No, cross-country latency can be as low as 40ms and in these situations it would be perfectly acceptable to slow down and proceed cautiously. The car can stop and wait for instructions if it's so congested or pretty desolate.
My concern would be dealing with roads where the network doesn't reach. If you use 4g, you are going to find long stretches of PCH pretty undrivable.
You probably have iTunes Match turned on, which uploads your music in your library for your own consumption from your other devices. When the song is common to Apple's library, it's just linked and replaced with their "official" version. When it's "rare", they upload the entire track.
The benefits include cover art and metadata when available, plus a high quality version they have already stored.
Lol, too funny. But it's great! Good to see Amazon giving UPS and Fedex some competition. This will all result in lower prices and higher efficiency. More savings for stockholders (thats us), more savings for consumers (us again).
Fantastic. I'm interested in how they managed to convince the higher ups to spend the money on these projects, and how they outlined their ROI. Project Justification was never really my strong suit.
I bet the Military doesn't use the NWS. Neither do most news organizations. We would lose any weather reporting accuracy, the government could use private sources for its forecasting, or its military forecast could be used for civilian applications. We could also just turn to weather.com.
Unfortunately, he is right! We won't need that many forecasters, especially as the practice gets more and more automated, despite what Dan Sobien, the president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization says. Isn't he like the definition of the most biased person you couldn't possibly find to comment on this story? Isn't it his fucking job to be biased in these matters? How about some unbiased opinions on the front page slashdot?
Yes, they understand 4. That's why they can emit 4 beeps, use 4 in the operation of a subsequent transaction, and know what is greater than and less than. Your understanding is no better.
Doesn't matter. What do you think will happen when AI moves into a field? Perfect example: Trucking. What do you think will happen to the volume of goods that travel down roadways when AI gets involved and transporting goods becomes significantly cheaper? The volume will go up, and so will societies utility from it. This is good for society, we want goods and services to consume, work is not something we want, it's something we have to do to have the goods and services we want. This will no longer the case.
This. It makes sense that google will tout its neural networks, they own them. And yes, the reality is that many tasks and displays of "intelligence" will be difficult of those specific algorithms to handle efficiently or correctly. But the field is in its infancy. Computers haven't been around for even a century. I think though that they have in very specific terms been intelligent all along. The fact that they can do math such as understand 2+2=4 is in and of itself AMAZING.
Why it doesn't impress us is because we know what's going on inside and can dispell the magic. We know how it works. If I showed you a machine and I said "it can treat you like a therapist and cure your depression with greater success rate than the worlds renound phychiatrists", or some other seemingly "beyond computers" task; you would say that's artificial intelligence. But once I show you the secret sauce, the algorithm, the data points, the learning attributes it takes in and the process it uses, it's no longer intelligent, it's just a dumb machine using someone it was given. That's because we don't know why we are intelligent. We can use natural language, and we can do facial recognition, and we can determine creatively how to fix something we haven't seen before. We don't understand the process we take as toddlers to gain those skills. If we did, we would replicate it simply.
True AI will never become a reality because we have to understand it to build it, and by understanding it, we remove the magic and dispell that which was created as "true AI". We just keep moving the goal posts in search of something that is seemingly human. We will get there though. There is nothing in our heads that the universe and all of physics has barred us from creating. There is no law like gravity that states lIntelligence shall not exist but for within the head of a human being". Computers are better than us at chess, go, poker, and so many other tasks. Surely that is intelligence already.
Healthcare is not a right, and I don't know why so many people feel it is. A right is something that you started with, and shouldn't be taken away. There is a right to breathe air. There is a right to free speech. There is a right to freedom from persecution based on religion, race, creed. These things, you would have if you lived on your own on an island. No one had to do or give anything for you to have them, they are inherent to the human condition.
Rights are not something that you didn't start out with, and want. Healthcare is not provided by mother nature at birth. A doctor (and his or her support staff, the hospital, the pharmaceutical industry, and everything else that goes into it) has to give it to you. If you mandate the doctor do so, he is no longer free. You are asking we take the freedom of a doctor to choose if he wants treat you or not, and ask to be compensated as he thinks is just and the market will bear, for your WANT of his services. How is that right? How is that fair?
If you want the services someone else, convince them with monetary compensation. If you want the service of a doctor, convince him or her with monetary compensation.
Right, but without a dominant market position, it isn't anti-competitive. Microsoft did this with a market-dominant position, as stated. Windows was on 95% of desktops, so anything they did would become a de-facto standard. Its as if one were to get mad that car makers dictate who integrates the radio. Its ok that they do this, since none of them are market-dominant. Apple has less market share than Android, which saves them from the anti-competitive assault from the fed.
An addiction is something someone wants so much, that it affects their ability to lead a normal life. Don't presume to lecture me on addiction. I've been addicted to many things. But to call me righteous for saying that the assists value proposition is not up to you..... that's pompous and arrogant. They get to decide for themselves, addiction, fetish, whatever's in their minds and rights to want, so long as they aren't directly harming another person by their choices, or violating anyone else's freedom, I'm ok with. To not be would be critical and snooty. Multiple people here can't seem to get that and believe they know better than those who choose differently, and take that self-righteous attitude to justify their SJW bullshit. The addict is free, and you can't question their motive to remove their freedom. It's what men and women in uniform die to protect.
This is more BS social justice warrior stuff. Who gets to say how people spend their time anyway? If people use these technologies a lot, it's because they want to. Who are we or they to criticize? If they want to use the technologies less, they are free to do so.
Ubiquiti. They have good products, at good price points. They are well documented, contribute back to the open source community, and they are truly revolutionary in their hardware designs.
Their software is mostly free as well. You can download and use it at will.
Actually, if you live in California you can donate money to the state (California has a 501 non profit charity) and pay your taxes through that, which make the taxes you pay federally deductible. But that's not the point. Unless this individual is earning a significant sum from sales of good abroad, they can't benefit from Apple's accounting tax system. Apple is not doing anything illegal, that would be stupid. They are doing something that tax policy didn't intend, but is allowed. This is the difference between tax evasion, and tax avoidance. Doing tax evasion is illegal. Doing tax avoidance is not. Corporations are REQUIRED to do tax avoidance. It's the management's fiduciary duty to shareholders to save money where possible and not illegal. If apple knew how to save cash and didn't, they would be sued by their shareholders, unless doing so improved their operations. Tax does not.
This is just patently false. When automation and AI move into an industry, what do you think happens to the volume of good and services we can get from that industry and the cost to deliver it? ATMs allowed us faster and more convenient access to our money, and drove down the cost to deliver it to us. Voice mail machines reduced the cost of having our messages taken. As more and more is automated the volume of supply expands, not contracts. It's good for everyone. We just need new economic doctrine to facilitate who gets what, and I think we will be fast approaching minimum income for all in short order. If you want to work to enhance your life, you can, but you won't have to, and there will be other ways to enhance your life (hobies, the arts, etc...).
Slashdot Mirror
No, cross-country latency can be as low as 40ms and in these situations it would be perfectly acceptable to slow down and proceed cautiously. The car can stop and wait for instructions if it's so congested or pretty desolate.
My concern would be dealing with roads where the network doesn't reach. If you use 4g, you are going to find long stretches of PCH pretty undrivable.
It doesn't matter. The data is encrypted such that Goodle (and in some cases Apple itself) doesn't have the keys. The end user holds the keys.
You probably have iTunes Match turned on, which uploads your music in your library for your own consumption from your other devices. When the song is common to Apple's library, it's just linked and replaced with their "official" version. When it's "rare", they upload the entire track.
The benefits include cover art and metadata when available, plus a high quality version they have already stored.
Very Smart. Its a sales ploy too, if your business has a charger, and you have been thinking about it....
What are you, high? They obviously will when amazon comes out with "unlimited shipping for..."
Besides, if you think they wont, buy some shares. The savings go somewhere.
Just wait and see.
Lol, too funny. But it's great! Good to see Amazon giving UPS and Fedex some competition. This will all result in lower prices and higher efficiency. More savings for stockholders (thats us), more savings for consumers (us again).
Fantastic. I'm interested in how they managed to convince the higher ups to spend the money on these projects, and how they outlined their ROI. Project Justification was never really my strong suit.
A prospective: Milton Friedman's thoughts on Licensing .
I bet the Military doesn't use the NWS. Neither do most news organizations. We would lose any weather reporting accuracy, the government could use private sources for its forecasting, or its military forecast could be used for civilian applications. We could also just turn to weather.com.
Unfortunately, he is right! We won't need that many forecasters, especially as the practice gets more and more automated, despite what Dan Sobien, the president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization says. Isn't he like the definition of the most biased person you couldn't possibly find to comment on this story? Isn't it his fucking job to be biased in these matters? How about some unbiased opinions on the front page slashdot?
Yes, they understand 4. That's why they can emit 4 beeps, use 4 in the operation of a subsequent transaction, and know what is greater than and less than. Your understanding is no better.
Doesn't matter. What do you think will happen when AI moves into a field? Perfect example: Trucking. What do you think will happen to the volume of goods that travel down roadways when AI gets involved and transporting goods becomes significantly cheaper? The volume will go up, and so will societies utility from it. This is good for society, we want goods and services to consume, work is not something we want, it's something we have to do to have the goods and services we want. This will no longer the case.
This. It makes sense that google will tout its neural networks, they own them. And yes, the reality is that many tasks and displays of "intelligence" will be difficult of those specific algorithms to handle efficiently or correctly. But the field is in its infancy. Computers haven't been around for even a century. I think though that they have in very specific terms been intelligent all along. The fact that they can do math such as understand 2+2=4 is in and of itself AMAZING.
Why it doesn't impress us is because we know what's going on inside and can dispell the magic. We know how it works. If I showed you a machine and I said "it can treat you like a therapist and cure your depression with greater success rate than the worlds renound phychiatrists", or some other seemingly "beyond computers" task; you would say that's artificial intelligence. But once I show you the secret sauce, the algorithm, the data points, the learning attributes it takes in and the process it uses, it's no longer intelligent, it's just a dumb machine using someone it was given. That's because we don't know why we are intelligent. We can use natural language, and we can do facial recognition, and we can determine creatively how to fix something we haven't seen before. We don't understand the process we take as toddlers to gain those skills. If we did, we would replicate it simply.
True AI will never become a reality because we have to understand it to build it, and by understanding it, we remove the magic and dispell that which was created as "true AI". We just keep moving the goal posts in search of something that is seemingly human. We will get there though. There is nothing in our heads that the universe and all of physics has barred us from creating. There is no law like gravity that states lIntelligence shall not exist but for within the head of a human being". Computers are better than us at chess, go, poker, and so many other tasks. Surely that is intelligence already.
Healthcare is not a right, and I don't know why so many people feel it is. A right is something that you started with, and shouldn't be taken away. There is a right to breathe air. There is a right to free speech. There is a right to freedom from persecution based on religion, race, creed. These things, you would have if you lived on your own on an island. No one had to do or give anything for you to have them, they are inherent to the human condition.
Rights are not something that you didn't start out with, and want. Healthcare is not provided by mother nature at birth. A doctor (and his or her support staff, the hospital, the pharmaceutical industry, and everything else that goes into it) has to give it to you. If you mandate the doctor do so, he is no longer free. You are asking we take the freedom of a doctor to choose if he wants treat you or not, and ask to be compensated as he thinks is just and the market will bear, for your WANT of his services. How is that right? How is that fair?
If you want the services someone else, convince them with monetary compensation. If you want the service of a doctor, convince him or her with monetary compensation.
Right, but without a dominant market position, it isn't anti-competitive. Microsoft did this with a market-dominant position, as stated. Windows was on 95% of desktops, so anything they did would become a de-facto standard. Its as if one were to get mad that car makers dictate who integrates the radio. Its ok that they do this, since none of them are market-dominant. Apple has less market share than Android, which saves them from the anti-competitive assault from the fed.
An addiction is something someone wants so much, that it affects their ability to lead a normal life. Don't presume to lecture me on addiction. I've been addicted to many things. But to call me righteous for saying that the assists value proposition is not up to you..... that's pompous and arrogant. They get to decide for themselves, addiction, fetish, whatever's in their minds and rights to want, so long as they aren't directly harming another person by their choices, or violating anyone else's freedom, I'm ok with. To not be would be critical and snooty. Multiple people here can't seem to get that and believe they know better than those who choose differently, and take that self-righteous attitude to justify their SJW bullshit. The addict is free, and you can't question their motive to remove their freedom. It's what men and women in uniform die to protect.
Nope, thank goodness I have the freedom to not want to. But it's a shame others here can't if they wanted to. Also, fuck off.
The victims. But these people are using technology, not infringing on anyone else's freedom.
This is more BS social justice warrior stuff. Who gets to say how people spend their time anyway? If people use these technologies a lot, it's because they want to. Who are we or they to criticize? If they want to use the technologies less, they are free to do so.
Your deduction from Salt is off your income, not your tax bill. Top vs bottom line. Same thing goes for a 501. You shave the same either way.
price point
noun
plural noun: price points
a point on a scale of possible prices at which something might be marketed.
Protip: Google something before looking like a buffoon.
Ubiquiti. They have good products, at good price points. They are well documented, contribute back to the open source community, and they are truly revolutionary in their hardware designs.
Their software is mostly free as well. You can download and use it at will.
Nobody gives a shit about either of you Anonymous Cowards
Actually, if you live in California you can donate money to the state (California has a 501 non profit charity) and pay your taxes through that, which make the taxes you pay federally deductible. But that's not the point. Unless this individual is earning a significant sum from sales of good abroad, they can't benefit from Apple's accounting tax system. Apple is not doing anything illegal, that would be stupid. They are doing something that tax policy didn't intend, but is allowed. This is the difference between tax evasion, and tax avoidance. Doing tax evasion is illegal. Doing tax avoidance is not. Corporations are REQUIRED to do tax avoidance. It's the management's fiduciary duty to shareholders to save money where possible and not illegal. If apple knew how to save cash and didn't, they would be sued by their shareholders, unless doing so improved their operations. Tax does not.
Actually, he wasn't in the UK, he was in Equador.
The OS Android is not like the OS Linux. It is made by a for-profit organization, and manufacturers have to make money somehow.
This is how you have a $99 no contract phone. Surprised?
This is just patently false. When automation and AI move into an industry, what do you think happens to the volume of good and services we can get from that industry and the cost to deliver it? ATMs allowed us faster and more convenient access to our money, and drove down the cost to deliver it to us. Voice mail machines reduced the cost of having our messages taken. As more and more is automated the volume of supply expands, not contracts. It's good for everyone. We just need new economic doctrine to facilitate who gets what, and I think we will be fast approaching minimum income for all in short order. If you want to work to enhance your life, you can, but you won't have to, and there will be other ways to enhance your life (hobies, the arts, etc...).
Automation makes a bigger pie.