Comment Re:Russian Times to the rescue (Score 5, Insightful) 431
Why, too lazy to look it up yourself?
Because searching Russia Today for the evils of the US government is like searching Fox News for the evils of the Democratic Party.
Why, too lazy to look it up yourself?
Because searching Russia Today for the evils of the US government is like searching Fox News for the evils of the Democratic Party.
And a stopped clock is right twice daily.
Seriously, how about some links so we can see how "right" they were?
You don't seem to like the politics of it.
A politician who first tried to get the broad study shut down entirely managed to instead add a qualifier where there was none before (i.e. not "this vs. that" but "all vs. some"), hamstringing the project by basing it on a faulty premise (that "cyclical" change merits such a large impact study) and a loaded question (presupposing that there is no other significant source of climate change impacting the state).
You're right, it is politics and I don't like how it's played out. But more importantly it's also a horrible hypothesis.
Says who? TFA doesn't say that.
It also doesn't not say that. When asked for clarification what exactly "cyclical" meant in the bill, everyone with any authority avoided touching that question with a ten-foot pole, saying nothing more to the scientists beyond "Look at the floor debate," where the word "cyclical" was added by someone who first wanted to eliminate the study outright.
Nobody is saying anything. Everybody is making a point of not saying anything. And even if Han had knocked out those shield generators Lando would at least be detecting something...
There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...
And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."
> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change
It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.
Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point, especially when there is every indication that the person defining something as ephemeral as "cyclical climate change" will simply claim the study didn't add enough epicycles.
and slings it at twice the trucks speed into your lane so it hits your windshield at 90 meters per second
Which would mean both you and the truck area traveling at around 20 m/s, which is highway speed, which means that you and oncoming traffic are separated by a wide median, a retaining wall, or both.
So in your hypothetical scenario, all these measures fail, and you just happen to be in the path of said gravel coming at you with a relative speed of over 300 km/h. Aside from the ridiculously long odds of being in such a scenario, what's your point? That you would somehow have the superhuman reflexes necessary to avoid a projectile coming at you at nearly 1/3 the speed of sound, whereas a computer would not? And that you could and would do this without jeopardizing traffic around you?
Regardless, best practice is still to stay back out of harm's way, rather than to risk even greater jeopardy to the lives and property of yourself and those around you with your sudden, erratic and unpredictable evasive driving.
Think of the case of a gravel truck that has a loose load.
The good driver would apply the brakes, gas and turn the wheel to make sure the gravel passes harmlessly over or under the car.
The better driver would remember that there was still traffic to the sides and behind him and, rather than hoping they all have better reflexes than he does in dealing with his own sudden braking/accelerating/steering, lets the rock chip the windshield, which is later replaced on-site within 30 minutes, with costs covered entirely by his insurer.
The best driver notes the standardized "STAY BACK" sign on the back of the dump truck and actually stays back.
Guess which one the autonomous system does!
So when you're driving today you're in a state of being aware of the situation and are engaged with the surroundings.
In theory. In practice you're fucking with the radio while ogling the bicyclist in spandex.
In the event where you need to take an emergency action,
Re-read the summary. The point isn't that autonomous systems are better able to handle emergency situations, but that they don't get into "emergency situations" to begin with.
Since you're so attentive to your surroundings, how often do you count off seconds to gauge your following distance? If you're answer is anything less than "All the time, constantly," you're less attentive than the autonomous system.
Try it sometime and you'll be passed left and right.
So?
It sounds like autonomous cars are safer because they're not so concerned with "winning."
Cable companies have a hard enough time providing enough bandwidth for more than a couple HD channels, where are they going to find the bandwidth for 4K Ultra HD?
They can start by charging for analog channels commensurately for the bandwidth they use, rather than giving away the analog stuff they modulate in-house for "free" while charging "extra" for digital content they've nothing to but encrypt.
Not going to speak to the sanity of screen size, but with respect to sitting closer: most people would prefer watching television in a living room rather than a closet.
Go back to bed. Seriously.
Yeah, but does it say that on the TV's box, or anywhere in the documentation?
Parent is going by typical usage, not recommended usage.
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.
