Clearly, one must call for the beheading of at least three people in order to be banned.

Rules are rules. If you bend them just because a guy is a demented sociopath, you'll end up harming your shareholders and for that you'll eventually burn in hell.

A conventional radar works by detecting the handful of photons reflected back toward the source from a distant object. To the limited extent that I understand it, a quantum radar would work by detecting the change of state when an outgoing photon is reflected or absorbed at that selfsame object. That detection is done by observing some sort of state change in the photon's entangled partner which has somehow (how?) been kept around for observation. What, if anything, happens to the no longer entangled(?) photon pair after one of them strikes the target is of no interest?

Will we have quantum radars in the year 2021 or 2025 or 2030? Seem unlikely. In the year 2120? Maybe. Assuming they can actually work in theory, and can have a usable signal to noise ratio in real world situations, and can't somehow be jammed.

We're talking Artificially Intelligent, Blockchain, Quantum Communications here. Not only can it not be hacked, It'll create a distributed network with untraceable indestructable messages that will persist for all eternity. Elon Musk will be delivering it to you and I within months (subject to the usual schedule slips).

One small point. Assuming that the sun comes up and sets once every day, 400 charge cycles works out to about 14 months lifetime for this device. I think for most practical applications, you're going to need about 20 times that long a lifetime.

Here's a link to a site that lists some known problems with pebble bed reactors:

http://www.tmia.com/old-websit...

They include

1. Containment structures are difficult or impossible to design as cooling is done by convection to the atmosphere.
2. The graphite used as a moderator can burn
3. Large amounts of high level nuclear waste are produced
4. Imperfect "pebbles" are not uncommon and can be a problem
5. "Pebbles" need to be physically cycled through the device which is mechanically complicated.

"but a spokesman denied any problems with the Russian power plants."

To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies -- Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

"The Tesla-Killer cemetery is full already."

Thanks to "Autopilot", so is the Tesla-Owner cemetery. What's your point?

Unlike Tesla sedans which are basically luxury sports vehicles which should, if you ask me, not have been subsidized by governments, there's a reasonable business use case for electric delivery and utility vehicles. There seem to be many actually available mostly in Europe. Looks like there will be even more. Virtually every major auto maker has announced a product. They aren't cheap BTW. Think US $40,000 and up.

"Bad idea" No. It's a perfectly OK idea. You need that sort of testing for regression testing. But if you're looking for perfection, you need additional, unexpected, inputs and fuzzing is good for that.

BTW, if fuzzing finds bugs, odds are that there are yet more bugs present that weren't found by conventional testing or by your fuzzing. Not really that big a deal for most stuff. We all know (or should know) by now that software is almost always buggy. We use it anyway. But maybe an issue if you are controlling a medical device or an aircraft or a nuclear power plant.

I dunno. I've done Disneyland and Disneyworld way too often. And a few days in the ICU once. IMHO, neither is as bad as modern air travel or the average cocktail party. But still, all those things are best avoided. And so, AFAICS, is COVID-19

OTOH, you're likely going to be annoyed when some bored teenager in Mongolia succeeds in locking you and all other owners of your vehicle model out of your cars -- at least until the nearest dealer can motor out with a specialized tool and unbrick the thing. Might be bit of a service queue involved.

Connectivity is not without risks.

There's probably some optimum balance between connection and local autonomy. But I can't see much sign that car makers, and especially luxury vehicle makers are seeking that balance out.

I see, and may I take it that based on your (prospective) accomplishments, you will be running for President sir? Is that an acceptable form of address? Or would you prefer "Your Highness"

Dogs are pretty bright. They can understand lot of things. They are born with a set of built in gestures they all understand and use -- pointing, begging, etc. So it's not surprising that they understand gestures.

As to "obeying". Not my experience. Mostly, dogs listen, watch, figure out what is desired. Then they do whatever they damn well please.

They are a lot like people.

Puff piece. But it's not a complete fabrication.

Practical tidal power has been around for more than half a century. It's a perfectly reasonable energy source if you have a suitable location. See https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Strong points: It's predicable. It doesn't need appreciable fossil fuel except for initial construction. It can generate respectable amounts of power -- hundreds of megawatts in the best cases. Tidal power facilities pretty much can't blow up and probably won't harm the neighbors if they fail.

Weak points: There can be significant environmental affects. The generating equipment is subject to salt-water corrosion and fouling by marine organisms. (Probably) twice daily times of peak power production will shift by 50 minutes a day. In a few cases, generation may interfere with navigation. While most potential sites will have two tidal peaks a day, one peak can be substantially weaker than the other. The initial costs are high. And mostly, there aren't a lot of good sites with exceptionally high tides. However, the Arafura Sea between Australia and New Guinea is a place with exceptionally high tides. (Others -- The Bristol Channel, Gulf of California, Bay of Fundy,Cook Inlet,Strait of Magellan.)

So as Slashdot's daily dose of enviro-babble goes, tidal power stands out as not being something that a competent editor should reject out or hand. This particular article is a bit short on substance. But it could be a lot worse.

sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

In what way is unreliable traffic control device recognition a "driver assistance feature"? Many things are still useful when they don't work sometimes. But some things have to work perfectly or not at all. Mr Musk and his customers appear to be unable to tell the difference. I frankly couldn't care less if Tesla's vehicles occasionally choose to kill their users. Darwinian evolution and all that. If you ask me, the human race could do with a bit of upgrading. But they also menace innocent third parties. I'm all in favor of autonomous vehicle development, but let's leave it to those who understand how to do things responsibly. Which is to say, not Tesla (or Uber).

Tesla's license to kill should be revoked.

BTW, given the sorry state of modern software Quality Assurance, Over The Air updating of safety related software is probably the dumbest idea since the Windows Registry. The practice probably needs to be banned or dramatically restricted. And not just for Tesla.

The concept of an embedded device that is actually secure sounds interesting. Is someone somewhere contemplating building such? If so, are they seriously contemplating accessing it with a web browser?