Actually, I've seen answers to all of those questions.
Yes, since all of these questions have already been answered, because SDCs are already on the road in many states. The only thing this NHTSA ruling does is help pave the way to private ownership of fully autonomous cars. But we already have corporations operating SDCs on public roads, and we already have private ownership of semi-autonomous cars, such as Tesla Autopilot, where the software is making decisions. So this ruling doesn't really change anything. It is just another incremental step.
Coding will only be useful as long as there is a dearth of coders.
Is that why coders are paid so poorly where they are common, like in Silicon Valley, and NYC, and paid very well in places where they are uncommon, like rural villages in Mozambique?
The report does mention quote another study that imply less collisions:
TFA also contains this jewel of a quote:
"It does also reduce their journey time because they all become a little bit more aware of people around them"
In what alternative universe does slowing down reduce journey time?
I could understand (but am not convinced) that the slower speed could result in less, or less severe, accidents. But when the proponents start making absurd statements like the above, their credibility is gone.
People _should_ logically drive slower in those situations but they don't - and modern features like airbags + misc. break assist features makes some people think they can drive however they want.
The second half of your sentence contradicts the first half. First you say that people don't drive slower when they think it is dangerous, then you say they drive faster ("however they want") if they think it is safer. If you drive faster when you think it is safe, then obviously you drive slower when you think it isn't.
CS is good for grinding out mundane chores after you have used your math and logic to solve the problem.
Most programming is sorting, searching, string processing, and user interfaces. Those involve little, if any, math (unless you think you need to design your own sorting algorithm). Math is needed for 3D graphics, and physical processes simulation, but even those rarely involve anything beyond first year calculus. You are never going to need to integrate the cube root of the co-secant.
People pay more attention and drive more carefully if there are no white lines.
They also slow down and drive more carefully when there is no seatbelt, and when the road is covered with ice. If you want to make driving more dangerous in order to make people drive more carefully, then the burden of proof should be on you to show that the net effect is positive. For seatbelts and icy roads, we know it is not: the additional care does not outweigh the additional risk. I doubt if removing markings is a net positive either.
it does, in fact, appear to result in a natural reduction in traffic speed.
That is not what matters. Does it result in fewer accidents? If drivers are slowing down because they sense that the conditions are less safe, then the absence of lines is just delaying people for no benefit.
drop the silly coding classes that gives nothing ('nerds' will learn anyways, others never will), do maths!
When I was in school, I learn calculus, and I learned programming. The programming has been about a thousand times more useful. Programming is also a better way to learn logical thinking. If your proof is wrong, you may never even know it. But if your program is wrong, it won't work. Calculus classes should spend less time on proofs, and more on things like numerical integration.
Hondas have a reputation of being more dependable (and more expensive) than their domestic counterparts.
Honda is "domestic" by most criteria. Most Honda cars sold in America, are manufactured in America, from American parts, using American labor. Also, much of their stock is owned by Americans, so the profits as well as the wages stay in America.
Except past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Once you subtract out fees, past performance is not even correlated with future results. You should pick the diversified fund with the lowest fees, which means an index fund. That is the right choice for 98% of investors. The other 2% don't need advisors.
Get a fucking telescope. Point at Moon. See Flag. See Rover.
That is only because the telescope manufacturers are in on the conspiracy. The telescopes have built in GPS modules that detect when you are pointing them at the moon, and then they project images of the flag and rover onto the lens. Duh.
That makes no sense, since CC does not specify any teaching method, only objectives.
Most people opposed to Common Core have little idea what it actually is. Democrats tend to oppose it because they oppose anything that may lead to accountability. Republicans tend to oppose it because, although it was their idea, Obama is now for it, so that means they have to be against it.
Besides, I doubt if there are many cashiers, competent or not, that were educated in arithmetic under Common Core, which has only been around for a few years.
Some cashiers can't make change today. Some cashiers couldn't make change in the 1950s. Do you have any evidence that the problem is getting worse, or that it is in any way related to how the schools teach math?
CPM is a middle and high school program, when kids should be far beyond the ability to "make change". It is also specifically targeted toward college bound kids, where a more theoretical approach may be justified.
The way they teach math now is so stupid and intentionally non-intuitive that it's no wonder kids can't do simple tasks like make change.
Could you please explain what your are talking about? I have two kids in public schools, and the math instruction is pretty much exactly what it should be. They focus on the basics, include real world applications (including "making change"), and allow smart kids to move ahead at their own pace on the computer.
Perhaps you are talking about New Math which was introduced in the 1960s, and then abandoned by 1970. That was five decades ago.
This time they're arm and arm together screwing us.
Nope. Most Democrats oppose the TPP because the unions oppose it. Many Republicans oppose it because Obama is for it. It will not pass, or even be voted on, until after the election. If Bernie wins, TPP is dead. If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it. If Trump wins, it is likely dead. If an establishment Republican wins, it will have a good chance of being ratified.
For many of these people, hacking is not their day job. Much hacking involves setting up automated scripts, which then run for hours or days, trying passwords or probing for open ports. In the meantime, the hackers can go about their lives, including going to their day jobs. If you look at the risk/benefit analysis, hacking makes a lot of sense, especially if you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't prosecute online crime.
WashPost link wasn't paywalled for me. You're in the US?
You may be able to bypass WoPo's paywall if you are coming from a.edu,.gov, or.mil client. You may also be able to access a quota of articles before the paywall kicks in. They play around with different policies, so I am not sure if these particular policies are currently in effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've seen answers to all of those questions.
Yes, since all of these questions have already been answered, because SDCs are already on the road in many states. The only thing this NHTSA ruling does is help pave the way to private ownership of fully autonomous cars. But we already have corporations operating SDCs on public roads, and we already have private ownership of semi-autonomous cars, such as Tesla Autopilot, where the software is making decisions. So this ruling doesn't really change anything. It is just another incremental step.
I think the problem is that people aren't distinguishing between real programming and putting lego bricks together.
People are also failing to distinguish between real mathematicians, and those that use existing axioms and published theorems.
Coding will only be useful as long as there is a dearth of coders.
Is that why coders are paid so poorly where they are common, like in Silicon Valley, and NYC, and paid very well in places where they are uncommon, like rural villages in Mozambique?
But the more you want fine-grained data, though, the more you're still going to need to do a lot more work.
To get more data, you don't need more climate scientists with PhDs. You just need to deploy more sensors.
The report does mention quote another study that imply less collisions:
TFA also contains this jewel of a quote:
"It does also reduce their journey time because they all become a little bit more aware of people around them"
In what alternative universe does slowing down reduce journey time?
I could understand (but am not convinced) that the slower speed could result in less, or less severe, accidents. But when the proponents start making absurd statements like the above, their credibility is gone.
People _should_ logically drive slower in those situations but they don't - and modern features like airbags + misc. break assist features makes some people think they can drive however they want.
The second half of your sentence contradicts the first half. First you say that people don't drive slower when they think it is dangerous, then you say they drive faster ("however they want") if they think it is safer. If you drive faster when you think it is safe, then obviously you drive slower when you think it isn't.
CS is good for grinding out mundane chores after you have used your math and logic to solve the problem.
Most programming is sorting, searching, string processing, and user interfaces. Those involve little, if any, math (unless you think you need to design your own sorting algorithm). Math is needed for 3D graphics, and physical processes simulation, but even those rarely involve anything beyond first year calculus. You are never going to need to integrate the cube root of the co-secant.
People pay more attention and drive more carefully if there are no white lines.
They also slow down and drive more carefully when there is no seatbelt, and when the road is covered with ice. If you want to make driving more dangerous in order to make people drive more carefully, then the burden of proof should be on you to show that the net effect is positive. For seatbelts and icy roads, we know it is not: the additional care does not outweigh the additional risk. I doubt if removing markings is a net positive either.
it does, in fact, appear to result in a natural reduction in traffic speed.
That is not what matters. Does it result in fewer accidents? If drivers are slowing down because they sense that the conditions are less safe, then the absence of lines is just delaying people for no benefit.
drop the silly coding classes that gives nothing ('nerds' will learn anyways, others never will), do maths!
When I was in school, I learn calculus, and I learned programming. The programming has been about a thousand times more useful. Programming is also a better way to learn logical thinking. If your proof is wrong, you may never even know it. But if your program is wrong, it won't work. Calculus classes should spend less time on proofs, and more on things like numerical integration.
Hondas have a reputation of being more dependable (and more expensive) than their domestic counterparts.
Honda is "domestic" by most criteria. Most Honda cars sold in America, are manufactured in America, from American parts, using American labor. Also, much of their stock is owned by Americans, so the profits as well as the wages stay in America.
Except past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Once you subtract out fees, past performance is not even correlated with future results. You should pick the diversified fund with the lowest fees, which means an index fund. That is the right choice for 98% of investors. The other 2% don't need advisors.
Get a fucking telescope. Point at Moon. See Flag. See Rover.
That is only because the telescope manufacturers are in on the conspiracy. The telescopes have built in GPS modules that detect when you are pointing them at the moon, and then they project images of the flag and rover onto the lens. Duh.
I think GP is referring to Common Core
That makes no sense, since CC does not specify any teaching method, only objectives.
Most people opposed to Common Core have little idea what it actually is. Democrats tend to oppose it because they oppose anything that may lead to accountability. Republicans tend to oppose it because, although it was their idea, Obama is now for it, so that means they have to be against it.
Besides, I doubt if there are many cashiers, competent or not, that were educated in arithmetic under Common Core, which has only been around for a few years.
You have obvious stopped paying cash for goods.
Some cashiers can't make change today. Some cashiers couldn't make change in the 1950s. Do you have any evidence that the problem is getting worse, or that it is in any way related to how the schools teach math?
I had a friend who made "mass marketing email software". SPAM software. he knew people hated the emails, but needed the cash.
I knew someone who was a pickpocket on the subway. He knew people hated losing their wallets, but he needed the cash.
they don't jabber or press buttons randomly.
... which means they don't solve the problem by disrupting the business model. The jabbering and button pushing is the most critical feature.
he/she might be referring to programs like CPM
CPM is a middle and high school program, when kids should be far beyond the ability to "make change". It is also specifically targeted toward college bound kids, where a more theoretical approach may be justified.
The way they teach math now is so stupid and intentionally non-intuitive that it's no wonder kids can't do simple tasks like make change.
Could you please explain what your are talking about? I have two kids in public schools, and the math instruction is pretty much exactly what it should be. They focus on the basics, include real world applications (including "making change"), and allow smart kids to move ahead at their own pace on the computer.
Perhaps you are talking about New Math which was introduced in the 1960s, and then abandoned by 1970. That was five decades ago.
With over a quarter billion automobiles registered in the US, I find your initial assertion to be wildly incorrect.
95% of the people don't live in the US, and Americans are not "normal". Most people can't afford a car.
This time they're arm and arm together screwing us.
Nope. Most Democrats oppose the TPP because the unions oppose it. Many Republicans oppose it because Obama is for it. It will not pass, or even be voted on, until after the election. If Bernie wins, TPP is dead. If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it. If Trump wins, it is likely dead. If an establishment Republican wins, it will have a good chance of being ratified.
For many of these people, hacking is not their day job. Much hacking involves setting up automated scripts, which then run for hours or days, trying passwords or probing for open ports. In the meantime, the hackers can go about their lives, including going to their day jobs. If you look at the risk/benefit analysis, hacking makes a lot of sense, especially if you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't prosecute online crime.
the camera that takes 1.44gb photos is something that I might actually be interested in.
Here it is.
WashPost link wasn't paywalled for me. You're in the US?
You may be able to bypass WoPo's paywall if you are coming from a .edu, .gov, or .mil client. You may also be able to access a quota of articles before the paywall kicks in. They play around with different policies, so I am not sure if these particular policies are currently in effect.
Genetic modification via sex does not combine the primary genetic material of more than two parents.
Sometimes it does. A chimera can contain genetic material from the mother, and from two different fathers.