Manipulating a small set of rules on a grand scale (eg. Go) is not proof of intelligence. Working with an enormous or possibly infinite rule set is what I would call real intelligence. Something like self driving that doesn't just stop when a truck is backing towards it.
I find these 'targeted ads' are either for something I've bought already, or for the exact same thing that I just looked at and didn't buy because I have already decided against it. In either case, I don't see how it is helping anyone.
I thought you had to be.a corrupt taxi driver to do something like this. Hm, I guess stuff like this happens in 'the free market' after all. Go figure.
That sucks.. If you can get linux on them, then you might be able to compile squeezelite which is a headless squeezebox slave; admittedly it is a longshot though.
Personally I agree with everything he said. I just got an Epson printer and it doesn't work with my Redhat laptop.. No linux drivers available at all. Sound works sometimes, is choppy and fragmented other times in any distribution (I have more than just Redhat). Not sure what you think he is lying about.
What happens when a person suffers an injury to their face? A serious black eye, swelling, etc? Do they get locked out of their phone at a time when that's probably the last thing they want to have to deal with?
It's a pain in the ass entering the passcode every time you want to access your phone. Of course, face id sounds like a pain in the ass too so there was not really anything solved.
I can't say I understand what the point is. The problem with touch ID was that it was clumsy and slow, so they replaced it with something that is more expensive and clumsy and slow? Doesn't seem logical at all. It seems to be something that should have been held back until it actually worked smoothly and therefore solved the original problem.
Logitech Squeezebox is still around. Install squeeze server on any PC in your home, and squeeze player on the iPods, attach to radios whether it be through the aux in or an old one with a dock, done. Remote control with Orange Squeeze on your phone, or though the Squeezebox console.
Governments should maintain a certain quality of living and upward mobility potential for citizens. In this regard people are owed jobs. If wealth trends towards being concentrated towards fewer and fewer people, the government isn't doing its job.
Automated driving has to handle all the situations that happen on a road, not just the ones that happen 90% of the time. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if people are out there breaking the law, I don't care if they're driving the wrong way down a one way street, automated vehicles will be a source of danger until they are smart enough to deal with that. If it is a hazard that humans would cope with and avoid, so must an automated vehicle. This means it can't just 'stop' if it gets confused. This means it can't *get* confused. Yes I know humans get confused from time to time as well, but they usually do better than becoming a deer in the headlights. I can't put it any more plainly for you.
This is why I just don't go to concerts. I would like to from time to time, but it just seems like each and every person in a seat is getting ripped off. I won't subject myself and my family to that. I hope that someone things of a fair and equitable way some day.
The problem is that capitalism provides no place for this kind of thinking. You totally hit the nail on the head, but there is no system in place to support it.
Well there are very few large trucks in suburbia for one thing. Signs, lane markings and signals are probably going to be in good condition for another.
I'm not sure how you can know that, since infinite scenarios have not been tested. A very small percentage of scenarios have been tested, and most either had a human behind the wheel to correct for it or was only allowed to operate only in the very simplest of circumstances. Now they do let an automated vehicle 'out in the wild' and it lasts two hours before causing an accident, and some how you deduce from all of this that it was just 'unlucky'? Just wow.
You are making the assumption that the situation allowed the truck to be caught in the vehicle's sensor in time to stop earlier; a physical change to the vehicle may be needed. Even if the bus could have stopped earlier, it now knows how to handle the specific situation of a truck coming slowly from the left, but will it handle slowly from the right, or slightly quicker from the left? How many other variables are there to this that will need to be specifically explained to a computer, and will the human programmers be able to account for every slight alteration that may also end up in an accident?
The point is that they have to include in their parameters the possibility that humans may break laws. If this is so confusing for them that hey 'just stop' they will very definitely do more harm than good.
Because it is largely the opinion if the robot handled it like a human there would not have been an accident? in what world is it better to have an accident than to avoid one, regardless of whose fault it was.
I don't think truck driving would be possible if they didn't bend the laws periodically. Driving a truck and maneuvering a huge vehicle into the nooks and crannies and blind spots where they put loading docks pretty much relies on humans using their heads and driving around them or waiting for them from time to time.
Slashdot Mirror
Manipulating a small set of rules on a grand scale (eg. Go) is not proof of intelligence. Working with an enormous or possibly infinite rule set is what I would call real intelligence. Something like self driving that doesn't just stop when a truck is backing towards it.
I find these 'targeted ads' are either for something I've bought already, or for the exact same thing that I just looked at and didn't buy because I have already decided against it. In either case, I don't see how it is helping anyone.
I thought you had to be.a corrupt taxi driver to do something like this. Hm, I guess stuff like this happens in 'the free market' after all. Go figure.
It would be cool if you didn't have to touch the phone, but you still do. So if you're touching the phone anyway, might as well use the print.
That sucks.. If you can get linux on them, then you might be able to compile squeezelite which is a headless squeezebox slave; admittedly it is a longshot though.
Personally I agree with everything he said. I just got an Epson printer and it doesn't work with my Redhat laptop.. No linux drivers available at all. Sound works sometimes, is choppy and fragmented other times in any distribution (I have more than just Redhat). Not sure what you think he is lying about.
What happens when a person suffers an injury to their face? A serious black eye, swelling, etc? Do they get locked out of their phone at a time when that's probably the last thing they want to have to deal with?
It's a pain in the ass entering the passcode every time you want to access your phone. Of course, face id sounds like a pain in the ass too so there was not really anything solved.
I can't say I understand what the point is. The problem with touch ID was that it was clumsy and slow, so they replaced it with something that is more expensive and clumsy and slow? Doesn't seem logical at all. It seems to be something that should have been held back until it actually worked smoothly and therefore solved the original problem.
Logitech Squeezebox is still around. Install squeeze server on any PC in your home, and squeeze player on the iPods, attach to radios whether it be through the aux in or an old one with a dock, done. Remote control with Orange Squeeze on your phone, or though the Squeezebox console.
Governments should maintain a certain quality of living and upward mobility potential for citizens. In this regard people are owed jobs. If wealth trends towards being concentrated towards fewer and fewer people, the government isn't doing its job.
Automated driving has to handle all the situations that happen on a road, not just the ones that happen 90% of the time. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if people are out there breaking the law, I don't care if they're driving the wrong way down a one way street, automated vehicles will be a source of danger until they are smart enough to deal with that. If it is a hazard that humans would cope with and avoid, so must an automated vehicle. This means it can't just 'stop' if it gets confused. This means it can't *get* confused. Yes I know humans get confused from time to time as well, but they usually do better than becoming a deer in the headlights. I can't put it any more plainly for you.
This is why I just don't go to concerts. I would like to from time to time, but it just seems like each and every person in a seat is getting ripped off. I won't subject myself and my family to that. I hope that someone things of a fair and equitable way some day.
The problem is that capitalism provides no place for this kind of thinking. You totally hit the nail on the head, but there is no system in place to support it.
Well there are very few large trucks in suburbia for one thing. Signs, lane markings and signals are probably going to be in good condition for another.
I'm not sure how you can know that, since infinite scenarios have not been tested. A very small percentage of scenarios have been tested, and most either had a human behind the wheel to correct for it or was only allowed to operate only in the very simplest of circumstances. Now they do let an automated vehicle 'out in the wild' and it lasts two hours before causing an accident, and some how you deduce from all of this that it was just 'unlucky'? Just wow.
I'm surprised no one has responded, "people want to do it, so it's ok" yet.
you are literally insane if you desire to win the race to the bottom
Judging by this site, a lot of Americans value exactly that type of freedom and will fight adamantly for it. It boggles my mind.
You are commenting under an article about a self driving car not anticipating a human's actions, so.. fail.
You not only made it impossible to drive a large truck on 80% of city roads, but probably destroyed the economy as well.
You are making the assumption that the situation allowed the truck to be caught in the vehicle's sensor in time to stop earlier; a physical change to the vehicle may be needed. Even if the bus could have stopped earlier, it now knows how to handle the specific situation of a truck coming slowly from the left, but will it handle slowly from the right, or slightly quicker from the left? How many other variables are there to this that will need to be specifically explained to a computer, and will the human programmers be able to account for every slight alteration that may also end up in an accident?
The point is that they have to include in their parameters the possibility that humans may break laws. If this is so confusing for them that hey 'just stop' they will very definitely do more harm than good.
Because trucks are what make the economy work.
Because it is largely the opinion if the robot handled it like a human there would not have been an accident? in what world is it better to have an accident than to avoid one, regardless of whose fault it was.
I don't think truck driving would be possible if they didn't bend the laws periodically. Driving a truck and maneuvering a huge vehicle into the nooks and crannies and blind spots where they put loading docks pretty much relies on humans using their heads and driving around them or waiting for them from time to time.