So if I cross into the oncoming traffic lane and a Tesla in autopilot can't avoid hitting me. It's the software's fault? If I try to change two lanes to the right, cut off the car in the middle lane and the autonomous vehicle in the right lane hits me as I come out of nowhere, it's the software's fault?
Now I can understand skepticism at the claim that over 98% of autonomous vehicle accidents are the human's fault, but the claim that humans in principle automatically bear no responsibility for mishaps involving software seems even more extreme.
The thing about huimans is that they *are* amazingly good at things, except when they're not. Somebody can be a model drive nine days in a row and on the tenth day do something stupid, because that's how people are.
I have no question a system which had enough data could do better than random chance at anticipating a turn. The question is how far in advance and how much better than chance?
It's a long established result in neuroscience that your conscious awareness of deciding to move voluntarily actually lags the activation of your motor neurons to actually move by hundreds of milliseconds. Our conscious timeline in which we are aware of the desire to move and the move follows is actually an out-of-order fiction constructed by our brains. Recent research has pushed the awareness of intent in some cases as far back as ten seconds after the actual unconscious decision is made.
If you've ever played a sport like boxing or fencing you'll have had the experience of apparently instantaneous reactions, but really that's just things happening faster than your brain can construct conscious experience of them.
A system that had access to your neural state could probably reliably anticipate your conscious intent to turn by a second or more, but presumably you won't be sticking electrodes on your scalp when you get in the car. The car is going to have to infer what's going on in your head by behavioral cues, and I doubt it will be able to do it accurately enough far enough ahead to be useful -- unless Tesla engineers have noticed something about driver behavior that nobody else was aware of yet. But an invention doesn't have to work well enough to be practical to get patented.
You know, I've been part of a number of tech adoption waves -- email, the Internet, the Web, mobile computing etc. And each time I have encountered the well-known Roger's adoption curve.
Early adopters in my experience are novelty-driven people. They tend to want new things because having a new thing that most other people don't is exciting. So Samsung and LG are going to be selling these things initially to people who just want to have something not many people have yet.
This may sound stupid if you're a pragmatist, but early adopters play a crucial role in getting anything new off the ground. As a pragmatist you present a chicken-or-egg problem to a company trying to introduce a technology like this. You aren't going to buy an 8K TV because you have nothing to use it for. That's perfectly rational, but if everyone were like you, content providers would never offer 8K material because nobody could use it.
I've driven quite a bit around Manhattan. Sure things are a mess down in the financial district, with its tangles of old Dutch cowpaths, but north of Houston the grid keeps everything moving very well. Is rush hour north of Houston like driving around Omaha Nebraska at 6am on a Sunday morning? Obviously not. But having learned to drive in Boston, traffic on Manhattan city streets always strikes me as surprisingly orderly and manageable.
Now throw a bridge, tunnel or expressway into the mix, and the picture changes dramatically. New York City as a region has horrible traffic. But if driving around within the borough of Manhattan isn't manageable for you, then you probably shouldn't drive around *any* city.
Chicago follows this pattern as well. It's got terrible regional traffic, but as long as you stay away from expressways driving around *within* a neighborhood is surprisingly easy.
What's better than new functionality? Better design for the functionality you use most.
I was an early adopter of smart watches, but I quickly came to the conclusion that I'd rather do most of the things they do on my phone. I wear an analog dive watch because it's superior for the most common task -- telling the time. The rotating bezel is useful for a lot of impromptu timing tasks where I don't want to take my phone out.
That's not a concern for my kids, because they never don't have their phone out. Different things work for different people.
And of course people driving over the GWB from Jersey never have *any* events to mess up their commute. Anyhow our banker living in The Dakota is just another example of trading commute time for housing preferences. For the same price he could live next door to work.
There's really no way to beat density when it comes to travel efficiency. If people don't have to move far, then you don't have travel problems. And by in large traffic in Manhattan is surprisingly light most of the time. It's the arteries that move people on and off the island that are nightmares -- FDR Drive and the Henry Hudson.
It's people who live outside the city who work in the city who make the average commuting time so long. If you work in the city and live in the city, getting around can be easy.
Supposed you lived in The Dakota, a toney apartment building overlooking Central Park, and worked at Chase Bank in the financial district seven miles away. Your commute, including walking to and from the subway, would be half an hour on the dot *at the height of rush hour*.
But the thing is, people who can afford to live a quick subway ride away from a major employment center aren't poor, or even working class these days. The janitor who empties our lucky banker's wastebasket probably lives someplace like the Bronx, and even though he also has a single subway ride to get to work, the train has to cover sixteen miles and it takes him at least an hour.
So the source of the long average commute problem isn't just *transportation*. Affordable housing is also an issue. Also housing preferences. Wanting that house in the suburbs drives up commute times even in places with reasonable real estate prices.
I believe they ship their routers configured to create an "xfinitywifi" hotspot any Comcast customer can connect to. The advantage is that when you're travelling you can often find a hotspot where a Comcast customer hasn't turned that "feature" off. But it also creates plausible deniability.
Yes, Ebola and flu are both zoonoses, but they are not obligately so. The majority of cases are due to human to human transmission. That's pretty much the template for an emergent infectious disease: they don't come from nowhere. They smolder away slowly in some isolated animal population for millennia, then suddenly hop onto a human migration path.
That's what happened to smallpox, which was an insignificant African rodent disease until around three thousand years ago, when evidence emerges for it in Egyptian human populations. Egyptian traders brought it into the Near East and possibly as far as India by 1500 years ago; by the 1st Century CE it was in China. Then a particularly virulent strain emerged in China a few centuries later. This kind of thing happens all the time in nature, but the more aggressive strain burns itself out. The difference here is that China had extensive trade connections that reached as far west as Rome and east to Melanesia, giving the more aggressive strain global scope. In the 8th cenutry it killed 1/3 of the population of Japan. From late Roman times to the middle ages it made periodic incursions into Europe, but only became endemic there after the Crusades.
Human trade tilts the evolutionary playing field in favor of aggressive infectious agents. Ebola never spread anywhere before 1976, but it must have been around. It just never had access to a network of cities with hundreds of thousands of people as it did in '76. When it took weeks to travel between villages or to cross the ocean, Ebola was never going anywhere. Today you can catch Ebola in the African bush and be in New York two days later, well before any symptoms emerge.
So while Ebola isn't something we should panic over, it's not an empty bogeyman either. The US needs forward defenses against such things, because Ebola is not the only one.
The media isn't Trump's enemy, they're his enabler. He'll tweet something inflammatory, and they get to fill their pages and airtime with cheap and obvious reaction. Trump on the other hand thrives on the attention; that's why he does it.
Take the hiring and firing of Omarosa -- a woman who's whole schtick is creating shitstorms for her coworkers. It's not like they didn't know that about her when they brought in into the White House. So what can you conclude from that? That bullshit drama is what they wanted her for.
Trump doesn't see negative public publicity as bad; in fact he courts it. And the press goes along because unlike serious news it's a cost effective way to collect eyeballs.
It also increases exposure to socialism that results in public elementary to highschool education that is three years behind what was tough several decades ago.
Right. Which is why you want to educate your kids in a rural paradise like Mississippi, not an urban state like Massachusetts, which also according to Business Insider is the most liberal state in the country. Honestly, Massachusetts is a hell-hole. You definitely don't want to move here.
Hugo awards tend to favor originality, which of course is important but it's not the only thing.
If you think about the rules and particular the window of eligibility, voting has to be dominated by people who read a lot of new stuff. The more you read, the more you value something that's a bit different.
I know people who are anti-vaxxers who are not stupid or uneducated. What they are is emotionally overwrought. In the architecture of the human brain, emotions have absolute priority over reason, so once you give your feelings a free rein they can lead you anywhere.
We call these particular people pushing the anti-vaxx bullshit "Russian trolls" because of the tools they happen to use, but if you look at what they're actually *doing*, it'd be more accurate to call them "Russian propagandists". And propagandists know all about the power of inciting passion, both positive and negative.
The Russian government has taken the measure of our society, and they obviously believe they have found a weakness. Freedom of communication and association. If their propagandists can encourage people to associate based on violent and paranoid passions, they can weaken us. It's psychological warfare, and that's not just a metaphor. In this case there will be casualties.
Well, like I said it's early days yet, but I doubt, when we finally get to a good understanding, it'll be anything like "high testosterone + high cortisol = sociopathy". Even talking about cause and effect is someone misleading in a complex system.
People have been taught by supplement marketers to regard testosterone as some kind of magic potion that makes you more of a man. If that were true and you think that's good, then testosterone would make you better; if you think that's bad then testosterone would make you worse..
But even if testosterone worked the way the snake-oil hawkers want you to think it does, knowing an individual's testosterone levels wouldn't tell you anything about them because you don't know how sensitive that person's brain is to testosterone. What is elevated enough to produced behavioral changes in one person might have no effect in another person or even contrary effects.
What you really need to test for is sociopathy. And that's where the testosterone story gets really interesting, which is to say complicated. Recent research has correlated testosterone to sociopathy both positively AND negatively depending on other hormones. That's just correlation, and it's early days yet. We can't tell anything about an individual's personality from a blood test yet, and we may never be able to.
Not necessarily. Battery charging rate depends on a number of things, including limits on charging rate to maximize battery life.
Tesla's supercharging stations use proprietary systems to deliver "up to" 120KWs to the car. At that rate it should completely charge a completely discharged 90 kWh battery in 45 minutes. But I don't think this happens, because to preserve the battery rate of energy deliver drops as you get closer to topped up. Given that's the case, shoving 90kWh of energy into a 180 kWh battery should be faster than shoving 90kWh into a 90kWh battery.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that's an interesting theory.
So if I cross into the oncoming traffic lane and a Tesla in autopilot can't avoid hitting me. It's the software's fault? If I try to change two lanes to the right, cut off the car in the middle lane and the autonomous vehicle in the right lane hits me as I come out of nowhere, it's the software's fault?
Now I can understand skepticism at the claim that over 98% of autonomous vehicle accidents are the human's fault, but the claim that humans in principle automatically bear no responsibility for mishaps involving software seems even more extreme.
The thing about huimans is that they *are* amazingly good at things, except when they're not. Somebody can be a model drive nine days in a row and on the tenth day do something stupid, because that's how people are.
I have no question a system which had enough data could do better than random chance at anticipating a turn. The question is how far in advance and how much better than chance?
It's a long established result in neuroscience that your conscious awareness of deciding to move voluntarily actually lags the activation of your motor neurons to actually move by hundreds of milliseconds. Our conscious timeline in which we are aware of the desire to move and the move follows is actually an out-of-order fiction constructed by our brains. Recent research has pushed the awareness of intent in some cases as far back as ten seconds after the actual unconscious decision is made.
If you've ever played a sport like boxing or fencing you'll have had the experience of apparently instantaneous reactions, but really that's just things happening faster than your brain can construct conscious experience of them.
A system that had access to your neural state could probably reliably anticipate your conscious intent to turn by a second or more, but presumably you won't be sticking electrodes on your scalp when you get in the car. The car is going to have to infer what's going on in your head by behavioral cues, and I doubt it will be able to do it accurately enough far enough ahead to be useful -- unless Tesla engineers have noticed something about driver behavior that nobody else was aware of yet. But an invention doesn't have to work well enough to be practical to get patented.
Well, it can be both, provided that the political leadership doesn't have any principles other than getting elected.
You know, I've been part of a number of tech adoption waves -- email, the Internet, the Web, mobile computing etc. And each time I have encountered the well-known Roger's adoption curve.
Early adopters in my experience are novelty-driven people. They tend to want new things because having a new thing that most other people don't is exciting. So Samsung and LG are going to be selling these things initially to people who just want to have something not many people have yet.
This may sound stupid if you're a pragmatist, but early adopters play a crucial role in getting anything new off the ground. As a pragmatist you present a chicken-or-egg problem to a company trying to introduce a technology like this. You aren't going to buy an 8K TV because you have nothing to use it for. That's perfectly rational, but if everyone were like you, content providers would never offer 8K material because nobody could use it.
I've driven quite a bit around Manhattan. Sure things are a mess down in the financial district, with its tangles of old Dutch cowpaths, but north of Houston the grid keeps everything moving very well. Is rush hour north of Houston like driving around Omaha Nebraska at 6am on a Sunday morning? Obviously not. But having learned to drive in Boston, traffic on Manhattan city streets always strikes me as surprisingly orderly and manageable.
Now throw a bridge, tunnel or expressway into the mix, and the picture changes dramatically. New York City as a region has horrible traffic. But if driving around within the borough of Manhattan isn't manageable for you, then you probably shouldn't drive around *any* city.
Chicago follows this pattern as well. It's got terrible regional traffic, but as long as you stay away from expressways driving around *within* a neighborhood is surprisingly easy.
No offense but you're failing as a parent, badly.
Well, they're in graduate school so there's nothing I can do about it now.
Where did I say I wasn't a diver?
What's better than new functionality? Better design for the functionality you use most.
I was an early adopter of smart watches, but I quickly came to the conclusion that I'd rather do most of the things they do on my phone. I wear an analog dive watch because it's superior for the most common task -- telling the time. The rotating bezel is useful for a lot of impromptu timing tasks where I don't want to take my phone out.
That's not a concern for my kids, because they never don't have their phone out. Different things work for different people.
And of course people driving over the GWB from Jersey never have *any* events to mess up their commute. Anyhow our banker living in The Dakota is just another example of trading commute time for housing preferences. For the same price he could live next door to work.
There's really no way to beat density when it comes to travel efficiency. If people don't have to move far, then you don't have travel problems. And by in large traffic in Manhattan is surprisingly light most of the time. It's the arteries that move people on and off the island that are nightmares -- FDR Drive and the Henry Hudson.
It's people who live outside the city who work in the city who make the average commuting time so long. If you work in the city and live in the city, getting around can be easy.
Supposed you lived in The Dakota, a toney apartment building overlooking Central Park, and worked at Chase Bank in the financial district seven miles away. Your commute, including walking to and from the subway, would be half an hour on the dot *at the height of rush hour*.
But the thing is, people who can afford to live a quick subway ride away from a major employment center aren't poor, or even working class these days. The janitor who empties our lucky banker's wastebasket probably lives someplace like the Bronx, and even though he also has a single subway ride to get to work, the train has to cover sixteen miles and it takes him at least an hour.
So the source of the long average commute problem isn't just *transportation*. Affordable housing is also an issue. Also housing preferences. Wanting that house in the suburbs drives up commute times even in places with reasonable real estate prices.
I believe they ship their routers configured to create an "xfinitywifi" hotspot any Comcast customer can connect to. The advantage is that when you're travelling you can often find a hotspot where a Comcast customer hasn't turned that "feature" off. But it also creates plausible deniability.
Yes, Ebola and flu are both zoonoses, but they are not obligately so. The majority of cases are due to human to human transmission. That's pretty much the template for an emergent infectious disease: they don't come from nowhere. They smolder away slowly in some isolated animal population for millennia, then suddenly hop onto a human migration path.
That's what happened to smallpox, which was an insignificant African rodent disease until around three thousand years ago, when evidence emerges for it in Egyptian human populations. Egyptian traders brought it into the Near East and possibly as far as India by 1500 years ago; by the 1st Century CE it was in China. Then a particularly virulent strain emerged in China a few centuries later. This kind of thing happens all the time in nature, but the more aggressive strain burns itself out. The difference here is that China had extensive trade connections that reached as far west as Rome and east to Melanesia, giving the more aggressive strain global scope. In the 8th cenutry it killed 1/3 of the population of Japan. From late Roman times to the middle ages it made periodic incursions into Europe, but only became endemic there after the Crusades.
Human trade tilts the evolutionary playing field in favor of aggressive infectious agents. Ebola never spread anywhere before 1976, but it must have been around. It just never had access to a network of cities with hundreds of thousands of people as it did in '76. When it took weeks to travel between villages or to cross the ocean, Ebola was never going anywhere. Today you can catch Ebola in the African bush and be in New York two days later, well before any symptoms emerge.
So while Ebola isn't something we should panic over, it's not an empty bogeyman either. The US needs forward defenses against such things, because Ebola is not the only one.
The media isn't Trump's enemy, they're his enabler. He'll tweet something inflammatory, and they get to fill their pages and airtime with cheap and obvious reaction. Trump on the other hand thrives on the attention; that's why he does it.
Take the hiring and firing of Omarosa -- a woman who's whole schtick is creating shitstorms for her coworkers. It's not like they didn't know that about her when they brought in into the White House. So what can you conclude from that? That bullshit drama is what they wanted her for.
Trump doesn't see negative public publicity as bad; in fact he courts it. And the press goes along because unlike serious news it's a cost effective way to collect eyeballs.
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Sure, China won't share the specimens with us, but all we have to do is get one of our friends to ask for it....
Oh, wait.
Google search results make him sound like a moron.
Hah, just be a minority, get into Harvard. You are living in a fantasy world, my friend.
And so hard to get into.
It also increases exposure to socialism that results in public elementary to highschool education that is three years behind what was tough several decades ago.
Right. Which is why you want to educate your kids in a rural paradise like Mississippi, not an urban state like Massachusetts, which also according to Business Insider is the most liberal state in the country. Honestly, Massachusetts is a hell-hole. You definitely don't want to move here.
Hugo awards tend to favor originality, which of course is important but it's not the only thing.
If you think about the rules and particular the window of eligibility, voting has to be dominated by people who read a lot of new stuff. The more you read, the more you value something that's a bit different.
The precisely correct term for what you're talking about is "provocateur".
I know people who are anti-vaxxers who are not stupid or uneducated. What they are is emotionally overwrought. In the architecture of the human brain, emotions have absolute priority over reason, so once you give your feelings a free rein they can lead you anywhere.
We call these particular people pushing the anti-vaxx bullshit "Russian trolls" because of the tools they happen to use, but if you look at what they're actually *doing*, it'd be more accurate to call them "Russian propagandists". And propagandists know all about the power of inciting passion, both positive and negative.
The Russian government has taken the measure of our society, and they obviously believe they have found a weakness. Freedom of communication and association. If their propagandists can encourage people to associate based on violent and paranoid passions, they can weaken us. It's psychological warfare, and that's not just a metaphor. In this case there will be casualties.
Well, like I said it's early days yet, but I doubt, when we finally get to a good understanding, it'll be anything like "high testosterone + high cortisol = sociopathy". Even talking about cause and effect is someone misleading in a complex system.
People have been taught by supplement marketers to regard testosterone as some kind of magic potion that makes you more of a man. If that were true and you think that's good, then testosterone would make you better; if you think that's bad then testosterone would make you worse..
But even if testosterone worked the way the snake-oil hawkers want you to think it does, knowing an individual's testosterone levels wouldn't tell you anything about them because you don't know how sensitive that person's brain is to testosterone. What is elevated enough to produced behavioral changes in one person might have no effect in another person or even contrary effects.
What you really need to test for is sociopathy. And that's where the testosterone story gets really interesting, which is to say complicated. Recent research has correlated testosterone to sociopathy both positively AND negatively depending on other hormones. That's just correlation, and it's early days yet. We can't tell anything about an individual's personality from a blood test yet, and we may never be able to.
Not necessarily. Battery charging rate depends on a number of things, including limits on charging rate to maximize battery life.
Tesla's supercharging stations use proprietary systems to deliver "up to" 120KWs to the car. At that rate it should completely charge a completely discharged 90 kWh battery in 45 minutes. But I don't think this happens, because to preserve the battery rate of energy deliver drops as you get closer to topped up. Given that's the case, shoving 90kWh of energy into a 180 kWh battery should be faster than shoving 90kWh into a 90kWh battery.
I think ACPI came in in Win 98. Win 95 did have hot swapping, but it wasn't autoconfigured; you had to manage it in the installer program.