If a human driver, using the same map and their set of eyes, can't get the guy to his front door, what makes him think a car programmed by humans will be any better, especially by humans who have never seen the place you're going to?
When I was in college, and for the first couple of years of grad school, I drove a taxicab. Not a fruity Uber car, but an honest-to-god hack. For part of that time, I drove an actual Checker Marathon, which may have been the finest automobile ever built.
Decades later, I can still find my way around that city (Chicago), to any address and give you the best route. If you dropped me blindfolded anywhere within the Chicago city limits, I could find my way (as long as I was allowed to take the blindfold off after you dropped me). If there are Uber drivers who can't find their ass with both hands, it has nothing to do with maps. Maps? Pshaw. Learn your town and don't rely on the goddamn Google maps for everything. Learn how to navigate by the stars like we did back in my day (only partly kidding).
Absolutely correct. What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path. When there was heavy rain anywhere along its course, the waters would raise and it would overflow its banks depositing rich soil and silt all along the way. Now, we've replaced the flood plains with housing developments and mini-malls.
That's not so much the case in the Baton Rouge area because of the protected Atchafalaya Basin and the big lock between it and the Mississippi. In other parts of the Midwest, though, you're absolutely right. Wetlands are for water, not for strip malls, oil pipelines or fracking sites.
One record exists for a flood in 1927 [wikipedia.org], another for the flood in 1995 [wikipedia.org], yet another for the flood in 2011. [wikipedia.org]
So, the flooding is becoming more frequent due to climate change?
I think it probably doesn't help that Louisiana sits below sea level.
Baton Rouge (where the flooding occurred) is not below sea level. It sits 56' above sea level.
I think the journalist may be mistaken. Another story I read on this said the design came from Cadence, which makes a lot more sense. Cadence sells a core that customers can further customize (using Cadence's software of course). It then can be fabbed by a place like TSMC.
But, does that mean that the removal of the physical headphone jack from the iPhone 7 is actually a form of social progress?
The removal of the headphone jack is basically the same as killing whales for oil.
It's bad for the environment, makes people mad but is a profit center for Apple and their "strategic partners".
Fuck Apple and fuck Tim Cook.
That largely depends on whether you allow third-party cookies to be set. Anybody who cares about privacy in the least would have third-party cookies disabled. Let Farcebook try to snoop on my
There are still images and scripts embedded, where your web browser sends headers to the remote site. Unless you scrub the headers and IP by going through a proxy server, you're still providing them information.
No, this is just another social study done by Facebook. They're one damn clever bunch!
Of course they know that everyone and their dog hates blaring ads. They're not stupid. But they want to know just how much bullshit their users will put up with. And it's easy to determine simply by looking at the amount of ad blocking going on in their user base. They can slowly crank the annoyance meter up and watch the ad blocking rise. That's marketing research you can take right to the bank!
I am probably not the only person that replaced radio with youtube or webstream. The very LAST thing I could possibly stand in such an environment is an invasive, interrupting ad that reminds me why I replaced radio with Youtube and webstream in the first place.
If memory serves me right, every company that tried to shove blaring autoplay videos down its user's throats only managed to contribute to its demise.
And your claim was that a POPULAR BLOG SITE www.realclimatescience.com was reliable and the crushing rebuttal archived from realscience.com was not since it was closed thanks to low popularity
Not my claim. Seriously, read the thread and see who said what.
3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound