So once one comes to accept that V2V will be implemented as a standard and one must also hope they don't fuck it up too bad, it will be capable of drastically improve vehicle safety.
When cars in the immediate vicinity can communicate their future intents, e.g.; I am turning left if 50 years, trailing vehicles can react accordingly.
Ultimately cars will automate, for safety it will be required in the same way that V2V is required. Non-unatomated cars will be detectable by the absence of V2V response and avoided. It's possible far enough into the future, they will be outlawed form public roads.
But cars will have HUDS that communicate what the vehicle knows to the person responsible for controlling the vehicle. Why the upgraded package, the cars will do so only moments before it reacts for you.
It could be argued that this HUD information may actually be required to help some people feel comfortable with the transition, to trust the vehicles.
While, others will gladly give over control to the car and pay for the extra features regardless of HUD.
What sane person who could afford it, wouldn't pay $5k, once, for a chauffeur? Assuming again, it's not fucked up by shitting engineering, that investment will last the length of ownership; the time savings will more than pay for the system.
The goal isn't to bring the resources back to Earth.
Sure a astroid made out of solid gold might surpass the break even point at current prices you'd only have to bring back more than 50 pounds of gold per million dollars spent to break even. But there are also diminishing returns, too much new gold and the price will crash.
Water and plutonium, which is what the article says they are focusing on, are worth far less than gold.
Having water and plutonium already in orbit means missions can be designed to use those resources without the ramifications that arise from transporting them out of Earth's gravity well.
Awesome, the companies are learning to market themselves. How unhelpful.
In any corporation, workers are just another capital expense. It is delusional to see yourself as any different to your employing corporation than the chair your ass is in. Both are seen as replaceable cogs, the corporate machinery will continue to chug along with or without you.
As some point, software engineers will need to accept that this is a tradesmen profession and we are fools to ignore history.
Every employer forces you to sign a contract upon hire.
Until we have our own contract, we will always be on the losing side of negotiations. We need a guild, a union, whatever you want to call it. We need representation if we ever hope to be treated as the tradesmen we are.
iOS apps have always been under the restrictions laid out by the App Store. Apps that cannot be written within those restrictions do not exist in the App Store eco-system and are of the type that require jail-broken devices.
OS X apps, however, have existed long before the App Store and were not written with any restrictions in mind. OS X apps could be written to do anything to the OS X operating system, including virus infections.
Before the App Store, many OS X apps were 'installed' by dragging the application's bundle to the Applications folder. This variety of apps are often easy to migrate to the app store. There is another class of applications that require an installer, often requiring administrator rights to install or update files in restricted locations.
The App Store does not allow this for any reason. That restriction alone creates an entire class of applications that will never be found in the app store.
In between these two varieties there are applications that may or may not have used installers and did not require access to restricted system locations. But, for other reasons cannot operate within the restrictions introduced by sandboxing. This article is about those types of apps. Since OS X applications can be installed without the App Store and without jailbreaking the desktop machine, it's really Apple's loss as they are not getting their 30% cut.
Since all applications are under the same restrictions, these application's competitors cannot be found in the App Store either. Anyone that manages to get around these restrictions without losing functionality will have an advantage. But any competitor that does find a way, by the nature of economics deserves to win as it means the other applications aren't being developed cleverly enough.
Looking at the articles its just another news site. The headlines are emotional which suppose a bias.
To me, data journalism means provide statistical analyze without the bullshit of human opinion, emotion. Data is a measure of reality, which is good. Always, good to know whats real. But since every single human has a different opinion and emotional perspective, as soon as human emotion and opinion are added to data, it's no longer reality. It's delude, cloaked sources opinionated emotional interpretation.
And worse, this new data, that is only weakly tied to reality, is strongly revelant to those who respond to the article's opinion and emotion, positive or negative. And many will take a positions based on this non-reality. This is how anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers are born and ignorance is spread under the guise of having been informed.
Re:just fast food mentality,no pride in original w
on
The Rise of Hoax News
·
· Score: 1
As the article states, this sort of ridicule or fear of it used to come primarily from competitors.
Some volume of ridicule has likely always came from satire entertainment. As has been eluded to elsewhere in the comments, the news is now basically a memory hole, it's goal is not to spread knowledge and awareness of reality, it's main goal is short term revenue. As a memory hole it no longer has a use for introspection. That leaves satire and other forms of comedy to become the primary source of ridicule.
There may be something bigger to this; as news pushes into entertainment it seems appropriate that long-standing lines of entertainment would push back hard.
I bought $20 USD worth of bitcoins, back when that bought more than one. Around the peak, located conveniently around the same time as black friday, I sold a fraction of one coin for a $250 USD Amazon gift card. The fee was in bitcoins and was (at the time) equivalent to less than $5 USD, I think it was closer to $2.50 USD. The process was not immediate but it took less than 4 hours.
When I originally purchased bitcoin, getting it back to USD like this wasn't an option.
That sounds like a Hunter Thompson quote:
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - Wow! What a ride!"
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite literally only a matter of time, eventually the 1987 Malibu will leave the roads.
So once one comes to accept that V2V will be implemented as a standard and one must also hope they don't fuck it up too bad, it will be capable of drastically improve vehicle safety.
When cars in the immediate vicinity can communicate their future intents, e.g.; I am turning left if 50 years, trailing vehicles can react accordingly.
Ultimately cars will automate, for safety it will be required in the same way that V2V is required. Non-unatomated cars will be detectable by the absence of V2V response and avoided. It's possible far enough into the future, they will be outlawed form public roads.
But cars will have HUDS that communicate what the vehicle knows to the person responsible for controlling the vehicle. Why the upgraded package, the cars will do so only moments before it reacts for you.
It could be argued that this HUD information may actually be required to help some people feel comfortable with the transition, to trust the vehicles.
While, others will gladly give over control to the car and pay for the extra features regardless of HUD.
What sane person who could afford it, wouldn't pay $5k, once, for a chauffeur? Assuming again, it's not fucked up by shitting engineering, that investment will last the length of ownership; the time savings will more than pay for the system.
The goal isn't to bring the resources back to Earth.
Sure a astroid made out of solid gold might surpass the break even point at current prices you'd only have to bring back more than 50 pounds of gold per million dollars spent to break even. But there are also diminishing returns, too much new gold and the price will crash.
Water and plutonium, which is what the article says they are focusing on, are worth far less than gold.
Having water and plutonium already in orbit means missions can be designed to use those resources without the ramifications that arise from transporting them out of Earth's gravity well.
Awesome, the companies are learning to market themselves. How unhelpful.
In any corporation, workers are just another capital expense. It is delusional to see yourself as any different to your employing corporation than the chair your ass is in. Both are seen as replaceable cogs, the corporate machinery will continue to chug along with or without you.
As some point, software engineers will need to accept that this is a tradesmen profession and we are fools to ignore history.
Every employer forces you to sign a contract upon hire.
Until we have our own contract, we will always be on the losing side of negotiations. We need a guild, a union, whatever you want to call it. We need representation if we ever hope to be treated as the tradesmen we are.
Actually it applies to both.
No it doesn't.
iOS apps have always been under the restrictions laid out by the App Store. Apps that cannot be written within those restrictions do not exist in the App Store eco-system and are of the type that require jail-broken devices.
OS X apps, however, have existed long before the App Store and were not written with any restrictions in mind. OS X apps could be written to do anything to the OS X operating system, including virus infections.
Before the App Store, many OS X apps were 'installed' by dragging the application's bundle to the Applications folder. This variety of apps are often easy to migrate to the app store. There is another class of applications that require an installer, often requiring administrator rights to install or update files in restricted locations.
The App Store does not allow this for any reason. That restriction alone creates an entire class of applications that will never be found in the app store.
In between these two varieties there are applications that may or may not have used installers and did not require access to restricted system locations. But, for other reasons cannot operate within the restrictions introduced by sandboxing. This article is about those types of apps. Since OS X applications can be installed without the App Store and without jailbreaking the desktop machine, it's really Apple's loss as they are not getting their 30% cut.
Since all applications are under the same restrictions, these application's competitors cannot be found in the App Store either. Anyone that manages to get around these restrictions without losing functionality will have an advantage. But any competitor that does find a way, by the nature of economics deserves to win as it means the other applications aren't being developed cleverly enough.
Looking at the articles its just another news site. The headlines are emotional which suppose a bias. To me, data journalism means provide statistical analyze without the bullshit of human opinion, emotion. Data is a measure of reality, which is good. Always, good to know whats real. But since every single human has a different opinion and emotional perspective, as soon as human emotion and opinion are added to data, it's no longer reality. It's delude, cloaked sources opinionated emotional interpretation. And worse, this new data, that is only weakly tied to reality, is strongly revelant to those who respond to the article's opinion and emotion, positive or negative. And many will take a positions based on this non-reality. This is how anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers are born and ignorance is spread under the guise of having been informed.
As the article states, this sort of ridicule or fear of it used to come primarily from competitors. Some volume of ridicule has likely always came from satire entertainment. As has been eluded to elsewhere in the comments, the news is now basically a memory hole, it's goal is not to spread knowledge and awareness of reality, it's main goal is short term revenue. As a memory hole it no longer has a use for introspection. That leaves satire and other forms of comedy to become the primary source of ridicule. There may be something bigger to this; as news pushes into entertainment it seems appropriate that long-standing lines of entertainment would push back hard.
I bought $20 USD worth of bitcoins, back when that bought more than one. Around the peak, located conveniently around the same time as black friday, I sold a fraction of one coin for a $250 USD Amazon gift card. The fee was in bitcoins and was (at the time) equivalent to less than $5 USD, I think it was closer to $2.50 USD. The process was not immediate but it took less than 4 hours. When I originally purchased bitcoin, getting it back to USD like this wasn't an option.
That sounds like a Hunter Thompson quote: "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - Wow! What a ride!"
If smart electronics are getting cheaper, the insurance problem is solving itself.