I think she may have been walking their bicycle at the time of the accident. In the police news conference they do keep referring to her as a pedestrian.
Well you better call the cops and tell them not to bother with their investigation because you've already got it all figured out.
There was a person behind the wheel with their foot at the break peddle.... they didn't do anything to avoid the collision either.
Perhaps rather focusing on the autonomous mode, maybe people should be asking if the electric engine or the combustion engine was engaged. I think one of the major issues with electric vehicles is they are very silent and are less likely to be heard by pedestrians.
Anyway my point is who knows? The answer is no one until the investigation is completed.
Well... it seems to be a sport on here to jump to conclusions. There was a person behind the wheel, and I'm pretty sure Uber would have instructed that person to take control of the vehicle in the case of an emergency. To take control all they would have needed to do would be to turn the wheel or hit the break.
This was a tragic accident everyone should have a little more respect for all those involved and wait for the authorities to do their job and complete the investigation.
It's not perfect, but it actually looks pretty good.
I'm just wondering how you reached this conclusion? Did you read the article and the linked papers? Or did you just skip all of that and go straight to trolling?
It's not perfect but it actually doesn't look too bad.
I'm just wondering how you reached this conclusion? Did you read the article and the linked papers? Or did you just skip all of that and go straight to trolling?
"why there were no global or even national taxi companies before Uber." the answer to this question "The reason is that the taxi business doesn't scale" is completely and utterly wrong!
Next time you step into a cab take a look at what they're using to communicate with their dispatch. I'm betting you'll see either something that looks like it was made in the 80s or a custom Windows Mobile panel that is based on technology from between 1998 and 2006,
The reason why there were no global taxi software companies before Uber is technology. What happened was the technology moved on and the taxi companies didn't have the budget to move with it and neither did the software companies servicing these taxi companies they were all small companies carrying legacy systems that date back to the 80s.
Uber just happened to be the first company to ditch all the proprietary devices and systems that were used in most taxi services that came before it and shift to a much lower cost Smartphone implementation backed by a cloud based solution that could be rolled out globally. They were the first to do it, it's as simple as that.
If you don't think owning a global business that will one day probably be coordinating a fleet of driverless vehicles that will transport a large percentage of the worlds population from A to B daily is going to be profitable or that it doesn't scale, you've got rocks for brains.
Uber was the first global taxi service on the planet. They share the cost of developing their software systems across the entire planet.
Most taxi companies before Uber serviced a single city, or maybe just a few suburbs of a city and just like uber have been operating on very small margins, with most of their revenue going to their employees. So essentially most Taxi companies would be classified as small businesses and as consequence of this was their software systems needed to be relatively simple, cheap and upgrades are rarely sort because they don't have the IT staff to roll it out or time to retrain staff.
So it was never about appeal to consumers. It was about turning what was previously a small business enterprise into a global one,
Yea I think the issue is that individuals can't deduct a lot of things whereas businesses can deduct almost everything. e.g. individuals can't deduct the cost of a home to sleep, whereas a business can deduct the cost of an office.
Try earning an income without having a place to sleep in or eating food, common sense says both are essential for someone to be able to earn an income, however the taxman doesn't see it this way, rent and groceries are not tax deductible.
On companies as successful as these companies I think it's an awesome idea ! There's no way for them to weasel their way out of a tax on turnover.
If it seems a bit harsh, so is avoiding tax for decades whilst making profits off of people who need schools, hospitals and are facing retirement into poverty!
You invite someone over for dinner and they steal your cutlery and napkins.... what do you do? Stop having people over for dinner?
As with any service, there are always going to be people who abuse it. And it's not just Spotify that suffers, its the artists that suffer the consequence of their material being pirated.
Despite having payouts to artists as low as 0.006c per play Spotify is still running big losses. At the other end of the line artists complain about Spotify's pay out rate. It's strange how many people can be fans of a band, love their music, love the band, and then take actions that scr3w them over.
Spotify has a vast amount of music to listen to from all sorts of genres from all round the world, and they give people access to this amazing service for free at the cost of listening to an ad or two. But that's not free enough for some people!
Well the last plane I was on had internet access, it wasn't cheap, but it was available. Yes there are places where internet access isn't going to be available, but that too is something that will seem antiquated in the very near future.
I think you vastly underestimate how much music there is which isn't noise. Or maybe you're just not looking.
If they stopped making music today you still couldn't possibly listen to what's already out there in a life time. You want to choose to listen to the same stuff over and over? OK... each to their own.
Spotify has managed to make a deal with the music industry, but there are caveats on that deal that restrict how music is downloaded. If the music industry gets wind that Spotify has become a conduit for pirating music, it could see them lose those deals and the rights to stream music and basically kill their business entirely.
Who knows why but the value of streaming music isn't considered as valuable as a service which allows download and ownership. Spotify allows download of offline copies of music but it is limited to 3,333 songs which is a pretty artificial and completely arbitrary limit.
Anyhow, I can see the day coming when this notion of streamed vs downloaded music/video is considered quite antiquated. What difference does it make to the listening/viewing experience if content is streamed vs played off local storage?
If you have a connection to the internet answer is absolutely none!
Except of course when you're paying internet fees for the data downloaded. The days of that being a concern for most people out there are fast drawing to a close, with the cost of internet access gong down and data limits going way up.
Personally, I don't actually have any desire to "own" music when it is available to me on demand. I spend 95% of my time listening to new music, off spotify, soundcloud etc.. Music has to be pretty exceptional for me to listen to it multiple times. So I have no interest in Spotify hacks to download and stockpile music that I'll probably never listen to again.
I think you're ignoring that technology is becoming more immersive.... radio just involves the ears, tv eyes and years, whilst phones games are way more immersive and are likely to hold a childs attention longer,
Progressively intensifying the immersive technologies kids are exposed to is a social experiment, have no doubt about it. With the next generation it'll be augmented reality and VR, who knows after that.
You would think that even if there was a 10% probability that any of the dire predictions scientists are making about affects of nan made green house gas emissions were true, that regardless of the 90% chance that they were wrong, based on the 10% probability that they are right, you might just shut the f*ck up, err on the side of caution, stop this useless debate (of morons) and get on with what needs to be done.
The author of this of this article is either a troll or quite knowledgeable about Windows Phone.
Windows Phone 7 is 8 years old and 8 is 6 years old and were replaced by Windows 10 three years ago.
As a Microsoft technologist I can tell you the days of Microsoft providing indefinite support on any platform are over. They have been a lot more aggressive in ending support on dated technology across all their offerings. This seems entirely consistent with their strategy I don't see them exiting the phone market any time soon.
What do you see? Two huge cement columns running down the middle of it.
I think the real question is how moral is it to use such materials, in a day and age when so much of our native habitat has already been lost and the remaining habitat is being rapidly cleared?
Even if the wood is sustainably sourced, which it probably won't be, creating a fashion like this encourages others to do the same. I mean can't argue with an architect using wood to build something like this....
Slashdot Mirror
I think she may have been walking their bicycle at the time of the accident. In the police news conference they do keep referring to her as a pedestrian.
Well you better call the cops and tell them not to bother with their investigation because you've already got it all figured out.
There was a person behind the wheel with their foot at the break peddle.... they didn't do anything to avoid the collision either.
Perhaps rather focusing on the autonomous mode, maybe people should be asking if the electric engine or the combustion engine was engaged. I think one of the major issues with electric vehicles is they are very silent and are less likely to be heard by pedestrians.
Anyway my point is who knows? The answer is no one until the investigation is completed.
Well... it seems to be a sport on here to jump to conclusions. There was a person behind the wheel, and I'm pretty sure Uber would have instructed that person to take control of the vehicle in the case of an emergency. To take control all they would have needed to do would be to turn the wheel or hit the break.
This was a tragic accident everyone should have a little more respect for all those involved and wait for the authorities to do their job and complete the investigation.
The internet kill switch for the US is actually in China.
I think you'll find that's exactly how they're testing it... Here's some sample test data...
http://matrix.statmt.org/matri...
It's not perfect, but it actually looks pretty good.
I'm just wondering how you reached this conclusion? Did you read the article and the linked papers? Or did you just skip all of that and go straight to trolling?
I think you'll find that's exactly how they're testing it... Here's some sample test data...
http://matrix.statmt.org/matri...
It's not perfect but it actually doesn't look too bad.
I'm just wondering how you reached this conclusion? Did you read the article and the linked papers? Or did you just skip all of that and go straight to trolling?
I think you'll find that's exactly what they're doing here some sample tests ...
http://matrix.statmt.org/matri...
So you read the article and the linked papers and came to this conclusion? Or did you just skip all of that and go straight to trolling?
"why there were no global or even national taxi companies before Uber." the answer to this question "The reason is that the taxi business doesn't scale" is completely and utterly wrong!
Next time you step into a cab take a look at what they're using to communicate with their dispatch. I'm betting you'll see either something that looks like it was made in the 80s or a custom Windows Mobile panel that is based on technology from between 1998 and 2006,
The reason why there were no global taxi software companies before Uber is technology. What happened was the technology moved on and the taxi companies didn't have the budget to move with it and neither did the software companies servicing these taxi companies they were all small companies carrying legacy systems that date back to the 80s.
Uber just happened to be the first company to ditch all the proprietary devices and systems that were used in most taxi services that came before it and shift to a much lower cost Smartphone implementation backed by a cloud based solution that could be rolled out globally. They were the first to do it, it's as simple as that.
If you don't think owning a global business that will one day probably be coordinating a fleet of driverless vehicles that will transport a large percentage of the worlds population from A to B daily is going to be profitable or that it doesn't scale, you've got rocks for brains.
Have you head of economies of scale?
Uber was the first global taxi service on the planet. They share the cost of developing their software systems across the entire planet.
Most taxi companies before Uber serviced a single city, or maybe just a few suburbs of a city and just like uber have been operating on very small margins, with most of their revenue going to their employees. So essentially most Taxi companies would be classified as small businesses and as consequence of this was their software systems needed to be relatively simple, cheap and upgrades are rarely sort because they don't have the IT staff to roll it out or time to retrain staff.
So it was never about appeal to consumers. It was about turning what was previously a small business enterprise into a global one,
Isn't it obvious?
Yea I think the issue is that individuals can't deduct a lot of things whereas businesses can deduct almost everything. e.g. individuals can't deduct the cost of a home to sleep, whereas a business can deduct the cost of an office.
Try earning an income without having a place to sleep in or eating food, common sense says both are essential for someone to be able to earn an income, however the taxman doesn't see it this way, rent and groceries are not tax deductible.
On companies as successful as these companies I think it's an awesome idea ! There's no way for them to weasel their way out of a tax on turnover.
If it seems a bit harsh, so is avoiding tax for decades whilst making profits off of people who need schools, hospitals and are facing retirement into poverty!
Hence their right to suspend the accounts.
You invite someone over for dinner and they steal your cutlery and napkins.... what do you do? Stop having people over for dinner?
As with any service, there are always going to be people who abuse it. And it's not just Spotify that suffers, its the artists that suffer the consequence of their material being pirated.
Despite having payouts to artists as low as 0.006c per play Spotify is still running big losses. At the other end of the line artists complain about Spotify's pay out rate. It's strange how many people can be fans of a band, love their music, love the band, and then take actions that scr3w them over.
Spotify has a vast amount of music to listen to from all sorts of genres from all round the world, and they give people access to this amazing service for free at the cost of listening to an ad or two. But that's not free enough for some people!
Well the last plane I was on had internet access, it wasn't cheap, but it was available. Yes there are places where internet access isn't going to be available, but that too is something that will seem antiquated in the very near future.
I think you vastly underestimate how much music there is which isn't noise. Or maybe you're just not looking.
If they stopped making music today you still couldn't possibly listen to what's already out there in a life time. You want to choose to listen to the same stuff over and over? OK... each to their own.
....or it's secure for no one.
Spotify has managed to make a deal with the music industry, but there are caveats on that deal that restrict how music is downloaded. If the music industry gets wind that Spotify has become a conduit for pirating music, it could see them lose those deals and the rights to stream music and basically kill their business entirely.
Who knows why but the value of streaming music isn't considered as valuable as a service which allows download and ownership. Spotify allows download of offline copies of music but it is limited to 3,333 songs which is a pretty artificial and completely arbitrary limit.
Anyhow, I can see the day coming when this notion of streamed vs downloaded music/video is considered quite antiquated. What difference does it make to the listening/viewing experience if content is streamed vs played off local storage?
If you have a connection to the internet answer is absolutely none!
Except of course when you're paying internet fees for the data downloaded. The days of that being a concern for most people out there are fast drawing to a close, with the cost of internet access gong down and data limits going way up.
Personally, I don't actually have any desire to "own" music when it is available to me on demand. I spend 95% of my time listening to new music, off spotify, soundcloud etc.. Music has to be pretty exceptional for me to listen to it multiple times. So I have no interest in Spotify hacks to download and stockpile music that I'll probably never listen to again.
I was thinking the same thing.
Perhaps, but ill informed scepticism based on hunches, partial or incomplete or just plain wrong data analysis is not!
I think you're ignoring that technology is becoming more immersive .... radio just involves the ears, tv eyes and years, whilst phones games are way more immersive and are likely to hold a childs attention longer,
Progressively intensifying the immersive technologies kids are exposed to is a social experiment, have no doubt about it. With the next generation it'll be augmented reality and VR, who knows after that.
You would think that even if there was a 10% probability that any of the dire predictions scientists are making about affects of nan made green house gas emissions were true, that regardless of the 90% chance that they were wrong, based on the 10% probability that they are right, you might just shut the f*ck up, err on the side of caution, stop this useless debate (of morons) and get on with what needs to be done.
Since when did Slashdot get inundated in quasi-intellectual climate sceptics?
The author of this of this article is either a troll or quite knowledgeable about Windows Phone.
Windows Phone 7 is 8 years old and 8 is 6 years old and were replaced by Windows 10 three years ago.
As a Microsoft technologist I can tell you the days of Microsoft providing indefinite support on any platform are over. They have been a lot more aggressive in ending support on dated technology across all their offerings. This seems entirely consistent with their strategy I don't see them exiting the phone market any time soon.
Unlikely.... Checkout the current tallest "wooden building" in the world under construction...
https://www.archdaily.com/8796...
What do you see? Two huge cement columns running down the middle of it.
I think the real question is how moral is it to use such materials, in a day and age when so much of our native habitat has already been lost and the remaining habitat is being rapidly cleared?
Even if the wood is sustainably sourced, which it probably won't be, creating a fashion like this encourages others to do the same. I mean can't argue with an architect using wood to build something like this....
https://stroiinfo.com/wp-conte...
but creating boring tall boxes out of wood? Seriously there must be better uses for such a precious commodity
I think they changed the video... new link with the corrected time index.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You actually did see it. They had a feed from the deck of the drone ship which went from clear to what looked like a steam room in a split second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's what I guess you see when something hits the water at 300 mph.