They should call them SHIVs and be done with it. That's exactly what the description is about: robots that are part of the squad and act upon orders from the squad leader.
(i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
Well if anyone RTFAs (and RTFVs) then it's clear that there is indeed an "unpark" feature. That is pretty obviously necessary.
Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
Commendable, but ultimately wishful thinking unfortunately.
The NSA will just tap the underwater cables or enlist the "help" of technicians at the Brazil data exchanges to split the data feeds. When the adversary has this much money and next to no scruples, the battle is difficult if not impossible.
From TFA, "Maintaining those indexes is expensive and slows down transaction processing. Let's get rid of them," Ellison remarked. "Let's throw all of those analytic indexes away and replace the indexes with in-memory column sort."
This merely minimizes the penalties of poor indexing and RBAR by making complete table scans on arbitrary columns faster. Apparently Mr. Ellison has forgotten his algoithmics and combinatorics - Oh, wait, no he didn't, he dropped out as a sophmore. Pity, because had he stayed, he would have learned that even with a 1000x slower storage medium, an O(log N) algorithm (index seek) will eventually beat an O(N log N) algorithm (column sort).
I think you misunderstand the way columnar databases work. They are not doing a column sort the way you think. The column itself is an index.
Of course the inanities coming out of Ellison's mouth don't help explain things correctly. No Larry, you don't do away with indexes. You mostly store indexes on everything, automatically.
Thanks, Larry, but you want to make Oracle faster? Remove cursors from the core language, and although that alone won't "fix" it, you'll see all the hacks who can't think in set-based logic drop out overnight.
Can't argue there!
I don't think it's in the same ballpark. The SQL Server column store seems to be purely for read-only:
Keep in mind that once you add a column store to a table, though, you cannot delete, insert or update the data – it is READ ONLY.
That's nowhere near the complexity of what Oracle is doing, simultaneously providing both a row and column based access to the data. Not that I think this is a good thing, I don't. In most cases you're much better off using a kickass columnar db and handling the batch updates from the upstream app servers. When you plan for building a col-based architecture, you can be much more efficient. Just look at kdb & co.
There's nothing wrong with pointing to gaps. That's what science is all about.
And there's nothing wrong with suggesting God as one candidate theory to explain a gap. All theories are allowed.
False, if you are talking about scientific theories. Let me quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
That's why the "God theory" is not a theory, and why ID is completely incompatible with the scientific method.
Science can't work with untestable theories, but unfortunately that's not the same as proving them false. We could be unlucky. The truth might be beyond our testing. There's no harm in facing that possibility.
Just mention a few other candidates besides God to explain the gaps. And show some examples of what used to be gaps, that have now been filled in. Now you've got a science course, that covers everything that ID supporters can ask to cover.
Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice, because you end up teaching that any idea can be considered a scientific theory, and that is completely false. Yes, one could say
There are some people who think X, Y and Z, but that's just unsubstantiated ideas
and see the wrath of ID'ers strike down on you. No religious person would want their "theories" to be associated with the "theory" that a great ball of pasta is what makes the world turn. Or that there is a pink unicorn whose dreams we inhabit.
In the end, it all boils down to this basic issue:
Fear of Death
So people will do everything they can to maximize their chances against it. And if it means believing in something against all odds, and the greater the odds, the greater your belief, the greater your chances, then so be it.
There's nothing more to it.
The trick with #6 is looking at the arrow that points to the square. This gives you a directional anchor. Then you just need to notice that all the cubes have the other square on the right, except for A.
Well I am not so sure that the test linked at in the summary is that effective. I personally am pretty good at spatial stuff, and on my first pass of the test it took me a good 15 minutes, scoring 8/9. I thought I did well. But then about 15mn later I showed it to my father in law and went through it again. It took me all of 3 minutes tops, not because I'd done it before but because I'd gotten much better at it. I didn't even need to visualize the cubes any more, I just looked at the flat patterns. I scored 9/9.
I think it would be very difficult to create such spatial tests unless you get into 3D geometry, where you try to visualize the cross section of a cylinder skewering a cone.
absolutely not. complete miss.
Just like you can't stop someone from secretly recording a face-to-face conversation, Snapchat tries to enforce as much as possible the demands for privacy: if the recipient stores the message (through a camera screen capture for example), then it is clear s/he is going against the wishes of the sender, and that ultimately could have legal ramifications.
Technically the data isn't transmitted in the clear. You have to do some work to crack its encryption.
For the generation that grew up on video games such as Rock Band, it can be of huge help.
Imagine you're going to play a gig, put on the Glasses and sit behind your drums. Now you don't need to perfectly remember all those bits and pieces of the song, just play along.
Of course the software should have some feedback mechanism that listens to the actual beat and song that the band is playing, to accelerate or slow the tab down. But I can see it helping there.
He just did post the db dump. But I agree with you. It seems he just wants to get rid of it with the least amount of work. Understandable, but unfortunate.
I'm not saying it's fully autonomous. But it seems it can do some stuff autonomously. Then again, all I see is some hexapod walking around and kicking a barrel.
It can be controlled remotely via wifi. The in-seat driver is optional.