It seems that every week there is another headline trumpeting the imminence of self-driving cars. However, when I read articles written by researchers in this field, I get the impression that self driving cars are going to be here sometime between 10 years and never. I think the disconnect is that any car that drives itself will do so on the freeway, but a human will have to drive it on the surface streets.
So when are they going to start selling this thing?
Same answer as always: Because Dell thinks it can maximize it's profits with this lineup. How badly do you want the 512 GB SSD? Yep, I thought so...
Call me when they can make an automated car that car drive in snowy conditions when no lane landmarks are visible. Or one that can turn into a lane of busy traffic that currently requires you to make eye contact with another driver to get them to slow down and let you in. Then we can worry about legalizing it. Legalization is trivial compared to the technical challenges. Personally, I suspect that there won't be a truly automated cars in my lifetime.
There is virtually nothing (not even Ebola) that can get through basic procedures, even with humans treating them. Even without full isolation, just making sure that direct bodily contact does not occur is enough to stop basically anything - hence why doctors wear rubber gloves even if they digging into your internals with blood everywhere.
Such a thing would be so unbelievably infectious that we'd all have it - planet-wide - within a couple of days. It's just not in the nature of such things to be that infectious. Ebola is actually no worse than AIDS, from what I can tell from a quick search.
There are so many things wrong with this, it is hard to know where to start...
Many diseases are much more infectious than ebola. I recall from medical school that you can catch chicken pox (if you haven't had it or been vaccinated) from the air two hours after a patient has left the room. Influenza is also much more infectious than ebola, which is why is spreads around the world in weeks/months every year.
Fortunately ebola is not nearly so infectious. But if someone is having continuous watery diarrhea and bleeding everywhere (e.g. Ebola) and your job is to roll them over every hour, while they are thrashing around, to clean up their bloody virus-laden excrement, and your only protection is mask/gloves/gown - well, good luck.
HIV requires that you get infected bodily fluid (usually blood) into your own bloodstream, which is much hard than catching Ebola.
"Ask Slashdot: Where's the Most Unusual Place You've Written a Program From?"
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with!
Adobe Lightroom - does 95% of what I would do with photoshop, works on raw images and simplifies my workflow tremendously. I almost never use photoshop anymore.
Ubuntu, Windows 8.1, Libreoffice, Adobe Reader, - self explanatory.
Firefox with Adblock plus and Better Privacy and HTPS Everywhere installed.
KeepassX - Password manager. Multiplatform, much less buggy than Keepass2 (note to develepers: please take it out of alpha status!)
F.Lux - warms up the color of your monitor in the evenings so that it doesn't interfere with your circadian rhythm, hopefully improves sleep. (hey - it's free!)
Videolan (VLC) - excellent video player (despite the crappy name)
Sandboxie (paid $$) - Sandbox your browser and various other programs
FastOne Image Viewer - excellent, free sildeshow software
Secunia PSI - makes sure your programs are kept up-to-date
As a physician, I am not sure I understand the concern after reading the article. After all, if a drug is higher potency, you just prescribe less of it. Higher potency does not equal higher efficacy (efficacy if the maximum effect that a drug can produce, potency refers to how much of the drug it takes to get that effect). We already have a ton of highly addictive opioids on the market, and hydrocodone is hardly one of the most effective narcotics. If the main ingredient is hydrocodone, how can it be more potent than other hydrocodone containing drugs? Maybe the concern is that it will be easier to get than other narcotics, but hydrocodone is being switched to the more-restrictive Schedule II drug class like oxycodone. Maybe this pill provides a higher dose of hydrocodone than existing medications? The article doesn't say. No doubt people will abuse this new pill, but it is not clear to me why it is thought that this will cause more addiction than already exists...
The killer feature for me would be that it was available on Verizon. Can anyone tell from this documentation?
I bought a Sony Vaio Z about 3 years ago and, since the line has been discontinued, I have felt there really wasn't an equivalent laptop on the market. Before I would be tempted by this new laptop, it would have to best the specs of my 3 year old laptop:
1920x1080 IPS screen
excellent backlit keyboard
2.53 GHz Core I5 processor (boost 3.06 GHz)
3.07 lbs or less (the mentioned laptop appears to be exactly this weight)
My current laptop also has a DVD drive, which pretty much makes it irreplaceable (and at the time, it could have been purchased with a blu-ray burner for $500 more without really impacting the weight. Core i7 versions were also available).
My laptop also has discreet graphics and 4 SSDs set up in Raid 0. However, I suspect that integrated graphics and more modern SSD's may mean that the performance on this new laptop from Samsung may equal or exceed that of my current laptop.
It's a pity that Sony discontinued the Vaio Z line of laptops, as, even 3 years later, they appear to have no peer.
Disclaimer: this laptop cost $2400 in 2010 and, fully loaded, the cost could have gone over $4000.
Disclaimer 2: Yes, I can live without a DVD drive, but, all things being equal, I prefer to have one built-in.
> MIRVed missiles destabilized the Cold War nuclear balance
Really? I thought it was the movie Star Wars the scared the Soviet Union into surrendering.
Distracted drivers - you've seen them. Possibly you've been hit by them. They look away from the road, even for a couple seconds and BAM!
Perhaps. However, I suspect more crashes are caused by bored drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing. That is probably why the number of car accidents has gone down even while cell phone ownership has gone from 0% of the population to 91%. I think it also explains why studies of cellphone use while driving predict dire consequences, and those consequences fail to materialize in the real world. You have to pay attention if you're trying to use a cellphone at the same time you are driving.