How many people have to die before we start to observe common sense and decide, once and for all, that putting self-driving cars on the same roads with non-self-driving cars is a bad idea?
26. The number of people killed by non-self-driving cars in 1899 (the first year the USA kept records on such things). IOW, about three orders of magnitude lower than were killed by non-self-driving cars last year.
Note that if we'd used the same sort of "common sense" in 1899, we'd be using horse and buggy today....
if we followed that principle we'd still be using horses.
Nope, horses are dangerous. People get thrown all the time. And die as a result.
If we followed that principle, we'd still be walking everywhere. Well, probably not in the Americas, since people had to cross open water to get here, and ships are really dangerous....
Since "highly radioactive" is pretty much synonymous with "short half-life", you're not actually going to see "highly radioatctive for a couple millenia or even longer" in the Real World (tm)....
Whenever I see someone talking about AR-15's as "powerful guns", I realize that that person knows nothing about firearms.
My.30-06 is a powerful gun. It'll drop pretty much any North American game animal in one shot. Which is a good thing, since it's a single shot rifle. Likewise.45-70 (replica of a 19th century firearm). Or my shotgun.
My Mini-14 (functionally identical to an AR-15, but NOT an "assault weapon" since it was specifically exempted from being considered such when the last "assault weapon ban" was passed) is pretty much useless for hunting anything bigger than a rabbit, being a glorified.22 when all is said and done....
Though I agree that the high school in question comes across more as a prison camp than a school....
And even super smart people accidentally fucking up that one time out of 10,000 and getting caught has also been "getting caught 101" since the beginning of time.
And we know that this particular case is a fuckup rather than disinformation how?
Yeah, everyone screws up now and then. But that's not the same as "this is proof-positive of a screw-up".
This could be a Chinese plot to make the Russians look bad. Or a clever lad in Saskatchewan doing the same. Or a Russian. Or someone from New Zealand. No way of telling, really, until and unless they actually catch the guy....
Here in the UK you're unlikely to stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house.
Y'know, here in the States you're unlikely to "stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house" either. And this speaking as someone who owns a fair number of firearms. Of course, if someone were to burgle my house, they'd find more than a few single-shot rifles (y'know, like they used in the 19th century), and several bolt-action rifles (y'know, like they used in WW1&2 (yes, I own an SMLE)). And even a double-barreled shotgun.
The fraction of the population that owns multiple automatic pistols (more properly "self-loading pistols", since you still only get one shot per trigger pull) is really quite small. Larger than in Europe (outside the upper classes, who seem to have no trouble getting firearms permits over there), but not large....
In other words, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about any given topic, regardless of what side of the issue you're on, it would help if you didn't start with an obviously crazy and offensive standpoint
Alas, given that some people consider the Second Amendment to be "crazy and offensive", it's pretty much impossible to avoid the label.
Note that, from my PoV, it's the people who think the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments are Holy Writ, but the Second is just silliness who are "crazy and offensive".
Just as the ones who think the Second is Holy Writ, but the First, Fourth and Fifth are just silliness are "crazy and offensive".
Personally, I like the complete Bill of Rights. If you don't, push to get your vision enshrined in the Constitution. Not like there aren't procedures for Amending the thing....
I'd love to understand your basis for saying that since they're not in widespread enough use to have generated any sort of meaningful statistics.
To put things in even more perspective:
In 1896, the UK removed the requirement that autos have someone walk in front of them with a warning flag/lantern.
In that same year, the UK suffered its first pedestrian death as a result of an automobile.
Do note that that first death didn't come after 2 million miles of collective driving, like this particular Uber death....
So, how long have self-driving cars (with adult supervision, of course), been on the roads? Pretty sure they didn't start this year, so looks like they have a considerably better safety record than human-driven autos....
Just curious, who do you think was unbiased in their reporting of the last few election cycles?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone other than myself (and I was only unbiased because I disliked everyone pretty much equally (of the candidates I was allowed to vote for)).
The question is: "Would the Norwegian government have created this non-profit BEFORE it was obvious that oil was going to be a central requirement to modern living?"
As to whether I'd benefit or not, who really cares? Not even me, I assure you. I don't really want the government to own everything just so I can have a piece of the action....
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is pretty god-damned mother-fucking clear-as-crystal.
"Shall not be violated". "Shall not be infringed". Interesting how the one is regarded as holy writ, while the other is regarded as...well, not really meaning anything.
Note that I didn't specify which was which. Because, in any given group of people, there'll be some who go the one way and some the other....
Really wish we could get everyone on the bandwagon of "Bill of Rights GOOD, infringing same BAD" for the whole list, not just the parts that they particularly like....
they found that their predictions for who is more likely to drop out are 73 percent accurate"
73% accurate is nothing to write home about. Especiakkt since they didn't give us a dropout rate.
i.e. 10% dropout rate at73% accuracy will show 24+% of your students going to dropout when they have no such intentions. As well as another 7.3% who actually are going to dropout. While missing 2.7% who are going to dropout, but who have no such intentions.
An accuracy rate of 73% is only useful (and not very useful even then) if the dropout rate is about 50-50 or better.
And what's the deal with spying on your paying customers anyway? Jaysus, tracking every building on campus you enter? Yah, no doubt that'll be very useful for any rape investigations on campus, but really!
So, I take it you'd favour requiring everyone to own their own fractional distillation plant? Because, if the oil, by rights, belongs to all humanity, it's unlikely that any particular person is going to see much point in investing a few billion dollars (Euros, whatever) in making it available to everyone.
Oh, and don't expect the government to do it. Governments aren't terribly good at figuring out that this brand new technology will become a cornerstone of society in 50 years....
Slashdot Mirror
26. The number of people killed by non-self-driving cars in 1899 (the first year the USA kept records on such things). IOW, about three orders of magnitude lower than were killed by non-self-driving cars last year.
Note that if we'd used the same sort of "common sense" in 1899, we'd be using horse and buggy today....
Nope, horses are dangerous. People get thrown all the time. And die as a result.
If we followed that principle, we'd still be walking everywhere. Well, probably not in the Americas, since people had to cross open water to get here, and ships are really dangerous....
Since "highly radioactive" is pretty much synonymous with "short half-life", you're not actually going to see "highly radioatctive for a couple millenia or even longer" in the Real World (tm)....
Yeah, it's so polluted that you can only get harvests 5-10x as big as they were getting a century ago....
No, they're not. My wife can use my passcode if needed. Without cutting off my finger.
Lucky for us we've never managed to add a billion people a year, eh?
More like a billion more every 12 (or so) years...
Whenever I see someone talking about AR-15's as "powerful guns", I realize that that person knows nothing about firearms.
My .30-06 is a powerful gun. It'll drop pretty much any North American game animal in one shot. Which is a good thing, since it's a single shot rifle. Likewise .45-70 (replica of a 19th century firearm). Or my shotgun.
My Mini-14 (functionally identical to an AR-15, but NOT an "assault weapon" since it was specifically exempted from being considered such when the last "assault weapon ban" was passed) is pretty much useless for hunting anything bigger than a rabbit, being a glorified .22 when all is said and done....
Though I agree that the high school in question comes across more as a prison camp than a school....
And we know that this particular case is a fuckup rather than disinformation how?
Yeah, everyone screws up now and then. But that's not the same as "this is proof-positive of a screw-up".
This could be a Chinese plot to make the Russians look bad. Or a clever lad in Saskatchewan doing the same. Or a Russian. Or someone from New Zealand. No way of telling, really, until and unless they actually catch the guy....
Hmm, my wife's purse wouldn't hold one of those. But my Mom's would....
Y'know, here in the States you're unlikely to "stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house" either. And this speaking as someone who owns a fair number of firearms. Of course, if someone were to burgle my house, they'd find more than a few single-shot rifles (y'know, like they used in the 19th century), and several bolt-action rifles (y'know, like they used in WW1&2 (yes, I own an SMLE)). And even a double-barreled shotgun.
The fraction of the population that owns multiple automatic pistols (more properly "self-loading pistols", since you still only get one shot per trigger pull) is really quite small. Larger than in Europe (outside the upper classes, who seem to have no trouble getting firearms permits over there), but not large....
Alas, given that some people consider the Second Amendment to be "crazy and offensive", it's pretty much impossible to avoid the label.
Note that, from my PoV, it's the people who think the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments are Holy Writ, but the Second is just silliness who are "crazy and offensive".
Just as the ones who think the Second is Holy Writ, but the First, Fourth and Fifth are just silliness are "crazy and offensive".
Personally, I like the complete Bill of Rights. If you don't, push to get your vision enshrined in the Constitution. Not like there aren't procedures for Amending the thing....
Check. "Gambling" isn't taxable if they like you, aye....
Just curious, how do they decide whether gambling is or isn't your profession?
Second this one.
"Groo must do what Groo does when Groo does what Groo does best!"
Okay. The word you were looking for is "brakes". English has a lot of homonyms, which are differentiated in writing by spelling...
Waive...if you can't spell it, don't use it.
To put things in even more perspective:
In 1896, the UK removed the requirement that autos have someone walk in front of them with a warning flag/lantern.
In that same year, the UK suffered its first pedestrian death as a result of an automobile.
Do note that that first death didn't come after 2 million miles of collective driving, like this particular Uber death....
So, how long have self-driving cars (with adult supervision, of course), been on the roads? Pretty sure they didn't start this year, so looks like they have a considerably better safety record than human-driven autos....
Just curious, who do you think was unbiased in their reporting of the last few election cycles?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone other than myself (and I was only unbiased because I disliked everyone pretty much equally (of the candidates I was allowed to vote for)).
Pretty much exactly what I was thinking when I read TFS. Checker Peersa, eh?
The question is: "Would the Norwegian government have created this non-profit BEFORE it was obvious that oil was going to be a central requirement to modern living?"
As to whether I'd benefit or not, who really cares? Not even me, I assure you. I don't really want the government to own everything just so I can have a piece of the action....
"Shall not be violated". "Shall not be infringed". Interesting how the one is regarded as holy writ, while the other is regarded as...well, not really meaning anything.
Note that I didn't specify which was which. Because, in any given group of people, there'll be some who go the one way and some the other....
Really wish we could get everyone on the bandwagon of "Bill of Rights GOOD, infringing same BAD" for the whole list, not just the parts that they particularly like....
Well, don't know about you, but I haven't driven a car that got as low as 25mpg in thirty years or so.
Which makes me think you're fudging the numbers a bit....
73% accurate is nothing to write home about. Especiakkt since they didn't give us a dropout rate.
i.e. 10% dropout rate at73% accuracy will show 24+% of your students going to dropout when they have no such intentions. As well as another 7.3% who actually are going to dropout. While missing 2.7% who are going to dropout, but who have no such intentions.
An accuracy rate of 73% is only useful (and not very useful even then) if the dropout rate is about 50-50 or better.
And what's the deal with spying on your paying customers anyway? Jaysus, tracking every building on campus you enter? Yah, no doubt that'll be very useful for any rape investigations on campus, but really!
So, I take it you'd favour requiring everyone to own their own fractional distillation plant? Because, if the oil, by rights, belongs to all humanity, it's unlikely that any particular person is going to see much point in investing a few billion dollars (Euros, whatever) in making it available to everyone.
Oh, and don't expect the government to do it. Governments aren't terribly good at figuring out that this brand new technology will become a cornerstone of society in 50 years....
Yes, you are. There's only one species of human right now. Unlike the many species of bats, birds, spiders, etc...