If all cars were autonomous, you wouldn't need to 'see' the other cars to know they were there. Car-to-car communication should be expected, allowing the lead car to tell trailing cars of an obstacle it encountered.
I'd say that similar to passenger airbags and the spoiler on the Bugatti Veyron, you shouldn't be able to switch between autonomous and manual, while the machine is in motion.
I loved the game Wipeout 2097 when you got the Autopilot, because you could be heading straight for a wall, use it and somehow in complete defiance of physics you were safe and moving in the right direction again.
In the real world, the autopilot should only be able to activate from standstill, so as to be in complete control, and not be expected to take over in an emergency.
Tire taxes are great, if the roads are kept in poor condition, this increases wear on tires and increases the chance of a puncture forcing you to have to replace more often which increases tax income!
The issue can be condensed to 2 organs, The inner ear and the eyes.
3 Scenarios: You are a Driver. You are looking at the road, and as you bump about or turn, your ears tell you you are moving and your eyes confirm this fact. You are a Passanger. You are looking about at the lovely scenery, same situation as above. You are another Passenger. You are sitting in the back seat looking at the headrest infront (there may be a screen there) or you are playing with iDevice, or simply reading a book. As the car bounces around, your ears tell you you are moving, while your eyes, fixed on an object that is also bouncing around tell you you are sitting still. This confusion is what causes motion sickness. There are pills you can take that stop this communication between the 2 senses, it is also possible to train yourself to ignore the confused inputs.
In order for the Rift to work, you need to ensure that your accelerometers can detect movement, and the screen can update fast enough to fool your eyes, when you make a movement.
The reverse is so very rarely a problem, If you are witnessing movement, but not feeling it in your ears, the brain tends to let it pass. It will just assume it is hallucinating. The problem is that the vision areas are so prone to being fooled, that the brain just corrects without telling you.
Did you know that at all times, when you are looking about, your nose is in your field of view? Because it is not important, and can distract, your brain simply edits it out all the time, until you consciously try to look for it.
The brain trusts the eyes to account for balance, which is why, if you stand still and look at a spot on the wall you can stand pretty still. Once you close your eyes, only then do you feel it in your ears and realise the corrections being made constantly to keep balance.
If the brain sees you as moving, it will trust it more than the ears. This is why you get sick when your ears are screaming at you "We're FALLING to our death" in zero-gravity while your eyes are "Lol chill bro nothing gone on up here" but don't get sick when skydiving, because the eyes are now saying "Yepp, totally falling to our death, aint this fun!"
VR will work when the latency is so small the brain doesn't notice. Apparently the Rift is as good as needs be for this.
When I was playing WoW, one of my guildmembers inherited a sum of money, and decided to use (some of) it to buy himself a cool gaming rig. He was one of these people who always had a machine barely able to play the game on low settings etc.
He got a 3D screen and glasses setup with dual Nvidia cards. His testimonials really make me jealous. He was explaining how instead of one character occluding another, you could actually tell that they were 'behind'.
The game was completely different in 3D and he couldn't imagine ever going back to simple 2D.
I experienced something similar playing Crysis 2 on my friend's XBOX360 on a 3D TV. It completely changes the game when you can perceive depth.
The ONLY thing stopping me buying a 3D monitor for my PC, is the apparent nearness of the Rift commercial package now.
I experience this on a daily basis. I meet people who appear bright, but soon after turn out to be very dense. I can only guess there is a light to matter conversion there.
Makes you wonder, do we need these complete and utter assholes? They say that a statistically significant number of CEO's would pass, or fail, (depending on your POV) a standard test for psychopathy.
Was the chieftain of the old wattle and daub hut village a psychopath? Was he out for his own interests and needed to use all those around him to get it? Was his goal to provide himself with a nice big hut to live in, but in order for that to happen he needed to be charismatic and persuasive, and ultimately all the people who helped him ended up with huts (albeit smaller) to live in too.
He was an entrepreneur! He was also probably bigger and much more prone to cracking your skull if you didn't do as he asked. Better still, he probably had people on his side to do that for him.
If someone was sick, or unwilling to go along with the plans to better the society as a whole, who was responsible for lacking empathy and kill/drive these people out of the unit? It's quite possible that a certain % of the human population is, by 'design' (note, I don't mean intelligent design, just evolutionary design) supposed to be psychopathic, to be someone who, by thinking only about themselves, accidentally improve the lot of the community as a whole.
Perhaps, when we as a race have nothing more to improve upon, we can do away with this %. What worries me though, is that, because of how society is changing, many of these psychopaths are no longer working as intended, and are now working for themselves at the detriment of society as a whole. Take the MPAA as an example, they are working for themselves, and potentially improving the lot of a choice few people (their perceived tribe) but since the world is no longer made up solely of tribes, and is a complexly interlinked society, the elevation of their tribe is actually an exercise in simply trying to drive everyone else down.
The way I see it, it's like putting in energy to convert water to steam, pump the steam to the dispenser and then extract the energy again to condense it to water. If that energy is just stored somewhere, and used to heat the next batch of water (assuming 0 loss which goes against entropy) you only need the energy to pump the steam about.
If you have solid matter in one form, and know a process similar to boiling that converts it to energy, then pump it as 'light' to the dispenser, you then can reverse the process and end up back where you started.
The question is, how do you keep a reservoir of energy, similar to that used to turn water to steam, available to keep the matter/energy/matter conversion working.
When you consider distillation, in super slow motion, what you are doing is providing enough energy to allow one molecule of water to break surface tension, escape the van der Waals bonding and move to a condenser, where you sap the energy away leaving it to forma a liquid again.
One assumes that the future tech process will do something similar, it will atom by atom convert one material to energy, and recombine it as another material elsewhere. Then, similar to how it takes the application of energy over time to boil up a whole kettle of water, you have a steady process for doing it with matter conversion.
It's still totally sci-fi, and ludicrous, but then so to is propelling a space ship at speeds approaching c.
More importantly, they learned valuable information on what will cause a ROV to finally implode. Similar to Edison being quoted as finding out 1,000 ways not to make a lightbulb.
I love the igNobels. There are so often such obvious things that people take for granted, then someone decides to do a rigorous scientific study on it. A lot of people find them funny, and a good few of them are, but like "The Origin of Static Electricity" so many are little fundamental things that were important to _someone_ and they went about scientifically proving or disproving them.
You are possibly right, I'll take you on your word, given how you don't cite a source, but my underlying point, is that it's all beside the point. We shouldn't be thinking "these are intelligent creatures, we shouldn't be keeping them in captivity for our enjoyment" and instead, "we really shouldn't be keeping ANY potentially endangered creatures in captivity, who are doing fine in the wild".
I'm all for domesticated animals being reared in captivity for food, where they are provided for and generally lead un-bothered lives right up until they are slaughtered for food. I am however against animals being unduly punished for enjoyment/entertainment.
Given how there is such great disparity between individual members of the human race as far as intelligence goes, any method of comparing us to them is a bit moot:)
My ability to predict the motions of a school of fish, perhaps, but a marine biologist, less so. A marine biologist with GPS trackers attached to several fish and satellite imagery or sonar and now doesn't the Orca look stupid.
Now one person can track and predict the motions of not just one school of fish, but potentially many many schools all across the oceans/world so that I don't have to. This leaves me to worry about writing technical manuals for production operators making the sterile injectable cancer treatment drug that someone else designed from the molecule up.
Humans, by virtue of the extremely malleable and powerful brains can specialise in so many tasks that yes, judging them on something they have not trained for can make them appear stupid.
While I question my own personal ability to thin effectively in 3 dimensions, I'm going to go with "well I've never been put to the test on it". I'm going to make a broad assumption that your average air force pilot would have little difficulty with such challenges an Orca might pose him/her. And yes, a small child will not be able to do many of the things these Orca are capable of, but the same may be said of young Orca. My point is that even in an under developed state, there are many ways in which a small child is a lot smarter than many animals, even adult ones. Our ability to grasp languages would be an example. Or to use tools (I'm thinking building legos or solving jig-saw puzzles).
More primitive humans, did most certainly display planning and collaboration for hunting (taking turns to run animals to death either by exhaustion or by chasing them off a cliff). Just because we don't appear to do that now, given how we've completely tamed our food supply, doesn't stop us measuring their abilities against ours.
It really just adds to my argument (in my opinion). You simply cannot compare their intelligence to ours as Human cognitive processes are completely alien (now) to other animals.
But I would rather we stray no further off-topic. I'd really not want someone to think "dumb animals, who cares what happens to them" since we already know exactly what will happen if, say, the bees die out. We really should be looking after every animal, particularly any that we might have a hand in driving to extinction, not just for possible selfish benefit, but because I don't think we have the right to abuse them for our pleasure.
I know what you are getting at, and please don't mistake me for a troll, but they are not *highly* intelligent. You could call them *relatively* intelligent, compared to other animals, but you make one statement that completely eclipses any measure of intelligence possessed by Orca "(unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft)" When compared to humans, all other animals are a thick as bricks.
That doesn't mean we should treat them like shit, though. I don't condone how many animals are treated, but I also don't like when people try to class any particular group as *highly* intelligent when the reality is not quite the same.
It was recently discovered, and almost celebrated, that apes could determine which cup contained more juice by judging only the flow of juice into it (the cups were opaque). It showed they had a heretofore unseen grasp on quantitative reasoning.
A small human child can be easily confused by taking a biscuit and breaking it in 1/2 thus now having 2 biscuits if an argument over who has more biscuits breaks out. Or you can take different numbers of sweets, say 7 and 9 and by spacing out the 7 so they make a longer line than a more closely packed 9 you can confuse a child, because the parts of their brain responsible for quantitative reasoning hasn't devoted, but none of this would ever work on an adult.
Animals, for all the intelligence people try to attribute to them, barely measure up to an underdeveloped human child.
It is still our responsibility to treat them with respect regardless, just as we'd take care of a mentally handicapped person, and do our best to give them as normal a life as possible, and not simply lock them away so we don't have to deal with them.
Slashdot Mirror
If all cars were autonomous, you wouldn't need to 'see' the other cars to know they were there. Car-to-car communication should be expected, allowing the lead car to tell trailing cars of an obstacle it encountered.
I'd say that similar to passenger airbags and the spoiler on the Bugatti Veyron, you shouldn't be able to switch between autonomous and manual, while the machine is in motion.
I loved the game Wipeout 2097 when you got the Autopilot, because you could be heading straight for a wall, use it and somehow in complete defiance of physics you were safe and moving in the right direction again.
In the real world, the autopilot should only be able to activate from standstill, so as to be in complete control, and not be expected to take over in an emergency.
Whoa, let's not do anything we might regret now.
Tire taxes are great, if the roads are kept in poor condition, this increases wear on tires and increases the chance of a puncture forcing you to have to replace more often which increases tax income!
Tax fuel.
Don't you know? The money is supposed to trickle DOWN, not UP.
There could have been dangerous donuts in the basket.
The issue can be condensed to 2 organs, The inner ear and the eyes.
3 Scenarios:
You are a Driver. You are looking at the road, and as you bump about or turn, your ears tell you you are moving and your eyes confirm this fact.
You are a Passanger. You are looking about at the lovely scenery, same situation as above.
You are another Passenger. You are sitting in the back seat looking at the headrest infront (there may be a screen there) or you are playing with iDevice, or simply reading a book. As the car bounces around, your ears tell you you are moving, while your eyes, fixed on an object that is also bouncing around tell you you are sitting still. This confusion is what causes motion sickness. There are pills you can take that stop this communication between the 2 senses, it is also possible to train yourself to ignore the confused inputs.
In order for the Rift to work, you need to ensure that your accelerometers can detect movement, and the screen can update fast enough to fool your eyes, when you make a movement.
The reverse is so very rarely a problem, If you are witnessing movement, but not feeling it in your ears, the brain tends to let it pass. It will just assume it is hallucinating. The problem is that the vision areas are so prone to being fooled, that the brain just corrects without telling you.
Did you know that at all times, when you are looking about, your nose is in your field of view? Because it is not important, and can distract, your brain simply edits it out all the time, until you consciously try to look for it.
The brain trusts the eyes to account for balance, which is why, if you stand still and look at a spot on the wall you can stand pretty still. Once you close your eyes, only then do you feel it in your ears and realise the corrections being made constantly to keep balance.
If the brain sees you as moving, it will trust it more than the ears. This is why you get sick when your ears are screaming at you "We're FALLING to our death" in zero-gravity while your eyes are "Lol chill bro nothing gone on up here" but don't get sick when skydiving, because the eyes are now saying "Yepp, totally falling to our death, aint this fun!"
VR will work when the latency is so small the brain doesn't notice. Apparently the Rift is as good as needs be for this.
Copy and Paste works wonders!!!
When I was playing WoW, one of my guildmembers inherited a sum of money, and decided to use (some of) it to buy himself a cool gaming rig. He was one of these people who always had a machine barely able to play the game on low settings etc.
He got a 3D screen and glasses setup with dual Nvidia cards. His testimonials really make me jealous. He was explaining how instead of one character occluding another, you could actually tell that they were 'behind'.
The game was completely different in 3D and he couldn't imagine ever going back to simple 2D.
I experienced something similar playing Crysis 2 on my friend's XBOX360 on a 3D TV. It completely changes the game when you can perceive depth.
The ONLY thing stopping me buying a 3D monitor for my PC, is the apparent nearness of the Rift commercial package now.
So they have no way of expressing something along the lines of: "We are very serious about safety. It is a critical concept to us"
I experience this on a daily basis. I meet people who appear bright, but soon after turn out to be very dense. I can only guess there is a light to matter conversion there.
Makes you wonder, do we need these complete and utter assholes? They say that a statistically significant number of CEO's would pass, or fail, (depending on your POV) a standard test for psychopathy.
Was the chieftain of the old wattle and daub hut village a psychopath? Was he out for his own interests and needed to use all those around him to get it? Was his goal to provide himself with a nice big hut to live in, but in order for that to happen he needed to be charismatic and persuasive, and ultimately all the people who helped him ended up with huts (albeit smaller) to live in too.
He was an entrepreneur! He was also probably bigger and much more prone to cracking your skull if you didn't do as he asked. Better still, he probably had people on his side to do that for him.
If someone was sick, or unwilling to go along with the plans to better the society as a whole, who was responsible for lacking empathy and kill/drive these people out of the unit? It's quite possible that a certain % of the human population is, by 'design' (note, I don't mean intelligent design, just evolutionary design) supposed to be psychopathic, to be someone who, by thinking only about themselves, accidentally improve the lot of the community as a whole.
Perhaps, when we as a race have nothing more to improve upon, we can do away with this %. What worries me though, is that, because of how society is changing, many of these psychopaths are no longer working as intended, and are now working for themselves at the detriment of society as a whole. Take the MPAA as an example, they are working for themselves, and potentially improving the lot of a choice few people (their perceived tribe) but since the world is no longer made up solely of tribes, and is a complexly interlinked society, the elevation of their tribe is actually an exercise in simply trying to drive everyone else down.
Just a thought...
The way I see it, it's like putting in energy to convert water to steam, pump the steam to the dispenser and then extract the energy again to condense it to water. If that energy is just stored somewhere, and used to heat the next batch of water (assuming 0 loss which goes against entropy) you only need the energy to pump the steam about.
If you have solid matter in one form, and know a process similar to boiling that converts it to energy, then pump it as 'light' to the dispenser, you then can reverse the process and end up back where you started.
The question is, how do you keep a reservoir of energy, similar to that used to turn water to steam, available to keep the matter/energy/matter conversion working.
When you consider distillation, in super slow motion, what you are doing is providing enough energy to allow one molecule of water to break surface tension, escape the van der Waals bonding and move to a condenser, where you sap the energy away leaving it to forma a liquid again.
One assumes that the future tech process will do something similar, it will atom by atom convert one material to energy, and recombine it as another material elsewhere. Then, similar to how it takes the application of energy over time to boil up a whole kettle of water, you have a steady process for doing it with matter conversion.
It's still totally sci-fi, and ludicrous, but then so to is propelling a space ship at speeds approaching c.
More importantly, they learned valuable information on what will cause a ROV to finally implode. Similar to Edison being quoted as finding out 1,000 ways not to make a lightbulb.
It has sunk low enough to cave under the pressure to publish slashvertisements.
Yes, it was so impressed, it imploded!
I love the igNobels. There are so often such obvious things that people take for granted, then someone decides to do a rigorous scientific study on it. A lot of people find them funny, and a good few of them are, but like "The Origin of Static Electricity" so many are little fundamental things that were important to _someone_ and they went about scientifically proving or disproving them.
Electrokinetic scientists hate him! Find out how generates static charge on identical materials with this one simple trick!
You are possibly right, I'll take you on your word, given how you don't cite a source, but my underlying point, is that it's all beside the point. We shouldn't be thinking "these are intelligent creatures, we shouldn't be keeping them in captivity for our enjoyment" and instead, "we really shouldn't be keeping ANY potentially endangered creatures in captivity, who are doing fine in the wild".
I'm all for domesticated animals being reared in captivity for food, where they are provided for and generally lead un-bothered lives right up until they are slaughtered for food. I am however against animals being unduly punished for enjoyment/entertainment.
Given how there is such great disparity between individual members of the human race as far as intelligence goes, any method of comparing us to them is a bit moot :)
My ability to predict the motions of a school of fish, perhaps, but a marine biologist, less so. A marine biologist with GPS trackers attached to several fish and satellite imagery or sonar and now doesn't the Orca look stupid.
Now one person can track and predict the motions of not just one school of fish, but potentially many many schools all across the oceans/world so that I don't have to. This leaves me to worry about writing technical manuals for production operators making the sterile injectable cancer treatment drug that someone else designed from the molecule up.
Humans, by virtue of the extremely malleable and powerful brains can specialise in so many tasks that yes, judging them on something they have not trained for can make them appear stupid.
While I question my own personal ability to thin effectively in 3 dimensions, I'm going to go with "well I've never been put to the test on it". I'm going to make a broad assumption that your average air force pilot would have little difficulty with such challenges an Orca might pose him/her. And yes, a small child will not be able to do many of the things these Orca are capable of, but the same may be said of young Orca. My point is that even in an under developed state, there are many ways in which a small child is a lot smarter than many animals, even adult ones. Our ability to grasp languages would be an example. Or to use tools (I'm thinking building legos or solving jig-saw puzzles).
More primitive humans, did most certainly display planning and collaboration for hunting (taking turns to run animals to death either by exhaustion or by chasing them off a cliff). Just because we don't appear to do that now, given how we've completely tamed our food supply, doesn't stop us measuring their abilities against ours.
It really just adds to my argument (in my opinion). You simply cannot compare their intelligence to ours as Human cognitive processes are completely alien (now) to other animals.
But I would rather we stray no further off-topic. I'd really not want someone to think "dumb animals, who cares what happens to them" since we already know exactly what will happen if, say, the bees die out. We really should be looking after every animal, particularly any that we might have a hand in driving to extinction, not just for possible selfish benefit, but because I don't think we have the right to abuse them for our pleasure.
More importantly, they could then claim that by having a 103 year old Orca living in captivity, the expected lifespan is much longer than 20 years!
I know what you are getting at, and please don't mistake me for a troll, but they are not *highly* intelligent. You could call them *relatively* intelligent, compared to other animals, but you make one statement that completely eclipses any measure of intelligence possessed by Orca "(unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft)" When compared to humans, all other animals are a thick as bricks.
That doesn't mean we should treat them like shit, though. I don't condone how many animals are treated, but I also don't like when people try to class any particular group as *highly* intelligent when the reality is not quite the same.
It was recently discovered, and almost celebrated, that apes could determine which cup contained more juice by judging only the flow of juice into it (the cups were opaque). It showed they had a heretofore unseen grasp on quantitative reasoning.
A small human child can be easily confused by taking a biscuit and breaking it in 1/2 thus now having 2 biscuits if an argument over who has more biscuits breaks out. Or you can take different numbers of sweets, say 7 and 9 and by spacing out the 7 so they make a longer line than a more closely packed 9 you can confuse a child, because the parts of their brain responsible for quantitative reasoning hasn't devoted, but none of this would ever work on an adult.
Animals, for all the intelligence people try to attribute to them, barely measure up to an underdeveloped human child.
It is still our responsibility to treat them with respect regardless, just as we'd take care of a mentally handicapped person, and do our best to give them as normal a life as possible, and not simply lock them away so we don't have to deal with them.
"...And finally in entertainment news, Sean Bean has been cast to play the lead role in the new Snowden movie"
A book writer, then?