If a Chinese driverless car were to stop at a red light, it would get rear-ended almost immediately by the masses of Chinese that never obey traffic lights.
140,000 miles across China with only two minor accidents would mean the Chinese would basically have to shut down all cross-traffic that could possibly get in the way. Otherwise, statistically, there's just no way their robot car would avoid getting hit by cross-traffic thinking it has the right of way.
Remember, this is China we're talking about. They don't have sensible driving laws like we do in the West. They don't obey traffic lights or stop for anyone or anything - they assume they have right of way until the laws of physics get in the way.
If we were to take a realistic bar for safety, China's bar is pretty much nonexistent - their driving laws amount to "first is right," meaning whoever is first in line has the right of way, period. Meaning they don't stop for anyone. A robot driver in China needs only to keep moving and not hit anyone, and it's as good as everything else on the road.
It's funny, really. The most popular story on that site is about Taiwan's high court slapping someone with a fine equivalent to about $7k USD as well as a month of jail time over a blog post. They're not *always* ahead of us.
Given the Republicans' track record when it comes to bankrolling foreign military actions, I'll be honestly (and pleasantly) surprised if their drive towards full-tilt isolationism pans out to anything more than hyperbole - yeah, they'd get enough anti-war Democrats to grudgingly agree with them, but I wouldn't expect this to go anywhere beyond cutting funding for the war in Libya: the Democrats certainly wouldn't - couldn't - bring themselves to initiate impeachment proceedings for him violating the War Powers Act.
They wouldn't, because they know how unpopular foreign military actions are among segments of the Democratic party. They're not worried about losing those votes, since they'd never have them in the first place, but Obama certainly would, which is undoubtedly why he doesn't want to take this to Congress in the first place. The masterstroke is of course the cognitive dissonance this bit of news is causing in liberal circles - lacking Congressional approval for the war in Libya, he ends up looking worse than Bush, at least on this one point (Bush actually sought and got Congressional approval for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). If he were to seek Congressional approval, he'd get it - from the Republicans, which would only serve to further alienate him from the anti-war segments of his party.
Basically, Obama has dug himself into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" hole by going to war in the first place, and it behooves the Republicans to capitalize on it.
Quite. I've since migrated to Fedora 14 as my distro of choice, not that it's all that much better, but I can actually compile a kernel on it without it going bonkers.
Only thing that's pissing me off about Fedora is all the missing man pages.
My reasoning is that while "turn" and "on" can individually have emphasis applied to drastically change the meaning of the sentence ("turn ON a router" vs "TURN on a router"), "hinge" is a word that needs emphasis just to be pronounced. "Rely" would be another appropriate replacement, it too practically necessitates emphasis when spoken. There's next to no chance that either of those could be interpreted differently than what was originally intended.
It's about as "creepy" as the police doing helicopter overflights of your neighborhood with thermal imaging equipment looking for houses that are much hotter than they should be, aka probable pot-growing operations. Less creepy actually, since the only thing Google garners from this is the probable location of a wireless access point. Which is not a crime. BFD.
You don't like it? Turn off SSID broadcasting. You'll still have an access point, you'll just be sacrificing a bit more convenience for greater obscurity.
Difference being every serviceperson has the implicit chance of getting shot at by enemy combatants. The only risk being taken here is the possibility of the 4chan party van showing up in front of someone's house.
The difference being the Slashdot effect is a genuine attempt to access the site (only for the server to croak from the sudden zergrush) whereas a DDoS attack is a deliberate attempt to prevent everyone from accessing the site.
With FOIA requests, don't we have to have some prior insight for the sake of specificity? That limits the range of the FOIA to things that have already been declassified for public consumption, since in principle, we should have no idea what to ask for if we haven't already been informed of it.
Slashdot Mirror
China would do themselves a favor by copying our driving laws.
If a Chinese driverless car were to stop at a red light, it would get rear-ended almost immediately by the masses of Chinese that never obey traffic lights.
140,000 miles across China with only two minor accidents would mean the Chinese would basically have to shut down all cross-traffic that could possibly get in the way. Otherwise, statistically, there's just no way their robot car would avoid getting hit by cross-traffic thinking it has the right of way.
Remember, this is China we're talking about. They don't have sensible driving laws like we do in the West. They don't obey traffic lights or stop for anyone or anything - they assume they have right of way until the laws of physics get in the way.
If we were to take a realistic bar for safety, China's bar is pretty much nonexistent - their driving laws amount to "first is right," meaning whoever is first in line has the right of way, period. Meaning they don't stop for anyone. A robot driver in China needs only to keep moving and not hit anyone, and it's as good as everything else on the road.
Except for China. Anyone could come up with a good long list of shit they could improve, but instead they build entire cities that damn near nobody can afford to live in just to make their annual GDP growth percentages look good.
Yeah, Linux won't touch swap unless it absolutely needs to, it'll exhaust physical ram first.
Simple. The politicians want to keep their jobs. Reforming the system means biting the hands that feed their reelection campaigns.
And if something ever goes wrong and fallout escapes into the atmosphere, won't Germany be *downwind* of it?
It's funny, really. The most popular story on that site is about Taiwan's high court slapping someone with a fine equivalent to about $7k USD as well as a month of jail time over a blog post. They're not *always* ahead of us.
Given the Republicans' track record when it comes to bankrolling foreign military actions, I'll be honestly (and pleasantly) surprised if their drive towards full-tilt isolationism pans out to anything more than hyperbole - yeah, they'd get enough anti-war Democrats to grudgingly agree with them, but I wouldn't expect this to go anywhere beyond cutting funding for the war in Libya: the Democrats certainly wouldn't - couldn't - bring themselves to initiate impeachment proceedings for him violating the War Powers Act.
They wouldn't, because they know how unpopular foreign military actions are among segments of the Democratic party. They're not worried about losing those votes, since they'd never have them in the first place, but Obama certainly would, which is undoubtedly why he doesn't want to take this to Congress in the first place. The masterstroke is of course the cognitive dissonance this bit of news is causing in liberal circles - lacking Congressional approval for the war in Libya, he ends up looking worse than Bush, at least on this one point (Bush actually sought and got Congressional approval for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). If he were to seek Congressional approval, he'd get it - from the Republicans, which would only serve to further alienate him from the anti-war segments of his party.
Basically, Obama has dug himself into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" hole by going to war in the first place, and it behooves the Republicans to capitalize on it.
Bush got congressional authorization. Obama thinks he doesn't have to. That's the key difference.
Because Obama appointed those two Republicans. And though Obama is by no means a progressive, progressives nonetheless voted for him.
Quite. I've since migrated to Fedora 14 as my distro of choice, not that it's all that much better, but I can actually compile a kernel on it without it going bonkers.
Only thing that's pissing me off about Fedora is all the missing man pages.
My reasoning is that while "turn" and "on" can individually have emphasis applied to drastically change the meaning of the sentence ("turn ON a router" vs "TURN on a router"), "hinge" is a word that needs emphasis just to be pronounced. "Rely" would be another appropriate replacement, it too practically necessitates emphasis when spoken. There's next to no chance that either of those could be interpreted differently than what was originally intended.
Replace "Turn" with "Hinge" and it suddenly makes a lot more sense.
Yes, the consensus is that friends don't let friends buy Bose.
It's about as "creepy" as the police doing helicopter overflights of your neighborhood with thermal imaging equipment looking for houses that are much hotter than they should be, aka probable pot-growing operations. Less creepy actually, since the only thing Google garners from this is the probable location of a wireless access point. Which is not a crime. BFD.
You don't like it? Turn off SSID broadcasting. You'll still have an access point, you'll just be sacrificing a bit more convenience for greater obscurity.
You can close your windows and lock your doors yet your street address is still public information. This is directly analogous.
Sure they did. They could secure their fucking wireless access points when they set the damned things up.
This was known way back in 2009.
Except the air conditioning generally doesn't work while out on the tarmac because all that shit is powered by the engines, not by the batteries.
Been there, done that, prefer driving, even if it takes longer.
Difference being every serviceperson has the implicit chance of getting shot at by enemy combatants. The only risk being taken here is the possibility of the 4chan party van showing up in front of someone's house.
The difference being the Slashdot effect is a genuine attempt to access the site (only for the server to croak from the sudden zergrush) whereas a DDoS attack is a deliberate attempt to prevent everyone from accessing the site.
With FOIA requests, don't we have to have some prior insight for the sake of specificity? That limits the range of the FOIA to things that have already been declassified for public consumption, since in principle, we should have no idea what to ask for if we haven't already been informed of it.