1950 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
Hmm why the downvotes? I'm not bothered about getting them, but I am curious to hear the rational.
Was it pointing out that spending billions fighting the insignificant threat of terrorism in this country is a futile waste of money, and is simply security theatre designed to frighten and control the masses...?
Or was it daring to suggest that solar power in this country is largely useless due to our northern latitude and lack of year round sun, and wind power is equally useless because we mostly have days where there's no wind or too much wind, yet we still invest billions of taxpayer funds to exploit this entirely unreliable energy source?
So let's cool the anti-cyclist sentiment. One gets enough of it on the road no matter how well one tries to do the right thing.
Not anti cyclist mate. Some road users are utter knobs regardless of the vehicle, and they give the rest a bad name. A minority of cyclists thinking they don't need to obey red lights does not help the perception.
I'm just pointing out the futility of this safety app. It won't make the slightest difference.
Defensive driving / cycling is the only way. Self preservation should dictate you don't want to be sat on a bike at a junction next to a cement mixer lorry. At least let the thing pull off first to see where it goes, instead of trying to dash out in the lead because "I'm on a bike and I can get moving faster than you, losers."
Well that's a lot more than terrorism in the UK and look at the amount of money and police we are prepared to throw at preventing that.
Sadly true. Both problems are insignificant and I don't think we should be throwing so much resources at either.
While we're at it we should ban wind turbines and rooftop solar because sometimes the maintenance chap falls to his/her death.
Actually we should just ban them because they're a stupid boondongle that does nothing beneficial for the massive cost, but that's a different subject.
It's just proving tricky to solve the "sudden stop at the destination" issue....
Just call it what it is, "lithobraking". It sounds cool and most people won't know what the fuck it means.
You can even put an eco-spin on it: "...featuring environmentally assisted lithobraking at your destination, where some of the energy used in transport is returned to the local environment..."
Mines the one with the concealed parachute and glide suit.
Nothing to do with being anti-cyclist. This "safety" app makes an Everest sized mountain out of an insignificant molehill.
Not for one second am I belittling anyone's tragic death, but 20 in a year is tiny in comparison to deaths from other traffic accidents, obesity, smoking, alcoholism, cancer, well pretty much everything else you can think of.
What's to say the suggested alternative routes are any safer? Navigation systems are infamous for trying to send drivers through impossible narrow, low or otherwise inappropriate routes. Will this one be perfect? Not a chance mate.
How many places can you reach your destination without taking left turns except at roundabouts, without:
1) Significantly increasing your travel distance
2) Significantly increasing your journey time
3) Choosing roads that are inappropriate, not designed for the size and/or weight of lorries.
4) Shifting congestion elsewhere and causing more accidents because of increased congestion in those other locations.
This won't solve the almost entirely nonexistent problem, just move it around and create extra problems elsewhere.
And what about cyclists turning right? They are still as likely to be next to a lorry in a blind spot. Are we to suggest lorries avoid turning right too?
There's one simple universal rule of the road: assume everyone else is out to get you and is always going to do something really stupid, and drive / ride defensively at all times.
But no. There's an app for that.
My experience with autonomous braking is that it reacts very late, and leaves the smallest gap possible between it and the object it's avoiding. If someone goes into the back of you... well, that's their fault.
Personally (YMMV) I'd prefer something more akin to adaptive cruise control that maintains a speed-dependent minimum distance, and therefore brakes earlier and less aggressively, that a system that jams the anchors on at the last possible millisecond.
Ideally both systems would be present and interact, with the car choosing the most appropriate action depending on the immediate situation.
I do fear too many people will pay even less attention than they do now, just because the car will sort it out. For some (an ever increasing number) that bar is already too damn low.
There are other risks too. Without this being on every car, drivers with the system may get used to its presence and then (for example) drive a hire car without such a system. It's entirely plausible accident rates for those specific circumstances will go up dramatically. People get into habits, especially if they make life easier. One of those habits will be less attentive driving if the car is taking up the slack. Human nature and it's unavoidable.
no doubt the feel-the-road lobby will complain about increased risks from people not paying attention, but the evidence is now there.
One study is a start, but it's not conclusive until backed up by others, contradicted, review, replicated. I would like to see more studies before reaching such a conclusion, including studies examining the possible negative effects of such driver aids.
Feels to me like if one needs a driver aid to be more attentive, one probably shouldn't be driving.
(I'm saying "one" rather than "you" to avoid singling Dave out here).
However, earlier in May he voiced fears that without fast-track legislation, negotiations would run into US presidential electioneering, effectively spiking a final deal until well into 2017.
This can only be a good thing. The longer the better.
There is so much that is deeply, deeply troubling with the degree of secrecy around an agreement that affects so many people around the world. Forcing those who are permitted to read it to rely on memory for anything they find objectionable seems entirely designed to make criticism and rational argument impossible.
Build a few nuke plants along the coast dedicated to desalination. Discounted reactors for buying in bulk, all the fresh water they'll ever need, plus a booming salt business.
Wait I forgot. California is full of eco nutters so it'd have to be giga-acres of solar PV and still wouldn't reliably match the stable continuous reactor output.
Oh well. Enjoy your drought.
Understandably worried, the fleshy cops covered their mechanical colleague's attack with a fusillade of "flash bang" stun ordnance and filled the house with tear gas for good measure.
Fuck me. Can you say "over-reaction"?
Wouldn't all the gas, and smoke from the flash-bangs, obscure the robots cameras, making it harder to control? All seems rather pointless and over the top. Surely just send the bot in with a few cops covering the exits and one on the remote. No need for a SWAT battalion and the shock and awe.
Seems likely. Sure there are other explanations like maybe the driver or his family were being threatened so he felt he had no choice. But most probably a case of "give up your friend and you'll walk". Lean on the driver if he's otherwise clean, even more so if he's got a record and is looking at some major time. They don't really care about him so much anyway - they don't want the tiddler they want the big fish, and the tit with the pepper spray is arguably far more dangerous.
In the UK, households can *not* have their water supply cut off for non-payment.
No but the OP wasn't talking about water.
Christ, is your living based on selling these things? You seem to be pushing very hard despite the numerous, obvious drawbacks and the overwhelming view that smart locks solve a non-existent problem.
SBS makes it clear to an intruder that they only have to try 16 combinations instead of 1000 (given the code is four digits long)
Assuming a 0-9 decimal keypad and a four digit combination that is 0000 to 9999 which to even my distracted brain is 10000 possible combinations.
A key is fine if you have a free hand. Place yourself in the position of someone with hands full of shopping and a small child in tow....
My God how have we all coped until now?!?
Seriously dude, come on. You're suggesting the smart lock would be entirely hands free? So it would have to be paired with a fob or your phone presumably. What kind of proximity are we talking about? Anything much above NFC range is inherently insecure. You could be around the corner from your house and the doors unlock, potentially letting anyone in.
Pairing to a fob or phone or whatever with sufficiently low proximity requirements to not invalidate your insurance, means you still need a free hand to wave your fob or phone or whatever near the lock.
And what if the battery in your paired thing goes flat? Locked out? Bypass code? Multiple singular access vectors reduce overall security.
No thanks mate. I'll live with the 3 seconds of inconvenience associated with a simple key.
Great. So instead of one trackable piece flying at 16000mph on a known trajectory that will burn up in about 10 days, there will be thousands of smaller, mostly untrackable pieces flying at 16000mph on unknown trajectories that may stay up there for years.
You are joking, right? Their idea of "paying attention" to the people boils down to:
1) Pick a group that you think will garner the most votes.
2) Pick a subject that irks that group - the more contentious the better.
3) Tell that group what you believe they want to hear to get said votes.
4) If you win, rest on your ass and do nothing of what was "promised". Unless brown lobbyists and stuffed brown envelopes are involved.
5) If you lose, you obviously didn't pick a topic that was touching enough raw nerves. Rinse and repeat.
No, but it's immaterial. Our own security agencies are in bed with the NSA, so there's no data independence even if they erect the great Firewall of Europe (and even in the unlikely event that it worked).
Exactly this ^^^^
When our own security services are hoovering up all our comms data it makes bugger all difference whether that data stays inside the EU or lands in US servers. It will all end up in US hands anyway thanks to our intelligence sharing arrangements.
The cynic in me can't help but think this is a plan to get US companies to set up EU server and EU companies to use EU servers, a ploy to make ordinary EU residents believe their data is now safe from the grabbing hands of the NSA, all so EU intelligence services can have easier access to the data they already seek to collect.
We are talking insurance companies. It's not like they need an excuse to raise premiums and not pay out. After all, users of this service will be permitting a complete stranger unattended access to their vehicle. Not to mention if the one-time codes were intercepted before use, say through a MITM attack (other attack vectors are available) compromising Amazon and DHL. Innovative, but risky.
If you're going to downvote me, perhaps grow some cojones and do me the courtesy of explaining why.
Perhaps you feel I have missed something vitally important which negatively affects my argument?
Or do you perhaps align with the OMG it's less radiation than a dental X-ray we're all doomed!!! camp?
I suspect you lack the capability, lack a solid argument, or simply lack the guts to engage in actual discussion? You clearly feel strongly enough about something to disagree via downvote, so come on, let's hear it.
@John H Woods, well said Sir. Well said. No one has, or provably will, die because of the Fukishima reactor accident. Yet the 15k+ deaths from the 'quake and the big wave were ignored by the media because "Oh noes!!! Nuclear!!! Radee-ayshun!!! We're all going to die from radiation levels lower than natural background levels in many inhabited parts of the planet!!!"
Kent Brockman: So, professor. Would you say it's time to panic, to crack open people's skulls and feast on the goo inside?
Professor: Yes. Yes I would, Kent.
This to me sums up the mindless overreaction to the slightest mention of nuclear.
Several departments in the Commission are now working together in examining the complaints as they struggle to decide whether Uber is a tech or transport company.
Seems like a tech company to me. They provide software, a platform, for connecting passengers to drivers. They do not supply, operator or maintain vehicles. They do not test, evaluate or qualify drivers.
Not sure why it needs several departments to figure this out. It is the European Commission, I guess that's the only reason it needs.
Whatever the eventual, probably glacial, decision, this should not make Uber drivers exempt from taxi regulations. The drivers are providing transport in return for a fare, same as a taxi. Then it gets a bit grey since if you're going to enforce the same taxi driver regs on Uber drivers, they should be allowed to do the same as taxi drivers. Which sounds like what the Belgian chap is proposing.
You never said using the "Shopping" page specifically, just talked about doing a product search which as has been said by others as well as myself, finds things sold on Amazon just fine.
Never used the "Shopping" tool, never even noticed its existence. If that is any kind of measure of its self-pushing, biased nature then I doubt the competition (which exists in spades) has anything to really worry about.
Ultimately, nobody forces you to do your shopping searches with Google. If you don't like what Google does, or what you perceive it to do, you have the choice to go elsewhere.
Go do a product search, notice how there's no Amazon results? Amazon won't pay to be listed in Google's comparison (yes, they charge for listings) so you as a consumer are prevented from seeing what could be the cheapest option.
Well your first sentence is just bollocks. I search for plenty of products and see Amazon listings all the time, usually high up the first page. Tends to be 50/50 between Amazon and Ebay for the number 1 spot.
And even if your first sentence were true, how is your second assertion in any way Google's fault? Amazon would have the option to pay. If Amazon chose not to pay, well then lack of Amazon listings would be Amazon's fault. Not Google's.
In other, shocking, news, shit offered free to the public isn't always offered on the same terms to commericial entities. Get over it.
oh goody, I can de-install "play store" from my phone then?
Maybe, maybe not. But you aren't forced to use it. There are alternatives even if using them requires more work.
You seem to be berating the maker of your phone OS for giving you easy access to other products that work with your phone OS...
Yeah, and leaves on the line will still be the excuse...
Nothing to do with the mish-mash collection of ownerships of the track, stations, points, junctions, tunnels, trains, delayed inadequate overrunning maintenance, piss poor tracks, inability to competently schedule to less that half hour accuracy, incompetent management. No. It'll be leaves.
Trains on stilts are still subject to flooding, even if they are completely enclosed, as their foundations may be undercut by erosion.
Just anchor to the substrate instead of the outer litho...
Wait, wait... this isn't the Culture and Earth isn't an Orbital. Too many Iian M. Banks books floating round in my head.
"With a monopoly position and a client base compelled to turn to GDS for advice, there is a risk that they could become an inefficient organisation removed from the efficiency drivers of the market," said a report by consultancy firm BDO.
I know consultancies are supposed to be subtle about these things but come on! World + dog knows this already happened.
Sure that's a lot of valuable, potentially recoverable resources, but it's not like it's all in one nice concentrated ore deposit now is it? Spread out all over the place, the economics of recovery don't seem very favourable. If it was worth doing en masse, chances are someone would already be doing it and hoovering up as much e-waste as they could get the eco-mits on. Thus we would not be seeing this problem and the UN wouldn't be wasting their time mentioning it.
The very fact the UN has even noticed suggests it's not commercially viable to attempt recovery on any sort of scale. Therefore it seems likely that we'll continue to recycle the easily recoverable stuff like the aluminium and steel from large appliances, which is good, and continue to send giant barges full of the crap we can't be arsed with to the third world, which is bad.
Note I do not agree with dumping our crap on the rest of the planet, just saying it how it seems. I take my dead electrical/electronic stuff to the local tip for recycling. What happens from there is entirely out of my hands.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022