Well, there is that. And that's probably 1% of the non-meat-eaters out there or less. But I'm sure a significant number of them are self diagnosed with that problem so a survey would show substantially more people indicating they have it when they really don't.
Our bodies evolved over millions of years to eat meat. The fact that your senses crave the smells, taste, and texture of meat means... your body wants meat. Now, we all know that you should eat it in moderation because of the problems of overeating. But meat in reasonable portions is naturally good for you.
All of this biochemical engineering to come up with a meat substitute is reminiscent of all the chemical companies trying to come up with artificial sweeteners. The end result is probably as bad for you or worse than the original.
Eat your meat. That way you can have your pudding.
Because people can tell the difference between a crumpled up newspaper in the road and a baby in the road. They won't need to stop for the first one. The current autonomous cars have trouble telling the difference and do have to stop.
You have to solve a ton of very difficult technical problems to get an autonomous car to be able to comprehend as much or more as a human. Those problems are nowhere near being solved. I'm not saying that we can't solve them but it's going to take a ton of effort by a bunch of very smart people who aren't guaranteed to be successful before an autonomous car is really ready for the mass market. And it's good that people are doing the work and I wish them well but when it comes to the safety of not just the occupants of the cars but the occupants of the cars around the autonomous car, I think we should hold the AI to a very high standard.
Stopping suddenly because the computer goes stupid is only slightly less dangerous than handing over control to an unprepared driver. If you're in the middle of any kind of traffic, you're suddenly an obstacle that everyone else has to react to. The chain reaction crashes caused by stopping suddenly in the middle of the road are simply not acceptable. Sure, legally, you're not responsible for other people crashing into each other (or you) if you stop suddenly. But it's still the root cause of the accidents and not an acceptable behavior.
If your AI is not capable of handling driving and it has to stop suddenly to hand over control to a driver, it's not ready for production. Period.
You might want to look at the accidents the google car has been involved in. And look at them in depth. I think you'll find, as I did, that the car stopping suddenly for no apparent reason lead to accidents. While that makes it a legally "spotless record", there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to keep the car from being the cause of accidents.
Sure, it's easy to get behind technology when you just waive your hand and it works rather than actually having to go out and solve the engineering problems posed by implementing it. It's also easier to back a technology when you completely ignore the fact that it's going to take huge money to build the infrastructure you're talking about.
But hey, it worked in a movie. Why can't we just wave a magic wand and make it happen in the real world?
Also TFA is incredibly stupid. His examples are meaningless in this context. An autonomous car SHOULD be able to stop itself and turn control over to a human when it encounters something it cannot handle.
I don't think you (and many other people) have really thought this one through.
If one is riding along in an autonomous car, they are not going to be paying attention to their surroundings. They're going to be talking to others, texting, surfing the web, daydreaming, or even nodding off, if not entirely asleep. They might look around once in a while but they're not going to maintain the kind of focus on the road that would give them any kind of real situational awareness. It's just not going to happen. There's no reason to pay attention when your car is driving itself. And don't kid yourself. People may say "Yeah, I'd stay focused on the road." But they're full of crap. Anyone behind the wheel is not going to pay anywhere near as much attention to the road when the car is driving itself as they would when they're driving the car. If you have to pay attention to the road, why have the car drive itself in the first place?
Suddenly, the car runs into a problem that it can't deal with so it hands over control to the driver. But this "driver" has no idea what's really going on. Hell, it will probably take a fair number of seconds for the person to realize that the car has handed over to them in the first place. Reaction time will be slowed substantially by the fact that they have been lulled into a false sense of security. They are entirely unprepared to take over at that moment. Suddenly being forced to change focus is difficult and time consuming. And a lot can happen in the many seconds it takes for the average person to realize what's going on well enough to do something about it.
But here's the thing. The only reason the car would hand over control is that it is in a situation where it doesn't know what to do and that usually means there's something significantly wrong RIGHT NOW! Given that, do you really think it's a good idea for the computer to just say "screw it, I'm out" and suddenly dump control over to a passenger who has no idea what's going on around him?
No, the idea that an autonomous car would have an option to hand over control to a passenger in the car is ludicrous on it's face. There's no way in hell anyone would design a car to do that (for the consumer audience) once they spent a few minutes understanding the problem. For research cars that get used in controlled environments? Sure. But the first average consumer caught napping when their car handed off control would sue the hell out of the manufacturer if they survived the crash. Or the family of the person would sue if they didn't. Either way, that kind of liability is just not something a manufacturer would ever consider taking on when they're building for the public.
We're not going to see autonomous cars handing off control to the driver. Not once they hit the consumer market. Or at least not long after they hit the consumer market.
Do they stop randomly because the computer gets confused, resulting in other cars plowing into them for no good reason? If so, they still have a long ways to go to make the computer better. While legally that kind of accident is the fault of the other driver, realistically it's caused by the computer doing something entirely unexpected that other human drivers for the most part never do. And that's the rub. It may be better at being more conservative a driver than the average human, but it's really still not a better driver overall than the average human.
Companies will get to pay them less because they don't have a full 4 year degree. So the companies will get the same mediocre talent for a lot less money.
There's a lot of reasons why some kids take 5 years rather than 4. Some double or even triple major. I know I gave some thought to doing a CompSci/CompE/EE major since the overlap between CompSci and EE cover just about all of your CompE requirements. Some choose to take a lighter load each semester so they can spend more time on each class and not burn out. Some are just slow and need to take extra time. Getting your prerequisites lined up for some classes can sometimes be tricky, especially at smaller schools with fewer sessions of the foundation classes.
There's all kinds of reasons why people take 5 or more years to get a 4 year degree. It doesn't change the fact that they're still not prepared to do the work when they leave school and the company that hires them has to finish the last 2/3 of their education.
Eh. I don't think that mantra applies to schooling. There's little you can do to speed up real learning. Everyone learns at their own pace. If you try to cut time off that, they learn less.
That being said, some people could possibly attend a school that runs at a higher pace and they would learn faster than they would at a traditional university. But that would apply independent of the quality and the cost.
The root point I'm trying to make is that 4 year programs don't turn out qualified people. What makes anyone think that they can do a better job in half the time? The people pushing this know that cutting the program time in half won't improve the quality of the candidates coming out of the school. I still assert that this is a move by the large tech companies represented to find a flock of workers with a "lesser" degree that they can then pay less. This is not about putting out quality students. It's about putting them in a position where they can be taken advantage of more than they are already.
You forgot to add in the classes you need to leave school as a qualified "software engineer" instead of a "computer programmer". That title implies you need to learn more than how to write code. You need to learn about system design on top of coding principle.
But you're missing the point. Kids coming out of 4 year programs these days are not qualified to even do much entry level work. So while that list of classes is interesting, it still shoves kids out of the door knowing nothing more than they know now. You need to run them through some guided design work building more than simple 2 page programs before they really start to get it. And that kind of design work is what really separates the wheat from the chaff. It's what prepares kids for doing real work or it shows them that they're not capable of it. There's no way you can do that in a 2 year course.
Slashdot Mirror
Our ancestors were using fire to cook meat long before recorded history.
Why would you take something as glorious as meat and turn it into something lesser like a vegetable?
Do you hate bacon or something evil like that?
I'm guessing he's doing it just to cash in on the fad.
Well, there is that. And that's probably 1% of the non-meat-eaters out there or less. But I'm sure a significant number of them are self diagnosed with that problem so a survey would show substantially more people indicating they have it when they really don't.
Our bodies evolved over millions of years to eat meat. The fact that your senses crave the smells, taste, and texture of meat means... your body wants meat. Now, we all know that you should eat it in moderation because of the problems of overeating. But meat in reasonable portions is naturally good for you.
All of this biochemical engineering to come up with a meat substitute is reminiscent of all the chemical companies trying to come up with artificial sweeteners. The end result is probably as bad for you or worse than the original.
Eat your meat. That way you can have your pudding.
So leave the tab open.
There are other notification methods available in standard HTML.
But how are they going to monetize all of the revenue streams if they can't push a bunch of crap on you that you don't want?
A lot of old people lose their licenses when they can no longer drive without being a danger to others around them.
Because people can tell the difference between a crumpled up newspaper in the road and a baby in the road. They won't need to stop for the first one. The current autonomous cars have trouble telling the difference and do have to stop.
You have to solve a ton of very difficult technical problems to get an autonomous car to be able to comprehend as much or more as a human. Those problems are nowhere near being solved. I'm not saying that we can't solve them but it's going to take a ton of effort by a bunch of very smart people who aren't guaranteed to be successful before an autonomous car is really ready for the mass market. And it's good that people are doing the work and I wish them well but when it comes to the safety of not just the occupants of the cars but the occupants of the cars around the autonomous car, I think we should hold the AI to a very high standard.
Stopping in the middle of traffic because the computer can't figure it out means the computer is not ready to drive autonomously.
Ah, yes. Dice "insights" stating the obvious long after everyone else figured it out.
Right. Because stopping in the middle of traffic because the computer is stupid is a much better solution..
If your AI can't comprehend the situation, it's not ready for use in the real world. Period.
Stopping suddenly because the computer goes stupid is only slightly less dangerous than handing over control to an unprepared driver. If you're in the middle of any kind of traffic, you're suddenly an obstacle that everyone else has to react to. The chain reaction crashes caused by stopping suddenly in the middle of the road are simply not acceptable. Sure, legally, you're not responsible for other people crashing into each other (or you) if you stop suddenly. But it's still the root cause of the accidents and not an acceptable behavior.
If your AI is not capable of handling driving and it has to stop suddenly to hand over control to a driver, it's not ready for production. Period.
You might want to look at the accidents the google car has been involved in. And look at them in depth. I think you'll find, as I did, that the car stopping suddenly for no apparent reason lead to accidents. While that makes it a legally "spotless record", there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to keep the car from being the cause of accidents.
Sure, it's easy to get behind technology when you just waive your hand and it works rather than actually having to go out and solve the engineering problems posed by implementing it. It's also easier to back a technology when you completely ignore the fact that it's going to take huge money to build the infrastructure you're talking about.
But hey, it worked in a movie. Why can't we just wave a magic wand and make it happen in the real world?
Also TFA is incredibly stupid. His examples are meaningless in this context. An autonomous car SHOULD be able to stop itself and turn control over to a human when it encounters something it cannot handle.
I don't think you (and many other people) have really thought this one through.
If one is riding along in an autonomous car, they are not going to be paying attention to their surroundings. They're going to be talking to others, texting, surfing the web, daydreaming, or even nodding off, if not entirely asleep. They might look around once in a while but they're not going to maintain the kind of focus on the road that would give them any kind of real situational awareness. It's just not going to happen. There's no reason to pay attention when your car is driving itself. And don't kid yourself. People may say "Yeah, I'd stay focused on the road." But they're full of crap. Anyone behind the wheel is not going to pay anywhere near as much attention to the road when the car is driving itself as they would when they're driving the car. If you have to pay attention to the road, why have the car drive itself in the first place?
Suddenly, the car runs into a problem that it can't deal with so it hands over control to the driver. But this "driver" has no idea what's really going on. Hell, it will probably take a fair number of seconds for the person to realize that the car has handed over to them in the first place. Reaction time will be slowed substantially by the fact that they have been lulled into a false sense of security. They are entirely unprepared to take over at that moment. Suddenly being forced to change focus is difficult and time consuming. And a lot can happen in the many seconds it takes for the average person to realize what's going on well enough to do something about it.
But here's the thing. The only reason the car would hand over control is that it is in a situation where it doesn't know what to do and that usually means there's something significantly wrong RIGHT NOW! Given that, do you really think it's a good idea for the computer to just say "screw it, I'm out" and suddenly dump control over to a passenger who has no idea what's going on around him?
No, the idea that an autonomous car would have an option to hand over control to a passenger in the car is ludicrous on it's face. There's no way in hell anyone would design a car to do that (for the consumer audience) once they spent a few minutes understanding the problem. For research cars that get used in controlled environments? Sure. But the first average consumer caught napping when their car handed off control would sue the hell out of the manufacturer if they survived the crash. Or the family of the person would sue if they didn't. Either way, that kind of liability is just not something a manufacturer would ever consider taking on when they're building for the public.
We're not going to see autonomous cars handing off control to the driver. Not once they hit the consumer market. Or at least not long after they hit the consumer market.
Do they stop randomly because the computer gets confused, resulting in other cars plowing into them for no good reason? If so, they still have a long ways to go to make the computer better. While legally that kind of accident is the fault of the other driver, realistically it's caused by the computer doing something entirely unexpected that other human drivers for the most part never do. And that's the rub. It may be better at being more conservative a driver than the average human, but it's really still not a better driver overall than the average human.
Why not both?
Companies will get to pay them less because they don't have a full 4 year degree. So the companies will get the same mediocre talent for a lot less money.
People are still using Ruby and Javascript?
Oh. I see now. Nashville Tennesee. :p
There's a lot of reasons why some kids take 5 years rather than 4. Some double or even triple major. I know I gave some thought to doing a CompSci/CompE/EE major since the overlap between CompSci and EE cover just about all of your CompE requirements. Some choose to take a lighter load each semester so they can spend more time on each class and not burn out. Some are just slow and need to take extra time. Getting your prerequisites lined up for some classes can sometimes be tricky, especially at smaller schools with fewer sessions of the foundation classes.
There's all kinds of reasons why people take 5 or more years to get a 4 year degree. It doesn't change the fact that they're still not prepared to do the work when they leave school and the company that hires them has to finish the last 2/3 of their education.
Eh. I don't think that mantra applies to schooling. There's little you can do to speed up real learning. Everyone learns at their own pace. If you try to cut time off that, they learn less.
That being said, some people could possibly attend a school that runs at a higher pace and they would learn faster than they would at a traditional university. But that would apply independent of the quality and the cost.
The root point I'm trying to make is that 4 year programs don't turn out qualified people. What makes anyone think that they can do a better job in half the time? The people pushing this know that cutting the program time in half won't improve the quality of the candidates coming out of the school. I still assert that this is a move by the large tech companies represented to find a flock of workers with a "lesser" degree that they can then pay less. This is not about putting out quality students. It's about putting them in a position where they can be taken advantage of more than they are already.
You forgot to add in the classes you need to leave school as a qualified "software engineer" instead of a "computer programmer". That title implies you need to learn more than how to write code. You need to learn about system design on top of coding principle.
But you're missing the point. Kids coming out of 4 year programs these days are not qualified to even do much entry level work. So while that list of classes is interesting, it still shoves kids out of the door knowing nothing more than they know now. You need to run them through some guided design work building more than simple 2 page programs before they really start to get it. And that kind of design work is what really separates the wheat from the chaff. It's what prepares kids for doing real work or it shows them that they're not capable of it. There's no way you can do that in a 2 year course.
I'm not sure there is any "bare minimum" for code monkeys. I suppose they have to be able to spell "C" but not much more than that.