Christmas (I prefer Xmas), is not necessarily a religious festival in my opinion. I'm an atheist but that doesn't stop me from wanting to bring good wishes and cheer to my friends and family. There are more people in Britain who perceive Xmas as Doctor Who, Strictly, The Queen and eating too much turkey than are likely to go to church.
What you describe already happens. As Clarkson has said, he tries very hard to avoid using his brakes on the motorway because every time the brake lights come on there is a chain reaction. And that is with cars ttraveling much further apart. Your scenario would not likely work out the way you suggest. The software will inteligently 'stack' cars for efficient routing. A car won't need to cross two lanes of the motorway because it will have been brought into the slow lane in plenty of time to let the car exit. in fact, you will probably find that a car effectively swaps place to maintain balance. None of this is complicated and will be far more efficient than what happens right now as there will not be a chain reaction, even with cars driving very close together.
I do have reservations about driverless cars but I can see the potential benefits as well. My main concern, and one I've yet to see sufficiently well answered, is what happens when accidents do occur and that they are the fault of car or its software? Who's liable? If its my car, I've not driving, I've had the car properly serviced so surely its not my fault.
That is of course the main issue and probably why the Tesla is a luxury saloon and not a sports car. This is not going to change until we see fuel cell technology or batteries get a hell of a lot lighter. It will happen at some point though and I expect Porsche are not only designing the car but supporting development of new power tech.
I feel obliged to mention that the newest generation of hypercars are hybrids with relatively modest electric-only modes and in reality use the electric motors to support the ICE.
Your comments would carry a bit more weight if you didn't insult the people you disagree with.
The problem here is that there probably are some legitimate reasons to be concerned whilst others you can probably ignore. There is no doubt in my mind that the energy providers will ultimately find a way to exploit smart meters to their advantage. For me, I hope that I will improve my efficiency and increase my self sufficiency through improved insulation and home generation such that the providers will become increasingly irrelevant. Granted this is not something everyone can achieve although I imagine most would aspire to it. However, the hope is that a prevalence of alternatives plus a diverse market will keep the providers in check.
Being worried about RF radiation is probably nonsense but I've seen it tends to be a common policy of those who want to convince people that there is an overwhelming reason to oppose something. Not just one or two arguments but a significant list of reasons, many of which are untrue.
Its all a matter of perspective. I suspect the Soviets did feel they had won with sputnik. I'm sure the Americans think the same with the Moon landings. However, travel into space is continuing to produce new results. The demand for more sophistication drives us forward. For example, when NASA created the Grand Tour, I expect it was technically impossible at the time to also travel to Pluto (either as part of the tour or as a seperate mission). That has now been achieved and would probably be more sophisicated if designed today. There is a good chance that in a hundred years people might well talk about the colonisation of Mars as the 'real' start of the space race or that the first ship to make it to Alpha Centari in a thousand years as the start.
For me, both Sputnik and the Moon landings are of equal importance. The Viking landings are also high on the list as are the amazing discoveries of ther above mentioned robot missions. The moone landings got a lot of publicity during the cold war and I think that has caused bias in many peoples impressions.
it shold be mentioned that the emmisions scandal is only one issue and whilst I understand and agree that it should taint a company, there are many aspects about VW that should be considered to be good (or at least better) given the way they are run. VW is highly successful, not just in turning a profit but in managing a company that benefits its workers and the general area where they manufacture. The same could not be said for GM when they decided to stab the majority of their loyal workforce in the back by moving manufacturing offshore. I am aware that VW do manufacturing outside of Germany but this is additional manufacturing, not instead of.
unfortunately the next thing will be the 24x7 NHS. The only 'fact' the politicians have is that more people die at weekends. They don't really know why but the solution will be to put more doctors on shift at weekends and dilute the weekday service. I guess its too much trouble to do evidence-based goverment.
I'm generally happy that GW is being caused by human activity. Having said that, I'm also prepared to listen to genuine information that might contradict this. So far I've not seen any reason to change my opinion.
What concerns me more though is that the debate continues. Regardless of whether humans or nature are responsible or a combination of the two, the reality is that the climate is changing. If we assume for a moment that humans are not responsible, are we really prepared to accept the climate changing. If it continues to change in this way, we are going to be seeing more extreme weather and we are going to see higher sea levels. This seems indisputable to me. So, sit back and do nothing if humans didn't cause it and do something if we did? That seems utterly mad to me.
Don't misunderstand, I realize there are dangers in deciding that we do want to try and improve the climate but it seems to me that that is the debate we should be having as well.
Whilst I do accept the majority of your points, there is some sense in the display being such a high resolution - VR. The Galaxy Gear VR will also use the new S6 and it will make sense for that feature to have sufficiently high resolution.
Completely agree with the rest of your points. The things that differentiated Samsung from phones such as the M8 was the ability to change your battery and to add storage.
I pretty much agree with every point you made. The problem though is that we see Facebook as a social network. The reality is that it is also a business and is wanting to make money. This is no different to a TV network canceling your favorite show. We see entertainment but they see the need to make money. I will applaud businesses that take a moral high ground but I can't say I'm surprised that this has happened. Maybe before the floatation they could have stuck to this but Facebook is expected to priorities investors and that means compromises in other areas. I really wish this wasn't the case. The potential of Facebook (and other similarly large and popular services) being in a position to take the moral high ground and stick with it could be part of a mechanism for change.
All your points are valid. The main issue in doing that sort of thing is that it's much more difficult to do in a movie. The ideal situation is for Star Trek to move back to TV. I don't think it makes sense for a new series about the Enterprise (Kirk, Spock, etc). It should either be a new era beyond the next generation or it should be along the lines of DS9, in an existing era but with a new ship and cast. Whilst I have enjoyed most of the movies (not 5 or 10), Star Trek has always been at its best on TV.
As pointed out several times already, this is being highlighted because Apple is on record for stating that they would not do business with companies using such abusive practices. I don't know if the other companies have made such statements or not. Even if they haven't it would not be unreasonable to highlight the abuses if they occur. However, to imply that the abuses reported by Panorama are in some way reduced because they do not also highlight the abuse of the other companies seems wrong to me.
some good guesses and a few very funny answers. GCHQ is in fact the Government Communications Headquarters. Although it's in a completely different location, GCHQ can trace its roots back to Bletchly Park.
In the spirit of the above suggestions, I presume the FBI is the Farming Board of Investigation and the CIA is the Central Idiots Agency.
Even if what you (and others above) say is true, the US still seems to be particularly violent. Whilst violent crime may be coming down, it still seems logical to remove the tools of violence. I can see a use for rifles and shotguns for hunting but handguns in particular have no use or purpose in a civilized country.
Most Prime Ministers realise this as well. Sometimes it takes until they get into power before they understand it but the reality is that since entering the EU (the Common Market), no PM (including David Cameron) have been skeptical enough to decide we should leave. It's worth mentioning as well that most of the major milestones to increased membership has been during Tory governments.
You're pretty much spot on here. The keyboard would have needed a stylus no thicker than a pin. Surely anyone could see that the picture is intended to be a metaphor.
This sounds an awful lot like the arguments I heard in the early 90s on open systems vs proprietary. Your points are all valid but do they make the iOS platform sufficiently better for it to carry on? Given that Android is actively developed, just how long are the advantages you describe going to be an issue?
For now I see Android competing with iOS but I do think it's just a matter of time before there will be no advantage for Apple to continue developing their own OS. Woz is right, Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation as Blackberry and they need to be ready to deal with it.
This isn't really that surprising. Whilst I realise that Samsung runs a half-arsed app store, it doesn't seem particularly serious to me. In practice therefore, Samsung only make money from selling you the phone. Once that's done, all they have are obligations from a support perspective and those cost money. When Apple sell an iPhone, they will make money from every app you buy. Consequently, they have an incentive to provide updates etc. I don't think Apple actually show any more loyalty than Samsung, it's only about money.
Whilst I appreciate the point you make, at some point we're going to want to send people to the planets. Exploration has been done quite well by robots so far. However, if it's for more sophisticated exploration, or colonization, we will want to send people. The problems have to be solved. In principle, many of them are, the problems are generally cost and a bit of time to develop, Nothing I've read says that these problems are insurmountable.
I have to say, I'm always surprised that people complain about Betamax tape length. I had both 3 and 4 hour tapes and I expect that if Sony had continue development, I would have had LP and even EP modes. Whilst I do realize that very early on there was a length issue, this was not the case for most of the life of the product.
With respect to VHS being 'open', that wasn't the case either. I'm pretty certain that every VHS recorder sold included a license back to JVC. Now, it's true there were far more manufacturers of VHS recorders but Sony was not the only company to produce Betamax machines. Sanyo and Telefunken also produced them and there are probably others I'm not aware of.
There are far too many myths regarding this sort of thing, each markets had different issues. The practical reality was that Betamax probably was a better product in many respects, certainly the majority of Sony machines were built as premium products. Also, Betamax generally had features before they appeared on VHS (shuttle search, peep search HiFi - not just stereo - sound). However, none of these were enough of a factor in it becoming dominant. VHS, with more manufacturers was often a product you could find cheaper and still had enough features. Although you can have a long argument about picture and sound quality, if Betamax was better, it wasn't enough to make enough people choose that product.
Slashdot Mirror
Christmas (I prefer Xmas), is not necessarily a religious festival in my opinion. I'm an atheist but that doesn't stop me from wanting to bring good wishes and cheer to my friends and family. There are more people in Britain who perceive Xmas as Doctor Who, Strictly, The Queen and eating too much turkey than are likely to go to church.
I do have reservations about driverless cars but I can see the potential benefits as well. My main concern, and one I've yet to see sufficiently well answered, is what happens when accidents do occur and that they are the fault of car or its software? Who's liable? If its my car, I've not driving, I've had the car properly serviced so surely its not my fault.
I feel obliged to mention that the newest generation of hypercars are hybrids with relatively modest electric-only modes and in reality use the electric motors to support the ICE.
The problem here is that there probably are some legitimate reasons to be concerned whilst others you can probably ignore. There is no doubt in my mind that the energy providers will ultimately find a way to exploit smart meters to their advantage. For me, I hope that I will improve my efficiency and increase my self sufficiency through improved insulation and home generation such that the providers will become increasingly irrelevant. Granted this is not something everyone can achieve although I imagine most would aspire to it. However, the hope is that a prevalence of alternatives plus a diverse market will keep the providers in check.
Being worried about RF radiation is probably nonsense but I've seen it tends to be a common policy of those who want to convince people that there is an overwhelming reason to oppose something. Not just one or two arguments but a significant list of reasons, many of which are untrue.
For me, both Sputnik and the Moon landings are of equal importance. The Viking landings are also high on the list as are the amazing discoveries of ther above mentioned robot missions. The moone landings got a lot of publicity during the cold war and I think that has caused bias in many peoples impressions.
it shold be mentioned that the emmisions scandal is only one issue and whilst I understand and agree that it should taint a company, there are many aspects about VW that should be considered to be good (or at least better) given the way they are run. VW is highly successful, not just in turning a profit but in managing a company that benefits its workers and the general area where they manufacture. The same could not be said for GM when they decided to stab the majority of their loyal workforce in the back by moving manufacturing offshore. I am aware that VW do manufacturing outside of Germany but this is additional manufacturing, not instead of.
unfortunately the next thing will be the 24x7 NHS. The only 'fact' the politicians have is that more people die at weekends. They don't really know why but the solution will be to put more doctors on shift at weekends and dilute the weekday service. I guess its too much trouble to do evidence-based goverment.
This thing is a suborbital. It's not going to space.
I don't think anyone is claiming it was going to.
The name "space shuttle" does imply it will be going into space.
What concerns me more though is that the debate continues. Regardless of whether humans or nature are responsible or a combination of the two, the reality is that the climate is changing. If we assume for a moment that humans are not responsible, are we really prepared to accept the climate changing. If it continues to change in this way, we are going to be seeing more extreme weather and we are going to see higher sea levels. This seems indisputable to me. So, sit back and do nothing if humans didn't cause it and do something if we did? That seems utterly mad to me.
Don't misunderstand, I realize there are dangers in deciding that we do want to try and improve the climate but it seems to me that that is the debate we should be having as well.
Completely agree with the rest of your points. The things that differentiated Samsung from phones such as the M8 was the ability to change your battery and to add storage.
I pretty much agree with every point you made. The problem though is that we see Facebook as a social network. The reality is that it is also a business and is wanting to make money. This is no different to a TV network canceling your favorite show. We see entertainment but they see the need to make money. I will applaud businesses that take a moral high ground but I can't say I'm surprised that this has happened. Maybe before the floatation they could have stuck to this but Facebook is expected to priorities investors and that means compromises in other areas. I really wish this wasn't the case. The potential of Facebook (and other similarly large and popular services) being in a position to take the moral high ground and stick with it could be part of a mechanism for change.
In this case, the earth is blasted out of its orbit around the Sun into outer space.
All your points are valid. The main issue in doing that sort of thing is that it's much more difficult to do in a movie. The ideal situation is for Star Trek to move back to TV. I don't think it makes sense for a new series about the Enterprise (Kirk, Spock, etc). It should either be a new era beyond the next generation or it should be along the lines of DS9, in an existing era but with a new ship and cast. Whilst I have enjoyed most of the movies (not 5 or 10), Star Trek has always been at its best on TV.
As pointed out several times already, this is being highlighted because Apple is on record for stating that they would not do business with companies using such abusive practices. I don't know if the other companies have made such statements or not. Even if they haven't it would not be unreasonable to highlight the abuses if they occur. However, to imply that the abuses reported by Panorama are in some way reduced because they do not also highlight the abuse of the other companies seems wrong to me.
The article quite correctly calls the ball a football and never mentions the word 'soccer'.
In the spirit of the above suggestions, I presume the FBI is the Farming Board of Investigation and the CIA is the Central Idiots Agency.
Even if what you (and others above) say is true, the US still seems to be particularly violent. Whilst violent crime may be coming down, it still seems logical to remove the tools of violence. I can see a use for rifles and shotguns for hunting but handguns in particular have no use or purpose in a civilized country.
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/w...
Most Prime Ministers realise this as well. Sometimes it takes until they get into power before they understand it but the reality is that since entering the EU (the Common Market), no PM (including David Cameron) have been skeptical enough to decide we should leave. It's worth mentioning as well that most of the major milestones to increased membership has been during Tory governments.
You're pretty much spot on here. The keyboard would have needed a stylus no thicker than a pin. Surely anyone could see that the picture is intended to be a metaphor.
I think she might have had a brain transplant at some point.
For now I see Android competing with iOS but I do think it's just a matter of time before there will be no advantage for Apple to continue developing their own OS. Woz is right, Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation as Blackberry and they need to be ready to deal with it.
This isn't really that surprising. Whilst I realise that Samsung runs a half-arsed app store, it doesn't seem particularly serious to me. In practice therefore, Samsung only make money from selling you the phone. Once that's done, all they have are obligations from a support perspective and those cost money. When Apple sell an iPhone, they will make money from every app you buy. Consequently, they have an incentive to provide updates etc. I don't think Apple actually show any more loyalty than Samsung, it's only about money.
Whilst I appreciate the point you make, at some point we're going to want to send people to the planets. Exploration has been done quite well by robots so far. However, if it's for more sophisticated exploration, or colonization, we will want to send people. The problems have to be solved. In principle, many of them are, the problems are generally cost and a bit of time to develop, Nothing I've read says that these problems are insurmountable.
With respect to VHS being 'open', that wasn't the case either. I'm pretty certain that every VHS recorder sold included a license back to JVC. Now, it's true there were far more manufacturers of VHS recorders but Sony was not the only company to produce Betamax machines. Sanyo and Telefunken also produced them and there are probably others I'm not aware of.
There are far too many myths regarding this sort of thing, each markets had different issues. The practical reality was that Betamax probably was a better product in many respects, certainly the majority of Sony machines were built as premium products. Also, Betamax generally had features before they appeared on VHS (shuttle search, peep search HiFi - not just stereo - sound). However, none of these were enough of a factor in it becoming dominant. VHS, with more manufacturers was often a product you could find cheaper and still had enough features. Although you can have a long argument about picture and sound quality, if Betamax was better, it wasn't enough to make enough people choose that product.