Done right, horse riding should cause no harm. It causes risk. There's a difference. You can do boxing right, and end up dead. Without mistakes or bad luck, jockey isn't dangerous. But boxing and American football will, when done "right" have a high chance of causing permanent injury.
It's not always racism. I don't see people against other Black-dominated sports, like basketball and others. And most of the people I see against boxing are also against MMA.
You're almost certainly talking to people who were born in America.
That's rather odd. Considering I'm not in America. And I was only counting those who I knew the country of birth of.
When you make up huge backstories based on your ignorance, there's no point in me saying anything. You infer all sorts of things nobody ever said.
I haven't implied anything about experiencing "inferior" or "oppressive" cultures.
Really?
Dude, only westerners, especially Americans, can have the gall to simplemindedly dismiss thousands of years of culture as "inferior" and "oppressive". Why don't you actually try talking to the people in that culture to find out what they think?
Because that appears to be *exactly* what you are saying.
You're glibly assuming your own culture is superior without even trying to talk to or understand the people, both men and women, that have lived in a constantly evolving multi thousand year culture. Just hand waving away such a rich history without truly understanding it is the height of arrogance.
What culture is "mine"? You are so sure that I think it's superior and I have no understanding, but you have guessed wrongly multiple times what my culture is.
The only arrogant jackasss here is you.
Oh, and you forgot to answer the questions about you. Where are you, and where were you born? Or is your experience irrelevant to insulting others experiences?
I don't live in India, so everyone I talk to that was born into it thinks that culture is fucked up, which is why they left.
Why, where are you? You seem to imply that you've experienced "inferior" and "oppressive" culture, and western culture. Or are you a hypocrite criticizing others for what you yourself do?
I don't recall anyone saying "inferior". If you read what I said, I just said the man isn't oppressed. You disagreed.
If that's not your meaning (that you think men are oppressed in India), then you are an argumentative asshole.
Yes, everyone is a slave, to their parents. Well, at least the male parent. When the head of household (the one with 100% of the power) is male, how is the man oppressed?
You didn't define "our". If the US people are calling US policies madness, then it must be common place enough, or there wouldn't be a noticeable outcry against it. Note, TFS indicates some in India think it is madness there as well.
In every state I have ever lived in, a traffic light that is clearly 'off' and one covered in a burlap bag both mean '4-way stop'.
In Texas, whether by law or convention, a signal covered in a burlap bag is no longer a signal. It's obviously not a broken signal, as it's not like the wind blew in some snow that covered the lights, but a worker, working on the ight, deliberately obscured it.
In practice, when this is a 4-way stop, there will be signs along the road to control the traffic. But for new crosswalks, it's common for the light installers to put up the lights weeks or months before the traffic engineers have programmed them into the city-wide light controlling system so they can be activated. So they'll sit, covered in bags, for months, as a green light. Then, one day, the bags will be gone, and the lights will be lit. And if they go dark after that, they are a stop sign.
As to reporting potholes, every major city responds to reports of potholes needing patched, but the sheer amount of requests, traffic, time of year, etc, prevent them from quickly filling them. When you include limited monetary resources, things get much worse.
Boston claims 2 days. Anchorage claims 1 day. I remember the last time there was an "incident" with potholes in Anchorage (worse weather than Boston, but Boston complains more). It turned out that people had documented the pothole's growth and size for weeks, but nobody reported it. It's a form of "my hardship is worse than your hardship" one-upmanship.
If you have never driven in colder climates where potholes are ubiquitous this time of the year, you don't have a frame of reference to understand how bad these things are.
The AK in AK Marc stands for Alaska. Care to talk about my experience in colder climes some more?
No. Seeing a green light, then ignoring it for a human signal is a much smaller edge-case than a human of any kind directing traffic.
Sort of like the difference between a traffic light that's off and one that's covered in a burlap bag. One means "4-way stop" and the other means "green light". And most people don't know the difference, or even that there is one. So why are you holding the computers to a higher standard than the people?
For people, 95% of the time, they do what the person in front of them did. Even in violation of law.
I said that to the first person who described the movie to me, "So, just like Short Circuit and D.A.R.Y.L.?" Two "fear the 'alive' robot" movies. Automata recently was almost the same general idea. Seems to be a popular thing. Avengers 2 is the same, other than we aren't supposed to like the AI as we are in Chappie, Short Circuit, DARYL, Automata and others. Avengers 2 is more like iRobot in that sense. The "evil" AI created for good, but turns on us and we have to kill it.
To go back to the mechanical failure: a driver might be too distracted to notice early since of imminent failure and it might be too late to react. A car's computer will always be controlling tire pressure.
My wife has driven her can for 3 months with a near-constant "intermittent error" (I've seen it on about 90% of the time, she claims it's on about 10% of the time, given the amount of time I'm in her car, that's statistically possible, but highly unlikely). The self-driving car can drop her off, then drive to the dealer. The self-driving car will be safer because those little things can't be ignored, so mechanical failures should be lower.
Also, self-drivers will have near-constant communications with "home" (near-constant being either real-time, or batch when stopped, or batch when stopped plus real-time for "incidents"), so they can report things with vibration sensors and such.
I had a friend pick me up to go somewhere. As we were driving, I put my hand on the dashboard, paused, and said "I didn't think you had a full-spare in this car." He was confused. I said "You recently changed the right-front tire. But I didn't see a steel-rim on it, so I presume you have the flat in the trunk." His only response was "bullshit." He thought I talked to his parents or something. He didn't think it possible to tell from the passenger seat that something was wrong, then put a hand on the dash and tell which of 4 tires was recently changed. He later told me I was 100% right on all counts. I was seriously interested only why Chevy had their Impala SS spares on full-alloy rims. I'd have guessed that they'd use a steel rim, even if full-sized. I have no idea if it was an extra-cost option to get the allow-rim spare. It's not like they needed a donut to save space in the Impala SS trunk.
The spares are usually balanced poorly (they aren't used that often), or are properly balanced, and fall out of balance over the years in the trunk. So a vibration from the right-front was detectable by a human, even if most wouldn't notice or know what it was if they noticed.
A few vibration sensors in a car, correlated with mechanical failure reports would probably diagnose a large number of problems, long before they happen. And cut repair cost, as problems could be identified early, when small repairs would save a larger bill later.
As for failure modes, I've heard you are more likely to die by trying to avoid a deer than hitting it without slowing. Doing nothing is better than trying to not hit it. A human would never take that action unless they were too drunk/tired to have a slow response time. The best action is drive straight and brake. But humans don't like that either. Human's responses are slow, and usually wrong. A computer-car would be better in almost ever case, but people will focus on that 0.01%, rather than save 30,000 lives a year by moving to self-driving cars. The other thing is that the more self-drivers are out there, the safer it is for everyone.
They are very common outside the US. I can't recall ever taking a manned airport tram outside the US. In the US, they don't want the automation. If a driver makes an error, they blame the driver, and hold the company blameless, so you can't sue. Computer-driven trams are safer, but would get more lawsuits in the US. Computer-driven isn't used in the US for liability, not technical issues.
You are directly contradicting the example given, then saying the example is bad. If you want to do that, please re-state it as a new example. If not, your comments are all a non-sequitur.
The article was hilarious. "Google cars can't drive on roads.*" "*update, Google says everything we said is wrong." "**further update, MIT says Google is sugar coating it."
There's no reporting, no investigation. Just an opinion piece presented as an article, with updates that contradict it at the end, without editing the original at all. All that supports is "people fear the unknown."
Sometimes it was hidden by the vehicle ahead of you, sometimes it's in a part of the road where you'd have to swerve into an oncoming lane to avoid it,
If you can't see a road hazard because you are too close to the car in front, then back of. Yes, I'm aware of the "but then, someone may pull in front of you" argument. If you are driving so close to the person in front that nobody can pull in, you should stop driving.
Are these potholes so wide they can't be straddled? I did a quick search online and the pics of Boston potholes aren't as bad as claimed here. Sure, there's an occassional outlayer, which gets lots of attention, but they don't look that special. Oh, and why aren't you going to http://www.cityofboston.gov/pu... and reporting them every time you see them?
I think they go under-reported because Bostonians want something to complain about. So you get what you ask for.
At least with the self-driver-car, the car can report the pothole when it starts, possibly avoid small one, to avoid making them into the big ones. The Boston drivers here talk like they aim to hit them as hard as possible, for the badge of another bend/broken rim.
You obviously have more spare time than I do. I note you didn't RTFA. What TFA says directly contradicts you and agrees with me. Perhaps they are wrong. I don't have the time to read every proposed bill the day is comes out. Apparently you do, but don't have enough time to read TFA related to the thing you are posting about.
Your SSN has nothing to do with your medical condition or status, does it? Then how could it be data that is required to analyze the results?
You are 100% right. But the law doesn't say "medical data". It says "data". The consent form I signed considered my SSN and DOB to be data. Your assertion that the law is wrong, but will be done correctly is beyond my faith in lawyers. It'll tie up every rule for 10 years, until the law makes it to the Supreme Court to define the term you assert is defined differently than the medical doctors conducting the experiments that would be covered by it.
If Bush or Cheney had done this, we'd want them prosecuted as well.
I didn't see anyone on the right go after Cheney for doing the same thing. Most "official" correspondence was handled with "personal" email. And when confronted, those official dealings were "lost". Clinton claims to have followed the law, turning over all work emails from a personal acount. Cheney told the American people to fuck off, and the Conservatives loved it.
"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Someone else pointed out that Cheney used mostly personal email for government business, but not solely, so I guess that gets a pass.
Also I saw no rule that requires all official emails use government servers. That's what she is accused of actually breaching. At least according to the summary and posters here. There's very little fact into what she did wrong, and more a focus on blaming her for something, anything, so long as it's plausible.
She hasn't. At least based on the arguments here, I Haven't seen a single regulation that she breached. Just people that accuse her of things that are only backed by opinion, and unrelated to the topic of "is it illegal to use personal email for official business". Whether she used email, official or otherwise, to send classified documents to people not cleared to see them is unrelated to the question asked above.
Slashdot Mirror
So a boxing match or MMA match without blood shed isn't a blood sport either? Or is it about the likelihood of blood shed for each?
Done right, horse riding should cause no harm. It causes risk. There's a difference. You can do boxing right, and end up dead. Without mistakes or bad luck, jockey isn't dangerous. But boxing and American football will, when done "right" have a high chance of causing permanent injury.
You are still asserting I said lots of things I didn't say.
Free to play, free to watch. What's the issue with LoL?
It's not always racism. I don't see people against other Black-dominated sports, like basketball and others. And most of the people I see against boxing are also against MMA.
By your measure, fencing is a blood sport. It's swords and hitting people with them.
You're almost certainly talking to people who were born in America.
That's rather odd. Considering I'm not in America. And I was only counting those who I knew the country of birth of.
When you make up huge backstories based on your ignorance, there's no point in me saying anything. You infer all sorts of things nobody ever said.
I haven't implied anything about experiencing "inferior" or "oppressive" cultures.
Really?
Dude, only westerners, especially Americans, can have the gall to simplemindedly dismiss thousands of years of culture as "inferior" and "oppressive". Why don't you actually try talking to the people in that culture to find out what they think?
Because that appears to be *exactly* what you are saying.
You're glibly assuming your own culture is superior without even trying to talk to or understand the people, both men and women, that have lived in a constantly evolving multi thousand year culture. Just hand waving away such a rich history without truly understanding it is the height of arrogance.
What culture is "mine"? You are so sure that I think it's superior and I have no understanding, but you have guessed wrongly multiple times what my culture is.
The only arrogant jackasss here is you.
Oh, and you forgot to answer the questions about you. Where are you, and where were you born? Or is your experience irrelevant to insulting others experiences?
I don't live in India, so everyone I talk to that was born into it thinks that culture is fucked up, which is why they left.
Why, where are you? You seem to imply that you've experienced "inferior" and "oppressive" culture, and western culture. Or are you a hypocrite criticizing others for what you yourself do?
I don't recall anyone saying "inferior". If you read what I said, I just said the man isn't oppressed. You disagreed.
If that's not your meaning (that you think men are oppressed in India), then you are an argumentative asshole.
Yes, everyone is a slave, to their parents. Well, at least the male parent. When the head of household (the one with 100% of the power) is male, how is the man oppressed?
You didn't define "our". If the US people are calling US policies madness, then it must be common place enough, or there wouldn't be a noticeable outcry against it. Note, TFS indicates some in India think it is madness there as well.
In every state I have ever lived in, a traffic light that is clearly 'off' and one covered in a burlap bag both mean '4-way stop'.
In Texas, whether by law or convention, a signal covered in a burlap bag is no longer a signal. It's obviously not a broken signal, as it's not like the wind blew in some snow that covered the lights, but a worker, working on the ight, deliberately obscured it.
In practice, when this is a 4-way stop, there will be signs along the road to control the traffic. But for new crosswalks, it's common for the light installers to put up the lights weeks or months before the traffic engineers have programmed them into the city-wide light controlling system so they can be activated. So they'll sit, covered in bags, for months, as a green light. Then, one day, the bags will be gone, and the lights will be lit. And if they go dark after that, they are a stop sign.
As to reporting potholes, every major city responds to reports of potholes needing patched, but the sheer amount of requests, traffic, time of year, etc, prevent them from quickly filling them. When you include limited monetary resources, things get much worse.
Boston claims 2 days. Anchorage claims 1 day. I remember the last time there was an "incident" with potholes in Anchorage (worse weather than Boston, but Boston complains more). It turned out that people had documented the pothole's growth and size for weeks, but nobody reported it. It's a form of "my hardship is worse than your hardship" one-upmanship.
If you have never driven in colder climates where potholes are ubiquitous this time of the year, you don't have a frame of reference to understand how bad these things are.
The AK in AK Marc stands for Alaska. Care to talk about my experience in colder climes some more?
No. Seeing a green light, then ignoring it for a human signal is a much smaller edge-case than a human of any kind directing traffic.
Sort of like the difference between a traffic light that's off and one that's covered in a burlap bag. One means "4-way stop" and the other means "green light". And most people don't know the difference, or even that there is one. So why are you holding the computers to a higher standard than the people?
For people, 95% of the time, they do what the person in front of them did. Even in violation of law.
I said that to the first person who described the movie to me, "So, just like Short Circuit and D.A.R.Y.L.?" Two "fear the 'alive' robot" movies. Automata recently was almost the same general idea. Seems to be a popular thing. Avengers 2 is the same, other than we aren't supposed to like the AI as we are in Chappie, Short Circuit, DARYL, Automata and others. Avengers 2 is more like iRobot in that sense. The "evil" AI created for good, but turns on us and we have to kill it.
To go back to the mechanical failure: a driver might be too distracted to notice early since of imminent failure and it might be too late to react. A car's computer will always be controlling tire pressure.
My wife has driven her can for 3 months with a near-constant "intermittent error" (I've seen it on about 90% of the time, she claims it's on about 10% of the time, given the amount of time I'm in her car, that's statistically possible, but highly unlikely). The self-driving car can drop her off, then drive to the dealer. The self-driving car will be safer because those little things can't be ignored, so mechanical failures should be lower.
Also, self-drivers will have near-constant communications with "home" (near-constant being either real-time, or batch when stopped, or batch when stopped plus real-time for "incidents"), so they can report things with vibration sensors and such.
I had a friend pick me up to go somewhere. As we were driving, I put my hand on the dashboard, paused, and said "I didn't think you had a full-spare in this car." He was confused. I said "You recently changed the right-front tire. But I didn't see a steel-rim on it, so I presume you have the flat in the trunk." His only response was "bullshit." He thought I talked to his parents or something. He didn't think it possible to tell from the passenger seat that something was wrong, then put a hand on the dash and tell which of 4 tires was recently changed. He later told me I was 100% right on all counts. I was seriously interested only why Chevy had their Impala SS spares on full-alloy rims. I'd have guessed that they'd use a steel rim, even if full-sized. I have no idea if it was an extra-cost option to get the allow-rim spare. It's not like they needed a donut to save space in the Impala SS trunk.
The spares are usually balanced poorly (they aren't used that often), or are properly balanced, and fall out of balance over the years in the trunk. So a vibration from the right-front was detectable by a human, even if most wouldn't notice or know what it was if they noticed.
A few vibration sensors in a car, correlated with mechanical failure reports would probably diagnose a large number of problems, long before they happen. And cut repair cost, as problems could be identified early, when small repairs would save a larger bill later.
As for failure modes, I've heard you are more likely to die by trying to avoid a deer than hitting it without slowing. Doing nothing is better than trying to not hit it. A human would never take that action unless they were too drunk/tired to have a slow response time. The best action is drive straight and brake. But humans don't like that either. Human's responses are slow, and usually wrong. A computer-car would be better in almost ever case, but people will focus on that 0.01%, rather than save 30,000 lives a year by moving to self-driving cars. The other thing is that the more self-drivers are out there, the safer it is for everyone.
They are very common outside the US. I can't recall ever taking a manned airport tram outside the US. In the US, they don't want the automation. If a driver makes an error, they blame the driver, and hold the company blameless, so you can't sue. Computer-driven trams are safer, but would get more lawsuits in the US. Computer-driven isn't used in the US for liability, not technical issues.
You are directly contradicting the example given, then saying the example is bad. If you want to do that, please re-state it as a new example. If not, your comments are all a non-sequitur.
The article was hilarious. "Google cars can't drive on roads.*" "*update, Google says everything we said is wrong." "**further update, MIT says Google is sugar coating it."
There's no reporting, no investigation. Just an opinion piece presented as an article, with updates that contradict it at the end, without editing the original at all. All that supports is "people fear the unknown."
Sometimes it was hidden by the vehicle ahead of you, sometimes it's in a part of the road where you'd have to swerve into an oncoming lane to avoid it,
If you can't see a road hazard because you are too close to the car in front, then back of. Yes, I'm aware of the "but then, someone may pull in front of you" argument. If you are driving so close to the person in front that nobody can pull in, you should stop driving.
Are these potholes so wide they can't be straddled? I did a quick search online and the pics of Boston potholes aren't as bad as claimed here. Sure, there's an occassional outlayer, which gets lots of attention, but they don't look that special. Oh, and why aren't you going to http://www.cityofboston.gov/pu... and reporting them every time you see them?
I think they go under-reported because Bostonians want something to complain about. So you get what you ask for.
At least with the self-driver-car, the car can report the pothole when it starts, possibly avoid small one, to avoid making them into the big ones. The Boston drivers here talk like they aim to hit them as hard as possible, for the badge of another bend/broken rim.
Do you even know what a strawman is?
You obviously have more spare time than I do. I note you didn't RTFA. What TFA says directly contradicts you and agrees with me. Perhaps they are wrong. I don't have the time to read every proposed bill the day is comes out. Apparently you do, but don't have enough time to read TFA related to the thing you are posting about.
Your SSN has nothing to do with your medical condition or status, does it? Then how could it be data that is required to analyze the results?
You are 100% right. But the law doesn't say "medical data". It says "data". The consent form I signed considered my SSN and DOB to be data. Your assertion that the law is wrong, but will be done correctly is beyond my faith in lawyers. It'll tie up every rule for 10 years, until the law makes it to the Supreme Court to define the term you assert is defined differently than the medical doctors conducting the experiments that would be covered by it.
If Bush or Cheney had done this, we'd want them prosecuted as well.
I didn't see anyone on the right go after Cheney for doing the same thing. Most "official" correspondence was handled with "personal" email. And when confronted, those official dealings were "lost". Clinton claims to have followed the law, turning over all work emails from a personal acount. Cheney told the American people to fuck off, and the Conservatives loved it.
"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Someone else pointed out that Cheney used mostly personal email for government business, but not solely, so I guess that gets a pass.
Also I saw no rule that requires all official emails use government servers. That's what she is accused of actually breaching. At least according to the summary and posters here. There's very little fact into what she did wrong, and more a focus on blaming her for something, anything, so long as it's plausible.
She hasn't. At least based on the arguments here, I Haven't seen a single regulation that she breached. Just people that accuse her of things that are only backed by opinion, and unrelated to the topic of "is it illegal to use personal email for official business". Whether she used email, official or otherwise, to send classified documents to people not cleared to see them is unrelated to the question asked above.