No, the advertisers pulled out because their sponsorship of the show had become bad publicity for them.
Right. But the ratings didn't drop. It's just that the people who weren't watching the show were complaining about what he said (and that's pathetic, by the way).
The point I responded to was that advertisers always go by the numbers, and don't look at the content. You just agreed with my point, that they do take the content into account.
Of course, how much bad publicity could it have been? Who actually remembers who the sponsors of a particular show were?
Advertisers, be they print or broadcast, do not buy space or airtime based on the editorial leanings of the news desk. They buy space or airtime based simply on the number of people that will be exposed to that space or airtime. The measurement of those numbers is not exactly a science, but it is a finely honed craft. Numbers mean everything.
I certainly hope that is usually the case, but certainly not all the time. After all, Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, because the advertisers pulled out when he said something controversial. However, the ratings didn't drop. The advertisers pulled out based on the content of the show, not based on the numbers. That doesn't make much sense, but that is what happened.
...and I'll bet you don't spend much time with people who don't share that sentiment when you can help it
I try to, but they keep running away...;-)
Bear in mind, too, that the Bible-believing Christian doesn't accept the idea that multiple points of view are equally valid: if the Bible is what your friend says it is, then relativism is ruled out. You may disagree with the idea of moral (or other) absolutes, but that disagreement doesn't ipso facto demonstrate that belief in absolute truths is erroneous.
Then I guess what I'm saying is that teachings based only on the bible, or teaching kids (I'm talking about teenagers here) that there's only one morally right answer, doesn't equip them well to function as adults in our society.
For instance, if I were an employer hiring team members, and I found someone that was well spoken in their beliefs, but could not accept the fact that other people have different points of view and we all have to co-exist, then there's no way I'm going to hire that person, no matter how good of a worker they are otherwise. The fact is, the team would be worse off with them.
...except that this would, of course, only happen if the family had zero interaction with other families, never watched TV, never watched movies, never listened to the radio, never went anywhere, never did anything, and never read anything. In short, you'd have to live in a cave.
Let me explain my point of view then. I only know one family that home-schools, and in particular the father. I've talked with him a great deal (he works with me), but he has said that exposing his kids to other people's opinions is unnecessary, because there is only one correct answer to any moral question, and that can be found in the bible. He gives his kids a strict diet of Rush Limbaugh, church, and creationism, and fervently protects them from being exposed to any idea that he does not agree with. Or, if he does discuss other ideas, he doesn't present it as 'this is another point of view', but rather, 'this is what hell-bound people believe.'
I'm willing to believe that not all home-schoolers are like that, but given that the majority of home-schoolers are christian right wing conservatives (according to a recent article in the Economist), I'm tempted to believe it might be the norm.
In the first place, people naturally gravitate towards people of similar mindset and shared experience.
I guess I'm different then. I find different viewpoints illuminating and thought-provoking.
You don't think that there is a moral dimension to the way that sex education is presented in the schools?
I suppose it depends on how it's taught. First of all, I had the "talk" when I was about 9 from my father. In my school (in Canada), it was introduced in grade 5, and it was absolutely mechanical. The big point was to make sure nobody started freaking out when they hit puberty, started growing hair in new places, and girls started getting the visit. Trust me, it did not inspire the class to want to "do it" in any way. There was also much discussion, later in about grade 7, about the diseases you could catch, and that protection was of limited effectiveness anyway. I think the message was pretty clear - think about the consequences now before you're in the moment. Make your decision and stick with it.
In Canada, we have separate schools for public and catholic education. Anecdotally, teenage pregnancy is higher in catholic schools, whose sex education (depending on the courage of the teacher, of course) is generally limited to "it's evil, don't do it. Ever. Here's a movie from the 50's to explain it to you.":-)
Strikingly, you suggest that sometimes homeschooling doesn't work - which for the sake of argument I'll grant, though such cases would be extraordinarily rare and I've never seen one myself - while blithely ignoring the facts that government-run education is no panacea and that it has been characterized for decades by ever-declining academic and moral standards.
Since there are no decent longitudinal studies, and only a plethora of anecdotal evidence at this point, neither you nor I can actually say if it works better or worse in general. I think we should both be willing to admit that we don't really know, and that it probably depends entirely on the parents as to how it turns out. As you know, there are good and bad parents out there.
For instance, there are some home-schooling parents who actually believe that kids do not need schooling at all, and simply let their kids do whatever they want, and don't teach them any kind of a formal education. I personally don't think that they're doing their kids any favours.
On the other hand, if someone is willing to make educating their children their career, then I'm going to bet that they're quite interested in how their kids turn out.
As you've pointed out, there are resources for home-schoolers where they can meet and interact with other kids for play. That has to be a good thing for these kids.
I actually only think there's one caveat to home-schooling, and that is how a home-schooled child is probably not going to be exposed to people with different opinions. Some people think this is a good thing, because it means their kids won't be "corrupted" by what other people think. however, there will come a time when the child has to leave the house, and in either university or the workforce, will meet people that they have to deal with who don't (and never will) share their point of view or their opinion.
I think that in high school, publicly schooled kids are exposed to all of these different ideas, and this is also when, developmentally, they start to be capable of dealing with ambiguous ideas (the idea of a point of view, for instance). This is good exercise for dealing with people later in life.
People in university are very open about discussing ideas, and are also expected to be open minded about other people's ideas and judge them logically. I don't think this is an innate human ability - I think it needs practice. As you've pointed out, home-schooled kids are better at articulating their point of view, but as we know, discussions have to start by listening to the other person's point of view.
If you were home-schooled, then chances are that there's only been one point of view for your whole life: whatever your parents said was gospel. But there are other people out there who do disagree with those beliefs, and they do actually usually have valid arguments to backup their opinions. In a situation like that, if a home-schooled kid just starts spouting off the arguments that their parents told them, they're going to be challenged with some really insightful counter-examples and arguments that they've never been exposed to before.
I think that the reaction of a home-schooled kid in that case is going to be to close themselves off from other points of view, and then seek out other like-minded (probably home-schooled) individuals to protect themselves from the ambiguity.
Now, if a home-schooling parent can figure out how to avoid such an outcome, then I think they've found the "panacea" of education. Then it's no different than a simple engineering challenge - identify the risks early, and use risk management techniques to reduce the risk.
Canada here... Also had in school: Clockwork Orange La Haine Menace To Society Reservoir Dogs Apocalypse Now etc..
Ok, Canadian here too, but never saw any of those in school. I can understand Apocalypse Now, especially if you were reading Heart of Darkness. I'm not sure why Reservoir Dogs would be a good candidate for an English class, though I could certainly see it in a film class.
I did take a quarter credit course in films, but all he played was Alfred Hitchcock stuff. It was interesting to see Psycho (don't know if I ever would have rented it), but it would have been much more thought provoking to see both Psycho and something more modern like 8 mm (I haven't seen that either), and discuss the differences.
Clockwork Orange, also interesting to watch if you'd been reading the book.
I don't think most of these titles would fly in the U.S. though; I mean, they're burning Harry Potter books down there, because it's too risque for them.
You know a movie that would be a good topic-starter for a media class... Natural Born Killers.
WHY is it unacceptable for children to see people making love (fucking, if you prefer), but it's okay if they see people killing each other with firearms.
Because good little Americans go to war and kill Arabs for their country. That gets good little Americans into heaven. If they want to curse or see tits after they're done killing people, then they'll go to hell.
Unfortunately, the old religious farts are prolific breeders (the only acceptable sex to them) and thus raise a whole new generation of self rightous morals police.
Yes, if someone tells you they were home-schooled, there's a 76% chance that you ought to run like hell away from them as fast as you can.
If someone tells you that they home-school their kids, shoot them now! Think of the children!
I put a copy of Pulp Fiction into this thing, and all I got out were 13 seconds of credits! Where did my movie go???
Re:'Canada's national newspaper' !?!?!
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
As an American living in Canada, I would agree that this is true. Of course it gets old being harassed about being American (fortunately I'm long past that stage now). Also, while few Canadians seem to outright hate Americans, I've run into enough of them that seem to think a large number of Americans are brainless idiots, as though Canada doesn't have its own share (and vice versa).
I live in Canada and work in the states. I'm in Mississippi right now. I FEEL YOUR PAIN. I'm pretty sick of even the nicest people, upon hearing where you're from, having to dump on you all the stupid and mostly untrue BS they've heard about your country, and what they think is wrong with it.
Frankly, I'm sick of the rivalry whether it be joking, real, or whatever.
Amen, brother. If you figure out how to make it stop, let me know.
The company explicitly gave the ex-employee access to the site with the private data, apparently without establishing limits on how often the site could be accessed or (slightly more questionable) how the information could be used. The only limitation mentioned by the article was that only two tickets could be booked per year. Although the ex-employee's actions appear unethical, it is not even clear that he violated any usage agreement that came with the ID/password.
Ahh, so if you give your neighbour a key to your garage so he can borrow your lawnmower, and he rifles through all your old bank records that happen to be stored out there, and sells the info to someone else, then he's just doing what any red blooded American can be expected to do (screw his neighbour), and it's your fault for trusting him... is that it? Now I see how it works with you foreigners.
Just kidding. Boy, you really got me with that "eh" joke. I didn't see that one coming... when did y'all b'come so quick-witted down thar anyway?
Had they simply upgraded him to a regular coach seat, there'd be no need to be giving him access to the employee-side site. This was a case of being cheap in the near term costing more in the long run...
Riight, and if a woman is raped, you blame her for wearing revealing clothes, and if someone comes into my house and steals my TV, you blame me for leaving my door unlocked.
You see, up here in Canada, the person who does the bad thing is the one we blame, not the victim. The guy did something he knew was wrong. He's at fault, not the airline. The airline would be smart to not do something like this again, because there are unethical people out there, but the fact is, it's NOT THEIR FAULT. They didn't do anything bad, and he did.
Japanese firms have constantly pushed money into development of technology that is a loss-maker early on, until its adaption is widespread and cost-effective. The US companies have stockholders to appease, and long-term profits are hardly ever in their best interests.
Exactly which planet are you on? Not Earth, that's for sure. For the last 50 years, the U.S. innovated more than Japan, but Japan was better at mass producing this new technology more efficiently. The U.S eventually changed to adapt some Japanese ways, and we've also seen the Japanese trying to take the best of the U.S. techniques and adopt them.
Perhaps this is the beginning of a new era, but it's hardly been the norm so far.
Of course, as you point out, the human has more information to work with than the car. Still, I think the grand-parent post has a point: Real Life is notorious for finding unanticipated circumstances to throw at "autonomous" devices.
Right. Perhaps what he meant to say was that humans are still better in ambiguous or new situations, but he said reaction time, and that's what I was replying to. A machine's reaction time is much faster. Cars don't have manually activated airbags, and that's for good reason.
I think that more research into adaptive systems, and artificial neural networks will bring machines closer to our abilities.
What's going to be impossible is to have BOTH human drivers and machine drivers on the road at the same time.
I think what you'll see is special highways or special lanes dedicated to auto-drive vehicles (to steal a term blatantly from Demolition Man). You would need to have a car with the auto-drive feature, and it would have certain properties of the road that would guarantee a safe trip. For instance, markings on the road would have to be within a certain specification, etc.
I still hope there would be a manual override too. A big frickin red button in the middle that says, "you're scaring me... let me drive."
There are lost of uses for this but the emergency reaction times will never be as good as a human.
Hmmm, I'll tell you what... do you have a car with cruise control? Next time you're on the highway, set it, and watch how closely it's sticking to the set speed, even when you go around bends in the road, up and down hills, etc. Now try staying that close to one speed without the cruise control...
The cruise control operates by measuring the actual speed, comparing it to the desired speed, and controlling the throttle. It can react to small changes in speed MUCH faster than you can.
If you gave it some kind of sensor to anticipate slope changes before they happen (laser range finders perhaps?), then it would be almost perfect.
I think, when the Constitution is applied, you have all the rights as a citizen while you are in this country except a few like getting elected to certain offices. The problem is that the Constitution is being ignored.
Excuse me if I don't bother to trust your willingness to enforce your constitution to help a foreigner...;-)
Still, when you are crossing a border, for a short period of time you are in limbo between the countries. Since you have not entered the country when you're standing at U.S. immigration, you are not under U.S. jurisdiction yet, and therefore you are not protected by the constitution. I'm not sure why this doesn't apply if you're sitting in a U.S. prison in Cuba, which seems like U.S. juristiction to me, but whatever.
There are stories of Canadians attempting to cross from Canada into the U.S., but forgetting to bring their proof of citizenship with them (usually a birth certificate or passport). The U.S. immigration officials deny them entry, and when they try to cross back into Canada, they are also in trouble because they don't have any way to prove their citizenship. That's not an enviable position at all.
It's quite funny when you can see your house from the immigration office, point to it and go, "that's my house... I live there! Let me in!"
That is a good idea. The death toll from rapid spread of flu and other potentially lethal diseases is due largely to air travel from foreign countries. Forget terrorists, discouraging foreign travellers will probably save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Riiight. Because fingerprinting someone gets rid of all the viruses they're carrying.:-)
It clearly isn't. It has roots and causes, and it's not like the whole arab world consists of mischievous individuals wanting to destroy the west.
You'd think that would be "clear", but I know too many people at work who think it's pretty clear that Muslims are all taught about car-bombing plane high-jacking at a very early age. I'm not a sympathizer with any religion, but I don't think it's that extreme.
At any rate, there are lots of people in the south of the U.S. teaching their kids some pretty anti-social things every day, usually based on their religious beliefs. Why isn't the KKK considered a terrorist organization, anyway? They support violence against a subset of American citizens.
What I don't understand is why forigners care. You already have to stand in a long line, get talked to by some semi-literate GS-6 while they look at your passport. What does it matter if also while that happens a camera snaps your picture and a digital reader grabs your finger print? I mean, this changes anything how?
I have to point out that every American I know who travels to another country, even Canada, complains that they're asked any questions AT ALL. "They treat you like a criminal," they say. That's when they ask if they're importing any alcohol or tobacco. Now imagine if they asked an American to be fingerprinted and such when entering Canada... "Those damned communists!"
Slashdot Mirror
No, the advertisers pulled out because their sponsorship of the show had become bad publicity for them.
Right. But the ratings didn't drop. It's just that the people who weren't watching the show were complaining about what he said (and that's pathetic, by the way).
The point I responded to was that advertisers always go by the numbers, and don't look at the content. You just agreed with my point, that they do take the content into account.
Of course, how much bad publicity could it have been? Who actually remembers who the sponsors of a particular show were?
Advertisers, be they print or broadcast, do not buy space or airtime based on the editorial leanings of the news desk. They buy space or airtime based simply on the number of people that will be exposed to that space or airtime. The measurement of those numbers is not exactly a science, but it is a finely honed craft. Numbers mean everything.
I certainly hope that is usually the case, but certainly not all the time. After all, Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, because the advertisers pulled out when he said something controversial. However, the ratings didn't drop. The advertisers pulled out based on the content of the show, not based on the numbers. That doesn't make much sense, but that is what happened.
CompUSA sales people are the WORST.
I think you're forgetting about Radio Shack employees. Actual conversation:
Employee: "Can I help you, sir?"
Me: "Yep, I need to buy an ethernet crossover cable - where do you keep them?"
E: "Right over here." (Walks with me over to the back wall) "Here you go."
Me: "This is a straight through cable, and I need a crossover."
E: "This is a crossover."
Me: "No, it's not." (I look a little down the rack, and find a crossover cable) "See, this is a crossover cable."
E: "That's just another term for ethernet. They're all crossover cables."
Me: "Ok then; I'll take the one that says crossover, just to make sure."
E: "Alright, I'll ring that up for you. Can I get your address and phone number?"
Me: "No."
...and I'll bet you don't spend much time with people who don't share that sentiment when you can help it
;-)
I try to, but they keep running away...
Bear in mind, too, that the Bible-believing Christian doesn't accept the idea that multiple points of view are equally valid: if the Bible is what your friend says it is, then relativism is ruled out. You may disagree with the idea of moral (or other) absolutes, but that disagreement doesn't ipso facto demonstrate that belief in absolute truths is erroneous.
Then I guess what I'm saying is that teachings based only on the bible, or teaching kids (I'm talking about teenagers here) that there's only one morally right answer, doesn't equip them well to function as adults in our society.
For instance, if I were an employer hiring team members, and I found someone that was well spoken in their beliefs, but could not accept the fact that other people have different points of view and we all have to co-exist, then there's no way I'm going to hire that person, no matter how good of a worker they are otherwise. The fact is, the team would be worse off with them.
Anyway, that's my point.
...except that this would, of course, only happen if the family had zero interaction with other families, never watched TV, never watched movies, never listened to the radio, never went anywhere, never did anything, and never read anything. In short, you'd have to live in a cave.
Let me explain my point of view then. I only know one family that home-schools, and in particular the father. I've talked with him a great deal (he works with me), but he has said that exposing his kids to other people's opinions is unnecessary, because there is only one correct answer to any moral question, and that can be found in the bible. He gives his kids a strict diet of Rush Limbaugh, church, and creationism, and fervently protects them from being exposed to any idea that he does not agree with. Or, if he does discuss other ideas, he doesn't present it as 'this is another point of view', but rather, 'this is what hell-bound people believe.'
I'm willing to believe that not all home-schoolers are like that, but given that the majority of home-schoolers are christian right wing conservatives (according to a recent article in the Economist), I'm tempted to believe it might be the norm.
In the first place, people naturally gravitate towards people of similar mindset and shared experience.
I guess I'm different then. I find different viewpoints illuminating and thought-provoking.
You don't think that there is a moral dimension to the way that sex education is presented in the schools?
:-)
I suppose it depends on how it's taught. First of all, I had the "talk" when I was about 9 from my father. In my school (in Canada), it was introduced in grade 5, and it was absolutely mechanical. The big point was to make sure nobody started freaking out when they hit puberty, started growing hair in new places, and girls started getting the visit. Trust me, it did not inspire the class to want to "do it" in any way. There was also much discussion, later in about grade 7, about the diseases you could catch, and that protection was of limited effectiveness anyway. I think the message was pretty clear - think about the consequences now before you're in the moment. Make your decision and stick with it.
In Canada, we have separate schools for public and catholic education. Anecdotally, teenage pregnancy is higher in catholic schools, whose sex education (depending on the courage of the teacher, of course) is generally limited to "it's evil, don't do it. Ever. Here's a movie from the 50's to explain it to you."
Strikingly, you suggest that sometimes homeschooling doesn't work - which for the sake of argument I'll grant, though such cases would be extraordinarily rare and I've never seen one myself - while blithely ignoring the facts that government-run education is no panacea and that it has been characterized for decades by ever-declining academic and moral standards.
Since there are no decent longitudinal studies, and only a plethora of anecdotal evidence at this point, neither you nor I can actually say if it works better or worse in general. I think we should both be willing to admit that we don't really know, and that it probably depends entirely on the parents as to how it turns out. As you know, there are good and bad parents out there.
For instance, there are some home-schooling parents who actually believe that kids do not need schooling at all, and simply let their kids do whatever they want, and don't teach them any kind of a formal education. I personally don't think that they're doing their kids any favours.
On the other hand, if someone is willing to make educating their children their career, then I'm going to bet that they're quite interested in how their kids turn out.
As you've pointed out, there are resources for home-schoolers where they can meet and interact with other kids for play. That has to be a good thing for these kids.
I actually only think there's one caveat to home-schooling, and that is how a home-schooled child is probably not going to be exposed to people with different opinions. Some people think this is a good thing, because it means their kids won't be "corrupted" by what other people think. however, there will come a time when the child has to leave the house, and in either university or the workforce, will meet people that they have to deal with who don't (and never will) share their point of view or their opinion.
I think that in high school, publicly schooled kids are exposed to all of these different ideas, and this is also when, developmentally, they start to be capable of dealing with ambiguous ideas (the idea of a point of view, for instance). This is good exercise for dealing with people later in life.
People in university are very open about discussing ideas, and are also expected to be open minded about other people's ideas and judge them logically. I don't think this is an innate human ability - I think it needs practice. As you've pointed out, home-schooled kids are better at articulating their point of view, but as we know, discussions have to start by listening to the other person's point of view.
If you were home-schooled, then chances are that there's only been one point of view for your whole life: whatever your parents said was gospel. But there are other people out there who do disagree with those beliefs, and they do actually usually have valid arguments to backup their opinions. In a situation like that, if a home-schooled kid just starts spouting off the arguments that their parents told them, they're going to be challenged with some really insightful counter-examples and arguments that they've never been exposed to before.
I think that the reaction of a home-schooled kid in that case is going to be to close themselves off from other points of view, and then seek out other like-minded (probably home-schooled) individuals to protect themselves from the ambiguity.
Now, if a home-schooling parent can figure out how to avoid such an outcome, then I think they've found the "panacea" of education. Then it's no different than a simple engineering challenge - identify the risks early, and use risk management techniques to reduce the risk.
Canada here...
Also had in school:
Clockwork Orange
La Haine
Menace To Society
Reservoir Dogs
Apocalypse Now
etc..
Ok, Canadian here too, but never saw any of those in school. I can understand Apocalypse Now, especially if you were reading Heart of Darkness. I'm not sure why Reservoir Dogs would be a good candidate for an English class, though I could certainly see it in a film class.
I did take a quarter credit course in films, but all he played was Alfred Hitchcock stuff. It was interesting to see Psycho (don't know if I ever would have rented it), but it would have been much more thought provoking to see both Psycho and something more modern like 8 mm (I haven't seen that either), and discuss the differences.
Clockwork Orange, also interesting to watch if you'd been reading the book.
I don't think most of these titles would fly in the U.S. though; I mean, they're burning Harry Potter books down there, because it's too risque for them.
You know a movie that would be a good topic-starter for a media class... Natural Born Killers.
WHY is it unacceptable for children to see people making love (fucking, if you prefer), but it's okay if they see people killing each other with firearms.
Because good little Americans go to war and kill Arabs for their country. That gets good little Americans into heaven. If they want to curse or see tits after they're done killing people, then they'll go to hell.
Unfortunately, the old religious farts are prolific breeders (the only acceptable sex to them) and thus raise a whole new generation of self rightous morals police.
Yes, if someone tells you they were home-schooled, there's a 76% chance that you ought to run like hell away from them as fast as you can.
If someone tells you that they home-school their kids, shoot them now! Think of the children!
Back in school, 10 or 15 years ago, I had just begun learning english.. and the english teacher showed us this movie, hiding subtitles.
I definitely need some clarification on this one... you say your teacer showed you Pulp Fiction? You're kidding, right? Why would they do that?
I'm a Frenchman living in England. How do you think *I* feel?
:-)
I was an Anglophone in Quebec... that trumps yours anyday!
So, when do we all start group therapy?
I put a copy of Pulp Fiction into this thing, and all I got out were 13 seconds of credits! Where did my movie go???
As an American living in Canada, I would agree that this is true. Of course it gets old being harassed about being American (fortunately I'm long past that stage now). Also, while few Canadians seem to outright hate Americans, I've run into enough of them that seem to think a large number of Americans are brainless idiots, as though Canada doesn't have its own share (and vice versa).
I live in Canada and work in the states. I'm in Mississippi right now. I FEEL YOUR PAIN. I'm pretty sick of even the nicest people, upon hearing where you're from, having to dump on you all the stupid and mostly untrue BS they've heard about your country, and what they think is wrong with it.
Frankly, I'm sick of the rivalry whether it be joking, real, or whatever.
Amen, brother. If you figure out how to make it stop, let me know.
The company explicitly gave the ex-employee access to the site with the private data, apparently without establishing limits on how often the site could be accessed or (slightly more questionable) how the information could be used. The only limitation mentioned by the article was that only two tickets could be booked per year. Although the ex-employee's actions appear unethical, it is not even clear that he violated any usage agreement that came with the ID/password.
Ahh, so if you give your neighbour a key to your garage so he can borrow your lawnmower, and he rifles through all your old bank records that happen to be stored out there, and sells the info to someone else, then he's just doing what any red blooded American can be expected to do (screw his neighbour), and it's your fault for trusting him... is that it? Now I see how it works with you foreigners.
Just kidding. Boy, you really got me with that "eh" joke. I didn't see that one coming... when did y'all b'come so quick-witted down thar anyway?
Had they simply upgraded him to a regular coach seat, there'd be no need to be giving him access to the employee-side site. This was a case of being cheap in the near term costing more in the long run...
Riight, and if a woman is raped, you blame her for wearing revealing clothes, and if someone comes into my house and steals my TV, you blame me for leaving my door unlocked.
You see, up here in Canada, the person who does the bad thing is the one we blame, not the victim. The guy did something he knew was wrong. He's at fault, not the airline. The airline would be smart to not do something like this again, because there are unethical people out there, but the fact is, it's NOT THEIR FAULT. They didn't do anything bad, and he did.
Japanese firms have constantly pushed money into development of technology that is a loss-maker early on, until its adaption is widespread and cost-effective. The US companies have stockholders to appease, and long-term profits are hardly ever in their best interests.
Exactly which planet are you on? Not Earth, that's for sure. For the last 50 years, the U.S. innovated more than Japan, but Japan was better at mass producing this new technology more efficiently. The U.S eventually changed to adapt some Japanese ways, and we've also seen the Japanese trying to take the best of the U.S. techniques and adopt them.
Perhaps this is the beginning of a new era, but it's hardly been the norm so far.
Can you imagine... (Score:-1, Troll)
You modded me a Troll??? WTF?!? Exactly what about my post was an incorrect assertion passed off as fact?
Not so funny, perhaps... but Troll? Come on!
Can you imagine a flashmob of these?!?!
Of course, as you point out, the human has more information to work with than the car. Still, I think the grand-parent post has a point: Real Life is notorious for finding unanticipated circumstances to throw at "autonomous" devices.
Right. Perhaps what he meant to say was that humans are still better in ambiguous or new situations, but he said reaction time, and that's what I was replying to. A machine's reaction time is much faster. Cars don't have manually activated airbags, and that's for good reason.
I think that more research into adaptive systems, and artificial neural networks will bring machines closer to our abilities.
What's going to be impossible is to have BOTH human drivers and machine drivers on the road at the same time.
I think what you'll see is special highways or special lanes dedicated to auto-drive vehicles (to steal a term blatantly from Demolition Man). You would need to have a car with the auto-drive feature, and it would have certain properties of the road that would guarantee a safe trip. For instance, markings on the road would have to be within a certain specification, etc.
I still hope there would be a manual override too. A big frickin red button in the middle that says, "you're scaring me... let me drive."
There are lost of uses for this but the emergency reaction times will never be as good as a human.
Hmmm, I'll tell you what... do you have a car with cruise control? Next time you're on the highway, set it, and watch how closely it's sticking to the set speed, even when you go around bends in the road, up and down hills, etc. Now try staying that close to one speed without the cruise control...
The cruise control operates by measuring the actual speed, comparing it to the desired speed, and controlling the throttle. It can react to small changes in speed MUCH faster than you can.
If you gave it some kind of sensor to anticipate slope changes before they happen (laser range finders perhaps?), then it would be almost perfect.
I think, when the Constitution is applied, you have all the rights as a citizen while you are in this country except a few like getting elected to certain offices. The problem is that the Constitution is being ignored.
;-)
Excuse me if I don't bother to trust your willingness to enforce your constitution to help a foreigner...
Still, when you are crossing a border, for a short period of time you are in limbo between the countries. Since you have not entered the country when you're standing at U.S. immigration, you are not under U.S. jurisdiction yet, and therefore you are not protected by the constitution. I'm not sure why this doesn't apply if you're sitting in a U.S. prison in Cuba, which seems like U.S. juristiction to me, but whatever.
There are stories of Canadians attempting to cross from Canada into the U.S., but forgetting to bring their proof of citizenship with them (usually a birth certificate or passport). The U.S. immigration officials deny them entry, and when they try to cross back into Canada, they are also in trouble because they don't have any way to prove their citizenship. That's not an enviable position at all.
It's quite funny when you can see your house from the immigration office, point to it and go, "that's my house... I live there! Let me in!"
That is a good idea. The death toll from rapid spread of flu and other potentially lethal diseases is due largely to air travel from foreign countries. Forget terrorists, discouraging foreign travellers will probably save hundreds of thousands of lives.
:-)
Riiight. Because fingerprinting someone gets rid of all the viruses they're carrying.
It clearly isn't. It has roots and causes, and it's not like the whole arab world consists of mischievous individuals wanting to destroy the west.
You'd think that would be "clear", but I know too many people at work who think it's pretty clear that Muslims are all taught about car-bombing plane high-jacking at a very early age. I'm not a sympathizer with any religion, but I don't think it's that extreme.
At any rate, there are lots of people in the south of the U.S. teaching their kids some pretty anti-social things every day, usually based on their religious beliefs. Why isn't the KKK considered a terrorist organization, anyway? They support violence against a subset of American citizens.
What I don't understand is why forigners care. You already have to stand in a long line, get talked to by some semi-literate GS-6 while they look at your passport. What does it matter if also while that happens a camera snaps your picture and a digital reader grabs your finger print? I mean, this changes anything how?
I have to point out that every American I know who travels to another country, even Canada, complains that they're asked any questions AT ALL. "They treat you like a criminal," they say. That's when they ask if they're importing any alcohol or tobacco. Now imagine if they asked an American to be fingerprinted and such when entering Canada... "Those damned communists!"