I was fine when they took away rotary phones... because there was a better replacement.
I was fine when they took away floppies... because there was a replacement.
There is no suitable replacement to corded headphones. Bluetooth is compressed, you have to rely on the sound driver in the headphone, and you have to charge them.
There was a replacement technology for DVDs that offered benefits with almost no downsides. Bluetooth only offers almost every downside with regards to listening to music.
Personally the car is the only place I listen, so that's usually where I care the most about the sound. Car speakers tend to have a lot more fidelity than you're average home stereo; in the vehicles I buy, at least.
This one is a pretty big leap. Most people who buy headphones I want them compatible with everything. I have some devices I plug into that are 10 years old and will still be used long into the future, and this means an audio cable. While I have an audio cable anyway, why would I want to pay a premium for in-headset bluetooth and at the cost of having to charge them all the time. When flash drives came out, USB was already prevelent and that was fine. I haven't looked for a thunderbolt hub for quite awhile but last I checked they were still a lot harder to find than usb hubs. Finally, I swear at apple every time I have to find my displayport adapter. I still have three working VGA monitors and the macbook is so far the only PC I have without a VGA or HDMI port.
I'm in Canada, my house insurance is $200 annually, and insurance for a 13 year old Bonneville is $1200 annually. I believe that is for $2 million liability. It is also mandatory to have insurance to drive.
No.. People will not get into accidents. The AI is driving, not the people. If I were riding a taxi, and the driver hit a bus, would you hold me responsible for the accident?
You are not liable for your house, and that is why house insurance is much, much less expensive. Why would anyone accept liability for an AI car? My the definition of AI you cannot be at fault. Literally, my house insurance costs 1/100th of what my vehicle insurance costs.
As long as the requirement for C) exists, AI cars will likely be more dangerous than regular cars not less. Drivers who have not been paying attention to their surroundings for the previous 15 minutes will make bad candidates to suddenly pass the controls off to. Better to just have them involved for the full ride.
In which case an automated car becomes a game of Russian roulette... no thanks. I'll use a manual car and drive 9 mph everywhere if I really want to be safe.
So basically, Watson is used for nothing more than speech to text conversion? What colossal overkill. I suspect said engineer couldn't come up with a real idea but just really wanted to use Watson for something.
Google has the right to charge whatever they want for the vehicles and it is up to the consumer to determine if they are worth it on the market. Google can put part of that money towards the liability if they like. As a consumer, I only feel I should pay for the risk of the vehicle having to be replaced should it get damaged, no different then house insurance.
If I have an automated car and I had to have (driving, expensive) insurance for the times I switched it to manual then I wouldn't want a car that could be switched to manual. If companies can confidently stand behind their products, then it isn't a problem for them to accept responsibility because they won't be causing problems. Therefore, I would expect AI insurance to be around the same price as for a $20-30K piece of property that may get ruined due to reasons beyond the owner's control. Judging by the my property insurance cost, that should be around $30 a year.
Capitalism isn't about creativity, so why would anything associated with capitalism that is on the internet be about creativity? Capitalism lets artists starve except for the very best, and then what you have left isn't very creative because it was usually designed specifically for profit.
I'm not going to believe that there are self-driving cars until they can demonstrate that they can pick one up in Los Angeles and plop it down in Denver and have it go on it's merry way. This with all possible weather conditions aside.
Kind of like if a new TV manufacturer were to make TVs they would make a square panel on a stand with a bevel around the edge and a screen, to enjoy success in the TV market.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, my wallet is just ready to barf cash at this new Bluetooth 5 shiny shiny.
I was fine when they took away rotary phones... because there was a better replacement.
I was fine when they took away floppies... because there was a replacement.
There is no suitable replacement to corded headphones. Bluetooth is compressed, you have to rely on the sound driver in the headphone, and you have to charge them.
There was a replacement technology for DVDs that offered benefits with almost no downsides. Bluetooth only offers almost every downside with regards to listening to music.
Personally the car is the only place I listen, so that's usually where I care the most about the sound. Car speakers tend to have a lot more fidelity than you're average home stereo; in the vehicles I buy, at least.
This one is a pretty big leap. Most people who buy headphones I want them compatible with everything. I have some devices I plug into that are 10 years old and will still be used long into the future, and this means an audio cable. While I have an audio cable anyway, why would I want to pay a premium for in-headset bluetooth and at the cost of having to charge them all the time. When flash drives came out, USB was already prevelent and that was fine. I haven't looked for a thunderbolt hub for quite awhile but last I checked they were still a lot harder to find than usb hubs. Finally, I swear at apple every time I have to find my displayport adapter. I still have three working VGA monitors and the macbook is so far the only PC I have without a VGA or HDMI port.
You realize the Raspberry Pi on board audio has terrible quality right? I hope you somehow included a good usb sound adapter for that $20.
I'm in Canada, my house insurance is $200 annually, and insurance for a 13 year old Bonneville is $1200 annually. I believe that is for $2 million liability. It is also mandatory to have insurance to drive.
Besides... if AI is still getting into a fender-bender because there is sand or ice on the road, then it's not ready for market.
No.. People will not get into accidents. The AI is driving, not the people. If I were riding a taxi, and the driver hit a bus, would you hold me responsible for the accident?
In a fully automated car, people will never get in accidents either, the AI might but that's not the owner's fault. This is my point.
You are not liable for your house, and that is why house insurance is much, much less expensive. Why would anyone accept liability for an AI car? My the definition of AI you cannot be at fault. Literally, my house insurance costs 1/100th of what my vehicle insurance costs.
Insurance companies only make money off of insurance policies if they are in a realistic range of affordable.
As long as the requirement for C) exists, AI cars will likely be more dangerous than regular cars not less. Drivers who have not been paying attention to their surroundings for the previous 15 minutes will make bad candidates to suddenly pass the controls off to. Better to just have them involved for the full ride.
In which case an automated car becomes a game of Russian roulette... no thanks. I'll use a manual car and drive 9 mph everywhere if I really want to be safe.
Correction, it will have to change before the plebs will want self-driving cars.
Sure, I don't mind a public system as long as it can have a car in my driveway the instant I open the front door.
So basically, Watson is used for nothing more than speech to text conversion? What colossal overkill. I suspect said engineer couldn't come up with a real idea but just really wanted to use Watson for something.
Google has the right to charge whatever they want for the vehicles and it is up to the consumer to determine if they are worth it on the market. Google can put part of that money towards the liability if they like. As a consumer, I only feel I should pay for the risk of the vehicle having to be replaced should it get damaged, no different then house insurance.
If I have an automated car and I had to have (driving, expensive) insurance for the times I switched it to manual then I wouldn't want a car that could be switched to manual. If companies can confidently stand behind their products, then it isn't a problem for them to accept responsibility because they won't be causing problems. Therefore, I would expect AI insurance to be around the same price as for a $20-30K piece of property that may get ruined due to reasons beyond the owner's control. Judging by the my property insurance cost, that should be around $30 a year.
Capitalism isn't about creativity, so why would anything associated with capitalism that is on the internet be about creativity? Capitalism lets artists starve except for the very best, and then what you have left isn't very creative because it was usually designed specifically for profit.
Insurance is supposed to be for people who are not in good health.
I hate saying this, but THIS.
I'm not going to believe that there are self-driving cars until they can demonstrate that they can pick one up in Los Angeles and plop it down in Denver and have it go on it's merry way. This with all possible weather conditions aside.
Apple's choice to use a company they had no control over.
Kind of like if a new TV manufacturer were to make TVs they would make a square panel on a stand with a bevel around the edge and a screen, to enjoy success in the TV market.