Loosen the other bolts, then tighten them all evenly.
I'm reasonably sure that, during the hour of troubleshooting, they tried that. Seriously, if any of these "helpful suggestions" actually solved their problem, I'd weep for the state of NASA.
very simple changes could increase performance 'by a factor of ~30
And if you order now, we'll throw in this FREE graphene infused chamois!
Wash and wax your car with one wipe, and when you squeeze out the water: unicorn tears!
Ok, fair point, there was A Congress that put all that together. I assumed (I think reasonably) that you were referring to the US Congress, not the Continental Congress (or technically the Congress of the Confederation, as the 3rd and final Continental Congress was named) when you were talking about a law forbidding police from commandeering a home.
Well... not really,right? I mean the Constitution established Congress and was actually ratified by the colonies (after the addition of the BoR). Congress wasn't there to vote on it...
Actually, if Obama really wants to win this election, he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" (i think they call them) as a primary screening method until some demonstration of safety and usefulness was satisfied (which it wouldn't be). Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals would all sing his praises.
Actually, I always thought that was the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law./quote>
I think that's the point of the article is the supposition that the rich tend to be Alpha personalities that don't like relinquishing this kind of control, and will therefore not be interested in this technology, and therefore this technology will wither on the proverbial vine. I, however, disagree since many wealthy folks are quite happy to have drivers take them around now.
Actually, I'd imagine (like other posters have mentioned) that the cars will just start a given speed zone at the speed limit with the driver allowed to override that choice. Especially at first, the data on speed limits just isn't complete enough to give the car complete control over this aspect. Not only do the static speed limits all have to be available, every time there's a construction project, they have to be updated. I think that aspect will be the driver's responsibility for the foreseeable future of automated driving.
Because! Damnit. Though I would argue more for spelling proper nouns as the originator would spell them (assuming the phonetics work out -- and the alphabet, but transliteration is a whole different ballgame) since, ya know, it's their name an' all.
...she apparently published a paper in 2009 talking about how arsenic may have been used in the past and might be used now. Then in 2010 she happens to find an example?
Because there's very little predictability about when some douche is going to decide my lane is momentarily going ever so slightly faster than their current lane and attempt to dive in front of me. Because it's hard to call rush hour traffic "predictable" when you're only able to make decisions based on cars in your immediate vicinity. It makes sudden stops, less sudden if I keep tabs on what the car in front of the car in front of me is doing as well as what the whole lane of traffic looks like if I get a glimpse ahead.
The regional chart is meaningless! It doesn't even TRY to take cost of living into consideration. I was living better on the $75k in the "South Central" region than on the $90k I moved to the "Northeast" 5 years ago.
First off, i was tongue in cheek and only about 1/3 serious. I see the data, and their statistical analyses are pretty standard; deviations from well accepted techniques is non-existent. (Sorry, i worked too hard for that pun.) What I am actually skeptical about is the data on which they are basing this study. Basically, their data points are all concentrated in the NE coast of the US. A more even distribution of data points would provide a clearer picture of the actual difference in sea level deltas across the entire American (N./C./S.) or even just the US coastline and might produce a less alarming view of sea level change.
Slashdot Mirror
Loosen the other bolts, then tighten them all evenly.
I'm reasonably sure that, during the hour of troubleshooting, they tried that. Seriously, if any of these "helpful suggestions" actually solved their problem, I'd weep for the state of NASA.
Well played, Sir!
*facepalm* right...not logged in for that...
Until now!
But wait there's more!
very simple changes could increase performance 'by a factor of ~30
And if you order now, we'll throw in this FREE graphene infused chamois!
Wash and wax your car with one wipe, and when you squeeze out the water: unicorn tears!
*sigh* and I weep for the future of this once great country...thanks for the sobering info...
Ok, fair point, there was A Congress that put all that together. I assumed (I think reasonably) that you were referring to the US Congress, not the Continental Congress (or technically the Congress of the Confederation, as the 3rd and final Continental Congress was named) when you were talking about a law forbidding police from commandeering a home.
Well... not really,right? I mean the Constitution established Congress and was actually ratified by the colonies (after the addition of the BoR). Congress wasn't there to vote on it...
Actually, if Obama really wants to win this election, he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" (i think they call them) as a primary screening method until some demonstration of safety and usefulness was satisfied (which it wouldn't be). Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals would all sing his praises.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law./quote>
Dude, you've got to meet this guy, Mr. Crow. Hey Jim! Come over here.. oh you've met?
that flappy paddle bullshit
Amen, brother!
I think that's the point of the article is the supposition that the rich tend to be Alpha personalities that don't like relinquishing this kind of control, and will therefore not be interested in this technology, and therefore this technology will wither on the proverbial vine. I, however, disagree since many wealthy folks are quite happy to have drivers take them around now.
Actually, I'd imagine (like other posters have mentioned) that the cars will just start a given speed zone at the speed limit with the driver allowed to override that choice. Especially at first, the data on speed limits just isn't complete enough to give the car complete control over this aspect. Not only do the static speed limits all have to be available, every time there's a construction project, they have to be updated. I think that aspect will be the driver's responsibility for the foreseeable future of automated driving.
an indeterminate amount of time to have your car pull up to get you with the wife/gf also waiting
you're not supposed to take them out together!! you're doing it all wrong!!
that's commi-hippie-socialist-lefty-tree-hugging-baby-seal-clubbing talk! Wait. strike that last bit.
They're "The Worldwide Leader in ~News"
Because! Damnit. Though I would argue more for spelling proper nouns as the originator would spell them (assuming the phonetics work out -- and the alphabet, but transliteration is a whole different ballgame) since, ya know, it's their name an' all.
"Sir...We're hundreds miles from anything...what could possibly go wrong?"
...she apparently published a paper in 2009 talking about how arsenic may have been used in the past and might be used now. Then in 2010 she happens to find an example?
Because there's very little predictability about when some douche is going to decide my lane is momentarily going ever so slightly faster than their current lane and attempt to dive in front of me. Because it's hard to call rush hour traffic "predictable" when you're only able to make decisions based on cars in your immediate vicinity. It makes sudden stops, less sudden if I keep tabs on what the car in front of the car in front of me is doing as well as what the whole lane of traffic looks like if I get a glimpse ahead.
Methinks I see a fundamental flaw in their use case relating to rush-hour traffic...
The regional chart is meaningless! It doesn't even TRY to take cost of living into consideration. I was living better on the $75k in the "South Central" region than on the $90k I moved to the "Northeast" 5 years ago.
You got me. I'm a horrible parent by letting my 2, 6, and 8 year old laugh and enjoy movies at home.
You...sick..BASTARD! You make me want to PUKE!!
First off, i was tongue in cheek and only about 1/3 serious. I see the data, and their statistical analyses are pretty standard; deviations from well accepted techniques is non-existent. (Sorry, i worked too hard for that pun.) What I am actually skeptical about is the data on which they are basing this study. Basically, their data points are all concentrated in the NE coast of the US. A more even distribution of data points would provide a clearer picture of the actual difference in sea level deltas across the entire American (N./C./S.) or even just the US coastline and might produce a less alarming view of sea level change.
warmer water,=less dense water=false
FTFY. Skeptic flag still flying.