If a viewing tax restricts the footage from being released, then cameras are worthless except to protect the innocent law enforcement officers.
Demanding 190 hours of footage is a fishing expedition. In most cases requesting the video for a known incident, such as police harassment, would be a few hours at most. Maybe the press should restrict requests to relevant video instead of fishing.
In fact, even though Google's cars have autonomously driven more than 1.3 million miles—routinely logging 10,000 to 15,000 more every week—they have been tested many times more in software, where it's possible to model 3 million miles of driving in a single day."
That would be three million miles over the same few miles of well understood track and roads. The real world is much more varied than that.
Within two years, Musk predicted that owners will be able to summon their car from across the country.
Unless the car has the range to drive across the country on one charge it will have to recharge and deal will off highway traffic and recharge stations. In that long a trip it is very likely to encounter at least one accident, unmapped construction site or detour.
Doubt is what keeps baseless conspiracy theories going and erodes people's trust in each other. There are conspiracies going on; just not as many as some people think. Just because something could be a conspiracy does not mean it is.
Put yourself in the position of a bureaucrat making the decision. Scenario 1. Allow the information out, later find that was an incorrect decision and possibly lose job. Scenario 2; Deny the request, let the appeal process resolve it and keep job. Which would you chose.
You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions. What the Governor is on the hook for is not the initial decision but what he does once he is made aware of the decision.
What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
When the car comes to an unmapped construction zone or a traffic accident where people are being directed to an alternate route the car will fail. As for charging stations. What happen when the car can't figure out how to deal with that idiot parked incorrectly? Like I said, we have most of the technology. The last bit is the hardest.
Except that every road the Google car drives down has been recently pre-scanned and gone over by a human to point out the difficulties. The Google car can't even figure out which traffic light to obey. It has to be told. I have yet to hear how often a driver has to take over when the car can not figure out what to do. I bet it is quite often.
We do not have a completely self driving car yet. We are about 80% of the way there but the last 20% will take 80% of the time. It is not going to happen for a while yet.
Mobileye is collision avoidance and Tesla is enhanced lane following. Neither has anything to do with figuring out what to do at intersections or side streets.
Most nuclear plants, and conventional plants for that matter, do not run at 100% capacity all the time. Therefore you can turn them up when needed to compensate for unplanned problems.
One million miles over probably less that 100 miles of road that has been scanned and analysed by people before the car is ever allowed to drive there. A Google car can not drive on city streets that have not been scanned and analysed recently. Drive a google car to another town and it is lost.
We need mix of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, etc. None of these are singularly the solution. Even if you group solar, wind and tidal it is not a complete solution.
I think you miss that there are new nuclear technologies that decrease the issues with current technology. Thorium, breeder reactors, etc are much cleaner than current technologies and in some cases solve the spent fuel problem. The problem is the restrictions in research because many people now equate nuclear with Fukishima and Chernobyl.
Show me examples. The only ones I know of are when there is a major grid failure and the plant is shut down as a safety measure. Capacity factor is the ratio of actual production vs theoretical production. Notice how the capacity factor of nuclear is usually very high. That means it does not go down very often.
Nuclear power, today, is more expensive than wind and in some places, more expensive than solar.
While this is true for the actual generation of the power it does not take into account the additional costs connected with these technologies. Storage; These technologies are not dispatchable. One can not turn up the wind or sun when needed. They are also variable. Wind speeds can change minute to minute and storms can vary solar output hour by hour. To overcome this storage is needed to level out the flow. Transmission; These technologies are only viable in certain area. For example, solar in Michigan would be pretty much useless in winter. This requires long transmission line to get power from where it is produced to where it is needed. One can build a nuclear power plant pretty much anywhere and be close to where it is used. It's output can be dialed up or down as required. Take a look at this graph. Nuclear is less expensive that you seem to think.
Slashdot Mirror
If a viewing tax restricts the footage from being released, then cameras are worthless except to protect the innocent law enforcement officers.
Demanding 190 hours of footage is a fishing expedition. In most cases requesting the video for a known incident, such as police harassment, would be a few hours at most. Maybe the press should restrict requests to relevant video instead of fishing.
In fact, even though Google's cars have autonomously driven more than 1.3 million miles—routinely logging 10,000 to 15,000 more every week—they have been tested many times more in software, where it's possible to model 3 million miles of driving in a single day."
That would be three million miles over the same few miles of well understood track and roads. The real world is much more varied than that.
Yeah we found something more difficult.
The bureaucrat interpreted the Governor's EO and decided the action based on that interpretation. An EO does not make decisions on specific instances.
Within two years, Musk predicted that owners will be able to summon their car from across the country.
Unless the car has the range to drive across the country on one charge it will have to recharge and deal will off highway traffic and recharge stations. In that long a trip it is very likely to encounter at least one accident, unmapped construction site or detour.
Doubt is what keeps baseless conspiracy theories going and erodes people's trust in each other. There are conspiracies going on; just not as many as some people think. Just because something could be a conspiracy does not mean it is.
Doubt is far from proof.
The the information return would have been "nor report exists" and not "request denied".
Put yourself in the position of a bureaucrat making the decision.
Scenario 1.
Allow the information out, later find that was an incorrect decision and possibly lose job.
Scenario 2;
Deny the request, let the appeal process resolve it and keep job.
Which would you chose.
People should always be careful who they vote for.
The definition of medical does not make that differentiation.
You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions. What the Governor is on the hook for is not the initial decision but what he does once he is made aware of the decision.
What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
I always love comments like this that assume all such decisions are made by the Governor and not some low level bureaucrat.
When the car comes to an unmapped construction zone or a traffic accident where people are being directed to an alternate route the car will fail. As for charging stations. What happen when the car can't figure out how to deal with that idiot parked incorrectly?
Like I said, we have most of the technology. The last bit is the hardest.
Except that every road the Google car drives down has been recently pre-scanned and gone over by a human to point out the difficulties. The Google car can't even figure out which traffic light to obey. It has to be told. I have yet to hear how often a driver has to take over when the car can not figure out what to do. I bet it is quite often.
We do not have a completely self driving car yet. We are about 80% of the way there but the last 20% will take 80% of the time. It is not going to happen for a while yet.
Mobileye is collision avoidance and Tesla is enhanced lane following. Neither has anything to do with figuring out what to do at intersections or side streets.
Most nuclear plants, and conventional plants for that matter, do not run at 100% capacity all the time. Therefore you can turn them up when needed to compensate for unplanned problems.
Not even close
Rockets are much easier than the AI needed to figure out city streets.
One million miles over probably less that 100 miles of road that has been scanned and analysed by people before the car is ever allowed to drive there. A Google car can not drive on city streets that have not been scanned and analysed recently. Drive a google car to another town and it is lost.
We need mix of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, etc. None of these are singularly the solution. Even if you group solar, wind and tidal it is not a complete solution.
I think you miss that there are new nuclear technologies that decrease the issues with current technology. Thorium, breeder reactors, etc are much cleaner than current technologies and in some cases solve the spent fuel problem. The problem is the restrictions in research because many people now equate nuclear with Fukishima and Chernobyl.
Show me examples. The only ones I know of are when there is a major grid failure and the plant is shut down as a safety measure. Capacity factor is the ratio of actual production vs theoretical production. Notice how the capacity factor of nuclear is usually very high. That means it does not go down very often.
The problem with offshore winds is the high initial costs and high maintenance costs.
Nuclear power, today, is more expensive than wind and in some places, more expensive than solar.
While this is true for the actual generation of the power it does not take into account the additional costs connected with these technologies.
Storage; These technologies are not dispatchable. One can not turn up the wind or sun when needed. They are also variable. Wind speeds can change minute to minute and storms can vary solar output hour by hour. To overcome this storage is needed to level out the flow.
Transmission; These technologies are only viable in certain area. For example, solar in Michigan would be pretty much useless in winter. This requires long transmission line to get power from where it is produced to where it is needed.
One can build a nuclear power plant pretty much anywhere and be close to where it is used. It's output can be dialed up or down as required.
Take a look at this graph. Nuclear is less expensive that you seem to think.