Posts by LucreLout

Re: The Nasty Little Truth About Deep Learning

You realize that the Tesla vehicle was on AutoPilot and that 'Auto' means autonomous, don't you?

Really? How smart is your smart watch?

Re: The Nasty Little Truth About Deep Learning

Either the Tesla's sensors failed horribly, the autopilot failed horribly or the autopilot wasn't turned on and for some reason, emergency braking is linked to it rather than being a separate system.

I wonder how high up the sensors are located? It's entirely possible that the view of the fire engine, from the sensors position, was blocked by a vehicle in front, which then changed lanes because of the fire truck, leaving the auto pilot scrabbling to stop.

Just a guess, based on 30 years of watching humans encounter and screw up that exact problem.....

Re: Where's the Elon Musk Attack Brigade today?

@unwarranted triumphalism

Where's the Elon Musk Attack Brigade today?

???

Sorry, but some tool sticking the car on autopilot before going to sleep or surfing porn, can hardly be blamed on the manufacturer of the vehicle.

That said, a simmple law change to ensure the driver inputs are recorded immediately prior to any accident where autopilot is engaged should suffice. If the drive doesn't react when they should have done, charge them with dangerous driving. It is, after all, a matter of time before one of these buffoons kills someone because they're too stupid to read the warning about what autopilot is and isn't.

Re: Biofuels, probably won't end well

Fracking etc. are evidence that peak oil is already happening.

No, they're evidence of competition, which is what you want in a capitalist economy. OPEC has massively cut production, not because they can't extract more (required for peak oil) but because there's so much oil on the market the price has tumbled.

Re: Market distortion@lucrelout

Stone age people didn't run out of stones, this is true - bear in mind the whole planet is made of stone though.

Did the iron age run out of iron? The dark ages run out of dark? The oil age won't end because we run out of oil; it will end because we switch to a better alternative, which is exactly how ALL other fuel types were substituted.

I admire your boundless confidence that we will never run out of a finite resource.

You're mistaking reasoning for confidence.

I haven't yet seen any actual facts that support your belief that the magic oil fairy has made the whole of the inside of the planet an oil reserve though.

Well, you probably won't, because its just a lie you've made up either because you don't understand how the world works, or because you're on some kind of environmentalist crusade and immunised against facts.

Economically recoverable oil at todays prices has increased in volume so far that peak oil as a prospect is all but finished. Peak oil might happen one day, but nobody alive today is going to be alive when that day comes, nor will your grandchildren be. We're certainly not going to run out of oil for at least 200 years, and given that half of oil produced is used for transport, and that by 2040 Europe will have banned new combustion engines, we're less than 100 years away from the rest of the world effectively stopping using it too.

So, before we get to peak oil, we'll have halved demand, thus pushing peak oil back another hundred or so years.

Lets then look at the other half of demand - most of that is for power generation - heat & leccy. Well, nuclear is an off the shelf ready swap out for that today. Renewables have gone from near zero to almost credible in 50 years. 50 more years and they'll have closed out almost all demand for oil burnt to generate power.

SolarCity's year one cost on their roof is 2x normal tiles. Year one. By year 20 or 30 they'll cost almost no more to have than normal roof tiles, after which your home will generate most or all of its own power.

So now we're down to using less than 5% of todays oil consumption for harder to remove uses.

And then there's the function of time. New oil continues being created in the same way as previous oil was, and on a long enough timeline, will be created quicker than we're going to be using it.

Peak oil, where we use it quicker than we can extract it, is extremely unlikely to happen. Running dry, as in out of oil, is NEVER going to happen. It's an ill thought out scare story and nothing more.

Re: more flying?

@AC

I'm surprised they think people flying will double.

My flying in the past 6 months has more than doubled. 2 x trips to Sweden to visit the inlaws, and 3 x business trips to America which also required a number of internal flights. Obviously, I'd have prefered to stay home, but both sets of management wanted their wishes catering for.

As the cost of flying has come down over the past 15 years, I'd imagine more and more people now have to fly - its cheaper to send people on busines trips, so businesses will leverage that.

Out of my group of friends, we've all married people from abroad, which results in an uptick in flights required as we visit the inlaws and they visit us; this is irreversible demand that would only abate a little as the older generations die out - the younger relatives will still be jumping on planes to visit each other for another 50 years.

Of course, aviation will not be this centuries bugbear; low orbit space flight will dwarf other forms of transport in terms of emissions within the century.

Re: Market distortion

@iron

Viable in California but in Scotland... not so much. Sure I'd be able to drive to work in the summer but not in the winter months.

With todays technology, sure. However I'm not convinced we even need a one size fits all solution. It'd be nice, but Scotland has plenty of wind and tidal energy that can boost the solar yield, or simply go nuclear for top ups.

Musk's roof tiles and power wall look to me to be a no brainer for fitting to all homes, over time. And I don't believe the whole man made global warming thing; I just dislike inefficiency. If all that'll be on the roof is tiles, why not have tiles that generate power? And who knows what another decade or two of R&D is going to produce.

Scotland has about 1/10th of the population of California, so its less of a problem if the Scots need a nuclear or fossil top up in winter. Local small scale incineration for heat works well in Scandinavia, so that could help out too.

As the world gradually migrates that way, because it is already, the requirement for oil use will level off and then peak. We're literally never going to run out of the stuff. We possibly won't even drain the existing fields already in use.

That said, I still prefer when research is done to when it isn't, so I still quite like the bio aviation fuel idea. Not least because batteries don't look like powering a 777 any time soon, so using less mastodon and more crops will help slow the pace we use oil. While I don't think it'll ever run out, I'd prefer to use something replaceable rather than something finite; it's just how my head is wired.

Re: Market distortion

100 years, 150?

We'll have run dry here long before then

But we won't - we may, may, have hit peak oil in 150 years, but we'll still be using it and we'll still have lots left. We have about 200 years of coal under our feet and that is capable or nearly capable of being made into oil. We're not going to run out of oil, in much the same way the stone age didn't run out of stones.

Transport and power generation uses lots of oil, but transport is increasingly being electrified. Provided we keep Elon Musk safe at his desk, we've a very good chance of sticking to our plan to eliminate new combustion engines from 2040. A solar roof linked to a power wall, powering your home and car.

Industrial energy demands can readily be met by existing nuclear power technology which also provides a natural break point for oil consumption. Running dry, in oil terms, simply won't happen. It just isn't a real world concern.

Re: Biofuels, probably won't end well

@FlamingDeath

This may seem like a small point, but your definition of Peak Oil, is wrong. It is not "which is to say that eventually, all the oil underground will run out, it's not a case of if but when" but is in fact the point in time when oil output reaches its maximum possible pace, after which oil extraction rates must decline.

Its important to understand the difference because what it means to not have hit peak oil yet, is that we still have vast quantities of oil available. Peak Oil, for most of my life, has been considered to be imminent, with oil supplys predicted to be exhausted in around 50 years. It was 50 years 30 years ago.

Now, with the advent of shale oil, fracking etc, we have so much oil economically recoverable that Peak Oil is now hundreds of years away if it's coming at all.

However, I would love to see further research into bio fuels, simply because you never truly know when you might need it, and because extending the limits mankinds knowledge is rarely a bad thing. We know we can drive cars and trucks etc on bio fuel, but have historically been unable to do so with planes, large ones anyway.

BTW, I'm all for automation, but in our current socioeconomic value system, are you nuts?

In which socioeconomic system would you prefer to automate? Capitalism is a simple game, easy to understand, and historically has led to gains for all. There are no other socioeconomic systems that have been shown to work as well anywhere else in the world, ever. Socialism and Communism have failed everywhere they've been tried, and rule by dictator only truly works if you get to be the big cahuna.

Increased automation is an inevitability for several reasons - technological progress, falling cost of hardware, and the increased cost of labour at the bottom end (minimum wage). Pay someone nearly £10 per hour to input customers orders into a computer, or have the customer do it themselves, for free. It's a bit of a nobrainer.

Fortunately there is a lot of other work that is really rather harder to automate - maid service in hotels, residential cleaning, gardening etc. New jobs will emerge, such as automated till screen cleaner person..... obviously, that'll one day be automated too. But its not like it would have been a skill that took long to learn, thus the person will simply move onto the next not yet automated role.

Higher skill roles will emerge such as writing the software, designing the hardware, repairing the system. Progress has always destroyed some jobs and created others. It's always going to be that way, under any economic system we create.

Re: I've been pointing this out for years.

The wind doesn't stop at night. Nor does hydro-electric power, pumped storage power, and various other forms of renewable energy. Obviously.

Completely agree, however pumped storage is a rounding error on a rounding error of power provision. Hydro we could, and possibly should, do more with. Biogas from food waste is another reasonable possibility to help with load.

The further through time we go the better the technology gets, so really avoiding peak oil and CO2 emissions is nothing more than a play for time.

Re: Cost of Electricity

How will the Taxman work out when I'm charging my EV (in the future) or running the washing machine?

He won't, he'll just track your car via satellite and price will vary by mileage and time of day driven.

I hate this idea, but it is what they're planning on - See Galileo etc.

Re: I've been pointing this out for years.

Believe it or not, the UK is one of the leaders in Renewable power generation. The likes of Denmark and Norway do better than us but where our little island is located makes offshore wind very economic.

Denmark uses Sweden as a giant battery, which is the only reason they do so well in the stats. Their excess power on windy days goes to Sweden, while their nuclear/fossil generated power comes back down the wire on calmer days.

It's a brilliant idea, but does muddy the water when looking at the stats.

Re: actually no

@Christian Berger

It's just ignoring obvious things, like that people won't use the quick charge option for an overnight charge

I agree with most of your post, and certainly that the issue is readily solvable.

However, the bit above I don't think will be correct, because upon returning home from work people will often need to go back out later in the evening - a night out with friends & family, to go shopping, collect a package fromt he post office etc. They won't always have clear forward visibility of these things and so some people will simply elect for a quick charge as their default charge unless they know they're staying in.

Re: It's a weird world...

@nethack47

since it's hard to see how unprotected sex and after the fact regrets amounts to rape.

Well, lets just look at that objectively shall we? Forget about who the suspect is for a moment.

A girl consents to sex with protection and instead you have sex without protection, for which there was no consent. Sex without consent is rape. There's no excuse. Yes, some small percentage of rape allegations will be mailicious or made up, but that is why we have these things called trials; to work out who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Now, back to Assange. In all the time he was in Sweden after the leaks, he made zero noise about being extradited. He simply didn't consider it a threat. Then, after his lawyer illegally warned him he was going to be arrested for rape, he fled the country to the UK. The only country in the whole world it makes less sense to flee to in order to escape prosecution in America, is America.

I'm not sure there are any after the fact regrets in this case - I've not heard form him any denial that he was told to bag up and didn't. That the woman didn't flee on the evening and report immediately does not an after the fact regret make. He strayed from the parameters of consent and acted in a manner he had allegedly specifically been told he did not have consent for.

In the time between entering the UK and fleeing to the embassy, he was seemingly totally unconcerned about extradition to America from the UK. He belatedly raised that as a 'fact' after the Swedes got their paperwork straight, and fled to the embassy.

The situation he's created for himself is undoubtedly uncomfortable, but I have no sympathy for that because he's hiding in order to deny a couple of women their day in court. What if those women are telling the truth? He's simply aggravating their suffering by denying them their day in court, and subjecting them to his media presence every few weeks. The impact on his wife and children must be devastating. "Mammy, why does Billy at school call daddy a rapist? And why won't he come out of that little room." If the statute of limitations in Sweden has expired, then he will be referred to as an alleged rapist for the rest of his life...... if he actually is innocent, that must hurt beyond belief.

If he had any sense at all, he'd have left the in time to serve his time in Sweden, get sent to jail under Obama, then pardoned right along with Manning. Waiting until Trump is in charge seems like a strategic error, especially after the fury Mannings release caused among Trump supporters.

Unless there is a statute of limitations in regard to the offences he's wanted for in America, and I suspect there isn't, then he will forever be at risk of detention under any future Presidency. His only play is to come out, serve time for the bail jumping, and see what happens next. That aside he's on the couch until he dies.

We're clearly never going to waive the bail jumping, and as much as Ecquador may want to get him out of their embassy, it'd difficult to see a means by which that could ever happen, short of some James Bond style escape sequence.

Re: BT welcomed the conclusion

BT shares up 11p already today also tells it's own story.

That's a little over 2.2%, with a market movement on the day of 2.4%.

I'm not suggesting the regulators decision isn't a cop out, because it is, only that the share price movement of BT didn't happen for the reasons you expressed.

Re: When will unions learn?

@wolfetone

Unions work. Period.

Yes, there's not a single instance I can think of where they've not worked in their members interests at all.....

Aside from coal, ship building, car manufacturing, dock working, etc etc The list is, let's be honest, as long as it is depressing.

Was there a time when we needed unions? Yes, absolutely, before health and safety laws for example. But then, there was a time when nature needed dinosaurs, and that time too has passed.

The saddest thing is that most union members simply don't understand the dynamics of how unions work and why they operate in the cackhanded manner that they do. Unions are commercial organisations competing with each other for your subscriptions, and they no more have your interests at heart than does your telco; in both cases you're their revenue.

If you're a capable, credible employee you should be able to stand on your own and interact with management individually. The deadwood can't, which is why they prefer unions, because unions will protect them just the same for as long as they can make revenue off them.

@Spleenmeister

You are so missing the point it's funny. Never mind the myriad of reports from the scene while this tragedy was unfolding that point the finger of suspicion diametrically away from these two losers.

*yawn* another tin foil hatter; just what the web needs.

Ok, I'll bite. One, just one, credible news agency reporting "from the scene while this tragedy was unfolding that point the finger of suspicion diametrically away" from the two dead losers. No? But then, there never is.

@Eddy Ito

Why shouldn't law enforcement have to follow the rule of law and get a court order?

That's exactly what they have done. You may disagree with their being awarded access to the data, or not, but you can't argue they didn't follow the legal process via the courts.

Re: Not so fast

@Tom

Why is there a widely held belief that US data protection is worse than EU, when evidence indicates it is the same or better? Euro-jealously perhaps?

Please explain how American data protection provides equal of greater protection to EU citizens within the EU? It may or may not provide better protection for US citizens in the US, but surely you can see why those of us not in that boat are asking questions?

Re: Centralisation/decentralisation Insourcing/outsourcing

I strongly suspect that what does move out of the cloud back into the DC will move into "private clouds"

My bank is moving wholly to virtualised PCs in the near future, which is what we'll be using our old datacentre to host in a private cloud. The stuff that was in the DC is already being gradually moved to the cloud, with a lot of the major software components being moved to a SaaS subscription.

I expect there will be some form of market for that, while PC manufacturers swallow both barrels, having been relegated to the retail only channel.

@crarcher

Good luck with that. Not entirely sure sites based abroad give 2 hoots about the legislation here or in over 200 other countries.

I'm not sure how they could. Allegedly there are a great many actresses with their own websites, and because of the numbers involved, competition is probably quite, erm, stiff. How are they supposed to fund on-going compliance checks and legal advice for 200+ nations?

Re: This will be widely ignored ....

Plan B will be to get the ISPs to do the blocking for them, but the technical complexity of this (plus the simle fact that the porn sites can just change IP addresses, domain names, etc) will probably defeat that;

I'm assuming they'd just delete the entry from their DNS servers, which would likely be all the law required them to do. Re-point that away from your ISP to Google and the problem goes away.

I can't imagine the ISPs will want to spend serious money policing something they know they'll struggle with. The flip side, of course, is that you'd probably see TOR expand as more people use that to escape their ISP, and more institutions etc provide entry nodes.

Re: Wanna stop kids looking at porn?

@moiety

Also make the point that some things you can't unsee...

This. In spades. It would apply to all sorts of material which can be found on the internet, ranging from gross to sick to the genuinely disturbing. It would work better than any censorship.

Many problems with legislation around technology stem from it's written by and to appease baby boomers, who are the last generation not to get technology. Now, before the boomers let rip with the down votes, there are a great many technological masters within their cohort - much of the foundations upon which the modern age exists were laid by them - but in terms of a whole generation, they're the last of the Ludd's.

Gen X spans the gap between "hedge finds" and downloads, Gen Y would have heard of the former but possibly not encountered it much if at all, and the Millennials would assume it was a fairy story, like most of the 60's.