Posts by Cyril 33 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Sep 2008
Why not just put big metal grates on the front of the automated cars? That way pedestrians couldn't damage them. And it would also encourage the pedestrians to not step in front of the car.
A speed of 39 mph indicates (about 63 kph) that the vehicle was traveling in an area that one could reasonably expect a pedestrian would not travel into the road. If the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit there would have been a serious issue over it. Areas that are likely to have pedestrians cross the road are limited to 35 mph.
If the pedestrian didn't have a bike the AI would have most likely recognized them and avoided impact. If they were riding the bike the AI would have been able to correctly classify them and act accordingly. With a human operator she could have still been hit as they could have been distracted and not realized the danger until it was too late, happens all the time.
As it is, the AI has a gap in it's understanding that can now be remedied, which is the intent of the program. It's a shame that someone was killed, but it was advertised that their would be automated cars running around the area so she should have been aware of the danger. My mother taught me from a young age not to step in front of moving vehicles.Never assume they will stop. Because sometimes, they will not.
It was a terrible accident. But the only one that could have definitely prevented it was the deceased. She risked her life by stepping into the road between two controlled intersections, an infraction of the law that is there to keep her safe. Yes, Uber bears some liability, but not criminal responsibility for the incident. They are responsible for the next one because now they know better.
The pattern on the shirt makes it look like you have something under it to a tired border patrol agent, like an explosive device. I would recommend not wearing that shirt near an airport, or really anywhere with lots of armed police.
On the plus side, the agent probably had to go change his shorts after that.
If CBP enters your home without a warrant you have every right to defend yourself and your property as it is an illegal search and if they are not obeying the law there is no reason to assume they will follow any other laws.
The can enter private property without a warrant, but they can't enter the place you inhabit.
The Constitution still applies. They still need a reasonable suspicion to perform a search within that 100 miles. And the 100 miles hasn't been tested in court and will probably fail. They settle cases to keep them from going to trial so they don't lose their 100 mile distance. A reasonable distance would be 10 miles. If they ever threaten to arrest you tell them to go ahead, you always wanted to get a ruling on whether 100 miles is a reasonable distance, because everyone knows it's not.
H1-B visas have been a tool used to depress wages. I've seen the job requirements and the H1-B visa holders they brought in to fill the position. There was no way they actually met the qualifications. And they were getting paid much less than the job requirements called for.
When looking for work, every time you see a job that has excessive requirements you should apply. Even if you don't want the job. It makes it harder to bring in an H1-B worker. And if offered the position, ask for the high end of what the requirements should pay. Because if they made an offer, you met the requirements by default. If they don't want to pay that much and hire am H1-B worker they have broken the law and if caught they are screwed.
If a whole sales department misses their goals, you don't PIP the workers, you PIP the managers. You fire the only two women in your department? There is zero chance that it is a coincidence. In the US you don't ever fire the last woman in your department unless you have fired a couple of men before her. And you better have hard numbers that will stand up in court before you even consider it.
I have been in the military. My uncle was a US Army Drill Sgt. and breaking you down and building you up is exactly what boot camp is about.
They have to get rid of civilian habits so you can form one cohesive unit. Just because you don't see something doesn't necessarily mean it not there.
If we can disregard all the smoke and mirrors for a moment.
ISPs are not selling the Internet, they are selling access to the Internet. The contract is for a service that occurs entirely within the State of California. Once you access the internet you can do as you wish with it, including getting data from anywhere.
California just said that you can provide the service with some constraints. All data must be treated equally. You are not allowed to influence what the consumer does with the tool you sell him or her.
This is entirely legal, especially since the FCC has acknowledged that the ISPs are not selling telecommunication. They are selling access to a public system. Like a car dealership effectively sells access to the roads. The dealership doesn't get to determine which roads you drive on or how fast you drive. ISPs are treated the same as other businesses under this law.
When someone at the USPS noticed they probably just laughed and let it go. When someone is messing with your biggest competitor, why try to stop them?
It would have been better to send it to a nearby abandoned property. Just mow the lawn and do a bit of hedge trimming to make it look lived in. Cash the checks into a corporate account and transfer to an account in the Caymans. Then bounce it to an account in Ireland and send it to another corporate account, pay taxes on it and withdraw the cash. When they catch on and move the mail back just stop going to the abandoned property. Nothing links it to you.
Of course if you did get caught you would also face money laundering charges, but after thousands of charges of stolen mail, it's not like they can give you any more time. FYI, it's 10 years for each piece of stolen mail. If you don't upset the judge it will probably be concurrently, but if the judge doesn't like you it can be consecutive time and you can end up with tens of thousands of years.
Okay, start with the Earth and Moon in orbit of each other and not rotation in relation to each other. The gravity of the Moon pulls the liquid surface of the earth toward it making it slightly egg shaped. The center of gravity is directly between the Earth and the Moon.
Now, add the Earth's rotation. The liquid surface is moving toward the pull of gravity of the Moon. But since the Earth keeps rotating, it never quite reaches that point. Due to the shift in mass the center of gravity is no longer directly between the Earth and Moon, it is slightly off. Not a lot, but just a bit. The Moon continues to orbit, but the gravity center being moved causes the Moon to change direction ever so slightly and causes the orbit to get wider. Just a few centimeters a year, but the change in course results in the Moon pulling away from the Earth. Now, as the Moon moves farther away the tidal force decreases and the angle of the offset also decreases due to the distance, reducing the rate at which the Moon moves away. Eventually it will reach equilibrium.
@Dan Paul
Nobody loses the right to a fair trial. If they did something wrong and it can be proven in a court of law then they get punished.
If it can't be proven in a court of law then it is possible that they didn't do it.
Don, how would you like to be locked up without trial for a heinous crime that you didn't commit?
One of the established principals in US case law is "Chilling effect". A practice that interferes with 1st Amendment protection by causing a person to change their speech out of fear of authority is illegal under the Constitution.
Forcing backdoors into all communication will result in a chilling effect on communications. Thus it is illegal under the Constitution. So they can make all the laws they want to force holes into encryption. But it will not survive a legal challenge. Any company making money from providing secure communications or storage will benefit financially from getting this law overturned, thus they are required by law to challenge this law in court to provide the best return for their stockholders.
A public park is meant to be used. If individuals are causing damage to the park they should be individually held responsible for the damage.
If I started a kite company near a park and people bought my kites by the thousands and went to fly them in the nearest park, I am not responsible for the damage those people cause. They are individuals, individually participating in the same activity. I didn't tell them to go to that park. That's where they chose to go as there was open space and wind.
When a flower bed gets trampled by a kite flyer or a AR player it doesn't matter which they were doing, the person trampling the flower bed is responsible for the damage. If the city or state tried to hold me responsible for the damage they would get laughed out of court. Same for the AR company.
The AR company should work with the parks system to create an experience that works for everyone. Randomly created objects should be shunted to the nearest footpath or parking area. So players can enjoy the park and not cause damage. A system should be developed where an organization can send a set of areas and where the game content can be safely moved to to preserve safety and security. It could be an online map where you outline an area, draw on the safe zones and in 15 minutes the game is updated.
Actually the term "Snowflake" was coined to refer to Neo-nazis and other right wing flakes who were white and cried a lot about people picking on them. Recently there has been a push by Snowflakes to call others Snowflakes to confuse the term. I decline to participate.
FYI Bob, "right wing" includes Libertarians, always has.
So you are by definition a Snowflake. You can go cry to someone who cares.
The Constitution trumps all other law, even the DMCA.
The smokescreen about "transformative use" is just that, a smokescreen. The Yes Men are using the exemption of copyright for parody as it was intended and enshrined in law.
The US Chamber of Commerce is slitting their own throats.
1) Electric cars are different than petrol. The range will be the same at 100 or 40 miles an hour.
2) The cost of electricity to charge the vehicle it amounts to under $1.50 (US) in the most expensive places. Electricity can be generated many ways. In the worst case, if the power is out, you are getting a car that gets 40 mpg and still had reasonable pickup and acceleration.
3) The EV1 was not the perfect car. It had problems, it's short range and heavy batteries limited the vehicle severely. Think of the Volt as an improved EV1. Better batteries, better engineering, and a petrol generator to recharge the batteries.
4) The concept car wasn't very aerodynamic. The new design is a compromise, staying as close to the original concept as they could while making it as efficient as possible. Compared to the other options, the Volt looks very nice, at least to an American eye.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
