The 370million people with access to cheaper products? As to why it works for China and Japan that is quite simple, independence. Tariffs work great if you're a nationalistic country with a culture foreigners can't understand. Not so much if your nation and it's dependence on cheap goods is built on the power of exporting the labour and importing the final product.
The sad reality here, nothing will change other than the price of American products will go up. Remember why the jobs went overseas in the first place? They were cheaper over there.
The real question is, does the public have the guts to pay for American? The past would say no, maybe the government forcing the cheap alternatives out of the market may change their minds. Time will tell.
Depends on why they are put in place. To pop up a dying industry? Nope, they don't work. To level a playing field caused by a difference in artificial costs by your own policies (e.g. health and safety, or environmental regulations) definitely.
In the last year Uber's had more, and more serious, accidents than I think every other driverless program combined.
Uber has 200 cars on the road. Google has 8. Uber has put more testing miles on the road in one year than Google had in the program since 2013.
If you count only absolute numbers you end up with stupid results.
Also most of Uber's accidents have had nothing to do with self driving, despite the initial media reports, and their biggest accident before this one where the Uber car actually flipped was *caused* by a driver thinking the computer was wrong when in fact it was the other way around.
Each incident and each mile driven is a data point. If you expect any car company to have Google's almost blemish free reputation then you're missing the fact that we are no longer researching but racing towards autonomy. This is nothing more than a sign of rapidly developing technology and very little to do with Uber's performance.
the video released of the person supposedly monitoring the car spent an awful lot of time looking down not ahead and out the window.
It's truly amazing watching other people drive. You'll be amazed if you take the time to focus on them how little time they actually spend looking forward.
Speed limits are set according to fixed rules that have been set by carefully examining statistics and the theoretical capabilities of cars and drivers.
In all countries other than the USA, where they are often set by policy and manipulated politically.
A human driver would assume that driving at the posted limit was safe for all but the most severe conditions (dense fog, or heavy snow, icy road, and night).
Maybe in the USA. In many other countries we are told to "drive to conditions". The speed limit has never been a defense against an accident. Breaching it however has always been a contributory factor. Take for instance the european right of way rules. Literally give way to anything coming from your right. In an average built up area with a speed limit of 50km/h you never are able to get that fast despite that being the limit set. Hell there's a road I go down on the way to work I don't even comfortably take at the posted crawling pace of 30km/h due to the number of blind corners, density of cars and people.
This seems like a case of extreme bad judgement on her part.
That however I agree on. Road rules don't bring you back to life.
So someone on a tech site, with all its intricacies, can't understand that usage of a potentially dangerous device may benefit from instructional videos.
Oh I can understand it. I just think when you cater to the lowest common denominator holding a deadly weapon you get what you deserve: brother's shooting sisters because one won't hand over their game controller. http://www.star-telegram.com/n...
Maybe some things should be handled only by experts and shouldn't be dumbed down for idiots.
Doesn't even need to be one subject at a time. Just copy the example of many other countries where bills of appropriation cannot feature anything other than appropriation.
They pretty much already do. My point is that this isn't a change from the norm. You're ignorant if you think the government can't find something to hang you with, even when we're talking about governments who don't run secret courts behind closed doors.
If you're worried about totalitarianism as a result of *this* law, you are waaaay too late.
Personal opinion is not a trump card beating social and/or economical impact.
Except there is no such thing. We are talking about single people's time that makes only those people's opinions relevant. Society or the economy have to go pound sand if I decide to donate time for whatever reason I want.
Scientists researched a lot of nasty weapons "for fun", without considering the impact of what they were doing.
Interesting leap. Similar scientists have also created a world of exciting discoveries that have bettered your life.
Understatement of the year. You're proposing the USA go to war with its allies. You can consider this the end of political relationships the world over.
You point the finger at Democrats but if anything has been clear in the past 20 years it's that both parties are equally retarded when it comes to having a functioning democracy.
they will now attempt it with no knowledge and end up hurting themselves or others. Way to go Google.
Downside is what? If someone is stupid enough to shoot themselves while trying to assemble a gun then Darwin would say he was too stupid to own one in the first place. This should be heavily supported by the 2nd amendment "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" types. Less stupid people is a good thing.
In comparison my current computers are mostly over 5 years old and the latest models are not really noticeably better for most tasks.
The problem is you define better purely by speed of your tasks. That ignores a lot of the industry focus over the years. You're not hugely faster at playing games, but then you ignore that you can play them now on battery power for a few hours at a time. You ignore the focus on intelligence and personal assistance, really I greatly prefer the modern world of accurate mapping and traffic information than slightly better gaming graphics (something which has also advanced even in the past 5 years *If you have windows 10*).
The fact is that innovation and development is still going at the same pace it always has but it is focusing on different areas. I do things with pocket devices now that 5 years ago I would question doing on a laptop. I have a media centre now that smoothly plays high definition video built from a $35 part that 5 years ago was impossible. And while you're right that a lot of tasks on the computer aren't noticeably faster, we are getting better at doing all those tasks at the same time with only a fraction of the power requirement.
One metric that I'm thankful for is that over the past 10 years my computer has gotten a shitload QUIETER.
Am I the only one who's starting to get the impression that the people who are running these immense dot-com behemoths might not be as bright as we've been led to believe?
You're talking about someone who made lots of money by creating a company that still can't figure out how to make money. Personally I think he's a genius.
Not at all. It all makes far more sense when you look at the money: Man who somehow made a whole lot of money by starting a company that has been unable to make any money is suggesting that something that isn't money will become worldwide money.
When you frame it like that you realise that he doesn't have dementia, he just has no idea where money comes from or how it works.
And they still wouldn't have fixed the biggest flaw in cryptocurrency: instability.
Actually they might fix that. Instability is the result of low trading volume to tangible things of external value. Fundamentally one of the causes of bitcoin's low trading volume is the high cost and long transaction delay that make it unsuitable to use for trading. Fix that and one of the hurdles disappears which may lead to higher trading volumes which inherently creates stability.
Mind you some of the other causes are things like chicken and egg scenarios which real currencies around the world overcame by backing of government banks. I don't see that one happening with Bitcoin though.
but I trust the Chinese government a whole lot less
With what? Trust is not a blanket statement. You compare it to the TLAs and in that regard I trust the Chinese government who openly admit to pretty much everything they do more than the TLAs who pretend not to do it at best, and at worst actively drop cases when it looks like a legal process may force discovery on what they are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
only winner in the US?
The 370million people with access to cheaper products? As to why it works for China and Japan that is quite simple, independence. Tariffs work great if you're a nationalistic country with a culture foreigners can't understand. Not so much if your nation and it's dependence on cheap goods is built on the power of exporting the labour and importing the final product.
The sad reality here, nothing will change other than the price of American products will go up. Remember why the jobs went overseas in the first place? They were cheaper over there.
The real question is, does the public have the guts to pay for American? The past would say no, maybe the government forcing the cheap alternatives out of the market may change their minds. Time will tell.
Agreed! We are in a trade war,
Leave it to the American to think they are always at war.
Do tariffs ever work long term?
Depends on why they are put in place. To pop up a dying industry? Nope, they don't work. To level a playing field caused by a difference in artificial costs by your own policies (e.g. health and safety, or environmental regulations) definitely.
In the last year Uber's had more, and more serious, accidents than I think every other driverless program combined.
Uber has 200 cars on the road. Google has 8. Uber has put more testing miles on the road in one year than Google had in the program since 2013.
If you count only absolute numbers you end up with stupid results.
Also most of Uber's accidents have had nothing to do with self driving, despite the initial media reports, and their biggest accident before this one where the Uber car actually flipped was *caused* by a driver thinking the computer was wrong when in fact it was the other way around.
Each incident and each mile driven is a data point. If you expect any car company to have Google's almost blemish free reputation then you're missing the fact that we are no longer researching but racing towards autonomy. This is nothing more than a sign of rapidly developing technology and very little to do with Uber's performance.
the video released of the person supposedly monitoring the car spent an awful lot of time looking down not ahead and out the window.
It's truly amazing watching other people drive. You'll be amazed if you take the time to focus on them how little time they actually spend looking forward.
Speed limits are set according to fixed rules that have been set by carefully examining statistics and the theoretical capabilities of cars and drivers.
In all countries other than the USA, where they are often set by policy and manipulated politically.
A human driver would assume that driving at the posted limit was safe for all but the most severe conditions (dense fog, or heavy snow, icy road, and night).
Maybe in the USA. In many other countries we are told to "drive to conditions". The speed limit has never been a defense against an accident. Breaching it however has always been a contributory factor. Take for instance the european right of way rules. Literally give way to anything coming from your right. In an average built up area with a speed limit of 50km/h you never are able to get that fast despite that being the limit set. Hell there's a road I go down on the way to work I don't even comfortably take at the posted crawling pace of 30km/h due to the number of blind corners, density of cars and people.
This seems like a case of extreme bad judgement on her part.
That however I agree on. Road rules don't bring you back to life.
So someone on a tech site, with all its intricacies, can't understand that usage of a potentially dangerous device may benefit from instructional videos.
Oh I can understand it. I just think when you cater to the lowest common denominator holding a deadly weapon you get what you deserve: brother's shooting sisters because one won't hand over their game controller. http://www.star-telegram.com/n...
Maybe some things should be handled only by experts and shouldn't be dumbed down for idiots.
Doesn't even need to be one subject at a time. Just copy the example of many other countries where bills of appropriation cannot feature anything other than appropriation.
They pretty much already do. My point is that this isn't a change from the norm. You're ignorant if you think the government can't find something to hang you with, even when we're talking about governments who don't run secret courts behind closed doors.
If you're worried about totalitarianism as a result of *this* law, you are waaaay too late.
Personal opinion is not a trump card beating social and/or economical impact.
Except there is no such thing. We are talking about single people's time that makes only those people's opinions relevant. Society or the economy have to go pound sand if I decide to donate time for whatever reason I want.
Scientists researched a lot of nasty weapons "for fun", without considering the impact of what they were doing.
Interesting leap. Similar scientists have also created a world of exciting discoveries that have bettered your life.
When was there ever no enemy ? Ever ?
Spoken like a true American.
would put a dent into the US foreign trade
Understatement of the year. You're proposing the USA go to war with its allies. You can consider this the end of political relationships the world over.
You point the finger at Democrats but if anything has been clear in the past 20 years it's that both parties are equally retarded when it comes to having a functioning democracy.
Itâ(TM)s not a free-speech violation. That doesnâ(TM)t mean itâ(TM)s not censorship.
I think Slashdot is censoring your apostrophes.
they will now attempt it with no knowledge and end up hurting themselves or others. Way to go Google.
Downside is what? If someone is stupid enough to shoot themselves while trying to assemble a gun then Darwin would say he was too stupid to own one in the first place. This should be heavily supported by the 2nd amendment "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" types. Less stupid people is a good thing.
In comparison my current computers are mostly over 5 years old and the latest models are not really noticeably better for most tasks.
The problem is you define better purely by speed of your tasks. That ignores a lot of the industry focus over the years. You're not hugely faster at playing games, but then you ignore that you can play them now on battery power for a few hours at a time. You ignore the focus on intelligence and personal assistance, really I greatly prefer the modern world of accurate mapping and traffic information than slightly better gaming graphics (something which has also advanced even in the past 5 years *If you have windows 10*).
The fact is that innovation and development is still going at the same pace it always has but it is focusing on different areas. I do things with pocket devices now that 5 years ago I would question doing on a laptop. I have a media centre now that smoothly plays high definition video built from a $35 part that 5 years ago was impossible. And while you're right that a lot of tasks on the computer aren't noticeably faster, we are getting better at doing all those tasks at the same time with only a fraction of the power requirement.
One metric that I'm thankful for is that over the past 10 years my computer has gotten a shitload QUIETER.
That said, I'm glad I was correct in my knowledge of what those "safety drivers" actually do all day.
They don't do just that. Sometimes the safey drivers actually act and cause accidents: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/...
If you framegrab the images and then histogram the light curve it's hard edged at zero. Someone deliberately made the blacks blacker
You clearly don't own a camera if that's the process through which you came to that conclusion.
Distraction is bad enough on Level 2 systems
I've only ever been rear-ended by distracted drivers on Level 0 systems.
Maybe Bitcoin won't be around much longer because the miners will all be in jail as pornographers.
Or more likely the application of laws where technically everyone is already a criminal aren't actually enforced the way you think they'll be.
what makes their CEO's views on economics noteworthy
The fact that he made a shitload of money by not making any money. This guy is an economic genius.
Am I the only one who's starting to get the impression that the people who are running these immense dot-com behemoths might not be as bright as we've been led to believe?
You're talking about someone who made lots of money by creating a company that still can't figure out how to make money. Personally I think he's a genius.
Not at all. It all makes far more sense when you look at the money:
Man who somehow made a whole lot of money by starting a company that has been unable to make any money is suggesting that something that isn't money will become worldwide money.
When you frame it like that you realise that he doesn't have dementia, he just has no idea where money comes from or how it works.
And they still wouldn't have fixed the biggest flaw in cryptocurrency: instability.
Actually they might fix that. Instability is the result of low trading volume to tangible things of external value. Fundamentally one of the causes of bitcoin's low trading volume is the high cost and long transaction delay that make it unsuitable to use for trading. Fix that and one of the hurdles disappears which may lead to higher trading volumes which inherently creates stability.
Mind you some of the other causes are things like chicken and egg scenarios which real currencies around the world overcame by backing of government banks. I don't see that one happening with Bitcoin though.
but I trust the Chinese government a whole lot less
With what? Trust is not a blanket statement. You compare it to the TLAs and in that regard I trust the Chinese government who openly admit to pretty much everything they do more than the TLAs who pretend not to do it at best, and at worst actively drop cases when it looks like a legal process may force discovery on what they are doing.