If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong.
That would be an irrational "looking" or undertaking on our part, based on an illusion that the driver of the car somehow has control over the laws of physics. If you're driving 50 MPH down a road that is signed for 50 MPH not near an intersection, and some woman runs out in front of you 20 feet away...... it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of.
Questionable whether the human was REALLY at the ready. They may have had surveillance fatigue, for example, because the autonomous vehicle is usually safe, and the speed with which a pedestrian made an illegal entry into the roadway did not allow enough reaction time for the human.
Nope hypemaster... If this was not an autonomous vehicle, the driver would be in prison already.. In case you didn't read the details, the Uber Testing program has been halted.
People don't go to prison for accidentally hitting a pedestrian.
The autonomous car might not even be at fault for the incident. Uber obviously suspended their testing program - Just in Case - to mitigate the possibility of further damages being caused while this case is investigated, And they need to understand What happened, Why it happened, and If the Autonomous vehicle was not at fault and they couldn't of prevented it, they'll probably resume testing shortly.....
Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.
It's not a "penalty". It is an unavoidable consequence of some kinds of jaywalking --- for example, running off from the side into the street just ahead of a vehicle approaching that point in the road at the speed limit. It is possible there was no "obstacle" for the car to detect Until it was already too late to avoid an incident.
There is a certain minimum sight distance required for an approaching vehicle's driver to recognize that there is a pedestrian in the road, AND react, AND take action, and then even after the breaks are being applied -- there is stopping distance.
For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.
The problem is "hard way" is an incorrect description.... the SHA1 hash algorithm is not computationally expensive, as it is not intended for deriving a a key from a password in order to "stretch" the key strength and protect the password.
Brute forcing the password protected by only SHA1 is an _easy_ process and can be GPU accelerated to approximately 8.5 Billion hash ops per second on a GTX 1080, and a reference system with 8 of the nVIDIA GPUs can do SHA1 brute forcing at
68 Billion SHA1 passwords per second with Hashcat.
Premium Weighting = (Kilowatt Hours used) Divided by (10 * Number of monthly Worker-Hours + Customer/Guest-Visit-Hours employed inside the facility)
Then you have an "allowance" based on how much local economic activity is generated.
Base Price = Standard discounted electric price, e.g. $0.10 / kWh
Then for the monthly bill...
Price per Kilowatt hour consumed = (Base Price) + max(0, (G-Factor) x (Premium Weighting) x (Base Price) )
For example: 50000 kilowatt hours used by 5000 man-hours * 10 = Gives a weighting of 1.00, but 10x as many kWh gives a weighting of 10.0
Price per KwH = $0.10 + (G-Factor) X 1 * 0.10
The G-factor being set somewhere between 0.01 and 10.00 based on the month's "Overdemand" level for electricity and some index of usage tiers; the greater the excessive overall demand by all users the higher each electric customer's indexed G-Factor will be be.
You'll probably have provided an explanation for that when you got the POCO to upgrade you to 3-Phase 1000 AMP or more electrical services, because the typical residential 100-Amp panel doesn't provide a lot of capacity for doing large-scale mining.
You can provide a reason for your electrical usage "Running BOINC clients" and high-volume GPU-based computation for personal research in mathematics, cryptography, and AI machine learning development.
The electrical consumption cannot be used to establish that you are running a commercial mining operation.
and when demand increases, they can build additional plants - but they are expensive to run and take a long time to build.
No.... they are expensive to build And take a long time to get the government approval to build.
And building additional plants/capacity is difficult to justify, because overbuilding is an inherent necessity, and they can't turn that around to profit until demand for electricity gradually increases.....
So anyways: This is an area where Bitcoin could help by generating demand early, so the extra capacity can be built and not sit dormant waiting before people need the electricity ----- then as demand from the population ramps up, the cost of electricity increases until the cost is high enough the Bitcoin miners can't profit, so they close up shop move on to the next area where electrical infrastructure is being underutilized.
NO.... Not good. Now some city is dictating what you can use your electricity for that you purchased in your own home and banning some computation.
They should accomplish their objectives some other way.
When its electrical budget was exceeded in January, the city had to buy electricity from the open market at a higher cost, which was distributed among its residents.
How about setting a monthly kilowatt hour limit high-water and low-water levels ---- If you exceed the high-water limit, then you will pay twice to three times as much for the portion of all the electricity you used above the limit, funds will go into a pool to be spent to help cover overbudget events and build more capacity: If you used less than the low-limit, then you will get a discount on all your electricity.
If the city goes above its budget and has to buy from the open market: instead of distributing the cost evenly, the cost sharing should be highly weighted to each customer based on kWH consumed divided by number of individual users.
he raised concerns about unethical and/or illegal activities to upper management and was fired simply for doing so, that would be retaliation
Which is not illegal. You can be fired for raising concerns with upper management, regardless what those concerns are. Only thing the laws protect is raising concerns with official law enforcement..... so if you raise concerns with management but not law enforcement, there's no legal protection against retaliation for that, and they can still fire you on the spot.
Huynh claims Walmart mislabeled products so that some third-party vendors received lower commissions, failed to process customer returns, and allowed offensive items onto the site.
If he wants to claim whistleblower treatment..... he'd best have a better story than that.
I'm sure Amazon has some erroneously labelled products too.
Causing some vendors to receive lower commissions will be interesting to those vendors, but it's not likely to be criminal. Perhaps Huynh is just not realizing retailers generally must become as ruthless as the company they're trying to compete with....
It is a work of fiction, so you absolutely can say "because it is so".
Works of fiction describe imaginary people, things, situations, and events, but fiction can only make up what is inside the story. Fiction CANNOT decide matters of the philosophical interpretation which are done outside of the story by the reader, after the reader looks at the description of the happenings or what the technology is described or shown as doing. For example, the "fictional" star trek could say that "2 + 2 = 5", but the reader is unlikely to accept that interpretation as truth --- even as a matter within the story, they would say the people in the story err'd even within their own understanding, even in a fictional world that doesn't hold water: at least not in a Sci-Fi fictional world.
So your mention that someone inside the story said "the person is moved (not destroyed and re-created)", does not stand as an acceptable argument one way or another in terms of the answer to the reader's philosophical question: "Is the person transported the SAME as the person that materialized at the destination?".
Amazon is using their monopoly in one area to further the process of creating a monopoly in another area. This ought to be disallowed under antitrust law, then Amazon should be required to split up into Amazon AWS (for their business of selling PaaS services and outsourced IT/compute technologies), Amazon Business Services (for their business of providing call center/telephone services and smart agents for CS), Amazon Retail Unit (for their business of reselling digital physical goods), Amazon Electronics (for their business of creating consumer electronics products such as Book readers, Smart speakers, Tablets), Amazon Publishing (for their businesses of creating E-Books and Audio Books), Amazon Media (Music/Video Streaming services).
Instead, some fantasy process actually converts the person (or whatever) into a pattern which is transferred from one transporter to the other and then rematerialized.
In other words: all the matter is dematerialized, and a new representation is created, AND new matter is materialized into a form given by the representation.
That doesn't resolve the issue ---- that DOESN'T show the being being transported didn't cease to exist, and the new being is not completely new.
If the PERSON is the same one, then how do you explain the Star Trek TNG episode where a Second much younger Will Riker materializes, and is every bit as much as conscious?
The fictitious handwaving in Enterprise didn't even rise to the level of believability. I mean you can't just use "hand waving" or say "because it is so" to overcome the dilemma.... nice try though.
No... Amazon is immensly profitable. It is just that their investors reward Amazon's profitability with a MASSIVE amount of market capital, and Amazon aggressively re-invests More than its profits into growing its business, and right now there is a LOT of perceived room for Amazon to grow.
I'm certainly not going to buy a "smart coffee maker" with a subscription & planned obsolescence when I can buy a dumb one without.
The "Smart" coffee makers are called Keurig, and they're pretty popular --- some of the latest models use DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology in the form of a chip in their manufactured coffee pods to discourage/prevent using 3rd party or generic pods.
These aren't invasive sensors --- they're not collecting individually-identifiable information like a Camera or Microphone does, and the readings could be used to provide a friendlier browsing experience..... for example: lower light could default to a darker theme to reduce eye-strain.
Greater distance could select a "Big Screen/Big Picture/Dashboard" view versus an "Near view"
It might not be something every website needs, but I can think of at least a few web-based applications such as "Cloud-based media consumption --- sites like Youtube.com", or cloud-based enterprise applications where it could be useful.
Vendors have an interest in not having to provide their own cloud. That is an on going expense for a one time purchase.
No... it's probably a small expense for most products, and an eventual opportunity to get recurring revenue out of their customers -- either by starting to bill a new subscription (The Cloud excuse helps facilitate a "Rental model" for license to use the hardware and software --- Being cloud-based usually means additional revenue opportunities for the provider or more options to further exploit existing product owners for an extra revenue stream down the road), selling additional products or add-on services (Such as "plug-ins", "apps", or "music streaming"), or collecting data for marketing/advertising, OR after the end of the 3-year support period notifying their customers that they'll need to upgrade to $NEWER_HARDWARE_MODEL to keep using it.
they just need the software to phone home telemetry and perform updates,
Phoning home to a cloud infrastructure, so they need to build it anyways.... why not make it more integral to the product, to ensure the end user doesn't just firewall it off or disconnect it from the internet?
they should all run off a single PC. All "smart devices" should simply be interfaces that use the PC's hardware to execute/control their functions
For vendors... they keep more control if they use their own cloud, AND end users don't have to worry about replacing an expensive single PC to restore all those functions when it fails/dies
However, if somebody drove the Parkland shooter to that school in order to help him perpetrate the shooting, the driver would have broken the law,
And if they drove the Parkland shooter there having No Knowledge of his intentions, but marketed their Uber service generally as "a quick way to travel to or from potential crime scenes without attracting the attention of the police?"
AirBNB is a very effective tool for skirting the rules disguised as a legitimate platform which is why it gets so much attention.
Companies like AirBNB can be specifically regulated by the states as well; Specifically, if they match Owners and Renters and perform any payment processing or taking any cut, the state can define them as "Brokering the rental of property within their state," and next, when the state passes rules limiting short-term rentals of Apartments/residential units, they can also pass a regulation requiring all "Brokers of Short-term rentals" to digitally submit an Annual data report for each property to the state and to internally Enforce the state's limits ---- regarding Number of Properties and Days per Year a PERSON or Person's company can make available without a Hotel license on each property, and impose Large financial penalties should AirBNB fail to enforce the limits, And making the companies such as AirBNB Jointly liable with the property owners for any violations they facilitate.
He's a business guy with no Computer Science background.... Who the hell is Musk to say that AI research should be regulated?
He's scared about computers evolving to take his job, and obsolete CEOs and Middle managers' work is primarily to "Make decisions based on data", perhaps?
Slashdot Mirror
If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong.
That would be an irrational "looking" or undertaking on our part, based on an illusion that the driver of the car somehow has control over the laws of physics. If you're driving 50 MPH down a road that is signed for 50 MPH not near an intersection, and some woman runs out in front of you 20 feet away...... it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of.
Questionable whether the human was REALLY at the ready. They may have had surveillance fatigue, for example, because the autonomous vehicle is usually safe, and the speed with which a pedestrian made an illegal entry into the roadway did not allow enough reaction time for the human.
Nope hypemaster... If this was not an autonomous vehicle, the driver would be in prison already.. In case you didn't read the details, the Uber Testing program has been halted.
People don't go to prison for accidentally hitting a pedestrian.
The autonomous car might not even be at fault for the incident. Uber obviously suspended their testing program - Just in Case - to mitigate the possibility of further damages being caused while this case is investigated, And they need to understand What happened, Why it happened, and If the Autonomous vehicle was not at fault and they couldn't of prevented it, they'll probably resume testing shortly.....
Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.
It's not a "penalty". It is an unavoidable consequence of some kinds of jaywalking --- for example, running off from the side into the street just ahead of a vehicle approaching that point in the road at the speed limit. It is possible there was no "obstacle" for the car to detect Until it was already too late to avoid an incident.
There is a certain minimum sight distance required for an approaching vehicle's driver to recognize that there is a pedestrian in the road, AND react, AND take action, and then even after the breaks are being applied -- there is stopping distance.
For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.
The problem is "hard way" is an incorrect description.... the SHA1 hash algorithm is not computationally expensive, as it is not intended for deriving a a key from a password in order to "stretch" the key strength and protect the password.
Brute forcing the password protected by only SHA1 is an _easy_ process and can be GPU accelerated to approximately 8.5 Billion hash ops per second on a GTX 1080, and a reference system with 8 of the nVIDIA GPUs can do SHA1 brute forcing at
68 Billion SHA1 passwords per second with Hashcat.
How about, things like you know:
Premium Weighting = (Kilowatt Hours used) Divided by (10 * Number of monthly Worker-Hours + Customer/Guest-Visit-Hours employed inside the facility)
Then you have an "allowance" based on how much local economic activity is generated.
Base Price = Standard discounted electric price, e.g. $0.10 / kWh
Then for the monthly bill...
Price per Kilowatt hour consumed = (Base Price) + max(0, (G-Factor) x (Premium Weighting) x (Base Price) )
For example: 50000 kilowatt hours used by 5000 man-hours * 10 = Gives a weighting of 1.00, but 10x as many kWh gives a weighting of 10.0
Price per KwH = $0.10 + (G-Factor) X 1 * 0.10
The G-factor being set somewhere between 0.01 and 10.00 based on the month's "Overdemand" level for electricity
and some index of usage tiers; the greater the excessive overall demand by all users the higher each electric customer's indexed G-Factor will be be.
You'll probably have provided an explanation for that when you got the POCO to upgrade you to 3-Phase 1000 AMP or more electrical services,
because the typical residential 100-Amp panel doesn't provide a lot of capacity for doing large-scale mining.
You can provide a reason for your electrical usage "Running BOINC clients" and high-volume GPU-based computation for personal research in mathematics, cryptography, and AI machine learning development.
The electrical consumption cannot be used to establish that you are running a commercial mining operation.
and when demand increases, they can build additional plants - but they are expensive to run and take a long time to build.
No.... they are expensive to build And take a long time to get the government approval to build.
And building additional plants/capacity is difficult to justify, because overbuilding is an inherent necessity, and they can't turn that around to profit until demand for electricity gradually increases.....
So anyways: This is an area where Bitcoin could help by generating demand early, so the extra capacity can be built and not sit dormant waiting before people need the electricity ----- then as demand from the population ramps up, the cost of electricity increases until the cost is high enough the Bitcoin miners can't profit, so they close up shop move on to the next area where electrical infrastructure is being underutilized.
NO.... Not good. Now some city is dictating what you can use your electricity for that you purchased in your own home and banning some computation.
They should accomplish their objectives some other way.
When its electrical budget was exceeded in January, the city had to buy electricity from the open market at a higher cost, which was distributed among its residents.
How about setting a monthly kilowatt hour limit high-water and low-water levels ---- If you exceed the high-water limit, then you will pay twice to three times as much for the portion of all the electricity you used above the limit, funds will go into a pool to be spent to help cover overbudget events and build more capacity: If you used less than the low-limit, then you will get a discount on all your electricity.
If the city goes above its budget and has to buy from the open market: instead of distributing the cost evenly, the cost sharing should be highly weighted to each customer based on kWH consumed divided by number of individual users.
Backup battery, have it signal Verizon when it gets low
During a major emergency, they don't care.... they're not deploying resources to swap backup batteries on your individual service.
And the only way they're rolling a truck is if you call them.
Who do you think they are? A competitive service provider? HAHA
he raised concerns about unethical and/or illegal activities to upper management and was fired simply for doing so, that would be retaliation
Which is not illegal. You can be fired for raising concerns with upper management, regardless what those concerns are.
Only thing the laws protect is raising concerns with official law enforcement..... so if you raise concerns with management
but not law enforcement, there's no legal protection against retaliation for that, and they can still fire you on the spot.
Huynh claims Walmart mislabeled products so that some third-party vendors received lower commissions, failed to process customer returns, and allowed offensive items onto the site.
If he wants to claim whistleblower treatment..... he'd best have a better story than that.
I'm sure Amazon has some erroneously labelled products too.
Causing some vendors to receive lower commissions will be interesting to those vendors, but it's not likely to be criminal.
Perhaps Huynh is just not realizing retailers generally must become as ruthless as the company they're trying to compete with....
It is a work of fiction, so you absolutely can say "because it is so".
Works of fiction describe imaginary people, things, situations, and events, but fiction can only make up what
is inside the story. Fiction CANNOT decide matters of the philosophical interpretation which are done outside
of the story by the reader, after the reader looks at the description of the happenings or what the technology is
described or shown as doing. For example, the "fictional" star trek could say that "2 + 2 = 5", but the reader is unlikely to
accept that interpretation as truth --- even as a matter within the story, they would say the people in the story err'd
even within their own understanding, even in a fictional world that doesn't hold water: at least not in a Sci-Fi fictional world.
So your mention that someone inside the story said "the person is moved (not destroyed and re-created)",
does not stand as an acceptable argument one way or another in terms of the answer to the reader's philosophical
question: "Is the person transported the SAME as the person that materialized at the destination?".
Amazon is using their monopoly in one area to further the process of creating a monopoly in another area.
This ought to be disallowed under antitrust law, then Amazon should be required to split up into Amazon AWS (for their business of selling PaaS services and outsourced IT/compute technologies), Amazon Business Services (for their business of providing call center/telephone services and smart agents for CS), Amazon Retail Unit (for their business of reselling digital physical goods), Amazon Electronics (for their business of creating consumer electronics products such as Book readers, Smart speakers, Tablets), Amazon Publishing (for their businesses of creating E-Books and Audio Books), Amazon Media (Music/Video Streaming services).
I would like to see a Pi with some GPU that could be used for some VR, high-fidelity 3D gaming, and perhaps some GPU-optimized deep learning.
Instead, some fantasy process actually converts the person (or whatever) into a pattern which is transferred from one transporter to the other and then rematerialized.
In other words: all the matter is dematerialized, and a new representation is created, AND new matter is materialized into a form given by the representation.
That doesn't resolve the issue ---- that DOESN'T show the being being transported didn't cease to exist, and the new being is not completely new.
If the PERSON is the same one, then how do you explain the Star Trek TNG episode where a Second much younger Will Riker materializes, and is every bit as much as conscious?
The fictitious handwaving in Enterprise didn't even rise to the level of believability. I mean you can't just use "hand waving" or say "because it is so" to overcome the dilemma.... nice try though.
Similar case to Amazon.
No... Amazon is immensly profitable. It is just that their investors reward Amazon's profitability with a MASSIVE amount of market capital, and Amazon aggressively re-invests More than its profits into growing its business, and right now there is a LOT of perceived room for Amazon to grow.
That may very well be true... Who is to say the person who stepped out is not a brand new person?
The person who was beamed away suffered a death though instant and painless from the dematerialization.
Then an imposter was materialized who has all the same bodily molecules, but NOT the same immortal soul.....
I'm certainly not going to buy a "smart coffee maker" with a subscription & planned obsolescence when I can buy a dumb one without.
The "Smart" coffee makers are called Keurig, and they're pretty popular --- some of the latest models use DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology in the form of a chip in their manufactured coffee pods to discourage/prevent using 3rd party or generic pods.
These aren't invasive sensors --- they're not collecting individually-identifiable information like a Camera or Microphone does, and the readings could be used to provide a friendlier browsing experience..... for example: lower light could default to a darker theme to reduce eye-strain.
Greater distance could select a "Big Screen/Big Picture/Dashboard" view versus an "Near view"
It might not be something every website needs, but I can think of at least a few web-based applications such as "Cloud-based media consumption --- sites like Youtube.com", or cloud-based enterprise applications where it could be useful.
Vendors have an interest in not having to provide their own cloud. That is an on going expense for a one time purchase.
No... it's probably a small expense for most products, and an eventual opportunity to get recurring revenue out of their customers -- either by starting to bill a new subscription (The Cloud excuse helps facilitate a "Rental model" for license to use the hardware and software --- Being cloud-based usually means additional revenue opportunities for the provider or more options to further exploit existing product owners for an extra revenue stream down the road), selling additional products or add-on services (Such as "plug-ins", "apps", or "music streaming"), or collecting data for marketing/advertising, OR after the end of the 3-year support period notifying their customers that they'll need to upgrade to $NEWER_HARDWARE_MODEL to keep using it.
they just need the software to phone home telemetry and perform updates,
Phoning home to a cloud infrastructure, so they need to build it anyways....
why not make it more integral to the product, to ensure the end user doesn't just firewall it off or disconnect it from the internet?
they should all run off a single PC. All "smart devices" should simply be interfaces that use the PC's hardware to execute/control their functions
For vendors... they keep more control if they use their own cloud, AND end users don't have to worry about replacing an expensive single PC to restore all those functions when it fails/dies
However, if somebody drove the Parkland shooter to that school in order to help him perpetrate the shooting, the driver would have broken the law,
And if they drove the Parkland shooter there having No Knowledge of his intentions, but marketed their Uber service generally as "a quick way to travel to or from potential crime scenes without attracting the attention of the police?"
AirBNB is a very effective tool for skirting the rules disguised as a legitimate platform which is why it gets so much attention.
Companies like AirBNB can be specifically regulated by the states as well; Specifically, if they match Owners and Renters and perform any payment processing or taking any cut, the state can define them as "Brokering the rental of property within their state," and next, when the state passes rules limiting short-term rentals of Apartments/residential units, they can also pass a regulation requiring all "Brokers of Short-term rentals" to digitally submit an Annual data report for each property to the state and to internally Enforce the state's limits ---- regarding Number of Properties and Days per Year a PERSON or Person's company can make available without a Hotel license on each property, and impose Large financial penalties should AirBNB fail to enforce the limits, And making the companies such as AirBNB Jointly liable with the property owners for any violations they facilitate.
He's a business guy with no Computer Science background.... Who the hell is Musk to say that AI research should be regulated?
He's scared about computers evolving to take his job, and obsolete CEOs and Middle managers' work
is primarily to "Make decisions based on data", perhaps?