You can't program the self-driving car to break the rules as it opens up all kinds of moral and (more importantly, or at least more expensively) legal liability issues. You have a human driver for that situation until the proportion of self-driving cars increases enough to change traffic characteristics.
They are already programming the car to break the rules about speed. If it drives at the speed limit it causes problems with the other drivers on the road and is less safe. So they found that they had to tell it to drive slightly faster than the speed limit. Something like 5-7 miles per hour faster that what is posted for that road.
For 14 consecutive days, they reported their sleep dura- tion and sleep efficiency (percentage of time in bed ac- tually asleep) for the previous night and whether they felt rested.
It isn't said to be the first study. Only the first one that didn't rely on self reporting of amount of sleep. They used monitors to measure their sleep before the administration of the cold virus, then they were kept in the lab and their sleep was again measured. Self reporting is pretty notorious for being incorrect.
What about speeding? Even more so on under posted highways / interstates / toll roads?
Useing the center of the road as an extended trun lane? even when not marked as one?
rolling stops when no other cars are in the way?
Hi I'm chris Harrison and
it is Comcast policy that static IPs require a modem rental and that can run you $10-$20 mo on top of your base rate.
ATT better they have a max overage fee vs a pay up front to be cap free.
more for the pre existing conditions list and you boss can hold it over you with the GOP wins
Well bob you can keep working the OT or we can get rid you and you will have a very hard time being able to pay for a doctor ever again.
If it were me? I'd try to build a modern version of the Spad, maybe using one of the many trainer aircraft made worldwide, but if the choice is the AC-130 or the F-35? I'm sorry but the AC-130 wins. At least it'll get there without breaking, be ready to go when you call it, and will be able to hang around as long as you need it...can you say the same for the F-35?
There was a crappy icon dock extension in System 7.5 that was sort of like the modern ability to pin programs to the taskbar though.
I can't help but think that you're thinking of DragThing. It wasn't an extension, though, it was its own program. And it certainly wasn't crappy.
Eject a disk by moving it from my desktop to the trash with all the files I want to delete? Makes sense.
Well, to understand this, you have to recall that early Macs had to be able to run off of a single floppy drive. Users might buy a hard drive or a second floppy drive (or if they had a dual-floppy SE, a third floppy drive for some reason) but it couldn't be relied on. Yet they still had to be able to tolerate having the OS disc ejected at times.
So there was a distinction between physically ejecting a disc while keeping it mounted (which was represented onscreen by a greyed out disc icon) so that you could copy to it, and both physically ejecting _and_ dismounting a disc.
The formal way that you were supposed to do this was by using menu commands. The Eject command was for eject-but-keep-mounted while the generally ignored Put Away command was for eject-and-dismount. It was also possible to use Put Away on an already greyed out, ejected-but-mounted disc icon.
User testing showed that this was inconvenient, and one of the OS developers eventually created a shortcut for the Put Away command, which was to drag a disc icon to the trash. It wound up being so popular that it shipped.
Apparently there had been some thought at the time about changing the Trash icon into some sort of Eject icon in the case of ejecting a disc, but apparently this was felt to be confusing or too difficult, so it wasn't done. In OS X the idea was revisited, and now the Trash icon does turn into a standard Eject icon when you're dragging a disc.
In any case, in real life, whatever confusion dragging disc icons to the trash might have caused, everyone got over it basically immediately.
Switching tiled applications makes the one menu bar change? Sure. It's not like moving the cursor half the screen for each click is a waste of time.
It's not; since there's nothing above the menubar, you can just slam the mouse up. It turns out to be faster and easier than having multiple menu bars. The Mac and Lisa groups did consider per-window menubars, but having tested the idea, it was rejected. For example, here's some polaroids of a screen from 1980 showing a Lisa with a menu attached to the bottom of a window: http://www.folklore.org/images... Later that year, the menu had moved to the top of the windows: http://www.folklore.org/images... And early the next year, it finally settled at the top of the screen: http://www.folklore.org/images...
Former officials, candidates for office, and even current members of the legislature aren't "government officials." They can blow as much smoke and wind as they want, it doesn't constitute policy.
There is essentially no chance any of that will happen.
Sure! Because the US hasn't done other illegal things to other wanted people. I remember the New Zealand police being pretty upset after the Kim Dotcom take-down because of the way the US acted in such illegal ways that the evidence would be inadmissible. If they are willing to do illegal actions to get what they want in one case they sure will do it in another.
When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard