We already have the ability to have a car that doesn't need oil changes. But it doesn't benefit the makers. And the retro-fit sellers are considered snake-oil salesmen. Better pumps to cope with better filters, and you should only need to top up oil, and replace filters. Oil doesn't "break down" as the oil makers claim. It gets tainted, and 100% filtration would bring it back to as-new status.
As for the grass, domesticated rye grass seems to work for me. Perhaps it's a little longer than some people like, but stopping growing at 4-5 inches and being thin and wispy, it lays over and makes a good ground cover. Or fescue, a number of which act more like crawlers than grass, so it covers the ground without too much upward growth.
Personally I seed with an 80/20 mix of rye/fescue, and get good ground cover with minimal maintenance. The only problem is that it's not a very weed-resistant combination. So you have to mow the weeds, or spend lots of time pulling them.
But those opposing the law have said that if you hold the owners responsible for their creations, you'll stifle the adoption and development of robots.
Personal responsibility is something I want others to have, but don't make me be personally responsible.
We have laws protecting pets, and other "lower" animals that may or may not have "consciousness", so why not a computer with a similar level of consciousness?
The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.
Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are deliberately being obtuse. The AI researchers do so much to over-state their success, that it's natural to start protecting AI. AI is no dumber than an octopus, so if we have laws protecting an octopus, so why not an AI?
1. Learn to write English properly. Based on you post, it appears that anything beyond grunts or Eubonics is beyond your understanding.
What is Eubonics? I would guess that your English troll used improper English. Ebonics seems to be the term you are looking for. And equating grunts to Ebonics is racist.
As for your #2, you sound like a Luddite. Why is a law preparing for AI lunacy? One would expect that such a forward-looking law would be a good thing. Even if the state of robotics isn't to where it's needed. Why do you hate progress? Or is this more of your racism. There's the Master Class, and everyone else. The "everyone else" class deserves nothing.
What's the attack vector for plugging in an on, and properly configured phone to a malicious device? Is your concern purely theoretical, or are there actual exploits to attack a (properly configured) phone over USB? Or are these attacks only against improperly configured phones?
The few times I've done a chargeback, I simply had to swear, on a recorded call, that I did not have the item I was charged for. Just a few seconds on the phone, no fees, no threats of fees, just done.
Yes, there is bias in collection, as they are collected not by the FBI, but by the local police, who hand them off to the FBI to summarize. And the analysis of them was far from impartial. The sum of little errors (all in the same direction) makes for a huge error. If you had a basic understanding of statistics, you'd understand that.
Everyone who runs for president is old. I remember some comments on Joe Biden's age, and that McCain would have been the oldest president, but Hillary wouldn't, so that's actually a valid differentiation. Joe Biden isn't the oldest person to hold that office, but people were saying that we'd end up with a Gerry Ford situation.
Gerald Ford was the first and to date the only person to have served as both Vice President and President of the United States without being elected to either office. But I'm too young to remember those events first-hand. But if Biden were to die a week in, then Obama would select a non-elected VP, and when Obama gets assassinated, the VP would become president, after having won no elections.
Seriously, that was the age complaint against Joe Biden. At least as I remember it, and I'm old enough to remember that one.
It was an insult against the obvious bias of the speaker, not a comment on guns. Learn to read.
And another.
So any insult against a pro-gun nut is an anti-gun statement? Seek help. I don't think you can be that dumb and still know how to breath. So the other option is that you are mentally ill. That explains so much.
The ball's in your court; something tells me I can expect you to take it and go home long before you refute any of the facts I have presented.
Yes, tell you something, so you can attack it, and me. I'll just stay on the sidelines and point out your numerous errors. Regardless of the action (if any) taken, it should be based on facts. The real ones, not the biased ones you keep bringing up.
Not really. I've stayed at more than one brand of "extended stay" for a single night. They want to target the longer stayers, but they don't enforce that desire with policy, so they are another name for "motel".
Say it the other way: Those who worship the 2nd Amendment don't seem to care much about the others. The 10 Amendments were about restrictions on the government. If 1, 3-10 are protected well, you don't need #2. If you have #2 and none of the others, you still have nothing.
I'm not a member of any US political party, and I've voted in every election since '92, and never for the winner. Figure that one out. I think in all cases, I voted for #2 or #3, so never for Libertarian or other no-names.
But continue to label anyone who you don't like as the "enemy" and lie about their party affiliation.
Towing is not hard for a self-driver to do. Why would you think it would be hard (or impossible)?
especially in the Northeast, where the various car systems that we have today will be subjected to weather conditions that makes it difficult to "see" the road and stay in the appropriate lanes.
Why would you think that cars communicating with radio would have trouble "seeing" each other in the snow? Why would radar be unable to pick out the side of the road?
It's so whitewashed I can't see anything that indicates he was drunk. The car was in neutral, and it sounds more like he was getting ready to go somewhere, started the car, remembered something he forgot, hopped out of the car, and was crushed by it. He was on his way to a rehearsal, not coming back from drinking.
Ah, so he's excused of treason, once he's dead. Did you once complain about it while he was alive? This isn't about Reagan. This is about the Republican Double Standard. Where the issue is they don't want anyone else using their dirty tricks.
When the penetration is 90%+, I expect to see some roads being self-drive-only. And when they have 0 (or near 0) incidents, there will be a strong push for self-drive-only on public roads, and manual-drive may be illegal. But that'll take 50+ years.
Arguing with a lying gun nut will always look like an anti-gun sentiment. That your vision is slanted doesn't make my words slanted.
Second, you strongly implied a gun ban, even if you didn't outright call for it.
Then quote that. When telling me what I said, you never quote me back. That makes me think that you don't recall me having said it, but that I've said things that remind you of someone else who has said it, so you are certain that I've said it, but don't bother to check facts.
Are you trolling or just dumb as a box of rocks?
I'm not the liar lying about what "the other guy" said, when it's trivial to look back in the thread and see it wasn't said. If you aren't a lying troll, then quote me where I called for a gun bad, or implied a gun ban, or whatever it is that you are accusing me of. Go on, quote it. Stop telling me what you think I said, and quote me saying what you say I said.
Did I ever call for a ban on guns? No? Then your implication that I did is a lie. When you have proven yourself a liar, a single fact surrounded by lies might as well be a lie.
If 5% (or less) are self-driving cars, then there will (probably) never be 5% of cars self-driving. Rather than a complicated ramping-up, lets get an average. Say it's 10% of sold cars are self-driving.
Then Y1 cars will be 10% self driving, while Y2+ will be 0% self driving. The average age of the fleet is 10 years (and growing, but slowly). So in 5 years, the ratio of cars will be about 2.5% self-drivers (more if the replacement rate of non-self-drivers is higher than self-drivers, which would be true if self-drivers crash less).
So with a steady 10% self-drivers, we'd see 5% of cars replaced with self-drivers in about 10 years. Obviously, shorter if the percent of new cars being self-driving is higher.
That's why I'm a security expert. A bank will never outsource their security to a contractor in a foreign country. Sure, maybe a local IBM office that subcontracts to India, but never directly.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have the ability to have a car that doesn't need oil changes. But it doesn't benefit the makers. And the retro-fit sellers are considered snake-oil salesmen. Better pumps to cope with better filters, and you should only need to top up oil, and replace filters. Oil doesn't "break down" as the oil makers claim. It gets tainted, and 100% filtration would bring it back to as-new status.
As for the grass, domesticated rye grass seems to work for me. Perhaps it's a little longer than some people like, but stopping growing at 4-5 inches and being thin and wispy, it lays over and makes a good ground cover. Or fescue, a number of which act more like crawlers than grass, so it covers the ground without too much upward growth.
Personally I seed with an 80/20 mix of rye/fescue, and get good ground cover with minimal maintenance. The only problem is that it's not a very weed-resistant combination. So you have to mow the weeds, or spend lots of time pulling them.
But those opposing the law have said that if you hold the owners responsible for their creations, you'll stifle the adoption and development of robots.
Personal responsibility is something I want others to have, but don't make me be personally responsible.
We have laws protecting pets, and other "lower" animals that may or may not have "consciousness", so why not a computer with a similar level of consciousness?
The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.
Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are deliberately being obtuse. The AI researchers do so much to over-state their success, that it's natural to start protecting AI. AI is no dumber than an octopus, so if we have laws protecting an octopus, so why not an AI?
1. Learn to write English properly. Based on you post, it appears that anything beyond grunts or Eubonics is beyond your understanding.
What is Eubonics? I would guess that your English troll used improper English. Ebonics seems to be the term you are looking for. And equating grunts to Ebonics is racist.
As for your #2, you sound like a Luddite. Why is a law preparing for AI lunacy? One would expect that such a forward-looking law would be a good thing. Even if the state of robotics isn't to where it's needed. Why do you hate progress? Or is this more of your racism. There's the Master Class, and everyone else. The "everyone else" class deserves nothing.
What's the attack vector for plugging in an on, and properly configured phone to a malicious device? Is your concern purely theoretical, or are there actual exploits to attack a (properly configured) phone over USB? Or are these attacks only against improperly configured phones?
Why is encryption required for that? Wouldn't a hash/checksum be sufficient?
The few times I've done a chargeback, I simply had to swear, on a recorded call, that I did not have the item I was charged for. Just a few seconds on the phone, no fees, no threats of fees, just done.
Yes, there is bias in collection, as they are collected not by the FBI, but by the local police, who hand them off to the FBI to summarize. And the analysis of them was far from impartial. The sum of little errors (all in the same direction) makes for a huge error. If you had a basic understanding of statistics, you'd understand that.
Everyone who runs for president is old. I remember some comments on Joe Biden's age, and that McCain would have been the oldest president, but Hillary wouldn't, so that's actually a valid differentiation. Joe Biden isn't the oldest person to hold that office, but people were saying that we'd end up with a Gerry Ford situation.
Gerald Ford was the first and to date the only person to have served as both Vice President and President of the United States without being elected to either office. But I'm too young to remember those events first-hand. But if Biden were to die a week in, then Obama would select a non-elected VP, and when Obama gets assassinated, the VP would become president, after having won no elections.
Seriously, that was the age complaint against Joe Biden. At least as I remember it, and I'm old enough to remember that one.
There's one anti-gun sentiment.
It was an insult against the obvious bias of the speaker, not a comment on guns. Learn to read.
And another.
So any insult against a pro-gun nut is an anti-gun statement? Seek help. I don't think you can be that dumb and still know how to breath. So the other option is that you are mentally ill. That explains so much.
The ball's in your court; something tells me I can expect you to take it and go home long before you refute any of the facts I have presented.
Yes, tell you something, so you can attack it, and me. I'll just stay on the sidelines and point out your numerous errors. Regardless of the action (if any) taken, it should be based on facts. The real ones, not the biased ones you keep bringing up.
Not really. I've stayed at more than one brand of "extended stay" for a single night. They want to target the longer stayers, but they don't enforce that desire with policy, so they are another name for "motel".
Say it the other way: Those who worship the 2nd Amendment don't seem to care much about the others. The 10 Amendments were about restrictions on the government. If 1, 3-10 are protected well, you don't need #2. If you have #2 and none of the others, you still have nothing.
Swords and knives are not less lethal than guns.
The best example of that was the school stabbing in China the week of Sandy Hook. Nobody dead from knives, lots dead from guns.
Guns are more lethal than knives.
I'm not a member of any US political party, and I've voted in every election since '92, and never for the winner. Figure that one out. I think in all cases, I voted for #2 or #3, so never for Libertarian or other no-names.
But continue to label anyone who you don't like as the "enemy" and lie about their party affiliation.
So there was an 18 hour rehearsal scheduled for Sunday for the next weeks worth of filming isn't a party lifestyle. It's show business.
especially in the Northeast, where the various car systems that we have today will be subjected to weather conditions that makes it difficult to "see" the road and stay in the appropriate lanes.
Why would you think that cars communicating with radio would have trouble "seeing" each other in the snow? Why would radar be unable to pick out the side of the road?
It's so whitewashed I can't see anything that indicates he was drunk. The car was in neutral, and it sounds more like he was getting ready to go somewhere, started the car, remembered something he forgot, hopped out of the car, and was crushed by it. He was on his way to a rehearsal, not coming back from drinking.
Ah, so he's excused of treason, once he's dead. Did you once complain about it while he was alive? This isn't about Reagan. This is about the Republican Double Standard. Where the issue is they don't want anyone else using their dirty tricks.
She has sold state secrets and favors for campaign money,
Reagan paid Iran to kidnap Americans. But it's only bad when the Democrats do it, right?
When the penetration is 90%+, I expect to see some roads being self-drive-only. And when they have 0 (or near 0) incidents, there will be a strong push for self-drive-only on public roads, and manual-drive may be illegal. But that'll take 50+ years.
Second, you strongly implied a gun ban, even if you didn't outright call for it.
Then quote that. When telling me what I said, you never quote me back. That makes me think that you don't recall me having said it, but that I've said things that remind you of someone else who has said it, so you are certain that I've said it, but don't bother to check facts.
Are you trolling or just dumb as a box of rocks?
I'm not the liar lying about what "the other guy" said, when it's trivial to look back in the thread and see it wasn't said. If you aren't a lying troll, then quote me where I called for a gun bad, or implied a gun ban, or whatever it is that you are accusing me of. Go on, quote it. Stop telling me what you think I said, and quote me saying what you say I said.
The only troll here is you.
Did I ever call for a ban on guns? No? Then your implication that I did is a lie. When you have proven yourself a liar, a single fact surrounded by lies might as well be a lie.
If 5% (or less) are self-driving cars, then there will (probably) never be 5% of cars self-driving. Rather than a complicated ramping-up, lets get an average. Say it's 10% of sold cars are self-driving.
Then Y1 cars will be 10% self driving, while Y2+ will be 0% self driving. The average age of the fleet is 10 years (and growing, but slowly). So in 5 years, the ratio of cars will be about 2.5% self-drivers (more if the replacement rate of non-self-drivers is higher than self-drivers, which would be true if self-drivers crash less).
So with a steady 10% self-drivers, we'd see 5% of cars replaced with self-drivers in about 10 years. Obviously, shorter if the percent of new cars being self-driving is higher.
That's why I'm a security expert. A bank will never outsource their security to a contractor in a foreign country. Sure, maybe a local IBM office that subcontracts to India, but never directly.