Hi-def cameras that can zoom in and note the presence of a pedestrian while she is still two miles away will help a lot.
Smart cars that communicate with each other will also help. If car A is able to inform car B about whether or not there's a patch of ice (or disabled vehicle, or any number of hazards) on the other side of the upcoming blind curve, car B now has information about the speed at which it can safely enter that blind curve.
Today's speed limits are chosen with the limitations of human drivers in mind.
But each autonomous driving algorithm should have its own set of speed limits, customized for it.
Whether those limits are higher or lower should depend on how competent a given algorithm proves itself to be, relative to human drivers.
* If a driving algorithm is a little more accident-prone than the average human driver at a given speed, that deficiency could be rectified by forcing it to observe lower speed limits. * On the other hand a driving algorithm that proves to be two orders of magnitude less accident-prone than the average human driver at a given speed, should be granted higher speed limits. (Not so much higher as to erase all or most of its safety advantage. But higher.)
So that would be the ideal outcome. But I predict that, for a few decades at least, Luddite thinking will force driving algorithms to comply with speed limits designed for human drivers. (To the detriment of safety, in the case of the worst algorithms, and to the detriment of rapid transit, in the case of the best.)
The original phrase was "Should we frustrate the efforts of people who design advertising, when they are just doing their jobs by trying to improve the targeting and effectiveness of ads?"
Your answer was "Yes, we should. Killing off parasites is in everyone's interest."
When I was putting my résumé together, I was designing advertising. When I decided who to send it to, I was trying to improve the targeting of my advertising. When I chose what information to include, I was trying to improve the effectiveness of my advertising. No, I don't work in the field of marketing; I'm an engineer.
None of this is a twist of the issue. It's just calling you out on your over-the-top rhetoric.
your problem is more that you have no say on when and how the charity is given, but you would if you gave it yourself, instead of hoping that somebody else, the government even, would take that responsibility from you
To the exact contrary of your assertion, I do give charity myself, and I hate that the government has, to some extent, taken that responsibility from me. I give to highly efficient charities, but when government administers the redistribution of my wealth, a large fraction of it is consumed by the bureaucracy and does not reach the persons in need.
Very intrusive: Get served ads to your phone and all devices based on store browsing and the kind of stores. You have no choice to opt out.
Sure I do. If I find a store's marketing technique creepy, I am free to never enter that particular store. If enough consumers do likewise, the store will rapidly stop using that technique.
it actually is in YOUR own, best interests to protect and guide them.
Should we teach them critical thinking skills and provide them with consumer education? Yes Should we frustrate the efforts of people who design advertising, when they are just doing their jobs by trying to improve the targeting and effectiveness of ads? No
There have been times that I wasn't aware of a genuine deficiency -- let alone that there was a product or service that could correct that deficiency -- until an advertisement made me aware.
Are some advertisers slimeballs who attempt to manipulate you into falsely believing that you have a need? Sure, and consumers should be educated to develop defenses against this. That doesn't change the fact that on the other end of the integrity spectrum are advertisers who raise awareness about genuine needs.
to keep your unemployment money, you have to jump through the hoops presented to you.
When you give someone money that they didn't earn, it's fair to attach strings to that money.
It's ironic that you are complaining about targeted ads, and also about job training that was not targeted to the recipients' interests or aptitude. If the purveyors of job training used some of the same techniques that sellers do when they create targeted ads, the recipients of the training would have been much better off.
I love that certain services, like Gmail and broadcast television, are paid for by advertising instead of by me. And targeted advertising is nothing new. If you tuned in to a soap opera in 1965, you were far more likely to see an ad for cookware than for a pickup truck.
Since I have chosen to accept advertising in my life, by using ad-supported services, I prefer to see targeted ads. They're far better than the alternative: random ads that have no relevance for me and are a poor match to my interests, location, and culture. Best of all, because targeted ads are more effective, it takes fewer of them to fund the service that I'm using.
If an advertised product does not meet my needs, or is not an exceptionally good value, my spine and willpower are strong enough to resist the advertiser's appeal. TFA asserts that "profit-seeking corporations are gaining an insurmountable edge in their efforts to get people to part with their money." Hardly. I am just as tightfisted with my dough as I ever was, and it's inconceivable that will change. I laugh in the face of their so-called "insurmountable edge." By contrast, the author of TFA wrote, "There may be nothing particularly embarrassing or personal about my vulnerabilities as a consumer, but I do not especially want to share them with companies so that I can be manipulated for their financial gain." It's profoundly sad that her confidence in her own ability to be a discriminating consumer is so paper-thin.
If some people lack the fortitude to resist advertising, they are the true sheeple. I support efforts to teach them critical thinking skills and provide consumer education. Beyond that, keep your hands off my freedom to use advertiser-supported services.
The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family.
It makes no sense to set the same limit for everyone. To Bill Gates, $12,700 is nothing, and to others, it's completely unaffordable. Also, not everyone has the same tolerance for risk.
When it comes to other types of insurance, we are still free to choose how large our deductible is. How long until that freedom is also taken away from us?
Fixing all bugs is great if you have the resources for it. But how many organizations have those kind of resources? I suspect even OpenBSD does not.
And are you saying that OpenBSD performs no prioritization whatsoever on their bugfix efforts -- that everything is done in a first-in-first-out order?
Feynman went on to say something disparaging about religion:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
The problem here is, Feynman was thinking too small. Maybe the universe is a facility in which a deity can watch the evolution of a trillion different intelligent species play out. In that case, the stage is just right for the drama.
I watched a few episodes in the late '70s. They were supremely boring and had dreadful special effects. (Even when compared to other British sci-fi of the era, such as Space: 1999.) Has the show improved since then?
Not only is Apple is making a statement -- "third-party hardware is real junk compared to ours" -- but they will probably still make a bit of profit selling these things for $10.
The free market does fix things, but only if consumers keep each other informed.
Bennett Haselton has done his part by writing up this nice overview of the bugs he observed. Now other consumers must do their part by first getting informed, and then voting with their dollars to reward superior products and punish inferior products.
The free market is not a magic tool; it requires participatory effort to fix things. It's far better than the alternative -- an unfree market.
With our government having a track record of ignoring principles of economics, please don't make them the police that regulate reporting about the harder sciences.
Anybody with an interest in reducing power plant emissions should check out the "NeuStream," a very promising new type of scrubber that removes sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulate matter, and maybe even CO2 -- which would mean, for the first time we could burn coal without environmental consequences.
This is what I suspected. Everybody is assuming that Sarah is correct; that Linus really was acting abusively. But you've provided evidence that this is merely a case of someone not appreciating his form of humor.
Keeping the organization fun and informal motivates people to contribute brilliant code. If the community loses sight of that, it will be at Linux' peril.
In my school, we recited it every day. If you look at its words, what we were really pledging allegiance to was the concept of "liberty and justice for all." When a politician strays from that ideal, those of us who recited the pledge become fired up to vote him or her out of office.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi-def cameras that can zoom in and note the presence of a pedestrian while she is still two miles away will help a lot.
Smart cars that communicate with each other will also help. If car A is able to inform car B about whether or not there's a patch of ice (or disabled vehicle, or any number of hazards) on the other side of the upcoming blind curve, car B now has information about the speed at which it can safely enter that blind curve.
Today's speed limits are chosen with the limitations of human drivers in mind.
But each autonomous driving algorithm should have its own set of speed limits, customized for it.
Whether those limits are higher or lower should depend on how competent a given algorithm proves itself to be, relative to human drivers.
* If a driving algorithm is a little more accident-prone than the average human driver at a given speed, that deficiency could be rectified by forcing it to observe lower speed limits.
* On the other hand a driving algorithm that proves to be two orders of magnitude less accident-prone than the average human driver at a given speed, should be granted higher speed limits. (Not so much higher as to erase all or most of its safety advantage. But higher.)
So that would be the ideal outcome. But I predict that, for a few decades at least, Luddite thinking will force driving algorithms to comply with speed limits designed for human drivers. (To the detriment of safety, in the case of the worst algorithms, and to the detriment of rapid transit, in the case of the best.)
The original phrase was "Should we frustrate the efforts of people who design advertising, when they are just doing their jobs by trying to improve the targeting and effectiveness of ads?"
Your answer was "Yes, we should. Killing off parasites is in everyone's interest."
When I was putting my résumé together, I was designing advertising. When I decided who to send it to, I was trying to improve the targeting of my advertising. When I chose what information to include, I was trying to improve the effectiveness of my advertising. No, I don't work in the field of marketing; I'm an engineer.
None of this is a twist of the issue. It's just calling you out on your over-the-top rhetoric.
So, you would take away the freedom to advertise one's products or services, on the grounds that it's a parasitic activity.
I myself have advertised my services, when I sent résumés to prospective employers.
Have you ever sent out a résumé? You parasite!
your problem is more that you have no say on when and how the charity is given, but you would if you gave it yourself, instead of hoping that somebody else, the government even, would take that responsibility from you
To the exact contrary of your assertion, I do give charity myself, and I hate that the government has, to some extent, taken that responsibility from me. I give to highly efficient charities, but when government administers the redistribution of my wealth, a large fraction of it is consumed by the bureaucracy and does not reach the persons in need.
Very intrusive: Get served ads to your phone and all devices based on store browsing and the kind of stores. You have no choice to opt out.
Sure I do. If I find a store's marketing technique creepy, I am free to never enter that particular store. If enough consumers do likewise, the store will rapidly stop using that technique.
it actually is in YOUR own, best interests to protect and guide them.
Should we teach them critical thinking skills and provide them with consumer education? Yes
Should we frustrate the efforts of people who design advertising, when they are just doing their jobs by trying to improve the targeting and effectiveness of ads? No
There have been times that I wasn't aware of a genuine deficiency -- let alone that there was a product or service that could correct that deficiency -- until an advertisement made me aware.
Are some advertisers slimeballs who attempt to manipulate you into falsely believing that you have a need? Sure, and consumers should be educated to develop defenses against this. That doesn't change the fact that on the other end of the integrity spectrum are advertisers who raise awareness about genuine needs.
to keep your unemployment money, you have to jump through the hoops presented to you.
When you give someone money that they didn't earn, it's fair to attach strings to that money.
It's ironic that you are complaining about targeted ads, and also about job training that was not targeted to the recipients' interests or aptitude. If the purveyors of job training used some of the same techniques that sellers do when they create targeted ads, the recipients of the training would have been much better off.
Note well, some media outlets have praised the Obama campaign for using "Big Data" tools to target voters. Do you want or expect this chief executive to hypocritically discourage business from using the same techniques? http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/508836/how-obama-used-big-data-to-rally-voters-part-1/
I love that certain services, like Gmail and broadcast television, are paid for by advertising instead of by me. And targeted advertising is nothing new. If you tuned in to a soap opera in 1965, you were far more likely to see an ad for cookware than for a pickup truck.
Since I have chosen to accept advertising in my life, by using ad-supported services, I prefer to see targeted ads. They're far better than the alternative: random ads that have no relevance for me and are a poor match to my interests, location, and culture. Best of all, because targeted ads are more effective, it takes fewer of them to fund the service that I'm using.
If an advertised product does not meet my needs, or is not an exceptionally good value, my spine and willpower are strong enough to resist the advertiser's appeal. TFA asserts that "profit-seeking corporations are gaining an insurmountable edge in their efforts to get people to part with their money." Hardly. I am just as tightfisted with my dough as I ever was, and it's inconceivable that will change. I laugh in the face of their so-called "insurmountable edge." By contrast, the author of TFA wrote, "There may be nothing particularly embarrassing or personal about my vulnerabilities as a consumer, but I do not especially want to share them with companies so that I can be manipulated for their financial gain." It's profoundly sad that her confidence in her own ability to be a discriminating consumer is so paper-thin.
If some people lack the fortitude to resist advertising, they are the true sheeple. I support efforts to teach them critical thinking skills and provide consumer education. Beyond that, keep your hands off my freedom to use advertiser-supported services.
The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family.
It makes no sense to set the same limit for everyone. To Bill Gates, $12,700 is nothing, and to others, it's completely unaffordable. Also, not everyone has the same tolerance for risk.
When it comes to other types of insurance, we are still free to choose how large our deductible is. How long until that freedom is also taken away from us?
Fixing all bugs is great if you have the resources for it. But how many organizations have those kind of resources? I suspect even OpenBSD does not.
And are you saying that OpenBSD performs no prioritization whatsoever on their bugfix efforts -- that everything is done in a first-in-first-out order?
Feynman went on to say something disparaging about religion:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
The problem here is, Feynman was thinking too small. Maybe the universe is a facility in which a deity can watch the evolution of a trillion different intelligent species play out. In that case, the stage is just right for the drama.
I watched a few episodes in the late '70s. They were supremely boring and had dreadful special effects. (Even when compared to other British sci-fi of the era, such as Space: 1999.) Has the show improved since then?
And don't forget the role of the Community Reinvestment Act: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071213-663606-proposed-new-bank-law-would-solve-problems-that-dont-exist.htm
... here's an archive of them: http://floodyberry.com/carmack/plan.html
Does anyone use .plan files anymore?
Not only is Apple is making a statement -- "third-party hardware is real junk compared to ours" -- but they will probably still make a bit of profit selling these things for $10.
The free market does fix things, but only if consumers keep each other informed.
Bennett Haselton has done his part by writing up this nice overview of the bugs he observed. Now other consumers must do their part by first getting informed, and then voting with their dollars to reward superior products and punish inferior products.
The free market is not a magic tool; it requires participatory effort to fix things. It's far better than the alternative -- an unfree market.
With our government having a track record of ignoring principles of economics, please don't make them the police that regulate reporting about the harder sciences.
"we can still maintain a safe and secure school because of the 200 cameras that are installed"
I guess my school was a deathtrap, because it had zero cameras and zero RFID chips.
Anybody with an interest in reducing power plant emissions should check out the "NeuStream," a very promising new type of scrubber that removes sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulate matter, and maybe even CO2 -- which would mean, for the first time we could burn coal without environmental consequences.
This is what I suspected. Everybody is assuming that Sarah is correct; that Linus really was acting abusively. But you've provided evidence that this is merely a case of someone not appreciating his form of humor.
Keeping the organization fun and informal motivates people to contribute brilliant code. If the community loses sight of that, it will be at Linux' peril.
The under God part wasn't added until 1954.
If you're going to have a compulsory oath, an oath to "liberty and justice for all" is about as benign as they come, don't you think?
In my school, we recited it every day. If you look at its words, what we were really pledging allegiance to was the concept of "liberty and justice for all." When a politician strays from that ideal, those of us who recited the pledge become fired up to vote him or her out of office.
Knowing that, do you still find it creepy?