Sure... and have a substantially poorer quality of living because you can't get nutrition you need during the part of the year that your part of the world is too cold to farm.
Aviation only seems to cause way too much pollution if you don't consider the alternatives.
The mode of transportation that is chosen when travelling very long distances. The article even gives an example where Flying from Denver to NYC results in a net gain over choosing to travel the same route in a Toyota Prius.
The summary seems to suggest that you should not fly if you want to be environmentally friendly, but the opposite is true.
You would wager that the author of the study didn't think about something that simple? Also, one of the main points of that article was that injury rates at similar intersections without cameras were also going down and any reduction seen wasn't due to the cameras, but due to other factors such as safer cars. The increase, however, was only at the camera intersections.
I find it to be a dubious claim that cameras reduce T-bone collisions. No one T-bone's another car while paying attention. The level of inattention required to get into a T-bone accident precludes the likelihood of factoring a $300 ticket into the situation.
Nope. The person you are attacking back against is likely another victim whose hardware has been commandeered. In this case, your attack will do nothing to harm the perpetrator and will probably harm a bystander.
If retaliation becomes the norm, then an effective method of attack amplification will be for a small entity to attack a large entity and frame the intended victim for it.
Yet, only 11 days ago, there was a study posted here that shows that they don't. There have been many reviews of studies that showed safety benefits and the reviewer almost always finds that some other change caused any observed benefit that was attributed to red light cameras. Most commonly, the yellow light duration is lengthened, leading to a reduction in tickets and a reduction in accidents - but it is presented as the cameras changing people's behavior and leading to reduced accidents.
there is never a time when there is no safety issue to speeding. NONE.
Not speeding on the I-95 near of New York City is very dangerous. You are much safer to travel the same speed as the majority of traffic, which means you are safer to speed.
Consumer's wouldn't be very happy if business told them they couldn't resell a product at a profit just because they bought it when there was a good sale, or if they couldn't split a meal because they bought the larger dish instead of two smaller ones.
No, they aren't happy when video game publishers restrict resale of purchased games or when restaurants don't allow meal sharing. This is just another example of the business model that the RIAA pioneered - make your business model into law and let the government enforce it.
I agree that this wasn't the reason I was expecting to hear. Why would a random hacker group care to help Sony and Microsoft improve their security? I was expecting them to say "We shut them down to show buyers how dependent their consoles are on the service." I could have at least sympathized with that message.
I'd believe you, but computer monitor resolution was on an upward trajectory until 2005, when consumer HD took off. Since then, it's been nearly stagnant for nine years. This is simply the progress we should have seen a long time ago.
That's way more depressing than it is useful. Just cooperate to the extent you are required to by law, and no more, and the amount of hassle will be kept to a minimum. Even a psychopath won't shoot you for being too quiet.
Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.
That's a bit paranoid. Cop isn't even in the top 10 jobs for on the job fatalities. Also, most cop fatalities are from car accidents - yet they refuse to wear seat belts. old citation to show this has been known for a long timenewer citation to show that nothing has changed. If they wore seat belts at the rate the general public did, being a police officer would be a pretty safe job. Police don't need to violate the fourth amendment to be safe.
why would any automobile manufacturer in their right minds allow the customer to flash their own firmware?
Because that has nothing to do with their liability. As long as they make the lamest attempt to prevent modifications, their PR department and legal team will both simply say "the customer had made unauthorized modifications to the car". The most common reason to lock stuff down is to create a captive market that they can sell to. Tens of thousands of people are driving with tweaked computers in their cars, yet all of the "car software bugs" you see on the news are on unmodified vehicles.
My first 2014 Mazda 3 was so buggy that they gave me a new one. Some of the bugs had safety implications - it caused me to be unable to see the speedometer and gave me false GO TO THE DEALER NOW, YOUR CAR IS HORRIBLY BROKEN messages.
Unfortunately, most of the stuff mention in the OP aren't controlled by the ECU. Windows, lights, starter, really anything other than the engine aren't controlled by the ECU. The climate system is wired to it, but only so that the ECU can adjust the radiator fans to handle A/C load.
BTW, I'm certain of this because I just used the ECU/engine from a WRX to build a custom car.
So, she replaced one set of unfortunate characters that shouldn't be used as role models with another set of unfortunate characters that shouldn't be used as role models. The new book's subtitle looks like it should read "Don't become a computer engineer because you'll have to put up with this crap for the rest of your life".
The first robot is just a module in the "other possible robot". If a hypothetical "infinite memory and infinite time" robot can't do it, what chance does a real robot have? An answer of "yes" wouldn't be all that useful because you would still be left with the question "how hard would it be?". An answer of "no" is useful because that answer will apply to any real robot of any capability.
What the paper said is that computers can't provably always make the right choice. Neither can we. I'll bet computers are capable of doing a lot better than humans, especially given the rate of the increase in the number of things a computer can do compared to the rate that humans are (aren't) gaining new abilities.
The calculations are simple when you assume the cloud will fail and your infrastructure will not. A real tradeoff calculation has to include estimates of the reliability of both scenarios. The answer to "Is it really a good trade off?" will be entirely based on estimates and opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the math does not spit out "no-brainer".
Some cloud providers will even give you SLAs with real money behind them. So, they could conceivably come up with a no-brainer deal where the cloud provider guarantees your $80,000 every day, whether it's from having your business up and running or writing you a check.
I worked at a call center with an analog PBX and a whopping staff of fifty, with four T1's for connectivity. One day I was testing some telephony integration of the software I maintained and had the system call my cell phone. The caller ID came up with the four-digit extension of the caller. It turned out that we could set anything as the caller id number.
What you are asking for is the pre-Civil Rights Act south to be brought back. The right for restaurants to not server blacks, separate drinking fountains, blacks on the back of the bus. All of those were private companies deciding to not treat black the same as whites.
No. The point is that Affirmative Action never was and never is a quota. If someone is enforcing a quota, then they're doing some that both isn't Affirmative Action, and isn't legal. Stop blaming Affirmative Action for it.
Being ugly isn't a protected class. If it were, then the modeling industry would collapse. Feel free to discriminate on the basis of beauty.
If you want to only hire whites, why? There is no justification for it that doesn't trace back to blatant racism. Same with hiring only blacks. You already live in a country where you can't "do whatever you want". From the obvious big stuff like you can't kill people, to smaller but pretty universal things like you can't take other people's stuff (under most circumstances). Then you get down to more touchy subjects like you can't kick out a tenant that doesn't pay without a certain period of notice. All the way to things that many people disagree with, like you can't legally quote a poem in an email without attribution and royalties
A lot of people agree with what you said in the above post, but most don't. To paraphrase your point - our country, our choice, if you don't like the laws that are on the books, feel free to lobby against them or leave. But don't feel that you are automatically right because you own the company. That attitude is likely to get you into a lot of trouble (environmental laws, employment laws, sexual harassment, etc.).
But thanks to Affirmative Action, I must now toss, say, 50 of those resumes because we have too many of the particular gender/race combos from those resumes
Doing this is illegal. It's not what Affirmative Action means, it's how other racists want it implemented. I have no idea why people still think this way since it was over thirty years ago when the courts clearly stated that a racial quota is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure... and have a substantially poorer quality of living because you can't get nutrition you need during the part of the year that your part of the world is too cold to farm.
Aviation only seems to cause way too much pollution if you don't consider the alternatives.
The mode of transportation that is chosen when travelling very long distances. The article even gives an example where Flying from Denver to NYC results in a net gain over choosing to travel the same route in a Toyota Prius.
The summary seems to suggest that you should not fly if you want to be environmentally friendly, but the opposite is true.
You would wager that the author of the study didn't think about something that simple? Also, one of the main points of that article was that injury rates at similar intersections without cameras were also going down and any reduction seen wasn't due to the cameras, but due to other factors such as safer cars. The increase, however, was only at the camera intersections.
I find it to be a dubious claim that cameras reduce T-bone collisions. No one T-bone's another car while paying attention. The level of inattention required to get into a T-bone accident precludes the likelihood of factoring a $300 ticket into the situation.
Nope. The person you are attacking back against is likely another victim whose hardware has been commandeered. In this case, your attack will do nothing to harm the perpetrator and will probably harm a bystander.
If retaliation becomes the norm, then an effective method of attack amplification will be for a small entity to attack a large entity and frame the intended victim for it.
Most studies show that red light cameras work
Yet, only 11 days ago, there was a study posted here that shows that they don't. There have been many reviews of studies that showed safety benefits and the reviewer almost always finds that some other change caused any observed benefit that was attributed to red light cameras. Most commonly, the yellow light duration is lengthened, leading to a reduction in tickets and a reduction in accidents - but it is presented as the cameras changing people's behavior and leading to reduced accidents.
there is never a time when there is no safety issue to speeding. NONE.
Not speeding on the I-95 near of New York City is very dangerous. You are much safer to travel the same speed as the majority of traffic, which means you are safer to speed.
Are they going to seat someone else in the empty seat at your table?
Consumer's wouldn't be very happy if business told them they couldn't resell a product at a profit just because they bought it when there was a good sale, or if they couldn't split a meal because they bought the larger dish instead of two smaller ones.
No, they aren't happy when video game publishers restrict resale of purchased games or when restaurants don't allow meal sharing. This is just another example of the business model that the RIAA pioneered - make your business model into law and let the government enforce it.
I agree that this wasn't the reason I was expecting to hear. Why would a random hacker group care to help Sony and Microsoft improve their security? I was expecting them to say "We shut them down to show buyers how dependent their consoles are on the service." I could have at least sympathized with that message.
I'd believe you, but computer monitor resolution was on an upward trajectory until 2005, when consumer HD took off. Since then, it's been nearly stagnant for nine years. This is simply the progress we should have seen a long time ago.
That's way more depressing than it is useful. Just cooperate to the extent you are required to by law, and no more, and the amount of hassle will be kept to a minimum. Even a psychopath won't shoot you for being too quiet.
Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.
That's a bit paranoid. Cop isn't even in the top 10 jobs for on the job fatalities. Also, most cop fatalities are from car accidents - yet they refuse to wear seat belts. old citation to show this has been known for a long time newer citation to show that nothing has changed. If they wore seat belts at the rate the general public did, being a police officer would be a pretty safe job. Police don't need to violate the fourth amendment to be safe.
If you really want to have fun with a Subaru, do this to it.
why would any automobile manufacturer in their right minds allow the customer to flash their own firmware?
Because that has nothing to do with their liability. As long as they make the lamest attempt to prevent modifications, their PR department and legal team will both simply say "the customer had made unauthorized modifications to the car". The most common reason to lock stuff down is to create a captive market that they can sell to. Tens of thousands of people are driving with tweaked computers in their cars, yet all of the "car software bugs" you see on the news are on unmodified vehicles.
My first 2014 Mazda 3 was so buggy that they gave me a new one. Some of the bugs had safety implications - it caused me to be unable to see the speedometer and gave me false GO TO THE DEALER NOW, YOUR CAR IS HORRIBLY BROKEN messages.
Current Mazdas use OpenCar for their infotainment system. Wireless is enabled by default and the root password is out there on the Internet.
Unfortunately, most of the stuff mention in the OP aren't controlled by the ECU. Windows, lights, starter, really anything other than the engine aren't controlled by the ECU. The climate system is wired to it, but only so that the ECU can adjust the radiator fans to handle A/C load.
BTW, I'm certain of this because I just used the ECU/engine from a WRX to build a custom car.
So, she replaced one set of unfortunate characters that shouldn't be used as role models with another set of unfortunate characters that shouldn't be used as role models. The new book's subtitle looks like it should read "Don't become a computer engineer because you'll have to put up with this crap for the rest of your life".
The first robot is just a module in the "other possible robot". If a hypothetical "infinite memory and infinite time" robot can't do it, what chance does a real robot have? An answer of "yes" wouldn't be all that useful because you would still be left with the question "how hard would it be?". An answer of "no" is useful because that answer will apply to any real robot of any capability.
What the paper said is that computers can't provably always make the right choice. Neither can we. I'll bet computers are capable of doing a lot better than humans, especially given the rate of the increase in the number of things a computer can do compared to the rate that humans are (aren't) gaining new abilities.
The calculations are simple when you assume the cloud will fail and your infrastructure will not. A real tradeoff calculation has to include estimates of the reliability of both scenarios. The answer to "Is it really a good trade off?" will be entirely based on estimates and opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the math does not spit out "no-brainer".
Some cloud providers will even give you SLAs with real money behind them. So, they could conceivably come up with a no-brainer deal where the cloud provider guarantees your $80,000 every day, whether it's from having your business up and running or writing you a check.
I worked at a call center with an analog PBX and a whopping staff of fifty, with four T1's for connectivity. One day I was testing some telephony integration of the software I maintained and had the system call my cell phone. The caller ID came up with the four-digit extension of the caller. It turned out that we could set anything as the caller id number.
What you are asking for is the pre-Civil Rights Act south to be brought back. The right for restaurants to not server blacks, separate drinking fountains, blacks on the back of the bus. All of those were private companies deciding to not treat black the same as whites.
No. The point is that Affirmative Action never was and never is a quota. If someone is enforcing a quota, then they're doing some that both isn't Affirmative Action, and isn't legal. Stop blaming Affirmative Action for it.
Being ugly isn't a protected class. If it were, then the modeling industry would collapse. Feel free to discriminate on the basis of beauty.
If you want to only hire whites, why? There is no justification for it that doesn't trace back to blatant racism. Same with hiring only blacks. You already live in a country where you can't "do whatever you want". From the obvious big stuff like you can't kill people, to smaller but pretty universal things like you can't take other people's stuff (under most circumstances). Then you get down to more touchy subjects like you can't kick out a tenant that doesn't pay without a certain period of notice. All the way to things that many people disagree with, like you can't legally quote a poem in an email without attribution and royalties
A lot of people agree with what you said in the above post, but most don't. To paraphrase your point - our country, our choice, if you don't like the laws that are on the books, feel free to lobby against them or leave. But don't feel that you are automatically right because you own the company. That attitude is likely to get you into a lot of trouble (environmental laws, employment laws, sexual harassment, etc.).
But thanks to Affirmative Action, I must now toss, say, 50 of those resumes because we have too many of the particular gender/race combos from those resumes
Doing this is illegal. It's not what Affirmative Action means, it's how other racists want it implemented. I have no idea why people still think this way since it was over thirty years ago when the courts clearly stated that a racial quota is illegal.