Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers.
See exactly what I am talking about, you jump from holding a gun to waving one around? Shit people here are not forbidden from bearing arms and, its exceedingly rare to see them outside of gun shops, shooting ranges or on cops. In fact, most robbers and criminals don't even own one much less carry them...never mind waving them around.
With holding a gun I do not mean carrying it in a holster. I mean holding it in your hands. With waving it about I mean holding it in your hands. That semantical difference should not prevent us from a proper discussion.
If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety.
They make the same bullshit claim here. However, its pretty easy to show that this is seldom the concern. Hence why it is that you find states where city cops are allowed to patrol highways and their departments keep the money from tickets, speed limits get lowered when the highway passes through the city.... a situation states which have a state police force that doesn't allow city cops to patrol highways.... you don't see that.
Must be somehow where the money goes changes how safe it is.
Here highways also lower speed when near cities. That's due to noise and particulate pollution. A very good reason IMHO, because if they didn't strike that agreement with the locals the locals would usually have succeeded in preventing the highway in the first place. NIMBY and all that.
If they are not for safety they have an other good reason,
I do not recommend ever assuming that the people in power have your best interests in mind. Generally the smart money is on the opposite.
I specified those reasons. Noise and particulate pollution.
I don't assume so easily. They serve their own best interests. That means they serve the goal of themselves getting more power (and usually more money. But in politics power usually wins). To get more power they must demonstrate working FOR the people and to be sufficiently wise (yes that usually still works here in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders not withstanding). These demands mean that as long as my countrymates (on average) feel the same way about a subject as I do then it is probably going to happen my way. If you couple that with my (and my countrymates') love for the environment and biking you'll see things are quite different here than in the USA.
Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers. If a cop is waving a gun about (s)he is doing that because there is a reason for it. That reason is probably dangerous. If a robber is waving a gun about the danger is apparent I'd say. In both cases being scared is a natural and healthy state to be in.
If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety. If they are not for safety they have an other good reason, such as particulate or noise pollution. If you want speed you should take the train, as it is allowed to (and here they usually do) go 160 km/h (100 mph). Any speed gains from speeding are lost in rounding errors here in the Netherlands (your mileage may vary). A trip is usually not long enough to gain even 10 minutes by max speeding because our highways are far to crowded. Speeding because it is fun should be limited to the racetrack.
Speeding is avoidable. Bar some weird cases speeding is a choice. To be afraid of people who choose reckless behavior is quite different from aquaphobia or racism. It's more akin to being afraid of someone holding a gun.
Not quite. If Larry left tomorrow then he would do well focusing on the short term share value, since he would be cashing them in shortly. If, however, he wants to have a continuing revenue stream he'd do well to focus on the long term share value. The only way I know how to do that is to keep the company healthy and growing. Since he build the company up from the ground I would assume that leaving his baby isn't in his immediate plans. Ergo it wouldn't be wise to focus on empty stock value increases and other Pyrrhic victories. Disclaimer: I have no experience running a company, large or small. I'm just an armchair theorist.
There are 8 separate sentences. Note the capitol letters and note that these are not names. Seriously, why does/. use camelcaps for titles? It's almost as bad as all caps.
Free markets seem to be as real as any God. People pray to it, but what they point to is a political tool abused until it doesn't resemble the original intention. The real thing doesn't exist.
Why shouldn't such a project need funding? Granted, funding it shouldn't be a problem once one is detected, but that doesn't mean it's not required. Stuff costs money, get over it.
An asteroid that comes from behind the sun has gotten there short before, or it isn't going to hit us. That's because asteroids are in orbits around the sun. A useful early warning system would warn us years in advance, thus the asteroid would be behind the sun several times before it hits. The first step is detecting them. At this point it is not feasible to get funding for an asteroid deflection program. Once we have detected a killer we can get the funding to try and deflect it. I just hope we'll be able to do it in time by then.
In this specific case I do not think this is wrong. The updating of firmware should be in the hands of the car manufacturer or a company they choose. Not everyone is carefull enough not to break anything when they fix something. A hobbyist does not have the resources to test the results of the update extensively and if everyone is going to hack into it the liability would be unclear. This is a case where lives are at stake. Liability should be clear (the manufacturer is liable).
The fact that NatasRevol (and I) would be happy with less deaths from the driverless cars than what would have been caused by human drivers does not mean there would be no need to improve. It just means we would be happy because there would have been improvement and that a path to further improvement has been opened (you can only lower road deaths to a certain degree as long as there are users in the loop)
He is talking about a script kiddy that takes over control while you are driving it.
Why would a car be connected to a network? And how? Cellular networks are absolutely unusable for the purpose - they are not reliable, and they have terrible latency. If cars need to talk to each other, they will use their own radios, protocols and wireless LANs. You cannot hack into those - especially if cars are not in habit of browsing pr0n sites:-)
Why: adverts, traffic congestion avoidance, map updates, firmware updates, Facebook and about a million other reasons.
How: cellular, in combination with wifi at the owner's home. It doesn't matter that it's unreliable. The wireless lans you are talking about are not magical. They can be hacked in to. However, assuming Google has the intelligence they have displayed up to now, it will be difficult.
That'd be a liability hell for Google and they probably know it.
It will be taken care of on the level of legislatures. Otherwise nobody will be able to sell an autonomous car.
Partly it'll be taken care of by legislature. However, I assume they are smart enough to secure the data streams properly.
Many people will want to own one, because it does not have the same convenience. Assuming nobody checks the cars between rents the mess in the cars will be a problem. They'll be smelly from all the trash on the ground.
A fraction yes. A minute fraction NO.
A car going 80 km/h (50mph) with a driver with a reaction time of 1s needs 22m (67 feet) to react. The worst case scenario for the breaking distance at 80 km/h is 38m. That means it's 22/60=0.37.
Not a minute fraction, but a large fraction. That is: unless you are driving a road illegal car (because it brakes to slow) at mach 1 of course.
Or they'll insure themselves against the relatively small risk. Especially with decent logging most of the accidents will provably be the other party's fault. Google will cover itself. Partly by lobbying for new laws, partly by insuring and passing the cost of that insurance on to their customers.
Nope. I resent the fact that MAD is the best solution, but I have no better one. I too wish that we could all simply get along, have fun, drink and laugh. However that is not realistic. There will always be people who will feel they deserve what the other one has (or have other silly reasons for killing the other). It has been a evolutionary advantage for far to long not to be so. That is why we need MAD and that is why we need that man to be ready to push the button. I just hope that it will never come to that.
It's not 1 photon per pulse. It's 1 photon per x trillion photons. If you send 100,000 * x trillion photons you'll probably get around 100,000 photons back. This is one of the cases where more power actually works. I'd hazard a guess that NASA has more powerful lasers than a backyard setup like in one the one in one of the first seasons of The Big Bang Theory. I'd also hazard a bet that the NASA lasers have better focus, which means a higher percentage of the photons actually reach the receiver.
Usually that C4 is used to compress the plutonium so it crosses the critical threshold. The plutonium starts an uncontrolled chain fission reaction, which gives a lot of fast neutrons and a lot of heat. Those fast neutrons (and the heat) are used to create an immense pressure in the deuterium. Together with the heat of the fission reaction itself this enables fusion in the deuterium. By that time the reflective casting that reflects the neutrons back into the deuterium will have been removed and the full blast of the explosion will be a problem to the bad guys. (Or yourself if you made a very stupid mistake, don't worry about making more mistakes after that one though.)
That's not quite the reasoning:
1) If some bastard attacks us with nukes he'll probably kill me and my family.
2) If I press the button once he attacks I might be able to kill the bastard that is going to kill me and my family.
3) Ergo: I'll press the goddamn button if I have to.
It is against absolute free market, but highly pro capitalism. Free market works best when the people have all the information available and make their choices based on that information. Sadly this is never really the case, as not all information is available. Capitalism is causing the people to choose your product. This can be done by controlling the information available, through advertising, or making your product the best choice when much information is available.
Slashdot Mirror
In some cases it is wise to demand that "do it anyway" in writing.
Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers.
See exactly what I am talking about, you jump from holding a gun to waving one around? Shit people here are not forbidden from bearing arms and, its exceedingly rare to see them outside of gun shops, shooting ranges or on cops. In fact, most robbers and criminals don't even own one much less carry them...never mind waving them around.
With holding a gun I do not mean carrying it in a holster. I mean holding it in your hands. With waving it about I mean holding it in your hands. That semantical difference should not prevent us from a proper discussion.
If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety.
They make the same bullshit claim here. However, its pretty easy to show that this is seldom the concern. Hence why it is that you find states where city cops are allowed to patrol highways and their departments keep the money from tickets, speed limits get lowered when the highway passes through the city.... a situation states which have a state police force that doesn't allow city cops to patrol highways.... you don't see that. Must be somehow where the money goes changes how safe it is.
Here highways also lower speed when near cities. That's due to noise and particulate pollution. A very good reason IMHO, because if they didn't strike that agreement with the locals the locals would usually have succeeded in preventing the highway in the first place. NIMBY and all that.
If they are not for safety they have an other good reason,
I do not recommend ever assuming that the people in power have your best interests in mind. Generally the smart money is on the opposite.
I specified those reasons. Noise and particulate pollution.
I don't assume so easily. They serve their own best interests. That means they serve the goal of themselves getting more power (and usually more money. But in politics power usually wins). To get more power they must demonstrate working FOR the people and to be sufficiently wise (yes that usually still works here in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders not withstanding). These demands mean that as long as my countrymates (on average) feel the same way about a subject as I do then it is probably going to happen my way.
If you couple that with my (and my countrymates') love for the environment and biking you'll see things are quite different here than in the USA.
Assuming those orders stay reasonable and in the realm of decency.
Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers. If a cop is waving a gun about (s)he is doing that because there is a reason for it. That reason is probably dangerous. If a robber is waving a gun about the danger is apparent I'd say. In both cases being scared is a natural and healthy state to be in.
If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety. If they are not for safety they have an other good reason, such as particulate or noise pollution. If you want speed you should take the train, as it is allowed to (and here they usually do) go 160 km/h (100 mph). Any speed gains from speeding are lost in rounding errors here in the Netherlands (your mileage may vary). A trip is usually not long enough to gain even 10 minutes by max speeding because our highways are far to crowded.
Speeding because it is fun should be limited to the racetrack.
Speeding is avoidable. Bar some weird cases speeding is a choice. To be afraid of people who choose reckless behavior is quite different from aquaphobia or racism. It's more akin to being afraid of someone holding a gun.
Not quite. If Larry left tomorrow then he would do well focusing on the short term share value, since he would be cashing them in shortly. If, however, he wants to have a continuing revenue stream he'd do well to focus on the long term share value. The only way I know how to do that is to keep the company healthy and growing.
Since he build the company up from the ground I would assume that leaving his baby isn't in his immediate plans. Ergo it wouldn't be wise to focus on empty stock value increases and other Pyrrhic victories.
Disclaimer: I have no experience running a company, large or small. I'm just an armchair theorist.
There are 8 separate sentences. Note the capitol letters and note that these are not names. /. use camelcaps for titles? It's almost as bad as all caps.
Seriously, why does
There is a reason for that
Free markets seem to be as real as any God. People pray to it, but what they point to is a political tool abused until it doesn't resemble the original intention. The real thing doesn't exist.
Why shouldn't such a project need funding? Granted, funding it shouldn't be a problem once one is detected, but that doesn't mean it's not required. Stuff costs money, get over it.
An asteroid that comes from behind the sun has gotten there short before, or it isn't going to hit us. That's because asteroids are in orbits around the sun. A useful early warning system would warn us years in advance, thus the asteroid would be behind the sun several times before it hits.
The first step is detecting them. At this point it is not feasible to get funding for an asteroid deflection program. Once we have detected a killer we can get the funding to try and deflect it. I just hope we'll be able to do it in time by then.
In this specific case I do not think this is wrong. The updating of firmware should be in the hands of the car manufacturer or a company they choose. Not everyone is carefull enough not to break anything when they fix something. A hobbyist does not have the resources to test the results of the update extensively and if everyone is going to hack into it the liability would be unclear.
This is a case where lives are at stake. Liability should be clear (the manufacturer is liable).
The fact that NatasRevol (and I) would be happy with less deaths from the driverless cars than what would have been caused by human drivers does not mean there would be no need to improve. It just means we would be happy because there would have been improvement and that a path to further improvement has been opened (you can only lower road deaths to a certain degree as long as there are users in the loop)
"black holes have no hair"
If they have no hair you can't split their hairs.
He is talking about a script kiddy that takes over control while you are driving it.
Why would a car be connected to a network? And how? Cellular networks are absolutely unusable for the purpose - they are not reliable, and they have terrible latency. If cars need to talk to each other, they will use their own radios, protocols and wireless LANs. You cannot hack into those - especially if cars are not in habit of browsing pr0n sites :-)
Why: adverts, traffic congestion avoidance, map updates, firmware updates, Facebook and about a million other reasons.
How: cellular, in combination with wifi at the owner's home. It doesn't matter that it's unreliable.
The wireless lans you are talking about are not magical. They can be hacked in to. However, assuming Google has the intelligence they have displayed up to now, it will be difficult.
That'd be a liability hell for Google and they probably know it.
It will be taken care of on the level of legislatures. Otherwise nobody will be able to sell an autonomous car.
Partly it'll be taken care of by legislature. However, I assume they are smart enough to secure the data streams properly.
Many people will want to own one, because it does not have the same convenience.
Assuming nobody checks the cars between rents the mess in the cars will be a problem. They'll be smelly from all the trash on the ground.
A fraction yes. A minute fraction NO.
A car going 80 km/h (50mph) with a driver with a reaction time of 1s needs 22m (67 feet) to react. The worst case scenario for the breaking distance at 80 km/h is 38m. That means it's 22/60=0.37.
Not a minute fraction, but a large fraction. That is: unless you are driving a road illegal car (because it brakes to slow) at mach 1 of course.
He is talking about a script kiddy that takes over control while you are driving it.
That'd be a liability hell for Google and they probably know it.
Or they'll insure themselves against the relatively small risk. Especially with decent logging most of the accidents will provably be the other party's fault.
Google will cover itself. Partly by lobbying for new laws, partly by insuring and passing the cost of that insurance on to their customers.
Nope. I resent the fact that MAD is the best solution, but I have no better one.
I too wish that we could all simply get along, have fun, drink and laugh. However that is not realistic. There will always be people who will feel they deserve what the other one has (or have other silly reasons for killing the other). It has been a evolutionary advantage for far to long not to be so.
That is why we need MAD and that is why we need that man to be ready to push the button. I just hope that it will never come to that.
It's not 1 photon per pulse. It's 1 photon per x trillion photons. If you send 100,000 * x trillion photons you'll probably get around 100,000 photons back. This is one of the cases where more power actually works.
I'd hazard a guess that NASA has more powerful lasers than a backyard setup like in one the one in one of the first seasons of The Big Bang Theory.
I'd also hazard a bet that the NASA lasers have better focus, which means a higher percentage of the photons actually reach the receiver.
Usually that C4 is used to compress the plutonium so it crosses the critical threshold. The plutonium starts an uncontrolled chain fission reaction, which gives a lot of fast neutrons and a lot of heat. Those fast neutrons (and the heat) are used to create an immense pressure in the deuterium. Together with the heat of the fission reaction itself this enables fusion in the deuterium.
By that time the reflective casting that reflects the neutrons back into the deuterium will have been removed and the full blast of the explosion will be a problem to the bad guys. (Or yourself if you made a very stupid mistake, don't worry about making more mistakes after that one though.)
That's not quite the reasoning:
1) If some bastard attacks us with nukes he'll probably kill me and my family.
2) If I press the button once he attacks I might be able to kill the bastard that is going to kill me and my family.
3) Ergo: I'll press the goddamn button if I have to.
we all woke up December 26 2012 didn't we?
No we didn't. We are just a simulation of what would have happened if we weren't killed back then.
It is against absolute free market, but highly pro capitalism.
Free market works best when the people have all the information available and make their choices based on that information. Sadly this is never really the case, as not all information is available. Capitalism is causing the people to choose your product. This can be done by controlling the information available, through advertising, or making your product the best choice when much information is available.