Note, despite the acronym, this fictional language works just as well on men as it does on women.
Cities should charge sports teams for the right to be known as the City's X, not the other way around.
For me I would do the following: 1) Take a whole bunch of classes - how to do EVERYTHING. Dance, defend a client from a lawsuit, simple surgery, how to play a piano, how to build a car, how to carve a wooden boat. You name it, I want to learn it. 2) Creating a publishing house that makes the decisions on which new book to publish via a combination of crowd sourcing and AI, rather than the current system.
I don't know all the laws and regulations we will create, but I absolutely guarantee you that unlicensed vehicles will NOT be allowed to drive around with no people and load of cargo, unless they picked up that cargo at a licensed and regulated facility (aka UPS, FedEx, Amazon, etc.). There will be sensors in non-licensed vehicles to make sure that if they have any cargo in them, they have to have a person in them at first. Licensed vehicles will most likely be airborne with very light cargo capacity at first (if you don't have a human, it makes more sense to fly).
No, these sensors will not be easy to counter.
And vehicles will also have hard coded restrictions on where they can go and can't go.
The vehicles will NOT even have a receiving antenna, not at first. At first they will require instructions to be made inside the car, with the door closed - and cancel them when the door opens. They will however broadcast their destination to be recorded by the police, but not be able to receive any radio commands.
And most importantly, it is already possible to JUST as much damage, simply by taking a stolen van full of explosives, parking it some place, and leaving it set to detonate in 20 minutes. The author of this paper is clueless about both the current level of risk we have and the level of risk we will accept in the future
When writing an article only a totally incompetent author leaves the subject of the article unclear. Because if you don't explain the subject, no on would BOTHER to google it. Why should Joe Shmoe take his time and effort to figure out what your article is about? That's not his job, it YOUR job.
The poster of this thread and the writer of the article did a horrible job. It's the equivalent of coding a 100,000 line application without bothering to put any comments in it at all.
You are the only fool that thinks my world has nuke or coal.
Humans are really bad when it comes to comparing risks. We avoid dramatic things like terrorists, and accept subtle things like tobacco. Same thing with nukes and coal - comparing one thing that people are unreasonably afraid of (nukes) to an established and accepted risk is the simplest way to convince people that they are being foolish. It is not and never was an insistence on an either/or situation - that was in your head.
We have no business being afraid of nuclear power plants, anymore than we should be afraid of aircraft deaths. Whether or not we should take more actions to protect against coal, tobacco or cars is an entirely different matter.
Field Programmable Gate Array is more than enough to get someone that is computer literate interested in it the tutorial
The fact that neither of them explained the acronym makes me question the value of information.
Because if you expect an article to tell you how to learn something, then you have to tell them what you are teaching, without having to google it.
How many people buy high end "Sports Utility Vehicles", designed to go off road, through rivers, up mountains, then never leave the pavement - effectively using them like you would a minivan?
How many people buy convertibles and keep the top up all year long?
Cars are sold based on desire, not on need.
I personally would disconnect any antennae/radio function of a vehicle - it helps the car company track and control my car more than it helps me. But people buy what they want, not what they are going to actually use.
That is, sometimes you are trying to be more specific in order to avoid confusion, but sometimes you are trying to be specific to impress. Similarly, sometimes you are trying to be general - so as to be sure to include rare cases.
My second example - the use of the word "Enterprise" is a great case where business is intentionally being less specific, in order to be clear to their own salesmen and engineers.
Similarly, the word "Synergy" is a classic buzzword abused to the point of becoming a trope/ meme. In addition, it is neither overly general or overly specific, but is very clearly a buzzword. The problem is not of specificity as you claim, but in non-existence. That is, people thinking that anything can have synergy, when in fact it is rather rare.
Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.