospital wanted to release her immediately. Which hospital? The one to which the police took the woman.
Is this one of those "up with which I shall not put" moments?
Slashdot Mirror
Aircraft already have enough accuracy to land automatically. Below a certain visibility, we're not even allowed to land manually. Pilots are still required to set everything up, but in principle the technology is there.
The problem is, things fail. Frequently. Short circuits, computer failures, software bugs, mechanical failures, leaks, etcetera. You should see a crew in action during a simulator training session, and you'd be immediately convinced that we're nowhere near fully automatic airplanes no matter how sophisticated the automation has become. The positioning part is not what's holding us back, in fact that's the easy part that's already been solved long ago.
Worse, apparently. They can try a whole bunch of possible combinations of words from a dictionary, and for each one, check the block chain to see if the resulting address has been used. They don't have to guess anyone's password in particular, just guess a combination of words that has been used by someone, anyone at all. Instead of trying combinations of userIDs and passwords, you just have to try passwords.
There's also new initiatives like BitGo Instant that allow instant transactions without the risk of a double spend.
And the funny thing is that Bitcoin is actually incredibly easy to monitor since the entire blockchain containing all transactions is public. I would imagine intelligence agencies actually love bitcoin. It gives the impression of anonimity (anyone can just make a new wallet without needing any kind of identification) but the money flows can easily be followed and as soon as someone uses the wallet to order a pizza, all the previous "anonymous" transactions for that wallet suddenly become tied to you.
The only problem for intelligence agencies are the tumblers, but merely using those can probably put you onto the list of suspicious people to be tracked. Receiving money from a tumbler is just as suspicious as carrying a bag full of cash. Not illegal, but suspicious anyway.
If it's intelligence they want, they should be encouraging Bitcoin.
Cash transactions over a certain amount are already prohibited. Here in Belgium, you're not allowed to use cash to buy a new car, for example. There's a maximum amount in euros, and a maximum percentage of the total price that can be paid in cash.
No, Morse font is even better, still readable at one pixel character height
Better x-ray the riders too. Maybe not today, but it won't be long...
Your lack of reading skills is quite surreal, you know. Especially when you keep insisting you're right when you're obviously not. The words you added in square brackets are entirely your own fantasy yet you're using them to somehow "prove" your point?!
The (incorrect) summary of that article indeed says "the bike she was riding" but the actual text of the article (and any other source I've heard so far) makes it clear she did not actually ride that bike. After her chain broke, she "saw that bike standing there" (i.e. a different bike, not the one she was riding) and she didn't know how it got there. It belonged to a friend of hers, looked identical to her own, and was accidentally placed there by a mechanic who thought it was hers. She didn't know that her friend used a motor in his bike.
Now it's entirely possible that she's lying, and she did ride that bike on some other occasion during the season. But she never actually admitted to that.
By the way, I saw the actual interview in the original Dutch language, not some bad translation bordering on ambiguity. She clearly said she did not ride the bike. Her friend already apologized a hundred times for leaving his bike there. (That's not in the article, but was said in the actual interview).
I don't know what they're complaining about, I thought they wanted backdoors?
But that can only be done by a scientist during an EVA.
If you install a faster CPU onto those legs so its heat melts the ice, that might actually work!
But why does a webcam have to run Linux? Why do even the simplest of devices need full blown operating systems? Can't they just program the thing for whatever it needs to do and nothing more? No wonder al these IoT-devices are full of security holes. These days, if you ask an engineer to make you an alarm clock, the first thing he'll do is slap some chips together and install Linux on it. I wish I were exaggerating.
Fortunately the reactors here in Belgium are so many decades old that there's no way they can be connected to the internet. Safe as can be!
Well, it can also do highway driving with someone in the car monitoring it (even from the back seat as demonstrated by some idiot on youTube). They still have some ways to go, sure, but "can barely back itself out of a garage" isn't really fair.
That would actually be really cool: you buy a car online, and once it's ready, it simply drives itself straight to your home instead of being delivered by a truck.
Well, they are working on Model 3 which should be even less than that (for the bare bones version). Current schedule is 2018 if I'm not mistaken, so that's two years from now (give or take a few years if Model X is any indication).
Human learning is non-deterministic as well, yet they've issued hundreds of milliions of diver's licenses. If they can thoroughly demonstrate the cars driving at least as well as humans, they'll get approval.
Don't give them any ideas. Let them finish the Model 3 first before getting distracted by cool new snow chain droids.
until all generic visual captchas (not specific algorithms for specific types) can be solved better than humans.
Oh, we're almost there then. I'm human and I regularly fail at CAPTCHA's.
And they would understand the limits of their sensors and capabilities and pull over until the weather is conducive, rather than push on into conditions which were too treacherous for the capabilities of the vehicle or driver.
At which point the driver switches to manual and carries on anyway.
Better put enough explosives in, or you'll get something like this (sans the driver):
Would be kind of funny if they all followed the lead car like really big ducklings.
They probably wouldn't have been sued if they just used the song in the show. But that's not all they did.
Printing T-shirts with that particular line and making profit off of it directly, starts to get a bit murkier.
Merchandise with those lyrics and "written by Bill Prady" underneath is just asking for a lawsuit.
No problem. He can get wired from the deposed prince's sister.
If the deerly esteemed justice department first wires her the necessary funds to unlock the capitol. Hey, that might work...
Not that the article is all that great to begin with because of the wonderful grammatical fail of "the hospital police took the woman to wanted to release her immediately". (Yes, that is from TFA!)
It took me three attempts to read it correctly, so it's definitely poor style, but is it actually wrong?
The hospital wanted to release her immediately. Which hospital? The one to which the police took the woman.
Is this one of those "up with which I shall not put" moments?