Self-defense is an inalienable human right â" which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
That's not what the 2nd amendment says.
To help you out: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Yeah, more laws should do the trick.
It did the trick in Australia, where gun violence has plummeted after the restrictions. And it even does the trick in California. Despite episodes like this, the amount of gun crimes per capita is lower than many other places in the US with more liberal laws.
The problem with USB is not solvable through faster hooking up to the USB port. USB is always "best effort", and while 99.9% of packets may get through the bus quicker, there's no guarantee. Every once in a while, a packet can get delayed, and that is fully within the specs. On a PS/2 port, you may have a slower average latency, but you have a guaranteed maximum latency due to it being interrupt driven. That's why many gamers even today prefer PS/2 over USB.
It's much like some online players prefer leased lines with slower speeds but a CIR (latency/throughput guarantees) over much faster offerings that are only faster on average. It's the worst case that will get you headshot.
I can use SteamLink for all my games without noticing that it's not running locally.
It depends on the game. For a twitch FPS where many players use PS/2 mice because USB is too damn slow, a networked client is just not going to work well, even for very short copper cabled distances. For assisted aim console ports, it won't make much if any difference.
Given how easy it is to write a non-empty regular expression that matches everything it would seem far more sensible to me to treat an empty regex field as "regex off / match nothing" rather than "match everything".
Yeah, but then you don't follow the rules for how regexps work. You have introduced a custom exception, which is almost always a bad thing in programming. You introduce complexity, have to maintain the exceptions through library changes, refactoring and rewrites, regression test them whenever anything that's interfacing change specs, and also (remember to) bring them over to new code when you want to avoid surprises. Pre-populating any new field in an OR list with (?!), the common fail pattern, might be better. Also because it might make those who don't speak regular expressions stop and think.
It is often useful to be able to enter regular expressions for filters. And an empty regexp without anchoring matches everything. That's a feature, not a bug. But it is only okay to design it that way if you can safely presume that anyone who will ever add a filter understands regular expressions, or will look it up before attempting to add a filter.
Slightly safer (but only slightly) is to always add ^$ anchors, so empty fields only match empty entries. But safest is to presume that users don't grok regular expressions[*], and can only handle a case insensitive subset of DOS wildcards, without the special meaning of ? at the end.
[*]: The most common error I see is with IP address filters, where someone will enter a bare IP address in a regexp field, and then wonder why the 1.2.3.4 filter blocks 71.223.4.50
So set up Cloudflare's DNS as your forwarders. I just did that.
Hell, no. Then you tell Cloudflare - and by extension any American three letter agency - which fully qualified domain names you look up. I may be OK with a root name server seeing my user query what the authoritative DNS is for.de, but not that he or she then goes on to look up www.dkp.de. So no thanks, no forwarders, at least not ones located in police states.
Still, at least it starts and is over quickly enough.
Some places, it's customary to prank on both the first and last of April. It's not too common these days, but you may still see odd prank news on April 30th, propagated by news aggregators where the editors aren't culturally aware enough to know this.
But also it may be that Siri development is under staffed. A lot of good ideas and designs but just not enough man hours to implement.
I doubt that adding man hours to implement ideas and designs will make Siri any better. It will make it bigger and some functionality will change, but it will not necessarily become noticeably better.
I think systems like Siri need to be able to learn on their own, without any well-meant tweaking or shortcuts that hinder context learning. Hire thousands of people to grade the answers it gives without well-meaning engineers attempting to add right answers or well-meaning management censoring some answers.
One day, it may be smart enough to understand that when you ask "Where does Jane work?" followed by "What's her phone number?", you likely want her work phone number if it's daytime, but if followed by "What's her address?", you're less likely to want her work address. But simply tossing more manpower at programming won't get us there - it will likely get a more bloated expert system with more hardcoded shortcuts that prevents actual learning.
LOL! And what would put him in that situation? One of the nice things about running a business is if anything goes wrong, the business takes the hit, not you.
That aside, it's not strictly a symposium, if there's no discussions and just speeches. Purists might require that there be drinking too, but at least there should be discussions among everyone.
But I hope everyone who does speak have something useful to say. That would be honouring him more than platitudes will.
In this case, there is nothing so far to suggest the driver deliberately failed to act
Um, the car hitting the obstacle seems like pretty good evidence that he failed to act, unless there is evidence that steering and brakes were inoperative. I would not introduce far-fetched speculations like that into this, so I think we can take it as a probable fact that that deliberate or not, he failed to act. If we take your conjecture that he was intelligent at face value, we can therefore assume with reasonable confidence that he failed to act for other reasons than his intelligence. What the car did or did not do has no bearing on that.
https://tinyurl.com/87d will take you right to/. and https://preview.tinyurl.com/87... which will allow one to preview or see what link you will be taken to.
What we need here isn't philosophical cliches or conjecture, it's facts
Then why your conjecture two posts up?
When looking for facts, look for the simplest facts first, and only look for more complicated ones if those fail. Don't devise complicated hypotheses based on biased views, and then declare them as the "only" options. Which seems to me like is what you did.
Philosophical cliches are useful when they stop us from knee-jerk reactions (another philosophical cliche) and jumping to conclusions (ditto).
I'm not him, but I'm very glad I'm in my shoes and not Musk's. The chances seem slimmer that mine will be matched to orange clothing a few years from now.
as the car is driving down route 101, do you honestly expect the computer onboard to STOP the car, right there? in many cases, there is not even a pullover (lay-by) lane.
One workaround might be to turn on the hazard lights for the benefit of other drivers and in a loud voice state "DISENGAGING DRIVING ASSIST, TAKE CONTROL NOW". Then disengage power.
It makes perfect sense to me, along the lines of adaptive cruise control. It makes for a more relaxing drive in that I don't have to actively maintain speed and distance myself, but it does not relieve me from the need to pay attention in order to be able to intervene should the need arise.
I find that adaptive cruise control makes the drive less relaxing, in that I have to monitor what it does constantly, whereas if I drive manually, most adjustments are reflexes requiring little conscious effort. Nor using adaptive cruise control frees up part of my attention to deal with other potential dangers, like the road ahead and the behaviour of other drivers.
Then given that this appears to have been an intelligent driver who was also aware of potential problems with the automatic control, we have to ask why that didn't happen. If we assume the driver didn't deliberately allow an accident to happen with tragic results, then evidently either something wasn't clear enough about the situation and what needed to be done, or something interfered with the driver's ability to act accordingly.
No, that is not evident. Old Bill of Ockham tells me to look for a less complicated explanation, like that the driver had rolled 16 INT but 3 WIS.
Slashdot Mirror
The amount of gun violence per gun owner is the same.
Which is another way of saying that if you reduce gun ownership, you also reduce gun violence. *Nod*
Self-defense is an inalienable human right â" which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
That's not what the 2nd amendment says.
To help you out: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Yeah, more laws should do the trick.
It did the trick in Australia, where gun violence has plummeted after the restrictions.
And it even does the trick in California. Despite episodes like this, the amount of gun crimes per capita is lower than many other places in the US with more liberal laws.
Apparently a woman shooter.
I wonder who pissed her off?
From what I have read elsewhere, she shot her boyfriend, and then herself. Other injuries may be due to panic and lack of information dissemination.
The problem with USB is not solvable through faster hooking up to the USB port. USB is always "best effort", and while 99.9% of packets may get through the bus quicker, there's no guarantee. Every once in a while, a packet can get delayed, and that is fully within the specs.
On a PS/2 port, you may have a slower average latency, but you have a guaranteed maximum latency due to it being interrupt driven. That's why many gamers even today prefer PS/2 over USB.
It's much like some online players prefer leased lines with slower speeds but a CIR (latency/throughput guarantees) over much faster offerings that are only faster on average. It's the worst case that will get you headshot.
I can use SteamLink for all my games without noticing that it's not running locally.
It depends on the game. For a twitch FPS where many players use PS/2 mice because USB is too damn slow, a networked client is just not going to work well, even for very short copper cabled distances.
For assisted aim console ports, it won't make much if any difference.
Who says it's a regexp?
It could just be one of those weakly typed kiddy languages and somebody typed == instead of ===.
It certainly could be. But lots of carrier code is written in C and Erlang.
Given how easy it is to write a non-empty regular expression that matches everything it would seem far more sensible to me to treat an empty regex field as "regex off / match nothing" rather than "match everything".
Yeah, but then you don't follow the rules for how regexps work. You have introduced a custom exception, which is almost always a bad thing in programming. You introduce complexity, have to maintain the exceptions through library changes, refactoring and rewrites, regression test them whenever anything that's interfacing change specs, and also (remember to) bring them over to new code when you want to avoid surprises.
Pre-populating any new field in an OR list with (?!), the common fail pattern, might be better. Also because it might make those who don't speak regular expressions stop and think.
It is often useful to be able to enter regular expressions for filters. And an empty regexp without anchoring matches everything. That's a feature, not a bug. But it is only okay to design it that way if you can safely presume that anyone who will ever add a filter understands regular expressions, or will look it up before attempting to add a filter.
Slightly safer (but only slightly) is to always add ^$ anchors, so empty fields only match empty entries.
But safest is to presume that users don't grok regular expressions[*], and can only handle a case insensitive subset of DOS wildcards, without the special meaning of ? at the end.
[*]: The most common error I see is with IP address filters, where someone will enter a bare IP address in a regexp field, and then wonder why the 1.2.3.4 filter blocks 71.223.4.50
So set up Cloudflare's DNS as your forwarders. I just did that.
Hell, no. Then you tell Cloudflare - and by extension any American three letter agency - which fully qualified domain names you look up. I may be OK with a root name server seeing my user query what the authoritative DNS is for .de, but not that he or she then goes on to look up www.dkp.de.
So no thanks, no forwarders, at least not ones located in police states.
Still, at least it starts and is over quickly enough.
Some places, it's customary to prank on both the first and last of April. It's not too common these days, but you may still see odd prank news on April 30th, propagated by news aggregators where the editors aren't culturally aware enough to know this.
But also it may be that Siri development is under staffed. A lot of good ideas and designs but just not enough man hours to implement.
I doubt that adding man hours to implement ideas and designs will make Siri any better. It will make it bigger and some functionality will change, but it will not necessarily become noticeably better.
I think systems like Siri need to be able to learn on their own, without any well-meant tweaking or shortcuts that hinder context learning. Hire thousands of people to grade the answers it gives without well-meaning engineers attempting to add right answers or well-meaning management censoring some answers.
One day, it may be smart enough to understand that when you ask "Where does Jane work?" followed by "What's her phone number?", you likely want her work phone number if it's daytime, but if followed by "What's her address?", you're less likely to want her work address. But simply tossing more manpower at programming won't get us there - it will likely get a more bloated expert system with more hardcoded shortcuts that prevents actual learning.
LOL! And what would put him in that situation? One of the nice things about running a business is if anything goes wrong, the business takes the hit, not you.
Tell that to Bernie Madoff and Martin Shkreli.
Too bad he won't attend.
That aside, it's not strictly a symposium, if there's no discussions and just speeches. Purists might require that there be drinking too, but at least there should be discussions among everyone.
But I hope everyone who does speak have something useful to say. That would be honouring him more than platitudes will.
In this case, there is nothing so far to suggest the driver deliberately failed to act
Um, the car hitting the obstacle seems like pretty good evidence that he failed to act, unless there is evidence that steering and brakes were inoperative. I would not introduce far-fetched speculations like that into this, so I think we can take it as a probable fact that that deliberate or not, he failed to act.
If we take your conjecture that he was intelligent at face value, we can therefore assume with reasonable confidence that he failed to act for other reasons than his intelligence.
What the car did or did not do has no bearing on that.
https://tinyurl.com/87d will take you right to /. and https://preview.tinyurl.com/87... which will allow one to preview or see what link you will be taken to.
https://tinyurl.com/87d is 24 characters.
https://preview.tinyurl.com/87... is 32 characters.
https://slashdot.org/ is 21.
Gee, what a saving.
What we need here isn't philosophical cliches or conjecture, it's facts
Then why your conjecture two posts up?
When looking for facts, look for the simplest facts first, and only look for more complicated ones if those fail. Don't devise complicated hypotheses based on biased views, and then declare them as the "only" options. Which seems to me like is what you did.
Philosophical cliches are useful when they stop us from knee-jerk reactions (another philosophical cliche) and jumping to conclusions (ditto).
Why were the insects causing you to drive?
This is Slashdot.
He, for one, welcomed our insect overlords.
My Toyota can't do any of that shit. It will happily drive me into a wall 100% of the time without my assistance.
No, it won't. It needs your assistance to get it up to speed and point it at the wall.
Most of the walls I see are free of embedded Toyotas.
I'm not sure it's jealousy on his part.
I'm not him, but I'm very glad I'm in my shoes and not Musk's. The chances seem slimmer that mine will be matched to orange clothing a few years from now.
as the car is driving down route 101, do you honestly expect the computer onboard to STOP the car, right there? in many cases, there is not even a pullover (lay-by) lane.
One workaround might be to turn on the hazard lights for the benefit of other drivers and in a loud voice state "DISENGAGING DRIVING ASSIST, TAKE CONTROL NOW". Then disengage power.
It makes perfect sense to me, along the lines of adaptive cruise control. It makes for a more relaxing drive in that I don't have to actively maintain speed and distance myself, but it does not relieve me from the need to pay attention in order to be able to intervene should the need arise.
I find that adaptive cruise control makes the drive less relaxing, in that I have to monitor what it does constantly, whereas if I drive manually, most adjustments are reflexes requiring little conscious effort. Nor using adaptive cruise control frees up part of my attention to deal with other potential dangers, like the road ahead and the behaviour of other drivers.
The core question is: why did the car not brake and stop in fromt of the obstacle?
The core answer is: Because the driver did not apply the brakes.
Unless the Tesla Model X held a driver's license, it was not the driver.
... or maybe you're not holding the wheel tight enough.
Well, he did work at Apple. Not holding it right is a distinct possibility...
Then given that this appears to have been an intelligent driver who was also aware of potential problems with the automatic control, we have to ask why that didn't happen. If we assume the driver didn't deliberately allow an accident to happen with tragic results, then evidently either something wasn't clear enough about the situation and what needed to be done, or something interfered with the driver's ability to act accordingly.
No, that is not evident. Old Bill of Ockham tells me to look for a less complicated explanation, like that the driver had rolled 16 INT but 3 WIS.