Thatâ(TM)s kind of my point (and Teslaâ(TM)s too): the driver is responsible.
On an aircraft, the pilot is still responsible for flying the aircraft. If the autopilot flies the plane into a mountain, itâ(TM)s still labeled pilot error. Thereâ(TM)s no absolving the guy at the controls.
Yes, we can conclude two things from this event;
1) The driver is at fault for not paying attention, and can be held legally responsible
2) Tesla Autopilot is not yet advanced enough to prevent a car from ramming into a parked truck on its own.
What we can also consider is that by enabling drivers to reduce their driving concentration, and even take hands off the wheel, the Tesla Autopilot feature is a contributing factor to the accident. Not in legal terms, but in pure cause analysis terms.
I don't own a Tesla, but I know my own car's auto brake system doesn't gracefully slow to a stop unless the speed difference between my car and whatever is in front of me is less than 30 MPH.
If the delta-v is more than 30 MPH, my car will do a "panic stop" thing to slow the car down, but it'll be too late to avoid a collision.
Maybe, but it seems that the people driven cars also on the road were able to avoid that collision.
If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?
Ignoring the fact that drivers are supposed to be paying attention while autopilot is engaged, I can see no reason that if the driver is telling the truth, that the car would not have slowed to a stop instead of hitting the truck at full speed.
I think it is more likely that the person is either lying (or mistaken) about autopilot being engaged or they were doing something else to override the autopilot's normal function.
The Tesla owner's manual says that Traffic-Aware Cruise Control, which is part of the Autopilot system, "cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles"
Relativity might be a better place to start, or just tell the kid humanity is destined to be crushed in a black hole if it is lucky to survive that long.
I was pointing out that there are no conclusions that can be drawn, you are arguing with me so I assume you think some can be drawn.
So, what have the population ratios from that breeding ground been historically? You seem to think we have the data even though the study itself indicates we don't.
I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical.
So would the scientists.
In truth, the only way to determine if this is a problem is to study the species and if they go extinct, then determine why.
Incorrect. They can monitor population trends and cycles, then determine when things are out of the normal range.
Certainly at the 1 percent male level, most females will not reproduce.
"Most" females may not need to reproduce in a given year to maintain the population. What is the typical ratio range? That information is not provided. Also note that there are more than 1 percent males in the total population. They are limiting the low male ration to only those they believe were from one breeding area.
There is clearly not enough information to draw any conclusion. But don't let that stop you.
Won't the males who do survive produce offspring more likely to be male in higher temperatures. I would expect a dip in pupulation (as 1% males can't fertilise all the females) but in the long run it would correct
We might know that if the study showed a historical ration record, but unfortunately it is just a one time snapshot and therefore tells us nothing about how the population ration trends or cycles.
I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical. They apparently compared two different regions and assumed they should have the same ratio. They also assume that they know which turtles came from which region
Here, for the first time, we use genetic markers and a mixed-stock analysis (MSA), combined with sex determination through laparoscopy and endocrinology, to link male and female green turtles foraging in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) to the nesting beach from which they hatched.
But they have no way to prove if this method is accurate because they are not allowed to disturb the hatch lings.
I don't question AGW, but I do question any conclusions drawn from this study in and of itself.
They already make laptops and tablets with SIM cards for connectivity. Instant on isn't a must have feature for most folks and many tablets are essentially that anyhow. And if I do need more battery life, those backup charge packs are cheap and you can leave them at home when not needed.
My tablet and BT keyboard connected to my phone hotspot if needed serves me well.
Anyone else that reads this can plainly see what my link goes to, and how it backs my point. You can call it a potato if you like, but that doesn't change what it really is.
Well,
I lost track about what we are talking.
The web site you link is not showing the day by day wind production. It shows two selected grid operators and how much wind/solar they feed into their grids.
The link shows the entire German wind production for week, you can step through every week of the year. This is another case where you simply ignore facts and go off saying things that don't make sense. Your link does not show actual production history for days or weeks.
Wind variability does not go away just because you ignore it, and facts don't go away just because you decide to be willfully ignorant. You have no credibility.
Low wind production is quite commonplace actually. Step through every week of the year and you'll find many times it drops less than 2 GW total generation. I gave you the link....
In the first four weeks alone there are lows of 0.33, 0.53, and 0.78 GW output.... next to nothing.,
Even in a good wind week, like week 40, it drops to only 8GW
Then there are entire weeks that are really bad. Weeks 1-4, Weeks 26-35 are all pathetic weeks. 38.. There are others I skipped.
Please stop 'just saying stuff' that you want to be true and look at the facts.
Hearing aids are overpriced. But it can make a big difference to get ones properly tuned for you specific hearing issue. Hearing aids that amplify across the entire range can damage your hearing further/faster than properly tuned ones. So there is value in doing it right. After going cheap for many years, my dad finally spend $3K+ on a pair and he said they were much better than anything he'd had before.
In the case of tinnitus management, I don't think there is as much risk in trying other approaches. Its a crap shoot no matter what you do.
Well, we all need to be reasonable, and if there is no place to get over then you shouldn't force it and there are always unique situations. But, if you can get over, let those that want to drive faster pass, then you should even if you have to temporarily reduce your speed.
Changing lanes is not 'dangerously weaving back and forth'. If you are having trouble safely changing lanes, then stay right. But don't find excuses no to let other pass.
They are trying to prevent the Evil that happened before from coming back. Hate speach against Jews -> violence against Jews -> death camps for Jews.
Very understandable. Yet one thing very important to the NAZI government was control of the media and its content, so they should proceed with caution.
Slashdot Mirror
Thatâ(TM)s kind of my point (and Teslaâ(TM)s too): the driver is responsible.
On an aircraft, the pilot is still responsible for flying the aircraft. If the autopilot flies the plane into a mountain, itâ(TM)s still labeled pilot error. Thereâ(TM)s no absolving the guy at the controls.
Yes, we can conclude two things from this event;
1) The driver is at fault for not paying attention, and can be held legally responsible
2) Tesla Autopilot is not yet advanced enough to prevent a car from ramming into a parked truck on its own.
What we can also consider is that by enabling drivers to reduce their driving concentration, and even take hands off the wheel, the Tesla Autopilot feature is a contributing factor to the accident. Not in legal terms, but in pure cause analysis terms.
^to be fair, it says its only a problem at higher speeds.
I don't own a Tesla, but I know my own car's auto brake system doesn't gracefully slow to a stop unless the speed difference between my car and whatever is in front of me is less than 30 MPH.
If the delta-v is more than 30 MPH, my car will do a "panic stop" thing to slow the car down, but it'll be too late to avoid a collision.
Maybe, but it seems that the people driven cars also on the road were able to avoid that collision.
If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?
Ignoring the fact that drivers are supposed to be paying attention while autopilot is engaged, I can see no reason that if the driver is telling the truth, that the car would not have slowed to a stop instead of hitting the truck at full speed.
I think it is more likely that the person is either lying (or mistaken) about autopilot being engaged or they were doing something else to override the autopilot's normal function.
The Tesla owner's manual says that Traffic-Aware Cruise Control, which is part of the Autopilot system, "cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles"
Can you patent a scaled up version of the hotel mini bar?
Relativity might be a better place to start, or just tell the kid humanity is destined to be crushed in a black hole if it is lucky to survive that long.
Just because an app has a good intent, doesn't make it a good app.
Its not a slump. Its more a correction.
I was pointing out that there are no conclusions that can be drawn, you are arguing with me so I assume you think some can be drawn.
So, what have the population ratios from that breeding ground been historically? You seem to think we have the data even though the study itself indicates we don't.
That doesn't mean people don't know there's a person in the car. It doesn't take a brain surgeon.
Gee , I wonder why they needed to tint those windows?
I would like to see what they historical population ratio has been over the years, and if there is a trend, an anomaly, or if this is in the band of typical.
So would the scientists.
In truth, the only way to determine if this is a problem is to study the species and if they go extinct, then determine why.
Incorrect. They can monitor population trends and cycles, then determine when things are out of the normal range.
Certainly at the 1 percent male level, most females will not reproduce.
"Most" females may not need to reproduce in a given year to maintain the population. What is the typical ratio range? That information is not provided. Also note that there are more than 1 percent males in the total population. They are limiting the low male ration to only those they believe were from one breeding area.
There is clearly not enough information to draw any conclusion. But don't let that stop you.
Won't the males who do survive produce offspring more likely to be male in higher temperatures. I would expect a dip in pupulation (as 1% males can't fertilise all the females) but in the long run it would correct
We might know that if the study showed a historical ration record, but unfortunately it is just a one time snapshot and therefore tells us nothing about how the population ration trends or cycles.
Here, for the first time, we use genetic markers and a mixed-stock analysis (MSA), combined with sex determination through laparoscopy and endocrinology, to link male and female green turtles foraging in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) to the nesting beach from which they hatched.
But they have no way to prove if this method is accurate because they are not allowed to disturb the hatch lings.
I don't question AGW, but I do question any conclusions drawn from this study in and of itself.
It seems like this 'highlights' one unique and unproven possibility, and nothing more. Getting ahead of ourselves....
They already make laptops and tablets with SIM cards for connectivity. Instant on isn't a must have feature for most folks and many tablets are essentially that anyhow. And if I do need more battery life, those backup charge packs are cheap and you can leave them at home when not needed.
My tablet and BT keyboard connected to my phone hotspot if needed serves me well.
Anyone else that reads this can plainly see what my link goes to, and how it backs my point. You can call it a potato if you like, but that doesn't change what it really is.
Well, I lost track about what we are talking. The web site you link is not showing the day by day wind production. It shows two selected grid operators and how much wind/solar they feed into their grids.
The link shows the entire German wind production for week, you can step through every week of the year. This is another case where you simply ignore facts and go off saying things that don't make sense. Your link does not show actual production history for days or weeks.
Wind variability does not go away just because you ignore it, and facts don't go away just because you decide to be willfully ignorant. You have no credibility.
Low wind production is quite commonplace actually. Step through every week of the year and you'll find many times it drops less than 2 GW total generation. I gave you the link....
In the first four weeks alone there are lows of 0.33, 0.53, and 0.78 GW output.... next to nothing.,
Even in a good wind week, like week 40, it drops to only 8GW
Then there are entire weeks that are really bad. Weeks 1-4, Weeks 26-35 are all pathetic weeks. 38.. There are others I skipped.
Please stop 'just saying stuff' that you want to be true and look at the facts.
I came home the other day and caught my Roomba watching a video of an arduino plugging into a raspberry pi.
Hearing aids are overpriced. But it can make a big difference to get ones properly tuned for you specific hearing issue. Hearing aids that amplify across the entire range can damage your hearing further/faster than properly tuned ones. So there is value in doing it right. After going cheap for many years, my dad finally spend $3K+ on a pair and he said they were much better than anything he'd had before.
In the case of tinnitus management, I don't think there is as much risk in trying other approaches. Its a crap shoot no matter what you do.
Are they forgetting the huge value of all the piracy that they have prevented by streaming? Isn't one illegal download prevention about $350M or so?
Well, we all need to be reasonable, and if there is no place to get over then you shouldn't force it and there are always unique situations. But, if you can get over, let those that want to drive faster pass, then you should even if you have to temporarily reduce your speed.
Changing lanes is not 'dangerously weaving back and forth'. If you are having trouble safely changing lanes, then stay right. But don't find excuses no to let other pass.
Providing an economic incentive for a government to label something as 'extremist' doesn't seem like a good path to me.
They are trying to prevent the Evil that happened before from coming back. Hate speach against Jews -> violence against Jews -> death camps for Jews.
Very understandable. Yet one thing very important to the NAZI government was control of the media and its content, so they should proceed with caution.
The monorail had already served its purpo$e as soon as it was completed.