If I were a drug company, I'd be irate at self driving cars getting a free pass while I have all kinds of crappy FDA requirements to meet for every drug that goes to market. If I were an airline manufacturer, I'd be irate at all the testing I have to do for every new model. These companies have more than enough money to set up realistic testing campuses. This is all about profits.
On the other hand, they may just fail to see 67% of markings at construction zones and plow through anyone and anything that was on the road as the map has it marked.
Well I could find no evidence of it being a well handling car. I saw lots of praise about the traction control, but that isn't really the car, that is the software in the car compensating. Any track tester will turn that off immediately. If it can't be tested on a track, I'm not sure how you determine how well it handles.
If we can't see inside their thought process, how do we know they aren't simply breaking down into sending total random gibberish to one another? Is there any evidence they are able to convey concepts with this new language?
Well I've seen a lot of comments similar to "it's a drag car, but not a track car" and "consider that Tesla is a new company". So the model S isn't very good around the track. They can't even get it around most serious tracks because the battery overheats and goes into power saving mode.
The thing that people like you don't understand, and probably still won't understand after I write this so I'm not really even going to try, is that many types of help doesn't exist unless people are compelled to do it across the board. It is literally the only way for it to work.
Agreed, this is a prime example of why people don't understand why autonomous driving is so difficult. They equate driving in the real world to be the same as a closed course, where some child isn't going to be wandering into it idly.
Except there is no one even attempting to use deep learning for autonomous driving right now. They're doing it using rule-base learning, which means someone needs to program in each of the million ways a stop sign can look like and still be a legal stop sign, or the billions of ways that a construction zone can be set up. Not to mention totally ad hoc things such as snow clearing or other unexpected obstacles.
Handouts no, but should governments should absolutely have the responsibility to try to create and retain economic prosperity in as many places as possible, as evenly as possible. If the people must move, then it is the government that failed.
Except people aren't robots who just wander to where they should logically be. The word 'home' has a real psychological significance for people. I'm not going to say that it takes a total sociopath to move away but it certainly requires you to be less detached from your surroundings and family than a lot of people are, if not somewhat selfish.
So a private organization making a choice for themselves is good, and the government being altruistic and doing something to help a minority live and thrive in society is bad. That's a really messed up set values you have there. No wonder corporations run the American government.
I don't see the difference. In both cases some people need more than others, so the people that need less cover for the people that need more. The only reason why there is a mandate is to make up for the critical flaw in capitalism, which is that it has to be profitable for someone for it to happen. There are many things that are good for people as a whole that are simply not profitable so we need regulation to ensure these things exist.
Don't see why it is good when private business does it, but bad when governments do it.
Personally I just go into a room, close the door, and tell them to leave me alone. It's still nicer knowing they are close by and I can take my breaks with them etc.
The 'average' cost of shipping is baked into the price.
I always find it funny when there is a conversation about providing handicapped services in a city, everyone is all up in arms about the fact that *they* have to support people who have more expensive requirements than them. Yet here we have everyone praising Amazon Prime when that is exactly how it works.
Society is not sustainable if everyone moves into large cities. For me, I wouldn't live anywhere with more than 30 min travel time to work. Society turns bad once a place becomes too crowded. Houses become too expensive and people become miserable trying to afford them. It's probably a big reason why so many Slashdotters are so damn grumpy.
I find that working from home is better than the office if you have very strong organization and communication skills. I do it. My managers do it. It works. If the managers and team leads have good communication skills, anyone under them that don't can be kept in line.
I"d mod this up but I already commented. Guys like this are exactly why I like to work from home. Some people are the ones that have to go to other people, and some people are the ones that do the work and help others do their work at the same time. I'm the latter, so the more people must go through instant messaging to get to me, the more control I have over my day.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were a drug company, I'd be irate at self driving cars getting a free pass while I have all kinds of crappy FDA requirements to meet for every drug that goes to market. If I were an airline manufacturer, I'd be irate at all the testing I have to do for every new model. These companies have more than enough money to set up realistic testing campuses. This is all about profits.
On the other hand, they may just fail to see 67% of markings at construction zones and plow through anyone and anything that was on the road as the map has it marked.
At some point you have to put vehicles in the hands of customers before you're really sure whether they're actually going kill people.
FIFY
Yes and on one side of the line is a person that cares about people less fortunate than them and on the other side not.
Bingo.
Well I could find no evidence of it being a well handling car. I saw lots of praise about the traction control, but that isn't really the car, that is the software in the car compensating. Any track tester will turn that off immediately. If it can't be tested on a track, I'm not sure how you determine how well it handles.
If we can't see inside their thought process, how do we know they aren't simply breaking down into sending total random gibberish to one another? Is there any evidence they are able to convey concepts with this new language?
Well I've seen a lot of comments similar to "it's a drag car, but not a track car" and "consider that Tesla is a new company". So the model S isn't very good around the track. They can't even get it around most serious tracks because the battery overheats and goes into power saving mode.
Also those vehicles handle much better than a Tesla.
The thing that people like you don't understand, and probably still won't understand after I write this so I'm not really even going to try, is that many types of help doesn't exist unless people are compelled to do it across the board. It is literally the only way for it to work.
Agreed, this is a prime example of why people don't understand why autonomous driving is so difficult. They equate driving in the real world to be the same as a closed course, where some child isn't going to be wandering into it idly.
Except there is no one even attempting to use deep learning for autonomous driving right now. They're doing it using rule-base learning, which means someone needs to program in each of the million ways a stop sign can look like and still be a legal stop sign, or the billions of ways that a construction zone can be set up. Not to mention totally ad hoc things such as snow clearing or other unexpected obstacles.
Handouts no, but should governments should absolutely have the responsibility to try to create and retain economic prosperity in as many places as possible, as evenly as possible. If the people must move, then it is the government that failed.
Except people aren't robots who just wander to where they should logically be. The word 'home' has a real psychological significance for people. I'm not going to say that it takes a total sociopath to move away but it certainly requires you to be less detached from your surroundings and family than a lot of people are, if not somewhat selfish.
So a private organization making a choice for themselves is good, and the government being altruistic and doing something to help a minority live and thrive in society is bad. That's a really messed up set values you have there. No wonder corporations run the American government.
I don't see the difference. In both cases some people need more than others, so the people that need less cover for the people that need more. The only reason why there is a mandate is to make up for the critical flaw in capitalism, which is that it has to be profitable for someone for it to happen. There are many things that are good for people as a whole that are simply not profitable so we need regulation to ensure these things exist.
Don't see why it is good when private business does it, but bad when governments do it.
Personally I just go into a room, close the door, and tell them to leave me alone. It's still nicer knowing they are close by and I can take my breaks with them etc.
The 'average' cost of shipping is baked into the price.
I always find it funny when there is a conversation about providing handicapped services in a city, everyone is all up in arms about the fact that *they* have to support people who have more expensive requirements than them. Yet here we have everyone praising Amazon Prime when that is exactly how it works.
Your comment makes perfect sense, except access to most of the things you mentioned are protected by law in most first world nations.
Society is not sustainable if everyone moves into large cities. For me, I wouldn't live anywhere with more than 30 min travel time to work. Society turns bad once a place becomes too crowded. Houses become too expensive and people become miserable trying to afford them. It's probably a big reason why so many Slashdotters are so damn grumpy.
If that's what makes you feel better. Been working from home since 2011 and my company is increasing it, not going back.
And if you stay good enough and productive at your job, you will never be offshored.
I find that working from home is better than the office if you have very strong organization and communication skills. I do it. My managers do it. It works. If the managers and team leads have good communication skills, anyone under them that don't can be kept in line.
This. If I didn't want my wife and family around I wouldn't have married my wife and start a family.
I"d mod this up but I already commented. Guys like this are exactly why I like to work from home. Some people are the ones that have to go to other people, and some people are the ones that do the work and help others do their work at the same time. I'm the latter, so the more people must go through instant messaging to get to me, the more control I have over my day.