Call me Popocatépetl.
Call me Popocatépetl.
Let us all doff our wives as a mark of respect.
Err... yeah, that comes out sounding worse than I meant it to.
Going back to the main point: that changes everything.
No, it doesn't. There are people willing to blow themselves up for their cause, and there are plenty of ways for people to blow things up without killing themselves.
As far as furthering terrorist aims goes, autonomous vehicles are a solution in search of a problem.
I'd put a suitably bound large dog or pig in the passenger seat.
It's been done.
I absolutely guarantee you that unlicensed vehicles will NOT be allowed to drive around with no people and load of cargo
What do you mean by "allowed"? Do you imagine it being illegal, or actually impossible?
No, these sensors will not be easy to counter.
That's easy to say when you've only defined them as "these sensors." Will the vehicle refuse to move by itself if I leave a newspaper on the front seat? Or if it gets caked in mud after I drive it through a field, adding to the vehicle's weight? This will mean the end of stick-on Garfields as well!
Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.
Or imagine if they could have found a vulnerable person, someone so suggestable as to be bordering on mentally ill, instilled him with their ideology and persuaded him to go out and get himself blown up.
Or imagine if they hadn't actually given two shits about being caught or not.
According to Rubalcava the reaction to the first car bombing using an AV is going to be massive, and it's going to be stupid.
Why are the terrorists waiting for autonomous vehicles? They've got plenty of other options if they want to make a massive kaboom. Find a willing suicide bomber. Hire someone to do it unwittingly. Deliver the bomb by drone. Break into the house of someone who takes the subway every day and line their briefcase with plastic explosives while they sleep.
It's not like we'll all be dead tomorrow if every anti-terrorist agent took the day off.
And the simple solution to that, from the terrorist point of view, is just to use either a willing suicide bomber (there seem to be plenty of those) or an unknowing patsy.
This is a load of fuss about nothing, firstly because the terrorist threat is not as remotely terrible as everyone seems to think it is, and secondly because autonomous vehicles really don't change anything at all.
What possible benefit is there for this insane habit?
None whatsoever. There have been worse examples than this one as well. I should be keeping a list...
except for space-suited out-of-dome excursions, where they will eat space-style meals
That's pretty rough, making them eat their meals in their space suits.
Did an editor even glance at this piece of crap before it was posted?
a su command functional
a) "an su." Write it like you'd say it.
b) what's a "command functional"?
c) you've got all the right words... just not necessarily in the right order
a lot concepts
I think you accidentally a word.
It will given you kind of a shell
Can it has cheezeburger too?
It shouldn't be either. Arrows go in quivers, not bows.
Someone's got it confused with "another string to your bow," most likely.
If site B flipped their part of the second pair into a known state...
You can't flip it into a state of your own choosing without first breaking the entanglement. I think.
There's no control over which way the electron flips, so no way to send a message that way. And there's no way to measure whether or not an electron has or has not flipped, so no way to send a message that way, either.
I take a photon, I split it into two identical photons
Do you? That's very clever of you. People have won Nobel prizes for less.
I usually describe this as the "flock of starlings" effect. If all you can see is a flock and not the individual bird, the flock appears to jump and leap and disappear and reappear. But it is simply the effect of a detector that can only see flocks and not birds.
Yes, you do keep describing it that way. And you've been told several times why you're wrong, but you just won't listen.
However protons are not fundamental particles anymore, deep inelastic scattering showed they are made of smaller particles. So you never detected the proton AT ALL, you simply detected the net result of the effects of these sub-proton particles. That net result jumped around, not the proton. Likewise you could not have 'set' the position of the proton, because it does not exist! It was just an effect of multiple smaller particles on the detection mechanism.
Okay, let's ignore the fact that you're just plain wrong. Why do electrons, which are fundamental particles, behave the same way?
"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.