Only people who have never driven a car and encountered a bicyclist without lighting would say this. I used to think exactly like you. Then I got my driver's license and almost pissed my pants.

The first reaction of every new driver who experiences this is "Fucking christ, that is dangerous as FUCK. I almost killed the fucking guy!" (then they honk to get rid of a bit of fear, anger and frustration)

BTW, I don't own a car anymore, but have driven one regularly for years. I ride my bicycle everywhere now. The lights either work, or we're talking about 5 minutes of riding my 'station bike' to town when going out.

Think about this: would you find it acceptable if half the cars drove around town without headlights, specifically thinking about your ability to go through traffic safely?

It.s 120 meters. TFS and TFA are wrong.

From the actual press release:
"Spot Lighting – currently in the pre-development phase with Ford engineers in Aachen – uses an infra-red camera in the front grille to simultaneously locate and track up to eight people and bigger animals, including larger dogs, at a range of up to 120 metres." (my emphasis, source: http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn... )

Did you even watch the video? Or the part of the summary you yourself fucking quoted?

So no. The driver does not have to take his eyes off the road.
This is extremely useful functionality, because it also highlights cyclists who often do not have adequate lighting and are thus a huge source for (death!)scares for many drivers, at least in the Netherlands.

Please leave Slashdot and take your anti-new technology kneejerk reactions with you. That also goes for everybody who was stupid enough to mod you up.

Yes, it is very confusing.

Which is not what GP said.

His argument was explicitly that no open standard existed within the field. Given that there is a perfectly good open standard in the field he explicitly mentioned, it is a terrible example.

Technically, it would have to have been either Calories or kilocalories. Note the capital letter in the former.
Yes, it is very confusing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm not sure that is the best example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They can sound differently due to the way the device(s) provide the input and/or to the settings on the receiver (because yes, they are both digital).

A simple indication of things that can happen is provided in the second post here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/...

A proper test would have the input devices doing only bitstreaming of medium-bandwidth audio in a format supported by the receiver and the receiver applying no or exactly the same postprocessing (including gain, obviously) to the decoded streams.

That's not how Slashdot works.

Mod points aren't that hard to acquire: Get an account, don't be a dick and contribute something useful once in a while.
Although I guess on Reddit such behavior might indeed only be expected from a select few ;-)

Fake.

Both the 'Russian' (his name is Kyle Myers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and the quadcopter ( http://www.military.com/video/... ).

Not saying it will never be done (the opposite, in fact), just that it hasn't been done just yet.

You have a terrible definition of the word 'plenty'.

'Journalists' don't need any other motive than to get people to click on their 'interesting' bullshit article and sell some ad views.
Remember this one?: http://science.slashdot.org/st...

STOP SCREAMING.
What is this, the YouTube comment section?

There are i-tags, b-tags. You could emphasize like _this_ or like /this/ or even like *this*.
Behave yourself.

This assumes human culture and/or 'biology' will never change.

1. With regard to culture, there are already plenty of humans that do not operate in the way you describe ('damn hippies' is the popular term to describe them, I believe). Whether or not the entire race will move towards such behavior is an open question, but it is certainly possible. Considering that we're still a good bit away from but definitely moving towards a peaceful cooperative planet where at least all basic human needs are met for the entire population, it would be short-sighted to assume that our culture will not change were we to achieve that state.

2. We're already regulating and modifying our bodies with drugs and augments. Considering that one of the most heard pieces of life advice is 'be satisfied with what you have', it seems that curbing unbounded and unsatisfying desire would be something that a lot of people would be on board with. You could actually say that Prozac and other mood regulators are already examples of how we're doing that.

There is of course the question to what extent such changes would permeate in our organizational institutions (government), but assuming that they will reflect the culture it seems probable that they will significantly.

From the article:

"Then, the monkeys' brains were wired together [...]"

So that doesn't tell us shit. On to the paper:

"Electrophysiological recordings
A Multineuronal Acquisition Processor (64 channels, Plexon Inc, Dallas, TX) was used to record neuronal spikes, as previously described15. Briefly, differentiated neural signals were amplified (20000–32,000×) and digitized at 40kHz. Up to four single neurons per recording channel were sorted online (Sort client 2002, Plexon inc, Dallas, TX).

Intracortical electrical microstimulation
Intracortical electrical microstimulation cues were generated by an electrical microstimulator (Master 8 , AMPI, Jerusalem, Israel) controlled by custom Matlab script (Nattick, USA) receiving information from a Plexon system over the internet. Patterns of 8–20 (bipolar, biphasic, charge balanced; 200sec) pulses at 20–120Hz were delivered to S1. Current intensity varied from 10–100A."

So, we're talking about roughly a maximum of 64 * 4 = 256 neurons (at 40KHz) participating per brain. It's not that many, but also not few for an artificial neural network. Because that's what happened. The researcher trained the mice (via reinforcement learning) on specific problems after interconnection. He didn't interconnect them and immediately let them perform some random complex task:

"In one test, for instance, different rats brains were given different barometric pressure and temperature information, and then the computational power of the Brainet itself was used to calculate the probability that it would rain (given those inputs) at a rate higher than chance.
Nicolelis said that, essentially, he created a "classic artificial neural network using brains." In that sense, it's not artificial at all."