Other people can't breath for you. Most people give up on the effort to breath for another person within minutes, or with mechanical assistance after an hour or so, but a ventilator just keeps going, helping you at your most vulnerable, if you get pneumonia...

The problem is that there's not enough robots like that to save everyone.

GrpA

The problem is that no one really understands what Tesla was trying to do. A lot of radio engineers say that there would have been a loss of signal with distance that would limit the available power that could be transmitted, even assuming lossless conditions.

Imagine a light bulb at the other end of the room and you have a light meter. The further you get away from the light bulb, the lower the light level that falls on the meter and the reading goes down.... Distance is the problem.

Now fill the room with mirrors, wall, floor and ceiling, that are nearly perfectly reflective. Turn the light on. Now the light is going to be present wherever you are in the room, because the reflection is offsetting the losses of light to the wall, and you can, theoretically, collect the same amount of light wherever you are in the room.

I believe this was the principle Tesla was working on. He believed he had worked out a way for the power to be reflected around within the air so that, whever you were, you could effectively receive power from all directions even with a single transmitter like in the above example. How much would have been lost to absorption? Who knows. But Tesla was a long way ahead of others, not only in terms of theory, but in practical ways as well. If he felt it would have worked, it probably would have worked.

There might have been other problems that developed from it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked.

Even today, there's much about what Tesla was doing that we don't understand. It's very difficult to evaluate his ideas and concepts by standards that may not necessarily apply to him.

Science isn't complete unless you consider every aspect, and determining energy on a FPA is about as easy as calculating turbulence.

Easy enough to test though. Take the camera and the car. Take more pictures. If the car damaged the camera, then more damage will occur. Even if the car did damage the camera initially, but no more damage occurs, then the camera was already in the process of failing and just waiting for the right opportunity, but most likely it would mean, beyond reasonable doubt, that the camera was not damaged by the car.

Why argue science when a simple empirical test will give the correct answer?

GrpA

It's Media Player. The SEEK bar is missing on "specific files" - Or, rather, specific files triggered this "feature"

Now Media player is like F(*^(& YouTube, where you can't do anything but Pause and Play as your rights as a consumer are eroded. The ONLY reason to have flags in the media player so you can't seek through it is to ensure that you have to watch the full video, which is something that content creators want over us.

I never thought they'd push this crap all the way to our desktop though.

GrpA

Yes, I have a VR setup. It's hanging next to my "Beefed up" stock 15-year-old computer, that runs VR apps just fine... At least most of them. Anyone who games usually has such a "beefed up" computer already, unless they never made a gaming PC. Accusing me of not having played anything in VR just because I don't agree with your point of view is disingenuous though.

And Valve is just as bad as Oculus, though I couldn't tell you which one is worse.

Still, no such method to force VR to allow room scale concepts to be taken sitting down exists, though feel free to name one otherwise.

I'll wait.

After all, it is to my advantage if you can do so.

This is actually the real reason that VR is dying/failing. There's no recognition that VR needs to occur in a chair for most of us. There was this idea that people would make a VR room and walk around in it, and this was driven by the idiots at Oculus more than anyone, as a means to lock out competition. Well, it worked - the competition stayed outside and so did the customers.

Yet, there's absolutely NO way to "float" around a room-scale VR solution at all while seated. VR games lock you into a "step/jump" approach to movement, or force you to just not play at all, since it's "for your own good that you don't get sick"... What a load of crap. ANY time that an option or decision isn't available to you, it's an indication that the developers don't want you to have any choice.

Probably the only time we'll ever get a half decent title will be "VR Wheelchair Simulator" and I bet they will still try to make us "jump" from scene to scene.

Meanwhile the problems with optimizing the solution leaves developers VR-shy and we get even less choice.

Aside from this, there are problems - such as low resolution, poor tracking and the likes, but generally most of these can be forgiven. What can't be forgiven is this whole room-scale/Sitting difference that should never have existed before as anything other than a check-box on the controls that were handled by the VR platform itself and not the game. And this doesn't exist and will likely never exist.

Because, fundamentally, people don't like walled gardens. Not even VR ones.

1) - It's moot and depends entirely on the outcome and variables, none of which the AI is aware of.

2) - Sure - The AI doesn't ever decide to kill their entire family - Most of the time it will make better decisions than they will. Yet people still get drunk and put their family in the car and go driving all the time. Generally, even these people will choose AI over human.

3) - The engineers will almost certainly be required to protect the passengers over the pedestrian, since it's lawful to kill another to save yourself. Generally, what this argument will boil down to is whether AI can be allowed to take risks that might result in pedestrian injury - eg, can they overtake "close" if there's a risk that the pedestrian will step out in front like most drivers do? Can they drive faster than the road conditions allow based on "trust" that the road will still be there and there won't be pedestrians? People in cars don't like to be delayed, so there's an argument for increasing risk, but if you're not in control, then the AI might decide that a 3 hour commute instead of the usual 30 minutes, due to high levels of foot traffic in the area, is warranted.

So the moral questions may be irrelevant, and the risk will end up being worn by the passengers, who will have to ensure they take appropriate precautions - eg, Wear seatbelts, accept longer commute times, etc.

The real question is whether people will still choose AI when it's a much safer option, but is far less convenient than making your own driving decisions...

A cell battery is 3.6v... Not 5v

Oops, forgot the end of the story.... And the punchline.

So a few years l applied at the same place. During the interview, they remembered my name... So I recounted the story of what happened before.

They took it as a demonstration that I was responsible and once again offered me a job there. It was only a short role, but it was very important to me at the time.

So even a no-show can work in your favor.

GrpA

So one Friday, I get two jobs, one after the other. I was made redundant on the Monday, with my wedding on Saturday, and landed two roles by Friday's end. Now, the problem was I had already accepted one of the roles, but it was a stop-gap role and I knew might not have led to long term employment.

Not much I could do - My obligation was to my new wife... So I accepted the better role and never looked back.

But I didn't want to let the other company down - they were expecting me to show Monday and I really had needed the work, and had committed to at least a short term with them - so my last Friday night conversation was to a long-term unemployed friend.

"Hey Kevin, sorry I couldn't invite you to the wedding, since we're really tight on the list and it's just close family only, but you know you've been looking for a job? Well, print out your resume, and do me a favor and show up for me on Monday at this address at 7am, and apologize for me since I have to take a job elsewhere, and take your resume with you, because I'm pretty sure they're going to offer you the job on the spot as they will be in a tight situation."

The outcome? He showed up and said the conversation went along the lines of;

"Are you David? I remember you looked different last week."
"Nah, David can't show up, but didn't have a number to ring to tell you."
"Was he sick? He should have just called."
"No, he got another job late Friday, but he felt bad since he knew you needed him, so asked me to apologize for him and stand in if necessary."
"I don't suppose you happen to have a resume on you?"

So my long-term unemployed friend who had done me a few favors in the past walks straight into a job that never would have given him a second glance otherwise since he hadn't worked for more than five years for personal reasons. Turned out to be a good fit and after working there for the full project, he stayed in the industry.

GrpA

There are systems like this where I live, though they are not widely known. I've probably contributed tens of thousands of dollars to government finances through reporting bad drivers. It's a discretion thing - it takes a lot of effort to report another driver, and I have to make sure the evidence is on video and is in breach of the road laws. I also have to fill in a statement, which means attending a police station. Unless someone does something really bad in front of me, I just let it go.

This has two effects on me.

The first is I find myself ignoring minor infractions. If I let it go, I really let it go. It doesn't bother me when other drivers cut me off or pull out in front as long as I can stop in time and there's not much likelihood of an accident. I make space for others in my lane. People going around me doesn't bother me now. Knowing I'm not going to do anything about minor infractions takes away the stress of simply dealing with bad drivers on the road. Also if I don't catch it on camera, I still just let it go no matter what the circumstances.

The other effect is that the changes I see in my own driving has surprised me the most. Once you start openly judging other drivers, you question your own habits more. I'm far less likely to break rules myself now, and even find myself defending drivers whose driving is just bad, but not illegal. But if I'd see someone else fined for it, I'll avoid it entirely myself. Even if I think I can get away with it.

It's easy to have mixed feelings about it, because we deal with traffic cops, who often look for any slight breach to fine us, and really don't work in a fair way. The general public are far better judges on what should and shouldn't be ignored. And it frees up police resources. It doesn't take much of a change in attitude to improve road safety.

But doing something about it is better than getting home and having a whinge about some guy who nearly hit us and ran a red light.

So does this mean they will turn the OTA update servers online? The disruption wasn't just to ZTE's future business. It really caused problems for millions of ZTE phone users also.

It's easy to maintain the balance... FORCE the balance.

Eliminate the charge for services to those who effectively become human guinea pigs.

The corporates benefit from human trials for which they aren't held accountable more than a minimum level.

The patients benefit from free treatment.

However this will not occur and I think, in practice, this will just become a new way to fleece desperate people out of everything they own for a solution which is most likely going to kill them and there will be no balance.

Australia defined a standard about how big a feature had to be to be regarded as "coastline" - same with rivers mouths and the like. Once this was defined, then anything outside of this definition no longer counted, and the coastline was measured quite accurately, in a way that if measured in the future, could identify whether the coastline was shrinking or expanding.

eg: https://ebrary.net/10179/manag...

I don't think the project failed at all.

It was quite an interesting and ambitious project at the time - the concept that a full PC could be manufactured for less than $1000. Many of us, at the time, said things like, "Think of all the cool things we could do with a laptop that only costs $100"... And you know, this was back when a laptop typically cost around $1000 or more, and was a complex computer.

Sure, it was ambitious, but it pushed the concept of a cheaper laptop for children far before anything in it's time, and first sub-$500 laptops came out.. Early small-screen devices with pretty good, if somewhat degraded performance.

And pretty soon the market realized that this was possible, and there was a market for it - cheaper laptops for kids and people who wouldn't otherwise use a computer.

So the market responded, and the capabilities that technology could bring changed. Smaller displays came out. Cheaper processors. Lower cost memory solutions. And people started buying these and pushing for embedded-able systems, and it happened.

Sure, OLPC as a product was a complete failure - they were like a pre-kickstarter project gone wrong - but they were the spark that lit the fire that continued to grow in intensity and they did succeed in one simply object just by existing - they re-aligned the market.

But, in a way, the vision they had wasn't lost. It was influenced, and it came to be... Just not with them.

So the end result was achieved by a failed project - which then brings up the question as to whether the project was to bring low-cost computers to children in third-world countries so they could change the world, or whether it was to sell laptops.

Because only one of those objectives wasn't achieved.

Of course, the Raspberry Pi was probably the spiritual successor to this concept and came out much later without the same fanfare and backslapping, but it did manage to succeed and change the world.

GrpA