Some registrars do it differently to minimise the junk that gets sent out. For instance, the registrar I work for groups domains by email address when sending out WDRP emails, so if you have, say, ten domains with the same expiration date, you only get one email.
That email you got out was a WDRP email; the WHOIS Accuracy Program is a different policy.
I'm not so sure. When shit goes wrong, backups are not directly part of "solving the problem" but they are a part of the process, an essential one that can mitigate losses and provide developers with a clear path forward.
Good article though - and you're right backups probably deserve their own focused article.
There are numerous logging plugins, and security plugins that can email you when anyone does anything on a WP site. However, it's usually not someone else who broke it, and normally is due to plugins/themes/core updates.
It's a good point - a plugin that logs access won't work if you can't access the WP admin! If you move up outside of the WP environment you get into the hosting/server world and the solutions become vendor specific.
I would imagine there is (or should be) a third-party backup and logging solution that keeps the data offsite but works host-independent.
As with current insurance, if you mod your car without telling them they will invalidate your insurance.
Once you do tell them you've altered the programming on the cars computer they are more than likely to tell you to find someone else crazy enough to insure you.
The self drive feature of a car is about to get very proprietary, like a flight system there is going to be assurances that the software the manufacturer installed is the same one that's running. Crash investigators are going to have a tonne of information from these cars (Assuming they don't blow up in a Michael Bay style crash).
You're under the assumption you'll still be able to afford insurance for a non-autonomous vehicle, something I find unlikely if self driving cars are as safe as they've already proven to be in the million+ miles they've driven.
Use of self driving cars hockeysticks-># of human drivers plummets->premiums skyrocket for remaining human drivers.
You do realise that 1 million miles is an infinitesimal sample size, right? According to the US DOT, in the past 12 months vehicles have traveled just over 3 trillion miles on US roads. It's also worth mentioning that substantially all of those autonomous miles were on freeways, which also happen to be the safest roads for human drivers. It's simply not possible to draw any meaningful conclusion from such a data point.
We don't have to quibble on data points; autonomous vehicles will continue to get better, at a faster rate than humans can get better at driving (or actually, you know, concentrate on it instead of eating, using their cellphone, texting, and so on).
Humans aren't obsolete yet, but we're well on our way.
Right now, in a lot of states, you can just post a bond in place of having insurance.
It also might work out that self driving vehicles end up reducing the rates for human drivers. I think a lot of road risk actually comes from a small pool of drivers, who will tend to be the most eager to stop insuring themselves. So even if if the pool of human drivers shrinks a lot, the risk involved could lead to lower rates than we see today.
From a futurist perspective, I imagine there might be scenarios of people taking manual control and causing an accident or manufacturers writing bad software. Imagine if Toyota's newest update causes 10x as many crashes. Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums?
If autonomy happens, ideally, the car companies should be paying insurance. The same way they pay for warranty. Its all in their control and its an incentive to keep them honest and care about making cars that don't crash.
"Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums?"
If you think about that, that hardly even makes sense. "Incompetence" has been a perfectly normal part of the insurance package for a long time. I assure you measurable amounts of what you've paid in insurance have already gone to "incompetence".
OK, that's cool. I stand corrected. Clearly it can work outdoors in some circumstances. IR texture projectors get washed out by ambient IR from the sun. Thus the choice of a shady forest for the very nice demo. People have also used Kinect outdoors in the evening, etc.
But in the general case you can't rely on this approach because sun.
That's a fair point. So RealSense will probably work at night, in a shady forest (like the demo) or maybe the shady side of a mountain, but as soon as the sun is involved IR becomes unusable. I don't suppose you could switch the other side of the visible spectrum and do UV cameras, could you? Having your data reduced to one dimension per pixel really makes the AI easier.
It is a hard robotics problem. Saying that "it would need a wide scan" is a vast underestimation. Try looking up some papers on obstacle avoidance. Also, consider the costs of sticking the additional sensors on the robot, processing that data in realtime, and still powering the whole thing.
I am guessing the biggest problem is the noise. Yeah, it's easy to figure out if there is a giant wall standing in front of you, but what about snow that constantly blocks its lens? Some leaves may be attached to tree so it might be required to circumvent, but some might not even be worth circumventing if it's just a piece of leaf falling.
Probably won't have much resolution for leaves. I've used ultrasonic transducers for a college class project almost 15 years ago. Ultrasound worked great for hard surfaces like walls, but softer materials like clothing reduced its range of detection. Snow covered trees, I think will have a similar signature that would be hard to detect except at close range. With a UAV, it could be done, but it'd have to be moving pretty slow I think. You'll probably have better luck with some sort of optical system.
I see it the other way around. This could help humans handle obstacles, at least if it could launch itself automatically and when it's a bit smaller so that it's really easy to carry around.
African American males could carry it. Then, when police was nearby it could launch itself. Maybe it would be triggered by the sound of sirens or if there is a website that tracks police cars, maybe it could launch every time they are near. Or maybe an apple watch could detect fear from differences in pulse and then launch it. Maybe some other trigger
A future, self launching, slightly smaller version of this could be a great protector of civil rights.
This is a colossally stupid idea. How is this better than someone having a cellphone? Are you always holding it outstretched on your hand, anticipating a cop to drive by any second? Or can it crawl out of your pocket to defend your civil rights?
The ACLU makes an app that streams the video recording to an Internet server in real-time at the best possible quality given your data speed. It will also upload the full video when possible without additional action.
yes, yes [i assume you mean either getting spit out, or closed out on]. drones are starting to make inroads here too, but it is still mainly remote stuff, taken from afar and manually controlled by someone on the beach. something like this at jbay would be amazing.
I'm a rower so fortunately I won't have the obstacles issue. In fact, these could be great for rowing coaches who can put the controller in the boat then get close up to the rower/crew without needing oversized launches that wash everyone else down.
20 mins might be a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable.
The biggest showstopper for me on this is the hugely disappointing top speed (40 km/h). I'm an alpine skier (ex-racer) and the only times I go that slow is on transport stages. This thing literally wouldn't be able to keep up with Usain Bolt running the 100m. It needs at least twice the top speed.
Well, I would imagine a lot of your speed is downward right? Then it's a matter of a controlled decent really. I'd guess that would increase the top speed of the device as it's really just falling out of the sky and steering.
According to the creators v1 doesn't handle obstacles at all due to time and cost. I'm sure a later version can be made to do so; I feel like it should be far easier to do in a 3D space versus a flatted space like ground vehicles.
Waterproof will be amazing safety for kitesurfing and surfing in general, quadcopters are super cool, but you don't want to drop one in salty water. There are already techie stuff for kiters, we use the Woo device and gopros a lot.
Most areas have a club to keep members under control (irresponsible kiting can be dangerous to people not in the sea, unlike surfing) ... our club is keen on getting Woos, GoPros, webcams, internet enabled wind-o-meters etc... Hope they decide to get one of these!!
Sounds good in theory, but in practice kites can move really fast when manoeuvring or doing tricks. No guarantee that the drone would always avoid you successfully. You'd have to stay aware of where it is and where it's going, which would probably interfere with your kiting significantly.
If all you are doing is casting reasonable doubt, that's fine. The logical fallacy arises when you point to the source of a proposition and declare that mouth that spoke it makes it false by nature. There's a big difference between "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, so I'm skeptical and would like further studies and independent verification" and "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, therefore the conclusion is false and coffee actually isn't good for you." Even if Big Coffee funded this report and benefited from its conclusions, the conclusions may very well still be valid; it would be a fallacy to reject this possibility outright.
Careful, OP isn't claiming that a lack of funding data makes the article false or inaccurate. The point is simply that (in OP's opinion) some of the most critical information needed to determine whether or not this article's conclusions should be taken seriously is missing. This is not an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.
I don't think there was a fallacy involved at all here. If in fact critical data is missing, then OP is right to point that out. This doesn't inherently negate the conclusions of the article (and claiming that it does would in fact be a fallacy), but I don't think OP was claiming that anyway.