I recall reading this article a few years ago while staying at my sister's place in Merced and wondering if this could be done for PR . . . . I guess it can. Cool.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/n...
It seems to me that if you were to forgo the complexity of automated driving on the byways, highway-only algorithms and equipment would be much easier to deploy. If I owned a shipping company, either locating my endpoints near a major highway or having a human driver take over at waypoints located near a major highway would still make this option extremely advantageous. I've said for a long time that I would much rather be driving next to an automated vehicle that only experiences an "incidents" once every 100,000 miles or so, verses next to my fellow humans who -- these days -- seem to experience "incidents" every few miles.
I've been mostly pleased with Feedly and I even pay them the $5 per month that I and thousands of other's offered to pay Google to keep Reader alive. My motivation is split between an appreciation for a smooth migration of my feeds and decent product and, honestly, partly out of spite that Google would not take my money.
Assuming the 24K number is correct and all of those users are on the same plan (do they have more than one plan?), that represents nearly $1.5 million dollars per year, if my math is correct. It still puzzles me why Google wouldn't accept this direct funding and keep Reader going.
I heard in one of the presidential speeches that the need for foot solders is waning and more highly trained technical personnel is waxing.
So, to take your hypothetical question even further . . . what happens when 20% or even 50% of the workforce is no longer needed to produce what we all need to survive or even thrive? How do the economics work out then?
" . . . just like America's manufacturing has been hollowed out by offshoring and globalization . .."
America's manufacturing "jobs" have been hollowed out more by our automation efforts than off-shoring and globalization. America's manufacturing output is up over the last couple of decades, but for every 100+ factory floor workers you now have a single highly trained technician watching over and tweaking the equipment.
I'm not so interested in recording all of my life, but I'd love to have at least a 30 minute buffer of recording going at all times. Then when something cool happens, I can tap my Google Googles, or whatever the tool turns out to be, and have that bit saved.
The post mentioned "The jets [...] shoot off at supersonic speeds..." While determining supersonic speed requires not being in a vacuum, once you know what speed supersonic-speed is, can it not be used as a measuring stick for comparison? If I'm moving at a snails pace, I'm likely not crawling across the ground, in fact, I could be doing any number of non-transportive activities that could be claimed to be at a snails pace.
When you consider the size of the earth and the moon and the actual distance they are apart from each other, even if you account for the gravitation-well the earth could provide for passing objects, the earth provides very little shielding for the moon.
Great example of the slippery slope logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). Going from me having that option to you, my family, or the government having the option to end my life requires much more than just an assumption that could occur.
Only one error in 100,000 miles -- I'll take that in a heartbeat over the thoughtless people I drive beside each day. I guarantee the best drivers have more than 1 bug in 100K miles.
"Most skeptics reject everything outright"
This may very well be true of most skeptics you know, but my definition of skeptics is different. My definition, and the skeptics I know, more closely align with the definition of skepticism associated with philosophy (second definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Definition) or the one just following for scientific skepticism (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Scientific_skepticism). They tend not to reject everything outright, but to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is in place to make a judgement.
Two very powerful predictors of future health risks are family history and some forms of genetic testing. However, thanks to a fairly recent regulation change, GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008), which is designed to prevent insurers from using this type of data improperly (i.e., limiting/dropping coverage or adjusting premiums), insurers are now very hesitant to collect any of that type of information. Sounds good, right? Well, consider that many companies and individuals utilize Wellness programs which are typically provided by those same insurance companies. The Wellness programs attempt to identify and stratify members based on available information in order to provide coaching and guidance on how to best mitigate current and future risks. Available information many times no longer includes these two fairly powerful predictors. Wellness programs do help to reduce both the employer's and the insurance companies long term costs, but the also benefit the individual members. I, personally, want to know as much as possible about my potential future risks and what, if anything, I can do about it.
Hey, if something works for you, great -- even if it doesn't have the proper evidence to support it. Everyone needs a good placebo in their back pocket. Hell, there's even a remote/outside/small/minuscule chance that something about you is different than the rest of us and said treatment does actually work on you in some unknown way. Great. But really, I don't care how far out and strange a treatment may sound, it can be tested, but that takes time and money. People truly interested in helping their fellow humans out will spend the time and money to do the proper testing and those just trying to make a buck off the gullibility of our fallible human minds won't. Where do you want to put your trust?
Don't we all do this? Maybe not on the same level, but everyone makes mistakes. All I ask is that you correct your mistake and learn from it. How many projects, business decisions, or other collaborative efforts "get it entirely right the first time"? Failing is the better part of success.
> "They're interested in getting the most effort out of their employees for the least possible reward."
That's because we all keep shopping at Wal-Mart. We all want the most we can for our money. Employer's are just meeting the demands of their customers. Since we, "the customer," want as much as possible for the least amount of money as possible, employers must cut costs to meet that demand . . . or die off and leave a more competitive company (one which likely pays it's employees less) to fill our need for cheap products/services.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the ability to process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way trump the effects of social media's dark side?
I recall reading this article a few years ago while staying at my sister's place in Merced and wondering if this could be done for PR . . . . I guess it can. Cool. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/n...
It seems to me that if you were to forgo the complexity of automated driving on the byways, highway-only algorithms and equipment would be much easier to deploy. If I owned a shipping company, either locating my endpoints near a major highway or having a human driver take over at waypoints located near a major highway would still make this option extremely advantageous. I've said for a long time that I would much rather be driving next to an automated vehicle that only experiences an "incidents" once every 100,000 miles or so, verses next to my fellow humans who -- these days -- seem to experience "incidents" every few miles.
I've been mostly pleased with Feedly and I even pay them the $5 per month that I and thousands of other's offered to pay Google to keep Reader alive. My motivation is split between an appreciation for a smooth migration of my feeds and decent product and, honestly, partly out of spite that Google would not take my money. Assuming the 24K number is correct and all of those users are on the same plan (do they have more than one plan?), that represents nearly $1.5 million dollars per year, if my math is correct. It still puzzles me why Google wouldn't accept this direct funding and keep Reader going.
I've heard this conjecture before, and it certainly seems to make sense. Can anyone point to any evidence that this might be true?
Great question.
I heard in one of the presidential speeches that the need for foot solders is waning and more highly trained technical personnel is waxing.
So, to take your hypothetical question even further . . . what happens when 20% or even 50% of the workforce is no longer needed to produce what we all need to survive or even thrive? How do the economics work out then?
" . . . just like America's manufacturing has been hollowed out by offshoring and globalization . . ."
America's manufacturing "jobs" have been hollowed out more by our automation efforts than off-shoring and globalization. America's manufacturing output is up over the last couple of decades, but for every 100+ factory floor workers you now have a single highly trained technician watching over and tweaking the equipment.
I'm not so interested in recording all of my life, but I'd love to have at least a 30 minute buffer of recording going at all times. Then when something cool happens, I can tap my Google Googles, or whatever the tool turns out to be, and have that bit saved.
Hard to find, but worth the hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cloud
Good question, but it's not really an issue for Dropbox as that service maintains full local copies on each of the computers I have on my account.
If you haven't listen to this podcast from This American Life yet, you should. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
The post mentioned "The jets [...] shoot off at supersonic speeds..." While determining supersonic speed requires not being in a vacuum, once you know what speed supersonic-speed is, can it not be used as a measuring stick for comparison? If I'm moving at a snails pace, I'm likely not crawling across the ground, in fact, I could be doing any number of non-transportive activities that could be claimed to be at a snails pace.
When you consider the size of the earth and the moon and the actual distance they are apart from each other, even if you account for the gravitation-well the earth could provide for passing objects, the earth provides very little shielding for the moon.
Great example of the slippery slope logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). Going from me having that option to you, my family, or the government having the option to end my life requires much more than just an assumption that could occur.
I might have to agree with you on that one!
Thanks nedlohs.
Funny how the ratio of Anonymous Coward comments to logged in user comments seems to have spiked on this thread.
Only one error in 100,000 miles -- I'll take that in a heartbeat over the thoughtless people I drive beside each day. I guarantee the best drivers have more than 1 bug in 100K miles.
"Most skeptics reject everything outright" This may very well be true of most skeptics you know, but my definition of skeptics is different. My definition, and the skeptics I know, more closely align with the definition of skepticism associated with philosophy (second definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Definition) or the one just following for scientific skepticism (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Scientific_skepticism). They tend not to reject everything outright, but to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is in place to make a judgement.
Two very powerful predictors of future health risks are family history and some forms of genetic testing. However, thanks to a fairly recent regulation change, GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008), which is designed to prevent insurers from using this type of data improperly (i.e., limiting/dropping coverage or adjusting premiums), insurers are now very hesitant to collect any of that type of information. Sounds good, right? Well, consider that many companies and individuals utilize Wellness programs which are typically provided by those same insurance companies. The Wellness programs attempt to identify and stratify members based on available information in order to provide coaching and guidance on how to best mitigate current and future risks. Available information many times no longer includes these two fairly powerful predictors. Wellness programs do help to reduce both the employer's and the insurance companies long term costs, but the also benefit the individual members. I, personally, want to know as much as possible about my potential future risks and what, if anything, I can do about it.
Hey, if something works for you, great -- even if it doesn't have the proper evidence to support it. Everyone needs a good placebo in their back pocket. Hell, there's even a remote/outside/small/minuscule chance that something about you is different than the rest of us and said treatment does actually work on you in some unknown way. Great. But really, I don't care how far out and strange a treatment may sound, it can be tested, but that takes time and money. People truly interested in helping their fellow humans out will spend the time and money to do the proper testing and those just trying to make a buck off the gullibility of our fallible human minds won't. Where do you want to put your trust?
Don't we all do this? Maybe not on the same level, but everyone makes mistakes. All I ask is that you correct your mistake and learn from it. How many projects, business decisions, or other collaborative efforts "get it entirely right the first time"? Failing is the better part of success.
> "They're interested in getting the most effort out of their employees for the least possible reward."
That's because we all keep shopping at Wal-Mart. We all want the most we can for our money. Employer's are just meeting the demands of their customers. Since we, "the customer," want as much as possible for the least amount of money as possible, employers must cut costs to meet that demand . . . or die off and leave a more competitive company (one which likely pays it's employees less) to fill our need for cheap products/services.
Surf using a virtual machine and revert to a stored snapshot upon close. Problem solved.
(helps to preview) Here's the fixed link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html/