You know - I am complaining about nanny regulations - not the cops.
Regulations are worthless unless someone is there to enforce them.
I'm all for the limited government - hard to see the need for the 48% of the economy we have now - making us much more of a socialist country than the Russians (at 35%) . How about 5%?
Do you like 5 because it's less than 48? Or does 5 have a special meaning to you? If 5 is good, is 4 better? what about 3? If you argue for 5%, could I use your same arguments against you to argue for 2%? You seem to agree that zero is bad, so why is 5 the magic number?
Yep. But the autonomous car wouldn't, and I wouldn't care as I'd be downing a beer and watching TV on my way from work.
I already have that choice on the bus. And given the choice I prefer self-drive (self-ride actually, since absolutely nothing beats a motorcycle for both speed and pleasure in city traffic)
In reality, people who "choose" to try to save their family over someone they don't know, usually kill both from their lack of ability to control their car.
Citation?
In fact, my stated solution to such events would *always* put the lives of the occupants over those outside the car. So I'm not sure what the objection is to it.
Your solution? Have you published this with all the source code? You seem to be assuming an awful lot here without any supporting documentation...
350/g? That's crazy talk. Then again, your continent is kind of isolated but I'd expect that there's areas where you could grow the plant. You might have to do it up on that island above Darwin or one of those islands (my geography skills aren't the greatest - but I can point 'em out on a map.) You guys need a third world country on your border.
We have one, it's called Indonesia. But they are a Muslim nation with the death penalty for Drug Trafficking, so it's not a option (for most sane people).
Interestingly, because of the ridiculous prices here, there is now a lot of ocean traffic coming across the Pacific from Central America. The Pacific Islands are vast and numerous and far too difficult to police effectively. It would be a good place to setup an operation if you are into that kind of thing. They busted some guys with 70kg in a yacht a few months ago and didn't make a dent in the market. The volumes coming over the Pacific must be massive.
Well they might tell you it's taxable, but good luck trying to enforce it.
And what's to stop people still hanging on to cash and using among themselves? As long as you don't take it to the bank, just keep on using it.
Holy shit dude, do you know economics? If you don't use it, then it depreciates and loses value.
Yeah, that's why I said to keep using it.
So either you use it to purchase things (or investing) or you let it rot. Plus, what would you do with all that cash under your matters if/when no one wants to accept it for a transaction?
It's not under your mattress, you are using it with other like minded people who choose not to be tied solely to electronic transactions. Within that community of like minded souls, cash will still be a usable medium of transferring value. As long as neither you nor them take it to the bank, the money will remain in circulation.
It's awful because the vast majority of the citizens are not much more than slaves,
China has done in 30 years what it took the West 200 years. Sure it isn't perfect, but there is no easy way to go from medieval agrarian peasant culture to world super power is that short a time frame. All the problems they are having, we had in the last 200 years (worker rights, social mobility, pollution).
The trick is to not get stuck on position, but think about trajectory and ability to change direction, which China is shitting on everyone else right now.
I just want the government to stay the F*** out of my life.
You don't really want that. You say it to sound cool and tough, but the first thing that would happen if the govt stayed out of your life is the big dog would come take your shit and rape and murder your family.
So yeah, pretend that anarchy is awesome, but if you want a taste of it, go hang out in Somalia or Afghanistan for a while and get a reality check.
Nope, because all 23,846 examples refer to electronic-only devices which are the easiest to build in a soft-upgrade path. With mechanical devices, higher spec components actually cost more to make, and hence can't just be given out on budget models with the firmware disabled. It's the same reason you can't just get a firmware upgrade to turn your Honda Civic into a Bugatti Veyron.
So sure the concept works in some areas (especially electronics), but that doesn't mean it works for everything.
Some old mainframe computers I used to worked on. The different models (speeds) were determined by a firmware constant.
The difference is that Mainframes either cost millions of dollars or tens of millions, so throwing in some extra disabled hardware didn't hurt you bottom line that much. Especially since upgrades we're common, and the cost of retro fitting hardware is relatively expensive
Compare that with consumer goods, which cost tens of dollars to a few hundred, where margins are razor thin, and no-one ever upgrades, it makes no sense to give out premium components to everyone and control it only in software.
People will kvetch about how self driving cars are programmed right up until they become every-day objects an after that they'll be just as accepted (benefits AND dangers) as trains are today.
Heavy trains have to be on dedicated tracks with bridges or tunnels to avoid other humans specifically because of this risk. See how that works now?
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
How about if we ask how often that situation has happened at all? How many drivers have ever been in the situation where their car was definitely going to kill someone, but the driver could decide whether the car would kill someone else or the driver?
I prefer not to crash at all thanks, which is something that happens every day. And even Google are struggling to solve this one...
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
If the human gets it wrong, they go to jail. Who goes to jail when the computer gets it wrong?
These kind of stupid questions are well, stupid. And they come up often simply because there is no real valid worry about autonomous cars.
Just because you refuse to recognise them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Humans make lots of mistakes and having a computer drive would remove a whole range of avoidable accidents.
And introduce a whole bunch of others, as the real world testing has already demonstrated.
Worrying about a few boundary cases is as stupid as all the "what if my car is burning and I need to get out quickly?!" objections to wearing seat belts. It is unfounded fear that is not based on facts.
Um, boundary cases is what kills people. I hope the programmers aren't so cavalier with their attitude to boundary cases as you are.
It sounds like what you want is a pre-purchase system where you buy life credits. Your daughter is paid up with "insurance" so when the car has the choice of her or 2 bums, it recognizes her, and kills the bums. An elitist dystopian ideal is what you want.
I think the GP is merely outlining the situation we already have right now. I have a reality where in a pinch I can choose to try and save my family over someone I don't know. In robot car world I lose that power. Good luck selling that.
Why would the first with it be an issue. Wasn't with airbags. Even when their issue was decapitating babies. Wasn't with ABS, even in situations where ABS was provably worse than locked brakes. Your assertion doesn't match history. Why is it different this time?
Because just like 100 people being murdered by terrorists is worse than 30000 being killed on the roads, death by robot car will not be palatable to the general public. It will be different because with a robot car, or terrorist murder, you have zero control of the situation, and humans like to feel like they have some input into their destiny.
Easy example is 50mph speed limit rural roads guard rails on each side, kid pops out through a hedge and runs into road after a ball or whatever, you have an oncoming truck doing 50 do you hit the kid or do a head on into the truck.
I have a better example. What if instead instead of a child it is a piece of rubbish, and there is no truck? Does the car recognise the rubbish as rubbish or does it think it is something else? What about a small animal? Will the robot car put you into the guard rail to save a moving object that it can't figure out what it is?
One thing we know for sure is that AI is absolutely hopeless at image recognition (it's why even a simple captcha works). Are you willing to trust this with your life?
Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast
Because life comes with risks, risks that we all accept to get stuff done.
Given the choice of a low risk of crashing, or going extremely slowly, I and most others choose the former. It's the same reason people fly rather than go by boat.
What you are taught when you learn how to drive is "always brake, never swerve".
That's at Level 1, which is all driving schools teach you. Once you have some skills, it is more effective to point you car at space first, then emergency brake.
If a child can run into the street from a blind spot faster than you can break, you're driving too fast. The autonomous car will not drive too fast to break in such a situation.
So the robot car will be stuck in first gear doing 20km/h. Good luck trying to sell that reality...
and even if there were hardly anyone capable of reprogramming the car would be stupid enough to risk their lives on their own untested edits to the program.
You've never met anyone who has modded cars have you?
How the tax collection agency goes after this guy and not the FBI.
You know that the tax collector's job is to collect tax right? How do you think they should do that, just sit at home and hope everyone pays up?
Shows the real priorities of Uncle Sam.
Er, it is widely understood that the government needs money to function, and it collects that money via tax.
Take off the tin foil hat. This guy was breaking the law, made a rookie error and got caught by the people whose job it is to catch crooks. He deserves what he gets.
There's little the FBI couldn't do without a warrant, so parallel construction wouldn't be necessary.
You can't say that in here. Everything the cops do is evil and subversive and they all hate you and want to eat your babies.
Whatever the question is, parallel construction is the answer....
Yes, it's certainly possible that's what happened,
It's also not possible, which is why we have courts. Rather than simply guessing, we get each side to present actual, verifiable evidence rather than pure speculation...
Slashdot Mirror
You know - I am complaining about nanny regulations - not the cops. Regulations are worthless unless someone is there to enforce them.
I'm all for the limited government - hard to see the need for the 48% of the economy we have now - making us much more of a socialist country than the Russians (at 35%) . How about 5%?
Do you like 5 because it's less than 48? Or does 5 have a special meaning to you? If 5 is good, is 4 better? what about 3? If you argue for 5%, could I use your same arguments against you to argue for 2%? You seem to agree that zero is bad, so why is 5 the magic number?
Yep. But the autonomous car wouldn't, and I wouldn't care as I'd be downing a beer and watching TV on my way from work.
I already have that choice on the bus. And given the choice I prefer self-drive (self-ride actually, since absolutely nothing beats a motorcycle for both speed and pleasure in city traffic)
In reality, people who "choose" to try to save their family over someone they don't know, usually kill both from their lack of ability to control their car.
Citation?
In fact, my stated solution to such events would *always* put the lives of the occupants over those outside the car. So I'm not sure what the objection is to it.
Your solution? Have you published this with all the source code? You seem to be assuming an awful lot here without any supporting documentation...
350/g? That's crazy talk. Then again, your continent is kind of isolated but I'd expect that there's areas where you could grow the plant. You might have to do it up on that island above Darwin or one of those islands (my geography skills aren't the greatest - but I can point 'em out on a map.) You guys need a third world country on your border.
We have one, it's called Indonesia. But they are a Muslim nation with the death penalty for Drug Trafficking, so it's not a option (for most sane people).
Interestingly, because of the ridiculous prices here, there is now a lot of ocean traffic coming across the Pacific from Central America. The Pacific Islands are vast and numerous and far too difficult to police effectively. It would be a good place to setup an operation if you are into that kind of thing. They busted some guys with 70kg in a yacht a few months ago and didn't make a dent in the market. The volumes coming over the Pacific must be massive.
Well they might tell you it's taxable, but good luck trying to enforce it. And what's to stop people still hanging on to cash and using among themselves? As long as you don't take it to the bank, just keep on using it.
Holy shit dude, do you know economics? If you don't use it, then it depreciates and loses value.
Yeah, that's why I said to keep using it.
So either you use it to purchase things (or investing) or you let it rot. Plus, what would you do with all that cash under your matters if/when no one wants to accept it for a transaction?
It's not under your mattress, you are using it with other like minded people who choose not to be tied solely to electronic transactions. Within that community of like minded souls, cash will still be a usable medium of transferring value. As long as neither you nor them take it to the bank, the money will remain in circulation.
The only example that makes sense is a tube amp, which distorts sound in a way many people find pleasing.
I'm not even sure if this is true any more. Digital modelling Amps can pretty much do the same thing these days.
It's awful because the vast majority of the citizens are not much more than slaves,
China has done in 30 years what it took the West 200 years. Sure it isn't perfect, but there is no easy way to go from medieval agrarian peasant culture to world super power is that short a time frame. All the problems they are having, we had in the last 200 years (worker rights, social mobility, pollution).
The trick is to not get stuck on position, but think about trajectory and ability to change direction, which China is shitting on everyone else right now.
I just want the government to stay the F*** out of my life.
You don't really want that. You say it to sound cool and tough, but the first thing that would happen if the govt stayed out of your life is the big dog would come take your shit and rape and murder your family.
So yeah, pretend that anarchy is awesome, but if you want a taste of it, go hang out in Somalia or Afghanistan for a while and get a reality check.
I hope the 23,846 examples below are sufficient.
Nope, because all 23,846 examples refer to electronic-only devices which are the easiest to build in a soft-upgrade path. With mechanical devices, higher spec components actually cost more to make, and hence can't just be given out on budget models with the firmware disabled. It's the same reason you can't just get a firmware upgrade to turn your Honda Civic into a Bugatti Veyron.
So sure the concept works in some areas (especially electronics), but that doesn't mean it works for everything.
Some old mainframe computers I used to worked on. The different models (speeds) were determined by a firmware constant.
The difference is that Mainframes either cost millions of dollars or tens of millions, so throwing in some extra disabled hardware didn't hurt you bottom line that much. Especially since upgrades we're common, and the cost of retro fitting hardware is relatively expensive
Compare that with consumer goods, which cost tens of dollars to a few hundred, where margins are razor thin, and no-one ever upgrades, it makes no sense to give out premium components to everyone and control it only in software.
The three laws of robotics state:
These aren't actual laws, they were created by a writer of fiction for entertainment value only. Anyone familiar with military technology knows this.
People will kvetch about how self driving cars are programmed right up until they become every-day objects an after that they'll be just as accepted (benefits AND dangers) as trains are today.
Heavy trains have to be on dedicated tracks with bridges or tunnels to avoid other humans specifically because of this risk. See how that works now?
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
How about if we ask how often that situation has happened at all? How many drivers have ever been in the situation where their car was definitely going to kill someone, but the driver could decide whether the car would kill someone else or the driver?
I prefer not to crash at all thanks, which is something that happens every day. And even Google are struggling to solve this one...
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
If the human gets it wrong, they go to jail. Who goes to jail when the computer gets it wrong?
These kind of stupid questions are well, stupid. And they come up often simply because there is no real valid worry about autonomous cars.
Just because you refuse to recognise them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Humans make lots of mistakes and having a computer drive would remove a whole range of avoidable accidents.
And introduce a whole bunch of others, as the real world testing has already demonstrated.
Worrying about a few boundary cases is as stupid as all the "what if my car is burning and I need to get out quickly?!" objections to wearing seat belts. It is unfounded fear that is not based on facts.
Um, boundary cases is what kills people. I hope the programmers aren't so cavalier with their attitude to boundary cases as you are.
It sounds like what you want is a pre-purchase system where you buy life credits. Your daughter is paid up with "insurance" so when the car has the choice of her or 2 bums, it recognizes her, and kills the bums. An elitist dystopian ideal is what you want.
I think the GP is merely outlining the situation we already have right now. I have a reality where in a pinch I can choose to try and save my family over someone I don't know. In robot car world I lose that power. Good luck selling that.
40,000 deaths a year without it.
Closer to 30000 actually.
Why would the first with it be an issue. Wasn't with airbags. Even when their issue was decapitating babies. Wasn't with ABS, even in situations where ABS was provably worse than locked brakes. Your assertion doesn't match history. Why is it different this time?
Because just like 100 people being murdered by terrorists is worse than 30000 being killed on the roads, death by robot car will not be palatable to the general public. It will be different because with a robot car, or terrorist murder, you have zero control of the situation, and humans like to feel like they have some input into their destiny.
Easy example is 50mph speed limit rural roads guard rails on each side, kid pops out through a hedge and runs into road after a ball or whatever, you have an oncoming truck doing 50 do you hit the kid or do a head on into the truck.
I have a better example. What if instead instead of a child it is a piece of rubbish, and there is no truck? Does the car recognise the rubbish as rubbish or does it think it is something else? What about a small animal? Will the robot car put you into the guard rail to save a moving object that it can't figure out what it is?
One thing we know for sure is that AI is absolutely hopeless at image recognition (it's why even a simple captcha works). Are you willing to trust this with your life?
Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast
Because life comes with risks, risks that we all accept to get stuff done.
Given the choice of a low risk of crashing, or going extremely slowly, I and most others choose the former. It's the same reason people fly rather than go by boat.
What you are taught when you learn how to drive is "always brake, never swerve".
That's at Level 1, which is all driving schools teach you. Once you have some skills, it is more effective to point you car at space first, then emergency brake.
If a child can run into the street from a blind spot faster than you can break, you're driving too fast. The autonomous car will not drive too fast to break in such a situation.
So the robot car will be stuck in first gear doing 20km/h. Good luck trying to sell that reality...
and even if there were hardly anyone capable of reprogramming the car would be stupid enough to risk their lives on their own untested edits to the program.
You've never met anyone who has modded cars have you?
More words you probably like:
Bitcoin
3D Printing
Drones
The year of Linux on the Desktop
Beowulf Cluster
Just because "Parallel Construction" in the latest Slashdot buzzword, doesn't mean you have to find any excuse to use it...
How the tax collection agency goes after this guy and not the FBI.
You know that the tax collector's job is to collect tax right? How do you think they should do that, just sit at home and hope everyone pays up?
Shows the real priorities of Uncle Sam.
Er, it is widely understood that the government needs money to function, and it collects that money via tax.
Take off the tin foil hat. This guy was breaking the law, made a rookie error and got caught by the people whose job it is to catch crooks. He deserves what he gets.
There's little the FBI couldn't do without a warrant, so parallel construction wouldn't be necessary.
You can't say that in here. Everything the cops do is evil and subversive and they all hate you and want to eat your babies.
Whatever the question is, parallel construction is the answer....
Yes, it's certainly possible that's what happened,
It's also not possible, which is why we have courts. Rather than simply guessing, we get each side to present actual, verifiable evidence rather than pure speculation...