Regarding the former: You did not read the article and more or less just reiterated your irrelevant claim. Useless. Regarding the latter: The point is that the human sensory array is easily (and cheaply) outmatched without using LIDAR. Sure, the processing part is a very different story, but that is not the point.
Now, please have the decency to respond properly or go away.
Strange indeed. The Xinhua article never mentions how long the doctors took.
If it were true, it could be that the 15 doctors handled separate cases. That would mean 225 cases/15 doctors=15 cases/doctor and 30 minutes/15 cases = 2 minutes/case.
When they can't buy out each other, they for a cartel.
Sometimes, maybe. Intel and AMD do not seem to be in a cartel, nor do Nvidia and AMD.
The cartel breaks down because one of the players will invariably offer a discount and violate the gentlemen's agreement.
Nonsense. That may happen sometimes, but usually the cartels exist for years and years until they slip up or one of the cartel partners rats out the entire deal in hopes of getting out of it ahead. In any case, the punishment is administered through government regulations -- i.e. antitrust fines. It's the only deterrent, really. Without antitrust laws we'd see cartels everywhere. Just look at the OPEC, which is effectively a cartel out in the open but is just too powerful to do anything about.
It is at this point the cartel breaks down (and prices fall) or the cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product.
What the fuck are you talking about? When has the latter ever happened?
Government regulations are no good for the consumer (because they condone keeping prices high with the law used to punish cartel members who break rank).
So your logic is this: we should not have antitrust regulations because they discourage cartels from spontaneously breaking apart and their market temporarily reverting to an oligopoly. Those are some impressive fucking mental gymnastics, my friend.
I'm a Republican/Libertarian and I wanted the companies to be allowed to fail
You do realize that the consequences of that would have been much, much worse? The combination of essential bank services and gambling with complex financial products in the same companies ensured that. Guess what is required to prevent that combination from existing? Government regulation.
Also, screw your undertone of the entire thing not being libertarian enough. Think about having utterly consolidated utility markets and 'allowing the companies to fail'. No drinking water until some other private company buys up the business of the failed company (if at all)? Great idea. Who cares about the people who rely on that service? The important thing is that the free market can do its thing.
Failure needs to hurt otherwise people just keep doing the same things over and over again.
So you agree that the abject failure of Wall Street to self-regulate and the immense financial crisis that ensued due to that failure is unmistakable proof that we should heavily regulate them or at the very least not give them the same amount of free rein they had.
Do you think it is a coincidence that all mature markets are highly consolidated? The oligopolies you speak of are the (crappy) compromises of the free market desire for monopolies and the people's desires for perfect competition.
Another topic herein is the concept of 'cartel forming'. It's a dirty term, even for libertarians, yet it is utterly rational behavior from the perspective of the companies involved. In fact, in other areas of life, we would use words like 'alliance' and 'cooperation' to characterize the behavior. Buying up competing companies or trampling them is equally rational from the perspective of the companies and thus that is exactly what they will do, given the opportunity.
The takeaway here is that the concept of an unrestricted free market fundamentally stabilizes on a highly undesirable state of affairs from a societal point of view.
Now, having established that, finding a good way to deal with it is hard. Asking companies to 'take their responsibility', semirandomly blasting them with huge antitrust fines or breaking up companies above a certain size seem like terrible workarounds to me. One of the more creative ideas I've come across is taxing companies progressively based on their dominance in their respective market(s), but that too seems far from flawless.
Thank you. The constant "THIS IS NOT AI" crap on Slashdot is getting really, really, really old. I can enjoy a good amount of pedantry, bit this shit adds absolutely nothing.
To me the most realistic solution would be to convert (renewable) electricity into a high energy density fuel. The conversion losses would be significant, but perhaps not prohibitive.
The real problem is that the EU policy makers just don't understand how technology works. It's not due to malice. It's ignorance.
On some level, the large majority of the populations anywhere around the world support copyright and support enforcing it. That's why the policy makers can get behind initiatives to 'improve' enforcement. They are, again, simply unable to properly foresee the consequences of what on some level seems like reasonable policy. It obviously doesn't help that they have all kinds of lobbyists trying to influence them.
A lot of these policy makers are old dudes who can barely use an iPad and think along the lines of 'These tech guys can make a worldwide video platform, so surely they can easily build some simple filtering thing.' If you've ever had to deal with explaining how things that seem simple on the surface are actually really complex or otherwise problematic to any C-level guy, you know how deep the ignorance and lack of realization of that ignorance can run.
Keep the churn going, there's always another 18 year old kid looking for after school money.
This is the crux.
Try this shit in a market where there is a shortage of skilled labor and you're fucked. In a market where giving people a job pretty much amounts to charity, the laborers are fucked. Tablet ratings or no tablet ratings. They simply have no leverage.
Don't like whatever shit you have to deal with? Suck it up or get lost. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. What I'm saying is this is a non-story: It's not the tablet reviews, stupid.
Yep just like my printer with it's non-existent parallel port
Last century called, it wants its argument back. HDMI and/or DP on monitors are not going away before USB-C (or its successor) is stable.
But I'm sure you prefer to dongle the dongle dongle to solve all your problems.
Listen, I have no love for Apple and dongles as 'solutions', but you're the one that started talking about a $500 paperweight, which is still bullshit. Don't move the goalposts or change the subject. USB-C to dongle has fuck-all to do with TFA.
about things they didn't know were a problem
That was not the subject. We were talking about casual users asking their (tech) friends or store employees before buying a laptop. The problem they have before buying is that they haven't got a clue what to buy.
Not so much melodrama, as much as : The whole fucking point. But hey, it's such a non-issue that it was posted and being discussed on Slashdot.
No, melodrama. Again: "For us power users the issue of parts not having to be up to spec is frustrating". The distinction between power users and casual users is not part of TFA. The following is a melodramatic way of speaking about this issue: "the idea that someone needs to ask any question at all about Universal Serial Bus compatibility means the damage is done".
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The crux was and is in the 'can only be'.
The point you are glossing over is that displays are going to have multiple inputs like HDMI and DP and that a laptop that does not have a USB-C port that can drive a display will have some mini-/micro-variant of HDMI or DP. Just like laptops do today.
You are somehow arguing that there will be laptops without any way of driving an external display, which is retarded.
If a casual user is even aware of the possibility of driving a display with a USB-C port, he might assume any USB-C port will be capable of doing so, see a laptop that has both micro-HDMI and USB-C and think 'huh, why have the micro-HDMI port on there at all?' If he then fails to have that luminous thought and buys the laptop anyway, he might try driving a display via the USB-C port only to discover that it does not work, after which he buys a micro-HDMI cable. 'Problem' solved and hardly a matter of a '$500 paperweight'.
No they don't.
There's probably a good reason why your friends never ask you these things.
the idea that someone needs to ask any question at all about Universal Serial Bus compatibility means the damage is done
So the casual users will never ever have a Thunderbolt device?
A peripheral that can only be attached to a laptop via a Thunderbolt USB-C port? Very few casual users will.
Or the casual user will never attach a display?
To a laptop that has a USB-C port that does not support attaching external displays and which laptop does not also have some HDMI or DP connector? Never. You do realize that to attach external displays, people already have to deal with mini-DP, mini-HDMI, micro-HDMI, DP, HDMI and in very unlucky cases even DVI and VGA. Buying a laptop with only a USB-C port that doesn't support video doesn't change that at all.
No they don't.
Yes, they do. Either that, or they ask at the store. Especially for laptops, considering that market is utterly confusing to start with.
At that point the damage is done. Actually I take that back, the idea that someone needs to ask any question at all about Universal Serial Bus compatibility means the damage is done.
Don't be so melodramatic. USB is becoming more Universal than it was, just not as Universal as we would all like. Most of all USB use cases will be just fine.
Maybe you want to game on your laptop so you decide to buy an external GPU
Yeah, casual users are all over the external GPU market.
This is a tempest in a teapot for the casual user. For us power users the issue of parts not having to be up to spec is frustrating, but casual users just ask friends beforehand what they should buy and just return stuff that doesn't work the way they want. If they even notice.
I've seen way too many overly skeptical reactions on your product. To me, the technology looks amazing and sensible and the approach you have chosen with regard to protecting the technology from abuse by greed seems very noble.
I'm afraid I don't have the EE chops to ask you the right technical questions, but I do want to wish you luck and urge you not to be demotivated by the onslaught of kneejerk skepticism. I think people have a hard time in accepting stuff that sounds too good to be true. The potential savings your company cites are huge, so it is not that surprising that people are wary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
They say the proof is in the pudding, so for me this was the most convincing line in the Vox article: "Power consumption dropped by 20 percent, server temperature dropped by 20 degrees" It's pretty hard to argue with numbers like that. So if could ask anything: do you have more of these examples? Hard data from external (reputable) sources on power and waste heat savings?
You speak like a true American: Excessively 'patriotic', needlessly polarizing, ridiculously generalizing, deeply shallow, and utterly misinformed.
1. The behavior of Robespierre does not extrapolate to France throughout history. Ridiculously obviously. 2. More importantly, it had fuck all to do with your proven to be false statement: "The US was isolationist at the time because we wanted nothing to do with your kings, queens, kaisers, and fuhrers because they looked all the same to us" 3. The US only really got into the war after they were attacked and your criticism towards the inaction of France and Great Britain thus still points right back at the US. Note that I agree with said criticism towards all three countries. 4. Repeating your false statement is not an argument. You've provided no proof whatsoever that 'Europeans decided to blow themselves up'. 5. I will ignore the rest of your irrelevant babbling filled with inaccuracies.
"...is linked to..." (what does that one mean, anyway?)
In scientific reporting it means that a correlation was found. It is often and easily misconstrued as a causal relation, either by the reporter or the reader.
But I blame Michael Moore for conditioning people to read this crap and really believe they have been given hard facts where there are none
If everybody does it, it can hardly be one man's fault.
The simple problem is that the human psyche has certain weaknesses which are being exploited more and more effectively by more and more industries, usually for profit. Unless there is sufficient selection pressure towards what a for profit industry should deliver, it will inevitably evolve towards whatever makes the most money.
I wasn't referring to party affiliation, but rather how people tend to vote in a first-past-the-post system where the 'lesser evil' is the preferable choice.
That is irrelevant. The point is that you stated that 'They can be swayed to one side or the other' and that leftist behavior (as you put it) has led a 'silent majority' towards Trump, which is simply unproven and highly debatable.
There is the distinct possibility of Trump being a two term president
Again, irrelevant. The point is that your claim regarding the silent majority was and is invalid.
The Dems seem incapable of reform
We'll see, if they don't harness the true progressivism of Bernie Sanders or a candidate like him in 2020, they are truly retarded.
and there was the slashdot post [slashdot.org] to illustrate the attitude that in my personal opinion makes them insufferable even to middle of the road independents
That poster was right, though. His GP was sortof calling Trump of being of average intelligence at best, which led to an AC calling the poster a fool and the action as somehow aiding Trump in getting elected. Ask yourself this though: how many conservatives would shit all over Trump if you were to discuss the guy and his intelligence with them in 2012? A loudmouth billionaire New York real estate developer? Come on.
It's obvious who they hate more, though. Hillary Clinton, whose picture is next to the term 'career politician' in the dictionary and who has been an unfriendly for conservatives for a very long time. Most conservatives are still not done hating her with a vengeance a year and a half after she pretty much disappeared from the scene.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding the former: You did not read the article and more or less just reiterated your irrelevant claim. Useless.
Regarding the latter: The point is that the human sensory array is easily (and cheaply) outmatched without using LIDAR. Sure, the processing part is a very different story, but that is not the point.
Now, please have the decency to respond properly or go away.
Decent LIDAR currently costs quite a bit of money. There is a huge drive to create cheaper LIDAR: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
Besides that, decent LIDAR is probably not even really needed to exceed human driving capabilities. After all, we don't use LIDAR data whilst driving.
Did the doctors give any false positives?
Did the AI correctly diagnose any cases that the doctors did not?
Whilst this is great news, I hope AI uses the input of specialists as a learning and aid tool instead of a full diagnosis suite.
Strange indeed. The Xinhua article never mentions how long the doctors took.
If it were true, it could be that the 15 doctors handled separate cases. That would mean 225 cases/15 doctors=15 cases/doctor and 30 minutes/15 cases = 2 minutes/case.
When they can't buy out each other, they for a cartel.
Sometimes, maybe. Intel and AMD do not seem to be in a cartel, nor do Nvidia and AMD.
The cartel breaks down because one of the players will invariably offer a discount and violate the gentlemen's agreement.
Nonsense. That may happen sometimes, but usually the cartels exist for years and years until they slip up or one of the cartel partners rats out the entire deal in hopes of getting out of it ahead. In any case, the punishment is administered through government regulations -- i.e. antitrust fines.
It's the only deterrent, really. Without antitrust laws we'd see cartels everywhere. Just look at the OPEC, which is effectively a cartel out in the open but is just too powerful to do anything about.
It is at this point the cartel breaks down (and prices fall) or the cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product.
What the fuck are you talking about? When has the latter ever happened?
Government regulations are no good for the consumer (because they condone keeping prices high with the law used to punish cartel members who break rank).
So your logic is this: we should not have antitrust regulations because they discourage cartels from spontaneously breaking apart and their market temporarily reverting to an oligopoly. Those are some impressive fucking mental gymnastics, my friend.
I'm a Republican/Libertarian and I wanted the companies to be allowed to fail
You do realize that the consequences of that would have been much, much worse? The combination of essential bank services and gambling with complex financial products in the same companies ensured that. Guess what is required to prevent that combination from existing? Government regulation.
Also, screw your undertone of the entire thing not being libertarian enough. Think about having utterly consolidated utility markets and 'allowing the companies to fail'. No drinking water until some other private company buys up the business of the failed company (if at all)? Great idea. Who cares about the people who rely on that service? The important thing is that the free market can do its thing.
Failure needs to hurt otherwise people just keep doing the same things over and over again.
So you agree that the abject failure of Wall Street to self-regulate and the immense financial crisis that ensued due to that failure is unmistakable proof that we should heavily regulate them or at the very least not give them the same amount of free rein they had.
Wrong. Free markets evolve towards consolidation and the only thing that prevents that is government regulation.
Do you think it is a coincidence that all mature markets are highly consolidated? The oligopolies you speak of are the (crappy) compromises of the free market desire for monopolies and the people's desires for perfect competition.
Another topic herein is the concept of 'cartel forming'. It's a dirty term, even for libertarians, yet it is utterly rational behavior from the perspective of the companies involved. In fact, in other areas of life, we would use words like 'alliance' and 'cooperation' to characterize the behavior. Buying up competing companies or trampling them is equally rational from the perspective of the companies and thus that is exactly what they will do, given the opportunity.
The takeaway here is that the concept of an unrestricted free market fundamentally stabilizes on a highly undesirable state of affairs from a societal point of view.
Now, having established that, finding a good way to deal with it is hard. Asking companies to 'take their responsibility', semirandomly blasting them with huge antitrust fines or breaking up companies above a certain size seem like terrible workarounds to me. One of the more creative ideas I've come across is taxing companies progressively based on their dominance in their respective market(s), but that too seems far from flawless.
Thank you. The constant "THIS IS NOT AI" crap on Slashdot is getting really, really, really old.
I can enjoy a good amount of pedantry, bit this shit adds absolutely nothing.
To me the most realistic solution would be to convert (renewable) electricity into a high energy density fuel. The conversion losses would be significant, but perhaps not prohibitive.
The real problem is that the EU policy makers just don't understand how technology works. It's not due to malice. It's ignorance.
On some level, the large majority of the populations anywhere around the world support copyright and support enforcing it. That's why the policy makers can get behind initiatives to 'improve' enforcement. They are, again, simply unable to properly foresee the consequences of what on some level seems like reasonable policy. It obviously doesn't help that they have all kinds of lobbyists trying to influence them.
A lot of these policy makers are old dudes who can barely use an iPad and think along the lines of 'These tech guys can make a worldwide video platform, so surely they can easily build some simple filtering thing.' If you've ever had to deal with explaining how things that seem simple on the surface are actually really complex or otherwise problematic to any C-level guy, you know how deep the ignorance and lack of realization of that ignorance can run.
Same video, but on the actual Monty Python channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If AI can find it, then AI can hide it too.
Look into Generative Adversarial Networks. The principle you're talking about has actually become a (very, very promising) training technique.
We are reaching a point where we can't trust photographic or video evidence without a secure chain of custody.
Check out the newest video based fakery presented at SIGGRAPH 2018:
This shit is insane.
Keep the churn going, there's always another 18 year old kid looking for after school money.
This is the crux.
Try this shit in a market where there is a shortage of skilled labor and you're fucked. In a market where giving people a job pretty much amounts to charity, the laborers are fucked. Tablet ratings or no tablet ratings. They simply have no leverage.
Don't like whatever shit you have to deal with? Suck it up or get lost. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
What I'm saying is this is a non-story: It's not the tablet reviews, stupid.
This is something completely different than Photosynth. Completely.
At least just glance at TFA.
Yep just like my printer with it's non-existent parallel port
Last century called, it wants its argument back. HDMI and/or DP on monitors are not going away before USB-C (or its successor) is stable.
But I'm sure you prefer to dongle the dongle dongle to solve all your problems.
Listen, I have no love for Apple and dongles as 'solutions', but you're the one that started talking about a $500 paperweight, which is still bullshit. Don't move the goalposts or change the subject. USB-C to dongle has fuck-all to do with TFA.
about things they didn't know were a problem
That was not the subject. We were talking about casual users asking their (tech) friends or store employees before buying a laptop. The problem they have before buying is that they haven't got a clue what to buy.
Not so much melodrama, as much as : The whole fucking point. But hey, it's such a non-issue that it was posted and being discussed on Slashdot.
No, melodrama. Again: "For us power users the issue of parts not having to be up to spec is frustrating". The distinction between power users and casual users is not part of TFA. The following is a melodramatic way of speaking about this issue: "the idea that someone needs to ask any question at all about Universal Serial Bus compatibility means the damage is done".
Good day.
I'm going to guess Romania.
Interesting situation there: https://foxnomad.com/2012/03/1...
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The crux was and is in the 'can only be'.
The point you are glossing over is that displays are going to have multiple inputs like HDMI and DP and that a laptop that does not have a USB-C port that can drive a display will have some mini-/micro-variant of HDMI or DP. Just like laptops do today.
You are somehow arguing that there will be laptops without any way of driving an external display, which is retarded.
If a casual user is even aware of the possibility of driving a display with a USB-C port, he might assume any USB-C port will be capable of doing so, see a laptop that has both micro-HDMI and USB-C and think 'huh, why have the micro-HDMI port on there at all?'
If he then fails to have that luminous thought and buys the laptop anyway, he might try driving a display via the USB-C port only to discover that it does not work, after which he buys a micro-HDMI cable.
'Problem' solved and hardly a matter of a '$500 paperweight'.
No they don't.
There's probably a good reason why your friends never ask you these things.
the idea that someone needs to ask any question at all about Universal Serial Bus compatibility means the damage is done
Melodrama.
So the casual users will never ever have a Thunderbolt device?
A peripheral that can only be attached to a laptop via a Thunderbolt USB-C port? Very few casual users will.
Or the casual user will never attach a display?
To a laptop that has a USB-C port that does not support attaching external displays and which laptop does not also have some HDMI or DP connector? Never.
You do realize that to attach external displays, people already have to deal with mini-DP, mini-HDMI, micro-HDMI, DP, HDMI and in very unlucky cases even DVI and VGA. Buying a laptop with only a USB-C port that doesn't support video doesn't change that at all.
No they don't.
Yes, they do. Either that, or they ask at the store. Especially for laptops, considering that market is utterly confusing to start with.
At that point the damage is done. Actually I take that back, the idea that someone needs to ask any question at all about Universal Serial Bus compatibility means the damage is done.
Don't be so melodramatic. USB is becoming more Universal than it was, just not as Universal as we would all like. Most of all USB use cases will be just fine.
Maybe you want to game on your laptop so you decide to buy an external GPU
Yeah, casual users are all over the external GPU market.
This is a tempest in a teapot for the casual user. For us power users the issue of parts not having to be up to spec is frustrating, but casual users just ask friends beforehand what they should buy and just return stuff that doesn't work the way they want. If they even notice.
I've seen way too many overly skeptical reactions on your product. To me, the technology looks amazing and sensible and the approach you have chosen with regard to protecting the technology from abuse by greed seems very noble.
I'm afraid I don't have the EE chops to ask you the right technical questions, but I do want to wish you luck and urge you not to be demotivated by the onslaught of kneejerk skepticism. I think people have a hard time in accepting stuff that sounds too good to be true. The potential savings your company cites are huge, so it is not that surprising that people are wary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
They say the proof is in the pudding, so for me this was the most convincing line in the Vox article:
"Power consumption dropped by 20 percent, server temperature dropped by 20 degrees"
It's pretty hard to argue with numbers like that. So if could ask anything: do you have more of these examples? Hard data from external (reputable) sources on power and waste heat savings?
Man, what a terrible thread that is.
I get trying to be skeptic and wary of scams, but geez, they could try to keep an open mind instead of kneejerking into "can't be done"-mode.
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.
You speak like a true American: Excessively 'patriotic', needlessly polarizing, ridiculously generalizing, deeply shallow, and utterly misinformed.
1. The behavior of Robespierre does not extrapolate to France throughout history. Ridiculously obviously.
2. More importantly, it had fuck all to do with your proven to be false statement: "The US was isolationist at the time because we wanted nothing to do with your kings, queens, kaisers, and fuhrers because they looked all the same to us"
3. The US only really got into the war after they were attacked and your criticism towards the inaction of France and Great Britain thus still points right back at the US. Note that I agree with said criticism towards all three countries.
4. Repeating your false statement is not an argument. You've provided no proof whatsoever that 'Europeans decided to blow themselves up'.
5. I will ignore the rest of your irrelevant babbling filled with inaccuracies.
"...is linked to..." (what does that one mean, anyway?)
In scientific reporting it means that a correlation was found. It is often and easily misconstrued as a causal relation, either by the reporter or the reader.
But I blame Michael Moore for conditioning people to read this crap and really believe they have been given hard facts where there are none
If everybody does it, it can hardly be one man's fault.
The simple problem is that the human psyche has certain weaknesses which are being exploited more and more effectively by more and more industries, usually for profit. Unless there is sufficient selection pressure towards what a for profit industry should deliver, it will inevitably evolve towards whatever makes the most money.
I wasn't referring to party affiliation, but rather how people tend to vote in a first-past-the-post system where the 'lesser evil' is the preferable choice.
That is irrelevant. The point is that you stated that 'They can be swayed to one side or the other' and that leftist behavior (as you put it) has led a 'silent majority' towards Trump, which is simply unproven and highly debatable.
There is the distinct possibility of Trump being a two term president
Again, irrelevant. The point is that your claim regarding the silent majority was and is invalid.
The Dems seem incapable of reform
We'll see, if they don't harness the true progressivism of Bernie Sanders or a candidate like him in 2020, they are truly retarded.
and there was the slashdot post [slashdot.org] to illustrate the attitude that in my personal opinion makes them insufferable even to middle of the road independents
That poster was right, though. His GP was sortof calling Trump of being of average intelligence at best, which led to an AC calling the poster a fool and the action as somehow aiding Trump in getting elected. Ask yourself this though: how many conservatives would shit all over Trump if you were to discuss the guy and his intelligence with them in 2012? A loudmouth billionaire New York real estate developer? Come on.
It's obvious who they hate more, though. Hillary Clinton, whose picture is next to the term 'career politician' in the dictionary and who has been an unfriendly for conservatives for a very long time. Most conservatives are still not done hating her with a vengeance a year and a half after she pretty much disappeared from the scene.