I live in an area with a greater metropolitan area population of about 3 million. Nowhere nearly as large as LA or NY, to be sure... but not exactly "thu sticks" either.
To be frank, part of my original remark about the it being useless is driven by the fact that the only reasons it considers as arguable are fairly obvious ones... where extenuating circumstances other than those listed could easily be legitimate reasons to not have to pay a ticket, and a human lawyer could probably successfully argue that point.
There was this one time that I had received a ticket, where I had actually just forgotten to apply an updated insurance sticker to the license plate on my car, and so it appeared that I had a vehicle with expired insurance parked on a public road beside the sidewalk in front of where I live. Parking an uninsured vehicle on a public roadway is illegal where I live, but as I said... I actually *had* all of the appropriate insurance, and had only forgotten to put the sticker on the plate. When I went to city hall to explain, and could have *proven* that the vehicle had actually been insured the whole time by virtue of the date of purchase on the paperwork I had obtained when my insurance was updated, city hall refused to drop the fine, where they would have had to if I had simply lied and suggested to them that the sticker must have been peeled off, or made up some such excuse. But no.... I told them the truth, and still had to pay the fine for parking an uninsured vehicle on the street when the vehicle was *NOT* uninsured, as I was entirely willing and able to prove.
Point being that I sincerely think a human lawyer could have easily saved me the fine (although the amount was small enough that it would never have been worth actually paying a lawyer to defend it), but this 'bot would not have been able to help one iota, and hence my assessment of its uselessness.
Generally speaking, highways don't tend to have lots of places where there is reduced visibility, or else it would be generally unsafe to travel at high speed there in the first place. Where such reduced visibility occurs on a highway, perhaps as you approach a viaduct from a lower level or some such thing, you'd probably notice roadside signage to that effect that recommends that drivers reduce speed anyways, If there are spots up ahead on the road that the car cannot see past, a driverless car will simply not drive fast enough that it will be unable to stop before such places, which may ideally be how a human should be driving too. Consider that humans can't generally make reasoned choices about too many things simultaneously, which would create hard limits on how fast a person might be able to safely drive in such an area, but those limits would not be the same for a computer, which can perform many calculations about proximity and safety multiple orders of magnitude more quickly than any human ever could. The fact that people often may not slow down in such circumstances is a consequence of the fact that human beings often make assumptions that are founded on irrational feelings or intuition instead of objective and logical reasoning. Any annoyance that might be felt at such slowdowns, which are already liable to be infrequent on a highway anyways because reduced visibility isn't the typical state of affairs on such roadways, would only be a consequence of being perhaps accustomed to unsafe driving practices, and not because the car is actually driving poorly.
Bearing in mind that a driverless car is liable to have much greater sensory awareness of its surroundings than a human driver could, so it may detect things that a human driver wouldn't and thus have more opportunity to appropriately react, if the narrow underpass was obscuring visibility for the vehicle to the point that the vehicle was unable to determine if something might come out from behind an obstacle it cannot sense past, the vehicle would slow down as soon as the reduced visibility began so that it could safely stop if something it cannot see at the time should suddenly appear. Simply put, even if that exact situation were to arise, the vehicle would always be able to safely stop because it would never be driving too fast to stop safely to avoid a collision in the first place.
A driverless car would not drive at a speed that was incommensurate with its own ability to sense things ahead of it which it may otherwise hit. If something up ahead happens to be hidden, whether it is because of nearby buildings or just the topography, the vehicle will be driving slowly enough that it will be able to safely stop *before* it hits something that it cannot yet see. No swerving necessary.
Doesn't look like a bazillion conditions to me.... I've only once seen somebody get a ticket where one of those was applicable, and the fine was waived as soon as they went to city hall tell them. Most of the time, a parking ticket is given because somebody wasn't paying enough attention to the time and how it impacted where they were parked.
Because I've rarely seen anyone get a parking ticket where any of the reasons it suggests might be a defense for the ticket are even applicable, and where any of them would have applied, you could just tell them that information at city hall where you go to pay for the ticket, and the fine is waived. It is far more common that a parking ticket is the result of something like forgetfulness... letting a parking meter run out, for instance... and there's shit-all that a 'bot like this will do to defend you.
I find it bizarre that so many people want to angrily rail on my remarks, but nobody reaily criticized the person who suggested that piracy might even somehow be a problem int the first place.
But hey.... if you want to continue to waste your 0x40-0x5f ascii characters on arguing with me, I won't stop you.
1. The Iowa class battleship has a foot thick armor on the hull. WW2 ships used armor that was sometimes even thicker. Washington class had 16 inch armor for instance.
2. cargo ships conventionally have to have accommodations for people. The entire ship, other than the engine room(s), could be one big vault, with the entire top being a doorway to allow access to the interior, much like the old space shuttle. It would be no more difficult to load or unload than existing cargo ships.
3. Presumably, there are reasons why they want to run autonomous ships in the first place. If it isn't profitable, obviously they won't do it. I was simply suggesting that looking at things from a perspective of ships that are always designed for accommodating at least a few human passengers may create limitations on what designs are practical, and if we drop those assumptions, other possibilities may surface.
4. Actually, I thought generally pirates made their money by robbing the people on the ship... but then I wasn't the one who initially suggested that these ships would be vulnerable to piracy. I was only proposing that it may be possible to mitigate such vulnerability, assuming it it were to exist in the first place, by incorporating design changes into such a vessel that would not be practical if the vessel needed to carry a human crew.
When there are legitimate reasons that you shouldn't have to pay the ticket, in my experience it requires no more than a simple presentation of those reasons to city hall. where the ticket would be paid, and the penalty is always dropped entirely.
The only time I have ever seen people have to pay for parking tickets is when they actually deserved them and reasonably could have known better, but either forgetfulness or simple laziness led to the situation where they ended up getting one.
Yes, but container ships that are manned would not typically need them... unmanned ships would need to have fairly secured protection against would-be pirates because there is nobody on the ship to otherwise stop them. The sheer difficulty of breaking into the ship would be the only thing that would keep such a ship's cargo safe.
From what I've seen on some of the pictures, the parts of the guns which are artistically similar but not identical are such because they were copied from a different model of the same game. There's not an original mesh in the entire gun, just a few of the colours on some of the textures have changed, but even some of those look like direct copy.
You must be looking at a different comparison pic than I did....only the mounted sight on the two guns that I saw looked anything alike, and the shape of the guns themselves other than the mounted site was actually fairly different. The shape of the butt at the back of the two guns is totally different, the Black Ops gun has a second hand grip in front of the trigger grip to hold the gun steady while I would assume the Orin game has a character holding the gun steady by just the base of the barrel, or possibly even wielding it one-handed. The barrel shape is entirely different between the two guns, and generally speaking, the black ops gun looks more like it could be a real gun from the real world than the Orion gun does, the latter seeming to have a touch more of a sci-fi look to it.
I honestly would not ever conclude that one of these guns had copied the other... at most, the black ops gun might have inspired the orion gun, but that's not the same thing as copyright infringement.
a one-inch thick hull would not be able to withstand even a single torpedo. Battleships are typically made to endure at least one hit, and generally have quite thick hulls. If you are talking about a vessel that has no manpower defending it, you are probably going to be willing to invest in higher calibre defensive armor plating than what you might find on common commercial ships anyways.
I can't say I know a lot about guns, but in my opinion the two guns only look similar.. There appear to be many stylistic differences in the shape of the guns that would probably not have occurred if one were truly a copy of the other. In fact, the only distinctive similarity is in that of the mounted sight, which you have to be specifically looking for to even notice it on account of the numerous differences in the rest of the gun, and even that similarity could just as easily as not be a consequence of the notion that both had a common inspiration from a particular real-life sight mounted on a light machine gun. At most, "inspired by" might be more accurate than the word "copy".
The interior of a ship that is manned is generally engineered to be accessible while the ship is in motion. An unmanned ship has no accessibility requirements.
you know that an enclosed ship IS a faraday cage right? its why the antennae's are on the outside of the hull. for an enclosed ship all they'd have to do is disconnect the antenna.
An antenna does not have to be very large, and may be positioned in a location that is not physically accessible unless the vessel is docked.
a foot thick?
Sure... many large ships have hulls that thick.
to get anything close to that efficiency you'd have to have a gantry system within the enclosed cargo space,
Or you have the containers capable of driving themselves to where they need to be for pickup.
The would-be pirates would have to get inside the hull to get at the contents. This hull could be well over a foot thick, and trying to break through it coupled with the lack of any kind of deck would generally make it infeasible to try and take anything from it when it is not docked. If the engines should fail, the ship could phone home immediately, and with GPS tracking, it is unlikely that would-be pirates would be able to tow it to where they wanted to open it up at their leisure before they were caught, unless the pirates happen to be able to deploy a faraday cage that is large enough to cover the entire ship they intent to plunder before they are caught.
Well, the primary incentive behind updating for myself was because of updates.... and I figured I might as well update for free while I can instead of waiting until the real EOL for windows 7 and possibly having to pay for something, and perhaps having to deal with having to upgrade to a complete unknown successor to windows 10 that I won't have a choice to not use by that time, and may actually be worse. Better the devil you know, and all that.
Finally, why would something that "may not be as bad as it seems" somehow also warrant "the complete lack of trust in the company"? I'd think to warrant the latter, a company would have to do something that is utterly unforgivable, and it seems kind of strange to suggest that something which is "not as bad as it seems" would qualify as such.
That is a problem, to be sure... but it often seems to be downplayed as just one of many other problems with an allegedly inferior OS. It seems like a stretch to think that the attitudes about Windows 10 would instantly be reversed if Microsoft simply didn't create situations where people might update accidentally.
I have windows10 pro... and it seems to be entirely possible on that version as well. Numerous privacy settings were selectable simply not choosing express settings on install, and all of them are configurable afterwars anyways,
I can't speak for the Home edition, however... to be frank, it is entirely possible that it may be much worse there.
I can also confirm that Windows 10 performs entirely fine without any internet connection at all.
Fair enough... but the point about it being unmanned remains. It doesn't have to be build to work the same way as a regular boat, and probably wouldn't even have a "deck" for anything to be put on. I'd imagine things would just go inside the hull, much like a tanker type of vessel.
The only network activity I have noticed from the windows computer on my network is when it is being used to actually access internet content. Granted, I haven't done any packet inspection on my router with wireshark to be sure nothing is going to ip addresses that were not intended, but then I'm not as paranoid as a lot of slashdotters seem to be. If you tell me more specifically what I should be looking for, I'll see if I can identify anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in an area with a greater metropolitan area population of about 3 million. Nowhere nearly as large as LA or NY, to be sure... but not exactly "thu sticks" either.
To be frank, part of my original remark about the it being useless is driven by the fact that the only reasons it considers as arguable are fairly obvious ones... where extenuating circumstances other than those listed could easily be legitimate reasons to not have to pay a ticket, and a human lawyer could probably successfully argue that point.
There was this one time that I had received a ticket, where I had actually just forgotten to apply an updated insurance sticker to the license plate on my car, and so it appeared that I had a vehicle with expired insurance parked on a public road beside the sidewalk in front of where I live. Parking an uninsured vehicle on a public roadway is illegal where I live, but as I said... I actually *had* all of the appropriate insurance, and had only forgotten to put the sticker on the plate. When I went to city hall to explain, and could have *proven* that the vehicle had actually been insured the whole time by virtue of the date of purchase on the paperwork I had obtained when my insurance was updated, city hall refused to drop the fine, where they would have had to if I had simply lied and suggested to them that the sticker must have been peeled off, or made up some such excuse. But no.... I told them the truth, and still had to pay the fine for parking an uninsured vehicle on the street when the vehicle was *NOT* uninsured, as I was entirely willing and able to prove.
Point being that I sincerely think a human lawyer could have easily saved me the fine (although the amount was small enough that it would never have been worth actually paying a lawyer to defend it), but this 'bot would not have been able to help one iota, and hence my assessment of its uselessness.
Generally speaking, highways don't tend to have lots of places where there is reduced visibility, or else it would be generally unsafe to travel at high speed there in the first place. Where such reduced visibility occurs on a highway, perhaps as you approach a viaduct from a lower level or some such thing, you'd probably notice roadside signage to that effect that recommends that drivers reduce speed anyways, If there are spots up ahead on the road that the car cannot see past, a driverless car will simply not drive fast enough that it will be unable to stop before such places, which may ideally be how a human should be driving too. Consider that humans can't generally make reasoned choices about too many things simultaneously, which would create hard limits on how fast a person might be able to safely drive in such an area, but those limits would not be the same for a computer, which can perform many calculations about proximity and safety multiple orders of magnitude more quickly than any human ever could. The fact that people often may not slow down in such circumstances is a consequence of the fact that human beings often make assumptions that are founded on irrational feelings or intuition instead of objective and logical reasoning. Any annoyance that might be felt at such slowdowns, which are already liable to be infrequent on a highway anyways because reduced visibility isn't the typical state of affairs on such roadways, would only be a consequence of being perhaps accustomed to unsafe driving practices, and not because the car is actually driving poorly.
Bearing in mind that a driverless car is liable to have much greater sensory awareness of its surroundings than a human driver could, so it may detect things that a human driver wouldn't and thus have more opportunity to appropriately react, if the narrow underpass was obscuring visibility for the vehicle to the point that the vehicle was unable to determine if something might come out from behind an obstacle it cannot sense past, the vehicle would slow down as soon as the reduced visibility began so that it could safely stop if something it cannot see at the time should suddenly appear. Simply put, even if that exact situation were to arise, the vehicle would always be able to safely stop because it would never be driving too fast to stop safely to avoid a collision in the first place.
A driverless car would not drive at a speed that was incommensurate with its own ability to sense things ahead of it which it may otherwise hit. If something up ahead happens to be hidden, whether it is because of nearby buildings or just the topography, the vehicle will be driving slowly enough that it will be able to safely stop *before* it hits something that it cannot yet see. No swerving necessary.
Doesn't look like a bazillion conditions to me.... I've only once seen somebody get a ticket where one of those was applicable, and the fine was waived as soon as they went to city hall tell them. Most of the time, a parking ticket is given because somebody wasn't paying enough attention to the time and how it impacted where they were parked.
Because I've rarely seen anyone get a parking ticket where any of the reasons it suggests might be a defense for the ticket are even applicable, and where any of them would have applied, you could just tell them that information at city hall where you go to pay for the ticket, and the fine is waived. It is far more common that a parking ticket is the result of something like forgetfulness... letting a parking meter run out, for instance... and there's shit-all that a 'bot like this will do to defend you.
I find it bizarre that so many people want to angrily rail on my remarks, but nobody reaily criticized the person who suggested that piracy might even somehow be a problem int the first place.
But hey.... if you want to continue to waste your 0x40-0x5f ascii characters on arguing with me, I won't stop you.
1. The Iowa class battleship has a foot thick armor on the hull. WW2 ships used armor that was sometimes even thicker. Washington class had 16 inch armor for instance.
2. cargo ships conventionally have to have accommodations for people. The entire ship, other than the engine room(s), could be one big vault, with the entire top being a doorway to allow access to the interior, much like the old space shuttle. It would be no more difficult to load or unload than existing cargo ships.
3. Presumably, there are reasons why they want to run autonomous ships in the first place. If it isn't profitable, obviously they won't do it. I was simply suggesting that looking at things from a perspective of ships that are always designed for accommodating at least a few human passengers may create limitations on what designs are practical, and if we drop those assumptions, other possibilities may surface.
4. Actually, I thought generally pirates made their money by robbing the people on the ship... but then I wasn't the one who initially suggested that these ships would be vulnerable to piracy. I was only proposing that it may be possible to mitigate such vulnerability, assuming it it were to exist in the first place, by incorporating design changes into such a vessel that would not be practical if the vessel needed to carry a human crew.
When there are legitimate reasons that you shouldn't have to pay the ticket, in my experience it requires no more than a simple presentation of those reasons to city hall. where the ticket would be paid, and the penalty is always dropped entirely.
The only time I have ever seen people have to pay for parking tickets is when they actually deserved them and reasonably could have known better, but either forgetfulness or simple laziness led to the situation where they ended up getting one.
Yes, but container ships that are manned would not typically need them... unmanned ships would need to have fairly secured protection against would-be pirates because there is nobody on the ship to otherwise stop them. The sheer difficulty of breaking into the ship would be the only thing that would keep such a ship's cargo safe.
You must be looking at a different comparison pic than I did....only the mounted sight on the two guns that I saw looked anything alike, and the shape of the guns themselves other than the mounted site was actually fairly different. The shape of the butt at the back of the two guns is totally different, the Black Ops gun has a second hand grip in front of the trigger grip to hold the gun steady while I would assume the Orin game has a character holding the gun steady by just the base of the barrel, or possibly even wielding it one-handed. The barrel shape is entirely different between the two guns, and generally speaking, the black ops gun looks more like it could be a real gun from the real world than the Orion gun does, the latter seeming to have a touch more of a sci-fi look to it.
I honestly would not ever conclude that one of these guns had copied the other... at most, the black ops gun might have inspired the orion gun, but that's not the same thing as copyright infringement.
Anything that is unmanned does not have to have the same kinds of practical design considerations as a manned vessel.
a one-inch thick hull would not be able to withstand even a single torpedo. Battleships are typically made to endure at least one hit, and generally have quite thick hulls. If you are talking about a vessel that has no manpower defending it, you are probably going to be willing to invest in higher calibre defensive armor plating than what you might find on common commercial ships anyways.
I can't say I know a lot about guns, but in my opinion the two guns only look similar.. There appear to be many stylistic differences in the shape of the guns that would probably not have occurred if one were truly a copy of the other. In fact, the only distinctive similarity is in that of the mounted sight, which you have to be specifically looking for to even notice it on account of the numerous differences in the rest of the gun, and even that similarity could just as easily as not be a consequence of the notion that both had a common inspiration from a particular real-life sight mounted on a light machine gun. At most, "inspired by" might be more accurate than the word "copy".
As I read it, the gun was "artistically similar", not a copy. That would be enough to be an homage.
The interior of a ship that is manned is generally engineered to be accessible while the ship is in motion. An unmanned ship has no accessibility requirements.
An antenna does not have to be very large, and may be positioned in a location that is not physically accessible unless the vessel is docked.
Sure... many large ships have hulls that thick.
Or you have the containers capable of driving themselves to where they need to be for pickup.
I firmly believe in the merits of respecting copyright law, personally... but something is fundamentally broken when this kind of shit can happen.
The would-be pirates would have to get inside the hull to get at the contents. This hull could be well over a foot thick, and trying to break through it coupled with the lack of any kind of deck would generally make it infeasible to try and take anything from it when it is not docked. If the engines should fail, the ship could phone home immediately, and with GPS tracking, it is unlikely that would-be pirates would be able to tow it to where they wanted to open it up at their leisure before they were caught, unless the pirates happen to be able to deploy a faraday cage that is large enough to cover the entire ship they intent to plunder before they are caught.
Well, the primary incentive behind updating for myself was because of updates.... and I figured I might as well update for free while I can instead of waiting until the real EOL for windows 7 and possibly having to pay for something, and perhaps having to deal with having to upgrade to a complete unknown successor to windows 10 that I won't have a choice to not use by that time, and may actually be worse. Better the devil you know, and all that.
Finally, why would something that "may not be as bad as it seems" somehow also warrant "the complete lack of trust in the company"? I'd think to warrant the latter, a company would have to do something that is utterly unforgivable, and it seems kind of strange to suggest that something which is "not as bad as it seems" would qualify as such.
That is a problem, to be sure... but it often seems to be downplayed as just one of many other problems with an allegedly inferior OS. It seems like a stretch to think that the attitudes about Windows 10 would instantly be reversed if Microsoft simply didn't create situations where people might update accidentally.
I can't speak for the Home edition, however... to be frank, it is entirely possible that it may be much worse there.
I can also confirm that Windows 10 performs entirely fine without any internet connection at all.
Fair enough... but the point about it being unmanned remains. It doesn't have to be build to work the same way as a regular boat, and probably wouldn't even have a "deck" for anything to be put on. I'd imagine things would just go inside the hull, much like a tanker type of vessel.
The only network activity I have noticed from the windows computer on my network is when it is being used to actually access internet content. Granted, I haven't done any packet inspection on my router with wireshark to be sure nothing is going to ip addresses that were not intended, but then I'm not as paranoid as a lot of slashdotters seem to be. If you tell me more specifically what I should be looking for, I'll see if I can identify anything.
If it is unmanned. It would not even neeed to have a "deck"