While the autonomous vehicles aren't at fault in these crashes, their relative unpredictability on the road are nonetheless leading to more accidents than expected.
The autonomous vehicles are *entirely* predictable as they follow the rules - you know, the ones we humans are suppose to know to get a driver's license. It's the humans that are unpredictable.
... rigid adherence to traffic laws and overcautious programming have caused self-driving cars to rack up a crash rate twice that of an average human driver.
Um, humans are causing the crashes, so the crash-rate is on them, not the self-driving cars. The crash-rate for self-driving cars is "bagel".
Seriously. It's a Death Moon. Ya, I know I/we heard someone say it wasn't a moon, but it is. Though I'm sure that if the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had there way, it would be called the Death Dwarf Planet or Death Asteroid. I'm going with Death Moon. Not nearly as sexy as "Death Star" or "AT&T" though.
If Karma works like it should, he'll end up poor and/or in jail, catch a fatal disease that can be cured by one of the medications for which he jacked up the price, but then be unable to afford it.
Just wait for the NSA to stand up their own Cloud services (probably in their Utah data center) and let them host/store everything for you. Then you can kick back and stop worrying if they've got copies of all your data. As a bonus they handle all your backup needs too.
(I mean, if you've got nothing to hide... and all that.)
In this case the parent doesn't seem to hold any sympathy for a complete, small-scale tragedy - especially if doing anything would inconvenience the masses - while apparently recognizing impact of a partial large scale tragedy. All from the same cause. Or, at least, that's how the argument is framed as the rational for doing something. While I can see his/her "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" thinking, we're ultimately all in this together and, arguably, how we treat the few and one can say more about us than how we treat the many. Furthermore, he mentions that "any one microcosm may not be important" but how do we know that they aren't or any one isn't?
Also, he says things that are clearly wrong, like "Flooding coastal cities doesn't mean we lose the shoreline it just means the shoreline moves inland." Uh, no, the shoreline actually gets shorter/smaller - and ultimately zero - and the interior land are also gets smaller - and ultimately zero.
In the end, he comes to the conclusion that the Paris accords are "good", but his reasoning is questionable or at least flaky.
I did. It seems goombah99 feels the economic pain that large countries will feel having to relocate shoreline cities, but not any for small island countries that will disappear completely with the rising sea - 'cause that's not "any sort of logical reason to curtail the economic development of a gazillion more people." In either case, more than simple economic loss will occur. People may be able to relocate their culture, but not their history - especially on an island.
Trump, for all the stupid things he's said, has not committed a crime. The moment you start dehumanizing people who haven't committed a crime, deciding that it's OK to do bad things to them just because you disagree with them, and they're not worthy of the same rights and protections you give to people you agree with, you've started using the same reasoning ISIS uses to justify what they do.
Like the things Trump has been saying about and proposing to do with/to Mexicans and Muslims? Or was that your point?
Your statement that government wouldn't be needed if everyone was Good (TM) is false. You are completely wrong.
Sigh. The parent post remarked about government minding its own business. I replied that if people were "good" we wouldn't need government to "legislate and arbitrate things" - implying with-regard-to people's business. I didn't say anything about government's role with-regard-to roads, fire/police departments, borders, etc... for which it is very appropriate. We don't disagree.
Stop jerking your knee and learn to read - especially what's actually been written and not what you've imagined.
Then how do you explain the jaw dropping stupidity of these people? Have they all suffered some sort of collective head trauma? Is there some chemical in the water supply? Because, let's face it, these people are simpering morons.
Solar panels sucked up all the energy from the Sun, preventing photosynthesis in the surrounding plants, reducing the nutritional value of the food, causing wide-spread malnutrition and stupidity. That, or all the inbreeding.
I utterly discard the idea of some shallow island nations going under water as any sort of logical reason to curtail the economic development of a gazillion more people.
You *do* realize that much of the coastline around the world is at or about the same elevation above sea level as places like the Maldives and that there are many large cities (including first-world cities), industrial complexes and military bases, etc... on the coastline - right? And you *do* realize that a rising sea level will very negatively affect *those* cities, complexes and bases too - right?
That said, "Civilian drones weighing more than 250 grams (0.55 pounds) must be registered and identified with markings so that authorities have a better chance of finding the owner in the event of an illegal flight or crash"... Riiight, because someone planning to illegally use their drone will certainly make sure to properly register it first?
Or, you know, if a drone accidentally flies into a motorcyclist or bicyclist or someone's head and causes injury or death and authorities want to find someone to hold responsible. Sure someone planning an illegal activity won't register, but then there will yet another thing to charge them with if/when they get caught. In other cases it will help ensure people take personal responsibility for their drone actions.
Of active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013. Here's how these incidents ended.
More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene.
Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead.
In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and
In 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.
We'll need to add a whole LOT of "good guys with guns" to bump that 3% / 1 person statistic to anything mildly practically useful.
We have lots of laws like restraining orders based on the assumption that people intent on murder won't dare commit a much lesser offense...
On the other hand, those laws allow someone to be charged with a lessor crime (hopefully) before committing something worse and/or to be *also* charged with a lessor crime... I imagine that's the, or a, practical purpose.
Of course, pasting a number on the shell of a drone isn't going to stop stupid anymore than requiring license plates and driver's licenses has stopped road stupid.
Of course, rules/laws are not just about preventing bad behavior (etc), they're also about providing a framework for responsibility and accountability for those that don't follow the rules. Sure an unregistered drone may be difficult to track back to its owner, but if/when it is, that owner will be in even more trouble.
I'm all for the government minding their own business...
Just noting that minding your/mine/our business *is* their business. If everyone was honest, fair and responsible (etc) and minded their own business we wouldn't need government to legislate and arbitrate things.
Just get Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc... to stand up Tor exit nodes. Chum the pipeline with things like Gigli and The Last Airbender and let the NSA filter through all that. Maybe they'll just kill themselves - I know I would.
Only for the next person to move in with a bigger dog.
Doesn't necessarily mean a bigger / louder problem.
When I was young we had two German Shepherds who stayed outside in the back yard most of the time (we lived in Virginia Beach) and were normally pretty quite, unless something was wrong. Once, they *really* startled a guy who climbed over our six-foot privacy fence to retrieve a Frisbee, then vaulted over it w/o it when they started barking and running toward him. Two minutes later, there's a knock on the door by a very embarrassed guy asking for his disc.
I watched the entire episode from my upstairs window. Saw the Frisbee fly over the fence; was about to go get it, but saw the guy climb over the fence; thought either, "dumb ass" or "this will be interesting" (can't remember); heard the dogs start barking; saw the guy's face as he realized his mistake; saw the dogs running; saw the guy frantically climbing / jumping back over the fence. Ultimately, it was hilarious.
I'm pretty sure the dogs would *not* have hurt him, but have never seen anyone be that dumb before or since.
Fortunately, slashdot will remain accessible as it still hasn't entered the 2010's and added encryption yet!
Get a grip. Not every connection on the web needs to be encrypted. I would argue that *most* connections on the web do not need to be encrypted - Slashdot for example. It's like TV stations bragging that even their news is in high-def - it's the fucking News.
Slashdot Mirror
While the autonomous vehicles aren't at fault in these crashes, their relative unpredictability on the road are nonetheless leading to more accidents than expected.
The autonomous vehicles are *entirely* predictable as they follow the rules - you know, the ones we humans are suppose to know to get a driver's license. It's the humans that are unpredictable.
... rigid adherence to traffic laws and overcautious programming have caused self-driving cars to rack up a crash rate twice that of an average human driver.
Um, humans are causing the crashes, so the crash-rate is on them, not the self-driving cars. The crash-rate for self-driving cars is "bagel".
Seriously. It's a Death Moon. Ya, I know I/we heard someone say it wasn't a moon, but it is. Though I'm sure that if the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had there way, it would be called the Death Dwarf Planet or Death Asteroid. I'm going with Death Moon. Not nearly as sexy as "Death Star" or "AT&T" though.
The guy is obviously a sociopath.
According to Google CEOs tend to be Psychopaths.
If Karma works like it should, he'll end up poor and/or in jail, catch a fatal disease that can be cured by one of the medications for which he jacked up the price, but then be unable to afford it.
... for failing to disconnect subscribers accused of online piracy.
Yes, because "accused" means "guilty" to the likes of BMG and Rightscorp and, apparently, the courts support this sort of no-due-process process.
Why oh why can't ISIS go after BMG and Rightscorp and do *everyone* a favor? [ Heh, Just kidding NSA - it was a joke ... really, I swear. ]
You can if there's someone else with butter and no guns.
Sure, if you don't understand the word "transmogrify" - just sayin'.
Just wait for the NSA to stand up their own Cloud services (probably in their Utah data center) and let them host/store everything for you. Then you can kick back and stop worrying if they've got copies of all your data. As a bonus they handle all your backup needs too.
(I mean, if you've got nothing to hide ... and all that.)
I can hold disparate ideas at the same time... :-)
In this case the parent doesn't seem to hold any sympathy for a complete, small-scale tragedy - especially if doing anything would inconvenience the masses - while apparently recognizing impact of a partial large scale tragedy. All from the same cause. Or, at least, that's how the argument is framed as the rational for doing something. While I can see his/her "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" thinking, we're ultimately all in this together and, arguably, how we treat the few and one can say more about us than how we treat the many. Furthermore, he mentions that "any one microcosm may not be important" but how do we know that they aren't or any one isn't?
Also, he says things that are clearly wrong, like "Flooding coastal cities doesn't mean we lose the shoreline it just means the shoreline moves inland." Uh, no, the shoreline actually gets shorter/smaller - and ultimately zero - and the interior land are also gets smaller - and ultimately zero.
In the end, he comes to the conclusion that the Paris accords are "good", but his reasoning is questionable or at least flaky.
I did. It seems goombah99 feels the economic pain that large countries will feel having to relocate shoreline cities, but not any for small island countries that will disappear completely with the rising sea - 'cause that's not "any sort of logical reason to curtail the economic development of a gazillion more people." In either case, more than simple economic loss will occur. People may be able to relocate their culture, but not their history - especially on an island.
Trump, for all the stupid things he's said, has not committed a crime. The moment you start dehumanizing people who haven't committed a crime, deciding that it's OK to do bad things to them just because you disagree with them, and they're not worthy of the same rights and protections you give to people you agree with, you've started using the same reasoning ISIS uses to justify what they do.
Like the things Trump has been saying about and proposing to do with/to Mexicans and Muslims? Or was that your point?
Your statement that government wouldn't be needed if everyone was Good (TM) is false. You are completely wrong.
Sigh. The parent post remarked about government minding its own business. I replied that if people were "good" we wouldn't need government to "legislate and arbitrate things" - implying with-regard-to people's business. I didn't say anything about government's role with-regard-to roads, fire/police departments, borders, etc... for which it is very appropriate. We don't disagree.
Stop jerking your knee and learn to read - especially what's actually been written and not what you've imagined.
Then how do you explain the jaw dropping stupidity of these people? Have they all suffered some sort of collective head trauma? Is there some chemical in the water supply? Because, let's face it, these people are simpering morons.
Solar panels sucked up all the energy from the Sun, preventing photosynthesis in the surrounding plants, reducing the nutritional value of the food, causing wide-spread malnutrition and stupidity. That, or all the inbreeding.
Nope. The whole world has to pull together if we want to reach the targets.
Perhaps we can just keep the temperature down around the US and our surrounding sea level won't rise. :-)
I utterly discard the idea of some shallow island nations going under water as any sort of logical reason to curtail the economic development of a gazillion more people.
You *do* realize that much of the coastline around the world is at or about the same elevation above sea level as places like the Maldives and that there are many large cities (including first-world cities), industrial complexes and military bases, etc... on the coastline - right? And you *do* realize that a rising sea level will very negatively affect *those* cities, complexes and bases too - right?
That said, "Civilian drones weighing more than 250 grams (0.55 pounds) must be registered and identified with markings so that authorities have a better chance of finding the owner in the event of an illegal flight or crash"... Riiight, because someone planning to illegally use their drone will certainly make sure to properly register it first?
Or, you know, if a drone accidentally flies into a motorcyclist or bicyclist or someone's head and causes injury or death and authorities want to find someone to hold responsible. Sure someone planning an illegal activity won't register, but then there will yet another thing to charge them with if/when they get caught. In other cases it will help ensure people take personal responsibility for their drone actions.
Unregistered bad guy with drone can be stopped by registered good guy with drone.
According to the FBI, that doesn't even work with guns. As described in A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013, reported at New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA's 'Good Guy Stops Bad Guy' Nonsense and other places including The Daily Show, Jordan Klepper: Good Guy with a Gun Pt. 2 ...
Of active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013. Here's how these incidents ended.
More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene.
Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead.
In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and
In 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.
We'll need to add a whole LOT of "good guys with guns" to bump that 3% / 1 person statistic to anything mildly practically useful.
We have lots of laws like restraining orders based on the assumption that people intent on murder won't dare commit a much lesser offense...
On the other hand, those laws allow someone to be charged with a lessor crime (hopefully) before committing something worse and/or to be *also* charged with a lessor crime... I imagine that's the, or a, practical purpose.
Of course, pasting a number on the shell of a drone isn't going to stop stupid anymore than requiring license plates and driver's licenses has stopped road stupid.
Of course, rules/laws are not just about preventing bad behavior (etc), they're also about providing a framework for responsibility and accountability for those that don't follow the rules. Sure an unregistered drone may be difficult to track back to its owner, but if/when it is, that owner will be in even more trouble.
I'm all for the government minding their own business...
Just noting that minding your/mine/our business *is* their business. If everyone was honest, fair and responsible (etc) and minded their own business we wouldn't need government to legislate and arbitrate things.
Just get Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc... to stand up Tor exit nodes. Chum the pipeline with things like Gigli and The Last Airbender and let the NSA filter through all that. Maybe they'll just kill themselves - I know I would.
Only for the next person to move in with a bigger dog.
Doesn't necessarily mean a bigger / louder problem.
When I was young we had two German Shepherds who stayed outside in the back yard most of the time (we lived in Virginia Beach) and were normally pretty quite, unless something was wrong. Once, they *really* startled a guy who climbed over our six-foot privacy fence to retrieve a Frisbee, then vaulted over it w/o it when they started barking and running toward him. Two minutes later, there's a knock on the door by a very embarrassed guy asking for his disc.
I watched the entire episode from my upstairs window. Saw the Frisbee fly over the fence; was about to go get it, but saw the guy climb over the fence; thought either, "dumb ass" or "this will be interesting" (can't remember); heard the dogs start barking; saw the guy's face as he realized his mistake; saw the dogs running; saw the guy frantically climbing / jumping back over the fence. Ultimately, it was hilarious.
I'm pretty sure the dogs would *not* have hurt him, but have never seen anyone be that dumb before or since.
And if it is a rental and the dog is repeatedly violating the noise laws, ...
The obvious solution is to rent a different dog.
A "high quality leak" of any Expendables film is inconceivable.
I took a high quality leak at a showing of an Expendables movie once. Does that count?
But Google says every site needs to be encrypted. Must.... follow... google.... must.... follow..... google... must ..... follow...... google.....
Google wants things encrypted to protect their ad and analytics revenue streams.
Fortunately, slashdot will remain accessible as it still hasn't entered the 2010's and added encryption yet!
Get a grip. Not every connection on the web needs to be encrypted. I would argue that *most* connections on the web do not need to be encrypted - Slashdot for example. It's like TV stations bragging that even their news is in high-def - it's the fucking News.