Do the telecommunications companies need yet another reason to add a fee onto my bill? Doesn't my paying for this phone line and data plan already cover the insignificant (at scale) cost of testing and releasing the android system updates when they are published? Or maybe the phone company lied to me when I bought this phone, took my money, paid bonuses and provided raises to the already wealthy and overpaid execs?
Bait and switch seems to be the business model for telecommunications companies in the US. We are always sold one thing, then when it isn't delivered it's not because they didn't get tax breaks or charge an exorbitant fee for the service, but they kept the profits and now need to raise prices to deliver half of what was originally promised.
It's 2015. Congress can hire someone for $10/hour to run diff against the two bills and e-mail them to everyone. There is no excuse for passing something without knowing what's in it and we need to hold these people fully accountable for their votes.
It seems many developers stopped caring about versioning several years ago. I've been torn on whether it was just marketing finally overtaking common sense or too many inexperienced but successful developers showing up and making some poor choices.
With all seriousness, I bet we will see a lot of changes once the number of automated cars reaches a certain threshold. Computer controlled vehicles can do a lot of things safely that we can't.
One would think that in 6 years some improvements would have been made. Do we have a more current example?
It mentions further down in the article that that particular example has already been corrected.
... For instance, at four-way stops, the program lets the car inch forward, as the rest of us might, asserting its turn while looking for signs that it is being allowed to go.
Honestly, who thought this was a good idea? This is up there with the Edsel and Baconnaise. It sounds like a joke (and wasn't it announced on or around April Fool's Day?!)
That, and the fact that it is *public land*. The people do not report to the government, the government reports to the people. If it's not being funded there should be no authority to "close" publicly owned resources.
I wonder what the V2V communication is about. I expect that in an ideal world other automated vehicles could communicate obstacles, road condition, and velocity data to one another, but this seems ripe for abuse or exploitation. In a worst-case scenario, someone could use that to either completely stop traffic or to cause an accident.
Are you saying that if you were behind the wheel in a self-driving car and it ran a red light, you wouldn't be the first one to sue the auto maker (assuming you survived)? I don't see any way that the auto-maker wins in a court case in that scenario, unless there are laws that explicitly say you have to drive the car and the manufacturer has no-fault protection. If the latter is the case, then what's the point? Am I going to let the machine do the work if I'm solely responsible for when it screws up?
I imagine a traffic utopia where cars drive themselves, no one causes accidents or jams during merging and everyone goes a safe speed during inclement weather. I'm just not sure how we get there with our current legal system. Even if these things are as safe as humanly possible, there will still be some type of failure or accident.
Who wants to live in a world where your elected leaders only speak to what the majority wants to hear? The greatest figures in history are those who went against the grain and did what was right for the time, the people, and the nation.
They won't because the system is rigged against them. It's a catch-22 - - they can not get enough votes to make the average person think they should be included and since they aren't included or given any coverage throughout the political season they can't get any votes.
I find the security questions I like best are the ones I can make up myself. I typically use nonsense phrases that only I know the answer to. Unfortunately most sites would prefer you pick one of several 'standard' questions like the examples OP provided.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone seriously think they would kick the thing off on time? This is a govt. project.
It's not like it's rocket science or anything... oh wait.
Do the telecommunications companies need yet another reason to add a fee onto my bill? Doesn't my paying for this phone line and data plan already cover the insignificant (at scale) cost of testing and releasing the android system updates when they are published? Or maybe the phone company lied to me when I bought this phone, took my money, paid bonuses and provided raises to the already wealthy and overpaid execs? Bait and switch seems to be the business model for telecommunications companies in the US. We are always sold one thing, then when it isn't delivered it's not because they didn't get tax breaks or charge an exorbitant fee for the service, but they kept the profits and now need to raise prices to deliver half of what was originally promised.
It's 2015. Congress can hire someone for $10/hour to run diff against the two bills and e-mail them to everyone. There is no excuse for passing something without knowing what's in it and we need to hold these people fully accountable for their votes.
It seems many developers stopped caring about versioning several years ago. I've been torn on whether it was just marketing finally overtaking common sense or too many inexperienced but successful developers showing up and making some poor choices.
How do you plan to overcome the virtual impossibility of breaking through the two-party system?
With all seriousness, I bet we will see a lot of changes once the number of automated cars reaches a certain threshold. Computer controlled vehicles can do a lot of things safely that we can't.
"One Google car, in a test in 2009,..."
One would think that in 6 years some improvements would have been made. Do we have a more current example?
It mentions further down in the article that that particular example has already been corrected.
... For instance, at four-way stops, the program lets the car inch forward, as the rest of us might, asserting its turn while looking for signs that it is being allowed to go.
The specific gravity of salt water is about 1.025 already.
There isn't much to say here. Let's hope that this time it works.
Perhaps people who write more citable papers tend to prefer more concise titles.
Honestly, who thought this was a good idea? This is up there with the Edsel and Baconnaise. It sounds like a joke (and wasn't it announced on or around April Fool's Day?!)
I think you use single sign-on and try to do a better job of choosing services that support it. LDAP authentication is fairly prolific these days.
imagine what a virus could do.
Sounds like we just need a good lawyer.
That, and the fact that it is *public land*. The people do not report to the government, the government reports to the people. If it's not being funded there should be no authority to "close" publicly owned resources.
I wonder what the V2V communication is about. I expect that in an ideal world other automated vehicles could communicate obstacles, road condition, and velocity data to one another, but this seems ripe for abuse or exploitation. In a worst-case scenario, someone could use that to either completely stop traffic or to cause an accident.
Are you saying that if you were behind the wheel in a self-driving car and it ran a red light, you wouldn't be the first one to sue the auto maker (assuming you survived)? I don't see any way that the auto-maker wins in a court case in that scenario, unless there are laws that explicitly say you have to drive the car and the manufacturer has no-fault protection. If the latter is the case, then what's the point? Am I going to let the machine do the work if I'm solely responsible for when it screws up?
I imagine a traffic utopia where cars drive themselves, no one causes accidents or jams during merging and everyone goes a safe speed during inclement weather. I'm just not sure how we get there with our current legal system. Even if these things are as safe as humanly possible, there will still be some type of failure or accident.
Or just pay your kid or your neighbor's kid the $5 to sort your mail. Hell, they'd probably do it for $1.
Who wants to live in a world where your elected leaders only speak to what the majority wants to hear? The greatest figures in history are those who went against the grain and did what was right for the time, the people, and the nation.
The exclusion of third party candidates and various other points do not need to be brought up in every post do they?
I don't know... but I think there's something to be said for the system being fundamentally broken and not losing sight of that.
Mitt might claim to be an economic conservative, but I do not see it.
They won't because the system is rigged against them. It's a catch-22 - - they can not get enough votes to make the average person think they should be included and since they aren't included or given any coverage throughout the political season they can't get any votes.
Sounds like you missed the whole point.
If you think about it the answer should be obvious.
I find the security questions I like best are the ones I can make up myself. I typically use nonsense phrases that only I know the answer to. Unfortunately most sites would prefer you pick one of several 'standard' questions like the examples OP provided.