Or in Vancouver should they be allowed to ride the Skytrain which are indeed autonomous. No drivers. We do still have drivers in our taxis and buses though.
Exactly. By the time this question is germane it will be equivalent of "would you let your kid ride in a taxi without you?".
The long term direction is a far safer driving experience solely based on removing human drivers from all cars. Allowing them to "override" the automated systems just makes them far more dangerous than cars today where at least the norm is drivers who are somewhat used to driving. Letting people who rarely if ever driver override is just a disaster waiting to happen.
The premise is stupid. Why is the car getting a ticket?
If it is getting a ticket because the law was broken because of a design defect the manufacturer pays.
If it is getting a ticket because the passenger overrode the safeties and told it to do something (drive 5% faster than the speed limit, I need to get to an appointment...) then the passenger pays.
By definition a well designed and behaved robotic car simply won't break the law and won't be in a position to get a ticket. Law enforcement agencies may find that trying to milk GM or Ford or Toyota or Google with their favourite fast yellow light scam or similar may also find that those companies have very well paid lawyers that WILL challenge them in court (and appeal as far and as long as is necessary) and the cost legal costs will exceed anything that could ever be collected.
Don't confuse your poor tired robotic car who has Harvard and Yale law teams on call with the average joe tourist who just doesn't want to spend the night in jail.
The point about robotic cars is that they turn into really great robotic taxis. So at least for those jurisdictions that don't prevent it you'll see movement away from owning your own car to just getting driven to where you want to go at a hopefully (compared to today's rates) a moderately lower price. And certainly much less than owning your own car.
In all but very high density commutes (with common destinations) robotic taxis will be lower cost in the long run than self owned auto mobiles and any public transportation. And without any of the messy public interactions involved with public transit. And without the huge out front capital costs or ongoing public subsidizations. What is there not to love in this scenario (if you don't drive for a living.)
Great, they'll get to redeploy a large amount of resources into tracking down and arresting the local grass dealers. growers and distributes.... oh wait that is another trend...:-)
Amen to that. From Burnaby to Vancouver there is an absolutely wonderful bike commuter route that takes about 30-40% longer simply because it is on residential streets with stop signs on many intersections.
If you take the main car commuter route it is much faster (45 minutes generally instead of 60.) Simply because you can get up to speed and maintain speed by timing your approach to the main intersections (which all have lights.) Easy to maintain an average speed of 30 km/h which is simply impossible on the official bike commuter route.
And in many cases when I come to a full stop and then proceed through the intersection I'm actually slowing down the other traffic more than when I don't.
E.g. 4-way stop. If I don't stop, I can time my entrance for my "turn" and get through quickly (already moving, less time to clip back in and then accelerate through.) This not only saves me time (and effort.) But gets the rest of the vehicles moving faster as well.
Same for 2-way with someone trying to make a left across my lane from the other side. We are both stopped. I have the right of way. He now has to wait while I get back up to speed and fully cross the road.
Same for any stop where there is not a bike lane, so there are cars behind me. They all need to stop longer while I unclip, reclip, and get back up to speed. And also because I'm stopped and realize it WILL take LONGER for me to get across the road. That means I need to wait for a longer break in the traffic.
The answer is actually simple. Once you have determined that there is an (to quote Bruce Schneier) 11 out of 10 security problem you need to get the servers turned off. Everywhere.
If the FBI or Interpol or Bruce Schneier basically said "There is a serious exploit in OpenSSL, you (as in every organization running it) need to shut down every server now, we will provide the details and fix in 48 hours."
Yes, the bad guys will now know that OpenSSL has an exploit. But they won't exactly know where to start looking. And you now have a tilted the foot race for exploitation back towards the good guys. They do need to move fast and get the servers disabled. And perhaps redeploy using alternate non-involved servers (in this case non openSSL.) But that will be better than letting the black hats jump in and know immediately what the exploit is and start using it.
In any case sounds like we need an RFC and strict protocol for this.
Science Friday did an excellent interview back in 2008 with a Paul Offet and a concerned parent type.
She went down the list of objections, he kept giving reasonable replies.
She asked at one point "how many studies by the pharmaceutical industry or CDC have been done on vaccine loading". The reply "high hundreds to low thousands".
Her response "I don't believe that."
Basically NOTHING you can say will convince these people. In the end they simply do not want to believe and will continue to put forth their own arguments.
Agreed. In fact those 90% of sites can simply be forgotten about. Enter something in, use it and forget it. If you ever go back just click on the forgot password option and then use the emailed link to set another forgettable password.
And the bigger problem is NOT whether we will be tracked and watched but WHICH level of government and to what purpose.
Most people will allow that extensive tracking of their activities is OK WRT to making sure that terrorists can't do a repeat of 9/11.
But once the data is collected will it be put to use by other parts of the government for more mundane purposes.
Should the data be available to other police forces investigating more mundane things like the war on drugs? Money laundering. Remember the data is collected, wouldn't it be easy to use it to help here? Drugs are really bad and the people that sell them are really bad and we need more tools.
What about chasing down murders and rapists? Again, data may help and those are pretty bad people...
What about tracking down people charge with any felony (or your local equivalent)? The data is there. These people are bad. We want them in jail! And we don't want to increase LE budgets.
How about misdemeanours? These people are not as bad, but law enforcement is SO expensive and there are so many of them, and the data is there... please can we have it too!
How about getting tax cheats to pay up? The feds own the data, and they want to use it. Then the states get involved because they have a need to know. And do we really want our local municipal government using this stuff to chase after us to collect bylaw infraction fines and parking tickets? Lest you think this is not going to happen remember that these guys can ALREADY through you in jail if you don't pay all of the above.
At every level the powers to be will say that the data is there, and they should have access to make THEIR particular problem less expensive and more efficient. And they will be correct access WILL make their problem less expensive and more efficient.
The part that is currently waiting for permits will also carry Brakken oil south.
If KXL is denied you'll see a --KXL applied for. Basically up to the middle of North Dakota and stop. No State Department approval needed.
Then just build a rail depot at the head end and shunt the oil across the border in unit trains until some bright light in Washington realizes that the dangers of rail outweigh any possible benefits from NOT building the last 100 miles or so across the border.
And yes, us Canadians will be building multiple pipelines in multiple directions. There are two in planning stages across BC (one new and twinning an existing one) and a reversal of an existing one to take oil east through Ontario and Quebec.
One big data dump would be exciting for a while but has less impact overall than dribbling it out bit by bit for several years. Death by a thousand cuts......
That is what multiple monitors are for. The big two in front of you are for work. The third one off to the left (or right) is for the "occasional attention" crap.
Unfortunately not the actual Start Menu inside it thought:-(
The current rumours say we'll see the actual Start Menu in 8.2. That plus auto start to desktop and you are almost back to Win 7!
Will it be too little too late? Under the hood Win 8 is really not that much different from Win 7. Probably better. If you can keep corporate desktop users from having to screw around with Metro ever and make it look like Win 7 corporate use may pickup.
I was in Home Depot last weekend and noticed that the Service Desk computers where still running WinXP Professional.
Slashdot Mirror
Or in Vancouver should they be allowed to ride the Skytrain which are indeed autonomous. No drivers. We do still have drivers in our taxis and buses though.
Exactly. By the time this question is germane it will be equivalent of "would you let your kid ride in a taxi without you?".
The long term direction is a far safer driving experience solely based on removing human drivers from all cars. Allowing them to "override" the automated systems just makes them far more dangerous than cars today where at least the norm is drivers who are somewhat used to driving. Letting people who rarely if ever driver override is just a disaster waiting to happen.
Download chrome
Download classic shell
Download cygwin
And you now have a really nice windows system. I prefer it to Windows 7!
Very occasionally I stumble across some weird "tile" like things but one of them is labelled Desktop and that restores things to normal quickly :-)
The premise is stupid. Why is the car getting a ticket?
If it is getting a ticket because the law was broken because of a design defect the manufacturer pays.
If it is getting a ticket because the passenger overrode the safeties and told it to do something (drive 5% faster than the speed limit, I need to get to an appointment...) then the passenger pays.
By definition a well designed and behaved robotic car simply won't break the law and won't be in a position to get a ticket. Law enforcement agencies may find that trying to milk GM or Ford or Toyota or Google with their favourite fast yellow light scam or similar may also find that those companies have very well paid lawyers that WILL challenge them in court (and appeal as far and as long as is necessary) and the cost legal costs will exceed anything that could ever be collected.
Don't confuse your poor tired robotic car who has Harvard and Yale law teams on call with the average joe tourist who just doesn't want to spend the night in jail.
The point about robotic cars is that they turn into really great robotic taxis. So at least for those jurisdictions that don't prevent it you'll see movement away from owning your own car to just getting driven to where you want to go at a hopefully (compared to today's rates) a moderately lower price. And certainly much less than owning your own car.
In all but very high density commutes (with common destinations) robotic taxis will be lower cost in the long run than self owned auto mobiles and any public transportation. And without any of the messy public interactions involved with public transit. And without the huge out front capital costs or ongoing public subsidizations. What is there not to love in this scenario (if you don't drive for a living.)
Great, they'll get to redeploy a large amount of resources into tracking down and arresting the local grass dealers. growers and distributes.... oh wait that is another trend ... :-)
Do they have LEDS with the correct spectra to sell in Washington and Colorado states?
Could be a huge cash market for smuggling those North to BC and South to Mexico.
Amen to that. From Burnaby to Vancouver there is an absolutely wonderful bike commuter route that takes about 30-40% longer simply because it is on residential streets with stop signs on many intersections.
If you take the main car commuter route it is much faster (45 minutes generally instead of 60.) Simply because you can get up to speed and maintain speed by timing your approach to the main intersections (which all have lights.) Easy to maintain an average speed of 30 km/h which is simply impossible on the official bike commuter route.
And in many cases when I come to a full stop and then proceed through the intersection I'm actually slowing down the other traffic more than when I don't.
E.g. 4-way stop. If I don't stop, I can time my entrance for my "turn" and get through quickly (already moving, less time to clip back in and then accelerate through.) This not only saves me time (and effort.) But gets the rest of the vehicles moving faster as well.
Same for 2-way with someone trying to make a left across my lane from the other side. We are both stopped. I have the right of way. He now has to wait while I get back up to speed and fully cross the road.
Same for any stop where there is not a bike lane, so there are cars behind me. They all need to stop longer while I unclip, reclip, and get back up to speed. And also because I'm stopped and realize it WILL take LONGER for me to get across the road. That means I need to wait for a longer break in the traffic.
For those random sites that require a complex password I just enter some crap and forget it.
IFF I ever revisit I just click on forgot password and let them email me a link.
Too many crappy sites think they need NSA level security to protect their users.
Our "doorbell" is actually three rings on the telephone. Normal calls (one ring) and intercom calls (two rings) get ignored by the dogs.
Three rings and they start to bark to let us know that someone is at the front door.
The answer is actually simple. Once you have determined that there is an (to quote Bruce Schneier) 11 out of 10 security problem you need to get the servers turned off. Everywhere.
If the FBI or Interpol or Bruce Schneier basically said "There is a serious exploit in OpenSSL, you (as in every organization running it) need to shut down every server now, we will provide the details and fix in 48 hours."
Yes, the bad guys will now know that OpenSSL has an exploit. But they won't exactly know where to start looking. And you now have a tilted the foot race for exploitation back towards the good guys. They do need to move fast and get the servers disabled. And perhaps redeploy using alternate non-involved servers (in this case non openSSL.) But that will be better than letting the black hats jump in and know immediately what the exploit is and start using it.
In any case sounds like we need an RFC and strict protocol for this.
Science Friday did an excellent interview back in 2008 with a Paul Offet and a concerned parent type.
She went down the list of objections, he kept giving reasonable replies.
She asked at one point "how many studies by the pharmaceutical industry or CDC have been done on vaccine loading". The reply "high hundreds to low thousands".
Her response "I don't believe that."
Basically NOTHING you can say will convince these people. In the end they simply do not want to believe and will continue to put forth their own arguments.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/s...
The whole interview is fascinating, but above exchange is towards the end starting about 15:00.
Agreed. In fact those 90% of sites can simply be forgotten about. Enter something in, use it and forget it. If you ever go back just click on the forgot password option and then use the emailed link to set another forgettable password.
And the bigger problem is NOT whether we will be tracked and watched but WHICH level of government and to what purpose.
Most people will allow that extensive tracking of their activities is OK WRT to making sure that terrorists can't do a repeat of 9/11.
But once the data is collected will it be put to use by other parts of the government for more mundane purposes.
Should the data be available to other police forces investigating more mundane things like the war on drugs? Money laundering. Remember the data is collected, wouldn't it be easy to use it to help here? Drugs are really bad and the people that sell them are really bad and we need more tools.
What about chasing down murders and rapists? Again, data may help and those are pretty bad people...
What about tracking down people charge with any felony (or your local equivalent)? The data is there. These people are bad. We want them in jail! And we don't want to increase LE budgets.
How about misdemeanours? These people are not as bad, but law enforcement is SO expensive and there are so many of them, and the data is there... please can we have it too!
How about getting tax cheats to pay up? The feds own the data, and they want to use it. Then the states get involved because they have a need to know. And do we really want our local municipal government using this stuff to chase after us to collect bylaw infraction fines and parking tickets? Lest you think this is not going to happen remember that these guys can ALREADY through you in jail if you don't pay all of the above.
At every level the powers to be will say that the data is there, and they should have access to make THEIR particular problem less expensive and more efficient. And they will be correct access WILL make their problem less expensive and more efficient.
And that is what we call a very slippery slope.
Also the unit price of a 747 is high and there are not a lot of units to amortize development over.
There are a lot more BMW's built. The aggregate total sales for most popular car platforms can dwarf that of aviation. So the money is there.
Works for Ikea assembly instructions!
Isn't the entire idea of robotic trucks is that the troops don't have to use them!!
The part that is currently waiting for permits will also carry Brakken oil south.
If KXL is denied you'll see a --KXL applied for. Basically up to the middle of North Dakota and stop. No State Department approval needed.
Then just build a rail depot at the head end and shunt the oil across the border in unit trains until some bright light in Washington realizes that the dangers of rail outweigh any possible benefits from NOT building the last 100 miles or so across the border.
And yes, us Canadians will be building multiple pipelines in multiple directions. There are two in planning stages across BC (one new and twinning an existing one) and a reversal of an existing one to take oil east through Ontario and Quebec.
One big data dump would be exciting for a while but has less impact overall than dribbling it out bit by bit for several years. Death by a thousand cuts......
Australia is a reasonably large island. Are you saying that ALL of Australia will be at average temps of 40C for the rest of the week?
My Model M keyboards don't have anything between the Ctrl and Alt buttons.
That is what multiple monitors are for. The big two in front of you are for work. The third one off to the left (or right) is for the "occasional attention" crap.
That and buy the Classic Shell and you have a Windows 8.2 that everybody could love to hate less.
They did bring back the "Start Button" for 8.1.
Unfortunately not the actual Start Menu inside it thought :-(
The current rumours say we'll see the actual Start Menu in 8.2. That plus auto start to desktop and you are almost back to Win 7!
Will it be too little too late? Under the hood Win 8 is really not that much different from Win 7. Probably better. If you can keep corporate desktop users from having to screw around with Metro ever and make it look like Win 7 corporate use may pickup.
I was in Home Depot last weekend and noticed that the Service Desk computers where still running WinXP Professional.