Re: Let's step back for a second
No. The German court from where this originated actually asked if this would be a solution, but this ruling actually rejected such a proposal since it violates some other EU directive
168 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jul 2015
The ruling is self-contradicting. In one place it says that monitoring information has to be excluded as an option since that breaks some other EU law. The it says that it should require a password...so make a password, and have people show you their ID to give them the password. This, according to the judgement, "may dissuade the users of that connection from infringing copyright or related rights". But you still won't be able to pinpoint who did what and according to the ruling you are then not liable.
"The flake is small: 0.16 g in weight, 10.9 mm long (percussion length), 5.17 mm width (at mid-point of length), and 1.4 mm thick (at intersection of length and width)."
boffin: "we found a fragment from an axe (which took a few hours to grind)"
journalist: "they found an axe (which took hundreds of hours to grind)"
"I'm suggesting N universes from N big bangs at N times and N locations"
as long as 0 < N <= infinity. The part that you seem to be missing is that we cannot observe/verify/prove either way. We can only "see" up to a certain distance, beyond that it could be all unicorns and dragons.
"I'm further suggesting that the big bang is the end game for a black hole." - That's called a "big bounce" scenario
Some business sense says you wouldn't want your single supplier to be your direct rival but in some very unscientific single-sample tests Netflix streaming is somehow better than Amazon prime (no buffering, ever vs from none to too much depending on time, as well as possibly on weather patterns and phase of the moon)
While I agree with you, the reality is that the "how do we know the authorities won't abuse their power?" argument is a non-starter since you are pretty much guaranteed that 1) they will 2) they won't admit it 3) you will get the "if you don't have anything to hide..." response.
The "if you leave a backdoor open then others will be able to use it as well and there is no way to prevent that" argument is probably better at convincing laypeople/politicians that it's not the right path.
"You buy the vehicle because testing shows it does 70mpg, but in reality you never get more than 40 or 50 out of it." - No, it does do 70mpg, but it spews out a lot more stuff than you were made to believe. VED Bands and most EU-type regluations are based on CO2 so presumably they're not affected.
Traffic lights: the car can 'see' the lights, it doesn't just detect other cars. If it sees red it stops. If the lights are off it uses the alternate signage, if available, otherwise it uses the rules for unmarked crossing - just as a human driver would. How can a car overtaking you from the right look like a car going around a roundabout (unless the car is drifting round the roundabout but even then...)? The autonomous car must detect the direction of travel of other cars so it will know that one is coming up from behind and the other one from the side (not to mention possibly knowing when it is on a roundabout and when on a highway - be it from stored maps, or from road detection mechanisms) - again, just like a human.
What is really difficult is purposeful mischief like fake signs, but those can confuse real drivers as well. Totally unmarked roads in heavy rain or snow are difficult to drive in for humans as well, but just as is it not insurmountable to humans it should not be for an autonomous car