You tell the parent post that they are an idiot for bringing it up, then invite them to campaign for change?!? Bitching about an unfair system is a component of campaigning for that change!
Yes, we know that Trump won the election by the rules of the election, and accept that (grudgingly). But those of us who live in populous states would like our votes to count equally in a national election. Our votes count less simply due to quirks of geography making some states larger and/or denser, and we just happened to be born in that state or move to that state for school/job/etc and now our votes count for less.
Meanwhile Trump is bragging about winning in a landslide while he's two million votes behind the most popular candidate of the 2016 election.
It is entirely possible to hold multiple parties in the wrong in complex situations, it doesn't have to be one bad guy and one good guy. Yes, it was wrong for the DNC to collude to nominate an insider. It was also wrong if Russian hackers released hacked info to undermine our electoral system and help Trump win the election, even if the hackers were only exposing truth. It is wrong because Russia, if the are associated with the hacks, has an agenda in this matter which is not friendly to the USA. Foreign interference that helps your team is not the kind of help that you should want, especially coming from Russia.
President Obama is not delegitimizing President-elect Trump. Trump won by the rules of the election. Obama is simply pursuing investigations and sanctions for what appears to be overseas election interference, and it is deplorable that Trump is brushing aside even a possibility that a foreign power was involved in the hacks. Congress, including the President-elect's own party, are taking the possible role of Russia in this hack very seriously.
I note that in all the discussion of how Clinton won the popular vote, in CalExit America, she actually lost by about half a million votes. California's vote was that lopsided.
It was somewhat lopsided at 62% voting for Hillary, but the result you see is mostly a function of the fact that California is the most populous state in the USA. A lot of states were almost as lopsided, and a few were even more lopsided:
Hillary won DC with 91% of the vote.
Trump got 68% in both West Virginia and Wyoming. In fact in West Virginia not a single county went for Hillary, which is no surprise.
I agree, people don't have the patience for these tactics in today's world. It would have made an ideal Christmas gift at $60, but if you can only find it for $200 on eBay it's not worth nearly that much, especially when you consider that you still need to separately buy a 2nd controller, plus controller extension cables since what it comes with are way too short.
These days it's also very easy to assembly a Raspberry Pi based emulation system with Retropie, it can play games from a much wider range of consoles, costs about the same amount as the NES classic, and can use modern wireless controllers. Lots of people are also playing these games with emulators on their phones, sometimes with separate bluetooth controllers.
I think Nintendo missed their main market insertion opportunity because while people would have satisfied their retro urge for $60, the wait will send a lot of people to emulators with the pirated ROMs, and Nintendo will get nothing.
There is a world of difference between bias based on prejudice and scientific observation based on fact.
The truth is there are certain medically significant differences between races. In this case, the increased skin melanin in black individuals is well known to lead to increased incidence of Vitamin D deficiency, which can be linked with certain other problems. Also people of Asian decent are more likely to be lactose intolerant. There are probably more differences but these are commonly known ones.
It doesn't mean that we practice eugenics, it means we study the problem and try to help everybody be as health as they can be. One treatment does not fit all. If some groups of people are more susceptible to certain health problems then those specific problems should be addressed.
"well physics and material science are against it. " I have not seen any analysis to indicate that, if you could share one that would be great.
"and musk has only made true profit on his money laundering bank that isn't a bank." Musk hasn't owned Paypal for years.
Tesla has not generally turned a profit because they are investing everything in growing manufacturing capacity rapidly. You can argue whether or not they will make future profits but many successful companies have started out this way, prioritizing long-term growth over short-term profits, including Amazon.
SpaceX has claimed profitability though as a private company the data is not publicly reported.
"interesting to see though because tesla is only almost viable only due to co2 taxing of regular cars. taxed same they would be unsellable." Well you see in this country we have an interest in reducing pollution and climate change which is why emissions requirements were put into place. Other car companies choose not to meet the requirements so they buy credits from Tesla. Tesla makes a tiny bit of money from this, but it's quite small, and less than the value of the credits if the gasoline car companies were to just make their own EV's. And yes, the Tesla luxury cars could be profitable on their own but are not sellable to the mass public. The Model 3 if successful will be sellable to the public regardless of govt incentives.
"Elon Musk is a snake oil salesmen out there pimping a mechanically impossible "super tube" for travel"
What is mechanically impossible about it? The logic behind it seems sound.
"and the Uber guy... well, I mean, what technolgoically is so amazing about making an app with a map that connects a buyer and seller of a service? "
Nothing is amazing about it.... except that taxi companies for the most part weren't doing it. The user experience is light years ahead of a traditional taxi service, in my experience. Of course Uber seems to be breaking laws all over the world, laws which should probably be updated but are laws nevertheless, and they are probably abusing the employee/contractor distinction to the detriment of their employees/contractors.
The unpriced externalities of pollution and carbon emissions are effectively a coal subsidy we are all paying with our health and the future economic and environmental consequences of climate change.
And it is true that you cannot go 100% solar+wind without storage, but the technology is here today. It's not a matter of waiting 10 or 20 years for technology to magically improve, it will improve a bit over that time period but probably nothing dramatic. There is nothing terribly confusing either about how to upgrade the grid for renewables, in some cases transmission infrastructure will need to be updated, though in many cases it will not. Some new standards and models will need to be developed and implemented for grid management, incorporating weather predictions to predict daily output of the renewables mix, but people are already working on these and it won't be required until renewables are present in a much high percentage than they are today.
Yes, the protection circuits could be beefed up. The problem is these larger devices which provide more protection also load the USB transmission line down with more parasitic capacitance, leading to reduced bandwidth.
The only small consolation is that Clinton is forecast to win a scant victory in the popular vote once all ballots are counted: http://www.nytimes.com/electio... as of slightly after midnight election day she is forecast about 1.3% lead. Unfortunately it's not the popular vote that matters.
Tesla made the first good electric luxury car. GM looks poised to beat Tesla to market with the first good electric consumer car, but Tesla has brought quality electric vehicles into the public consciousness and into public acceptance in a way that GM would have struggled to do so. The EV1, despite its cult popularity was not a very good car, and was never widely popular because of its limited range.
Why would people get excited about GM? The last time GM tried selling an electric car (EV1), people loved it. But they only leased the car, and when the leases were up GM took them back and crushed them, didn't give people an option to buy. So I think people will believe what GM is saying when they see it, not before.
You're free to do what you want in your home, to the extent that it does not violate certain laws including zoning laws. You probably wouldn't want somebody running a restaurant out of the house or apartment next door to you because of the large impact that such a business could have on neighbors. Similarly, AirBnB rentals are frequently run as de facto hotels and can have a very large impact on neighbors, and the neighbors don't have anybody with a stake in the matter to complain to if the property owner or leaseholder is not residing on the premises at the time. This law, and similar laws are being enacted all over the country, are aimed at ensuring residential properties are residential.
Your specific complaints seems to be linked to you're misunderstanding of the law. It is stated in the summary above to exempt situations where the owner or lease-holder is residing on the premises during the short-term rental. A friend staying over is not a rental and thus not a problem.
I see lots of people saying this... but the capabilities, and more importantly the limitations, are pretty clearly spelled out when you purchase the option, nobody thought they were buying an autonomous driving package.
Further, I don't see how it was a beta test. It was a highly capable and valuable assisted driving system at release and since its release it has only gotten better as over 100 million miles of driving data as accumulate, helping to fine-tune algorithms and identify corner cases.
Currently, there is no statistical case to be made that it is unsafe.
Your statement is not backed up by data. Fatal Tesla crashes make the news far more readily than any other vehicle which leads you to falsely conclude that they are less safe than other vehicles, a fact not born out by data. Nearly 100 people die every day driving on US roads.
Further, multiple drivers have falsely claimed that they had Autopilot engaged during a crash. But due to our rapid news cycle people are far more likely to read the first article that says Autopilot caused a crash and skip over the followup article where it explains that the driver was driving unsafely and lying about Autpilot being engaged.
You cannot rely on your impressions to make an informed judgement about this topic, only data matters. The NHTSA is looking into the matter (as they should) and will let you know if there really is a safety problem.
As demand for EV's increases (which is virtually inevitable) landlords and apartment building owners will install outlets points in parking lots and parking garages, either as a perk or in exchange for higher rent. And if landlords don't want the trouble they will outsource to the company's that are already installing paid charging systems the same way many landlords outsource laundry rooms to a laundry company.
Infrastructure will rise to meet the demand for said infrastructure. There will be a transition period, and the transition will probably be lead by house owners or long-term house renters, then next it will percolate into large apartment buildings with parking garages in dense areas (LA, SF, NY) and also into premium apartment/condo complexes in less dense areas.
Ok well you wait for 20 minutes for a car every morning or operate on some pre-set schedule. I'd like to keep my own schedule.
That's perfectly fine. But it will probably be more expensive than on-demand or pre-scheduled transportation services once self-driving cars are a reality.
Yes I would expect insurance for autonomous cars would drop to around $50 a year since the human is no longer responsible or able to control for anything that happens in a truly autonomous car. Insurance will protect the value of the property and nothing that may happen with it. Passenger not liable.
It's not yet clear how liability will be distributed. Clearly liability will be held by somebody. In my opinion the most likely scenario is that the operator of the vehicle will take liability for its operation and will purchase insurance commensurate with that liability. The operator is whoever is commanding the vehicle. If you own your own self-driving car and tell it to drive you from point A to point B, you are the operator. If you hire a self-driving Uber, you tell Uber to take you to point B and Uber tells the car to drive you to point B, Uber becomes the operator.
Self-driving car insurance will be cheaper if the safety is higher with self-driving features, which seems likely. The insurer would hold the manufacturer of the vehicle liable in cases of gross negligence, but not in the situation of ordinary crashes which are a statistical certainty and included in the insurer's calculations. Insurers don't require perfect safety, in fact perfect safety would put insurers out of business. They just calculate a risk, and bill enough to cover their risk plus overhead and profit margin.
If the laws change so that vehicle operators do not need to accept liability for a self-driving vehicle they are operating then the manufacturer would be liable and the insurance cost would be reflected in the purchase price of the car.
Affordable housing does NOT require subsidies. It just requires sidelining the NIMBYs and BANANAs that are obstructing construction. If we expand the supply by building new housing, the price will go down.
Huh? Affordable housing usually does involve subsidies, although they may be indirect. I don't know all of the methods used of creating affordable housing, but in my area the city council can require new developments to set aside a certain percentage of units for affordable housing which will be sold or rented at below market rate to qualified low-income persons. This means that either the developer is eating the cost in terms of lost profit, or they are charging everybody else a little bit more to make up for the loss, which means that it is subsidized either by the developers or the non-low-income purchasers/renters.
3) it is already evident that the rate of fatalities using this mode is already a 35% improvement over non-autopilot users. (1 fatality in 130 million miles driven vs. 1 in 96 million)
With just a single fatality the fatality rate per mile driven is not known terribly precisely yet. Further, this rate is not corrected for sources of error including that Autopilot is only used on highways, what driving conditions Autopilot is typically used in, whether Autopilot users were alert and paying attention, that the Tesla Model S itself is a very safe car, or that the drivers who own Tesla vehicles may not be representative of the average US driver.
I think more data and analysis is required to make a confident comparison in safety of driving with Autopilot on vs. off.
100% is impossible, so if we follow your logic we will never have access to advanced cruise control with speed adjustment and auto-braking, lane warning/assist, things which many cars now have, and we will never have self-driving cars.
It doesn't need to be 100%, it just needs to be better than the average human.
I've been speaking American English all of my life and in my experience "highway" pretty much exclusively refers to "divided highway". There may be regional variations in usage, as well as distinctions in technical communications.
That's no surprise, NASA is probably the largest single non-military space launch customer in the world. And it's probably also the only customer in the US currently interested in putting down money for manned flight hardware.
There are big human rights issues in the UAE, and so I think NASA should tread carefully in what technology and knowledge they contribute to a country with such a record.
But beginning cooperation is probably a better method of effecting change than being antagonistic and trying to impose our views from the outside. Give them a better glimpse of what a country like ours is like and it might slowly shift views to be more tolerant, get religion out of government, respect human rights, and increase women's rights. The alternative is to shut the door to them and let them collaborate only with countries that have similar viewpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
You tell the parent post that they are an idiot for bringing it up, then invite them to campaign for change?!? Bitching about an unfair system is a component of campaigning for that change!
Yes, we know that Trump won the election by the rules of the election, and accept that (grudgingly). But those of us who live in populous states would like our votes to count equally in a national election. Our votes count less simply due to quirks of geography making some states larger and/or denser, and we just happened to be born in that state or move to that state for school/job/etc and now our votes count for less.
Meanwhile Trump is bragging about winning in a landslide while he's two million votes behind the most popular candidate of the 2016 election.
It is entirely possible to hold multiple parties in the wrong in complex situations, it doesn't have to be one bad guy and one good guy. Yes, it was wrong for the DNC to collude to nominate an insider. It was also wrong if Russian hackers released hacked info to undermine our electoral system and help Trump win the election, even if the hackers were only exposing truth. It is wrong because Russia, if the are associated with the hacks, has an agenda in this matter which is not friendly to the USA. Foreign interference that helps your team is not the kind of help that you should want, especially coming from Russia.
President Obama is not delegitimizing President-elect Trump. Trump won by the rules of the election. Obama is simply pursuing investigations and sanctions for what appears to be overseas election interference, and it is deplorable that Trump is brushing aside even a possibility that a foreign power was involved in the hacks. Congress, including the President-elect's own party, are taking the possible role of Russia in this hack very seriously.
It was somewhat lopsided at 62% voting for Hillary, but the result you see is mostly a function of the fact that California is the most populous state in the USA. A lot of states were almost as lopsided, and a few were even more lopsided:
Hillary won DC with 91% of the vote.
Trump got 68% in both West Virginia and Wyoming. In fact in West Virginia not a single county went for Hillary, which is no surprise.
I agree, people don't have the patience for these tactics in today's world. It would have made an ideal Christmas gift at $60, but if you can only find it for $200 on eBay it's not worth nearly that much, especially when you consider that you still need to separately buy a 2nd controller, plus controller extension cables since what it comes with are way too short.
These days it's also very easy to assembly a Raspberry Pi based emulation system with Retropie, it can play games from a much wider range of consoles, costs about the same amount as the NES classic, and can use modern wireless controllers. Lots of people are also playing these games with emulators on their phones, sometimes with separate bluetooth controllers.
I think Nintendo missed their main market insertion opportunity because while people would have satisfied their retro urge for $60, the wait will send a lot of people to emulators with the pirated ROMs, and Nintendo will get nothing.
There is a world of difference between bias based on prejudice and scientific observation based on fact.
The truth is there are certain medically significant differences between races. In this case, the increased skin melanin in black individuals is well known to lead to increased incidence of Vitamin D deficiency, which can be linked with certain other problems. Also people of Asian decent are more likely to be lactose intolerant. There are probably more differences but these are commonly known ones.
It doesn't mean that we practice eugenics, it means we study the problem and try to help everybody be as health as they can be. One treatment does not fit all. If some groups of people are more susceptible to certain health problems then those specific problems should be addressed.
"well physics and material science are against it. " I have not seen any analysis to indicate that, if you could share one that would be great.
"and musk has only made true profit on his money laundering bank that isn't a bank." Musk hasn't owned Paypal for years.
Tesla has not generally turned a profit because they are investing everything in growing manufacturing capacity rapidly. You can argue whether or not they will make future profits but many successful companies have started out this way, prioritizing long-term growth over short-term profits, including Amazon.
SpaceX has claimed profitability though as a private company the data is not publicly reported.
"interesting to see though because tesla is only almost viable only due to co2 taxing of regular cars. taxed same they would be unsellable."
Well you see in this country we have an interest in reducing pollution and climate change which is why emissions requirements were put into place. Other car companies choose not to meet the requirements so they buy credits from Tesla. Tesla makes a tiny bit of money from this, but it's quite small, and less than the value of the credits if the gasoline car companies were to just make their own EV's. And yes, the Tesla luxury cars could be profitable on their own but are not sellable to the mass public. The Model 3 if successful will be sellable to the public regardless of govt incentives.
"Elon Musk is a snake oil salesmen out there pimping a mechanically impossible "super tube" for travel"
What is mechanically impossible about it? The logic behind it seems sound.
"and the Uber guy... well, I mean, what technolgoically is so amazing about making an app with a map that connects a buyer and seller of a service? "
Nothing is amazing about it.... except that taxi companies for the most part weren't doing it. The user experience is light years ahead of a traditional taxi service, in my experience. Of course Uber seems to be breaking laws all over the world, laws which should probably be updated but are laws nevertheless, and they are probably abusing the employee/contractor distinction to the detriment of their employees/contractors.
The unpriced externalities of pollution and carbon emissions are effectively a coal subsidy we are all paying with our health and the future economic and environmental consequences of climate change.
And it is true that you cannot go 100% solar+wind without storage, but the technology is here today. It's not a matter of waiting 10 or 20 years for technology to magically improve, it will improve a bit over that time period but probably nothing dramatic. There is nothing terribly confusing either about how to upgrade the grid for renewables, in some cases transmission infrastructure will need to be updated, though in many cases it will not. Some new standards and models will need to be developed and implemented for grid management, incorporating weather predictions to predict daily output of the renewables mix, but people are already working on these and it won't be required until renewables are present in a much high percentage than they are today.
Yes, the protection circuits could be beefed up. The problem is these larger devices which provide more protection also load the USB transmission line down with more parasitic capacitance, leading to reduced bandwidth.
The only small consolation is that Clinton is forecast to win a scant victory in the popular vote once all ballots are counted: http://www.nytimes.com/electio... as of slightly after midnight election day she is forecast about 1.3% lead. Unfortunately it's not the popular vote that matters.
Tesla made the first good electric luxury car. GM looks poised to beat Tesla to market with the first good electric consumer car, but Tesla has brought quality electric vehicles into the public consciousness and into public acceptance in a way that GM would have struggled to do so. The EV1, despite its cult popularity was not a very good car, and was never widely popular because of its limited range.
Why would people get excited about GM? The last time GM tried selling an electric car (EV1), people loved it. But they only leased the car, and when the leases were up GM took them back and crushed them, didn't give people an option to buy. So I think people will believe what GM is saying when they see it, not before.
No, but the people who designed, approved, and set up the automated Twitter feed in the FBI's name are all people.
You're free to do what you want in your home, to the extent that it does not violate certain laws including zoning laws. You probably wouldn't want somebody running a restaurant out of the house or apartment next door to you because of the large impact that such a business could have on neighbors. Similarly, AirBnB rentals are frequently run as de facto hotels and can have a very large impact on neighbors, and the neighbors don't have anybody with a stake in the matter to complain to if the property owner or leaseholder is not residing on the premises at the time. This law, and similar laws are being enacted all over the country, are aimed at ensuring residential properties are residential.
Your specific complaints seems to be linked to you're misunderstanding of the law. It is stated in the summary above to exempt situations where the owner or lease-holder is residing on the premises during the short-term rental. A friend staying over is not a rental and thus not a problem.
I see lots of people saying this... but the capabilities, and more importantly the limitations, are pretty clearly spelled out when you purchase the option, nobody thought they were buying an autonomous driving package.
Further, I don't see how it was a beta test. It was a highly capable and valuable assisted driving system at release and since its release it has only gotten better as over 100 million miles of driving data as accumulate, helping to fine-tune algorithms and identify corner cases.
Currently, there is no statistical case to be made that it is unsafe.
Your statement is not backed up by data. Fatal Tesla crashes make the news far more readily than any other vehicle which leads you to falsely conclude that they are less safe than other vehicles, a fact not born out by data. Nearly 100 people die every day driving on US roads.
Further, multiple drivers have falsely claimed that they had Autopilot engaged during a crash. But due to our rapid news cycle people are far more likely to read the first article that says Autopilot caused a crash and skip over the followup article where it explains that the driver was driving unsafely and lying about Autpilot being engaged.
You cannot rely on your impressions to make an informed judgement about this topic, only data matters. The NHTSA is looking into the matter (as they should) and will let you know if there really is a safety problem.
As demand for EV's increases (which is virtually inevitable) landlords and apartment building owners will install outlets points in parking lots and parking garages, either as a perk or in exchange for higher rent. And if landlords don't want the trouble they will outsource to the company's that are already installing paid charging systems the same way many landlords outsource laundry rooms to a laundry company.
Infrastructure will rise to meet the demand for said infrastructure. There will be a transition period, and the transition will probably be lead by house owners or long-term house renters, then next it will percolate into large apartment buildings with parking garages in dense areas (LA, SF, NY) and also into premium apartment/condo complexes in less dense areas.
That's perfectly fine. But it will probably be more expensive than on-demand or pre-scheduled transportation services once self-driving cars are a reality.
It's not yet clear how liability will be distributed. Clearly liability will be held by somebody. In my opinion the most likely scenario is that the operator of the vehicle will take liability for its operation and will purchase insurance commensurate with that liability. The operator is whoever is commanding the vehicle. If you own your own self-driving car and tell it to drive you from point A to point B, you are the operator. If you hire a self-driving Uber, you tell Uber to take you to point B and Uber tells the car to drive you to point B, Uber becomes the operator.
Self-driving car insurance will be cheaper if the safety is higher with self-driving features, which seems likely. The insurer would hold the manufacturer of the vehicle liable in cases of gross negligence, but not in the situation of ordinary crashes which are a statistical certainty and included in the insurer's calculations. Insurers don't require perfect safety, in fact perfect safety would put insurers out of business. They just calculate a risk, and bill enough to cover their risk plus overhead and profit margin.
If the laws change so that vehicle operators do not need to accept liability for a self-driving vehicle they are operating then the manufacturer would be liable and the insurance cost would be reflected in the purchase price of the car.
Huh? Affordable housing usually does involve subsidies, although they may be indirect. I don't know all of the methods used of creating affordable housing, but in my area the city council can require new developments to set aside a certain percentage of units for affordable housing which will be sold or rented at below market rate to qualified low-income persons. This means that either the developer is eating the cost in terms of lost profit, or they are charging everybody else a little bit more to make up for the loss, which means that it is subsidized either by the developers or the non-low-income purchasers/renters.
With just a single fatality the fatality rate per mile driven is not known terribly precisely yet. Further, this rate is not corrected for sources of error including that Autopilot is only used on highways, what driving conditions Autopilot is typically used in, whether Autopilot users were alert and paying attention, that the Tesla Model S itself is a very safe car, or that the drivers who own Tesla vehicles may not be representative of the average US driver.
I think more data and analysis is required to make a confident comparison in safety of driving with Autopilot on vs. off.
100% is impossible, so if we follow your logic we will never have access to advanced cruise control with speed adjustment and auto-braking, lane warning/assist, things which many cars now have, and we will never have self-driving cars.
It doesn't need to be 100%, it just needs to be better than the average human.
I've been speaking American English all of my life and in my experience "highway" pretty much exclusively refers to "divided highway". There may be regional variations in usage, as well as distinctions in technical communications.
I'd be interested in reading/watching those debunkings, could you share some of what you're looking at?
That's no surprise, NASA is probably the largest single non-military space launch customer in the world. And it's probably also the only customer in the US currently interested in putting down money for manned flight hardware.
There are big human rights issues in the UAE, and so I think NASA should tread carefully in what technology and knowledge they contribute to a country with such a record.
But beginning cooperation is probably a better method of effecting change than being antagonistic and trying to impose our views from the outside. Give them a better glimpse of what a country like ours is like and it might slowly shift views to be more tolerant, get religion out of government, respect human rights, and increase women's rights. The alternative is to shut the door to them and let them collaborate only with countries that have similar viewpoints.