So the road under the truck looked clear (sort of)
If only the autopilot system had been calibrated to take into account the exact height of the Tesla's roof. If that had been done, then there would have been no accident in this case (the Tesla would have stopped until the truck was out of the way), but when encountering a somewhat higher truck, the Tesla would pass cleanly underneath it, with the driver probably never even noticing what had happened. And that would have been rather awesome.
Who has panicked? Unless by "panic" you meant "engage in intense debate about the potential risks and rewards of a new and relatively unproven technology", but that's not a very common definition of that word.
The real question: are the e-mails real? If so, how they were obtained/released is irrelevant.
I think the fact that Russia is actively trying to meddle in the US election via dirty tricks is pretty fucking relevant, don't you?
Maybe all the emails are real; maybe they are all real except for the few made-up ones that Putin's political people added in to spice things up. Maybe next time instead of hacking into a political organization, they'll hack into some power companies and cause power outages in demographically strategic areas on election day, similar to what they did previously in the Ukraine. Or maybe they'll just plant a few easter eggs in some voting machines. In either case, the fact that a central pillar of our Democracy is now known to be under deliberate attack by a foreign power ought to be of some significance to us, no?
I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.
Sure, but unless you've developed a superconducting substrate, or come up with a reliable, efficient 3D cooling system, or are willing to run the 3D transistors only at very low speed/power, you're going to run into serious heat dissipation problems. Solving those (along with manufacturing a working 3D structure in the first place) is what's taking them so long.
Moore's law has nothing to do with the SIZE of the transitors. It has to do with the number of transistors on the chip and, to a lesser extent, the density of the transistors. Arranging the transistors vertically and horizontally will allow the law to continue.
In the future, the size of each transistor will remain roughly the same, but the size of the chip will double every year, so that by 2030 the average CPU will measure about 50 feet in each dimension. People will use them simultaneously for both computing and as floors, walls, or ceilings for their homes.
I guar-on-teeee if NOBODY bought these phones and raised a stink with the manufacturer of said phones, you'd get some action..
I agree. Of course, the corollary is that if people keep buying the new phones and don't complain, then the lack of headphone jack is in fact a non-problem. It's entirely possible that headphone backwards-compatibility just isn't something most phone users care about.
So you're voting for Hillary. How does that leave your conscience clear? She's a corrupt, lying, sociopath. And you're doing a little two-step dance as you support her quest for power.
You could replace "Hillary" with "Donald" in the paragraph above and it would be equally valid. Which proves jcr's point.
In any conflict zone, anyone worried about drone surveillance would have a strong incentive to kill as many actual birds as possible, just in case any of them were drones (and to make any actual drones more easily detectable).
If you wanted a way to (further) incentivize the extinction of actual birds, I can't think of a better way then to disguise surveillance drones as birds.
I didn't say I was afraid of anything; what I said was that the Republican Party platform is exactly that: the platform of the Republican Party.
You can be for it or against it, but if the parent poster is going through the document and saying "well this part is real, but this other part is only a meaningless sop to placate a constituency and would never actually be enacted", then I think he is only fooling himself. What you see is what you'll get.
he understands that this is just something that they had to put in to keep the Religious Right from bolting, along with all of that anti-abortion stuff.
You know what else they'll have to do in order to keep the religious right from bolting? Follow through on the anti-gay and anti-abortion stuff.
When people tell you who they are, believe them. The Republican platform is the document in which the Republican Party tells you who it is. Believe it.
You feel motion but you don't see it and your brain is drawing two different opposing conjectures.
... which is actually kind of amusing when I think about it. There's a watchdog circuit somewhere in your brain dedicated specifically to checking whether or not your sensory inputs match up, and when it detects that they don't, it assumes that you are drunk or high (or otherwise somehow poisoned) and initiates the upchuck routine. How many generations of questionable-quality-alcohol drinkers did it take to evolve that?
Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?
You're right, if you spent enough money making public transportation more attractive, more people would use it.
But few communities are going to spend "enough money" (i.e. tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) when people can just take an Uber instead, so it's largely a moot point. In the farther future, when self-driving taxis have made the streets less congested and reduced taxi prices, there will be even less incentive to build out an expensive parallel infrastructure.
Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off.
Yes, I'm aware of all that -- but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles, and were therefore willing to pay for non-subsidized public transportation because the only alternative was staying home.
How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation? The only scenario I can imagine is one where private cars are largely banned or made unaffordable or impractical, but I don't think that sort of thing would be politically possible (outside of major cities), since the car-loving public wouldn't stand for it.
You are an idiot if you think a basic shape == racist!
The swastika is a basic shape also. If Trump had included that in a tweet, would you defend that as well?
The fact is, certain shapes can and do have connotations, especially in the context of politics. Trump probably didn't realize the connotation carried by that shape (placed in front of a pile of money, no less!) when he forwarded the image, because he's so politically naive; but the symbolism wasn't lost on the public.
Second, the "neo-nazi site" was 8chan/pol. It wasn't Stormfront. It was a fucking image board on/pol.
Oh. Well, I guess that's okay then.
The image was created by @FishBoneHead1, who is quite clearly an anti-Semite. You can play lawyer-ball and claim that it's possible that he just chose that shape at random, but it doesn't pass the smell test, and Trump should have known better than to repost it.
In this case you can't even argue high adrenaline and needing to make rapid decisions, this was cold and calculated.
Sure, but in this case the calculations were correct. The shooter told them he had explosives planted "all over Dallas" and was going to detonate them. In that scenario, would you hope that this person (who btw was a trained soldier, and had already shot and killed a number of people) was lying, or would you try to remove his finger from any triggers as quickly and reliably as possible?
An office who pulls you over for a traffic stop has no way to know you don't plan to shoot him either. Should they just run you off the road in stead? Maybe fire a some sort of rocket at your car?
In the spirit of the article, how about they pull you over, and then instead of walking up to your car, they send over a suitably ruggedized telepresence bot to talk to you?
The bot can be unarmed, of course, because it's expendable. If you shoot it, then we're back to square one, and the police will probably come for you with guns out, but otherwise the policemen are safe in their car and you are safe in yours; no need for anyone to get accidentally shot.
Slashdot Mirror
It's programmed to ignore obstacles it considers over the top of car so that it doesn't stop at every overpass and road sign.
That's good, but this case demonstrates how important it is that it makes that determination correctly.
So the road under the truck looked clear (sort of)
If only the autopilot system had been calibrated to take into account the exact height of the Tesla's roof. If that had been done, then there would have been no accident in this case (the Tesla would have stopped until the truck was out of the way), but when encountering a somewhat higher truck, the Tesla would pass cleanly underneath it, with the driver probably never even noticing what had happened. And that would have been rather awesome.
Why does this one death cause everyone to panic?
Who has panicked? Unless by "panic" you meant "engage in intense debate about the potential risks and rewards of a new and relatively unproven technology", but that's not a very common definition of that word.
The real question: are the e-mails real? If so, how they were obtained/released is irrelevant.
I think the fact that Russia is actively trying to meddle in the US election via dirty tricks is pretty fucking relevant, don't you?
Maybe all the emails are real; maybe they are all real except for the few made-up ones that Putin's political people added in to spice things up. Maybe next time instead of hacking into a political organization, they'll hack into some power companies and cause power outages in demographically strategic areas on election day, similar to what they did previously in the Ukraine. Or maybe they'll just plant a few easter eggs in some voting machines. In either case, the fact that a central pillar of our Democracy is now known to be under deliberate attack by a foreign power ought to be of some significance to us, no?
How are we going to power all of our electric cars if we're going to run out of electricity in 2040?
No worries there, we'll all have stationary bicycles attached to generators, and we'll use them to recharge our car's battery before we go anywhere.
I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.
Sure, but unless you've developed a superconducting substrate, or come up with a reliable, efficient 3D cooling system, or are willing to run the 3D transistors only at very low speed/power, you're going to run into serious heat dissipation problems. Solving those (along with manufacturing a working 3D structure in the first place) is what's taking them so long.
Moore's law has nothing to do with the SIZE of the transitors. It has to do with the number of transistors on the chip and, to a lesser extent, the density of the transistors. Arranging the transistors vertically and horizontally will allow the law to continue.
In the future, the size of each transistor will remain roughly the same, but the size of the chip will double every year, so that by 2030 the average CPU will measure about 50 feet in each dimension. People will use them simultaneously for both computing and as floors, walls, or ceilings for their homes.
Remember, you heard it here first.
I guar-on-teeee if NOBODY bought these phones and raised a stink with the manufacturer of said phones, you'd get some action..
I agree. Of course, the corollary is that if people keep buying the new phones and don't complain, then the lack of headphone jack is in fact a non-problem. It's entirely possible that headphone backwards-compatibility just isn't something most phone users care about.
I never read code unless it is actually called. So, your superfluous methods just generate yourself superfluous work.
Time to add in some superfluous calls to those methods, then? :^)
So you're voting for Hillary. How does that leave your conscience clear? She's a corrupt, lying, sociopath. And you're doing a little two-step dance as you support her quest for power.
You could replace "Hillary" with "Donald" in the paragraph above and it would be equally valid. Which proves jcr's point.
he problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention
Invariably? Really?
I wonder what they got paid for helping to catch the kickass torrents guy.
500 stardust and 150 candies.
In any conflict zone, anyone worried about drone surveillance would have a strong incentive to kill as many actual birds as possible, just in case any of them were drones (and to make any actual drones more easily detectable).
If you wanted a way to (further) incentivize the extinction of actual birds, I can't think of a better way then to disguise surveillance drones as birds.
I didn't say I was afraid of anything; what I said was that the Republican Party platform is exactly that: the platform of the Republican Party.
You can be for it or against it, but if the parent poster is going through the document and saying "well this part is real, but this other part is only a meaningless sop to placate a constituency and would never actually be enacted", then I think he is only fooling himself. What you see is what you'll get.
he understands that this is just something that they had to put in to keep the Religious Right from bolting, along with all of that anti-abortion stuff.
You know what else they'll have to do in order to keep the religious right from bolting? Follow through on the anti-gay and anti-abortion stuff.
When people tell you who they are, believe them. The Republican platform is the document in which the Republican Party tells you who it is. Believe it.
Now that it's tasted human blood, it will have to be put down. It's the only way to be sure.
You feel motion but you don't see it and your brain is drawing two different opposing conjectures.
... which is actually kind of amusing when I think about it. There's a watchdog circuit somewhere in your brain dedicated specifically to checking whether or not your sensory inputs match up, and when it detects that they don't, it assumes that you are drunk or high (or otherwise somehow poisoned) and initiates the upchuck routine. How many generations of questionable-quality-alcohol drinkers did it take to evolve that?
Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?
You're right, if you spent enough money making public transportation more attractive, more people would use it.
But few communities are going to spend "enough money" (i.e. tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) when people can just take an Uber instead, so it's largely a moot point. In the farther future, when self-driving taxis have made the streets less congested and reduced taxi prices, there will be even less incentive to build out an expensive parallel infrastructure.
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."
Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off.
Yes, I'm aware of all that -- but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles, and were therefore willing to pay for non-subsidized public transportation because the only alternative was staying home.
How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation? The only scenario I can imagine is one where private cars are largely banned or made unaffordable or impractical, but I don't think that sort of thing would be politically possible (outside of major cities), since the car-loving public wouldn't stand for it.
Are you doing anything about that? ...
Who are you talking to?
instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable
Well, we know it works. But from where do you get "profitable"?
You are an idiot if you think a basic shape == racist!
The swastika is a basic shape also. If Trump had included that in a tweet, would you defend that as well?
The fact is, certain shapes can and do have connotations, especially in the context of politics. Trump probably didn't realize the connotation carried by that shape (placed in front of a pile of money, no less!) when he forwarded the image, because he's so politically naive; but the symbolism wasn't lost on the public.
Second, the "neo-nazi site" was 8chan/pol. It wasn't Stormfront. It was a fucking image board on /pol.
Oh. Well, I guess that's okay then.
The image was created by @FishBoneHead1, who is quite clearly an anti-Semite. You can play lawyer-ball and claim that it's possible that he just chose that shape at random, but it doesn't pass the smell test, and Trump should have known better than to repost it.
In this case you can't even argue high adrenaline and needing to make rapid decisions, this was cold and calculated.
Sure, but in this case the calculations were correct. The shooter told them he had explosives planted "all over Dallas" and was going to detonate them. In that scenario, would you hope that this person (who btw was a trained soldier, and had already shot and killed a number of people) was lying, or would you try to remove his finger from any triggers as quickly and reliably as possible?
An office who pulls you over for a traffic stop has no way to know you don't plan to shoot him either. Should they just run you off the road in stead? Maybe fire a some sort of rocket at your car?
In the spirit of the article, how about they pull you over, and then instead of walking up to your car, they send over a suitably ruggedized telepresence bot to talk to you?
The bot can be unarmed, of course, because it's expendable. If you shoot it, then we're back to square one, and the police will probably come for you with guns out, but otherwise the policemen are safe in their car and you are safe in yours; no need for anyone to get accidentally shot.