That's not going to happen. Reducing the fatality rate is only a political argument to make people accept speed cameras, which in turn generate a lot of profit for the state.
Driverless cars would render speed cameras useless, so they will never be mandated.
In Chrome, create a new tab, then take a look at the "recently closed" list. They're listed by order in which they were closed, and you can open one or several at once.
You were the one who spoke of a 10-fold difference. I saw no such thing. Dominican Republic - 41.7 USA - 11.4 That's not even a 5-fold difference (it's not even a 4-fold one). I rounded it up to be generous.
I thought it was in 10,000 people, not 100,000. If it's 100,000, then it's even more insignificant.
I wouldn't say I know 200 people relatively closely, so your statement doesn't even hold. I would need to know them for at least 50 years too (and it must be a period during which they must be driving) for your probability to be correct.
I find it impressive how countries where driving is not well regulated and where it is dangerous still have a fairly low fatality rate. It is apparent that all those strict rules the government is forcing on drivers have a very limited use.
Whatever you do, fatality rates are about 0.1% - 0.5%.
It is legal for the author to post his article on his website as long as it does not include the publisher's editing. It is considered a working copy, a draft or a preprint.
Most laboratories have yearly subscriptions that give them access to all relevant publications. I've never seen a researcher fork over some of his own personal money to acquire a paper.
It's called VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word), not EPIC. EPIC is a buzzword which was used in marketing Itanium.
VLIW is a long instruction word containing a few (typically 1 to 4) shorter instructions that are to be executed in parallel (usually, they're homogeneous, but that's not necessarily the case). Since it has few bits to code each short instruction, and the extra instructions executed in parallel requires having more registers, it is very RISC-like.
Send the encrypted content to the cloud on a Windows system running as a virtual machine in a Linux box. Have the Windows decrypt it and display it full-screen. Capture the output of the virtual machine and re-encode it. Finally, transfer the unencrypted content back to the user.
That would only work if the planet was hollow. The core is where most of the mass is, and it also happens to be very hot. If we had the technology to build a tunnel through that, we could build our own planets.
You talked about the speed of light limiting our resources, I therefore implied you used a famous formula with a reference to the speed of light. I see what you mean now, and your modelling of the issue is wrong. As the population increases, it will spread away from Earth too.
Yes, you are clearly lost. You claim my logic is flawed (even though I didn't even do any sort of logical implication) even though it is yours that clearly is, then you don't understand simple facts.
While I pointed out something that proves that your logic is flawed (since the result is absurd), then let me tell you where you failed. The universe expansion rate is not cubic. E = mc is not the equation that gives how the universe size, mass or energy evolves as time passes.
You're arguing that our expansion rate is faster than that of the universe? That isn't even possible.
First, we still have much more resources than necessary on Earth to sustain a population of five times as much as we have today. According to projections, we won't reach this before 150 years at the earliest. We could attain the capability to build space stations or to build colonies on other planets of the solar system way before that, especially if that becomes a pressing issue.
It's a solved problem. We know all the nutrients that are needed. We know how to produce them efficiently. Science has done its job, the rest is a matter of implementation, economics and politics.
Slashdot Mirror
We have machines that can sort trash on a conveyor belt with air jets at amazing speeds.
That's not going to happen.
Reducing the fatality rate is only a political argument to make people accept speed cameras, which in turn generate a lot of profit for the state.
Driverless cars would render speed cameras useless, so they will never be mandated.
In Chrome, create a new tab, then take a look at the "recently closed" list.
They're listed by order in which they were closed, and you can open one or several at once.
Here is another amazing trick: you can use Ctl-T to open a new tab!
Who knew?
You were the one who spoke of a 10-fold difference. I saw no such thing.
Dominican Republic - 41.7
USA - 11.4
That's not even a 5-fold difference (it's not even a 4-fold one). I rounded it up to be generous.
I thought it was in 10,000 people, not 100,000. If it's 100,000, then it's even more insignificant.
I wouldn't say I know 200 people relatively closely, so your statement doesn't even hold. I would need to know them for at least 50 years too (and it must be a period during which they must be driving) for your probability to be correct.
Is that some sort of joke?
Read the title of my message again. The keyword is the word "stats".
5 times nothing is still nothing.
I find it impressive how countries where driving is not well regulated and where it is dangerous still have a fairly low fatality rate.
It is apparent that all those strict rules the government is forcing on drivers have a very limited use.
Whatever you do, fatality rates are about 0.1% - 0.5%.
Where are they?
What's the point of saying the US is 11.4 per 100,000 if you don't give the stats for the other countries?
Jesus did exist; of course he was not as described. He was just a man, and a con man at that.
They already have access to that knowledge.
Most pictures don't even fit in 100kB.
Surely that's a joke?
Facebook is the web application that consumes the most bandwidth, CPU power and RAM ever devised.
It is legal for the author to post his article on his website as long as it does not include the publisher's editing.
It is considered a working copy, a draft or a preprint.
Most laboratories have yearly subscriptions that give them access to all relevant publications.
I've never seen a researcher fork over some of his own personal money to acquire a paper.
It's called VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word), not EPIC.
EPIC is a buzzword which was used in marketing Itanium.
VLIW is a long instruction word containing a few (typically 1 to 4) shorter instructions that are to be executed in parallel (usually, they're homogeneous, but that's not necessarily the case).
Since it has few bits to code each short instruction, and the extra instructions executed in parallel requires having more registers, it is very RISC-like.
Send the encrypted content to the cloud on a Windows system running as a virtual machine in a Linux box. Have the Windows decrypt it and display it full-screen. Capture the output of the virtual machine and re-encode it. Finally, transfer the unencrypted content back to the user.
Isn't IBM pushing RHEL these days?
That would only work if the planet was hollow. The core is where most of the mass is, and it also happens to be very hot. If we had the technology to build a tunnel through that, we could build our own planets.
You talked about the speed of light limiting our resources, I therefore implied you used a famous formula with a reference to the speed of light. I see what you mean now, and your modelling of the issue is wrong. As the population increases, it will spread away from Earth too.
Yes, you are clearly lost.
You claim my logic is flawed (even though I didn't even do any sort of logical implication) even though it is yours that clearly is, then you don't understand simple facts.
While I pointed out something that proves that your logic is flawed (since the result is absurd), then let me tell you where you failed. The universe expansion rate is not cubic. E = mc is not the equation that gives how the universe size, mass or energy evolves as time passes.
You're arguing that our expansion rate is faster than that of the universe? That isn't even possible.
First, we still have much more resources than necessary on Earth to sustain a population of five times as much as we have today. According to projections, we won't reach this before 150 years at the earliest. We could attain the capability to build space stations or to build colonies on other planets of the solar system way before that, especially if that becomes a pressing issue.
The universe is infinite. There is no problem with sustained growth.
It's a solved problem.
We know all the nutrients that are needed. We know how to produce them efficiently.
Science has done its job, the rest is a matter of implementation, economics and politics.
Some organisms have cells that do not age.