In the north west of Germany (Oldenburg etc.) 150 km (93 miles) away from the Netherlands. People are also taller than for example in the south of Germany. From personal experience, I would determine the difference to be around 10 cm (4 inches).
No, he is not. And, no, he is not. And he is even using a strange editor for his programming. Furthermore, he is mumbling what he is doing. There is nothing to be learned from for normal people. However, for computer science you could see what he is writing and reverting and you know his thoughts so you have plenty of data to understand how such crude hacker comes up with ideas and how he codifies them. And how fast he forgets about things form last week when he tries to read his own code.
No they do not. To write code, you have to be able to question yourself: Is this any good? And you have to accept critique from other people. A narcissist thinks of him/her that he/she is the next best thing to god or at least the best programmer ever. If you cannot doubt yourself, your crap code gets not replaced if it is necessary, but only if it is no way around.
First, a remote pilot can go amok just as easy than an on board pilot. Actually, he or she can do this even easier. So that would not help to solve the crazy people crashing planes in mountains problem (even though this is a very seldom cause). Therefore, only complete automation would be sufficient to heel this problem. Second, robot planes rely on instrumentation just like normal pilots. However, they only know those things about the world programmers have introduced into their programming. They cannot think outside the box. Therefore, they might come to the wrong conclusions for certain situations. We must therefore evaluate how often that is the case in comparison to human pilot error. Third, for people to use a completely automated plane, they must be convinced that such planes are safer than human controlled planes. This can be achieved by using automated planes for cargo first.
All in all, I assume that there is not much to be gained by automating flight. So this automation idea will most likely be dropped again as before.
I have to ended my fb relationship two years ago. However, I still have and will keep my business related accounts on LinkedIn, Xing and ResearchGate. I never had a problem with this policy. If I would be forced to have an fb account I would only friend people I really know this time and who do not post rubbish. That would most likely leave me with an fb account without any friends. Which would be creepy. Therefore, I am better of without one.
This interesting idea and technological endeavor was proposed in the 1960s maybe it was also proposed before, but that is were I read first about it - in a book from the 1960s. Later they did not build it because it was so incredible expensive to get all the materials up, repair it in space, and keep its focus on the same spot on the ground. Next, they will figure out that placing panels on roofs is much more efficient even though it will not work in their metropolises as the air is too polluted. Anyway, they have enough free country side to go for it.
There are several metrics which can help you to identify code which is not bad. One is cyclomatic complexity. Another are connectivity metrics going over the graph your code spans. For cyclomatic complexity there are good boundaries available. However, it is a complexity metric. And complexity is not the only thing which affects code quality. Other elements are labeling operations, such as methods, functions, and procedures. There is plenty of lit. available in the area of code comprehension.
The interesting thing would be to find out which constellation is better pilots + computers or computers. For both sides you can come up with scenarios where only a human or only a computer can come up with the right decision. However, the really interesting thing would be which sides messes up less.
You are close, but still missed. Actually, that is also the problem with urinals at large. Furthermore, there are women pilots out there. So if she needs to take a leak the crazy guy at the helm runs the plane in the next mountain. No! The best thing is to use technology which is already there. Option A: Give them diapers, like astronauts. Option B: Give them those in suit urinals which they had on the moon (if I am not mistaken). In both cases no-one has to get up. The latter option could be extended also to a complete toilet which would be important for long distance flights, but you would need a really good ventilation system.
This would look like a guy with low self-esteem which are also easy victims of depression. However, beside what you might have heard on Fox or CNN or read in NYT, that news phase is a guess and a fairy tale. Please wait until the authorities have collected the information and rules out all bla bla which came from the mother of a friend of hers.
Beside that. This looks like you had a similar relationship. In that case, you should go and talk about it professionally. It helps and prevents further situations following the same pattern.
Definitely! We could automate flying, take off and landing, but this would result in other type of incidents. Especially, in extreme situations, humans can think outside of the system, while computers can only reason over the facts they possess and therefore do not have a deeper understanding of reality (this might change in future, but we are not close to that). Beside that, I would not have any trouble going to Cuba, but flying into the side of a mountain is something I would like to avoid).
No, nothing is 100% save. It is less likely to have two people committing suicide together than one alone. However, this makes it not impossible. If we replace pilots by computers they will go wrong or their communication get hacked or something else, especially, something which we did not think about.
No, he/she is pointing out that it is dishonest to throw dirt on the Russians and do like we do no evil. However, if the poster would have read the whole/. teaser he/she would have found the necessary question also at the end of the text. So his/her post is largely redundant. Anyway, it is important to point out that issue and it is also important to point out that the wrong doing of one is not making the thing acceptable for others. Lying is not a nice thing to do (in most cases). The old Jews already knew that thousands of years ago. That's why they had a rule for it.
Of course we are saints. We are the good guys. When we deceive the enemy with lies that this is only a tactic to prevent evil. When the Russians do it, it is to undermine freedom and democracy. Welcome back in the eighties, well maybe it is already the sixties. Those old top honchos in the US, UK and the rest of the west have secured another round with Russia with their special inferiority complex based politics. Both sides have hoped to get back to that. For a short time, they thought Islam might be a suitable evil, but that does not work very well when one half of the Muslims tries to kill the other half over things we do not really understand. True, I do not understand why we had that 30 years war in Europe over religion and power.
This is totally true. No human ever was able to make a moral determination and act on it in an accident situation. Beside the fact. The pedestrian and the family in the car is quite simple. The family is protected by their car the pedestrian is not. It would be a different thing between one or a group of pedestrians. Most humans would freeze and hit who ever comes first. End of story. The car could try to reduce victims.
The thing is quite simple. They have tested such cars in Germany. Therefore, it is possible to do so. They can also test their shiny new thing in German traffic, as long as a human back up is sitting in the car. And testing it in a German or other European inner city should be challenging enough for now. However, they want to show how innovative they are and not get surprised by the Japanese again, as it was with the hybrid. So actually this is mostly advertisement.
First, this is outright cruel to say that. Second, this is only fear mongering of the car developers. They could test their cars in the US without any trouble and they have done the same in Germany. Yes they want to be allowed to put them on the road right now to show technology leadership, once, as they have been embarrassed by Japanese car manufacturers over the hybrid thing.
Humans are unable to make moral decisions in a few miliseconds. They would either freeze for a least one second and hit the next car or pedestrian depending on which comes first. If they have more time, they would try to avoid collision with the human and hit the car, because you cannot really see other people in there and you do not know how many persons are in there. Also people in the car are better protected. So the safest thing is hit the car. But beside that people know when approaching an truck trailer and they cannot stop, they should aim for the wheels and not the section in the middle. However, most people are unable to implement that so why should be cars be able to do these things?
Slashdot Mirror
Depends for whom. Jellyfish for example might find that news quite disturbing. However, they normally do not follow the news.
In the north west of Germany (Oldenburg etc.) 150 km (93 miles) away from the Netherlands. People are also taller than for example in the south of Germany. From personal experience, I would determine the difference to be around 10 cm (4 inches).
You wish that this is limited to the US. Sorry. Same shit here in the EU.
My thoughts exactly. That's what happens when you do not introduce acronyms correctly in a text.
No, he is not. And, no, he is not. And he is even using a strange editor for his programming. Furthermore, he is mumbling what he is doing. There is nothing to be learned from for normal people. However, for computer science you could see what he is writing and reverting and you know his thoughts so you have plenty of data to understand how such crude hacker comes up with ideas and how he codifies them. And how fast he forgets about things form last week when he tries to read his own code.
No they do not. To write code, you have to be able to question yourself: Is this any good? And you have to accept critique from other people. A narcissist thinks of him/her that he/she is the next best thing to god or at least the best programmer ever. If you cannot doubt yourself, your crap code gets not replaced if it is necessary, but only if it is no way around.
First, a remote pilot can go amok just as easy than an on board pilot. Actually, he or she can do this even easier. So that would not help to solve the crazy people crashing planes in mountains problem (even though this is a very seldom cause). Therefore, only complete automation would be sufficient to heel this problem. Second, robot planes rely on instrumentation just like normal pilots. However, they only know those things about the world programmers have introduced into their programming. They cannot think outside the box. Therefore, they might come to the wrong conclusions for certain situations. We must therefore evaluate how often that is the case in comparison to human pilot error. Third, for people to use a completely automated plane, they must be convinced that such planes are safer than human controlled planes. This can be achieved by using automated planes for cargo first.
All in all, I assume that there is not much to be gained by automating flight. So this automation idea will most likely be dropped again as before.
It most likely suffice when the EU states, China and Russia accept the treaty. If the US is not interested in that market, so be it.
I have to ended my fb relationship two years ago. However, I still have and will keep my business related accounts on LinkedIn, Xing and ResearchGate. I never had a problem with this policy. If I would be forced to have an fb account I would only friend people I really know this time and who do not post rubbish. That would most likely leave me with an fb account without any friends. Which would be creepy. Therefore, I am better of without one.
Is this some new form of Godwin's Law now new with Muslim instead of Nazi in it? Beside that I cannot see any relation to my post at all.
I think NASA is quite capable of shooting a rock in space, if they have not been dissolved by the next Republican government.
This interesting idea and technological endeavor was proposed in the 1960s maybe it was also proposed before, but that is were I read first about it - in a book from the 1960s. Later they did not build it because it was so incredible expensive to get all the materials up, repair it in space, and keep its focus on the same spot on the ground. Next, they will figure out that placing panels on roofs is much more efficient even though it will not work in their metropolises as the air is too polluted. Anyway, they have enough free country side to go for it.
There are several metrics which can help you to identify code which is not bad. One is cyclomatic complexity. Another are connectivity metrics going over the graph your code spans. For cyclomatic complexity there are good boundaries available. However, it is a complexity metric. And complexity is not the only thing which affects code quality. Other elements are labeling operations, such as methods, functions, and procedures. There is plenty of lit. available in the area of code comprehension.
The interesting thing would be to find out which constellation is better pilots + computers or computers. For both sides you can come up with scenarios where only a human or only a computer can come up with the right decision. However, the really interesting thing would be which sides messes up less.
You are close, but still missed. Actually, that is also the problem with urinals at large. Furthermore, there are women pilots out there. So if she needs to take a leak the crazy guy at the helm runs the plane in the next mountain. No! The best thing is to use technology which is already there. Option A: Give them diapers, like astronauts. Option B: Give them those in suit urinals which they had on the moon (if I am not mistaken). In both cases no-one has to get up. The latter option could be extended also to a complete toilet which would be important for long distance flights, but you would need a really good ventilation system.
This would look like a guy with low self-esteem which are also easy victims of depression. However, beside what you might have heard on Fox or CNN or read in NYT, that news phase is a guess and a fairy tale. Please wait until the authorities have collected the information and rules out all bla bla which came from the mother of a friend of hers.
Beside that. This looks like you had a similar relationship. In that case, you should go and talk about it professionally. It helps and prevents further situations following the same pattern.
Definitely! We could automate flying, take off and landing, but this would result in other type of incidents. Especially, in extreme situations, humans can think outside of the system, while computers can only reason over the facts they possess and therefore do not have a deeper understanding of reality (this might change in future, but we are not close to that). Beside that, I would not have any trouble going to Cuba, but flying into the side of a mountain is something I would like to avoid).
No, nothing is 100% save. It is less likely to have two people committing suicide together than one alone. However, this makes it not impossible. If we replace pilots by computers they will go wrong or their communication get hacked or something else, especially, something which we did not think about.
No, he/she is pointing out that it is dishonest to throw dirt on the Russians and do like we do no evil. However, if the poster would have read the whole /. teaser he/she would have found the necessary question also at the end of the text. So his/her post is largely redundant. Anyway, it is important to point out that issue and it is also important to point out that the wrong doing of one is not making the thing acceptable for others. Lying is not a nice thing to do (in most cases). The old Jews already knew that thousands of years ago. That's why they had a rule for it.
Of course we are saints. We are the good guys. When we deceive the enemy with lies that this is only a tactic to prevent evil. When the Russians do it, it is to undermine freedom and democracy. Welcome back in the eighties, well maybe it is already the sixties. Those old top honchos in the US, UK and the rest of the west have secured another round with Russia with their special inferiority complex based politics. Both sides have hoped to get back to that. For a short time, they thought Islam might be a suitable evil, but that does not work very well when one half of the Muslims tries to kill the other half over things we do not really understand. True, I do not understand why we had that 30 years war in Europe over religion and power.
For the conference? If you only go for the women, then you should visit other venues which are better suited for staring at women.
This is totally true. No human ever was able to make a moral determination and act on it in an accident situation. Beside the fact. The pedestrian and the family in the car is quite simple. The family is protected by their car the pedestrian is not. It would be a different thing between one or a group of pedestrians. Most humans would freeze and hit who ever comes first. End of story. The car could try to reduce victims.
The thing is quite simple. They have tested such cars in Germany. Therefore, it is possible to do so. They can also test their shiny new thing in German traffic, as long as a human back up is sitting in the car. And testing it in a German or other European inner city should be challenging enough for now. However, they want to show how innovative they are and not get surprised by the Japanese again, as it was with the hybrid. So actually this is mostly advertisement.
First, this is outright cruel to say that. Second, this is only fear mongering of the car developers. They could test their cars in the US without any trouble and they have done the same in Germany. Yes they want to be allowed to put them on the road right now to show technology leadership, once, as they have been embarrassed by Japanese car manufacturers over the hybrid thing.
Humans are unable to make moral decisions in a few miliseconds. They would either freeze for a least one second and hit the next car or pedestrian depending on which comes first. If they have more time, they would try to avoid collision with the human and hit the car, because you cannot really see other people in there and you do not know how many persons are in there. Also people in the car are better protected. So the safest thing is hit the car. But beside that people know when approaching an truck trailer and they cannot stop, they should aim for the wheels and not the section in the middle. However, most people are unable to implement that so why should be cars be able to do these things?