We already have some non-human managed car control: cruise control. Now at the moment, that's simply mechanical (well, silicon, but not observing the outside - it'll happily drive into the car in front!).
So in the first stage of AI control, we make computers only do the simplest task: 'cruise control plus'. They stay at a specified speed or minimum distance from the car in front, so very little unless the vehicle in front slows down or someone cuts them up. They don't even stay in lane, the driver can continue to do that. This means the first task to the AI is simply object:location mapping in 2d in real time and I think we can already do this. It would be enough of an improvement not to have to keep braking and accelerating in heavy traffic that I suspect lots of long distance drivers would want pay for it as an add-on.
Next, the AIs take over lane following. I suspect they can already do this too, but it won't get into the mainstream for five years after the first section is considered normal. They'll need to be able to recognise a stationary object or lost pedestrian/cyclist and react sensibly enough till the driver can take over. Hopefully it would become legal to read a book or do your paperwork if your car is in the inside lane under AI control.
Then they get taught how to overtake. This is where it starts getting interesting, but it's still only clever object:location mapping.
For the first few years the driver takes over speed control and steering if there is any problem. Not that they will be able to do much!
Thereafter, we might improve the technology to A roads (main roads?) and eventually B roads (rural roads?). Howwever, these environments are so damn random that we won't see it for a long time, till AIs are much, much clever or roads are much better defined.
The legal remifications needn't be a problem. As the technology comes in piecemeal, we'll adapt. It's only if we went for a complete AI solution that there would be a legal nightmare.
I want to be able to subscribe to channels X, Y and Z and pay for content without commercial interruptions.
In this country (UK), that is simply not allowed. My cable provider (NTL) even bundles free-to-air content into pay-to-view bundles and there's nothing I can do about it. Sky does the same and costs even more. Luckily, for free-to-air shows, there's always p2p as I reckon that free-to-air stuff is also free-to-download;-)
Till I can buy content a-la-carte, I will fast forward every single commercial, not to save time (I often pause shows to chat about interesting bits to my SO - drives her mad!) but because the ads are intrusive and spoil the program.
Plus, if these 'banner' ads have any sound, I'll be even madder, and I'll be building a MythTV too.
Ads are soooooooo 20th century... I was asked by a marketeer about an ad at the cinema a bit ago. The question was "Does the fact that the girl in the ad owns a XXX make you feel anything about that model car". WTF? No, of course it doesn't.
They are confused little bunnies at Reuters... the 6% figure would appear to be Moz plus FF, unless everyone in the world has stopped using Moz (and I haven't!).
They are doubly confused as istr they announced that IE was down to only 91% about a month ago in a NetCraft survey. This one is by WebSideStory. I don't understand why Reuters has such a reputation for news when they just regurgitate stuff...!
[Which berk modded this Karl Marx bullshit insightful? Just cos you've got mod points doesn't you have to use them.]
Firstly, stop thinking of OSS as a bunch of hippies writing free code which individuals then support themselves. This is the viewpoint that MS et al want to push (oh look, you're an anonymous coward...).
Most OSS in big business is now supported by a variety of other big businesses, each with a vested interest in customising, improving and maintaining it. These people are going to be paid for their business and some of that will be ploughed back into development. Even if the government supported it itself, it would result in any bugfixes being handed back to the community. That's the quid pro quo of OSS - fixing the thing that bothers you (or paying someone else to do it) will cost you time or money and the benefit will go back to the community --- until we have the perfect free solution!
Does that answer your complaint? I'm not sure, cos 'I have a bad feeling' is difficult to argue against.
I should add, btw, that the open standards for open information interchange argument suggests very strongly that governments should use OSS until proprietary solutions support them well.
As I intimated a couple of posts ago, the action in Afghanistan was entirely justified. As you may recall (on that occasion) a few other countries helped you...
No, my point is that you have since decided to behave as if you are allowed to make the rules up as you go along. That's why the US is becoming the bad guy in the opinion of the rest of the world.
What you don't seem to see, in your own words, is that if only armies have spies, and they weren't organised into an army, then they are not spies. They remain civilians, albeit armed (if you don't think that is a valid syllogism you might visit the south of your own country and attempt to have some rednecks declared spies).
So, as they are civilians, charge them with whatever crime you think they have committed. If you prefer to treat them as an army, give them their Geneva rights. What you simply can't do (and retain respect) is throw them in jail and refuse to charge them with anything - that's one of the things that illegal regimes do that we in the 'civilised' world are objecting to.
I know exactly what Miranda is, and even why it is so named, and you're missing my point: not that they should be accorded US-style access to a lawyer etc, but that they must either be treated as criminals (hence the Miranda reference) or PoWs (Geneva). The US can't simply decide that they're neither and keep them imprisoned for as long as it likes without any charge, although it seems that that is what Bush et al have decided to do. If you do think it can, then kindly explain on what legal grounds it has the right...?
In other instances, the US decries imprisonment without charge, in this case it seems to think it's fine. This two-faced attitude is costing your country dearly in international relations - even the UK public doesn't support you on this one.
If you think Miranda applies to non-Geneva troops in a time of declared hostilities, you're absolutely mad.
So let me get this straight: you (the US) declare that they are 'armed forces' (a term with no legal meaning) but not an 'army', declare war on them (justifiably, don't get me wrong), then declare that, as you have declared hostilities and invaded their country, you get to refuse them either geneva or miranda rights. Neat. Can you see why the US is currently viewed as a friend by so few nations across the world? Could you make a bigger mess of calming down the Middle East?
You are arguing that there are two choices: army==geneva==rights vs !army==!geneva==!rights. This is untrue.
Taking an example from your own text, you argue that they can't be considered soldiers, but at the same time arguing that they 'militarized' an area. Surely only an army can militarize an area? This is where the lie is revealed: you wish to treat them as an army in order to turn them into spies, but refuse to where it would turn them into PoWs.
There is a description for people who are not in a recognised military and still do bad things with guns. We call them criminals. This is where your and Bush's argument really starts to be offensive: they are arrested, but not given either their Geneva or Miranda rights.
Occam's razor doesn't say what you said either, actually. Specifically William of Occam didn't even mention using his razor to predict which theories are right. He simply advised against using theories with elements which weren't necessary for the solution to the problem to work, and said that they could be 'cut out'. In other words, don't introduce redundant complexity.
Actually, I think it (money and money-relationships) recently changed and could therefore change again.
Until only a few years ago, owning a large amount of money was not a stable position. Typically, money had to be paid to protect money - negative interest. If you didn't pay someone to protect your money, it would be more likely to be stolen - still negative. Money had to be used just to keep it.
With the abstraction of money into just numbers, and the advent of banks which invest their customers' money, we have the opposite effect. Money is not easily stolen, is easily protected, and, crucially, it grows.
It strikes me that this is an enormous change that will have ramifications for generations... the rich (above some threshold) will now get richer by doing nothing at all, where previously they had to continue making money in order to stay in the same place.
Bill does believe in interop, insomuch as IE provides an api to all sorts of things in Windows, like the phone number used for internet access. The api's a bit rough'n'ready, but who expects clean code from MS?!
"The result is that Southampton had the top three performers -- but also a load of utter failures at the bottom of the table who sacrificed themselves for the good of the team."
I've introduced various people to OOo and none of them have had any snags other than things not being in precisely the same location (although in some cases, OOo has a better choice: insert... table for example).
Only VB macro users seem to have any problems, and that's what you get for thinking that VB is a good idea;-)
Why not return it to the client in OOo format complete with an install disk for OOo, and say "I recovered it into a more stable format - OpenOffice";-)
Why don't you RTFuckingA(s)? They already have, and the locals divide the local apes into 'tree-beaters' and 'lion-killers'. I guess they asked a few more questions but the indigenous people mostly only care if they can eat it or it can kill them.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have some non-human managed car control: cruise control. Now at the moment, that's simply mechanical (well, silicon, but not observing the outside - it'll happily drive into the car in front!).
So in the first stage of AI control, we make computers only do the simplest task: 'cruise control plus'. They stay at a specified speed or minimum distance from the car in front, so very little unless the vehicle in front slows down or someone cuts them up. They don't even stay in lane, the driver can continue to do that. This means the first task to the AI is simply object:location mapping in 2d in real time and I think we can already do this. It would be enough of an improvement not to have to keep braking and accelerating in heavy traffic that I suspect lots of long distance drivers would want pay for it as an add-on.
Next, the AIs take over lane following. I suspect they can already do this too, but it won't get into the mainstream for five years after the first section is considered normal. They'll need to be able to recognise a stationary object or lost pedestrian/cyclist and react sensibly enough till the driver can take over. Hopefully it would become legal to read a book or do your paperwork if your car is in the inside lane under AI control.
Then they get taught how to overtake. This is where it starts getting interesting, but it's still only clever object:location mapping.
For the first few years the driver takes over speed control and steering if there is any problem. Not that they will be able to do much!
Thereafter, we might improve the technology to A roads (main roads?) and eventually B roads (rural roads?). Howwever, these environments are so damn random that we won't see it for a long time, till AIs are much, much clever or roads are much better defined.
The legal remifications needn't be a problem. As the technology comes in piecemeal, we'll adapt. It's only if we went for a complete AI solution that there would be a legal nightmare.
I look forward to it myself.
J.
Remember people, the freedom part of this great and glorious idea was RMS's and it's looking more and more important by the day.
I'm not too worried by "gnu/linux" vs "linux" but I sure as hell appreciate RMS's work.
Justin.
One assumes that this is more from the business perspective where auto-update is good because the people scheduling the updates are sysadmins.
J.
I want to be able to subscribe to channels X, Y and Z and pay for content without commercial interruptions.
;-)
In this country (UK), that is simply not allowed. My cable provider (NTL) even bundles free-to-air content into pay-to-view bundles and there's nothing I can do about it. Sky does the same and costs even more. Luckily, for free-to-air shows, there's always p2p as I reckon that free-to-air stuff is also free-to-download
Till I can buy content a-la-carte, I will fast forward every single commercial, not to save time (I often pause shows to chat about interesting bits to my SO - drives her mad!) but because the ads are intrusive and spoil the program.
Plus, if these 'banner' ads have any sound, I'll be even madder, and I'll be building a MythTV too.
Ads are soooooooo 20th century... I was asked by a marketeer about an ad at the cinema a bit ago. The question was "Does the fact that the girl in the ad owns a XXX make you feel anything about that model car". WTF? No, of course it doesn't.
Justin.
But, but, but... it's still Microsoft's fault either way, right?
Now, am I flamebaiting, trying to be funny, or bang on topic? I really don't know.
Justin.
Justin.
I have mod points too, and I was tempted to mode you off-topic but decided to be a karma-whore instead ;-)
J.
Actually, no, it appears I'm the muppet. Google is one of the stories you have to have. I apologise!
J.
You can customise your page to only have stories in your interests, and Google is one of the story types.
;-)
I'm moderating at the mo, and I'd have moderated you 'muppet', but I thought I'd be useful instead
J.
They are confused little bunnies at Reuters... the 6% figure would appear to be Moz plus FF, unless everyone in the world has stopped using Moz (and I haven't!).
They are doubly confused as istr they announced that IE was down to only 91% about a month ago in a NetCraft survey. This one is by WebSideStory. I don't understand why Reuters has such a reputation for news when they just regurgitate stuff...!
J.
[Which berk modded this Karl Marx bullshit insightful? Just cos you've got mod points doesn't you have to use them.]
Firstly, stop thinking of OSS as a bunch of hippies writing free code which individuals then support themselves. This is the viewpoint that MS et al want to push (oh look, you're an anonymous coward...).
Most OSS in big business is now supported by a variety of other big businesses, each with a vested interest in customising, improving and maintaining it. These people are going to be paid for their business and some of that will be ploughed back into development. Even if the government supported it itself, it would result in any bugfixes being handed back to the community. That's the quid pro quo of OSS - fixing the thing that bothers you (or paying someone else to do it) will cost you time or money and the benefit will go back to the community --- until we have the perfect free solution!
Does that answer your complaint? I'm not sure, cos 'I have a bad feeling' is difficult to argue against.
I should add, btw, that the open standards for open information interchange argument suggests very strongly that governments should use OSS until proprietary solutions support them well.
Justin.
As I intimated a couple of posts ago, the action in Afghanistan was entirely justified. As you may recall (on that occasion) a few other countries helped you...
No, my point is that you have since decided to behave as if you are allowed to make the rules up as you go along. That's why the US is becoming the bad guy in the opinion of the rest of the world.
What you don't seem to see, in your own words, is that if only armies have spies, and they weren't organised into an army, then they are not spies. They remain civilians, albeit armed (if you don't think that is a valid syllogism you might visit the south of your own country and attempt to have some rednecks declared spies).
So, as they are civilians, charge them with whatever crime you think they have committed. If you prefer to treat them as an army, give them their Geneva rights. What you simply can't do (and retain respect) is throw them in jail and refuse to charge them with anything - that's one of the things that illegal regimes do that we in the 'civilised' world are objecting to.
Justin.
I know exactly what Miranda is, and even why it is so named, and you're missing my point: not that they should be accorded US-style access to a lawyer etc, but that they must either be treated as criminals (hence the Miranda reference) or PoWs (Geneva). The US can't simply decide that they're neither and keep them imprisoned for as long as it likes without any charge, although it seems that that is what Bush et al have decided to do. If you do think it can, then kindly explain on what legal grounds it has the right...?
In other instances, the US decries imprisonment without charge, in this case it seems to think it's fine. This two-faced attitude is costing your country dearly in international relations - even the UK public doesn't support you on this one.
Justin.
So let me get this straight: you (the US) declare that they are 'armed forces' (a term with no legal meaning) but not an 'army', declare war on them (justifiably, don't get me wrong), then declare that, as you have declared hostilities and invaded their country, you get to refuse them either geneva or miranda rights. Neat. Can you see why the US is currently viewed as a friend by so few nations across the world? Could you make a bigger mess of calming down the Middle East?
BTW, you're not Don Rumsfeld, are you?
Justin.
Give back your /. id, you don't belong here.
You are arguing that there are two choices: army==geneva==rights vs !army==!geneva==!rights. This is untrue.
Taking an example from your own text, you argue that they can't be considered soldiers, but at the same time arguing that they 'militarized' an area. Surely only an army can militarize an area? This is where the lie is revealed: you wish to treat them as an army in order to turn them into spies, but refuse to where it would turn them into PoWs.
There is a description for people who are not in a recognised military and still do bad things with guns. We call them criminals. This is where your and Bush's argument really starts to be offensive: they are arrested, but not given either their Geneva or Miranda rights.
Justin.
Occam's razor doesn't say what you said either, actually. Specifically William of Occam didn't even mention using his razor to predict which theories are right. He simply advised against using theories with elements which weren't necessary for the solution to the problem to work, and said that they could be 'cut out'. In other words, don't introduce redundant complexity.
Justin.
Actually, I think it (money and money-relationships) recently changed and could therefore change again.
Until only a few years ago, owning a large amount of money was not a stable position. Typically, money had to be paid to protect money - negative interest. If you didn't pay someone to protect your money, it would be more likely to be stolen - still negative. Money had to be used just to keep it.
With the abstraction of money into just numbers, and the advent of banks which invest their customers' money, we have the opposite effect. Money is not easily stolen, is easily protected, and, crucially, it grows.
It strikes me that this is an enormous change that will have ramifications for generations... the rich (above some threshold) will now get richer by doing nothing at all, where previously they had to continue making money in order to stay in the same place.
Comments? Neal?
Justin.
Bill does believe in interop, insomuch as IE provides an api to all sorts of things in Windows, like the phone number used for internet access. The api's a bit rough'n'ready, but who expects clean code from MS?!
J.
"The result is that Southampton had the top three performers -- but also a load of utter failures at the bottom of the table who sacrificed themselves for the good of the team."
J.
I've introduced various people to OOo and none of them have had any snags other than things not being in precisely the same location (although in some cases, OOo has a better choice: insert... table for example).
;-)
Only VB macro users seem to have any problems, and that's what you get for thinking that VB is a good idea
J.
Why not return it to the client in OOo format complete with an install disk for OOo, and say "I recovered it into a more stable format - OpenOffice" ;-)
J.
Flaws such as not teaching people that sentences shouldn't begin with conjunctions and that the personal pronoun takes a capital letter?
Justin.
Why don't you RTFuckingA(s)? They already have, and the locals divide the local apes into 'tree-beaters' and 'lion-killers'. I guess they asked a few more questions but the indigenous people mostly only care if they can eat it or it can kill them.
J.
"Bush knowingly lied to attack Iraq,
Unless like SCO he's smoking crack"
Justin.