The problem with that business model is eventually someone will figure out how to "jailbreak" their car and enhance the battery life without paying Tesla for the privilege. This will create all kinds of legal nightmares. Historically car owners have been allowed to "soup up their ride" (as long as the resulting vehicle is street legal), but with this new kind of business model that Tesla has, that could change. When you buy a car will there be an EULA that forbids making improvements? This could be a slippery slope.
Some will, but most won't -- not many people are going to risk reflashing their $70K car to "save" $5K while losing warranty coverage. I doubt Tesla will care if people wait until the 4 year warranty period is up before reflashing.
In any case, why is efficacy testing a bad thing? Shouldn't a drug be proven to actually treat the condition it's supposed to be treating?
Ask anyone that cant get a drug that works because testing for their rare condition will never be done because the drug also works for some common condition.
Good intentions for the sake of good intentions costs lives. Your policy is equivalent to murder.
That's what off label prescribing is for -- if your doctor thinks that a drug will treat your condition even if that's not the primary purpose of the drug, he can prescribe it for that condition. But drug companies shouldn't be allowed to shot-gun all of their drugs on the market without any proof that they treat any condition at all.
So call off the police, I haven't murdered any one.
After the thalidomide fiasco, the FDA took the European scandal opportunity to increase the scope of its power and influence by petitioned congress to add Efficacy testing. It made no sense but the reasons for expanding government power rarely does.
Isn't it easier to prove efficacy than to prove safety?
To prove that something works you just have to show that people had an improvement in the condition being treated. You don't need to follow up every side effect and see if it was caused by your drug.
In any case, why is efficacy testing a bad thing? Shouldn't a drug be proven to actually treat the condition it's supposed to be treating?
The cost to bring a drug to market is excessive, but that doesn't mean that drugs should be sold without any proof that they work.
There's a wee bit of difference between getting drunk for an evening and a week of vacation with no phone coverage at all, in the days most crucial for the company's survival
He's been posting burning man pics to his Instagram feed while he's at Burning Man, so why assume he's completely out of contact? Evans isn't even the CEO, he's handed that off to someone else, so he may be letting the real CEO call the shots.
If my life was significantly different after a new release of any software, I think I'd see my life as re-evaluating whatever life choices made that software such a significant part of my life.
It also prevents legitimate users that might need to rollback due to a bug or feature that affects them badly in a new build from rolling back. Really this should be a completely optional check that is user settable as a rollback can be critical. I have had to rollback twice in recent years due to breaking changes and why is it unreasonable to want to be able to use the last known good build from the manufacturer as I don't want to root m phone or put on custom roms.
I've owned android devices ever since my T-Mobile G1 and I have *never* needed to roll back an OS upgrade.
Care to inform me why the fuck me, or anyone who has at least parts of his mental health remaining, would want to buy such a device?
Probably because nearly all consumers have no interest at all in rooting their phone, installing a custom ROM, or even rolling back to a previous release. It's a very tiny subset of users that care about such things, not enough for most companies to care about serving them.
The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
Of course it would be completely undetecable, it is a no brainer.
So why are you riding this dead horse?
Because you made the claim that it's impossible to jam GPS (or give an erroneous GPS reading) to one ship without also affecting all of the surrounding ships, and nothing you've replied since then shows that you understand that it's possible.
Erm, why do you shit no brainers? I had physics in school, you know....
I guess the destroyer and the cargo ship must have a strong force field that they collided with each other while hundreds of meters apart...
By the time two large ships are on a collision course 100 yards apart, it's too late to stop a collision.
But you don't seem to understand how weak GPS signals are -- they are literally below the noise floor, and a GPS receiver can only find the signal because it knows where to look ahead of time. The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
"If it can't see a 500 ft tanker approaching, what chance does it have in wartime?" What will it do in wartime? From the pictures it doesn't appear their weapons capability was effected by the collision so they could fire off every weapon it has before the ship went under. And that one ship has enough fire power to level a small country all by itself.
Getting rammed by a slow moving civilian tanker and then firing off every weapon it has before sinking doesn't sound like a great wartime strategy.
The main land-attack weapons load for an Arleigh Class Destroyer is 56 tomahawk missiles with a high explosive or cluster-bomb warhead. The 100 kiloton nuclear warhead option has (supposedly) been retired. Most of the rest of the weapons are for air or sea defense, not much help in a land attack.
While it could take out a small city (or more usefully, key military and infrastructure targets in the city), it's hyperbole to suggest that it can level a small country.
I'm really wondering how retarded the/. crowd or americans in general are. GPS works like navigation by the stars. Instead of aiming with optical instruments at real stars, you 'aim' an artificial receiver towards satellites (artificial stars). So, if you spoof the GPS location by 'overwriting' the signals(light) from the 'artificial' star, all ships in that region have the same 'spoofing error'. It is close to impossible to spoof one ship to change course to the left, and another one to change course to the right, so that they collide, because they both have the same spoofed misplacement.
I'd think that if someone wanted to spoof GPS to make a single ship alter course, they'd plant their spoofer near the GPS antenna(s) on the ship and jam it from there. It may be difficult to do so on a naval vessel, but less difficult on a merchant vessel who relies on local vendors for maintenance while in port.
There is no magical 'GPS' that tells you where you are (or that can be 'hacked' and you can figure where someone else is), the little GPS receiver is calculating itself where it is!
Isn't that little GPS receiver the magical 'GPS' that you'd jam?
You want to travel to the mountain in front of you. Now someone spoofes the positions of those mountains, and you change course. So that you believe that you are still heading to the mountain in front if you.
Every ship around you, regardless what course, would make exactly the same course correction!! If you shift 5 degrees to the right, every other ship would do the exact same thing! (Regardless to where they are heading)
That can not lead to collisions!
but now imagine that you want to jam just the one GPS receiver -- so instead of moving the mountains (which is hard), you paint a picture of the mountains on a sheet, and fly it in just in front of the guy you're trying to spoof. Only he sees the spoofed mountains and no one else does.
And bottom line: navigation does not work that way anyway. You use the magnet compass for hours until you change course.
So you start with a tiny course deviation, just a few degrees, but you keep it up for hours. The navigator dismisses it as a compass error (after all, GPS isn't wrong), but over 20 or 40 miles, it can end up miles off course and may think he's far from traffic on the AIS plotter even as he's on a collision course.
Of course a ship won't rely on GPS or AIS, and will use Radar and vision (both with the naked eye and night vision) to watch for traffic. And that's why GPS spoofing should not result in a collision. not because it's impossible to spoof GPS for a single vessel.
When you're sailing for 50+ days and don't see any other vessel (maybe the bridge of something over the horizon.) It is easy to become complacient with nothing around you. Both ships are at fault imho but (also imo) a navy destroyer should yield to a the absolutely massive shipping container vessles. Those cargo ships have blind spots for miles.
He was in a busy shipping channel not in the middle of the ocean surrounded by hundreds of miles of open seas.
American warships have a reputation in NATO as being driven by amateurs. During fleet manoeuvers, the rest of us actively plot wider safety bubbles around American ships because they are erratic and have a tendency to simply go the wrong direction and just not care.
That's because the *are* piloted by amateurs (relatively speaking).
A merchant marine captain will spend his entire life in the same career track, building on and enhancing his skills. A Navy captain will have gone through extensive training in school, then work his way through various specialties (engineering, communications, weapons, etc) before he finally gets his command, so he's got much less experience as a merchant marine captain. And even when in command, he's responsible for hundreds of sailors instead of the dozen or two that a merchant vessel would have.
I figure it's much more likely that the captain demanded the traffic (driven by or for nignogs, clearly, it's the middle east) change course and played chicken with a tanker that has no chance of complying due to their massive size.
The accident took place in the straits of Malacca which is hardly the middle east. If the Captain was so arrogant as to play chicken he could've just sunk the merchant ship when it got to close.
It'd take an awfully crazy Navy captain to sink a foreign flagged ship in a public shipping channel.
Most likely cause was probably weather reducing visibility (heavy fog/mist is quite common in that area) so they didn't see the ship until it was to late.
That might be a valid excuse if either vessel was a 20 ft sailboat, but a 2 billion dollar Arleigh Class destroyer has 6MW worth of radar. Even my friend's 30 foot boat has a 4KW radar system than can see ships miles away through heavy fog and rain.
If it can't see a 500 ft tanker approaching, what chance does it have in wartime?
My favorite one was from around 1999 when companies were sued for some arcane bug that might result in lost data on floppies. Yeah, most of these only make money for the lawyers
What was the problem with that one? If there was a known bug that resulted in data loss from a device designed to store data, shouldn't it be fixed? Sure, floppies suffer from bit rot and lose data on their own, but that doesn't mean that data should be purposely lost due to a know bug. Even in 1999, floppies were still in wide use, though they were definitely on their way out by then.
Do you really need all of those channels? When I canceled my cable, I switched to over-the-air networks (for free), and Netflix + Amazon Prime (which is effectively free since I'd have prime even without the streaming).
If you want the same set of channels you had with cable, it stands to reason that it's not going to be cheaper.
I've found more than enough to distract me without cable, I don't need to replicate it with streaming.
If you want a VIABLE alternative then look to DuckDuckGo, not bing... never bing... never, ever bing...
I forced myself to use DuckDuckGo for a month, by the end of the month, I was rerunning most of my searches with the "!g" tag to do the search on Google since DuckDuckGo results weren't what I was looking for.
Yeah! I do not want to have to subscribe to another streaming service! I want all my videos in one service. Everyone else wants that too. Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content. I'm sure they would not overcharge us. What could possibly go wrong?
You don't need to have a single monopoly service, set up compulsory licensing laws similar to those used for music and then you can have many competing services and they all have access to the same content.
In these situations, obviously the workers would need to be using a transmitter to broadcast updated road speed information in a standardised format to all vehicles. Isn't this just common sense?
If you're going to standardize every construction site in america and give them transmitters that every car listens to, why not just put long distance RFID tags on every street sign and avoid the need to use faulty image recognition in the first place? Just because humans need to use vision to read signs doesn't mean cars should.
They could even be cryptographically signed with the sign's meaning and location/direction to prevent a prankster from moving a 70mph freeway speed limit sign to a residential street.
In fact there is an unmarked 4 way stop near my office. There is a crash there about once every 2-3 months.
If it's unmarked, it's not a 4-way stop. No marking means "yield to the right". Too many people have become accustomed to all intersections being marked to remember the basic rules.
It's not just "yield to the right", it's yield to oncoming traffic, yield to the car that gets there first, and then (maybe) yield to the right.
Some states (like Arizona) treat an uncontrolled intersection as a 4 way stop, which is the only sensible thing to do.
For example, there's no reason to have a certain sign on certain roads (Stop sign on an interstate highway).
Except during road construction when a signman holds up a "stop" sign and the self-driving car says "You're not fooling me! There are no stop signs on freeways, and even your 15mph speed limit sign is fake, my database says the speed limit here is 75mph. See ya!"
Google treats it as the same thing because it is in the email standards.
All standards compliant email systems allow periods in the name portion, and they are ignored when determining the destination mailbox.
You're half right -- standards compliant email systems allow dots in the local part of the address, but there's nothing in the standard that requires dots to be ignored. Google does it, but not all providers do.
But you can generally use the extra periods as a pattern to filter the emails. For example, you can provide A.BC to trusted parties and then filter everything else into a junk folder.
Or you could just use the sub addressing that Google (and others) support to do the same thing, but with unlimited suffixes:
Some mail services support a tag appended to the local-part, such that the modified address is an alias to the unmodified one. For example, the address joeuser+tag@example.com denotes the same delivery address as joeuser@example.com. RFC 5233, refers to this convention as sub-addressing, but it is also known as plus addressing or tagged addressing
You're missing the point. You're like someone saying: "if we find the way to make people immortal, how are we going to provide them all with a retirement home."
The whole concept of high-density urban centers is a direct consequence of mass transportation issues. Buses and trains that run on a schedule are an immense waste of resources, they're too big and too slow to react to changes, so populations have clustered to minimize the side effects of poor transportation. Urban money pits such as skyscrapers (which are incredibly inefficient in terms of HVAC and pedestrian traffic) have mushroomed because of poor transportation.
There's plenty of land in North America; once gas emissions are solved, there won't be any reason to endure rush hour, world trade centers and $40/day downtown parking. You may believe that being downtown is a must and that it's where things happen, but really, look around you and see what proportion of those office buildings actually play a role in your life other than being in the way.
The path of least resistance is horizontal, not vertical.
You seem to be under the impression that transit systems exist solely to reduce emissions, while ignoring why downtown urban centers exists -- it's for the jobs.
There's plenty of land in North America; once gas emissions are solved, there won't be any reason to endure rush hour,
Except to get to work. And when millions of people are driving to spread out office parks throughout a sprawling low density area, traffic is going to be horrendous -- look at LA, it's very car centered, devotes about a third of its land area to cars, yet it has some of the worst traffic in the USA.
You may say that everyone can just work from home, but so far that hasn't happened. Google, Apple, Facebook and other companies with nearly limitless technology resources still bus their employees 40 miles from SF to their offices because they apparently feel that having employees on-site is better. Emission free cars (or buses) won't change that.
Buses and trains that run on a schedule in a high density urban area are more convenient than driving in those areas -- when trains come every few minutes, the schedule doesn't matter.
While a highrise may take more energy for HVAC than a well constructed low-rise (but not more than a single family home), once you have your unlimited emission free energy source for cars, that won't matter, will it? That same energy source can be used to power buildings.
look around you and see what proportion of those office buildings actually play a role in your life other than being in the way.
I've looked around and pretty much all of the neighboring buildings play a role in my life (and they are not all office building - they are also residential buildings) - those buildings are what house the shops, restaurants, bars, and other services that I use on a daily basis. They are not in the way, they are where I'm going. And I'm getting there by walking, not in my car.
Get serious. I'm nearly 59 years old. I commute 25 miles round trip each day. A bike for daily transport is not practical form us. And I'm sure as shit not going to bike into work, and get all sweaty w/o a place to shower and change, and then have to shower again after my return commute. And I'm anticipating the standard response...why not move closer to work. Well, that would simply mean that my wife's commute would suddenly go for 4 miles up to what mine currently is.
I'm just a few years away from you and my bike commute is 15 miles. On most weekends I do at least one long ride of 50 -100 miles.
I get that you don't want to ride a bike, but just come out say say "I don't want to ride a bike", don't say "Well I'm the only one in the world with a wife and child, so biking obviously won't work for us".
Slashdot Mirror
The crippled betteries are sold under cost.
The problem with that business model is eventually someone will figure out how to "jailbreak" their car and enhance the battery life without paying Tesla for the privilege. This will create all kinds of legal nightmares. Historically car owners have been allowed to "soup up their ride" (as long as the resulting vehicle is street legal), but with this new kind of business model that Tesla has, that could change. When you buy a car will there be an EULA that forbids making improvements? This could be a slippery slope.
Some will, but most won't -- not many people are going to risk reflashing their $70K car to "save" $5K while losing warranty coverage. I doubt Tesla will care if people wait until the 4 year warranty period is up before reflashing.
In any case, why is efficacy testing a bad thing? Shouldn't a drug be proven to actually treat the condition it's supposed to be treating?
Ask anyone that cant get a drug that works because testing for their rare condition will never be done because the drug also works for some common condition.
Good intentions for the sake of good intentions costs lives. Your policy is equivalent to murder.
That's what off label prescribing is for -- if your doctor thinks that a drug will treat your condition even if that's not the primary purpose of the drug, he can prescribe it for that condition. But drug companies shouldn't be allowed to shot-gun all of their drugs on the market without any proof that they treat any condition at all.
So call off the police, I haven't murdered any one.
After the thalidomide fiasco, the FDA took the European scandal opportunity to increase the scope of its power and influence by petitioned congress to add Efficacy testing. It made no sense but the reasons for expanding government power rarely does.
Isn't it easier to prove efficacy than to prove safety?
To prove that something works you just have to show that people had an improvement in the condition being treated. You don't need to follow up every side effect and see if it was caused by your drug.
In any case, why is efficacy testing a bad thing? Shouldn't a drug be proven to actually treat the condition it's supposed to be treating?
The cost to bring a drug to market is excessive, but that doesn't mean that drugs should be sold without any proof that they work.
There's a wee bit of difference between getting drunk for an evening and a week of vacation with no phone coverage at all, in the days most crucial for the company's survival
He's been posting burning man pics to his Instagram feed while he's at Burning Man, so why assume he's completely out of contact? Evans isn't even the CEO, he's handed that off to someone else, so he may be letting the real CEO call the shots.
How Do You See Your Life After Firefox 52 ESR?
If my life was significantly different after a new release of any software, I think I'd see my life as re-evaluating whatever life choices made that software such a significant part of my life.
It also prevents legitimate users that might need to rollback due to a bug or feature that affects them badly in a new build from rolling back. Really this should be a completely optional check that is user settable as a rollback can be critical. I have had to rollback twice in recent years due to breaking changes and why is it unreasonable to want to be able to use the last known good build from the manufacturer as I don't want to root m phone or put on custom roms.
I've owned android devices ever since my T-Mobile G1 and I have *never* needed to roll back an OS upgrade.
Care to inform me why the fuck me, or anyone who has at least parts of his mental health remaining, would want to buy such a device?
Probably because nearly all consumers have no interest at all in rooting their phone, installing a custom ROM, or even rolling back to a previous release. It's a very tiny subset of users that care about such things, not enough for most companies to care about serving them.
The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
Of course it would be completely undetecable, it is a no brainer.
So why are you riding this dead horse?
Because you made the claim that it's impossible to jam GPS (or give an erroneous GPS reading) to one ship without also affecting all of the surrounding ships, and nothing you've replied since then shows that you understand that it's possible.
Erm, why do you shit no brainers? I had physics in school, you know ....
I guess the destroyer and the cargo ship must have a strong force field that they collided with each other while hundreds of meters apart ...
By the time two large ships are on a collision course 100 yards apart, it's too late to stop a collision.
But you don't seem to understand how weak GPS signals are -- they are literally below the noise floor, and a GPS receiver can only find the signal because it knows where to look ahead of time. The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
"If it can't see a 500 ft tanker approaching, what chance does it have in wartime?"
What will it do in wartime? From the pictures it doesn't appear their weapons capability was effected by the collision so they could fire off every weapon it has before the ship went under. And that one ship has enough fire power to level a small country all by itself.
Getting rammed by a slow moving civilian tanker and then firing off every weapon it has before sinking doesn't sound like a great wartime strategy.
The main land-attack weapons load for an Arleigh Class Destroyer is 56 tomahawk missiles with a high explosive or cluster-bomb warhead. The 100 kiloton nuclear warhead option has (supposedly) been retired. Most of the rest of the weapons are for air or sea defense, not much help in a land attack.
While it could take out a small city (or more usefully, key military and infrastructure targets in the city), it's hyperbole to suggest that it can level a small country.
I'm really wondering how retarded the /. crowd or americans in general are.
GPS works like navigation by the stars. Instead of aiming with optical instruments at real stars, you 'aim' an artificial receiver towards satellites (artificial stars).
So, if you spoof the GPS location by 'overwriting' the signals(light) from the 'artificial' star, all ships in that region have the same 'spoofing error'. It is close to impossible to spoof one ship to change course to the left, and another one to change course to the right, so that they collide, because they both have the same spoofed misplacement.
I'd think that if someone wanted to spoof GPS to make a single ship alter course, they'd plant their spoofer near the GPS antenna(s) on the ship and jam it from there. It may be difficult to do so on a naval vessel, but less difficult on a merchant vessel who relies on local vendors for maintenance while in port.
There is no magical 'GPS' that tells you where you are (or that can be 'hacked' and you can figure where someone else is), the little GPS receiver is calculating itself where it is!
Isn't that little GPS receiver the magical 'GPS' that you'd jam?
You want to travel to the mountain in front of you. Now someone spoofes the positions of those mountains, and you change course. So that you believe that you are still heading to the mountain in front if you.
Every ship around you, regardless what course, would make exactly the same course correction!! If you shift 5 degrees to the right, every other ship would do the exact same thing! (Regardless to where they are heading)
That can not lead to collisions!
but now imagine that you want to jam just the one GPS receiver -- so instead of moving the mountains (which is hard), you paint a picture of the mountains on a sheet, and fly it in just in front of the guy you're trying to spoof. Only he sees the spoofed mountains and no one else does.
And bottom line: navigation does not work that way anyway. You use the magnet compass for hours until you change course.
So you start with a tiny course deviation, just a few degrees, but you keep it up for hours. The navigator dismisses it as a compass error (after all, GPS isn't wrong), but over 20 or 40 miles, it can end up miles off course and may think he's far from traffic on the AIS plotter even as he's on a collision course.
Of course a ship won't rely on GPS or AIS, and will use Radar and vision (both with the naked eye and night vision) to watch for traffic. And that's why GPS spoofing should not result in a collision. not because it's impossible to spoof GPS for a single vessel.
When you're sailing for 50+ days and don't see any other vessel (maybe the bridge of something over the horizon.) It is easy to become complacient with nothing around you. Both ships are at fault imho but (also imo) a navy destroyer should yield to a the absolutely massive shipping container vessles. Those cargo ships have blind spots for miles.
He was in a busy shipping channel not in the middle of the ocean surrounded by hundreds of miles of open seas.
American warships have a reputation in NATO as being driven by amateurs. During fleet manoeuvers, the rest of us actively plot wider safety bubbles around American ships because they are erratic and have a tendency to simply go the wrong direction and just not care.
That's because the *are* piloted by amateurs (relatively speaking).
A merchant marine captain will spend his entire life in the same career track, building on and enhancing his skills. A Navy captain will have gone through extensive training in school, then work his way through various specialties (engineering, communications, weapons, etc) before he finally gets his command, so he's got much less experience as a merchant marine captain. And even when in command, he's responsible for hundreds of sailors instead of the dozen or two that a merchant vessel would have.
Remember the US carrier fleet commander who got into an argument about who should change course with a lighthouse?
That was a joke which never actually took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... & http://www.navy.mil/navydata/q...
I figure it's much more likely that the captain demanded the traffic (driven by or for nignogs, clearly, it's the middle east) change course and played chicken with a tanker that has no chance of complying due to their massive size.
The accident took place in the straits of Malacca which is hardly the middle east. If the Captain was so arrogant as to play chicken he could've just sunk the merchant ship when it got to close.
It'd take an awfully crazy Navy captain to sink a foreign flagged ship in a public shipping channel.
Most likely cause was probably weather reducing visibility (heavy fog/mist is quite common in that area) so they didn't see the ship until it was to late.
That might be a valid excuse if either vessel was a 20 ft sailboat, but a 2 billion dollar Arleigh Class destroyer has 6MW worth of radar. Even my friend's 30 foot boat has a 4KW radar system than can see ships miles away through heavy fog and rain.
If it can't see a 500 ft tanker approaching, what chance does it have in wartime?
My favorite one was from around 1999 when companies were sued for some arcane bug that might result in lost data on floppies. Yeah, most of these only make money for the lawyers
What was the problem with that one? If there was a known bug that resulted in data loss from a device designed to store data, shouldn't it be fixed? Sure, floppies suffer from bit rot and lose data on their own, but that doesn't mean that data should be purposely lost due to a know bug. Even in 1999, floppies were still in wide use, though they were definitely on their way out by then.
Do you really need all of those channels? When I canceled my cable, I switched to over-the-air networks (for free), and Netflix + Amazon Prime (which is effectively free since I'd have prime even without the streaming).
If you want the same set of channels you had with cable, it stands to reason that it's not going to be cheaper.
I've found more than enough to distract me without cable, I don't need to replicate it with streaming.
If you want a VIABLE alternative then look to DuckDuckGo, not bing... never bing... never, ever bing...
I forced myself to use DuckDuckGo for a month, by the end of the month, I was rerunning most of my searches with the "!g" tag to do the search on Google since DuckDuckGo results weren't what I was looking for.
Yeah!
I do not want to have to subscribe to another streaming service! I want all my videos in one service. Everyone else wants that too. Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content. I'm sure they would not overcharge us. What could possibly go wrong?
You don't need to have a single monopoly service, set up compulsory licensing laws similar to those used for music and then you can have many competing services and they all have access to the same content.
In these situations, obviously the workers would need to be using a transmitter to broadcast updated road speed information in a standardised format to all vehicles. Isn't this just common sense?
If you're going to standardize every construction site in america and give them transmitters that every car listens to, why not just put long distance RFID tags on every street sign and avoid the need to use faulty image recognition in the first place? Just because humans need to use vision to read signs doesn't mean cars should.
They could even be cryptographically signed with the sign's meaning and location/direction to prevent a prankster from moving a 70mph freeway speed limit sign to a residential street.
In fact there is an unmarked 4 way stop near my office. There is a crash there about once every 2-3 months.
If it's unmarked, it's not a 4-way stop. No marking means "yield to the right". Too many people have become accustomed to all intersections being marked to remember the basic rules.
It's not just "yield to the right", it's yield to oncoming traffic, yield to the car that gets there first, and then (maybe) yield to the right.
Some states (like Arizona) treat an uncontrolled intersection as a 4 way stop, which is the only sensible thing to do.
For example, there's no reason to have a certain sign on certain roads (Stop sign on an interstate highway).
Except during road construction when a signman holds up a "stop" sign and the self-driving car says "You're not fooling me! There are no stop signs on freeways, and even your 15mph speed limit sign is fake, my database says the speed limit here is 75mph. See ya!"
Google treats it as the same thing because it is in the email standards.
All standards compliant email systems allow periods in the name portion, and they are ignored when determining the destination mailbox.
You're half right -- standards compliant email systems allow dots in the local part of the address, but there's nothing in the standard that requires dots to be ignored. Google does it, but not all providers do.
But you can generally use the extra periods as a pattern to filter the emails. For example, you can provide A.BC to trusted parties and then filter everything else into a junk folder.
Or you could just use the sub addressing that Google (and others) support to do the same thing, but with unlimited suffixes:
Some mail services support a tag appended to the local-part, such that the modified address is an alias to the unmodified one. For example, the address joeuser+tag@example.com denotes the same delivery address as joeuser@example.com. RFC 5233, refers to this convention as sub-addressing, but it is also known as plus addressing or tagged addressing
You're missing the point. You're like someone saying: "if we find the way to make people immortal, how are we going to provide them all with a retirement home."
The whole concept of high-density urban centers is a direct consequence of mass transportation issues. Buses and trains that run on a schedule are an immense waste of resources, they're too big and too slow to react to changes, so populations have clustered to minimize the side effects of poor transportation. Urban money pits such as skyscrapers (which are incredibly inefficient in terms of HVAC and pedestrian traffic) have mushroomed because of poor transportation.
There's plenty of land in North America; once gas emissions are solved, there won't be any reason to endure rush hour, world trade centers and $40/day downtown parking. You may believe that being downtown is a must and that it's where things happen, but really, look around you and see what proportion of those office buildings actually play a role in your life other than being in the way.
The path of least resistance is horizontal, not vertical.
You seem to be under the impression that transit systems exist solely to reduce emissions, while ignoring why downtown urban centers exists -- it's for the jobs.
There's plenty of land in North America; once gas emissions are solved, there won't be any reason to endure rush hour,
Except to get to work. And when millions of people are driving to spread out office parks throughout a sprawling low density area, traffic is going to be horrendous -- look at LA, it's very car centered, devotes about a third of its land area to cars, yet it has some of the worst traffic in the USA.
You may say that everyone can just work from home, but so far that hasn't happened. Google, Apple, Facebook and other companies with nearly limitless technology resources still bus their employees 40 miles from SF to their offices because they apparently feel that having employees on-site is better. Emission free cars (or buses) won't change that.
Buses and trains that run on a schedule in a high density urban area are more convenient than driving in those areas -- when trains come every few minutes, the schedule doesn't matter.
While a highrise may take more energy for HVAC than a well constructed low-rise (but not more than a single family home), once you have your unlimited emission free energy source for cars, that won't matter, will it? That same energy source can be used to power buildings.
look around you and see what proportion of those office buildings actually play a role in your life other than being in the way.
I've looked around and pretty much all of the neighboring buildings play a role in my life (and they are not all office building - they are also residential buildings) - those buildings are what house the shops, restaurants, bars, and other services that I use on a daily basis. They are not in the way, they are where I'm going. And I'm getting there by walking, not in my car.
Have you ever even visited a city?
Get serious. I'm nearly 59 years old. I commute 25 miles round trip each day. A bike for daily transport is not practical form us. And I'm sure as shit not going to bike into work, and get all sweaty w/o a place to shower and change, and then have to shower again after my return commute. And I'm anticipating the standard response...why not move closer to work. Well, that would simply mean that my wife's commute would suddenly go for 4 miles up to what mine currently is.
I'm just a few years away from you and my bike commute is 15 miles. On most weekends I do at least one long ride of 50 -100 miles.
I get that you don't want to ride a bike, but just come out say say "I don't want to ride a bike", don't say "Well I'm the only one in the world with a wife and child, so biking obviously won't work for us".
And a bike can't carry me, my wife and kid. So, let's just agree that each method of transport has it's role.
Sure it can, there are lots of styles of bikes that can carry 3 people, even if one of them is too young to pedal.