Modern Chromebooks run all android apps in addition to their normal stuff, they also are capable of running full Linux distros in parallel with ChromeOS.
I use a Pixelbook as my primary, and only, personal computer at this point. I've not run in to any situations where I wished I had a tablet instead, nor any where I wished I had a different type of computer. The Pixelbook has actually surprised me. When I bought it, I assumed that I'd spend all my time in Ubuntu on it, but that's just not the case, I almost never bother to switch to Ubuntu, and instead do everything I need on ChromeOS, either online, in android apps, or in a shell. The times I need to open Ubuntu are few and far between.
Not related to students specifically, that level of financial acumen is far too common.
I used to install TV service in people's homes. I remember going in to a subsidized housing complex at one point to do this, and while I was installing several hundred channels of HD TV, they were having a conversation about which charity should provide their next meal. I wanted to withhold the service on compassionate grounds, but I knew they'd just buy it from someone else if I did. It was just that they had completely messed up priorities.
Experts who haven't seen the evidence, vs the experts who HAVE seen the evidence who disagree.
Everyone wants to assign blame here, and it's unpopular to blame the person who committed vehicular suicide, however so far the people who've seen the evidence are the ones I believe.
The proposed mechanism is called "wishful thinking". After decades of failing to prove a connection, and after decades of falling cancer rates despite skyrocketing cell phone use, the people who KNOW that cell phones cause cancer are getting desperate to prove it. When actual science fails, they muck with results until they can show the result that they already decided is true before starting the experiment.
I don't live in the USA, And yes, it was highly unlikely, and no, kids don't do suicidal things "all the time" our child mortality rates clearly show that.
As for "grow up", says the person who can't even drive a car...
Most people who handle the blockchain also have no idea that these things are there, and the only way to extract them is to run special (software) tests.
In other words, experts who have actually reviewed the evidence contradicted you uneducated preconceived notions, and therefore you are going to treat THEM as being wrong instead of adjusting your preconceived notions.
I'm sorry, there is no possible way to convince you because you aren't interested in evidence or truth.
I didn't anticipate it because it was an unlikely illegal event.
If you answer that you would have anticipated it, than one of 2 things is true: 1) you're lying. Or 2) you're an extremely hazardous driver because you never drive more than 5mph on freeways and sit at a stop most of the time on side streets.
There is no possible way to actually get to your destination if you assume everyone around you has a death wish. It simply isn't possible.
It's not a relevant comparison anyway. A more apt one is when driving straight (as this car was doing) do you always assume that the car in the next lane is going to do a hard 90 degree turn in to your lane with no warning?
If you answer yes, you do, you are either lying, or you are a hazard on the road because you drive under 5mph on all freeways.
38mph in a 35 zone as measured by the speedometer would presumably put it almost exactly the speed limit as all speedometers read slightly high. Beyond that there's reason to believe the actual speed limit in that location is 45 not 35, or that it is in the process of changing from 45 to 35 at that intersection. In any case, the car was not driving at any excessive speed. Additionally, we usually refer to people who drive at exactly the speed limit, or below the speed limit, by the term "obstructing traffic".
The chief of police did not think the speed was excessive, and he's reviewed the evidence. I'll take his word for it over some random slashdot poster who neither witnessed the incident, nor reviewed any of the evidence.
All evidence so far points to this collision being completely unavoidable, by even the best possible driver (Human or computer).
And I agree. That said, while I believe that self driving vehicles at this point are probably fairly safe, I also think they're quite useless. There are far too many corner cases in driving, and I can come up with dozens of them off the top of my head that I've seen no evidence that current generation self driving vehicles can actually handle. I think we're still a very long way away from true, practical, self driving cars.
I imagine in some jurisdictions, Mens Rea will apply to the local CP possession law. So people there will be able to possess the blockchain so long as they're unaware of what's in it; likely, even then, it'd be excusable so long as one is plausibly only interested in the blockchain for necessary administrative reasons.
While a good theory, all rationality tends to go out the window when CP is involved. And even if you were found innocent, your life would still be irrevocably ruined just because you were accused in the first place.
Define "up"? Bitcoin is down about 20% from a week ago, and down more than 50% from 3 months ago. If that's "up" I think we need to check your sense of direction!
It's not a matter of what WE believe, it's a matter of what the governments we live under believe. We can scream 'till we're blue in the face that no combination of ones and zeros should be illegal, but that won't stop you from spending a long time in a very unpleasant jail cell.
The idea that crypto-currencies couldn't be regulated was always a fantasy pipedream not grounded in reality. ANYTHING can be regulated, and EVERYTHING that impacts people with power and money eventually will be. You can argue about the effectiveness of the regulations, but not about the possibility of their existence. As for the effectiveness. I see that as likely being fairly high, Bitcoin is completely useless as a currency for many reasons, which means it only has value if you can get your money in and out of it. If nobody is willing to facilitate that transaction, nobody will want to use Bitcoin. We're already seeing this starting, many banks and financial institutions have blacklisted any company dealing in crypto-currencies, some governments have outright banned it, and while this has been happening the value of bitcoin has been plummeting. We'll see if an equilibrium is reached here where governments regulate, but don't completely ban, crypto currencies. It may happen, but we may also see the "value" of bitcoin plummet to near zero.
I've been that driver! the pedestrian then had the nerve to call the cops and tell them I tried to run him over. Once the cop learned that the point of impact was the driver's door of my van he stopped asking any more questions, told the pedestrian to stop wasting everyone's time, and left. My van wasn't capable of driving sideways!
Slashdot Mirror
What makes chromebooks less useful than tablets?
Modern Chromebooks run all android apps in addition to their normal stuff, they also are capable of running full Linux distros in parallel with ChromeOS.
I use a Pixelbook as my primary, and only, personal computer at this point. I've not run in to any situations where I wished I had a tablet instead, nor any where I wished I had a different type of computer. The Pixelbook has actually surprised me. When I bought it, I assumed that I'd spend all my time in Ubuntu on it, but that's just not the case, I almost never bother to switch to Ubuntu, and instead do everything I need on ChromeOS, either online, in android apps, or in a shell. The times I need to open Ubuntu are few and far between.
Not related to students specifically, that level of financial acumen is far too common.
I used to install TV service in people's homes. I remember going in to a subsidized housing complex at one point to do this, and while I was installing several hundred channels of HD TV, they were having a conversation about which charity should provide their next meal. I wanted to withhold the service on compassionate grounds, but I knew they'd just buy it from someone else if I did. It was just that they had completely messed up priorities.
Experts who haven't seen the evidence, vs the experts who HAVE seen the evidence who disagree.
Everyone wants to assign blame here, and it's unpopular to blame the person who committed vehicular suicide, however so far the people who've seen the evidence are the ones I believe.
The proposed mechanism is called "wishful thinking". After decades of failing to prove a connection, and after decades of falling cancer rates despite skyrocketing cell phone use, the people who KNOW that cell phones cause cancer are getting desperate to prove it. When actual science fails, they muck with results until they can show the result that they already decided is true before starting the experiment.
It was expected to defy the laws of physics? That seems unlikely.
As for your reading comprehension. I can't help you there.
I don't live in the USA, And yes, it was highly unlikely, and no, kids don't do suicidal things "all the time" our child mortality rates clearly show that.
As for "grow up", says the person who can't even drive a car...
Because there wasn't any time to do so?
Asking the question while inserting another piece of technology doesn't change the answer.
Most people who handle the blockchain also have no idea that these things are there, and the only way to extract them is to run special (software) tests.
Not sure I see the difference.
In other words, experts who have actually reviewed the evidence contradicted you uneducated preconceived notions, and therefore you are going to treat THEM as being wrong instead of adjusting your preconceived notions.
I'm sorry, there is no possible way to convince you because you aren't interested in evidence or truth.
I didn't anticipate it because it was an unlikely illegal event.
If you answer that you would have anticipated it, than one of 2 things is true: 1) you're lying. Or 2) you're an extremely hazardous driver because you never drive more than 5mph on freeways and sit at a stop most of the time on side streets.
There is no possible way to actually get to your destination if you assume everyone around you has a death wish. It simply isn't possible.
It's not a relevant comparison anyway. A more apt one is when driving straight (as this car was doing) do you always assume that the car in the next lane is going to do a hard 90 degree turn in to your lane with no warning?
If you answer yes, you do, you are either lying, or you are a hazard on the road because you drive under 5mph on all freeways.
Yes, I know your definition of evidence "only things which agree with my preconceived notions".
No thanks.
Because there wasn't any time to do so?
And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me.
Actually, yes, it's exactly what you said.
38mph in a 35 zone as measured by the speedometer would presumably put it almost exactly the speed limit as all speedometers read slightly high. Beyond that there's reason to believe the actual speed limit in that location is 45 not 35, or that it is in the process of changing from 45 to 35 at that intersection. In any case, the car was not driving at any excessive speed. Additionally, we usually refer to people who drive at exactly the speed limit, or below the speed limit, by the term "obstructing traffic".
The chief of police did not think the speed was excessive, and he's reviewed the evidence. I'll take his word for it over some random slashdot poster who neither witnessed the incident, nor reviewed any of the evidence.
All evidence so far points to this collision being completely unavoidable, by even the best possible driver (Human or computer).
So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence.
Wow this forum is just full of arrogance today!
So in other words, the car was driving at least as well as, and probably better than, a human driver would.
While technically possible, the fact that the road I was on was extremely narrow, and dead straight sort of showed that as highly unlikely.
Which is one reason why I don't think we're there yet.
Come back in a decade or 2 and we might be, but right now it's too early.
That doesn't mean I think Self Driving Cars are dangerous, just that they're not capable enough. YET.
And I agree. That said, while I believe that self driving vehicles at this point are probably fairly safe, I also think they're quite useless. There are far too many corner cases in driving, and I can come up with dozens of them off the top of my head that I've seen no evidence that current generation self driving vehicles can actually handle. I think we're still a very long way away from true, practical, self driving cars.
I imagine in some jurisdictions, Mens Rea will apply to the local CP possession law. So people there will be able to possess the blockchain so long as they're unaware of what's in it; likely, even then, it'd be excusable so long as one is plausibly only interested in the blockchain for necessary administrative reasons.
While a good theory, all rationality tends to go out the window when CP is involved. And even if you were found innocent, your life would still be irrevocably ruined just because you were accused in the first place.
Define "up"? Bitcoin is down about 20% from a week ago, and down more than 50% from 3 months ago. If that's "up" I think we need to check your sense of direction!
It's not a matter of what WE believe, it's a matter of what the governments we live under believe. We can scream 'till we're blue in the face that no combination of ones and zeros should be illegal, but that won't stop you from spending a long time in a very unpleasant jail cell.
The idea that crypto-currencies couldn't be regulated was always a fantasy pipedream not grounded in reality. ANYTHING can be regulated, and EVERYTHING that impacts people with power and money eventually will be. You can argue about the effectiveness of the regulations, but not about the possibility of their existence. As for the effectiveness. I see that as likely being fairly high, Bitcoin is completely useless as a currency for many reasons, which means it only has value if you can get your money in and out of it. If nobody is willing to facilitate that transaction, nobody will want to use Bitcoin. We're already seeing this starting, many banks and financial institutions have blacklisted any company dealing in crypto-currencies, some governments have outright banned it, and while this has been happening the value of bitcoin has been plummeting. We'll see if an equilibrium is reached here where governments regulate, but don't completely ban, crypto currencies. It may happen, but we may also see the "value" of bitcoin plummet to near zero.
No, but it's said that cocaine can be found on many bank notes, and it's not exactly legal either....
I've been that driver! the pedestrian then had the nerve to call the cops and tell them I tried to run him over. Once the cop learned that the point of impact was the driver's door of my van he stopped asking any more questions, told the pedestrian to stop wasting everyone's time, and left. My van wasn't capable of driving sideways!