You failed to demonstrate your point. You show that symbols are not used in a way that would create the most entropy in the password. But that's not what the statement said... it said that symbols generally add more entropy than capitals or numbers. And unless you also compare the entropy added by capitals (barely 1 bit most of the time, capitalizing the first letter) or numbers usually a 1 at the end, or just a few digits at the end (and even fully random digits are only 3.2bits of entropy per character).
Symbol usage may be poor, but capital usage is shit, and number usage not much better. So poor beats out shit.
The 960 was only a barely behind the 750 in performance per dollar... which means you are getting nearly double the performance for that doubling in price.
Or, to put it another way, the 960 is 90% faster than the 750, for 100% more money. The 970 is 160% faster for 200% of the price. Those are actually great stats... when you normally look at high end cards, you often get 50% faster for 100% of the price.
Finally, all the games he tested were rather old (common for Linux). If I'm buying a new steam machine now, I don't want to buy one that can play three year old games for $100, I want to buy one that will play next years games.
While I agree with the ruling, I must say that any idiot who uses a work issued phone to conduct illegal business is a special kind of idiot. There is no bus short enough.
The reviewers in this are not pushovers. They stress the AI, rather than just chatting normally. And that's awesome. All of the questions were stuff that most humans could easily handle, but often required a basic understanding of reality from our point of view. Unsurprisingly, the AI flubbed it. Perhaps some decade one of those knowledge engines will get a firm enough grasp to be able to answer this kind of basic reality trivia.
While I largely agree, the issue is not quite as black and white as you paint.
There are something around 2 Billion users with Windows installed on their computer. Regardless of your personal opinion about updates, they should be enabled by default, with no user prompt asking them at install time if they want updates. This is the same argument for mandatory immunization; the species as a whole benefits from herd immunity. If you are arguing against automatic updates, and malware-scanning-by-default, then I think you have a fundamental confusion about how the Internet will survive when infected devices are counted in the billions rather than the millions. Regardless of your distaste for the business practices of companies like Adobe and Oracle, their auto-updaters save the world billions in damages by reducing the number of vulnerable users.
There are other areas where best practices should not be up for debate by the user. My car doesn't ask me if I want to use my ABS brakes when I stop, nor does it stop dinging at me if I drive without a seatbelt on. You may value your personal freedom to choose, but society at large benefits when fewer people crash or die. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
This just demonstrates one very valuable fact for any hopeful cloud OS wannabe: If your desktop environment sucks 'because you're a cloud OS', then you won't be a Cloud OS.
If the admin can't get familiar with your OS on their personal desktop, they are not going to think of using you in a mission critical place. The best server OS has to be a good personal OS too or it will never become popular enough. RHEL started off as just RedHat, one of the better distributions for Linux. 'EL' was just a backend change to the same comfortable front end, just as Windows Server is familiar for those who use Windows as their primary desktop.
I explained, backed with math and citations, the relativistic effects on communication between the Earth and a ship; the entire timeline of the journey as perceived by both sides.
The math for the Doppler effect combined with time dilation was demonstrated two ways, both by examining the time experienced by both sides (and working out the speed of the communication that would match that time) as well as examining the actual doppler effect separated out from the time dilation. The math, in both situations, works out the same... communications arrive at 1/3 speed while the ship flies away, and arrive at 3x speed while the ship flies back for a ship traveling at 0.8c relative to the Earth.
Rather than assert your correctness, would you kindly do the math and demonstrate why I am wrong? You obviously studied. Perhaps you are even a scientist in another field. But I believe you would learn something if you tried to actually do the math and work through the problem completely.
Relativity is a fascinating subject, but it's not magic. It doesn't suspend all other physics when reletavistic effects come into play. It's more a mild warping of normal physics that gets more pronounced the faster you go. But even at 0.9999c, all that normal physics is still there, and it still occurs the way it always does, you just have to add in one new term to the equation.
I like this theory. It's clear, consistent with previous observations, and provides a clear explanation. But I don't understand one thing.... what happens when the Black hole expands?
This great explanation you gave only works after the black hole is created, and is now slowly losing mass via Hawking radiation. What happens to an observer when they fall in and the radius of the event horizon increases to a point beyond where they got 'stuck' in the stopped time of the horizon?
Perhaps you would like to explain how 8 years of communications reach the ship as it is 'changing frames' on the star 4 light years away? What you are describing requires information to travel at faster than light speeds. Can you explain when the doppler effect stops working as things get faster? Does the doppler effect stop working at 0.01c? At 0.1c? At 0.5c? Can you provide a source?
Here is what happened to you, perhaps years ago. You read and partly understood the frequently cited explanation about ships passing each other. The situation described in those explanations exists only for a moment as the ships motions are parallel. But as they are approaching each other, their transmissions are dopplered to arrive faster, and as they leave each other, they are dopplered to arrive slower. That's the entire point behind 'redshifting'. By your explanation light in behind and in front would be red shifted (time slowed down). That's what redshifting and blueshifting are... the change in the frequency of light.
And what is frequency? It's how many waves arrive per second. If I transmit 1 million waves of red light, and you receive 1 million waves blueshifted blue light, it takes less time to arrive because the frequency of blue light is higher... if I encode information in those 1 million waves, you receive that information faster when it arrives blueshifted. It doesn't matter if it's blueshifted a little or a lot, or if I'm undergoing relativistic dilation or not... it still arrives faster, and thus the perceived rate of time change is higher.
Also, think about this. The ship is approaching at 0.8c. If there were no relativistic effects then it would perceive the transmissions arriving at 180% normal speed, or 1.8x normal. But because of the time dilation on the ship (60% normal) that 180% becomes 300% (1.8 doppler / 0.6 relativistic = 3.0x perceived) perceived reception rate of the transmission. Similarly as they fly away from each other, without relativity transmissions would arrive at 1/5th speed (0.20 doppler), but because the ship's relativistic dilation is 60%, that 20% becomes 33% (0.2 doppler / 0.6 relativistic = 0.333 perceived).
So relativistic effects occur, but that doesn't mean doppler effects don't.
Why this works requires some use of the time dilation equation. Let's work with a relatively basic speed: 0.8c. That's the speed where time appears to be about 60% as fast (in both frames) when two ships are being compared to each other. Now let us imagine a ship flying away from the earth to a nearby star and back. In fact, let's steal the example given in this explanation of the Twin Paradox on Wikipedia. You should go read that first, because I'm not going to repeat what it says here.
There are two parts to that trip... the journey out, and the journey back. Let's examine each side's perception of the the other on the way out and the way back.
From the point of view of earth, the ship takes 5 years to reach the star. After five years have passed however, even though we know the ship has probably arrived we are still receiving transmissions from back when the ship was only partway there (the transmissions from when it arrived won't reach us for, obviously, 5 more years). In fact, after five years we are just receiving the transmissions from when the ship was halfway there, 2.5 years out. And because of the time dilation, the ship appears to be aging at 60%, so we have only gotten 1.67 years worth of communications (the signals reaching us have a timestamp of 1.67 years from the start). So in 5 years, we have gotten 5/3 = 1 2/3 years of data. Time seems to be passing at 1/3 the rate on the ship.
Now let's step up the weirdness. From the point of view of the ship, it's going to take 3 years to go 2.6 light years (Lorenze contraction). When it looks back after reaching the star, it sees the sun as it was 4 years ago (because it's 4 light years away). So for the '3 year journey' that the ship perceived, it only received 1 year's worth of communication. It is now 4 light years away and receiving messages (light) that have a timestamp of just one year after the start of the journey. To the ship, it was the Earth that was operating at 1/3 speed!
Ok, so we've just demonstrated that as objects fly away from each they both see the other operating slowly... as if the objects 'behind them' were moving in slow motion. What about when they start moving toward each other?
Back to the Earth's reference point. Even though the ship has already started coming back at the 5 year point, the Earth won't get those transmissions for another few years. Remember that the ship traveled 4 light years, taking 5 years to do it from the view of Earth. So we won't get the clock from the turn-around until the nine year mark. At that point (because of the 1/3 relative time dilation) the clock on the ship just hit three years. The ship is going to have three years of transmissions as it returns, and by the time it returns there will be no delay due to distance... what's that mean? It means that the blue shifted return transmissions provide 3 years of updates in the one remaining year of the trip. In other words, as the ship approaches time seems to have accelerated to 3x normal!
Finally, to complete it all, let's go back to the ship at the star when it turns around to return. It has traveled for three years and is receiving transmissions from Earth that have a timestamp just one year after it left. Now it's going to fly back to Earth. At the end of that trip Earth will have aged 10 years... so how much data arrives in that 3 year trip back? 9 years. While returning to Earth, the ship receives 9 years of transmissions over what seems like 3 years of travel time.
So the earth sees the ship move at 1/3rd speed for 9 years, and 3x speed for 1 year, for a total time gone of 10 years, and a total time on the timestamps from the ship of 6 years.
The ship sees the Earth move at 1/3rd speed for 3 years, and 3x speed for 3 years, for a total travel time of 6 years, while the total number of years that the timestamps on the transmissions from Earth showed... 10 years.
Relativity is crazy, but the math makes sense. The important takeaway is that objects approaching each other see both sides as moving faster. That's what the doppler effect is. This is just extreme doppler on doppler action.
The universe probably does not have an edge, though there is no way to know for sure because the vast majority of the universe is beyond our reach, expanding away from us faster than we could get there at the speed of light.
A better way to put it is that when you are travelling nearly the speed of light, if you look behind you at the place you are heading away from time seems to stand still for it; the light from your old hometown is redshifted. But light that's coming in from in front of you (and thus, the perceived rate of time) is way higher. Time seems to be moving a hundred times faster than normal as you look at an oncoming blueshifted star. Then, the star passes you and all of a sudden it slows down... from your point of view.
So from the point of view of the fast moving observer, time is sped up in front of them, and nearly frozen behind. As they travel they pass galaxies that are growing old very fast, but leave behind them a frozen universe, that is changing imperceptibly slowly.
When they stop... they are not 'surprised' that the universe is old. They watched it grow old in front of them. Nor are they surprised that their home, now billions of light years away, has not changed much (it looks 'young') because behind them time seemed to stop. The perceived universe makes sense from the viewpoint of the traveler. Point being that there is no paradox. What happens to the fast moving universe would look really weird from inside (because of the starbow effect), but they would be used to it. You know... assuming they survived the X-Ray energy sleeting through them from impact with intergalactic matter.
You don't need a next gen card to get great framerates in a MOBA. You can run at the highest quality setting and cap at 60fps on any card priced in the same range in the past two years in LOL or DotA.
The Samsung Note 4 is still a high end phone (until the Note 5 comes out, only the iPhone 6 hase more performance), and a removable back. You can add a monster aftermarket battery on to it. It's likely to drop in price (it's already started) as the Note 5 comes out.
There is no faster phone, that I am aware of, with a replaceable battery.
... this will last only until the facial recognition algorithm is trained to ignore it. If it won't fool a human, it won't fool an algorithm for long. Better fixes are ones that exploit the weaknesses of the sensors rather than attacking the algorithm. The other example, cited right in TFA, uses a more effective long term strategy of hampering the sensors.
Upgrading the algorithm? Cheap, and only needs to be done once. Upgrading every sensor to filter IR? Not impossible, but much more expensive and thus likely to be skipped by businesses.
This seems to be an appropriate use of a DSL, not a new programming language. Just add some constructs to an existing language (Ruby and Lisp are particularly good at making seamless DSLs) embodying the new concepts. A language is a silly way to deal with this... instead, choose a language that supports the features you need and add the concepts to it.
In this case, a language like Erlang or Go might be good choices, both designed for robust, concurrent, and distributed processing. Add in a library to either (or both) that embodies the concept of neighbors and swarms and you get multiple wins: an immediate pool of programmers who already know the language, far fewer bugs in the core language, better performance, dev environments, compilers... a long list of wins right off the start.
There are sometimes good reasons to create a new language. But this is not one of them, in my opinion.
If the data or encryption key is out of your possession, you must assume it is public. If you want to secure your data, it must be encrypted before it leaves your computer. And if you want to trust your computer, you can't use a proprietary OS.
Most people don't need that level of security... some convenience is worth the likely loss of privacy (to a point). I'm not going to worry about getting my cousin to use PGP in order to email about our family reunion. But if you are concerned about privacy, you have either already eliminated cloud services from your daily workflow or you are an idiot.
I am amused by the fact that a private company does better than our government at disaster transparency. That said, it is pretty stupid that Space X has not been testing random parts to confirm they meet the requested specifications. Spec verification is a basic part of outsourcing. All outsourcing fails if you can't verify that you're getting what they promised you.
Chump Change. 45 million is 0.01% of our military budget, and it is a waste of time to worry about it. This is a distraction from budgetary issues that do matter, such as the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the F35.
I have no problem with the military going around red tape to get communication satellites up faster. If we go by the general idea that a life is worth $9 million dollars, then these satellites going up faster only need to save 5 lives and they have done their job.
Spend your attention wisely; don't quibble about the theft of a penny by a child while your bank account is being emptied by your brother.
Body language like 'there is a red light and stopped cars are gathering in front of it'? That kind of body language? This isn't a turning situation. There is no body language when coming to a stop, you just hit the brakes and slow down. Almost all of the crashes have been this exact thing... rear ended by inattentive drivers.
While it is theoretically possible that a very aware driver paying attention to the boy language of everyone around them might potentially miss a tell from an autonomous vehicle it doesn't matter because the radar and safety features means no blind spot... no missing a motorcycle. It just won't turn into your lane and drive you out or cut you off because the automatic driver is polite and safety conscious. The situations where body language saves you is when the other driver fucks up. If you are attentive enough to be watching the body language of the driver, then you are attentive enough that you won't hit the vehicle when it makes a safe, signaled, legal lane change into an empty slot; performs a safe, signaled, legal turn; or a safe, cautious, and considerate turn at a four way stop.
Slashdot Mirror
You failed to demonstrate your point. You show that symbols are not used in a way that would create the most entropy in the password. But that's not what the statement said... it said that symbols generally add more entropy than capitals or numbers. And unless you also compare the entropy added by capitals (barely 1 bit most of the time, capitalizing the first letter) or numbers usually a 1 at the end, or just a few digits at the end (and even fully random digits are only 3.2bits of entropy per character).
Symbol usage may be poor, but capital usage is shit, and number usage not much better. So poor beats out shit.
The 960 was only a barely behind the 750 in performance per dollar... which means you are getting nearly double the performance for that doubling in price.
Or, to put it another way, the 960 is 90% faster than the 750, for 100% more money. The 970 is 160% faster for 200% of the price. Those are actually great stats... when you normally look at high end cards, you often get 50% faster for 100% of the price.
Finally, all the games he tested were rather old (common for Linux). If I'm buying a new steam machine now, I don't want to buy one that can play three year old games for $100, I want to buy one that will play next years games.
While I agree with the ruling, I must say that any idiot who uses a work issued phone to conduct illegal business is a special kind of idiot. There is no bus short enough.
The reviewers in this are not pushovers. They stress the AI, rather than just chatting normally. And that's awesome. All of the questions were stuff that most humans could easily handle, but often required a basic understanding of reality from our point of view. Unsurprisingly, the AI flubbed it. Perhaps some decade one of those knowledge engines will get a firm enough grasp to be able to answer this kind of basic reality trivia.
While I largely agree, the issue is not quite as black and white as you paint.
There are something around 2 Billion users with Windows installed on their computer. Regardless of your personal opinion about updates, they should be enabled by default, with no user prompt asking them at install time if they want updates. This is the same argument for mandatory immunization; the species as a whole benefits from herd immunity. If you are arguing against automatic updates, and malware-scanning-by-default, then I think you have a fundamental confusion about how the Internet will survive when infected devices are counted in the billions rather than the millions. Regardless of your distaste for the business practices of companies like Adobe and Oracle, their auto-updaters save the world billions in damages by reducing the number of vulnerable users.
There are other areas where best practices should not be up for debate by the user. My car doesn't ask me if I want to use my ABS brakes when I stop, nor does it stop dinging at me if I drive without a seatbelt on. You may value your personal freedom to choose, but society at large benefits when fewer people crash or die. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
This just demonstrates one very valuable fact for any hopeful cloud OS wannabe: If your desktop environment sucks 'because you're a cloud OS', then you won't be a Cloud OS.
If the admin can't get familiar with your OS on their personal desktop, they are not going to think of using you in a mission critical place. The best server OS has to be a good personal OS too or it will never become popular enough. RHEL started off as just RedHat, one of the better distributions for Linux. 'EL' was just a backend change to the same comfortable front end, just as Windows Server is familiar for those who use Windows as their primary desktop.
So please describe what the ship observes on the entire trip. Not one moment. Do the math. Cite a source. Prove your point, rather than assert it.
I did.
I explained, backed with math and citations, the relativistic effects on communication between the Earth and a ship; the entire timeline of the journey as perceived by both sides.
The math for the Doppler effect combined with time dilation was demonstrated two ways, both by examining the time experienced by both sides (and working out the speed of the communication that would match that time) as well as examining the actual doppler effect separated out from the time dilation. The math, in both situations, works out the same... communications arrive at 1/3 speed while the ship flies away, and arrive at 3x speed while the ship flies back for a ship traveling at 0.8c relative to the Earth.
Rather than assert your correctness, would you kindly do the math and demonstrate why I am wrong? You obviously studied. Perhaps you are even a scientist in another field. But I believe you would learn something if you tried to actually do the math and work through the problem completely.
Relativity is a fascinating subject, but it's not magic. It doesn't suspend all other physics when reletavistic effects come into play. It's more a mild warping of normal physics that gets more pronounced the faster you go. But even at 0.9999c, all that normal physics is still there, and it still occurs the way it always does, you just have to add in one new term to the equation.
I like this theory. It's clear, consistent with previous observations, and provides a clear explanation. But I don't understand one thing.... what happens when the Black hole expands?
This great explanation you gave only works after the black hole is created, and is now slowly losing mass via Hawking radiation. What happens to an observer when they fall in and the radius of the event horizon increases to a point beyond where they got 'stuck' in the stopped time of the horizon?
A more complete explanation (I should have checked earlier) can be found on Wikipedia: Relativistic Doppler effect
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.
Perhaps you would like to explain how 8 years of communications reach the ship as it is 'changing frames' on the star 4 light years away? What you are describing requires information to travel at faster than light speeds. Can you explain when the doppler effect stops working as things get faster? Does the doppler effect stop working at 0.01c? At 0.1c? At 0.5c? Can you provide a source?
Here is what happened to you, perhaps years ago. You read and partly understood the frequently cited explanation about ships passing each other. The situation described in those explanations exists only for a moment as the ships motions are parallel. But as they are approaching each other, their transmissions are dopplered to arrive faster, and as they leave each other, they are dopplered to arrive slower. That's the entire point behind 'redshifting'. By your explanation light in behind and in front would be red shifted (time slowed down). That's what redshifting and blueshifting are... the change in the frequency of light.
And what is frequency? It's how many waves arrive per second. If I transmit 1 million waves of red light, and you receive 1 million waves blueshifted blue light, it takes less time to arrive because the frequency of blue light is higher... if I encode information in those 1 million waves, you receive that information faster when it arrives blueshifted. It doesn't matter if it's blueshifted a little or a lot, or if I'm undergoing relativistic dilation or not... it still arrives faster, and thus the perceived rate of time change is higher.
Also, think about this. The ship is approaching at 0.8c. If there were no relativistic effects then it would perceive the transmissions arriving at 180% normal speed, or 1.8x normal. But because of the time dilation on the ship (60% normal) that 180% becomes 300% (1.8 doppler / 0.6 relativistic = 3.0x perceived) perceived reception rate of the transmission. Similarly as they fly away from each other, without relativity transmissions would arrive at 1/5th speed (0.20 doppler), but because the ship's relativistic dilation is 60%, that 20% becomes 33% (0.2 doppler / 0.6 relativistic = 0.333 perceived).
So relativistic effects occur, but that doesn't mean doppler effects don't.
Why this works requires some use of the time dilation equation. Let's work with a relatively basic speed: 0.8c. That's the speed where time appears to be about 60% as fast (in both frames) when two ships are being compared to each other. Now let us imagine a ship flying away from the earth to a nearby star and back. In fact, let's steal the example given in this explanation of the Twin Paradox on Wikipedia. You should go read that first, because I'm not going to repeat what it says here.
There are two parts to that trip... the journey out, and the journey back. Let's examine each side's perception of the the other on the way out and the way back.
Ok, so we've just demonstrated that as objects fly away from each they both see the other operating slowly... as if the objects 'behind them' were moving in slow motion. What about when they start moving toward each other?
So the earth sees the ship move at 1/3rd speed for 9 years, and 3x speed for 1 year, for a total time gone of 10 years, and a total time on the timestamps from the ship of 6 years.
The ship sees the Earth move at 1/3rd speed for 3 years, and 3x speed for 3 years, for a total travel time of 6 years, while the total number of years that the timestamps on the transmissions from Earth showed... 10 years.
Relativity is crazy, but the math makes sense. The important takeaway is that objects approaching each other see both sides as moving faster. That's what the doppler effect is. This is just extreme doppler on doppler action.
The universe probably does not have an edge, though there is no way to know for sure because the vast majority of the universe is beyond our reach, expanding away from us faster than we could get there at the speed of light.
I never said the speed of light; I said "at nearly the speed of light" right in the first sentence. The difference is significant.
A better way to put it is that when you are travelling nearly the speed of light, if you look behind you at the place you are heading away from time seems to stand still for it; the light from your old hometown is redshifted. But light that's coming in from in front of you (and thus, the perceived rate of time) is way higher. Time seems to be moving a hundred times faster than normal as you look at an oncoming blueshifted star. Then, the star passes you and all of a sudden it slows down... from your point of view.
So from the point of view of the fast moving observer, time is sped up in front of them, and nearly frozen behind. As they travel they pass galaxies that are growing old very fast, but leave behind them a frozen universe, that is changing imperceptibly slowly.
When they stop... they are not 'surprised' that the universe is old. They watched it grow old in front of them. Nor are they surprised that their home, now billions of light years away, has not changed much (it looks 'young') because behind them time seemed to stop. The perceived universe makes sense from the viewpoint of the traveler. Point being that there is no paradox. What happens to the fast moving universe would look really weird from inside (because of the starbow effect), but they would be used to it. You know... assuming they survived the X-Ray energy sleeting through them from impact with intergalactic matter.
You don't need a next gen card to get great framerates in a MOBA. You can run at the highest quality setting and cap at 60fps on any card priced in the same range in the past two years in LOL or DotA.
Ahh well. Marketing.
The Samsung Note 4 is still a high end phone (until the Note 5 comes out, only the iPhone 6 hase more performance), and a removable back. You can add a monster aftermarket battery on to it. It's likely to drop in price (it's already started) as the Note 5 comes out.
There is no faster phone, that I am aware of, with a replaceable battery.
... this will last only until the facial recognition algorithm is trained to ignore it. If it won't fool a human, it won't fool an algorithm for long. Better fixes are ones that exploit the weaknesses of the sensors rather than attacking the algorithm. The other example, cited right in TFA, uses a more effective long term strategy of hampering the sensors.
Upgrading the algorithm? Cheap, and only needs to be done once. Upgrading every sensor to filter IR? Not impossible, but much more expensive and thus likely to be skipped by businesses.
This seems to be an appropriate use of a DSL, not a new programming language. Just add some constructs to an existing language (Ruby and Lisp are particularly good at making seamless DSLs) embodying the new concepts. A language is a silly way to deal with this... instead, choose a language that supports the features you need and add the concepts to it.
In this case, a language like Erlang or Go might be good choices, both designed for robust, concurrent, and distributed processing. Add in a library to either (or both) that embodies the concept of neighbors and swarms and you get multiple wins: an immediate pool of programmers who already know the language, far fewer bugs in the core language, better performance, dev environments, compilers... a long list of wins right off the start.
There are sometimes good reasons to create a new language. But this is not one of them, in my opinion.
If the data or encryption key is out of your possession, you must assume it is public. If you want to secure your data, it must be encrypted before it leaves your computer. And if you want to trust your computer, you can't use a proprietary OS.
Most people don't need that level of security... some convenience is worth the likely loss of privacy (to a point). I'm not going to worry about getting my cousin to use PGP in order to email about our family reunion. But if you are concerned about privacy, you have either already eliminated cloud services from your daily workflow or you are an idiot.
I am amused by the fact that a private company does better than our government at disaster transparency. That said, it is pretty stupid that Space X has not been testing random parts to confirm they meet the requested specifications. Spec verification is a basic part of outsourcing. All outsourcing fails if you can't verify that you're getting what they promised you.
Well damn, now I feel stupid. I doubt the comm sats would save 5000 lives or equivalent. So yeah... something to be concerned about.
Thank you for the correction.
Chump Change. 45 million is 0.01% of our military budget, and it is a waste of time to worry about it. This is a distraction from budgetary issues that do matter, such as the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the F35.
I have no problem with the military going around red tape to get communication satellites up faster. If we go by the general idea that a life is worth $9 million dollars, then these satellites going up faster only need to save 5 lives and they have done their job.
Spend your attention wisely; don't quibble about the theft of a penny by a child while your bank account is being emptied by your brother.
Body language like 'there is a red light and stopped cars are gathering in front of it'? That kind of body language? This isn't a turning situation. There is no body language when coming to a stop, you just hit the brakes and slow down. Almost all of the crashes have been this exact thing... rear ended by inattentive drivers.
While it is theoretically possible that a very aware driver paying attention to the boy language of everyone around them might potentially miss a tell from an autonomous vehicle it doesn't matter because the radar and safety features means no blind spot... no missing a motorcycle. It just won't turn into your lane and drive you out or cut you off because the automatic driver is polite and safety conscious. The situations where body language saves you is when the other driver fucks up. If you are attentive enough to be watching the body language of the driver, then you are attentive enough that you won't hit the vehicle when it makes a safe, signaled, legal lane change into an empty slot; performs a safe, signaled, legal turn; or a safe, cautious, and considerate turn at a four way stop.
I guarantee that it will be sold for more than Bacon, even if it costs less to produce. Sometimes the healthy food tax is frustrating.