Of those, flying over crowds is a problem, and if there are bystanders (admittedly likely) around tall buildings as well, but the others are risks of losing the drone only, not a problem for the rest of us.
Wildly optimistic manufacturer claims are a problem in general, not restricted to drones.
And yes, some people are deeply resistant to learning from their mistakes. That's why things are generally more harsh for repeat offenders.
I would suggest that 15 weekends of community service so he can keep his job in order to be able to pay the woman actual and punitive damages would better serve all concerned. I sincerely doubt that after all thet he will be wanting to fly a drone over a crowd again any time soon.
The privacy of the crowd. Someone sitting on the stoop watching people go by is just a people watcher. If he starts following you around ducking around a corner when you look back, he's a stalker.
That's actually a good argument for the Universal Basic Income. No punishment for seeking independent income, no way to cheat for it since every citizen is entitled to it.
Part of the depression of government dependence is probably related to various bureaucrats lording it over you and the knowledge that if you manage to make a bit of money independently, you could lose all support and end up on the street.
That's why we need a safety net that makes it more or less OK if robots take your job.
Don't forget that they can even indirectly take your job or at least cut into your pay. Imagine if robots take 25% of the jobs out there. Some small fraction of those people will then be applying for your job, and they'll probably be cheaper than you.
Apparently that's part of the solution here. That's why the specs aren't bigger.
Personally, I could use a bit more storage, but it seems fine as-is. I don't need a phone that can do CFD in the background, I just need it to communicate. Voice, text, email, some light web browsing, and an SSH client. It should be fine for that.
If your statement applies to a 27 year old man, it applies to an 80 year old woman. Both in this scenario would have bought a self-driving car from an auto manufacturer. I chose her as an example to highlight for you the absurdity of expecting the end user to have the engineering expertise necessary to be liable for not choosing their mass market self-driving car carefully enough.
But if you prefer, what failure of expertise might a 22 year old liberal arts major show in choosing a m,ass market autonomous vehicle would attract liability for an engineering failure?
Perhaps the real reason you're upset is that your argument hinged on an unreasonable expectation of the consumer's engineering knowledge.
As for your comment about DRIVER error, that would be the autonomous system designed by the auto maker. It would not be the person who punched in the address of the university and pressed go before cramming in an extra 30 minutes of studying for the exam.
In general, liability goes to the entity that could and should have done a better job avoiding the incident. So tell me, if an autonomous vehicle crashes, who could have done a better job avoiding that, the manufacturer that marketed the car as safe and their development team, or the 80 year old lady who bought the autonomous vehicle because she was no longer allowed to drive? What is it that you think the lady could and should have done better but failed at to attract a portion of the liability?
Legally defined bad faith is hard to prove. We would need some metric, like number or proportion of bogus requests where bad faith is legally presumed. Of course, if a reasonable person hearing/viewing the target of the takedown knows it isn't the complainant's property, that too should be presumed to be bad faith..
If it's any comfort, once you get past the breathless headline it turns out it only works for problems that can be solved in 5 lines of code or so. The sort we give middle schoolers to solve in summer computer camp.
I am also reminded of CASE tools. That was the big hype in the '90s that was supposed to allow non-technical managers to produce custom software based on a simple specification. It turns out, you have to be a programmer to be able to write a specification good enough to turn into software, but it's harder to write adequately for CASE tools than it is to just write the software.
Of course, everything old is new again, so in the 2000's we got UML (not the virtualization UML) that was also supposed to generate code from an exact specification driven by XML. You remember XML, the magic glue that was supposed to magically make software inter-operate?. Well, that turned out to also be much harder than just writing the damned code. WooHoo, you can generate hello world in less than 3 days!
But more to your point, yes. When people here and elsewhere say just go to school and get a new career, they're glossing over a great deal of mental anguish that will be suffered by millions, either because they're too immature to understand what it's like when you can't just run home to mom and dad or they believe it won't happen to them and they don't have enough empathy to feel for others.
While I don't think programmers will really be hit by this for decades to come, some people are truly facing it right now. They did everything you're supposed to do, but the promised life isn't forthcoming. Unfortunately, it looks like fixing the problem won't get much traction until someone experiments with replacing judges and lawmakers with Watson.
Many people today have just replaced those fears with worrying if they'll be downsized, "is this a real job offer, or is it a recruiter collecting resumes, or are they just doing it so they can hire an H-1B?". Will I get enough work to pay the rent this month?
Actually, that's why stoned drivers tend to be OK but drunk drivers are a problem. The drunk driver is over-confident in their abilities and tends to crash. Stoned drivers are generally more capable than they think they are and slow down more than enough to compensate for their poor reaction time.
The Constitution applies to the U.S. government and to the citizens of the united states. It does not include geographic limitations of any kind. All of this making borders a Constitution free zone is completely unConstitutional. I don't care if the ground I am standing on is legally considered to be the Greater 2nd Empire of Mars, I am still a U.S. Citizen and the border guard is still a representative of the U.S. government. The Constitution applies. Obviously it isn't being respected, but it certainly applies.
True. Of course the R's were more than happy to pick up the racism banner when the Ds were backing away from it. The truth is, if there's a moral high ground neither party holds it.
Now, for a really inconvenient truth, Hitler got some of his ideas on eugenics from the American Progressives.
Of course, we have no such goal at this time. If your goal is cultural and social continuity, killing off older people is a very bad idea.
It's also worth considering that the pollution probably doesn't leave them in perfect health until one day they die before using any medical resources.
Finally, consider how your thought changes if it's you or someone you love who dies early.
Slashdot Mirror
Of those, flying over crowds is a problem, and if there are bystanders (admittedly likely) around tall buildings as well, but the others are risks of losing the drone only, not a problem for the rest of us.
Wildly optimistic manufacturer claims are a problem in general, not restricted to drones.
And yes, some people are deeply resistant to learning from their mistakes. That's why things are generally more harsh for repeat offenders.
I would suggest that 15 weekends of community service so he can keep his job in order to be able to pay the woman actual and punitive damages would better serve all concerned. I sincerely doubt that after all thet he will be wanting to fly a drone over a crowd again any time soon.
And that is different from a human driver how?
The privacy of the crowd. Someone sitting on the stoop watching people go by is just a people watcher. If he starts following you around ducking around a corner when you look back, he's a stalker.
That or "How can we hide our spying better so we can convince people it isn't there?"
It is up to the computer to know if it isn't getting adequate traction or if the sensors are too degraded to drive safely.
That's actually a good argument for the Universal Basic Income. No punishment for seeking independent income, no way to cheat for it since every citizen is entitled to it.
Part of the depression of government dependence is probably related to various bureaucrats lording it over you and the knowledge that if you manage to make a bit of money independently, you could lose all support and end up on the street.
That's why we need a safety net that makes it more or less OK if robots take your job.
Don't forget that they can even indirectly take your job or at least cut into your pay. Imagine if robots take 25% of the jobs out there. Some small fraction of those people will then be applying for your job, and they'll probably be cheaper than you.
Apparently that's part of the solution here. That's why the specs aren't bigger.
Personally, I could use a bit more storage, but it seems fine as-is. I don't need a phone that can do CFD in the background, I just need it to communicate. Voice, text, email, some light web browsing, and an SSH client. It should be fine for that.
If your statement applies to a 27 year old man, it applies to an 80 year old woman. Both in this scenario would have bought a self-driving car from an auto manufacturer. I chose her as an example to highlight for you the absurdity of expecting the end user to have the engineering expertise necessary to be liable for not choosing their mass market self-driving car carefully enough.
But if you prefer, what failure of expertise might a 22 year old liberal arts major show in choosing a m,ass market autonomous vehicle would attract liability for an engineering failure?
Perhaps the real reason you're upset is that your argument hinged on an unreasonable expectation of the consumer's engineering knowledge.
As for your comment about DRIVER error, that would be the autonomous system designed by the auto maker. It would not be the person who punched in the address of the university and pressed go before cramming in an extra 30 minutes of studying for the exam.
At least the cost of insurance will go down when foregoing manual mode becomes a genuine option.
In general, liability goes to the entity that could and should have done a better job avoiding the incident. So tell me, if an autonomous vehicle crashes, who could have done a better job avoiding that, the manufacturer that marketed the car as safe and their development team, or the 80 year old lady who bought the autonomous vehicle because she was no longer allowed to drive? What is it that you think the lady could and should have done better but failed at to attract a portion of the liability?
Sure, to you and me it's a given. But it needs to be written into law so we don't get bizarro decisions in court.
Legally defined bad faith is hard to prove. We would need some metric, like number or proportion of bogus requests where bad faith is legally presumed. Of course, if a reasonable person hearing/viewing the target of the takedown knows it isn't the complainant's property, that too should be presumed to be bad faith..
If it's any comfort, once you get past the breathless headline it turns out it only works for problems that can be solved in 5 lines of code or so. The sort we give middle schoolers to solve in summer computer camp.
I am also reminded of CASE tools. That was the big hype in the '90s that was supposed to allow non-technical managers to produce custom software based on a simple specification. It turns out, you have to be a programmer to be able to write a specification good enough to turn into software, but it's harder to write adequately for CASE tools than it is to just write the software.
Of course, everything old is new again, so in the 2000's we got UML (not the virtualization UML) that was also supposed to generate code from an exact specification driven by XML. You remember XML, the magic glue that was supposed to magically make software inter-operate?. Well, that turned out to also be much harder than just writing the damned code. WooHoo, you can generate hello world in less than 3 days!
But more to your point, yes. When people here and elsewhere say just go to school and get a new career, they're glossing over a great deal of mental anguish that will be suffered by millions, either because they're too immature to understand what it's like when you can't just run home to mom and dad or they believe it won't happen to them and they don't have enough empathy to feel for others.
While I don't think programmers will really be hit by this for decades to come, some people are truly facing it right now. They did everything you're supposed to do, but the promised life isn't forthcoming. Unfortunately, it looks like fixing the problem won't get much traction until someone experiments with replacing judges and lawmakers with Watson.
Many people today have just replaced those fears with worrying if they'll be downsized, "is this a real job offer, or is it a recruiter collecting resumes, or are they just doing it so they can hire an H-1B?". Will I get enough work to pay the rent this month?
If it's not a standard protocol, why isn't it documented?
Actually, that's why stoned drivers tend to be OK but drunk drivers are a problem. The drunk driver is over-confident in their abilities and tends to crash. Stoned drivers are generally more capable than they think they are and slow down more than enough to compensate for their poor reaction time.
The Constitution applies to the U.S. government and to the citizens of the united states. It does not include geographic limitations of any kind. All of this making borders a Constitution free zone is completely unConstitutional. I don't care if the ground I am standing on is legally considered to be the Greater 2nd Empire of Mars, I am still a U.S. Citizen and the border guard is still a representative of the U.S. government. The Constitution applies. Obviously it isn't being respected, but it certainly applies.
Comedy Central?
Of course, the bad code could also scan the process memory space to find the relocation table.
What makes you think the benefits are accruing to the masses?
True. Of course the R's were more than happy to pick up the racism banner when the Ds were backing away from it. The truth is, if there's a moral high ground neither party holds it.
Now, for a really inconvenient truth, Hitler got some of his ideas on eugenics from the American Progressives.
Of course, we have no such goal at this time. If your goal is cultural and social continuity, killing off older people is a very bad idea.
It's also worth considering that the pollution probably doesn't leave them in perfect health until one day they die before using any medical resources.
Finally, consider how your thought changes if it's you or someone you love who dies early.
So we're up to 3 now and the best you'll do is concede that it's not totally hooey? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain to me.
If you don't want to be ignorant, perhaps you should look in to it. I'm also not going to do your math homework.