If US cops want something like a Porsche or Lamborghini for their DARE propaganda vehicle, they simply start an asset forfeiture against the local coke dealer....
Since when did you have to break the law to get your assets forfeited? Here in America you can have your Porsche stolen by the cops just because they don't like you, no actual crime or evidence needed. Good luck getting it back too.
Given this opm hack along with Ashley Madison and other cross correlating data that's been hacked, id assume the bigger threat is blackmail here. Sadly data security, even on sensitive military databases, is neglected and not even up to the crappy standards of many businesses.
We spend next to nothing on space exploration. The tons of waste and needless pork projects in government needs to go first. If trump is half as capable at business as he claims then there should be plenty of surplus to do both without cutting funding or raising taxes.
The localized effects of a warmer climate are not very well undsrstood at this point. It's a very hot topic in research both from a scientific interest and practical application point. It is actually possible for the earth to be wetter yet Cali to be drier.
Any idiot can run a company in the red, doubly so when it's already established. The CEO likely has no idea how to even read the books or why a bottom line is actually important because it often makes no difference in how they are paid.
I'll even do the install on my home myself.
give me 30 monocrystalline current tech 300 watt panels. 9000 Watt Hour will reduce my carbon footprint dramatically, in fact I will use a syncing inverter that will push my excess power back to the grid so that my neighbors can benefit from it.
No it doesn't cost the power company anything.
What are you talking about it sounds like they just lost a customer and gained another competitor.
she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.
Wow so now she is backing out of the race entirely? If she was actually serious about it she would never get elected. My guess is if elected those cuts would mysteriously change place and come from somewhere with less money flowing into Washington.
Absolutely. It's not like the random stuff I get at the store is guaranteed to come from a better spot nor was it likely tested for a single God damn thing. Hell you could label it organic ffs.
First off I own a car so I don't have to wait. No way in hell I'm waiting 1 minute when I want to go somewhere. That's why I own a car rather than waste 5 minutes walking to a bus stop then another 15 for the bus or go slowly somewhere on a bicycle. No ride sharing algorithm is going to violate physics and return the car to me instantly it's going to be the same 5-15 minute crap I purchased the car to be free from. There will be no money to be made by ownership because of supply and demand - if somehow this automagically were not true I would buy a fleet of 100 and use it as a business. For my ride no screw that.
So never. Well ok probably around the same time you don't have to manually map the entire route out to 50m in all directions at all times beforehand with cm resolution or the system nearly shuts down like google cars do today. If you actually had the processing power and algorithm capability of a squirrel you could run a car with a crappy stereo camera, 3- axis accelerometer, 3 axis gyro, and dual microphone like us meat bags can. All these fancy sensors are a crutch for the inability to extract features newborn animals with inferior sensors can, when we can do that in software then the tech is ready for mainstream use. For the obvious reasons above few to no Americans are ever going to share their ride for a few extra dollars when it means getting it trashed daily, autonomous or not. I sure as hell wouldn't for my personal ride.
It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we have no idea how to secure information systems.
It's this kind of stuff that scares the crap out of people and there is no end in sight. As a matter of fact, this is only going to get worse as we migrate to an IoT.
I sometimes wonder if the technology bubble will someday be crushed under the weight of exploitation. A victim of its own complexity and insecurity.
Yep no one cares. Rather than just the potential murder of an annoying journalist few people know about or care about its probably going to take some complete ahole(s) with an exploit like this causing the first mass cyber fatality incident before anything really gets done and your average person cares.
Read more carefully. They acknowledged the attack was viable and real, they just aren't calling it a defect. They patched it by blocking access over the cellular network as demonstrated, and further are providing a patch and additional security updates, whatever that actually turns out to be.
All data, no matter how seemingly innocuous, when ammassed, allows agencies to substantially abuse everything from subtle advertising, to obtaining private medical information, to downright spying. At this point, given all the breaches at every single level from government, medical, and business on down, and given that even major agencies/groups have sold information - isn't it a bit like trying to put the cat back into the bag? I mean it's a nice idea but I see it as trying to fix healthcare in America - there is no right answer we have built upon a foundation already and are entrenched. Not to mention that the NSA/CIA/FBI will just snoop any left over anyhow and likely still bungle security at some level as insane as that sounds. Or are we thinking of the children who have yet to have generated information to be stolen yet?
Quite likely true. However at least this gets them quite a bit of indirect exposure and may, yes may, eventually provide them with treatments (doubt we will have cures for genetic conditions anytime in our lifetimes). So I am going out on a limb and going to say it's not 100% bad for these people because without that interest they truly are 100% screwed instead of just 90%. If I was in that position I'd probably take those odds at a treatment.
Recoil is only really a problem after the first shot anyway. Further there dosent need to be asymmetry designed into a drone the force can be lined up with the center of mass so it only gets pushed back and there is little to no rotation.
Listen dumbass who wont use their account i said vehicle is over cautious and stops where humans would not which is exactly what the wiki says. Humans dont follow textbook rules the car does. Post using your id at least coward. Also you are a dumbass.
The grandparent was challenging the specific claim YOU made that SDC's get rear-ended because they stop too often.
The article you linked doesn't even mention any of the collisions the SDC's have been involved in, and certainly don't support the claim you made about them.
Try again.
Ok mr coward here are the actual citations, I was quick to post and put the wrong post above. Too many hipsters with common place movie knowledge and not actual engineerinrg knowledge so here you go I hope someone actually reads this that will appreciate facts.
The number of miles that google cars have driven so far including its safety record as stated by google directly : http://venturebeat.com/2015/06...
This equates to an accident every 90.9 thousand miles though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... the wiki clams 14 accidents that puts this at 71.4 thousand - all of which are meticulously planed courses - none have left turns into traffic - none of which are in heavy traffic at all - none of which are in adverse conditions such as snow or rain which the car can't even function at all and which of course makes for more difficult human driving. So it is pointless to try and compare that to bumper to bumper rush hour driving on freeways, hundreds to thousands of accidents during large snowstorms, bad winter driving in general, rush hour in general, etc. This makes it extremely difficult to compare to actual human driving statistics.
Note the wiki even states google as saying the car will often revert to extra cautious safety conditions and cannot handle many situations which wont even be addressed till 2020.
Given that google has not made more than one accident detail public this is hurting their image in all likelyhood. Its a pretty safe assumption that a slow plodding car that often stops, say like you are supposed to text book style, but no one does, for pedestrians, will cause motorists to rear end you.
Dear god I couldn't help but comment or I would mod this up huge - someone with points please do. The google car is about the best there is and yet without painstaking manual mapping of every driveway, every road sign, every lane, every curb, every traffic light, manual entry and review of every goddamn last detail along the route it's absolutely helpless and yet it still can't handle erratic human drivers, many obstacles, rain, snow, occlusions of nearly any kind, any sensor failures of any kind, it's very early in demonstrating the technology.
I just wish google would be honest with the masses what the actual state of the technology actually is.
You may want to see what actual autonomous vehicle experts from leading institutions have to say about it. It may open your eyes to the actual state of the art instead of the common perception of the masses: http://www.technologyreview.co...
It goes from Google, who is extremely professional, but still gets rear ended a lot because the vehicle is over cautious
Troll much?
Not a troll it's been rear ended 14 times, and although it's mostly been attributed to in attention, numerous admissions from google show that the car is overly cautious and will often stop in videos I have seen where humans won't.
Anyone in the field gets an immediate appreciation of how their toddler far exceeds a supercomputer and 500k in sensors even in 2015.
Last I checked toddlers can't drive a car, sunny highway conditions or not.
Last I've seen the best super computer clusters in the world coupled to the best sensors available anywhere and unlimited amounts of programming and algorithms cant self learn slam, pattern recognition and numerous complicated algoritms like a 2 year old can with two crappy cameras, dual three axis accelerometers dual stereo microphones and some touch and thermal sensors.
etc. when a computer 'sees' a cyclist they may or may even not recognize its a cyclist (ie maybe it assumes pedestrian given its sensor history)
Actually, they've already learned to recognize hand signals that indicate where they're going.
If you look at any of the videos where they show the cars "vision" of the world it does a damn good job of tracking cars, trucks, pedestrians and cyclists, spotting them in plenty time. You're right they don't do subtler things like make eye contact or consider if the person is drunk, but they're probably good at spotting someone swerving in their lane which is the second best thing.
Fact is, I don't know WTF some people are trying to do. I just keep my distance and speed such that I don't end up in a collision with them. So will presumably the Google car, here's a loose cannon on deck that doesn't drive like the other 95% so just give it a wide berth. You really don't have to figure them out to drive safely, you just need to recognize the signs to spot them.
Exactly I see you at least have a basic working understanding of the state of the art. Yes there has been some work on hand signals and even sign reading by google. But they can't even do as well as an average driver much less a decent attentive one. As you said you need to recognize the signs to spot them and these systems cannot do this reliably yet. I suggest you voulenteer on this course because I for one sure as hell don't want my children on public roads with jackass college kids and thier junk box project. Google at least is professional and city driving is still questionable.
No no its not it's awful. Yes it can do math much faster. But let's see what happens when you restrict the autonomous features and algorithms to use a standard car using only a humanoid form with dual three axis accelerometers, stereo vision, and stereo mics mounted in the head and haptic/sensory feedback on the same joints as a human. It would fail tremendously and spectacularly. Give a human the same sensor and assistance these "AI" have and you could easily outperform them such as modern braking and lane changing warning systems, traction control etc. You gain no points comparing a distracted texting teen to a automous car that can't even run in the rain or on side streets safely. Anectdotal stories are not evidence.
citation given. MIT knows autonomous cars. I was suggestion google is the best car, which is ok on freeway but is not ready for unassisted neighborhoods and it's not even by google admission. Not for 10 years at least in my opinion. It's a total fail at a very very long list of things.
You don't need autonomous vehicles or v2v communication for them to be hack able and cause major disasters. All you need is manual vehicles with computers that control major systems and that get software updates over cellular. Given the security flaws exposed in many vehicles lately by spoofing cell towers and requesting fake updates to gain access to internal workings on the vehicles it's clear we are already on that path. It probably will take a mass casualty event to change anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah that's out of fashion. It's now guilty until proven so.
If US cops want something like a Porsche or Lamborghini for their DARE propaganda vehicle, they simply start an asset forfeiture against the local coke dealer....
Since when did you have to break the law to get your assets forfeited? Here in America you can have your Porsche stolen by the cops just because they don't like you, no actual crime or evidence needed. Good luck getting it back too.
Given this opm hack along with Ashley Madison and other cross correlating data that's been hacked, id assume the bigger threat is blackmail here. Sadly data security, even on sensitive military databases, is neglected and not even up to the crappy standards of many businesses.
We spend next to nothing on space exploration. The tons of waste and needless pork projects in government needs to go first. If trump is half as capable at business as he claims then there should be plenty of surplus to do both without cutting funding or raising taxes.
The localized effects of a warmer climate are not very well undsrstood at this point. It's a very hot topic in research both from a scientific interest and practical application point. It is actually possible for the earth to be wetter yet Cali to be drier.
Any idiot can run a company in the red, doubly so when it's already established. The CEO likely has no idea how to even read the books or why a bottom line is actually important because it often makes no difference in how they are paid.
I'll even do the install on my home myself. give me 30 monocrystalline current tech 300 watt panels. 9000 Watt Hour will reduce my carbon footprint dramatically, in fact I will use a syncing inverter that will push my excess power back to the grid so that my neighbors can benefit from it.
No it doesn't cost the power company anything.
What are you talking about it sounds like they just lost a customer and gained another competitor.
she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.
Wow so now she is backing out of the race entirely? If she was actually serious about it she would never get elected. My guess is if elected those cuts would mysteriously change place and come from somewhere with less money flowing into Washington.
Absolutely. It's not like the random stuff I get at the store is guaranteed to come from a better spot nor was it likely tested for a single God damn thing. Hell you could label it organic ffs.
Oh wait that's just the regular potassium in bananas. Next time you think of radioactive decay in foods think of the children, namely the baby foods.
First off I own a car so I don't have to wait. No way in hell I'm waiting 1 minute when I want to go somewhere. That's why I own a car rather than waste 5 minutes walking to a bus stop then another 15 for the bus or go slowly somewhere on a bicycle. No ride sharing algorithm is going to violate physics and return the car to me instantly it's going to be the same 5-15 minute crap I purchased the car to be free from. There will be no money to be made by ownership because of supply and demand - if somehow this automagically were not true I would buy a fleet of 100 and use it as a business. For my ride no screw that.
So never. Well ok probably around the same time you don't have to manually map the entire route out to 50m in all directions at all times beforehand with cm resolution or the system nearly shuts down like google cars do today. If you actually had the processing power and algorithm capability of a squirrel you could run a car with a crappy stereo camera, 3- axis accelerometer, 3 axis gyro, and dual microphone like us meat bags can. All these fancy sensors are a crutch for the inability to extract features newborn animals with inferior sensors can, when we can do that in software then the tech is ready for mainstream use. For the obvious reasons above few to no Americans are ever going to share their ride for a few extra dollars when it means getting it trashed daily, autonomous or not. I sure as hell wouldn't for my personal ride.
It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we have no idea how to secure information systems.
It's this kind of stuff that scares the crap out of people and there is no end in sight. As a matter of fact, this is only going to get worse as we migrate to an IoT.
I sometimes wonder if the technology bubble will someday be crushed under the weight of exploitation. A victim of its own complexity and insecurity.
Yep no one cares. Rather than just the potential murder of an annoying journalist few people know about or care about its probably going to take some complete ahole(s) with an exploit like this causing the first mass cyber fatality incident before anything really gets done and your average person cares.
Read more carefully. They acknowledged the attack was viable and real, they just aren't calling it a defect. They patched it by blocking access over the cellular network as demonstrated, and further are providing a patch and additional security updates, whatever that actually turns out to be.
All data, no matter how seemingly innocuous, when ammassed, allows agencies to substantially abuse everything from subtle advertising, to obtaining private medical information, to downright spying. At this point, given all the breaches at every single level from government, medical, and business on down, and given that even major agencies/groups have sold information - isn't it a bit like trying to put the cat back into the bag? I mean it's a nice idea but I see it as trying to fix healthcare in America - there is no right answer we have built upon a foundation already and are entrenched. Not to mention that the NSA/CIA/FBI will just snoop any left over anyhow and likely still bungle security at some level as insane as that sounds. Or are we thinking of the children who have yet to have generated information to be stolen yet?
Quite likely true. However at least this gets them quite a bit of indirect exposure and may, yes may, eventually provide them with treatments (doubt we will have cures for genetic conditions anytime in our lifetimes). So I am going out on a limb and going to say it's not 100% bad for these people because without that interest they truly are 100% screwed instead of just 90%. If I was in that position I'd probably take those odds at a treatment.
Recoil is only really a problem after the first shot anyway. Further there dosent need to be asymmetry designed into a drone the force can be lined up with the center of mass so it only gets pushed back and there is little to no rotation.
Listen dumbass who wont use their account i said vehicle is over cautious and stops where humans would not which is exactly what the wiki says. Humans dont follow textbook rules the car does. Post using your id at least coward. Also you are a dumbass.
The grandparent was challenging the specific claim YOU made that SDC's get rear-ended because they stop too often.
The article you linked doesn't even mention any of the collisions the SDC's have been involved in, and certainly don't support the claim you made about them.
Try again.
Ok mr coward here are the actual citations, I was quick to post and put the wrong post above. Too many hipsters with common place movie knowledge and not actual engineerinrg knowledge so here you go I hope someone actually reads this that will appreciate facts.
The number of miles that google cars have driven so far including its safety record as stated by google directly : http://venturebeat.com/2015/06...
This equates to an accident every 90.9 thousand miles though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... the wiki clams 14 accidents that puts this at 71.4 thousand - all of which are meticulously planed courses - none have left turns into traffic - none of which are in heavy traffic at all - none of which are in adverse conditions such as snow or rain which the car can't even function at all and which of course makes for more difficult human driving. So it is pointless to try and compare that to bumper to bumper rush hour driving on freeways, hundreds to thousands of accidents during large snowstorms, bad winter driving in general, rush hour in general, etc. This makes it extremely difficult to compare to actual human driving statistics.
Note the wiki even states google as saying the car will often revert to extra cautious safety conditions and cannot handle many situations which wont even be addressed till 2020.
Google admits its cars rear ended suprisingly often : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
Given that google has not made more than one accident detail public this is hurting their image in all likelyhood. Its a pretty safe assumption that a slow plodding car that often stops, say like you are supposed to text book style, but no one does, for pedestrians, will cause motorists to rear end you.
Dear god I couldn't help but comment or I would mod this up huge - someone with points please do. The google car is about the best there is and yet without painstaking manual mapping of every driveway, every road sign, every lane, every curb, every traffic light, manual entry and review of every goddamn last detail along the route it's absolutely helpless and yet it still can't handle erratic human drivers, many obstacles, rain, snow, occlusions of nearly any kind, any sensor failures of any kind, it's very early in demonstrating the technology.
I just wish google would be honest with the masses what the actual state of the technology actually is.
You may want to see what actual autonomous vehicle experts from leading institutions have to say about it. It may open your eyes to the actual state of the art instead of the common perception of the masses: http://www.technologyreview.co...
It goes from Google, who is extremely professional, but still gets rear ended a lot because the vehicle is over cautious
Troll much?
Not a troll it's been rear ended 14 times, and although it's mostly been attributed to in attention, numerous admissions from google show that the car is overly cautious and will often stop in videos I have seen where humans won't.
Anyone in the field gets an immediate appreciation of how their toddler far exceeds a supercomputer and 500k in sensors even in 2015.
Last I checked toddlers can't drive a car, sunny highway conditions or not.
Last I've seen the best super computer clusters in the world coupled to the best sensors available anywhere and unlimited amounts of programming and algorithms cant self learn slam, pattern recognition and numerous complicated algoritms like a 2 year old can with two crappy cameras, dual three axis accelerometers dual stereo microphones and some touch and thermal sensors.
etc. when a computer 'sees' a cyclist they may or may even not recognize its a cyclist (ie maybe it assumes pedestrian given its sensor history)
Actually, they've already learned to recognize hand signals that indicate where they're going.
If you look at any of the videos where they show the cars "vision" of the world it does a damn good job of tracking cars, trucks, pedestrians and cyclists, spotting them in plenty time. You're right they don't do subtler things like make eye contact or consider if the person is drunk, but they're probably good at spotting someone swerving in their lane which is the second best thing.
Fact is, I don't know WTF some people are trying to do. I just keep my distance and speed such that I don't end up in a collision with them. So will presumably the Google car, here's a loose cannon on deck that doesn't drive like the other 95% so just give it a wide berth. You really don't have to figure them out to drive safely, you just need to recognize the signs to spot them.
Exactly I see you at least have a basic working understanding of the state of the art. Yes there has been some work on hand signals and even sign reading by google. But they can't even do as well as an average driver much less a decent attentive one. As you said you need to recognize the signs to spot them and these systems cannot do this reliably yet. I suggest you voulenteer on this course because I for one sure as hell don't want my children on public roads with jackass college kids and thier junk box project. Google at least is professional and city driving is still questionable.
No no its not it's awful. Yes it can do math much faster. But let's see what happens when you restrict the autonomous features and algorithms to use a standard car using only a humanoid form with dual three axis accelerometers, stereo vision, and stereo mics mounted in the head and haptic/sensory feedback on the same joints as a human. It would fail tremendously and spectacularly. Give a human the same sensor and assistance these "AI" have and you could easily outperform them such as modern braking and lane changing warning systems, traction control etc. You gain no points comparing a distracted texting teen to a automous car that can't even run in the rain or on side streets safely. Anectdotal stories are not evidence.
http://www.technologyreview.co...
citation given. MIT knows autonomous cars. I was suggestion google is the best car, which is ok on freeway but is not ready for unassisted neighborhoods and it's not even by google admission. Not for 10 years at least in my opinion. It's a total fail at a very very long list of things.
You don't need autonomous vehicles or v2v communication for them to be hack able and cause major disasters. All you need is manual vehicles with computers that control major systems and that get software updates over cellular. Given the security flaws exposed in many vehicles lately by spoofing cell towers and requesting fake updates to gain access to internal workings on the vehicles it's clear we are already on that path. It probably will take a mass casualty event to change anything.