Because you have an incorrect mental impression of what an "autopilot" is does not mean that Musk in responsible for your error. Tesla Autopilot is directly analogous to what an aircraft autopilot does, and after which it was named.
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
The autopilot is often used in conjunction with the autothrottle, when present, which is the analogous system controlling the power delivered by the engines.
Reddit users and their personal aren't being exploited for profit like other social networks. Simple as that. Reddit is a social network made to serve the users; not to serve the users as a dish to someone else. If others do not see Reddit users as a high commodity, all the better!
This is partially incorrect. Tesla does not use a pressure sensor; they use a torque sensor. According to the manual:
Autosteer detects your hands by recognizing light resistance as the steering wheel turns or from you manually turning the steering wheel very lightly (i.e., without enough force to retake control.
According to this Apple support page:
"If Touch ID doesn't recognize your finger, you'll be asked to try again. After three attempts, you'll be given the option to enter your passcode. After two more tries, you'll need to enter your passcode."
Guess what? The vast majority of them never will use algebra in real life. Most jobs simply don't require it.
Then you don't understand algebra. Everyone uses algebra, whether they realize it or not. E.g. You are at the supermarket and you see milk is on special: "Get two for $5.00." Most people can figure out that one costs $2.50. In other words, 2x = 5, solve for x.
I will, however, agree that most people never learned it well enough to use it for anything more complicated. Your comment proves my point: "When you don't understand something, it's easy to say it has no purpose".
When you don't understand something, it's easy to say it has no purpose. It sounds just like kids in high school whining about algebra when they don't see how they will use it in "real" life.
laughed pretty hard at this one. He's blowing smoke. His own damn cars cost nearly that much!
I am pleased to say...
on
Vim Turns 20
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I am pleased to say that I was the one who first added Vim to the Sunsite Linux archive back in 1993. I had transferred to a company which did its development on Windows (yuk) and went looking for a vi-clone which I could use on it. I came across Vim and found it to be very solid, but with some bugs to fix. I regularly emailed Bram on these issues and he was very responsive to my reports and suggestions on how to improve its tag support (vis-a-vis ctags). Back then, the newly-available Linux archive only had the vi-clone Elvis, which wasn't nearly as good. So, thinking that I had discovered a gem, I uploaded Vim to the Sunsite Linux archive and eventually it got picked up for use as the resident vi editor by each of the Linux distributors.
In 1996, I developed Exuberant Ctags as a better ctags. Bram started including it in his Vim distributions and our programs were paired together in much the same was that Elvis was packaged with its own ctags clone, and Emacs was packaged with its own ctags. Eventually, Exuberant Ctags became large enough that it caused the Vim distribution to become too large to fit on a 5.25-inch floppy and Bram said it was time to let them grow separately. Exuberant Ctags, as well, got picked up by the Linux distributors as the resident ctags program.
I have always enjoyed working with Bram over the years and wish I could have met him. He is a very pleasant and easy person to work with, very accommodating, and very bright. I think very highly of him and I am glad to see his editor become one of the bulwarks of Linux distributions, as well as used on many other platforms.
So what's your basically saying is that researchers found that an idea that has already been rejected by over 90% of people won't take hold in those who already rejected it. These researchers are brilliant!
The flaw in this reasoning is that before the percentage holding the idea reaches 10%, it must be less than 10%. But the assertion is that it cannot grow perceptibly if held by less than 10%. Built-in contradiction.
California is a much larger textbook market than Texas. A much stronger claim can be made that California is the market that publishers try to satisfy. And California is the most likely market to demand evolution and reject its minimization.
I believe that this is just further evidence that Americans have ceased to value hard work as the means by which to create wealth. Wealth is now appropriated by gaming of the system in order to tax the value of work performed by others. This is much in the same way that a parasite pilfers its sustenance from the result of effort invested by others.
You have oversimplified the principle of Stare Decisis. The balance of issues regarding this principle presented in Wikipedia demonstrate the approximate accuracy of what I stated. In particular,
The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.
Anyway, your point, even taken at face value, is about principles of the legal system in general--not the Supreme Court. It is not an indication that the Supreme Court has too much power (i.e. more than it was intended to have). The whole point of it being the Supreme Court is because it was intended to be the final arbiter of complaints. It has not attempted to appropriate to itself extra power than it was not granted in the Constitution.
It's is naive to claim that the Supreme Court has too much power. Anyone who says that does not understand the law and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court can only hear, and rule on, complaints brought before it. For a complaint to be valid, it must be brought by an "injured party" (i.e. one harmed or affected in some demonstrable way). who brings their plaint (i.e. plaintiff) before the court. The court rules on the merits of the complaint. The ruling only has authority over that specific case; this does not make that ruling law. It does indicate how the court would theoretically rule on a similar case, but the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on very similar caseit prefers to hear new cases with merits not before considered.
The effect of Supreme Court rulings does not compel other courts to rule the same way, although they are guided by legal precedent.
In short, the only power the Supreme Court has over anything but the specific case brought before it is whatever authority people believe it has (i.e. it influences people because of what they believe). However, the Supreme Court does not have actual authority to enforce its ruling upon any but the parties to the specific case.
You apparently share a common misunderstanding about our Constitution. The Constitution is a document which limits the powers of our government only. Thus the protections for citizens only cover government intervention into the lives of its citizens. The Constitution has no authority over, and does not regulate, the behavior between private citizens. Only the laws that the government passes (within the powers granted by the Constitution) can regulate that.
The fact that Apple is so insistent upon not allowing third-party apps on the iPhone is evidence that they do not expect the iPhone to fill the role of a PDA. I have been wondering if the reason Apple is so insistent upon keeping third-party apps off the iPhone is because of the enormous security risk this poses.
A rootkit takes on a whole new meaning when the attacker has access to the camera, microphone, contact list, and phone hardware. Couple this with "always-on" internet access over EDGE and you have a perfect spying device.
If this conclusion is valid, then I expect Apple plans to fill that void with a separate device, as the demand is almost certainly there, given the very active interest in third-party apps for the iPhone.
It seems pretty odd to me to claim that the odds are "astronomical" against life starting here on a nice cozy planet with lots of liquid water, warm sunshine and a protective atmosphere, but much more probable on some frozen snowball bombarded by cosmic rays. Whooda thunk, huh?
...and have you noticed how much a comet resembles a really large sperm? Or how the earth resembles a really large egg? Which came first? It's the same problem all over again!
If it is administratively impossible for Microsoft (of all companies) to know all of their own patents that are being infringed upon, this speaks loudly about how much more impossible it is for anyone writing software to know what patents are being infringed. After all, the author can never know Microsoft's patents as well as Microsoft does (nor the many other company's patents that might be infringed).
The system is just plain broken and impossible to fix. The only question is how many innocent people are going to be hurt until we collectively admit that it has to stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Autopilot.
Reddit users and their personal aren't being exploited for profit like other social networks. Simple as that. Reddit is a social network made to serve the users; not to serve the users as a dish to someone else. If others do not see Reddit users as a high commodity, all the better!
The only problem is, you have to first assemble the robot yourself.
According to this Apple support page: "If Touch ID doesn't recognize your finger, you'll be asked to try again. After three attempts, you'll be given the option to enter your passcode. After two more tries, you'll need to enter your passcode."
Only placing the company's reputation at risk will provide sufficient motivation for it to assign such a problem the proper priority.
Guess what? The vast majority of them never will use algebra in real life. Most jobs simply don't require it.
Then you don't understand algebra. Everyone uses algebra, whether they realize it or not. E.g. You are at the supermarket and you see milk is on special: "Get two for $5.00." Most people can figure out that one costs $2.50. In other words, 2x = 5, solve for x.
I will, however, agree that most people never learned it well enough to use it for anything more complicated. Your comment proves my point: "When you don't understand something, it's easy to say it has no purpose".
When you don't understand something, it's easy to say it has no purpose. It sounds just like kids in high school whining about algebra when they don't see how they will use it in "real" life.
laughed pretty hard at this one. He's blowing smoke. His own damn cars cost nearly that much!
In 1996, I developed Exuberant Ctags as a better ctags. Bram started including it in his Vim distributions and our programs were paired together in much the same was that Elvis was packaged with its own ctags clone, and Emacs was packaged with its own ctags. Eventually, Exuberant Ctags became large enough that it caused the Vim distribution to become too large to fit on a 5.25-inch floppy and Bram said it was time to let them grow separately. Exuberant Ctags, as well, got picked up by the Linux distributors as the resident ctags program.
I have always enjoyed working with Bram over the years and wish I could have met him. He is a very pleasant and easy person to work with, very accommodating, and very bright. I think very highly of him and I am glad to see his editor become one of the bulwarks of Linux distributions, as well as used on many other platforms.
Darren Hiebert
So what's your basically saying is that researchers found that an idea that has already been rejected by over 90% of people won't take hold in those who already rejected it. These researchers are brilliant!
The flaw in this reasoning is that before the percentage holding the idea reaches 10%, it must be less than 10%. But the assertion is that it cannot grow perceptibly if held by less than 10%. Built-in contradiction.
Richard Stallman already warned us about this threat to liberty 11 years ago in The Right to Read.
Preferably something that runs under Xen?
California is a much larger textbook market than Texas. A much stronger claim can be made that California is the market that publishers try to satisfy. And California is the most likely market to demand evolution and reject its minimization.
I believe that this is just further evidence that Americans have ceased to value hard work as the means by which to create wealth. Wealth is now appropriated by gaming of the system in order to tax the value of work performed by others. This is much in the same way that a parasite pilfers its sustenance from the result of effort invested by others.
You have oversimplified the principle of Stare Decisis. The balance of issues regarding this principle presented in Wikipedia demonstrate the approximate accuracy of what I stated. In particular,
Anyway, your point, even taken at face value, is about principles of the legal system in general--not the Supreme Court. It is not an indication that the Supreme Court has too much power (i.e. more than it was intended to have). The whole point of it being the Supreme Court is because it was intended to be the final arbiter of complaints. It has not attempted to appropriate to itself extra power than it was not granted in the Constitution.
It's is naive to claim that the Supreme Court has too much power. Anyone who says that does not understand the law and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court can only hear, and rule on, complaints brought before it. For a complaint to be valid, it must be brought by an "injured party" (i.e. one harmed or affected in some demonstrable way). who brings their plaint (i.e. plaintiff) before the court. The court rules on the merits of the complaint. The ruling only has authority over that specific case; this does not make that ruling law. It does indicate how the court would theoretically rule on a similar case, but the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on very similar caseit prefers to hear new cases with merits not before considered.
The effect of Supreme Court rulings does not compel other courts to rule the same way, although they are guided by legal precedent.
In short, the only power the Supreme Court has over anything but the specific case brought before it is whatever authority people believe it has (i.e. it influences people because of what they believe). However, the Supreme Court does not have actual authority to enforce its ruling upon any but the parties to the specific case.
You apparently share a common misunderstanding about our Constitution. The Constitution is a document which limits the powers of our government only. Thus the protections for citizens only cover government intervention into the lives of its citizens. The Constitution has no authority over, and does not regulate, the behavior between private citizens. Only the laws that the government passes (within the powers granted by the Constitution) can regulate that.
The fact that Apple is so insistent upon not allowing third-party apps on the iPhone is evidence that they do not expect the iPhone to fill the role of a PDA. I have been wondering if the reason Apple is so insistent upon keeping third-party apps off the iPhone is because of the enormous security risk this poses.
If this conclusion is valid, then I expect Apple plans to fill that void with a separate device, as the demand is almost certainly there, given the very active interest in third-party apps for the iPhone.
Well, this gives a new meaning to sleeping with coworkers, doesn't it? Perhaps other surveys weren't specific enough about what they actually meant...
So was it the kisses that put them to sleep, or that woke them up?
So glad to see someone else is familiar with Hoyle's wonderful science fiction!
It seems pretty odd to me to claim that the odds are "astronomical" against life starting here on a nice cozy planet with lots of liquid water, warm sunshine and a protective atmosphere, but much more probable on some frozen snowball bombarded by cosmic rays. Whooda thunk, huh?
...and have you noticed how much a comet resembles a really large sperm? Or how the earth resembles a really large egg? Which came first? It's the same problem all over again!
If it is administratively impossible for Microsoft (of all companies) to know all of their own patents that are being infringed upon, this speaks loudly about how much more impossible it is for anyone writing software to know what patents are being infringed. After all, the author can never know Microsoft's patents as well as Microsoft does (nor the many other company's patents that might be infringed).
The system is just plain broken and impossible to fix. The only question is how many innocent people are going to be hurt until we collectively admit that it has to stop.