And we know Ned Ryerson also uses Bing!.
And we know Ned Ryerson also uses Bing!.
There's a much easier way to get steam. Details are available here.
So what you're saying is that the person that I responded to suggesting that a solar minimum will drive global cooling is not correct.
How does 10 years count as "archiving"? Go back to 1916 and tell me how your backups are faring.
Our betters also try to tell me that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much land area as the southern hemisphere, but my gut tells me that's a government conspiracy and that land and weather are equally distributed around the globe. Our betters also try to suggest that they've found evidence for warming in North America and the US during the medieval warm period, but the reason I know they're full of shit is because we didn't have satellites then, and even if we did they would have just fudged the data anyway. I don't trust thermometers anyway, I go outside today and it feels cooler than yesterday, so I know that today is colder than average. That's how facts work.
I also saw this climate map once, they were trying to show how things are warmer on average. But, check this out - one little part of the map was actually colder than average. That's how I know that they make everything up, because I understand that the entire planet always warms and cools at the same rate, and that local variation doesn't exist. That's how they try to convince you to send them all of your oil money, but the guy they hired to photoshop that map fucked up and left part of it cold and completely blew their cover.
And remember a couple decades ago when you couldn't even turn on the TV without seeing Sally Struthers whining about some starving African kid? You want to know why you don't see those any more? Because there aren't any starving people in the world anymore. I know this is a fact because I can drive down the street and there's a grocery store. That's how facts work.
According to that article, we are currently in a "very deep solar minimum", the "quietest sun we've seen in almost a century". The last grand maximum ended in 2007. So how come that no one younger than 31 has ever experienced a month which is colder than average? Why are we not currently cooling?
Why do I bother? I already know exactly how you're going to respond. Let's all say it together.
"The data is bad"
The data on solar cycles is apparently good data, but the other data that doesn't suit your ideas is bad. Right?
I'm grateful for anyone who chooses not to have children and add more people to this planet.
Wildly different than what?
I'm quoting the article. He said that the address of his building and the location where the actual door are are "wildly different" addresses. I assume he means a different number and different street.
if I walk out the side door I'm on the wrong street from what my address says.
That's what TFA describes. I'm suggesting that he should be able to give an address for the particular door. And yes, I'm using address and location more or less interchangeably.
How do you fix the "coordinate" problem of having ten different coordinate systems in use just in one place?
You use the correct one. If you take a sphere and stick a pin in it, there's only one correct way to refer to where that pin is (assuming every system is using the same units, anyway, like degrees, and that they agree on the origin). The fact that we have multiple competing systems is a symptom of the problem. As a planet we've more or less decided on the origin, off West Africa. If we're all using the same origin and we're all measuring in degrees then each point on the planet is only referenced by a single set of coordinates. If there are 8 sets of coordinates all trying to refer to a single point then at least 7 of those sets are wrong. Maybe all 8 are.
Were you aware that there is a separate datum for Cape Canaveral?
You're still only describing symptoms of the problem. I understand there's a problem. I'm suggesting that we stop using the system that has so many symptoms of a problem and switch to one that makes logical sense.
I know about this problem because I deal with search and rescue, and I've seen the result of telling someone a coordinate for something and they wind up in the wrong place. I've had people tell me that there is a "target" at certain coordinates and there isn't anything there -- but there is when I change the datum on my GPS to what they are using.
And, according to your argument in the other thread, the solution is to change how the devices deal with coordinates to use "the human way" of doing things instead of coming up with a single coordinate system which makes sense.
It's easy to say "just fix it", but actually fixing it isn't that simple, and it may break other things.
I'm well aware of that. The question then becomes whether it is worth waiting until we have more things relying on these flawed systems before we try to change them, or if we rip the bandaid off now.
Building a system that depends on humans doing things the machine way is building a system designed to fail.
I'm not suggesting that we do things "the machine way", I'm suggesting that we do things "the logical way". What does it say about us that "the human way" and "the logical way" are 2 different things? Why can't they be the same thing? That's not something worth trying to correct? In 20,000 years from now are we still going to be converting between pounds and kilograms, and miles and kilometers, when we're calculating how much thrust we need to escape gravity? Are we still going to have to give turn-by-turn directions to get to a specific location on the planet or in a city? If not, then when exactly is the point that we should seek to change the systems that we're using? Why should we rely on a system that worked fine for people walking and riding horses when our needs are now completely different? Just because some of us are lazy and don't want to have to change anything? Is there any other valid reason?
The biggest, as far as I can determine, is that "I hate to drive". Period.
You think that Americans are a people known for their hatred of driving cars, huh? That's an interesting observation. It's wrong, but interesting. The major force against AVs is that people like to drive.
The other one is an unfounded and as-yet unsupported belief that autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic deaths and accidents.
I haven't seen anyone use an absolute like that. I've seen claims that roads will be safer, and that traffic deaths and accidents will decline, but I don't think I've seen anyone claim that they will simply become eliminated.
Lots of unicorns and pixie dust from AV proponents, but not much factual proof.
I suppose unicorns and pixie dust would be required to eliminate traffic deaths and accidents, but thankfully I haven't seen that claim being made by anyone not trying to set up a strawman.
Let's face it. Many, if not most, of those involuntary participants will see no benefit to changing.
Sure they will. We can even make the addresses 2 different formats so that you can tell just by looking at it whether it's a "new" or "old" address. The first time someone gives an AV their old address and the vehicle responds by dropping them off where they don't want to be, or by telling them that it can't find a route there, they'll see the benefit of the new address. When someone tries to place a delivery order online and it won't accept an old address format at all, they'll see the benefit. When someone uses the new address to tell them where to go, and they immediately know how to get to that point without turn-by-turn directions, they'll see the benefit.
Airships are marvellous, nearly perfect aircraft for applications where speed is not vital and severe weather is not an issue.
Heck, the fastest computer can barely beat people at chess
Not anymore, there are programs written for smart phones that compete at grandmaster level. Algorithms that can search 20,000 moves per second can win tournaments, let alone the supercomputers searching 200 million moves per second. And that was 7 years ago.
It means the cab company has incompetent drivers.
That's not exactly the point of the article. Like he says in the very article:
For the moment, it’s a pretty minor issue - the easiest solution is just for the drivers to call the rider, and it works itself out.
And then in the very next sentences he points out that this solution isn't possible for autonomous cars.
Technology is not the solution to human incompetence. Better humans are.
In a sense, you're right. The solution to this problem isn't necessarily better mapping, it's better addressing that is less arbitrary and error-prone. If you want to go to a certain door then that door should have an address that makes sense based on its location on the street.
These uber-smart cars need to understand how humans do things
There's a problem with that. Often the way that humans do things is completely arbitrary and prone to errors. That doesn't translate well to a machine. The more logical choice is in fact to reduce errors and make the things we do less arbitrary. It will make sense for more than just the machines that we build to help us.
Let's face it, a major reason why people want autonomous cars is because the way that humans do things doesn't always work that well. It would be kind of pointless to try to program the machines to act just like us. They should be better or there's no point. It's not nonsense to change the way that we do things in order to make it easier for the machines, and us, to perform better.
Maybe the problem is that we've designed cities that have a rate of errors which is fine for humans but doesn't work very well for machines. Maybe the solution is to just fix the addresses. If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?
To do nothing is to be nothing.