Couldn't you at least have waited until an article came along about how people were using 3D printers to replicate model Trump hair to wear in support or something?
Hey, we did get the story about how Trump's hair shorted out the LHC.
Problem is, he has the highests "strong disapproval" with women of basically any serious candidate ever - which is funny given he's the first pro-choice GOP candidate.
Still, he has time, and I'm sure he'll flip his positions to something moderate on basically every issue past the convention (i.e., the same views he had before he started running).
Think about airplanes: we call the automation "autopilot" not "self-flying plane" because a human pilot still needs to be there in case something goes more wrong than the autopilot can handle. A Tesla is the same way - it has an "autopilot", but you had better be able to return to control of the vehicle if you need to. When the automation is good enough that you could sell a model with no steering wheel, then it's a "self-driving car". The latter isn't that far off, so the difference matters.
Ask yourself this: what's needed for a car without a steering wheel. That's a self-driving car.
We talking about various qualities of auto-pilot, but even recent airliner auto-pilots still need pilots in case something goes wrong, and no one would think of them as self-flying planes. Still, we could imagine a self-flying plane that just wouldn't need a pilot in the first place, right? That's the difference between "autopilot" and "self-driving".
Compare 100 people driving to Walmart and back, vs one truck that leaves Walmart, drives from house to house, and returns. The truck route could be a small fraction of the sum of the 100 drivers' distances, if efficiently planed. The UPS truck never leaves the barn with just 1 package to deliver, after all.
True, for existing technology levels. I worry about increasing automation, to the point where subsistence living requires no work on anyone's part (at least for decades at a time). From what we've seen thus far, the easier life is, the fewer kids people have.
For my car, it will never stop trying, but it's merely fancy cruise control. Worst case, it will be applying maximum power to the brakes during a collision to reduce the impact (this is an actual feature, along with seatbelt pre-tensioning and whatnot). No idea about other failure modes - construction zones etc, because I don't trust it enough to find out. No one sane would confuse it with self-driving (but there's always one guy in a crowd).
Tesla, I think, is in the uncanny valley, where it's good enough to fool you but has ugly failure modes.
No, it's not, because "safe" is part of the definition. If something goes wrong, you have to take control of the Tesla on short notice, so it's unsafe to be too distracted. For a proper self-driving car, when something goes wrong it needs to pull over safely and stop on the side of the road, and only then make you take control.
Tesla cars aren't really self-driving - but they're misleadingly marketed as such. My (cheaper) car has smart cruise control (with collision avoidance) and lane keeping, so on the highway it's safe to take my hands of the wheel or be distracted - for a second or two. I'd never confuse it with self-driving, though apparently and idiot or two has. Tesla's system is a bit better, so more idiots confuse it with self-driving, abetted by the was Tesla markets the feature.
That's just it, it's not a matter of "self-driving" vs "not", it's a spectrum of automation levels, and people will get confused, or just reckless for convenience.
you just buy "activists" and lobby local governments to keep the hounds at bay until your service gains critical mass and can't be legislated away.
Isn't that how most new business approaches throughout history have worked, though? It's the counterweight for regulatory capture. It's not like either side plays fair in politics.
There have been catastrophes in the Earth's past big enough to pose a risk, to be sure, but the return of the glaciers is not such a risk. Oh, it would be bad, a couple kilometers of ice would cover where I'm sitting, which is a bit more scary than the ocean rising a couple of meters, but that's very far from what it would take to threaten the species as a whole. Heck, it might not even mean the end of civilization as we know it (but even if it did, that's far from what it would take).
IMO, the biggest risk of extinction we face is the one seen in the NIMH rat experiments: given all the food and water they could want, but the lack of any tradition roles to fill, the rats became socially unable to reproduce. Several fully-modern countries are seeing similar patterns (Japan has it the worst), with steep decline in birth rates and people simply "opting out" of all the work needed to make a family and raise kids.
Mankind survived actual ice ages (well, glaciation in the current ice age) with no technology. The species is more than 100 k years old, after all. If we can do it with stone knives and bear skins, we're hardly at risk for extinction today. A returning ice-age would really suck, but it's no extinction-level event.
"Run-away warming" is an completely fictional scare. We know what a Warm Earth looks like, after all, know need to guess. Whether you pick the time with plant life so successful it supported 40-ton herbivores, or the time with plant life so successful that we got most of the coal beds, life does just fine. Warming would be much less expensive than cooling.
Leviticus condemns homosexuality with exactly the same strength is condemns wearing a cotton-poly shirt. Leviticus condemns just about everything, really.
There's almost no mention of homosexuality in the Bible either way. For most of human history, it simply didn't matter what you wanted to fuck, you did your part to raise a family as one of the more important duties to your tribe. The American social conservatives aren't very centered on the bible, whatever they may tell themselves, and most of the big American churches welcome anyone who's likely to donate, regardless of sexual preference.
The Quran, I don't know about what's written, but it's always the Muslims, not the Lutherans, who murdered a few more homosexuals this week by throwing them off buildings.
Backwards compatibility is important. Why drop it? 16-bit support is finally gone, but I suspect only because everything anyone still uses (games) has been virtualized already.
You are the "geek hobbyist niche" market. As am I. Sucks for us, as the mainstream has no use for any of that, and so it's only a matter of time before platforms designed for hard use are rare and expensive.
you can't just hold on to your existing expenses and expect things to work out. This isn't a management problem
You seem to have missed GPPs entire point about "hiring like crazy". I've seen this too many times in my career, when companies refuse to admit times are bad and hire like crazy right up to the mass layoffs. Instead, let the workforce fall naturally through normal turnover and hire only in areas you want to focus on after the reorg, and encourage people in areas you need to reduce to transfer if they can.
But that would require thinking forward, having a plan, caring about your people, and so on: things management seems immune to in most companies.
Heh, pretty much all of manufacturing gets amazing local tax breaks - worth it for smaller towns for all the jobs it brings. But at the federal level, not so much. The airlines get routine bailouts, and of course there's Government Motors, but most of the old school manufacturers aren't so lucky.
The book was written from the perspective of teenagers raised and fully-bought-into the system. Heinlein has talked about this: he takes an idea for a society, and runs with it to the logical extreme, to explore what it would be like.
The characters weren't always happy with how events unfolded, but they almost never questioned the system itself, certainly less than people high school/college age usually do.
It sure read like the first half of most dystopian novels, where events seem appalling to the reader but seem normal to the protagonists who are making their way as best they can through that society.
You me Heinlein wasn't politically correct? Color me shocked (also: you have no idea). He was born in 1907 though, and so was fairly progressive when it came to nudity, sex, polygamous marriages, and so on. He certainly believed in strong gender roles, but wrote repeatedly that any woman with half a clue would be the one in charge of the relationship, despite the man "always getting his way" as the man saw it.
Also, Heinlein was no libertarian (or do you just use that word as a random insult?). His stories routinely feature a bunch of disorganized people floundering until the Big Strong/Smart Hero takes the lead and saves the day. He was certainly pro-individual-liberty, but at the same time believed real problems would only be solved by following strong leaders. He was also a bit nuts, but that's a longer story (did you know he paid for a full page ad in the NYT warning of the dangers of communism?).
but the cars they sell in Europe and America are built in Sweden.
Not for a year now. Of course, that's just the first model line to switch, but the company promises further cost reduction.
Didn't realize there were so many Volvo fanboys with mod points. Heck of a reality distortion field for a Chinese company making cars in China, whatever it might once have been in a previous century.
After years of promises by the industry followed by manufacturing delays, a major automaker is finally on the verge of starting sustained exports from China to the United States.
The Volvo Car Corporation announced at the Detroit auto show on Monday that it planned to begin shipping a midsize sedan from Chengdu in the next several months.
Neither does Tesla. But proportionally, for all Musk's puffery, he does employ a lot of people in a business that arguably only exists because of special tax breaks. (Not sure of that myself, maybe Tesla would be going strong regardless, but the cars do get a healthy tax subsidy.)
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't you at least have waited until an article came along about how people were using 3D printers to replicate model Trump hair to wear in support or something?
Hey, we did get the story about how Trump's hair shorted out the LHC.
Problem is, he has the highests "strong disapproval" with women of basically any serious candidate ever - which is funny given he's the first pro-choice GOP candidate.
Still, he has time, and I'm sure he'll flip his positions to something moderate on basically every issue past the convention (i.e., the same views he had before he started running).
Think about airplanes: we call the automation "autopilot" not "self-flying plane" because a human pilot still needs to be there in case something goes more wrong than the autopilot can handle. A Tesla is the same way - it has an "autopilot", but you had better be able to return to control of the vehicle if you need to. When the automation is good enough that you could sell a model with no steering wheel, then it's a "self-driving car". The latter isn't that far off, so the difference matters.
Ask yourself this: what's needed for a car without a steering wheel. That's a self-driving car.
We talking about various qualities of auto-pilot, but even recent airliner auto-pilots still need pilots in case something goes wrong, and no one would think of them as self-flying planes. Still, we could imagine a self-flying plane that just wouldn't need a pilot in the first place, right? That's the difference between "autopilot" and "self-driving".
No, it costs less, which is the entire point.
Compare 100 people driving to Walmart and back, vs one truck that leaves Walmart, drives from house to house, and returns. The truck route could be a small fraction of the sum of the 100 drivers' distances, if efficiently planed. The UPS truck never leaves the barn with just 1 package to deliver, after all.
True, for existing technology levels. I worry about increasing automation, to the point where subsistence living requires no work on anyone's part (at least for decades at a time). From what we've seen thus far, the easier life is, the fewer kids people have.
For my car, it will never stop trying, but it's merely fancy cruise control. Worst case, it will be applying maximum power to the brakes during a collision to reduce the impact (this is an actual feature, along with seatbelt pre-tensioning and whatnot). No idea about other failure modes - construction zones etc, because I don't trust it enough to find out. No one sane would confuse it with self-driving (but there's always one guy in a crowd).
Tesla, I think, is in the uncanny valley, where it's good enough to fool you but has ugly failure modes.
No, it's not, because "safe" is part of the definition. If something goes wrong, you have to take control of the Tesla on short notice, so it's unsafe to be too distracted. For a proper self-driving car, when something goes wrong it needs to pull over safely and stop on the side of the road, and only then make you take control.
Tesla cars aren't really self-driving - but they're misleadingly marketed as such. My (cheaper) car has smart cruise control (with collision avoidance) and lane keeping, so on the highway it's safe to take my hands of the wheel or be distracted - for a second or two. I'd never confuse it with self-driving, though apparently and idiot or two has. Tesla's system is a bit better, so more idiots confuse it with self-driving, abetted by the was Tesla markets the feature.
That's just it, it's not a matter of "self-driving" vs "not", it's a spectrum of automation levels, and people will get confused, or just reckless for convenience.
Amazon delivering packages individually to every house in America isn't efficient.
Compared to each customer individually driving to the store and back? I'd be amazed if the UPS driver had such an inefficient route.
you just buy "activists" and lobby local governments to keep the hounds at bay until your service gains critical mass and can't be legislated away.
Isn't that how most new business approaches throughout history have worked, though? It's the counterweight for regulatory capture. It's not like either side plays fair in politics.
There have been catastrophes in the Earth's past big enough to pose a risk, to be sure, but the return of the glaciers is not such a risk. Oh, it would be bad, a couple kilometers of ice would cover where I'm sitting, which is a bit more scary than the ocean rising a couple of meters, but that's very far from what it would take to threaten the species as a whole. Heck, it might not even mean the end of civilization as we know it (but even if it did, that's far from what it would take).
IMO, the biggest risk of extinction we face is the one seen in the NIMH rat experiments: given all the food and water they could want, but the lack of any tradition roles to fill, the rats became socially unable to reproduce. Several fully-modern countries are seeing similar patterns (Japan has it the worst), with steep decline in birth rates and people simply "opting out" of all the work needed to make a family and raise kids.
Mankind survived actual ice ages (well, glaciation in the current ice age) with no technology. The species is more than 100 k years old, after all. If we can do it with stone knives and bear skins, we're hardly at risk for extinction today. A returning ice-age would really suck, but it's no extinction-level event.
"Run-away warming" is an completely fictional scare. We know what a Warm Earth looks like, after all, know need to guess. Whether you pick the time with plant life so successful it supported 40-ton herbivores, or the time with plant life so successful that we got most of the coal beds, life does just fine. Warming would be much less expensive than cooling.
Funny how everyone keeps comparing the Muslims today with the Christians of centuries ago, as if that somehow excuses something.
Leviticus condemns homosexuality with exactly the same strength is condemns wearing a cotton-poly shirt. Leviticus condemns just about everything, really.
There's almost no mention of homosexuality in the Bible either way. For most of human history, it simply didn't matter what you wanted to fuck, you did your part to raise a family as one of the more important duties to your tribe. The American social conservatives aren't very centered on the bible, whatever they may tell themselves, and most of the big American churches welcome anyone who's likely to donate, regardless of sexual preference.
The Quran, I don't know about what's written, but it's always the Muslims, not the Lutherans, who murdered a few more homosexuals this week by throwing them off buildings.
Backwards compatibility is important. Why drop it? 16-bit support is finally gone, but I suspect only because everything anyone still uses (games) has been virtualized already.
If you don't understand it, it must be easy, right?
You are the "geek hobbyist niche" market. As am I. Sucks for us, as the mainstream has no use for any of that, and so it's only a matter of time before platforms designed for hard use are rare and expensive.
you can't just hold on to your existing expenses and expect things to work out. This isn't a management problem
You seem to have missed GPPs entire point about "hiring like crazy". I've seen this too many times in my career, when companies refuse to admit times are bad and hire like crazy right up to the mass layoffs. Instead, let the workforce fall naturally through normal turnover and hire only in areas you want to focus on after the reorg, and encourage people in areas you need to reduce to transfer if they can.
But that would require thinking forward, having a plan, caring about your people, and so on: things management seems immune to in most companies.
Heh, pretty much all of manufacturing gets amazing local tax breaks - worth it for smaller towns for all the jobs it brings. But at the federal level, not so much. The airlines get routine bailouts, and of course there's Government Motors, but most of the old school manufacturers aren't so lucky.
Well, that's certainly a compelling argument.
The book was written from the perspective of teenagers raised and fully-bought-into the system. Heinlein has talked about this: he takes an idea for a society, and runs with it to the logical extreme, to explore what it would be like.
The characters weren't always happy with how events unfolded, but they almost never questioned the system itself, certainly less than people high school/college age usually do.
It sure read like the first half of most dystopian novels, where events seem appalling to the reader but seem normal to the protagonists who are making their way as best they can through that society.
You me Heinlein wasn't politically correct? Color me shocked (also: you have no idea). He was born in 1907 though, and so was fairly progressive when it came to nudity, sex, polygamous marriages, and so on. He certainly believed in strong gender roles, but wrote repeatedly that any woman with half a clue would be the one in charge of the relationship, despite the man "always getting his way" as the man saw it.
Also, Heinlein was no libertarian (or do you just use that word as a random insult?). His stories routinely feature a bunch of disorganized people floundering until the Big Strong/Smart Hero takes the lead and saves the day. He was certainly pro-individual-liberty, but at the same time believed real problems would only be solved by following strong leaders. He was also a bit nuts, but that's a longer story (did you know he paid for a full page ad in the NYT warning of the dangers of communism?).
but the cars they sell in Europe and America are built in Sweden.
Not for a year now. Of course, that's just the first model line to switch, but the company promises further cost reduction.
Didn't realize there were so many Volvo fanboys with mod points. Heck of a reality distortion field for a Chinese company making cars in China, whatever it might once have been in a previous century.
No they are still designed and built in Sweden. The financial owners are Chinese though.
Yeah, that didn't last long before manufacturing began moving to China as well. Are you surprised? It's been publically in the works for years.
From Jan 2015:
After years of promises by the industry followed by manufacturing delays, a major automaker is finally on the verge of starting sustained exports from China to the United States.
The Volvo Car Corporation announced at the Detroit auto show on Monday that it planned to begin shipping a midsize sedan from Chengdu in the next several months.
Neither does Tesla. But proportionally, for all Musk's puffery, he does employ a lot of people in a business that arguably only exists because of special tax breaks. (Not sure of that myself, maybe Tesla would be going strong regardless, but the cars do get a healthy tax subsidy.)