These have existed at various points. Google SplashTop and QuickWeb. They existed. It just wasn't a popular feature and more trouble than it was worth.
Yes but it doesn't matter as much as you think. I once worked for BEA. I had customers tell me that one of their requirements was that they would never buy from Oracle. But everything they purchased, Oracle ended up buying the companies and they still ended up being Oracle customers.
If the driver is having to take over every 13 miles, it means that Uber's "self-driving" system performs worse than the adaptive cruise control available on garden variety economy cars today. I have no idea what they're even testing at this point. The performance is abysmal. The safety of the "self-driving" car will be about the same as if there were no "self-driving" features at all since it will basically be under human control all the time.
A better solution is to do like airplanes and allow SAE3 Level automation but require *two* human backup drivers.. One to continuously monitor the self-driving mechanisms for things like are the lane lines being detected properly, are all objects being sensed, et cetera. This person should be constantly communicating with the one who can actually operate the controls. If the two are constantly engaged in evaluating the situation and confirming with each other verbally that they are assessing things the same, they won't be going from "cold" to fully engaged.
What's your proposed model for testing an autonomous car driving amidst normal traffic conditions that does not include actually having it drive among normal road traffic?
Secondly measured in terms of accidents and fatalities, autonomous cars have already caused less accidents per miles driven than your average human driver, so if that's your metric, the argument can be made that said bar has already been passed
There are entire test sites for self-driving cars. Once your car meets some standard in the test site, you could then take it on the road. https://www.freep.com/story/mo...
Autonomous vehicles, in general, may be safer than ones operated by the average human driver. But that doesn't mean that the *Uber* vehicles are safer than ones operated by human drivers.
It appears that Waymo and such have done a great job getting their vehicles as ready as possible before putting them on the road and, as a result, have a great safety record. Uber just slapped a bunch of components together probably using technology that they "borrowed" from competitor without understanding, put it on the road, and watched the failures pile up. Their failure rate is one per 13 miles vs Gogole's one per 5k miles. Now there are some thing that make those not a perfect comparison but even giving Uber an order-of-magnitude benefit of the doubt, their cars are still awful dangerous things that don't belong on the road. That's different than saying no autonomous cars belong on the road.
Stock prices always rebound after these things once the inquiry is over and the punishment turns out to be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. All this stuff does is transfer wealth from those who panic sell to those who opportunistically buy.
And Australia even more strict that that. More to the point, though, using Facebook for "round ups" is something we could probably debate. But when ICE is looking for a *particular* person, it's almost always the case that said individual has committed some sort of crime above and beyond any immigration status issue. At that point, they're just another fugitive.
Yes that's correct, compassion for people who committed a minor civil violation in order to come here and help their families is purely a political issue and ther's no moral authority behind it. And it was entirely invented by the Democrats. It's not that it used to be a bi-partisan issue supported by presidents from both parties and then Republicans threw immigrants under the bus in order to appeal to the more extreme part of their base. [/sarcasm]
There should be a -1 Uniformed Partisanship moderation.
I don't think it's quite fair to say that racism and misogyny have been defined this way. I think what's happened is that, for a time, racists and misogynists didn't want to "wear it as a badge of honor" so to speak. Rather, what they would do is to declare that they were against racism and misogyny and then object to ever single effort to counter these no matter how sensible the proposed solution was. And they were very effective at it to a point where nothing got done. This still happens. It's to a point that if somebody disagrees with *how* we should move forward in this area, listeners' first reaction is to assume that the real purpose of the disagreement is to try to avoid moving forward at all. A good plan with lots of support is better than a perfect plan with weak support so I think the clear takeaway message right now is that if an aggrieved group is demanding a particular solution, you can make friends by being supportive (even if the proposed solution is imperfect) or you can draw suspicion by trying to add your own spin on things. I have no idea why so many 'smart' people seem to end up doing the latter.
The Uber cars have a failure every 13 miles. Normally when we talk about self-driving cars on/., we point out that a safety driver isn't very useful because they just can't avoid the boredom. If you look at pools, most lifeguard only work 30-45 minutes without a break just for this reason. The Waymo drivers can probably barely stay awake. But the Ubers cars are rolling sarcophagi with a failure every 13 miles. If I were the "safety" driver on those death traps I'd be white knuckling the steering wheel and eyes glued to the road.
Although your premise is correct, remember that you likely won't actually get to a zero balance on a card. Instead, you'll have some amount of money left but it won't be enough for another trip. So getting a new card means you discard some value. Not sure it matters though as the whole premise here is quite silly.
A human player, if presented with this, would ask "what if it doesn't work?" If I try a trick and it fails (other system doesn't crash), now I'm in a much worse place than if I had just made a reasonable move. Unless the situation is desperately hopeless, the intelligent player wouldn't even try. This is a basic problem with any "hill climbing" algorithm.
Well maybe. But in the case of the Uber car, it's once every 13 miles, so two orders of magnitude different. With the Waymo car and a problem ever 1500 miles it may still be safer than a human driver.
It does appear to be being pursued as an illegal campaign contribution. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/21... The one thing that seems to be consistent among the Trump defenders is that inappropriate activities weren't effective. I grew up near Camden NJ which at the time was the most dangerous city in the world. The police chief would always point out that the only different between aggravated assault and homocide was how well the perpetrator aimed. Just because you suck at cheating doesn't mean that you didn't cheat. We have to take this type of thing seriously because we have no way to roll back an election. Regardless of what illegal things happen, the winner stays in office unless they are convicted of a crime. And even then they can't be removed sometimes.
We're in agreement that many laws are designed to impact the integrity of elections and provide unfair advantages. (See voter ID requirements, congressional districts) but that's a different kind of cheating.
The market research itself does not affect integrity of elections. What does affect elections is that it was done by a third-party on behalf of the campaign. The fair market value of the work that they did most certainly exceeded campaign contribution limits. So it amounts to a form of illegal campaign contribution. Had the campaign done it directly, your argument would likely carry the day. The issue with the Trump campaign is that it coordinated (the world colluded has too much of a negative connotation for objective discussion) with other groups in illegal ways. And even when the campaign wasn't aware (or can't be proven to be aware), many entities acted illegally to support the Trump campaign. This is yet another example. Now that may have happened on the Hillary side too and we're not hearing about it. But so far the smoking guns are mostly in the hands of Trump backers.
If the campaigns were going to use this to figure out what people wanted and liked (higher minimum wages, better consumer protection, stricter gun laws, accepting more refugees) and implement those things, nobody would be upset. In fact they would be happy. People are upset because the data was used in a way that affected the integrity or our elections. Even somebody who read the ToS did not fathom the data being used in this way.
This is one thing that I don't understand at all. Why in the world are self-driving cars allowed on the road without *two* human backups. One should be monitoring the systems to see if they're working. The other should be the safety driver. What should have happened here is that the engineer (for lack of better word) should have been saying to the driver. "Hey, the Lidar doesn't seem to be detecting that pedestrian as a stationary object" and writing a bug report. The driver would have been at heightened alert.
The reality is that our world is bifurcating. That's happening for a number of reasons. An obvious one is the "hollowing out" of the middle class. But there's certainly more to it than that. In the 1980s or so, when religion was still very influential various Christian groups discovered the power of the boycott and other non-religious economic activities to push a social agenda onto non-believers. I have no idea why they would do this. If you force an atheist to keep his business closed on Sunday morning does that help him get to heaven? Does it help you? I've actually read the Christian bible and didn't see support for this anywhere
Christianity perfected these techniques but didn't invest anything in marketing in order to update it's business model and messaging for modern times and, as a result, lost much of it's influence. However those techniques are now being wielded by those with a progressive agenda many of whom were probably one-time church members.
Companies see the writing on the wall and it very well may be the case that, at some point, stores have to have (D) and (R) after them just like our elected officials. This forces them to look forward and figure out which views the majority will hold and engage in virtue signaling in this area.
This is a terrible outcome because it means that it will become much harder to challenge majority views. I think it's a shame, but it's unavoidable. The clocks aren't going to turn back so life is always going to be somewhat progressive. But we need strong conservative voices to ensure that policy doesn't get ahead of the data or ignore critical facts (like not being able to borrow infinite amounts of money.) Unfortunately, the only "conservative" voices we have in the US are always making impossible promises to turn back the clock rather than trying to argue for smoother transitions.
There's a lot of griping in this thread about pedestrians who are perceived (by drivers) to step out in front of traffic without paying attention. My guess is that the actual number of these incidents is much lower than would be estimated based on asking about drivers' experiences. A lot of pedestrians are assertive and will step out if they have right of way and avoid anything that even resembles eye contact with the drivers. But they are looking out peripheral vision to make sure the car really stops and will retreat and make rude gestures if the car doesn't actually yield. Here that doesn't seem to be the case since the pedestrian didn't react at all.
What other evidence could one possibly offer? Raw data from the LIDAR system? It's unlikely that anybody who doesn't work on that particular system could make any conclusions from it.
The mods must be crazy. You're the second one to get modded-up today for such an uninsightful comment. Sorry but if you've ever *read* a study, the first thing that every author does is try to control for these variables and determine whether or not there is an additional effect. Now one fair criticism is that maybe the effect of lead is *less* than the other factors (I don't know). But there's not a single study out there that doesn't go through the process of controlling for known factors.
I have no idea how this got modded to +5. Do you think that study authors really make no attempt to control for these variables? The studies aren't silly. At least not the vast majority of them. What you do is you take into account factors such as poverty and then you look to see if those factors explain the entirety of an effect. If not you have some evidence that the factor in question (in this case lead) is contributory. Now some studies suffer from trying to control so many factors that you question whether it can be done accurately. But the only thing silly is calling studies silly.
Although it's fun to say that correlation isn't causation, the research into lead and crime rates is both extensive and solid. It's relatively easy to remove confounding variables because different countries removed lead from gasoline at different times with a subsequent reduction in crime. And lots of studies have been done looking for alternative explanations without much luck. Also we have good knowledge of how lead affects the brain which supports the causal hypothesis.
Gun ownership and crime is surely a very complex topic where the interaction between the two variables makes establishing a causal relationship much harder. I've lived in rural areas where there is no police force. Rates of gun ownership were a big crime deterrent. Of course so was that fact that people were poor so there was no point of robbing them.
Urban crime rates are likely influenced more by the drug trade than overall gun ownership. The reality is that there are probably geographies where increased gun ownership results in lower crime and other geographies where it results in higher crime. Also, a property crime is less severe than a violent crime which also makes the problem harder.
In the US we don't have good data in this area because the pro-gun lobby fights any effort to study the problem. The only motivation for such a thing is a fear of what the data will show. You don't want an answer to be found if you're pretty sure you're wrong! I'm pro gun-control but I could be persuaded by data if there were honest attempts and objective studies.
More likely they will all be built with 15mph limits and speed bumps that make 5mph the maximum realistic speed so that the streets become unappealing to through-traffic. Also turning restrictions (sometimes rush-hour only) that are hostile to through-traffic.
I think that they pretty much do this already. Traffic gets directed to the fastest route. So if there are multiple possible routes, the one with the least traffic with get preferred until such time as the travel times are equalized. I think the complaint in this article is that some roads were under-used and the people who lived there liked it that way. But now those roads are used at a higher capacity and people don't like it. As has already been pointed out, counter-measures will probably be deployed by the local municipality to discourage non-local use of those roads.
Slashdot Mirror
These have existed at various points. Google SplashTop and QuickWeb. They existed. It just wasn't a popular feature and more trouble than it was worth.
Yes but it doesn't matter as much as you think. I once worked for BEA. I had customers tell me that one of their requirements was that they would never buy from Oracle. But everything they purchased, Oracle ended up buying the companies and they still ended up being Oracle customers.
If the driver is having to take over every 13 miles, it means that Uber's "self-driving" system performs worse than the adaptive cruise control available on garden variety economy cars today. I have no idea what they're even testing at this point. The performance is abysmal. The safety of the "self-driving" car will be about the same as if there were no "self-driving" features at all since it will basically be under human control all the time.
A better solution is to do like airplanes and allow SAE3 Level automation but require *two* human backup drivers.. One to continuously monitor the self-driving mechanisms for things like are the lane lines being detected properly, are all objects being sensed, et cetera. This person should be constantly communicating with the one who can actually operate the controls. If the two are constantly engaged in evaluating the situation and confirming with each other verbally that they are assessing things the same, they won't be going from "cold" to fully engaged.
What's your proposed model for testing an autonomous car driving amidst normal traffic conditions that does not include actually having it drive among normal road traffic?
Secondly measured in terms of accidents and fatalities, autonomous cars have already caused less accidents per miles driven than your average human driver, so if that's your metric, the argument can be made that said bar has already been passed
There are entire test sites for self-driving cars. Once your car meets some standard in the test site, you could then take it on the road. https://www.freep.com/story/mo... Autonomous vehicles, in general, may be safer than ones operated by the average human driver. But that doesn't mean that the *Uber* vehicles are safer than ones operated by human drivers.
It appears that Waymo and such have done a great job getting their vehicles as ready as possible before putting them on the road and, as a result, have a great safety record. Uber just slapped a bunch of components together probably using technology that they "borrowed" from competitor without understanding, put it on the road, and watched the failures pile up. Their failure rate is one per 13 miles vs Gogole's one per 5k miles. Now there are some thing that make those not a perfect comparison but even giving Uber an order-of-magnitude benefit of the doubt, their cars are still awful dangerous things that don't belong on the road. That's different than saying no autonomous cars belong on the road.
Stock prices always rebound after these things once the inquiry is over and the punishment turns out to be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. All this stuff does is transfer wealth from those who panic sell to those who opportunistically buy.
And Australia even more strict that that. More to the point, though, using Facebook for "round ups" is something we could probably debate. But when ICE is looking for a *particular* person, it's almost always the case that said individual has committed some sort of crime above and beyond any immigration status issue. At that point, they're just another fugitive.
Yes that's correct, compassion for people who committed a minor civil violation in order to come here and help their families is purely a political issue and ther's no moral authority behind it. And it was entirely invented by the Democrats. It's not that it used to be a bi-partisan issue supported by presidents from both parties and then Republicans threw immigrants under the bus in order to appeal to the more extreme part of their base. [/sarcasm] There should be a -1 Uniformed Partisanship moderation.
I don't think it's quite fair to say that racism and misogyny have been defined this way. I think what's happened is that, for a time, racists and misogynists didn't want to "wear it as a badge of honor" so to speak. Rather, what they would do is to declare that they were against racism and misogyny and then object to ever single effort to counter these no matter how sensible the proposed solution was. And they were very effective at it to a point where nothing got done. This still happens. It's to a point that if somebody disagrees with *how* we should move forward in this area, listeners' first reaction is to assume that the real purpose of the disagreement is to try to avoid moving forward at all. A good plan with lots of support is better than a perfect plan with weak support so I think the clear takeaway message right now is that if an aggrieved group is demanding a particular solution, you can make friends by being supportive (even if the proposed solution is imperfect) or you can draw suspicion by trying to add your own spin on things. I have no idea why so many 'smart' people seem to end up doing the latter.
The Uber cars have a failure every 13 miles. Normally when we talk about self-driving cars on /., we point out that a safety driver isn't very useful because they just can't avoid the boredom. If you look at pools, most lifeguard only work 30-45 minutes without a break just for this reason. The Waymo drivers can probably barely stay awake. But the Ubers cars are rolling sarcophagi with a failure every 13 miles. If I were the "safety" driver on those death traps I'd be white knuckling the steering wheel and eyes glued to the road.
Although your premise is correct, remember that you likely won't actually get to a zero balance on a card. Instead, you'll have some amount of money left but it won't be enough for another trip. So getting a new card means you discard some value. Not sure it matters though as the whole premise here is quite silly.
A human player, if presented with this, would ask "what if it doesn't work?" If I try a trick and it fails (other system doesn't crash), now I'm in a much worse place than if I had just made a reasonable move. Unless the situation is desperately hopeless, the intelligent player wouldn't even try. This is a basic problem with any "hill climbing" algorithm.
Well maybe. But in the case of the Uber car, it's once every 13 miles, so two orders of magnitude different. With the Waymo car and a problem ever 1500 miles it may still be safer than a human driver.
It does appear to be being pursued as an illegal campaign contribution. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/21... The one thing that seems to be consistent among the Trump defenders is that inappropriate activities weren't effective. I grew up near Camden NJ which at the time was the most dangerous city in the world. The police chief would always point out that the only different between aggravated assault and homocide was how well the perpetrator aimed. Just because you suck at cheating doesn't mean that you didn't cheat. We have to take this type of thing seriously because we have no way to roll back an election. Regardless of what illegal things happen, the winner stays in office unless they are convicted of a crime. And even then they can't be removed sometimes. We're in agreement that many laws are designed to impact the integrity of elections and provide unfair advantages. (See voter ID requirements, congressional districts) but that's a different kind of cheating.
The market research itself does not affect integrity of elections. What does affect elections is that it was done by a third-party on behalf of the campaign. The fair market value of the work that they did most certainly exceeded campaign contribution limits. So it amounts to a form of illegal campaign contribution. Had the campaign done it directly, your argument would likely carry the day. The issue with the Trump campaign is that it coordinated (the world colluded has too much of a negative connotation for objective discussion) with other groups in illegal ways. And even when the campaign wasn't aware (or can't be proven to be aware), many entities acted illegally to support the Trump campaign. This is yet another example. Now that may have happened on the Hillary side too and we're not hearing about it. But so far the smoking guns are mostly in the hands of Trump backers.
If the campaigns were going to use this to figure out what people wanted and liked (higher minimum wages, better consumer protection, stricter gun laws, accepting more refugees) and implement those things, nobody would be upset. In fact they would be happy. People are upset because the data was used in a way that affected the integrity or our elections. Even somebody who read the ToS did not fathom the data being used in this way.
This is one thing that I don't understand at all. Why in the world are self-driving cars allowed on the road without *two* human backups. One should be monitoring the systems to see if they're working. The other should be the safety driver. What should have happened here is that the engineer (for lack of better word) should have been saying to the driver. "Hey, the Lidar doesn't seem to be detecting that pedestrian as a stationary object" and writing a bug report. The driver would have been at heightened alert.
Christianity perfected these techniques but didn't invest anything in marketing in order to update it's business model and messaging for modern times and, as a result, lost much of it's influence. However those techniques are now being wielded by those with a progressive agenda many of whom were probably one-time church members.
Companies see the writing on the wall and it very well may be the case that, at some point, stores have to have (D) and (R) after them just like our elected officials. This forces them to look forward and figure out which views the majority will hold and engage in virtue signaling in this area.
This is a terrible outcome because it means that it will become much harder to challenge majority views. I think it's a shame, but it's unavoidable. The clocks aren't going to turn back so life is always going to be somewhat progressive. But we need strong conservative voices to ensure that policy doesn't get ahead of the data or ignore critical facts (like not being able to borrow infinite amounts of money.) Unfortunately, the only "conservative" voices we have in the US are always making impossible promises to turn back the clock rather than trying to argue for smoother transitions.
There's a lot of griping in this thread about pedestrians who are perceived (by drivers) to step out in front of traffic without paying attention. My guess is that the actual number of these incidents is much lower than would be estimated based on asking about drivers' experiences. A lot of pedestrians are assertive and will step out if they have right of way and avoid anything that even resembles eye contact with the drivers. But they are looking out peripheral vision to make sure the car really stops and will retreat and make rude gestures if the car doesn't actually yield. Here that doesn't seem to be the case since the pedestrian didn't react at all.
What other evidence could one possibly offer? Raw data from the LIDAR system? It's unlikely that anybody who doesn't work on that particular system could make any conclusions from it.
The mods must be crazy. You're the second one to get modded-up today for such an uninsightful comment. Sorry but if you've ever *read* a study, the first thing that every author does is try to control for these variables and determine whether or not there is an additional effect. Now one fair criticism is that maybe the effect of lead is *less* than the other factors (I don't know). But there's not a single study out there that doesn't go through the process of controlling for known factors.
I have no idea how this got modded to +5. Do you think that study authors really make no attempt to control for these variables? The studies aren't silly. At least not the vast majority of them. What you do is you take into account factors such as poverty and then you look to see if those factors explain the entirety of an effect. If not you have some evidence that the factor in question (in this case lead) is contributory. Now some studies suffer from trying to control so many factors that you question whether it can be done accurately. But the only thing silly is calling studies silly.
Gun ownership and crime is surely a very complex topic where the interaction between the two variables makes establishing a causal relationship much harder. I've lived in rural areas where there is no police force. Rates of gun ownership were a big crime deterrent. Of course so was that fact that people were poor so there was no point of robbing them.
Urban crime rates are likely influenced more by the drug trade than overall gun ownership. The reality is that there are probably geographies where increased gun ownership results in lower crime and other geographies where it results in higher crime. Also, a property crime is less severe than a violent crime which also makes the problem harder.
In the US we don't have good data in this area because the pro-gun lobby fights any effort to study the problem. The only motivation for such a thing is a fear of what the data will show. You don't want an answer to be found if you're pretty sure you're wrong! I'm pro gun-control but I could be persuaded by data if there were honest attempts and objective studies.
More likely they will all be built with 15mph limits and speed bumps that make 5mph the maximum realistic speed so that the streets become unappealing to through-traffic. Also turning restrictions (sometimes rush-hour only) that are hostile to through-traffic.
I think that they pretty much do this already. Traffic gets directed to the fastest route. So if there are multiple possible routes, the one with the least traffic with get preferred until such time as the travel times are equalized. I think the complaint in this article is that some roads were under-used and the people who lived there liked it that way. But now those roads are used at a higher capacity and people don't like it. As has already been pointed out, counter-measures will probably be deployed by the local municipality to discourage non-local use of those roads.