An hour to go through effectively still images looking for numbers using the computing power of Google compared to real time analysis of video for faces using the computing power of a city police department...
Processing power would be the main restriction. Running facial recognition on CCTV over a large number of cameras in real time is impractical. Now if you know where he's likely to be or are running it after the fact it's a different story.
Well, as far as how it would screw us over. If the FCC loses the power to regulate ISPs, net neutrality is gone. The only thing protecting it is the FCCs regulation that they tried to change.
It'd be nice if there was a way to keep the politicians from finding out who was paying for their campaigns. Then the money would go to people with similar interests, but the politicians wouldn't be able to change their interests to match the money. Unfortunately it isn't really practical.
Making cars designed to follow hand signals from humans instructing them to drive on the shoulder is far more difficult than making cars designed to read the road and follow GPS.
For liability the answer is fairly simple, require them to be fully insured against malfunction. The price would probably be fairly high to begin with but as they prove themselves better than human drivers it would go down.
As far as capacity, you have a point as far as parking, but not for total traffic. Currently parents will drive both to and from wherever their child goes, with a fully autonomous car, the car would only go where the child does. The same argument applies for energy.
In an emergency you're right, but there are other reasons a person might need to take over. For example, if there's road construction or an accident blocking part of the road and the autopilot doesn't know how to handle it.
If you're having drivers take over in an emergency situation, you'd probably be better off having them drive all the time (otherwise they won't be ready to take over) or letting the computer handle the emergency (since the computer has better reactions and is at least as likely to do the right thing). In other abnormal situations the car could find a safe shutdown mode to wait until someone used the override, which would require a license.
Not necessary, streaming is mostly bandwidth dependent, not latency dependent. It might take an extra few seconds before your show starts but that's fairly inconsequential. Browsing the web and playing games are far more problematic.
I'm not saying that the 150 APM was wrong, I'm saying that 10 actions in 60 ms was wrong for someone doing 150 APM. (or for someone human for that matter)
It is efficient, depending on how you define efficiency. The yield is higher for the same area, passive defenses remove the need for pesticides and other overhead. The main downside is the difficulty in harvesting the results.
Slashdot Mirror
And on the off chance that I am particularly emotional, I would usually rather not share that with people.
An hour to go through effectively still images looking for numbers using the computing power of Google compared to real time analysis of video for faces using the computing power of a city police department...
It does, however, allow the teachers to ignore the political games that crop up in most any organization.
Processing power would be the main restriction. Running facial recognition on CCTV over a large number of cameras in real time is impractical. Now if you know where he's likely to be or are running it after the fact it's a different story.
Since when has Comcast offered contracts with minimum guaranteed bandwidth?
Well, as far as how it would screw us over. If the FCC loses the power to regulate ISPs, net neutrality is gone. The only thing protecting it is the FCCs regulation that they tried to change.
It'd be nice if there was a way to keep the politicians from finding out who was paying for their campaigns. Then the money would go to people with similar interests, but the politicians wouldn't be able to change their interests to match the money. Unfortunately it isn't really practical.
US politicians are guilty of most of those as well, they just have different names for them.
An oligarchy or dictatorship can be socialist. Socialism is an economic system, not a governmental one.
So you're saying Snowden was wrong because the NSA was giving the appearance of following the law in all outward respects?
Making cars designed to follow hand signals from humans instructing them to drive on the shoulder is far more difficult than making cars designed to read the road and follow GPS.
What if it isn't an emergency, just a situation the autopilot can't handle, road construction and accidents come to mind.
For liability the answer is fairly simple, require them to be fully insured against malfunction. The price would probably be fairly high to begin with but as they prove themselves better than human drivers it would go down.
As far as capacity, you have a point as far as parking, but not for total traffic. Currently parents will drive both to and from wherever their child goes, with a fully autonomous car, the car would only go where the child does. The same argument applies for energy.
In an emergency you're right, but there are other reasons a person might need to take over. For example, if there's road construction or an accident blocking part of the road and the autopilot doesn't know how to handle it.
If you're having drivers take over in an emergency situation, you'd probably be better off having them drive all the time (otherwise they won't be ready to take over) or letting the computer handle the emergency (since the computer has better reactions and is at least as likely to do the right thing). In other abnormal situations the car could find a safe shutdown mode to wait until someone used the override, which would require a license.
Some of them use less than the alternatives, ethanol isn't one of them.
You've got it backwards, the high speed is moon->earth, earth->moon is the slow one.
Not necessary, streaming is mostly bandwidth dependent, not latency dependent. It might take an extra few seconds before your show starts but that's fairly inconsequential. Browsing the web and playing games are far more problematic.
I'm not saying that the 150 APM was wrong, I'm saying that 10 actions in 60 ms was wrong for someone doing 150 APM. (or for someone human for that matter)
It may be legal but it is almost certainly against the ToS. Selling their final product isn't helping their case either.
Something seriously wrong with your math there; 150 APM is about 2.5 actions per second or one action per 400ms.
While fewer guns will mean fewer gun related deaths, it will not necessarily reduce the homicide rate.
It is efficient, depending on how you define efficiency. The yield is higher for the same area, passive defenses remove the need for pesticides and other overhead. The main downside is the difficulty in harvesting the results.
You say that like you think the liberals want something different.
But this isn't in America, it's in London.