True, and they have been moving that direction for at least 20 years. I think the decline in the use of the jumbos like the A380 and 747; and the huge popularity of the 737 and A320 is great evidence of this point. The airlines are realizing that a roster with many smaller direct flights is more efficient than one with huge hub-to-hub flights. Granted there is still hub-and-spoke by necessity, but that's not the part of the roster they're building out -- if anything that part is in decline.
Perhaps they aren't actually ripping you off on those fees... Maybe, just maybe, you're paying for the reliability and trustworthiness of a real financial institution. You know, the kind with backups and professionals and legal oversight.
The real headline is "Chump tries to smuggle $500k across an international border, gets burned".
It wouldn't be so bad if the company can generate and keep the keys, but other than that encrypted employee communication is a worse risk than potential loss of IP. The management and company is held responsible for for all sorts of "nanny" issues in the workplace, including any kind of alleged harassment, threat, insult, discrimination, etc. Without hard records of who said what to whom, the company is at much bigger risk from lawsuits from their own employees than from competitors stealing tech. It is management's job to police internal communication as much or more than to actually run the company; and trust me, most of us don't like doing it, but it is a legal requirement that we do, and a huge economic risk if we don't.
No worries, I agree with your use of "integrity" there as well. My view of "credibility" in this case is that they are portraying (perhaps just emphasizing) an outrage which does not actually exist, or is fringe where it does. Therefore they are giving a false report of the totality of the situation despite the select information presented being factually true.
You're soft pedaling it. Of course IBM is not being racist, nor are their developers, nor their customers in NYPD. The very implication of it in the title and summary of the OP is a perfect example of the race-baiting, click-baiting business model adopted by the news-entertainment industry which has ruined their credibility.
It is obvious to anyone that basic physical traits like color and size are essential to locating a person in a crowd, yet they've chosen to make a big deal out of it specifically for the purpose of churning their audience to anger.
How about they just make the programs rigorous enough that people who engage in that kind of behavior flunk out after the first semester? College and Universities have become roughly the equivalent of daycare centers. Raise the standards and thin the herd.
Which of these companies are the most likely to disappear:
Facebook, Apple and Google; in that order. These companies are the ones who depend most on the preferences and tastes of fickle consumers. They (especially Facebook) have little to no value in the delivery of business services where longevity and stability reigns.
Your experience is nearly the same as mine in two different companies, in two different industries which inspired the parent comment. Ultimately in both cases it was decided to simply stop looking at Chinese manufacturing as an option.
I can see how companies who are only interested in the bottom line can turn a blind eye to what is going on with their suppliers as it is easy to take "yes" at face value and still maintain plausible deniability.
No, it's short term profit at the expense of a good relationship. Some people believe that it's good business, and those people are awful to work with.
Chinese manufacturers will make tools to spec - if you pay them less, get a lower quality product.
I believe really that they will make tools to whatever spec the customer aggressively tracks, monitors and enforces every little detail of; and as soon as there is a hint of flexibility or laxity in the oversight, will slip through lower quality where ever they think they can get away with. This includes things like "crimes of omission", where they will actively seek to work around the spec and poke holes where the inspectors may not be looking or may not have even thought to look. It is taking an approach of delivery of the least possible quality, rather than a good faith effort to meet or exceed the intent of the customer.
The truck is already on the ground and the vast majority of failures leave it there.
Does it matter? Many, many people are also on the ground in the proximity of streets, so if it goes wild it is still likely to hit pedestrians and vehicles. Drones could feasibly avoid busy streets by taking routes over rooftops for example; trucks simply cannot thereby forcing failure modes where people, cars and trucks collide.
Trucks are also much more expensive and contain even more valuable human drivers, this creates a much bigger incentive to keep things working safely. There's also more opportunity for the human driver to mitigate mechanical failures.
Agreed on the value disparity, but it seems to be in line with the opportunity for the vehicle to cause damage. Absolute worse case is a drone hits a person on the head and kills them, but statistically those odds have to be remote compared to other non-fatal injuries or property damage -- certainly when compared to the opportunity for injury and property destruction caused by a truck.
The human driver also provides a significant failure mode (medical problem, distraction, driver error), which I suspect is a much larger risk than the small chance the driver could use to avert accidents after a mechanical failure.
As for maintenance a lot of businesses operate very close to the margin, sometimes in the red. They're going to save money everywhere they can, this includes doing the absolute minimum maintenance and running every drone until complete failure, it just becomes a question of how they fail.
True, but doesn't that also suggest that is the current operating mode for truck fleets? Isn't it overall better to have vehicles with less kinetic energy, even when poorly maintained, from a safety point of view?
I'm sure the same way any fleet of other vehicles is maintained. Repair it until it no longer meets serviceability standard, then part it out or scrap it. How is this any different than if a tire on a UPS truck blows out sending the truck careening into oncoming traffic? They do a reasonable amount of preventative maintenance to ensure a level of usefulness and safety, but occasionally a machine breaks and it could potentially hurt someone when it fails -- just like every other aspect of our lives. I know I'd rather be hit by a 55 pound out-of-control drone than a 10,000 pound out-of-control truck. Even still, I would imagine that a drone AI could be programmed to crash into trees or empty green space or some other reasonably safe emergency landing sites in the event of failure.
I'm sure exactly the same way other aircraft do: someone monitors FAA bulletins and enters no-fly zones into some sort of map software. With even the slightest bit of technology there's no reason the FAA couldn't issue no-drone-fly instructions directly to a public database that any drone could query.
You mean sort of like 10,000 lb brown steel vans with whirring metal parts and a large payload of flammable fuel piloted by a rushed/distracted operator speeding through populated areas while looking for addresses, backing out of driveways and turning rapidly?
There are also quite a few activities that cause little to no harm other than being in poor taste or offensive to some moral views, but are various degrees of illegal nonetheless. Public nudity, cursing on FM radio, selling/consuming/possessing drugs and/or alcohol in particular counties or times of day for example.
Sure, but those scanner feeds rarely include victim names whereas various social media platforms can easily fill in those blanks with facial recognition technology AND automatically notify all of that person's friends in one fell swoop.
I'm sure that in addition to labor a good portion of that comes from the cost of buying, maintaining and operating equipment such as vacuum trucks and backhoes needed for sewer work.
Not really abandoned as much as Flint made it a very easy choice for GM to leave when other options became available. The extremely corrupt union locals and local politicians in Flint made it impossible for GM to continue doing business there. While many other rust belt cities faced similar challenges in keeping the manufacturing companies from leaving, Flint was a cut above in terms of being actively hostile to the auto business. It was no surprise at all to those of us in the region when GM left Flint.
Many of the surrounding cities in a ~50 mile radius of Flint still have large manufacturing businesses, including auto industry, so it was not something that effected the entire region to anywhere near the degree of Flint. The attitude and culture in Flint was really different and GM responded by washing their hands of that mess and leaving.
I'll also add it's much more likely to work with younger people who have fewer concerns in their lives outside of their jobs, who don't need to use leave for ((embarrassing medical problem they don't want all their co-workers to know about)), or a divorce, or any of the other very personal things that may affect work performance someone can share with their supervisor with a reasonable degree of confidentiality that they really don't want to share with their team mates. Managing people is about a lot more than assigning tasks and completing projects.
Also no one held accountable for monitoring and administering legally-mandated employee rights such as medical leave, workplace safety and disability accommodation which also have very strict confidentiality requirements precluding any sort of committee handling it.
In addition to the parent's point, humans picking up the garbage provides a much better service than the robot trucks. I don't have to worry about fitting everything into the uniform sized plastic bin. I can pile whatever oddly shaped boxes, cans or large items by the road, and the humans can deal with them quickly and efficiently. I don't really care if it makes trash hauling slightly more expensive, it makes my job of taking out the trash much easier. I live in an area where humans pick up the trash, and basically whatever I can drag to the curb, they will throw in the truck. It would be such a pain in the ass to try to smash boxes or break up old furniture to fit inside the can. Let the hydraulic ram on the truck do that.
How is that really any different than a car in the next lane swerving into you or a deer jumping into the road or some piece of trash flying off the truck in front? Malicious hacking seems like one of the lowest probability ways for you to crash at 70 MPH. Driving is somewhat risky...these exploits add a small amount to that risk, but overall keeping the electronic safety systems engaged is most likely a significantly reduced net risk.
Same here, and the window was a lot more expensive than the shitty CD player and used CDs they took. I would rather the thieves have just opened the lock.
Okay, sure so DC for gadgets and lighting that consume about 1% of household energy. When he has a realistic solution for replacing central heating, cooling, refrigeration, normal kitchen usage, well pumps, water heating and other meaningful uses of electricity then it might be worth listening to.
Slashdot Mirror
True, and they have been moving that direction for at least 20 years. I think the decline in the use of the jumbos like the A380 and 747; and the huge popularity of the 737 and A320 is great evidence of this point. The airlines are realizing that a roster with many smaller direct flights is more efficient than one with huge hub-to-hub flights. Granted there is still hub-and-spoke by necessity, but that's not the part of the roster they're building out -- if anything that part is in decline.
Perhaps they aren't actually ripping you off on those fees... Maybe, just maybe, you're paying for the reliability and trustworthiness of a real financial institution. You know, the kind with backups and professionals and legal oversight.
The real headline is "Chump tries to smuggle $500k across an international border, gets burned".
It wouldn't be so bad if the company can generate and keep the keys, but other than that encrypted employee communication is a worse risk than potential loss of IP. The management and company is held responsible for for all sorts of "nanny" issues in the workplace, including any kind of alleged harassment, threat, insult, discrimination, etc. Without hard records of who said what to whom, the company is at much bigger risk from lawsuits from their own employees than from competitors stealing tech. It is management's job to police internal communication as much or more than to actually run the company; and trust me, most of us don't like doing it, but it is a legal requirement that we do, and a huge economic risk if we don't.
No worries, I agree with your use of "integrity" there as well. My view of "credibility" in this case is that they are portraying (perhaps just emphasizing) an outrage which does not actually exist, or is fringe where it does. Therefore they are giving a false report of the totality of the situation despite the select information presented being factually true.
You're soft pedaling it. Of course IBM is not being racist, nor are their developers, nor their customers in NYPD. The very implication of it in the title and summary of the OP is a perfect example of the race-baiting, click-baiting business model adopted by the news-entertainment industry which has ruined their credibility.
It is obvious to anyone that basic physical traits like color and size are essential to locating a person in a crowd, yet they've chosen to make a big deal out of it specifically for the purpose of churning their audience to anger.
How about they just make the programs rigorous enough that people who engage in that kind of behavior flunk out after the first semester? College and Universities have become roughly the equivalent of daycare centers. Raise the standards and thin the herd.
Which of these companies are the most likely to disappear:
Facebook, Apple and Google; in that order. These companies are the ones who depend most on the preferences and tastes of fickle consumers. They (especially Facebook) have little to no value in the delivery of business services where longevity and stability reigns.
Your experience is nearly the same as mine in two different companies, in two different industries which inspired the parent comment. Ultimately in both cases it was decided to simply stop looking at Chinese manufacturing as an option.
I can see how companies who are only interested in the bottom line can turn a blind eye to what is going on with their suppliers as it is easy to take "yes" at face value and still maintain plausible deniability.
No, it's short term profit at the expense of a good relationship. Some people believe that it's good business, and those people are awful to work with.
Chinese manufacturers will make tools to spec - if you pay them less, get a lower quality product.
I believe really that they will make tools to whatever spec the customer aggressively tracks, monitors and enforces every little detail of; and as soon as there is a hint of flexibility or laxity in the oversight, will slip through lower quality where ever they think they can get away with. This includes things like "crimes of omission", where they will actively seek to work around the spec and poke holes where the inspectors may not be looking or may not have even thought to look. It is taking an approach of delivery of the least possible quality, rather than a good faith effort to meet or exceed the intent of the customer.
The truck is already on the ground and the vast majority of failures leave it there.
Does it matter? Many, many people are also on the ground in the proximity of streets, so if it goes wild it is still likely to hit pedestrians and vehicles. Drones could feasibly avoid busy streets by taking routes over rooftops for example; trucks simply cannot thereby forcing failure modes where people, cars and trucks collide.
Trucks are also much more expensive and contain even more valuable human drivers, this creates a much bigger incentive to keep things working safely. There's also more opportunity for the human driver to mitigate mechanical failures.
Agreed on the value disparity, but it seems to be in line with the opportunity for the vehicle to cause damage. Absolute worse case is a drone hits a person on the head and kills them, but statistically those odds have to be remote compared to other non-fatal injuries or property damage -- certainly when compared to the opportunity for injury and property destruction caused by a truck. The human driver also provides a significant failure mode (medical problem, distraction, driver error), which I suspect is a much larger risk than the small chance the driver could use to avert accidents after a mechanical failure.
As for maintenance a lot of businesses operate very close to the margin, sometimes in the red. They're going to save money everywhere they can, this includes doing the absolute minimum maintenance and running every drone until complete failure, it just becomes a question of how they fail.
True, but doesn't that also suggest that is the current operating mode for truck fleets? Isn't it overall better to have vehicles with less kinetic energy, even when poorly maintained, from a safety point of view?
I'm sure the same way any fleet of other vehicles is maintained. Repair it until it no longer meets serviceability standard, then part it out or scrap it. How is this any different than if a tire on a UPS truck blows out sending the truck careening into oncoming traffic? They do a reasonable amount of preventative maintenance to ensure a level of usefulness and safety, but occasionally a machine breaks and it could potentially hurt someone when it fails -- just like every other aspect of our lives. I know I'd rather be hit by a 55 pound out-of-control drone than a 10,000 pound out-of-control truck. Even still, I would imagine that a drone AI could be programmed to crash into trees or empty green space or some other reasonably safe emergency landing sites in the event of failure.
I'm sure exactly the same way other aircraft do: someone monitors FAA bulletins and enters no-fly zones into some sort of map software. With even the slightest bit of technology there's no reason the FAA couldn't issue no-drone-fly instructions directly to a public database that any drone could query.
You mean sort of like 10,000 lb brown steel vans with whirring metal parts and a large payload of flammable fuel piloted by a rushed/distracted operator speeding through populated areas while looking for addresses, backing out of driveways and turning rapidly?
There are also quite a few activities that cause little to no harm other than being in poor taste or offensive to some moral views, but are various degrees of illegal nonetheless. Public nudity, cursing on FM radio, selling/consuming/possessing drugs and/or alcohol in particular counties or times of day for example.
Sure, but those scanner feeds rarely include victim names whereas various social media platforms can easily fill in those blanks with facial recognition technology AND automatically notify all of that person's friends in one fell swoop.
I'm sure that in addition to labor a good portion of that comes from the cost of buying, maintaining and operating equipment such as vacuum trucks and backhoes needed for sewer work.
Not really abandoned as much as Flint made it a very easy choice for GM to leave when other options became available. The extremely corrupt union locals and local politicians in Flint made it impossible for GM to continue doing business there. While many other rust belt cities faced similar challenges in keeping the manufacturing companies from leaving, Flint was a cut above in terms of being actively hostile to the auto business. It was no surprise at all to those of us in the region when GM left Flint.
Many of the surrounding cities in a ~50 mile radius of Flint still have large manufacturing businesses, including auto industry, so it was not something that effected the entire region to anywhere near the degree of Flint. The attitude and culture in Flint was really different and GM responded by washing their hands of that mess and leaving.
I'll also add it's much more likely to work with younger people who have fewer concerns in their lives outside of their jobs, who don't need to use leave for ((embarrassing medical problem they don't want all their co-workers to know about)), or a divorce, or any of the other very personal things that may affect work performance someone can share with their supervisor with a reasonable degree of confidentiality that they really don't want to share with their team mates. Managing people is about a lot more than assigning tasks and completing projects.
Also no one held accountable for monitoring and administering legally-mandated employee rights such as medical leave, workplace safety and disability accommodation which also have very strict confidentiality requirements precluding any sort of committee handling it.
In addition to the parent's point, humans picking up the garbage provides a much better service than the robot trucks. I don't have to worry about fitting everything into the uniform sized plastic bin. I can pile whatever oddly shaped boxes, cans or large items by the road, and the humans can deal with them quickly and efficiently. I don't really care if it makes trash hauling slightly more expensive, it makes my job of taking out the trash much easier. I live in an area where humans pick up the trash, and basically whatever I can drag to the curb, they will throw in the truck. It would be such a pain in the ass to try to smash boxes or break up old furniture to fit inside the can. Let the hydraulic ram on the truck do that.
Tell us all how taking my friend to the airport is any riskier, liability wise, than taking a stranger.
Because you take a friend to the airport once or twice a year, not ten times a day.
How is that really any different than a car in the next lane swerving into you or a deer jumping into the road or some piece of trash flying off the truck in front? Malicious hacking seems like one of the lowest probability ways for you to crash at 70 MPH. Driving is somewhat risky...these exploits add a small amount to that risk, but overall keeping the electronic safety systems engaged is most likely a significantly reduced net risk.
Same here, and the window was a lot more expensive than the shitty CD player and used CDs they took. I would rather the thieves have just opened the lock.
Okay, sure so DC for gadgets and lighting that consume about 1% of household energy. When he has a realistic solution for replacing central heating, cooling, refrigeration, normal kitchen usage, well pumps, water heating and other meaningful uses of electricity then it might be worth listening to.