No. Insurance policies often have limits. If you have a $1M policy and you are found liable for a $5M judgement then your insurance pays $1M and you are personally responsible for $4M.
The insurance company is not liable, they merely pay the bill for the person or entity that is liable. Google, or whoever develops the software, will need insurance just as much as the driver since they may be found liable if there are software defects.
Whose insurance company, the car's owner, the car's driver/occupant (the person who put the car in self driving mode) or Google's (the self driving software developer)?
Insurance companies are not liable, they just pay the bill for the person or company who is liable.
We have no history of robots selecting their targets autonomously.
Its been done. One example: homing torpedoes. Especially in the WW2'ish era. More recent designs may have offered a little more control but some of the older designs basically were told to go somewhere, find a ship and target it. There was no Identification Friend or Foe.
But we can get updates added to the Geneva Conventions. And we can choose how we deal with anyone who uses these.
I think countries would need to sign the revised Convention before they would become liable for violation.
Although at the moment it looks like we (USA! USA!) will be the ones using them.
I doubt that other major powers are ignoring such technology. I think other powers have a more closed procurement process and greater control over their design/development bureaus. We are less likely to hear about their designs until they are fielded or made available for export.
There are two types of 'Germans'. Prussians and Bavarians. Prussians (stereotype: goosestepping, no fun having) are mostly from Germany, Bavarians (stereotype: beer swilling and fat) are mostly from Austria.
I've spent some time in Munich, the locals certain don't characterize themselves anything like that. From what they tell me they are Bavarians with German passports. Historically they've been a bit independent and catholic and not quite fitting the classic German stereotypes... and they like it that way.
"That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions."
Any way religion can get around admitting they're wrong.
Wrong about what? These religious denominations accept the discoveries of science, including cosmology and evolution. They say the language of the bible is figurative not literal.
You have a selection problem with your argument. Scientists are not necessarily a good representation of the "really smart". The "really smart" have many options besides science.
denying evolution itself isn't happening at all is denying direct observational facts
This is what we're dealing with; I'm surprised that it's as low as one third - surely religion in the US is more popular than that?
Many christian denominations accept scientific discoveries and find no conflict with faith. This includes cosmology and evolution. Matter of fact the physics professor who put forth the big bang theory was a roman catholic priest.
These denominations do not interpret the bible literally, they consider it figurative language. They see science and religion as orthogonal. That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions.
Its not the sort of job you can do well if you don't have some sort of inherent interest or curiosity in.,
I used to think that too, but since I've met a number of people who don't really like programming but are still very good at it. YMMV.
Don't like their employer, job, assigned programming tasks?
Or if they were free to indulge in whatever project held some interest or curiosity they would not enjoy the necessary programming?
I can understand getting burned out on tasks that are devoid of challenge or interest. I would just be surprised to find a person who was truly good at programming who never wrote a piece of code that was not a school nor work assignment. Who never did any programming simply because they were curious or otherwise personally motivated. I think such a person would be a true rarity.
Computers science is a poor fit as a vehicle to level the playing field. Its not the sort of job you can do well if you don't have some sort of inherent interest or curiosity in.
Certainly any group can have members that have such an interest in programming. Finding those individuals would be a good thing. I just have severe reservations against trying to push anyone into this field. I've seen too many programmers who got into the field not because they have any inherent interest or curiosity rather somebody told them it was a good career path. They don't do well.
Should some sort of CS or programming classes be availably to anyone in K-12 that is interested or curious? Sure. It would be a great elective class.
And my previous employer was located next to a state university. We had a paid internship and one of the CS majors next door worked for my team. He was pretty good so we offered him a permanent position when he graduated. This was about 8 or so years ago. You don't have to go into the distant past to see the value of internships.
We didn't bother advertising a job and do the normal recruiting. He was pretty good, got along with others and had some familiarity with our project(s). I can't emphasize strongly enough that he was a **known** in terms of skill and fit and that weighed heavily in just offering him a position rather than publicly advertising an open position.
As for paid vs unpaid, I have nothing against paid, however an article another poster in this thread offered shows that for some majors an unpaid internship can increase the odds of a job offer by 10% to 20%. Admittedly paid internships increase the odds of a job by far more and are a benefit to a wider range of majors. My only point is that unpaid internships are not necessarily a losing strategy for some students.
Those were the days
Those were also the days where a junior CS major could get a part-time job programming for a local hole--in-the wall company, rent a 4 or 5 bedroom house with some school mates and pay for school, rent, computers and still have a little beer money left over.
If anything evolution ***proves*** we need to go to space.
"Need" implies some sort of value judgement. Evolution is a natural process. Don't anthropomorphize it.
Note I said "we need", not evolution needs. The point of my comment is that evolution does not necessarily control survival or success. One big rock can undue all of evolutions efforts.
I agree that if we want the species to continue, we will have to find other rocks to live on. But I don't think the answer to that "if" is necessarily "yes". No individual human necessarily has any interest in the survival of the species beyond his own lifespan. I don't think you're going to see investors making investments that will only pay off to future generations.
However investors can and will make a profit off of the short term incremental steps that lead to this more long term goal. Look at today's commercial space industry.
You're not really pushing a rational business case here. You would typically find a use for the uber expensive material before you spend a lot of money going after said expensive material.
Rational business cases involve risk and reward. High risk ventures can have a rational business case, they merely require a high potential reward.
No, I just answered his question factually. The reasons humans evolved on Earth are entirely unrelated to the reasons we might want to put humans in space. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
You are so mistaken. If anything evolution ***proves*** we need to go to space. We evolved into what we are, an intelligent species, a dominant species, because of the incredible evolutionary void created by a mass extinction created by a big 6 mile rock falling from the sky. Dinosaurs were not a failed evolutionary branch, they were wiped out by an external force.
Because the Earth has liquid water, and enough complex organics to start the process of evolution.
That water, and possibly the complex organic molecules, came from space. The asteroids out there are not made of different stuff than the earth. The advantage of the earth is that it provides a life support system, we don't have to take one with us.
They are college students. They get course credit for things like this, each quarter/semester is the equivalent of an elective class.
That's part of the problem. Credit should not be given for "internships" like this, which are clearly (read the description) used to obtain free labor with no training given back (just on-the-job experience).
I had a "paid internship", actually it was called "cooperative education" - I have no idea if there is a distinction between the two, and to get credit I had to write a report at the end of the quarter explaining how this work related to and contributed to my field of study. I'm not claiming that this report is some great hurdle but there is supposed to be some educational aspect, well at least in the co-op class I had.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a distinction without a difference.
No. Insurance policies often have limits. If you have a $1M policy and you are found liable for a $5M judgement then your insurance pays $1M and you are personally responsible for $4M.
The insurance company is not liable, they merely pay the bill for the person or entity that is liable. Google, or whoever develops the software, will need insurance just as much as the driver since they may be found liable if there are software defects.
Whose insurance company, the car's owner, the car's driver/occupant (the person who put the car in self driving mode) or Google's (the self driving software developer)?
Insurance companies are not liable, they just pay the bill for the person or company who is liable.
We have no history of robots selecting their targets autonomously.
Its been done. One example: homing torpedoes. Especially in the WW2'ish era. More recent designs may have offered a little more control but some of the older designs basically were told to go somewhere, find a ship and target it. There was no Identification Friend or Foe.
Select targets? Really? Wait until the system realizes ALL humans are targets.
No need to wait, we already have minefields.
And nukes and chems and biologicals ...
But we can get updates added to the Geneva Conventions. And we can choose how we deal with anyone who uses these.
I think countries would need to sign the revised Convention before they would become liable for violation.
Although at the moment it looks like we (USA! USA!) will be the ones using them.
I doubt that other major powers are ignoring such technology. I think other powers have a more closed procurement process and greater control over their design/development bureaus. We are less likely to hear about their designs until they are fielded or made available for export.
No, airflow is to the south and east. Mostly would kill the South and the East, anything west of the Rockies will be fine.
Except for the flaming material falling from the sky in a ballistic trajectory igniting anything remotely flammable.
There are two types of 'Germans'. Prussians and Bavarians. Prussians (stereotype: goosestepping, no fun having) are mostly from Germany, Bavarians (stereotype: beer swilling and fat) are mostly from Austria.
I've spent some time in Munich, the locals certain don't characterize themselves anything like that. From what they tell me they are Bavarians with German passports. Historically they've been a bit independent and catholic and not quite fitting the classic German stereotypes ... and they like it that way.
Just that one Bavarian they've almost completely disowned.
He was from Austria. From a family with a long history of mental illness so you can't really describe his behavior as Austrian either.
Unfortunately Windows 8 and higher ignore host files. You can use avast or Comodo dragon which blocks less trusted ad networks in addition to adblock.
What Windows 8 does is irrelevant if one takes some old retired PC and installs Linux or *BSD on it and sets it up as a router.
Any yeast found? It would be interesting if his brew could be resurrected.
What do insurance companies say about guard dogs, by the way?
"Here is your more expensive policy."
Create a non-administrative account for yourself, not just your guests. You are a security problem too.
"That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions."
Any way religion can get around admitting they're wrong.
Wrong about what? These religious denominations accept the discoveries of science, including cosmology and evolution. They say the language of the bible is figurative not literal.
You have a selection problem with your argument. Scientists are not necessarily a good representation of the "really smart". The "really smart" have many options besides science.
This is what we're dealing with; I'm surprised that it's as low as one third - surely religion in the US is more popular than that?
Many christian denominations accept scientific discoveries and find no conflict with faith. This includes cosmology and evolution. Matter of fact the physics professor who put forth the big bang theory was a roman catholic priest.
These denominations do not interpret the bible literally, they consider it figurative language. They see science and religion as orthogonal. That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions.
Its not the sort of job you can do well if you don't have some sort of inherent interest or curiosity in.,
I used to think that too, but since I've met a number of people who don't really like programming but are still very good at it. YMMV.
Don't like their employer, job, assigned programming tasks?
Or if they were free to indulge in whatever project held some interest or curiosity they would not enjoy the necessary programming?
I can understand getting burned out on tasks that are devoid of challenge or interest. I would just be surprised to find a person who was truly good at programming who never wrote a piece of code that was not a school nor work assignment. Who never did any programming simply because they were curious or otherwise personally motivated. I think such a person would be a true rarity.
Computers science is a poor fit as a vehicle to level the playing field. Its not the sort of job you can do well if you don't have some sort of inherent interest or curiosity in.
Certainly any group can have members that have such an interest in programming. Finding those individuals would be a good thing. I just have severe reservations against trying to push anyone into this field. I've seen too many programmers who got into the field not because they have any inherent interest or curiosity rather somebody told them it was a good career path. They don't do well.
Should some sort of CS or programming classes be availably to anyone in K-12 that is interested or curious? Sure. It would be a great elective class.
We didn't bother advertising a job and do the normal recruiting. He was pretty good, got along with others and had some familiarity with our project(s). I can't emphasize strongly enough that he was a **known** in terms of skill and fit and that weighed heavily in just offering him a position rather than publicly advertising an open position.
As for paid vs unpaid, I have nothing against paid, however an article another poster in this thread offered shows that for some majors an unpaid internship can increase the odds of a job offer by 10% to 20%. Admittedly paid internships increase the odds of a job by far more and are a benefit to a wider range of majors. My only point is that unpaid internships are not necessarily a losing strategy for some students.
Those were the days
Those were also the days where a junior CS major could get a part-time job programming for a local hole--in-the wall company, rent a 4 or 5 bedroom house with some school mates and pay for school, rent, computers and still have a little beer money left over.
If anything evolution ***proves*** we need to go to space.
"Need" implies some sort of value judgement. Evolution is a natural process. Don't anthropomorphize it.
Note I said "we need", not evolution needs. The point of my comment is that evolution does not necessarily control survival or success. One big rock can undue all of evolutions efforts.
I agree that if we want the species to continue, we will have to find other rocks to live on. But I don't think the answer to that "if" is necessarily "yes". No individual human necessarily has any interest in the survival of the species beyond his own lifespan. I don't think you're going to see investors making investments that will only pay off to future generations.
However investors can and will make a profit off of the short term incremental steps that lead to this more long term goal. Look at today's commercial space industry.
Unpaid internships are little better than no internship.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/do-unpaid-internships-lead-to-jobs-not-for-college-students/276959/
A 1.8% increase overall, however for some majors there is a 10% or 20% increase.
You're not really pushing a rational business case here. You would typically find a use for the uber expensive material before you spend a lot of money going after said expensive material.
Rational business cases involve risk and reward. High risk ventures can have a rational business case, they merely require a high potential reward.
No, I just answered his question factually. The reasons humans evolved on Earth are entirely unrelated to the reasons we might want to put humans in space. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
You are so mistaken. If anything evolution ***proves*** we need to go to space. We evolved into what we are, an intelligent species, a dominant species, because of the incredible evolutionary void created by a mass extinction created by a big 6 mile rock falling from the sky. Dinosaurs were not a failed evolutionary branch, they were wiped out by an external force.
Because the Earth has liquid water, and enough complex organics to start the process of evolution.
That water, and possibly the complex organic molecules, came from space. The asteroids out there are not made of different stuff than the earth. The advantage of the earth is that it provides a life support system, we don't have to take one with us.
That's part of the problem. Credit should not be given for "internships" like this, which are clearly (read the description) used to obtain free labor with no training given back (just on-the-job experience).
I had a "paid internship", actually it was called "cooperative education" - I have no idea if there is a distinction between the two, and to get credit I had to write a report at the end of the quarter explaining how this work related to and contributed to my field of study. I'm not claiming that this report is some great hurdle but there is supposed to be some educational aspect, well at least in the co-op class I had.