The test shouldn't be whether automated cars make mistakes, but rather whether they do better than an average driver. Can they deal with icy roads as well as an average driver? That bar's pretty low, even here in Edmonton.
I disagree. The car also shouldn't kill me, or others.
That is actually where I'm really confused. Comcast doesn't even have the network anymore, but they bought it. The network still exists, but they deny it to their subscribers. I'll admit it makes zero sense.
One thought, and a bad one, is that they're only offering it to competitors as "see, we're not being a monopoly. the dipshits that bought us can't get those other networks we bought."
That is actually where I'm really confused. Comcast doesn't even have the network anymore, but they bought it. The network still exists, but they deny it to their subscribers. I'll admit it makes zero sense.
You obviously failed to understand the sarcasm. Oxygen is good, right? Would you like a tube of pure 02 down your throat? Me thinks no, because you would spontaneously combust.
Not trying to be argumentative, but assuming a situation where a new stop sign is installed. A non-auto car has clear right-of-way. An auto-car runs the stop sign (misreads the signs, doesn't have up-to-date) maps. A collision occurs. Which vehicle is at fault? Clearly the automatic vehicle, but who now foots the bills? Is it the manufacturer because they didn't update the maps? Is it the user, because they didn't pay $200 to update the maps? Is it the city/town because they changed the rules? Another reason I don't want a GPS navigated car: it usually takes 1/2 of my 3 mile driver home to get a GPS signal.
The optimal dodge is to stop in a straight line, regardless of the location of the pedestrian.
Richard Petty is oft ac quoted for something similar when asked "how did you miss that car?" His response was "well, I just aimed my car straight at the spinning car". It generally still works well in any sort of auto racing, and also tends to work well even on the highway. If you can get your car to where a car starts to spin, it (being the spinning car) will tend to not be there, if you can get your car there, you'll tend to not wreck. It's not a 100%, but it works fairly wells.
Software tests are also capable of missing certain circumstances. Even 100% coverage doesn't make code bullet-proof. There are bugs that only occur due to circumstance, such as stack overflow or undefined behavior. Normal unit test might not expose latent bugs. Just read this.
That's fair. I was a college student, and it was my first exposure to the AVR. I doubt I was fully aware of what tools we had available to us. We were basically handed the board and told to run with it. We still managed to do some pretty cool stuff with it.
If you believe that God exists, you certainly must also understand he's a sadist. If your god was truly all powerful and a kind soul, we wouldn't have disease, war, famine, etc. I refuse your mindset, and I do not want your newsletter.
Sadly, you also misread the GP. 90% of Americans do believe in the god. I'd be far happier if 90% didn't believe in god.
Yes, but it is more rational to disbelieve in that which, by definition, can never be proven, than to believe in the same. That is, at least, if you believe in rational thought.
As an Atheist, I'm more than willing to accept there is a god (or gods) if any rational proof can be exhibited (I've yet to see it). And no, a book such as the Christian bible, does not suffice. It is known to have been written by man, and the portions chosen to be included by committee/monarch so Charlemagne could subvert and control the ever growing Christian populace. The "books" we now know as the "New Testament" were voted up by man circa 400AD. It is not the word of god. It is a carefully selected sets of works that allowed a king to more effectively control his subjects.
I, too, can write about walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. But it doesn't make it true. In our time, we call it a novel or a work of fiction.
I cannot read Arabic, but the select translations of the Koran I've read lead me to believe it would be far less attractive.
I'm not personally familiar with any other religion, but there is not one I've been exposed to that makes any sense. Every single one is designed as a means to control the minds of a mass of people. They demand sacrifice in this life for promise of an afterlife (that has never been proven).
Finally, if there was a god or many gods, all of the worlds' religions cannot be correct. And seeming as so much of the mythology around these religions seem to indicate rage and jealousy when they are disrespected, why is it that all of these religions that so fundamentally disagree are allowed to exist? Is it because they're all correct (in which case, there is no one god), or do we cite Occam's Razor and that the reason all of the religions exist is because there are no gods?
The Earth doesn't even technically orbit around the Sun, depending on your reference point. It observes a semi-sinusoidal orbit that is locally affected by the Sun around the galactic center of the Milky Way (which, to my knowledge, doesn't orbit anything, but is on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy which will happen far after my lifetime). (I'm not aware of, and have never seen, any plots of the elliptical plot relative to the galactic center, but I'm curious if there's a correlation in the orbit.)
Just to be argumentative, Einstein's relativity allows for the argument that the Sun orbits the Earth. It's all about stating the frame of reference. To me, the Sun orbits Earth, where I'm at. Were I (and able to) standing on the surface of the Sun, it would appear that the Earth is orbiting me. If I were at the event horizon of the super-massive black hole at the center of the galaxy, it would be apparent that both Earth & the Sun were orbiting me, and without sufficiently advanced instruments, I wouldn't be able to tell much variance in the Earth's orbit beyond sometimes it's in front of the Sun, sometimes behind, sometimes hidden and sometimes the Sun gets dimmer. Point is, it's all relative. Now, I'm not excusing a view that the Earth is static and everything in the heavens moves around the Earth because it's somehow magically anchored.
Going back to the article, I think the "organic" moniker is disingenuous and misleading. All produce/meat is organic. They should have coined a new term to generally mean "antibiotic & pesticide free". Besides, I could always claim my product is organic according to the definition "of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin."
Using the 'best' tools in the world does not turn an incompetent or mediocre craftsman into a 'world class' craftsman, but a 'world class' craftsman can still turn out quality work with less than 'best' tools.
You may not need the "best" tools, but you do need the right tools. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Seriously, at my last job, we were working overtime on a project (20 hour days, 5 days a week) and it was around 3am one night. A DBA colleague was requested to rotate some data such that data that was in a single column because a single row, multiple columns. Not hard, right? Well, his only tool was the database, and was struggling for two hours to get it done using the database. We were sharing a cab ride home. I wanted to actually get more than an hour of sleep. I had him send me the data. In 15 seconds using Python, I was able to complete what he had spent 2 hours trying to do in a database. Seriously, the S.O.B. that made the original request would have been done before he even finished typing up the request. It was a one-off request, and there was only like 20 or 30 values.
My point here is, would you teach somebody to build a house with hammer and nails? Answer no, because it is a passe art.
Actually, yes. There are techniques using standard nails that are just as effective as using screws. It involves hammering nails in at angles, in opposing directions (think the nails end up making an "X" in the wood) instead of straight in. There are times when screws do make more sense, though. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying it's incomplete.
Last time I had that level of machine level code knowledge, I was in college. I don't really remember any of it anymore, I haven't used any of the 3 architectures since I left college over a decade ago. But, I had a pretty good grasp of Atmel AVR & Motorola 68k machine code. In both cases, we didn't really have a debugger. Our AVR protoboard, we'd dump data, registers out to an array of 8 LEDs, So, we didn't even have hex! You had to do it in binary. For the 68k setup, our primary debugger was a toggle switch on the front that would flip the clock from continuous to single-step mode, and a push button to cycle the clock. Our only insight was a LED hex readout of the databus, so we could only see 16 bits at a time. We had no insight to register values when we were in supervisor mode. When running in user mode, we did have a custom, handwritten rudimentary debugger that ran in supervisor mode. It'd allow you to dump user-mode register state, set breakpoints in user-mode code and could display hex dumps of any block of memory, but that was it. Nothing fancy like getting a call stack. I also had a pretty good understanding of MIPS machine code, but that was for a different reason: I was developing a superscalar MIPS CPU in verilog for a graduate EE VLSI course (sadly I never finished the project, but I had completed all of the main functional units, including the instruction decoder).
This. One of the reasons I don't use Visual Studio for C++ is the autocomplete sucks and interferes with productivity. When your IDE freezes for 5-10 minutes updating a feature you don't want and can't turn off, you look for something else. I really on used it for working on one C++ project, and it was an MFC GUI. All of the libraries I was working on, I'd use Vim/GVim as my primary C++ editor. I would use studio for debugging, though. Now, for C#, I primarily stick with Visual Studio and use it as a full IDE (the XAML designer in VS2008 was really buggy and would crash a lot, so I just edited XAML as raw XML). There, the autocomplete features work well, they're fast and unobtrusive. I haven't tried new VS versions for C++, but from following the Visual Studio Team blog, they are aware that intellisense has been a pain point in the past and have spent a lot of effort improving it. They claim great improvements, but I can't personally vouch for it.
I've known a lot of high-quality developers over my 15 years of professionally developing software. The reason I don't want an automated car is because of these people. People make mistakes, intentionally or otherwise. There are unforeseen circumstances that the software may not understand. A foreseen circumstance: I've yet to see a demo of an automated car navigating anything resembling an icy surface (safely or otherwise), let alone in stop & go traffic in a city such as Chicago, where such things are quite common.
Yeah, but we know today who pays: the insurance company of the at-fault driver (provided they have the legally required insurance - I think collision is required in all US states). Failing that, the at-fault driver. Failing that, the dead at-fault driver's estate.
The question at hand is, in the case of an automated car, who is at fault (when the automated car is deemed to have caused the accident)? The manufacturer, because, it must have been a design/implementation flaw? The owner? The driver (because owner/driver aren't necessarily the same)? It becomes more difficult when you divest yourself from current paradigms of car transport. Oh, I sent my 6 year old daughter to school as a passenger, and along the way it ran over someone. There was no driver (the daughter was a passenger), but the car still killed someone. Am I at fault because I ordered the car to make the trip? Is the manufacturer at fault because the car didn't detect and prevent the collision that killed the other party? Is my 6 year old daughter at fault, because she was the only human occupant? This is the question that is being posed.
No, Doom 3 wasn't just Doom 2 w/ better graphics. Yes, Doom 3 was still the basic scripted FPS. But, they added new means to the scripting. Enter room, kill everything. Done. Now what? Doom 2: you're done, free to leave. Doom 3: head up the stairs, and a new demon materializes out of the stairs in front of you. I wasn't expecting that, the first time. Another shocker in Doom 3 was the, for lack of a better term to describe them, the flying babies. First time you encountered them, you're walking down a hallway with fog on the floor. You hear a baby crying in the distance, and you get closer and closer and closer. Eventually, you see the head of the baby, but that's all you see, sticking out of the fog. Once you get close enough, the little fucker flies at you and you blasting away at it with your shotgun. Id had just gotten you to fucking fire a shotgun at a baby. Yes, not a real shotgun, but still. That was more that a little fucked up.
Unbiased, probably no, but he does have a fair point. MS, Apple, Intel, Nvidia, AMD have all pulled this shit. Name + number = product. New product = Name + old number + 1. Then, the company marketers get "bored" and change it up. Now, same name + new number = product, but new number less than old number, consumer doesn't buy because 1 4. why would I buy a lower number? that's not how tech works. My 5 or 6 year old desktop as a Geforce 8800 GTX. My 1 year old desktop has two Geforce 690 GTX. If you were to show those 2 model names to tech illiterate people, which do you think they'd think was the modern piece of equipment?
there is no reason that the DHCP server couldn't know that the client had left. The cell tower knows what phones are and are not in the area
Under what time frame? I might have been momentarily in an elevator. Should that kill it? If you require a ping every 5 seconds versus every 60, you could significantly affect idle power usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn Hurd mentality.
The test shouldn't be whether automated cars make mistakes, but rather whether they do better than an average driver. Can they deal with icy roads as well as an average driver? That bar's pretty low, even here in Edmonton.
I disagree. The car also shouldn't kill me, or others.
Ok (and admit it), your initial post was kind of "herp derp". Your next post made much more sense technically.
That is actually where I'm really confused. Comcast doesn't even have the network anymore, but they bought it. The network still exists, but they deny it to their subscribers. I'll admit it makes zero sense.
One thought, and a bad one, is that they're only offering it to competitors as "see, we're not being a monopoly. the dipshits that bought us can't get those other networks we bought."
That is actually where I'm really confused. Comcast doesn't even have the network anymore, but they bought it. The network still exists, but they deny it to their subscribers. I'll admit it makes zero sense.
You obviously failed to understand the sarcasm. Oxygen is good, right? Would you like a tube of pure 02 down your throat? Me thinks no, because you would spontaneously combust.
But, currently, we have a well established legal order to apply responsibility of damages in case of an accident.
Not trying to be argumentative, but assuming a situation where a new stop sign is installed. A non-auto car has clear right-of-way. An auto-car runs the stop sign (misreads the signs, doesn't have up-to-date) maps. A collision occurs. Which vehicle is at fault? Clearly the automatic vehicle, but who now foots the bills? Is it the manufacturer because they didn't update the maps? Is it the user, because they didn't pay $200 to update the maps? Is it the city/town because they changed the rules? Another reason I don't want a GPS navigated car: it usually takes 1/2 of my 3 mile driver home to get a GPS signal.
The optimal dodge is to stop in a straight line, regardless of the location of the pedestrian.
Richard Petty is oft ac quoted for something similar when asked "how did you miss that car?" His response was "well, I just aimed my car straight at the spinning car". It generally still works well in any sort of auto racing, and also tends to work well even on the highway. If you can get your car to where a car starts to spin, it (being the spinning car) will tend to not be there, if you can get your car there, you'll tend to not wreck. It's not a 100%, but it works fairly wells.
Software tests are also capable of missing certain circumstances. Even 100% coverage doesn't make code bullet-proof. There are bugs that only occur due to circumstance, such as stack overflow or undefined behavior. Normal unit test might not expose latent bugs. Just read this.
That's fair. I was a college student, and it was my first exposure to the AVR. I doubt I was fully aware of what tools we had available to us. We were basically handed the board and told to run with it. We still managed to do some pretty cool stuff with it.
If you believe that God exists, you certainly must also understand he's a sadist. If your god was truly all powerful and a kind soul, we wouldn't have disease, war, famine, etc. I refuse your mindset, and I do not want your newsletter.
Sadly, you also misread the GP. 90% of Americans do believe in the god. I'd be far happier if 90% didn't believe in god.
Yes, but it is more rational to disbelieve in that which, by definition, can never be proven, than to believe in the same. That is, at least, if you believe in rational thought.
As an Atheist, I'm more than willing to accept there is a god (or gods) if any rational proof can be exhibited (I've yet to see it). And no, a book such as the Christian bible, does not suffice. It is known to have been written by man, and the portions chosen to be included by committee/monarch so Charlemagne could subvert and control the ever growing Christian populace. The "books" we now know as the "New Testament" were voted up by man circa 400AD. It is not the word of god. It is a carefully selected sets of works that allowed a king to more effectively control his subjects.
I, too, can write about walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. But it doesn't make it true. In our time, we call it a novel or a work of fiction.
I cannot read Arabic, but the select translations of the Koran I've read lead me to believe it would be far less attractive.
I'm not personally familiar with any other religion, but there is not one I've been exposed to that makes any sense. Every single one is designed as a means to control the minds of a mass of people. They demand sacrifice in this life for promise of an afterlife (that has never been proven).
Finally, if there was a god or many gods, all of the worlds' religions cannot be correct. And seeming as so much of the mythology around these religions seem to indicate rage and jealousy when they are disrespected, why is it that all of these religions that so fundamentally disagree are allowed to exist? Is it because they're all correct (in which case, there is no one god), or do we cite Occam's Razor and that the reason all of the religions exist is because there are no gods?
The Earth doesn't even technically orbit around the Sun, depending on your reference point. It observes a semi-sinusoidal orbit that is locally affected by the Sun around the galactic center of the Milky Way (which, to my knowledge, doesn't orbit anything, but is on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy which will happen far after my lifetime). (I'm not aware of, and have never seen, any plots of the elliptical plot relative to the galactic center, but I'm curious if there's a correlation in the orbit.)
Just to be argumentative, Einstein's relativity allows for the argument that the Sun orbits the Earth. It's all about stating the frame of reference. To me, the Sun orbits Earth, where I'm at. Were I (and able to) standing on the surface of the Sun, it would appear that the Earth is orbiting me. If I were at the event horizon of the super-massive black hole at the center of the galaxy, it would be apparent that both Earth & the Sun were orbiting me, and without sufficiently advanced instruments, I wouldn't be able to tell much variance in the Earth's orbit beyond sometimes it's in front of the Sun, sometimes behind, sometimes hidden and sometimes the Sun gets dimmer. Point is, it's all relative. Now, I'm not excusing a view that the Earth is static and everything in the heavens moves around the Earth because it's somehow magically anchored.
Going back to the article, I think the "organic" moniker is disingenuous and misleading. All produce/meat is organic. They should have coined a new term to generally mean "antibiotic & pesticide free". Besides, I could always claim my product is organic according to the definition "of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin."
Great idea! Especially considering they charge you double if you want to pay in cash. Illinois Toll Rates by Plaza.
Using the 'best' tools in the world does not turn an incompetent or mediocre craftsman into a 'world class' craftsman, but a 'world class' craftsman can still turn out quality work with less than 'best' tools.
You may not need the "best" tools, but you do need the right tools. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Seriously, at my last job, we were working overtime on a project (20 hour days, 5 days a week) and it was around 3am one night. A DBA colleague was requested to rotate some data such that data that was in a single column because a single row, multiple columns. Not hard, right? Well, his only tool was the database, and was struggling for two hours to get it done using the database. We were sharing a cab ride home. I wanted to actually get more than an hour of sleep. I had him send me the data. In 15 seconds using Python, I was able to complete what he had spent 2 hours trying to do in a database. Seriously, the S.O.B. that made the original request would have been done before he even finished typing up the request. It was a one-off request, and there was only like 20 or 30 values.
My point here is, would you teach somebody to build a house with hammer and nails? Answer no, because it is a passe art.
Actually, yes. There are techniques using standard nails that are just as effective as using screws. It involves hammering nails in at angles, in opposing directions (think the nails end up making an "X" in the wood) instead of straight in. There are times when screws do make more sense, though. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying it's incomplete.
Last time I had that level of machine level code knowledge, I was in college. I don't really remember any of it anymore, I haven't used any of the 3 architectures since I left college over a decade ago. But, I had a pretty good grasp of Atmel AVR & Motorola 68k machine code. In both cases, we didn't really have a debugger. Our AVR protoboard, we'd dump data, registers out to an array of 8 LEDs, So, we didn't even have hex! You had to do it in binary. For the 68k setup, our primary debugger was a toggle switch on the front that would flip the clock from continuous to single-step mode, and a push button to cycle the clock. Our only insight was a LED hex readout of the databus, so we could only see 16 bits at a time. We had no insight to register values when we were in supervisor mode. When running in user mode, we did have a custom, handwritten rudimentary debugger that ran in supervisor mode. It'd allow you to dump user-mode register state, set breakpoints in user-mode code and could display hex dumps of any block of memory, but that was it. Nothing fancy like getting a call stack. I also had a pretty good understanding of MIPS machine code, but that was for a different reason: I was developing a superscalar MIPS CPU in verilog for a graduate EE VLSI course (sadly I never finished the project, but I had completed all of the main functional units, including the instruction decoder).
This. One of the reasons I don't use Visual Studio for C++ is the autocomplete sucks and interferes with productivity. When your IDE freezes for 5-10 minutes updating a feature you don't want and can't turn off, you look for something else. I really on used it for working on one C++ project, and it was an MFC GUI. All of the libraries I was working on, I'd use Vim/GVim as my primary C++ editor. I would use studio for debugging, though. Now, for C#, I primarily stick with Visual Studio and use it as a full IDE (the XAML designer in VS2008 was really buggy and would crash a lot, so I just edited XAML as raw XML). There, the autocomplete features work well, they're fast and unobtrusive. I haven't tried new VS versions for C++, but from following the Visual Studio Team blog, they are aware that intellisense has been a pain point in the past and have spent a lot of effort improving it. They claim great improvements, but I can't personally vouch for it.
I've known a lot of high-quality developers over my 15 years of professionally developing software. The reason I don't want an automated car is because of these people. People make mistakes, intentionally or otherwise. There are unforeseen circumstances that the software may not understand. A foreseen circumstance: I've yet to see a demo of an automated car navigating anything resembling an icy surface (safely or otherwise), let alone in stop & go traffic in a city such as Chicago, where such things are quite common.
Yeah, but we know today who pays: the insurance company of the at-fault driver (provided they have the legally required insurance - I think collision is required in all US states). Failing that, the at-fault driver. Failing that, the dead at-fault driver's estate.
The question at hand is, in the case of an automated car, who is at fault (when the automated car is deemed to have caused the accident)? The manufacturer, because, it must have been a design/implementation flaw? The owner? The driver (because owner/driver aren't necessarily the same)? It becomes more difficult when you divest yourself from current paradigms of car transport. Oh, I sent my 6 year old daughter to school as a passenger, and along the way it ran over someone. There was no driver (the daughter was a passenger), but the car still killed someone. Am I at fault because I ordered the car to make the trip? Is the manufacturer at fault because the car didn't detect and prevent the collision that killed the other party? Is my 6 year old daughter at fault, because she was the only human occupant? This is the question that is being posed.
No, Doom 3 wasn't just Doom 2 w/ better graphics. Yes, Doom 3 was still the basic scripted FPS. But, they added new means to the scripting. Enter room, kill everything. Done. Now what? Doom 2: you're done, free to leave. Doom 3: head up the stairs, and a new demon materializes out of the stairs in front of you. I wasn't expecting that, the first time. Another shocker in Doom 3 was the, for lack of a better term to describe them, the flying babies. First time you encountered them, you're walking down a hallway with fog on the floor. You hear a baby crying in the distance, and you get closer and closer and closer. Eventually, you see the head of the baby, but that's all you see, sticking out of the fog. Once you get close enough, the little fucker flies at you and you blasting away at it with your shotgun. Id had just gotten you to fucking fire a shotgun at a baby. Yes, not a real shotgun, but still. That was more that a little fucked up.
Yeah, you seem fairly unbiased.
Unbiased, probably no, but he does have a fair point. MS, Apple, Intel, Nvidia, AMD have all pulled this shit. Name + number = product. New product = Name + old number + 1. Then, the company marketers get "bored" and change it up. Now, same name + new number = product, but new number less than old number, consumer doesn't buy because 1 4. why would I buy a lower number? that's not how tech works. My 5 or 6 year old desktop as a Geforce 8800 GTX. My 1 year old desktop has two Geforce 690 GTX. If you were to show those 2 model names to tech illiterate people, which do you think they'd think was the modern piece of equipment?
as addictive as Civilisation was back in the day
Back in the day? I have over 1500 hours logged to Civ 5. Thanks, Steam, for reminding me of that...
Bid daddy. Get your game lore right.
there is no reason that the DHCP server couldn't know that the client had left. The cell tower knows what phones are and are not in the area
Under what time frame? I might have been momentarily in an elevator. Should that kill it? If you require a ping every 5 seconds versus every 60, you could significantly affect idle power usage.