Think about it - if your life sucks, how many weeks would you NOT spend $1 because MAYBE the rest of your life won't suck?
Why spend a dollar on a *remote* chance that it might result in improvement when that dollar can still do some actual good now?
And I'm speaking as one whose life did actually suck (at least relative to what I could see around me) for a good portion of his adult life. Back then, while the money that I could have spent on lottery tickets wouldn't have actually hurt that much to lose, in the end it was far better spent on things like bus fare, buying an extra couple of loaves of bread or other similar aspects of survival.
It's a robocall... I'd say I think I might have a whole lot more fun with it if it was an actual human except it's in Chinese anyways, and they'd probably just hang up the instant I tried to say anything in English.
I still get calls from "microsoft windows" every so often... it's hilarious. When they try to prove that they supposedly know that their "error messages" are coming from my computer by telling me that they have my computer's CLSID, I tell them what I know about what a CLSID actually is and it invariably produces a reaction.
The calls from the Canada Revenue Agency claiming that I owe money and that I am going to be arrested are funny too, although those are also robocalls, and I never get to talk to anyone.
If there were about 15 times as many people on the planet, even if there wasn't a single technological activity that humans undertook, we'd be creating more greenhouse gasses simply by exhaling than we currently do with all of our artificial efforts combined, and creating no less of an impact on global warming as a result.
That could potentially run afoul of certain privacy issues while the "kinks are being worked out". A better solution would be to display that the complete number was not available, but to still display where the number is coming from according to its real area code.
Of course the first thing that comes to mind is that most people are not aircraft pilots, and the mental image that comes to most people's minds with the term autopilot with respect to aircraft is a device that can left largely *UNATTENDED* once the plane has reached a sufficient altitude. Obviously it requires that the pilot is ready to assume to control, but with an aircraft that is in flight, being quite far away from any thing it can hit, a human actually has multiple orders of magnitude more time to react to virtually any kind of situation than one does in a car on the ground, moving at speed, so in fact a pilot can get away with far less attention than a driver of a car with Tesla's so called "autopilot" would be.
And so long as Tesla's autopilot requires that hands still be on the wheel while it is engaged on the basis that the technology cannot be relied upon in in even a trivially avoidable accident to do the right thing, then it saves precisely *ZERO* of the labor associated with driving, because almost 100% of the labour associated with driving is in paying enough attention to your surroundings that you can act and react appropriately.
Musk wants to blame the driver for not having his hands on the wheel because he would have been clearly able to see the concrete barrier, but the question I have is why didn't the car's alleged collision avoidance system see it, and fucking just stop the car, or at least slow down?
"Oh, but the technology isn't perfect" is about the lamest excuse I can imagine. I'm not saying that Musk's answer isn't necessarily technically true, but it's still bullshit.... if the technology can't even be relied upon things that are plain-as-day visible to absolutely anyone who was not otherwise doing anything special, then that's just too much of a limitation in the technology to call it "autopilot" in the first place. Yeah, it's the driver's own fault for not paying attention, I get that... but if they cant' identify specific deficiencies in the technology right now that could have prevented the accident, and can be applied to future iterations of the tech so that it won't happen again, then the truth of the matter is that the tech isn't ready for production use in the first place. People are *DYING* here.... blaming the accidents on the driver's own choices instead of using any information obtained by the accidents to improve the technology in the future doesn't do anything to save lives.
And "auto", as I said, means "by itself", and that suggests that at least it will be able to do *MOST* things that a driver can do without attendance. Not hitting things that anyone can easily see and adjust their speed for is something anyone who has gotten so far as getting their driver's license in the first place will be able to do. If it can't do that literally 100% of the time, barring some sort of traceable failure in the system that itself can be identified and corrected in future iterations of the technology so that it won't happen again, then it's not any kind of fucking autopilot at all.
Yes, of course... but that's only because natural contribution CO2 is far below the earth's threshold for recycling. The fact that the CO2 we exhale comes from a natural source does not in any way make it special. If there were 15 times as many people on the earth, the greenhouse gasses just from exhaling would be just as bad as all of the current waste CO2 contribution combined.
Stop, for gawd fucking sake, calling the damn thing "autopilot".
If it can't even *moderately* be relied upon to do the right thing without driver intevention, then it's not "auto" anything... because "auto" means "by itself".
Call it "driving assist" or something like that... don't put a misleading term in the very name that will suggest to people that it does something it does not.
While you can go ahead and blame the people for their own foolishness at trusting a technology that by its own admission is not yet perfect, people are still dying because the very name that is being used for it misleads people into thinking that it is something that it is not. Stop effing calling it that, and maybe people might start wising up about using it correctly.
My point was that to somehow argue that activities that humans have been undertaking for *centuries* (ie, making concrete) and which actually produces less CO2 than humans collectively do simply by breathing, is really kind of playing a witch hunt game with whatever might seem to look like an easy target, or might be fashionable to blame, ignoring all indications that it may be the wrong thing to blame, and doesn't actually try to address the real issue.
The truth is that to actually make any kind of real difference in global warming would require a far more significant change to our post-industrialization lifestyle than just giving up on something like concrete or even plastics. I'd argue that we wouldn't even need to give up either of those things except that there wouldn't be enough energy available with any currently existing technology to make them in adequate quantities if we were otherwise still genuinely being just as carbon neutral as we were 500 years ago, with allowances only for increase in population.
And it unfortunately bears noting that barring global catastrophe that forces us all to behave differently, the logistics of implementing that kind of change on any scale that will matter in the long run are completely untenable in the first place. That doesn't mean doing the wrong shit will make things any better though.
I'm not saying that a bunch of these things won't add up, but the truth is that there's a relatively small number of things that are doing far worse things to the environment, and we don't seem to be in any hurry to get rid of them because, in the end, it would make our lives too inconvenient.
Of all things.... somebody picks concrete to try and do away with as a means to try and fix the problem?
(insert meme pic of a person using a tablespoon to bail out water from a sinking boat).
You know that mankind has been making concrete since long before the industrial age, right?
The problem isn't greenhouse gases in general, it's the rate of production.... cutting out the things we were always doing that wasn't affecting the environment before the industrial revolution is going to make *NO* perceptable difference to the problem, and is blinded by the notion that supposedly doing something is better than doing nothing, even when the something is not the right thing to be doing in the first place.
Your 14kw generator, if running 24/7, would produce over 10 megawatt hours of energy every 30 days. On average, most people in the USA, the highest consumers of electricity in the world, don't even use a tenth of that, and I'd honestly be surprised if your actual monthly energy usage was even 20% of that capacity.
Coupled with a good sized battery for storage for the occasions when usage is actually higher than whatever the generator can instantaneously produce, 10kw would be more than enough for anybody, for purely residential and non-industrial usage.
LIDAR's primary advantage over human senses is its ability to see things in the dark. It can be combined with other types of imaging technologies in other situations to create an impression of the surrounding environment that,while it might be technically more limited than what is ordinarily capable of by any extant adverse conditions, will still generally be superior to what a human being is capable of in the exact same conditions.
One laser can intersect another, and they don't interfere with eachother. They can each have their own modulation and so can be detected individually, regardless of other vehicles using the same technology. Current technology can do millions of these per second.
If car is mistaking sunlight for its own LIDAR signal, then the software is at fault, not the hardware.
I have no problem with it being unregulated, per se.... I just think that short term rentals should exclusively apply to all units within a building (other than those that may be required for on-site management and maintenance staff). If a person wants to run a B&B, they should be able to with a minimum of fuss.... but it should have to apply to the entire building, not just individual units in it. This makes in unviable when there are multiple owners, such as in a condo situation, because if even a single owner find out that another owner is using short term rentals in violation of their strata code, they can be reported, fined if it happens again, and ultimately even forced to move out because the repeating fines will make it prohibitively expensive to continue to live there.
I'm not familiar with all of the cases you mentioned, but for the one that I am, it's my understanding that the sensors that were used on the self-driving automobile were inferior to LIDAR, which I suspect may have prevented the accident.
But modern sensors, despite being superior to human senses, still have some technological limitations. You can't blame the software for what the hardware doesn't see.... at least we know that hardware exists with better acuity than human senses which, when it used correctly, should reduce accidents considerably.
Rental periods of less than a single calendar month in length should force the entire building to be qualified as a hotel, and require that there be no long term rental or ownership of any units anywhere within the entire building, beyond at most what is necessary for any dedicated management and/or maintenance staff.
Please describe how, in any kind of physically plausible scenario where one is travelling at a lawful speeds that are actually commensurate with any reduced visibility they may have, one would actually be faced with being unable to stop for five people on the road.
I was suggesting that it might be surprising to some people on account of the fact that it was not plugged in and you give an example that explicitly requires physical contact.
I fail to see the relevance of your argument to what I said.
And nobody needs sunscreen over 50SPF, no matter what the manufacturers say
How about what a person's own freakin' skin says?
Some parts of my body, notably my shoulders and back, will burn in just minutes of being directly exposed to the sun without any protection, and it's an extremely painful lesson for being absent minded and forgetting to put some on.
I've used SPF 50, and while I find that it's significantly better than no sunscreen at all, it lasts nowhere nearly long enough for me to be reliable protection if I'm spending more than a couple of hours or so outside. The only way I can prevent this is by either staying clothed, or staying in the shade.
At SPF 100, I seem to get enough extra hours of protection that I usually don't burn.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that VB macros do not require source code to be distributed if it has already been compiled into byte code.
Presumably, one can vet the source code themselves if they are wary of third party code.
Theoretically, at least, javascript has a potential of being safer than VB in this regard.
Why spend a dollar on a *remote* chance that it might result in improvement when that dollar can still do some actual good now?
And I'm speaking as one whose life did actually suck (at least relative to what I could see around me) for a good portion of his adult life. Back then, while the money that I could have spent on lottery tickets wouldn't have actually hurt that much to lose, in the end it was far better spent on things like bus fare, buying an extra couple of loaves of bread or other similar aspects of survival.
It's a robocall... I'd say I think I might have a whole lot more fun with it if it was an actual human except it's in Chinese anyways, and they'd probably just hang up the instant I tried to say anything in English.
I still get calls from "microsoft windows" every so often... it's hilarious. When they try to prove that they supposedly know that their "error messages" are coming from my computer by telling me that they have my computer's CLSID, I tell them what I know about what a CLSID actually is and it invariably produces a reaction.
The calls from the Canada Revenue Agency claiming that I owe money and that I am going to be arrested are funny too, although those are also robocalls, and I never get to talk to anyone.
If there were about 15 times as many people on the planet, even if there wasn't a single technological activity that humans undertook, we'd be creating more greenhouse gasses simply by exhaling than we currently do with all of our artificial efforts combined, and creating no less of an impact on global warming as a result.
No, that's lotteries.
That could potentially run afoul of certain privacy issues while the "kinks are being worked out". A better solution would be to display that the complete number was not available, but to still display where the number is coming from according to its real area code.
[nt]
And so long as Tesla's autopilot requires that hands still be on the wheel while it is engaged on the basis that the technology cannot be relied upon in in even a trivially avoidable accident to do the right thing, then it saves precisely *ZERO* of the labor associated with driving, because almost 100% of the labour associated with driving is in paying enough attention to your surroundings that you can act and react appropriately.
Musk wants to blame the driver for not having his hands on the wheel because he would have been clearly able to see the concrete barrier, but the question I have is why didn't the car's alleged collision avoidance system see it, and fucking just stop the car, or at least slow down?
"Oh, but the technology isn't perfect" is about the lamest excuse I can imagine. I'm not saying that Musk's answer isn't necessarily technically true, but it's still bullshit.... if the technology can't even be relied upon things that are plain-as-day visible to absolutely anyone who was not otherwise doing anything special, then that's just too much of a limitation in the technology to call it "autopilot" in the first place. Yeah, it's the driver's own fault for not paying attention, I get that... but if they cant' identify specific deficiencies in the technology right now that could have prevented the accident, and can be applied to future iterations of the tech so that it won't happen again, then the truth of the matter is that the tech isn't ready for production use in the first place. People are *DYING* here.... blaming the accidents on the driver's own choices instead of using any information obtained by the accidents to improve the technology in the future doesn't do anything to save lives.
And "auto", as I said, means "by itself", and that suggests that at least it will be able to do *MOST* things that a driver can do without attendance. Not hitting things that anyone can easily see and adjust their speed for is something anyone who has gotten so far as getting their driver's license in the first place will be able to do. If it can't do that literally 100% of the time, barring some sort of traceable failure in the system that itself can be identified and corrected in future iterations of the technology so that it won't happen again, then it's not any kind of fucking autopilot at all.
Yes, of course... but that's only because natural contribution CO2 is far below the earth's threshold for recycling. The fact that the CO2 we exhale comes from a natural source does not in any way make it special. If there were 15 times as many people on the earth, the greenhouse gasses just from exhaling would be just as bad as all of the current waste CO2 contribution combined.
Stop, for gawd fucking sake, calling the damn thing "autopilot".
If it can't even *moderately* be relied upon to do the right thing without driver intevention, then it's not "auto" anything... because "auto" means "by itself".
Call it "driving assist" or something like that... don't put a misleading term in the very name that will suggest to people that it does something it does not.
While you can go ahead and blame the people for their own foolishness at trusting a technology that by its own admission is not yet perfect, people are still dying because the very name that is being used for it misleads people into thinking that it is something that it is not. Stop effing calling it that, and maybe people might start wising up about using it correctly.
My point was that to somehow argue that activities that humans have been undertaking for *centuries* (ie, making concrete) and which actually produces less CO2 than humans collectively do simply by breathing, is really kind of playing a witch hunt game with whatever might seem to look like an easy target, or might be fashionable to blame, ignoring all indications that it may be the wrong thing to blame, and doesn't actually try to address the real issue.
The truth is that to actually make any kind of real difference in global warming would require a far more significant change to our post-industrialization lifestyle than just giving up on something like concrete or even plastics. I'd argue that we wouldn't even need to give up either of those things except that there wouldn't be enough energy available with any currently existing technology to make them in adequate quantities if we were otherwise still genuinely being just as carbon neutral as we were 500 years ago, with allowances only for increase in population.
And it unfortunately bears noting that barring global catastrophe that forces us all to behave differently, the logistics of implementing that kind of change on any scale that will matter in the long run are completely untenable in the first place. That doesn't mean doing the wrong shit will make things any better though.
I'm not saying that a bunch of these things won't add up, but the truth is that there's a relatively small number of things that are doing far worse things to the environment, and we don't seem to be in any hurry to get rid of them because, in the end, it would make our lives too inconvenient.
Of all things.... somebody picks concrete to try and do away with as a means to try and fix the problem?
(insert meme pic of a person using a tablespoon to bail out water from a sinking boat).
You know that mankind has been making concrete since long before the industrial age, right?
The problem isn't greenhouse gases in general, it's the rate of production.... cutting out the things we were always doing that wasn't affecting the environment before the industrial revolution is going to make *NO* perceptable difference to the problem, and is blinded by the notion that supposedly doing something is better than doing nothing, even when the something is not the right thing to be doing in the first place.
Your 14kw generator, if running 24/7, would produce over 10 megawatt hours of energy every 30 days. On average, most people in the USA, the highest consumers of electricity in the world, don't even use a tenth of that, and I'd honestly be surprised if your actual monthly energy usage was even 20% of that capacity.
Coupled with a good sized battery for storage for the occasions when usage is actually higher than whatever the generator can instantaneously produce, 10kw would be more than enough for anybody, for purely residential and non-industrial usage.
Simply by exhaling, humans contribute roughly 7% of annual CO2 tonnage, worldwide. Again, that's just by *BREATHING*.
Just trying to put that into perspective here...
LIDAR's primary advantage over human senses is its ability to see things in the dark. It can be combined with other types of imaging technologies in other situations to create an impression of the surrounding environment that,while it might be technically more limited than what is ordinarily capable of by any extant adverse conditions, will still generally be superior to what a human being is capable of in the exact same conditions.
One laser can intersect another, and they don't interfere with eachother. They can each have their own modulation and so can be detected individually, regardless of other vehicles using the same technology. Current technology can do millions of these per second.
If car is mistaking sunlight for its own LIDAR signal, then the software is at fault, not the hardware.
I have no problem with it being unregulated, per se.... I just think that short term rentals should exclusively apply to all units within a building (other than those that may be required for on-site management and maintenance staff). If a person wants to run a B&B, they should be able to with a minimum of fuss.... but it should have to apply to the entire building, not just individual units in it. This makes in unviable when there are multiple owners, such as in a condo situation, because if even a single owner find out that another owner is using short term rentals in violation of their strata code, they can be reported, fined if it happens again, and ultimately even forced to move out because the repeating fines will make it prohibitively expensive to continue to live there.
I'm not familiar with all of the cases you mentioned, but for the one that I am, it's my understanding that the sensors that were used on the self-driving automobile were inferior to LIDAR, which I suspect may have prevented the accident.
But modern sensors, despite being superior to human senses, still have some technological limitations. You can't blame the software for what the hardware doesn't see.... at least we know that hardware exists with better acuity than human senses which, when it used correctly, should reduce accidents considerably.
Rental periods of less than a single calendar month in length should force the entire building to be qualified as a hotel, and require that there be no long term rental or ownership of any units anywhere within the entire building, beyond at most what is necessary for any dedicated management and/or maintenance staff.
Just IMNSHO....
Please describe how, in any kind of physically plausible scenario where one is travelling at a lawful speeds that are actually commensurate with any reduced visibility they may have, one would actually be faced with being unable to stop for five people on the road.
No... one is a fluke, two is coincidence, and is only cause to watch for patterns. *THREE* is a pattern.
I was suggesting that it might be surprising to some people on account of the fact that it was not plugged in and you give an example that explicitly requires physical contact.
I fail to see the relevance of your argument to what I said.
I think the surprising thing about it to some people is that the device was not one that was plugged in, and yet it was still affected.
How about what a person's own freakin' skin says?
Some parts of my body, notably my shoulders and back, will burn in just minutes of being directly exposed to the sun without any protection, and it's an extremely painful lesson for being absent minded and forgetting to put some on.
I've used SPF 50, and while I find that it's significantly better than no sunscreen at all, it lasts nowhere nearly long enough for me to be reliable protection if I'm spending more than a couple of hours or so outside. The only way I can prevent this is by either staying clothed, or staying in the shade.
At SPF 100, I seem to get enough extra hours of protection that I usually don't burn.