Apple had a choice between slowing down phones with a marginal battery or having them randomly crash at times of high workload.
That's what they claim. Odd, then, that they always timed these "fixes" for when a new version of the iPhone came out?
"The U.S. study analysed worldwide searches for 'iPhone slow' and found that the search term spiked significantly around the time of new iPhone launch."
Liberal: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."
What "liberal" has come to mean in the United States politically: - Open borders. - Illegal immigrants. - Soft on crime. - Islamophilia. - Welfare. - "No platforming". - Anti-gun ownership. - "Rights" that 99.9% must adopt for the 0.01% (transphilia). - Anti-white.
"Liberals" who don't agree with the above will be shamed and kicked out of the club.
Some where really trolls, but most, I have to admit, where people that did I just did not agree with and perhaps kill filed them because I was angry at one specific post at one time for whatever reason.
I always took it as a badge of honor when somebody publicly "plonked" me after losing a debate. Good of you to mature and realize that "troll" is usually synonymous with "I disagree".
If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim
Just stating your unpopular opinion bluntly gets you labeled as a "troll" and causes offense. Slashdot moderation is broken. They should just take away the downvote system, or at least mitigate it so that it costs more points to downvote than to upvote..
That story died a quick death once it couldn't be pinned on a crazy white guy. Of course the real story was much more interesting, but we can't have alternatives to The Narrative.
For that to work, you'd have shoot all the people that only want to increase their wealth by expansion of the economy.
Nope. I know primitive brains have a deep knee-jerk reflex to reach for violence, but given that 99% are not the 1%, you only need to come up with a solution that actually works and implement it. As much as I derided BitCoin in the past, and still think it's deeply flawed, I do respect how it started from one man and eventually made a wave that went across the word.
The impact happens at about the position where the car is at 0:32 in that video.
I actually think it's closer to 00:34 seconds. Judging from the Uber video, it's right past the white sign. You can see the shadow area in the distance at 0:30 seconds just after the underpass. So assuming this was a human driver, and they were looking that far ahead, and they could actually see the person in the left lane walking into the right lane, they would have about 4 seconds to stop the car.
What you see in that video is much more representative of how normal human eyes see that area than the dark Uber video.
Probably. Then again, it's also possible the video you link is a bit brighter than what human eyes would see. Contrast in dark settings is a complex subject. The only real test would involve recreating the conditions with human drivers, with random tests with a dummy person there and not there.
Of course, this all ignores the fact that the car was equipped with a variety of sensors which should have and did identify the person regardless of light.
Yes, I agree, the self-driving car should have performed better than a human because of those sensors. But all the outrage is fixed on the idea that a human at the wheel should have stopped in time. From that angle, this person walked out in front of traffic and got herself killed.
That area looks MUCH more well-lit in videos that third parties have taken.
Depends on camera settings, other traffic in the area, and functionality of the headlights in use. Also depends on the exact location, as some parts are more illuminated than others.
AZ law requires the headlights to illuminate people from 500 feet away.
I have been unsuccessful in locating the exact text of the law, but what I could find from a 3rd party website says headlights must be in use when visibility is below 500 feet:
"Headlights are required from sunset to sunrise and when visibility is less than 500 feet."
Voting laws vary by locality. In my current residence, I had to supply an ID to vote. In a previous residence, all I had to do was state my name and it was checked off the list. Of course, keeping the list clean from illegals is also important.
Camera settings, other traffic in the area, and headlight performance all have an effect on what we can conclude from our armchairs. And just for funsies, let's play spot the people in time before you run them over: https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t...
However, because the driver is ultimately in control and responsible and this area was lit well enough for a human (though obviously not for a cheap dashcam), this accident was the driver's fault -- no ifs, ands, or buts.
Nonsense. We're only talking about this case because it was an AI at the controls. Otherwise it would be just another Darwin Award by somebody walking out in front of traffic.
Hey asshole, feel free to use the roads. Just don't walk out in front of traffic expecting the car to stop for you.
Years ago, when I test drove my first car, a disheveled older lady did exactly as this woman did. She's lucky I saw her out of the corner of my eye and slammed on the brakes. The salesman who was sitting next to me didn't even see her.
You choose your subjective judgement as "obvious" and denounce someone else's.
There's nothing subjective about my judgment. She came out of a shadow. You can debate how visible she was in that shadow, but that requires real-word testing.
We sort people like you into the jackass bucket. Grow up and take a hard look at yourself.
Such statements are subjective, prone to interpretation of vague memories. The only way to know for sure what people could see and when is to test under the same conditions. People walking out into the street at night are a problem even in better lighting, and anybody doing so is recklessly putting their life at risk.
I'm not convinced that particular spot was "well lit". She was obviously coming out of a shadow, and there seemed to be only the one light in the area with no overlap.
"To be fair", illegals shouldn't be here, have no right to vote, and hence have no right to count towards representation. The 3/5 compromise by the North was indeed a really bad idea, as was slavery.
The US borders have become a joke. Illegal immigrants live here openly, waving Mexican flags, and making demands. It's not "high risk" when there is no serious effort to make sure illegals aren't voting.
Democrats oppose voter ID because they have become the party of illegal immigration. This was made patently clear when adding the question of citizenship status to the US Census elicited howls from the Left -- because it would discourage illegals from being counted in a census used to determine numbers of Congressman and votes in the Electoral College.
Yes, and? This is like Trump meeting with David Duke and taking a smiling political photo with him. That would have ended his political career in the crib -- but Democrats get a pass.
But Neither of those presidents actually tried to justify or minimize their threat during their presidency.
Funny how race relations at the end of Obama's presidency were worse than they had been in decades. Funny how Obama always jumped the gun whenever any race-related issue came up, and threw the police under the bus over and over. I guess the "Beer Summit" and "Teachable Moment" early in Obama's presidency had no lasting impact on his thinking.
What Trump did was to legitimize nazis by saying that they aren't any worse than anyone else.
Yes, seriously. Why is it acceptable for Obama and other Democrats to embrace Farrakhan, when he has called for the deaths of Whites and rails against Jews? http://dailycaller.com/2018/01...
that is your rebuttal of Trump saying that "being a nazi and fighting against them is the same thing"??
Slashdot Mirror
Apple had a choice between slowing down phones with a marginal battery or having them randomly crash at times of high workload.
That's what they claim. Odd, then, that they always timed these "fixes" for when a new version of the iPhone came out?
"The U.S. study analysed worldwide searches for 'iPhone slow' and found that the search term spiked significantly around the time of new iPhone launch."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
Liberal: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."
What "liberal" has come to mean in the United States politically:
- Open borders.
- Illegal immigrants.
- Soft on crime.
- Islamophilia.
- Welfare.
- "No platforming".
- Anti-gun ownership.
- "Rights" that 99.9% must adopt for the 0.01% (transphilia).
- Anti-white.
"Liberals" who don't agree with the above will be shamed and kicked out of the club.
Some where really trolls, but most, I have to admit, where people that did I just did not agree with and perhaps kill filed them because I was angry at one specific post at one time for whatever reason.
I always took it as a badge of honor when somebody publicly "plonked" me after losing a debate. Good of you to mature and realize that "troll" is usually synonymous with "I disagree".
If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim
Just stating your unpopular opinion bluntly gets you labeled as a "troll" and causes offense. Slashdot moderation is broken. They should just take away the downvote system, or at least mitigate it so that it costs more points to downvote than to upvote..
a Nazi conspiracy theory
Nazis? Weren't they defeated in World War II? Oh wait, do you believe the conspiracy theory that they survived and have a base on the moon?
about Jews
While it's rather curious that the "Frankfort school" consisted of so many Jews, Marxist sympathizers are not limited to Jews.
trying to destroy their culture
More like trying to remake it along the lines of social "justice".
I'm shocked that the issue of Global Wobbling hasn't been addressed!
"Global Wobbling" is a real. It's called precession. It's even been linked in changes from the Sahara oscillating between desert and grassland.
That story died a quick death once it couldn't be pinned on a crazy white guy. Of course the real story was much more interesting, but we can't have alternatives to The Narrative.
For that to work, you'd have shoot all the people that only want to increase their wealth by expansion of the economy.
Nope. I know primitive brains have a deep knee-jerk reflex to reach for violence, but given that 99% are not the 1%, you only need to come up with a solution that actually works and implement it. As much as I derided BitCoin in the past, and still think it's deeply flawed, I do respect how it started from one man and eventually made a wave that went across the word.
While I agree with most of what you said, blaming the Jews is ridiculous. Cultural Marxism wasn't a thing in the 30s, and it still isn't today.
Funny, he mentioned Cultural Marxism, but he didn't say a thing about Jews. Is that your anti-semite bias showing?
The impact happens at about the position where the car is at 0:32 in that video.
I actually think it's closer to 00:34 seconds. Judging from the Uber video, it's right past the white sign. You can see the shadow area in the distance at 0:30 seconds just after the underpass. So assuming this was a human driver, and they were looking that far ahead, and they could actually see the person in the left lane walking into the right lane, they would have about 4 seconds to stop the car.
What you see in that video is much more representative of how normal human eyes see that area than the dark Uber video.
Probably. Then again, it's also possible the video you link is a bit brighter than what human eyes would see. Contrast in dark settings is a complex subject. The only real test would involve recreating the conditions with human drivers, with random tests with a dummy person there and not there.
Of course, this all ignores the fact that the car was equipped with a variety of sensors which should have and did identify the person regardless of light.
Yes, I agree, the self-driving car should have performed better than a human because of those sensors. But all the outrage is fixed on the idea that a human at the wheel should have stopped in time. From that angle, this person walked out in front of traffic and got herself killed.
You're ignoring the fact that the person that was hit WALKED OUT IN FRONT OF TRAFFIC.
That area looks MUCH more well-lit in videos that third parties have taken.
Depends on camera settings, other traffic in the area, and functionality of the headlights in use. Also depends on the exact location, as some parts are more illuminated than others.
AZ law requires the headlights to illuminate people from 500 feet away.
I have been unsuccessful in locating the exact text of the law, but what I could find from a 3rd party website says headlights must be in use when visibility is below 500 feet:
"Headlights are required from sunset to sunrise and when visibility is less than 500 feet."
Voting laws vary by locality. In my current residence, I had to supply an ID to vote. In a previous residence, all I had to do was state my name and it was checked off the list. Of course, keeping the list clean from illegals is also important.
Camera settings, other traffic in the area, and headlight performance all have an effect on what we can conclude from our armchairs. And just for funsies, let's play spot the people in time before you run them over: https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t...
However, because the driver is ultimately in control and responsible and this area was lit well enough for a human (though obviously not for a cheap dashcam), this accident was the driver's fault -- no ifs, ands, or buts.
Nonsense. We're only talking about this case because it was an AI at the controls. Otherwise it would be just another Darwin Award by somebody walking out in front of traffic.
Hey asshole, feel free to use the roads. Just don't walk out in front of traffic expecting the car to stop for you.
Years ago, when I test drove my first car, a disheveled older lady did exactly as this woman did. She's lucky I saw her out of the corner of my eye and slammed on the brakes. The salesman who was sitting next to me didn't even see her.
You choose your subjective judgement as "obvious" and denounce someone else's.
There's nothing subjective about my judgment. She came out of a shadow. You can debate how visible she was in that shadow, but that requires real-word testing.
We sort people like you into the jackass bucket. Grow up and take a hard look at yourself.
Right back at you.
Such statements are subjective, prone to interpretation of vague memories. The only way to know for sure what people could see and when is to test under the same conditions. People walking out into the street at night are a problem even in better lighting, and anybody doing so is recklessly putting their life at risk.
More likely this is about lazy/ignorant security practices than a cynical decision to save money short term.
I'm not convinced that particular spot was "well lit". She was obviously coming out of a shadow, and there seemed to be only the one light in the area with no overlap.
"To be fair", illegals shouldn't be here, have no right to vote, and hence have no right to count towards representation. The 3/5 compromise by the North was indeed a really bad idea, as was slavery.
The US borders have become a joke. Illegal immigrants live here openly, waving Mexican flags, and making demands. It's not "high risk" when there is no serious effort to make sure illegals aren't voting.
Democrats oppose voter ID because they have become the party of illegal immigration. This was made patently clear when adding the question of citizenship status to the US Census elicited howls from the Left -- because it would discourage illegals from being counted in a census used to determine numbers of Congressman and votes in the Electoral College.
Obama met with Louis Farrakhan in 2005.
Yes, and? This is like Trump meeting with David Duke and taking a smiling political photo with him. That would have ended his political career in the crib -- but Democrats get a pass.
But Neither of those presidents actually tried to justify or minimize their threat during their presidency.
Funny how race relations at the end of Obama's presidency were worse than they had been in decades. Funny how Obama always jumped the gun whenever any race-related issue came up, and threw the police under the bus over and over. I guess the "Beer Summit" and "Teachable Moment" early in Obama's presidency had no lasting impact on his thinking.
What Trump did was to legitimize nazis by saying that they aren't any worse than anyone else.
No, that's your bullshit strawman.
Louis Farrakhan? Seriously,
Yes, seriously. Why is it acceptable for Obama and other Democrats to embrace Farrakhan, when he has called for the deaths of Whites and rails against Jews? http://dailycaller.com/2018/01...
that is your rebuttal of Trump saying that "being a nazi and fighting against them is the same thing"??
That's a strawman.
The "resistance" is nothing but a bunch of authoritarian leftwing extremists: http://www.latimes.com/local/l...