you say potato, I say tomato
Let's call the whole thing Pi...
3334 posts • joined 19 May 2010
Yes, it's a question I've pondered before. A datacentre that we use in Derby boasts of multiple redundant fibre links, but whilst that may be the case at their site, all the fibres go through the same telephone exchange in Colyear Street, and that building only has one ductway and cable room, so at that point all the fibres are in the same duct.
*If* we take the video on trust, then the car was being driven with dipped headlights which made it difficult for the human driver to spot the pedestrian.
Don't take the video on trust, it gives a wholly misleading impression of the lighting conditions.
See here for a more realistic view:
Using dipped headlights was entirely appropriate in the circumstances: the area where the accident happened is well lit with street lights and the human driver would have been able to see the pedestrian for at least 400 yards, probably more.
Others driving the route at night (without artificially dark video) have shown that a pedestrian should have been visible long enough to make a graceful stop.
Exactly. See here
There seems to be an erroneous belief centered on the Uber video that the accident happened in the dark, whereas the fact is it the road was well lit.
You have absolutely no way to know that.
The facts are that contrary to the widely held belief, the place where the accident happened was not a dark country road, it was a well lit urban street. The video footage released by Uber shows a very misleading view of the available light levels.
If you look here then you might begin to understand that the pedestrian would have been in plain view for a long time before the accident.
You are just making assumptions, when facts are needed.
No, I'm actually looking at the available evidence instead of accepting things at face value.
I'm thinking it occurred because SOMEONE WALKED IN FRONT OF A MOVING CAR AT NIGHT THAT HAD ITS HEADLIGHTS ON.
I'm thinking you're an idiot.
She was more than halfway across the road, which means she started crossing when the car was a long way away. The car was exceeding the speed limit, and so she probably misjudged the time she had to safely cross. She also probably assumed that the car would slow enough to let her get to safety as a human driver would do.
I timed the video and from when the pedestrian appears to when the video stops seems to be closer to 0.75 seconds rather than 2.
You cannot base any judgement on the video, as it is of such poor quality that it is in no way representative of reality. Human vision would have detected her much, much earlier.
Don't forget, the lady didn't just suddenly step out in front of the car, she had left the median strip and already crossed one lane, and was nearly half-way across the second lane before she appears in the video.
However, I agree that this shows that the either detection systems on the car were inadequate, or the software inexplicably decided not to brake or avoid the obstruction.
how many average drivers would have seen her?
Leaving aside the the problem that the human wasn't actually looking, if this had been a normal car with a human driver I would have thought that the chances are high that an average driver would have seen her.
The video shows that the camera didn't pick the lady up until the last minute, when she appeared in the full beam of the headlights, but then we know that video cameras are poor at resolving contrast in dark conditions, and the human eye is much, much better at resolving and identifying movement in those conditions.
When I first read of this incident, I sort of assumed that the lady had dashed across in front of the car, or had suddenly appeared from behind an obstruction. It is clear from the video that neither of these was the case, and I think an average driver would have seen her much earlier and taken avoiding action.
This very much looks like a failure of the car's detection systems, and not an unavoidable accident.
If you don't want your data to be sold by 3rd parties then... well, here's a weird idea: How about not placing it online in the first place?
Unfortunately, as mentioned above, it doesn't work like that. If your friends, family or work colleagues have a social media account, then the chances are your details will be sucked up as well through their accounts.
I wish they'd turn the Monsal Trail back into a proper railway or hand it over to Peak Rail
Sadly, too many vested interests, not least the Duke of Rutland, who, like his father, cannot see the benefits that the railway would bring to Haddon.
And frankly, the current idea of having dual use through the tunnels just shows how out of touch the planners are - how can you put cyclists/walkers and steam locomotives in the same tunnel?
(Remember earth is only a fraction of a percent of water. If you were looking at it through a telescope, you'd probably write off the water as an error and conclude it was as dry as mars.)
Given that looking through a telescope at Earth you see a mostly green and blue planet, I doubt that you could conclude that.
Agreed, and quoting Scott Helmes' site results means nothing either, as the majority of websites don't support all the HTTP Headers he suggests are necessary for an "A".
It's an arbitrary mark which doesn't reflect real world practice.
On the other side of the equation, civil society groups were actually happy with the idea of anonymized email addresses, noting that it would "go a long way to reducing spam and harassment that end-users face."
This again is an issue only due to ICANN's decision to try and monetize the data they hold.
Up untill a few years ago, it wasn't worth the effort for a spammer to manually trawl through whois records for email addresses, and the level of spam to my admin email accounts for our domains was minimal.
However, then ICANN decided to publicise a list of any changes to whois records or domain registrations, including contact details, and now, I get over 100 emails a week offering me SEO services or "Build You a website" or other shit.
The abuse and domain admin emails for domain registrations should not be obscured, they should be readliy available to anyone who needs to look them up using the whois system.
But they shouldn't be published as an easily farmable list, everytime there's a change in any domain registration, and that's what is happening now.
You can work a low orbit satellite from the ground with a decent antenna on a handheld 5 watt transmitter using UHF. The trick is finding a vehicle that you can use to help. A small handheld yagi should also do.
Yes, but In the context of commercial space travel, talking to spacecraft outside the moon's orbit, that's not relevant.
Eventually we will move on to everything being cabled/fibre except for local very low power (WiFi, Bluetooth)
Aircraft comms will be by trailing a fibre link round with them? same for ships? Links to satellites? And if we start to have a commercial space presence, then all the spacecraft will have a fibre link?
Ship to shore and shore to ship using satellites, and air to ground, and space to ground, can be by relatively low power directional beams, but ground to air and ground to spacecraft will still have to be broadcast. And then there's radar.
Why we think we'll be broadcasting *anything* 100 years from now is a mystery to me.
That's a very limited view.
If we do start to become a space-faring civilisation, even if only within the bounds of our solar system, then we will have to begin with some form of radio communication between planets and spacecraft.
Hancock said the limits would be enforced using a new legal requirement for social media companies to ensure that anyone setting up profiles is aged above 13.
Nice of him to leave the details of how they could possibly do that to the social media companies to sort out. Because of course every 13 year old has irrefutable proof of age, and nobody lies on the internet.
Presumably every website and library, etc. will have to go and delete every single crime report older than x years, and then on an ongoing basis.
Well no, I don't think so, as they can legitimately claim journalistic exemption, unlike Google, who can't.
The problem with this, and similar cases, is that government, judiciary and individuals all seem to think that forcing Google to delist search results is the same as removing the content from the web.
It isn't, and they should be going after the sources of the content, and not Google.
Incidentally, why don't cases like this challenge other search engines? I know Google is by far the most common, but even if Google loses this case and has to delist the references to NT1, they'll still be available on Bing, Baidu and so on.
I tend to agree with you. At the end of the day, Google searches do not create web content, they just link to sources of it.
If the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not require newspapers to remove the historical reports of the offence, then why should Google not link to it?
Maybe the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should be updated to include rules on how to handle News content published online.
What you appear to be missing is that any change to a new improved law enforcement friendly cryptography will just be ignored or bypassed by criminals and terrorists.
It would be far better to get that message across to law enforcement and governments, than to try and put in place something which won't work.
I bought the Zylog Z80 Programming Manual, with MY OWN money, on the strength of having a ZX81, and taught myself assembler.
Unfortunately, when I started college 6 months later, all the Computing courses were done on Rockwell AIM65 machines, so I had to start again...
They don't get the money, it goes elsewhere (probably treasury). My partner works for another regulator, they earn a she'd load by also offering pre-assessment advice, but they're not aloud to spend it. There budget is strictly set by government guidelines..
I really, really hope that English isn't K's first language.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019