Any company will push for what bring them money. The time to push back is now while it's still a pilot. Some people with cheap access to lawyers looking for full refunds on their Sony smart TVs because of admitted malware installation. Organized boycotts of the companies. Charges for theft of services of internet access for unwanted ads. I'm sure there's more ideas, which regardless of individual merit have a nuisance factor that will signal to Sony and the others this is not acceptable.
It is natural for companies to try to make new & increased revenue streams. If it's in a way that you find intrusive you need to be willing to push back otherwise it will happen.
It's not just Microsoft, it's anyone who rents content to you. Had an interesting discussion with a friend a few months ago where he talked about all the content he'd bought from a well-known streaming service. I corrected him to tell him he'd rented it, not bought it. Even after multiple iterations of explanation, he still couldn't quite grasp that since it was held on someone else's servers and they could change their ToS any time they felt like it, all of his content was rented, not bought.
Silly thing was he'd actually already been burned by this service when they decided to withdraw access to content he'd paid for.
And I can't believe you're attempting to help the corporation brainwash your friend.
That is exactly what the corporations want, because it (a) puts all the power in their hands and (b) exonerates them of wrongdoing and punitive penalties for stealing the content he purchased.
YES, they can turn it off at any time. NO, that doesn't not mean that they have a unencumbered right do to so and can do so without penalty. It's corporate shills, intentional or otherwise, that convince people to give up their rights in favor of the company by not even trying to fight it.
What you should be doing is convincing your friend to push for not just reimbursement but also punitive damages for the material they already took away, as a sale had happened, and attempting to redefine a common-use term to be something completely different in the fine print of terms and conditions is something our legal system should protect us against. Go to small claims court and get a default judgement against them when they don't bother to send a lawyer, or more likely a settlement from their legal department because it's cheaper than sending a lawyer.
"if you pay for eBooks, music, movies, video games, or any other content from a store that uses DRM, then you aren't really buying those digital items so much as paying a license fee for the rights to access them... a right that can be revoked if the company decides to remove a title from your device unexpectedly or if a company shuts down a server that would normally handle the digital rights management features."
That is bullcrap that the companies do their best to get you to accept.
If you wish to license me something, list it as "License this eBook". If you list it as "Buy this eBook", then I will push that the action taken on my part was a purchase, which should supersede any terms and conditions because there is a clear and common use definition of the word "buy" in a retail transaction which they are in breach of.
If I do markup in a book, then in addition there is theft of some sort going on if a company pulls the license.
Do not accept companies redefining these things to put all of the power in their hands.
Not a solution for all robocalls, but a partial one for using up your mobile minutes. My understanding is that some countries issue mobile numbers from different blocks then land lines. And have enforced laws. So it's trivial for a robocaller to identify and remove mobile numbers, and real penalties if they don't. The robocallers police themselves to make sure they don't call mobile and hit hit with penalties and fines.
Now, this doesn't help out-of-country callers, but those at least probably have some costs per call which should reduce the number compared to domestic calls. Even the foreign call center ones probably currently have the calling being done domestically and then connecting you to an open line with a person if someone picks up - that's how to have a lot more robocallers going then agents to cut down on your human costs.
If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no? It's not all bitcoin - the targets wouldn't be savvy enough to pay that way, right?
Trying to get not just local law enforcement, but also international law enforcement involved for the loss of a few hundred or even a thousand dollars in an incident is hard to do. They usually want a larger monetary loss to get involved.
That's assuming that, depending on the country the calls are being made from, that there isn't an "arrangement" with their law enforcement already.
Just to add I'm still not sure what you mean by "covering an all in". No limit hold em should really be table stakes hold em. The maximum you can lose in a hand is the amount you had in front of you at the start of a hand. If you start with 1000 and I start with 200 and you shove all in, I call with the 200 I'm playing with. I don't have to cover the full 1k to call.
As for heads up v 5 max, yeah, totally different games.
Implied pot odds.
Pot odds can normally have you stay in when you have less than a 50% chance to win, that's joe standard play. But there are times when you have a long shot to get the nuts where it's not just what's in the pot, but what more you expect you can get out of them. If they started then hand with 200 and only have 20 left, there's a lot less potential upside then if they started the hand with 1000 and have 820 left.
Not that you should call only if they go in for 820, but there are times that if you catch their card and they will have gone in for 120-150 more then it's worth it, but wouldn't be for 20 more then what's in the pot.
You must watch a lot of movies. In a real poker game the chips on a table are already paid for, you don't have to worry about whether you or your opponent can cover a bet they make and any serious professional player will never play with money they can't afford to lose in that session. Most cash games are generally deep not short stacked. Heads up is a very common cash game format online, it't not some rare contrived idea that doesn't have a real world equivalent. Being a successful poker player isn't about looking for twitches in your opponents face, rather just a string of mathematical optimization calculations. As an example: if I am faced with a bluff on the river my decision is not concerned about trying to figure out if my opponent is bluffing in this specific hand as I can't answer that due to their cards being unknown to me. My decision is based around working out approximately what % of the time a correct strategy would bluff in that instance, what the correct call / fold ratio is with a bluff catcher to that bluffing frequency and if I have noticed my opponent bluffing too much / not often enough so I can adjust my ratio to exploit them. That's precisely what this bot does except the bot does it far more accurately.
I love watching movies with poker, they are so funny. Or watching most of the poker shows on TV when that was big, since they just show the exciting hands and give casual players the wrong idea about how to play.
I don't have your claimed chops - I never supported myself via poker. But I think you're making some bad assumptions there. Let's check what I was saying that the/. summary was poor.
Libratus only played heads up. The summary implied it was playing five handed. These aren't the same.
It played 120K hands, and it never had to deal with the repercussions of a hand because it was reset. It's like if you, playing poker, never had a bad beat that put you at a disadvantage. And never had to worry about covering an all in - or if your opponent had enough to cover yours and make something worthwhile. This also isn't regular poker.
Basically, it was set up to minimize extraneous inputs (multiple players interacting with each other), minimize unknowns, and could exploit narrow margins over a long period of time (120K hands) without ever having to worry about making a bad play and losing their stake.
What I said is that the summary was bad in presenting it as a general poker playing savant, and I stand by that.
Sorry, but that's a misleading summary for technical news. Libratus did some pretty good playing, but saying it beat four top human opponents is extremely misleading.
What it did do was play thousands of rounds one on one. With exceedingly large bankrolls compared to the size of the big blind that were reset after every hand. In other words, it never had to play with short stack, never had to worry that the opponent couldn't cover it's own bets, and that really long shots (which are easier for a computer to calculate) can be made to pay off if hit because of the size of the bankrolls were much larger than usual for the size bets being made. And was only one on one, so it had a minimum of unknown information, betting and bluffing. Hold 'em, so 5 common cars and only two hold cards it doesn't know. And thousands of rounds each, so any small edge would have time to multiply.
Now, it did do this against four top players (each against their own copy of Libratus). It really was quite an accomplishment. But it's not nearing the general poker imperfect-information feint-analyzing multiple-unknowns that the summary makes it out to be. Come on/., be News for Nerds. Get the tech details right.
Who the hell would ship a computer with a 32gb ssd? windows itself needs that much to even install! much less run. 128gb has been too small for a few years now!
I won a Win10 Trekstor Primebook, little notebook with the specs of a wimpy chromebook or tablet. 32GB ssd, 4GB RAM. It don't want to have to invest more than the thing is worth to me in order to keep up with Windows updates.
Had to connect a USD drive to get the 2018 April update on. No way there's 7GB free space on it even after an aggressive cleaning.
Let me know when they've made the app part of the lock screen with a PIN or something so it's protected but I don't need to have unlocked my phone and offered it to someone in order to use it.
Funny how we want A La Carte, Then we get A La Carte, and now we complain it's not bundled into packages.
I'm fine with A La Carte - at A La Carte prices. But Netflix losing a bunch won't reduce their price - and we've already seen various newcomers coming in with the business model that they'll pull in $8.99/mo or whatever near-Netflix cost.
Giving me A La Carte and charging me full entree price for each is what I dislike. You give me a bunch in the $0.99 to $1.99 that have a reasonable but narrow selection and I'll pick out several.
It's like CBS All Access - they have a lot of the CBS back catalog - which I didn't bother to DVR when it was on for free the first time. Plus popular shows like Bing Bang Theory are missing 80%+ of their episodes because they are tied up in international licensing.
Amazon already tried carving of it's own bit - they put out Anime Strike on top of Prime Video. Failed fast - which is good, it didn't hemorrhage money that way.
I hypothesize that the AI is only good at spotting current and historic types of loopholes.
Here's my proposed test. A theoretical bad-actor NDA creator gets services of both a lawyer and the AI to review their document. They craft different ways to build in issues, with several cycles of submitting to both for feedback and modifications. (Since both of these would be available to someone trying t make a bad one.)
Final document is reviewed and scored.
My guess is that the human lawyers will be more adept at finding innovative issues in the NDA. But who knows until we test it.
It might be that the best path is a first pass by an AI to catch issues, then a lawyer-pass that can be significantly quicker since it doesn't have to look for the same issues the AI would.
The summary appears to quote TFA and says that his contract was not renewed. You don't have to renew a contract if it is still valid. Thus, the summary is not open about this, it is pretty clearly saying his contract either expired or "his contract has been terminated."
The actual quote from TFA is:
I was on a 3 years contract and had only worked for 8 months. Just before I was hired, this company was acquired by a much larger company and I joined during the transition. My manager at the time was from the previous administration. One morning I came to work to see that his desk had been wiped clean, as if he was disappeared. As a full time employee, he had been laid off. He was to work from home as a contractor for the duration of a transition. I imagine due to the shock and frustration, he decided not to do much work after that. Some of that work included renewing my contract in the new system.
That seems very clear that his contract was still good. 8 months into a 3 year contract, and the manager had not renewed the contract in the new system from after the acquisition.
We have employee engagement surveys every years to show things like this. And invariably the make serious noises about problem areas, but no follow-up ever happens on them if they involve compensation (including costs of health care and other perks in addition salary), or lack of faith in senior management.
Where the numbers are good they wave them like a flag and give pats on the back (but nothing more tangible).
Now where it gets interesting is when you don't look at it monolithically. We would use an outside company to do this, and even though I am sure many employees didn't believe this, they would only deliver results in aggregate, with a minimum number of respondents to make it hard to determine any one employee's answer. But those are still interesting. When you have one team with vastly different scores then related teams, good or bad, you can take a look at what is different.
Tesla's autopilot feature is neither an automated co-pilot nor does it have a track record better than humans.
You didn't post an an anonymous coward, I'm going to assume that you're saying this in good faith.
Let's take a look at your two assertions.
Not an "automated co-pilot". Well, it does steer the car, navigates, attempts to avoid pedestrians, vehicles and other hazards, stays in lane and controls speed. Can you elaborate why that does not qualify as driving the vehicle? (The co- part is because it does require the human to stay ready and keep their hands on the wheel - it's not doing it all by itself. I didn't think that was the bone of your contention.)
As for the track record, I was going off the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's findings. Here's one article about it: http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...
However, I see that there are articles out there that look at other statistics and don't have the same conclusion, so I'll agree that's debatable.
Would you be satisfied if I changed that part to just "better than an uncontrolled car in motion" and cut out the part about a better safety record?
To me it has to be either autonomous or not. If semi-autonomous driving requires you to be engaged and alert with both hands on the wheel, ready to take control at any time, then what's the point? How is it different from regular non-autonomous driving? Can anyone share their experience?
Two ways.
First, it has a better track record then your average human driver so it can help avoid accidents that the human may not.
Second, like an aircraft autopilot, it can handle routine matters but there are still times during an emergency or an unusual situation that it needs someone who can handle what it can't.
Think like this. Both human and Tesla's autopilot have a high overlap in what they can handle. There are some things the autopilot handles better just due to reaction time and 360 vision. There are some things the human driver handle better because of our adaptability. Together they can handle more than either separately and are much safer.
Surely if Tesla demands that drivers keep their hands on the wheel at all times that the autopilot is engaged then they should have a sensor for this and disengage the autopilot whenever the driver releases the wheel -- as a safety measure.
Turning off autopilot when the driver releases the wheel AS A SAFETY MEASURE? If you were in a car in motion, which do you think is safer for the driver and others nearby: an automated co-pilot with a safety track record better than humans or an uncontrolled car in motion?
The sensors alert the driver to put their hands back on the wheel instead of turning the car into an large, fast, uncontrolled missile.
It is only small towns that can ticket cars on a road passing through that make money off of tickets.
Traffic revenue is a way of bringing in money not from their residents.
There are some towns in Maryland that bring in millions a year from tourists passing through on a major north/south route - you go one mile over the limit and they hit you, you don't turn on your lights in the area marked, they get you.
But yeah, they are small towns and for them that's a big deal compared to their total tax revenue.
I followed this as it was happening. This is NOT about bots being able to beat human players. It's about bots being able to beat human players in the simplest possible space that doesn't mimic 99% of actual poker play.
It was only heads-up with 1 human a time, not vs. a table. After every round the money was reset so it never had to play from low amount of chips, or have to try to bully with it's chip advantage. The amount of chips vs. the big blind was a very large stack in the first place even before it reset every hand, so the blinds were statistically little more than noise in the amount that was going back and forth.
Don't get me wrong, this is really interesting and great strides. But this is far from a bot being able to play at a full table and having to deal with a few bad hands taking it out of the place where it's betting is suited for. (If you have less of a stack, you have less of an upside so draw hands aren't worth as much.) Or to have someone with a larger stack push it beyond it's acceptable betting and make it fold because it can.
Smart TVs can......act as sniffers for anything else on your subnet / vLAN...be part of a DDOS attack elsewhere on the internet...send back select pixel colors to a home location to figure out what you are watching even from other sources (Visio did this, google it)...can get infected with malware and either stop working, or worse NOT stop working and be a palce that infects anything new on your network that doesn't have proper countermeasures. (Like if you're reinstalling a system.)...act as a passthru for all sorts of unpleasantness so it's attached to your IP.
These are just a few things that could be done besides "the obvious" like passing on account names and passwords for any smart apps used like Netflix, Amazon Prime, music, etc.
Until the biometric device is talking directly without any middlemen (like the vendor or the internet) to the payment people, it is inherently less secure. Because at all the points between, it's just a digital password, and one that is (a) reused between sites and (b) unable to be changed.
And with this, they undermine the whole thing by displaying little knowledge of what actually makes for good password security. Mistaking complexity for entropy and an avoidance of dictionary attacks / rainbow tables. Password changing doesn't make your password any harder to guess, it just helps limit the failure domain once it's compromised. But really, overlooking password reuse between sites (and corresponding duplication of security question answers) is really the topper - that needs to be in your awareness.
My company deals with them, and what I've heard Nth-hand is that they couldn't unload or load ships in dock and that there was a lot of port costs associated with that as well. My guess would be not able to get the customs documentation and inventory and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Any company will push for what bring them money. The time to push back is now while it's still a pilot. Some people with cheap access to lawyers looking for full refunds on their Sony smart TVs because of admitted malware installation. Organized boycotts of the companies. Charges for theft of services of internet access for unwanted ads. I'm sure there's more ideas, which regardless of individual merit have a nuisance factor that will signal to Sony and the others this is not acceptable.
It is natural for companies to try to make new & increased revenue streams. If it's in a way that you find intrusive you need to be willing to push back otherwise it will happen.
It's not just Microsoft, it's anyone who rents content to you. Had an interesting discussion with a friend a few months ago where he talked about all the content he'd bought from a well-known streaming service. I corrected him to tell him he'd rented it, not bought it. Even after multiple iterations of explanation, he still couldn't quite grasp that since it was held on someone else's servers and they could change their ToS any time they felt like it, all of his content was rented, not bought.
Silly thing was he'd actually already been burned by this service when they decided to withdraw access to content he'd paid for.
And I can't believe you're attempting to help the corporation brainwash your friend.
That is exactly what the corporations want, because it (a) puts all the power in their hands and (b) exonerates them of wrongdoing and punitive penalties for stealing the content he purchased.
YES, they can turn it off at any time. NO, that doesn't not mean that they have a unencumbered right do to so and can do so without penalty. It's corporate shills, intentional or otherwise, that convince people to give up their rights in favor of the company by not even trying to fight it.
What you should be doing is convincing your friend to push for not just reimbursement but also punitive damages for the material they already took away, as a sale had happened, and attempting to redefine a common-use term to be something completely different in the fine print of terms and conditions is something our legal system should protect us against. Go to small claims court and get a default judgement against them when they don't bother to send a lawyer, or more likely a settlement from their legal department because it's cheaper than sending a lawyer.
"if you pay for eBooks, music, movies, video games, or any other content from a store that uses DRM, then you aren't really buying those digital items so much as paying a license fee for the rights to access them... a right that can be revoked if the company decides to remove a title from your device unexpectedly or if a company shuts down a server that would normally handle the digital rights management features."
That is bullcrap that the companies do their best to get you to accept.
If you wish to license me something, list it as "License this eBook". If you list it as "Buy this eBook", then I will push that the action taken on my part was a purchase, which should supersede any terms and conditions because there is a clear and common use definition of the word "buy" in a retail transaction which they are in breach of.
If I do markup in a book, then in addition there is theft of some sort going on if a company pulls the license.
Do not accept companies redefining these things to put all of the power in their hands.
Not a solution for all robocalls, but a partial one for using up your mobile minutes. My understanding is that some countries issue mobile numbers from different blocks then land lines. And have enforced laws. So it's trivial for a robocaller to identify and remove mobile numbers, and real penalties if they don't. The robocallers police themselves to make sure they don't call mobile and hit hit with penalties and fines.
Now, this doesn't help out-of-country callers, but those at least probably have some costs per call which should reduce the number compared to domestic calls. Even the foreign call center ones probably currently have the calling being done domestically and then connecting you to an open line with a person if someone picks up - that's how to have a lot more robocallers going then agents to cut down on your human costs.
If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no? It's not all bitcoin - the targets wouldn't be savvy enough to pay that way, right?
Trying to get not just local law enforcement, but also international law enforcement involved for the loss of a few hundred or even a thousand dollars in an incident is hard to do. They usually want a larger monetary loss to get involved.
That's assuming that, depending on the country the calls are being made from, that there isn't an "arrangement" with their law enforcement already.
Just to add I'm still not sure what you mean by "covering an all in". No limit hold em should really be table stakes hold em. The maximum you can lose in a hand is the amount you had in front of you at the start of a hand. If you start with 1000 and I start with 200 and you shove all in, I call with the 200 I'm playing with. I don't have to cover the full 1k to call.
As for heads up v 5 max, yeah, totally different games.
Implied pot odds.
Pot odds can normally have you stay in when you have less than a 50% chance to win, that's joe standard play. But there are times when you have a long shot to get the nuts where it's not just what's in the pot, but what more you expect you can get out of them. If they started then hand with 200 and only have 20 left, there's a lot less potential upside then if they started the hand with 1000 and have 820 left.
Not that you should call only if they go in for 820, but there are times that if you catch their card and they will have gone in for 120-150 more then it's worth it, but wouldn't be for 20 more then what's in the pot.
You must watch a lot of movies. In a real poker game the chips on a table are already paid for, you don't have to worry about whether you or your opponent can cover a bet they make and any serious professional player will never play with money they can't afford to lose in that session. Most cash games are generally deep not short stacked. Heads up is a very common cash game format online, it't not some rare contrived idea that doesn't have a real world equivalent. Being a successful poker player isn't about looking for twitches in your opponents face, rather just a string of mathematical optimization calculations.
As an example: if I am faced with a bluff on the river my decision is not concerned about trying to figure out if my opponent is bluffing in this specific hand as I can't answer that due to their cards being unknown to me. My decision is based around working out approximately what % of the time a correct strategy would bluff in that instance, what the correct call / fold ratio is with a bluff catcher to that bluffing frequency and if I have noticed my opponent bluffing too much / not often enough so I can adjust my ratio to exploit them. That's precisely what this bot does except the bot does it far more accurately.
I love watching movies with poker, they are so funny. Or watching most of the poker shows on TV when that was big, since they just show the exciting hands and give casual players the wrong idea about how to play.
I don't have your claimed chops - I never supported myself via poker. But I think you're making some bad assumptions there. Let's check what I was saying that the /. summary was poor.
Libratus only played heads up. The summary implied it was playing five handed. These aren't the same.
It played 120K hands, and it never had to deal with the repercussions of a hand because it was reset. It's like if you, playing poker, never had a bad beat that put you at a disadvantage. And never had to worry about covering an all in - or if your opponent had enough to cover yours and make something worthwhile. This also isn't regular poker.
Basically, it was set up to minimize extraneous inputs (multiple players interacting with each other), minimize unknowns, and could exploit narrow margins over a long period of time (120K hands) without ever having to worry about making a bad play and losing their stake.
What I said is that the summary was bad in presenting it as a general poker playing savant, and I stand by that.
Sorry, but that's a misleading summary for technical news. Libratus did some pretty good playing, but saying it beat four top human opponents is extremely misleading.
What it did do was play thousands of rounds one on one. With exceedingly large bankrolls compared to the size of the big blind that were reset after every hand. In other words, it never had to play with short stack, never had to worry that the opponent couldn't cover it's own bets, and that really long shots (which are easier for a computer to calculate) can be made to pay off if hit because of the size of the bankrolls were much larger than usual for the size bets being made. And was only one on one, so it had a minimum of unknown information, betting and bluffing. Hold 'em, so 5 common cars and only two hold cards it doesn't know. And thousands of rounds each, so any small edge would have time to multiply.
Now, it did do this against four top players (each against their own copy of Libratus). It really was quite an accomplishment. But it's not nearing the general poker imperfect-information feint-analyzing multiple-unknowns that the summary makes it out to be. Come on /., be News for Nerds. Get the tech details right.
Who the hell would ship a computer with a 32gb ssd? windows itself needs that much to even install! much less run. 128gb has been too small for a few years now!
I won a Win10 Trekstor Primebook, little notebook with the specs of a wimpy chromebook or tablet. 32GB ssd, 4GB RAM. It don't want to have to invest more than the thing is worth to me in order to keep up with Windows updates.
Had to connect a USD drive to get the 2018 April update on. No way there's 7GB free space on it even after an aggressive cleaning.
Let me know when they've made the app part of the lock screen with a PIN or something so it's protected but I don't need to have unlocked my phone and offered it to someone in order to use it.
Funny how we want A La Carte, Then we get A La Carte, and now we complain it's not bundled into packages.
I'm fine with A La Carte - at A La Carte prices. But Netflix losing a bunch won't reduce their price - and we've already seen various newcomers coming in with the business model that they'll pull in $8.99/mo or whatever near-Netflix cost.
Giving me A La Carte and charging me full entree price for each is what I dislike. You give me a bunch in the $0.99 to $1.99 that have a reasonable but narrow selection and I'll pick out several.
It's like CBS All Access - they have a lot of the CBS back catalog - which I didn't bother to DVR when it was on for free the first time. Plus popular shows like Bing Bang Theory are missing 80%+ of their episodes because they are tied up in international licensing.
Amazon already tried carving of it's own bit - they put out Anime Strike on top of Prime Video. Failed fast - which is good, it didn't hemorrhage money that way.
I hypothesize that the AI is only good at spotting current and historic types of loopholes.
Here's my proposed test. A theoretical bad-actor NDA creator gets services of both a lawyer and the AI to review their document. They craft different ways to build in issues, with several cycles of submitting to both for feedback and modifications. (Since both of these would be available to someone trying t make a bad one.)
Final document is reviewed and scored.
My guess is that the human lawyers will be more adept at finding innovative issues in the NDA. But who knows until we test it.
It might be that the best path is a first pass by an AI to catch issues, then a lawyer-pass that can be significantly quicker since it doesn't have to look for the same issues the AI would.
Listen up, back in NT days Minesweeper /was/ essential.
The summary appears to quote TFA and says that his contract was not renewed. You don't have to renew a contract if it is still valid. Thus, the summary is not open about this, it is pretty clearly saying his contract either expired or "his contract has been terminated."
The actual quote from TFA is:
I was on a 3 years contract and had only worked for 8 months. Just before I was hired, this company was acquired by a much larger company and I joined during the transition. My manager at the time was from the previous administration. One morning I came to work to see that his desk had been wiped clean, as if he was disappeared. As a full time employee, he had been laid off. He was to work from home as a contractor for the duration of a transition. I imagine due to the shock and frustration, he decided not to do much work after that. Some of that work included renewing my contract in the new system.
That seems very clear that his contract was still good. 8 months into a 3 year contract, and the manager had not renewed the contract in the new system from after the acquisition.
We have employee engagement surveys every years to show things like this. And invariably the make serious noises about problem areas, but no follow-up ever happens on them if they involve compensation (including costs of health care and other perks in addition salary), or lack of faith in senior management.
Where the numbers are good they wave them like a flag and give pats on the back (but nothing more tangible).
Now where it gets interesting is when you don't look at it monolithically. We would use an outside company to do this, and even though I am sure many employees didn't believe this, they would only deliver results in aggregate, with a minimum number of respondents to make it hard to determine any one employee's answer. But those are still interesting. When you have one team with vastly different scores then related teams, good or bad, you can take a look at what is different.
Tesla's autopilot feature is neither an automated co-pilot nor does it have a track record better than humans.
You didn't post an an anonymous coward, I'm going to assume that you're saying this in good faith.
Let's take a look at your two assertions.
Not an "automated co-pilot". Well, it does steer the car, navigates, attempts to avoid pedestrians, vehicles and other hazards, stays in lane and controls speed. Can you elaborate why that does not qualify as driving the vehicle? (The co- part is because it does require the human to stay ready and keep their hands on the wheel - it's not doing it all by itself. I didn't think that was the bone of your contention.)
As for the track record, I was going off the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's findings. Here's one article about it:
http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...
However, I see that there are articles out there that look at other statistics and don't have the same conclusion, so I'll agree that's debatable.
Would you be satisfied if I changed that part to just "better than an uncontrolled car in motion" and cut out the part about a better safety record?
Wtf "track record better than humans" are you talking about? Are you making things up again?
Citations please!
You sure had an extreme reaction, have you already made up your mind? Posting an an Anonymous Coward makes thinks you have.
http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...
And even if you don't accept that it's better than a human, wouldn't you still say it's better than being uncontrolled?
To me it has to be either autonomous or not. If semi-autonomous driving requires you to be engaged and alert with both hands on the wheel, ready to take control at any time, then what's the point? How is it different from regular non-autonomous driving? Can anyone share their experience?
Two ways.
First, it has a better track record then your average human driver so it can help avoid accidents that the human may not.
Second, like an aircraft autopilot, it can handle routine matters but there are still times during an emergency or an unusual situation that it needs someone who can handle what it can't.
Think like this. Both human and Tesla's autopilot have a high overlap in what they can handle. There are some things the autopilot handles better just due to reaction time and 360 vision. There are some things the human driver handle better because of our adaptability. Together they can handle more than either separately and are much safer.
Surely if Tesla demands that drivers keep their hands on the wheel at all times that the autopilot is engaged then they should have a sensor for this and disengage the autopilot whenever the driver releases the wheel -- as a safety measure.
Turning off autopilot when the driver releases the wheel AS A SAFETY MEASURE? If you were in a car in motion, which do you think is safer for the driver and others nearby: an automated co-pilot with a safety track record better than humans or an uncontrolled car in motion?
The sensors alert the driver to put their hands back on the wheel instead of turning the car into an large, fast, uncontrolled missile.
It is only small towns that can ticket cars on a road passing through that make money off of tickets.
Traffic revenue is a way of bringing in money not from their residents.
There are some towns in Maryland that bring in millions a year from tourists passing through on a major north/south route - you go one mile over the limit and they hit you, you don't turn on your lights in the area marked, they get you.
But yeah, they are small towns and for them that's a big deal compared to their total tax revenue.
I followed this as it was happening. This is NOT about bots being able to beat human players. It's about bots being able to beat human players in the simplest possible space that doesn't mimic 99% of actual poker play.
It was only heads-up with 1 human a time, not vs. a table. After every round the money was reset so it never had to play from low amount of chips, or have to try to bully with it's chip advantage. The amount of chips vs. the big blind was a very large stack in the first place even before it reset every hand, so the blinds were statistically little more than noise in the amount that was going back and forth.
Don't get me wrong, this is really interesting and great strides. But this is far from a bot being able to play at a full table and having to deal with a few bad hands taking it out of the place where it's betting is suited for. (If you have less of a stack, you have less of an upside so draw hands aren't worth as much.) Or to have someone with a larger stack push it beyond it's acceptable betting and make it fold because it can.
Smart TVs can... ...act as sniffers for anything else on your subnet / vLAN ...be part of a DDOS attack elsewhere on the internet ...send back select pixel colors to a home location to figure out what you are watching even from other sources (Visio did this, google it) ...can get infected with malware and either stop working, or worse NOT stop working and be a palce that infects anything new on your network that doesn't have proper countermeasures. (Like if you're reinstalling a system.) ...act as a passthru for all sorts of unpleasantness so it's attached to your IP.
These are just a few things that could be done besides "the obvious" like passing on account names and passwords for any smart apps used like Netflix, Amazon Prime, music, etc.
Until the biometric device is talking directly without any middlemen (like the vendor or the internet) to the payment people, it is inherently less secure. Because at all the points between, it's just a digital password, and one that is (a) reused between sites and (b) unable to be changed.
Meaning complex and frequently-changed passwords.
And with this, they undermine the whole thing by displaying little knowledge of what actually makes for good password security. Mistaking complexity for entropy and an avoidance of dictionary attacks / rainbow tables. Password changing doesn't make your password any harder to guess, it just helps limit the failure domain once it's compromised. But really, overlooking password reuse between sites (and corresponding duplication of security question answers) is really the topper - that needs to be in your awareness.
My company deals with them, and what I've heard Nth-hand is that they couldn't unload or load ships in dock and that there was a lot of port costs associated with that as well. My guess would be not able to get the customs documentation and inventory and the like.