The biggest incorrect assumption here is that going 10% faster will get you there 10% sooner. Not only is the maths wrong, but it ignores that the actual result is that it gets you to the back of the queue at the traffic lights 10% sooner, and through the lights at the exact same time. Even on a freeway generally all it does is gets you to the back of the queue of slow moving cars slightly sooner, whereupon you get out of the queue at basically the exact same time.
No, what most people with that sentiment are missing is that while the fast lane generally is doing 5-10 above, the rest of the freeway is generally around the speed limit. Driving at the speed limit on a freeway is a remarkably relaxing experience compared to fighting with everyone trying to gain 20 seconds on their journey by speeding.
The point is that the reasons why emergency drivers are allowed to do this would not exist any more. Emergency drivers are trained to do this kind of thing because we structure our roads around human drivers, and how they are able to drive. As soon as we structure our road system around computer drivers, and their abilities, having a human driver breaking the rules in the middle of the system causes more problems than it solves. Instead, we just let the automated system do it's thing, and transport us (faster than a human emergency driver would anyway) to the hospital.
No, they would decrease, but not because the cars have instantaneous reactions, instead, because the cars would communicate with each other, so that none of them has to react to the one in front breaking.
Better yet, if all (or even most) cars become autonomous, then you stop getting sudden breaking scenarios, and stop getting caterpillar traffic jams. The fuel saving in not decelerating and accelerating there alone is huge.
Haha. Seriously, good one. NOBODY drives the posted limit on interstates. Try it sometime and you'll be passed left and right. 5-9 mph over is likely the reasonable average.
Actually, I drive at the posted speed limit on interstates. And no, I don't find myself passed left and right all the time. Stop trying to justify your speeding.
Why would emergency personnel be allowed to drive?
By the time you get to 90% autonomous vehicles on the road it starts to make sense to just ban non-autonomous ones, because the autonomous one can then use the space much more efficiently, travelling faster, and closer together (but communicating with each other to not collide). Even an emergency vehicle in this situation will 1) get there faster if driven autonomously, 2) be safer than if not driven autonomously.
Well no... The thing about aliens visiting us is that it implies not only intelligence, but knowledge beyond ours. That's got major implications. Some random proteins a few billion miles away... not so interesting.
Right, this is the point which makes it interesting in the US. In the US, simple elimination of dominated strategies says "don't say anything at all after being cautioned". In the UK however, the caution has an important difference: "however it may harm your defenese if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court". That makes the game theory much harder to figure out, and in general, the answer becomes "say 'I chose to remain silent until I have a lawyer here' until you have a lawyer there".
Interestingly, the british give the same right –you do not have to say anything.
However, the law over there is importantly and subtleing different: "You do not have to say anything, however it may harm your defenese if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence". That invalidates "saul"'s (which I have named him due to his similarity in appearance and mannerism to Saul Goodman) primary argument – that you can not do any harm to your case by not talking, but you can do good.
In the UK, instead, it's simply better to say "I want my lawyer present", and then, once they're present, say only what they advise you to say. In the US, it appears that things are tilted too much (for my taste) in the defendant's favour –if you refuse to tell the police something, it should indeed mean that you can't then tell the jury that – you didn't give the police a chance to investigate it!
The evidence is clear –it's that all parties agree that the seizure was considered perfectly legal. What seems less legal is the requirement to hand over their encryption key, as that stops it being specific to a particular person.
The fourth says that you can't have a seizure warrant iff you did not first have good evidence that you were going to find something there. This is why search warrants are entirely legal, and it's why the above (where they had good evidence that edward snowdon was committing crimes using the service) is too.
So in 1971, we could do 740,000 additions in a second, given that your new law asserts doubling of computational power every 18 months, that implies that that in jesus' time it took them 3.5e386 *days* to do one addition. Something tells me this is bullshit:P
Imagine how many more people would be killed because they weren't out there catching people with bald tyres, driving dangerously, going to scenes of accidents and sorting out the consequences.
Frankly, these guys see death and distraction on a near daily basis. They will have seen people who have not been wearing their seat belt, and how they come off so much worse in an accident. They will have seen that most of the accidents they visit involve someone who thought "oh, it's only 15mph more, I'm still in control, it's fine". They will have seen how many of them involve someone texting, or calling. Etc.
Given that these guys are the ones who have to see all of this, I don't really blame them for trying to stop some of it happening.
Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.
What's sad about that? What's the risk you're trying to indicate might be present?
For reference, at least in the UK, an "unmarked" police car will light up like a fucking christmas tree as soon as it wants to make a stop – it will be very clear it's a police vehicle once the driver wants to blow their cover.
The interesting thing is that actually busting people for bad driving is one of the best ways of catching some of these guys.
1) Hey, your driving is fucking terrible. 2) Why does it smell like weed in here? 3) Why do you have 3 mobile phones that are continuously ringing? 4) What's this big package of white powder in the boot?
The UK has somewhat different customs in this area (and possibly different laws).
Not in this regard, no. If you hit a car in the rear in the UK, you are at fault, full stop. The only way you might get off with it is by claiming that they were reversing, and being able to prove it.
I recall reading a comment a few months ago from someone in the UK talking about how many more cars get through a green light in the UK than the US because the UK drivers are all ready to start moving as soon as the light is green, rather than waiting for the car in front of them to move before taking their foot off the brake. It is perhaps unwise, but if that's the habit, it's more understandable.
This does not happen. You absolutely at no point on UK roads start moving into a space in the blind hope that it will be clear when you get there. The only way the UK differs here to the US is that we have a yellow light before green, as well as before red. This primes people for the fact that the lights are about to change, and lets you do things like get off the hand break and get in gear before the light turns green, and means you don't wait 5 seconds before you go anywhere at the lights.
There are plenty of entirely legitimate reasons why you might not move. There might be a small child in front of your car that the driver behind you can't see. Someone might be coming round the roundabout you're moving onto at high speed, and the driver behind you unable to see it. Your car might have broken down...
You are not "supposed to move" when the light turns green – you are "allowed to move". The blame is absolutely unequivocally on the person who drove at high speed into a stationary object.
What on earth are you talking about. All they would need to do is expose it as a public dynamic library.
That of course doesn't make it a good idea –they would have an absolute nightmare with compatibility, and it would be counter productive to getting devs to actually ship software for their system.
Slashdot Mirror
And what makes you think that a computer is incapable of taking this into account?
Interesting, TIL, the bay area isn't important, interesting or reasonably populated.
The biggest incorrect assumption here is that going 10% faster will get you there 10% sooner. Not only is the maths wrong, but it ignores that the actual result is that it gets you to the back of the queue at the traffic lights 10% sooner, and through the lights at the exact same time. Even on a freeway generally all it does is gets you to the back of the queue of slow moving cars slightly sooner, whereupon you get out of the queue at basically the exact same time.
No, what most people with that sentiment are missing is that while the fast lane generally is doing 5-10 above, the rest of the freeway is generally around the speed limit. Driving at the speed limit on a freeway is a remarkably relaxing experience compared to fighting with everyone trying to gain 20 seconds on their journey by speeding.
The point is that the reasons why emergency drivers are allowed to do this would not exist any more. Emergency drivers are trained to do this kind of thing because we structure our roads around human drivers, and how they are able to drive. As soon as we structure our road system around computer drivers, and their abilities, having a human driver breaking the rules in the middle of the system causes more problems than it solves. Instead, we just let the automated system do it's thing, and transport us (faster than a human emergency driver would anyway) to the hospital.
No, they would decrease, but not because the cars have instantaneous reactions, instead, because the cars would communicate with each other, so that none of them has to react to the one in front breaking.
Better yet, if all (or even most) cars become autonomous, then you stop getting sudden breaking scenarios, and stop getting caterpillar traffic jams. The fuel saving in not decelerating and accelerating there alone is huge.
Haha. Seriously, good one. NOBODY drives the posted limit on interstates. Try it sometime and you'll be passed left and right. 5-9 mph over is likely the reasonable average.
Actually, I drive at the posted speed limit on interstates. And no, I don't find myself passed left and right all the time. Stop trying to justify your speeding.
Why would emergency personnel be allowed to drive?
By the time you get to 90% autonomous vehicles on the road it starts to make sense to just ban non-autonomous ones, because the autonomous one can then use the space much more efficiently, travelling faster, and closer together (but communicating with each other to not collide). Even an emergency vehicle in this situation will 1) get there faster if driven autonomously, 2) be safer than if not driven autonomously.
Alternatively... you could just drive within the speed limit?
Well no... The thing about aliens visiting us is that it implies not only intelligence, but knowledge beyond ours. That's got major implications. Some random proteins a few billion miles away... not so interesting.
Right, this is the point which makes it interesting in the US. In the US, simple elimination of dominated strategies says "don't say anything at all after being cautioned". In the UK however, the caution has an important difference: "however it may harm your defenese if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court". That makes the game theory much harder to figure out, and in general, the answer becomes "say 'I chose to remain silent until I have a lawyer here' until you have a lawyer there".
Interestingly, the british give the same right –you do not have to say anything.
However, the law over there is importantly and subtleing different: "You do not have to say anything, however it may harm your defenese if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence". That invalidates "saul"'s (which I have named him due to his similarity in appearance and mannerism to Saul Goodman) primary argument – that you can not do any harm to your case by not talking, but you can do good.
In the UK, instead, it's simply better to say "I want my lawyer present", and then, once they're present, say only what they advise you to say. In the US, it appears that things are tilted too much (for my taste) in the defendant's favour –if you refuse to tell the police something, it should indeed mean that you can't then tell the jury that – you didn't give the police a chance to investigate it!
The evidence is clear –it's that all parties agree that the seizure was considered perfectly legal. What seems less legal is the requirement to hand over their encryption key, as that stops it being specific to a particular person.
The fourth says that you can't have a seizure warrant iff you did not first have good evidence that you were going to find something there. This is why search warrants are entirely legal, and it's why the above (where they had good evidence that edward snowdon was committing crimes using the service) is too.
That's not service as a software substitute. No software could magically connect you to the other side of the world, that requires a service.
Whoops sorry, I took the clock rate of a 4004, not the instruction rate. Make that 3.5e387 days.
So in 1971, we could do 740,000 additions in a second, given that your new law asserts doubling of computational power every 18 months, that implies that that in jesus' time it took them 3.5e386 *days* to do one addition. Something tells me this is bullshit :P
Languages are just Syntax - get over it.
It makes me sad that so many people focus on the syntax of the language they're using. So much so, that they think that languages are just syntax.
Imagine how many more people would be killed because they weren't out there catching people with bald tyres, driving dangerously, going to scenes of accidents and sorting out the consequences.
Frankly, these guys see death and distraction on a near daily basis. They will have seen people who have not been wearing their seat belt, and how they come off so much worse in an accident. They will have seen that most of the accidents they visit involve someone who thought "oh, it's only 15mph more, I'm still in control, it's fine". They will have seen how many of them involve someone texting, or calling. Etc.
Given that these guys are the ones who have to see all of this, I don't really blame them for trying to stop some of it happening.
Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.
What's sad about that? What's the risk you're trying to indicate might be present?
For reference, at least in the UK, an "unmarked" police car will light up like a fucking christmas tree as soon as it wants to make a stop – it will be very clear it's a police vehicle once the driver wants to blow their cover.
The interesting thing is that actually busting people for bad driving is one of the best ways of catching some of these guys.
1) Hey, your driving is fucking terrible.
2) Why does it smell like weed in here?
3) Why do you have 3 mobile phones that are continuously ringing?
4) What's this big package of white powder in the boot?
The UK has somewhat different customs in this area (and possibly different laws).
Not in this regard, no. If you hit a car in the rear in the UK, you are at fault, full stop. The only way you might get off with it is by claiming that they were reversing, and being able to prove it.
I recall reading a comment a few months ago from someone in the UK talking about how many more cars get through a green light in the UK than the US because the UK drivers are all ready to start moving as soon as the light is green, rather than waiting for the car in front of them to move before taking their foot off the brake. It is perhaps unwise, but if that's the habit, it's more understandable.
This does not happen. You absolutely at no point on UK roads start moving into a space in the blind hope that it will be clear when you get there. The only way the UK differs here to the US is that we have a yellow light before green, as well as before red. This primes people for the fact that the lights are about to change, and lets you do things like get off the hand break and get in gear before the light turns green, and means you don't wait 5 seconds before you go anywhere at the lights.
There are plenty of entirely legitimate reasons why you might not move. There might be a small child in front of your car that the driver behind you can't see. Someone might be coming round the roundabout you're moving onto at high speed, and the driver behind you unable to see it. Your car might have broken down...
You are not "supposed to move" when the light turns green – you are "allowed to move". The blame is absolutely unequivocally on the person who drove at high speed into a stationary object.
What on earth are you talking about. All they would need to do is expose it as a public dynamic library.
That of course doesn't make it a good idea –they would have an absolute nightmare with compatibility, and it would be counter productive to getting devs to actually ship software for their system.