" entire highway infrastructure will have to be completely overhauled, at enormous expense, before 'self driving cars' could be a reality" since they are using them everyday, and taking them on trip in CA, on normal roads, I don't think you are correct. Of course are road infrastructure could use a few smart changes anyways.
It's trivial to kidnapped some in a car today.
"There's no way they're going to code an 'evasive maneuvers'" Oh, I see. You think you would be able to do some Die Hard esque driving to get away from kidnappers.
"It is to counter Google's skewed data that make it look like autonomous cars are just around the corner." Google has never said that. And this guy doesn't have all the data, nor does he know whats in development.
"why come out with a vehicle that has no steering wheel if it is not viable for another 5-10 years (by your estimate)?" The same reason worlds fair showed tech that will be coming out in 5-10 years. Its' fun, it's cool. It also show they are thinking long term and not quarterly. It also shows a company spending money on RnD. I consider all of that a good thing.
" All you hear from Google is a rising tally of miles driven and the fact that there have been no accidents. " Which is pretty important.
"The fact that the miles are driven on carefully selected, heavily scanned roads under optimal conditions never seems to make it into the reports." That is the smart way to start, but they are moving past that.
" Driving down the same roads thousands of times is not progress." Of course it is. Same roads, different traffic. The same rods can have 10's of thousands of changing variables at any given time. The team members are using them. A team member took one from Google campus to Tahoe on a trip.
Do you lay awake at night just trying to think of ways to hate cool new things?
You'r post tells everyone everything about you: You are a pretentious hater.
" google cars should never be allowed on the road." Not: " until they can reliable detect bicycles, driver-less cars shouldn't be sold to the public.
Have you contact Mercedes to tell them they need to stop selling there cars that can automatically follow the car in front of them? do you rally against self parking cars?
1. I disagree. 2. No more then it is now. Pop open the top, and blow it out. 3. As nears as I can tell, the motherboard isn't standard, but everything else is. 4. Clearly you didn't pay attention to how it removes heat. Having the weight at the bottom is better. 5. lan parties. Cute.
In some case, it will be top down. This will be in things like, building codes, emission guidlines etc.
If it gets too bad, then I will be all for a top down solution involving guns and the removal of corporate charters. This is like 97% of all astronomers saying , there is a dark asteroid coming in a couple a hundred years the size of australia, we need to take action. And then large corporation and anti tax groups say 'no it isn't'. And 'your model isn't 100% perfect, therefor it's wrong and invalid!" and people saying. I'll believe it when I see it!" even though it will be too late to do anything about it.
In that case, I would also support taking action, even if it had to be a forced action. This isn't about a different of opinion on a sports team, or tax code, or privacy. Its about something that will make all the irrelevant if we don't take action now.
". To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. " no shit, Sherlock.
" How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?" There are different way the earth can warm. The effect of shoving more green house gasses into the atmosphere causes warming on top of other trends. There is no doubt about this at all.
" I rest my case" You did not, in any way, 'make a case'. You might want to learn what the means. If you want to make a case, you need to start by showing which one of these is false:
1) The Earth gets lots of light from the sun 2) Visible light emits IR when it strike something 3) CO2 absorbs energy from IR 4) Humans but more green house gasses into the air then can be absorbed.
The basic science on warming is trivial. Literally any of these can, nad have, been test by any decent College lab. Hell, even A good high school lab could do it. This is why deniers never talk about the actual science and only talk about cherry picked data points, or make ad homs.
So, the climate is warming due to more energy being trapped. Climate Change is the impact AGW has on the climate. They are related but separate issues. So, why would adding energy to a system not change it? At this point, some knuckle head is about to slam his meat hooks onto his keyboard in what he thinks is a clever retort,. I will take this time to remind him the new equilibrium is only reach when the change in energy stops, and there is no rule saying the planet need to be livable when equilibrium is achieved.
More to the point: Why do you think there is a 97% consensus? Why do you think countries whose best interest would be that there is no AGW agree there is AGW? Some people think there is a weird conspiracy. That would mean the China is in on it for no reason. Why?
Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt. With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere. People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.
". You build a theory by standing on the shoulders of others and learning." Yes. But if you don't even stand on the shoulders of the giants in a field, then you should probably shut the fuck up.
"Learning is the asking of questions." Yes, but it isn't throwing out ideas so off base they aren't even wrong, and then telling people to show you why they can't be when the idea being stated makes no sense at all. AC who posted that question clearly doesn't know the first thing about dark matter. Frankly, the poster should have the decency to do some preliminary understanding of the problem before spouting off nonsense and then getting defensive about it.
No one knows that. It's a idea in 1(one) paper. Just like dozens of other solutions. BTW, pouring them 'in place' brings up a whole new set of problems.
Well, it passed the KISS test, I guess that settles it. Lets totally forget other methods that pass the KISS test, and we will also forget the myriad of other thing that where done more difficult because of social reason and they didn't have the advantage of hind site.
They still need to move them after they were made.
Slashdot Mirror
" entire highway infrastructure will have to be completely overhauled, at enormous expense, before 'self driving cars' could be a reality"
since they are using them everyday, and taking them on trip in CA, on normal roads, I don't think you are correct.
Of course are road infrastructure could use a few smart changes anyways.
It's trivial to kidnapped some in a car today.
"There's no way they're going to code an 'evasive maneuvers'"
Oh, I see. You think you would be able to do some Die Hard esque driving to get away from kidnappers.
"It is to counter Google's skewed data that make it look like autonomous cars are just around the corner."
Google has never said that. And this guy doesn't have all the data, nor does he know whats in development.
"why come out with a vehicle that has no steering wheel if it is not viable for another 5-10 years (by your estimate)?"
The same reason worlds fair showed tech that will be coming out in 5-10 years. Its' fun, it's cool. It also show they are thinking long term and not quarterly. It also shows a company spending money on RnD.
I consider all of that a good thing.
"Do you ever see a Google press release mention any of these limitations?"
Yes.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com...
" All you hear from Google is a rising tally of miles driven and the fact that there have been no accidents. "
Which is pretty important.
"The fact that the miles are driven on carefully selected, heavily scanned roads under optimal conditions never seems to make it into the reports."
That is the smart way to start, but they are moving past that.
" Driving down the same roads thousands of times is not progress."
Of course it is. Same roads, different traffic. The same rods can have 10's of thousands of changing variables at any given time.
The team members are using them. A team member took one from Google campus to Tahoe on a trip.
Do you lay awake at night just trying to think of ways to hate cool new things?
Google is big.
Google general does good things
So people who make money from hating need to find something, anything to get clicks from google hate.
Well, you start to turn, the next millisecond the car detects something is moving in front of it and slows. Far faster then any current driver.
You are just another object. The fact that you are on a bike getting in everyone's way is irrelevant.
Why can't the be just as safe?
You'r post tells everyone everything about you: You are a pretentious hater.
" google cars should never be allowed on the road."
Not: " until they can reliable detect bicycles, driver-less cars shouldn't be sold to the public.
Have you contact Mercedes to tell them they need to stop selling there cars that can automatically follow the car in front of them? do you rally against self parking cars?
I'm sure you ancestors railed against fire.
For that price, you can get far more powerful PCs.
In fact, you could get several PC and create a mini farm.
OTOH, it's for a graphic designer, so pretty of substance.
1. I disagree.
2. No more then it is now. Pop open the top, and blow it out.
3. As nears as I can tell, the motherboard isn't standard, but everything else is.
4. Clearly you didn't pay attention to how it removes heat. Having the weight at the bottom is better.
5. lan parties. Cute.
Why not trapezoid?
I'm not hearing a no....
Some do. But mostly, it's to prevent damage from spillage.
Frankly, we need to go back to desk tops.
False. Very few Application use more then a few gigs.
Some do, and that's great, but for 95+% of users, it would just be wasted.
This isn't 1993
It's math.
but when I am, I buy Alienware.
You just made a stone with friends, you killed nothing.
IT wouldn't happen if all those people weren't anonymous.
And there has been plenty of discourse about hot topics throughout out the human existence that didn't not end with people threatening violence.
That's a great Idea.
A) She didn't insult a whole gender
B) This is more the insults.
Perspective, Gets Some!
In some case, it will be top down. This will be in things like, building codes, emission guidlines etc.
If it gets too bad, then I will be all for a top down solution involving guns and the removal of corporate charters.
This is like 97% of all astronomers saying , there is a dark asteroid coming in a couple a hundred years the size of australia, we need to take action. And then large corporation and anti tax groups say 'no it isn't'. And 'your model isn't 100% perfect, therefor it's wrong and invalid!" and people saying. I'll believe it when I see it!" even though it will be too late to do anything about it.
In that case, I would also support taking action, even if it had to be a forced action.
This isn't about a different of opinion on a sports team, or tax code, or privacy. Its about something that will make all the irrelevant if we don't take action now.
". To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. "
no shit, Sherlock.
" How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?"
There are different way the earth can warm. The effect of shoving more green house gasses into the atmosphere causes warming on top of other trends. There is no doubt about this at all.
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publ...
" I rest my case"
You did not, in any way, 'make a case'. You might want to learn what the means.
If you want to make a case, you need to start by showing which one of these is false:
1) The Earth gets lots of light from the sun
2) Visible light emits IR when it strike something
3) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
4) Humans but more green house gasses into the air then can be absorbed.
The basic science on warming is trivial. Literally any of these can, nad have, been test by any decent College lab. Hell, even A good high school lab could do it. This is why deniers never talk about the actual science and only talk about cherry picked data points, or make ad homs.
So, the climate is warming due to more energy being trapped.
Climate Change is the impact AGW has on the climate. They are related but separate issues.
So, why would adding energy to a system not change it?
At this point, some knuckle head is about to slam his meat hooks onto his keyboard in what he thinks is a clever retort,. I will take this time to remind him the new equilibrium is only reach when the change in energy stops, and there is no rule saying the planet need to be livable when equilibrium is achieved.
More to the point:
Why do you think there is a 97% consensus? Why do you think countries whose best interest would be that there is no AGW agree there is AGW?
Some people think there is a weird conspiracy. That would mean the China is in on it for no reason. Why?
Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt.
With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere.
People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.
Well, it's funny you say that.
We saw two moons. One of which wasn't in earlier detections, and as it came around the brown dwarf, it just exploded. weird.
". You build a theory by standing on the shoulders of others and learning."
Yes. But if you don't even stand on the shoulders of the giants in a field, then you should probably shut the fuck up.
"Learning is the asking of questions."
Yes, but it isn't throwing out ideas so off base they aren't even wrong, and then telling people to show you why they can't be when the idea being stated makes no sense at all. AC who posted that question clearly doesn't know the first thing about dark matter. Frankly, the poster should have the decency to do some preliminary understanding of the problem before spouting off nonsense and then getting defensive about it.
Since they have no intention of actual using the service, then it's fraud.
No one knows that. It's a idea in 1(one) paper. Just like dozens of other solutions.
BTW, pouring them 'in place' brings up a whole new set of problems.
Well, it passed the KISS test, I guess that settles it. Lets totally forget other methods that pass the KISS test, and we will also forget the myriad of other thing that where done more difficult because of social reason and they didn't have the advantage of hind site.
They still need to move them after they were made.
", the pyramid gets less wide towards the top. "
That's what I've been doing wrong!