Photo 14 Aug 147 notes me-just-less-clothes:

asleepylioness:


"You either love it or hate it"

I have no idea what marmite is but i love this photo. 

It’s a British thing, that’s one of their advertising slogans. Personally I hate the stuff but thought the little teapot was pretty cool

And Vegemite, the WWII substitute that never went away in Australia….

me-just-less-clothes:

asleepylioness:

"You either love it or hate it"

I have no idea what marmite is but i love this photo. 

It’s a British thing, that’s one of their advertising slogans. Personally I hate the stuff but thought the little teapot was pretty cool

And Vegemite, the WWII substitute that never went away in Australia….

(Source: asleepylioness)

Photo 14 Aug 61 notes wildcat2030:

If a Self-Driving Car Gets in an Accident, Who—or What—Is Liable? - The carmaker, the car owner, or the robot car itself? On the surprisingly not-crazy argument for granting robots legal personhood.
On first contact with the idea that robots should be extended legal personhood, it sounds crazy. Robots aren’t people! And that is true. But the concept of legal personhood is less about what is or is not a flesh-and-blood person and who/what is or is not able to be hauled into court. And if we want to have robots do more things for us, like drive us around or deliver us things, we might need to assign them a role in the law, says lawyer John Frank Weaver, author of the book Robots Are People, Too, in a post at Slate. “If we are dealing with robots like they are real people, the law should recognize that those interactions are like our interactions with real people,” Weaver writes. “In some cases, that will require recognizing that the robots are insurable entities like real people or corporations and that a robot’s liability is self-contained.” Here’s the problem: If we don’t define robots as entities with certain legal rights and obligations, we will have a very difficult time using them effectively. And the tool that we have for assigning those things is legal personhood. Right now, companies like Google, which operate self-driving cars, are in a funny place. Let’s say Google were to sell a self-driving car to you. And then it got into an accident. Who should be responsible for the damages—you or Google? The algorithm that drives the car, not to mention the sensors and all the control systems, are Google’s products. Even the company’s own people have argued that tickets should not be given to any occupant of the car, but to Google itself. (via If a Self-Driving Car Gets in an Accident, Who—or What—Is Liable? - The Atlantic)

wildcat2030:

If a Self-Driving Car Gets in an Accident, Who—or What—Is Liable?
-
The carmaker, the car owner, or the robot car itself? On the surprisingly not-crazy argument for granting robots legal personhood.

On first contact with the idea that robots should be extended legal personhood, it sounds crazy. Robots aren’t people! And that is true. But the concept of legal personhood is less about what is or is not a flesh-and-blood person and who/what is or is not able to be hauled into court. And if we want to have robots do more things for us, like drive us around or deliver us things, we might need to assign them a role in the law, says lawyer John Frank Weaver, author of the book Robots Are People, Too, in a post at Slate. “If we are dealing with robots like they are real people, the law should recognize that those interactions are like our interactions with real people,” Weaver writes. “In some cases, that will require recognizing that the robots are insurable entities like real people or corporations and that a robot’s liability is self-contained.” Here’s the problem: If we don’t define robots as entities with certain legal rights and obligations, we will have a very difficult time using them effectively. And the tool that we have for assigning those things is legal personhood. Right now, companies like Google, which operate self-driving cars, are in a funny place. Let’s say Google were to sell a self-driving car to you. And then it got into an accident. Who should be responsible for the damages—you or Google? The algorithm that drives the car, not to mention the sensors and all the control systems, are Google’s products. Even the company’s own people have argued that tickets should not be given to any occupant of the car, but to Google itself. (via If a Self-Driving Car Gets in an Accident, Who—or What—Is Liable? - The Atlantic)

Photo 11 Aug
Video 5 Aug 28 notes

mucholderthen:

Dark blue: floods. Light blue: mass movement wet. Green: storms. 
Yellow: drought. Magenta: extreme temperature. Orange: wildfires.

Treacherous Times: Climate change is making the world more dangerous
by Suzanne Goldenberg • July 22, 2014 • The Guardian via OnEarth Magazine

  • Forget the future. The world is already nearly five times as dangerous and disaster prone as it was in the 1970s, because of the increasing risks brought by climate change, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization.
  • The first decade of the 21st century saw 3,496 natural disasters from floods, storms, droughts, and heat waves. That was nearly five times as many disasters as the 743 catastrophes reported during the 1970s—and all of those weather events are influenced by climate change.
  • The bottom line: natural disasters are occurring nearly five times as often as they were in the 1970s. But some disasters—such as floods and storms—pose a bigger threat than others. Flooding and storms are also taking a bigger bite out of the economy. And heat waves are an emerging killer
Video 4 Aug 2,506 notes

mucholderthen:

Hairy Mycena
Macro Mycography by Steve Axfordsteveax1 ] on Flickr
All Rights Reserved

Closeups of tiny Mycena fungi. This species is (as yet) unidentified and is about 1cm high, though specimens do reach 2-3cm high and up to 4mm across the cap.

The hairs are infertile cells that appear to discourage predation by insects or small animals.

These were found near Booyong in northern NSW and are the first of this group of fungi that have been found in Australia.

Fungi [kingdom] → Basidiomycota [division] → Agaricomycetes [class] →
Agaricales [order] → Mycenaceae [family] → Mycena [genus]

Photo 1 Aug 351 notes jhilla:

Fox Umbrella detailing.
Fox Umbrellas
Saturday, July 26th

jhilla:

Fox Umbrella detailing.

Fox Umbrellas

Saturday, July 26th

via J.Hilla.
Photo 26 Jul 122 notes wired:


Despite its 4×3, standard def, aughties feel, The Wire’s lo-fi grit continues to attract fans who rabidly proclaim its praises.

It’s hot out there in these streets. That’s why we’re hooking you up with a good excuse to lay low in your living room.
This is WIRED’s summer binge-watching guide to The Wire:

wired:

Despite its 4×3, standard def, aughties feel, The Wire’s lo-fi grit continues to attract fans who rabidly proclaim its praises.

It’s hot out there in these streets. That’s why we’re hooking you up with a good excuse to lay low in your living room.

This is WIRED’s summer binge-watching guide to The Wire:

via WIRED.
Photo 20 Jul 956 notes
via colinquinn.
Photo 20 Jul 301 notes scienceisbeauty:

The Swedish-ESO Submillimetre Telescope (SEST) and the ESO 3.6-metre telescope in the background.
Credit: Y. Beletsky (LCO)/ESO
Source: Star Trails at La Silla (European Southern Observatory)

scienceisbeauty:

The Swedish-ESO Submillimetre Telescope (SEST) and the ESO 3.6-metre telescope in the background.

Credit: Y. Beletsky (LCO)/ESO

Source: Star Trails at La Silla (European Southern Observatory)

Video 15 Jul 376 notes

Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.