unlike humans, it can look in all directions simultaneously.
It can look in all directions, but apparently (at least with some vehicles) has been less reliable at identifying hazards than humans...... being really good at identifying Any hazard in view may be more important than the number of directions and number of ways you have at looking out.
To some extent they cover up this "driving like a granny" by taking advantage of superior reaction time and better eyes.
The self-driving car product is still going to be tough to sell to consumers if the two disadvtanges they keep are:
(1) Less safe than the safest human drivers, and,
(2) At the same time: Insufficiently assertive on the road, always makes conservative or overprotective choices, religiously following speed signs, etc -- causing to take longer to get to the destination or creating more disruptions in traffic flow than a just about any typical human driver would
It takes a typical human about 1500 milliseconds from the time they see a hazard, until they start depressing the brake pedal. An SDC takes about 1ms.
So what? Why don't SDCs manager to be statistically better than the safest human drivers, then?
If SDCs are less safe as implemented in spite of this advantage, than that's all the more reasons to not use a SDC.
The next-best alternative to a SDC might be an extremely safe human driver PLUS an Automated breaking system. Having a self-driving car is not necessarily required to have brakes being automatically applied within 1ms --- Tesla has emergency auto-breaking features that activate even when not using autopilot. Just having a human driver augmented by a simple reliable emergency safety system eliminates the "reaction-time advantage" that a Self-driving car has.
So once again, if you accept those numbers, SDCs are not going to be a good buy for the safest drivers, but cars with auto braking systems are a good buy.
AI vehicles currently have about 4.5 times the fatality rate of human drivers per mile traveled.
I would say this is a bogus averaging process that's come up with 4.5x fatality rate, Because there are too few accidents involving AI vehicles for that calculation to have a theoretical foundation.
There have been what, less than 10 accidents involving AI? Not even enough to discount random chance and successfully calculate a meaningful average accident frequency.
So yes, maybe for a safe driver stepping into a self driving car will the risk will be increased
This would be a huge deal though.... most people think their own driving is safer, even though it's not. So how are you supposed to know if you are increasing or decreasing the risk to you by using a self-driving car? This kind of doubt would hinder adoption of the technology.
so there could be some cost build up due to his case exceeding a calendar year
Insurers need to be prohibited from resetting deductibles for further treatments required for a condition that has arisen just because a calendar year has hit.
Or, for insurance liability purposes: law should be changed to make sure insurers always liable to pay for all ongoing treatment at least as much as if the bill was made on the date which the condition was diagnosed (Even if the insurance has been cancelled since then; the coverage is for the date the loss or damage began, and the treatment is the repair.), so long as the condition has been suffered continuously, and gets re-diagnosed once per year on a regular checkup.
Think about how ridiculous that would be..... $5999 medical bill for a condition that arises in December... next month starts a new calendar year; $5999 more in costs for treatment of the same condition, out of pocket maximum of $6000 never reached.
and apple will be forced to have ones that you can take out.
You found the hidden reason for my rec' that phones with non-removable batteries not be allowed on planes.
Pit two unreasonable organizations against each other.
It would be glorious to see Apple cause the public to finally have had enough of government overreach OR for iPhone users to finally get phones with removable batteries; Either way, the public wins (Although travelers may be considerably inconvenienced for a short period, before the result reaches fruition)......
And just establish a rule going forward, because SamSung is just the latest $flavor_of_the_year issue with lithium batteries.
Example: To bring any cell phone Or Non-TSA-certified laptop or electronic device aboard any plane, you must remove the battery and place the battery in a poly container which you will purchase before security, and the gate attendant will seal and lock before you can board the plane, where the battery will remain for the duration of the flight.
Any cell phone with a Non-removable Lithium-polymer or Lithium-ION battery may not be brought on-board; for $100 you may purchase a larger sealed fireproof, smokeproof container to put the phone in which may then go into checked luggage, if it's not a Samsung Galaxy 7.
Apple missed the opportunity to provide a new anti-theft feature, and make this store setup a demonstration of their confidence in the new feature.
It would be pretty cool if they would make it so the phone would instantly 'lock out' when removed from the store and sound an alarm of its own, until brought back in.
Also, provide some kind of mechanism where a lost or stolen phone can be tracked through the cloud, including video footage from all cameras of the last 2-minutes before it was removed from allowed area, and a mechanism to have you know a 'special passcode', making it impossible to do a factory reset, or if a factory reset is done, then on first boot it will load "Tracking/theft data" from the cloud, and the passcode must be entered, before setup can proceed.
GPS and Radar are both types of communications. If your drone relies on only GPS and/or Radar for navigation, then sending an EMP down your antenna will destroy your GPS radio, your Radar transceiver, and your drone won't be able to find the current position, let-alone navigate to takeoff location.
Also, microwave won't just take out radio receivers and transmitters..... it will also blow out at least any integrated circuits attached to electromagnetic sensors without extreme protections including completely separate circuits and optical isolation (So you blow up the opto-isolators instead), even if the electronics themselves are shielded.
Sensors such as distance/location measurement by definition cannot be shielded, since you need them unshielded to be able to reach the outside world and sense things.
You make it sound like "World Peace" is something we've already achieved.
It's not.... if there is no war now, there will be one soon; ISIS and various players all over the world have aligned everything to make sure of that.
$98 billion annually is not very much to spend on military at all. Hell, the US spends more than $600 billion.
Also, if you don't have an advanced highly-thorough military force when war does break out, then being caught unprepared has a high probability of meaning you become an occupied or subservient country.
If you bought it for some $500 to run Linux on it, all of a sudden you had something that was useless to you. So $55 is about 1/10 of the value to you.
You're free to reject the class settlement, and then sue them in court (Alone). If it became useless to you, therefore you had to scrap or sell it on eBay and purchased the next best option that would provide as-close-as possible equivalent, then you should be entitled to the cost of the replacement you purchased Minus salvaged value of the PS3 you had to replace.
The company is urging customers to discard remaining bars and will begin e-mailing customers individually regarding refunds.
Why would they be asking customers to discard, instead of send them back? I mean.... if they're really investigating, then they should take the returns, and then do some analysis of what was winding up in customer hands, right? Assuming they don't already have an explanation for people getting sick that they're uncomfortable sharing.......
What would they put in it that would make a significant amount of customer sick, other than an adulterated, infected, contaminated or otherwise non-food-quality substance unfit for human consumption?
Furthermore, the quality of the refurbished units is below average to say the least. Some of mine have had scratches/dings/dents on the chassis (I take good care of my equipment, when I had to give them my original 6+ it was literally in NIB condition, so I think it's fair for me to expect a replacement device in equivalent condition)
Yes. If their "solution" to your problem is to replace your phone, then the replacement must not only have defects under warranty repaired; it also must not have any new damage or defects that your original phone did not.... that would mean they are introducing damage by swapping your phone, which would be extremely uncool if you take care of your equipment, and its condition such as scratches/etc affects your personal enjoyment of the use of that equipment.
Scratches/dings/dents are definitely damage. That refurbished phone should not have been provided to a customer, unless that was disclosed, and the customer specifically purchased or approved to receive a phone with this damage.
Samsung issued the recall very early after the problems came to light. In comparison Apple usually waits a year or two before quietly issuing a replacement program,
You're comparing Apples and Oranges: : "It explodes risking customer safety issue at launch" VS "Sometimes some units stop working after years" issue.
I'll bet that in the first case Apple or Samsung would recall.
In the second case.... it's just planned obsolescence, particularly if it tends to happen after warranty is up.
No recall...... Maybe a replacement program, if its affecting many units still under warranty, or if they need that for PR purposes.
Again... if it's affecting only units old enough to be out of warranty, then: Planned obsolescence. Customers should have read the number of years to expect the thing to last from their warranty paperwork.
should the telephone company be obligated to cancel my service?
These are bad comparisons. CloudFlare's service provided to a website is not like the phone service. It's more like a delivery company (such as UPS) delivering their illegal parcels to customers, And they have been informed that the parcels they are being given to deliver are illegal.
Should the power company be obligated to turn off the power? Should the snow clearing company be obligated not to clear my driveway?
If a court directive or its equivalent is issued, then definitely. Arguments such as "we can't shut down illegal milk ops" should not hold water, and they should face the penalty for non-compliance with the order, regardless of the argument.
Only during takeoff and landing would you be close enough to towers.
Depending which band and how much power that cell phone is operating on, they can reach out to 20+ miles. Being in the air should be no problem, unless they're flying over wilderness.
On the other hand, the base station may refuse to allow, because operating them in the air can disrupt cellular services on the ground......
But the Note7's have plausible deniability. Plus a lot more people carry cell phones around than laptops, so the impact of banning them would be higher, thus more pleasure for the bad guys (The TSA serve the bad guys with each added inconvenience and disruption).
nothing has happened because a judge will never have the opportunity.
It's not about a 'judge having the opportunity'. Laws are changed by congress. It's congress that needs to be convinced, and powerful entities such as CloudFlare are the companies that can do it.
The lawyers stopped listening to you and me, a long time ago........
Pressuring vendors to support your stack exclusively = dick move
Signing vendors to support exclusively your entire stack and no competitor's product just to interoperate to provide customers' one function of that stack = Antitrust.
Well, then... if they've got a directed interface card to the balancing system; then it's possible they included a ROM chip on the interface card itself.
Not necessarily; it could've been on a floppy, but someone had to develop this software and this system for such special use case, heh, heh.....
Well, there are many different ways they could fly, technically; they could have mounted the program board out of sight. They could have a boot cartridge that loads a program into ram, and then directs the user to remove the cartridge and attach interface to their industrial systems.
They might have a cassette, disk, or printout that the program needs to be typed in from every time the system boots.
They might have kept the system continuously powered for 50 years, such that a cold start was never necessary.... who knows.
The takedown notice is a broke device that causes harm when used improperly.
I agree in principle, but I still support CloudFlare having to do the takedowns just as any other webhost would. The law is what the law is, but the law must not be enforced differently for CloudFlare than for any other hosting provider.
Inconsistent application of the law, and failing to apply it to powerful people or companies would mean that unjust laws don't get fixed.
To get the takedown notice law fixed properly; It is very important that our courts and judges apply the law to every company that applies to.
Consistent enforcement just adds companies like CloudFlare as voices in support of changing the law, whereas, they previously pretended they could just ignore the law.
This is part of why it's so outrageous to see the laws on the books not being enforced consistently against political leaders, big company CEOs, members of political leaders' families, etc.... It is these people who have a great deal of sway to raise attention to problems in the law, therefore, of all people, or companies, it's most critical that the enforcement against these entities such as CloudFlare have the strongest enforcement of the law of all, against them.
With a fixed program like driveshaft balancing: you could have programmed it to a PROM chip, and put it on a board to load through the C64's ROM cartridge slot
Slashdot Mirror
unlike humans, it can look in all directions simultaneously.
It can look in all directions, but apparently (at least with some vehicles) has been less reliable at identifying hazards than humans...... being really good at identifying Any hazard in view may be more important than the number of directions and number of ways you have at looking out.
To some extent they cover up this "driving like a granny" by taking advantage of superior reaction time and better eyes.
The self-driving car product is still going to be tough to sell to consumers if the two disadvtanges they keep are:
(1) Less safe than the safest human drivers, and,
(2) At the same time: Insufficiently assertive on the road, always makes conservative or overprotective choices, religiously following speed signs, etc -- causing to take longer to get to the destination or creating more disruptions in traffic flow than a just about any typical human driver would
It takes a typical human about 1500 milliseconds from the time they see a hazard, until they start depressing the brake pedal. An SDC takes about 1ms.
So what? Why don't SDCs manager to be statistically better than the safest human drivers, then?
If SDCs are less safe as implemented in spite of this advantage, than that's all the more reasons to not use a SDC.
The next-best alternative to a SDC might be an extremely safe human driver PLUS an Automated breaking system.
Having a self-driving car is not necessarily required to have brakes being automatically applied within 1ms ---
Tesla has emergency auto-breaking features that activate even when not using autopilot.
Just having a human driver augmented by a simple reliable emergency safety system eliminates the "reaction-time advantage" that a Self-driving car has.
So once again, if you accept those numbers, SDCs are not going to be a good buy for the safest drivers, but cars with auto braking systems are a good buy.
AI vehicles currently have about 4.5 times the fatality rate of human drivers per mile traveled.
I would say this is a bogus averaging process that's come up with 4.5x fatality rate, Because there are too few accidents involving AI vehicles
for that calculation to have a theoretical foundation.
There have been what, less than 10 accidents involving AI? Not even enough to discount random chance and successfully calculate a meaningful average accident frequency.
So yes, maybe for a safe driver stepping into a self driving car will the risk will be increased
This would be a huge deal though.... most people think their own driving is safer, even though it's not.
So how are you supposed to know if you are increasing or decreasing the risk to you by using a self-driving car?
This kind of doubt would hinder adoption of the technology.
so there could be some cost build up due to his case exceeding a calendar year
Insurers need to be prohibited from resetting deductibles for further treatments required for a condition that
has arisen just because a calendar year has hit.
Or, for insurance liability purposes: law should be changed to make sure insurers always liable to pay for all ongoing treatment
at least as much as if the bill was made on the date which the condition was diagnosed (Even if the insurance has been
cancelled since then; the coverage is for the date the loss or damage began, and the treatment is the repair.), so long as the
condition has been suffered continuously, and gets re-diagnosed once per year on a regular checkup.
Think about how ridiculous that would be.....
$5999 medical bill for a condition that arises in December... next month starts a new calendar year;
$5999 more in costs for treatment of the same condition, out of pocket maximum of $6000 never reached.
and apple will be forced to have ones that you can take out.
You found the hidden reason for my rec' that phones with non-removable batteries not be allowed on planes.
Pit two unreasonable organizations against each other.
It would be glorious to see Apple cause the public to finally have had enough of government overreach OR
for iPhone users to finally get phones with removable batteries; Either way, the public wins (Although travelers
may be considerably inconvenienced for a short period, before the result reaches fruition)......
And just establish a rule going forward, because SamSung is just the latest $flavor_of_the_year issue with lithium batteries.
Example: To bring any cell phone Or Non-TSA-certified laptop or electronic device aboard any plane, you must remove the battery and place the battery in a
poly container which you will purchase before security, and the gate attendant will seal and lock before you can board
the plane, where the battery will remain for the duration of the flight.
Any cell phone with a Non-removable Lithium-polymer or Lithium-ION battery may not be brought on-board;
for $100 you may purchase a larger sealed fireproof, smokeproof container to put the phone in which may then go into checked luggage, if it's not a Samsung Galaxy 7.
Apple missed the opportunity to provide a new anti-theft feature, and make this store setup a demonstration of their
confidence in the new feature.
It would be pretty cool if they would make it so the phone would instantly 'lock out' when removed from the store and sound an alarm of its own, until brought back in.
Also, provide some kind of mechanism where a lost or stolen phone can be tracked through the cloud, including video footage from all cameras of the last 2-minutes before it was removed from allowed area, and a mechanism to have you know a 'special passcode', making it impossible to do a factory reset, or if a factory reset is done, then on first boot it will load "Tracking/theft data" from the cloud, and the passcode must be entered, before setup can proceed.
GPS and Radar are both types of communications. If your drone relies on only GPS and/or Radar for navigation, then sending an EMP down your antenna will destroy your GPS radio, your Radar transceiver, and your drone won't be able to find the current position, let-alone navigate to takeoff location.
Also, microwave won't just take out radio receivers and transmitters..... it will also blow out at least any integrated circuits attached to electromagnetic sensors without extreme protections including completely separate circuits and optical isolation (So you blow up the opto-isolators instead), even if the electronics themselves are shielded.
Sensors such as distance/location measurement by definition cannot be shielded, since you need them unshielded to be able to reach the outside world and sense things.
does indeed make them a threat to world peace.
You make it sound like "World Peace" is something we've already achieved.
It's not.... if there is no war now, there will be one soon; ISIS and various players all over the world have aligned everything to make sure of that.
$98 billion annually is not very much to spend on military at all. Hell, the US spends more than $600 billion.
Also, if you don't have an advanced highly-thorough military force when war does break out, then being caught unprepared has a high
probability of meaning you become an occupied or subservient country.
If you bought it for some $500 to run Linux on it, all of a sudden you had something that was useless to you. So $55 is about 1/10 of the value to you.
You're free to reject the class settlement, and then sue them in court (Alone). If it became useless to you, therefore you had to scrap or sell it on eBay and purchased the next best option that would provide as-close-as possible equivalent, then you should be entitled to the cost of the replacement you purchased Minus salvaged value of the PS3 you had to replace.
The company is urging customers to discard remaining bars and will begin e-mailing customers individually regarding refunds.
Why would they be asking customers to discard, instead of send them back?
I mean.... if they're really investigating, then they should take the returns, and then
do some analysis of what was winding up in customer hands, right?
Assuming they don't already have an explanation for people getting sick that they're uncomfortable sharing.......
Affected customers read the ingredient list.
What would they put in it that would make a significant amount of customer sick,
other than an adulterated, infected, contaminated or otherwise non-food-quality substance unfit for human consumption?
You're selling broken phones to people on Craigslist, but how dare someone sell a broken phone to you? You're part of the problem.
Not if he tells the people on Craigslist that the item they are purchasing will be a broken phone.
Furthermore, the quality of the refurbished units is below average to say the least. Some of mine have had scratches/dings/dents on the chassis (I take good care of my equipment, when I had to give them my original 6+ it was literally in NIB condition, so I think it's fair for me to expect a replacement device in equivalent condition)
Yes. If their "solution" to your problem is to replace your phone, then the replacement must not only have defects under warranty repaired;
it also must not have any new damage or defects that your original phone did not.... that would mean they are introducing damage by swapping your phone, which would be extremely uncool if you take care of your equipment, and its condition such as scratches/etc affects your personal enjoyment of the use of that equipment.
Scratches/dings/dents are definitely damage. That refurbished phone should not have been provided to a customer, unless that was disclosed, and the customer specifically purchased or approved to receive a phone with this damage.
Samsung issued the recall very early after the problems came to light. In comparison Apple usually waits a year or two before quietly issuing a replacement program,
You're comparing Apples and Oranges: : "It explodes risking customer safety issue at launch" VS "Sometimes some units stop working after years" issue.
I'll bet that in the first case Apple or Samsung would recall.
In the second case.... it's just planned obsolescence, particularly if it tends to happen after warranty is up.
No recall...... Maybe a replacement program, if its affecting many units still under warranty, or if they need that for PR purposes.
Again... if it's affecting only units old enough to be out of warranty, then: Planned obsolescence.
Customers should have read the number of years to expect the thing to last from their warranty paperwork.
should the telephone company be obligated to cancel my service?
These are bad comparisons. CloudFlare's service provided to a website is not like the phone service.
It's more like a delivery company (such as UPS) delivering their illegal parcels to customers, And they have been informed that the parcels they are being given to deliver are illegal.
Should the power company be obligated to turn off the power? Should the snow clearing company be obligated not to clear my driveway?
If a court directive or its equivalent is issued, then definitely. Arguments such as
"we can't shut down illegal milk ops" should not hold water, and they should face the penalty for non-compliance with the order, regardless of the argument.
Only during takeoff and landing would you be close enough to towers.
Depending which band and how much power that cell phone is operating on, they can reach out to 20+ miles.
Being in the air should be no problem, unless they're flying over wilderness.
On the other hand, the base station may refuse to allow, because operating them in the air
can disrupt cellular services on the ground......
But the Note7's have plausible deniability. Plus a lot more people carry cell phones around than laptops, so the impact of banning them would be higher, thus more pleasure for the bad guys (The TSA serve the bad guys with each added inconvenience and disruption).
nothing has happened because a judge will never have the opportunity.
It's not about a 'judge having the opportunity'. Laws are changed by congress.
It's congress that needs to be convinced, and powerful entities such as CloudFlare are the companies that can do it.
The lawyers stopped listening to you and me, a long time ago........
Pressuring vendors to support your stack exclusively = dick move
Signing vendors to support exclusively your entire stack and no competitor's product just to interoperate to provide customers' one function of that stack = Antitrust.
Well, then... if they've got a directed interface card to the balancing system; then it's possible they included a ROM chip on the interface card itself.
Not necessarily; it could've been on a floppy, but someone had to develop this software and this system for such special use case, heh, heh.....
Well, there are many different ways they could fly, technically; they could have mounted the program board out of sight. They could have a boot cartridge that loads a program into ram, and then directs the user to remove the cartridge and attach interface to their industrial systems.
They might have a cassette, disk, or printout that the program needs to be typed in from every time the system boots.
They might have kept the system continuously powered for 50 years, such that a cold start was never necessary.... who knows.
The takedown notice is a broke device that causes harm when used improperly.
I agree in principle, but I still support CloudFlare having to do the takedowns just as any other webhost would. The law is what the law is, but the law must not be enforced differently for CloudFlare than for any other hosting provider.
Inconsistent application of the law, and failing to apply it to powerful people or companies would mean that unjust laws don't get fixed.
To get the takedown notice law fixed properly; It is very important that our courts and judges apply the law to every company that applies to.
Consistent enforcement just adds companies like CloudFlare as voices in support of changing the law, whereas, they previously pretended they could just ignore the law.
This is part of why it's so outrageous to see the laws on the books not being enforced consistently against political leaders, big company CEOs, members of political leaders' families, etc.... It is these people who have a great deal of sway to raise attention to problems in the law, therefore, of all people, or companies, it's most critical that the enforcement against these entities such as CloudFlare have the strongest enforcement of the law of all, against them.
With a fixed program like driveshaft balancing: you could have programmed it to a PROM chip, and put it on a board to load through the C64's ROM cartridge slot