So in effect you want to nationalize the internet backbone and put all backbone providers out of business.
I think you are a little bit confused on what the "backbone" is. It is not the same as the "last mile" which is what I am discussing.
In my suggestion, each of the ISP's that were leasing space would also need a connection to an "upstream" provider. Whether that was one of the backbones or an intermediary would be up to each company.
All the government does is provide access to the pipes from the government site to the houses.
The core issue is whether a government should be providing a service. But that should not be an issue.
The government should provide the pipes (fibre or copper or whatever) to the houses that it covers. Paid for by taxes.
The pipes terminate at a government facility that the government leases space at to ANY AND ALL companies that want to provide ISP services over those pipes. As cheap as possible but without allowing one company to lease ALL the space.
Then switching between ISP's should be as simple as moving a patch cord.
Your taxes pay for the pipes and their maintenance and the facility and its maintenance (minus the lease revenue).
Or you can present counter-points to explain WHY you did not like the article. Such as these:
1. Bennett Haselton is focusing on NetFlix. Whether his idea matches the business model that NetFlix has chosen OR NOT.
2. Bennett Haselton is focusing on the media players that he owns. Combine that with #1 and you have a very narrow complaint about a very niche service not being offered by a specific company that may not want that as their business model.
3. Bennett Haselton ignores the LEGAL ISSUES with his fantasy of a specific company offering a specific service for his specific devices.
4. Bennett Haselton is continuing on this tirade despite having been answered in his previous tirades.
Too often im forced to fill out forms and am directed to the forums instead of a CS rep.
Even that would not be so bad IF THEY ORGANIZED THEIR FORUMS AND FIXED THE SEARCH FUNCTION.
If I have version X of product Y then I should be able to search on product Y with a sub-search on version X.
I should NOT be getting results that apply to product A, B or C. UNLESS the company tech support people have specifically gone through and WRITTEN an answer and specifically labelled it as applying to A, B, C and X (version 1, 2, 3 and 4).
It cannot be that difficult to build a flow chart for the most common searches / problems that are appearing in your forums.
You said that the car doesn't need to know the difference between a bridge and a ditch and I'm saying that it definitely does.
No, retard. You said "bridge" and "child". Now you're trying to change it to "ditch". Go back and read what you posted, retard.
You said that the car should only stay on course with it's only recourse being to stop and I'm not sure that's enough.
That's because you are retarded.
I'm not saying the computer needs to do something it's not programmed to do.
Yes you did. You said it had to break with the program. Fuck you, retard.
I'm saying the computer needs to be programmed to do stuff that violates standard road rules when that is the safest option.
No, retard. Because that means that the robot-car needs to be programmed to recognize "child" and "bridge" and to have different decision paths for those.
And that at least one of those decision paths results in the car driving off a bridge.
Fuck you, retard.
It can't stay on a predefined path ignoring everything on the side of the road with it's only recourse being to stop.
Who said it was ignoring anything, retard? You are retarded. It scans the side of the road for approaching obstacles.
But it treats every obstacle the same. There is no "child" decision path.
And when there is an obstacle that it is not programmed to avoid, it stops and turns control over to the person in it.
There is NEVER a "drive off a bridge" option. Never. You are retarded for suggesting it.
No. The car should treat any and all obstacles the same. And the reaction should be the same. Stop.
If you happen to be on a bridge you have to choose between plowing into the child in front of you or driving off the bridge.
Bullshit. You've just introduced the requirement that the car be programmed to understand "bridge" and "child" AND to have separate decision routines for those.
AND that at least one of those decision routines results in the vehicle driving YOU off of a bridge.
For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?
If this ever comes up as a question than the person asking the question is obviously NOT an engineer.
Keep It Simple, Stupid
Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?
The cars should be programmed to stop and revert to human control whenever there is a problem that the car is not programmed to handle.
And the car should only be programmed to handle DRIVING.
That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life,...
No. The car should not even be able to detect other occupants. Adding more complexity means more avenues for failure.
The car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE.
911 vehicles on the other hand...
No. Again, the car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE. Emergency vehicles should ALWAYS be human controlled.
From TFA:
With the exception of roboticists, everything we assume we know is based on science fiction,...
As is that entire article.
The entirety of the car's programming should be summed up as: a. Is the way clear? If yes then go. b. If not, are the obstacles ones that I am programmed for? If yes then go. c. Stop.
Think about living in a city. If I could "rent" a robot-car as easily or easier than a taxi then it might be worth it.
And I think it WOULD be easier with robot-cars and smart phones. I need a car with X capacity at this location at 7:30.
With good analysis it should be possible to get cars carrying people at least 80% of the time. So you only pay for the time you use it.
And with enough robot-cars on the road and reporting back to HQ about road conditions, congestion and such they should be the fastest means of inner-city travel.
Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.
Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?
Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.
... but I think you'll find a whole lot of opposition to government processes to check competence and capability and to restrict ownership to those who pass the tests.
Now imagine a proposal that such tests be used to validate voting rights. If you fail the test, you cannot vote.
Which indicates a problem with having a discussion on this issue. Some people do not see that language as offensive or trolling. They believe it to be "insightful".
For developers, it's skills like big data, cloud computing, and HTML5.
Buzz word, buzzword, markup language.
As a result, we do find that we face a shortage of older, more seasoned developers. And it's not because we don't want older candidates. It's often because the older candidates haven't successfully modernized their developer skills.
I find it difficult to believe that a developer would NOT be able to pick up HTML5 in a weekend.
Use "the cloud" and in addition to the LAN you need connectivity between your LAN and where ever the server might actually be.
And if you've ever had to work with vendors when there's an outage you will know how bad that is.
Even with a single vendor the discussion usually goes like this:
Are you sure it isn't YOUR equipment? We don't service YOUR equipment. No one else is having a problem. We aren't showing any problems on your line. Have you tried rebooting your CSU/DSY and/or router?
Once you add a second and third vendor (the "cloud" vendor and whomever they use for their connectivity) you'll end up with a mass of denials.
It doesn't matter that your business is down for a day. They'll be happy to refund you one day of the cost of their service.
And once it FINALLY comes back up everyone involved will deny that any changes / repairs were performed on THEIR network.
Person who works for company producing X says everyone needs X.
If I move to "the cloud" then I have the ADDITIONAL worries of:
1. YOUR connection going down. 2. MY connection going down. 3. Getting access to YOUR facility to troubleshoot a problem. Physical / remote / whatever. Why isn't that server booting? 4. SOMEONE ELSE at your facility annoying the government so that the FBI / CIA / NSA / whatever takes ALL the servers. 5. How do I know that what I legally have to keep private really is private? 6. What happens to my systems when all of your CxO's decide that they need more yachts so they jack up the pricing?
Fuck you, Curtis Peterson. RingCentral is the LAST place I'd put my data. You don't even understand why people are avoiding "the cloud" but you're happy to make up stupid insults to describe them.
I've read before that converting many stop signs to yield signs, even for cars, would save all sorts of energy without significant increases in accidents.
I think that all depends upon the traffic pattern at that time at that stop. One stop light where I used to live would convert to flashing yellow at 10pm and back to a stop light at 5am.
With a bicycle it's all about energy conservation.
I don't agree. And with traffic laws it is all about predictability.
Everyone involved needs to have the same understanding of who has the right of way and why.
As such, I typically have much longer to assess an intersection before I reach it, my stopping distance is extremely short, but if you make me stop it extends the time I'll be in the intersection when I DO cross significantly.
So?
There are only a couple of factors in play: 1. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of who has the right of way and in what order?
2. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of whether the intersection is "clear" for them?
If I'm allowed to use a stop sign as a yield, I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently.
And that is the problem. You are no longer predictable to the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians. You might stop or you might not stop.
Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there.
No it doesn't. The same as it does not make it safer for pedestrians to run across the intersection just because they're on a crosswalk.
Whether it is safer depends upon whether the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians know where you are and have the same understanding of who has the right of way in what order.
The ONLY way that this change should have any positive change is if a driver would NOT have seen you when you were stopped BUT was far enough away that you could cross BEFORE he entered the intersection. In which case YOU need to work on YOUR visibility.
How often have you sat at your desk browsing the internet instead of being productive? If your company is such that you can aggregate that lost time across a bunch of workers, you could probably reduce the headcount significantly if everybody just stayed on task all the time.
Even if I was focused 100% for an 8 hour day that still wouldn't account for problems happening AFTER work.
Or to put it another way, why aren't fire fighters putting out fires 8 hours a day and then taking 16 hours off (not accounting for lunch and breaks).
Things do not happen on an orderly schedule. Tasks do not perfectly fit the time available.
And who says that browsing the Internet is not helping me be more productive?
This guy seems to have the assembly line mentality. If only the workers would stay focused we could speed up the assembly line by 15%.
If you give something free will and the ability to comprehend itself then you can expect it to stop following your rules if you do not give it opportunity. The solution is to not build machines that are so complex that they have free will. Make a machine do a specific job as a tool and this won't ever be a problem.
I think that that depends upon the writer. It's easy to construct a story where the "slavery" is bad even if the "slaves" don't have free will. Depending upon what the writer wants to portray. Such as an over reliance on tech making us "less human" (decadent) than if we relied more upon ourselves and our families and neighbours. That was a recurring theme in Magnus, Robot figher.
There are 24 paragraphs in the first link. The ONLY mention of ANYTHING about his mathematical "ability" is in paragraph 9.
He started sketching circles made of overlapping triangles, which helped him understand the concept of pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
That's a "savant"? How many kids in high school understand pi?
After his injury, Padgett was drawing complex geometric shapes, but he didn't have the formal training to understand the equations they represented.Again, how many high school kids have doodled like that?
And "FORMAL training"? Isn't part of being a savant NOT needing formal training? You discover the concepts on your own based upon your ability to intuit the relationships.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much.
There's a degree of self-serving included. They work for the government so any attempt to reveal what they do and how they do it is an attack on them.
And if you're attacking them, that makes you the "bad guy". And they have to stop the "bad guys".
I think you are a little bit confused on what the "backbone" is. It is not the same as the "last mile" which is what I am discussing.
In my suggestion, each of the ISP's that were leasing space would also need a connection to an "upstream" provider. Whether that was one of the backbones or an intermediary would be up to each company.
All the government does is provide access to the pipes from the government site to the houses.
The core issue is whether a government should be providing a service. But that should not be an issue.
The government should provide the pipes (fibre or copper or whatever) to the houses that it covers. Paid for by taxes.
The pipes terminate at a government facility that the government leases space at to ANY AND ALL companies that want to provide ISP services over those pipes. As cheap as possible but without allowing one company to lease ALL the space.
Then switching between ISP's should be as simple as moving a patch cord.
Your taxes pay for the pipes and their maintenance and the facility and its maintenance (minus the lease revenue).
Or you can present counter-points to explain WHY you did not like the article. Such as these:
1. Bennett Haselton is focusing on NetFlix. Whether his idea matches the business model that NetFlix has chosen OR NOT.
2. Bennett Haselton is focusing on the media players that he owns. Combine that with #1 and you have a very narrow complaint about a very niche service not being offered by a specific company that may not want that as their business model.
3. Bennett Haselton ignores the LEGAL ISSUES with his fantasy of a specific company offering a specific service for his specific devices.
4. Bennett Haselton is continuing on this tirade despite having been answered in his previous tirades.
Even that would not be so bad IF THEY ORGANIZED THEIR FORUMS AND FIXED THE SEARCH FUNCTION.
If I have version X of product Y then I should be able to search on product Y with a sub-search on version X.
I should NOT be getting results that apply to product A, B or C. UNLESS the company tech support people have specifically gone through and WRITTEN an answer and specifically labelled it as applying to A, B, C and X (version 1, 2, 3 and 4).
It cannot be that difficult to build a flow chart for the most common searches / problems that are appearing in your forums.
No, retard. You said "bridge" and "child". Now you're trying to change it to "ditch". Go back and read what you posted, retard.
That's because you are retarded.
Yes you did. You said it had to break with the program. Fuck you, retard.
No, retard. Because that means that the robot-car needs to be programmed to recognize "child" and "bridge" and to have different decision paths for those.
And that at least one of those decision paths results in the car driving off a bridge.
Fuck you, retard.
Who said it was ignoring anything, retard? You are retarded. It scans the side of the road for approaching obstacles.
But it treats every obstacle the same. There is no "child" decision path.
And when there is an obstacle that it is not programmed to avoid, it stops and turns control over to the person in it.
There is NEVER a "drive off a bridge" option. Never. You are retarded for suggesting it.
Is that your best troll? Fuck, you are retarded.
You were talking about driving off a "bridge" if a "child" ran in front of the car.
Now you're going on about a "ditch".
They aren't even spelled the same.
Try again but try to focus on using the words that are spelled the same, okay?
Hey, retard. This is the real world, not TV. If it does not run its programming then it is "broken". Like you are.
No. The car should treat any and all obstacles the same. And the reaction should be the same. Stop.
Bullshit. You've just introduced the requirement that the car be programmed to understand "bridge" and "child" AND to have separate decision routines for those.
AND that at least one of those decision routines results in the vehicle driving YOU off of a bridge.
Fuck you.
If this ever comes up as a question than the person asking the question is obviously NOT an engineer.
Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid
The cars should be programmed to stop and revert to human control whenever there is a problem that the car is not programmed to handle.
And the car should only be programmed to handle DRIVING.
No. The car should not even be able to detect other occupants. Adding more complexity means more avenues for failure.
The car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE.
No. Again, the car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE. Emergency vehicles should ALWAYS be human controlled.
From TFA:
As is that entire article.
The entirety of the car's programming should be summed up as:
a. Is the way clear? If yes then go.
b. If not, are the obstacles ones that I am programmed for? If yes then go.
c. Stop.
Think about living in a city. If I could "rent" a robot-car as easily or easier than a taxi then it might be worth it.
And I think it WOULD be easier with robot-cars and smart phones. I need a car with X capacity at this location at 7:30.
With good analysis it should be possible to get cars carrying people at least 80% of the time. So you only pay for the time you use it.
And with enough robot-cars on the road and reporting back to HQ about road conditions, congestion and such they should be the fastest means of inner-city travel.
Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?
Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.
Now imagine a proposal that such tests be used to validate voting rights. If you fail the test, you cannot vote.
There would be a massive uproar.
That post is currently mod'ed +5 insightful.
Moderation +4
70% Insightful
20% Interesting
10% Troll
Which indicates a problem with having a discussion on this issue. Some people do not see that language as offensive or trolling. They believe it to be "insightful".
And I'm sure that you believe yourself to be a rational person.
Yet you could not stop yourself from including denigrating language in a post complaining about the behaviour of others.
I'd agree with not engaging them. At least not the trolls we have today.
But mod'ing them down? I like that. It means I don't have to wade through hundreds of trash messages to find anything worth reading.
And a clarification. "Troll" is NOT the same as "I have a different opinion".
Buzz word, buzzword, markup language.
I find it difficult to believe that a developer would NOT be able to pick up HTML5 in a weekend.
And if you've ever had to work with vendors when there's an outage you will know how bad that is.
Even with a single vendor the discussion usually goes like this:
Are you sure it isn't YOUR equipment?
We don't service YOUR equipment.
No one else is having a problem.
We aren't showing any problems on your line.
Have you tried rebooting your CSU/DSY and/or router?
Once you add a second and third vendor (the "cloud" vendor and whomever they use for their connectivity) you'll end up with a mass of denials.
It doesn't matter that your business is down for a day. They'll be happy to refund you one day of the cost of their service.
And once it FINALLY comes back up everyone involved will deny that any changes / repairs were performed on THEIR network.
First off, who cares what "Curtis Peterson says"?
Person who works for company producing X says everyone needs X.
If I move to "the cloud" then I have the ADDITIONAL worries of:
1. YOUR connection going down.
2. MY connection going down.
3. Getting access to YOUR facility to troubleshoot a problem. Physical / remote / whatever. Why isn't that server booting?
4. SOMEONE ELSE at your facility annoying the government so that the FBI / CIA / NSA / whatever takes ALL the servers.
5. How do I know that what I legally have to keep private really is private?
6. What happens to my systems when all of your CxO's decide that they need more yachts so they jack up the pricing?
Fuck you, Curtis Peterson. RingCentral is the LAST place I'd put my data. You don't even understand why people are avoiding "the cloud" but you're happy to make up stupid insults to describe them.
That doesn't matter. We now know that the NSA has backdoors in them. We highly suspect that the Chinese also have backdoors in them.
The question is how long it will take the other nations to start their own chip fabrication plants and build their own routers / switches / etc.
Since nothing from us can be trusted (even by us) then they should be building their own stuff which they can trust more than our stuff.
I think that all depends upon the traffic pattern at that time at that stop. One stop light where I used to live would convert to flashing yellow at 10pm and back to a stop light at 5am.
I don't agree. And with traffic laws it is all about predictability.
Everyone involved needs to have the same understanding of who has the right of way and why.
So?
There are only a couple of factors in play:
1. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of who has the right of way and in what order?
2. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of whether the intersection is "clear" for them?
And that is the problem. You are no longer predictable to the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians. You might stop or you might not stop.
No it doesn't. The same as it does not make it safer for pedestrians to run across the intersection just because they're on a crosswalk.
Whether it is safer depends upon whether the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians know where you are and have the same understanding of who has the right of way in what order.
The ONLY way that this change should have any positive change is if a driver would NOT have seen you when you were stopped BUT was far enough away that you could cross BEFORE he entered the intersection. In which case YOU need to work on YOUR visibility.
Not only that but from the summary:
Even if I was focused 100% for an 8 hour day that still wouldn't account for problems happening AFTER work.
Or to put it another way, why aren't fire fighters putting out fires 8 hours a day and then taking 16 hours off (not accounting for lunch and breaks).
Things do not happen on an orderly schedule. Tasks do not perfectly fit the time available.
And who says that browsing the Internet is not helping me be more productive?
This guy seems to have the assembly line mentality. If only the workers would stay focused we could speed up the assembly line by 15%.
I think that that depends upon the writer. It's easy to construct a story where the "slavery" is bad even if the "slaves" don't have free will. Depending upon what the writer wants to portray. Such as an over reliance on tech making us "less human" (decadent) than if we relied more upon ourselves and our families and neighbours. That was a recurring theme in Magnus, Robot figher.
Sometimes the robots are the slaves.
Sometimes the artificial intelligences are our overlords.
It all depends upon what story the writer wants to tell. Fear technology or fear human impulses.
No. None of them do. Most of them repeat the information about being mugged.
But there isn't a single one of those that specifies HOW he is a "genius" of any kind.
Can he look at a formula and intuitively draw it?
Can he look at a drawing and intuitively give the formula for it?
The simplest question on his "genius" is still unanswered. WHAT does he do that is "genius" level? HOW is it "genius" level?
Seconded.
There are 24 paragraphs in the first link. The ONLY mention of ANYTHING about his mathematical "ability" is in paragraph 9.
That's a "savant"? How many kids in high school understand pi?