|
lol someone buy this and help put SA back in the black!
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:lol someone buy this and help put SA back in the black!  that's 17kb
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
max4me posted:Is there any way to browse with out being tracked? TAILS OS + tor browser you didnt ask if there was a good way to browse with out being tracked
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:lol someone buy this and help put SA back in the black! under what name? :thiskillsthefishmech: ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
prefect posted:
3.3k 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
is it the boobies? i bet it's the boobies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Wheany posted:3.3k 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
I just noticed that when you search for _____ wiki on google, it defaults to the unencrypted plain http link on wikipedia, even if you search for it on the https version of google. They should really fix that so it defaults to https. Because right now, if you search for something on google with https, the plain html link to wikipedia is going to have your search query in the referer which defeats the purpose. Really it should default to the https version of search and results should be https too. Fuzzy Mammal tell them to fix this please ty
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
hail to you, friend
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
should have bought a couple of pizzas with that money
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
BONGHITZ posted:should have bought a couple of pizzas with that money i'm already fat
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
lowtax's children eat for another day
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Smythe posted:Wear a mask
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
google pls don't buy tesla i actually wouldn't mind seeing tesla succeed
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I rode in my friend's tesla the other day and it's a nice car and all but definitely not $80,000 nice. the acceleration will break your neck, which is amazing for a car that heavy but the ride quality is poor and the interior luxury features are non-existent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
The Management posted:I rode in my friend's tesla the other day and it's a nice car and all but definitely not $80,000 nice. the acceleration will break your neck, which is amazing for a car that heavy but the ride quality is poor and the interior luxury features are non-existent. they've found a way to get rich nerds to buy a luxury car instead of a nerdmobile prius, that's all
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
 lol now ask ur self which car manufacturer is gonna sign on to this and give up margin to google, especially when they're already developing their own semi-driverless features
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
cremnob posted:
lol cremnob has returned to posting giant photos of articles noone will read instead of quotes because of apple dying and google owning
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
cremnob for worst gimmick 2014
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
reminder that the LIDAR unit google uses costs $70,000 and that the system requires an inch-level manually curated 3d map of the roads the car is supposed to drive, which at the moment (after years of development) only exists for a few thousand miles of roads around the sf bay area and that the cars have to be explicitly told where to expect stoplights and other traffic control devices or they'll ignore them
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
i suppose it's reasonable that in the next decade or so they could map out all of the interstates and controlled-access highways, since there are no streetlights and the situations are somewhat easier, and only enable automatic mode on those, where it's most useful anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
I would only trust an automatic car on a highway and by "trust" I mean "would still definitely avoid" because no way is a full automated car going to be feasible in general within the next several years
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Google is developing an at grade personal rapid transit system but doesn't want to admit it to themselves
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Google has literally no loving plan for how to commercialize their research. they don't have the patience for regulatory compliance or safety testing, they're trying to pawn it off on someone else
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
i have a self driving car already its called take a few klonopins and get behind the wheel. totally afk driving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Why bother researching self-driving cars when soon enough we'll have a massive underclass willing to chauffeur you around for scraps anyway Uber is just the beginning
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
The Management posted:Google has literally no loving plan for how to commercialize their research. they don't have the patience for regulatory compliance or safety testing, they're trying to pawn it off on someone else Smythe posted:i have a self driving car already its called take a few klonopins and get behind the wheel. totally afk driving. google management on klonopin
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
The Management posted:Google has literally no loving plan for how to commercialize their research. they don't have the patience for regulatory compliance or safety testing, they're trying to pawn it off on someone else uh this is exactly how you commercialize a thing you're not equipped to build yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
google: more of an ideas guy
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
i bet they literally have a lovely NLP bot going over the patents database make up lovely ideas for them
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Trimson Grondag 3 posted:google: more of an ideas guy
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
I wonder what happens if you cut a self driving car off? presumably it'd be set to slow way down if all of the sudden brake lights are in front of it. lol at the idea that the company that made your self driving car is going to be responsible when it causes an accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
yeah, how does liability insurance work in the case of self-driving cars? cause ultra-lol if the consumer is the one held liable (they will be lol)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
same way it does now for ppl whose digitally controlled car stops responding i guess???
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
it doesn't, that's where the whole thing falls apart. we can make a car today that's totally autonomous on highways, but no car maker will let you take your hands off the wheel while the car drives. the minute there is no person as a backup the liability falls on the automaker and that's basically an impossible position for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
speeding down the road, mercilessly cutting off the robot cars because, hell, they're programmed to avoid collisions
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
The Management posted:it doesn't, that's where the whole thing falls apart. we can make a car today that's totally autonomous on highways, but no car maker will let you take your hands off the wheel while the car drives. the minute there is no person as a backup the liability falls on the automaker and that's basically an impossible position for them. I dunno I guess you could have it be like in I robot or whatever movie where the car switches between manual and auto control, require hands on the wheel in auto mode in order to make the car go and have it pull over automatically if the hands are removed. it doesn't matter because autonomous cars are stupid other than possibly as a replacements to taxis, then have the taxi company be responsible for liability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 16:03
|
|
