I agree, those gas taxes are way too low. There's a $600 billion or subsidy from general tax revenues that funds roads. Like you, I think that should be a user fee. The obvious solution is to raise gas taxes to cover that user fee, somewhere around $7-$8/ gallon seems to be the number that generally agreed upon.
$20 billion per year in DIRECT subsidies for fossil fuels, not including cleanup, military spending, health care costs and similar. https://www.vox.com/energy-and...
As long as you remove the $20B fossil fuel subsidy, you can level the playing field and remove the ~$7B from renewables. There's no question where the investments will be going forward.
Well yeah, that depends on your viewpoint. From the perspective of Google, Apple, CNN, Fox, etc. etc. it's a wonderful thing. You immediately eliminate all competitors and have the place to yourself. (See TV in the early days). Google then becomes a total shopping site instead of a search engine, but it's almost made that transition anyway. I think that the point they've overlooked is that much of the content they present is actually user-generated and, as you point out, that would go away, but they'd figure that out (except for Reddit).
They don't want to kill it, they want to make sure that it's only available to large content providers. They'll be the only ones who can defend against this - legally and technically.
Someone needs to mod the parent as funny. I assume it has to be a joke unless there are really people out there who think that, say weather.com, the weather channel, etc. are actually forecasting. They almost all use the NWS forecast, they may add a little to it, but the heavy lifting is done by that government agency.
Problem is it's actually quite close to the truth. You don't necessarily need "fake" news, you just take spin and extreme news and saturate social media with it until dissent is overwhelmed. How? Hire a large number of low-wage people to work (possibly from home) to spread the articles that you want spread.
2-3 are useless. If the car is mostly autonomous the driver will not be paying enough attention to take charge if there's a problem. We've already seen this with lane guidance and collision avoidance - including a recent Tesla crash.
We can argue timeframe but it is, to me, inevitable that autonomous cars will become better drivers than humans. I think sooner rather than later, but, assuming civilization survives intact, 100 years from now the technology requirements will be trivial, so somewhere in there human drivers will be obsoleted.
My fear is that even though autonomous cars could save 10's of thousands of lives annually the technology will not be deployed because the cars are also involved in (or even cause) 100s of deaths per year.
You might suspect that, but is there any real evidence to show that we've reached anywhere near that stage of maturity yet? The only statistics I've seen so far suggest that autonomous vehicles even under relatively favourable and semi-controlled conditions still don't outperform good human drivers statistically, even with all their advantages in terms of never losing "concentration", having full 360 degree "vision" the whole time, having near-instant physical response to sensor inputs, and so on.
I don't think that anyone, certainly not me and not the manufactures are claiming that the technology is ready yet. Proving negligence in a wreck with the current technology and claiming damages would be easy. The technology is maturing rapidly, my guess is five years before we start to see serious test cars without human controls. We have to solve the ethical quandary before then.
It's a great tragedy and I'm sorry for your loss. If autonomous cars could decrease drunk-driving deaths by 10k but 100 people are killed by hacked cars/bad software/whatever, should we allow those autonomous cars on the road?
The US road transportation system kills ~40k people per year and maims many more. To put that in perspective that's the equivalent of about 300 airplane crashes per year and yet it doesn't really make the news.
Every car that is currently sold is threat to those same groups - humans as drivers are absolutely the worst. Some worse than others,but none are perfect.
I suspect that any technology that will be deployed would be, statistically, safer than human drivers. So deploying the technology when it has matured a little more has the immediate prospect of reducing overall death rate, however that doesn't help the individual.
It's a difficult problem because statistics don't matter if it's your loved one has been killed and yet we accept this of human drivers. Expecting to go from 40k to zero deaths just by deploying autonomous technology is unrealistic. Where's the cut off, 10k deaths (saving 30k lives per year), 1000 deaths, 100???
Might want to check the permissions on the Target Android App if you're worried about breaches. Requires just about every permission on the phone (I don't remember the entire list, it was long and I think it included contacts and camera - someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
It's clear that lower prices bring more shoppers, but then so does hyping a brand all over the media. Assuming that the 25% increase is correct (I didn't RTFA) attributing that exclusively to lower prices is probably unsupported by the evidence.
This cannot possibly be the fault of the studios/movie makers. The obvious problem is illegal downloading and something about Amazon, YouTube, Netflix,or somebody not paying their fair share for legal downloads.
There are slightly different procedures for different Toyotas and for the key to start the car vs the fob to open the car. But, from personal experience, you can buy a (chipped) starter key and fob online. Get the key cut at the local hardware store and program both to work. You have to program all the keys/fobs not just the new one. Even opens the power sliders and hatch. The Prius was an expensive "smart" key (keep it in your pocket) and also programmed with a similar (but not identical) procedure to the above. I'm told that USED Prius keys can NOT be programmed with this approach - I don't know if this is true or if it is true for other cars.
Too late once you've locked the key in the car, but I've seen this (or something very similar) work for a minivan and a prius. You do look stupid while programming, but it's saves you $100 or so.
http://www.programyourkeys.com...
TOYOTA
1. The vehicle should be in the following condition-
A. The key is NOT in-
serted in the ignition,
B. The driver's door IS open,
C. The driverâ(TM)s door is
UNLOCKED.
2. Insert the Key into the ignition switch and then pull it out.
3. Press the Master Door Lock Switch 5 times from Lock to Unlock.
4. Close the Driver's door then open it.
5. Repeat step #3.
6. Now select the mode by inserting the key into the Ignition Switch and turning it to the "Run" or "On" position. The programming mode is determined by the amount of times you go from âoekey offâ to the "key on" position and back before pulling the key out.
A. 1 time is the "Add" mode. This is used only on some models and it allows you to add a remote to the already existing remotes. The ECU confirms this by locking and unlocking the door locks automatically after you remove the key.
B. 2 times is the second mode which will erase all previously programmed remotes and allow you to program new ones. The ECU confirms this mode by locking and unlocking the door locks twice after you remove the key
C. 3 times is the third mode which tells you how many remotes are already programmed to the ECU. It confirms this locking and unlocking the door locks the amount of times applicable to the remotes coded. If no remotes are programmed then the ECU locks and unlocks the door locks 5 times. The ECU will hold up to 4 remotes at any one time.
7. Press the Lock and Unlock buttons on the remote simultaneously for 1.5 sec and then press either button by itself for 1 sec.
8. The ECU will perform the Lock/Unlock automatically to confirm that the 1st remote is stored by the ECU. Repeat step 7 immediately with another remote and continue until all remotes are registered.
9. Shut the driverâ(TM)s door and try all remotes.
Ultracapacitors are the holy grail of electrical storage. Cheap materials, many cycles, very rapid charging, etc. etc. The energy density, last time I checked a couple of years ago was on a par with Lead Acid - so fairly heavy and large to get the energy you need. I assume that has, and will continue to improve. If they've reached the density of Lithium-Ion then that's some significant progress. It's a technology to watch, it already has application - typically regen braking in an electric or electric assist vehicle, you can dump a LOT of energy into the ultracaps very quickly and so recapture more of the braking energy, but it's not going to be in your phone any time soon.
This study is completely fake and the numbers are just a complete fabrication. (OK, really, did you verify it before posting that this is this NOT fake news because it's on./??)
Always remember that the reason newspapers post story corrections is to convince you that the rest of the information they printed was true. (Not quite sure how that translates to the Internet, but you get the gist).
Slamming Musk has become more popular as some of his high-stakes gambles look as though they might pay off. He made a bunch of money from the PayPal sale, but a significant chunk of that went into TESLA. Had the TESLA stock-sale tanked Musk would have been, if not broke in the minimum wage sense, broke in the "he would need to take a job" sense.
TESLA wasn't about money, it was about Elon Musk and determination to do the right thing. That is made money is a vindication of the theory that you should follow your passion and hope that the money follows. Business is a dirty game and some mud has to stick, but you're not going to succeed and not have critics.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially since supporting obsolete systems is often a major motivation to install VMs.
I agree, those gas taxes are way too low. There's a $600 billion or subsidy from general tax revenues that funds roads. Like you, I think that should be a user fee. The obvious solution is to raise gas taxes to cover that user fee, somewhere around $7-$8/ gallon seems to be the number that generally agreed upon.
$20 billion per year in DIRECT subsidies for fossil fuels, not including cleanup, military spending, health care costs and similar. https://www.vox.com/energy-and... As long as you remove the $20B fossil fuel subsidy, you can level the playing field and remove the ~$7B from renewables. There's no question where the investments will be going forward.
I feel sure that there's an emacs manual somewhere that you could read for a few years.
Well yeah, that depends on your viewpoint. From the perspective of Google, Apple, CNN, Fox, etc. etc. it's a wonderful thing. You immediately eliminate all competitors and have the place to yourself. (See TV in the early days). Google then becomes a total shopping site instead of a search engine, but it's almost made that transition anyway. I think that the point they've overlooked is that much of the content they present is actually user-generated and, as you point out, that would go away, but they'd figure that out (except for Reddit).
They don't want to kill it, they want to make sure that it's only available to large content providers. They'll be the only ones who can defend against this - legally and technically.
Getting a little more creative.... https://www.reddit.com/r/funny...
Someone needs to mod the parent as funny. I assume it has to be a joke unless there are really people out there who think that, say weather.com, the weather channel, etc. are actually forecasting. They almost all use the NWS forecast, they may add a little to it, but the heavy lifting is done by that government agency.
Problem is it's actually quite close to the truth. You don't necessarily need "fake" news, you just take spin and extreme news and saturate social media with it until dissent is overwhelmed. How? Hire a large number of low-wage people to work (possibly from home) to spread the articles that you want spread.
2-3 are useless. If the car is mostly autonomous the driver will not be paying enough attention to take charge if there's a problem. We've already seen this with lane guidance and collision avoidance - including a recent Tesla crash.
We can argue timeframe but it is, to me, inevitable that autonomous cars will become better drivers than humans. I think sooner rather than later, but, assuming civilization survives intact, 100 years from now the technology requirements will be trivial, so somewhere in there human drivers will be obsoleted.
My fear is that even though autonomous cars could save 10's of thousands of lives annually the technology will not be deployed because the cars are also involved in (or even cause) 100s of deaths per year.
You might suspect that, but is there any real evidence to show that we've reached anywhere near that stage of maturity yet? The only statistics I've seen so far suggest that autonomous vehicles even under relatively favourable and semi-controlled conditions still don't outperform good human drivers statistically, even with all their advantages in terms of never losing "concentration", having full 360 degree "vision" the whole time, having near-instant physical response to sensor inputs, and so on.
I don't think that anyone, certainly not me and not the manufactures are claiming that the technology is ready yet. Proving negligence in a wreck with the current technology and claiming damages would be easy. The technology is maturing rapidly, my guess is five years before we start to see serious test cars without human controls. We have to solve the ethical quandary before then.
It's a great tragedy and I'm sorry for your loss. If autonomous cars could decrease drunk-driving deaths by 10k but 100 people are killed by hacked cars/bad software/whatever, should we allow those autonomous cars on the road?
The US road transportation system kills ~40k people per year and maims many more. To put that in perspective that's the equivalent of about 300 airplane crashes per year and yet it doesn't really make the news. Every car that is currently sold is threat to those same groups - humans as drivers are absolutely the worst. Some worse than others,but none are perfect. I suspect that any technology that will be deployed would be, statistically, safer than human drivers. So deploying the technology when it has matured a little more has the immediate prospect of reducing overall death rate, however that doesn't help the individual. It's a difficult problem because statistics don't matter if it's your loved one has been killed and yet we accept this of human drivers. Expecting to go from 40k to zero deaths just by deploying autonomous technology is unrealistic. Where's the cut off, 10k deaths (saving 30k lives per year), 1000 deaths, 100???
Might want to check the permissions on the Target Android App if you're worried about breaches. Requires just about every permission on the phone (I don't remember the entire list, it was long and I think it included contacts and camera - someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
It's clear that lower prices bring more shoppers, but then so does hyping a brand all over the media. Assuming that the 25% increase is correct (I didn't RTFA) attributing that exclusively to lower prices is probably unsupported by the evidence.
This cannot possibly be the fault of the studios/movie makers. The obvious problem is illegal downloading and something about Amazon, YouTube, Netflix,or somebody not paying their fair share for legal downloads.
There are slightly different procedures for different Toyotas and for the key to start the car vs the fob to open the car. But, from personal experience, you can buy a (chipped) starter key and fob online. Get the key cut at the local hardware store and program both to work. You have to program all the keys/fobs not just the new one. Even opens the power sliders and hatch. The Prius was an expensive "smart" key (keep it in your pocket) and also programmed with a similar (but not identical) procedure to the above. I'm told that USED Prius keys can NOT be programmed with this approach - I don't know if this is true or if it is true for other cars.
TOYOTA 1. The vehicle should be in the following condition- A. The key is NOT in- serted in the ignition, B. The driver's door IS open, C. The driverâ(TM)s door is UNLOCKED. 2. Insert the Key into the ignition switch and then pull it out. 3. Press the Master Door Lock Switch 5 times from Lock to Unlock. 4. Close the Driver's door then open it. 5. Repeat step #3. 6. Now select the mode by inserting the key into the Ignition Switch and turning it to the "Run" or "On" position. The programming mode is determined by the amount of times you go from âoekey offâ to the "key on" position and back before pulling the key out. A. 1 time is the "Add" mode. This is used only on some models and it allows you to add a remote to the already existing remotes. The ECU confirms this by locking and unlocking the door locks automatically after you remove the key. B. 2 times is the second mode which will erase all previously programmed remotes and allow you to program new ones. The ECU confirms this mode by locking and unlocking the door locks twice after you remove the key C. 3 times is the third mode which tells you how many remotes are already programmed to the ECU. It confirms this locking and unlocking the door locks the amount of times applicable to the remotes coded. If no remotes are programmed then the ECU locks and unlocks the door locks 5 times. The ECU will hold up to 4 remotes at any one time. 7. Press the Lock and Unlock buttons on the remote simultaneously for 1.5 sec and then press either button by itself for 1 sec. 8. The ECU will perform the Lock/Unlock automatically to confirm that the 1st remote is stored by the ECU. Repeat step 7 immediately with another remote and continue until all remotes are registered. 9. Shut the driverâ(TM)s door and try all remotes.
Anyone remember /. beta. This list just about mirrors the ./ user complaints about beta - just ask the beta designer what they were thinking.
This has got to be this year's biggest understatement. I wonder if in the original Japanese it was quote so muted.
it garnered some attention from Pokemon Go
Ultracapacitors are the holy grail of electrical storage. Cheap materials, many cycles, very rapid charging, etc. etc. The energy density, last time I checked a couple of years ago was on a par with Lead Acid - so fairly heavy and large to get the energy you need. I assume that has, and will continue to improve. If they've reached the density of Lithium-Ion then that's some significant progress. It's a technology to watch, it already has application - typically regen braking in an electric or electric assist vehicle, you can dump a LOT of energy into the ultracaps very quickly and so recapture more of the braking energy, but it's not going to be in your phone any time soon.
This study is completely fake and the numbers are just a complete fabrication. (OK, really, did you verify it before posting that this is this NOT fake news because it's on ./??)
Always remember that the reason newspapers post story corrections is to convince you that the rest of the information they printed was true. (Not quite sure how that translates to the Internet, but you get the gist).
Slamming Musk has become more popular as some of his high-stakes gambles look as though they might pay off. He made a bunch of money from the PayPal sale, but a significant chunk of that went into TESLA. Had the TESLA stock-sale tanked Musk would have been, if not broke in the minimum wage sense, broke in the "he would need to take a job" sense.
TESLA wasn't about money, it was about Elon Musk and determination to do the right thing. That is made money is a vindication of the theory that you should follow your passion and hope that the money follows. Business is a dirty game and some mud has to stick, but you're not going to succeed and not have critics.