And by taking the humor out you lose those newcomers to free (not open source) software whose imagination would have been tickled by code clearly crafted by human beings who were enjoying making their contribution to free software. I'd rather lose the "suits".
No reason to fork the library, just rename the function. Instead of "abort()", which is clearly upsetting to some on the committee, call it "terminate_with_extreme_prejudice()"; which has no such unpleasant connotations.
He also called the First Amendment “something that really has to go.”
“No one in his right mind would put something like that in a Constitution,” he said. “Russia doesn’t have it. North Korea doesn’t have it. All the best countries don’t have it.”
After lengthy cult-like brainwashing sessions, the poor kids placed plastic keys around their necks, symbolizing martyrs’ permission to enter paradise, and ran ahead of Iranian ground troops and tanks to remove Iraqi mines by detonating them with their feet and blowing their small bodies to pieces.
In the United States, as of 2015, with Turing Pharmaceuticals' acquisition of the US marketing rights for Daraprim tablets,[25] Daraprim has become a single-source and specialty pharmacy item, and the price of Daraprim has been increased.[26] The cost of a monthly course for a person on 75 mg dose rose to about $75,000/month, or $750 per tablet.[27][28] Outpatients can no longer obtain Daraprim from their community pharmacy, but only through a single dispensing pharmacy, Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, and institutions can no longer order from their general wholesaler, but have to set up an account with the Daraprim Direct program.[26][29] Presentations from Retrophin, a company formerly headed by Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing, from which Turing acquired the rights to Daraprim, suggest that a closed distribution system could prevent generic competitors from legally obtaining the drugs for the bioequivalence studies required for FDA approval of a generic drug.[29]
If I were a potential Tesla customer I'd be much more interested in knowing that much touted the "self-driving" capabilities were actually working to save my life than I would be in whether there was a slight gap in some decorative panel.
This doubles the number of active cameras from four to eight, enabling full self-driving in almost all circumstances, at what we believe will be a probability of safety at least twice as good as the average human driver. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat. For Superchargers that have automatic charge connection enabled, you will not even need to plug in your vehicle.
All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.
Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year.
Show me where Tesla has lied about the capabilities of their system. I've never once seen them make the claim that the driver wasn't responsible for watching the road and taking control if the autopilot functions fail for any reason. If the system doesn't kick in early enough the driver should take control. Tesla has been quite unambiguous about this.
OK, here you go:
The text at the beginning of the video at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".
Nothing in that video states that the driver is responsible for anything. He's "ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS".
And he exits the vehicle whereupon the car parks itself; potentially running over a baby crawling in the road perhaps?
Interesting. And the text at the beginning of the video states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".
I.e., take a nap, we'll arrive at your destination in 23.5 minutes. Oops. A very, very long nap.
All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
"Full self-driving" sounds an awful lot like an "autonomous vehicle function" as you phrased it.
Before "people stop thinking about Autopilot as self-driving and start thinking about it as cruise control", as you say, perhaps Tesla ought to describe it as you do instead of the way they describe it:
All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
Pedestrians also sometimes trip and fall down while walking. A 6ft tall individual who falls forward according to your calculations would possibly have his head end up directly in front of the wheels of the approaching vehicle.
Pedestrians are not well modeled as hard spheres moving in accord with Newtonian mechanics in a vacuum.
I image (sic) that means the pedestrian was 10.8 feet away roughly perpendicular to the car.
I'm pretty sure they mean that the car was 10.8 feet from the pedestrian on a direct collision course with the pedestrian.
I certainly think it's the kind of distance most people would drive through the intersection even if the pedestrian had to take a short step or two for the rear end to clear the crosswalk.
Yes, there are many drivers who will refuse to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk; those drivers are in violation of the law.
None of your three "[ca.gov]" links (text reproduced below) says anything even remotely like what you're saying.
CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties [21949 - 21971] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.
CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties [21949 - 21971] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
ARTICLE 3. Offenses Relating to Traffic Devices [21450 - 21468] ( Article 3 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
21455. If an official traffic control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, including a freeway or highway on ramp, this article applies, except those provisions that by their nature can have no application. A stop required shall be made at a sign, crosswalk, or limit line indicating where the stop shall be made, but, in the absence of that sign or marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.
Probably because their employer told them to let the autonomous vehicle (AV) handle everything so as to not interfere with the experiment. So instead of braking when the pedestrian appeared in the crosswalk, the "safety driver" let the AV do it's thing.
Therefore the "safety driver" is the vehicle operator who exercised poor judgement, did the wrong thing, and was rightfully ticketed. Points on the license too presumably.
The salary for "safety drivers" may have just increased as a result of this enlightening incident. Maybe the qualifications also.
and got the bizarre result quoted below. Which is very similar to the result I got when I typed in some of my own text. And similar also to their sample text from a snippet of Barack Obama's statements in the 2012 election debate.
I think that the "personality-insights" site is kinda BS. Or maybe we're all just so similar.
Personality Portrait 9935 words analyzed: Very Strong Analysis Summary You are analytical, excitable and sentimental.
You are empathetic: you feel what others feel and are compassionate towards them. You are uncompromising: you think it is wrong to take advantage of others to get ahead. And you are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them.
Your choices are driven by a desire for organization.
You are relatively unconcerned with both achieving success and taking pleasure in life. You make decisions with little regard for how they show off your talents. And you prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment.
You are likely to______ like historical movies volunteer for social causes like classical music
You are unlikely to______ be influenced by social media during product purchases prefer style when buying clothes like rap music
Slashdot Mirror
A friend with cerebal palsy needs to use a straw because - can't lift the cup to mouth without spilling all over.
But most people don't need straws.
And then there are the Amazon 1-star reviews that state "This _x_ is absolutely perfect!!!"
I guess they figure "I gave it a gold star!"
What circumstances require pulling down the shades?
And by taking the humor out you lose those newcomers to free (not open source) software whose imagination would have been tickled by code clearly crafted by human beings who were enjoying making their contribution to free software. I'd rather lose the "suits".
No reason to fork the library, just rename the function. Instead of "abort()", which is clearly upsetting to some on the committee, call it "terminate_with_extreme_prejudice()"; which has no such unpleasant connotations.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-considering-pulling-us-out-of-constitution
You must be referring to this bit of Iranian military genius:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/iran-recruits-child-soldiers-%E2%80%93-again
"To Serve Man" (The Twilight Zone, 1962):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De4u1Zz7Yt4
True. And he's biased against Latins anyway.
I'll vote for that.
Check the bolded portion below:
If I were a potential Tesla customer I'd be much more interested in knowing that much touted the "self-driving" capabilities were actually working to save my life than I would be in whether there was a slight gap in some decorative panel.
I'd think that Tesla investors would also.
If you go to https://www.tesla.com/models/design and click the boxes to buy a Tesla Model S, you get to click this box:
Or in this case, "Bug report AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaGgggggggggggHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!"
OK, here you go:
The text at the beginning of the video at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".
Nothing in that video states that the driver is responsible for anything. He's "ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS".
And he exits the vehicle whereupon the car parks itself; potentially running over a baby crawling in the road perhaps?
Interesting. And the text at the beginning of the video states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".
I.e., take a nap, we'll arrive at your destination in 23.5 minutes. Oops. A very, very long nap.
sabri writes:
Tesla however writes:
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
"Full self-driving" sounds an awful lot like an "autonomous vehicle function" as you phrased it.
Before "people stop thinking about Autopilot as self-driving and start thinking about it as cruise control", as you say, perhaps Tesla ought to describe it as you do instead of the way they describe it:
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
Coffee is reported to offer some surprisingly substantial health benefits, unlike cocaine.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/14/health/coffee-health/index.html
Pedestrians also sometimes trip and fall down while walking. A 6ft tall individual who falls forward according to your calculations would possibly have his head end up directly in front of the wheels of the approaching vehicle.
Pedestrians are not well modeled as hard spheres moving in accord with Newtonian mechanics in a vacuum.
I'm pretty sure they mean that the car was 10.8 feet from the pedestrian on a direct collision course with the pedestrian.
Yes, there are many drivers who will refuse to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk; those drivers are in violation of the law.
None of your three "[ca.gov]" links (text reproduced below) says anything even remotely like what you're saying.
Probably because their employer told them to let the autonomous vehicle (AV) handle everything so as to not interfere with the experiment. So instead of braking when the pedestrian appeared in the crosswalk, the "safety driver" let the AV do it's thing.
Therefore the "safety driver" is the vehicle operator who exercised poor judgement, did the wrong thing, and was rightfully ticketed. Points on the license too presumably.
The salary for "safety drivers" may have just increased as a result of this enlightening incident. Maybe the qualifications also.
New York City's DOT records of pedestrian fatalities disagree with you on this point.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf
I dunno.
I copied the text of DJT's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17044760/transcript-trump-cpac-speech-snake-mccain
and got the bizarre result quoted below. Which is very similar to the result I got when I typed in some of my own text. And similar also to their sample text from a snippet of Barack Obama's statements in the 2012 election debate.
I think that the "personality-insights" site is kinda BS. Or maybe we're all just so similar.