If they don't believe you and are telling you you're lying and you don't have the right text in your account, I don't think they're going to give a hot clue what screenshot of some website you have printed out. Your confirmation number IS supposed to be the proof.
I registered a hotel stay on one of those sites now. A very nice hotel but downtown, and valet parking came as part of the 'bundle'. The front desk refused to give this to us. They said we didn't have the right text in our record. We fought and lost. We talked about what we wanted to do and decided we didn't have much of a choice and took their 5% off 'sucks to be you' deal plus paying for valet parking. When I stood in line to get our room, I heard the exact same argument happening at another booth. I guess if I really wanted to raise a stink I should have pulled aside the other person and stood there waiting as our group got bigger, but I was there for vacation with my family.
Seeing an optical illusion doesn't affect a human's training for the rest of their life. They find the original course of belief again though other knowledge of the world. This is almost like being brain damaged simply by seeing an optical illusion.
My city can't afford to keep the potholes out of the streets. They're not going to be embedding electronics into the streets any time soon. It's also very convenient to miss the fact that these will need to drive with humans for the next 50 years. They will have to drive like the humans do, which means obeying speed limits and more importantly moving at the common speed of traffic. An artificial speed limit chosen by the car itself will just make driving unworkable for humans once some of these are on the road.
These people may annoy you but you're missing the point. The fact is, you get around these people without causing a further issue. Automated cars have already shown that they are very poor at dealing with humans when they do unexpected things.
That's not the worst part. The worst part is that this article demonstrates that they may be smart one day and doing completely stupid things the next. In millions of cars.
I know my city has no fucking money to support their public transportation system properly. Like hell will they spend money on this, even if it costs $10 per sign.
What you said to a certain extent is very true. However, someone still has to make the products that the socialist healthcare system uses. These aren't all crown corporations. In fact, many of these may be American companies in the case of Canada.
The people who wait in emergency rooms are the ones who can wait. If they can wait, often they shouldn't be there. My wife has received great treatment for two serious medical issues and it hit our pocketbook but it didn't bankrupt us. I will happily wait in an emergency room, it won't kill me.
So what is left for humans are the areas of the economy that very few people are willing to pay for. It's already fairly common knowledge that a general arts degree ain't going to cut it. Nothing about AI is going to make that a better career; if anything, since there will be greater concentration of wealth, less people will be able to afford the arts and the rise in ticket prices won't cut it. But I digress.
Automated driving needs real AI to be truly as safe is being marketed. It's that simple. Sure some jobs can be done better with 'a better algorithm' but that's just an algorithm design issue, don't call it AI. Many human replacing things will need strong AI. You just hold the common belief that 'most' things can be done with these kinds of algorithms. I think you are drastically overlooking the intricacies of how complicated most problems are, it's the human thing to do.
People are 'better off' if they are happier. There is no other measurement. Are you saying I could consider myself worse off today because the cure to cancer might be found 15 years from now?
So if the stats are so easy to remember, why don't humans do as good as the computer? Because it is harder for a human to use them effectively than you are making it sound. But he ability for a computer to use them effectively is no surprise.
>>> First, humans had access to the same stats; if not, how did the AI get access to them? Magic?
Humans figured out the stats by hand and fed them to the machine, thus leaving the machine nothing to do but calculations. An AI machine should be expected to figure out these stays (and determine their usefulness) on its own.
>>> Second, AI is not about teaching a computer to think and learn like a human.
Well we already have AI then. Why are we still studying it?
>>> What AIs do is make decisions based on incomplete knowledge.
No, that's a challenging computer problem but not the commonly held opinion of what AI is.
It kind of defeats the point of AI if you preload it with all kinds of statistics a human wouldn't have access to while playing a game. The point of AI is to make a computer think and learn like a human, not to prove that a computer can beat a human. We already know computers are better at calculations than humans.
Low interest rates don't matter, because the house market quickly takes up the slack. People buy houses based on the mortgage they can get, not based on what price they want to pay and that drives prices up. Then you have a worse problem if interest rates do go up, even a bit.
1. But it didn't affect anyone here, and there are always wars, maybe one with Korea
2. And what has changed?
3. And most people were happy with that and then had more time to get off the couch and do something
4. People had more time to sit in a cool bath.
5. People don't recognize the old way was bad until they have the new way.
6. See number 5.
7. Yet most of them got a job and were able to survive... with less effort and expense!
8. Again, people accept the way things are as long as there isn't a massive decline in life expectancy.
You have to remember, if you were living in 1967 you wouldn't miss the things that don't happen until 2000 so you can't factor that into not being happier back then.
I don't really see any way that autonomy changes the game in such a significant way that it will make bus or a taxi be able to compete with personal ownership once removing the driver. The advantage to personal ownership is that you have a vehicle in your driveway that will take you anywhere you want to go immediately. and the vehicle is set up how you want it. Autonomous services will always have some sort of waiting involved; a service simply won't have enough cards ready near every person who needs a ride, especially in peak times.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't believe you and are telling you you're lying and you don't have the right text in your account, I don't think they're going to give a hot clue what screenshot of some website you have printed out. Your confirmation number IS supposed to be the proof.
I registered a hotel stay on one of those sites now. A very nice hotel but downtown, and valet parking came as part of the 'bundle'. The front desk refused to give this to us. They said we didn't have the right text in our record. We fought and lost. We talked about what we wanted to do and decided we didn't have much of a choice and took their 5% off 'sucks to be you' deal plus paying for valet parking. When I stood in line to get our room, I heard the exact same argument happening at another booth. I guess if I really wanted to raise a stink I should have pulled aside the other person and stood there waiting as our group got bigger, but I was there for vacation with my family.
Seeing an optical illusion doesn't affect a human's training for the rest of their life. They find the original course of belief again though other knowledge of the world. This is almost like being brain damaged simply by seeing an optical illusion.
Must be nice living in a city with cash to burn on embedded weather-proofed electronics in every street sign.
My city can't afford to keep the potholes out of the streets. They're not going to be embedding electronics into the streets any time soon. It's also very convenient to miss the fact that these will need to drive with humans for the next 50 years. They will have to drive like the humans do, which means obeying speed limits and more importantly moving at the common speed of traffic. An artificial speed limit chosen by the car itself will just make driving unworkable for humans once some of these are on the road.
These people may annoy you but you're missing the point. The fact is, you get around these people without causing a further issue. Automated cars have already shown that they are very poor at dealing with humans when they do unexpected things.
That's not the worst part. The worst part is that this article demonstrates that they may be smart one day and doing completely stupid things the next. In millions of cars.
I know my city has no fucking money to support their public transportation system properly. Like hell will they spend money on this, even if it costs $10 per sign.
BINGO!
What you said to a certain extent is very true. However, someone still has to make the products that the socialist healthcare system uses. These aren't all crown corporations. In fact, many of these may be American companies in the case of Canada.
The people who wait in emergency rooms are the ones who can wait. If they can wait, often they shouldn't be there. My wife has received great treatment for two serious medical issues and it hit our pocketbook but it didn't bankrupt us. I will happily wait in an emergency room, it won't kill me.
So what is left for humans are the areas of the economy that very few people are willing to pay for. It's already fairly common knowledge that a general arts degree ain't going to cut it. Nothing about AI is going to make that a better career; if anything, since there will be greater concentration of wealth, less people will be able to afford the arts and the rise in ticket prices won't cut it. But I digress.
Automated driving needs real AI to be truly as safe is being marketed. It's that simple. Sure some jobs can be done better with 'a better algorithm' but that's just an algorithm design issue, don't call it AI. Many human replacing things will need strong AI. You just hold the common belief that 'most' things can be done with these kinds of algorithms. I think you are drastically overlooking the intricacies of how complicated most problems are, it's the human thing to do.
People are 'better off' if they are happier. There is no other measurement. Are you saying I could consider myself worse off today because the cure to cancer might be found 15 years from now?
So if the stats are so easy to remember, why don't humans do as good as the computer? Because it is harder for a human to use them effectively than you are making it sound. But he ability for a computer to use them effectively is no surprise.
>>> First, humans had access to the same stats; if not, how did the AI get access to them? Magic?
Humans figured out the stats by hand and fed them to the machine, thus leaving the machine nothing to do but calculations. An AI machine should be expected to figure out these stays (and determine their usefulness) on its own.
>>> Second, AI is not about teaching a computer to think and learn like a human.
Well we already have AI then. Why are we still studying it?
>>> What AIs do is make decisions based on incomplete knowledge.
No, that's a challenging computer problem but not the commonly held opinion of what AI is.
It kind of defeats the point of AI if you preload it with all kinds of statistics a human wouldn't have access to while playing a game. The point of AI is to make a computer think and learn like a human, not to prove that a computer can beat a human. We already know computers are better at calculations than humans.
It just goes to show, the wealthy really do support their own.
You just think it's easy because you're human and take for granted how very subtle the visual cues are.
Low interest rates don't matter, because the house market quickly takes up the slack. People buy houses based on the mortgage they can get, not based on what price they want to pay and that drives prices up. Then you have a worse problem if interest rates do go up, even a bit.
1. But it didn't affect anyone here, and there are always wars, maybe one with Korea
2. And what has changed?
3. And most people were happy with that and then had more time to get off the couch and do something
4. People had more time to sit in a cool bath.
5. People don't recognize the old way was bad until they have the new way.
6. See number 5.
7. Yet most of them got a job and were able to survive... with less effort and expense!
8. Again, people accept the way things are as long as there isn't a massive decline in life expectancy.
You have to remember, if you were living in 1967 you wouldn't miss the things that don't happen until 2000 so you can't factor that into not being happier back then.
They're expecting AI to be able to tell the difference between an under-aged nude and an adult nude? Wow that's going to take a long time.
I don't really see any way that autonomy changes the game in such a significant way that it will make bus or a taxi be able to compete with personal ownership once removing the driver. The advantage to personal ownership is that you have a vehicle in your driveway that will take you anywhere you want to go immediately. and the vehicle is set up how you want it. Autonomous services will always have some sort of waiting involved; a service simply won't have enough cards ready near every person who needs a ride, especially in peak times.
My kids had watched maybe 10 commercials by the time they were 8. We just made sure we showed them ad-free kids channels and videos we had purchased.
I think you're confused.
Ok then I guess you didn't mean to imply not using it was any kind of solution.