And those people are held responsible for their fucked up mistakes. Who is responsible when the car makes a mistake. I sure as hell don't want to be financially responsible for some companies fuck up.
This isn't about FUD its a legitimate question of insurance policy and law that will have to be addressed if autonomous vehicles are going to become commonplace. They are not unsolvable problems but neither can the be ignored by sticking ones head in the sand the way you clearly would like to do just because "omg self driving cars... COOL!"
well if you started doing that I might vary my rate of deceleration quickly in order to avoid you, or stomp on the gas and try to pull around you to the side. I might do any number of things that a computer might particularly because those things might be technically illegal. More importantly though, the car will do what it is programmed to do and nothing else. If you know its programming you can exploit it including getting it to do things that the designers did not actually intended but that are behaviors that emerge from unusual or unexpected inputs. Humans are less predictable. Not that you can't still run someone off the road.
If I have to pay attention but the reality is that I dont actually have to do anything 90% of the time then long distance driving goes from a somewhat boring activity to a mind-blowingly monotonous hell which will almost certainly result in less attention being paid by the people who are the human backups to these systems. Keeping people engaged keeps them alert. After 3 hours of staring out the window for trouble and not seeing any "drivers" are going to be even more likely to get distracted.
Not really, apparently they cost about $100 to produce as is. I suppose they would get cheeper if you took out some of the computing based functionality.
People who have not used glass usually have expectations of ti that are not realistic... like they believe its a HUD that will overlay useful information over your field of vision, put peoples names above their heads and other magical things when the reality is it is a small, low res screen hovering at the edge of your vision that doesn't do a particularly good job of much of anything while not being very reactive to user input.
Part of those expectations are thanks to hollywood but you see the same thing in articles about the tech like the ones recently about doctors using them. People expect more than a few lines of text hovering off to their right because hell... these things are going to be used by doctors performing surgery, they must do something magic!
Oh yea, also they are insanely expensive, which also adds to the belief that they will be mind blowing and adds to the disappointment when they are not.
Generally speaking, given those expectations, it is not surprising that the reality is disappointing.
No, it does not. I had a friend switch from an iPhone to a android. IT clearly indicates that the messages failed and if you tap them again it asks if you want to send it as a text message. The thing is the fail takes a few seconds and most people don't wait to see if a message actually sent before they jump off to doing something else.
Also, the woman's ability to send and receive texts was not hampered at all. She cannot receive the iMessages that her friends are trying to send her but she can text them and she can receive actual texts from anyone. Certainly it would be good for apple to be invalidating iMessage accounts that go off line like that the way they do with push notifications and I suppose that could be pushed back to the receiving phone to take that person off of the iMessage path. As it is the sender is best off removing the old messages and sending a new one to re-set it to text, that could be done automatically.... but it is actually the person sending the message that is experiencing the bug, the person who switched to android has a fully functional phone. I'm not sure she has much of a case here.
When the contacted me about a job in Seattle after I checked the box on their application that said I would not relocate I ignored the email. I got another one from the same recruiter a week later that was acting as though I were the rude one and that she had done me a favor by showing interest in hiring me for a totally undefined job in a location that I had no interest in moving to.
I have no idea why anybody works for them... they sure don't make the company seem appealing.
This requires a LOT more infrastructure than what is in play for hydrogen refueling and you could do the same thing with hydrogen generation at gas stations with the capacity going into their tanks instead of into cars such that gas stations could become local power stations when demand peaks.
Most of what you can do with one storage medium can be done with the other.... its really a question of economy and convenience at scale. Frankly neither tech could scale up right now to fill 100% of need. Really picking one vs the other to back comes down to belief about which technology will manage to mature enough to be in use in every car in the world first.
Actually the seem like they would be quite similar. While it might be fine for you to offer your services to your neighbor to take care of kids a web site that sets all that up and send someone to your house to take care of your kids would be subject to similar regulation that other daycare services are. Similarly Uber, it could be argued, should be subject to some of the same regulation that any other car for hire service is subject to.
Insurance is a huge part of this. I am not interested in being legally and financially responsible for decisions made on my behalf by hunk of code written by someone else. Now if the accident is being caused by someone else and the computer is just trying to make the right decision to minimize damage, that is one thing, but what happens when one of these vehicles actually causes an accident and kills someone? Who is responsible?
its not about the sample next door, its about every single sample from the giant cloud of debris from which our solar system formed. The fact that its all the same throughout the world (when it hasn't undergone spontaneous fission is part of the reason we know how old the rock we are standing on is.
The only reason a 2 year contract is like a lease at all is because a 2 year old phone has next to no value on the open market. It really isnt like a lease because at the end of the contract you have a phone and that has some value.
It is the vendor locks that are the problem (also a problem in other countries, jailbreaking old Japanese iPhones was almost impossible thanks to the carrier locks).
If there was only a contract keeping you with your carrier instead these software locks then your phone would have plenty of value and you might move to a new carrier. It is these that we should be railing against. The contracts you can take or leave as you like since even if the US their are contract free providers. The thing is that locking phones keeps you locked to a provider and fewer people are willing to take the risk of worse service from the lower end providers who are the ones that allow contract free. If the phones could move and only the contract kept you loyal then people would be more free to go to the plan that made the most sense for them.
Its not that much like leasing.... Actually the real question is, why don't we lease phones? If you want your new iPhone every year the lease would make a lot of sense and the reclaimed phones could be refurbished and sold. I bet there would be a market for that.
All you need to do is look at T-Mobile which I believe gives you a credit of $10 a month for bringing your own phone. That is what it is worth because that is the only other options. Admittedly Verizon is making more money off of you than that but do you really think if they offered contract free service without a phone discount that they would lower their prices by more than the 10 bucks necessary to compete with T-Mobile? That is what it is worth to not use a subsidy, no matter how much profit they are actually making off of you.
This is based on a lot of assumptions. One is that being "locked into a contract" is a big deal. As an adult I need a phone to operate in the modern world, a cell phone and ideally a smart phone (particularly given my career). I know that I will need this service, I know that I will almost certainly need this service for the next two years. What is the harm in signing a contract. The chances that I will need to break it are extremely low. Ultimately the extra cost I pay pretty much works out to the discount I get on the phone (it might work against me a bit but its not like buying something on a payment plan is that odd or indefensible either) not everyone can drop 600 bucks on a new phone, maybe they would rather drop 300 and pay 300 over the next 2 years.
Admittedly the place were you get screwed is if you don't update your phone in 2 years but since plenty of people want the latest and greatest this really isn't an issue and if you don't want a new phone you can switch to a provider like t-mobile.
Now this does leave the question of why T-mobile is providing contract free wireless. I believe the reason is that they can't compete with AT&T or Verizon. They don't have a good service so they need another differentiator. Having lower prices is part of it but also offering contract free options to people who actually don't know if they will have a phone for the next two years or who want to buy a phone so cheep that getting a break on its price doesn't really make sense. Frankly though, that 10 bucks a month you save bringing your own device doesn't work out to be a huge savings in the long run if you are buying a new high end phone every 2 years anyway.
This idea that there is one true way to buy or sell services or products is asinine. Different things make sense for different people. Comcast wants to push its contract free offers in counter point to Verizon Fios but since I know I will be in my home for two years and I will need an internet connection that whole time is it really that big of a deal to sign a contract with verizon for those 2 years? People are convinced that contracts are always awful but for many people they really don't make any practical difference.
he gets more into the issues of code later... the amount of domain knowledge necessary to do anything, the immense mental stresses of trying to hold all the necessary information about a complex system in your head all at once. The difficulty of thinking in long strings of complex logic.
But yeah, you are right, a lot of this is about how projects are run.
you do have a point though software is generally significantly more complex than your home actually is but there are several similarities. Having redone several bathrooms and kitchens myself I think I can confidently say that if you don't plan ahead all the way down to the final finish pieces when you have your studs exposed then chances are you are going to end up screwing yourself somewhere... probably in several places actually... ending up with a bit of super complicated molding or finish work or with two finishes that don't line up just right and require more work to smooth over. In a lot of ways software is exactly like that.
But don't be deceived, the level of complexity in a piece of software is insane and the amount of things that you have to think about is huge. On the plus side, in the software world that spackle code you use to fill the cracks is not as visible to the end user (directly at least) as it can be in your home.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats what we should call the first model.
"The True Scotsman, send your kids off to school in comfort while you sip coffee and read the news paper."
Wait.... news paper? Hummm.
And those people are held responsible for their fucked up mistakes. Who is responsible when the car makes a mistake. I sure as hell don't want to be financially responsible for some companies fuck up.
This isn't about FUD its a legitimate question of insurance policy and law that will have to be addressed if autonomous vehicles are going to become commonplace. They are not unsolvable problems but neither can the be ignored by sticking ones head in the sand the way you clearly would like to do just because "omg self driving cars... COOL!"
well if you started doing that I might vary my rate of deceleration quickly in order to avoid you, or stomp on the gas and try to pull around you to the side. I might do any number of things that a computer might particularly because those things might be technically illegal. More importantly though, the car will do what it is programmed to do and nothing else. If you know its programming you can exploit it including getting it to do things that the designers did not actually intended but that are behaviors that emerge from unusual or unexpected inputs. Humans are less predictable. Not that you can't still run someone off the road.
If I have to pay attention but the reality is that I dont actually have to do anything 90% of the time then long distance driving goes from a somewhat boring activity to a mind-blowingly monotonous hell which will almost certainly result in less attention being paid by the people who are the human backups to these systems. Keeping people engaged keeps them alert. After 3 hours of staring out the window for trouble and not seeing any "drivers" are going to be even more likely to get distracted.
Not really, apparently they cost about $100 to produce as is. I suppose they would get cheeper if you took out some of the computing based functionality.
People who have not used glass usually have expectations of ti that are not realistic... like they believe its a HUD that will overlay useful information over your field of vision, put peoples names above their heads and other magical things when the reality is it is a small, low res screen hovering at the edge of your vision that doesn't do a particularly good job of much of anything while not being very reactive to user input.
Part of those expectations are thanks to hollywood but you see the same thing in articles about the tech like the ones recently about doctors using them. People expect more than a few lines of text hovering off to their right because hell... these things are going to be used by doctors performing surgery, they must do something magic!
Oh yea, also they are insanely expensive, which also adds to the belief that they will be mind blowing and adds to the disappointment when they are not.
Generally speaking, given those expectations, it is not surprising that the reality is disappointing.
Ever since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun...
No, it does not. I had a friend switch from an iPhone to a android. IT clearly indicates that the messages failed and if you tap them again it asks if you want to send it as a text message. The thing is the fail takes a few seconds and most people don't wait to see if a message actually sent before they jump off to doing something else.
Also, the woman's ability to send and receive texts was not hampered at all. She cannot receive the iMessages that her friends are trying to send her but she can text them and she can receive actual texts from anyone. Certainly it would be good for apple to be invalidating iMessage accounts that go off line like that the way they do with push notifications and I suppose that could be pushed back to the receiving phone to take that person off of the iMessage path. As it is the sender is best off removing the old messages and sending a new one to re-set it to text, that could be done automatically.... but it is actually the person sending the message that is experiencing the bug, the person who switched to android has a fully functional phone. I'm not sure she has much of a case here.
When the contacted me about a job in Seattle after I checked the box on their application that said I would not relocate I ignored the email. I got another one from the same recruiter a week later that was acting as though I were the rude one and that she had done me a favor by showing interest in hiring me for a totally undefined job in a location that I had no interest in moving to.
I have no idea why anybody works for them... they sure don't make the company seem appealing.
How about this AC... hydrogen fuel cells produce electricity, they do not drive electric generators.
This requires a LOT more infrastructure than what is in play for hydrogen refueling and you could do the same thing with hydrogen generation at gas stations with the capacity going into their tanks instead of into cars such that gas stations could become local power stations when demand peaks.
Most of what you can do with one storage medium can be done with the other.... its really a question of economy and convenience at scale. Frankly neither tech could scale up right now to fill 100% of need. Really picking one vs the other to back comes down to belief about which technology will manage to mature enough to be in use in every car in the world first.
I find 9 times out of 10 its a gas car with a bad catalytic converter.
Actually the seem like they would be quite similar. While it might be fine for you to offer your services to your neighbor to take care of kids a web site that sets all that up and send someone to your house to take care of your kids would be subject to similar regulation that other daycare services are. Similarly Uber, it could be argued, should be subject to some of the same regulation that any other car for hire service is subject to.
You have been looking at my brewing book haven't you?
Anyone else do bacon beer? I would love to compare notes. My most recent one was a breakfast brew. Coffee, oatmeal, maple, bacon stout.
Insurance is a huge part of this. I am not interested in being legally and financially responsible for decisions made on my behalf by hunk of code written by someone else. Now if the accident is being caused by someone else and the computer is just trying to make the right decision to minimize damage, that is one thing, but what happens when one of these vehicles actually causes an accident and kills someone? Who is responsible?
The US doesn't want to join the EU either.
The discount on my iPhone was $450 bucks.
its not about the sample next door, its about every single sample from the giant cloud of debris from which our solar system formed. The fact that its all the same throughout the world (when it hasn't undergone spontaneous fission is part of the reason we know how old the rock we are standing on is.
The only reason a 2 year contract is like a lease at all is because a 2 year old phone has next to no value on the open market. It really isnt like a lease because at the end of the contract you have a phone and that has some value.
It is the vendor locks that are the problem (also a problem in other countries, jailbreaking old Japanese iPhones was almost impossible thanks to the carrier locks).
If there was only a contract keeping you with your carrier instead these software locks then your phone would have plenty of value and you might move to a new carrier. It is these that we should be railing against. The contracts you can take or leave as you like since even if the US their are contract free providers. The thing is that locking phones keeps you locked to a provider and fewer people are willing to take the risk of worse service from the lower end providers who are the ones that allow contract free. If the phones could move and only the contract kept you loyal then people would be more free to go to the plan that made the most sense for them.
Its not that much like leasing.... Actually the real question is, why don't we lease phones? If you want your new iPhone every year the lease would make a lot of sense and the reclaimed phones could be refurbished and sold. I bet there would be a market for that.
All you need to do is look at T-Mobile which I believe gives you a credit of $10 a month for bringing your own phone. That is what it is worth because that is the only other options. Admittedly Verizon is making more money off of you than that but do you really think if they offered contract free service without a phone discount that they would lower their prices by more than the 10 bucks necessary to compete with T-Mobile? That is what it is worth to not use a subsidy, no matter how much profit they are actually making off of you.
This is based on a lot of assumptions. One is that being "locked into a contract" is a big deal. As an adult I need a phone to operate in the modern world, a cell phone and ideally a smart phone (particularly given my career). I know that I will need this service, I know that I will almost certainly need this service for the next two years. What is the harm in signing a contract. The chances that I will need to break it are extremely low. Ultimately the extra cost I pay pretty much works out to the discount I get on the phone (it might work against me a bit but its not like buying something on a payment plan is that odd or indefensible either) not everyone can drop 600 bucks on a new phone, maybe they would rather drop 300 and pay 300 over the next 2 years.
Admittedly the place were you get screwed is if you don't update your phone in 2 years but since plenty of people want the latest and greatest this really isn't an issue and if you don't want a new phone you can switch to a provider like t-mobile.
Now this does leave the question of why T-mobile is providing contract free wireless. I believe the reason is that they can't compete with AT&T or Verizon. They don't have a good service so they need another differentiator. Having lower prices is part of it but also offering contract free options to people who actually don't know if they will have a phone for the next two years or who want to buy a phone so cheep that getting a break on its price doesn't really make sense. Frankly though, that 10 bucks a month you save bringing your own device doesn't work out to be a huge savings in the long run if you are buying a new high end phone every 2 years anyway.
This idea that there is one true way to buy or sell services or products is asinine. Different things make sense for different people. Comcast wants to push its contract free offers in counter point to Verizon Fios but since I know I will be in my home for two years and I will need an internet connection that whole time is it really that big of a deal to sign a contract with verizon for those 2 years? People are convinced that contracts are always awful but for many people they really don't make any practical difference.
he gets more into the issues of code later... the amount of domain knowledge necessary to do anything, the immense mental stresses of trying to hold all the necessary information about a complex system in your head all at once. The difficulty of thinking in long strings of complex logic.
But yeah, you are right, a lot of this is about how projects are run.
you do have a point though software is generally significantly more complex than your home actually is but there are several similarities. Having redone several bathrooms and kitchens myself I think I can confidently say that if you don't plan ahead all the way down to the final finish pieces when you have your studs exposed then chances are you are going to end up screwing yourself somewhere... probably in several places actually... ending up with a bit of super complicated molding or finish work or with two finishes that don't line up just right and require more work to smooth over. In a lot of ways software is exactly like that.
But don't be deceived, the level of complexity in a piece of software is insane and the amount of things that you have to think about is huge. On the plus side, in the software world that spackle code you use to fill the cracks is not as visible to the end user (directly at least) as it can be in your home.
That assumes that you get paid for your overtime.