Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
Meh, speed limits and traffic do that. Sure, it's fun accelerating 0-55 mph faster than everything else but when you got a car that could do 155 mph you've barely tasted it. I'll admit I didn't really understand why anyone would go to a track to drive a car before I got a sports car, like can't you just drive it? Turns out driving on public roads is really just a tease, you can hear the roar but then you have to muzzle it if you want to keep your license.
Do you need to read more than "blanket ban on taking any photos or video of the front of the phone" to know that the emporer has no clothes? If they cannot show the public how "great" their only "new, distinguishing feature" is by now, it is certain to be embarrasingly underwhelming.
Is it any surprise that a 3D effect can't be presented well in a 2D photo? Maybe you don't know Red as it's hardly a household name, but they've made a business selling $10k-$100k cameras to Hollywood and is second only to Arri in that market. And before that, Jim Jannard became a billionaire on Oakley sunglasses that he founded. This is not some scam or a fool with a fancy presentation. I don't know if this is a winner, as I think the whole 3D/VR/AR/Hologram market is seriously overhyped but somebody with lots of money and lots of successful experience think they have a business case. Which means there's a lot more to this than smoke and mirrors. Though to be honest I don't think Red knows how to make anything at mainstream prices, like they don't make $1000 cameras or $100 camera modules for phone. It's a $1000+ phone and it'll probably be as niche as their cameras, but they make money so I don't see why this can't. It just needs to deliver something unique to justify the price.
You know that the child has probably just gotten lost, but may have been abducted - it happens, usually following an ugly divorce in which one parent gets custody.
Haven't suspected custody battles been explicitly exempted from the Amber Alerts? Also I think you've missed out on the recent paranoia, it's notice the child is missing - or even potentially missing - and go straight to panic, better safe than sorry. Even in my day I'd say the longest period out of touch between dinner and supper would be 3-4 hours at the most, if I didn't show up for school or didn't get home from school the panic would start much sooner. I mean I could hang out with a friend, but then they'd call from their house to my house and tell where I was.
Maybe my parents could be out and about a whole day without being in touch with an adult, but not me. These days any child that's mature enough to be left unsupervised for any longer period of time usually has a cell phone too, so if you're too young to have one or isn't answering they're both reasons to start a search sooner. Of course there could always be an outlier somewhere but I imagine the vast majority start <2 hours after they got lost.
For the Amber Alert to be useful the child must be visible which only happens if the kid is still going along with it, if it's drugged or tied up in the trunk/back of a van it hardly matters how wide the alert goes. And it'll only take so long before the kid realize you're not giving him/her a lift home, so practically I doubt it's useful for more than say a one hour radius. You also have to consider that you will be blasting it on TV, radio and online news. How many people do you really need to nag by text message? I'd probably go with like a 50 mile radius at most. Potentially even less.
- you "build a circuit" that performs the same encryption that was used (e.g. AES - by some magic of physics, it instantaneously determines the only possible inputs that could have ever formed that answer.
That's a load of bollocks. A block cipher works by "remapping" a block of plaintext into ciphertext. So for a 128 bit cipher you have 2^128 possible keys and 2^128 possible plaintexts that produce 2^128 ciphertexts. So for any one ciphertext there's 2^128 equally valid key/data combos that produce that ciphertext, not one. I suppose it's possible that quantum computers could be used for a known plaintext attack by figuring out what key converts this plaintext into that ciphertext, but I haven't heard of it. Just factorization of private keys which is relevant to a lot of internet communication but not for example full disk encryption or password protected archives.
Perhaps... except that Bitpay only guarantee the rate for 15 mn, and bitcoin transaction can make much more time to be processed. Hence government also takes a share in the volatility risk.
Some simple searches would show this is false. Bitpay guarantees the exchange rate for 15 minutes, if your bitcoins arrive later they'll be converted at the current rate and if it's enough they'll pay the invoice, otherwise they'll just send you back a notification that you underpaid so try again. In which case it looks like you need to get a refund (2nd transaction fee) and pay again (3rd transaction fee). Not surprising since they don't know when you initiated the transfer, if you spent 14 minutes waiting for BTC to crash thinking the actual transaction would finish in seconds or set some super-low fee causing it to take a day. In fact since long processing times are highly correlated with extreme volatility it's probably near impossible to get any significant exchange rate advantage out of those 15 minutes. Most likely it'll just be delayed, underpaid and you lose a bunch in fees. Not the merchant, you.
Precisely. We know theyâ(TM)re flawed because he himself wrote stories to highlight their flaws. Anyone suggesting we can use them as they are has clearly only read about Asimov, rather than reading what he actually wrote.
Never mind that you can do an end run around the whole laws with the Ender's game method, let it think it's playing a game but execute it in reality. The combat drone will think it's just playing Counter-Strike...
As TFS suggests - the game-changer is likely neither DAB nor DAB+ but internet radio available on pretty much every smartphone, smart TV, computer, phone, creepy digital household spy/assistant etc. the only drawback of which is the need for an internet connection and the need for a "smart device" to receive it. The problem is, of course, areas with poor internet service (which I bet is strongly correlated with poor DAB reception), people for whom £25/month for broadband is a problem and, of course, car drivers who don't want their radio to cut out every time they drive through a 3G/DAB dark spot. Plus, its another incentive for drivers to be fucking around with their phones while driving.
That's really what this boils down to, DAB+ is far more competitive with internet radio when it's in bigger cities and along main roads. More channels, better quality and cheaper vs internet streaming which is personalized but requires a subscription and has quotas. Truth is FM is far more superior for any kind of national/emergency broadcast system, it's got better reach and simpler, low-power receivers and despite a lot of noise you can catch the important bits even from a very weak signal despite the static. But there's no business in that, the money is in all the commuters, urban listeners, people in parks etc. who are better served with DAB not the few that are actually in rural areas or off into the wilderness. As for online connections: Speeds go up, caps go up, prices go down. By the time you're done with the roll-out DAB will be a waste. Don't do it, here in Norway we did and it's not worth it.
Which is probably fine since it's heading for Mars, I just don't see it having any business model on Earth. SpaceX is obvious. SolarCity for panels and batteries too. Tesla for EVs. Starlink for communications. All of those make sense, except for the Boring company for excavation. I don't think Musk will get involved in some random business that doesn't tie into his Mars colonization plans somehow at this point. I mean we built a tunnel under the English channel, does anyone really think drilling needs a revolution? We know how to do it with lots of power and lots of water cooling. He's building a drill for Mars where you have neither, while trying to sell it as some kind of cost revolution.
Good for him if he can pull it off I suppose, but you don't really have to be a psychic to see where he's going with all this. He's not waiting around for NASA to do their bit, he plans to build most of the pieces himself. He intends to build the launcher (w/refueling). He intends to build the spaceship. He intends to build the lander. He'll have the communications. The power & storage. The rovers. In the Commercial Crew program he'll have to make a human habitat. Basically I think he's collecting all the pieces to make his own Mars outpost. Or at least kill the cost-plus contracts and say for $X billion we'll transport people to Mars, keep them alive there for two years and bring them back. Because I still don't think he's got a business case for going...
This is getting ridiculous, especially given that Disney does not produce any new movie featuring Mickey mouse. They should just remove public domain, that way they would not need to add insult to the injury every 20 years.
Well back in 1998 at the last Mickey Mouse protection act, when they were told they couldn't get perpetual copyright due to the constitution saying "limited times" Jack Valenti famously suggested forever less one day.
Just one question: what happens once the works are not protected anymore in other countries? Will Indian and Chinese company produce legal US knock-off for worldwide consumption except in US?
Possibly, but the tactic has always been to extend the rights in one territory then "harmonize" them through trade agreements.
For thousands of years humans have thought that singing and dancing would change the weather. I don't think our human brains are intrinsically good at cause and effect. The most common phrase on Slashdot is Correlation != Causation. It's hardly a unique problem to deep learning.
Well they didn't think that dancing would physically change the weather, but that a rain god would see their worship and make it rain. Same way lots of modern day people will pray to an omnipotent being for things they can't control. Humans are pattern seeking animals because if it's really random you can't do better than chance. Even when we know it's absurd if you win a lot of games wearing the same socks they become your lucky socks, we want to think we've found the formula for luck. It's when we lose a bunch of games wearing the same socks we throw them away and say bollocks.
I wonder if this could be the basis for some kind of evolutionary algorithm, like instead of beginning with an algorithm with zero faith in anything you start out with tons of superstitions and that as data arrives you breed mixes, patterns that are confirmed spread while those that are contradicted are diminished, like an AI religious war or something. And if they agree on patterns they start spinning off more complex conditions or negations as sub-patterns. Like if you've found that you can sometimes start a fire with a magnifier glass and tinder you can keep adding "if the sun is shining" and "the tinder is not wet" and "not in a cave".
Of course you'll also get a lot of nonsensical attempts too like "wearing a hat" or "standing on your head" and negative attempts like "while under water" but over time you should be able to get a lot of conclusions that make sense, even though no single pattern has complete knowledge of everything. Kinda like with us humans, some things many of us know while many things only a few of us know. Together we're pretty good though with ways to share knowledge. Computers would probably skip right to The Borg though.
They are insinuating that an individual is linked to a crime merely because that person was arrested. As I understand it, they didn't use terms like "allegedly" (which all decent news organizations will use to avoid slander/libel suits), but instead simply said "John Jackson/Robbery." By doing so, they are implying that John Jackson was found guilty of robbery when he wasn't.
They don't need to use "allegedly" about the arrest, they could just say "name/cause of arrest" or whatever that field is called on the arrest form and let people do all the implying and insinuating themselves. If they stuck strictly to doing that it'd be very hard to convict them of libel/slander as truth is a valid defense, even when you tell only a tiny bit of it that puts the person in a very bad light.
Weirdly, that's the one taboo I've never felt: living below my means/being "poor", whether it's used cars, used furniture, computers bought off Craigslist. I just don't like the Joneses enough to want to keep up with them - I'd rather watch them run like hamsters and get a coronary before the finish line while I walk comfortably and enjoy the views.
Many people can make that choice for themselves. But when you have kids and they can't have what their peers have or do what their peers do that's a lot harder to stomach. In particular you can be sure that those other kids have never been on any hamster wheel and only see that your kid can't afford what they can.
Yep. Reasonable working hours, parental leave, sick/personal days, vaca time, so people actually have TIME to care for their families.
Here in Norway we have all that in abundance and we still are below reproduction rates. The primary reason is that we start having children later, in the last 30 years the average age of first motherhood has risen from 25 to 29 years old. It's got nothing to do with teaching kids about condoms and such, teen pregnancies haven't been statistically significant in ages. Through the pill and legalized abortion women generally have children when they want to have children and no sooner, the change is intentional.
One of the reasons is modern day equality, apart from some immigrants no Norwegian woman thinks housewife is a career or want to settle for less than men but pregnancy and the first months of a child's life can't be split 50-50. So most women want to be done with their education and have an established job before they start a family. And with their economic independence it's not about "catching" a man and rushing to get the ring on his finger and pop out a kid so he's stuck and even then divorce and finding a new partner is not the scandal it used to be.
The effect of this is that even established couples are living out their responsibility-free lives for years until the woman is approaching thirty and the biological clock starts ticking, because once it starts it's diapers, babysitters and wailing toddlers for the next five years. And most typically stop at two, some have three but almost never four or more because you start running into either time or money constraints. Like if the woman is going back to work as most do then three is a bundle on top of two working parents, if she (sorry, it's usually she) does part time or stay-at-home then the money runs short.
Not like the kids go hungry or freezing short, but like "we can't afford to let you participate in the things other kids do" short. It's hard not unintentionally acting like a dick when it's loose change for your two high income, one kid family while to a single income, three kid family it's an expense they can't afford on a really tight budget. And admitting you're poor well that's still a taboo, we've gotten rid of a lot of other social taboos but that one still hurts. And if you get like five kids, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up there these days.
Aireon said its satellite-based system could allow for 15 miles of separation on oceanic routes, making room for more planes.
While I'm sure that's technically true, long transoceanic routes are also pretty damn predictable. Once they've cleared the local air traffic their heading and cruise speed can be accurately projected hours ahead so it should only take very small early course adjustments to avoid flying "around" an incoming/crossing plane in the middle of the ocean. I suppose it could help if the skies were full that they could go more "bumper to bumper" but that would mainly just increase capacity. I just don't see the benefit to the typical ocean route, usually it's not that crowded. But I guess once the satellites are in place a signal is relatively cheap so even just a slightly straighter line can save more in fuel so that it makes economic sense, I doubt passengers would even notice though. My impression from international flights have been that they fly a very straight line already... well, the great circle but it's a matter of perspective.
I'm sure that's true, but he has also has access to greater computing power for analysis than his predecessors did. That's a huge difference maker. Computers can brute force a lot of chess problems and come up with interesting ways to play them that humans didn't think of before.
While that's absolutely true, other chess players have taken more advantage of that than Carlsen. Particularly Anand that he had to beat for the world champion title in 2013 was famous for his prep work, he had a whole team of top players exploring opening possibilities. The goal for Carlsen was just to get him out of prep while staying even so he could use his immense memorization/pattern recognition skills. Watch him do simultaneous blind play games, most of us would get totally lost on where the pieces are much less be able to play any decent chess. A computer can't help you learn that.
I'm not sure I agree that stir-fry qualifies as a "complex meal."
Well maybe complex is not the right word but you can make varied dishes using the same cooking technique, like here's beef, pork, chicken, shrimp, vegetarian with rice or noodles, different accessories and spices etc. and it's made-to-order so it can be exactly how you want it with robot precision. Personally I think the latter could be the killer feature here, sure you could explain it to a human chef but then you'd have to instruct him in detail every time which would get tedious and you could never fine tune it. Instead you can order the exact same Beef Teriyaki the way you like it or try to create a better variation. If they actually have that flexibility and you don't simply pick fixed weight ingredients, they just show the fryer and not what happens on the backside if the ingredients are dispensed or placed into the stir-adder by staff.
Farmers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, and industrial workers are more likely to die on the job than an average military member.
You do realize that statement becomes wildly, ludicrously, (almost) humorously false during combat right?
Well the US haven't fought any real military opposition since the Vietnam war and used a lot of local cannon fodder on the ground so the average military member has been pretty safe. If I tally the combat deaths listed here from 1980 to today I get 6229 or ~130/year. This site says the US has ~1.3 million active duty military personnel. So the risk of dying "on the job" is currently around 0.01%/year, obviously quite unevenly distributed but still ridiculously low for being the military. Of course if some real powder keg goes off those statistics could go out the window real fast...
Terrible analogy. Pro athletes typically retire for one of two reasons. 1) Wear and tear on the body including injuries or 2) Declining physical abilities due to age. A pro athlete is one of the very best in the world at their chosen sport and even the best and most fortunate of them aren't going to be able to play at the highest levels much beyond age 40 in any sport and some sports retirement comes much earlier.
Many of the latter actually continue as casual players/athletes on a hobby basis, their "retirement" is just the end of their professional career and the extreme training to stay at the top. Nobody cares if Maradona or Pelé still kicks a ball or two with a few old buddies or Björn Borg still can swing a tennis racket. I guess it's less for contact sports like boxing or American football, but it's ridiculous to think a bicycle rider will have dropped out entirely just because he's not on Tour de France anymore.
There's a better way to fuck Bezos. Buy stuff from Target, Walmart, Netflix, or Apple instead of Amazon. Hit him where it hurts, his wallet.
All mega-corporations have some tiny fraction of customers who've sworn them off forever. But it hardly matters because there's only a handful to choose from, so the 1% unhappy with Amazon buy at Target, the 1% unhappy with Target buy at Wal-Mart, the 1% unhappy with Wal-Mart buy at Apple, the 1% unhappy with Apple buy at Amazon and they all think it's making some sort of difference. By all means, it's good to have personal principles and say things like "Well, at least *my* money doesn't go to Apple and their walled garden" but I can't help but laugh at people who think it "hurts Bezos" who's selling off a billion dollar's worth of Amazon stock a year to fund his space dream. He couldn't even find you as a rounding error in his profit and loss statement.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality. Particularly the people who think if something is not working, you need to do more of it or you're not doing it right. It's like ideology precedes the facts, because it's not working you can't be doing it right because if you did it'd work. Prime examples are capitalism and socialism.
The towing limit on most cars is because cars accelerate and brake going up and down hills, and have to cope with lateral acceleration forces on the trailer in turns.
Honestly if it was a closed track a rally driver could tow way faster or way more than legal street limits. A "friend of mine" pulled a 300 kg overweight trailer, apart from being down to 50 km/h in an 80 km/h zone at the top of a long and steep hill it was no problem at all. If the trailer got good brakes stopping in a straight line is also fine. The problem is if you have to brake in a turn, if that trailer starts going sideways or yanking you sideways you'll have no control at all. The greatest danger though is all the impatient overtakes you'll provoke by being a few seconds slower at everything, I had one milliseconds away from a head-on collision and if he'd hit and spun right in front of me... well it wouldn't have ended well for any of us, I think.
Can anyone explain how arbitration clauses work? How can a company limit an employee's rights to proceed legally against a company in case of criminal conduct? That doesn't seem to make sense?
If you get raped by an Uber driver then that driver can be criminally tried and convicted by the DA's office. But unless Uber is a co-conspirator or accessory to the rape which is rather unlikely they won't be on trial for that. They want to sue Uber for negligence, which can be both civil and criminal but criminal negligence is typically when you have a formal duty of care like a driver, doctor or parent. Like if your Uber driver was drunk and crashed with you in it, that would be a case of criminal negligence. The rest is typically a civil matter, if my dog bites your dog I might be liable but it's not a crime. It's the latter kind of negligence they want to sue Uber for.
If there's no contractual relationship you're free to sue in civil court. But if there is a contractual relationship like say you're placing the dog in a kennel they can put in an arbitration clause that says if your dog is bitten by another dog while in the kennel, you can't take us to court. You must follow the arbitration process and it's decision is final. Basically the courts have decided that you're "voluntarily" giving up these rights as part of an agreement so it's okay, even though it's a contract of adhesion and a requirement to get service. Personally I think that any such clauses should be banned alongside slave contracts because they're not really voluntary at all and a way to shield corporations from any wrong-doing.
If your computer is 2 years old and packs a GTX 1080, you must have bought the card practically on launch day (May 27th 2016), which must have cost a small fortune.
Well I guess it's what a fortune is to you. I bought a 1080Ti at launch, sure it was $700 but it's well over a year later and apart from a few ridiculously overpriced Titan cards it's head and shoulders above the pack. I expect it'll be faster than a 1170 but slightly slower than a 1180, that's usually been the case. Two years after that'll it'll probably be behind, but not so terribly far behind the 1270 that I'll replace it. So I'm thinking the 13xx generation would be a likely replacement time. That's over a year already + two full generations = 5-6 years = <$150/year. Divided by hours played, <$1/hour of gametime. As hobbies go - considering the GPU is the single biggest expense of being a gamer - I consider it a bargain. Sure it's not WoW addict & Ramen noodles cheap and I don't really need it, but you can certainly find much more expensive interests...
No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.
Since you're cherry picking subjects I assume this means you'd like to repeal the 13th amendment, or is it a moral issue only when you want to lift the ban? That it's illegal to show kids porn, is that a moral issue? To me the line in the sand of what laws deal with "moral issues" and not seems rather arbitrary...
Slashdot Mirror
The average price of a new car is $36k, Model 3 starts at $35k. If selling to >50% of the market is not mainstream, well then the problem is you.
Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
Meh, speed limits and traffic do that. Sure, it's fun accelerating 0-55 mph faster than everything else but when you got a car that could do 155 mph you've barely tasted it. I'll admit I didn't really understand why anyone would go to a track to drive a car before I got a sports car, like can't you just drive it? Turns out driving on public roads is really just a tease, you can hear the roar but then you have to muzzle it if you want to keep your license.
Do you need to read more than "blanket ban on taking any photos or video of the front of the phone" to know that the emporer has no clothes? If they cannot show the public how "great" their only "new, distinguishing feature" is by now, it is certain to be embarrasingly underwhelming.
Is it any surprise that a 3D effect can't be presented well in a 2D photo? Maybe you don't know Red as it's hardly a household name, but they've made a business selling $10k-$100k cameras to Hollywood and is second only to Arri in that market. And before that, Jim Jannard became a billionaire on Oakley sunglasses that he founded. This is not some scam or a fool with a fancy presentation. I don't know if this is a winner, as I think the whole 3D/VR/AR/Hologram market is seriously overhyped but somebody with lots of money and lots of successful experience think they have a business case. Which means there's a lot more to this than smoke and mirrors. Though to be honest I don't think Red knows how to make anything at mainstream prices, like they don't make $1000 cameras or $100 camera modules for phone. It's a $1000+ phone and it'll probably be as niche as their cameras, but they make money so I don't see why this can't. It just needs to deliver something unique to justify the price.
You know that the child has probably just gotten lost, but may have been abducted - it happens, usually following an ugly divorce in which one parent gets custody.
Haven't suspected custody battles been explicitly exempted from the Amber Alerts? Also I think you've missed out on the recent paranoia, it's notice the child is missing - or even potentially missing - and go straight to panic, better safe than sorry. Even in my day I'd say the longest period out of touch between dinner and supper would be 3-4 hours at the most, if I didn't show up for school or didn't get home from school the panic would start much sooner. I mean I could hang out with a friend, but then they'd call from their house to my house and tell where I was.
Maybe my parents could be out and about a whole day without being in touch with an adult, but not me. These days any child that's mature enough to be left unsupervised for any longer period of time usually has a cell phone too, so if you're too young to have one or isn't answering they're both reasons to start a search sooner. Of course there could always be an outlier somewhere but I imagine the vast majority start <2 hours after they got lost.
For the Amber Alert to be useful the child must be visible which only happens if the kid is still going along with it, if it's drugged or tied up in the trunk/back of a van it hardly matters how wide the alert goes. And it'll only take so long before the kid realize you're not giving him/her a lift home, so practically I doubt it's useful for more than say a one hour radius. You also have to consider that you will be blasting it on TV, radio and online news. How many people do you really need to nag by text message? I'd probably go with like a 50 mile radius at most. Potentially even less.
- you "build a circuit" that performs the same encryption that was used (e.g. AES
- by some magic of physics, it instantaneously determines the only possible inputs that could have ever formed that answer.
That's a load of bollocks. A block cipher works by "remapping" a block of plaintext into ciphertext. So for a 128 bit cipher you have 2^128 possible keys and 2^128 possible plaintexts that produce 2^128 ciphertexts. So for any one ciphertext there's 2^128 equally valid key/data combos that produce that ciphertext, not one. I suppose it's possible that quantum computers could be used for a known plaintext attack by figuring out what key converts this plaintext into that ciphertext, but I haven't heard of it. Just factorization of private keys which is relevant to a lot of internet communication but not for example full disk encryption or password protected archives.
Perhaps... except that Bitpay only guarantee the rate for 15 mn, and bitcoin transaction can make much more time to be processed. Hence government also takes a share in the volatility risk.
Some simple searches would show this is false. Bitpay guarantees the exchange rate for 15 minutes, if your bitcoins arrive later they'll be converted at the current rate and if it's enough they'll pay the invoice, otherwise they'll just send you back a notification that you underpaid so try again. In which case it looks like you need to get a refund (2nd transaction fee) and pay again (3rd transaction fee). Not surprising since they don't know when you initiated the transfer, if you spent 14 minutes waiting for BTC to crash thinking the actual transaction would finish in seconds or set some super-low fee causing it to take a day. In fact since long processing times are highly correlated with extreme volatility it's probably near impossible to get any significant exchange rate advantage out of those 15 minutes. Most likely it'll just be delayed, underpaid and you lose a bunch in fees. Not the merchant, you.
Precisely. We know theyâ(TM)re flawed because he himself wrote stories to highlight their flaws. Anyone suggesting we can use them as they are has clearly only read about Asimov, rather than reading what he actually wrote.
Never mind that you can do an end run around the whole laws with the Ender's game method, let it think it's playing a game but execute it in reality. The combat drone will think it's just playing Counter-Strike...
As TFS suggests - the game-changer is likely neither DAB nor DAB+ but internet radio available on pretty much every smartphone, smart TV, computer, phone, creepy digital household spy/assistant etc. the only drawback of which is the need for an internet connection and the need for a "smart device" to receive it. The problem is, of course, areas with poor internet service (which I bet is strongly correlated with poor DAB reception), people for whom £25/month for broadband is a problem and, of course, car drivers who don't want their radio to cut out every time they drive through a 3G/DAB dark spot. Plus, its another incentive for drivers to be fucking around with their phones while driving.
That's really what this boils down to, DAB+ is far more competitive with internet radio when it's in bigger cities and along main roads. More channels, better quality and cheaper vs internet streaming which is personalized but requires a subscription and has quotas. Truth is FM is far more superior for any kind of national/emergency broadcast system, it's got better reach and simpler, low-power receivers and despite a lot of noise you can catch the important bits even from a very weak signal despite the static. But there's no business in that, the money is in all the commuters, urban listeners, people in parks etc. who are better served with DAB not the few that are actually in rural areas or off into the wilderness. As for online connections: Speeds go up, caps go up, prices go down. By the time you're done with the roll-out DAB will be a waste. Don't do it, here in Norway we did and it's not worth it.
Which is probably fine since it's heading for Mars, I just don't see it having any business model on Earth. SpaceX is obvious. SolarCity for panels and batteries too. Tesla for EVs. Starlink for communications. All of those make sense, except for the Boring company for excavation. I don't think Musk will get involved in some random business that doesn't tie into his Mars colonization plans somehow at this point. I mean we built a tunnel under the English channel, does anyone really think drilling needs a revolution? We know how to do it with lots of power and lots of water cooling. He's building a drill for Mars where you have neither, while trying to sell it as some kind of cost revolution.
Good for him if he can pull it off I suppose, but you don't really have to be a psychic to see where he's going with all this. He's not waiting around for NASA to do their bit, he plans to build most of the pieces himself. He intends to build the launcher (w/refueling). He intends to build the spaceship. He intends to build the lander. He'll have the communications. The power & storage. The rovers. In the Commercial Crew program he'll have to make a human habitat. Basically I think he's collecting all the pieces to make his own Mars outpost. Or at least kill the cost-plus contracts and say for $X billion we'll transport people to Mars, keep them alive there for two years and bring them back. Because I still don't think he's got a business case for going...
This is getting ridiculous, especially given that Disney does not produce any new movie featuring Mickey mouse. They should just remove public domain, that way they would not need to add insult to the injury every 20 years.
Well back in 1998 at the last Mickey Mouse protection act, when they were told they couldn't get perpetual copyright due to the constitution saying "limited times" Jack Valenti famously suggested forever less one day.
Just one question: what happens once the works are not protected anymore in other countries? Will Indian and Chinese company produce legal US knock-off for worldwide consumption except in US?
Possibly, but the tactic has always been to extend the rights in one territory then "harmonize" them through trade agreements.
For thousands of years humans have thought that singing and dancing would change the weather. I don't think our human brains are intrinsically good at cause and effect. The most common phrase on Slashdot is Correlation != Causation. It's hardly a unique problem to deep learning.
Well they didn't think that dancing would physically change the weather, but that a rain god would see their worship and make it rain. Same way lots of modern day people will pray to an omnipotent being for things they can't control. Humans are pattern seeking animals because if it's really random you can't do better than chance. Even when we know it's absurd if you win a lot of games wearing the same socks they become your lucky socks, we want to think we've found the formula for luck. It's when we lose a bunch of games wearing the same socks we throw them away and say bollocks.
I wonder if this could be the basis for some kind of evolutionary algorithm, like instead of beginning with an algorithm with zero faith in anything you start out with tons of superstitions and that as data arrives you breed mixes, patterns that are confirmed spread while those that are contradicted are diminished, like an AI religious war or something. And if they agree on patterns they start spinning off more complex conditions or negations as sub-patterns. Like if you've found that you can sometimes start a fire with a magnifier glass and tinder you can keep adding "if the sun is shining" and "the tinder is not wet" and "not in a cave".
Of course you'll also get a lot of nonsensical attempts too like "wearing a hat" or "standing on your head" and negative attempts like "while under water" but over time you should be able to get a lot of conclusions that make sense, even though no single pattern has complete knowledge of everything. Kinda like with us humans, some things many of us know while many things only a few of us know. Together we're pretty good though with ways to share knowledge. Computers would probably skip right to The Borg though.
They are insinuating that an individual is linked to a crime merely because that person was arrested. As I understand it, they didn't use terms like "allegedly" (which all decent news organizations will use to avoid slander/libel suits), but instead simply said "John Jackson/Robbery." By doing so, they are implying that John Jackson was found guilty of robbery when he wasn't.
They don't need to use "allegedly" about the arrest, they could just say "name/cause of arrest" or whatever that field is called on the arrest form and let people do all the implying and insinuating themselves. If they stuck strictly to doing that it'd be very hard to convict them of libel/slander as truth is a valid defense, even when you tell only a tiny bit of it that puts the person in a very bad light.
Weirdly, that's the one taboo I've never felt: living below my means/being "poor", whether it's used cars, used furniture, computers bought off Craigslist. I just don't like the Joneses enough to want to keep up with them - I'd rather watch them run like hamsters and get a coronary before the finish line while I walk comfortably and enjoy the views.
Many people can make that choice for themselves. But when you have kids and they can't have what their peers have or do what their peers do that's a lot harder to stomach. In particular you can be sure that those other kids have never been on any hamster wheel and only see that your kid can't afford what they can.
Yep. Reasonable working hours, parental leave, sick/personal days, vaca time, so people actually have TIME to care for their families.
Here in Norway we have all that in abundance and we still are below reproduction rates. The primary reason is that we start having children later, in the last 30 years the average age of first motherhood has risen from 25 to 29 years old. It's got nothing to do with teaching kids about condoms and such, teen pregnancies haven't been statistically significant in ages. Through the pill and legalized abortion women generally have children when they want to have children and no sooner, the change is intentional.
One of the reasons is modern day equality, apart from some immigrants no Norwegian woman thinks housewife is a career or want to settle for less than men but pregnancy and the first months of a child's life can't be split 50-50. So most women want to be done with their education and have an established job before they start a family. And with their economic independence it's not about "catching" a man and rushing to get the ring on his finger and pop out a kid so he's stuck and even then divorce and finding a new partner is not the scandal it used to be.
The effect of this is that even established couples are living out their responsibility-free lives for years until the woman is approaching thirty and the biological clock starts ticking, because once it starts it's diapers, babysitters and wailing toddlers for the next five years. And most typically stop at two, some have three but almost never four or more because you start running into either time or money constraints. Like if the woman is going back to work as most do then three is a bundle on top of two working parents, if she (sorry, it's usually she) does part time or stay-at-home then the money runs short.
Not like the kids go hungry or freezing short, but like "we can't afford to let you participate in the things other kids do" short. It's hard not unintentionally acting like a dick when it's loose change for your two high income, one kid family while to a single income, three kid family it's an expense they can't afford on a really tight budget. And admitting you're poor well that's still a taboo, we've gotten rid of a lot of other social taboos but that one still hurts. And if you get like five kids, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up there these days.
Aireon said its satellite-based system could allow for 15 miles of separation on oceanic routes, making room for more planes.
While I'm sure that's technically true, long transoceanic routes are also pretty damn predictable. Once they've cleared the local air traffic their heading and cruise speed can be accurately projected hours ahead so it should only take very small early course adjustments to avoid flying "around" an incoming/crossing plane in the middle of the ocean. I suppose it could help if the skies were full that they could go more "bumper to bumper" but that would mainly just increase capacity. I just don't see the benefit to the typical ocean route, usually it's not that crowded. But I guess once the satellites are in place a signal is relatively cheap so even just a slightly straighter line can save more in fuel so that it makes economic sense, I doubt passengers would even notice though. My impression from international flights have been that they fly a very straight line already... well, the great circle but it's a matter of perspective.
I'm sure that's true, but he has also has access to greater computing power for analysis than his predecessors did. That's a huge difference maker. Computers can brute force a lot of chess problems and come up with interesting ways to play them that humans didn't think of before.
While that's absolutely true, other chess players have taken more advantage of that than Carlsen. Particularly Anand that he had to beat for the world champion title in 2013 was famous for his prep work, he had a whole team of top players exploring opening possibilities. The goal for Carlsen was just to get him out of prep while staying even so he could use his immense memorization/pattern recognition skills. Watch him do simultaneous blind play games, most of us would get totally lost on where the pieces are much less be able to play any decent chess. A computer can't help you learn that.
I'm not sure I agree that stir-fry qualifies as a "complex meal."
Well maybe complex is not the right word but you can make varied dishes using the same cooking technique, like here's beef, pork, chicken, shrimp, vegetarian with rice or noodles, different accessories and spices etc. and it's made-to-order so it can be exactly how you want it with robot precision. Personally I think the latter could be the killer feature here, sure you could explain it to a human chef but then you'd have to instruct him in detail every time which would get tedious and you could never fine tune it. Instead you can order the exact same Beef Teriyaki the way you like it or try to create a better variation. If they actually have that flexibility and you don't simply pick fixed weight ingredients, they just show the fryer and not what happens on the backside if the ingredients are dispensed or placed into the stir-adder by staff.
Farmers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, and industrial workers are more likely to die on the job than an average military member.
You do realize that statement becomes wildly, ludicrously, (almost) humorously false during combat right?
Well the US haven't fought any real military opposition since the Vietnam war and used a lot of local cannon fodder on the ground so the average military member has been pretty safe. If I tally the combat deaths listed here from 1980 to today I get 6229 or ~130/year. This site says the US has ~1.3 million active duty military personnel. So the risk of dying "on the job" is currently around 0.01%/year, obviously quite unevenly distributed but still ridiculously low for being the military. Of course if some real powder keg goes off those statistics could go out the window real fast...
Terrible analogy. Pro athletes typically retire for one of two reasons. 1) Wear and tear on the body including injuries or 2) Declining physical abilities due to age. A pro athlete is one of the very best in the world at their chosen sport and even the best and most fortunate of them aren't going to be able to play at the highest levels much beyond age 40 in any sport and some sports retirement comes much earlier.
Many of the latter actually continue as casual players/athletes on a hobby basis, their "retirement" is just the end of their professional career and the extreme training to stay at the top. Nobody cares if Maradona or Pelé still kicks a ball or two with a few old buddies or Björn Borg still can swing a tennis racket. I guess it's less for contact sports like boxing or American football, but it's ridiculous to think a bicycle rider will have dropped out entirely just because he's not on Tour de France anymore.
There's a better way to fuck Bezos. Buy stuff from Target, Walmart, Netflix, or Apple instead of Amazon. Hit him where it hurts, his wallet.
All mega-corporations have some tiny fraction of customers who've sworn them off forever. But it hardly matters because there's only a handful to choose from, so the 1% unhappy with Amazon buy at Target, the 1% unhappy with Target buy at Wal-Mart, the 1% unhappy with Wal-Mart buy at Apple, the 1% unhappy with Apple buy at Amazon and they all think it's making some sort of difference. By all means, it's good to have personal principles and say things like "Well, at least *my* money doesn't go to Apple and their walled garden" but I can't help but laugh at people who think it "hurts Bezos" who's selling off a billion dollar's worth of Amazon stock a year to fund his space dream. He couldn't even find you as a rounding error in his profit and loss statement.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality. Particularly the people who think if something is not working, you need to do more of it or you're not doing it right. It's like ideology precedes the facts, because it's not working you can't be doing it right because if you did it'd work. Prime examples are capitalism and socialism.
The towing limit on most cars is because cars accelerate and brake going up and down hills, and have to cope with lateral acceleration forces on the trailer in turns.
Honestly if it was a closed track a rally driver could tow way faster or way more than legal street limits. A "friend of mine" pulled a 300 kg overweight trailer, apart from being down to 50 km/h in an 80 km/h zone at the top of a long and steep hill it was no problem at all. If the trailer got good brakes stopping in a straight line is also fine. The problem is if you have to brake in a turn, if that trailer starts going sideways or yanking you sideways you'll have no control at all. The greatest danger though is all the impatient overtakes you'll provoke by being a few seconds slower at everything, I had one milliseconds away from a head-on collision and if he'd hit and spun right in front of me... well it wouldn't have ended well for any of us, I think.
Can anyone explain how arbitration clauses work? How can a company limit an employee's rights to proceed legally against a company in case of criminal conduct? That doesn't seem to make sense?
If you get raped by an Uber driver then that driver can be criminally tried and convicted by the DA's office. But unless Uber is a co-conspirator or accessory to the rape which is rather unlikely they won't be on trial for that. They want to sue Uber for negligence, which can be both civil and criminal but criminal negligence is typically when you have a formal duty of care like a driver, doctor or parent. Like if your Uber driver was drunk and crashed with you in it, that would be a case of criminal negligence. The rest is typically a civil matter, if my dog bites your dog I might be liable but it's not a crime. It's the latter kind of negligence they want to sue Uber for.
If there's no contractual relationship you're free to sue in civil court. But if there is a contractual relationship like say you're placing the dog in a kennel they can put in an arbitration clause that says if your dog is bitten by another dog while in the kennel, you can't take us to court. You must follow the arbitration process and it's decision is final. Basically the courts have decided that you're "voluntarily" giving up these rights as part of an agreement so it's okay, even though it's a contract of adhesion and a requirement to get service. Personally I think that any such clauses should be banned alongside slave contracts because they're not really voluntary at all and a way to shield corporations from any wrong-doing.
If your computer is 2 years old and packs a GTX 1080, you must have bought the card practically on launch day (May 27th 2016), which must have cost a small fortune.
Well I guess it's what a fortune is to you. I bought a 1080Ti at launch, sure it was $700 but it's well over a year later and apart from a few ridiculously overpriced Titan cards it's head and shoulders above the pack. I expect it'll be faster than a 1170 but slightly slower than a 1180, that's usually been the case. Two years after that'll it'll probably be behind, but not so terribly far behind the 1270 that I'll replace it. So I'm thinking the 13xx generation would be a likely replacement time. That's over a year already + two full generations = 5-6 years = <$150/year. Divided by hours played, <$1/hour of gametime. As hobbies go - considering the GPU is the single biggest expense of being a gamer - I consider it a bargain. Sure it's not WoW addict & Ramen noodles cheap and I don't really need it, but you can certainly find much more expensive interests...
No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.
Since you're cherry picking subjects I assume this means you'd like to repeal the 13th amendment, or is it a moral issue only when you want to lift the ban? That it's illegal to show kids porn, is that a moral issue? To me the line in the sand of what laws deal with "moral issues" and not seems rather arbitrary...