Hahahah. Wow. Seriously, this is hilarious. I would think you're a troll, but you seem so level-headed about it, and you sound a lot like some Objectivists I've talked to.
If you think that's hilarious, you should read his posting history. He wants to "win" evolution, women should go back to being stay-at-home child breeders pumping out as many babies as they can and everyone else are worthless evolutionary dead ends. I think this one tops my list:
But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.
Of course, he's in a way right as evolution is a game of numbers. If he's busy producing as many offspring as possible while I life my life childless and without a care in the world, he'll win evolution but I'll settle for winning life. He's thinks everyone else is working for his offspring, but that's not how it works. He's working for the future of mankind (his idea of it anyway) but I'm working for nobody but myself. He talks of young to take care of the old, but I'll be paying his young to take care of my old. He's working for me, not the other way around and he doesn't even realize it.
We now get to choose between the option where a small powerful elite has this technology, and the option where everyone has it.
Sorry, but just because the NSA has been listening in on everyone's phone calls doesn't make it a good idea to let everyone listen to everyone else's phone calls. The right choice is to make the NSA stop, even if the technology as such exists. It doesn't mean we have to embrace it, we already have many ways of planting stealth microphones and none of them have much legitimate use. I don't see how this one is very different.
No, having the lack of privacy go both ways isn't as good as having privacy. A system where nobody can keep their actions private is a system governed by mob rule, nobody wants to engage in socially unacceptable behavior because they're instantly shunned and those who fail to participate in the shunning are also shunned for condoning it. Nobody will speak out unpopular opinions even if they feel it ought to be said, because those who don't like the message will go after the messenger. All social circles become totally transparent and people will self-censor their associations to avoid social stigma. It's freedom of the "you have freedom of speech and can say what you want, but we'll shoot you afterwards" variety.
Not to mention, it won't work. The powers to be will always find some reason why their conversations must be protected in the name of national security - after you've given up yours in the name of national security, of course. And if you don't like it you've got something to hide and is probably one of the bogeymen we're trying to catch. They can clam up any time they feel like it, while you'll stay stripped bare. Only the truly naive wants to head us in that direction, because <Admiral Ackbar>It's a trap!</Admiral Ackbar> and a pretty obvious one at that.
Jeeze, did you even read the article you linked when pointing out heroin as the big bad or did you just look for the first article that had a bar graph with heroin seemingly on the top? It basically contradicts your entire attitude about heroin, and reaffirms the thought process of the person you're quoting, even if it was an exaggeration.
Yeah it's a blog trying to dismiss a study made in a published medical journal, which I can't link to because it's only accessible to subscribers. It would be wildly invalid to compare a few hundred prescription users who have medical needs for it with appropriate dosage for those and are probably closely monitored for addiction problems related to it compared to what a bunch of addicts would do, even if they got it cheap and pure from a pharmacy. Furthermore, the blog author doesn't have anything to back up his claims except a lot of hand waving on how he thinks it might rate. It should be noted that heroin is by far the highest ranked of all other illegal drugs as well, which should all suffer the same "illegality" effects.
The insurance industry would like to go to one extreme and drop coverage or deny claims for people suffering from bad luck. You want the other extreme where insurance covers everything including willingly partaking in risky behavior. The logical balance is to force insurance companies to cover bad luck cases, while allowing them to distinguish and assign different rates based on riskiness of behavior. (Note that this also "solves" the DNA profiling problem. You do not control your DNA, so any problems you're genetically predisposed to are due to bad luck, and should be covered.)
There's a huge difference between risk factors you know in advance and having bad luck later. Would you let someone diagnosed with cancer take out a life insurance policy at the same rate as everyone else? No. Would you let someone who's been to a genetic review and found he has a 99% predisposition for developing cancer in the next five years take out a life insurance policy at the same rate as everyone else? Yes, it's bad luck. But he knows he has bad luck and can now hike his payout and pool his crap odds with the average odds of everyone else. That's not fair to everybody else. If you know you're about to get cancer, you should get "people about to get cancer" rates. If you want to share the risk with everyone else, you must do it in advance of learning the results.
You also didn't solve the other big issue which is that once you've had bad luck, you might be very predisposed to more bad luck but on your current insurance you started early as a low risk pool customer while if you switch you're a very high risk pool customer. For example, say you got cancer and were cured. The fallback rate is high, much higher than for the general population. No other insurance company wants to touch you with a ten foot pole or at ludicrous rates. You're trapped at one company and they want to get rid of you too, so the moment you're temporarily well they'll do anything they can do drop you, if not directly then indirectly by raising rates and being as uncooperative as possible. Miss one payment and you're out for good.
That's what I find so bizarre about the US implementation of Obamacare, everyone should have medical insurance so everyone's tab will be picked up by somebody, but the risk is not pooled. Those that the insurance companies manage to "get rid of" will go to the insurer of last resort that makes sure everyone has insurance and it will take all the costs while the other insurance companies pocket the profit. And now they can do it with better conscience because someone else will take over and they won't be dying in the streets. Both these problems are non-existent with real universal healthcare, we're all in the risk pool and come bad luck or good we'll stay there until we die.
Because heroin never killed anybody. Even in peer reviewed medical journals like the Lancet where they ranked alcohol #5, tobacco #9 and cannabis #11, heroin was by far #1. It's already the kind of drug no sane, recreational drug user would take only an addict looking to blast his mind and body into oblivion. Yes you might save a few who'd get hooked on Krokodil but if you get more heroin addicts instead you'll do way more harm than good.
Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly.
OEM or corporate install full of crapware? Pure Windows (installed yourself from an OEM/retail disc) is a whole different ballgame, Microsoft actually doesn't add much crap like that. I don't have personal experience with a clean Win8 install, but at least on Win7 it's 99-100% idle when I don't do anything.
so why don't we just look at what organizations like the US military use to secure and sign their data, and use that? (the methods of course, not their keys)
Well if we're going for the spectacularly evil I'd pick an algorithm that has many subtly flawed weak keys and a small number of secure keys, then secretly implement additional key generation checks in military software. You both use the same cipher, but they can still read your data and you can't read theirs. Vendors can even supply software built on public cipher standards to be used with government-provided keys and be none the wiser. As long as the ones issuing the keys is in on the charade, it could be a masterpiece.
The system will prompt the driver to take over, and if the driver does not respond, it will follow the safest course of action, which may be to continue in autonomous mode, or may be to pull over and stop. There is no way in hell that a self driving car sold to the public is going to just turn itself off while flying down the freeway.
It's not a self driving car until you're never required to actively take over control, only passively take over control when the car asks you to. And by required I mean required by law, not whether the car tells you about it or not because it might not know or understand. Nissan's car is like that, I never said it'd turn itself off but you're required to jump in whenever the "very advanced cruise control" doesn't drive safely. Those will get better and better, you will do less and less but you're still required by law to be the driver in charge at all times. Why do you keep denying that companies will sell cars like that when Nissan and others are busy building cars exactly like that????
They might talk big but when it comes to actually taking over responsibility and liability for the driving, put your money where your mouth is. I bet we'll have years passing where companies have cars they think is almost ready but nobody wants to go out on a limb and say if this car runs over some school children then sue us for manslaughter, not the guy in the driver's seat. More and more advanced assistance that still leaves the final responsibility on you sure, but that truly self-driving car I think could take a very long time.
Of course it is not true, because the entire premise of the GGPP's objection is false. Self driving cars do not expect the human driver to "randomly" jump in. If the SDC calculates that it cannot make the best decision, it will prompt the human to take over. If the human does not respond, the SDC will either continue if it is reasonably safe to do so, or pull over and stop. The people designing these systems are not morons.
But that's just the point, this isn't a self driving car. It's a very sophisticated driving assistant that'll handle the routine driving but throw any unexpected situation it doesn't recognize or doesn't handle in your lap. Or are you trying to argue that Nissan is taking full responsibility and liability for how this car drives while this system is active? Because I'm pretty sure they don't. The day you're no more than a swap-in driver which happen to be sitting in the driver's seat instead of the passenger seat, fine. But on the road to that future there'll be hybrids that sort of drive themselves but demand you're there alert and attentive to override the system. And it was the hybrids I worried about, not the true self-driving cars.
Now it just remains to be seen if drivers will continue to pay attention to the road, or if it becomes so autonomous that people start slacking (more) behind the wheel. It really won't work to have a car that drives itself 90% of the time and then expects you go randomly jump in for the last 10%. Still, nice to see this tech getting closer to reality.
You misunderstand, they're using shot guns and rock salt shells. It won't cause serious trauma if you turn and run, but it will cause painful stinging injuries and serve as a warning. The recidivism rate is low.
No, it isn't. Copyright infringement is only a crime when done on a commercial scale. For personal use it is a civil offence, but one that is widely tolerated
If your idea of "commercial scale" is two copies of Photoshop CS6 (above $1000 sticker price value) in a 180-day period. That makes you a criminal, even if you didn't earn a dime and it's not that hard if you're using a torrent. The main reason nobody cares is that a criminal case also raises the standard from "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt", you get rights to representation and the copyright holders won't get more money from you, probably less after you've spent all your money in court. And the police and courts don't want to get stuffed with run-of-the-mill torrent seeders either.
Well I'm not sure why but whenever I take a break from posting (holidays or whatever) I often end up with mod points. I don't know if it's their way of keeping you hooked or to avoid that you stop commenting to mod instead, but they seem to give them out when you're not very active.
The problem is not all people opinions are equal. The opinion of the people who don't know what any of that 'scrolling text' means is far less useful in the area of computing than that of those who do know what it means and consider it useful diagnostic information. Pandering to nitwits who think its important to have a shiny boot time display with a spinning logo does not a better platform make.
Diagnostic information is fine, if you're trying to diagnose something but 99.9% of the time I'm not and then I'd rather have a nice spinning logo and have the boot log appear on error or if it freezes hard then as a boot option on the next boot. But I guess that's "pandering to nitwits", so after 3.5 years of dealing with asshats like you I finally had enough verbal abuse and insults so I returned to Windows. You're the kind of person who makes me advice people stay away from Linux with a ten foot pole. Worst thing is, you probably enjoy it and take it as proof we're not "hardcore" enough to run Linux. I got tired of being attacked, when Windows has a problem we blame Microsoft and people try to help out while Linux seems all about throwing as much shit back in my face as possible. So I went back to my "Wintendo" as one of the people I asked for help called it.
Our modern world is so complex no one person can ever hope to understand it all in depth.
It's always been that way, in many fields you could read a lifetime and not come up with conclusive answers anyway. Take for example this simple question from parenting, how much should your child be allowed to do? The two extremes that your child should be allowed to do everything and nothing are obviously not the right answer, the answer is lurking somewhere in the middle but you're never going to be able to pin it down, put it in a book and say this is the right answer like you can with a physics textbook. Most knowledge we have that doesn't drop right ouf the laws of nature is approximate.
Ubuntu got popular because the ordinary people who cannot figure out how a command line works could use it.
Linux was and is still predominantly used by people who can use a command line, but Ubuntu won a following with those who don't want to. I came from Debian which was a nice, solid base but very few cared about the desktop. That was something which just happened to run on top of the rock solid server they were building. Hell, when I switched Debian still didn't have a boot screen, it was text scrolling past because who cares on a server? But it was 2007 and it looked a DOS boot from the 1980s, I'm not going to pretend that was a big thing but it was representative of the attitude. To use the infamous car analogy, the only thing Debian focused on was the engine, gearbox, brakes, chassis and so on. Ubuntu came and said we'll give you that with a nice interior, leather seats, air condition, sun roof, metallic paint and a nice polish. Seemed like a win-win at the time.
You make that sound as if that is a good thing. It is not. The very point of communication is to be exposed to new and possibly uncomfortable ideas.
The very point of discussion, not communication. I find it great that fans of an obscure band that one in million have heard of can gather in the same forum and be hundreds if not thousands, no matter where they live. The other part is that most people participate in a discussion to influence others, not to get influenced themselves. Two sides who aren't going to bend an inch throwing volleys after volleys at each other and anyone trying to take up position in the middle is caught in the crossfire. I've taken the unpopular opinion or played the devil's advocate a few times here on slashdot and while there's some -1, Disagree voting in comparison to many other places a lot of people here will give credit where credit is due for a decent counter-argument. Some other places they'd deny the sky is blue if their opponent said it.
Most religions really have the same message. Be good to each other. The details and names are different. But that's really what it boils down to. I'm sure there will be replays talking about all of the bad things that religion has caused over the years. But most of those have to do with power mad people twisting the main message to meet their own perverse goals
In summary, you've never actually read the texts but imagined what it is you would like them to say. Religions aren't egalitarian and universally generous, they're highly exclusive and competitive. My religion is right, everyone else's is wrong. Good things will happen to you if you follow my religion, bad things will happen to you if you don't. Spread my truths and stop the unbelievers from spreading their lies. It's all different versions of carrot and stick, not just carrots and not for everyone. They all sell you on a similar story whether it's Heaven, Jannah (Islamic Heaven), Nirvana (Buddhism) or Vaikuntha (Hinduism) but while you don't care which religion, the religions do. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior you're still going to hell and that's not really open for interpretation. We just like to quietly ignore those parts that aren't palatable in a multicultural world.
And yet, if the car is in gear *while* someone rear ends you, it can really fuck up your transmission. Not to mention that leaving the clutch pressed in too much can cause extra (unnecessary) wear to that part. If it's in neutral, I can let the clutch out.
If someone rear ends me, it's not my repair bill. I never figured out that part about wear, to me it seems like a friction clutch should mainly be worn out by the actual engaging and disengaging of the clutch as they are in partial contact. I suppose there's some springs that are supposed to keep it fully engaged when I let go that would suffer a few extra seconds of static compression, but I can't imagine that has any significant effect compared to the constant expansion and contraction they experience during normal operation, whether you put it in neutral or not. So far I've haven't ever managed to wear out a clutch at least...
Neither the XBone or PS4 are going to tank, they're both very capable machines with a strong following. They're profitable now (indeed, have been for 5 years) and it'd be an awfully long uphill battle for anyone else to enter the market. With the WiiU sales being crap it's basically down to a duopoly, you really think Microsoft and Sony want to go on an all-out price war for your benefit? No, you'll be paying enough that both enjoy a comfortable profit margin. Ten years ago the gaming division was a huge money burner, today it's a money maker. If Microsoft wanted to sell their gaming division, how much more could they cash in than 10 years ago?
For long-running businesses that have a steady cash flow the stock market has usually put a P/E ratio of 10-20 on it, that's price to earnings and currently Microsoft as a whole is at 12.59. Last fiscal year the gaming division earned $380 million, so if we take the average P/E it's probably worth around $380*12.59 = $4.8 billion while the money losing division ten years ago was probably close to unsalable. So if you include that Microsoft has actually turned a profit in the last 10 years, it's just that most is still in their pockets as an asset. If they really wanted to, they could almost certainly sell out the division for more than those $3 billion.
In some other countries where most have manual transmissions, drivers are trained to place the car into neutral and engage the handbrake at a red light. That at least makes this a somewhat safer practice.
Never heard of it, never seen any of my parents, friends or relatives do it. Typically at an intersection the car will be in 1st gear, clutch pressed with left foot, right foot on the brakes, certainly no hand brake. The only time I intentionally stick it in neutral while driving is if there's a significant wait that makes it less hassle to put it in neutral, release the clutch, press the clutch and put it back in 1st when the light changes. The only time I'd use the hand brake is for starting in a steep hillside, then you put the hand brake on, start giving gas and release the clutch so the car will immediately go forward when you release the hand brake. Otherwise you might bump into the car behind you.
I'm not reading a 58 page pdf and the linked blog story is no longer than this summary. To save others the work, evidently Vimeo employees uploaded videos of people lipsyncing to tracks owned by the labels. Vimeo is trying to claim Safe Harbor protection because they had no way of knowing users were uploading infringing material.
Close. The one's employees didn't go near at all are those dismissed under the DMCA. All the ones any employee touched in some way, even as little as clicking a "like" button, put on a favorite list or whatever are the ones going to trial because there's doubts as to Vimeo's awareness of infringement. The really brief summary is: If you're looking for DMCA protection, the content is poison. Don't look at it, don't touch it, don't discuss it. Have automated content monitoring and user flagging, but don't go looking on your own and don't mention any specific cases even in internal emails. You have to go very far out of your way avoid knowing what is going on to be punished for "willful blindness".
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahah. Wow. Seriously, this is hilarious. I would think you're a troll, but you seem so level-headed about it, and you sound a lot like some Objectivists I've talked to.
If you think that's hilarious, you should read his posting history. He wants to "win" evolution, women should go back to being stay-at-home child breeders pumping out as many babies as they can and everyone else are worthless evolutionary dead ends. I think this one tops my list:
But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.
Of course, he's in a way right as evolution is a game of numbers. If he's busy producing as many offspring as possible while I life my life childless and without a care in the world, he'll win evolution but I'll settle for winning life. He's thinks everyone else is working for his offspring, but that's not how it works. He's working for the future of mankind (his idea of it anyway) but I'm working for nobody but myself. He talks of young to take care of the old, but I'll be paying his young to take care of my old. He's working for me, not the other way around and he doesn't even realize it.
We now get to choose between the option where a small powerful elite has this technology, and the option where everyone has it.
Sorry, but just because the NSA has been listening in on everyone's phone calls doesn't make it a good idea to let everyone listen to everyone else's phone calls. The right choice is to make the NSA stop, even if the technology as such exists. It doesn't mean we have to embrace it, we already have many ways of planting stealth microphones and none of them have much legitimate use. I don't see how this one is very different.
Welcome to /. where we still party like it's 1999. We'll have colonies on Mars before this site gets unicode support.
No, having the lack of privacy go both ways isn't as good as having privacy. A system where nobody can keep their actions private is a system governed by mob rule, nobody wants to engage in socially unacceptable behavior because they're instantly shunned and those who fail to participate in the shunning are also shunned for condoning it. Nobody will speak out unpopular opinions even if they feel it ought to be said, because those who don't like the message will go after the messenger. All social circles become totally transparent and people will self-censor their associations to avoid social stigma. It's freedom of the "you have freedom of speech and can say what you want, but we'll shoot you afterwards" variety.
Not to mention, it won't work. The powers to be will always find some reason why their conversations must be protected in the name of national security - after you've given up yours in the name of national security, of course. And if you don't like it you've got something to hide and is probably one of the bogeymen we're trying to catch. They can clam up any time they feel like it, while you'll stay stripped bare. Only the truly naive wants to head us in that direction, because <Admiral Ackbar>It's a trap!</Admiral Ackbar> and a pretty obvious one at that.
Jeeze, did you even read the article you linked when pointing out heroin as the big bad or did you just look for the first article that had a bar graph with heroin seemingly on the top? It basically contradicts your entire attitude about heroin, and reaffirms the thought process of the person you're quoting, even if it was an exaggeration.
Yeah it's a blog trying to dismiss a study made in a published medical journal, which I can't link to because it's only accessible to subscribers. It would be wildly invalid to compare a few hundred prescription users who have medical needs for it with appropriate dosage for those and are probably closely monitored for addiction problems related to it compared to what a bunch of addicts would do, even if they got it cheap and pure from a pharmacy. Furthermore, the blog author doesn't have anything to back up his claims except a lot of hand waving on how he thinks it might rate. It should be noted that heroin is by far the highest ranked of all other illegal drugs as well, which should all suffer the same "illegality" effects.
The insurance industry would like to go to one extreme and drop coverage or deny claims for people suffering from bad luck. You want the other extreme where insurance covers everything including willingly partaking in risky behavior. The logical balance is to force insurance companies to cover bad luck cases, while allowing them to distinguish and assign different rates based on riskiness of behavior. (Note that this also "solves" the DNA profiling problem. You do not control your DNA, so any problems you're genetically predisposed to are due to bad luck, and should be covered.)
There's a huge difference between risk factors you know in advance and having bad luck later. Would you let someone diagnosed with cancer take out a life insurance policy at the same rate as everyone else? No. Would you let someone who's been to a genetic review and found he has a 99% predisposition for developing cancer in the next five years take out a life insurance policy at the same rate as everyone else? Yes, it's bad luck. But he knows he has bad luck and can now hike his payout and pool his crap odds with the average odds of everyone else. That's not fair to everybody else. If you know you're about to get cancer, you should get "people about to get cancer" rates. If you want to share the risk with everyone else, you must do it in advance of learning the results.
You also didn't solve the other big issue which is that once you've had bad luck, you might be very predisposed to more bad luck but on your current insurance you started early as a low risk pool customer while if you switch you're a very high risk pool customer. For example, say you got cancer and were cured. The fallback rate is high, much higher than for the general population. No other insurance company wants to touch you with a ten foot pole or at ludicrous rates. You're trapped at one company and they want to get rid of you too, so the moment you're temporarily well they'll do anything they can do drop you, if not directly then indirectly by raising rates and being as uncooperative as possible. Miss one payment and you're out for good.
That's what I find so bizarre about the US implementation of Obamacare, everyone should have medical insurance so everyone's tab will be picked up by somebody, but the risk is not pooled. Those that the insurance companies manage to "get rid of" will go to the insurer of last resort that makes sure everyone has insurance and it will take all the costs while the other insurance companies pocket the profit. And now they can do it with better conscience because someone else will take over and they won't be dying in the streets. Both these problems are non-existent with real universal healthcare, we're all in the risk pool and come bad luck or good we'll stay there until we die.
If heroine were legal, nobody would die.
Because heroin never killed anybody. Even in peer reviewed medical journals like the Lancet where they ranked alcohol #5, tobacco #9 and cannabis #11, heroin was by far #1. It's already the kind of drug no sane, recreational drug user would take only an addict looking to blast his mind and body into oblivion. Yes you might save a few who'd get hooked on Krokodil but if you get more heroin addicts instead you'll do way more harm than good.
Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly.
OEM or corporate install full of crapware? Pure Windows (installed yourself from an OEM/retail disc) is a whole different ballgame, Microsoft actually doesn't add much crap like that. I don't have personal experience with a clean Win8 install, but at least on Win7 it's 99-100% idle when I don't do anything.
so why don't we just look at what organizations like the US military use to secure and sign their data, and use that? (the methods of course, not their keys)
Well if we're going for the spectacularly evil I'd pick an algorithm that has many subtly flawed weak keys and a small number of secure keys, then secretly implement additional key generation checks in military software. You both use the same cipher, but they can still read your data and you can't read theirs. Vendors can even supply software built on public cipher standards to be used with government-provided keys and be none the wiser. As long as the ones issuing the keys is in on the charade, it could be a masterpiece.
The system will prompt the driver to take over, and if the driver does not respond, it will follow the safest course of action, which may be to continue in autonomous mode, or may be to pull over and stop. There is no way in hell that a self driving car sold to the public is going to just turn itself off while flying down the freeway.
It's not a self driving car until you're never required to actively take over control, only passively take over control when the car asks you to. And by required I mean required by law, not whether the car tells you about it or not because it might not know or understand. Nissan's car is like that, I never said it'd turn itself off but you're required to jump in whenever the "very advanced cruise control" doesn't drive safely. Those will get better and better, you will do less and less but you're still required by law to be the driver in charge at all times. Why do you keep denying that companies will sell cars like that when Nissan and others are busy building cars exactly like that????
They might talk big but when it comes to actually taking over responsibility and liability for the driving, put your money where your mouth is. I bet we'll have years passing where companies have cars they think is almost ready but nobody wants to go out on a limb and say if this car runs over some school children then sue us for manslaughter, not the guy in the driver's seat. More and more advanced assistance that still leaves the final responsibility on you sure, but that truly self-driving car I think could take a very long time.
Of course it is not true, because the entire premise of the GGPP's objection is false. Self driving cars do not expect the human driver to "randomly" jump in. If the SDC calculates that it cannot make the best decision, it will prompt the human to take over. If the human does not respond, the SDC will either continue if it is reasonably safe to do so, or pull over and stop. The people designing these systems are not morons.
But that's just the point, this isn't a self driving car. It's a very sophisticated driving assistant that'll handle the routine driving but throw any unexpected situation it doesn't recognize or doesn't handle in your lap. Or are you trying to argue that Nissan is taking full responsibility and liability for how this car drives while this system is active? Because I'm pretty sure they don't. The day you're no more than a swap-in driver which happen to be sitting in the driver's seat instead of the passenger seat, fine. But on the road to that future there'll be hybrids that sort of drive themselves but demand you're there alert and attentive to override the system. And it was the hybrids I worried about, not the true self-driving cars.
Now it just remains to be seen if drivers will continue to pay attention to the road, or if it becomes so autonomous that people start slacking (more) behind the wheel. It really won't work to have a car that drives itself 90% of the time and then expects you go randomly jump in for the last 10%. Still, nice to see this tech getting closer to reality.
You misunderstand, they're using shot guns and rock salt shells. It won't cause serious trauma if you turn and run, but it will cause painful stinging injuries and serve as a warning. The recidivism rate is low.
No, it isn't. Copyright infringement is only a crime when done on a commercial scale. For personal use it is a civil offence, but one that is widely tolerated
If your idea of "commercial scale" is two copies of Photoshop CS6 (above $1000 sticker price value) in a 180-day period. That makes you a criminal, even if you didn't earn a dime and it's not that hard if you're using a torrent. The main reason nobody cares is that a criminal case also raises the standard from "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt", you get rights to representation and the copyright holders won't get more money from you, probably less after you've spent all your money in court. And the police and courts don't want to get stuffed with run-of-the-mill torrent seeders either.
Well I'm not sure why but whenever I take a break from posting (holidays or whatever) I often end up with mod points. I don't know if it's their way of keeping you hooked or to avoid that you stop commenting to mod instead, but they seem to give them out when you're not very active.
The problem is not all people opinions are equal. The opinion of the people who don't know what any of that 'scrolling text' means is far less useful in the area of computing than that of those who do know what it means and consider it useful diagnostic information. Pandering to nitwits who think its important to have a shiny boot time display with a spinning logo does not a better platform make.
Diagnostic information is fine, if you're trying to diagnose something but 99.9% of the time I'm not and then I'd rather have a nice spinning logo and have the boot log appear on error or if it freezes hard then as a boot option on the next boot. But I guess that's "pandering to nitwits", so after 3.5 years of dealing with asshats like you I finally had enough verbal abuse and insults so I returned to Windows. You're the kind of person who makes me advice people stay away from Linux with a ten foot pole. Worst thing is, you probably enjoy it and take it as proof we're not "hardcore" enough to run Linux. I got tired of being attacked, when Windows has a problem we blame Microsoft and people try to help out while Linux seems all about throwing as much shit back in my face as possible. So I went back to my "Wintendo" as one of the people I asked for help called it.
Our modern world is so complex no one person can ever hope to understand it all in depth.
It's always been that way, in many fields you could read a lifetime and not come up with conclusive answers anyway. Take for example this simple question from parenting, how much should your child be allowed to do? The two extremes that your child should be allowed to do everything and nothing are obviously not the right answer, the answer is lurking somewhere in the middle but you're never going to be able to pin it down, put it in a book and say this is the right answer like you can with a physics textbook. Most knowledge we have that doesn't drop right ouf the laws of nature is approximate.
Ubuntu got popular because the ordinary people who cannot figure out how a command line works could use it.
Linux was and is still predominantly used by people who can use a command line, but Ubuntu won a following with those who don't want to. I came from Debian which was a nice, solid base but very few cared about the desktop. That was something which just happened to run on top of the rock solid server they were building. Hell, when I switched Debian still didn't have a boot screen, it was text scrolling past because who cares on a server? But it was 2007 and it looked a DOS boot from the 1980s, I'm not going to pretend that was a big thing but it was representative of the attitude. To use the infamous car analogy, the only thing Debian focused on was the engine, gearbox, brakes, chassis and so on. Ubuntu came and said we'll give you that with a nice interior, leather seats, air condition, sun roof, metallic paint and a nice polish. Seemed like a win-win at the time.
You make that sound as if that is a good thing. It is not. The very point of communication is to be exposed to new and possibly uncomfortable ideas.
The very point of discussion, not communication. I find it great that fans of an obscure band that one in million have heard of can gather in the same forum and be hundreds if not thousands, no matter where they live. The other part is that most people participate in a discussion to influence others, not to get influenced themselves. Two sides who aren't going to bend an inch throwing volleys after volleys at each other and anyone trying to take up position in the middle is caught in the crossfire. I've taken the unpopular opinion or played the devil's advocate a few times here on slashdot and while there's some -1, Disagree voting in comparison to many other places a lot of people here will give credit where credit is due for a decent counter-argument. Some other places they'd deny the sky is blue if their opponent said it.
Most religions really have the same message. Be good to each other. The details and names are different. But that's really what it boils down to. I'm sure there will be replays talking about all of the bad things that religion has caused over the years. But most of those have to do with power mad people twisting the main message to meet their own perverse goals
In summary, you've never actually read the texts but imagined what it is you would like them to say. Religions aren't egalitarian and universally generous, they're highly exclusive and competitive. My religion is right, everyone else's is wrong. Good things will happen to you if you follow my religion, bad things will happen to you if you don't. Spread my truths and stop the unbelievers from spreading their lies. It's all different versions of carrot and stick, not just carrots and not for everyone. They all sell you on a similar story whether it's Heaven, Jannah (Islamic Heaven), Nirvana (Buddhism) or Vaikuntha (Hinduism) but while you don't care which religion, the religions do. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior you're still going to hell and that's not really open for interpretation. We just like to quietly ignore those parts that aren't palatable in a multicultural world.
And yet, if the car is in gear *while* someone rear ends you, it can really fuck up your transmission. Not to mention that leaving the clutch pressed in too much can cause extra (unnecessary) wear to that part. If it's in neutral, I can let the clutch out.
If someone rear ends me, it's not my repair bill. I never figured out that part about wear, to me it seems like a friction clutch should mainly be worn out by the actual engaging and disengaging of the clutch as they are in partial contact. I suppose there's some springs that are supposed to keep it fully engaged when I let go that would suffer a few extra seconds of static compression, but I can't imagine that has any significant effect compared to the constant expansion and contraction they experience during normal operation, whether you put it in neutral or not. So far I've haven't ever managed to wear out a clutch at least...
Neither the XBone or PS4 are going to tank, they're both very capable machines with a strong following. They're profitable now (indeed, have been for 5 years) and it'd be an awfully long uphill battle for anyone else to enter the market. With the WiiU sales being crap it's basically down to a duopoly, you really think Microsoft and Sony want to go on an all-out price war for your benefit? No, you'll be paying enough that both enjoy a comfortable profit margin. Ten years ago the gaming division was a huge money burner, today it's a money maker. If Microsoft wanted to sell their gaming division, how much more could they cash in than 10 years ago?
For long-running businesses that have a steady cash flow the stock market has usually put a P/E ratio of 10-20 on it, that's price to earnings and currently Microsoft as a whole is at 12.59. Last fiscal year the gaming division earned $380 million, so if we take the average P/E it's probably worth around $380*12.59 = $4.8 billion while the money losing division ten years ago was probably close to unsalable. So if you include that Microsoft has actually turned a profit in the last 10 years, it's just that most is still in their pockets as an asset. If they really wanted to, they could almost certainly sell out the division for more than those $3 billion.
In some other countries where most have manual transmissions, drivers are trained to place the car into neutral and engage the handbrake at a red light. That at least makes this a somewhat safer practice.
Never heard of it, never seen any of my parents, friends or relatives do it. Typically at an intersection the car will be in 1st gear, clutch pressed with left foot, right foot on the brakes, certainly no hand brake. The only time I intentionally stick it in neutral while driving is if there's a significant wait that makes it less hassle to put it in neutral, release the clutch, press the clutch and put it back in 1st when the light changes. The only time I'd use the hand brake is for starting in a steep hillside, then you put the hand brake on, start giving gas and release the clutch so the car will immediately go forward when you release the hand brake. Otherwise you might bump into the car behind you.
I'm not reading a 58 page pdf and the linked blog story is no longer than this summary. To save others the work, evidently Vimeo employees uploaded videos of people lipsyncing to tracks owned by the labels. Vimeo is trying to claim Safe Harbor protection because they had no way of knowing users were uploading infringing material.
Close. The one's employees didn't go near at all are those dismissed under the DMCA. All the ones any employee touched in some way, even as little as clicking a "like" button, put on a favorite list or whatever are the ones going to trial because there's doubts as to Vimeo's awareness of infringement. The really brief summary is: If you're looking for DMCA protection, the content is poison. Don't look at it, don't touch it, don't discuss it. Have automated content monitoring and user flagging, but don't go looking on your own and don't mention any specific cases even in internal emails. You have to go very far out of your way avoid knowing what is going on to be punished for "willful blindness".