So, they refuse to release the text of complaints that nobody actually wants to read, and someone is complaining.
You assume that "nobody" actually wants to read. That's a very dangerous assumption in most cases because of "there exists" cases...
How is it dangerous in this particular case? Do you really think there is something contained in 40,000 complaints that hasn't already been pounded to death? I'm just being realistic. Who wants to read them?
"it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday."
What makes you think that when/if automated cars take over from taxis, the fares will be any lower?
I never said they would be. But if you own an autonomous car, I don't think its a stretch to think it would be much cheaper to have it drive you somewhere overnight than to hire a taxi to drive you overnight.
"t could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office"
How does that differ in any way from using a human driven taxi?
"having cars run errands (pick up) "
Yeah sure, and they'll do your washing and make you dinner when they get back home too.
I suppose it may happen, but I've never seen anyone send a taxi to pick up their laundry or dinner (an errand), and it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday.
I would think larger animals are either hunters or veg eaters. Huge scavengers might have a hard time finding enough food to fulfill their needs. Maybe there were enough large dead or injured things lying around, but I would expect scavengers to be on the smaller side.
How fast a person runs today in shoes on a flat surface in a straight line is one thing. How fast our ancestors ran in bare feet on rough terrain is another. I would assume humans had the ability to change directly more quickly than a T Rex, another important aspect of evasion.
Autonomous driving allows us to put more vehicles in places where they may not be needed, or not very valuable. It could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office, having cars run errands (pick up) you'd otherwise bundle, etc. In short, it might put many more cars on the road, which will come with a cost of its own. Not saying this is bad overall, but its something that doesn't always get talked about when swooning over self driving tech.
It would be much less expensive, but not real time, to just run all bodycam video through a facial recognition anaysis at the end of each day. If they get a hit on a wanted face, they at least know where and when that person at a partiular location and could probably narrow down where to find the person. It would also allow for a more thoughtful response rather than a more reactionary one.
This is one of the most thoughtful comments on the matter that I've read on/. While I think the concept of net neutrality is important in a world where there is not nearly enough ISP competition to give consumers an upper hand, I also realize that there can be down sides to limiting how companies manage their information flow. I like your idea for considering both sides in policy making, but unfortunately we must polarize these topics to the point of inneffective or otherwise sub optimal solutions.
The arrest was for insider trading, so presumably he was insider trading, the Google searches are just part of the evidence. I'd like to think we still live in a world where the search history was obtained as a result of a warrant in an investigation that was already underway based on other credible evidence. But who knows these days, the government seems to have a conduit into the major internet companies, and they may have triggered the investigation based on the searches.
The headline is correct, he was arrested after the made those searches, which he did before he apparently committed the crime which drew enough suspicion for him to be investigated. I find it amusing to read the posts of idiots who fall for the headline without even the slightest hint of critical thinking.
It wasn't supposed to "reflect the culture that feeds data to it." It was supposed to predict the probability that a given person on parole would commit a future crime. It did that wrong. And it did that wrong in a specific way, that preferentialy assumed that blacks were more likely to commit crimes than the data shows that they actually did, and that whites were less likely.
Inaccuracy and mistakes are two different things. If I determine a result within the expected range of inaccuracy, that does not mean it is a mistake. All we know is that the prediction did not reflect the test data. I'm talking in generalities, and not in terms of the chosen prediction subject.
The problem is not that the data set reflects the reality. The problem is not that the AI makes mistakes, but that the particular mistakes the AI makes reflect the bias of the society that programmed it.
Why do you use the term 'mistakes'? If the AI accurately reflects the culture that feeds the data to it, it is not a mistake. That doesn't mean it is reflective of what a larger or different data set might support.
So, you read the article in that link and see something about the funding being in place? I don't see it, nor do I see any mention of Trump supporters claiming so. Maybe you included the wrong link.
^Ah, I suppose you are right. I stand corrected, albeit the remaining nuance that true L3 would typically include all driving, not just a limited subset, otherwise is was already achieved with parking features.
I would have designed the probe to utilize the radiation as a power source, prolonging the mission. I don't understand why the mission planners didn't utilize this obvious power source but I'm sure they had their reasons. I would have done things completely differently.
Having adequate power was not a problem to begin with. Using local radiation as a power source, even if it made sense, doesn't preclude the damage it would cause to the rest of the craft.
The facts say different. Companies would not put all the money into lobbying or cash contributions to lawmakers if it did not have a pay off. My guess is that it has better ROI than R&D money for large companies.
Lobbying is done by companies, causes, groups, etc of all sorts. "how" it is done is an issue in some cases, but politicians who let themselves be influenced by the money side of lobbying vs the information side of lobbying is the root of the problem. Lobbying itself isn't evil, it actually provides a useful purpose.
First is that being a mega ISP is certainly a profitable business.
Second is that we really need better regulations of that business because that is money which should have been more difficult for them to spend. ie, Economically speaking there should have been a place within the business where that money would have had a much higher return on investment. eg Competitive infrastructure upgrades, R&D, etc. Lobbying/bribing is a poor investment in a competitive environment. Therefore, the environment isn't competitive enough.
Lack of true competition is the key driver for the need for net neutrality rules to begin with. I'd love to see more work on fostering true competition and consumer choice instead of only focusing on treating the symptoms.
Good point. While I'd rather see some solid net neutrality rules vs nothing, I'll also admit that there are legitimate concerns with over prescribing net neutrality. Only it seems we must talk in terms of all or nothing, like so much else in politics these days, we all lose due to polarization.
I know this is Slashdot but for fucks sake "3 ISPs Have Spent $572 Million To Kill Net Neutrality Since 2008" NO THEY HAVEN'T. They have spent 572 million on lobbying part of which was spent on net neutrality, the amount spent on lobbying is disgusting, but slashdots inability to present basic fakes without twisting them is almost as sickening.
Exactly. they counted every dollar they could possibly call lobby related and assigned it entirely to fighting net neutrality. News for idiots: Cable spends money lobbying other stuff too. I find in interesting you need to get this far down in the comments before you see some healthy skepticism.
Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.
Not total level 3. I'm not sure I'd call Audi's limited L3 as L3, as it still requires a human to take you in and out of the limited scenario of use. There are already cars that completely handle parallel parking, so that is another limited form of L3. Audi has expanded it to stop and go traffic. This is logically an easy step to take, and frankly its one of the features I've been thinking would be nice to have. I'd like to see a move to what I would call 'follow cruise' where you lock onto a vehicle in front of you, follow and match its speed. Not sure how "L3" that is but should be pretty doable and a great feature for riding in the right hand non passing lane of highways.
Slashdot Mirror
So, they refuse to release the text of complaints that nobody actually wants to read, and someone is complaining.
You assume that "nobody" actually wants to read. That's a very dangerous assumption in most cases because of "there exists" cases...
How is it dangerous in this particular case? Do you really think there is something contained in 40,000 complaints that hasn't already been pounded to death? I'm just being realistic. Who wants to read them?
"it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday."
What makes you think that when/if automated cars take over from taxis, the fares will be any lower?
I never said they would be. But if you own an autonomous car, I don't think its a stretch to think it would be much cheaper to have it drive you somewhere overnight than to hire a taxi to drive you overnight.
"t could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office"
How does that differ in any way from using a human driven taxi?
"having cars run errands (pick up) "
Yeah sure, and they'll do your washing and make you dinner when they get back home too.
I suppose it may happen, but I've never seen anyone send a taxi to pick up their laundry or dinner (an errand), and it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday.
I would think larger animals are either hunters or veg eaters. Huge scavengers might have a hard time finding enough food to fulfill their needs. Maybe there were enough large dead or injured things lying around, but I would expect scavengers to be on the smaller side.
How fast a person runs today in shoes on a flat surface in a straight line is one thing. How fast our ancestors ran in bare feet on rough terrain is another. I would assume humans had the ability to change directly more quickly than a T Rex, another important aspect of evasion.
Autonomous driving allows us to put more vehicles in places where they may not be needed, or not very valuable. It could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office, having cars run errands (pick up) you'd otherwise bundle, etc. In short, it might put many more cars on the road, which will come with a cost of its own. Not saying this is bad overall, but its something that doesn't always get talked about when swooning over self driving tech.
So, they refuse to release the text of complaints that nobody actually wants to read, and someone is complaining.
It would be much less expensive, but not real time, to just run all bodycam video through a facial recognition anaysis at the end of each day. If they get a hit on a wanted face, they at least know where and when that person at a partiular location and could probably narrow down where to find the person. It would also allow for a more thoughtful response rather than a more reactionary one.
This is one of the most thoughtful comments on the matter that I've read on /. While I think the concept of net neutrality is important in a world where there is not nearly enough ISP competition to give consumers an upper hand, I also realize that there can be down sides to limiting how companies manage their information flow. I like your idea for considering both sides in policy making, but unfortunately we must polarize these topics to the point of inneffective or otherwise sub optimal solutions.
He was also arrested after eating breakfast.
The arrest was for insider trading, so presumably he was insider trading, the Google searches are just part of the evidence. I'd like to think we still live in a world where the search history was obtained as a result of a warrant in an investigation that was already underway based on other credible evidence. But who knows these days, the government seems to have a conduit into the major internet companies, and they may have triggered the investigation based on the searches.
The headline is correct, he was arrested after the made those searches, which he did before he apparently committed the crime which drew enough suspicion for him to be investigated. I find it amusing to read the posts of idiots who fall for the headline without even the slightest hint of critical thinking.
Is that really too hard for you to comprehend?
It seems too hard for you to comprehend the difference between a mistake and an inaccuracy in a system.
It wasn't supposed to "reflect the culture that feeds data to it." It was supposed to predict the probability that a given person on parole would commit a future crime. It did that wrong. And it did that wrong in a specific way, that preferentialy assumed that blacks were more likely to commit crimes than the data shows that they actually did, and that whites were less likely.
Inaccuracy and mistakes are two different things. If I determine a result within the expected range of inaccuracy, that does not mean it is a mistake. All we know is that the prediction did not reflect the test data. I'm talking in generalities, and not in terms of the chosen prediction subject.
The problem is not that the data set reflects the reality. The problem is not that the AI makes mistakes, but that the particular mistakes the AI makes reflect the bias of the society that programmed it.
Why do you use the term 'mistakes'? If the AI accurately reflects the culture that feeds the data to it, it is not a mistake. That doesn't mean it is reflective of what a larger or different data set might support.
So, you read the article in that link and see something about the funding being in place? I don't see it, nor do I see any mention of Trump supporters claiming so. Maybe you included the wrong link.
What am I missing. Who thought we already had funding in place to go to Mars?
^Ah, I suppose you are right. I stand corrected, albeit the remaining nuance that true L3 would typically include all driving, not just a limited subset, otherwise is was already achieved with parking features.
I would have designed the probe to utilize the radiation as a power source, prolonging the mission. I don't understand why the mission planners didn't utilize this obvious power source but I'm sure they had their reasons. I would have done things completely differently.
Having adequate power was not a problem to begin with. Using local radiation as a power source, even if it made sense, doesn't preclude the damage it would cause to the rest of the craft.
The facts say different. Companies would not put all the money into lobbying or cash contributions to lawmakers if it did not have a pay off. My guess is that it has better ROI than R&D money for large companies.
Lobbying is done by companies, causes, groups, etc of all sorts. "how" it is done is an issue in some cases, but politicians who let themselves be influenced by the money side of lobbying vs the information side of lobbying is the root of the problem. Lobbying itself isn't evil, it actually provides a useful purpose.
First is that being a mega ISP is certainly a profitable business.
Second is that we really need better regulations of that business because that is money which should have been more difficult for them to spend. ie, Economically speaking there should have been a place within the business where that money would have had a much higher return on investment. eg Competitive infrastructure upgrades, R&D, etc. Lobbying/bribing is a poor investment in a competitive environment. Therefore, the environment isn't competitive enough.
Lack of true competition is the key driver for the need for net neutrality rules to begin with. I'd love to see more work on fostering true competition and consumer choice instead of only focusing on treating the symptoms.
Good point. While I'd rather see some solid net neutrality rules vs nothing, I'll also admit that there are legitimate concerns with over prescribing net neutrality. Only it seems we must talk in terms of all or nothing, like so much else in politics these days, we all lose due to polarization.
I know this is Slashdot but for fucks sake "3 ISPs Have Spent $572 Million To Kill Net Neutrality Since 2008" NO THEY HAVEN'T. They have spent 572 million on lobbying part of which was spent on net neutrality, the amount spent on lobbying is disgusting, but slashdots inability to present basic fakes without twisting them is almost as sickening.
Exactly. they counted every dollar they could possibly call lobby related and assigned it entirely to fighting net neutrality. News for idiots: Cable spends money lobbying other stuff too. I find in interesting you need to get this far down in the comments before you see some healthy skepticism.
Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.
Not total level 3. I'm not sure I'd call Audi's limited L3 as L3, as it still requires a human to take you in and out of the limited scenario of use. There are already cars that completely handle parallel parking, so that is another limited form of L3. Audi has expanded it to stop and go traffic. This is logically an easy step to take, and frankly its one of the features I've been thinking would be nice to have. I'd like to see a move to what I would call 'follow cruise' where you lock onto a vehicle in front of you, follow and match its speed. Not sure how "L3" that is but should be pretty doable and a great feature for riding in the right hand non passing lane of highways.
I would like a car that can drive me around while I drink beer
With this Audi you can drink beer in stop and go traffic. That's when you need it the most anyhow.
Can you imagine being in a coffin in a steel vacuum tube with no inertial reference.
You'll be hurling through the loop.
One fails and kills everyone in a hard vacuum...
Hyperloop brings one of the key dangers of high altitude flight down to earth.....and below.