Please stop spreading nonsense. "Flu" is a disease caused by the influenza virus. You can have bad symptoms from the influenza virus. Or you can have not so bad symptoms from the influenza virus. But both are flu.
What are you on about? Influenza is a type of virus, not a series of symptoms. You can have a bad flu. You can have not so bad a flu. If they are both caused by the flu virus, then they are both flu.
But if you're in Germany... and you already control Austria... and Italy is your closest ally... then where are you trying to go that Switzerland is your most efficient path?
In fairness, Switzerland also wasn't really in anyone's way and has relatively easy to defend terrain. Is it really the case that the only reason Belgium (which also tried to stay neutral) fell to the Nazis was lack of vigilance?
Besides the other comments showing how Martian atmosphere is way too thin to support plan life, you also need to pay closer attention when you help your daughter with biology.
Try to grow a plant in a 98% CO2 atmosphere. I'll give you hint. It won't work. Plants release oxygen into the atmosphere as they photosynthesize, and they take oxygen in as they metabolize. They don't store the oxygen internally, they rely on certain % of oxygen being available in the atmosphere.
You seem to forget at every point in your post that you're comparing a $63,000 car to a $28,000 car. Considering Tesla doesn't have a $30,000 car, yet, we really have no idea what tradeoffs they will be required to make to get a car to that price point. We can be pretty confident, though, that if Tesla could just scale down the Model S to a marketable $30,000 car, they probably would have. Instead, they have delayed later models by at least a year.
Even on battery technology, all we can really say is that Tesla has really good, but expensive, batteries. Can they scale that tech down to a $30,000 car? Probably. But they haven't, yet, so we'll see. But actually we won't see. Because by the time Tesla comes out with a $30,000 car, everyone will be one step further along in battery technology. So we can't really compare the Leaf's battery to the Model S's, because they are at different price points. And we can't compare the Leaf's battery to the battery that Tesla will have out in 3 years, because Nissan's battery will almost certainly be improved in 3 years, also. But my point was that we know the Leaf isn't good enough for the market, and we know that the Leaf is being built by a company that knows how to value-engineer a car and build it cheaply in volume. So Tesla really better have something better than Nissan, or it will be a problem.
As just another example of how different the price points are, you only get Supercharger access on the more expensive Tesla models (with the 85kWh batteries). It's a $2,000 (!!) option on the $63,000 model. That's not much to the buyer of a $63,000 car, but if you're trying to play in the mid-market, $2,000 is a lot.
This is especially weird for two reasons directly associated with the Asiana crash:
1) The department has generally been lauded for being upfront and honest about having run over the girl. It's weird that the takeaway from that is to do something which appears to be just "cover your ass".
2) I haven't seen the video, but by the accounts I've read the video corroborates the claim that running over the girl really was just a tragic accident. It's weird that in the future they want to avoid having corroborating evidence like that.
So now you've got AI that can interpret hand signals? That's pretty good (but unfortunately doesn't exist and may not exist for a long time).
It's funny how you write "On every driverless car article someone (actually, usually multiple people) posts some example scenario..." with a tone as though it's crazy people should do that. OF COURSE, people write those scenarios. They write those scenarios because driving is complicated and the AI that can handle every situation a human can simply does not exist, yet. If it did, then we would have those cars on the roads today.
And when we do finally get those cars on the road, the first iteration (really, the first many iterations) will still find situations they cannot handle.
The cops was just one example. Unless you give that equipment out like candy, which you wouldn't want to do because you don't want any John Doe to be able to reroute traffic, then there will always be situations where a driverless car would just have to stop and wait for more explicit instructions WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD BLOCKING TRAFFIC.
I don't think 600 mile range will ever be standard. Only because the alternative is that you could make a car with a 300 mile range and make it much cheaper (half the battery size). Already, I think you're seeing the range issue on Tesla start to go away, as people realize how infrequently they actually need their car to go more than 200 miles on a "tank". The Leaf, with its much smaller range, still has a marketing issue, but it wouldn't surprise me to see 200-300 miles settle down as the standard range for electric cars (perhaps with bigger options available as upgrades and/or temporary swaps).
While I understand yout point, empirically it hasn't been the case that drivers in higher-rated cars drive less safely (i.e. they don't get in more accidents). I believe it is actually the other way around. Those cars tend to have a lower percentage of accidents (potentially because of the correlation between safety conscious people who both (i) buy a high-rated car and (ii) consciously try to drive more safely).
If you think about human psychology, this actually tends to make sense. In order to get the effect you are imagining, it would have to be the case that someone who has a tendency to be a reckless driver would think to themselves "I shouldn't speed through this intersection because I have only a 3-star rated car". Then, when that person bought a 5-star car, they would think "OK, now I can speed through that intersection". While that second thought may sound like it fits human nature, the first doesn't. In other words, you can only be more reckless in a 5-star car if you are being less reckless in a 3-star car. More likely, a reckless person is just reckless all the time.
There is only greater demand than supply for the Model S. But we don't know how much of that is pent up demand that will wear off. And we don't know whether demand is 10% greater than supply or 5x greater than supply.
As far as a $30,000-range car, here Tesla should be a little worried. Nissan is not having great success with the Leaf. So (i) Tesla needs to make a much better car for about the same price, (ii) the market may move towards that product in the next however-many years before Tesla's car in that price range comes out or (iii) Tesla should be a little worried, because they can't provide a good return on the $1.2 billion invested to-date if they only sell tens-of-thousands of high-end cars annually.
Note that Tesla seems to either break even of make money selling the Model S (depending on exactly how you interpret their financials), but when applied against the $1.2 billion that's been invested in the company, it doesn't represent a very attractive return. (Yet!!)
Tesla starts at $63,570 (after the tax credit). And that doesn't even include leather seats (which is usually totally standard for cars in this price range).
Lowest 528i starts at $49,500.
Price-wise, Tesla really overlaps the higher-end of the 5-series line and into the 7-series. You can easily upgrade a Tesla up to $110,000. In order to get a 5-series anywhere near that expensive, you've got to go with the M5, and add features that Tesla doesn't offer.
It should be noted that Tesla compares the Model S to the 7-series, Audi 8 and Mercedes S-class, not to the mid-range sedans for each of those automakers. IMHO, the interior and tech add-ons don't compare. Those other cars have more tech options and more luxurious interiors. But you can't beat how quiet and smooth the ride is for the Tesla, and it's certainly a really nice car. Basically, if there were an all-electric 7-series, then it would beat the Model S in luxury, but since there isn't......
It's pretty hard to imagine a car that can deal with every possible eventuality on the road. More likely what will happen is that automated cars will be able to get themselves to a safe/stopped spot, then throw control back to the driver to figure out what to do next.
In other words, we may have self-driving cars where you can read a book while it drives, but it'll be a long time before you can send a car out without someone who can take over in the event of something happening outside of its programming.
Just as a simple example: There's an accident. The cops are waving cars around the accident, indicating they should drive through a vacant lot. Would a self-driving car understand what to do?
Since "anonymous reader" isn't in a position to know anything about how the NSA's systems are set up, what these administrators exactly do, who has/needs administrator privileges vs. who could do their jobs with reduced privileges, etc., etc., then isn't this discussion even more of a waste of time than usual on slashdot?
Agreed. Either the info should be published because it's "whistleblower-worthy", or the information should not have been leaked. The middle-ground of "insurance" is really just attempted blackmail.
The supreme court ruled the way it did only because the FBI had to encroach upon the vehicle in order to place the tracking device. The court even acknowledged that there are ways to introduce such a device into a vehicle without violating the 4th amendment. There was a previous case where a radio beacon was introduced into a suspect's car by hiding it in a container which he accepted voluntarily from an informant. The court reaffirmed the contitutionality of that type of tracking.
The Jones ruling only makes it unconstitutional for the government to secretly hide something in your car. It does not make it unconstitutional for the government to closely track your whereabout by otherwise constitutional means. Furthermore, it has long been the status of jurisprudence that information about you that is held by others (whether individuals or corporations) is not protected by the 4th amendment.
Isn't the whole point of tags, also, that there isn't a unified solution? I thought the whole point was that a unified set of descriptors would be too limiting.
Second, that's the September 2012 number. As of March 2013, it was $12 billion.
Third, you've got to add two additional lines to really understand Apple's cash horde. Because it would be imprudent to actually hold over $100 bilion in bank accounts, Apple holds both long-term and short-term marketable securities ($106 billion and $27 billion, repsectively). Those probably consist of various government securities and high-rated corporate bonds. For accounting purposes, they don't count as "cash equivalents", but for practical purposes they should be considered as such.
So Apple's cash horde was a little over $145 billion as of last September. Intel's market cap of $115 billion is meaningfully smaller.
Slashdot Mirror
Libertarians deny the entire concept of externalities. It makes it easy for them to ignore things like herd effect.
Please stop spreading nonsense. "Flu" is a disease caused by the influenza virus. You can have bad symptoms from the influenza virus. Or you can have not so bad symptoms from the influenza virus. But both are flu.
What are you on about? Influenza is a type of virus, not a series of symptoms. You can have a bad flu. You can have not so bad a flu. If they are both caused by the flu virus, then they are both flu.
But if you're in Germany ... and you already control Austria... and Italy is your closest ally... then where are you trying to go that Switzerland is your most efficient path?
In fairness, Switzerland also wasn't really in anyone's way and has relatively easy to defend terrain. Is it really the case that the only reason Belgium (which also tried to stay neutral) fell to the Nazis was lack of vigilance?
Besides the other comments showing how Martian atmosphere is way too thin to support plan life, you also need to pay closer attention when you help your daughter with biology.
Try to grow a plant in a 98% CO2 atmosphere. I'll give you hint. It won't work. Plants release oxygen into the atmosphere as they photosynthesize, and they take oxygen in as they metabolize. They don't store the oxygen internally, they rely on certain % of oxygen being available in the atmosphere.
Where would these plants you speak of get the carbon dioxide and oxygen they need? You gonna give them little tiny scuba tanks?
The Harvard article in no way contradicts what TapeCutter said. Please clarify your point.
And why one backup is not enough.
You seem to forget at every point in your post that you're comparing a $63,000 car to a $28,000 car. Considering Tesla doesn't have a $30,000 car, yet, we really have no idea what tradeoffs they will be required to make to get a car to that price point. We can be pretty confident, though, that if Tesla could just scale down the Model S to a marketable $30,000 car, they probably would have. Instead, they have delayed later models by at least a year.
Even on battery technology, all we can really say is that Tesla has really good, but expensive, batteries. Can they scale that tech down to a $30,000 car? Probably. But they haven't, yet, so we'll see. But actually we won't see. Because by the time Tesla comes out with a $30,000 car, everyone will be one step further along in battery technology. So we can't really compare the Leaf's battery to the Model S's, because they are at different price points. And we can't compare the Leaf's battery to the battery that Tesla will have out in 3 years, because Nissan's battery will almost certainly be improved in 3 years, also. But my point was that we know the Leaf isn't good enough for the market, and we know that the Leaf is being built by a company that knows how to value-engineer a car and build it cheaply in volume. So Tesla really better have something better than Nissan, or it will be a problem.
As just another example of how different the price points are, you only get Supercharger access on the more expensive Tesla models (with the 85kWh batteries). It's a $2,000 (!!) option on the $63,000 model. That's not much to the buyer of a $63,000 car, but if you're trying to play in the mid-market, $2,000 is a lot.
This is especially weird for two reasons directly associated with the Asiana crash:
1) The department has generally been lauded for being upfront and honest about having run over the girl. It's weird that the takeaway from that is to do something which appears to be just "cover your ass".
2) I haven't seen the video, but by the accounts I've read the video corroborates the claim that running over the girl really was just a tragic accident. It's weird that in the future they want to avoid having corroborating evidence like that.
So now you've got AI that can interpret hand signals? That's pretty good (but unfortunately doesn't exist and may not exist for a long time).
It's funny how you write "On every driverless car article someone (actually, usually multiple people) posts some example scenario..." with a tone as though it's crazy people should do that. OF COURSE, people write those scenarios. They write those scenarios because driving is complicated and the AI that can handle every situation a human can simply does not exist, yet. If it did, then we would have those cars on the roads today.
And when we do finally get those cars on the road, the first iteration (really, the first many iterations) will still find situations they cannot handle.
The cops was just one example. Unless you give that equipment out like candy, which you wouldn't want to do because you don't want any John Doe to be able to reroute traffic, then there will always be situations where a driverless car would just have to stop and wait for more explicit instructions WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD BLOCKING TRAFFIC.
I don't think 600 mile range will ever be standard. Only because the alternative is that you could make a car with a 300 mile range and make it much cheaper (half the battery size). Already, I think you're seeing the range issue on Tesla start to go away, as people realize how infrequently they actually need their car to go more than 200 miles on a "tank". The Leaf, with its much smaller range, still has a marketing issue, but it wouldn't surprise me to see 200-300 miles settle down as the standard range for electric cars (perhaps with bigger options available as upgrades and/or temporary swaps).
While I understand yout point, empirically it hasn't been the case that drivers in higher-rated cars drive less safely (i.e. they don't get in more accidents). I believe it is actually the other way around. Those cars tend to have a lower percentage of accidents (potentially because of the correlation between safety conscious people who both (i) buy a high-rated car and (ii) consciously try to drive more safely).
If you think about human psychology, this actually tends to make sense. In order to get the effect you are imagining, it would have to be the case that someone who has a tendency to be a reckless driver would think to themselves "I shouldn't speed through this intersection because I have only a 3-star rated car". Then, when that person bought a 5-star car, they would think "OK, now I can speed through that intersection". While that second thought may sound like it fits human nature, the first doesn't. In other words, you can only be more reckless in a 5-star car if you are being less reckless in a 3-star car. More likely, a reckless person is just reckless all the time.
There is only greater demand than supply for the Model S. But we don't know how much of that is pent up demand that will wear off. And we don't know whether demand is 10% greater than supply or 5x greater than supply.
As far as a $30,000-range car, here Tesla should be a little worried. Nissan is not having great success with the Leaf. So (i) Tesla needs to make a much better car for about the same price, (ii) the market may move towards that product in the next however-many years before Tesla's car in that price range comes out or (iii) Tesla should be a little worried, because they can't provide a good return on the $1.2 billion invested to-date if they only sell tens-of-thousands of high-end cars annually.
Note that Tesla seems to either break even of make money selling the Model S (depending on exactly how you interpret their financials), but when applied against the $1.2 billion that's been invested in the company, it doesn't represent a very attractive return. (Yet!!)
Tesla starts at $63,570 (after the tax credit). And that doesn't even include leather seats (which is usually totally standard for cars in this price range).
Lowest 528i starts at $49,500.
Price-wise, Tesla really overlaps the higher-end of the 5-series line and into the 7-series. You can easily upgrade a Tesla up to $110,000. In order to get a 5-series anywhere near that expensive, you've got to go with the M5, and add features that Tesla doesn't offer.
It should be noted that Tesla compares the Model S to the 7-series, Audi 8 and Mercedes S-class, not to the mid-range sedans for each of those automakers. IMHO, the interior and tech add-ons don't compare. Those other cars have more tech options and more luxurious interiors. But you can't beat how quiet and smooth the ride is for the Tesla, and it's certainly a really nice car. Basically, if there were an all-electric 7-series, then it would beat the Model S in luxury, but since there isn't......
It's pretty hard to imagine a car that can deal with every possible eventuality on the road. More likely what will happen is that automated cars will be able to get themselves to a safe/stopped spot, then throw control back to the driver to figure out what to do next.
In other words, we may have self-driving cars where you can read a book while it drives, but it'll be a long time before you can send a car out without someone who can take over in the event of something happening outside of its programming.
Just as a simple example: There's an accident. The cops are waving cars around the accident, indicating they should drive through a vacant lot. Would a self-driving car understand what to do?
Since "anonymous reader" isn't in a position to know anything about how the NSA's systems are set up, what these administrators exactly do, who has/needs administrator privileges vs. who could do their jobs with reduced privileges, etc., etc., then isn't this discussion even more of a waste of time than usual on slashdot?
"I won't release it if you do what I say. I will release it if you don't do what I say."
Sounds a whole lot like blackmail to me.
Agreed. Either the info should be published because it's "whistleblower-worthy", or the information should not have been leaked. The middle-ground of "insurance" is really just attempted blackmail.
Please read the Jones opinion.
The supreme court ruled the way it did only because the FBI had to encroach upon the vehicle in order to place the tracking device. The court even acknowledged that there are ways to introduce such a device into a vehicle without violating the 4th amendment. There was a previous case where a radio beacon was introduced into a suspect's car by hiding it in a container which he accepted voluntarily from an informant. The court reaffirmed the contitutionality of that type of tracking.
The Jones ruling only makes it unconstitutional for the government to secretly hide something in your car. It does not make it unconstitutional for the government to closely track your whereabout by otherwise constitutional means. Furthermore, it has long been the status of jurisprudence that information about you that is held by others (whether individuals or corporations) is not protected by the 4th amendment.
Isn't the whole point of tags, also, that there isn't a unified solution? I thought the whole point was that a unified set of descriptors would be too limiting.
oops. the $145 billion was as of last March.
First, the number for Apple is in 1,000s.
Second, that's the September 2012 number. As of March 2013, it was $12 billion.
Third, you've got to add two additional lines to really understand Apple's cash horde. Because it would be imprudent to actually hold over $100 bilion in bank accounts, Apple holds both long-term and short-term marketable securities ($106 billion and $27 billion, repsectively). Those probably consist of various government securities and high-rated corporate bonds. For accounting purposes, they don't count as "cash equivalents", but for practical purposes they should be considered as such.
So Apple's cash horde was a little over $145 billion as of last September. Intel's market cap of $115 billion is meaningfully smaller.