Only if you have to focus on words on the display. HUD's are entirely able to use largely iconographic presentations that do not require you to actually focus on the display in order to understand the information being communicated. The information density is much lower than text, but it can still be extremely informative and helpful in enhancing a driver's awareness of their surroundings.
I would have posted to make the same recommendation if someone else hadn't already mentioned it, so I'll just follow up with another recommendation for itext. It's a pretty easy to use library, and it's been around for a while, so it's pretty stable.
You don't need to take your eyes off of the road or necessarily even take either hand off of the wheel to change radio stations or control the in-car cd player, as many car radios have an extra set of controls right behind the steering wheel, and is very easy to control entirely by tactile sensation.
A DVD player or stereo does not require any kind of display to utilize. You can operate it simply by pressing buttons which you do not even necessarily have to look at, and an extra set of controls are often mounted right behind the steering wheel so you don't even have to take either hand off of the wheel to control it.
Ideally, no. In practice, IME we aren't quite there yet: the focal distance for current in-car HUDs still tends to be significantly shorter than where a driver should normally be looking.
Of course, and it is why HUDs should probably not have information that requires actually focussing on the windshield, which means no textual presentation of any kind... the only things that it should visually present to the user are iconographs that can be easily recognized even when you are not focussiing on them.
HUD's don't require you to take your eyes off the road. Also, really they aren't a distraction from driving when their purpose is to actually assist in operating the vehicle safely. In many cases, that's going to only be largely redundant data that can also be presented on the dashboard right in front of the driver, or presented to the driver as an audible warning, if applicable, but there are certainly exceptions that may have shades of augmented reality. The problem with this device is not so much its lack of integration with the vehicle, it is that using social media or music applications isn't relevant to driving, so any display pursuant to those purposes is going to be a distraction from driving... and it's difficult to control the purpose of devices that are *not* integrated with the vehicle.
If a display is not integrated into the car itself, and in particular where the *sole* purpose of a display should be to assist in driving the car safely, then it's going to be considered a distraction from driving, and therefore not going to be legal to use while driving.
1. We don't really have all the info on how our own brains work.
Okay, all that means is that we probably won't achieve AI just by trying to replicate the way we currently understand how the brain works, since we don't really understand the latter well enough to do it perfectly. That doesn't mean we won't eventually discover how the brain works at some point in the future, or that AI cannot be achieved in other ways.
2. Machines are machines
Human beings are machines too... by almost every reasonable definition. The mere fact that some might think we are more than machines does not necessarily make it true.
If they find they can't actually offer an all you can eat model they stop advertising and selling it.
Indeed... honestly, I'm not sure why Verizon wants to continue to pretend to offer an "unlimited" plan if they can't implement it without explicitly throttling the highest volume users of that plan (in fact, if they simply throttled all users of the "unlimited" plan, regardless of how much data that user had actually consumed, even that would meet a fairer definition of "unlimited" than what Verzon is currently doing).
This isn't about network speed at all... if Verizon really only want to offer a certain speed to "unlimited" subscribers, they certainly are free to do so. The problem is that the company actively imposes the disincentive of throttling only the very high data volume users, which is not conceptually any different from charging the "limited" plans more money whenever *they* go over their limit. It's worse in some ways because at least with limited plans, you know exactly how much you are allowed before you pay a penalty, but with these so-called unlimited plans, the decision to throttle can be wholly arbitrary, as long as the company feels that you are using too much. Regardless,whether the company is charging limited plans for exceeding their quota, or throttlling the connections of high volume "unlimited" plabs, the company is imposing a penalty on the user based on the volume of data that the user actually consumes, which is the very antithesis of what an unlimited plan should actually entail.
The issue isn't about guaranteeing any particular speed, the issue is that the company is actively pushing a disincentive on high volume users so that they do not consume as much bandwidth, which is functionally no different from charging them more money.
Even "limited" plans have unlmited data too... since the user will just have to pay more money as they go over their quote. But with so-called "unlimited" plans, the user evidently must pay by having their connection throttled. Either way, it's a disincentive to avoid using too much data, and either way it's not unlimited.
Verizon is still providing unlimited data, as much as the user can download. It is only the speed of the download that is changing.
You could argue that they provide unlimited data to everyone by that that reasoning.... it's only that if you have a "limited" plan and go over your limit, you will pay more for it.
They are, in effect, doing the same thing here... if you use too much data, they will impose a penalty upon you. The fact that the penalty in this case is not strictly monetary does not mean that it is not a disincentive against continuing excessive amounts of use, and thus, not technically any more of an unlimited plan than their expressly limited plans which charge you more when you go over the quota.
"Unlimited" should mean limited only by whatever capacity the infrastructure and technology of the time can support... there should be no restrictions enforced on the use of the service. If the hardware can physically provide a level of service, then that level of service should be available. If Verizon were, in fact, throttling everybody so that their networks could actually handle the communication load, that would be one thing, and for unlimited plan users, it could still satisfy a reasonable definition of unlimited, but Verizon is only targeting the subscribers who download the greatest amount of content among their unlimited customers, creating a disincentive for them to continue to use the service that is functionally no different than charging extra fees to limited plan subscribers when they exceed their quota.
Obviously "unlimited" is limited to whatever capacity their network can stand, but this is *deliberate* throttling... and is functionally no different from charging limited data plan subscribers extra fees for going over their allocated limits.
If they don't actually have the resources to offer plans to subscribers without the disincentive of additional fees, then they shouldn't be offering such plans to customers in the first place.
Of course, both fees and throttling can equally be considered as disincentives, and the entire notion behind "unlimited" plans is that you wouldn't have to deal with any unexpected disincentives to continue use.
Are you seriously trying to compare real-world racial prejudice to how entirely fictional characters are often presented as stereotypes in a storytelling medium?
In the summer it's fine, but that wasn't what I was disputing. The poster to whom I responded suggested solar would be sufficient for everything 24/7, which kind of implies it would be suitable year-round...
Certainly you can offset a lot of conventional energy generation with solar, but the idea that it could actually replace them entirely, at any cost, given the amount of energy that people actually use, and where you'd actually want to have the power being generated for convenience is just a pipe dream.
Just a quick look at the average energy density of solar energy that reaches the planet's surface, and how that density varies significantly with lattitude, coupled with the fact that you always want to actually generate the power somewhere that's relatively near to where the power actually gets used so you don't waste too much power transmitting it from remote locations, you'd discover that even 100% efficient solar panels wouldn't cut it for a whole lot of people who happen to reside further north or south than about 45 degrees from the equator.
Because when you aren't particularly trying to convey any sort of profound truths about the nature of the human condition, it's a common ploy to model a fictional character after a stereotype so that they are more instantly recognizable.
And we need *REAL* policemen playing the parts on those detective shows. And we should have *REAL* secret agents on programs like Marvel's Agents of Shield... Oh, and we need *REAL* aliens on shows like Doctor Who...
Slashdot Mirror
No difference between text and iconography? Do you need to actually *read* a stop sign to realize what it says, for instance?
Only if you have to focus on words on the display. HUD's are entirely able to use largely iconographic presentations that do not require you to actually focus on the display in order to understand the information being communicated. The information density is much lower than text, but it can still be extremely informative and helpful in enhancing a driver's awareness of their surroundings.
Really? First match.
I would have posted to make the same recommendation if someone else hadn't already mentioned it, so I'll just follow up with another recommendation for itext. It's a pretty easy to use library, and it's been around for a while, so it's pretty stable.
You don't need to take your eyes off of the road or necessarily even take either hand off of the wheel to change radio stations or control the in-car cd player, as many car radios have an extra set of controls right behind the steering wheel, and is very easy to control entirely by tactile sensation.
A DVD player or stereo does not require any kind of display to utilize. You can operate it simply by pressing buttons which you do not even necessarily have to look at, and an extra set of controls are often mounted right behind the steering wheel so you don't even have to take either hand off of the wheel to control it.
Of course, and it is why HUDs should probably not have information that requires actually focussing on the windshield, which means no textual presentation of any kind... the only things that it should visually present to the user are iconographs that can be easily recognized even when you are not focussiing on them.
HUD's don't require you to take your eyes off the road. Also, really they aren't a distraction from driving when their purpose is to actually assist in operating the vehicle safely. In many cases, that's going to only be largely redundant data that can also be presented on the dashboard right in front of the driver, or presented to the driver as an audible warning, if applicable, but there are certainly exceptions that may have shades of augmented reality. The problem with this device is not so much its lack of integration with the vehicle, it is that using social media or music applications isn't relevant to driving, so any display pursuant to those purposes is going to be a distraction from driving... and it's difficult to control the purpose of devices that are *not* integrated with the vehicle.
If a display is not integrated into the car itself, and in particular where the *sole* purpose of a display should be to assist in driving the car safely, then it's going to be considered a distraction from driving, and therefore not going to be legal to use while driving.
Okay, all that means is that we probably won't achieve AI just by trying to replicate the way we currently understand how the brain works, since we don't really understand the latter well enough to do it perfectly. That doesn't mean we won't eventually discover how the brain works at some point in the future, or that AI cannot be achieved in other ways.
Human beings are machines too... by almost every reasonable definition. The mere fact that some might think we are more than machines does not necessarily make it true.
If you can unambiguously define what a soul is, then I can probably answer that question.
Indeed... honestly, I'm not sure why Verizon wants to continue to pretend to offer an "unlimited" plan if they can't implement it without explicitly throttling the highest volume users of that plan (in fact, if they simply throttled all users of the "unlimited" plan, regardless of how much data that user had actually consumed, even that would meet a fairer definition of "unlimited" than what Verzon is currently doing).
I trust you see the inherent contradiction you just made there.
They might now know about it, perhaps... but don't know how to actually perform the hack, since H.A.D. modified the web page.
This isn't about network speed at all... if Verizon really only want to offer a certain speed to "unlimited" subscribers, they certainly are free to do so. The problem is that the company actively imposes the disincentive of throttling only the very high data volume users, which is not conceptually any different from charging the "limited" plans more money whenever *they* go over their limit. It's worse in some ways because at least with limited plans, you know exactly how much you are allowed before you pay a penalty, but with these so-called unlimited plans, the decision to throttle can be wholly arbitrary, as long as the company feels that you are using too much. Regardless,whether the company is charging limited plans for exceeding their quota, or throttlling the connections of high volume "unlimited" plabs, the company is imposing a penalty on the user based on the volume of data that the user actually consumes, which is the very antithesis of what an unlimited plan should actually entail.
The issue isn't about guaranteeing any particular speed, the issue is that the company is actively pushing a disincentive on high volume users so that they do not consume as much bandwidth, which is functionally no different from charging them more money.
Even "limited" plans have unlmited data too... since the user will just have to pay more money as they go over their quote. But with so-called "unlimited" plans, the user evidently must pay by having their connection throttled. Either way, it's a disincentive to avoid using too much data, and either way it's not unlimited.
You could argue that they provide unlimited data to everyone by that that reasoning.... it's only that if you have a "limited" plan and go over your limit, you will pay more for it.
They are, in effect, doing the same thing here... if you use too much data, they will impose a penalty upon you. The fact that the penalty in this case is not strictly monetary does not mean that it is not a disincentive against continuing excessive amounts of use, and thus, not technically any more of an unlimited plan than their expressly limited plans which charge you more when you go over the quota.
"Unlimited" should mean limited only by whatever capacity the infrastructure and technology of the time can support... there should be no restrictions enforced on the use of the service. If the hardware can physically provide a level of service, then that level of service should be available. If Verizon were, in fact, throttling everybody so that their networks could actually handle the communication load, that would be one thing, and for unlimited plan users, it could still satisfy a reasonable definition of unlimited, but Verizon is only targeting the subscribers who download the greatest amount of content among their unlimited customers, creating a disincentive for them to continue to use the service that is functionally no different than charging extra fees to limited plan subscribers when they exceed their quota.
Obviously "unlimited" is limited to whatever capacity their network can stand, but this is *deliberate* throttling... and is functionally no different from charging limited data plan subscribers extra fees for going over their allocated limits.
If they don't actually have the resources to offer plans to subscribers without the disincentive of additional fees, then they shouldn't be offering such plans to customers in the first place.
Of course, both fees and throttling can equally be considered as disincentives, and the entire notion behind "unlimited" plans is that you wouldn't have to deal with any unexpected disincentives to continue use.
Are you seriously trying to compare real-world racial prejudice to how entirely fictional characters are often presented as stereotypes in a storytelling medium?
Certainly you can offset a lot of conventional energy generation with solar, but the idea that it could actually replace them entirely, at any cost, given the amount of energy that people actually use, and where you'd actually want to have the power being generated for convenience is just a pipe dream.
Just a quick look at the average energy density of solar energy that reaches the planet's surface, and how that density varies significantly with lattitude, coupled with the fact that you always want to actually generate the power somewhere that's relatively near to where the power actually gets used so you don't waste too much power transmitting it from remote locations, you'd discover that even 100% efficient solar panels wouldn't cut it for a whole lot of people who happen to reside further north or south than about 45 degrees from the equator.
Because when you aren't particularly trying to convey any sort of profound truths about the nature of the human condition, it's a common ploy to model a fictional character after a stereotype so that they are more instantly recognizable.
I agree. Absolutely.
And we need *REAL* policemen playing the parts on those detective shows. And we should have *REAL* secret agents on programs like Marvel's Agents of Shield... Oh, and we need *REAL* aliens on shows like Doctor Who...
<eyeroll />