The question to ask is this: can autonomous vehicles do better than 35,000+ fatalities, 2 million+ injuries, and $200B+ in liability / medical costs per year? That's what the U.S. alone is paying right now with humans behind the wheel
That is the sensible question, but in reality it would have to be much safer to be accepted. We see this when there are train crashes. A train is already hundreds of times safer than a car but there are public inquiries, people brought to book and calls for improvement when they happen.
I am sure it will be even better if you drive 40mph and even better with 30, 20,... all the way to zero. So why not drive 30mph? I am sure 2 wheels will be more fuel efficient as well. So take a moped and drive 10mph if fuel efficiency is what is important to you.
No, nearly all cars drop in fuel efficiency below 20mph. I can't find more recent information but it looks like many cars are most fuel efficient at somewhere between 30 and 55 mph, have a quite flat consumption in that range, and drop off below this fairly quickly and above this rather more slowly.
There are some references on Wikipedia into the internet archive, also known as the "way back machine". If your site was archived there I think editors would attempt to change references to this record. If it was completely gone I think it would probably be preserved with a "citation needed" tag.
You open up a whole other issue there. Someone uncontrolled comes into the gap - and what happens to the tail of the train then? Are they suddenly freed to driver control at speed with little distance between, do they close up and squeeze the car out, or does the system leave a "gap" for ever more and cope with whatever the uncontrolled driver does?
The manoeuvre to "leave the train" - take control and change lane - would be difficult. Just imagine taking control of a vehicle travelling at speed with a gap of a few feet at most in front and behind, and moving into another lane without a chance to adjust your speed first.
"Did you know that the original name for Pac-Man was Puck-Man?"
Better than phuck man I suppose
Seriously it was the other way round. Puck-Man was used when the arcade games were first imported into the UK, out of fear that it would offend the Pakis. Later common sense prevailed and when games for home computers were imported the original name was used.
Given that the test included only two operating systems and the other one (MAC-OS) beat Vista this is hardly a result to be proud of. Its a bit like saying you compared a Tata Nano, a Volkwagen Golf and a load of other forms of transport for motorway cruising (push-bikes, wheelbarrows, etc) and the Tata Namo came in the top 3.
Meh, it's more like this:
There's a big bright LCD showing mindless ads about tampons, coke and whatnot, that you're already used to seeing and ignoring.
You: "Hmmmm - I think I'll have a mars bar"
Vending Machine (notices your stubble): "Quality razors 10% off today."
You: "Mmmm, mars bar..." (ignore the ad as usual)
OR
You: "Fuck, shaving the other day with the dull blade was annoying as hell. Might as well grab one of these while I'm out of my mom's basement."
Or "You look like the guy who vandalised this machine last week. Sledge Hammers 10% off"
The lawyers will be all over this. It should be easy money for them. The company isn't thinking this through. Even if they aren't breaking the law, their lawsuit costs will be huge.
Yes, if my wife finds that I am registered on a dating site they will be accessory to murder!
Which leads to the question: why not just use Facebook directly? (And the alternate question: why hasn't someone tied together Facebook and a dating service yet? Seems like an obvious connection.)
I can't see though why anyone would use a service where 95% of the members can't respond since they aren't registered. If the goal is to increase the signal to noise ratio by finding a good match and a successful pairing then you would want to remove idle users not add them.
I tried that, but it seems that 90% of the people are in the Mafia, farmers, or zombie hunters
Don't forget the 10% who are gay/lesbian and have no interest in what is most likely a heterosexually oriented dating service.
I think your figure is too high, it roughly corresponds to the number of people who say they have had a homosexual experience, but far exceeds the percentage who are exclusively homosexual.
Wouldn't a meteor strike destroy most infrastructure, thus removing the 'reasonable conditions' for the survivors to live in?
Surely a better solution is a targeted deadly virus? One that attacks politicians, lawyers and the media?
The reality is that things aren't going to change with relation to human population, so best to work out how to feed the world and minimise poor living conditions. Most people on this website could survive in a small apartments with a single bed, a desk for a computer, and a pizza delivery slot in the wall.
Why? If you don't stop population increasing we are headed for disaster anyway. If you do limit it, then why not down to some reasonable level where we can have nature reserves, lakes, mountains, etc. instead of aiming for the maximum sustainable number of humans?
Do you really want to live on a planet along with ~20 billion people, eating squished insects (aka Soylent Yellow (tm))? I know I don't. Why are we trying to make life so uncomfortable, ugly and boring? We likely wouldn't have most of today's problems (like global warming, scarcity of natural resources, energy problems,...) if we had a population of say ~200 million. Maybe not every business would be efficient or possible anymore and technology would probably advance not as fast as today, but would that really matter? Isn't that a much more appealing future?
I agree. The more I see articles like this the more appealing (in the long run) a global catastrophe seems. A metor strike, with billions killed, followed by survivors living in reasonable conditions beats an optimal population living in small apartments fed on insects in a global megacity.
I am sure this is a dumb question but why doesn't it just work?
From TFS: "There are 108 vintage episodes missing, but since 1978 a number have been rediscovered as 16mm black-and-white films. The BBC shot many of these series in color, but made monochrome copies for countries such as Australia, where many TV companies were still broadcasting in greyscale."
There is no color subcarrier in 16mm black and white film.
Also from TFA:
"But when they made the black-and-white recordings, they didn't filter off the colour carrier [encoded as a 'chroma dot' pattern in each frame]
Slashdot Mirror
The question to ask is this: can autonomous vehicles do better than 35,000+ fatalities, 2 million+ injuries, and $200B+ in liability / medical costs per year? That's what the U.S. alone is paying right now with humans behind the wheel
That is the sensible question, but in reality it would have to be much safer to be accepted. We see this when there are train crashes. A train is already hundreds of times safer than a car but there are public inquiries, people brought to book and calls for improvement when they happen.
I am sure it will be even better if you drive 40mph and even better with 30, 20, ... all the way to zero. So why not drive 30mph? I am sure 2 wheels will be more fuel efficient as well. So take a moped and drive 10mph if fuel efficiency is what is important to you.
No, nearly all cars drop in fuel efficiency below 20mph. I can't find more recent information but it looks like many cars are most fuel efficient at somewhere between 30 and 55 mph, have a quite flat consumption in that range, and drop off below this fairly quickly and above this rather more slowly.
There are some references on Wikipedia into the internet archive, also known as the "way back machine". If your site was archived there I think editors would attempt to change references to this record. If it was completely gone I think it would probably be preserved with a "citation needed" tag.
I'm using Chrome as my sandboxing browser (keeps Facebook isolated from everything else I browse on the web),
I use Chrome to post as Anonymous coward.
Do they know that Microsoft won't fully support the standard until Office 15, Office 2010 is non-compliant.
Sure, why make a thoughtful comment when you can be a jerk.
Because you have the papal prerogative?
Does this really have a market? I mean most hard-core gamers live in a basement room that smells like a dungeon anyway.
You open up a whole other issue there. Someone uncontrolled comes into the gap - and what happens to the tail of the train then? Are they suddenly freed to driver control at speed with little distance between, do they close up and squeeze the car out, or does the system leave a "gap" for ever more and cope with whatever the uncontrolled driver does?
The manoeuvre to "leave the train" - take control and change lane - would be difficult. Just imagine taking control of a vehicle travelling at speed with a gap of a few feet at most in front and behind, and moving into another lane without a chance to adjust your speed first.
That's why the lead driver is a professional in a special vehicle.
Just wait until a muzzie takes the lead vehicle....
"Did you know that the original name for Pac-Man was Puck-Man?"
Better than phuck man I suppose
Seriously it was the other way round. Puck-Man was used when the arcade games were first imported into the UK, out of fear that it would offend the Pakis. Later common sense prevailed and when games for home computers were imported the original name was used.
Given that the test included only two operating systems and the other one (MAC-OS) beat Vista this is hardly a result to be proud of. Its a bit like saying you compared a Tata Nano, a Volkwagen Golf and a load of other forms of transport for motorway cruising (push-bikes, wheelbarrows, etc) and the Tata Namo came in the top 3.
Vending Machine: "Are you sure? You look like you need a razor, a box of tampons, and a coke"
I am not familiar with this kink, but it sounds like it might have potential.
Remember folks, as long as no one gets hurt, kinky sex is good, clean, wholesome Christian fun.
I think we need to correct GP:
"Are you sure? You look like you need a razor, a box of tampons, and a line of coke"
Meh, it's more like this: There's a big bright LCD showing mindless ads about tampons, coke and whatnot, that you're already used to seeing and ignoring.
You: "Hmmmm - I think I'll have a mars bar" Vending Machine (notices your stubble): "Quality razors 10% off today." You: "Mmmm, mars bar..." (ignore the ad as usual) OR You: "Fuck, shaving the other day with the dull blade was annoying as hell. Might as well grab one of these while I'm out of my mom's basement."
Or "You look like the guy who vandalised this machine last week. Sledge Hammers 10% off"
Are you implying that women have beards and mustaches?
hey, leave my mother out of this
The lawyers will be all over this. It should be easy money for them. The company isn't thinking this through. Even if they aren't breaking the law, their lawsuit costs will be huge.
Yes, if my wife finds that I am registered on a dating site they will be accessory to murder!
Which leads to the question: why not just use Facebook directly? (And the alternate question: why hasn't someone tied together Facebook and a dating service yet? Seems like an obvious connection.)
I can't see though why anyone would use a service where 95% of the members can't respond since they aren't registered. If the goal is to increase the signal to noise ratio by finding a good match and a successful pairing then you would want to remove idle users not add them.
I tried that, but it seems that 90% of the people are in the Mafia, farmers, or zombie hunters
Don't forget the 10% who are gay/lesbian and have no interest in what is most likely a heterosexually oriented dating service.
I think your figure is too high, it roughly corresponds to the number of people who say they have had a homosexual experience, but far exceeds the percentage who are exclusively homosexual.
I came here for a good argument.
Well, you might have to make do with mindless abuse.
Just in case he reads slashdot:
**** BOOH ****
There's another court case for you.
Wouldn't a meteor strike destroy most infrastructure, thus removing the 'reasonable conditions' for the survivors to live in?
Surely a better solution is a targeted deadly virus? One that attacks politicians, lawyers and the media?
The reality is that things aren't going to change with relation to human population, so best to work out how to feed the world and minimise poor living conditions. Most people on this website could survive in a small apartments with a single bed, a desk for a computer, and a pizza delivery slot in the wall.
Why? If you don't stop population increasing we are headed for disaster anyway. If you do limit it, then why not down to some reasonable level where we can have nature reserves, lakes, mountains, etc. instead of aiming for the maximum sustainable number of humans?
...is called overpopulation.
Do you really want to live on a planet along with ~20 billion people, eating squished insects (aka Soylent Yellow (tm))? I know I don't. Why are we trying to make life so uncomfortable, ugly and boring? We likely wouldn't have most of today's problems (like global warming, scarcity of natural resources, energy problems,...) if we had a population of say ~200 million. Maybe not every business would be efficient or possible anymore and technology would probably advance not as fast as today, but would that really matter? Isn't that a much more appealing future?
I agree. The more I see articles like this the more appealing (in the long run) a global catastrophe seems. A metor strike, with billions killed, followed by survivors living in reasonable conditions beats an optimal population living in small apartments fed on insects in a global megacity.
Think of your colleagues hygiene habits. Would you use a touch screen in the bogs? It brings a whole new meaning to "that game was really crappy".
but that HAMs can go and fuck themselves with their now useless antennae."
I thought that's what HAMs did anyway
I am sure this is a dumb question but why doesn't it just work?
From TFS: "There are 108 vintage episodes missing, but since 1978 a number have been rediscovered as 16mm black-and-white films. The BBC shot many of these series in color, but made monochrome copies for countries such as Australia, where many TV companies were still broadcasting in greyscale."
There is no color subcarrier in 16mm black and white film.
Also from TFA:
"But when they made the black-and-white recordings, they didn't filter off the colour carrier [encoded as a 'chroma dot' pattern in each frame]