I don't see any reason why law enforcement with a warrant or probable cause couldn't
Ha ha...ha...sigh.
But that's a stretch.
So we're arguing degrees here. The difference between remote hijacking and all those other already-implemented safety features you've mentioned is that the latter assist the driver, not some external body who insist that they're doing it for our own good because they can decide better than us what that is. If you haven't guessed, I'm also against Trusted Computing(tm) and all the rest of that SecureBoot bull.
and as usual, those capabilities were introduced for convenience
The question is whether it's safer to do your own driving, or trust the programmers to have designed the AI sufficiently well to drive better than you. Drivers are pretty bad in general, so it may be a bit of a toss-up.
No, I meant when you have a green light and are entering the intersection normally, legally, at speed, and somebody runs a red light that will intersect you. And saying "they won't be close enough anyway" assumes that there aren't maniac drivers out there who defy all logic that can be reasonably expected of them. That's a deadly mistake to make, assuming that other drivers will drive safely.
When you make a 100% pronouncement, the edge cases are all that matters (assuming said pronouncement works for all the main cases). This is why so many people are arguing with you, I suspect.
Well, except for gender reassignment and whatever Michael Jackson did to become white...and the jury still being out on whether sexual orientation is 100% genetic...
It's that anyone who doesn't immediately jump on board The Right Viewpoint on those women's issues articles is instantly labelled misogynistic. So in that view, probably 80% of Slashdot is Bad People.
In other news, it's a bad idea to expect the Internet to be polite and politically correct. Story at 10.
Ah. I take a commuter highway to work these days. All 3 of my accidents since I've moved into town (500k people) 2 years ago have been during my morning commute.
One on the highway, one on slick city streets, and one guy wandering into my lane and sideswiping me, for whatever it's worth.
Not disagreeing with your general point, but as you speed up doesn't your car slightly "ride up" on the road? So not as much of your tire surface is in contact with the ground anymore, making it harder to stop/maneuver suddenly. Cf. hydroplaning for applications.
I went to high school in a small town where the local police had a reputation for pulling over 5-overs. We drew our students from a pretty wide area so you'd routinely see 3 or 4 people pulled over after events when everybody was headed back out of town.
Never happened to me, but I didn't drive much at the time, and that was the only place I was afraid to drive 5 over so far.
Well, hats off to you if that is your real driving record, anyway. I try to drive as safely as I can but with the traffic I drive in it seems impossible to avoid getting in accidents.
Or do you only drive infrequently or in light traffic?
Or if you're going into an intersection and somebody runs a red light. At that point, speeding up is much more likely to avoid a collision than slamming on your brakes, which will likely stop you in the middle of the intersection.
But "never ever ever violate the speed limit." Rules that demand 100% compliance rarely work. Are you pro-Zero Tolerance gun laws, too?
until you reach a point that your car will simply be unable to stop by running faster than your brake system can handle
I was under the impression that for some time now car brakes have been designed to bring you to a full stop even if you have both the gas and the brake floored, so I find that rather unlikely unless you're going 140mph or something...in which case the brakes might overheat and fail by the time you get slowed down enough?
If you're in the right-hand (non-passing) lane and you get rear-ended by a semi, I think 4 times out of 5 it's going to be pretty clearly the semi's fault. Unless you just passed him, pulled back into the right, and slammed on your brakes, which Google would undoubtedly make sure their cars don't do, he should have time to slow down or pass you if the passing lane is open.
Hey, at least they're a damn sight wider than hockey goals. Whenever I see a hockey game I wonder why the goalie doesn't just lie down in front of the goal; he's wearing enough padding and gear that it's not like he'll even feel people bouncing pucks off him. And unless somebody can loft it like 1.5 feet in the air, it's not getting in.
It's "a university" because the English pronunciation is YOO-niversity, which starts with a consonant(ish) sound. If we pronounced it OOH-niversity which is a vowel sound it would be "an."
Other than the rampant conjugation and screwy prepositions in German (several seem to translate to 3 different English ones) I'd say I like what I've learned of the language. In some ways it really makes more sense than English...and it's mostly easier to spell:) Maybe there are rules about double-vowels-with-an-umlaut that I just haven't seen.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any reason why law enforcement with a warrant or probable cause couldn't
Ha ha...ha...sigh.
But that's a stretch.
So we're arguing degrees here. The difference between remote hijacking and all those other already-implemented safety features you've mentioned is that the latter assist the driver, not some external body who insist that they're doing it for our own good because they can decide better than us what that is. If you haven't guessed, I'm also against Trusted Computing(tm) and all the rest of that SecureBoot bull.
and as usual, those capabilities were introduced for convenience
The question is whether it's safer to do your own driving, or trust the programmers to have designed the AI sufficiently well to drive better than you. Drivers are pretty bad in general, so it may be a bit of a toss-up.
No, I meant when you have a green light and are entering the intersection normally, legally, at speed, and somebody runs a red light that will intersect you. And saying "they won't be close enough anyway" assumes that there aren't maniac drivers out there who defy all logic that can be reasonably expected of them. That's a deadly mistake to make, assuming that other drivers will drive safely.
When you make a 100% pronouncement, the edge cases are all that matters (assuming said pronouncement works for all the main cases). This is why so many people are arguing with you, I suspect.
Well, except for gender reassignment and whatever Michael Jackson did to become white...and the jury still being out on whether sexual orientation is 100% genetic...
But other than that, yeah.
The people modding you for speaking your mind :P
It's that anyone who doesn't immediately jump on board The Right Viewpoint on those women's issues articles is instantly labelled misogynistic. So in that view, probably 80% of Slashdot is Bad People.
In other news, it's a bad idea to expect the Internet to be polite and politically correct. Story at 10.
That you're arguing with a guy by the name of "Typical Slashdotter" is also dramatically ironic as hell.
I was paraphrasing a line from Dodgeball (third one down).
Ah. I take a commuter highway to work these days. All 3 of my accidents since I've moved into town (500k people) 2 years ago have been during my morning commute.
One on the highway, one on slick city streets, and one guy wandering into my lane and sideswiping me, for whatever it's worth.
Not disagreeing with your general point, but as you speed up doesn't your car slightly "ride up" on the road? So not as much of your tire surface is in contact with the ground anymore, making it harder to stop/maneuver suddenly. Cf. hydroplaning for applications.
Just a thought.
It's not even that. He can still hate people. He just can't ACT on it.
Unless you're a Mozilla CEO, apparently. Or is having donated funds to an organization in the past considered action personally attacking them?
I went to high school in a small town where the local police had a reputation for pulling over 5-overs. We drew our students from a pretty wide area so you'd routinely see 3 or 4 people pulled over after events when everybody was headed back out of town.
Never happened to me, but I didn't drive much at the time, and that was the only place I was afraid to drive 5 over so far.
"He's appealing to the laws of math and physics, Cotton. It's a bold move; let's see where it takes him."
pulled over for going too slowly should you not exceed the posted speed limit
Well, hats off to you if that is your real driving record, anyway. I try to drive as safely as I can but with the traffic I drive in it seems impossible to avoid getting in accidents.
Or do you only drive infrequently or in light traffic?
Or if you're going into an intersection and somebody runs a red light. At that point, speeding up is much more likely to avoid a collision than slamming on your brakes, which will likely stop you in the middle of the intersection.
But "never ever ever violate the speed limit." Rules that demand 100% compliance rarely work. Are you pro-Zero Tolerance gun laws, too?
So it's illegal to exceed the speed limit and it's also illegal to not exceed the speed limit? Nice.
until you reach a point that your car will simply be unable to stop by running faster than your brake system can handle
I was under the impression that for some time now car brakes have been designed to bring you to a full stop even if you have both the gas and the brake floored, so I find that rather unlikely unless you're going 140mph or something...in which case the brakes might overheat and fail by the time you get slowed down enough?
With the sheer obliviousness of pedestrians around near where I grew up, it will inevitably happen.
If you're in the right-hand (non-passing) lane and you get rear-ended by a semi, I think 4 times out of 5 it's going to be pretty clearly the semi's fault. Unless you just passed him, pulled back into the right, and slammed on your brakes, which Google would undoubtedly make sure their cars don't do, he should have time to slow down or pass you if the passing lane is open.
If the rain is sufficiently torrential, wouldn't radar get scattered and/or reflected by it?
Deorge W. Bush?
Hey, at least they're a damn sight wider than hockey goals. Whenever I see a hockey game I wonder why the goalie doesn't just lie down in front of the goal; he's wearing enough padding and gear that it's not like he'll even feel people bouncing pucks off him. And unless somebody can loft it like 1.5 feet in the air, it's not getting in.
Hockey = Canadian football?
Pulling out the excuse "my grandparent says that" doesn't work when we're talking racism. Lots of grandparents spout racist shit.
You were largely correct.
It's "a university" because the English pronunciation is YOO-niversity, which starts with a consonant(ish) sound. If we pronounced it OOH-niversity which is a vowel sound it would be "an."
Other than the rampant conjugation and screwy prepositions in German (several seem to translate to 3 different English ones) I'd say I like what I've learned of the language. In some ways it really makes more sense than English...and it's mostly easier to spell :) Maybe there are rules about double-vowels-with-an-umlaut that I just haven't seen.