You mean, the USA needs drawers? Like, they have a lot of wardrobes or cupboards but no drawers on them? I believe the word you are looking for is COJONES.
Just a play from the classic Apple playbook: Any feature that our competitor has that we don't is something customers don't want or need--until we do have it, and then it's awesome.
Actually, in all fairness, it's a play from pretty much everyone's playbook. I mean what do you expect him to say, "Well, the truth is we're jealous"?
100 Mb per second should be enough for anybody!
In other news, very few people buy Mercedes Benz S65 AMG cars. Therefore, the Mercedes Benz S65 AMG must be a vehicle that nobody wants. The issues of affordability and cost/benefit are completely irrelevant, of course.
BTW: It's a She, not a He. And from her picture in the link provided by TFS, she's quite good-looking too, so she must obviously not be a Slashdot member.
Can you hold the device in one hand and 1) unlock the phone, 2) type out a text message with your thumb, and 3) adjust the volume with the rocker without using your other hand? If not, you might need a smaller phone.
None of the above points are arguments for/against screens of any size. All of those "problems" can be solved without even thinking about the size of the screen on a device.
1) unlocking schemes for phones can take on any number of different forms, not all requiring you to swipe from edge to edge to unlock.
2) usability of the virtual keyboard has nothing to do with screen size, but a matter of placing it in the correct location on the screen
3) adjusting the volume on a phone has nothing to do with screen size, and everything to do with placement of the rocker button.
You mean, TFA authour is holding it wrong?
Steve, is that you? I thought you were dead!
The point that the study attempts to make is the following: Of all the different instances of a subset of the world's population incorrectly assumed to be representative of the whole world in a study, the most common are those in which the subjects studied are American. To put it another way, of all the "minority groups" wrongly sampled as representing the majority, Americans are the most generally used.
Robots have no emotion, no bias. Imagine deploying a few hundred (or thousand) semi-autonomous robotic peacekeepers into a conflict zone. They maintain the peace 24/7, they never tire, they are alert and objective in their duties.
An autonomous robot needs to form a model of what's happening around it, use that to figure out what its possible long- and short-term actions will be, and finally decide how desirable various outcomes are relative to each other. All of these steps are prone to bias, especially since whoever designed the robot and its initial database is going to have their own biases.
Also, a robot acting in real life cannot carefully think everything through. There's simply not enough time for that. This necessiates some kind of emotion-analogy to provide context for reflex and simple actions, just like it does on living beings.
Look at Iraq and Afghanistan! $1 trillion and thousands of allied casualties. Deploy a robot army and watch the costs come down. No need for living quarters, no need of food or water, logistics becomes cheaper in every aspect.
So there will be a lot more "interventions", since the cost (to you) is lower. I think that's part of what worries the the HRW.
I think a lot of assumptions have been made on this thread about a technology that doesn't even exist yet, and it will be a long time before it does. The development of AI would need to jump a few generations ahead of its current state before a truly autonomous robot is built and deployed into a battlefield, which would be like the ultimate test to be carried out only when the machines have been tried-and-true on more mundane activities. And by that time my own wild-ass guess is it will be pretty different from what we now imagine it will be. At this moment, all that can be built is killer robots controlled remotely by a human operator, and that operator does have common sense, an understanding of right versus wrong, personal biases, and so on and so forth; and he has the advantage over a soldier actually stuck in the middle of a shootout that he can relax and think things through before doing something that he will regret later.
And before anyone starts bleating about those Mars drones, no, the level of sophistication required for the deployment of robots for collecting rock samples is not the same as what it would take for something that can actually kill a lot of people. See my observation about "more mundane activities" in the previous paragraph. And yes, I do consider collecting rocks to be a more "mundane" activity than jumping into a war zone with guns blazing, regardless of the former being executed gazillions of miles away.
If the US and Great Britain refuse to produce these machines, somebody else will. And good luck trying to get every freaking country in the world to sign your "global agreement" (Iran and North Korea, anyone?).
If we outlaw killer robots, only the outlaws will have killer robots.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but your post made it seem like you thought just HAVING money was enough to make a person unreliable. And to me, that sounds like the misguided pseudo-socialist bullshit that I used to hear a lot back in my college days.
I agree with the parent poster. At some point you have to stop needing to have everything under your control and start relying on third-party suppliers. Or did you build your own car instead of buying one because you were afraid that the brakes might have a manufacturing flaw?
Yep, USB devices. That's how the Stuxnet virus is believed to have reached its intended targets. Not because a PLC was carelessly connected to Facebook, but through infected thumb drives.
Then out of spite I am going to create 25 new websites, and have them connected to one another in a chain, the first one of them connected to my Facebook page, with no other hyperlinks in them. And what I post on those websites is irrelevant; as long as they exist I will have tangible evidence of this study's failure.
"No Va" means "no go" in Spanish. In Portuguese, which is Brazil's official language, "Nova" is the feminine form of "Novo" which means "new". I can imagine the Brazilian branch of GM renaming the car because they wanted to export it to the surrounding Spanish-speaking countries, though.
Speaking of altered brand names, do you know why the Mitsubishi Pajero SUV is sold in Spanish-speaking countries under the name "Montero?" It's because in Spanish, the word "pajero" has a very unflattering meaning. I leave it to you to check that out...
I never said hello to Apple in the first place, you insensitive clods!
On a more serious note, I live in Sao Paulo, within a five-minute walk from a shopping mall which has an Apple store inside. If Gradiente wins in court for exclusivity, it will be interesting to go and see what happens at that store immediately afterwards.
If that is true, then why did Bruce Willis ditch the chainsaw and go for the katana?
Yeah, off-topic, I know, I know. Go ahead and mod me down. My karma is already bad anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, cool down pal, didn't mean to offend anyone... Just tossing in a little humor, that's all. Peace!
You mean, the USA needs drawers? Like, they have a lot of wardrobes or cupboards but no drawers on them? I believe the word you are looking for is COJONES.
Don't make me have to stop this car and separate you two!
So if USA and China are the children, who is the mother? (ducks for cover)
Just a play from the classic Apple playbook: Any feature that our competitor has that we don't is something customers don't want or need--until we do have it, and then it's awesome.
Actually, in all fairness, it's a play from pretty much everyone's playbook. I mean what do you expect him to say, "Well, the truth is we're jealous"?
100 Mb per second should be enough for anybody!
In other news, very few people buy Mercedes Benz S65 AMG cars. Therefore, the Mercedes Benz S65 AMG must be a vehicle that nobody wants. The issues of affordability and cost/benefit are completely irrelevant, of course.
BTW: It's a She, not a He. And from her picture in the link provided by TFS, she's quite good-looking too, so she must obviously not be a Slashdot member.
It's spelled "FRIST," as in "FRIST PSOT!" Learn to write properly before you come to post here. This is /., the land of the pedant spelling Nazis.
Can you hold the device in one hand and 1) unlock the phone, 2) type out a text message with your thumb, and 3) adjust the volume with the rocker without using your other hand? If not, you might need a smaller phone.
None of the above points are arguments for/against screens of any size. All of those "problems" can be solved without even thinking about the size of the screen on a device.
1) unlocking schemes for phones can take on any number of different forms, not all requiring you to swipe from edge to edge to unlock.
2) usability of the virtual keyboard has nothing to do with screen size, but a matter of placing it in the correct location on the screen
3) adjusting the volume on a phone has nothing to do with screen size, and everything to do with placement of the rocker button.
You mean, TFA authour is holding it wrong? Steve, is that you? I thought you were dead!
In Soviet Russia, gamma titanium aluminide works you!
The point that the study attempts to make is the following: Of all the different instances of a subset of the world's population incorrectly assumed to be representative of the whole world in a study, the most common are those in which the subjects studied are American. To put it another way, of all the "minority groups" wrongly sampled as representing the majority, Americans are the most generally used.
Nitpicking aside, the GP's point is perfectly valid.
An autonomous robot needs to form a model of what's happening around it, use that to figure out what its possible long- and short-term actions will be, and finally decide how desirable various outcomes are relative to each other. All of these steps are prone to bias, especially since whoever designed the robot and its initial database is going to have their own biases.
Also, a robot acting in real life cannot carefully think everything through. There's simply not enough time for that. This necessiates some kind of emotion-analogy to provide context for reflex and simple actions, just like it does on living beings.
So there will be a lot more "interventions", since the cost (to you) is lower. I think that's part of what worries the the HRW.
I think a lot of assumptions have been made on this thread about a technology that doesn't even exist yet, and it will be a long time before it does. The development of AI would need to jump a few generations ahead of its current state before a truly autonomous robot is built and deployed into a battlefield, which would be like the ultimate test to be carried out only when the machines have been tried-and-true on more mundane activities. And by that time my own wild-ass guess is it will be pretty different from what we now imagine it will be. At this moment, all that can be built is killer robots controlled remotely by a human operator, and that operator does have common sense, an understanding of right versus wrong, personal biases, and so on and so forth; and he has the advantage over a soldier actually stuck in the middle of a shootout that he can relax and think things through before doing something that he will regret later. And before anyone starts bleating about those Mars drones, no, the level of sophistication required for the deployment of robots for collecting rock samples is not the same as what it would take for something that can actually kill a lot of people. See my observation about "more mundane activities" in the previous paragraph. And yes, I do consider collecting rocks to be a more "mundane" activity than jumping into a war zone with guns blazing, regardless of the former being executed gazillions of miles away.
If the US and Great Britain refuse to produce these machines, somebody else will. And good luck trying to get every freaking country in the world to sign your "global agreement" (Iran and North Korea, anyone?). If we outlaw killer robots, only the outlaws will have killer robots.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but your post made it seem like you thought just HAVING money was enough to make a person unreliable. And to me, that sounds like the misguided pseudo-socialist bullshit that I used to hear a lot back in my college days.
You make it sound as if having money were directly correlated to not being trustworthy.
I agree with the parent poster. At some point you have to stop needing to have everything under your control and start relying on third-party suppliers. Or did you build your own car instead of buying one because you were afraid that the brakes might have a manufacturing flaw?
Yep, USB devices. That's how the Stuxnet virus is believed to have reached its intended targets. Not because a PLC was carelessly connected to Facebook, but through infected thumb drives.
Then out of spite I am going to create 25 new websites, and have them connected to one another in a chain, the first one of them connected to my Facebook page, with no other hyperlinks in them. And what I post on those websites is irrelevant; as long as they exist I will have tangible evidence of this study's failure.
You realize that GP hurled political slurs on just about everyone, don't you? But the only one you noticed was your Beloved Leader Obama.
Baumgartner was a pussy! Real men do it the Putin way!
Next time you get an early warning about an incoming meteorite, send Steve Ballmer down there with a chair in his hands. Problem solved!
"No Va" means "no go" in Spanish. In Portuguese, which is Brazil's official language, "Nova" is the feminine form of "Novo" which means "new". I can imagine the Brazilian branch of GM renaming the car because they wanted to export it to the surrounding Spanish-speaking countries, though. Speaking of altered brand names, do you know why the Mitsubishi Pajero SUV is sold in Spanish-speaking countries under the name "Montero?" It's because in Spanish, the word "pajero" has a very unflattering meaning. I leave it to you to check that out...
I never said hello to Apple in the first place, you insensitive clods! On a more serious note, I live in Sao Paulo, within a five-minute walk from a shopping mall which has an Apple store inside. If Gradiente wins in court for exclusivity, it will be interesting to go and see what happens at that store immediately afterwards.
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for Pluto... for Pluto... for Pluto!!!! (cue in electric guitar solo)
This is not the demoted former planet you are looking for...
Everything is better with chainsaws.
If that is true, then why did Bruce Willis ditch the chainsaw and go for the katana? Yeah, off-topic, I know, I know. Go ahead and mod me down. My karma is already bad anyway.
Only Han shot, and Pluto is still a planet. There, FTFY.