that's the problem.
1753 posts • joined 29 Jul 2007
that's the problem.
is only 32K. Probably be the big thing for next Christmas.
but I just checked and apparently the El Reg unit of temperature is the Hilton. Compared to that the Rømer scale is positively up to date.
Nice to know Steve Austin didn't lose his legs in vain.
Now that'll be a level-headed, balanced site utterly devoid of any agenda.
The reality is that the real 'bad boys' i.e. psychopaths have one very powerful weapon in their arsenal - they lie. Then they lie again. And they keep lying until they get what they want or tire of the game. Look up 'psychopathic charm' if you want the details. Faced with someone who is prepared to say whatever it takes, and knows how to say it well, very few people, not just women, have any real defense. Yes, you may know that they're bad boys but they're not trying to fool you. To the mark, they're a wonderful person who is just misunderstood.
Telling the victim to fix the problem themselves doesn't wash it. You may think you learn from the experience and I'm sure many women do. But again, we are dealing with psychopaths here. They explicitly target people who they detect are vulnerable. Blame them.
to the problem of privacy is just not to do anything that requires privacy.
Bank details please.
And it made Edwin Land a fortune.
Well I can speak for Ray but on my planet science starts with "That's interesting".
"TEETH WILL BE PROVIDED"
(One of his best.)
I'm no paleontologist but to I now enough about the subject to be completely baffled by this.
If it's 500% better then it's not going to be "likely to kill you" in any determinable situation. Yes, it will be more dangerous in some situations but, by definition, those situations will be rare, or the danger won't be great. So no different from the current situation where some conditions are clearly more dangerous for human drivers.
Yes, people are terrible at evaluating risks and tend to overestimate rare risks with serious outcomes, but most of us are fine with taking greater risks in some circumstances (or no one would ever speed let alone drive while tired drunk etc).
*Will a reduction in the number of fatalities per hours driven by a factor of 5 do?
"However, if an autonomous car does the bulk of the driving, and leaves the unusual driving to the human, you could argue that they are making driving more dangerous. Because in such situations, the human will have less driving experience than previously."
You're ignoring the fact that most of the cases you cited have little to do with driving skills per se. (They simply involve driving slowly and using common sense. Or telling the car what to do.)
Driving in snow is the exception. But then, while it may be something autonomous vehicles have difficulty at present, unless I'm missing something critical, it's the sort of thing that computers can be very good at given the training/programming (follow the road, keep control of the vehicle and don't hit anything).
You're conflating two very different cases here. If a car is designed to safely stop and refuse to proceed autonomously because it detects a situation it can't cope with, then at most it's an inconvenience. If you are talking about cases where the car finds itself in a situation where it is unable to extricate itself safely, it only needs to be better than the average driver. The premise of your final sentence is spot on. It's just that the conclusion doesn't follow.
It shameful how we're outsourcing our jobs to the Centaurans when so many Earthlings don't have jobs*. MEGA (Make Earth Great Again)
*This possibly might not be happening.
It's a conventional helicopter design and very small. With a bit of work it could probably be made to fit into a 3cm tube
They're going to need something to transport the drone down the borehole so it shouldn't be too difficult to arrange to send a antenna with it. They'd probably also need to come up with some way to recharge the drone unless they can arrange a bulk discount.
I've just taken up cycling again after many years, and I would be first in line. Scratch that, what I really want is a device that will warn me in advance that a car door is about to be flung open right in my path.
Those laws are needed.
An Ex post facto law is simply one that changes the legal status of an already performed action, so not really anything to do with grandfathering as such. It's not really surprising that it's unpopular since it means a government can't make a person a criminal by fiat (even if it's mostly used to declare politicians not criminals).
I like to have a dig at the Merkins as much as anyone here (did I mention Trump sucks) but not requiring safety devices on vehicles that were never designed to be fitted with them is hardly an unreasonable practice.
@Yet Another Anonymous coward
I don't know "crash in India" (not a lot to go on there) but in the Russian charter case, as you say, that one of the pilots followed the instructions from the ATC rather than trusting the TCAS. The problem was that the TCAS was right (and could have prevented the collision) and the ATC was wrong. I'm not sure how you could spin that as an argument against ADS.
I don't think it's "feminist types" who are reading 'The Rules'.
Yeah, I decided not to see 'Dunkirk' after I accidentally read the ending on Wikipedia.
Seriously though, why does making a movie about much discussed current events (rather than yet another superhero flick) demonstrate a lack of thought.
Don't worry about them above. Just give us mho' puns.
"How exactly are we going to produce the giga-watts of electricity needed to power all these cars?"
You make charging at night when the grid has spare capacity significantly cheaper.
Pity someone was careless and got the steps embedded in the fuselage.
and it's on the internet.
More seriously, if it's not a conventional computing device (and I would count all smartphones as such) it presumably counts as an IoT device.
It's fine. The old one is a bit cheesy like something you'd find in ab 80s porn mag but I can't see the problem with its replacement.
And it's only Tuesday. It's going to be a good week.
when its people can no longer exercise their ancient right* to fly drones anywhere they please.
*It's in the Magna Carta somewhere, isn't it.
Why would an honest citizen need matches?
can state what they like and make whatever laws they like but until the Orange One suspends the Supreme Court it won't do them any good.
I on the other hand would rather not spend several hours faffing around trying to fix a problem only to discover it was due to an intermittent fault in a dodgy cable. Call that a subjective measure of quality but it's important to me. In fact I have a general rule: software's buggy enough as it is without the additional complication of random hardware failure so paying a bit extra for known good hardware is money well spent.
Of course, cables are a bit of a special problem. With the exception of that Google guy they're not something people tend to review. Then again there was a time that was true of PSUs.
not making lattes. Sure you could probably design it so it could last 800 operations but then it would likely cost $250 million and be less reliable. And when $100 is the sort of money you're paying for a single launch there's not a lot of incentive to see how far you can stretch its life with duct tape and WD40.
You must live in a rough neighbourhood.
Why assume anyone is simulating consciousness? Maybe whoever is running the simulation is simulating a universe, that is they are simulating the fundamental laws of physics (whatever they are) and consciousness is just something that happens. On my reading, it's this sort of simulation (perhaps emulation would be a better term because the idea is that the simulation is function identical to the real thing) that the paper is arguing against, not the Matrix type which is really just a video game on steroids and can use all the workarounds people have been talking about.
Ninety per cent of all quotations on the internet attributed to Einstein were in fact Churchill misquoting Mark Twain.
The answer is "Who put God there in the first place". A bad answer of course but that's because it's a bad question.
Not just single stage to orbit, but single stage to orbit while carrying a second stage and/or a massive interplanetary module (I assume it's or even if the article suggests otherwise). This is so far beyond what anyone has achieved so far (and its not like they haven't tried) I have to suspect musk has let something very potent go to his head.
Serious question. I can't see how a licence (as distinct from vehicle registration) makes any sense in this context.
involve the polishing of their poles.
That photo was perfectly chosen though perhaps some should point out to the man that none of the colours in the rainbow flag represent Photophallosexuality.
And yet every week right here we have stories of manufacturers of a technology that has become ubiquitous struggling to survive on paper thin margins. For every Apple their will always be a dozen Lenovos, Dells, and Samsungs.
fully integrate them into public transport.
How else could you create someone capable of being so wrong and yet so completely meaningless at the same time?
since as article points out there isn't much prospect of Australia developing a launch capability in the near future. This is about the technology (or at least it should be). You can build the technology anywhere.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017