So if a hostile foreign country had sent agents to break into the Trump towers to find any dirt on Trump (like his tax returns and copies of his numerous non-disclosure agreements) to later use for extortion purposes or to use as leverage for international negotiations or to use for supporting a different political candidate at the most crucial times, you would have been fine with it?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Julian Assange is guilty of anything. For all I know, he was just an innocent conduit for that information. But indicting him makes sense (even if the charge doesn't stick) because either wittingly or unwittingly, Julian Assange was used as a pawn by a foreign hostile power to effect our elections.
Apple is installing itself as a producer of some of the most-acclaimed films around, all without needing to take a single meeting or read one script off the slush pile first....
Then they're not a Producer.
It's sneakily consequential. A24, if you're not familiar, is the boutique New York outfit that has been responsible for a slew of hipster-approved, Academy Award-recognized films including...
This is just PR drivel. And no, it's not consequential.
Call me when Apple secures another 6 months of streaming exclusivity for "Game of Thrones".
If you're an Uber driver in California for instance, you would have won the recent class lawsuit against Uber (if not for the arbitration clause).
As it stands, only the drivers that had the presence of mind to opt-out of arbitration within a specific time limit won that case, but that's only a tiny fraction of them.
A self-driving car cannot tell the difference between an animal crossing the road and a small child, let alone be able to compute probabilities of survival between different people based on different scenarios.
Think of the self-driving car of today as a super primitive nervous system. Eventually, it will evolve to something more complex and smarter, but until then, every time there is an accident (or a lawsuit), human engineers/regulators will sit down and try to figure out what went wrong so they can improve on it.
Google Play itself is available in 145 countries, so if the injunction is only affecting 82 countries, that probably means some kind of treaty must be limiting its scope.
If the author was so confident in his bot, he would have attached his own name to it instead of making up a fake name for it.
Also, I don't see why he thinks his idea is so novel, static analysis, for instance, can suggest solutions if you want. And if you're too lazy to double-check the work yourself and let someone else do it for you, that's not a great discovery, that's just laziness.
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
I'm sure that's the plan as well.
But it wouldn't make for a good press release that we'd use a foreign population as guinea pigs for our new self-driving trucks (when we're too afraid of having them on our own soil without a safety driver behind the wheel).
Only a property owner or law enforcement should be allowed to shoot down a drone (under specific circumstances). There are safety issues to consider. A damaged drone can easily kill someone falling down from the sky.
That being said, I doubt they'll be able to do that anymore. They don't have the same dominance they used to have. At this point, Microsoft is just trying to survive, it's no longer capable of dominating anymore.
You'll already lose your job (and worse) if you travel to a country like North Korea or Iran.
Just add New Zealand to that list. Do not go to New Zealand, or you may lose your job and possibly go to prison for the rest of your life. Or if you do go there with your devices on an official government business, you better make sure you have diplomatic immunity.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week.
I'm an Uber/Lyft driver. And another misleading statistic is the number of hours they tell us we've worked.
And that's because both companies do not count the waiting time we take to wait for rides to accept, nor the time we use to get back to a location without getting a ride request. So if the app tells me I've worked 35 hours or 45 hours this week and done my 130 rides for the week, it usually means I've actually worked roughly 50+ to 60+ hours a week. It's all very misleading.
And to some of you wondering how this is possible. Why aren't drivers quitting? Well, I'd say 99% of drivers did quit three or four years ago. Me, I am part of the new batch of replacement drivers. I've seen my income slowly get reduced overtime, but definitely not as much as the drivers did four years ago when they went through a massive price cut.
technically you are not in US and do not have the full citizen rights.
You may be right, in which case, as a US citizen, I would want an actual US citizen who's had their phone confiscated to sue the US to find out how far the rabbit hole goes.
what is even more interesting that in a foreign country this same government will fight for your rights from this same persecution by foreign powers.
This remains to be seen and entirely depends on the foreign government in question.
If we're talking Iran, sure, but Saudi Arabia, certainly not.
That problem doesn't really change if you build a vehicle with autonomy in mind; it'll have to navigate the same roads as retrofitted cars and deal with the same conditions.
The problem does change. It becomes simpler on one hand and it becomes more complicated on the other.
By simpler, I mean it no longer needs to be unidirectional. The electric driverless car essentially becomes an electric driverless robot. It can go forward and backward. It can move sideways into parking spaces (all of this, assuming it makes its intentions clear to other drivers/pedestrians). It doesn't need a full windshield with maximum visibility for the human driver. And in China (and at least one of the major investor in Zoox is coming from China), the cities have already decided that they'll make special roads for driverless vehicles, thus simplifying many initial problems during their formative years.
On the other hand, it becomes more complicated. In San Francisco, the driverless cars tested by GM do not understand hand signals ceding priority given by other drivers. And the other drivers do not understand that they're interacting with a robot (and not the human backup safety driver inside the vehicle). The same goes for pedestrians crossing the streets (who are trying to make eye contact with the backup driver to know that it's safe to cross). Or the frustrated bicyclist that wants the driverless car behind him to pass him, but the car won't because it wants to maintain too large a buffer between the bicyclist and its bumpers.
And I haven't even brought up passengers. The behavior of the passengers will have to adjust as well. Already, I see too many people trying to catch their Uber/Lyft before the human driver even gets a chance to approach the curb to pick them up. The behavior of passengers will only get worse (before it gets better) when they know it's a robot and not a live human being that could potentially scold them for their potential erratic behavior. In other words, just like a human driver would be able to do, those driverless cars will need to be able to communicate with those passengers both inside the vehicle and outside the vehicle (and not just through the app on their phone).
Also, one thing that the article doesn't mention is that New York still has some pretty outdated laws on the books that make congestion worst.
For instance, if an UberX/UberPool/Lyft/Shared Lyft is not registered within the city of New York (which is very expensive), it is only allowed to drop off passengers in New York (not pick them up), which is insane considering the fact that the roads/tunnels coming in and out of New York city are the real choke points of traffic.
Forcing Uber/Lyft drivers to return through those choke points with an empty cab just doesn't make sense. And yes, an Uber/Lyft driver from the city could go out to the suburbs to pick up passengers instead, but the problem is the same, but just in reverse. Nobody wants to drive out to the suburbs with an empty cab. That part doesn't make sense either.
In San Francisco, we had the same stupid law, but at least, we got rid of it.
Due to crime? You know that US violent crime numbers are way down, right?
I sort of knew that, but it doesn't feel that way to me.
Just last week, two sisters were stabbed by a man at an Oakland Bart station (MacArthur Station) in what seemed like a random unprovoked attack, one died already (it might have been a hate crime, nobody knows for sure).
Plus, I know at least one person who was attacked very recently inside of a Bart station on the platform itself (at the Rockridge Bart station, which is supposed to be a good neighborhood). The victim was drunk at the time, which made him an easier target to knock down. But from that incident, I learned that 95% of the cameras on the Bart do not work (or are fake), and that the Bart police cannot even be bothered to look at the remaining footage of the cameras which do work, to try to identify the two suspects fleeing the sation with the victim's computer backpack.
A few months ago, I met the friend of a tourist who witnessed his friend being attacked in Civic Center San Francisco by an overly aggressive panhandler. The panhandler broke his friend's collarbone. When the police showed up, they didn't even want to talk to the panhandler, who had not even gone more than 30 feet away.
And then, we have bicycle theft. I know you said 'violent crimes', but since the thread is talking about transportation, I think the topic of bicycle theft is relevant. Ever since we changed our laws in California to make most thefts valued at less $1,000 misdeamenors, bicycle thefts have gone up through the roof. And it's not always practical to ride bicycles depending on where you live, or at what time you commute.
The fact is, our police forces can not even be trusted to record crimes correctly, since it makes their boss look bad. And yes, crime is coming down to a degree, you can thank rising rents and gentrification for that fact, but it doesn't feel that way to the people that are coming home late at night from work or from bars/clubbing. And our public transportation system is sure as hell not rising up to the challenge. It doesn't have enough cameras. It doesn't feel safe. And it can rarely take us directly to our doorways life a Shared Lyft or a UberPool can.
Slashdot Mirror
So if a hostile foreign country had sent agents to break into the Trump towers to find any dirt on Trump (like his tax returns and copies of his numerous non-disclosure agreements) to later use for extortion purposes or to use as leverage for international negotiations or to use for supporting a different political candidate at the most crucial times, you would have been fine with it?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Julian Assange is guilty of anything. For all I know, he was just an innocent conduit for that information. But indicting him makes sense (even if the charge doesn't stick) because either wittingly or unwittingly, Julian Assange was used as a pawn by a foreign hostile power to effect our elections.
Apple is installing itself as a producer of some of the most-acclaimed films around, all without needing to take a single meeting or read one script off the slush pile first....
Then they're not a Producer.
It's sneakily consequential. A24, if you're not familiar, is the boutique New York outfit that has been responsible for a slew of hipster-approved, Academy Award-recognized films including...
This is just PR drivel. And no, it's not consequential.
Call me when Apple secures another 6 months of streaming exclusivity for "Game of Thrones".
Now, that will be consequential.
You're a liar.
If you're an Uber driver in California for instance, you would have won the recent class lawsuit against Uber (if not for the arbitration clause).
As it stands, only the drivers that had the presence of mind to opt-out of arbitration within a specific time limit won that case, but that's only a tiny fraction of them.
....you're hearing less and less English spoken in the US these days.
One must admit.
President Trump is a "bigly" part of the of the problem on that one.
So do I need to get my appendix removed?
Let's take a look at the summary.
"There's more work to be done, and the authors are not advocating that people preemptively remove their appendixes"
To me that means "yes".
It's not like they had a choice.
Andy Rubin sold Android to Google for 50 million dollars initially.
But it's only with his continued leadership that Android became what it is today.
And that continued leadership didn't come for free.
I'd fire them.
Why?
It's not like Google engineers have a 9 to 5 schedule.
If their work performance doesn't suffer, I don't see what the problem is.
Besides, this entire discussion is ridiculous.
A self-driving car cannot tell the difference between an animal crossing the road and a small child, let alone be able to compute probabilities of survival between different people based on different scenarios.
Think of the self-driving car of today as a super primitive nervous system. Eventually, it will evolve to something more complex and smarter, but until then, every time there is an accident (or a lawsuit), human engineers/regulators will sit down and try to figure out what went wrong so they can improve on it.
Just one minor quibble.
The emergency cash should be at a secondary location.
If there is cash on premises, they're probably going to take it.
Google Play itself is available in 145 countries, so if the injunction is only affecting 82 countries, that probably means some kind of treaty must be limiting its scope.
If the author was so confident in his bot, he would have attached his own name to it instead of making up a fake name for it.
Also, I don't see why he thinks his idea is so novel, static analysis, for instance, can suggest solutions if you want. And if you're too lazy to double-check the work yourself and let someone else do it for you, that's not a great discovery, that's just laziness.
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
I'm sure that's the plan as well.
But it wouldn't make for a good press release that we'd use a foreign population as guinea pigs for our new self-driving trucks (when we're too afraid of having them on our own soil without a safety driver behind the wheel).
Only a property owner or law enforcement should be allowed to shoot down a drone (under specific circumstances). There are safety issues to consider. A damaged drone can easily kill someone falling down from the sky.
Why do I need an insecure messaging app when there is so much better out there?
Because that would require you to convince all your relatives and friends to switch to a more secure app, which is easier said than done.
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That being said, I doubt they'll be able to do that anymore. They don't have the same dominance they used to have. At this point, Microsoft is just trying to survive, it's no longer capable of dominating anymore.
Steve Wozniak said that he's "not involved" in the "operational aspects" of Woz U and doesn't know anything about the report this morning.
What is he? A child or a teenage celebrity strapped for cash?
He can't just lend his name to a supposed school and then not keep tabs on how it's doing and how it's doing it.
At the very least, he needs to say he's looking into the allegations.
So which law trumps the other one?
I don't see a conflict.
You'll already lose your job (and worse) if you travel to a country like North Korea or Iran.
Just add New Zealand to that list. Do not go to New Zealand, or you may lose your job and possibly go to prison for the rest of your life. Or if you do go there with your devices on an official government business, you better make sure you have diplomatic immunity.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week.
I'm an Uber/Lyft driver. And another misleading statistic is the number of hours they tell us we've worked.
And that's because both companies do not count the waiting time we take to wait for rides to accept, nor the time we use to get back to a location without getting a ride request. So if the app tells me I've worked 35 hours or 45 hours this week and done my 130 rides for the week, it usually means I've actually worked roughly 50+ to 60+ hours a week. It's all very misleading.
And to some of you wondering how this is possible. Why aren't drivers quitting? Well, I'd say 99% of drivers did quit three or four years ago. Me, I am part of the new batch of replacement drivers. I've seen my income slowly get reduced overtime, but definitely not as much as the drivers did four years ago when they went through a massive price cut.
Might as well hire someone to break up with your significant other too.
That's a brilliant idea!
Some people can become stalkers.
Having a service that's one-stop shopping for all your anti-stalkers needs would be great.
technically you are not in US and do not have the full citizen rights.
You may be right, in which case, as a US citizen, I would want an actual US citizen who's had their phone confiscated to sue the US to find out how far the rabbit hole goes.
what is even more interesting that in a foreign country this same government will fight for your rights from this same persecution by foreign powers.
This remains to be seen and entirely depends on the foreign government in question.
If we're talking Iran, sure, but Saudi Arabia, certainly not.
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
Are you talking about seizing her phone? Or about keeping a copy of her phone data indefinitely?
That problem doesn't really change if you build a vehicle with autonomy in mind; it'll have to navigate the same roads as retrofitted cars and deal with the same conditions.
The problem does change. It becomes simpler on one hand and it becomes more complicated on the other.
By simpler, I mean it no longer needs to be unidirectional. The electric driverless car essentially becomes an electric driverless robot. It can go forward and backward. It can move sideways into parking spaces (all of this, assuming it makes its intentions clear to other drivers/pedestrians). It doesn't need a full windshield with maximum visibility for the human driver. And in China (and at least one of the major investor in Zoox is coming from China), the cities have already decided that they'll make special roads for driverless vehicles, thus simplifying many initial problems during their formative years.
On the other hand, it becomes more complicated. In San Francisco, the driverless cars tested by GM do not understand hand signals ceding priority given by other drivers. And the other drivers do not understand that they're interacting with a robot (and not the human backup safety driver inside the vehicle). The same goes for pedestrians crossing the streets (who are trying to make eye contact with the backup driver to know that it's safe to cross). Or the frustrated bicyclist that wants the driverless car behind him to pass him, but the car won't because it wants to maintain too large a buffer between the bicyclist and its bumpers.
And I haven't even brought up passengers. The behavior of the passengers will have to adjust as well. Already, I see too many people trying to catch their Uber/Lyft before the human driver even gets a chance to approach the curb to pick them up. The behavior of passengers will only get worse (before it gets better) when they know it's a robot and not a live human being that could potentially scold them for their potential erratic behavior. In other words, just like a human driver would be able to do, those driverless cars will need to be able to communicate with those passengers both inside the vehicle and outside the vehicle (and not just through the app on their phone).
How many people who are already sick/significantly overweight go to a sauna 4 times a week?
And a better question would be, once they go in, do you lock them inside each time?
Also, one thing that the article doesn't mention is that New York still has some pretty outdated laws on the books that make congestion worst.
For instance, if an UberX/UberPool/Lyft/Shared Lyft is not registered within the city of New York (which is very expensive), it is only allowed to drop off passengers in New York (not pick them up), which is insane considering the fact that the roads/tunnels coming in and out of New York city are the real choke points of traffic.
Forcing Uber/Lyft drivers to return through those choke points with an empty cab just doesn't make sense. And yes, an Uber/Lyft driver from the city could go out to the suburbs to pick up passengers instead, but the problem is the same, but just in reverse. Nobody wants to drive out to the suburbs with an empty cab. That part doesn't make sense either.
In San Francisco, we had the same stupid law, but at least, we got rid of it.
Due to crime? You know that US violent crime numbers are way down, right?
I sort of knew that, but it doesn't feel that way to me.
Just last week, two sisters were stabbed by a man at an Oakland Bart station (MacArthur Station) in what seemed like a random unprovoked attack, one died already (it might have been a hate crime, nobody knows for sure).
Plus, I know at least one person who was attacked very recently inside of a Bart station on the platform itself (at the Rockridge Bart station, which is supposed to be a good neighborhood). The victim was drunk at the time, which made him an easier target to knock down. But from that incident, I learned that 95% of the cameras on the Bart do not work (or are fake), and that the Bart police cannot even be bothered to look at the remaining footage of the cameras which do work, to try to identify the two suspects fleeing the sation with the victim's computer backpack.
A few months ago, I met the friend of a tourist who witnessed his friend being attacked in Civic Center San Francisco by an overly aggressive panhandler. The panhandler broke his friend's collarbone. When the police showed up, they didn't even want to talk to the panhandler, who had not even gone more than 30 feet away.
And then, we have bicycle theft. I know you said 'violent crimes', but since the thread is talking about transportation, I think the topic of bicycle theft is relevant. Ever since we changed our laws in California to make most thefts valued at less $1,000 misdeamenors, bicycle thefts have gone up through the roof. And it's not always practical to ride bicycles depending on where you live, or at what time you commute.
The fact is, our police forces can not even be trusted to record crimes correctly, since it makes their boss look bad. And yes, crime is coming down to a degree, you can thank rising rents and gentrification for that fact, but it doesn't feel that way to the people that are coming home late at night from work or from bars/clubbing. And our public transportation system is sure as hell not rising up to the challenge. It doesn't have enough cameras. It doesn't feel safe. And it can rarely take us directly to our doorways life a Shared Lyft or a UberPool can.