the transaction times are too slow, and the volume is too limited for that.
But Lightning network fixes that by providing Bitcoin the capability to support extremely high volumes of almost instant and nearly-feeless transactions.
I do not think a human could have reacted fast enough to even think about slowing down.
They're probably going to find the pedestrian 100% responsible since they were illegally crossing an unlit section of a major highway in a totally reckless and inattentive manner, but it still looks like a failure of the Uber system -- even if they turn out not to be criminally liable, they're SUPPOSED to be better than a human at avoiding accidents, and should be held to that standard.
A Human's capabilities would be limited by the visible light, and a HUMAN cannot safely drive 38 Mph on a road at night if their visibility is not a sufficient footage down the road to safely stop in time upon an obstacle appearing at the edge of their visibility --- in a highway with no streetlights and no traffic, the driving conditions can be improved by turning on High-beams to allow a higher speed, otherwise the driver has a duty to slow down to a safe speed for the limited visibility under dark nighttime driving conditions, Therefore, the driver could be cited for hitting the pedestrian, because they were driving at an unsafely high speed that's not an allowable speed under the nighttime driving conditions without high-beam headlights enabled (By the time an obstacle appears in the illumination cone, it's already too late to react!).
Either that or the dashcam was misleading in terms of light levels, AND the driver had a longer time than 2 seconds when the pedestrian could be seen.
We don't know that it didn't break and that it didn't see the pedestrian.... the car is still in the possession of the police department who took the vehicle, so Uber has no access to it and has not been able to get at any of their system's data yet.
You can demo firearms as much as you want; as long as you're not showing off how to install or manufacture the banned accessories, or how to construct firearms or manufacture ammunition, etc. The policy update Prohibits attempting to then sell firearms or certain firearm accessories through direct private sale or linking to a website....
How come Amazon, Apple, and Google's virtual assistants are ALL Female, at least by default?
Are they trying to conform their product to traditional gender stereotypes --- regarding the gender of person who would most often have the job role they see their assistant as filling?
Why can't we have Alex and Sean instead of Siri and Alexa?
Or, are they saying people would think their virtual assistant was incompetent or weird, OR expect it to do more advanced functions if it was male by default?
It's not even a cry for help. It's just salty language used to make a point. Now whether or not you like that point is up to you.
They might be trying to make what they think is a point, but as a result of the nonsense language, whatever their intended point might be gets completely lost --- and the only thing that can be heard is the lead and the s****
I think the law is not ready for this. If you have on your computer a file that indicates which digit range of PI corresponds to a nasty image, then the record itself that singles out certain digits of Pi (whether or not the record contains actual digits of Pi) could be the definition of meaningful possession ----
BUT if you just have a file on your computer that logically contains All the digits of Pi OR physically contains MANY digits of Pi, including those representing illegal porn images, Then you don't "possess" them, even though the data to encode or represent them could be said to be contained within your "PI" file. You have not identified the information needed to find or extract the images out of a transfinite haystack.
Similarly.... If you have on your computer a file that uniquely identifies a blockchain transaction's data Or has extracted that transaction's binary data, then you could be said to "possess" what the file in that transaction represents, Even if you don't have a copy of the blockchain ----- because the blockchain is some public, distributed, immutable resource; much like the moon, or the stars.
On the other hand if you just have a copy of the blockchain, then you don't "possess" whatever is inside every single transaction on the chain, not without extracting it first or doing something to make it more "yours"
We often tear down buildings where mass shooting occur.
If a mass shooting occured, then chances are the walls and ceilings have been penetrated by bullets, and that building may no longer be safe to use --- E.g. hidden damage, potential threats to the structure, electrical, etc, could have rendered the place unsafe.
I have indeed known many people who were reasonably well paid beyond their level of competence.
This is a subjective assertion -- you mean you found they were paid beyond what YOU felt their level of competence to be, when it's actually their role in the company, their quality of presentation and negotiation in their hiring and assessments of their performance, and how the business and their management evaluates the person and their position that matters.
You really need to learn some tolerance.... I'm pretty sure it's not actual racism on the AC's part -- people throwing around that language tend to be trolls senselessly throwing around that rhetoric for attention, not racists, but a cry for help; marginilized and ignored by people for years, these under-the-bridge dwellers utter the most extreme things they can think of to try and get some attention; in other words, it's just the lead talking: that and the shit in the water under the bridge they've been drinking talks too.
Well, if the Hackathon is for something like OpenBSD, then I think people already know and expect the work will be free/open source and such.
If the hackathon is for a proprietary company, then the people either work for the company, or receive some sort of compensation for their work, otherwise they would retain the rights to their code; either way, it's not free work....
Sure, it's transparent and immutable, but once data is added -- correct or not -- it's there permanently. There still needs to be a method for correcting or removing data.
This goes against the whole idea of having a decentralized universally-verifiable trustless ledger.
Even if Bitcoin did not provide any way for future extensibility or to add extra data to a transaction: You could embed arbitrary databits using Vanity addresses, SegWit transactions, and some of the integer fields --- or even use completely invalid wallet addresses and just burn a few Satoshi to encode whatever data you want using transactions that burn coins to those unspendable addresses.
Or more correctly: there is not enough work for multiple people with my profile.
Really? Even considering the highly-critical nature, and the importance of having a "backup plan" in case things go wrong, like one of your employees is hospitalized or 5000 miles away on vacation?
so the high salary man should be paid smaller in compared to others n to the rest
Except the high salary man's unique skills create demand from him across the industry. Compensation is based on job markets and value you bring to the business
across the TOTALITY of what you do over the time you are employed, and NOT how much actual time average you are physically engaged in work per day or per week ----- For some jobs 38 work hours a week don't matter, and the work done during 5 hours a week can justify a $1 Million salary : he would not accept any less than the market rate which is based on the unique value of what he can bring to the business. And this is NOT necessarily against those working their arses off --- if he left, for instance, the loss in value to the business might be such that entire business units have to close and many of those supposed "working their asses off" (But at lower recognized total per-person value to the company) would have to be immediately laid off from their own jobs. Or, conversly: increasing other positions' pay would naturally increase the market value of the high salary man's skills by much more --- since he could now justify a higher salary by showing on a comparative basis the extra value he is bringing to the company above and beyond those
"maximally working their arses off for even more", a portion of those budget increase for parts of the business under his management to pay those extra salary, for instance, would likely go to the high salary man's compensation.
Does possession of a blockchain count as "possession of every possible image that could be derived from it"?
Probably not. To get the "file" or "image data" you need the Blockchain PLUS some 3rd party tool, which is not part of the core implementation of the BTC protocol.
If you've never used the tool, then there is no way you could produce the image.
In the absence of visible evidence of traffic controls that say otherwise, or hazardous driving conditions: the safe driving speed is the posted speed limit, and it doesn't even matter if it's 10pm, or there are some bars, or people at the side of the road waiting for their turn to cross the street.
Next up.... we're going to here from you about how a self-driving car that hits a vehicle running the red light is supposedly responsible for not slowing from 40 to 5mph before entering the intersection: in anticipation of possible red-light violators.
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
EXACTLY. It's unreasonable to expect traffic to impede itself based on theoretical possibilities. Some people seem confused of what is required, and seem to have the belief that the driver is required to slow down to a speed where they can guarantee to avoid or yield to a reckless animal or pedestrian ---- merely because there's an obstacle on the side of the road, or off on the shoulder of a highway which could theoretically be concealing such creature or person that if dumb enough could spring into the road.
When in reality the rule is generally the pedestrian must yield to traffic if not at a crosswalk, and the driver is only required to make a best effort at stopping to avoid hitting them --- if the pedestrian comes into the road, and the car is at a distance capable of stopping, they must try to stop.
There is no requirement to slow down to a pedestrian waiting at the road for your vehicle to pass.
Thus in fact: it is irrelevent whether it is physically conceivable that a hidden pedestrian could leap into the roadway with reckless abandon; unless a person can be seen visibly entering into the street or one step away from it while the car is still reasonably far to take steps --- most humans will not slow down at all at the "anticipation" of pedestrians coming out from potential hiding spots --- and they aren't required to, either.
Unless there are traffic controls on the street requiring it, or hazardous weather, or other adverse driving conditions: the appropriate driving speed is the speed limit.
Slowing down might have been able to avoid an incident, and an abundance of caution is reasonable if erratic pedestrian behavior can be observed ahead of time --- BUT NO MORE than an abundance of caution is required.
If the driver's current speed is safe: drivers are not expected or required to attempt to stop or slow down in anticipation that another driver or pedestrian will violate the rules of the road and enter the roadway unsafely, until after evidence that they will is observed --- for example, you don't slow down to 5mph when approaching a green light: in case a car going the perpendicular chooses to run a stop sign or red light (when there's no way you can see down the street both ways from afar), and doing so would cause more dangers of accidents due to congestion and inefficient usage of the roads.
Especially if there was a crowd from a concert on the sidewalk.
It's irrelevent whether there is a crowd on the sidewalk; unless they have visibly entered into the street or very close to it, then most humans are not likely to have slowed down at all --- and aren't required to, unless there is a traffic control requiring it, or hazardous weather, or other driving conditions issue.
Slowing down might have been able to avoid an incident, and an abundance of caution is reasonable if erratic pedestrian behavior can be observed ahead of time, but if their current speed is safe: drivers are not required to slow down in anticipation that another driver or pedestrian will violate the rules of the road and enter the roadway unsafely --- for example, you don't slow down to 5mph when entering an intersection: in case a car going perpendicular chooses to run the stop sign or red light, and doing so would cause more dangers of accidents due to congestion and inefficient usage of the roads.
6 figure salary while watching kitten videos all day? Pay does not always have a strong correlation with a person's performance.
Presumably the person who might at times or on some or many days seem to be "watching kitten videos all day" is also responsible for something very important, for example making a $10 million sale, being "on standby" waiting to respond to a critical event, or being accountable for certain people resources or management decisions --- and they may night be failing to perform at all, or the company at least believes they provide something else that is worth the 6 figures.
if they wait until the car is only 20 feet away to try and jump in front of it, the time that the car takes to travel that 20 feet is so short that by the time the person manages to get into traffic, the car will have already passed him.
The pedestrian's "reaction" performance is irrelevent --- point is, assuming the pedestrian failed to adequately look before they leapt into the road, and entered the road without seeing the car at the time. Ofcourse, another permutation is the pedestrian grossly misjudged the distance of the vehicle travelling 50MPH less than 100 feet away and assumed the vehicle would stop for them.
Yes they do, all the time. It's called involuntary manslaughter if the pedestrian dies and it's truly an accident.
No.... Manslaughter requires a criminal act with the accused having a demonstrable criminal intent to prove the guilt -- such as DUI, recklessness, or criminal negligence such as driving distracted or texting instead of being attentive to the road. If a pedestrian dies, and it's truly an accident: in case of no wrongdoing by the driver, then the occurrence is by definition an unfortunate incident, and not a crime.
It does not put her "not near an intersection", does not have her "running".
Why do you think the ABC15 report should tell you if she was running or not? Do you think they interviewed her and asked? Unlikely. They are likely going to require a review of the data gathered by Uber's black boxes, before what happened can be decided.
unlikely for a human driver to see the woman prior to her entering the roadway, aren't autonomous sensors supposed to be better
What if the sensor DID see her before she entered the roadway? So what? She was't a threat until she actually got close and decided to leap into this 6-lane highway directly in front of an approaching car, without warning, which.... pedestrians don't have the right to do, and if that's what happened - would be tantamount to suicide.
It's not likely for enough facts of the accident to be available to judge until after the investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
the transaction times are too slow, and the volume is too limited for that.
But Lightning network fixes that by providing Bitcoin the capability to support extremely high volumes of almost instant and nearly-feeless transactions.
I do not think a human could have reacted fast enough to even think about slowing down.
They're probably going to find the pedestrian 100% responsible since they were illegally crossing an unlit section of a major highway in a totally reckless and inattentive manner, but it still looks like a failure of the Uber system -- even if they turn out not to be criminally liable, they're SUPPOSED to be better than a human at avoiding accidents, and should be held to that standard.
A Human's capabilities would be limited by the visible light, and a HUMAN cannot safely drive 38 Mph on a road at night if their visibility is not a sufficient footage down the road to safely stop in time upon an obstacle appearing at the edge of their visibility --- in a highway with no streetlights and no traffic, the driving conditions can be improved by turning on High-beams to allow a higher speed, otherwise the driver has a duty to slow down to a safe speed for the limited visibility under dark nighttime driving conditions, Therefore, the driver could be cited for hitting the pedestrian, because they were driving at an unsafely high speed that's not an allowable speed under the nighttime driving conditions without high-beam headlights enabled (By the time an obstacle appears in the illumination cone, it's already too late to react!).
Either that or the dashcam was misleading in terms of light levels, AND the driver had a longer time than 2 seconds when the pedestrian could be seen.
We don't know that it didn't break and that it didn't see the pedestrian.... the car is still in the possession of the police department who took the vehicle, so Uber has no access to it and has not been able to get at any of their system's data yet.
No human driver could have seen that woman in time to stop, but a car equipped with infrared lidar should be able to.
If the car had blown its horn and made a best effort to slow down as much as possible: she might have survived.
You can demo firearms as much as you want; as long as you're not showing off how to install or manufacture the banned accessories, or how to construct firearms or manufacture ammunition, etc. The policy update
Prohibits attempting to then sell firearms or certain firearm accessories through direct private sale or linking to a website....
How come Amazon, Apple, and Google's virtual assistants are ALL Female, at least by default?
Are they trying to conform their product to traditional gender stereotypes --- regarding the gender of person who would most often have the job role they see their assistant as filling?
Why can't we have Alex and Sean instead of Siri and Alexa?
Or, are they saying people would think their virtual assistant was incompetent or weird, OR expect it to do more advanced functions if it was male by default?
It's not even a cry for help. It's just salty language used to make a point. Now whether or not you like that point is up to you.
They might be trying to make what they think is a point, but as a result of the nonsense language, whatever their intended point might be gets completely lost --- and the only thing that can be heard is the lead and the s****
I think the law is not ready for this. If you have on your computer a file that indicates which digit range of PI corresponds to a nasty image, then the record itself that singles out certain digits of Pi (whether or not the record contains actual digits of Pi) could be the definition of meaningful possession ----
BUT if you just have a file on your computer that logically contains All the digits of Pi OR physically contains MANY digits of Pi, including those representing illegal porn images, Then you don't "possess" them, even though the data to encode or represent them could be said to be contained within your "PI" file. You have not identified the information needed to find or extract the images out of a transfinite haystack.
Similarly.... If you have on your computer a file that uniquely identifies a blockchain transaction's data Or has extracted that transaction's binary data, then you could be said to "possess" what the file in that transaction represents, Even if you don't have a copy of the blockchain ----- because the blockchain is some public, distributed, immutable resource; much like the moon, or the stars.
On the other hand if you just have a copy of the blockchain, then you don't "possess" whatever is inside every single transaction on the chain, not without extracting it first or doing something to make it more "yours"
We often tear down buildings where mass shooting occur.
If a mass shooting occured, then chances are the walls and ceilings have been penetrated by bullets, and that building may no longer be safe to use --- E.g. hidden damage, potential threats to the structure, electrical, etc, could have rendered the place unsafe.
I have indeed known many people who were reasonably well paid beyond their level of competence.
This is a subjective assertion -- you mean you found they were paid beyond what YOU felt their level of competence to be, when it's actually their role in the company, their quality of presentation and negotiation in their hiring and assessments of their performance, and how the business and their management evaluates the person and their position that matters.
You really need to learn some tolerance.... I'm pretty sure it's not actual racism on the AC's part -- people throwing around that language tend to be trolls senselessly throwing around that rhetoric for attention, not racists, but a cry for help; marginilized and ignored by people for years, these under-the-bridge dwellers utter the most extreme things they can think of to try and get some attention; in other words, it's just the lead talking: that and the shit in the water under the bridge they've been drinking talks too.
Like a web browser? Now who would have one of those?
Every major OS includes a web browser these days, BUT a web browser cannot on its own extract any usable data from the raw blockchain binary blobs.
Well, if the Hackathon is for something like OpenBSD, then I think people already know and expect the work will be free/open source and such.
If the hackathon is for a proprietary company, then the people either work for the company, or receive some sort of compensation for their work, otherwise they would retain the rights to their code; either way, it's not free work....
The Blockchain is a 152 Gigabyte file.
While anyone could technically download it --- automatically extracting data from it would be quite a chore.
Sure, it's transparent and immutable, but once data is added -- correct or not -- it's there permanently. There still needs to be a method for correcting or removing data.
This goes against the whole idea of having a decentralized universally-verifiable trustless ledger.
Even if Bitcoin did not provide any way for future extensibility or to add extra data to a transaction: You could embed arbitrary databits using Vanity addresses, SegWit transactions, and some of the integer fields --- or even use completely invalid wallet addresses and just burn a few Satoshi to encode whatever data you want using transactions that burn coins to those unspendable addresses.
Or more correctly: there is not enough work for multiple people with my profile.
Really? Even considering the highly-critical nature, and the importance of having a "backup plan" in case things go wrong,
like one of your employees is hospitalized or 5000 miles away on vacation?
so the high salary man should be paid smaller in compared to others n to the rest
Except the high salary man's unique skills create demand from him across the industry. Compensation is based on job markets and value you bring to the business
across the TOTALITY of what you do over the time you are employed, and NOT how much actual time average you are physically engaged in work per day or per week ----- For some jobs 38 work hours a week don't matter, and the work done during 5 hours a week can justify a $1 Million salary : he would not accept any less than the market rate which is based on the unique value of what he can bring to the business. And this is NOT necessarily against those working their arses off --- if he left, for instance, the loss in value to the business might be such that entire business units have to close and many of those supposed "working their asses off" (But at lower recognized total per-person value to the company) would have to be immediately laid off from their own jobs. Or, conversly: increasing other positions' pay would naturally increase the market value of the high salary man's skills by much more --- since he could now justify a higher salary by showing on a comparative basis the extra value he is bringing to the company above and beyond those
"maximally working their arses off for even more", a portion of those budget increase for parts of the business under his management to pay those extra salary, for instance, would likely go to the high salary man's compensation.
Does possession of a blockchain count as "possession of every possible image that could be derived from it"?
Probably not. To get the "file" or "image data" you need the Blockchain PLUS some 3rd party tool, which is not part of the core implementation of the BTC protocol.
If you've never used the tool, then there is no way you could produce the image.
Then drive at speeds that are safe.
In the absence of visible evidence of traffic controls that say otherwise, or hazardous driving conditions: the safe driving speed is the posted speed limit,
and it doesn't even matter if it's 10pm, or there are some bars, or people at the side of the road waiting for their turn to cross the street.
Next up.... we're going to here from you about how a self-driving car that hits a vehicle running the red light is supposedly responsible
for not slowing from 40 to 5mph before entering the intersection: in anticipation of possible red-light violators.
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
EXACTLY. It's unreasonable to expect traffic to impede itself based on theoretical possibilities.
Some people seem confused of what is required, and seem to have the belief that the driver is required to slow down to a speed where they can guarantee to avoid or yield to a reckless animal or pedestrian ---- merely because there's an obstacle on the side of the road, or off on the shoulder of a highway which could theoretically be concealing such creature or person that if dumb enough could spring into the road.
When in reality the rule is generally the pedestrian must yield to traffic if not at a crosswalk, and the driver is only required to make a best effort at stopping to avoid hitting them --- if the pedestrian comes into the road, and the car is at a distance capable of stopping, they must try to stop.
There is no requirement to slow down to a pedestrian waiting at the road for your vehicle to pass.
Thus in fact: it is irrelevent whether it is physically conceivable that a hidden pedestrian could leap into the roadway with reckless abandon; unless a person can be seen visibly entering into the street or one step away from it while the car is still reasonably far to take steps --- most humans will not slow down at all at the "anticipation" of pedestrians coming out from potential hiding spots --- and they aren't required to, either.
Unless there are traffic controls on the street requiring it, or hazardous weather, or other adverse driving conditions: the appropriate driving speed is the speed limit.
Slowing down might have been able to avoid an incident, and an abundance of caution is reasonable if erratic pedestrian behavior can be observed ahead of time
--- BUT NO MORE than an abundance of caution is required.
If the driver's current speed is safe: drivers are not expected or required to attempt to stop or slow down in anticipation that another driver or pedestrian will violate the rules of the road and enter the roadway unsafely, until after evidence that they will is observed --- for example, you don't slow down to 5mph when approaching a green light: in case a car going the perpendicular chooses to run a stop sign or red light (when there's no way you can see down the street both ways from afar), and doing so would cause more dangers of accidents due to congestion and inefficient usage of the roads.
Especially if there was a crowd from a concert on the sidewalk.
It's irrelevent whether there is a crowd on the sidewalk; unless they have visibly entered into the street or very close to it,
then most humans are not likely to have slowed down at all --- and aren't required to, unless there is a traffic control requiring it, or hazardous weather, or other driving conditions issue.
Slowing down might have been able to avoid an incident, and an abundance of caution is reasonable if erratic pedestrian behavior can be observed ahead of time, but if their current speed is safe: drivers are not required to slow down in anticipation that another driver or pedestrian will violate the rules of the road and enter the roadway unsafely --- for example, you don't slow down to 5mph when entering an intersection: in case a car going perpendicular chooses to run the stop sign or red light, and doing so would cause more dangers of accidents due to congestion and inefficient usage of the roads.
6 figure salary while watching kitten videos all day? Pay does not always have a strong correlation with a person's performance.
Presumably the person who might at times or on some or many days seem to be "watching kitten videos all day" is also responsible for something very important, for example making a $10 million sale, being "on standby" waiting to respond to a critical event, or being accountable for certain people resources or management decisions --- and they may night be failing to perform at all, or the company at least believes they provide something else that is worth the 6 figures.
if they wait until the car is only 20 feet away to try and jump in front of it, the time that the car takes to travel that 20 feet is so short that by the time the person manages to get into traffic, the car will have already passed him.
The pedestrian's "reaction" performance is irrelevent --- point is, assuming the pedestrian failed to adequately look before they leapt into the road, and entered the road without seeing the car at the time.
Ofcourse, another permutation is the pedestrian grossly misjudged the distance of the vehicle travelling 50MPH less than 100 feet away and assumed the vehicle would stop for them.
Yes they do, all the time. It's called involuntary manslaughter if the pedestrian dies and it's truly an accident.
No.... Manslaughter requires a criminal act with the accused having a demonstrable criminal intent to prove the guilt -- such as DUI, recklessness, or criminal negligence such as driving distracted or texting instead of being attentive to the road. If a pedestrian dies, and it's truly an accident: in case of no wrongdoing by the driver, then the occurrence is by definition an unfortunate incident, and not a crime.
It does not put her "not near an intersection", does not have her "running".
Why do you think the ABC15 report should tell you if she was running or not?
Do you think they interviewed her and asked? Unlikely.
They are likely going to require a review of the data gathered by Uber's black boxes, before what happened can be decided.
unlikely for a human driver to see the woman prior to her entering the roadway, aren't autonomous sensors supposed to be better
What if the sensor DID see her before she entered the roadway? So what? She was't a threat until she actually got close and decided to leap into this 6-lane highway directly in front of an approaching car, without warning, which.... pedestrians don't have the right to do, and if that's what happened - would be tantamount to suicide.
It's not likely for enough facts of the accident to be available to judge until after the investigation.