Im not clear why the VP choice is all that relevant, and honestly 90% of the criticism for Palin was manufactured. Doesnt Biden have just as many "foot-in-mouth" moments as Palin did?
Obama is easily a worse choice than Romney, why does the Democratic party's choice for prez get a pass just because some people had beef with Palin?
I blame the "overcharge the relationship" button Secretary Clinton gave to their ambassador. Should have gotten a translator! If only it had said "reset" none of this would be happening!
We know-- for a fact-- that Skype has worked with the Chinese government to provide bugged versions of skype (TOM Skype). We know-- for a fact-- that Microsoft has access to provide call logs for law enforcement, on demand.
Call it what you like, but both of those are well documented and can be found in a 5 minute google search.
1) That wasnt addition, it was division, and only of some really large numbers under very particular circumstances. 2) It was pretty rare, and a pretty small error that had almost no practical impact 3) That was 20 years ago 4) youre ignoring the fact that computers already handle far more important things, like world financials, critical healthcare systems, and a ton of driver assist features.
Because it was the most common and most egregious example of income inequality. So if ~1% of the population now makes way more money than me, but everyone is making ~2x their purchasing power compared to 1950 and the gap for race and gender is way down, id call that a win; looking at the 1% case and ignoring the ~50% case is just being silly.
If you look at census data, wealth inequality across gender and race has massively dropped, all while median incomes (adjusted for inflation) have nearly tripled.
Rather than just saying "you're wrong", id rather encourage you do look this stuff up before repeating it further. You've obviously heard if from somewhere, but there is an onus on you to make sure your own words are accurate.
In light of the incidents with Eyjafjallajökull and Bardarbunga, I wonder if it would be possible to issue trade embargos on words longer than 10 characters to limit the prevalence of these volcanoes.
Parent is clueless, if you google "Anandtech Athlon performance" you'll see several articles from 2001+ (you know, the years where AMD was competitive) that appear to be praising AMD.
If a site were telling you that AMD was a good buy for a general purpose computer-- unless they were talking about the A-series-- theyd be a pretty awful source.
Totally shilling, right? Heres the sad truth: Since the Core 2 Duo hit in ~2006, AMD has been getting its rear handed to it. It had a small advantage in memory benchmarks for several years after that due to its integrated memory controller, but after Intel jumped on board with those, the only reasons youd buy AMD these days are core count or cost (you get a lot more CPU features at the low end with AMD).
Performance-wise, and often even on a budget, Intel is simply better. You dont have to like it (and I dont, because Intel's customer service sucks while AMDs is great), but its the reality.
Do you? Are you prepared if the pedestrian darts into the road?
These objections make no sense. The car will drive "safely", and if that means its going slower than you normally drive, it implies that you normally drive unsafely.
Really, it seems like you wont be happy unless it drives exactly like a human does, which is a terrible idea given the rate of auto deaths every year because of bad decisionmaking, poor reaction speed, and unsafe driving.
So, who's going to write the rule that tells it what to do if faced with a choice between running over a baby, or swerving and running over an old granny?
You're implying that you would make a better decision about that in the heat of the moment, rather than considering it over time.
To put it another way: what would you do in that situation? And why wouldnt we program the car so that it makes the same choice?
Your objection is not born out of reason, but fear of the unknown.
Until the vehicle can classify what a person is doing on the side of the road it is not a viable solution. That person could be a statue, a child who could dart into the road, an person standing safely on the side,
Neither of those two matter; the vehicle would ensure that it was at a speed it could stop if whatever it was began to dart into the road, and if it DID, the car could stop much faster than a person.
Stop or swerve to avoid doesn't resolve driving on snow covered roads The car will know way better than you ever could how well the car is gripping at any particular moment.
People keep missing that the cars dont need to "know" things or "improvise"; they will have way better data than the human driver in most circumstances and far better reaction times. "Improvise" is somewhat of an oxymoron / bad usage anyways; computers dont "improvise", they follow a structured set of rules, and will always do so until we create a strong AI (which will never happen IMO). The thing is, if you come up with a good ruleset, theres no need to improvise.
That sort of thing is trivial for computers as its basically a simple physics question; whats not trivial is predicting behavior. The point is that a GoogleCar probably wouldnt need to predict behavior in the same sort of way.
People are acting like a googlecar needs to have the exact same senses and responses as a human driver, which is not true; it doesnt have the same limitations (field of view, ~200ms minimum reaction speed, distractions, imperfect data from car) so it can operate differently.
For instance, a person driving a car on an icy winter night has all sorts of unknowns to deal with, between limitied vision, glare from ice / oncoming traffic, not knowing how slippery the roads are, etc. An automated car will have much better vision, a better sense of how well the tires are gripping, and wont be affected by glare. Saying "how will the car know if theres snow in the forecast" is completely missing the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Afghanistan was the wrong country? We were supposed to invade Pakistan?
Please clarify.
Im not clear why the VP choice is all that relevant, and honestly 90% of the criticism for Palin was manufactured. Doesnt Biden have just as many "foot-in-mouth" moments as Palin did?
Obama is easily a worse choice than Romney, why does the Democratic party's choice for prez get a pass just because some people had beef with Palin?
I blame the "overcharge the relationship" button Secretary Clinton gave to their ambassador. Should have gotten a translator! If only it had said "reset" none of this would be happening!
Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat...
"Cold war has been over for 20 years" indeed. Anyone got their foot in their mouths?
Well, he could always use a third-party app-sto......oh wait.
It is in fact the exact approach used by Skype in many circumstances. Peer-to-peer voip is neither novel nor difficult.
Hows this.
We know-- for a fact-- that Skype has worked with the Chinese government to provide bugged versions of skype (TOM Skype). We know-- for a fact-- that Microsoft has access to provide call logs for law enforcement, on demand.
Call it what you like, but both of those are well documented and can be found in a 5 minute google search.
but yet the famous Intel math bug happened.
1) That wasnt addition, it was division, and only of some really large numbers under very particular circumstances.
2) It was pretty rare, and a pretty small error that had almost no practical impact
3) That was 20 years ago
4) youre ignoring the fact that computers already handle far more important things, like world financials, critical healthcare systems, and a ton of driver assist features.
lobbying legislators to keep out software makers of all trouble irrespective of consequences, and unsafe coding.
RIIIIIGHT, sort of like how Ford isnt in trouble over faulty ignition switches TEN YEARS AGO.
Because it was the most common and most egregious example of income inequality. So if ~1% of the population now makes way more money than me, but everyone is making ~2x their purchasing power compared to 1950 and the gap for race and gender is way down, id call that a win; looking at the 1% case and ignoring the ~50% case is just being silly.
Mononoke didnt hunt boar.
Theyre still using nuclear energy, the phaseout completes in 2021.
Radiation IS good for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
It is, have fun getting your vitamin D without radiation.
wealth inequality.
If you look at census data, wealth inequality across gender and race has massively dropped, all while median incomes (adjusted for inflation) have nearly tripled.
Rather than just saying "you're wrong", id rather encourage you do look this stuff up before repeating it further. You've obviously heard if from somewhere, but there is an onus on you to make sure your own words are accurate.
Anyhow, I went off the deep end
And got modded insightful in the process, well done.
In light of the incidents with Eyjafjallajökull and Bardarbunga, I wonder if it would be possible to issue trade embargos on words longer than 10 characters to limit the prevalence of these volcanoes.
Parent is clueless, if you google "Anandtech Athlon performance" you'll see several articles from 2001+ (you know, the years where AMD was competitive) that appear to be praising AMD.
If a site were telling you that AMD was a good buy for a general purpose computer-- unless they were talking about the A-series-- theyd be a pretty awful source.
From AnandTech, 2001:
AMD's Athlon XP: Great performance, poor marketing
Totally shilling, right? Heres the sad truth: Since the Core 2 Duo hit in ~2006, AMD has been getting its rear handed to it. It had a small advantage in memory benchmarks for several years after that due to its integrated memory controller, but after Intel jumped on board with those, the only reasons youd buy AMD these days are core count or cost (you get a lot more CPU features at the low end with AMD).
Performance-wise, and often even on a budget, Intel is simply better. You dont have to like it (and I dont, because Intel's customer service sucks while AMDs is great), but its the reality.
Fans are so retro. My laptop uses ionized air currents for cooling.
It occasionally overheats and the induced currents have wreaked havoc with my data, but there are no moving parts!
Do you? Are you prepared if the pedestrian darts into the road?
These objections make no sense. The car will drive "safely", and if that means its going slower than you normally drive, it implies that you normally drive unsafely.
Really, it seems like you wont be happy unless it drives exactly like a human does, which is a terrible idea given the rate of auto deaths every year because of bad decisionmaking, poor reaction speed, and unsafe driving.
So, who's going to write the rule that tells it what to do if faced with a choice between running over a baby, or swerving and running over an old granny?
You're implying that you would make a better decision about that in the heat of the moment, rather than considering it over time.
To put it another way: what would you do in that situation? And why wouldnt we program the car so that it makes the same choice?
Your objection is not born out of reason, but fear of the unknown.
Until the vehicle can classify what a person is doing on the side of the road it is not a viable solution. That person could be a statue, a child who could dart into the road, an person standing safely on the side,
Neither of those two matter; the vehicle would ensure that it was at a speed it could stop if whatever it was began to dart into the road, and if it DID, the car could stop much faster than a person.
a police officer pulling the car over
That's, really, the only difficult bit.
Stop or swerve to avoid doesn't resolve driving on snow covered roads
The car will know way better than you ever could how well the car is gripping at any particular moment.
People keep missing that the cars dont need to "know" things or "improvise"; they will have way better data than the human driver in most circumstances and far better reaction times. "Improvise" is somewhat of an oxymoron / bad usage anyways; computers dont "improvise", they follow a structured set of rules, and will always do so until we create a strong AI (which will never happen IMO). The thing is, if you come up with a good ruleset, theres no need to improvise.
Uh, yes.
That sort of thing is trivial for computers as its basically a simple physics question; whats not trivial is predicting behavior. The point is that a GoogleCar probably wouldnt need to predict behavior in the same sort of way.
People are acting like a googlecar needs to have the exact same senses and responses as a human driver, which is not true; it doesnt have the same limitations (field of view, ~200ms minimum reaction speed, distractions, imperfect data from car) so it can operate differently.
For instance, a person driving a car on an icy winter night has all sorts of unknowns to deal with, between limitied vision, glare from ice / oncoming traffic, not knowing how slippery the roads are, etc. An automated car will have much better vision, a better sense of how well the tires are gripping, and wont be affected by glare. Saying "how will the car know if theres snow in the forecast" is completely missing the point.