If the driverless car is available then it's possible to change road law to make it easier to ban people from driving and increase the age at which a drivers license can be obtained. All things said and done, for many people there simply is no alternative. These are good things. A decent marketing department would advertise this at least as a way to get home when drunk without the risk of driving over some kids. "Think of the beers, err... Kids." They would probably find a better slogan. And do you think Google wouldn't shove some campaign contributions to the people in charge if they promise to change laws to make it easier to ban people from driving? Its not evil to prevent deaths isn't it?
Decent robotcar software should not have simple rules like "Avoid crashing into cars at all cost". It should more be like "Choose the course of action with the least chance of death, with equal chances of death choose the course with the least injury, with equal chances of injury choose the course with the least chance of damage to the car". I am not a programmer (certainly not in the league of Google), so I couldn't design a program that could do this. However, in complexity I think the guessing of a human drivers next move is more complex than whether the area next to the road is a cliff or a drivable field, and thus the estimation of the risk the cliff poses should be easier than the estimation of the risk of crashing into the car. The software has to calculate the risks of all the courses of action and choose the least risk. However it could be that our computers aren't fast enough to calculate all the risks. I could imagine that it's possible to have a map that has a layer with damage risks: ie a steep cliff has a 100% risk of damage to the car, 99% risk of injury, 80% chance of death. This means the car would not take a dive off the cliff if the chance of death is less than 80% in the other case, which is unlikely to happen.
Now there will be errors in the risk estimations. Off course there will be. But the main question is: will there be fewer errors in the software than in humans? I think there will be. But I'd require proof. 725,000 miles without accidents sounds like a reliable proof. I assume these are miles in the USA. Here in the Netherlands I'd require less, more like 100,000 km (62000 miles) since almost nobody gets further than 10.000 km without a fenderbender in the "Randstad". The roads are crowded here.
Real leather isn't expensive. It's just an investment. Real leather is so much more durable that it covers the price difference. Off course that only counts if you don't get the expensive leather. "Cheap" real leather is as durable as expensive real leather, but can have some scars on it. These don't matter for the durability but they don't look as good.
I haven't come across fake leather that's as durable as real leather. Most fake leather wears down in about 1/20th of the time real leather does. Real leather breathes a bit but keeps most of the water out, which is useful in shoes.
True, it's way better to put vodka in the trap on top of the fermentation bottle than water. Water can let bacteria and fungi through alive, vodka kills them. Some people in my guild use water with a bit of disinfectant (machine washing up powder), but I don't want to risk spilling it into my beer when I remove the trap. At times I can be very clumsy and a beer with a soapy taste to it would suck.
More importantly: something that has a short enough half life can be used as a powersource. Just stick it in about the same design as a normal modern nuclear facility and boil some water!
But if a tire explodes when doing 120 km/h (75 mph) the handling of the car changes dramatically. I'd assume the car would be at a great risk to crash, causing aforementioned damage to the car and the occupants.
It should inflate your tires if they are low-pressure because they are cold. However, it should also decrease pressure once they heat up enough to go above the max. An overpressure valve would help. This can be in one and the same ride, because tires heat up when you drive. That leaves the "it's gimmicky so it'll fail catastrophically" however.
Dunno how it is in the USA, but 'round here when you overtake a truck you are by definition to close to it to prevent hitting debris from an exploding tire. The lane is only [guess] 3 meters wide (9 feet)[/guess]. Does that mean you can't overtake trucks?
Then again back when I had a car a couple of dents more wouldn't have mattered.
1. He shouldn't be a babysitter if he feels that way, just like a pedophile shouldn't become a kindergarten teacher. If he feels the little brats should be killed then he shouldn't be a babysitter.
2. I am not American, nor do I have intimate knowledge of the justice system (neither there nor in my own country), but isn't bail intended to prevent running away? If someone commits hit and run but is unlikely to sever his social ties and move to Mexico then his bail can be lower. If this guy is very likely to do so the high bail is meant to be an incentive not to do so. 3.... 4. Omg ponies. O wait, that should be 4. Profit.
An extremely powerful laser (well beyond this) would theoretically generate particles in it's path. Maybe they are hoping those particles can be combined into a shark.
The most reliable way to survive a war is to keep you head down and do what you are told. But that's besides the point. The French underground did exist, if I can believe 'Allo 'Allo.
Yes but we aren't using it for fusion research, we're using it to pump in hummers and light our incandescent bulbs.
Snarkiness aside: I don't know how much oil we have left. It's a bit fuzzy to me what's beneath that 10km thick layer of FUD and overestimating (or even boasting to increase share value).
yes they are loud. No they are not as loud as a normal vacuum cleaner. No it doesn't matter that they are loud (as you can let them run when you are not there).
Slashdot Mirror
If the driverless car is available then it's possible to change road law to make it easier to ban people from driving and increase the age at which a drivers license can be obtained. All things said and done, for many people there simply is no alternative.
These are good things.
A decent marketing department would advertise this at least as a way to get home when drunk without the risk of driving over some kids. "Think of the beers, err... Kids." They would probably find a better slogan.
And do you think Google wouldn't shove some campaign contributions to the people in charge if they promise to change laws to make it easier to ban people from driving? Its not evil to prevent deaths isn't it?
Decent robotcar software should not have simple rules like "Avoid crashing into cars at all cost". It should more be like "Choose the course of action with the least chance of death, with equal chances of death choose the course with the least injury, with equal chances of injury choose the course with the least chance of damage to the car".
I am not a programmer (certainly not in the league of Google), so I couldn't design a program that could do this. However, in complexity I think the guessing of a human drivers next move is more complex than whether the area next to the road is a cliff or a drivable field, and thus the estimation of the risk the cliff poses should be easier than the estimation of the risk of crashing into the car. The software has to calculate the risks of all the courses of action and choose the least risk.
However it could be that our computers aren't fast enough to calculate all the risks. I could imagine that it's possible to have a map that has a layer with damage risks: ie a steep cliff has a 100% risk of damage to the car, 99% risk of injury, 80% chance of death. This means the car would not take a dive off the cliff if the chance of death is less than 80% in the other case, which is unlikely to happen.
Now there will be errors in the risk estimations. Off course there will be. But the main question is: will there be fewer errors in the software than in humans? I think there will be. But I'd require proof. 725,000 miles without accidents sounds like a reliable proof. I assume these are miles in the USA. Here in the Netherlands I'd require less, more like 100,000 km (62000 miles) since almost nobody gets further than 10.000 km without a fenderbender in the "Randstad". The roads are crowded here.
Real leather isn't expensive. It's just an investment. Real leather is so much more durable that it covers the price difference.
Off course that only counts if you don't get the expensive leather. "Cheap" real leather is as durable as expensive real leather, but can have some scars on it. These don't matter for the durability but they don't look as good.
I haven't come across fake leather that's as durable as real leather. Most fake leather wears down in about 1/20th of the time real leather does.
Real leather breathes a bit but keeps most of the water out, which is useful in shoes.
True, it's way better to put vodka in the trap on top of the fermentation bottle than water. Water can let bacteria and fungi through alive, vodka kills them. Some people in my guild use water with a bit of disinfectant (machine washing up powder), but I don't want to risk spilling it into my beer when I remove the trap. At times I can be very clumsy and a beer with a soapy taste to it would suck.
It'd be iron, which we probably need to build our Dyson sphere anyway.
More importantly: something that has a short enough half life can be used as a powersource. Just stick it in about the same design as a normal modern nuclear facility and boil some water!
But if a tire explodes when doing 120 km/h (75 mph) the handling of the car changes dramatically. I'd assume the car would be at a great risk to crash, causing aforementioned damage to the car and the occupants.
It should inflate your tires if they are low-pressure because they are cold. However, it should also decrease pressure once they heat up enough to go above the max. An overpressure valve would help. This can be in one and the same ride, because tires heat up when you drive.
That leaves the "it's gimmicky so it'll fail catastrophically" however.
Dunno how it is in the USA, but 'round here when you overtake a truck you are by definition to close to it to prevent hitting debris from an exploding tire. The lane is only [guess] 3 meters wide (9 feet)[/guess].
Does that mean you can't overtake trucks?
Then again back when I had a car a couple of dents more wouldn't have mattered.
My moral compass seems to be taped to a 3-phase powerplant generator in full swing.
He made an offtopic post! Burn him!
1. He shouldn't be a babysitter if he feels that way, just like a pedophile shouldn't become a kindergarten teacher. If he feels the little brats should be killed then he shouldn't be a babysitter. ...
2. I am not American, nor do I have intimate knowledge of the justice system (neither there nor in my own country), but isn't bail intended to prevent running away? If someone commits hit and run but is unlikely to sever his social ties and move to Mexico then his bail can be lower. If this guy is very likely to do so the high bail is meant to be an incentive not to do so.
3.
4. Omg ponies. O wait, that should be 4. Profit.
An extremely powerful laser (well beyond this) would theoretically generate particles in it's path. Maybe they are hoping those particles can be combined into a shark.
Why protect terrorists from terrorists?
he was arrested for investigation of making terrorist threats
Does that mean most of the work of the DHS is illegal?
No, the only problem is that one million sided dice are hard to read. You need a good level to do so. And that's after you've rolled it with a crane
The most reliable way to survive a war is to keep you head down and do what you are told.
But that's besides the point. The French underground did exist, if I can believe 'Allo 'Allo.
Which doesn't touch the beer if the bottle is still sealed.
And when they tested the cigarettes extensively after irradiating them they found out the irradiated cigarettes caused cancer!
The most interesting thing is that they have found a way to do something useful with that massive defense budget.
No the world will still end, but after we have left.
Yes but we aren't using it for fusion research, we're using it to pump in hummers and light our incandescent bulbs.
Snarkiness aside: I don't know how much oil we have left. It's a bit fuzzy to me what's beneath that 10km thick layer of FUD and overestimating (or even boasting to increase share value).
yes they are loud. No they are not as loud as a normal vacuum cleaner. No it doesn't matter that they are loud (as you can let them run when you are not there).
If I can't see it I don't care. My roomba keeps my living room clean enough, and certainly far cleaner than I did vacuuming once every 2 weeks.