It's not left to local governments. Local governments in the USA are cities and counties. States are the equivalent of countries in the EU (or they would be if the EU had a stronger central government). Federal laws are only for dealing with borders between states or between countries -- or at least that's where they stem from. Commerce is where most of those border laws get their teeth. This was an internet crime, so it crosses borders and deals with interstate commerce. States deal with rape, murder, theft, etc... unless the crime crosses borders, and then often the State and the Fed can press charges (separately as they are considered separate offenses to separate sovereign governments.)
That's the thing... the CEO didn't cash out her chips before the value of her stock in the company hit zero. I'm sure she got a lovely salary, but she could have made out like a bandit if she'd sold earlier. Her mistake was thinking she could play magician forever w/ the slight of hand and sensationalism.
It's a shame corporations can't be thrown in jail for fraud like people... shame we can't at least put the CEO in jail for massive, obvious fraud -- at least to her shareholders if not to the public, too.
That was actually worse. Bush and company willfully violated the Federal Records Act & covered up the destruction of records. At least the Secretary of State and the Office of the President (which is where the Secretary of State's authority comes from) have the power to alter what is and what isn't classified as well as determine policy for how to handle classified info. The Federal Records Act is an act of Congress written into law, but determining classification of a document and how to handle it is merely an extension of the executive branch by executive order. That executive order is updated every so often, and can be countermanded by the president or a secretary under his authority for records under their office.
This whole Clinton thing is sort of like trying to sue your spouse for buying something without talking to you first. Should she have done it? No. Was it illegal? Probably not.
Clinton could have de-classified anything that originated from the office of the Secretary of State at any time, and re-classified it later... and not even be required to make a paper trail to prove it! She also could have sent materials marked as classified if they had already become public by other means -- like from a foreign reporter or news program. If it's public information, it's not classified. She could even get away with receiving classified info from other departments and failing to report, destroy, or secure the documents if she assumed the info was de-classified by the sender... even if it had classified markings on it. Like... say, the Secretary of Defense sent her a packet via e-mail... she could presume the info was de-classified by the Secretary of Defense since their office has the authority to do so. There's just soooo much wiggle room that any prosecutor would be insane to try to pick it apart, and it would most likely end w/ lots of indictments for other secretaries and underlings, no convictions, and if necessary, a blanket Obama pardon as it's HIS office that determines what's classified, when, and what is an improper way to handle that info to begin with.
Seriously... these things don't end with prosecutions for cabinet members. They aren't so much above the law as they are the law when it comes to classified info. If Obama had a problem with a Secretary (and knew about it), he'd FIRE them, not prosecute them.
It uses forward radar (don't know the type) that sees about 600 ft ahead, forward facing cameras, ultra-high frequency sound waves (sonar) 360 around the vehicle, and GPS (though GPS is just for positioning and traffic map info, not pedestrian/vehicle info). I'm sure they can do better, but it doesn't just rely on the cameras.
A lower pound to the Euro is beneficial to GB's local industries -- people buy local instead of foreign, and people living in the EU will be able to buy goods and services from GB cheaper b/c they can buy more with their euros after converting to pounds to buy GB goods/services.
International money markets are funny... When your currency goes up compared to others, you hurt exports, but help imports -- and vice versa when your currency goes down. No matter which way it moves, it hurts in some ways and helps in others.
Given that it wasn't a huge percent shift to begin with, I don't think GB is going to cry about the change even if it stays where it is as the "new normal."
That's... one way of putting a spin on things, I suppose.
The legitimate arguments I've seen for leaving are:
GB is obligated to conform to EU law domestically even though the EU began as a set of trade treaties. (Best example I've seen of this is local industries in GB that couldn't make things to different specs b/c the EU mandated something else and there was no system to get a waiver or to dispute the regulations) GB citizens and businesses didn't like that their local rules were being superseded by the EU regs.
GB is obligated to allow free movement between the EU member states which has led to an erosion of their culture (This is likely where a lot of racism comes into play, but there's a lot of Muslim influx which resists conforming to local customs and in some cases brings violence) GB has taken in roughly the same number of immigrants just last year as the entire USA for the same time period. It's a lot of people to support and integrate -- and they often don't speak the language, get free medical care, and free housing if they don't have jobs. It's understandable that its' a burden and would inflame locals with such a large influx of immigrants to support.
I definitely think there's a lot of ignorance and racism involved, but there are some underlying reasons for the frustrations that are valid.
I agree the EU backers crapped their pants when GB gave them the finger and actually voted to leave... and are looking for any angle to fear-monger this as a disaster for GB (mostly b/c it's a disaster for the EU if it goes through as it sets a precedent that even major countries can just up and leave if they are pressured enough.)
but, one small point -- the petition for a 2nd referendum you mention was actually started BEFORE the vote -- as a precaution by those that wanted to leave so that if their "Leave" campaign failed the first vote, they'd have a shot at a second. Turns out they won, and couldn't stop the petition which was then taken up by their opponents
I don't know the real reason, but I'm guessing it's a flashy feature meant to impress others since it's an expensive car... but, it is mostly billed as the car coming to you when the weather is poor and while it isn't meant to go far, the dream is to have it show up at the doorway when summoned from a large parking lot -- like a valet. The bigger dream is to be at work and summon your vehicle which is parked at home, but Tesla's not there yet.
Think rich person's digital valet service. When combined with auto-parking, it could potentially drop you off at your apartment, go park in a parking garage, then pick you up in the morning just before work... if they can get it working right. I think they need better sensors before they're ready for something that ambitious. Right now, maybe it's ready for helping you parallel park in a restaurant parking lot, then being summoned to the restaurant door when you're ready to leave.
The Tesla does not drive for you in autopilot mode. You still have to tell it when you want to change lanes (which this person supposedly did just before the crash.) Whomever was driving was alert and attentive enough to decide to change lanes literally a moment before the crash, so they must have assessed the surrounding vehicles and determined it was safe to do so.
As for your assumptions about driving, I have no idea where you're getting your data from as all Google cars have drivers that are paid to be attentive and all Teslas explain the features are to assist in driving, not autonomous driving... and they slow down and alert you if you don't keep your hands on the wheel.
I've regularly driven 5 to 7 hours at a time visiting family and friends every few weekends, and I almost always use my cruise control on the interstate. I have no idea why a Tesla which has enhanced cruise control and little else other than a collision warning system would make a human being so much more bored and inattentive they'd drive straight into a truck after changing lanes. That's just nonsense. I keep the A/C on high and play music or podcasts to entertain me, but I never zone out, change lanes, and run into the back of trucks. Not sure who on earth would.
The Tesla's enhancements don't ask the driver to "do nothing" any more than my cruise control does. They still have to physically tell the car to change lanes, watch the road for crazy drivers, note when and where to turn off the main road (even driving interstates, one can go through many off-ramps, yet still be on the same interstate), etc. It's not like a getting into a cab and telling the driver where you want to go.
I've seen people doing their own make-up, reading newspapers, and even watching TV in their vehicles while driving on the interstate. Eyes completely off the road in front of them, vehicle on cruise control (I presume). Those are morons... and my money is on this guy watching Harry Potter instead of being a responsible driver. Don't blame the vehicle for human laziness. There's no excuse for it.
That's a leap. The Tesla's autopilot features are more akin to cruise control or auto-braking when backing out if someone should walk behind the vehicle. The Teslas were never designed to be autonomous and are severely limited compared to a Google self-driving vehicle. They also clearly state that the driver is liable and should have proper control over the vehicle at all times (hands on wheel, foot near brake, eyes on road, etc.), so there's little wiggle room for anyone to be at fault other than the driver except in cases of severe malfunction where the driver is unable to regain control of the car at all.
Their most autonomous modes are to "summon" the vehicle at 5 mph or less in a parking lot and/or to parallel or perpendicular park on their own. I could see the potential for some lawsuits questioning who was at fault if the Tesla hit something while in summon mode with no one behind the wheel.... but, I would hope that would also be the owner's responsibility for not ensuring a safe, unobstructed path for summon to work properly. The Tesla's sensors are few and not very advanced compared to cars designed for autonomous driving. Basing liability laws on what they do would be a bit like basing laws for adults on toddler behavior. A three year old stripping down naked and smearing crayon and magic markers all over a public area would likely be the parents' or guardians' fault for lack of supervision... an adult performing the same behavior would likely be considered fully responsible and find him or herself fined, imprisoned, and/or institutionalized and possibly on the sex offender registry.
It's a safety and convenience feature that is being abused by treating it as a true AI chauffeur. The autopilot is really a minimal set of enhancements -- things like:
intelligent cruise control (senses nearby cars and adjusts the cruise setting and braking based on their data) auto-parallel parking and perpendicular parking auto-lane change when hitting the turn sigal auto-driving (including making turns) in some instances -- mostly 5 mph areas summoning (car backs out of driveway and comes to you)
Even the features used while driving are supposed to warn you and nag you if you take both hands off of the wheel and will slow the car down if you don't respond. It's not meant to be as full-featured as a Google self-driving car. Only someone watching a DVD player instead of driving the car would have hit that truck instead of slowing down -- assuming there's no massive glitch that disabled the driver's ability to hit the brake.
How would you know? I wouldn't be surprised if the Fred Phelps clan and the Westboro Baptist Church were actively searching for nukes to take out Las Vegas. Really, NYC, LA, or any other major metropolis either.
I can't speak to your specific vehicle, but it's extremely unlikely that its design varies significantly from every other auto manufacturer that I'm familiar with, so...
A bit of advice: Do not ever park on an incline without using the parking brake. What happens when you put the car into park is you're pressing a big claw-like brake inside the transmission that locks it into place so that it can't turn, so the wheels aren't able to move. On an incline, the force pulling your car downhill is being applied to the transmission itself - which over time will tear it apart. The large, main gear inside the transmission will not just wear out, but will crack and leave you with no transmission. The large gear the brake is applied to can take a lot of force, so minor inclines aren't a big issue... but the abuse adds up and the steeper the incline, the worse the wear. I've had a Ford Taurus's transmission literally tear itself apart on a minor downhill incline in Tennessee.
I'm not sure what you're hearing when you say you hear brakes being applied to stop the car from rolling -- most car brakes (when you depress the brake pedal) are hydraulic brakes that pinch to stop the (usually front) wheels from turning. The transmission Park position has nothing to do with the hydraulic brakes. Instead, what you might be hearing is the teeth on the transmission brake sliding across the transmission gear as the car rolls and the brake's teeth rake the gear until they find the grooves they lock into which stops the car.
Also, a parking brake is a good thing to use at least occasionally as the parking brake system tends to degrade when not used regularly, and you might need it in an emergency. The parking brake has nothing to do with the transmission and also bypasses the hydraulic braking system. It's also called an emergency brake b/c if your hydraulics go out, you can pull the lever and stop the vehicle.
It never was. The Euro was created without strong oversight or control -- and it granted the power to manipulate the currency to a select few nations which had drastically different economies with radically different fiscal and monetary policies than Southern European nations like Greece.
On the bright side, with the pound dropping like a rock, exports priced in pounds have become incredibly cheap in terms of the euro -- so, huge boost to the UK economy in the exports area at least in the short term.
Leaving the EU was ballsy -- the UK just paved the way for others to exit if they wish, too.
I think ultimately the UK will cave to a lot of the EU's policies for the sake of trade, but at least the UK can have more direct control over its domestic economy and politics -- including immigration, business regulations, and law. For trade, the UK will have to work w/ various blocks like other nations that deal with the EU... but, it'll be fine in the long run.
It's not so much about mismanagement as it is just that Greece (and most of southern Europe) has very radically different monetary and fiscal policy than Germany.
Also, we hit the global recession which plunged Greece into a hellhole since its economy is largely shipping and service industries -- like tourism. Both tanked while they were stuck w/ a currency they couldn't control. Imagine if the USA couldn't control federal interest rates or use other measures to manipulate the money supply during a recession -- they'd last so much longer and hurt so much more.
Greece joined the EU, took advantage of the perks, then suffered the worst part of the global recession and never really recovered b/c they couldn't manipulate their currency -- and Germany was giving them the finger while laughing all the way to the bank b/c their interests were vastly different than Greece's needs when it came to the currency.
That's not likely what happened. He could have put the car into neutral instead of park... or he could have put it into park w/ out a parking brake on. On an incline, the transmission is all that prevents a "parked" car from rolling if there's no parking brake on. Transmissions can break under the strain and release the car from "park." Either way, the car was not likely moving when he exited the vehicle.
If it was in neutral, when and whether or not the car would start rolling would depend on the level of incline. It could have been completely stopped after he braked, then after he got out of the car, he may have walked to check his mailbox. Cars are massive, and without power take time to accelerate downhill. (It would not have immediately started rolling from neutral) Then, after he noticed the car was in motion, he may have decide to try to stop it, but couldn't and it pushed him into his mailbox.
If he actually put the car into park, his transmission may have failed causing the car to roll. I had a Ford Taurus parked on an incline in TN once whose main gear cracked in half, then broke apart b/c the parking brake wasn't on. Engine would turn on just fine, but no gears worked. It was effectively in neutral -- thankfully it was parked against a structure so it didn't go far.
Physicists used to use the terms "rest mass/invariant mass" and "relativistic mass," but most have since thrown out the term "relativistic mass" because it means the same thing as "energy of motion relative to an observer."
Most physicists would define a photon as having no mass, yet it would carry momentum proportional to its energy. Mass is seen as a property of a particle that makes it resist changes in speed, but photons always travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum) -- never speeding up, or slowing down... and never at rest.
If the classification originated with the Office of the Secretary of State, then Hillary would have been perfectly qualified to de-classify the classified documents before sending as well.
The power to classify documents in the first place originates from the presidency. As Secretary of State, her authority also originates with the presidency and she has plenary power (with the exception of the president's office itself) to classify and de-classify any documents that originate from her office as that power is an extension of the president's authority.
It works like this --> President's authority to classify/de-classify is delegated to the Original Classification Authority by Executive Order 13526, AND is also delegated to each cabinet member as it pertains to their department. Even if everything Hillary sent and received WAS classified at the time it was sent, so long as it was from and within her own department, she can claim she de-classified whatever information she wants on a whim as she pleased and then re-classified it immediately after (so long as it wasn't stored), and it would still be LEGAL. She has to actually have sent or received something from a different department to nail her to the wall for this.
That's why this is so hard to prosecute. You have to remember her entire office and position is an extension of the presidency. The president can do whatever he/she wants with classified information since the authority to even create a classification system and rules for it originates by executive order from his/her own damn office. Congress has no authority to stop the president from de-classifying anything at any moment on a whim -- or delegating that authority to the Secretary of State to de-classify documents that originate with that office either.
Classification rules and procedures are NOT part of the constitution, and while the DOJ can choose to prosecute under federal laws built up around the classification system, it's the president and the executive branch that control what IS and what IS NOT classified. As Secretary of State, if Hillary sent, received, stored anything unsecured that originated from her office, the only person who could countermand her statement that it was not classified is the president.
Actually, the authority to classify all information is derived from the Office of the President. Executive Order 13526 is what created the department to classify documents.... and its authority is derived and is an extended from the president's authority.... so, yeah... The President of the United States can at a whim decide what is and what is not classified at any moment without any input from anyone else.
So... that would be absolutely true that it is not illegal if the president sends classified info through whatever means he wishes since he's the one who determines what is and is not classified at any point in time. He can't, by definition, decide to send something at the exact same moment that the president has decided not to allow himself to send.
It's much, much more complicated than that. Just as one little wrinkle -- as Secretary of State (an official part of the executive branch), Hillary had the power to classify information or to de-classify already classified information IF the classification originated with her office. So, if she sent something that was classified by the Secretary of State office (which would be many things dealing with foreign intelligence), she could actually de-classify it, transmit it, then re-classify it later on a whim.
It's very, very hard to know what was and was not classified at the time she sent or received information and whether or not she had the power to de-classify anything that might have been sent or stored improperly.
The reason she's special is that she's a cabinet member, not some junior officer out at an army base. She has plenary power granted by the presidency to classify and un-classify documents herself that originate with her office. It absolutely DOES matter whether or not something was classified at the time it was sent or received, and if it is classified, it matters which department classified it.
As an aside, many things are "classified" just so certain people can get all of their e-mail through their classified-only e-mail account b/c they're too lazy to check 2 separate e-mails. I'm sure somewhere, there's a classified document on what pizza toppings a general wants at their upcoming office birthday party... b/c laziness.... not national security.
Hillary used the private e-mail server to intentionally control what information was available by the FOIA and federal records act, and she may be criminally indicted for improperly sending/receiving/storing classified info (though I doubt it.) The relevant laws do actually require knowledge and intent, not just the action... so, unless the DOJ gets Hillary's former underlings to roll on her (and assuming they aren't immediately reported to have suspiciously committed suicide), it's going to be a very difficult case to build against her.
Anonymous reader posts story about anonymous programmer who may or may not actually exist that claims to work for an unknown company.... maybe. Oh, and they did a thing programming automation that doesn't sound credible, got busted after 6 years, lost their job, and then became an amnesiac at programming.
News for Nerds! Wow, it's so nice to see that anyone can get a questionable reddit post greenlit... so much for reputable news with links to articles, quotes, and other credible sources!
Business man who opened up all of his patents to his competitors and whose competitors are all currently engineering all-electric vehicles as well is happy because it's the right thing to do. If you think Telsa will be the only all-electric car company by then, you're misinformed.
All cars are going hybrid or electric-only soon -- though a few companies are still toying with hydrogen fuel cells. Those hydrogen powered vehicles are still on the drawing board as the only commercially successful ones were large passenger buses, and they're still not very well designed.
My bet is that since Norway already has the highest per capita usage of electric cars, the gasoline ones will simply slowly go extinct after the legislation. Gas and diesel are generally more expensive in Europe than the USA to begin with, and people are welcoming the switch.
I imagine 10 or 20 years after the ban of new sales, gas stations might start to disappear first. Once the infrastructure for gasoline vehicles is gone, they'll start to die off even faster -- my bet is most will be sold to other countries. At least in Cuba, there are gas stations. No one is going to keep up an old clunker if they have to import and store the gasoline themselves.... and figure out where to gas up on long trips.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not left to local governments. Local governments in the USA are cities and counties. States are the equivalent of countries in the EU (or they would be if the EU had a stronger central government). Federal laws are only for dealing with borders between states or between countries -- or at least that's where they stem from. Commerce is where most of those border laws get their teeth. This was an internet crime, so it crosses borders and deals with interstate commerce. States deal with rape, murder, theft, etc... unless the crime crosses borders, and then often the State and the Fed can press charges (separately as they are considered separate offenses to separate sovereign governments.)
That's the thing... the CEO didn't cash out her chips before the value of her stock in the company hit zero. I'm sure she got a lovely salary, but she could have made out like a bandit if she'd sold earlier. Her mistake was thinking she could play magician forever w/ the slight of hand and sensationalism.
It's a shame corporations can't be thrown in jail for fraud like people... shame we can't at least put the CEO in jail for massive, obvious fraud -- at least to her shareholders if not to the public, too.
That was actually worse. Bush and company willfully violated the Federal Records Act & covered up the destruction of records. At least the Secretary of State and the Office of the President (which is where the Secretary of State's authority comes from) have the power to alter what is and what isn't classified as well as determine policy for how to handle classified info. The Federal Records Act is an act of Congress written into law, but determining classification of a document and how to handle it is merely an extension of the executive branch by executive order. That executive order is updated every so often, and can be countermanded by the president or a secretary under his authority for records under their office.
This whole Clinton thing is sort of like trying to sue your spouse for buying something without talking to you first. Should she have done it? No. Was it illegal? Probably not.
Clinton could have de-classified anything that originated from the office of the Secretary of State at any time, and re-classified it later... and not even be required to make a paper trail to prove it! She also could have sent materials marked as classified if they had already become public by other means -- like from a foreign reporter or news program. If it's public information, it's not classified. She could even get away with receiving classified info from other departments and failing to report, destroy, or secure the documents if she assumed the info was de-classified by the sender... even if it had classified markings on it. Like... say, the Secretary of Defense sent her a packet via e-mail... she could presume the info was de-classified by the Secretary of Defense since their office has the authority to do so. There's just soooo much wiggle room that any prosecutor would be insane to try to pick it apart, and it would most likely end w/ lots of indictments for other secretaries and underlings, no convictions, and if necessary, a blanket Obama pardon as it's HIS office that determines what's classified, when, and what is an improper way to handle that info to begin with.
Seriously... these things don't end with prosecutions for cabinet members. They aren't so much above the law as they are the law when it comes to classified info. If Obama had a problem with a Secretary (and knew about it), he'd FIRE them, not prosecute them.
It uses forward radar (don't know the type) that sees about 600 ft ahead, forward facing cameras, ultra-high frequency sound waves (sonar) 360 around the vehicle, and GPS (though GPS is just for positioning and traffic map info, not pedestrian/vehicle info). I'm sure they can do better, but it doesn't just rely on the cameras.
A lower pound to the Euro is beneficial to GB's local industries -- people buy local instead of foreign, and people living in the EU will be able to buy goods and services from GB cheaper b/c they can buy more with their euros after converting to pounds to buy GB goods/services.
International money markets are funny... When your currency goes up compared to others, you hurt exports, but help imports -- and vice versa when your currency goes down. No matter which way it moves, it hurts in some ways and helps in others.
Given that it wasn't a huge percent shift to begin with, I don't think GB is going to cry about the change even if it stays where it is as the "new normal."
That's... one way of putting a spin on things, I suppose.
The legitimate arguments I've seen for leaving are:
GB is obligated to conform to EU law domestically even though the EU began as a set of trade treaties. (Best example I've seen of this is local industries in GB that couldn't make things to different specs b/c the EU mandated something else and there was no system to get a waiver or to dispute the regulations) GB citizens and businesses didn't like that their local rules were being superseded by the EU regs.
GB is obligated to allow free movement between the EU member states which has led to an erosion of their culture (This is likely where a lot of racism comes into play, but there's a lot of Muslim influx which resists conforming to local customs and in some cases brings violence) GB has taken in roughly the same number of immigrants just last year as the entire USA for the same time period. It's a lot of people to support and integrate -- and they often don't speak the language, get free medical care, and free housing if they don't have jobs. It's understandable that its' a burden and would inflame locals with such a large influx of immigrants to support.
I definitely think there's a lot of ignorance and racism involved, but there are some underlying reasons for the frustrations that are valid.
Not Air Supply! What will we do without those great love songs?!?!?
EU: Come back, Great Britain! We can make it work!
Air Supply: I'm all Out of Love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I agree the EU backers crapped their pants when GB gave them the finger and actually voted to leave... and are looking for any angle to fear-monger this as a disaster for GB (mostly b/c it's a disaster for the EU if it goes through as it sets a precedent that even major countries can just up and leave if they are pressured enough.)
but, one small point -- the petition for a 2nd referendum you mention was actually started BEFORE the vote -- as a precaution by those that wanted to leave so that if their "Leave" campaign failed the first vote, they'd have a shot at a second. Turns out they won, and couldn't stop the petition which was then taken up by their opponents
I don't know the real reason, but I'm guessing it's a flashy feature meant to impress others since it's an expensive car... but, it is mostly billed as the car coming to you when the weather is poor and while it isn't meant to go far, the dream is to have it show up at the doorway when summoned from a large parking lot -- like a valet. The bigger dream is to be at work and summon your vehicle which is parked at home, but Tesla's not there yet.
Think rich person's digital valet service. When combined with auto-parking, it could potentially drop you off at your apartment, go park in a parking garage, then pick you up in the morning just before work... if they can get it working right. I think they need better sensors before they're ready for something that ambitious. Right now, maybe it's ready for helping you parallel park in a restaurant parking lot, then being summoned to the restaurant door when you're ready to leave.
The Tesla does not drive for you in autopilot mode. You still have to tell it when you want to change lanes (which this person supposedly did just before the crash.) Whomever was driving was alert and attentive enough to decide to change lanes literally a moment before the crash, so they must have assessed the surrounding vehicles and determined it was safe to do so.
As for your assumptions about driving, I have no idea where you're getting your data from as all Google cars have drivers that are paid to be attentive and all Teslas explain the features are to assist in driving, not autonomous driving... and they slow down and alert you if you don't keep your hands on the wheel.
I've regularly driven 5 to 7 hours at a time visiting family and friends every few weekends, and I almost always use my cruise control on the interstate. I have no idea why a Tesla which has enhanced cruise control and little else other than a collision warning system would make a human being so much more bored and inattentive they'd drive straight into a truck after changing lanes. That's just nonsense. I keep the A/C on high and play music or podcasts to entertain me, but I never zone out, change lanes, and run into the back of trucks. Not sure who on earth would.
The Tesla's enhancements don't ask the driver to "do nothing" any more than my cruise control does. They still have to physically tell the car to change lanes, watch the road for crazy drivers, note when and where to turn off the main road (even driving interstates, one can go through many off-ramps, yet still be on the same interstate), etc. It's not like a getting into a cab and telling the driver where you want to go.
I've seen people doing their own make-up, reading newspapers, and even watching TV in their vehicles while driving on the interstate. Eyes completely off the road in front of them, vehicle on cruise control (I presume). Those are morons... and my money is on this guy watching Harry Potter instead of being a responsible driver. Don't blame the vehicle for human laziness. There's no excuse for it.
That's a leap. The Tesla's autopilot features are more akin to cruise control or auto-braking when backing out if someone should walk behind the vehicle. The Teslas were never designed to be autonomous and are severely limited compared to a Google self-driving vehicle. They also clearly state that the driver is liable and should have proper control over the vehicle at all times (hands on wheel, foot near brake, eyes on road, etc.), so there's little wiggle room for anyone to be at fault other than the driver except in cases of severe malfunction where the driver is unable to regain control of the car at all.
Their most autonomous modes are to "summon" the vehicle at 5 mph or less in a parking lot and/or to parallel or perpendicular park on their own. I could see the potential for some lawsuits questioning who was at fault if the Tesla hit something while in summon mode with no one behind the wheel.... but, I would hope that would also be the owner's responsibility for not ensuring a safe, unobstructed path for summon to work properly. The Tesla's sensors are few and not very advanced compared to cars designed for autonomous driving. Basing liability laws on what they do would be a bit like basing laws for adults on toddler behavior. A three year old stripping down naked and smearing crayon and magic markers all over a public area would likely be the parents' or guardians' fault for lack of supervision... an adult performing the same behavior would likely be considered fully responsible and find him or herself fined, imprisoned, and/or institutionalized and possibly on the sex offender registry.
It's a safety and convenience feature that is being abused by treating it as a true AI chauffeur. The autopilot is really a minimal set of enhancements -- things like:
intelligent cruise control (senses nearby cars and adjusts the cruise setting and braking based on their data)
auto-parallel parking and perpendicular parking
auto-lane change when hitting the turn sigal
auto-driving (including making turns) in some instances -- mostly 5 mph areas
summoning (car backs out of driveway and comes to you)
Even the features used while driving are supposed to warn you and nag you if you take both hands off of the wheel and will slow the car down if you don't respond. It's not meant to be as full-featured as a Google self-driving car. Only someone watching a DVD player instead of driving the car would have hit that truck instead of slowing down -- assuming there's no massive glitch that disabled the driver's ability to hit the brake.
How would you know? I wouldn't be surprised if the Fred Phelps clan and the Westboro Baptist Church were actively searching for nukes to take out Las Vegas. Really, NYC, LA, or any other major metropolis either.
I can't speak to your specific vehicle, but it's extremely unlikely that its design varies significantly from every other auto manufacturer that I'm familiar with, so...
A bit of advice: Do not ever park on an incline without using the parking brake. What happens when you put the car into park is you're pressing a big claw-like brake inside the transmission that locks it into place so that it can't turn, so the wheels aren't able to move. On an incline, the force pulling your car downhill is being applied to the transmission itself - which over time will tear it apart. The large, main gear inside the transmission will not just wear out, but will crack and leave you with no transmission. The large gear the brake is applied to can take a lot of force, so minor inclines aren't a big issue... but the abuse adds up and the steeper the incline, the worse the wear. I've had a Ford Taurus's transmission literally tear itself apart on a minor downhill incline in Tennessee.
I'm not sure what you're hearing when you say you hear brakes being applied to stop the car from rolling -- most car brakes (when you depress the brake pedal) are hydraulic brakes that pinch to stop the (usually front) wheels from turning. The transmission Park position has nothing to do with the hydraulic brakes. Instead, what you might be hearing is the teeth on the transmission brake sliding across the transmission gear as the car rolls and the brake's teeth rake the gear until they find the grooves they lock into which stops the car.
Also, a parking brake is a good thing to use at least occasionally as the parking brake system tends to degrade when not used regularly, and you might need it in an emergency. The parking brake has nothing to do with the transmission and also bypasses the hydraulic braking system. It's also called an emergency brake b/c if your hydraulics go out, you can pull the lever and stop the vehicle.
It never was. The Euro was created without strong oversight or control -- and it granted the power to manipulate the currency to a select few nations which had drastically different economies with radically different fiscal and monetary policies than Southern European nations like Greece.
On the bright side, with the pound dropping like a rock, exports priced in pounds have become incredibly cheap in terms of the euro -- so, huge boost to the UK economy in the exports area at least in the short term.
Leaving the EU was ballsy -- the UK just paved the way for others to exit if they wish, too.
I think ultimately the UK will cave to a lot of the EU's policies for the sake of trade, but at least the UK can have more direct control over its domestic economy and politics -- including immigration, business regulations, and law. For trade, the UK will have to work w/ various blocks like other nations that deal with the EU... but, it'll be fine in the long run.
It's not so much about mismanagement as it is just that Greece (and most of southern Europe) has very radically different monetary and fiscal policy than Germany.
Also, we hit the global recession which plunged Greece into a hellhole since its economy is largely shipping and service industries -- like tourism. Both tanked while they were stuck w/ a currency they couldn't control. Imagine if the USA couldn't control federal interest rates or use other measures to manipulate the money supply during a recession -- they'd last so much longer and hurt so much more.
Greece joined the EU, took advantage of the perks, then suffered the worst part of the global recession and never really recovered b/c they couldn't manipulate their currency -- and Germany was giving them the finger while laughing all the way to the bank b/c their interests were vastly different than Greece's needs when it came to the currency.
That's not likely what happened. He could have put the car into neutral instead of park... or he could have put it into park w/ out a parking brake on. On an incline, the transmission is all that prevents a "parked" car from rolling if there's no parking brake on. Transmissions can break under the strain and release the car from "park." Either way, the car was not likely moving when he exited the vehicle.
If it was in neutral, when and whether or not the car would start rolling would depend on the level of incline. It could have been completely stopped after he braked, then after he got out of the car, he may have walked to check his mailbox. Cars are massive, and without power take time to accelerate downhill. (It would not have immediately started rolling from neutral) Then, after he noticed the car was in motion, he may have decide to try to stop it, but couldn't and it pushed him into his mailbox.
If he actually put the car into park, his transmission may have failed causing the car to roll. I had a Ford Taurus parked on an incline in TN once whose main gear cracked in half, then broke apart b/c the parking brake wasn't on. Engine would turn on just fine, but no gears worked. It was effectively in neutral -- thankfully it was parked against a structure so it didn't go far.
Actually, it depends on how you define "mass."
Physicists used to use the terms "rest mass/invariant mass" and "relativistic mass," but most have since thrown out the term "relativistic mass" because it means the same thing as "energy of motion relative to an observer."
https://profmattstrassler.com/...
Most physicists would define a photon as having no mass, yet it would carry momentum proportional to its energy. Mass is seen as a property of a particle that makes it resist changes in speed, but photons always travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum) -- never speeding up, or slowing down... and never at rest.
If the classification originated with the Office of the Secretary of State, then Hillary would have been perfectly qualified to de-classify the classified documents before sending as well.
The power to classify documents in the first place originates from the presidency. As Secretary of State, her authority also originates with the presidency and she has plenary power (with the exception of the president's office itself) to classify and de-classify any documents that originate from her office as that power is an extension of the president's authority.
It works like this --> President's authority to classify/de-classify is delegated to the Original Classification Authority by Executive Order 13526, AND is also delegated to each cabinet member as it pertains to their department. Even if everything Hillary sent and received WAS classified at the time it was sent, so long as it was from and within her own department, she can claim she de-classified whatever information she wants on a whim as she pleased and then re-classified it immediately after (so long as it wasn't stored), and it would still be LEGAL. She has to actually have sent or received something from a different department to nail her to the wall for this.
That's why this is so hard to prosecute. You have to remember her entire office and position is an extension of the presidency. The president can do whatever he/she wants with classified information since the authority to even create a classification system and rules for it originates by executive order from his/her own damn office. Congress has no authority to stop the president from de-classifying anything at any moment on a whim -- or delegating that authority to the Secretary of State to de-classify documents that originate with that office either.
Classification rules and procedures are NOT part of the constitution, and while the DOJ can choose to prosecute under federal laws built up around the classification system, it's the president and the executive branch that control what IS and what IS NOT classified. As Secretary of State, if Hillary sent, received, stored anything unsecured that originated from her office, the only person who could countermand her statement that it was not classified is the president.
Actually, the authority to classify all information is derived from the Office of the President. Executive Order 13526 is what created the department to classify documents.... and its authority is derived and is an extended from the president's authority.... so, yeah... The President of the United States can at a whim decide what is and what is not classified at any moment without any input from anyone else.
So... that would be absolutely true that it is not illegal if the president sends classified info through whatever means he wishes since he's the one who determines what is and is not classified at any point in time. He can't, by definition, decide to send something at the exact same moment that the president has decided not to allow himself to send.
It's much, much more complicated than that. Just as one little wrinkle -- as Secretary of State (an official part of the executive branch), Hillary had the power to classify information or to de-classify already classified information IF the classification originated with her office. So, if she sent something that was classified by the Secretary of State office (which would be many things dealing with foreign intelligence), she could actually de-classify it, transmit it, then re-classify it later on a whim.
It's very, very hard to know what was and was not classified at the time she sent or received information and whether or not she had the power to de-classify anything that might have been sent or stored improperly.
The reason she's special is that she's a cabinet member, not some junior officer out at an army base. She has plenary power granted by the presidency to classify and un-classify documents herself that originate with her office. It absolutely DOES matter whether or not something was classified at the time it was sent or received, and if it is classified, it matters which department classified it.
As an aside, many things are "classified" just so certain people can get all of their e-mail through their classified-only e-mail account b/c they're too lazy to check 2 separate e-mails. I'm sure somewhere, there's a classified document on what pizza toppings a general wants at their upcoming office birthday party... b/c laziness.... not national security.
Hillary used the private e-mail server to intentionally control what information was available by the FOIA and federal records act, and she may be criminally indicted for improperly sending/receiving/storing classified info (though I doubt it.) The relevant laws do actually require knowledge and intent, not just the action... so, unless the DOJ gets Hillary's former underlings to roll on her (and assuming they aren't immediately reported to have suspiciously committed suicide), it's going to be a very difficult case to build against her.
Anonymous reader posts story about anonymous programmer who may or may not actually exist that claims to work for an unknown company.... maybe. Oh, and they did a thing programming automation that doesn't sound credible, got busted after 6 years, lost their job, and then became an amnesiac at programming.
News for Nerds! Wow, it's so nice to see that anyone can get a questionable reddit post greenlit... so much for reputable news with links to articles, quotes, and other credible sources!
Business man who opened up all of his patents to his competitors and whose competitors are all currently engineering all-electric vehicles as well is happy because it's the right thing to do. If you think Telsa will be the only all-electric car company by then, you're misinformed.
All cars are going hybrid or electric-only soon -- though a few companies are still toying with hydrogen fuel cells. Those hydrogen powered vehicles are still on the drawing board as the only commercially successful ones were large passenger buses, and they're still not very well designed.
My bet is that since Norway already has the highest per capita usage of electric cars, the gasoline ones will simply slowly go extinct after the legislation. Gas and diesel are generally more expensive in Europe than the USA to begin with, and people are welcoming the switch.
I imagine 10 or 20 years after the ban of new sales, gas stations might start to disappear first. Once the infrastructure for gasoline vehicles is gone, they'll start to die off even faster -- my bet is most will be sold to other countries. At least in Cuba, there are gas stations. No one is going to keep up an old clunker if they have to import and store the gasoline themselves.... and figure out where to gas up on long trips.