We make mistakes because we have to be flexible enough to handle the rather wild and chaotic world around us. That world isn't going to get any less chaotic, so AI systems are going to have to be similarly flexible, which means they're going to make mistakes in judgement.
There's no such thing as perfect reliability. Is 99% reliable enough? How many people are going to be killed by an AI at that level of reliability? How big are the lawsuits going to be at that level of reliability. How about 99.99% reliable? How many people per year is that? 10, 20? Again it comes down to the level of damages when an AI system kills someone, because it absolutely will happen, there will be lawsuits over the resulting deaths and the manufacturers will be held liable.
You run into the problem, though, of commuter patterns, as you have a large group of people moving from the 'burbs to the city in the morning, and then all moving back in the afternoon. You just need a cache of taxis at the burb/city end large enough to keep the service time down to within acceptable limits, say a 120 second wait. Bearing in mind that the taxis re-circulate once dropping off their passengers the cache doesn't have to be anything like as large as you might think.
The performance of a PRT system, like roads, is determined by how quickly people get on/off the road/vehicles rather than the distance between the vehicles or their speed. i.e. the number of bays in a station. Again, it's the interfaces which matter, not the roads/guideways etc.
The killer app for AI cars is: traffic throughput. Right now, traffic throughput is limited by our need to leave lots of space in front of our car so that we don't hit the guy in front of us. Um, no it aint.
Traffic throughput is limited by how quickly you can get cars off a particular road. i.e. Parking. You can have cars 1/10th of a second apart, but if it takes 10 seconds to park the thing, or even 5 seconds to turn onto another road, that is the limiting factor.
If everyone has their own car, road performance is limited by parking bandwidth. Now, if everyone used a taxi...
On the other hand you are partly correct in that the political right-left thingie is rather consistent, globally even You might find that the "clumping" is caused by the electoral system...
e.g. The USA - a 2 party state. Israel - a 12+ party state.
i.e. Clumping is of expediency, not choice. Change the electoral system and left/right loses all meaning. It only has meaning in the US because American politics is one dimensional.
Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving) Electric cars can currently do 300 miles per charge.
I've been following the air car for a while, it sounds like a great idea, the problem is that the engine is still a heat engine, so only about 1/3 of the energy used to compress the gas can be extracted, so even if the gas can be compressed to the same energy density as li-ion cells, you have to carry 3 times as much of the stuff.
The risk-aversion deepens. In corporate US if you create a product that everyone else is making, your job is reasonably safe even if it tanks. 5 years and you're completely uncompetitive.
He's pointing out to the Google shareholders that profits may be dropping in the near future. Which could cause some shareholders to drop Google's shares and, you never know, buy Microsoft's.
Is it just me or have a lot of people not twigged to the point that GnuStep would essentially double the market for any application which was written to the API? OSX users should be able to use it with essentially a rebuild or relatively minor tweaks.
To make it expensive, you hire people who haven't got a clue how to manage an infrastructure, they install point solutions, treat individual problems/requirements with individual solutions. Before long there are dozens of them constantly fire fighting, completely unable to prevent the complexity getting out of control.
To build a low TCO infrastructure with Linux is a doddle, it's easy but you have to understand system and infrastructure management. Not just system administration.
Frankly MS do in fact do a lot of the right stuff and they basically force muppets who are otherwise generally without a clue to do the right thing when it comes to infrastructure management. Linux, on the other hand, all about freedom gives you plenty of rope, a sharp saw and helps you build the gallows.
i.e. Does it learn my preferences automatically and search for shows that I will probably like? Scouring the TV landscape for gems of showsamong the crap?
Is much easier. Honestly, when it comes to warfare technology is brittle, use the minimum required to accomplish the goal.
However, as a drug delivery platform, I think it has potential. Replace plane with solar powered, hydrogen filled blimp big enough to lift 10kg 20kg and simply fly it into the country.
I weigh much the same when I've been training hard for months and when I've been "recuperating" for months. My weight doesn't alter so much, but my physical size does. When I'm training, I'm physically much smaller, look at the difference in density between muscle and fat and you'll see why.
You can be thin and still be the same weight as someone who's fat.
Your link doesn't even come close to supporting your claim. For starters, it's reporting distances travelled, not number of trips. Further, it makes no indication (nor attempts to) as to _why_ greater distances are covered in private vehicles. The link quoted was simply the only table which includes all of the countries passenger mile journeys in the one place. If you want journeys instead, you'll have to hunt down the individual country statistics. They are largely similar (as one might expect) to the table you've already seen.
Why are massively greater distances covered in private vehicles? Because private vehicles provide a service which rail simply cannot for the overwhelming majority.
Instead of spouting transport dogma at me perhaps you might want to actually find out the real stats, hell, look at the numbers for Sidney. You'll find that yes, like elsewhere 85% to 90% of passenger miles and journeys are made by private vehicles and you'll find that there are very good reasons that 85% to 90% of journeys and passenger miles are not and cannot be made by rail.
I've done the research for myself and am satisfied that I'm right, I frankly can't be arsed doing the research again for you, you have been pointed in the right direction. Feel free to continue with your delusion, or enlighten yourself, I care not.
I'm not being sanctimonious, but I'm not going to waste my time watching some infomercial. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet or are you too sanctimonious? You are being sanctimonious.
I went to the cinema to see "An Inconvenient Truth" and it was interesting but then, it didn't mention that the CO2 level appears to lag temperature change rather than precede it.
As will most of Europe probably. Nope. It's the same across Europe. France, Germany, UK, the big three in the EU with "integrated" transport, huge subsidies for rail only about 10% of journeys are made by rail.
And you base this on what, exactly ? Your utter ignorance of any remotely well-implemented public transport systems ?
Nope. Simply the statistics, have you ever investigated them? They're pretty consistent, around 85% to 90% of journeys are made by other means, even with mass transit systems subsidised to the tune of 50% of turnover. There are a couple of exceptions with extremely high density areas, specifically London, Tokyo and New York city centres where it reaches a massive 30% or so of journeys. But for everywhere else, rail is a very bad deal for the population. Hell, it's a bad deal in the high density areas too.
Basically, our existing mass transit systems, the world over, including Germany, France with "integrated" mass transit systems are essentially expensive white elephants. Generally around 90% of journeys simply cannot be made by rail.
There are physical limitations... The more stations there are, the slower the journey must be, the fewer the stations, the further you have to travel to a station. Trains have to run to a schedule and along a corridor which makes them highly inconvenient when you want to go elsewhere.
Rail just sucks unless you:
A: Happen to live near a station. B: Want to travel to a point near another station.
I'm not going to watch that trash. If you've watched it and there's a name and article, then give it to me. Spare me the pain of having to watch that. (Clue: Youtube is not a journal.) Don't be a sanctimonious twat. You're posting on slashdot, not writing an article for Nature.
Names thanked for helping produce the documentary: Prof. Tim Patterson Prof. Edward J Wegman Prof. Bob Carter Dr. Willie Soon Dr. Madhya Khandekar Prof. Wibjorn Karlen Dr. Henrik Svensmark Dr. Dick Morgan Dr. Fred Goldberg Hans H.J. Labohm Steve McIntyre Dr. Ross McKitrick Dr. Chris Landsea
... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves. Right, so of course, the rest of the population should subsidise business transport instead? Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.
Are they really this dumb or is it deliberate? I honestly can't decide any more, either they are incompetent or malicious. The question is, how incompetent can a 40 billion a year company be?
Slashdot Mirror
We make mistakes because we have to be flexible enough to handle the rather wild and chaotic world around us. That world isn't going to get any less chaotic, so AI systems are going to have to be similarly flexible, which means they're going to make mistakes in judgement.
There's no such thing as perfect reliability. Is 99% reliable enough? How many people are going to be killed by an AI at that level of reliability? How big are the lawsuits going to be at that level of reliability. How about 99.99% reliable? How many people per year is that? 10, 20? Again it comes down to the level of damages when an AI system kills someone, because it absolutely will happen, there will be lawsuits over the resulting deaths and the manufacturers will be held liable.
And it can be done today without requiring A.I.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/
http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/
The performance of a PRT system, like roads, is determined by how quickly people get on/off the road/vehicles rather than the distance between the vehicles or their speed. i.e. the number of bays in a station. Again, it's the interfaces which matter, not the roads/guideways etc.
Traffic throughput is limited by how quickly you can get cars off a particular road. i.e. Parking. You can have cars 1/10th of a second apart, but if it takes 10 seconds to park the thing, or even 5 seconds to turn onto another road, that is the limiting factor.
If everyone has their own car, road performance is limited by parking bandwidth. Now, if everyone used a taxi...
e.g. The USA - a 2 party state. Israel - a 12+ party state.
i.e. Clumping is of expediency, not choice. Change the electoral system and left/right loses all meaning. It only has meaning in the US because American politics is one dimensional.
I've been following the air car for a while, it sounds like a great idea, the problem is that the engine is still a heat engine, so only about 1/3 of the energy used to compress the gas can be extracted, so even if the gas can be compressed to the same energy density as li-ion cells, you have to carry 3 times as much of the stuff.
He's pointing out to the Google shareholders that profits may be dropping in the near future. Which could cause some shareholders to drop Google's shares and, you never know, buy Microsoft's.
Can be built on OSX.
Is it just me or have a lot of people not twigged to the point that GnuStep would essentially double the market for any application which was written to the API? OSX users should be able to use it with essentially a rebuild or relatively minor tweaks.
It's also easy to make it really cheap.
To make it expensive, you hire people who haven't got a clue how to manage an infrastructure, they install point solutions, treat individual problems/requirements with individual solutions. Before long there are dozens of them constantly fire fighting, completely unable to prevent the complexity getting out of control.
To build a low TCO infrastructure with Linux is a doddle, it's easy but you have to understand system and infrastructure management. Not just system administration.
Frankly MS do in fact do a lot of the right stuff and they basically force muppets who are otherwise generally without a clue to do the right thing when it comes to infrastructure management. Linux, on the other hand, all about freedom gives you plenty of rope, a sharp saw and helps you build the gallows.
Which doesn't talk to anything.
If it's going to be useful, it has to talk to everything, that's the whole point of the network effect.
i.e. Does it learn my preferences automatically and search for shows that I will probably like? Scouring the TV landscape for gems of showsamong the crap?
Tivo does.
Is much easier. Honestly, when it comes to warfare technology is brittle, use the minimum required to accomplish the goal.
However, as a drug delivery platform, I think it has potential. Replace plane with solar powered, hydrogen filled blimp big enough to lift 10kg 20kg and simply fly it into the country.
I weigh much the same when I've been training hard for months and when I've been "recuperating" for months. My weight doesn't alter so much, but my physical size does. When I'm training, I'm physically much smaller, look at the difference in density between muscle and fat and you'll see why.
You can be thin and still be the same weight as someone who's fat.
Why are massively greater distances covered in private vehicles? Because private vehicles provide a service which rail simply cannot for the overwhelming majority.
Instead of spouting transport dogma at me perhaps you might want to actually find out the real stats, hell, look at the numbers for Sidney. You'll find that yes, like elsewhere 85% to 90% of passenger miles and journeys are made by private vehicles and you'll find that there are very good reasons that 85% to 90% of journeys and passenger miles are not and cannot be made by rail.
I've done the research for myself and am satisfied that I'm right, I frankly can't be arsed doing the research again for you, you have been pointed in the right direction. Feel free to continue with your delusion, or enlighten yourself, I care not.
Also, regular exercise lifts depression, increases testosterone levels among males reduces risk of heart disease.
Y'know, It's almost as if humans evolved to exercise regularly.
Call them, say, "character sets.
Then only allow names and queries all from the same character set.
This is somehow a better solution than filling a bag with helium? Or even, simply painting a bag black
http://perso.orange.fr/ballonsolaire/en-index.htm
I went to the cinema to see "An Inconvenient Truth" and it was interesting but then, it didn't mention that the CO2 level appears to lag temperature change rather than precede it.
Nope. Simply the statistics, have you ever investigated them? They're pretty consistent, around 85% to 90% of journeys are made by other means, even with mass transit systems subsidised to the tune of 50% of turnover. There are a couple of exceptions with extremely high density areas, specifically London, Tokyo and New York city centres where it reaches a massive 30% or so of journeys. But for everywhere else, rail is a very bad deal for the population. Hell, it's a bad deal in the high density areas too.
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/353365538624
Basically, our existing mass transit systems, the world over, including Germany, France with "integrated" mass transit systems are essentially expensive white elephants. Generally around 90% of journeys simply cannot be made by rail.
There are physical limitations... The more stations there are, the slower the journey must be, the fewer the stations, the further you have to travel to a station. Trains have to run to a schedule and along a corridor which makes them highly inconvenient when you want to go elsewhere.
Rail just sucks unless you:
A: Happen to live near a station.
B: Want to travel to a point near another station.
And from the stats, around 90% of people don't.
Names thanked for helping produce the documentary:
Prof. Tim Patterson
Prof. Edward J Wegman
Prof. Bob Carter
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Madhya Khandekar
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen
Dr. Henrik Svensmark
Dr. Dick Morgan
Dr. Fred Goldberg
Hans H.J. Labohm
Steve McIntyre
Dr. Ross McKitrick
Dr. Chris Landsea
Loads of climatologists said it was mostly down to the sun. It's on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk
e.g.
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/
... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves. Right, so of course, the rest of the population should subsidise business transport instead? Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.Are they really this dumb or is it deliberate? I honestly can't decide any more, either they are incompetent or malicious. The question is, how incompetent can a 40 billion a year company be?