Woah, woah, you're way overstating it. The tech is nowhere near ready for full hands-off driving in non-ideal driving scenarios. For basic navigation Google relies on maps and GPS, but the crux of autonomous navigation is machine learning algorithms. Through many hours of data logged driving, the algorithm will associate more and more accurately certain sensor inputs to certain hazards via equation selection and coefficients. The assumption is that at some point the algorithm would be able to accurately and reliably identify and react to pedestrians, pot holes, construction areas, temporary traffic lights police stops among an almost endless litany of possible hazards.

They're nowhere near there though and there's simply no guarantee that it will ever be sufficiently reliable to be truly hands-off. As mentioned, the algorithm is just an equation with certain coefficients. Our brains don't work that way when we drive. An algorithm may never have the necessary complexity or flexibility to capture the possibility of novel and unexpected events in all driving scenarios. The numbers Google quotes on reliability from its test driving are on well mapped, simple to navigate roads like highways with few of these types of challenges but real life is not like that. In practice, the algorithm may be safer than humans for something like 99% of scenarios (which I agree could in itself make driving safer) but those exceptional 1% of scenarios that our brains are uniquely able to process will still require us to be ready to take over.

As for Tesla, all it has is basically auto-cruise, auto-steer and lane changing on request. The first two is just the car keeping in lane based on lane marker input from sensors, and slowing down & speeding up based on the car follow length you give it. The most advanced part of it is the changing lanes if you indicate it to, which will effectively avoid other cars and merge. It doesn't navigate, it's basically just for highways, and even on those it won't make your exit for you (and apparently will sometimes dive into exits you didn't want based on lane marker confusion from what I've read). So basically this is either staged or this guy is an idiot.

Probably fake, but the technology is absolutely mature enough.

Self-driving cars are a solved problem. It's a matter of regulation, not research at this point.

In fact, once they reach critical mass, the problem actually becomes a lot easier from a technological standpoint. If all the cars on the road are AI, their behaviour becomes much more predictable, and a highway full of self-driving cars could easily communicate with each other, allowing increased traffic flow and reducing accidents.

Think about a simple scenario right now. You're driving in the fast lane on a multilane highway and your exit is coming up in a km or two. You need to cross 3 lanes, so you indicate and wait for a safe gap. You're completely dependent on the drivers in the other lane to let you in. But human nature being what it is, they might not want to let you in. Even if the first lane lets you through, the outer lanes have no idea what you want until they see you, so you have to repeat this manoeuvre a few times.

But with a highway of self-driving cars? Your car broadcasts its intentions on a localised network, and the other cars create a gap all the way to the exit. You move through and traffic resumes.

I'm confused, in one paragraph you say the primary is over, but you go on to say it's not really over, it's just really over. If it's not over, it's not over, and FSM damit it's not over yet.
It was pretty improbable that he would win Alaska 82%-18%, but he did. IF he did that well in California, he could get no other vote on the 7th and still win. Improbable, maybe, highly improbable, no, certainly not this election, nothing is.
Even the exit polls have been wrong by well over 35% this year, and they are always more reliable than pre-voting polls. Bernie has HUGE support in California, I've not seen a SINGLE Hillary bumper sticker here in N Cali., despite what the (100% Clinton supporting) media has told you. Sanders winning 53% of California is not even improbable, it's within the margin of error for the polls you mention.

Hammer that message (that Sanders is a FAR better candidate for numerous reasons) into their skulls until the 7th and maybe he'll get enough of California to win...he's absolutely got my vote. Anyone who choses Hillary is rolling the dice on a Trump presidency, THEY are the ones putting us all in danger, not the Sanders supporters. What you absolutely should not be doing is claiming 'it's over so don't even bother trying'. That's simply a lie. Wait until after a nominee is named before saying anything of the sort. That the Clinton campaign has been saying it for months just shows their level of honesty....zero%.

Again, if a Trump presidency is something you fear, you should be shouting for Bernie with all your might right now....it's not over, not by far, and he is CLEARLY far and away the best choice, both for his platform and to defeat Trump.

Circumstantial evidence based on official guidelines...

Exit polls differing from final results by that big a margin demands investigation. If it's all square, no harm/no foul.

It should at least be investigated. (and you can be in software and not be involved in rorting elections, for what it's worth... ; )

I'm not sure which polls you mean. Many I've seen have had Trump and Clinton statistically tied at best, and Trump winning in some. True enough, polls have been TERRIBLE at prediction this election cycle, bad enough that by international standards, we are up to 16 times the standard allowable deviation (the difference between exit polls and results should never be >2%), which in any other country would 'prove' election fraud (both by U.S. standards and by U.N. standards), but for some reason we are completely ignoring those long standing standards in the US in this election and certifying the results anyway?!?
Now IF Bernie wins the nomination, you'll be right.

@CrushBug

Related story: during the later years of the war, when Allied air and sea supremacy made the Bay of Biscay a deathtrap, Allied torpedo boats took up ambush positions at the entrances to U-Boot bases, particularly La Rochelle. They'd get into position at night and stay just outside of range of the coastal defence batteries. Before outgoing submarines could reach deep water, they'd be plastered with hand grenades by these speed boats.

It wouldn't be able to sink a sub, but a lucky hit might damage the periscope and it did reduce the sub's sonar abilities by massive amounts, covering the entire exit area in a blanket of noise. Not to mention the psychological effect...

Anyway, just small bits of history.

Now, about this video: that small chance to be hit by a grenade chunk is surpassed by the rather noticable chance to be hit by one of roughly 6500 steel balls within a run-of-the-mill frag grenade used over here. Doesn't make the underwater experience any better though...

On January 30, 2015, it was reported that Lone Survivor director Peter Berg had replaced Chandor to re-team with Wahlberg for the film. Chandor exited due to some creative differences.

Read, 'not enough sturm und drang action sequences for a disaster movie', get a new director.

I saw exit interviews where democratic and independent voters in Ohio, a state where they are allowed to do so, cast republican primary votes for Kasich as a vote against drumph. So, I'm guessing not EVERYONE loves 'the Donald' hear hear!

Wow, that brings back memories. Except I had parked cars and not soft, lovely grass for an exit. It's what I get for not using the whole lane I guess.

Title, description and video hardly tell the real story.

"But according to the U.S. Marshals Service, there was a bit more to Aker’s story that wasn’t told on air.

According to the feds Aker had a warrant for his arrest and that he had been dodging them for some time.

The U.S. Marshals Service noted Tuesday that they have been given the responsibility for service of civil processes as directed by the federal court system. These civil processes can include summons for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal student loans.

"Since November 2012, U.S. Marshals had made several attempts to serve a show cause order to Paul Aker to appear in federal court, including searching at numerous known addresses. Marshals spoke with Aker by phone and requested he appear in court, but Aker refused. A federal judge then issued a warrant for Aker's arrest for failing to appear at a Dec. 14, 2012, hearing," the agency said in a statement Tuesday.

"It is the responsibility of the U.S. Marshals to serve civil processes at direction of the federal courts. These civil processes include summonses for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal loans, including student, agricultural and other loans made by federal agencies."

When officials made contact with him on Feb. 11, the U.S. Marshals said that they only sent two agents to his door. They say that when they attempted to arrest him, Aker resisted and retreated back into his home.

"The situation escalated when Aker verbally said to the deputies that he had a gun. After Aker made the statement that he was armed, in order to protect everyone involved, the deputies requested additional law enforcement assistance. Additional deputy marshals and local law enforcement officers responded to the scene. After approximately two hours, the law enforcement officers convinced Aker to peacefully exit his home, and he was arrested without further incident," the agency said in a statement.

The statement from the U.S. Marshals noted that here in Houston some 1,500 people have been identified for not appearing in court to address outstanding federal student loans.

These are likely extreme cases that have been drawn out for some time though. It's still recommended that debtors pay back their loans as quick as they can.
A judge has now issued warrants for the arrest of these people. Marshals say that every attempt is made to inform individuals of their initial summons before it comes to what Aker faced. "
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/US-Marshals-say-man-wasn-t-arrested-because-he-6834620.php

Feel bad all around.

Feel bad that they still have ridiculous contests like this.

Feel bad for Colombia and Philippines.

Feel bad for the committee who thought Steve Harvey was a great idea and who are probably out of a job.

Hillarious that that piece of shit exits as quick as he can.

Y'know, as cool as this is, I think it might be faster for him to get back in the truck and speed up. It spends an awful lot of time just slowly moving past. He wouldn't even have to actually stop the truck, just slow before the gate, get out and open it, get back in and speed up, then slow as it exits the gate and he runs back to close it and then runs back into the truck.

More running, but it would be faster, I'm pretty sure.

Wow, powerful video. I think this is why certain psychedelics, can (can) help people with addictions or even people with simple obsessions (porno, video games, etc). They have the potential to temporarily exit the cage for self reflection or experience outside of it. Some of the more powerful ones (iboga, ayahuasca) really physiologically reset the afflicted receptor sites - and much much more.

I agree whole-heartily that the way that the US handles drug addiction, mental illness & criminality are completely out of whack. Implying that the direct parallels between those subjects are ignorance (or taboo), incarceration & the lack of clear, precise scientifically proven reformation.

Hmmm. Should the microphone really be at her mouth rather than near the exit of the instrument?

So I'm watching this full screen and think, "oh, this is Sift worthy..." exit full screen... oh...