I am old enough to say that I have honestly witnessed the climate change. I spend a lot of time out in the middle of nowhere, it is where I live. The snow pack is less, the run-off is less, the summer is generally warmer (not this year, so far), the winters more mild with less snow, the weather that we do have is out of season at times, and when we have "bad" weather it is more extreme than it used to be.
That is anecdotal and is weather, and not climate, and is limited to only the areas I have been in. It is, however, still evidence and it is still a matter of climate. I have seen the changes.
I am not saying these changes are caused by man. I do not know as I am not an expert. I do know that cleaning up the environment would be nice. I do not put my faith in any science, really, as it is subject to change. However, I am willing to accept the current state of the science as being most likely true.
I dunno. A bacon smoothie sounds pretty horrific. I have not tried one but I have seen a recipe. If you should try one then you should let us know how that goes.
I love dead animal flesh. I really do. I will eat vegetarian for a while but I do not maintain it. I cannot. I will not. Such is not natural for humans, we are meant to eat meat. So, I hunt and fish for a lot of my food. I grow and preserve a lot of my food's food. It may not seem manly but I enjoy making preserves, pickling, canning, and dehydrating. I even wear an apron.
If I am not growing or killing my food then I tend to buy it in bulk from a neighboring farm. I have the equipment to do the final butchering processes and have learned a number of cuts that I have managed to do well enough at. I have tried smoking but it does not have the zing I am hoping for so I do not tend to do so. That was a waste of money... Oh well...
I must confess that I do not really like bacon. I do not like crispy foods much and soft bacon has a strange mouth-feel that I find disconcerting. I like the taste, in moderation, but hard bacon crunches and makes my ears hurt (strange, I know) and soft bacon makes me feel like I am chewing on a cow's tongue. Cow tongue is not good - if someone tries to feed it to you then you are legally obligated to punch them in the nuts. I do like Canadian bacon but, frankly, that is not really bacon. I have Canadian citizenship but even I do not stoop low enough to consider it bacon. I am pretty sure it is a sausage patty.
Anyhow, if you like stuff with flavor (and your post indicates you do) then I suggest getting your hands on some moose. Even the burger is delightful - I actually prefer moose burger for cooking on a grill. Bear, if cooked right, is absolutely awesome but it needs to be eaten when it is still piping hot. Do not let it chill or it is a nasty mouth feel and the taste starts to deteriorate quickly. Finally, if you are up in the Maine area there is something called a Brook Trout. Stocked fish are not the same so going off into the woods, usually finding the tiniest of streams, and simply being smarter than a fish can catch you a fantastic little delicacy more commonly called the Native Brookie. It is called that to avoid confusion with the stocked fish which are pink(ish) inside because they have been fed a diet of pellets. The Natives, just barely legal length, are full of flavor and a little bit sweet. Cooked in cornmeal or breadcrumbs (leave the tail on - consider it a potato chip) is an excellent dish. If you can serve it with fresh fiddleheads then all the better.
I do not mind being modded down, not even a little. However, redundant? Troll, flamebait, etc would have worked just fine but how the hell is that redundant? Hell, even I would agree that it could be considered trolling or flamebait or even overrated. Redundant makes no sense to me...
I have karma to burn and do not use my moderator points when I have them. It is all good if you want to mod that comment (or this, or any really) as you see fit but my wanting to keep my freedom is hardly redundant. Just because you disagree and are willing to give up your freedoms does not make it redundant. Sheesh...
Troll? Sure. Overrated? If you insist. Flamebait? Absolutely. Redundant? Surely you jest...
Now *this* post is redundant (or off-topic) and should be moderated as such.
Actually, I am afraid they are right with this one. Obviously safety, practicality, and reality are important but if the vehicle can safely protect its occupants then it should do so - and it should make the attempt to protect the occupants where possible. As an aside, the two of us seem to have filled this thread up though you were much earlier than I. I think we used most of our daily post allotments in this one thread. Ah well... But, yeah, they are right and even go on to show you why they are right.
Don't let your ego make you look silly. I, personally, make mistakes often enough that I am quite comfortable admitting that and learning something and if I can do it you can too. Their logic and conclusions are spot on. You seem to be thinking in terms of extremes as opposed to moderation and safety is really paramount with the obligation for such being on the software controlling and protecting the soft squishy things inside.
This mesh network that you are alluding to is likely the only way this will pan out in the short term. I also think it will need to share data with non-autonomous vehicles to be optimal. It would be grand to have information relayed across a network that indicated things like intent, speed, visibility, road hazards, and other such information to other vehicles in real-time. In an ideal world we would not even need stop signs and that would result in a measurable increase in efficiency. We could do that now but, honestly, we humans are far too stupid.
They might be able to argue the latter example successfully much like if you are hit from behind and it forces your vehicle into the vehicle in front of you - you are not at fault for that as your vehicle was stopped. Taking some tension off the brakes is not the same as releasing the brakes. A judge would have to decide if it reached that point. I expect the insurance companies will settle with the original offender being at fault to simply avoid the cost of litigation.
The closest I have come is putting myself in a snowbank because the on-coming vehicle was sliding sideways in the snow. Other than that I have put my vehicle onto the sidewalk (screwing up my sidewalls and chipping a rim) because the person to my left pulled into my lane. I would not have done so had their been a pedestrian in either instance. I am also fairly well trained to drive - it was my MOS for nearly four years.
Why should the car leave the relatively safe road and go off-road to prevent a collision that isn't its own fault, anyways? And what happens when it plows into a bystander to avoid a crash with a drunk driver? Note in the video the stuff off to the right of the car (where it could feasibly dodge): there were objects there that it may have collided with if it tried to do this.
Having the robotic car not only drive well, but correct for the mistakes of other drivers on the road adds immense complexity and may end up causing more harm than good.
It has to weigh the risks involved. If it can safely move out of the way then it should because it lowers the risk of injury for the occupants. You knew this, didn't you? I am going to hope you did. I am really going to hope you did. We had smart people here once. The percentage seems to have decreased though.
My business did consulting and traffic modeling (vehicular and pedestrian). One of the things that I learned, getting the chance (obligation, really) to work in many different areas of the world, was that the United States driver's education is really poorly done. It is not the worst in the world, by any means. It is, however, vastly inferior (not different - straight up inferior) than that of most every Western European country.
Mexico is much more lax but the driving style is quite different once you get away from the border. Canada is much like America except they place a whole lot of emphasis on driving for the conditions. Back to Europe, they tend to place a lot of their education on very specific aspects as well as having a high testing bar - they also have a lot of public transportation.
I have never done much driving (other than a rented car in Chile) in South America and have never worked there so I can not speak about them but my experiences there indicated that the rigor was less but the driving style was different enough to account for that. They are much more polite drivers overall.
I suppose I could be more detailed but I am not really an expert just tangentially informed. Part of modeling traffic is that you set your algorithms up, crunch data, then go actually observe what is happening and see if what your data indicates is the actual result. If it is not then you change the algorithms to account for the differences and try again. Then you can accurately predict what changes will occur if traffic patterns are altered with different signage, road construction, lights, etc... One of the major considerations is the differences in driving habits (with an 80% assumption) and those driving habits vary greatly even regionally in the United States and that is a factor of education as well as social influences.
So, yeah, we have a very low barrier of entry for driving here - we need to as we have poor public transportation. In other areas it is much higher because it is more a privilege than a right and there are obligations that go with it and social contracts that are met with it.
Heh... I found the guy from New England or *maybe* Eastern Canada. I have only heard "black ice" used in this area and I have been pretty much everywhere though I suppose I have not always discussed weather there. "An inch of black ice can hold a team of horses. Ayuh." (Black ice is the hard ice with no air bubbles in it. It is usually a comparatively thin formation.)
Thank you for saving me the time. *sighs* People do not seem to be willing to accept that they are at fault when, really, they are. Sure, the idiot shares some of the responsibility but you are ultimately at fault for having been driving faster than you can control your vehicle. The reasons we have high highways speeds are not just because the road is bigger or whatnot - they are that way because they roads are larger, limited access, often fenced off, have a giant median, and have scads of area cleared around it so you can see if there is anything approaching the highway and slow down appropriately. If an idiot cuts you off, slams on their brakes, and you still hit them you are at fault because you did not slow down for the idiot - you should have been observing the idiot. They did not just appear out of nowhere. The same thing with a blind corner, crest of a blind hill, or weather that prevents you from seeing. Slow the fuck down and drive for the conditions and the changing conditions.
You are to be observant and notice such behavior and slow down appropriately for the sake of idiots. Speed limit is the most you can go (legally) in (and this is key) optimal conditions. Optimal does not apply to just weather, it also applies to idiots. However, if you can reasonably prove the idiot SHOULD be at fault, for being an idiot, you can usually get a no-fault judgment or even get the cop to write it up as no-fault. Such depends on your jurisdiction though and does not always apply. One state, where I went to college, if you hit anything behind the B-Pillar (just behind the front door) then you are at fault pretty much regardless of any other circumstances. I was not a fan of that though I think Massachusetts has since changed that.
In all the cases where you are at fault then you are driving too fast. All cases... Well, there may be an outlier that I am not thinking of. Even if the idiot in front of you stomps on their brakes and you hit them. You are at fault for driving too fast and moved too close to the rear of the vehicle in front of you. I am nearing 60 and have zero at-fault accidents and spent nearly four years with an MOS of 3505 which means I drove many varied vehicles with many configurations. I am no expert but I do have the advantage of having thought things out at depth.
I'd consider bumping into the Google self-driving car on purpose just to get a look at it. I've got insurance, screw it. I would not hit it hard or anything but, you know, a tap to make them stop so that I can check out the tech first-hand.
That makes more sense. I figured I had to be missing something. I have not really tracked Ubuntu enough I suppose. I do use a derivative though with LinuxMint. I'd not recommend Mint for server use though it would work.
It is not your fault. I, well, just despise the word. I am not even sure why... I do not have an immediate dislike for other words really. So, I figured I would mention it because it seemed like a boring Friday.
I like there to be checks and balances. This provision would not have had checks and balances but allowed an immediate detainment. That is not acceptable to me. I am willing to accept the risks associated with that.
Strangely they seem to think this is Microsoft's fault. Microsoft supplies the drivers that vendors give them or generic drivers that may or may not work. Personally, I am just going entirely to Linux so it does not matter to me but let's at least try to be honest as to where the blame lies.
Every time I see someone type the word "synergize" it makes me want to punch them in the nuts. I realize this is a failing of my own and I really can not figure out why I hate the word so much. It absolutely has too much of an impact on me as it really does make me emote and it shouldn't. It is not that it is not a real word (see OED) or anything (it isn't but it is in common use so I am not that pedantic) but it just grates on me. Oh well... I do not really have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I am old enough to say that I have honestly witnessed the climate change. I spend a lot of time out in the middle of nowhere, it is where I live. The snow pack is less, the run-off is less, the summer is generally warmer (not this year, so far), the winters more mild with less snow, the weather that we do have is out of season at times, and when we have "bad" weather it is more extreme than it used to be.
That is anecdotal and is weather, and not climate, and is limited to only the areas I have been in. It is, however, still evidence and it is still a matter of climate. I have seen the changes.
I am not saying these changes are caused by man. I do not know as I am not an expert. I do know that cleaning up the environment would be nice. I do not put my faith in any science, really, as it is subject to change. However, I am willing to accept the current state of the science as being most likely true.
Lemme know how it works at both macro and micro scales. Or I suspect you can probably just check the Wikipedia article.
You're genetically programmed to enjoy healthy foods.
Hmm... Are you making that up?
I dunno. A bacon smoothie sounds pretty horrific. I have not tried one but I have seen a recipe. If you should try one then you should let us know how that goes.
I love dead animal flesh. I really do. I will eat vegetarian for a while but I do not maintain it. I cannot. I will not. Such is not natural for humans, we are meant to eat meat. So, I hunt and fish for a lot of my food. I grow and preserve a lot of my food's food. It may not seem manly but I enjoy making preserves, pickling, canning, and dehydrating. I even wear an apron.
If I am not growing or killing my food then I tend to buy it in bulk from a neighboring farm. I have the equipment to do the final butchering processes and have learned a number of cuts that I have managed to do well enough at. I have tried smoking but it does not have the zing I am hoping for so I do not tend to do so. That was a waste of money... Oh well...
I must confess that I do not really like bacon. I do not like crispy foods much and soft bacon has a strange mouth-feel that I find disconcerting. I like the taste, in moderation, but hard bacon crunches and makes my ears hurt (strange, I know) and soft bacon makes me feel like I am chewing on a cow's tongue. Cow tongue is not good - if someone tries to feed it to you then you are legally obligated to punch them in the nuts. I do like Canadian bacon but, frankly, that is not really bacon. I have Canadian citizenship but even I do not stoop low enough to consider it bacon. I am pretty sure it is a sausage patty.
Anyhow, if you like stuff with flavor (and your post indicates you do) then I suggest getting your hands on some moose. Even the burger is delightful - I actually prefer moose burger for cooking on a grill. Bear, if cooked right, is absolutely awesome but it needs to be eaten when it is still piping hot. Do not let it chill or it is a nasty mouth feel and the taste starts to deteriorate quickly. Finally, if you are up in the Maine area there is something called a Brook Trout. Stocked fish are not the same so going off into the woods, usually finding the tiniest of streams, and simply being smarter than a fish can catch you a fantastic little delicacy more commonly called the Native Brookie. It is called that to avoid confusion with the stocked fish which are pink(ish) inside because they have been fed a diet of pellets. The Natives, just barely legal length, are full of flavor and a little bit sweet. Cooked in cornmeal or breadcrumbs (leave the tail on - consider it a potato chip) is an excellent dish. If you can serve it with fresh fiddleheads then all the better.
Now I get to be that guy...
I do not mind being modded down, not even a little. However, redundant? Troll, flamebait, etc would have worked just fine but how the hell is that redundant? Hell, even I would agree that it could be considered trolling or flamebait or even overrated. Redundant makes no sense to me...
I have karma to burn and do not use my moderator points when I have them. It is all good if you want to mod that comment (or this, or any really) as you see fit but my wanting to keep my freedom is hardly redundant. Just because you disagree and are willing to give up your freedoms does not make it redundant. Sheesh...
Troll? Sure. Overrated? If you insist. Flamebait? Absolutely. Redundant? Surely you jest...
Now *this* post is redundant (or off-topic) and should be moderated as such.
Actually, I am afraid they are right with this one. Obviously safety, practicality, and reality are important but if the vehicle can safely protect its occupants then it should do so - and it should make the attempt to protect the occupants where possible. As an aside, the two of us seem to have filled this thread up though you were much earlier than I. I think we used most of our daily post allotments in this one thread. Ah well... But, yeah, they are right and even go on to show you why they are right.
Don't let your ego make you look silly. I, personally, make mistakes often enough that I am quite comfortable admitting that and learning something and if I can do it you can too. Their logic and conclusions are spot on. You seem to be thinking in terms of extremes as opposed to moderation and safety is really paramount with the obligation for such being on the software controlling and protecting the soft squishy things inside.
This mesh network that you are alluding to is likely the only way this will pan out in the short term. I also think it will need to share data with non-autonomous vehicles to be optimal. It would be grand to have information relayed across a network that indicated things like intent, speed, visibility, road hazards, and other such information to other vehicles in real-time. In an ideal world we would not even need stop signs and that would result in a measurable increase in efficiency. We could do that now but, honestly, we humans are far too stupid.
They might be able to argue the latter example successfully much like if you are hit from behind and it forces your vehicle into the vehicle in front of you - you are not at fault for that as your vehicle was stopped. Taking some tension off the brakes is not the same as releasing the brakes. A judge would have to decide if it reached that point. I expect the insurance companies will settle with the original offender being at fault to simply avoid the cost of litigation.
The closest I have come is putting myself in a snowbank because the on-coming vehicle was sliding sideways in the snow. Other than that I have put my vehicle onto the sidewalk (screwing up my sidewalls and chipping a rim) because the person to my left pulled into my lane. I would not have done so had their been a pedestrian in either instance. I am also fairly well trained to drive - it was my MOS for nearly four years.
Why should the car leave the relatively safe road and go off-road to prevent a collision that isn't its own fault, anyways? And what happens when it plows into a bystander to avoid a crash with a drunk driver? Note in the video the stuff off to the right of the car (where it could feasibly dodge): there were objects there that it may have collided with if it tried to do this.
Having the robotic car not only drive well, but correct for the mistakes of other drivers on the road adds immense complexity and may end up causing more harm than good.
It has to weigh the risks involved. If it can safely move out of the way then it should because it lowers the risk of injury for the occupants. You knew this, didn't you? I am going to hope you did. I am really going to hope you did. We had smart people here once. The percentage seems to have decreased though.
How about if I demand it from other drivers but they do not always listen?
My business did consulting and traffic modeling (vehicular and pedestrian). One of the things that I learned, getting the chance (obligation, really) to work in many different areas of the world, was that the United States driver's education is really poorly done. It is not the worst in the world, by any means. It is, however, vastly inferior (not different - straight up inferior) than that of most every Western European country.
Mexico is much more lax but the driving style is quite different once you get away from the border. Canada is much like America except they place a whole lot of emphasis on driving for the conditions. Back to Europe, they tend to place a lot of their education on very specific aspects as well as having a high testing bar - they also have a lot of public transportation.
I have never done much driving (other than a rented car in Chile) in South America and have never worked there so I can not speak about them but my experiences there indicated that the rigor was less but the driving style was different enough to account for that. They are much more polite drivers overall.
I suppose I could be more detailed but I am not really an expert just tangentially informed. Part of modeling traffic is that you set your algorithms up, crunch data, then go actually observe what is happening and see if what your data indicates is the actual result. If it is not then you change the algorithms to account for the differences and try again. Then you can accurately predict what changes will occur if traffic patterns are altered with different signage, road construction, lights, etc... One of the major considerations is the differences in driving habits (with an 80% assumption) and those driving habits vary greatly even regionally in the United States and that is a factor of education as well as social influences.
So, yeah, we have a very low barrier of entry for driving here - we need to as we have poor public transportation. In other areas it is much higher because it is more a privilege than a right and there are obligations that go with it and social contracts that are met with it.
Heh... I found the guy from New England or *maybe* Eastern Canada. I have only heard "black ice" used in this area and I have been pretty much everywhere though I suppose I have not always discussed weather there. "An inch of black ice can hold a team of horses. Ayuh." (Black ice is the hard ice with no air bubbles in it. It is usually a comparatively thin formation.)
Thank you for saving me the time. *sighs* People do not seem to be willing to accept that they are at fault when, really, they are. Sure, the idiot shares some of the responsibility but you are ultimately at fault for having been driving faster than you can control your vehicle. The reasons we have high highways speeds are not just because the road is bigger or whatnot - they are that way because they roads are larger, limited access, often fenced off, have a giant median, and have scads of area cleared around it so you can see if there is anything approaching the highway and slow down appropriately. If an idiot cuts you off, slams on their brakes, and you still hit them you are at fault because you did not slow down for the idiot - you should have been observing the idiot. They did not just appear out of nowhere. The same thing with a blind corner, crest of a blind hill, or weather that prevents you from seeing. Slow the fuck down and drive for the conditions and the changing conditions.
You are to be observant and notice such behavior and slow down appropriately for the sake of idiots. Speed limit is the most you can go (legally) in (and this is key) optimal conditions. Optimal does not apply to just weather, it also applies to idiots. However, if you can reasonably prove the idiot SHOULD be at fault, for being an idiot, you can usually get a no-fault judgment or even get the cop to write it up as no-fault. Such depends on your jurisdiction though and does not always apply. One state, where I went to college, if you hit anything behind the B-Pillar (just behind the front door) then you are at fault pretty much regardless of any other circumstances. I was not a fan of that though I think Massachusetts has since changed that.
In all the cases where you are at fault then you are driving too fast. All cases... Well, there may be an outlier that I am not thinking of. Even if the idiot in front of you stomps on their brakes and you hit them. You are at fault for driving too fast and moved too close to the rear of the vehicle in front of you. I am nearing 60 and have zero at-fault accidents and spent nearly four years with an MOS of 3505 which means I drove many varied vehicles with many configurations. I am no expert but I do have the advantage of having thought things out at depth.
I'd consider bumping into the Google self-driving car on purpose just to get a look at it. I've got insurance, screw it. I would not hit it hard or anything but, you know, a tap to make them stop so that I can check out the tech first-hand.
They are probably Lizard People. I saw it on YouTube...
That makes more sense. I figured I had to be missing something. I have not really tracked Ubuntu enough I suppose. I do use a derivative though with LinuxMint. I'd not recommend Mint for server use though it would work.
It is not your fault. I, well, just despise the word. I am not even sure why... I do not have an immediate dislike for other words really. So, I figured I would mention it because it seemed like a boring Friday.
I like there to be checks and balances. This provision would not have had checks and balances but allowed an immediate detainment. That is not acceptable to me. I am willing to accept the risks associated with that.
Strangely they seem to think this is Microsoft's fault. Microsoft supplies the drivers that vendors give them or generic drivers that may or may not work. Personally, I am just going entirely to Linux so it does not matter to me but let's at least try to be honest as to where the blame lies.
Every time I see someone type the word "synergize" it makes me want to punch them in the nuts. I realize this is a failing of my own and I really can not figure out why I hate the word so much. It absolutely has too much of an impact on me as it really does make me emote and it shouldn't. It is not that it is not a real word (see OED) or anything (it isn't but it is in common use so I am not that pedantic) but it just grates on me. Oh well... I do not really have a point.
Then limit yourself to the Windows kernel and not the shell or applications that run on top of it.