Really, who gives a shit?
I only read this article because the f'ing headline was so hard to parse. I think the Reg has gone too far on it's "funny" summaries.
814 posts • joined 30 Mar 2012
Having read the cyclist comments, I'm not convinced that a few deaths is a bad outcome for them.
It seems they broadly expect to die and yet carry on, so presumably they're happy with that.
As for the remoteness of the human fallback, where else would they be?
You aren't seriously going to prefer the guy in the back of the "autonomous" car are you?
> "Ummm ...., you seem to have lost sight of the fact that if you are not found guilty you haven't broken the law."
You seem to be confused about the idea of being treated as innocent until proven guilty and actually being innocent until proven guilty, they are quite different things.
If we're going to get picky on naming then the generic term is GNSS.
There's also the Chinese one as well of course.
It'd be pretty unlikely that all of them would be disabled simultaneously, and if jammed the encrypted signal would be jammed too, so it's really not that big a deal.
> "Light people are relatively stronger, in proportion to their mass, than heavy people..."
Surely this can't be true? Assuming a similar skeleton and the same percentage of fat then organ weight will be constant and so any additional weight will be muscle and so they must be "stronger" (depending on how you want to define strength).
Unless you're just saying they're all fat?
> Invest in a quality gun safe with the parent only have the key and not leaving it in a place where the kid can get it. If you leave it in a certain place, move it each week in case the kid has worked out where the key is.
LoL What kind of a retard would be stopped by that?
Safes are great against burglars, but when you live with them day in day out for years they will get to it.
Mine seems to have crept up to £38/month, near enough a 30% increase on when I first got it, with no changes maturing technology should be getting cheaper rather than outpacing inflation.
It is impressively stable, though if I could get it back to the original 30 quid at half the speed that'd be good too, a tenner for 10mbps would be ideal.
> 640K is enough for most people, right?
It was in 1980, and right now 10mbps is enough for most people. I'm not saying it will be forever, but the push to high speed is ignoring reliability and the simple need that most people have for it.
30 quid a month is a lot of money, I think some people just don't appreciate that it's over a grand every three years.
> "In each location, we have our own private walled-off offices with our own desks, phones, Ethernet, etc, adjoining a shared space that has stuff like coffee, tea, biscuits/cookies, beer, cider, wine, kitchen, sofas, etc."
Uh-huh, you mean you work from a bedsit?
> "As opposed to Uber who are definitely in it for the good of the consumer and driver."
Uber is in it to make money like any other business, they've just seen a monopoly and think they have a loophole that can exploit it.
You wouldn't do it for naff all, and nor do they.
> "Uber is a scam that uses classic mob tactics."
It really isn't, you order a taxi, the taxi comes, it takes you to your destination and you pay. Where's the scam? If you pre-pay you don't even have the "tip" scam.
In places without a hardcore black cab monopoly like London has, such as Manchester (obviously there's still the hackney licence to be gamed), Uber exists as just another private hire company and doesn't have any special impact at all.
Clearly Uber is just another taxi operator, but the reason it could make a business by avoiding being considered one is because the regulations are just protectionist. They work solely to the benefit of taxi drivers the consumer's considerations run a poor second.
Those of us who consume taxis rather than provide them are just being f'cked over by our own governments.
> "You mean like going back in time..."
Proper tin-foil-hat rant that one.
Perhaps consider what your sources are before you regurgitate Russian media and facebook posts as if it's anything other than propaganda.
The reason the UK has so much support on this, is because the Russians have also been killing people in other countries and their own intelligence blames Russia too.
> " Files published in the Russian press"
Like that jet fighter that shot down MH17 was?
FFS, they even have form, Litvinenko was traced to a sodding nuclear reactor and then they lost interest in the investigation. The most likely suspect for that is now an MP in a country where to stand at all requires Putin's consent. Victor Yushenko, also poisoned by the Russians, although no doubt there's something else in the Russian "press" for that too. Goes right back before the Soviet era when they whacked Georgi Markov with an unusual poison - they tried poisoning Rasputin first as well.
They just like to send a message, so it has to be traceable, and probably didn't expect quite such a robust response after they got away with it last time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019