True... but at the same time, cars aren't exactly tiny... the range on the signal probably wouldn't be far enough that your own car is liable to be reading the signals of hundreds of other cars at the same time.
If the "flow of traffic" is speeding, I don't really give a damn. I will drive at the posted limit, barring slippery road conditions that necessitate I need to drive slower.
If somebody rear-ends me, my insurance company will happily sue them while I get my car repaired at no cost to myself.
You don't have to waste any time in court... you have their driver's information, you go to your insurance company, and if necessary, they'll sue the the other driver for you to recover the costs to repair your car.
It probably depends on your jurisdiction... where I live, you'd *NEVER* get a ticket for "impeding flow of traffic" if you were driving the speed limit, regardless of which lane you were in.
Nah... the signals used could easily be keyed to each individual car, say by using an encoded form of the VIN, and not responding to signals which do not contain the vehicle's own code.
Getting rear-ended because you are going the speed limit while the person behind you is exceeding it is rarely anything more serious than a fender-bender... and the person who rear-ended you is going to be held to be at fault.
I get into the left lane whenever I know I will need to be turning left at some point up ahead, regardless of how far away it is, since I do not know for sure whether I will have the opportunity to safely move into the left lane when I get closer to where I'm going to turn.
They won't all be in the right lane when any need to make a left turn. I, for one, prefer to get into the lane I know I will ultimately need to be in as early as possible and remain there, instead of waiting for it to come up because, particularly in heavier traffic, I may not have the opportunity to lane-change when I am closer to the point where I am making the left turn.
A well-functioning autonomous vehicle would recognize that there was an obstacle in such a case and would immediately slow down to avoid a collision.
Although I doubt it would recognize things as small as squirrels or other tiny animals. Something the size of a deer, however, it should immediately stop for.
Autonomous cars still have a minimum stopping distance, and it would be unwise for an autonomous car to tailgate even another autonomous car since unexpected situations which can force an emergency brake (such as a child running out onto the road) can still arise. If the car ahead had to stop unexpectedly, a distance of only a few centimeters would not be sufficient for your own vehicle to safely stop in time, even though you've taken human reaction time entirely out of the equation. I expect, instead, that minimum car spacing may still be reduced... but still somehow be a function of the posted speed limit.
I seem to recall a (probably unethical by today's standards) animal psychiatric study where they subjected animals to mild electric shocks to try to discourage them from forming particular familial bonds, and discovered that not only were the shocks ineffective at discouraging those bonds, but they actually *enhanced* the bond so that it became abnormally stronger than was typical.
Okay.... so if you forget to reregister in a timely fashion, you pay the fine, reregister, and get your status back.
It seems not terribly unlike letting your driver's license expire... if you forget about it and end up needing it for something (say you were in an accident or something), you'll pay a rather nasty fine... but you can still renew it and get a new one, as long as the time period since it expired hasn't been too long.
Just because RMS makes up the notion that Linux is somehow part of the GNU project doesn't make it so.
Let's try a car analogy.... I might manufacture almost all of the parts for an an automobile body, but when somebody else puts those pieces together into a single car, the car is still branded with *their* name... not mine.
Redhat Linux, Slackware Linux, Debian Linux, Gentoo Linux, Ubuntu Linux.... these are all reasonable. GNU, however... does not construct their own distribution of Linux, so GNU/Linux is a misnomer (I'm not entirely sure of the trademark logistics if the FSF were to make their own distribution of Linux and in so doing, consider it part of the GNU project, but if they were to... it would seem to be reasonable to call *that* distro GNU/Linux).
I have no problem giving credit to a valuable toolchain... but as I said, I've used other systems that had utilized the GNU tools... but that doesn't make them part of the GNU project. The tools were ported to Linux, just as they were to every other OS that exist for. It's Linux, not GNU/Linux, any more than HPUX, Minix, or AIX become "GNU" simply because the toolchains were ported to them as well.
Calling it GNU/Linux is suggesting that Linux is just as much a part of the GNU project, as much as gcc, flex, bison, bash, gawk, gdb, and other tools. It is not. It's Linux... not GNU/Linux... the prefix was added by people who simply got tired of waiting for Hurd when Linux did everything that they wanted, and serendipitously was also released under the GPL, but it was not ever part of the GNU project, so GNU/Linux is as much of a misnomer as BSD Linux (since Linux can be distributed with BSD tools instead).
If being distributed with the GNU tools were sufficient to put a GNU prefix on the OS, then, as I said, Minix should be GNU/Minix. The HPUX system that I used in when I was in university had all GNU tools replacing the standard ones, but it would be an error to say I was ever using GNU/HPUX.
The GNU tools were *ported* to Linux... just like they were to every other system, and by virtue of Linux being highly similar to sysv,, and ultimately actually posix compliant, that port was trivial. But that doesn't make it GNU.
Oh, just drop the prefix on Linux already. Linux is no more GNU/Linux than Minix is GNU/Minix. Consider that the GNU tools were ported to Minix, just like they originally were for Linux, and in the past, Minix has been distributed with a complete GNU toolchain set, just like Linux is. Linux was and is GPL, but it is not and has not ever been part of the GNU project.
When robots can do a task faster, cheaper, and more reliably than humans, it's inevitable that they will be replaced.
People have been fearing machines causing long-term and large scale unemployment since the cotton gin... history shows that actual unemployment increases caused by replacing workers with automation are not anywhere nearly as massive as was feared by some beforehand, but also extremely temporary.
That's well known, and not what the article was actually about beyond the article claiming that the Peter Principle was the inspiration for the newer concept.
The article has no more information than the above summary, does not use any specific examples which illustrate the case, and does not have any links to any further information whatsoever.
If the author doesn't care enough about it to actually take the time to explain in detail what he is really talking about, why should anyone care enough about his opinion to listen?
Sorry for how hostile this post sounds... I'm not angry or anything, just mildly disappointed. An actual paper describing this phenomenon could have been an interesting read, if there had actually been one.
Slashdot Mirror
True... but at the same time, cars aren't exactly tiny... the range on the signal probably wouldn't be far enough that your own car is liable to be reading the signals of hundreds of other cars at the same time.
If the "flow of traffic" is speeding, I don't really give a damn. I will drive at the posted limit, barring slippery road conditions that necessitate I need to drive slower.
If somebody rear-ends me, my insurance company will happily sue them while I get my car repaired at no cost to myself.
You don't have to waste any time in court... you have their driver's information, you go to your insurance company, and if necessary, they'll sue the the other driver for you to recover the costs to repair your car.
It probably depends on your jurisdiction... where I live, you'd *NEVER* get a ticket for "impeding flow of traffic" if you were driving the speed limit, regardless of which lane you were in.
Nah... the signals used could easily be keyed to each individual car, say by using an encoded form of the VIN, and not responding to signals which do not contain the vehicle's own code.
They won't just get out of the way if they cannot do so legally and safely.
Getting rear-ended because you are going the speed limit while the person behind you is exceeding it is rarely anything more serious than a fender-bender... and the person who rear-ended you is going to be held to be at fault.
I get into the left lane whenever I know I will need to be turning left at some point up ahead, regardless of how far away it is, since I do not know for sure whether I will have the opportunity to safely move into the left lane when I get closer to where I'm going to turn.
They won't all be in the right lane when any need to make a left turn. I, for one, prefer to get into the lane I know I will ultimately need to be in as early as possible and remain there, instead of waiting for it to come up because, particularly in heavier traffic, I may not have the opportunity to lane-change when I am closer to the point where I am making the left turn.
A well-functioning autonomous vehicle would recognize that there was an obstacle in such a case and would immediately slow down to avoid a collision.
Although I doubt it would recognize things as small as squirrels or other tiny animals. Something the size of a deer, however, it should immediately stop for.
Autonomous cars still have a minimum stopping distance, and it would be unwise for an autonomous car to tailgate even another autonomous car since unexpected situations which can force an emergency brake (such as a child running out onto the road) can still arise. If the car ahead had to stop unexpectedly, a distance of only a few centimeters would not be sufficient for your own vehicle to safely stop in time, even though you've taken human reaction time entirely out of the equation. I expect, instead, that minimum car spacing may still be reduced... but still somehow be a function of the posted speed limit.
No more so than a given tv remote that is made for one particular TV should also affect every other television.
Cars in the left lane are supposed to follow the law too.
I seem to recall a (probably unethical by today's standards) animal psychiatric study where they subjected animals to mild electric shocks to try to discourage them from forming particular familial bonds, and discovered that not only were the shocks ineffective at discouraging those bonds, but they actually *enhanced* the bond so that it became abnormally stronger than was typical.
RMS is incorrect. It is no more important for Linux than it is for Minix, which was also built with gcc.
It seems not terribly unlike letting your driver's license expire... if you forget about it and end up needing it for something (say you were in an accident or something), you'll pay a rather nasty fine... but you can still renew it and get a new one, as long as the time period since it expired hasn't been too long.
Just because RMS makes up the notion that Linux is somehow part of the GNU project doesn't make it so.
Let's try a car analogy.... I might manufacture almost all of the parts for an an automobile body, but when somebody else puts those pieces together into a single car, the car is still branded with *their* name... not mine.
Redhat Linux, Slackware Linux, Debian Linux, Gentoo Linux, Ubuntu Linux.... these are all reasonable. GNU, however... does not construct their own distribution of Linux, so GNU/Linux is a misnomer (I'm not entirely sure of the trademark logistics if the FSF were to make their own distribution of Linux and in so doing, consider it part of the GNU project, but if they were to... it would seem to be reasonable to call *that* distro GNU/Linux).
I have no problem giving credit to a valuable toolchain... but as I said, I've used other systems that had utilized the GNU tools... but that doesn't make them part of the GNU project. The tools were ported to Linux, just as they were to every other OS that exist for. It's Linux, not GNU/Linux, any more than HPUX, Minix, or AIX become "GNU" simply because the toolchains were ported to them as well.
GNU built the system that Minix resided in as well.... that doesn't make it GNU/Minix.
Calling it GNU/Linux is suggesting that Linux is just as much a part of the GNU project, as much as gcc, flex, bison, bash, gawk, gdb, and other tools. It is not. It's Linux... not GNU/Linux... the prefix was added by people who simply got tired of waiting for Hurd when Linux did everything that they wanted, and serendipitously was also released under the GPL, but it was not ever part of the GNU project, so GNU/Linux is as much of a misnomer as BSD Linux (since Linux can be distributed with BSD tools instead).
If being distributed with the GNU tools were sufficient to put a GNU prefix on the OS, then, as I said, Minix should be GNU/Minix. The HPUX system that I used in when I was in university had all GNU tools replacing the standard ones, but it would be an error to say I was ever using GNU/HPUX.
The GNU tools were *ported* to Linux... just like they were to every other system, and by virtue of Linux being highly similar to sysv,, and ultimately actually posix compliant, that port was trivial. But that doesn't make it GNU.
Oh, just drop the prefix on Linux already. Linux is no more GNU/Linux than Minix is GNU/Minix. Consider that the GNU tools were ported to Minix, just like they originally were for Linux, and in the past, Minix has been distributed with a complete GNU toolchain set, just like Linux is. Linux was and is GPL, but it is not and has not ever been part of the GNU project.
When robots can do a task faster, cheaper, and more reliably than humans, it's inevitable that they will be replaced.
People have been fearing machines causing long-term and large scale unemployment since the cotton gin... history shows that actual unemployment increases caused by replacing workers with automation are not anywhere nearly as massive as was feared by some beforehand, but also extremely temporary.
Working this out would be like people 3000 or so years ago trying to make some kinds of meaningful decisions about 21st century technology.
That's well known, and not what the article was actually about beyond the article claiming that the Peter Principle was the inspiration for the newer concept.
The article has no more information than the above summary, does not use any specific examples which illustrate the case, and does not have any links to any further information whatsoever.
If the author doesn't care enough about it to actually take the time to explain in detail what he is really talking about, why should anyone care enough about his opinion to listen?
Sorry for how hostile this post sounds... I'm not angry or anything, just mildly disappointed. An actual paper describing this phenomenon could have been an interesting read, if there had actually been one.