In Germany pedestrians have right-of-way over car drivers when crossing over a T junction. I can step off the pavement without looking and without feeling unsafe.
In the US that would get me arrested for jaywalking. What the fuck sort of shithole even has a crime called jaywalking.
Are you nuanced enough to compete with the 16 adjustments/sec (or more) an ABS braking system is capable of making?
No, but unlike ABS I know that on snow I really should just let the fucker slide and adjust the direction of the slide, not just carry on in a straight line failing to stop.
Driving in/on/around snow and ice is not a problem for automated systems and I contend that they will pants any attempt at manual control.
I'd like to see that. I'd really like to see that. You're basically saying that automated systems will be able to seamlessly transfer from driving steadily within the performance characteristics of the car with no skidding or wheelspinning to using both of those tactically to provide greater control on an uncertain surface.
Late last year I had my car doing 50mph down a highway on rain covered snow sideways. Not on purpose, just happened to work out that way. I was fine, the car was fine, at no point did I think I was going to crash, and none of the cars around me that were having to cope with those conditions crashed either.
The only ones in any danger were the idiots that slowed down so much that large lorries were having to swerve out to avoid hitting them. Which is how I ended up going sideways..
I'm not saying automated systems couldn't cope with that, but it'd be bloody impressive to see - given that two minutes before the road had been entirely dry..
There's a very significant difference between acquiring a firearm (trivial) and creating a lethal nerve agent (bloody hard, especially if you want to live long enough yourself to then use it on someone else).
Right now the only person defending Russia is Comrade Corbyn.
If it helps any, I've managed close to that 10 hours/day for years and I still haven't killed anybody.
I haven't even physically assaulted anybody in decades. Last two times I was attacked I defused the situation instead of putting the idiot in hospital too.
With the comedy that journalists quote wikipedia, which means that the tertiary source cites a secondary source which uses the tertiary source as its primary source.
It's a repeated issue that's seriously compromising the usability of wikipedia.
Wikipedia is however biased on the sources it considers valid as citations.
When it comes to current affairs Wikipedia can not be trusted as it does not present an objective view of a subject and does not allow a broad base of citations that would present multiple perspectives.
This is exacerbated by editorial control that runs counter to the entire ethos of a wiki.
The volume of complaints is fuck all. I heard seven complaints from just one incident at a previous company, and had to track down the (sole) perpetrator to take action.
238 across that many employees across that many years? That's astonishingly low.
I'm following online discussions of controversial topics for more than 20 years now, and I cannot recall many instances where these would really and genuinely be enlightening or beneficial to anyone
I find that quite astonishing. I've participated in online discussions of controversial topics for more than 25 years and I've learned a hell of a lot.
I just rapidly assess and interpret what's being said and use external references to validate or repudiate things.
The online discussion is where I learn what to research and look deeper into. That's valuable, and I feel sorry for you that you can't get that value.
The best thing you can get from such discussions is unreliable, superficial knowledge by testimony that you have to check manually with other sources anyway before you can trust it.
Which is nonsense. One person on Slashdot has marked me as a 'foe' because I call out their inane views on certain topics. I know that if they're posting on those topics then I'm likely to disagree with them. However because Slashdot tells you who your 'freaks' are, I see their posts on other topics too. They happen to be bloody informative about their technical speciality, and I can actually trust their posts in that space.
So they hate me (enough to mark me as a foe) and I strongly disagree with them on controversial topics but on other (potentially controversial topics) I can still gain value from their posts without needing to fact check.
This kind of disproves your point, but even if it didn't: So fucking what. As I posted, having to go and research something is significantly easier if you have pointers on what to research.
Shit, sometimes I dispute something, go and research it and find out I was wrong. That's rather delightful, in an annoying way. Enlightening and beneficial.
I do like Slashdot's approach, and it really should have been mimicked by so many other sites.
Oddly the highest signal-noise ratio for tech conversations tends to be The Register's article comments. That does allow up and down voting, but doesn't order or hide comments based on the score. The community just happens to be intelligent, educated and there because of a shared interest in technology.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of
Then drive at speeds that are safe. Going through intersections past bars at 10pm at 50mph doesn't sound very fucking safe to me.
In Germany pedestrians have right-of-way over car drivers when crossing over a T junction. I can step off the pavement without looking and without feeling unsafe.
In the US that would get me arrested for jaywalking. What the fuck sort of shithole even has a crime called jaywalking.
Strange, that's what car drivers seem to want.
Lets face it, most cities around here are a lot older than 200 years and cars have only been common in the last 50 or so.
you man make a car ungodly good at driving in snow... it just won't be very fast
Well, very fast on snow would be silly.
But so would very slow. To be any good at driving in snow an automated car would have to go at speed. No momentum on snow means you get stuck, fast.
Are you nuanced enough to compete with the 16 adjustments/sec (or more) an ABS braking system is capable of making?
No, but unlike ABS I know that on snow I really should just let the fucker slide and adjust the direction of the slide, not just carry on in a straight line failing to stop.
Driving in/on/around snow and ice is not a problem for automated systems and I contend that they will pants any attempt at manual control.
I'd like to see that. I'd really like to see that. You're basically saying that automated systems will be able to seamlessly transfer from driving steadily within the performance characteristics of the car with no skidding or wheelspinning to using both of those tactically to provide greater control on an uncertain surface.
Late last year I had my car doing 50mph down a highway on rain covered snow sideways. Not on purpose, just happened to work out that way. I was fine, the car was fine, at no point did I think I was going to crash, and none of the cars around me that were having to cope with those conditions crashed either.
The only ones in any danger were the idiots that slowed down so much that large lorries were having to swerve out to avoid hitting them. Which is how I ended up going sideways..
I'm not saying automated systems couldn't cope with that, but it'd be bloody impressive to see - given that two minutes before the road had been entirely dry..
Nah, it'd just set the industry back by a few months while legislators put something together that offers clarity and certainty around liability.
Which they should be doing already anyway.
There's a very significant difference between acquiring a firearm (trivial) and creating a lethal nerve agent (bloody hard, especially if you want to live long enough yourself to then use it on someone else).
Right now the only person defending Russia is Comrade Corbyn.
If it helps any, I've managed close to that 10 hours/day for years and I still haven't killed anybody.
I haven't even physically assaulted anybody in decades. Last two times I was attacked I defused the situation instead of putting the idiot in hospital too.
Still, feel free to cause distress to your kids.
With the comedy that journalists quote wikipedia, which means that the tertiary source cites a secondary source which uses the tertiary source as its primary source.
It's a repeated issue that's seriously compromising the usability of wikipedia.
I can print a book that says Donald Trump is a small lizard controlling a badly made humanoid robot. That doesn't make it reliable.
Since 2005 I think wikipedia has lost reliability. It was great, it's become politicised.
Wikipedia is however biased on the sources it considers valid as citations.
When it comes to current affairs Wikipedia can not be trusted as it does not present an objective view of a subject and does not allow a broad base of citations that would present multiple perspectives.
This is exacerbated by editorial control that runs counter to the entire ethos of a wiki.
No, the music major was the CISO, not the CIO. Different roles, and frequently (but I don't know at Equifax) the CISO will report in to the CIO.
I'd rather be no fun than execute someone for being an idiot.
You'd rather have fun killing someone. Seek medical help.
There's been a chemical weapon attack in London?
I heard about the use of a nerve agent in Salisbury, wasn't aware of the one in London. Surprised it hasn't been mentioned on the news.
It only takes one stone to kill.
Most victims of barbaric middle eastern practices don't enjoy that luxury.
Ah, she went full SV then; you don't get the credibility if you actually complete your degree.
What if she doesn't pay the fine? Sells her shares, takes her millions and fucks off to Mexico?
Legally she's in the clear?
a pejorative term to represent people with a failure to understand basic social niceties such as grooming, etiquette, or the art of conversation
So basically people with Aspergers? Shrug, it's hardly a fucking insult then.
You got lucky then. It could've gone much much worse for you..
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
The volume of complaints is fuck all. I heard seven complaints from just one incident at a previous company, and had to track down the (sole) perpetrator to take action.
238 across that many employees across that many years? That's astonishingly low.
Back in its heyday, stories in the firehose which were voted up made the front page.
Back in its heyday, there wasn't a firehose.
Shit, I feel old :(
I'm following online discussions of controversial topics for more than 20 years now, and I cannot recall many instances where these would really and genuinely be enlightening or beneficial to anyone
I find that quite astonishing. I've participated in online discussions of controversial topics for more than 25 years and I've learned a hell of a lot.
I just rapidly assess and interpret what's being said and use external references to validate or repudiate things.
The online discussion is where I learn what to research and look deeper into. That's valuable, and I feel sorry for you that you can't get that value.
The best thing you can get from such discussions is unreliable, superficial knowledge by testimony that you have to check manually with other sources anyway before you can trust it.
Which is nonsense. One person on Slashdot has marked me as a 'foe' because I call out their inane views on certain topics. I know that if they're posting on those topics then I'm likely to disagree with them. However because Slashdot tells you who your 'freaks' are, I see their posts on other topics too. They happen to be bloody informative about their technical speciality, and I can actually trust their posts in that space.
So they hate me (enough to mark me as a foe) and I strongly disagree with them on controversial topics but on other (potentially controversial topics) I can still gain value from their posts without needing to fact check.
This kind of disproves your point, but even if it didn't: So fucking what. As I posted, having to go and research something is significantly easier if you have pointers on what to research.
Shit, sometimes I dispute something, go and research it and find out I was wrong. That's rather delightful, in an annoying way. Enlightening and beneficial.
I do like Slashdot's approach, and it really should have been mimicked by so many other sites.
Oddly the highest signal-noise ratio for tech conversations tends to be The Register's article comments. That does allow up and down voting, but doesn't order or hide comments based on the score. The community just happens to be intelligent, educated and there because of a shared interest in technology.
Help me out here, what the fuck is a 'neckbeard'?
I see this term thrown out but I have no idea what it means. Is it meant to be bad? Good? Represent a particular political view?
Incidentally I like to hear multiple perspectives on things. Groupthink is inherently dangerous, whether you're inside the group or not.
Who the hell would want to do diplomacy with a man whose agency spied and likely performed covert ops against your country?
Any diplomat with even the slightest amount of self awareness would understand that this describes them.