How exactly do you 'face' a hurricane? All you can do is hide underground somewhere. There's nowhere to hide in New Orleans you'd just drown. Better to walk 50 miles away, you'd avoid the floods and most of the hurricane.
Not that a 12 hour walk should exhaust anyone between the ages of 10 and 60, but how much energy exactly do you need to hide in a ditch?
What for? They had ample notice of the hurricane, and could have walked hundreds of miles away before it came. You don't need shelter in a warm climate.
Is it a disaster if a 75 year old woman dies? That's around the life expectancy, so it's not exactly something to worry about. Were you expecting people to live forever?
I'd think that instant-thinking instant-reacting computers would have a better chance of saving the situation than human drivers.
That's ridiculous logic anyway, it's not like AI would make a blowout any worse. And how often do blowouts occur? Let's see what you're saying in clearer terms:
1. In 99.9999% of situations, AI makes the traffic faster and reduces accidents. 2. In 0.0001% of situations, AI doesn't make things any worse, in fact it would probably still be better.
So in other words, loads of benefits, no drawbacks. And yet you still complain about it.
I think that most of the criticisms of AI driving are not down to concerns about safety or cost, just people who like to drive thinking up excuses to keep doing it. Sorry boy racers, but safety comes before your enjoyment of driving. Perhaps you can take your neon-lighted hatchbacks with spoilers and 500db stereos in the back to a racetrack and get your adrenaline rush there. Leave the roads for adults who want to use them as a safe form of transport, with enjoyment of driving a secondary concern.
Senators and congressmen wouldn't have anything to do with it. American doesn't have to implement it, we can use it over here. Once the figures show massive reductions in accidents and deaths, America would be foolish not to go the same way.
First the auto-lobby will scream bloody-murder because it would require extra systems in every car, which raises their costs. They sure as heck aren't going to eat into their own profits, so that means the price increases are passed along to the consumers, who want to know why their honda accords now cost $35,000 for a feature they don't want anyhow.
Safety features in cars are already mandatory, by law. This auto-driving would be a safety feature. Therefore it could be made mandatory by law. I'm sure the auto-lobby whined when seatbelts were made mandatory, or airbags. Eventually they just shut up and got on with it, and now we don't think twice about things that save our lives. This will be the same. Lobbying can only go so far to hold back profits.
Curry's Indian, cooked here by Indians with a few alterations, namely much more sauce because Britons won't eat it otherwise. Even if it was British, how many people in Britain actually cook it? I mean, actually go home and cook a curry for tea. And by cooking I don't mean pouring some sauce out of a jar.
The British people have no interest in food. They can't cook, they have no recipes, the ingredients grown here and sold here are of a very low quality. Tasteless, not fresh, filled with chemicals. The only things they can cook are boiled vegetables and a bland roast beef with gravy from a cube. Any ingredients that are even slightly good are hideously overpriced and only available in obscure specialist places.
If you try expanding your horizons beyond the takeaway you will see that the world of fine dining is not some invented tosh to make bon viveurs feel elite.
I'll expand my horizons beyond takeaways when this so called 'fine' food doesn't require remortgaging the house to afford and a waiting list of ten years to get in. But that won't happen as they realise that if us proles could eat it we'd see it for the scam it really is.
And then no films get made because they're too expensive with zero return.
Actually maybe not, as humans don't experience much stimuli. The eyes don't see very well. They have blind spots, and floaters, which are subconciously blocked but are still missing information. Also the eye can only focus on one very small area at a time, so most of it would be blurry.
(a British restaurant voted the best in the world this year - jokes about British cuisine now null and void)
Yeah, because the whole population of Britain eats there every night.
Anyway those sorts of votes are not by normal people, they're by rich weirdos who eat weird frilly food in microscopic proportions that no-one else would touch with a bargepole. You only have to look at the menu for a place like that and realise that they're probably the worst restaurants in the world. Give me a kebab any day.
But then when you've spent several hundred quid on a meal, you're going to want to justify it. Saying it's rubbish is admitting to yourself that you've wasted your money. Voting it as the best place ever goes some way to trying to deceive yourself into believing that you haven't wasted a huge amount of money that could have been spent on something worthwhile.
Although I suppose the novelty factors counts for a lot: "it's odd and expensive, therefore it's good".
I'll agree that a subset of the population doesn't have "developed" culinary tastes.
I suppose by 'subset' you mean '99%'.
The best restaurants in the world are visited by perhaps the richest 0.00001% of the population. I'm sure every country has a few top-class restaurants, but that's largely irrelevent, a statistical blip.
The rest of America gets by on tasteless factory-farmed meat, stale battery eggs, sugary cardboard bread, tasteless stale vegetables and fries, all cooked in excessive amounts of oil, salt and sugar.
From Azerbijani to Thai, from crappy to great, it's available
I agree, the worse the local food is, the more the need for foreign food. Hence every other building in Britain being a foreign takeaway. Boiled potatoes and boiled broccoli only has so much appeal. In places like Italy or France, there isn't much need for all that because the locally-produced food is so good.
Also, salt isn't bad either, whatever the myths about salt say. Japanese eat way more salt than almost anyone else, yet they are really healthy for the most part as well..
I dunno, I'd say that Americans eat the most salt. Everything they eat is loaded with it. I mean, obscene amounts of salt. The food they eat has so little real flavour anymore that it's the only way they can get anyone to eat it.
It seems that a large section of people on this site require basic business lessons.
So, because a digital system would be too efficient (unlimited copies rather than only a few that must be shared), we have to cripple it to make it no better than the old physical system. Why? Because our society is too tied to the idea of scarcity?
Yes, it has to be crippled, otherwise one copy would be sent to everyone else, and the whole concept of a library wouldn't work. If there were no DRM, an audiobook from the library would be a permanent copy. In which case, no-one would buy the audio book, they'd just download it from the library. Then what author trying to sell audio books would allow libraries to 'rent' out his books? It would be like a paper library offering free perfect photocopies of all their books.
It's not about crippling or scarcities or societal ties, it's about business.
If I borrow something from the library it's unlikely I'm going to want to borrow it again anyway (otherwise I would have bought it), the library isn't going to get anything more from me for that item, so why is expiring the audiobook necessary? Don't they trust me not to duplicate it and give it to others?
In that case, are you willing to pay the full price of the book for a permanent copy?
I think you've missed the reason why renting something is cheaper than buying it.
No they don't. That's an urban legend. Americans deep fry nearly everything, they eat LOADS of fat. They even deep fry turkeys. The French actually eat smaller portions of leaner food. Americans eat cheesesteak sandwiches.
Whilst a Frenchman might shallow-fry something in olive oil, an American would deep-fry it, coat it in sugar and marinate it in salt. They have to do that because they don't have the refined palates that the French have, an unbringing on junk food has rendered their tastes buds non-functioning to anything but salt.
Plus, we only have 30 minutes to make it from the office, to the fast food joint, and back to the office again. Hope there is enough time to push the sandwich down the throat with one hand while honking the horn to get the asshole in front of us out of the way with the other hand.
Why do you drive to McDonald's for your lunch? Ever heard of bringing sandwiches? You're responsible for your own diet, don't try to blame it on your employer. No-one's forcing you to rush out for your grease/salt fix when you could bring a salad in instead. Perhaps the American culture of going out for lunch every day is partly to blame?
And to think, our soldiers willing give their lives to protect all of us.
You're an absolute nutcase. Who exactly are they protecting? Iraq was no danger to anyone. Saddam knew that as soon as he set foot outside his own borders he'd be hammered. Invading Iraq has not made anyone any safer. Some might argue that those soldiers in Iraq are making the world MORE DANGEROUS for us, encouraging terrorism. Iraq is heading towards civil war.
Jho - still giving it up for HER loved ones bleeding our blood in a foreign land for her children's freedom.
Stop watching Fox news and come back to the real world.Jho - still giving it up for HER loved ones bleeding our blood in a foreign land for her children's freedom.
I'm no Google fanboy (quite the opposite), but this whole censorship complaint is a load of crap.
Look, if Google didn't comply with Chinese laws, Google would be banned from there. That would be effectively 100% censorship on Google, the Chinese would have even LESS access to information.
Chinese Internet-using citizens have MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION when Google censor, than they would if they didn't. A censored search engine is more use than no search engine at all.
As for censorship being 'evil', that's entirely subjective, and evil is a loaded term. I can't think of a single country with 100% free speech so you're standing on thin ice.
Remember that Slashdot's proclaimed love for free speech only applies to things they agree with. They'll whine for six weeks if an obscure blog deletes a spam comment, but won't bat an eyelid at rampant censorship on their own site, as long as the pro-Google pro-Linux posts get modded up.
What, so every time an angry mob protests about something, the government has to submit? That's effectively running a country by mob rule, whoever gets the most violent protestors wins.
Or even if they go to the rioting stage, why not ask them to sit down a talk about how you can improve things?
Yeah that'll work. Ten thousand rioters throwing chairs at the police, a policeman picks up a microphone and says "Can you please all sit down..."
Your second mistake is assuming that protestors have legitimate grievances that they're primarily interested in solving peacefully. 90% of them are just along for the ride, they get caught up in the buzz, it's a day out for them, nothing else. The other 10% aren't interested in listening to anyone.
Here's a hint for you operating system obsessives*, you choose the operating system which runs your applications and hardware, ***NOT*** the other way round. I repeat: you use the OS which runs your software and hardware. If Linux doesn't support your software, you don't use it. If it doesn't support your hardware, you don't use it, no matter how stable it is, no matter how many ways you can configure transparency in KDE, no matter how easily you can reprogram is, all that is irrelevent.
The primary and only use of computers is to run applications, that's what they're there for. An operating system is a means to an end, nothing else.
If Open Office doesn't meet someone's needs, and they need MS Office, then preaching Linux all day is a waste of everyone's time. You can spend all day talking about how well Open Office opens Ms Office files, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't make it a better product. There's a reason people pay thousands of pounds for professional software: because it fits their needs in a way that free software doesn't. Do you think people who pay for Photoshop wouldn't rather use something that's free?
You don't pick your food depending on what cutlery you need to eat it, you pick your cutlery depending on what you're eating. If you're eating soup you don't use a fork, no matter how much you like forks and hate spoons.
* Of all the things to be religious about, a computer operating system seems the most insignificant and irrelevent. But then I think the same thing about car enthusiasts, they're just a means to an end for 99%, but the 1% can't understand that.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly do you 'face' a hurricane? All you can do is hide underground somewhere. There's nowhere to hide in New Orleans you'd just drown. Better to walk 50 miles away, you'd avoid the floods and most of the hurricane.
Not that a 12 hour walk should exhaust anyone between the ages of 10 and 60, but how much energy exactly do you need to hide in a ditch?
Provide proper transportation and shelter?
What for? They had ample notice of the hurricane, and could have walked hundreds of miles away before it came. You don't need shelter in a warm climate.
Is it a disaster if a 75 year old woman dies? That's around the life expectancy, so it's not exactly something to worry about. Were you expecting people to live forever?
That defeats the whole point if there are manual drivers swerving around on other lanes, that's still dangerous to the AI cars.
I think that the cheaper insurance from AI cars compared to the manual ones will make more people switch.
What if you blow a tire?
I'd think that instant-thinking instant-reacting computers would have a better chance of saving the situation than human drivers.
That's ridiculous logic anyway, it's not like AI would make a blowout any worse. And how often do blowouts occur? Let's see what you're saying in clearer terms:
1. In 99.9999% of situations, AI makes the traffic faster and reduces accidents.
2. In 0.0001% of situations, AI doesn't make things any worse, in fact it would probably still be better.
So in other words, loads of benefits, no drawbacks. And yet you still complain about it.
I think that most of the criticisms of AI driving are not down to concerns about safety or cost, just people who like to drive thinking up excuses to keep doing it. Sorry boy racers, but safety comes before your enjoyment of driving. Perhaps you can take your neon-lighted hatchbacks with spoilers and 500db stereos in the back to a racetrack and get your adrenaline rush there. Leave the roads for adults who want to use them as a safe form of transport, with enjoyment of driving a secondary concern.
Senators and congressmen wouldn't have anything to do with it. American doesn't have to implement it, we can use it over here. Once the figures show massive reductions in accidents and deaths, America would be foolish not to go the same way.
First the auto-lobby will scream bloody-murder because it would require extra systems in every car, which raises their costs. They sure as heck aren't going to eat into their own profits, so that means the price increases are passed along to the consumers, who want to know why their honda accords now cost $35,000 for a feature they don't want anyhow.
Safety features in cars are already mandatory, by law. This auto-driving would be a safety feature. Therefore it could be made mandatory by law. I'm sure the auto-lobby whined when seatbelts were made mandatory, or airbags. Eventually they just shut up and got on with it, and now we don't think twice about things that save our lives. This will be the same. Lobbying can only go so far to hold back profits.
Curry's Indian, cooked here by Indians with a few alterations, namely much more sauce because Britons won't eat it otherwise. Even if it was British, how many people in Britain actually cook it? I mean, actually go home and cook a curry for tea. And by cooking I don't mean pouring some sauce out of a jar.
The British people have no interest in food. They can't cook, they have no recipes, the ingredients grown here and sold here are of a very low quality. Tasteless, not fresh, filled with chemicals. The only things they can cook are boiled vegetables and a bland roast beef with gravy from a cube. Any ingredients that are even slightly good are hideously overpriced and only available in obscure specialist places.
If you try expanding your horizons beyond the takeaway you will see that the world of fine dining is not some invented tosh to make bon viveurs feel elite.
I'll expand my horizons beyond takeaways when this so called 'fine' food doesn't require remortgaging the house to afford and a waiting list of ten years to get in. But that won't happen as they realise that if us proles could eat it we'd see it for the scam it really is.
When the 'some money' isn't anywhere near enough to justify gambling hundreds of millions of dollars, then it wouldn't be made at all.
And then no films get made because they're too expensive with zero return.
Actually maybe not, as humans don't experience much stimuli. The eyes don't see very well. They have blind spots, and floaters, which are subconciously blocked but are still missing information. Also the eye can only focus on one very small area at a time, so most of it would be blurry.
And if there's no control of copying then they'll have no books to lend in the first place. Thnk about it.
(a British restaurant voted the best in the world this year - jokes about British cuisine now null and void)
Yeah, because the whole population of Britain eats there every night.
Anyway those sorts of votes are not by normal people, they're by rich weirdos who eat weird frilly food in microscopic proportions that no-one else would touch with a bargepole. You only have to look at the menu for a place like that and realise that they're probably the worst restaurants in the world. Give me a kebab any day.
But then when you've spent several hundred quid on a meal, you're going to want to justify it. Saying it's rubbish is admitting to yourself that you've wasted your money. Voting it as the best place ever goes some way to trying to deceive yourself into believing that you haven't wasted a huge amount of money that could have been spent on something worthwhile.
Although I suppose the novelty factors counts for a lot: "it's odd and expensive, therefore it's good".
I'll agree that a subset of the population doesn't have "developed" culinary tastes.
I suppose by 'subset' you mean '99%'.
The best restaurants in the world are visited by perhaps the richest 0.00001% of the population. I'm sure every country has a few top-class restaurants, but that's largely irrelevent, a statistical blip.
The rest of America gets by on tasteless factory-farmed meat, stale battery eggs, sugary cardboard bread, tasteless stale vegetables and fries, all cooked in excessive amounts of oil, salt and sugar.
From Azerbijani to Thai, from crappy to great, it's available
I agree, the worse the local food is, the more the need for foreign food. Hence every other building in Britain being a foreign takeaway. Boiled potatoes and boiled broccoli only has so much appeal. In places like Italy or France, there isn't much need for all that because the locally-produced food is so good.
Also, salt isn't bad either, whatever the myths about salt say. Japanese eat way more salt than almost anyone else, yet they are really healthy for the most part as well..
I dunno, I'd say that Americans eat the most salt. Everything they eat is loaded with it. I mean, obscene amounts of salt. The food they eat has so little real flavour anymore that it's the only way they can get anyone to eat it.
Have you ever read right to read ?. To me it's scary that what I own can't be shared with my kin.
Have you ever read the dictionary? To me, it's scary how many people don't know the difference between buying and renting.
If the government starts such a pre-crime prevention, it comes close to a facsist utopia - we are not the first to be tempted by such a dream.
Please tell me how it's fascist not to be able to keep something which isn't yours?
After all God didn't put a fence around the forbidden fruit, did he ?.
OK, you need to go to the looney bin.
It seems that a large section of people on this site require basic business lessons.
So, because a digital system would be too efficient (unlimited copies rather than only a few that must be shared), we have to cripple it to make it no better than the old physical system. Why? Because our society is too tied to the idea of scarcity?
Yes, it has to be crippled, otherwise one copy would be sent to everyone else, and the whole concept of a library wouldn't work. If there were no DRM, an audiobook from the library would be a permanent copy. In which case, no-one would buy the audio book, they'd just download it from the library. Then what author trying to sell audio books would allow libraries to 'rent' out his books? It would be like a paper library offering free perfect photocopies of all their books.
It's not about crippling or scarcities or societal ties, it's about business.
If I borrow something from the library it's unlikely I'm going to want to borrow it again anyway (otherwise I would have bought it), the library isn't going to get anything more from me for that item, so why is expiring the audiobook necessary? Don't they trust me not to duplicate it and give it to others?
In that case, are you willing to pay the full price of the book for a permanent copy?
I think you've missed the reason why renting something is cheaper than buying it.
The French eat more oil and fat than Americans,
No they don't. That's an urban legend. Americans deep fry nearly everything, they eat LOADS of fat. They even deep fry turkeys. The French actually eat smaller portions of leaner food. Americans eat cheesesteak sandwiches.
Whilst a Frenchman might shallow-fry something in olive oil, an American would deep-fry it, coat it in sugar and marinate it in salt. They have to do that because they don't have the refined palates that the French have, an unbringing on junk food has rendered their tastes buds non-functioning to anything but salt.
Plus, we only have 30 minutes to make it from the office, to the fast food joint, and back to the office again. Hope there is enough time to push the sandwich down the throat with one hand while honking the horn to get the asshole in front of us out of the way with the other hand.
Why do you drive to McDonald's for your lunch? Ever heard of bringing sandwiches? You're responsible for your own diet, don't try to blame it on your employer. No-one's forcing you to rush out for your grease/salt fix when you could bring a salad in instead. Perhaps the American culture of going out for lunch every day is partly to blame?
WinFS is not a file system. Yes the FS stands for "file system."
So Microsoft are committing fraud then?
And to think, our soldiers willing give their lives to protect all of us.
You're an absolute nutcase. Who exactly are they protecting? Iraq was no danger to anyone. Saddam knew that as soon as he set foot outside his own borders he'd be hammered. Invading Iraq has not made anyone any safer. Some might argue that those soldiers in Iraq are making the world MORE DANGEROUS for us, encouraging terrorism. Iraq is heading towards civil war.
Jho - still giving it up for HER loved ones bleeding our blood in a foreign land for her children's freedom.
Stop watching Fox news and come back to the real world.Jho - still giving it up for HER loved ones bleeding our blood in a foreign land for her children's freedom.
Well, you can be sure that these products won't survive the merger:
1. Photoshop
Why would they get rid of Photoshop?
I'm no Google fanboy (quite the opposite), but this whole censorship complaint is a load of crap.
Look, if Google didn't comply with Chinese laws, Google would be banned from there. That would be effectively 100% censorship on Google, the Chinese would have even LESS access to information.
Chinese Internet-using citizens have MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION when Google censor, than they would if they didn't. A censored search engine is more use than no search engine at all.
As for censorship being 'evil', that's entirely subjective, and evil is a loaded term. I can't think of a single country with 100% free speech so you're standing on thin ice.
Remember that Slashdot's proclaimed love for free speech only applies to things they agree with. They'll whine for six weeks if an obscure blog deletes a spam comment, but won't bat an eyelid at rampant censorship on their own site, as long as the pro-Google pro-Linux posts get modded up.
What about getting rid of the cause of the anger?
What, so every time an angry mob protests about something, the government has to submit? That's effectively running a country by mob rule, whoever gets the most violent protestors wins.
Or even if they go to the rioting stage, why not ask them to sit down a talk about how you can improve things?
Yeah that'll work. Ten thousand rioters throwing chairs at the police, a policeman picks up a microphone and says "Can you please all sit down..."
Your second mistake is assuming that protestors have legitimate grievances that they're primarily interested in solving peacefully. 90% of them are just along for the ride, they get caught up in the buzz, it's a day out for them, nothing else. The other 10% aren't interested in listening to anyone.
No, on the desktop, Windows XP wasn't a sequel to Windows 2000, it was a sequel to Windows 98/ME. Therefore it was a MASSIVE improvement.
Here's a hint for you operating system obsessives*, you choose the operating system which runs your applications and hardware, ***NOT*** the other way round. I repeat: you use the OS which runs your software and hardware. If Linux doesn't support your software, you don't use it. If it doesn't support your hardware, you don't use it, no matter how stable it is, no matter how many ways you can configure transparency in KDE, no matter how easily you can reprogram is, all that is irrelevent.
The primary and only use of computers is to run applications, that's what they're there for. An operating system is a means to an end, nothing else.
If Open Office doesn't meet someone's needs, and they need MS Office, then preaching Linux all day is a waste of everyone's time. You can spend all day talking about how well Open Office opens Ms Office files, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't make it a better product. There's a reason people pay thousands of pounds for professional software: because it fits their needs in a way that free software doesn't. Do you think people who pay for Photoshop wouldn't rather use something that's free?
You don't pick your food depending on what cutlery you need to eat it, you pick your cutlery depending on what you're eating. If you're eating soup you don't use a fork, no matter how much you like forks and hate spoons.
* Of all the things to be religious about, a computer operating system seems the most insignificant and irrelevent. But then I think the same thing about car enthusiasts, they're just a means to an end for 99%, but the 1% can't understand that.