What I don't get is the point where you perform the transition from star/what we know/what every theory is about to the black hole fantasy world
Because if it was a star, we would be able to see the light from it.
We know there's a very large mass at a particular point in space, due to the orbits of the stuff in the galaxy. We point telescopes at that point in space, and do not see a massive star. In fact, we see no light at all that originates from that point in space.
Which means we can throw away your theory about it being a massive star, even when we ignore the giant pile of physics explaining why there can't be a star.
Yes, a human pilot could detect that the landing area wasn't safe, burn almost all of their fuel traversing to a new location, and land the lunar module. Because a human was there to deal with the unanticipated problem.
it is OK to publish classified information as long as it "landed in your lap"?
Yep. At least if you define "OK" as "Legal". Your personal morality may disagree, but your personal morality is also not the law.
As long as you're a civilian who never had a security clearance, and you did not assist the leaker, you can publish away.
Heck, if you're a civilian with a clearance and don't receive anything of value for the leak, and you leak it "to the public" instead of handing it over to a foreign country, you also haven't broken the law. See: Ellsberg.
I've seen plenty of "Detour" signs that involved driving the wrong way down a street.
Also, pedantic adherence to one definition of a word does not make a problem go away.
Mainly, the software just has to know how to go to the correct side of the center stripe on the other side as soon as it is possible to do so
Except the software also has to know when not do to do this. That's as hard as teaching it when to do this.
Your example is also only the simplest way a construction zone could be laid out. It might not be a full lane shift. It might involve crossing a lot of lines that are now perpendicular to your direction of travel. It might involve ignoring traffic control devices, or maybe not. Also those traffic control devices are now in the "wrong" place.
Your description is a very, very small bit of the problems to solve with this.
Detours? On major roads in most states, this has been a solved problem for many years. The relevant road agency posts a closure notice on their website, some bot scrapes that website and converts the road closure data into a form suitable for algorithmic routing, and the routing algorithm in the navigation system or app guides you around it.
Wrong scale of "Detour". The ones you describe are easy.
The hard ones are the ones where a guy with a stop/slow sign directs you to drive on the wrong side of the road. Or sometimes he's just using his hands instead of a sign.
Those are very easy for a human to navigate. We're easily able to suspend the rules and drive the wrong way because we understand what's going on. That's not true of an autonomous vehicle.
If I see you in a car, I'll pipe bomb your ass to hell, because you're not in an ambulance
If it's a random vehicle, soldiers are allowed to assume it's bringing reinforcements. If it's an obvious medical transport, they're supposed to be a bit more cautious.
"As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site."
You must be kidding.
He's not kidding. And it's true.
If you never got a security clearance, then you never signed away your first amendment rights. Which means you can publish any classified information that lands in your lap.
The key is the information must "land in your lap". If you become an active participant in the leak (direct what to leak, offer a reward, provide technical help, etc), then you've crossed the line into being a co-conspirator.
What came out this morning was the US has charged Assange with helping Manning to crack a password. Which crosses the line from journalist to co-conspirator in unauthorized access to a computer system.
IIRC, that vehicle was a regular passenger van, not an ambulance or anything else marked as "we're just picking up wounded". Which gives a legal fig leaf.
But overall, I agree that it was just click bait. Innocent people get killed in wars. That's one of the big reasons to avoid fighting them.
People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets
Please point to the documents leaked by Manning or Snowden via Wikileaks that were covering up illegal activities.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. And US law makes a very large distinction between US persons and non-US persons.
And cable/streaming has pretty much no power in that agreement, as evidenced by their failures when they stop carrying a particular content creator for a while.
So, why place your hopes on them instead of, say, anti-trust law?
So why on earth are companies trying to go back to a world where they bundle a bunch of crappy channels together with a handful that are good?
Because one company owns that collection of one good channel and 7 crappy channels. And they want to sell ads on those crappy channels.
If that company allowed a-la-carte pricing, then you wouldn't buy the crappy channels, and their ad revenue would go down because fewer households have access to the channel.
Despite moving to a streaming model, that company still needs to sell ads on those crappy channels, so they're still using bundling.
Because the people selling those channels make more money if they can keep the ad rates up.
Let's take HGTV. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. Along with several other channels you won't watch. Let's pick TLC as a placeholder for that.
You'll never watch TLC. So you'll never buy TLC if it was a-la-carte. But if Discovery forces you to buy a bundle that includes TLC to get HGTV, they can count you as a possible viewer for TLC, and thus sell ads on TLC for more money.
(The viewship of virtually all cable channels is below the margin of error for the Nielsen ratings system. So, ratings alone can't set ad rates.)
Why would Discovery, Inc, want to sell you only Animal Planet? They make more money this way, because they are able to shore up the ad rates for the really shitty channels almost no one wants.
Your options are 1) Animal Planet + 7 other channels for more money, or 2) no Animal Planet. Not because Google or your cable company wants this, it's because Discovery, Inc. wants this.
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message.
Wrong target. It's no the cable/streaming companies that want bundles. It's the channels.
Want ESPN on your cable network? Well, you're gonna have to also carry a lot of crappy channels that nobody really wants, because those channels are made by the same company that owns ESPN. And you're not allowed to separate off those channels, 'cause that would completely undermine what ESPN's owners are trying to do.
A-la-carte is not happening as long as all of the channels are produced by massive corporations with lots of shitty channels to sell to advertisers.
Or perhaps you don't quite understand that press releases do not include the highest-resolution images? Or that RF images are not as "crisp" as visual light images?
Grover Norquist literally said this was part of their plan.
Also, you're lying about audits of tea party members. But hey, reality does have that well known liberal bias.
There was a claim that the IRS was denying tax-exempt status for conservative groups on political grounds. They weren't. In fact, the IRS denied liberal groups more frequently than conservative groups (64 to 45 over the time period in question). But it was time for a new attack on the Obama administration, so you guys ran with it. And, as we can see from your post, the attack gradually gets more and more detached from reality as needed to keep you angry.
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't get is the point where you perform the transition from star/what we know/what every theory is about to the black hole fantasy world
Because if it was a star, we would be able to see the light from it.
We know there's a very large mass at a particular point in space, due to the orbits of the stuff in the galaxy. We point telescopes at that point in space, and do not see a massive star. In fact, we see no light at all that originates from that point in space.
Which means we can throw away your theory about it being a massive star, even when we ignore the giant pile of physics explaining why there can't be a star.
Nah, they knew it. Life support and squishy humans require much larger spacecraft.
my prius goes into electric silent mode every time I go downhill no matter how fast I'm going.
And most diesel trucks activate their Jake Brake, which makes them extremely loud but they're not burning fuel.
hybrid diesel-electric locomotives
Diesel-electric locomotives are not hybrids. They are electric locomotives with on-board diesel generators. The diesel engines never drive the wheels.
And only recently have some railroads started experimenting with adding battery packs to recover energy while braking.
Yes, a human pilot could detect that the landing area wasn't safe, burn almost all of their fuel traversing to a new location, and land the lunar module. Because a human was there to deal with the unanticipated problem.
it is OK to publish classified information as long as it "landed in your lap"?
Yep. At least if you define "OK" as "Legal". Your personal morality may disagree, but your personal morality is also not the law.
As long as you're a civilian who never had a security clearance, and you did not assist the leaker, you can publish away.
Heck, if you're a civilian with a clearance and don't receive anything of value for the leak, and you leak it "to the public" instead of handing it over to a foreign country, you also haven't broken the law. See: Ellsberg.
That's really not a detour, though.
I've seen plenty of "Detour" signs that involved driving the wrong way down a street.
Also, pedantic adherence to one definition of a word does not make a problem go away.
Mainly, the software just has to know how to go to the correct side of the center stripe on the other side as soon as it is possible to do so
Except the software also has to know when not do to do this. That's as hard as teaching it when to do this.
Your example is also only the simplest way a construction zone could be laid out. It might not be a full lane shift. It might involve crossing a lot of lines that are now perpendicular to your direction of travel. It might involve ignoring traffic control devices, or maybe not. Also those traffic control devices are now in the "wrong" place.
Your description is a very, very small bit of the problems to solve with this.
Detours? On major roads in most states, this has been a solved problem for many years. The relevant road agency posts a closure notice on their website, some bot scrapes that website and converts the road closure data into a form suitable for algorithmic routing, and the routing algorithm in the navigation system or app guides you around it.
Wrong scale of "Detour". The ones you describe are easy.
The hard ones are the ones where a guy with a stop/slow sign directs you to drive on the wrong side of the road. Or sometimes he's just using his hands instead of a sign.
Those are very easy for a human to navigate. We're easily able to suspend the rules and drive the wrong way because we understand what's going on. That's not true of an autonomous vehicle.
It wasn't a war zone. It was a city.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
If I see you in a car, I'll pipe bomb your ass to hell, because you're not in an ambulance
If it's a random vehicle, soldiers are allowed to assume it's bringing reinforcements. If it's an obvious medical transport, they're supposed to be a bit more cautious.
Nothing in that video violates any convention on warfare.
The fact that nothing in that video is illegal is one of the big reasons going to war is bad.
he'd get sentenced under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Unless there's more information that has not been released, this is very unlikely. So far, he's being charged with helping Manning to hack a password.
It's not clear what they want him for
Not sure what was available when you wrote that, but the US DoJ has released that Assange has been indicted for helping Manning to crack a password.
"As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site."
You must be kidding.
He's not kidding. And it's true.
If you never got a security clearance, then you never signed away your first amendment rights. Which means you can publish any classified information that lands in your lap.
The key is the information must "land in your lap". If you become an active participant in the leak (direct what to leak, offer a reward, provide technical help, etc), then you've crossed the line into being a co-conspirator.
What came out this morning was the US has charged Assange with helping Manning to crack a password. Which crosses the line from journalist to co-conspirator in unauthorized access to a computer system.
IIRC, that vehicle was a regular passenger van, not an ambulance or anything else marked as "we're just picking up wounded". Which gives a legal fig leaf.
But overall, I agree that it was just click bait. Innocent people get killed in wars. That's one of the big reasons to avoid fighting them.
People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets
Please point to the documents leaked by Manning or Snowden via Wikileaks that were covering up illegal activities.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. And US law makes a very large distinction between US persons and non-US persons.
And cable/streaming has pretty much no power in that agreement, as evidenced by their failures when they stop carrying a particular content creator for a while.
So, why place your hopes on them instead of, say, anti-trust law?
Why? Cable/streaming companies don't have much power in this deal. Especially the streaming companies.
So why on earth are companies trying to go back to a world where they bundle a bunch of crappy channels together with a handful that are good?
Because one company owns that collection of one good channel and 7 crappy channels. And they want to sell ads on those crappy channels.
If that company allowed a-la-carte pricing, then you wouldn't buy the crappy channels, and their ad revenue would go down because fewer households have access to the channel.
Despite moving to a streaming model, that company still needs to sell ads on those crappy channels, so they're still using bundling.
Because the people selling those channels make more money if they can keep the ad rates up.
Let's take HGTV. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. Along with several other channels you won't watch. Let's pick TLC as a placeholder for that.
You'll never watch TLC. So you'll never buy TLC if it was a-la-carte. But if Discovery forces you to buy a bundle that includes TLC to get HGTV, they can count you as a possible viewer for TLC, and thus sell ads on TLC for more money.
(The viewship of virtually all cable channels is below the margin of error for the Nielsen ratings system. So, ratings alone can't set ad rates.)
Why would Discovery, Inc, want to sell you only Animal Planet? They make more money this way, because they are able to shore up the ad rates for the really shitty channels almost no one wants.
Your options are 1) Animal Planet + 7 other channels for more money, or 2) no Animal Planet. Not because Google or your cable company wants this, it's because Discovery, Inc. wants this.
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message.
Wrong target. It's no the cable/streaming companies that want bundles. It's the channels.
Want ESPN on your cable network? Well, you're gonna have to also carry a lot of crappy channels that nobody really wants, because those channels are made by the same company that owns ESPN. And you're not allowed to separate off those channels, 'cause that would completely undermine what ESPN's owners are trying to do.
A-la-carte is not happening as long as all of the channels are produced by massive corporations with lots of shitty channels to sell to advertisers.
Or perhaps you don't quite understand that press releases do not include the highest-resolution images? Or that RF images are not as "crisp" as visual light images?
Grover Norquist literally said this was part of their plan.
Also, you're lying about audits of tea party members. But hey, reality does have that well known liberal bias.
There was a claim that the IRS was denying tax-exempt status for conservative groups on political grounds. They weren't. In fact, the IRS denied liberal groups more frequently than conservative groups (64 to 45 over the time period in question). But it was time for a new attack on the Obama administration, so you guys ran with it. And, as we can see from your post, the attack gradually gets more and more detached from reality as needed to keep you angry.
It's a post to someone who thinks black holes can't exist at all. "Sphere" is close enough.
If my phone had the resolution of these radio telescopes it would. However, my phone's resolution is much lower.