[QUOTE=only_human;406064][URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/18/freeway-reopens-after-fire-burns-20-vehicles/30342793/"]California freeway reopens after wildfire scorches 20 vehicles[/URL][/QUOTE]

It does not require much imagination to foresee swarms of drones descending like plague locusts on every accident scene becoming a near-ubiquitous occurrence within the next few years. Oh brave new world, that has such techno-gawking morons in it.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;406085]It does not require much imagination to foresee swarms of drones descending like plague locusts on every accident scene becoming a near-ubiquitous occurrence within the next few years. Oh brave new world, that has such techno-gawking morons in it.[/QUOTE]
I was reading about drones looking at glaciers yesterday and was surprised how inexpensive they were. A paper mentioned that they used this drone:
[url]http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__27132__Skywalker_X_8_FPV_UAV_Flying_Wing_2120mm_.html[/url]

And this open source software/autopilot solution
[url]http://ardupilot.com/[/url]

with only minimal software changes for camera triggering

and only spent about 2000 dollars (I assume not counting camera costs but don't really know)

[QUOTE=only_human;406018]It may be a while but their rage may double every 18 months.
[URL="http://time.com/money/3962668/google-self-driving-car-crash/"]Google Blames Humans for Self-Driving Car Crash — Again[/URL][/QUOTE]
If I may reverse the semi-famous line of Linus Torvalds. Forget the logical reasons(the code and irrational humans) and stuff the numbers down people's throats. Restate the statistical truth so much that people simultaneously agree with you and yet are loathe to admit it. Then, after maximum saturation and annoyance with the public, stop stating the truth and go into stealth mode while keeping an eye on the blogosphere. People will slowly convince themselves that you're correct with the numbers.

Lastly, increase the main iteration number of the project by 1 for no reason other than it looks good to journalists and come out as the new and improved Google car. Just don't tell people that the only thing that's improved is their attitude.

[QUOTE=retina;404802]Meanwhile, the same thing happens thousands of times per day with carbon based controllers at the wheel. And I bet that in many of those cases the appropriate action was not taken.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes the most "evil" thing you can do is be totally honest.

(I'm riffing on the comment under his avatar)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;405189]I share your anger at this sort of unnecessary information gathering and the attempt to put people in boxes which won't necessarily be appropriate. At least your Microsoft survey allowed people not to specify "male" or "female" even if you were required to indicate an arbitrary ethnicity from inappropriate options. Surveys which I get asked to fill in here in NL don't ask for information about ethnicity but they do almost always require people to identify as male or female with no third option, and that includes surveys from progressive organisations which really ought to know better.[/QUOTE]
Assuming one insists on asking about race, allowing the person to select more than one option while also leaving "other" as an option seems the best bet.

[QUOTE=only_human;406087]I was reading about drones looking at glaciers yesterday and was surprised how inexpensive they were. A paper mentioned that they used this drone:
[url]http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__27132__Skywalker_X_8_FPV_UAV_Flying_Wing_2120mm_.html[/url]

And this open source software/autopilot solution
[url]http://ardupilot.com/[/url]

with only minimal software changes for camera triggering

and only spent about 2000 dollars (I assume not counting camera costs but don't really know)[/QUOTE]
With ubiquitous drones you can fairly easily turn a 2-d picture into 3-d, and then tie nearby occurences into it by correlating sounds that occur in both scenes.

At the very least, it'll make many LA residents sound a bit smarter when they discuss car chases.

Well, that's a new one
 

While trying to load a URL in Mac Safari just now, got this WTF-worthy error message:
[i]
Safari can’t open the specified address.
Safari can’t open “[url]http://www[/url]....[snip]...” because Mac OS X doesn’t recognize Internet addresses starting with “http:”.
[/i]
So Safari recognizes the old-fogeyish 'http:' prefix enough to print a detailed error message to the above effect, but can't simply elide the prefix and thus put the URL into its preferred form, apparently. And ... that's why I will continue to use Firefox for 99% of page loads on my Macbook.

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/33776388"]Minion mayhem[/URL]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-33833663"]Woman in 80s 'grabs attacker's testicles'[/URL]

[QUOTE=xilman;407469][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-33833663"]Woman in 80s 'grabs attacker's testicles'[/URL][/QUOTE]

Bravo, old lady! Good on ya!

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/09/09/hungarian-journalist-filmed-tripping-man-carrying-migrant-child/71921448/[/url]