Daegun

/r/NotTheOnion

If Tesla looses then Elon should pay them by landing a SpaceX rocket in their car park 

But how exactly does an ATM go 'out of date'?  It was built to do one single purpose, run a display, interact with the user and their credentials, communicate with the network and dispense money.  It's job doesn't 'evolve'.  There's no 'high resolution money update'.  It's a money kiosks who's role in the universe is entirely static.  So why should it be 'upgraded' when it does it's job exactly as it did when it was new?  The vulnerability is a design flaw that was present since the day it was manufactured so  how is it unreasonable to want a patch rather than saying 'They shouldn't put it in a dumpster 5 years ago anyway!'
 
I think a lot of people on this forum get clouded by the CONSUMER electronic upgrade cycles and forget that in industrial and commercial applications, a lot of technology is turn-key.  You can install it and outside of maintenance, it'll perform it's job just fine for 20 years and that's not a 'failure to upgrade' it's 'it still does it's task perfectly'.

You should really think about the first sentence of this again. The standard that was finalized only days ago is useless because it isn't yet used in anything? That would be like saying that a specific gpu is useless before it was put in a card. You need the gpu first to make the card and likewise with this.

Cool, so when you're facing off the United States Armed Forces and they opt to escalate from 'M-16' to 'F-16', you tell me how fending off that F-16 goes for you.

To put this a bit more in perspective of how crazy this machine that they're using is, it isn't 4 Titan Vs/Tesla V100s. It's 8. It took a computer with over 40k cuda cores to run this in real time.

It will definitely be several years, by which point GPU should have progressed to the point that even ray tracing via direct compute should be viable.

That was my first thought, if this is something devs have to implement then we're going to be waiting a while before more than a handful of games use it.

What? First, let's talk about physics. Average Speed Limit for in-city driving is anywhere from 50 to 65 km/h (exemptions like School Zones and residential suburbs aside). 50 km/h is roughly equal to 30 mph. 65 km/h is roughly equal to 40 mph.
 
Let's assume best case scenario, 30 mph speed limit. At 30 mph, the average braking distance (this is the time from a brake is activated, to a dead stop - NOT counting reaction time) is 45 feet. I can find no data on average reaction times for autonomous vehicles, but let's assume 0.1 seconds, or 100 milliseconds - this is "near instantaneous", for our purposes. 30 mph = 44 feet per second. 0.1 s reaction time = 4.4 feet added to braking distance.
 
That means an autonomous car might need at minimum, 49.4 feet, from detecting the danger, to coming to a complete stop. Let's round to 50 feet, for fun. That could be upwards of one-quarter (25%) of the entire city block (I cannot give an exact measurement, as it varies wildly per city).
 
My point is that if the autonomous car was approaching an intersectionm 50 feet is basically nothing. The reaction time isn't the problem. It's the stopping time.
 
So, what... does that mean every time you approach an intersection, you slow down to 30 km/h (20 mph)? Because, let's be honest, if you're driving the speed limit in most cities, you're already going too fast to prevent injury, should someone unexpectedly step out in front of you.
So far, autonomous vehicles have a significantly better track record when compared with humans. Expecting better of them is not the same thing as expecting them to be infallible. That's impossible, given that they are:
1. Programmed by humans, who are fallible, and
2. Defined by the laws of physics, which dictate that stopping a car with momentum is a difficult task that is not instant.
You're making an insane amount of assumptions about this.
 
We don't have all the facts. We have no idea who is responsible. The driver, the car itself, the pedestrian, or possibly something else entirely.
 
What annoys me the most about this thread is people assuming facts where facts do not exist yet. Should the investigation determine that Uber, their programming, or the vehicle itself are at fault? I'll be right there with you damning them and calling for better safety.
 
But we do not know this. Uber, the driver, and the car, all may be entirely "innocent". Or guilty.
 
Why don't we wait and see the facts before passing judgement?
 
This is something that lots of people in this thread seem to be ignoring.
 
They somehow think because a computer is driving, and can think faster than humans, that it somehow makes the brakes work better? No. Physics says a 4000 pound SUV cannot stop instantly, and will need dozens of feet, at minimum, even with zero reaction time, to stop.
I'm fairly sure most automated vehicles will have a full range of sensors, including some standard video. But that wouldn't help. They would see a person on the side of the road (which they will see hundreds of times per journey). The computer can't tell if someone is about to decide to step out. If that person does so at the wrong moment, the computer will simply not have enough time to manoeuvre or stop the vehicle, even with perfect (near zero) reaction time.

This doesn't clear the contradiction. They're headphones priced at much more than your $50 mark (3 times that). The person you replied to wasn't talking about hi-fi headphones either, he talks about how comparably priced wireless headphones have worse quality than wired headphones.

This seems to be at odds with your recommendations of Apple's Airpods.

Probably because it causes cancer in California 

Yeah, this is why I'm annoyed at this trend. It's not about being against progress and innovation. I'm upset because we're being forced into a technology that isn't yet competitive.
 
To make an analogy, this feels like being forced to use DDR4 in the latest computers before DDR4 is actually faster than DDR3. It's the consumer taking a less effective solution in the spirit of "innovation", in quotes because you can't call something innovative if it doesn't do something better.
 
As I said above, the only advantage right now that wireless has is that there is no wire.
 
Here's another one: Imagine General Motors announcing that their flagship cars (dunno much about which) are going to be electric only now. People would be outraged that you can't purchase a 2019 Camaro (or whatever) that's fuel-powered, because there's very few places to charge an electric car and the technology just isn't ready to replace petrol yet.

You must live/work (look for work in my case) far from a large population then. Interference is a bitch to deal with, and so is the lifespan batteries.
Less than $50 AUD and I've got noise cancelling headphones that utterly destroy earpods (my iPod nano 7 kind of sounds like shit now if I use the original earpods) and indeed my 2 year old $75 AUD Sony headphones (newer+cheaper headphones are more comfortable due to far more padding, sound far better, have removable+washable ear covers, have better build quality and a removable cable).

This doesn't clear the contradiction. They're headphones priced at much more than your $50 mark (3 times that). The person you replied to wasn't talking about hi-fi headphones either, he talks about how comparably priced wireless headphones have worse quality than wired headphones.

This doesn't clear the contradiction. They're headphones priced at much more than your $50 mark (3 times that). The person you replied to wasn't talking about hi-fi headphones either, he talks about how comparably priced wireless headphones have worse quality than wired headphones.

No. That's not how progress is made. Apple has yet to introduce a suitable replacement.
 
Wireless is not a suitable replacement, due to the obvious drawbacks (Unless USB, which could do everything Parallel could do, but faster and smaller).
 
Lightning Headphones are not a suitable replacement, because of all the other non-Apple products people will use their headphones for (Computer, home stereo, etc). Also, only Apple devices use Lightning, and they're never going to license it out to Android devices. So if I own a pair of high end headphones, and I have an iPhone 8, and my fiancee has a Pixel 2, we can't share those headphones without an adapter of some kind.
 
That's not progress my friend. Dongles and adapters are not progress.
 
If Wireless headphones can eliminate all of the downsides? Sure, maybe. But that's a big maybe. And we're talking 10-20 years from now.

Next "innovation"
 
We stopped putting in ethernet ports since we have wifi.  We call it bravery.

Before this they were really the only company that offered sub 5" phones with flagship specs. This seems to have changed with this release though.

I'm a little horrified that people consider complaining about an organizer for an event putting participants in a hotel that would be shut down over health and safety concerns in a multitude of countries 'whining'.

I'm a little horrified that people consider complaining about an organizer for an event putting participants in a hotel that would be shut down over health and safety concerns in a multitude of countries 'whining'.

I'm a little horrified that people consider complaining about an organizer for an event putting participants in a hotel that would be shut down over health and safety concerns in a multitude of countries 'whining'.

This seems like an awful idea just for the implications of what they're trying to do here. Think beyond the 'but think of the children!' argument they're presenting here and about how set on surveillance the UK is and its worrying. It seems like they're trying to get a foot in the door for removing anonymity from the Internet (at least with the idea of a central database that's required to make an account), and they're doing it in a way that more people will agree with them.
 
On social media negatively impacting children, it negatively impacts everyone. There's studies done that link it to increased cases of depression in adults as well as teens. So this isn't something that if you shield them from it now, they'll be okay later.

I don't think you adequately comprehend this article.  Notice how they're only blocking the usage with credit cards?  That's because bitcoin is a very risky investment and if it blows up in the investor's face, it's frequently the credit company that winds up holding the bag if the account holder runs off and doesn't pay, declares bankruptcy, or tries to argue that the purchase was fraudulent and they 'totally never bought that bitcoin, someone musta stole my card.  Woopsie doodle'.
 
You only think that this is a bank trying to interfer with bitcoin because you have very poor financial literacy.  This is why the article says the chequeing account is fine, because what you buy with your chequing account isn't DEBT, it's your cash that you set on fire if you screw up.  You think you are clever suggesting a 'prepaid credit card' to 'get around it' but NO SHIT, because a prepaid credit card is PRE-PAID, it's not DEBT, if you lose everything buying bitcoin on a prepaid card, then you already paid the bank what it's owed.
 
"TD Bank halts allowing customers to use credit cards to buy cryptocurrency"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/td-banks-bitcoin-1.4549697
 
"Major Banks Ban Buying Bitcoin With Your Credit Card"
http://fortune.com/2018/02/04/banks-ban-buying-bitcoin-credit-card/
 
"Bitcoin Ban Expands Across Credit Cards as Big U.S. Banks Recoil"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-02/bofa-to-decline-all-cryptocurrency-transactions-on-credit-cards
 
Before you go on, you should keep in mind that in the United States, most banks won't let you make ANY investments with money from a credit card, you have to use your OWN MONEY instead of the BANKS.
 
Can you please refrain from making paranoid statements based purely on your own financial illiteracy and ignorance?