That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

More in the Daily Mail

Your video, Unbelievable: Mercedes Blocking Ambulance In Emergency., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 56 Badge!

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to this model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

Nah, it was always the same. The lack of overtaking is commonly blamed on high downforce, carbon brakes, and super short braking distances, but it actually wasn't any better before they put wings on cars. Same thing: the rich, fast teams qualify and start at the front and stay at the front and get richer and faster...with the occasional fall from grace (Mclaren) or rise from obscurity (Brawn->Mercedes). As cool as they are technologically, development series like F1 tends to result in boring races.

ed: Oh, and using ground effect has been banned since 81(?). Interestingly, Indycars use the ground effect (though without the skirts so it's not as effective as the F1 ground effect cars), and by virtue of being a (mostly) spec series, has much better races.

Thanks If I'd ever heard of it, I'd since forgotten. It REALLY doesn't look like a Mercedes, does it? It does look a bit like a Lamborghini Countach, or the car from the film Condorman

p.s. Looking at the original 1974 Countach, it seems that Lamborghini copied drew inspiration from the Mercedes prototype.

Pretty good race. I gave up on the 2014 season about halfway through, and though it's still almost certainly going to be a Mercedes year, I'm pretty hopeful that there will at least be some good races.

If Red Bull ends up a Ferrari customer for 2016 such as rumors were suggesting at one point, and Honda makes their engine competitive within the stupid development rules (or the rules are relaxed), maybe things will be okay by then.

I think the next step is to allow them to to put venturis under the cars using similar regulations to the Champcars in their heyday (no skirts and ride height minimums so it's more like bonus downforce). Even the DW12's today don't suffer dirty air anything like the F1 cars do. Of course, I'm not an aerodynamics expert and I'm sure the F1 designers put a lot of thought into designing their cars specifically so that they screw with the aero of any following car, so who knows how that would work. Also, the Champcars were a lot closer to a spec series than F1 is.

It's been my experience that it's kind of a myth that in Europe there are no or high speed limits. In fact at the 5 sec mark he blows past a men working sign and a speed limit sign of 30 kph. I kind of think he was doing a bit more than 30k. Also he blows past the construction site the split second before he almost hits the Mercedes. The Ferrari driver is a douche who would have gone to prison if he'd hit anybody and caused a death.

plus the wraps can be bright shiny strange reflective colors that just cannot be done with traditional paint+wax.

I've seen gold wrap on a Mercedes and even green Ferraris with them - basically extra bling to stand out in a crowd.

I don't know how common knowledge this is, but that's actually not future technology; it's already available now. For example, the Mercedes S550 (2014 and newer) performs fully-automated driving like that:

OK, re-read it...it said (among other things, and sorry to keep cut and pasting)...


Carrera is upset because:
Sar-sleaz-ian is an new-age-feminist hack who finds porn disgusting, and feels pity for any women who performs sex acts for money.
She belittles porn actresses like Mercedes & Cytherea as lowly abused victims.
Then, at Mercedes' request, refuses to support Cytherea when she ACTUALLY becomes a victim.
Yet, she denies the agency of sex-workers to choose their profession, referring to them as "prostituted women".
This is why Sar-shittyhumanbeing-ian is a hypocrite, a fuax-intellectual, and [as Mercedes succinctly puts it] damaging gender relations.

Which to me all boiled down to me wondering if she's really that silly as to disenfranchise what I see as the most feminist of professions, or are some people just portraying one out of context quote that way, because I know there was a smear campaign against her that made some things up about her, and had other actual factual gripes, and they confused everything.

The reason I 'cherry picked' ONLY that part of the comment was that I already knew the rest of it from seeing evidence of it, her being a fraudster and con artist. I needed no convincing of that, and it had no bearing on the other point, which was new to me.
That's why I never disputed those other claims, so I don't feel I need to explain why they aren't implying all you said, and why evidence of them misses my focused question's point.
OK?