Given the amount of inconvenience and expense this is going to create for millions of people, I'd say it takes at least one, and probably more than that. Being pro-active is good, but security measures have to be balanced against probability of deployment, effectiveness and the cost of prevention. It's not possible to defend against every form of destructive sabotage of aircraft, so we have to pick and choose, and focus on high priority threats.
Comments are also deleted after a few days, making long-term discussions challenging and erasing a historical record.
so let me get this straight... the country with arguably one of the best written histories over millennia, is no longer allowing history to be maintained?
Nonsense. The government continues recording detailed historical information, just as its predecessors did.
I'm an employer too, and what I care about is whether the applicant's skills are a match for what I need to get done. If I had your kind of hang-ups about people who knew how to pick a better opportunity when one came along, I'd get much less work out the door.
-jcr
It seems to me that there are two approaches:
1. Try to hire people with the skills to do what you need. If you can find and hire them, they'll be productive quickly and your investment in them will be low. If they leave quickly, you're pretty much back where you were when you hired them, looking for someone to fill a specific role.
2. Try to hire people with native talent but not necessarily with specific skills. They won't be productive quickly, so you'll have to invest a bit in on-the-job training which may be formal or may just be a matter of letting them be less productive while they educate themselves. If they leave quickly, then you will lose a lot of that investment.
Both approaches are reasonable, and both can be effective. IMO, the very best companies go for option 2, then do the right things to retain them, but option 1 can be fine as well.
Whenever someone circles my corporate profile from the public G+, I send them a message explaining that I only use this for work, give them my public G+ profile (and generally circle them from it), and then block them from the corp profile.
I actually don't find it difficult at all to avoid posting publicly from my corporate profile. It seems to me that the G+ UI makes that very clear.
They've already been successfully sued in California for spying on students after they said they wouldn't.
Cite?
Based on what I found, that seems to be a pretty serious mischaracterization. First, "successfully sued" normally implies that the suit has reached some sort of conclusion, but from what I can see all that's been successful is the filing. Google has made a motion to dismiss which hasn't been ruled on, AFAICT. Even if that motion fails, it just means that the judge doesn't think the suit is so ridiculous it should be tossed without a further look. That's a long way from saying it actually has merit. Second, all Google said was that ads were turned off for edu accounts by default. Plaintiffs allege that Google still uses the data in other ways, but I don't see that there is any evidence about that one way or another.
If you're right, then the reality is that even more than 50.7% of people are introverts, in which case introversion is clearly the norm and extroverts are the odd ones.
Clearly human behavior lies along a continuum, some people are more extroverted and some are more introverted. So it seems quite expected that if you're drawing a line you should locate it so that half of the people are on each side.
What Google actually sells is an advertising service, which is made more effective by using information in two ways, first to attract viewers, and second to decide which of the viewers is likely to be interested in which ads. The phrase "selling information" sounds like they're providing information to a party who gives them money in return, which isn't what Google does.
The point is that it's clearly not the driver (because there isn't one), which means it's between the maker of the vehicle and whoever else is involved when the judge and jury allocates liability. Not to mention the fact that if Google says "we'll pay" it will never get to court because everyone else involved will say "Okay". It only goes to court when the parties are all arguing they're NOT liable. Google has said up front that if the facts say the self-driving car caused the accident, then Google will pay rather than fight.
Well, for one, search was such a massive improvement over Yahoo (hand-curated bookmark lists) and other search engines like Lycos and Altavista that it immediately and totally buried all of its competition.
Rather than addressing the others on a point by point basis, let me just ask if you can name another company that went from nothing to hundreds of millions of daily users in little more than a decade. Hundreds of millions of daily users in multiple product spaces. You don't do that through small, incremental improvements over what came before.
Well, I've seen a little evidence of that here and there, but nothing major. What's yours?
A few years of close-up observation as an employee of Google.
The company culture deliberately and intentionally breeds a brand of arrogance
You mean like practically every company ever, whose mantra is "we can do it better than the next guy so you should give us your money"?
No, it's different. At least it's different from any place I've seen in 25+ years in the industry, which included lots of consulting, during which I saw a lot more corporate cultures than most who don't take the consulting route.
always encouraging its people to look for revolutionary rather than incremental changes
Holy shit, not progress. That would be terribly forward-thinking. We must remain in the past!
Indeed. Which doesn't mean the progress-seeking attitude is common.
to bring 10X or 100X improvements
Wow. I mean, when you said progress, I had no idea you meant orders of magnitude of improvement. That would be really, really terrible.
Who said I thought it was terrible? I think it's fantastic.
and works to convince them that they can succeed
...when what they should be doing is setting them up for failure because that would be less arrogant.
I have a feeling you seriously misunderstood my post. That may have been my fault.
Google doesn't really worry about all that......they figure as long as it's safer than a human driving, then they are happy.
I don't think that's accurate, since Google has said they believe the maker of an automated vehicle control system should be liable for any damages caused by its malfunctions. I think they do have quite a bit of confidence in their technology, though, and in the ability of the data stream it generates to clarify fault and liability.
I'd like to see how comfortable these cars are to operate as random folks seeing the LiDAR unit on top of the car swerve suddenly towards the car to see how it responds.
I'm sure it edges safely away and slows, just what any cautious driver would do. Actually a human driver may overreact, but the computer won't, since it has vastly higher reaction speeds and more precise measurements, so it will respond faster, but in control. Also, it always knows exactly what is on the other side of it, so it knows how far it can safely move aside.
And I figure replacing a broken LiDAR unit would be a lot more expensive than replacing a couple of slashed tires.
At present the LIDAR units are expensive. Not because there's anything about them inherently expensive, though, but because they're low-volume items normally only sold to militaries. When production is scaled up, they won't be particularly expensive. Plus, the most expensive parts are the electronics which are inside the car, not the spinning emitter on top.
I can see many scenarios where you might be tossed out of autonomous mode quite frequently or incur higher costs, making this "feature" not particularly cost effective.
Google is not planning to have a non-autonomous mode, and has committed to assuming liability for damages caused should the car malfunction.
This is the Detroit that didn't take Japanese brands seriously until it almost killed them.
The Detroit that needed 30+ years to bring a small, efficient, powerful engine to the US.because they knew best what American wanted (big V8s for drag racing).
The Detroit that hides the fact that Mitsubishi (Chrysler), Toyota (GM) and Mazda (Ford) built their small cars for 20-some years.
But Google is arrogant.
Right.
Actually, Google is arrogant. The company culture deliberately and intentionally breeds a brand of arrogance, always encouraging its people to look for revolutionary rather than incremental changes, to bring 10X or 100X improvements, and works to convince them that they can succeed. Everyone is fully cognizant of the fact that if you swing for the fences you'll miss most of the time, but they figure that's okay because the successes will make up for it. And, of course, the Google-X crew is the elite of Google, people who have previously had fantastic success, built products used on a daily basis by hundreds of millions of people. So have Detroit automakers, of course, but they've built up slowly over the course of a century, while Google is still shy of its 17th birthday.
For that matter, although we've talked about it enough for the last two or three years to make it seem less insane, there's a good argument that even attempting to solve a problem as hard as a fully automated car requires tremendous arrogance. Except that they actually seem to be succeeding, which I guess changes it from arrogance to confidence.
So, I'd say it's kind of a given that when the old-breed, "we've been doing this for generations" brand of arrogance meets the upstart "we've literally changed the world in a little over a decade" brand of arrogance, sparks are going to fly. And the fact that the upstarts have working technology to do what the old breed still isn't sure is possible isn't going to help one bit.
From a cultural perspective, Tesla seems like a much easier fit. That said, if Google and Detroit can find a way to work together, the disparity of backgrounds and cultures should actually make the results much better. But that's a big, big "if".
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but on phones, not cars, and I definitely don't speak for Google.)
Slashdot Mirror
how many will it take for it to be a problem.
Given the amount of inconvenience and expense this is going to create for millions of people, I'd say it takes at least one, and probably more than that. Being pro-active is good, but security measures have to be balanced against probability of deployment, effectiveness and the cost of prevention. It's not possible to defend against every form of destructive sabotage of aircraft, so we have to pick and choose, and focus on high priority threats.
I wasn't aware that a non-removable battery constitutes sneakiness and trickery.
Comments are also deleted after a few days, making long-term discussions challenging and erasing a historical record.
so let me get this straight... the country with arguably one of the best written histories over millennia, is no longer allowing history to be maintained?
Nonsense. The government continues recording detailed historical information, just as its predecessors did.
I'm an employer too, and what I care about is whether the applicant's skills are a match for what I need to get done. If I had your kind of hang-ups about people who knew how to pick a better opportunity when one came along, I'd get much less work out the door.
-jcr
It seems to me that there are two approaches:
1. Try to hire people with the skills to do what you need. If you can find and hire them, they'll be productive quickly and your investment in them will be low. If they leave quickly, you're pretty much back where you were when you hired them, looking for someone to fill a specific role.
2. Try to hire people with native talent but not necessarily with specific skills. They won't be productive quickly, so you'll have to invest a bit in on-the-job training which may be formal or may just be a matter of letting them be less productive while they educate themselves. If they leave quickly, then you will lose a lot of that investment.
Both approaches are reasonable, and both can be effective. IMO, the very best companies go for option 2, then do the right things to retain them, but option 1 can be fine as well.
Whenever someone circles my corporate profile from the public G+, I send them a message explaining that I only use this for work, give them my public G+ profile (and generally circle them from it), and then block them from the corp profile.
I actually don't find it difficult at all to avoid posting publicly from my corporate profile. It seems to me that the G+ UI makes that very clear.
I meant, just because Google promises to pay doesn't mean the litigants will be happy with that. There are so many ways that can go wrong
They'll want to pay?
They've already been successfully sued in California for spying on students after they said they wouldn't.
Cite?
Based on what I found, that seems to be a pretty serious mischaracterization. First, "successfully sued" normally implies that the suit has reached some sort of conclusion, but from what I can see all that's been successful is the filing. Google has made a motion to dismiss which hasn't been ruled on, AFAICT. Even if that motion fails, it just means that the judge doesn't think the suit is so ridiculous it should be tossed without a further look. That's a long way from saying it actually has merit. Second, all Google said was that ads were turned off for edu accounts by default. Plaintiffs allege that Google still uses the data in other ways, but I don't see that there is any evidence about that one way or another.
If you're right, then the reality is that even more than 50.7% of people are introverts, in which case introversion is clearly the norm and extroverts are the odd ones.
+1
Clearly human behavior lies along a continuum, some people are more extroverted and some are more introverted. So it seems quite expected that if you're drawing a line you should locate it so that half of the people are on each side.
I knew what the initialism means. What did you mean by it?
I have to correct you here. What Goggle actually sells is you and your information so that personalized ads can be targeted directly to you.
My description was more accurate.
If the majority of people are extroverted, how would it not be considered normal or typical behavior?
Per a 1998 study, 50.7% percent of Americans are introverts. http://introvertzone.com/ratio...
Just one correction, not related to your point:
They make money selling information to people.
What Google actually sells is an advertising service, which is made more effective by using information in two ways, first to attract viewers, and second to decide which of the viewers is likely to be interested in which ads. The phrase "selling information" sounds like they're providing information to a party who gives them money in return, which isn't what Google does.
Not to mention the fact that if Google says "we'll pay" it will never get to court because everyone else involved will say "Okay".
GLWT
?
What else is a small minority at Google? Programmers over 45 years old.
There are a lot more than you probably think. I'm one, and I work with many others. The median age is probably in the mid 30s, though.
I haven't been on line. I'm still connected only with my phone. https://plus.google.com/111463...
The point is that it's clearly not the driver (because there isn't one), which means it's between the maker of the vehicle and whoever else is involved when the judge and jury allocates liability. Not to mention the fact that if Google says "we'll pay" it will never get to court because everyone else involved will say "Okay". It only goes to court when the parties are all arguing they're NOT liable. Google has said up front that if the facts say the self-driving car caused the accident, then Google will pay rather than fight.
nonsense, contraception is cheap. people can buy their own damn contraception, cheaper than a movie per week.
It's actually not about most contraception, just the "morning after" pill, which arguably closer to abortion than to contraception.
Well, for one, search was such a massive improvement over Yahoo (hand-curated bookmark lists) and other search engines like Lycos and Altavista that it immediately and totally buried all of its competition.
Rather than addressing the others on a point by point basis, let me just ask if you can name another company that went from nothing to hundreds of millions of daily users in little more than a decade. Hundreds of millions of daily users in multiple product spaces. You don't do that through small, incremental improvements over what came before.
Well, all of the cars tooling around Mountain View without anyone driving are pretty good evidence.
Actually, Google is arrogant.
Well, I've seen a little evidence of that here and there, but nothing major. What's yours?
A few years of close-up observation as an employee of Google.
The company culture deliberately and intentionally breeds a brand of arrogance
You mean like practically every company ever, whose mantra is "we can do it better than the next guy so you should give us your money"?
No, it's different. At least it's different from any place I've seen in 25+ years in the industry, which included lots of consulting, during which I saw a lot more corporate cultures than most who don't take the consulting route.
always encouraging its people to look for revolutionary rather than incremental changes
Holy shit, not progress. That would be terribly forward-thinking. We must remain in the past!
Indeed. Which doesn't mean the progress-seeking attitude is common.
to bring 10X or 100X improvements
Wow. I mean, when you said progress, I had no idea you meant orders of magnitude of improvement. That would be really, really terrible.
Who said I thought it was terrible? I think it's fantastic.
and works to convince them that they can succeed
...when what they should be doing is setting them up for failure because that would be less arrogant.
I have a feeling you seriously misunderstood my post. That may have been my fault.
Google doesn't really worry about all that......they figure as long as it's safer than a human driving, then they are happy.
I don't think that's accurate, since Google has said they believe the maker of an automated vehicle control system should be liable for any damages caused by its malfunctions. I think they do have quite a bit of confidence in their technology, though, and in the ability of the data stream it generates to clarify fault and liability.
I'd like to see how comfortable these cars are to operate as random folks seeing the LiDAR unit on top of the car swerve suddenly towards the car to see how it responds.
I'm sure it edges safely away and slows, just what any cautious driver would do. Actually a human driver may overreact, but the computer won't, since it has vastly higher reaction speeds and more precise measurements, so it will respond faster, but in control. Also, it always knows exactly what is on the other side of it, so it knows how far it can safely move aside.
And I figure replacing a broken LiDAR unit would be a lot more expensive than replacing a couple of slashed tires.
At present the LIDAR units are expensive. Not because there's anything about them inherently expensive, though, but because they're low-volume items normally only sold to militaries. When production is scaled up, they won't be particularly expensive. Plus, the most expensive parts are the electronics which are inside the car, not the spinning emitter on top.
I can see many scenarios where you might be tossed out of autonomous mode quite frequently or incur higher costs, making this "feature" not particularly cost effective.
Google is not planning to have a non-autonomous mode, and has committed to assuming liability for damages caused should the car malfunction.
This is the Detroit that didn't take Japanese brands seriously until it almost killed them.
The Detroit that needed 30+ years to bring a small, efficient, powerful engine to the US.because they knew best what American wanted (big V8s for drag racing).
The Detroit that hides the fact that Mitsubishi (Chrysler), Toyota (GM) and Mazda (Ford) built their small cars for 20-some years.
But Google is arrogant.
Right.
Actually, Google is arrogant. The company culture deliberately and intentionally breeds a brand of arrogance, always encouraging its people to look for revolutionary rather than incremental changes, to bring 10X or 100X improvements, and works to convince them that they can succeed. Everyone is fully cognizant of the fact that if you swing for the fences you'll miss most of the time, but they figure that's okay because the successes will make up for it. And, of course, the Google-X crew is the elite of Google, people who have previously had fantastic success, built products used on a daily basis by hundreds of millions of people. So have Detroit automakers, of course, but they've built up slowly over the course of a century, while Google is still shy of its 17th birthday.
For that matter, although we've talked about it enough for the last two or three years to make it seem less insane, there's a good argument that even attempting to solve a problem as hard as a fully automated car requires tremendous arrogance. Except that they actually seem to be succeeding, which I guess changes it from arrogance to confidence.
So, I'd say it's kind of a given that when the old-breed, "we've been doing this for generations" brand of arrogance meets the upstart "we've literally changed the world in a little over a decade" brand of arrogance, sparks are going to fly. And the fact that the upstarts have working technology to do what the old breed still isn't sure is possible isn't going to help one bit.
From a cultural perspective, Tesla seems like a much easier fit. That said, if Google and Detroit can find a way to work together, the disparity of backgrounds and cultures should actually make the results much better. But that's a big, big "if".
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but on phones, not cars, and I definitely don't speak for Google.)
You need to look at Hans Rosling's research.