Exactly. Once the option becomes available I'll have my brain safely stashed in a bunker with secure backups in a bunch of other bunkers around the world. No more risk-taking for me!
This is 100% true in my experience. You so often read "so when HE does X it's cute/funny/romantic but when I do X it's creepy." That is because he is attractive and you are not. The cutoff from creepy to romantic is far higher for attractive people - witness the Overly Attached Girlfriend meme/character, who personifies a whole range of full-on psychopathic behaviour and still has a sizeable fan club.
If you aren't willing to do this, then you have no business demanding that women start putting up with a bunch of stuff they don't like so they can have the privilege of being with you.
I like everything else you said, but I have to argue with this bit. You *never* have any business demanding that *anyone* puts up with stuff they don't like in order to have the privilege of being with you. The only business you ever have is that of making yourself worthwhile enough that others might decide that it's worth putting up with your occasional rough edges in order to be with you.
Random mutation is woefully inadequate, gene duplication simply kicks the can down the road (where did that first gene come from?), as does the increasingly popular panspermia hypothesis.
Erm... what? Random mutation is perfectly adequate, gene crossover alone is sufficient in a large population even *without* random mutation. Panspermia is an unrelated hypothesis regarding terrestrial biogenesis.
And this is an excellent argument against the "it will always need manual controls in case of failure" argument. Modern vehicles have fly-by-wire accelerator, brakes, gears, etc.
The driver isn't in direct physical control of the vehicle and hasn't been for some time. Progress towards fully autonomous vehicles is a matter of degree, not of kind.
Really? Wow. There's been a giant storm of angry feminist rants on Facebook about this and every single one has been all about "a group of men (on the internet)" that are allegedly supporting the psycho killer because "they think it's OK to threaten, intimidate and kill women."
Our brains learn things by "rewiring" themselves. Why should we be surprised that spending a large amount of time causes a detectable difference in the action of the brain? Implying that men don't have the neural circuitry required for parenting is as retarded as implying that women don't have the neural circuitry required for mathematics.
Even lower cost is simply subpoenaing one end of the transaction. There's no point bothering with a cryptographic or man-in-the-middle attack when you control the man-at-the-other-end.
This is more of a True Scotsman issue. I think it's a fair statement that an automated vehicle which is not safer than a car piloted by an adult human is not a 'proper' automated vehicle.
The vehicle really only has to be safer than an average human driver but we'll probably have to make it safer than any conceivable human driver before it will be widely accepted.
That's fine until it compares its passenger report with its firmware which says it's only fitted with five seatbelts, and you get 65,525 traffic violations for "riding without a seatbelt".:P
And you try to contest them but you can't even get a hearing because "the robot said it so it must be true."
Basically that's how it will go. These systems are built by engineers trying to figure out ahead of time all of the possible outcomes and account for all of them. Of course, a lot of it in this case will come down to a continuous function rather than piecewise logic, so it's fewer rules than you'd expect. This kind of collision avoidance will probably boil down to a simple algorithm:
Calculate the distance to each object in the vehicle's environment
Calculate the minimum time of impact with each object based on reasonable assumptions about objects' behaviour.
Calculate the minimum stopping time for the vehicle based on estimated grip and vehicle speed
If the stopping times, multiplied by some safety factor, exceed the minimum time to impact, reduce speed such that the minimum stopping time equals the minimum time to impact.
This will result in the vehicle coming to a smooth stop before colliding, if physically possible.
Look at the entry fees. They're pretty large - at current exchange rates, stage 1 is roughly $1000 USD and they go up from there. The last stage with an entry fee is $7300. I want to believe... but the cynical part of me says this is just another effort to pump some life into the dogecoin market.
But then I also really want to enter just on the off chance that it IS real. Having your own moon rover would be *awesome*.
Aw crap, meant to hit 'insightful' and accidentally clicked 'redundant.' Posting to undo.
It always frustrates me when I see new technologies bashed for obvious weaknesses with even more obvious workarounds, especially when those weaknesses are shared by the incumbent technology. It's like the old "batteries have acid and produce hydrogen which can explode hurr hurr" argument against electric cars, when last I checked petrol was also pretty good at exploding.
Yeah, this Vendor A/B stuff fooled no-one. As such, I wonder how much point there is (legally speaking) in doing that as opposed to just saying "nVidia's drivers are closed source and they optimise for benchmarks and popular games, ATI's drivers are open but crap, Intel gives no fucks and just wants to build SOCs."
He handed it over to a computer science graduate (i.e. a non-physicist) who really liked all the modern trends in CS.
Why was a graduate fresh out of university put in charge of architecture decisions? You wouldn't put an apprentice in charge of a mechanical workshop and expect them to keep it tidy and efficient, this is no different.
It's my general experience that it takes 5-10 years of commercial experience before someone is capable of making wise architecture choices about small standalone apps, and 15+ before they'll have a hope in hell of doing anything non-destructive with a large legacy application.
I think you've got it backwards. My feeling is that as we build more and more autonomous machines, they will necessarily begin to have something analogous to feelings and desires. Even now, machines 'feel' with sensors, and experience 'pain' or 'alarm' when they detect a fault condition. They 'want' things when their control algorithms attract them to those things.
Any machine designed to explore its surroundings will have to have some system that keeps it roving around looking for things it hasn't seen before - it will be curious if it sees something unfamiliar, and will get bored if it doesn't. A machine designed to protect itself will feel fear when it anticipates damage, and will become defensive and take action to avert that damage. A machine designed to be able to respond violently will become angry and aggressive if provoked.
Humans are just very complicated, evolved machines. Our feelings are effectively just a heuristic for simplifying triggering different behaviours. We only think they're special because it's us that experience them.
How long does it take to go from "can apply for a green card" to "has a green card"? If you've just moved to a new country, a second income makes a huge difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Once the option becomes available I'll have my brain safely stashed in a bunker with secure backups in a bunch of other bunkers around the world. No more risk-taking for me!
New headline: Can We Devise A Headline That Follows Betteridge's Law?
" creepiness " bad hygiene is most of that.
This is 100% true in my experience. You so often read "so when HE does X it's cute/funny/romantic but when I do X it's creepy." That is because he is attractive and you are not. The cutoff from creepy to romantic is far higher for attractive people - witness the Overly Attached Girlfriend meme/character, who personifies a whole range of full-on psychopathic behaviour and still has a sizeable fan club.
If you aren't willing to do this, then you have no business demanding that women start putting up with a bunch of stuff they don't like so they can have the privilege of being with you.
I like everything else you said, but I have to argue with this bit. You *never* have any business demanding that *anyone* puts up with stuff they don't like in order to have the privilege of being with you. The only business you ever have is that of making yourself worthwhile enough that others might decide that it's worth putting up with your occasional rough edges in order to be with you.
Random mutation is woefully inadequate, gene duplication simply kicks the can down the road (where did that first gene come from?), as does the increasingly popular panspermia hypothesis.
Erm... what? Random mutation is perfectly adequate, gene crossover alone is sufficient in a large population even *without* random mutation. Panspermia is an unrelated hypothesis regarding terrestrial biogenesis.
Mercedes-Benz is worth $23.5bn. Google is worth $382.5bn. I think Google's in with a fighting chance if they decide to take this seriously.
In one sense, we've been a fully autonomous vehicle ever since we started walking. ;)
And this is an excellent argument against the "it will always need manual controls in case of failure" argument. Modern vehicles have fly-by-wire accelerator, brakes, gears, etc.
The driver isn't in direct physical control of the vehicle and hasn't been for some time. Progress towards fully autonomous vehicles is a matter of degree, not of kind.
Really? Wow. There's been a giant storm of angry feminist rants on Facebook about this and every single one has been all about "a group of men (on the internet)" that are allegedly supporting the psycho killer because "they think it's OK to threaten, intimidate and kill women."
Not one mention of any men being killed.
Our brains learn things by "rewiring" themselves. Why should we be surprised that spending a large amount of time causes a detectable difference in the action of the brain? Implying that men don't have the neural circuitry required for parenting is as retarded as implying that women don't have the neural circuitry required for mathematics.
Narrow view angle significantly compromises immersion.
This is my biggest issue with it. I almost bought the TMZ-H1 back before Oculus got big, but decided not to because the FOV was so awful.
Even lower cost is simply subpoenaing one end of the transaction. There's no point bothering with a cryptographic or man-in-the-middle attack when you control the man-at-the-other-end.
This is more of a True Scotsman issue. I think it's a fair statement that an automated vehicle which is not safer than a car piloted by an adult human is not a 'proper' automated vehicle.
The vehicle really only has to be safer than an average human driver but we'll probably have to make it safer than any conceivable human driver before it will be widely accepted.
That's fine until it compares its passenger report with its firmware which says it's only fitted with five seatbelts, and you get 65,525 traffic violations for "riding without a seatbelt". :P
And you try to contest them but you can't even get a hearing because "the robot said it so it must be true."
Getting off topic, but did it bug anyone else that in the new Doctor Who series the Doctor pronounces it "kay-NINE" in stead of "canine"?
This will result in the vehicle coming to a smooth stop before colliding, if physically possible.
Look at the entry fees. They're pretty large - at current exchange rates, stage 1 is roughly $1000 USD and they go up from there. The last stage with an entry fee is $7300. I want to believe... but the cynical part of me says this is just another effort to pump some life into the dogecoin market.
But then I also really want to enter just on the off chance that it IS real. Having your own moon rover would be *awesome*.
If dog was phone...
Then who was dog?!!
Aw crap, meant to hit 'insightful' and accidentally clicked 'redundant.' Posting to undo.
It always frustrates me when I see new technologies bashed for obvious weaknesses with even more obvious workarounds, especially when those weaknesses are shared by the incumbent technology. It's like the old "batteries have acid and produce hydrogen which can explode hurr hurr" argument against electric cars, when last I checked petrol was also pretty good at exploding.
Yeah, this Vendor A/B stuff fooled no-one. As such, I wonder how much point there is (legally speaking) in doing that as opposed to just saying "nVidia's drivers are closed source and they optimise for benchmarks and popular games, ATI's drivers are open but crap, Intel gives no fucks and just wants to build SOCs."
It really whips the llama's ass.
Exactly. Strap people into a real moving pod with a VR headset on, and the ride can be whatever the designers can imagine.
He handed it over to a computer science graduate (i.e. a non-physicist) who really liked all the modern trends in CS.
Why was a graduate fresh out of university put in charge of architecture decisions? You wouldn't put an apprentice in charge of a mechanical workshop and expect them to keep it tidy and efficient, this is no different.
It's my general experience that it takes 5-10 years of commercial experience before someone is capable of making wise architecture choices about small standalone apps, and 15+ before they'll have a hope in hell of doing anything non-destructive with a large legacy application.
I think you've got it backwards. My feeling is that as we build more and more autonomous machines, they will necessarily begin to have something analogous to feelings and desires. Even now, machines 'feel' with sensors, and experience 'pain' or 'alarm' when they detect a fault condition. They 'want' things when their control algorithms attract them to those things.
Any machine designed to explore its surroundings will have to have some system that keeps it roving around looking for things it hasn't seen before - it will be curious if it sees something unfamiliar, and will get bored if it doesn't. A machine designed to protect itself will feel fear when it anticipates damage, and will become defensive and take action to avert that damage. A machine designed to be able to respond violently will become angry and aggressive if provoked.
Humans are just very complicated, evolved machines. Our feelings are effectively just a heuristic for simplifying triggering different behaviours. We only think they're special because it's us that experience them.
How long does it take to go from "can apply for a green card" to "has a green card"? If you've just moved to a new country, a second income makes a huge difference.