"it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday."
What makes you think that when/if automated cars take over from taxis, the fares will be any lower? What would be the incentive once there's a captive market?
Yes, it was a relay system, but the horse still ran the distance way faster than any man could. As for the original marathon - legend had it he dropped dead after delivering his message. Not a great advert for it.
A lift just goes up and down in its own exclusive shaft. In terms of automation its a trivial task that can be implemented with simple relays and solenoids, never mind computers. Driving is not a trivial task and humans still outperform any kind of self driving AI in an unknown crowded enviroment. The only reason to roll this out is to say "Look who cutting edge we are! We've got our finger on the pulse of technology!". Its marketing BS for suckers.
"t could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office"
How does that differ in any way from using a human driven taxi?
"having cars run errands (pick up) "
Yeah sure, and they'll do your washing and make you dinner when they get back home too.
Hundreds of fit marathon runners vs nothing special horses over rough ground that favours 2 legs.
Now lets try it over flat grassland and what happens? Oh yeah, you get the Pony Express. I wonder why they didn't just get men to run with the post instead?
That pretty much sums up the whole self driving car/bus/whatever market right now. There is zero gain not using a driver, in fact because of the reduced speeds and limited operational areas there is a lot to lose not having a human at the controls. Also I doubt not having to pay the miserable salary a bus driver pulls in any way offsets the huge upfront cost of these vehicles which will be out of date within a few years anyway.
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
I use it with a PC keyboard because the mac keyboards are such a pile of wank. And PC keyboards don't have the command key (no, the windows key doesn't work).
PIckups have automatics because most americans can't use a manual transmission. And off road if you need to quickly apply power you want a direct clutch, not a slushy torque converter.
Football (sorry americans, thats what the rest of the world calls it) games have had fairly decent "AI" players for years. This is hardly raising the bar. Now if they created real robots that could beat a human at football, THAT would be something to behold. Though I don't suspect Boston Dynamics will be worrying about their share price anytime soon over that possibility.
"But not any time soon no matter what humanity does"
Possibly not, but we can make a large part of the earth unviable for crops or human habitation if we carry on the way we are. Thats bad news for 7.5 billion mouths to feed.
"That works for the highly radioactive parts. What about all the irradiated concrete."
What about it? Its very mildly radioactive a solid. Bury it.
"But by transforming a substance that decays in 700 million years into one that only takes 245 thousand "
245K ? Wtf are you talking about? No civil reactor has used or created plutonium for decades (apart from maybe in NK)! Its all uranium235 or thorium.
"There aren't that many places on earth were there is no water. There fewer places if any were there is sure to be no water in the next few thousand years."
There are enough. And failing that it could always be buried back where it was mined in the first place since the water table would already be poisoned by waste mining material.
"I just don't think the dump the waste in a hole and forget about it approach that is used in most cost calculations is viable."
Its a lot more viable than a runaway greenhouse effect.
"Processing the uranium out from the ore compounds is a lot of effort. Why do you think it's easier to put it back into those?"
Care to point to where I said that? Save your lame straw men for a student debate.
"Or do you think you could just grind all the waste up into fine dust and sprinkle it around?"
No, you put it into a stable borosilicate glass substance that its stable for millenia.
"It's also no longer just uranium. If it were there would be no need to get rid of it. Additionally anything that has been near the reactor for any length of time is also radioactive waste including the reactor itself."
The total radiation levels will never be greater than what came out of the ground in in the first place. If they were we'd have invented a perpetual motion/power machine. All solid waste can be stored and liquid waste can be evaporated and stored. So long as its a long way from a water table waste is safe to store underground.
What happens in 100K years you ask? Who cares quite frankly. If we don't get CO2 output down there won't be much of an enviroment in 1000 years to worry about, never mind 100K, and nuclear is one of the best ways to achieve this.
Where do you think Uranium comes from in the first place, the magic nuclear tree? It comes out of the ground. There is zero reason not to put the spent fuel back into it.
... for a lot of power situations, not just space. However the 60s CND hippie generation have managed to turn it into a bogieman (not helped of course by Chernobyl caused by a lack of training and maintenance on a reactor that was a poor design to start with). Sadly the younger generation seems to have swallowed this meme wholesale without actually checking the facts (eg France has generated around 50% of its power from nuclear without serious incident since the 1960s). So good luck to Nasa getting nuclear reactors on Mars without idiots demonstrating at the gates of Canaveral.
"that are not even needed quite often, and can generally be run without having systemd running as init."
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that once systemd has the option to run a service most of the bleeting distro maintaining sheep use it. It won't be long before it becomes the default resolver on most of them.
So because all software has bugs we should just say: "Meh, who cares if systemd is bloated, has monumental feature creep, an author with a serious ego problem who doesn't like fixing them and it replaced an init which, while a bit crusty did what it said on the tin, because, well, systemd." Right?
Wrong. Systemd, is a poor idea, poorly implemented in a project thats poorly managed. Quite why redhat are in thrall to the arrogant little twerp in charge is anyones guess.
"centralized place to optimize startup, management and interconnectivity of all kinds of services."
Sorry, thats not how its done in Unix. We don't want a huge monolithic application as init since that brings a huge attack surface to the most important process in the OS, not to mention a bug in a service that doesn't belong there potentially bringing down the entire system.
Don't tell them they might have to bin their handholding, inefficient bloated frameworks, or have to trade in their scripting or VM languages for something that compiles to machine code and where they might - horrors! - actually have to have a clue about how memory (de)allocation, threading, multi process, DB normalisation, sockets actually works. Or know how to pick the best sorting algorithm for the data size and complexity they're working with and not just hope the 21 year old hipster who wrote the dUdeFrAmWeRk sorting subsection while kite surfing stoned in Bali actually knew what the fuck he was doing. We don't want to scare them until its absolutely necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
"it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday."
What makes you think that when/if automated cars take over from taxis, the fares will be any lower? What would be the incentive once there's a captive market?
Yes, it was a relay system, but the horse still ran the distance way faster than any man could. As for the original marathon - legend had it he dropped dead after delivering his message. Not a great advert for it.
A lift just goes up and down in its own exclusive shaft. In terms of automation its a trivial task that can be implemented with simple relays and solenoids, never mind computers. Driving is not a trivial task and humans still outperform any kind of self driving AI in an unknown crowded enviroment. The only reason to roll this out is to say "Look who cutting edge we are! We've got our finger on the pulse of technology!". Its marketing BS for suckers.
"t could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office"
How does that differ in any way from using a human driven taxi?
"having cars run errands (pick up) "
Yeah sure, and they'll do your washing and make you dinner when they get back home too.
Hundreds of fit marathon runners vs nothing special horses over rough ground that favours 2 legs.
Now lets try it over flat grassland and what happens? Oh yeah, you get the Pony Express. I wonder why they didn't just get men to run with the post instead?
That pretty much sums up the whole self driving car/bus/whatever market right now. There is zero gain not using a driver, in fact because of the reduced speeds and limited operational areas there is a lot to lose not having a human at the controls. Also I doubt not having to pay the miserable salary a bus driver pulls in any way offsets the huge upfront cost of these vehicles which will be out of date within a few years anyway.
But hey, self driving, AI, shiny shiny!
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
You're assuming this connection hasn't been studied before. Its been studied for decades and there are dozens of papers, the OP is correct.
Huh? There was.
I use it with a PC keyboard because the mac keyboards are such a pile of wank. And PC keyboards don't have the command key (no, the windows key doesn't work).
PIckups have automatics because most americans can't use a manual transmission. And off road if you need to quickly apply power you want a direct clutch, not a slushy torque converter.
Football (sorry americans, thats what the rest of the world calls it) games have had fairly decent "AI" players for years. This is hardly raising the bar. Now if they created real robots that could beat a human at football, THAT would be something to behold. Though I don't suspect Boston Dynamics will be worrying about their share price anytime soon over that possibility.
Right click then choose the "Prettify Source" option. It nicely reformats the code to be more readable.
If cntrl-shirt-c doesn't work (hello OS/X) then Tools -> Web Developer -> Debugger
"The water will destroy the facility were the glassed stuff is stored. The glass could then be crushed by cave ins."
Uranium ore in the ground has been eroded by rivers for eons. It hasn't poisoned the planet yet.
"But not any time soon no matter what humanity does"
Possibly not, but we can make a large part of the earth unviable for crops or human habitation if we carry on the way we are. Thats bad news for 7.5 billion mouths to feed.
"That works for the highly radioactive parts. What about all the irradiated concrete."
What about it? Its very mildly radioactive a solid. Bury it.
"But by transforming a substance that decays in 700 million years into one that only takes 245 thousand "
245K ? Wtf are you talking about? No civil reactor has used or created plutonium for decades (apart from maybe in NK)! Its all uranium235 or thorium.
"There aren't that many places on earth were there is no water. There fewer places if any were there is sure to be no water in the next few thousand years."
There are enough. And failing that it could always be buried back where it was mined in the first place since the water table would already be poisoned by waste mining material.
"I just don't think the dump the waste in a hole and forget about it approach that is used in most cost calculations is viable."
Its a lot more viable than a runaway greenhouse effect.
"Processing the uranium out from the ore compounds is a lot of effort. Why do you think it's easier to put it back into those?"
Care to point to where I said that? Save your lame straw men for a student debate.
"Or do you think you could just grind all the waste up into fine dust and sprinkle it around?"
No, you put it into a stable borosilicate glass substance that its stable for millenia.
"It's also no longer just uranium. If it were there would be no need to get rid of it.
Additionally anything that has been near the reactor for any length of time is also radioactive waste including the reactor itself."
The total radiation levels will never be greater than what came out of the ground in in the first place. If they were we'd have invented a perpetual motion/power machine. All solid waste can be stored and liquid waste can be evaporated and stored. So long as its a long way from a water table waste is safe to store underground.
What happens in 100K years you ask? Who cares quite frankly. If we don't get CO2 output down there won't be much of an enviroment in 1000 years to worry about, never mind 100K, and nuclear is one of the best ways to achieve this.
Where do you think Uranium comes from in the first place, the magic nuclear tree? It comes out of the ground. There is zero reason not to put the spent fuel back into it.
... for a lot of power situations, not just space. However the 60s CND hippie generation have managed to turn it into a bogieman (not helped of course by Chernobyl caused by a lack of training and maintenance on a reactor that was a poor design to start with). Sadly the younger generation seems to have swallowed this meme wholesale without actually checking the facts (eg France has generated around 50% of its power from nuclear without serious incident since the 1960s). So good luck to Nasa getting nuclear reactors on Mars without idiots demonstrating at the gates of Canaveral.
Can't disagree with any of that.
Bash scripts have one syntax and bash is pretty well debugged now.
"that are not even needed quite often, and can generally be run without having systemd running as init."
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that once systemd has the option to run a service most of the bleeting distro maintaining sheep use it. It won't be long before it becomes the default resolver on most of them.
"Some of it is even insecure by design "
So because all software has bugs we should just say: "Meh, who cares if systemd is bloated, has monumental feature creep, an author with a serious ego problem who doesn't like fixing them and it replaced an init which, while a bit crusty did what it said on the tin, because, well, systemd." Right?
Wrong. Systemd, is a poor idea, poorly implemented in a project thats poorly managed. Quite why redhat are in thrall to the arrogant little twerp in charge is anyones guess.
"centralized place to optimize startup, management and interconnectivity of all kinds of services."
Sorry, thats not how its done in Unix. We don't want a huge monolithic application as init since that brings a huge attack surface to the most important process in the OS, not to mention a bug in a service that doesn't belong there potentially bringing down the entire system.
Don't tell them they might have to bin their handholding, inefficient bloated frameworks, or have to trade in their scripting or VM languages for something that compiles to machine code and where they might - horrors! - actually have to have a clue about how memory (de)allocation, threading, multi process, DB normalisation, sockets actually works. Or know how to pick the best sorting algorithm for the data size and complexity they're working with and not just hope the 21 year old hipster who wrote the dUdeFrAmWeRk sorting subsection while kite surfing stoned in Bali actually knew what the fuck he was doing. We don't want to scare them until its absolutely necessary.