If this is a problem for you then you *did* read the terms of service, right?
Don't be smug. The terms of services are written by experts in obfuscation, and nothing is gained by reading them anyway, as you have no power to renegotiate any of the terms, nor will you find another company with better deals on the same content.
As for it not being Netflix's job to enforce it, it really is. It is in their contracts with the content producers.
But it's not in their interest to do a very good job. Just like nearly every DVD player manufacturer has leaked the secret passcode to make the player region free.
Sadly, most of these companies have realized that an Indian viewer will pay a fraction of what a US viewer will pay and that a European viewer will pay even more than the US viewer. That's why the rights are not licensed worldwide.
The funny thing is that the European viewer, who's willing to pay the most, can only access a small portion of the available content. A possible solution could be that you can only sign up in the country where you live, and charge different rates based upon that, but still let you watch the entire collection.
Sure, we can demonstrate that this car with this software is this safe, but then comes a software update. This makes the insurance company's management of their risk much more difficult. All it takes is one bad update and lets say, hypothetically, a vehicle or two careens into the side of a bus.
Insurance companies are experts at calculating risk. This type of risk won't be any different from the thousands of other types they already have to worry about. If there's X% additional insecurity, they just add Y% extra premium. Furthermore, software updates can be installed gradually over an extended period, and the insurance company can keep track of numbers and types of incidents for all the different software versions. As soon as there's a pattern that a certain version is less safe than others, the updates can be stopped and rolled back.
How about a sudden, complete loss of steering wheel ? Of course, you can come up with extreme scenarios where the computer will fail. The car doesn't have to be perfect. If it's 10 times better than your average human driver, it's good enough.
I expect the Google car would be programmed to park as close as possible to the elevator anyway, which is what most people want and exactly what I don't.
I expect them to let you say where you want your car parked, either through voice commands or just tapping on the location on the screen.
You must not know what an algorithm is. Hint: 1 algorithm + 1 algorithm = 1 algorithm.
I can tell you have never experienced a blow out that's for sure.
That's right. And I probably wouldn't handle it correctly, even though I'm human.
lol, now put the driverless car on a highway with thousands of other cars, fog, rain, etc... and let the fun begin.
Highway driving is the simplest of all. The car can see through fog and rain using radar and infrared, and can accurately measure the speed of all the cars using doppler, measure the slickness of the road, and accurately determine safe speed and driving distances. These extreme circumstances are actually much harder to handle for humans, as you can clearly see every time there's heavy snowfall, and cars just pile up left and right.
The argument in this conversation was not about cars vs planes. It was about whether we can trust computers at all, even though we experience buggy software all day around us. Maybe you should start all the way at the GP post, and work your way down. Read slowly.
(don't feel too bad; that's very much the norm these days)
Think about the visual problems that would occur from the shaking and vibrations of that event?
Really, those are the easy problems.
A much harder problem would be to recognize whether a pedestrian is signalling you to stop or urging you to move on, or anticipating what a cyclists is going to do based on where he's looking.
The point of GP was that computers can't be trusted with life or death decisions, because even our phones have bugs. To which somebody else responded that we already trust computers with our life, such as those in airplanes or medical equipment. The fact a modern plane still has human pilots does not negate that, as the humans can't override every single computer action.
How will a computer respond to a tire blow out on the highway at 60mph plus?
Within one millisecond after the blow out, the computer will get data from a tire pressure sensor that indicates what happened, and which tire blew out, and take the appropriate action. They'll be in a much better position to handle this gracefully compared to a human driver that has never experienced this, and maybe requires a few seconds to realize what the hell is going on, and has no clue how to react safely.
Has any of these scenarios been tested? I don't see any crushed google cars so I am going to guess NONE.
Why would you assume Google would notify you of any experiments they have done with blown out tires ? And if they did it right, there wouldn't be any crushed cars.
Machines are quicker, yes, but a lot dumber and lack situational awareness
On the other hand, machines are capable of watching dozens of different sensors and cameras at once, in all directions around the car, with much higher precision, and without getting distracted or sleepy. What they are lacking right now is human-like interpretation of what they see, but that's a field that is rapidly improving.
Urmson adds that regulators could "set conditions that limit use based on safety concerns,"
I think that means they are open to the idea that there could be additional tests or limitations, as long as they can remove the steering wheel and pedals.
Have you seen a commercial plane without human pilots ? I thought so.
That's not the point. The computers on board a commercial plane have the potential to cause major accidents that the pilots would be unable to prevent. And still we trust them.
As long as Google is willing to take responsibility for the damages, I'm fine with it. Basically, Google is the driver of all driverless cars they sell.
No, the owner of the car should get regular car insurance, and then the insurance company will take up the responsibility for the damages. Of course, if the insurance company can argue that google has been grossly negligent in some case, they can take them to court.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason customer service is so bad is because people aren't willing to pay for it.
That's because there's often no clear choice to make. It's not like companies will tell you what kind of lousy customer service you'll get.
Europe is being taken over by barbarians from Africa and Middle East. There will be no need for robots.
If this is a problem for you then you *did* read the terms of service, right?
Don't be smug. The terms of services are written by experts in obfuscation, and nothing is gained by reading them anyway, as you have no power to renegotiate any of the terms, nor will you find another company with better deals on the same content.
As for it not being Netflix's job to enforce it, it really is. It is in their contracts with the content producers.
But it's not in their interest to do a very good job. Just like nearly every DVD player manufacturer has leaked the secret passcode to make the player region free.
Sadly, most of these companies have realized that an Indian viewer will pay a fraction of what a US viewer will pay and that a European viewer will pay even more than the US viewer. That's why the rights are not licensed worldwide.
The funny thing is that the European viewer, who's willing to pay the most, can only access a small portion of the available content. A possible solution could be that you can only sign up in the country where you live, and charge different rates based upon that, but still let you watch the entire collection.
Sure, we can demonstrate that this car with this software is this safe, but then comes a software update. This makes the insurance company's management of their risk much more difficult. All it takes is one bad update and lets say, hypothetically, a vehicle or two careens into the side of a bus.
Insurance companies are experts at calculating risk. This type of risk won't be any different from the thousands of other types they already have to worry about. If there's X% additional insecurity, they just add Y% extra premium. Furthermore, software updates can be installed gradually over an extended period, and the insurance company can keep track of numbers and types of incidents for all the different software versions. As soon as there's a pattern that a certain version is less safe than others, the updates can be stopped and rolled back.
How about a sudden, complete loss of steering wheel ? Of course, you can come up with extreme scenarios where the computer will fail. The car doesn't have to be perfect. If it's 10 times better than your average human driver, it's good enough.
I expect the Google car would be programmed to park as close as possible to the elevator anyway, which is what most people want and exactly what I don't.
I expect them to let you say where you want your car parked, either through voice commands or just tapping on the location on the screen.
An algorithm? Just one?
You must not know what an algorithm is. Hint: 1 algorithm + 1 algorithm = 1 algorithm.
I can tell you have never experienced a blow out that's for sure.
That's right. And I probably wouldn't handle it correctly, even though I'm human.
lol, now put the driverless car on a highway with thousands of other cars, fog, rain, etc... and let the fun begin.
Highway driving is the simplest of all. The car can see through fog and rain using radar and infrared, and can accurately measure the speed of all the cars using doppler, measure the slickness of the road, and accurately determine safe speed and driving distances. These extreme circumstances are actually much harder to handle for humans, as you can clearly see every time there's heavy snowfall, and cars just pile up left and right.
It could show you the surroundings on a screen, and you tap where you want to go.
Hardly - you look in driving direction, there is no software steering
There may be no software steering, but there could be a driver playing on his phone. And some bus seats are turned sideways, or even backwards.
(don't feel too bad; that's very much the norm these days)
As you aptly demonstrate.
Think about the visual problems that would occur from the shaking and vibrations of that event?
Really, those are the easy problems. A much harder problem would be to recognize whether a pedestrian is signalling you to stop or urging you to move on, or anticipating what a cyclists is going to do based on where he's looking.
Tell me how a coder that may or may not have experienced a blowout would approach that problem ?
Drive a car along an empty road, and blow out the tire. Collect data, code algorithm, run tests, and repeat until you get it right.
The point of GP was that computers can't be trusted with life or death decisions, because even our phones have bugs. To which somebody else responded that we already trust computers with our life, such as those in airplanes or medical equipment. The fact a modern plane still has human pilots does not negate that, as the humans can't override every single computer action.
How will a computer respond to a tire blow out on the highway at 60mph plus?
Within one millisecond after the blow out, the computer will get data from a tire pressure sensor that indicates what happened, and which tire blew out, and take the appropriate action. They'll be in a much better position to handle this gracefully compared to a human driver that has never experienced this, and maybe requires a few seconds to realize what the hell is going on, and has no clue how to react safely.
Has any of these scenarios been tested? I don't see any crushed google cars so I am going to guess NONE.
Why would you assume Google would notify you of any experiments they have done with blown out tires ? And if they did it right, there wouldn't be any crushed cars.
- would I feel OK sitting in one of those and everything around me moves and I cannot act at all, sitting there passively?
It's like you're sitting in a bus like a pauper.
For example how exactly are you supposed to direct the car to a specific parking spot inside a garage?
Ok, google, park next to the elevator/blue sedan/in spot 14A/etc...
Machines are quicker, yes, but a lot dumber and lack situational awareness
On the other hand, machines are capable of watching dozens of different sensors and cameras at once, in all directions around the car, with much higher precision, and without getting distracted or sleepy. What they are lacking right now is human-like interpretation of what they see, but that's a field that is rapidly improving.
Urmson adds that regulators could "set conditions that limit use based on safety concerns,"
I think that means they are open to the idea that there could be additional tests or limitations, as long as they can remove the steering wheel and pedals.
Or they could just move to a non-exclusive licensing model.
Have you seen a commercial plane without human pilots ? I thought so.
That's not the point. The computers on board a commercial plane have the potential to cause major accidents that the pilots would be unable to prevent. And still we trust them.
My bet is that Google is going to have to backpedal on this
They would, but unfortunately, the backpedal has already been taken out.
As long as Google is willing to take responsibility for the damages, I'm fine with it. Basically, Google is the driver of all driverless cars they sell.
No, the owner of the car should get regular car insurance, and then the insurance company will take up the responsibility for the damages. Of course, if the insurance company can argue that google has been grossly negligent in some case, they can take them to court.
Of course there should be some kind of safety test for self-driving cars before they're allowed on the roads for any reason other than testing
You're missing the point. Google argues that the safety test should be good enough.