On the contrary, I think people care very much about our nation sliding into the third world no matter what country it is. The ire is just peaked when the company doing it is trying to claim they are doing good work.
I find it hard to believe that Elon Musk wouldn't wonder where the workers came from and wouldn't be told if he asked. This is willing ignorance, which doesn't count for anything.
Then don't go into business in the first place. Whether you want to accept it or not, everyone is a contributing factor in America being a first world nation or a third world nation. Your choice.
You must be new here. It's already a well known fact that there is a hidden requirement that the 'skill' needs to agree to work for minimum wage in order to be considered.
The US needs to decide what they want. Are we a first world county with first world benefits? If that's what we want to be then we need to protect first world salaries somehow. If we don't protect the salaries, then we're going to become a third world nation like the rest. I thought this was something we didn't want, but I could be wrong. The 1% don't care, they don't have anything to lose by living in a third world nation because their wealth becomes all the more valuable relatively speaking.
It's funny how the laws of capitalism go away when there are discussions like this. But when the service turns up and sucks because, profits, people will defend their right to make as much money as possible at the expense of the consumer.
It is a large complaint in our city that there is no free parking in the central part of the city. The street spots that are there are largely taken up by people who are working but have learned to rotate their cars to avoid parking tickets. An automated car looking for parking will need to be very good at parallel parking in tight spots, but more then likely it will either have to drive out of the central area to find a spot. Either way, it is likely that it will be driving for a large amount of time relative to the stop whether it is driving to the outskirts for a spot or circling around looking for one suitable.
You talk about cities charging for congestion like that is a desirable outcome. First of all it's going to be a long time before cities are technologically advanced enough to do that, and secondly if that is what autonomous cars are going to bring on then I'll stick with the manual solution.
I don't live in a place with Uber. If I did, I wouldn't use them; I'm not convinced their drivers are vetted enough to be safe. Also I wouldn't want to encourage them in their failure to find real jobs. Or clog the roads.
That's an awful primary solution. I don't want to wait 10 mins for a car, I want one in my driveway. Once they kill off the manual taxi industry, what will the wait and the quality of the cars be.
The fact that automated cars are safer than humans on average does not mean they are safer than each and every human. Any person can prevent any and all incidents by slowing down if in a manual car, but in an automated car it's just a crap shoot. Take this fellow who just ran his Tesla into the back of a trailer. I know the Tesla isn't fully automated but the situation fits. I know the way my insurance works, I would get penalized financially for a fluke incident like that and without even being in the car. At best, automation is a double edged sword.
Because with manual control I can choose how much risk I take when I drive. I can go everywhere at 20 mph and I'm fairly assured I won't cause an accident. Most of those 30,000 deaths were preventable, it just takes good sense to know when to exercise the appropriate caution. Automated cars won't make a dent in that statistic until they are cheap enough for everyone to own, and I am not sure that will ever be the case. If I look at my driving record in a manual car, as an individual I am at least as safe as an automated car and I can always choose to drive safer if I should so desire. An automated car is what it is, so I would expect it to be as safe as me while expressing maximum caution.
"Creating a ZFS storage pool (zpool) involves making a number of decisions that are relatively permanent because the structure of the pool cannot be changed after the pool has been created. The most important decision is what types of vdevs into which to group the physical disks. See the list of vdev types for details about the possible options. After the pool has been created, most vdev types do not allow additional disks to be added to the vdev. The exceptions are mirrors, which allow additional disks to be added to the vdev, and stripes, which can be upgraded to mirrors by attaching an additional disk to the vdev. Although additional vdevs can be added to expand a pool, the layout of the pool cannot be changed after pool creation. Instead, the data must be backed up and the pool destroyed and recreated."
I played with ZFS for a little awhile as a backup pool. The snapshotting is very nice, but I ended up using ext4 instead for my purpose because nothing is extendable. A modern FS should have extendable volumes.
Oh, and about whether the car was out of control or not.. That is a simple one to address. Who was the person who had control of the car at the moment it hit the trailer and did he/she intend for this to be the result? Unless they intended for this to happen, which obviously they didn't, then the car was out of control, or at least beyond control.
Not at all. I'm saying this is fake outrage and just about every "convenience" I have in my life has a dangerous and negative effect on someone somewhere which will get someone killed. The only thing that helps us sleep at night is knowing that the dead person won't be on my front lawn.
So? Maybe you're the type of person that feel the lives of others are worth you having additional convenience, but not me. Make everything as safe as they can be, I say. I don't care if the toaster butters the toast for me if it might burn down my house one day.
that you will never be in a position to get into this blindspot.
Again, who cares? The point is that it can irrefutably happen. The fact that it is a possibility is bad enough. I don't care if it won't happen to me, people who are human don't want it happening to anyone.
Can you? The number of children who die in their driveways currently is a terrifyingly high number above zero.
Absolutely. I live on a block with a lot of kids, and every time I go to my vehicle in the driveway I look all around and ensure there is no child within a radius that they could do exactly that. If there are kids nearby I take stock of who it is and make sure I keep my eye on them as I reverse. I also have a vague idea of what times of day kids run around and when they don't. I am way more equipped to make this determination than an automated car. Also I would see them on the reverse camera if not in the back window. An automated car is fumbling in the dark by comparison.
Really? What's your evidence for this?
Actually you're right on this one and I am wrong. They did know about the blind spot and thought it wouldn't be a problem. Obviously by this article they were very wrong. A person could easily have been on a flatbed trailer or a pickup truck tailgate dangling their legs off. If they were looking at a phone as everyone does they could very easily miss the car because who looks out for a car driving itself. Is there any audible alarm as it approaches? Does it honk the horn or would that be too 'uncool'? It is an awfully naive/egotistical/self-centered view that one could predict every situation that could happen in the real world. If you are moving a vehicle with enough force to cause damage then you should take every precaution not to cause damage. The only way to do that is to use the universal laws of physics to ensure that there is nothing coming close to the car in the direction that you are moving it, period. Don't try to predict what is required and what is not.
No technology doesn't have to be perfect, but it shouldn't be causing stupid kinds of damage either. Cars are now becoming appliances, like a stove or a dishwasher. I've never heard of an appliance going on the market once it is 'slightly better than a human'. There are safety standards to follow so they are as safe as possible for as many people as possible. When I put my stove on self-clean it locks automatically and that is a good thing. I feel bad for this guy, I really do. Chalk it up to a poor buying decision.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, I think people care very much about our nation sliding into the third world no matter what country it is. The ire is just peaked when the company doing it is trying to claim they are doing good work.
I find it hard to believe that Elon Musk wouldn't wonder where the workers came from and wouldn't be told if he asked. This is willing ignorance, which doesn't count for anything.
Then don't go into business in the first place. Whether you want to accept it or not, everyone is a contributing factor in America being a first world nation or a third world nation. Your choice.
You must be new here. It's already a well known fact that there is a hidden requirement that the 'skill' needs to agree to work for minimum wage in order to be considered.
The US needs to decide what they want. Are we a first world county with first world benefits? If that's what we want to be then we need to protect first world salaries somehow. If we don't protect the salaries, then we're going to become a third world nation like the rest. I thought this was something we didn't want, but I could be wrong. The 1% don't care, they don't have anything to lose by living in a third world nation because their wealth becomes all the more valuable relatively speaking.
It's funny how the laws of capitalism go away when there are discussions like this. But when the service turns up and sucks because, profits, people will defend their right to make as much money as possible at the expense of the consumer.
It is a large complaint in our city that there is no free parking in the central part of the city. The street spots that are there are largely taken up by people who are working but have learned to rotate their cars to avoid parking tickets. An automated car looking for parking will need to be very good at parallel parking in tight spots, but more then likely it will either have to drive out of the central area to find a spot. Either way, it is likely that it will be driving for a large amount of time relative to the stop whether it is driving to the outskirts for a spot or circling around looking for one suitable.
We have a lot of cabs and buses. Never had a problem with a cabbie. We have already had a shooting by an Uber driver; how many of those will there be?
You talk about cities charging for congestion like that is a desirable outcome. First of all it's going to be a long time before cities are technologically advanced enough to do that, and secondly if that is what autonomous cars are going to bring on then I'll stick with the manual solution.
Lol.. so now my child might be sitting alone in a car with another random passenger? This gets better and better.
I don't live in a major center, but even here parking is $15 an hour.
Plus, cost savings = profits
I don't live in a place with Uber. If I did, I wouldn't use them; I'm not convinced their drivers are vetted enough to be safe. Also I wouldn't want to encourage them in their failure to find real jobs. Or clog the roads.
That's an awful primary solution. I don't want to wait 10 mins for a car, I want one in my driveway. Once they kill off the manual taxi industry, what will the wait and the quality of the cars be.
I keep saying this.. people will have their cars drive around and around. Gas will always be cheaper than parking.
The fact that automated cars are safer than humans on average does not mean they are safer than each and every human. Any person can prevent any and all incidents by slowing down if in a manual car, but in an automated car it's just a crap shoot. Take this fellow who just ran his Tesla into the back of a trailer. I know the Tesla isn't fully automated but the situation fits. I know the way my insurance works, I would get penalized financially for a fluke incident like that and without even being in the car. At best, automation is a double edged sword.
Because with manual control I can choose how much risk I take when I drive. I can go everywhere at 20 mph and I'm fairly assured I won't cause an accident. Most of those 30,000 deaths were preventable, it just takes good sense to know when to exercise the appropriate caution. Automated cars won't make a dent in that statistic until they are cheap enough for everyone to own, and I am not sure that will ever be the case. If I look at my driving record in a manual car, as an individual I am at least as safe as an automated car and I can always choose to drive safer if I should so desire. An automated car is what it is, so I would expect it to be as safe as me while expressing maximum caution.
Also, why I don't trust the cloud.
This is why I never use Google for anything I want to keep to myself.
It is a great relief to me that Americans are still able to think for themselves at least some of the time.
From https://www.freebsd.org/doc/ha...
"Creating a ZFS storage pool (zpool) involves making a number of decisions that are relatively permanent because the structure of the pool cannot be changed after the pool has been created. The most important decision is what types of vdevs into which to group the physical disks. See the list of vdev types for details about the possible options. After the pool has been created, most vdev types do not allow additional disks to be added to the vdev. The exceptions are mirrors, which allow additional disks to be added to the vdev, and stripes, which can be upgraded to mirrors by attaching an additional disk to the vdev. Although additional vdevs can be added to expand a pool, the layout of the pool cannot be changed after pool creation. Instead, the data must be backed up and the pool destroyed and recreated."
It was too restrictive for me.
No ZFS's thing is snapshots. Once you create a ZFS disk pool I could find no way to add a disk to it to make it bigger.
I played with ZFS for a little awhile as a backup pool. The snapshotting is very nice, but I ended up using ext4 instead for my purpose because nothing is extendable. A modern FS should have extendable volumes.
Oh, and about whether the car was out of control or not.. That is a simple one to address. Who was the person who had control of the car at the moment it hit the trailer and did he/she intend for this to be the result? Unless they intended for this to happen, which obviously they didn't, then the car was out of control, or at least beyond control.
Not at all. I'm saying this is fake outrage and just about every "convenience" I have in my life has a dangerous and negative effect on someone somewhere which will get someone killed. The only thing that helps us sleep at night is knowing that the dead person won't be on my front lawn.
So? Maybe you're the type of person that feel the lives of others are worth you having additional convenience, but not me. Make everything as safe as they can be, I say. I don't care if the toaster butters the toast for me if it might burn down my house one day.
that you will never be in a position to get into this blindspot.
Again, who cares? The point is that it can irrefutably happen. The fact that it is a possibility is bad enough. I don't care if it won't happen to me, people who are human don't want it happening to anyone.
Can you? The number of children who die in their driveways currently is a terrifyingly high number above zero.
Absolutely. I live on a block with a lot of kids, and every time I go to my vehicle in the driveway I look all around and ensure there is no child within a radius that they could do exactly that. If there are kids nearby I take stock of who it is and make sure I keep my eye on them as I reverse. I also have a vague idea of what times of day kids run around and when they don't. I am way more equipped to make this determination than an automated car. Also I would see them on the reverse camera if not in the back window. An automated car is fumbling in the dark by comparison.
Really? What's your evidence for this?
Actually you're right on this one and I am wrong. They did know about the blind spot and thought it wouldn't be a problem. Obviously by this article they were very wrong. A person could easily have been on a flatbed trailer or a pickup truck tailgate dangling their legs off. If they were looking at a phone as everyone does they could very easily miss the car because who looks out for a car driving itself. Is there any audible alarm as it approaches? Does it honk the horn or would that be too 'uncool'? It is an awfully naive/egotistical/self-centered view that one could predict every situation that could happen in the real world. If you are moving a vehicle with enough force to cause damage then you should take every precaution not to cause damage. The only way to do that is to use the universal laws of physics to ensure that there is nothing coming close to the car in the direction that you are moving it, period. Don't try to predict what is required and what is not.
No technology doesn't have to be perfect, but it shouldn't be causing stupid kinds of damage either. Cars are now becoming appliances, like a stove or a dishwasher. I've never heard of an appliance going on the market once it is 'slightly better than a human'. There are safety standards to follow so they are as safe as possible for as many people as possible. When I put my stove on self-clean it locks automatically and that is a good thing. I feel bad for this guy, I really do. Chalk it up to a poor buying decision.