You sure had an extreme reaction, have you already made up your mind? Posting an an Anonymous Coward makes thinks you have.

http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...

And even if you don't accept that it's better than a human, wouldn't you still say it's better than being uncontrolled?

Two ways.

First, it has a better track record then your average human driver so it can help avoid accidents that the human may not.

Second, like an aircraft autopilot, it can handle routine matters but there are still times during an emergency or an unusual situation that it needs someone who can handle what it can't.

Think like this. Both human and Tesla's autopilot have a high overlap in what they can handle. There are some things the autopilot handles better just due to reaction time and 360 vision. There are some things the human driver handle better because of our adaptability. Together they can handle more than either separately and are much safer.

Turning off autopilot when the driver releases the wheel AS A SAFETY MEASURE? If you were in a car in motion, which do you think is safer for the driver and others nearby: an automated co-pilot with a safety track record better than humans or an uncontrolled car in motion?

The sensors alert the driver to put their hands back on the wheel instead of turning the car into an large, fast, uncontrolled missile.

Traffic revenue is a way of bringing in money not from their residents.

There are some towns in Maryland that bring in millions a year from tourists passing through on a major north/south route - you go one mile over the limit and they hit you, you don't turn on your lights in the area marked, they get you.

But yeah, they are small towns and for them that's a big deal compared to their total tax revenue.

I followed this as it was happening. This is NOT about bots being able to beat human players. It's about bots being able to beat human players in the simplest possible space that doesn't mimic 99% of actual poker play.

It was only heads-up with 1 human a time, not vs. a table. After every round the money was reset so it never had to play from low amount of chips, or have to try to bully with it's chip advantage. The amount of chips vs. the big blind was a very large stack in the first place even before it reset every hand, so the blinds were statistically little more than noise in the amount that was going back and forth.

Don't get me wrong, this is really interesting and great strides. But this is far from a bot being able to play at a full table and having to deal with a few bad hands taking it out of the place where it's betting is suited for. (If you have less of a stack, you have less of an upside so draw hands aren't worth as much.) Or to have someone with a larger stack push it beyond it's acceptable betting and make it fold because it can.

Smart TVs can... ...act as sniffers for anything else on your subnet / vLAN ...be part of a DDOS attack elsewhere on the internet ...send back select pixel colors to a home location to figure out what you are watching even from other sources (Visio did this, google it) ...can get infected with malware and either stop working, or worse NOT stop working and be a palce that infects anything new on your network that doesn't have proper countermeasures. (Like if you're reinstalling a system.) ...act as a passthru for all sorts of unpleasantness so it's attached to your IP.

These are just a few things that could be done besides "the obvious" like passing on account names and passwords for any smart apps used like Netflix, Amazon Prime, music, etc.

Until the biometric device is talking directly without any middlemen (like the vendor or the internet) to the payment people, it is inherently less secure. Because at all the points between, it's just a digital password, and one that is (a) reused between sites and (b) unable to be changed.

And with this, they undermine the whole thing by displaying little knowledge of what actually makes for good password security. Mistaking complexity for entropy and an avoidance of dictionary attacks / rainbow tables. Password changing doesn't make your password any harder to guess, it just helps limit the failure domain once it's compromised. But really, overlooking password reuse between sites (and corresponding duplication of security question answers) is really the topper - that needs to be in your awareness.

My company deals with them, and what I've heard Nth-hand is that they couldn't unload or load ships in dock and that there was a lot of port costs associated with that as well. My guess would be not able to get the customs documentation and inventory and the like.

By that wide of a net, you're a chimp. But in actuality, you aren't a chimp - humans and chimps diverged and have separate traits even if they have a common ancestor.

The same thing is happening here. When GMO is introducing, for instance, fish DNA through gene-splicing, you are getting something that could not happen through cross-breeding as has been "happening for millennia". I use the Winter Trout / Tomato example because it's well known, even if it isn't commercially available. There are plenty of examples where genetic engineering produces results that could not be obtained though cross-breeding.

I'm not saying GMO are bad - it is just a tool. I'm just dispelling the disinformation campaign that genetic engineering is the same thing as selective-breeding but faster.

So you want to punish the shareholders of the corporation and not the employees who made this decision? Oh, and all the other employees who are now out a job. And, of course, destabilize the entire concept of publicly owned corporations.

I'm for him getting over-fairly compensated. I'm for punitive measures against the people who did this both on the corporate and public level as a discouragement for others to follow that path. I am not for screwing over plenty of people innocent of this crime even if it will also get the few guilty.

Looking for more information on long-term effects on gut flora for moderate/low use of artificial sweeteners and links to obesity.

I brought up universal health care as real world example of things that are included in taxes in other countries, but it really doesn't matter what it is, just that there are things that are included in other countries that aren't included in the US.

Try this:

Plan A: I tax you 50% not to punch you or let Bob punch you.
Plan B: I tax you 30% not to punch you, and Bob charges you a 30% fee not to punch you.

Comparing only on taxes will say that plan B is better. But plan A compares all the costs not to be punched and is cheaper.

The point is that to compare, you need to compare what you are getting for the money put in, just just how much money happens to be put into a bucket marked "taxes".

I didn't say "we need a universal health care", that's a different issue. I said "if the taxes are covering other things that would come out of people's pockets, you need to consider them as well to get a true comparison".

How's this as an example:

I tax you 50% of your earnings not to punch or kick you.
I tax you 30% of your earning not to punch you, and charge a fee of 30% of your earnings not to kick you.

Stating the second one is better because you get taxed less isn't doing a full comparison of costs. It is misleading.

For example, if a country's taxes include universal health care, then the equivalent cost to Americans would be taxes + healthcare costs, not just taxes. Same in regards to things like universal access to education (including college), or a better social support net for elders past working age.

Comparing buckets that are supposed to cover differing things and noticing they are differing sizes really doesn't show anything at all. It's a false equivalency that's misleading at best.