My address? Why yes, it's 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, come armed and tell the guards you won't take no as an answer and you don't need an appointment, they will take care of you.
Wait a minute, I know that place, it's that big white mansion surrounded by a fence and guards everywhere, right? Now I know how you got to be so rich...
The biggest problem for me is, I am an actual Nigerian Prince and I want to transfer several million out of the country, but I can't find anyone to take it because of all these fraudsters. All I want is for someone to send me $1000, and I'll send them 100 million of which they can keep 10%. But nobody believes me thanks to these crooks. Any tips?
Blue Origin (who beat SpaceX to a vertical landing by a private company)
SpaceX landed their Grasshopper rocket in 2013. Blue Origin landed their much smaller New Shepard in 2015. OK, the grasshopper didn't go up to suborbital space because SpaceX decided to skip that step and go straight for an orbital rocket. Calling that "beating them" is a bit of a stretch, though.
And for those who think all the extra money just goes towards a mansion for the CEO... actually, that's true. A mansion on Mars, for his retirement. Not that I mind, though.
Strategy #1: "We want to display pictures of your event on our site without asking" Reaction: "That's outrageous, you can't use our event do do promotion for your company!"
Strategy #2: "We want all rights to everything" Reaction: "That's outrageous, you can't... (etc.)" Update: "We made a mistake, obviously that was not our intention, we will update the phraseology, we just want to display pictures of your event on our site" Reaction: "Ah, that's OK then".
So basically, what you're saying is that you would rather have twice as many deaths on the road as long as they are "proper" deaths caused by people, not machines? Strange view.
(Mind you, I'm not saying that they are actually twice as safe already today, but the goal certainly is to achieve and even surpass that goal)
So what you're saying is that, even if AI is 100 times safer than humans, the humans that designed the AI should still be hung because of the few accidents that do occur?
If you go from 37000 to 370 deaths per year in the US, the AI designers should be hung because they murdered those 370 people?
Suppose a company can make a self driving car that demonstrably has 50% less accidents than human drivers. (I am not making any claims about existing technology from any particular company, just take this as an axiom that could be true at some point, now or in the future)
I hope we can all agree that it would be a good thing if we can reduce the number of accidents by half, right?
However, if the company is held responsible for each and every one of those remaining accidents, are they going to sell those cars? Probably not. This means we will keep having twice as many accidents as we could have.
Of course there must be some kind of incentive to force manufacturers to deliver good products, and aome kind of punishment for those who make crappy products. But sometimes you just have to be able to say "OK, accidents happen, nothing is perfect", If every death results in a multi million dollar claim, innovation stops and we'll be stuck with the current "you can use it but keep your hands on the wheel and be attentive at all times, you are still responsible" situation. Which is ridiculous and untenable in the long term.
We're just talking about insurance here. If AI failures are treated as generic accidents covered by insurance, and the number of accidents decreases, the insurance premiums will decrease as well and it's a win-win for everyone. Better performing AI will have a lower insurance premium and will therefore sell more cars. Also, official statistics will be kept about the safety records of different systems, and that will be a big part of the sales pitch. There's your incentive.
There's a reason why most software comes with "no warranty, implied or otherwise, including fitness for any particular purpose". Pretty much all software companies would go bankrupt if they were held responsible for every crash, every data corruption, etcetera. Sometimes you just have to accept "ok, they did their best, mistakes happen, the world is better off with this product than without it".
Usually, you pay for them either by watching commercials (which are paid for by the products you buy) or by paying for a subscription to some channel. In some countries, you pay for them through taxes. They are rarely free.
That story was incorrect. He had taken his car in because of problems with the navigation system, unrelated to autopilot. How that morphed into “autopilot problems at that particular stretch” is a classic example of the telephone game.
That’s because the human-driven ones aren’t news. Lots of non-autopilot Tesla crashes have occurred. And even more non-Tesla crashes. Did you catch the news report about the crash at exactly the same spot two weeks earlier? Which was the reason why the crash absorber was missing? Nope, that one didn’t make international news for some reason...
Because most rocket launches are towards the east (which requires less energy thanks to the rotation of the earth), and trajectories over water are prefered for safety and noise reasons.
I think the way the boosters separate after take off means that it is a Big Forking Rocket, however I wouldn't know because I am not a forking rocket scientist.
Actually, the one with the side boosters is the Falcon Heavy. Different rocket.
BFR has no side boosters: just one big spaceship with a big booster underneath. The spaceship can also fly by itself without the booster and would even be capable of single stage to orbit according to Musk. They plan to test that part next year (on the Musk calendar, which differs from the Gregorian calendar by a few years).
You can use the internet, serve webpages, sell goods, etc. without having a complete copy of the entire internet on your hard disk. This means you will only be in possession of internet child porn if you downloaded it or are serving it. However, you cannot mine bitcoins without having the entire blockchain on your hard disk. If that blockchain contains forbidden files, you can either stop mining or risk prosecution.
Slashdot Mirror
My address? Why yes, it's 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, come armed and tell the guards you won't take no as an answer and you don't need an appointment, they will take care of you.
Wait a minute, I know that place, it's that big white mansion surrounded by a fence and guards everywhere, right? Now I know how you got to be so rich...
The biggest problem for me is, I am an actual Nigerian Prince and I want to transfer several million out of the country, but I can't find anyone to take it because of all these fraudsters. All I want is for someone to send me $1000, and I'll send them 100 million of which they can keep 10%. But nobody believes me thanks to these crooks. Any tips?
Blue Origin (who beat SpaceX to a vertical landing by a private company)
SpaceX landed their Grasshopper rocket in 2013. Blue Origin landed their much smaller New Shepard in 2015. OK, the grasshopper didn't go up to suborbital space because SpaceX decided to skip that step and go straight for an orbital rocket. Calling that "beating them" is a bit of a stretch, though.
And for those who think all the extra money just goes towards a mansion for the CEO... actually, that's true. A mansion on Mars, for his retirement. Not that I mind, though.
Yeah, SpaceX has invented nothing new, vertically landing rockets have been described as early as 1950 by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. Even I could have developed a rocket based on that work, I just thought it was too obvious to waste my time on.
Strategy #1: "We want to display pictures of your event on our site without asking"
Reaction: "That's outrageous, you can't use our event do do promotion for your company!"
Strategy #2: "We want all rights to everything"
Reaction: "That's outrageous, you can't... (etc.)"
Update: "We made a mistake, obviously that was not our intention, we will update the phraseology, we just want to display pictures of your event on our site"
Reaction: "Ah, that's OK then".
Strategy #1 is to be avoided, #2 always works.
That's a nice estimate for the error bound, but the question is: how much plus or minus 12383 miles.
So basically, what you're saying is that you would rather have twice as many deaths on the road as long as they are "proper" deaths caused by people, not machines? Strange view.
(Mind you, I'm not saying that they are actually twice as safe already today, but the goal certainly is to achieve and even surpass that goal)
So what you're saying is that, even if AI is 100 times safer than humans, the humans that designed the AI should still be hung because of the few accidents that do occur?
If you go from 37000 to 370 deaths per year in the US, the AI designers should be hung because they murdered those 370 people?
Intentionally programming a robot to kill someone would basically be equivalent to hiring someone to perform a murder.
I would like to point out a flaw in this logic.
Suppose a company can make a self driving car that demonstrably has 50% less accidents than human drivers. (I am not making any claims about existing technology from any particular company, just take this as an axiom that could be true at some point, now or in the future)
I hope we can all agree that it would be a good thing if we can reduce the number of accidents by half, right?
However, if the company is held responsible for each and every one of those remaining accidents, are they going to sell those cars? Probably not. This means we will keep having twice as many accidents as we could have.
Of course there must be some kind of incentive to force manufacturers to deliver good products, and aome kind of punishment for those who make crappy products. But sometimes you just have to be able to say "OK, accidents happen, nothing is perfect", If every death results in a multi million dollar claim, innovation stops and we'll be stuck with the current "you can use it but keep your hands on the wheel and be attentive at all times, you are still responsible" situation. Which is ridiculous and untenable in the long term.
We're just talking about insurance here. If AI failures are treated as generic accidents covered by insurance, and the number of accidents decreases, the insurance premiums will decrease as well and it's a win-win for everyone. Better performing AI will have a lower insurance premium and will therefore sell more cars. Also, official statistics will be kept about the safety records of different systems, and that will be a big part of the sales pitch. There's your incentive.
There's a reason why most software comes with "no warranty, implied or otherwise, including fitness for any particular purpose". Pretty much all software companies would go bankrupt if they were held responsible for every crash, every data corruption, etcetera. Sometimes you just have to accept "ok, they did their best, mistakes happen, the world is better off with this product than without it".
Usually, you pay for them either by watching commercials (which are paid for by the products you buy) or by paying for a subscription to some channel. In some countries, you pay for them through taxes. They are rarely free.
Zo where's Zuma then?
Obligatory xkcd
"Those things would also work on human drivers. What's stopping people now?
According to Tesla, the complaints had been about the navigation system and were unrelated to autopilot.
That story was incorrect. He had taken his car in because of problems with the navigation system, unrelated to autopilot. How that morphed into “autopilot problems at that particular stretch” is a classic example of the telephone game.
That’s because the human-driven ones aren’t news. Lots of non-autopilot Tesla crashes have occurred. And even more non-Tesla crashes. Did you catch the news report about the crash at exactly the same spot two weeks earlier? Which was the reason why the crash absorber was missing? Nope, that one didn’t make international news for some reason...
They were planning to call it "Icy mcIceface"...
No, not at all. You are still allowed to download them, they just "encourage people to download videos via the correct and legal ways".
Now all we need to figure out is how to actually do that.
She didn't even have reflectors on the wheel of the bike, much less herself - even one might have saved her.
Aren't bicycle reflectors a legal requirement in the US?
Maybe they should have called the system "autopilot" instead of "self-driving"...
Because most rocket launches are towards the east (which requires less energy thanks to the rotation of the earth), and trajectories over water are prefered for safety and noise reasons.
He could also have gone for "big friendly rocket"
I think the way the boosters separate after take off means that it is a Big Forking Rocket, however I wouldn't know because I am not a forking rocket scientist.
Actually, the one with the side boosters is the Falcon Heavy. Different rocket.
BFR has no side boosters: just one big spaceship with a big booster underneath. The spaceship can also fly by itself without the booster and would even be capable of single stage to orbit according to Musk. They plan to test that part next year (on the Musk calendar, which differs from the Gregorian calendar by a few years).
They do shut down servers containing child porn.
You can use the internet, serve webpages, sell goods, etc. without having a complete copy of the entire internet on your hard disk. This means you will only be in possession of internet child porn if you downloaded it or are serving it. However, you cannot mine bitcoins without having the entire blockchain on your hard disk. If that blockchain contains forbidden files, you can either stop mining or risk prosecution.