"Slippery slope" is a form of argument, which may or may not be fallacious depending on each particuar use. Future events don't retroactively make originally-fallacious assumptions used in constructing a slippery slope argument non-fallacious.
If you buy a lottery ticket, a subsequent win doesn't mean that buying the ticket in the first place was a wise financial decision.
We might as well be ripped apart and reconstructed every nanosecond right where we stand. I'm not the same persion I was a nanosecond ago. If I start fretting about it I'd never get anything done ever again.
Well that's not likely to happen. Is there any reason to doubt the word of someone who has? Someone who, presumably, has experience of road accidents and their causes.
I just read about how AI isn't sophisticated enough to pick strawberries out of a plant.
It's also not sophisticated enough to write an Oscar-winning screenplay, but it can kick anyone's arse at chess or go. Driverless cars have come a long way - they still have a way to go, but scoffing at them because AI can't do some other entirely unrelated task - which is probably having far, far less money and time spent on it - is silly.
I'm not seeking to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out someone who has seen the footage - which you haven't - and probably has a better understanding of how accidents occur says that a human driver probably would have been unable to avert the accident as well.
The AI failed to slow in anticipation of odd pedestrian behavior.
How do you know it didn't slow? Maybe it did. Maybe it did everything a reasonable driver would be expected to do, but then something unreasonable happened.
None of that changes the fact that pedestrians don't have right of way on the roads, which is what was originally claimed, except at specific crossings and a couple of specificed circumstances. I didn't say anything about cars being allowed to mow down any pedestrians in the road, did I?
Defensive drivers like me watch out for pedestrians on the foot path (side walk for the Americans playing along at home) because they can change direction and head out onto the road without warning.
That doesn't mean you will never be involved in an accident involving a pedestrian.
The Uber car was clearly not doing this.
You have no idea of the circumstances. No-one here does. Not every accident involving a car and a pedestrian is the car's fault, even partly.
Yes likely. Look, the guy who's seen the video says that a human driver probably wouldn't have averted the accident. You, who haven't seen the video, are only going on "generally." This incident isn't "general," it's very specific.
Speculatively, a byte (for example) is fetched from restricted memory. Under normal execution, this would fail with an exception. But under speculative execution, this byte is returned, and then it's used as index to access unrestricted memory - which caches that position in unrestricted memory.
If the speculatively executed section had proper restrictions, it wouldn't have been able to access that restricted memory at all, much less use the result to access an indexed location in unrestricted memory and cache it.
Isn't that exactly how it works? The processor starts working on a code path which may or may not end up being taken. While doing so, that code is not subject to the usual checks The checks only come into force once the path is taken.
Slashdot Mirror
"Slippery slope" is a form of argument, which may or may not be fallacious depending on each particuar use. Future events don't retroactively make originally-fallacious assumptions used in constructing a slippery slope argument non-fallacious.
If you buy a lottery ticket, a subsequent win doesn't mean that buying the ticket in the first place was a wise financial decision.
No rank? No wank.
He's an idiot. Any fool knows that if you need to get rid of a load of dirt, you dig another hole and stick it down there.
Why not?
We might as well be ripped apart and reconstructed every nanosecond right where we stand. I'm not the same persion I was a nanosecond ago. If I start fretting about it I'd never get anything done ever again.
a new study suggests. In 2015
So quite an old new study, then.
Because good looking people don't leave bones behind...?
Well that's not likely to happen. Is there any reason to doubt the word of someone who has? Someone who, presumably, has experience of road accidents and their causes.
I just read about how AI isn't sophisticated enough to pick strawberries out of a plant.
It's also not sophisticated enough to write an Oscar-winning screenplay, but it can kick anyone's arse at chess or go. Driverless cars have come a long way - they still have a way to go, but scoffing at them because AI can't do some other entirely unrelated task - which is probably having far, far less money and time spent on it - is silly.
It'll be a story when they let me decide which 30 minutes.
Pedestrians DO have priority on the road.
Having the right not to be run over is not the same thing as having priority.
I'm not seeking to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out someone who has seen the footage - which you haven't - and probably has a better understanding of how accidents occur says that a human driver probably would have been unable to avert the accident as well.
The AI failed to slow in anticipation of odd pedestrian behavior.
How do you know it didn't slow? Maybe it did. Maybe it did everything a reasonable driver would be expected to do, but then something unreasonable happened.
He says that for the reason cops call people "suspects" even when they clearly did it.
None of that changes the fact that pedestrians don't have right of way on the roads, which is what was originally claimed, except at specific crossings and a couple of specificed circumstances. I didn't say anything about cars being allowed to mow down any pedestrians in the road, did I?
Defensive drivers like me watch out for pedestrians on the foot path (side walk for the Americans playing along at home) because they can change direction and head out onto the road without warning.
That doesn't mean you will never be involved in an accident involving a pedestrian.
The Uber car was clearly not doing this.
You have no idea of the circumstances. No-one here does. Not every accident involving a car and a pedestrian is the car's fault, even partly.
Yes likely. Look, the guy who's seen the video says that a human driver probably wouldn't have averted the accident. You, who haven't seen the video, are only going on "generally." This incident isn't "general," it's very specific.
It has been and always will be used by CRIMINALS
What, like money has, you mean? And cars? And hammers? And cheese graters? Okay maybe not cheese graters.
The only winning move is not to play.
Hey, I made up my mind before I got to the end of the headline, thankyouverymuch!
In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way
They don't have right-of-way. Cars are not under any obligation to stop to let you cross a road, except at a zebra crossing.
Just because there's no offence of jaywalking, that doesn't mean pedestrians have priority over cars on the road.
Realistically, you have no idea what happened or who's to blame.
Why is that limit exceeded by observation?
What?
Why is gravity only an attraction force and others not?
Because it's not a force.
If you don't get any comments, you can't have troll comments. Brilliant.
But... that's exactly how it works.
http://www.i-programmer.info/n...
Speculatively, a byte (for example) is fetched from restricted memory. Under normal execution, this would fail with an exception. But under speculative execution, this byte is returned, and then it's used as index to access unrestricted memory - which caches that position in unrestricted memory.
If the speculatively executed section had proper restrictions, it wouldn't have been able to access that restricted memory at all, much less use the result to access an indexed location in unrestricted memory and cache it.
Isn't that exactly how it works? The processor starts working on a code path which may or may not end up being taken. While doing so, that code is not subject to the usual checks The checks only come into force once the path is taken.
by the frequent mention of an âoewater goatâ in their correspondence.
I'm still perplexed by the frequent mention of "âoe" and "â" on Slashdot.
One site showing links to another site, without even asking? Good grief. Is this what the internet has come to?