1) Purchase three AirDog drones 2) Velcro-strap each drone's follow-me remote onto the next AirDog drone 3) Press the "launch" button on all three remotes simultaneously 4) Enjoy the resulting interpretive dance
Yes, to both. CSP has been known to singe/kill birds that fly into the concentrated light.
OTOH, the number of birds killed that way is insignificant compared to the number killed by house cats, or by flying into windows. It's a non-issue except for people who want to argue using emotional appeals instead of rational cost/benefit evaluation.
It would take a swing in public opinion such that the people overwhelmingly demand that it be dismantled (and vote accordingly).
Of course, that would require that the public is willing to accept that some acts of terrorism will probably occur that might (at least theoretically) have been prevented via mass surveillance.
Given that, I'm guessing it isn't too likely. (and even if it was dismantled, it would all be brought back by popular demand shortly after the next Very Bad Thing happened)
If Kim Jong-Un starts a war with the only world superpower and their allies over unarmed, unmanned aircraft launched by civilian hobbyists, he'll get what he deserves.
No doubt, but the significant worry isn't about Kim Jong-Un so much as about all the other people he'd likely take with him. The population of Seoul, for example, would probably not appreciate getting shelled and/or nuked.
(Actually, I do a fair bit of template metaprogramming in C++. It can be handy for a certain class of problem.)
That "certain class of problem" wouldn't happen to be "how to guarantee my continued employment by ensuring that nobody else can understand the codebase", would it?;^)
If i see drunk person walking on sidewalk i can determine if that person will maybe walk on road or not, how can computer determine that this person is even drunk?
It doesn't matter whether the person is drunk or not. Any person, no matter how loopy their mental state, is still bound by the laws of physics. So if the car sees the person at position X, it can be certain that 1 second from now, that person will be somewhere within a circle of radius N feet around point X (where N is the maximum running speed of a human being in feet/second, plus some safety factor). So the car just has to make sure to stay out of that circle (and re-calculate X every few milliseconds), and that's all there is to it.
A self-driving car's programming isn't trivial, but at the end of the day it's just a path-finding system using a simulation of well-known laws of physics. There's nothing impossible about it, that's why human beings are able to do a tolerably good job of it despite their limited cognitive abilities.
so you'll find a lot of the worst drivers taking manual control because the bleeping car isn't tailgating or lane weaving like they want it to.
Don't forget the ones who will download and install the special aftermarket "racer AI" which is guaranteed to go at least 90 whenever physically possible, and to drift every turn... good times.
fair comment, but surely if we intend to use AI driven cars then other changes need to happen? traffic lights broadcast their state to AI-cars
I think you've got it backwards -- if we intend to use AI driven cars, the cars have to be smart enough to do the right thing even in the absence of "smart infrastructure". Because there will always be a situation where the appropriate signal-broadcasting-device isn't installed, or isn't working today, or was hacked to give the wrong signal, or whatever, and the cars will still be required to work in that scenario. Given that, there's little point in designing a car that relies on such things, since it doesn't save you any work to do so.
The article mentioned that self-driving cars seem to have problems at four-way stop signs in the USA [...] I'm always polite and go first as quickly as possible so then everyone else can go in turn and nobody has to wait.
Hmm, the de facto algorithm around here seems to be that you watch the order in which the other three drivers stopped, and whomever stopped first is the one who should go first. (of course that assumes all drivers actually do come to a complete stop, which isn't always the case;))
I think a car could probably handle that logic at least as well as a human.
If they are really "deathtraps on wheels" that "don't work at all", how have they been able to drive so many miles without any actual, you know, deaths in their traps?
They might not be ready for consumer use yet, but clearly they do work at least somewhat.
This sort of thing implies that my choice of every word in this sentence causes a universe -a whole universe with planets and black holes and telemarketers and tofu- to pop into existence, just because I decided to use 'tofu' earlier instead of using "marmalade" or some other word.
Yes, but it's less wasteful then it looks, because we use copy-on-write techniques to minimize overhead. That is, we store only the "root" universe, plus the tree of diffs necessary to reconstruct the various child universes as necessary.
Which means the big bang and everything else that we know and that every human being has ever known about anything is just absolute pap.
Hmm, sounds like an appeal to consequences. I wouldn't worry though, chances are that everything is absolute pap regardless of whether this theory is true or false.
Crippleware on Windows always used to amuse me. Oh you've disabled the button because I haven't paid? [poke]...[poke]... There now it's enabled again. Oh, you forgot to check if it should be enabled when processing the click event? Tough.
If you're going to pirate the software, you might as well go ahead and pirate the full version; then you won't have to poke at it.
OTOH, if you're going to legitimately use the software, you ought to pay for it.
Your product can be clearly inferior hardware and be much more expensive than the competition, but if your product is considered a status symbol that lets you win rich partners, so it sells no matter the price.
Which kind of begs the question, how did "clearly inferior hardware" become such a status symbol? Microsoft and Samsung would give their respective left testicles to do the same, but haven't quite been able to replicate the recipe.
Certainly part of it is effective marketing, but I think the other part is good execution -- regardless of what you think of the hardware (which is hidden inside the case and visible to the customer only through the device's observed behavior), the devices, as consumer products, work really, really well.
I think you have to give a lot of the credit credit to high-quality software.
How many billions in lawsuits for their lifetime (a kid lives 100 years, and becomes a CEO that means $40 billion each kid) will these Steel Death Automatons rack up before they are outlawed except in retirement communities without kids or pets?
Zero billions, because the auto companies' lawyers are quite aware of liability issues, and so they aren't going to allow the sale of any self-driving car to the public until they're damn sure it's smart enough to avoid running over pets and children.
So either the automobiles will reliably detect and avoid pets/children, or they will never be released to customers.
Some random twitter loser says he put bombs on two separate planes at the same time in different parts of the country? Not remotely credible.
It is quite possible, if he had an accomplice.
I agree that the guy was basically covering his ass, but he should be fired for being such a gullible idiot.
If he was correctly following the procedures that were set up, it's hard to justify firing him because the procedures aren't to your liking. A more rational response would be to change the procedures.
Would you want to be the guy who ignored the bomb threat, after a plane (or two) blew up?
Put it this way: following procedure (when it later turned out it wasn't actually necessary to do so) won't end your career. Failing to follow procedure (when the threat turned out to be valid) almost certainly will. "But the bomb threat didn't really make sense, because (reasons)" will probably not be seen as a valid defense.
Everyone with the normal human number of digits, I would think.
(e.g. for a right-hander: the thumb is next to the mouse, on the left side; the pinky finger is next to the mouse, on the right side, and the central three digits rest on top of the mouse)
Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. If you are a dangerous driver you can and should be taken off the road.
I was a safe driver for 11 years; no tickets, no accidents, no "close calls", no complaints. Then one day I was driving to the airport early in the morning, got distracted by my radio, didn't notice that the traffic light was red, and ran right into a car that was (legally) crossing the intersection.
My question: should I have been driving for those previous 11 years? If not, why not? What kind of test would you have had me take to show that I was a dangerous driver? Or, if I was a safe driver except on that one morning, how would your plan have prevented my accident?
The fact is, most people are safe drivers most of the time. Except for when they're not.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Purchase three AirDog drones
2) Velcro-strap each drone's follow-me remote onto the next AirDog drone
3) Press the "launch" button on all three remotes simultaneously
4) Enjoy the resulting interpretive dance
Yes, to both. CSP has been known to singe/kill birds that fly into the concentrated light.
OTOH, the number of birds killed that way is insignificant compared to the number killed by house cats, or by flying into windows. It's a non-issue except for people who want to argue using emotional appeals instead of rational cost/benefit evaluation.
It would take a swing in public opinion such that the people overwhelmingly demand that it be dismantled (and vote accordingly).
Of course, that would require that the public is willing to accept that some acts of terrorism will probably occur that might (at least theoretically) have been prevented via mass surveillance.
Given that, I'm guessing it isn't too likely. (and even if it was dismantled, it would all be brought back by popular demand shortly after the next Very Bad Thing happened)
Rusty treated OpSec as suggestions instead of law.
Of course, he also treated the law as suggestions instead of law. I have no sympathy at all. :P
If Kim Jong-Un starts a war with the only world superpower and their allies over unarmed, unmanned aircraft launched by civilian hobbyists, he'll get what he deserves.
No doubt, but the significant worry isn't about Kim Jong-Un so much as about all the other people he'd likely take with him. The population of Seoul, for example, would probably not appreciate getting shelled and/or nuked.
(Actually, I do a fair bit of template metaprogramming in C++. It can be handy for a certain class of problem.)
That "certain class of problem" wouldn't happen to be "how to guarantee my continued employment by ensuring that nobody else can understand the codebase", would it? ;^)
If i see drunk person walking on sidewalk i can determine if that person will maybe walk on road or not, how can computer determine that this person is even drunk?
It doesn't matter whether the person is drunk or not. Any person, no matter how loopy their mental state, is still bound by the laws of physics. So if the car sees the person at position X, it can be certain that 1 second from now, that person will be somewhere within a circle of radius N feet around point X (where N is the maximum running speed of a human being in feet/second, plus some safety factor). So the car just has to make sure to stay out of that circle (and re-calculate X every few milliseconds), and that's all there is to it.
A self-driving car's programming isn't trivial, but at the end of the day it's just a path-finding system using a simulation of well-known laws of physics. There's nothing impossible about it, that's why human beings are able to do a tolerably good job of it despite their limited cognitive abilities.
so you'll find a lot of the worst drivers taking manual control because the bleeping car isn't tailgating or lane weaving like they want it to.
Don't forget the ones who will download and install the special aftermarket "racer AI" which is guaranteed to go at least 90 whenever physically possible, and to drift every turn... good times.
fair comment, but surely if we intend to use AI driven cars then other changes need to happen? traffic lights broadcast their state to AI-cars
I think you've got it backwards -- if we intend to use AI driven cars, the cars have to be smart enough to do the right thing even in the absence of "smart infrastructure". Because there will always be a situation where the appropriate signal-broadcasting-device isn't installed, or isn't working today, or was hacked to give the wrong signal, or whatever, and the cars will still be required to work in that scenario. Given that, there's little point in designing a car that relies on such things, since it doesn't save you any work to do so.
The article mentioned that self-driving cars seem to have problems at four-way stop signs in the USA [...] I'm always polite and go first as quickly as possible so then everyone else can go in turn and nobody has to wait.
Hmm, the de facto algorithm around here seems to be that you watch the order in which the other three drivers stopped, and whomever stopped first is the one who should go first. (of course that assumes all drivers actually do come to a complete stop, which isn't always the case ;))
I think a car could probably handle that logic at least as well as a human.
If they are really "deathtraps on wheels" that "don't work at all", how have they been able to drive so many miles without any actual, you know, deaths in their traps?
They might not be ready for consumer use yet, but clearly they do work at least somewhat.
Lift weights
Lifting weights is incredibly boring. Ride your bike :)
Runners High... It's like Heroin. They are no different than junkies.
They don't steal your television to fund their habit, so that's one difference.
This sort of thing implies that my choice of every word in this sentence causes a universe -a whole universe with planets and black holes and telemarketers and tofu- to pop into existence, just because I decided to use 'tofu' earlier instead of using "marmalade" or some other word.
Yes, but it's less wasteful then it looks, because we use copy-on-write techniques to minimize overhead. That is, we store only the "root" universe, plus the tree of diffs necessary to reconstruct the various child universes as necessary.
Which means the big bang and everything else that we know and that every human being has ever known about anything is just absolute pap.
Hmm, sounds like an appeal to consequences. I wouldn't worry though, chances are that everything is absolute pap regardless of whether this theory is true or false.
Crippleware on Windows always used to amuse me. Oh you've disabled the button because I haven't paid? [poke]...[poke]... There now it's enabled again. Oh, you forgot to check if it should be enabled when processing the click event? Tough.
If you're going to pirate the software, you might as well go ahead and pirate the full version; then you won't have to poke at it.
OTOH, if you're going to legitimately use the software, you ought to pay for it.
Your product can be clearly inferior hardware and be much more expensive than the competition, but if your product is considered a status symbol that lets you win rich partners, so it sells no matter the price.
Which kind of begs the question, how did "clearly inferior hardware" become such a status symbol? Microsoft and Samsung would give their respective left testicles to do the same, but haven't quite been able to replicate the recipe.
Certainly part of it is effective marketing, but I think the other part is good execution -- regardless of what you think of the hardware (which is hidden inside the case and visible to the customer only through the device's observed behavior), the devices, as consumer products, work really, really well.
I think you have to give a lot of the credit credit to high-quality software.
Yeah, they should, like, disrupt themselves and adopt a paradigm shift to a leaner, more agile model.
Rand Paul for ScrumMaster 2016!
I'm unaware of any religions that have planned obsolescence
Dunno about obsolescence per se, but Scientology does have a policy of forced yearly upgrades, each more expensive than the last. Seems similar :)
And how do you handle the counterweight? What's that? You don't actually understand how an elevator works?
If your electric motor is powerful enough, you can dispense with the counterweight. It might not be very efficient, but it's possible.
How many billions in lawsuits for their lifetime (a kid lives 100 years, and becomes a CEO that means $40 billion each kid) will these Steel Death Automatons rack up before they are outlawed except in retirement communities without kids or pets?
Zero billions, because the auto companies' lawyers are quite aware of liability issues, and so they aren't going to allow the sale of any self-driving car to the public until they're damn sure it's smart enough to avoid running over pets and children.
So either the automobiles will reliably detect and avoid pets/children, or they will never be released to customers.
there are people who actually believe trading in and looking at child porn isn't a problem, that that is victimless, it's just pictures and video
I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the distribution of child porn isn't a problem.
I have seen people argue that the First Amendment permits it, regardless of whether it's problematic or not.
Some random twitter loser says he put bombs on two separate planes at the same time in different parts of the country? Not remotely credible.
It is quite possible, if he had an accomplice.
I agree that the guy was basically covering his ass, but he should be fired for being such a gullible idiot.
If he was correctly following the procedures that were set up, it's hard to justify firing him because the procedures aren't to your liking. A more rational response would be to change the procedures.
Would you want to be the guy who ignored the bomb threat, after a plane (or two) blew up?
Put it this way: following procedure (when it later turned out it wasn't actually necessary to do so) won't end your career. Failing to follow procedure (when the threat turned out to be valid) almost certainly will. "But the bomb threat didn't really make sense, because (reasons)" will probably not be seen as a valid defense.
Who puts three fingers on the surface of a mouse?
Everyone with the normal human number of digits, I would think.
(e.g. for a right-hander: the thumb is next to the mouse, on the left side; the pinky finger is next to the mouse, on the right side, and the central three digits rest on top of the mouse)
Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. If you are a dangerous driver you can and should be taken off the road.
I was a safe driver for 11 years; no tickets, no accidents, no "close calls", no complaints. Then one day I was driving to the airport early in the morning, got distracted by my radio, didn't notice that the traffic light was red, and ran right into a car that was (legally) crossing the intersection.
My question: should I have been driving for those previous 11 years? If not, why not? What kind of test would you have had me take to show that I was a dangerous driver? Or, if I was a safe driver except on that one morning, how would your plan have prevented my accident?
The fact is, most people are safe drivers most of the time. Except for when they're not.