Right now objects are just blobs of pixels. The way the current car tells the difference between a postbox and a person is that the route has been pre scanned and gone over by a person to identify all post boxes. What happens when a post box is installed after the scan is done? The Google car will assume it is a person.
The second issue is that Google car is very good at not running into a person that is moving but not so good a yielding to a person waiting to cross. Say you have a person standing on a corner waiting to cross. Since Google car can not identify what that person is doing it may not stop and yield as required by law.
The key advantage is that the car isn’t just seeing and figuring out the world as it drives along. It’s basing its actions on vast amounts of data the Google Self-Driving Car Project has already compiled about every road it travels. Before the car drives itself into new territory, the project team collects detailed information on permanent features: lane markers, the precise location of the curbs, the height of traffic lights, local speed limits, and so forth.
“We require digital maps in order for our cars to be able to drive,” Andrew Chatham, who leads mapping on the project, said at a press event Tuesday. That data “makes the job of building the self-driving car software much simpler.”
The car has a good idea of what to expect from any stretch of road, freeing up the software to deal with cars, pedestrians, cyclists, construction, and any other new obstacles in real time.
That’s the “magic of maps,” Software Lead Dmitri Dolgov said. But that “magic” inherently limits the range of the self-driving car to areas Google has the data for. As Chatham pointed out, “If we have not already built our own maps in an area, the car cannot drive there.” He noted that as the car’s sensors get better, they will rely less on perfect accuracy, but Chris Urmson, the project director, emphasized the key role these maps play.
Snappy citations are enough to support us going halfway across the globe to protect people.
FTFY
Had we all been maintaining a policy of non-intervention, ISIS would not exist.
We didn't intervene in Syria and ISIS was born. Note that the last "S" is ISIS stand for "Syria".
At any rate, we have to think first about our own interests.
We are thinking about ourselves. If ISIS is allowed to control large parts of the Middle East it controls the world economy. That would be very bad for everyone.
It's unfortunate that people elsewhere are suffering, but we have proven time and time again that our interventions are both ineffective and costly.
People are not only suffering they are being murdered by the hundreds. By the way, some of our interventions have worked; WW1, WW2, Korea, and Bosnia.
There's nothing we can do.
We can remove ISIS's control of a large part of the Middle East.
Unless you are naive enough to think that "this time, we can end the terrorist threat!".
It will not "end the terrorist threat" but it will remove massive resources from the terrorists.
Sorry but I am not of the "stick your head in the sand till they kick your ass" group.
Any good country would be appalled by the atrocities committed by ISIS and want to help stop them. Canada's reaction has nothing to do with the US. All you are advocating is ignoring other people's suffering.
I am a Canadian and I disagree completely with your isolationist position. The protection of innocent lives from aggression is the concern of every free person on earth. By ignoring the suffering of people in other countries all you are doing is reinforcing the idea that might is right.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
At least Trudeau is not running things. Canada would be sending humanitarian aid with no protection so ISIS can take over the area and have food to eat. Trudeau does not understand that humanitarian aid without security is useless at best and aid to the enemy at worst.
I found an interesting graph. Why is there no uotcry about the declining number of men getting degrees in the following discaplines? Biology, psychology, communications and journalism. And no outcry about the historically low levels in the following fields? Health professions, public administration, education, foreign languages, English, and Art and performance.
It's that "fewer women than used to, where every other intensely technical field has had the opposite trend"
By lumping all physical sciences together the graph hides a lot of information. Here is a much more detailed graph. Notice that bachelors for females has declined in almost all fields.
It's that People are more likely to pick men for mathematical tests that both genders are proven to do equally well on, even when in the test cases where the specific women are known to outperform the specific men
The bias is attributed to the fact that men brag more. Maybe bragging is seen as a measure of confidence.
It's that sexism is actually cited by women leaving the field
You didn't read the study you quoted. Here is a quote from the abstract;
The evidence points to the existence of a “scar effect” of previous work in the female field, which hinders women's opportunities in the male sector and ends up increasing the likelihood of exit.
The study is about "scars" from work in a female dominated job effecting the next, male dominated, job. It has nothing to do with sexism in the male dominated job.
It's that gender based social norms enforced on children clearly influence their likliehood to enter a sex-typical field
Yet another misinterpretation.
Motivation and self-esteem help girls aim higher in the occupational ladder, which automatically reduces their levels of sex-typicality. For boys, however, self-esteem reduces sex-typicality at all levels of the aspired occupational distribution.
There is a precident in international law that if you do not occupy a land then it is not part of your country. Sovereignty parols are there to stop Russia from sending people and claiming the land. That is very different than Ukraine. There are no ethnic Russians there to "protect".
Are these attacks the fault of the moose . . . or the tourists . ..!
Read this and you will find the moose sometimes attach innocent people.
Which is why folks up there just don't "go out for a walk" for a long time.
The Canadian Ranger do; it's their job. By the way, a shotgun can freeze up in a few hours in -40 weather. One of the reasons for a bolt action is that the leverage helps break the ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Canadian Rangers do. The Dew line inspections are only a small part of their responsibilities
What weapon do you think they should carry on a long sovereignty patrol? Sorry but a combat shotgun will not do.
The Rangers are there to convince Russia not to claim all the oil rights to the Arctic.
Which generally does not entail getting into firefights which is why they don't need full auto weapons. In international law all that is needed is presence.
Bull moose are only dangerous for about two weeks during the rut
Did you even do a search on moose attacks? They happen year around.
You don't want a rifle, but rather a tactical shotgun.
A starving bear in the high arctic will not be scared off by a shotgun. There is plenty of food around Churchill. If you are the only food around the bear will be much more persistent. By the way those tactical shotguns in Churchill are stored indoor where they are warm. A tactical shotgun would freeze solid if carried around outdoors for a while.
You know more than the Inuit who live in the high arctic how?
These guns are for defense against big predators and not for small unit tactics. The other issue is that the relatively complex mechanism of an automatic rifle is prone to icing up. Even AKs freeze solid in the north
The company either makes money by charging users or showing ads. Would "charge for the service once it gets popular" a good alternative? What is your idea?
Exactly, a customer pays for a product. If you don't pay then you are not a customer you are just a user. The company has to make money somehow. Paying for a service by reading ads is a reasonable solution.
Obviously you have decided that slander and libel *should be* illegal. What I am asking is, how you arrived at that conclusion. You've said it is because it causes harm, and I gave an example of other things that cause harm, and you've said that's "significantly different". So how do you decide?
I said it is because libel/slander causes significant harm and the need for the law therefore black and white. There are sufficient numbers of cases where spreading lies has cause sufficient harm to justify those laws. I agree that "sufficient number of cases" and "sufficient harm" are subjective but I believe that they are sufficient.
Well you seemed to be making the argument that the existence of a libel/slander laws implies the need for them.
No I am stating that the existence of such laws for so long in so many places is evidence that many people, the ones who created the laws and have not overtirned them, agree that they are necessary.
There are some occasions where slander and libel do not cause significant harm. Should those specific instances still be illegal?
Considering that significant harm is in the definition of what is libel/slander it is impossible to have libel/slander without significant harm.
I was asking for the difference between treating libel/slander in a black and white fashion vs. free speech in a black and white fashion.
Neither should be treated as back and white as I have shown in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The need for libel/slander laws is black and white but the application of those laws, much like the application of freedom of speech, is much less so.
Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, $1,700), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology.
Considering the low number I think you are a bit off. It is very difficult to be thrown in jail for libel/slander but that does not mean that the laws should not exist.
I was asking for a metric of how you would determine whether something (i.e. like lying, hurting people's feelings, etc) could be objectively measured for whether they reach the level of requiring legal rectification.
If something can be objectively measured it becomes black and white. As I said, libel/slander is not black and white which is why we rely on judges, juries and precedents.
Using your logic one might assume voter fraud was a big enough problem that laws were required to fix them.
No I would not make that assumption. There might be a connection between lack of an identity card and voter fraud but I would have to be shown the evidence before I made a decision. There is a direct connection between libel and the harm caused by libel as has been shown many times in the past. There are thousands of examples of how people's lives have been ruined by lies.
The fact that a law exists is not a good argument that it *should* or *shouldn't* exist.
The fact that there is significant harm caused by an action is a good argument that a law should exist.
You seem to think libel and slander are black and white, whats the difference?
They are black and white as libel is published and slander is spoken. Even libel/slander as a law is not black and white. For example, in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell it was found that the lies were so outlandish that a reasonable person would not believe them. Libel/slander is a very grey area.
Look at the journalists in imprisoned in Egypt for "spreading lies". These sorts of laws are easily abused.
Almost every law can be easily abused.
And if you compare all the harm caused by libel and slander, and all the harm caused by abuse of laws restricting the spread of lies, I don;t think there would be any contest.
That may be your understanding but that is yet another point on which we disagree.
If somebody is spreading lies, then the remedy is shining light on the lies and calling people out for the liars they are.
If the lair has enough money and can plaster the lies in enough places the lie will drown out the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now objects are just blobs of pixels. The way the current car tells the difference between a postbox and a person is that the route has been pre scanned and gone over by a person to identify all post boxes. What happens when a post box is installed after the scan is done? The Google car will assume it is a person.
The second issue is that Google car is very good at not running into a person that is moving but not so good a yielding to a person waiting to cross. Say you have a person standing on a corner waiting to cross. Since Google car can not identify what that person is doing it may not stop and yield as required by law.
Sorry but this article has different information.
The key advantage is that the car isn’t just seeing and figuring out the world as it drives along. It’s basing its actions on vast amounts of data the Google Self-Driving Car Project has already compiled about every road it travels. Before the car drives itself into new territory, the project team collects detailed information on permanent features: lane markers, the precise location of the curbs, the height of traffic lights, local speed limits, and so forth.
“We require digital maps in order for our cars to be able to drive,” Andrew Chatham, who leads mapping on the project, said at a press event Tuesday. That data “makes the job of building the self-driving car software much simpler.”
The car has a good idea of what to expect from any stretch of road, freeing up the software to deal with cars, pedestrians, cyclists, construction, and any other new obstacles in real time.
That’s the “magic of maps,” Software Lead Dmitri Dolgov said. But that “magic” inherently limits the range of the self-driving car to areas Google has the data for. As Chatham pointed out, “If we have not already built our own maps in an area, the car cannot drive there.” He noted that as the car’s sensors get better, they will rely less on perfect accuracy, but Chris Urmson, the project director, emphasized the key role these maps play.
Regular Google maps do not have enough accuracy.
Snappy citations are enough to support us going halfway across the globe to protect people.
FTFY
Had we all been maintaining a policy of non-intervention, ISIS would not exist.
We didn't intervene in Syria and ISIS was born. Note that the last "S" is ISIS stand for "Syria".
At any rate, we have to think first about our own interests.
We are thinking about ourselves. If ISIS is allowed to control large parts of the Middle East it controls the world economy. That would be very bad for everyone.
It's unfortunate that people elsewhere are suffering, but we have proven time and time again that our interventions are both ineffective and costly.
People are not only suffering they are being murdered by the hundreds. By the way, some of our interventions have worked; WW1, WW2, Korea, and Bosnia.
There's nothing we can do.
We can remove ISIS's control of a large part of the Middle East.
Unless you are naive enough to think that "this time, we can end the terrorist threat!".
It will not "end the terrorist threat" but it will remove massive resources from the terrorists.
Sorry but I am not of the "stick your head in the sand till they kick your ass" group.
Saudi's blow up WTC - bomb Afghanistan.
FTFY
Quebec guy snipes Ottara - bomb Iraq.
The decision to bomb ISIS was made before the attack so your connection is false.
(PS learn to spell Ontario)
I do believe you shall find that Thomas Mulcair is, in fact, the head of the Shadow Government (also known as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition).
My mistake. I am just so used to ignoring anything the NDP says.
It is true that the Liberals (lead by Justin Trudeau) will likely receive the majority of the vote in the election of next year.
Considering how poorly Trudeau is handling this issue that may not happen.
Any good country would be appalled by the atrocities committed by ISIS and want to help stop them. Canada's reaction has nothing to do with the US. All you are advocating is ignoring other people's suffering.
I am a Canadian and I disagree completely with your isolationist position. The protection of innocent lives from aggression is the concern of every free person on earth. By ignoring the suffering of people in other countries all you are doing is reinforcing the idea that might is right.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Burke(maybe)
Exaggeration just make you sound stupid.
Actually, free radicals cause cancer. That is an interesting analogy considering that terrorists cause a similar thing to society.
Justin Trudeau, the son, not Pierre Eliot Trudeau, the father. Justin Trudeau is the current leader of the opposition.
and waterboarding people for jay-walking.
Cut the hyperbole and people might listen to you. By the way, cops with M-16's are to counter people like this.
At least Trudeau is not running things. Canada would be sending humanitarian aid with no protection so ISIS can take over the area and have food to eat. Trudeau does not understand that humanitarian aid without security is useless at best and aid to the enemy at worst.
I found an interesting graph. Why is there no uotcry about the declining number of men getting degrees in the following discaplines? Biology, psychology, communications and journalism. And no outcry about the historically low levels in the following fields? Health professions, public administration, education, foreign languages, English, and Art and performance.
It's that "fewer women than used to, where every other intensely technical field has had the opposite trend"
By lumping all physical sciences together the graph hides a lot of information. Here is a much more detailed graph. Notice that bachelors for females has declined in almost all fields.
It's that People are more likely to pick men for mathematical tests that both genders are proven to do equally well on, even when in the test cases where the specific women are known to outperform the specific men
The bias is attributed to the fact that men brag more. Maybe bragging is seen as a measure of confidence.
It's that sexism is actually cited by women leaving the field
You didn't read the study you quoted. Here is a quote from the abstract;
The evidence points to the existence of a “scar effect” of previous work in the female field, which hinders women's opportunities in the male sector and ends up increasing the likelihood of exit.
The study is about "scars" from work in a female dominated job effecting the next, male dominated, job. It has nothing to do with sexism in the male dominated job.
It's that gender based social norms enforced on children clearly influence their likliehood to enter a sex-typical field
Yet another misinterpretation.
Motivation and self-esteem help girls aim higher in the occupational ladder, which automatically reduces their levels of sex-typicality. For boys, however, self-esteem reduces sex-typicality at all levels of the aspired occupational distribution.
Why do girls need to be motivated but not boys.
Tell that to Putin and the folks in the Ukraine .
There is a precident in international law that if you do not occupy a land then it is not part of your country. Sovereignty parols are there to stop Russia from sending people and claiming the land. That is very different than Ukraine. There are no ethnic Russians there to "protect".
Are these attacks the fault of the moose . . . or the tourists . . .!
Read this and you will find the moose sometimes attach innocent people.
Which is why folks up there just don't "go out for a walk" for a long time.
The Canadian Ranger do; it's their job. By the way, a shotgun can freeze up in a few hours in -40 weather. One of the reasons for a bolt action is that the leverage helps break the ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Canadian Rangers do. The Dew line inspections are only a small part of their responsibilities
What weapon do you think they should carry on a long sovereignty patrol? Sorry but a combat shotgun will not do.
The Rangers are there to convince Russia not to claim all the oil rights to the Arctic.
Which generally does not entail getting into firefights which is why they don't need full auto weapons. In international law all that is needed is presence.
Bull moose are only dangerous for about two weeks during the rut
Did you even do a search on moose attacks? They happen year around.
You don't want a rifle, but rather a tactical shotgun.
A starving bear in the high arctic will not be scared off by a shotgun. There is plenty of food around Churchill. If you are the only food around the bear will be much more persistent. By the way those tactical shotguns in Churchill are stored indoor where they are warm. A tactical shotgun would freeze solid if carried around outdoors for a while.
You know more than the Inuit who live in the high arctic how?
These guns are for defense against big predators and not for small unit tactics. The other issue is that the relatively complex mechanism of an automatic rifle is prone to icing up. Even AKs freeze solid in the north
IRC is funded by donations of server resources and admin time. Snatchat pays for their servers.
The company either makes money by charging users or showing ads. Would "charge for the service once it gets popular" a good alternative? What is your idea?
Exactly, a customer pays for a product. If you don't pay then you are not a customer you are just a user. The company has to make money somehow. Paying for a service by reading ads is a reasonable solution.
Obviously you have decided that slander and libel *should be* illegal. What I am asking is, how you arrived at that conclusion. You've said it is because it causes harm, and I gave an example of other things that cause harm, and you've said that's "significantly different". So how do you decide?
I said it is because libel/slander causes significant harm and the need for the law therefore black and white. There are sufficient numbers of cases where spreading lies has cause sufficient harm to justify those laws. I agree that "sufficient number of cases" and "sufficient harm" are subjective but I believe that they are sufficient.
Well you seemed to be making the argument that the existence of a libel/slander laws implies the need for them.
No I am stating that the existence of such laws for so long in so many places is evidence that many people, the ones who created the laws and have not overtirned them, agree that they are necessary.
There are some occasions where slander and libel do not cause significant harm. Should those specific instances still be illegal?
Considering that significant harm is in the definition of what is libel/slander it is impossible to have libel/slander without significant harm.
I was asking for the difference between treating libel/slander in a black and white fashion vs. free speech in a black and white fashion.
Neither should be treated as back and white as I have shown in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The need for libel/slander laws is black and white but the application of those laws, much like the application of freedom of speech, is much less so.
he can get anyone convicted for libel and slander.
from this article
Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, $1,700), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology.
Considering the low number I think you are a bit off. It is very difficult to be thrown in jail for libel/slander but that does not mean that the laws should not exist.
I was asking for a metric of how you would determine whether something (i.e. like lying, hurting people's feelings, etc) could be objectively measured for whether they reach the level of requiring legal rectification.
If something can be objectively measured it becomes black and white. As I said, libel/slander is not black and white which is why we rely on judges, juries and precedents.
Using your logic one might assume voter fraud was a big enough problem that laws were required to fix them.
No I would not make that assumption. There might be a connection between lack of an identity card and voter fraud but I would have to be shown the evidence before I made a decision. There is a direct connection between libel and the harm caused by libel as has been shown many times in the past. There are thousands of examples of how people's lives have been ruined by lies.
The fact that a law exists is not a good argument that it *should* or *shouldn't* exist.
The fact that there is significant harm caused by an action is a good argument that a law should exist.
You seem to think libel and slander are black and white, whats the difference?
They are black and white as libel is published and slander is spoken. Even libel/slander as a law is not black and white. For example, in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell it was found that the lies were so outlandish that a reasonable person would not believe them. Libel/slander is a very grey area.
Look at the journalists in imprisoned in Egypt for "spreading lies". These sorts of laws are easily abused.
Almost every law can be easily abused.
And if you compare all the harm caused by libel and slander, and all the harm caused by abuse of laws restricting the spread of lies, I don;t think there would be any contest.
That may be your understanding but that is yet another point on which we disagree.
If somebody is spreading lies, then the remedy is shining light on the lies and calling people out for the liars they are.
If the lair has enough money and can plaster the lies in enough places the lie will drown out the truth.
Anti-discrimination laws already take care of the latter.
Sorry but being a pedophile is not class protected from discrimination by law.