On one hand the idea that something that belongs to you handing you over to the authorities is distasteful. On the other hand hit-and-run drivers really suck; one of my college buddies was killed hit by one of them and left to die in ditch. He was just 29.
The hit-and-run guy did not wish your friend die either; it's just that he doesn't want to get caught. He didn't call paramedics because he did not have a way to do this anonymously. As a society, probably we should provide a way to do this. [not easy; but I think technologically feasible - "SOS at x,y" -- source can't be revealed]
Internet is a threat to movie-industry; say about 20 years ago, the cost to rent a movie or buy a DVD was high [relative to say a dinner price]. Today netflix/youtube are cheap because the market forces forced them to be so. Else people will go for pirated content. movie-industry was making huge profit from selling DVDs/blu-rays for a very high price; now with new sources of video content on internet, people no longer spend that much to movie-industry. They some how tried to limit the competition; but failed. [Similar to how SMS revenue fell when apps like whatsapp came over]
I don't think they care if it's beautiful or not; what you mention of envy is the reason. Basically it's a comparison game and they want "substance" to talk to their friends/family -- see how much he adores me.. so she needs proof..that's all. Whatever she can show-off to the world that she is worthy..she will go for it. I believe deep down she is comparing herself with other females [male is never a competitor to a female; he is already won before the competition even starts]. She is just looking for external confirmation that she is great/better.
Of course if there is a true enlightened person/female... who is above all comparison game..the above is not true for her.
That's a very ingenious way to bring in a law whose real purpose was different. It's like bringing in prohibition/drug-ban because you can help your cartel run the illegal business. Give a feel-good reason to the masses when the real reason is to aid the powers that be. So here is the algorithm -- when you want X, find some way to enact law Y which appeals to the masses; when Y is implemented as side-effect you will obtain X.
TFA appears to be some kind of FUD. No one has any doubt that Autonomous Vehicles will do better than people. With thirty thousand dead every year in the US it is arguable that trained chimps could do better than people.
What about lost GDP per lack of accident? a huge number of industries [health-care, auto-repair, insurance, new-auto-buying] will lose revenue; sure they will lobby to slow the adoption [just like uber vs taxi]
It takes them 5 MB to store a 40,000 word dictionary? They must be literally storing a dictionary including the definitions, too. Average length of a word is 5.1 characters. Assuming 2 byte characters because they will probably want to use some multinational words just to use extra space, that gives an average of 10.2 bytes per word, or about 398.5k with no compression. Probably about 56k after compression.
More math issues, each specific location takes 3 words, which will be an average of 30.6 bytes.
I believe 5MB includes dictionary for a lot of languages [no I don't think giving 2 bytes per char is enough as sufficient redundancy is not lost; for n languages, we need to multiply by n, the average size per language - yes in this case 5.1bytes are enough - i think they seem to use only small case.. so 5-bits per char is sufficient for an English like language]
Also 3 words don't need 30.6 bytes; you just store the 3 indices into the dictionary; ie 3 times 16bits; or 6 bytes each. [16 bits can index upto 64k words].
Also all 4B addresses can be ordered; hence you don't really need to explicitly store the lat, long; I believe they use some perfect hash tables to map this 4B address space into a 3 tuple of 16-bits each. [or take care of collisions in some way.. of course using direct storing requries 4B by 6 or 24GB]
Because the sponsors are castrol? [see the placement at about 1:15 -- seems they are pouring castrol into the simulator car which is anyway standstill]. May be if it were a tech company, the drivers will be in a data-center kind of environment.
Lot of file-system design was built over the block architecture of a disk; a spinning disk performs better for sequential data access [where the read-head stays in the same track]. So break up a file into blocks of say 4k bytes. Since SSD, I assume has same seek-time everywhere, it is like RAM. Does any file-system architecture exploit this new ability and drop any overhead associated with the HDD's block managements [like tracking i-nodes, de-fragmentation] etc.
I believe just like a malloc library, it can manage the SSD since access cost is same to all locations.
He's not giving anything away. This is a 'donation' to his family 'charity'. In other words a way to get around the inheritance tax. It's not by accident that this decision comes just after having a child.
I believe it also avoids capital gain tax [currently 15%] since the cost-basis resets for the recipient [not a CPA; but fairly sure this is how the rules are]. If Z'berg would sell say $100M of FB, almost all of this will be capital-gain [since his price/IPO price should be theoretically zero]; so he will owe 15% tax on this $100M. By donating/transferring to a "charity", the new charity gets cost-basis set to today's price and hence gain is zero/ no tax.
Yes the crew were not fully trained, but according to Airbus the plane couldn't get into the situation it was in, so why train pilots for that?
The plane can't get into that situation while the computer is in control. The Airbus flight computer has a final mode where it basically tells the pilots, "I give up, you fly the plane."
Seems in this case pilots never saw the "I give up message". The point is why did the software let the pilot to turn itself off; it should make it really really hard to let the pilot kill the automation [yes it takes crucial seconds, but too many accidents happen because the pilot could not recover the plane later]. May ask consent from all pilots/ introduce a time delay/ask a ground station.. yes this all takes time, but just killing automation these days sounds like sure death. Giving the ability to turn off automation is like a human having the ability to stop his heart from beating(which we don't have and there is a reason why evolution didn't give us that ability)
It's not really clear if democracy is not working. The standard of living of vast majority of people has gone thru' the roof in the last say 30/50 years. 1%-99% does not in itself a problem. It's just numbers and a 1%-er does not have a million mouths to consume; he too has only 5 sensory inputs and can't push in more inputs/impules [also he too has to lie dead (sleep) for 1/3rd of the time]. Things are good because we let innovation/technology to move at good speed -- harnessing nature (laws of physics) to aid in man's comfortable living.
If we accept each human is equal, one-vote, one-person has to be accepted. Hence democracy is the solution.
Now what's the problem -- I think in US, with just two parties (democrats/republicans), its easier for the 1P (1%-ers/powers-at-top/top-wealth-holders) to buy both the candidates. There should be ways for a 3rd party to rise quickly..ie before the 1P recognizes the new threat and buy them off too.
Information flow/distribution is the key. If a society allows this easily, the grip of 1P gets weaked. [state controlled media (like in North Korea), or 1P controlled media like CNN..who knows even GOOG/FB.. work for 1P and not the 99P (the other 99%)]. Now Internet can make a huge difference as Truth/Information can flow/spread much more easily. Just like why we don't see snake-oil salesmen today [but were present say 200 years ago], people can see thru' a lie -- when things are not working for the 99P but only for 1P.
As I see it, as long as science/technology/innovation is being allowed to expand and information is freely flowing, a society will thrive. When we go opposite [like in dark-ages or how it's happening now with ISIS], the group is kinda doomed [atleast temporarily...like few decades/centuries]
Greed is a great motivator (probably next only to Fear in selfishness-driven motives); so polarization of wealth may not be such a big deal after all.. Just watch/ensure if people (99P) are having a good time/standard of living..that's it. [if someone takes to alcohol/drugs n sit before the large LCD/LED screen.. hmm..it's his/her choice..society can make available information that they can find that/better happiness in something else too if they try.. v hard]
You know and we all know, re-distribution of wealth through force is not going to happen; what can happen is.. you can set up some system wide policies/rules. e.g. make it public, wealth/income records of the top 0.0001%. make it public their contribution to social programs. This is a way to shame folks who hoard too much of wealth. Only more transparency can shame a person that he is not playing fair -- whereever he/she goes (public programs), he starts feeling the dirty looks people give him and he is bound to share his wealth.
So asking an industry to not engage in certain acts xyz, is not going to work. You can make the act illegal. e.g. like anti-trust, get laws say Impeding-Innovation (II) [something which will benefit the vast majority of population]. Then prove/draw-to-court that an industry/company willfully engaged in II violation.
As you said, bribe exists. And of course you should build newer rules to counter it. It's an never ending war -- arms race; as power accumulates, you put in place checks-n-balances to counter it.. build some kind of negative-feedback loops so there is no runway polarization. Currently there is no better alternative to democracy; so need to work within it.
True; the oil giants were asleep at job. They should've plugged all holes [given they were at top - super power].. so no enemy can raise its head to challenge their number one position. Just make all the 7 billion follow some standard rules and ensure those rules don't allow a competitor to grow out of its infancy. job done.
What's wrong in protecting one's own business interest? in protecting one's current and future revenue stream?
This is the way the system is setup. The rules of the game. May be you can provide better rules [like say more transparency of capital flows, who is owning what and where they are directing their capital]; when someone is playing by the rules, you can't ask/beg them to change it [because you feel it's better for the world in large]
You say 'we accept'... how do you know 'we' exist? Can't it be that except you, all the rest are just robots? [ie they don't have any thoughts/thinking/emotions]. You never went into their head/mind/being to confirm they are also like you.
They will replace paid human drivers much faster than we can foresee. Capitalism and cutting costs will not wait even 1 second longer than when they can fire a bunch of vehicle (trunk, cab) drivers. I think the real market autonomous driving may be eyeing for is the long-haul trucking business.
Yes, most CPUs today are multi-core and we need language features which can automatically do parallelism. The best is when it happens without explicit programmer directive. Say when C was invented, complex mathematical expressions can be reordered/re-evaluated to best use the underlying hardware [register sets, ALUs]; the language gives guarantees using sequence-points, only when the dust settles down and the programmer can use the value.
Similarly in languages like python, operations on collections [like lists, iterators] can happen in parallel. e.g. if I call find-max(list_foo), the library can fire up as many threads into various cores at runtime to utilize the h/w better. That is a kind of micro parallelism which happens at runtime.
Of course if the problem is amenable to massive parallelism at top-level (ie at design/algorithm stage), the programmer can use explicit multi-threading programming paradigms.
Whether it impacts other NP problems or not depends on the NP problem (p1) that just got a smart solution. p1 no long is NP but goes into P. There is a subset of NP problems called NP-complete (NPC). These are kind of the most tough ones in NP; if one of these got solved in P, all NP are P [ie P == NP]. So if p1 belongs in NPC, it will impact all NP problems else no. [The reason NPC is special is because any NP problem can be transformed to some NPC problem in polynomial time]
yes, though initially it sounds counter intuitive; walmart knows how to keep the labor costs the bare minimum; it's in their DNA.
When most of the tech part [say in a specific cloud solution] is commoditized, the major operating-expense is going to be labor. Walmart can drive this low as they are experts on how to do this. The competition may not have the time to react to this assault. Again the same force which drives the middle-class to vanish will work on the higher and higher white collar tech jobs.
Interesting from a philosophical point of view -- the USB got energy little by little from the mother board -- saved up enough in its storage (capacitors) and then sent back one lethal shot to the "mother" back.
So always ask for expense report so you know where your money is going.
One of the aspects of AI/machine-learning is deep down it's only one algorithm. Just like a human mind/brain, it learns any skill-- the underlying brain structure/neurons is the same.
It can do things like object recognition in images(already available in google my-photos), facial recognition, voice recognition, language translation etc.
So to call something as AI it must just take in huge amounts of data and figure out a structure/classification in the data all by itself.
It's like you are given 100 pictures of cats and dogs (50 each) and then a new unforeseen picture is shown, the system tells it's a cat or a dog.
The system was never told first there are two classes of objects (ie dogs/cats).it automatically figures out there are two "types" of objects [may do something like curve fitting -- say in simplistic 2D, it's two straight lines..one for dogs and another for cats.. a new point is given and you figure out if it's closer to one of the lines]
So in this case, their system [if it's truly AI and not just using the buzzword to grab attention] should automatically figure out what a normal traffic pattern is and what an attack pattern is; and then take mitigation steps. That is all they need as input is the traffic data [like a network's netflow data]
That condition you state is hypothetical and exists only in imagination. It's like saying 1+1 is two and asking to refute it and give support.
And the words you say 'more effective than gun' --> it pretty much takes care of any argument [Things like tasers are non-lethal but they can still leave the other guy potentially capable of firing back].
Or basically there can't be any reply to that situation. Yeah 'Fun' could be a reply or 'I like it' could be another.
I guess today's tasers may have limitation based on range; so a taser may not be that effective if the subject is say 10 feet away; but the other guys' gun can effectively kill the officer from that distance.
That is, the Phaser you mention does not exist today in real world. A device which will guarantee to remove threat and ensure officer safety.
If the person is unarmed [and you can confirm this 100%], then yes there is no place for a gun and a non-lethal weapon can do the job.
Probably in future smart sensors (like radar) coupled with AI [google glass like thing which can say scan the subject for lethal weapons] can tell the officer the subject is unarmed and hence can avoid using lethal weapon; ie even if the person reaches for the pocket/car-glove-compartment, the officer knows the situation doesn't need the use of gun.
Slashdot Mirror
On one hand the idea that something that belongs to you handing you over to the authorities is distasteful. On the other hand hit-and-run drivers really suck; one of my college buddies was killed hit by one of them and left to die in ditch. He was just 29.
The hit-and-run guy did not wish your friend die either; it's just that he doesn't want to get caught. He didn't call paramedics because he did not have a way to do this anonymously. As a society, probably we should provide a way to do this. [not easy; but I think technologically feasible - "SOS at x,y" -- source can't be revealed]
Internet is a threat to movie-industry; say about 20 years ago, the cost to rent a movie or buy a DVD was high [relative to say a dinner price]. Today netflix/youtube are cheap because the market forces forced them to be so. Else people will go for pirated content. movie-industry was making huge profit from selling DVDs/blu-rays for a very high price; now with new sources of video content on internet, people no longer spend that much to movie-industry. They some how tried to limit the competition; but failed. [Similar to how SMS revenue fell when apps like whatsapp came over]
Just act as though you got cheated :p stupidity is forgiven more easily [Lawyer: My client may be stupid, but not guilty/bad]
Of course if there is a true enlightened person/female... who is above all comparison game..the above is not true for her.
That's a very ingenious way to bring in a law whose real purpose was different. It's like bringing in prohibition/drug-ban because you can help your cartel run the illegal business. Give a feel-good reason to the masses when the real reason is to aid the powers that be. So here is the algorithm -- when you want X, find some way to enact law Y which appeals to the masses; when Y is implemented as side-effect you will obtain X.
TFA appears to be some kind of FUD. No one has any doubt that Autonomous Vehicles will do better than people. With thirty thousand dead every year in the US it is arguable that trained chimps could do better than people.
What about lost GDP per lack of accident? a huge number of industries [health-care, auto-repair, insurance, new-auto-buying] will lose revenue; sure they will lobby to slow the adoption [just like uber vs taxi]
It takes them 5 MB to store a 40,000 word dictionary? They must be literally storing a dictionary including the definitions, too. Average length of a word is 5.1 characters. Assuming 2 byte characters because they will probably want to use some multinational words just to use extra space, that gives an average of 10.2 bytes per word, or about 398.5k with no compression. Probably about 56k after compression. More math issues, each specific location takes 3 words, which will be an average of 30.6 bytes.
I believe 5MB includes dictionary for a lot of languages [no I don't think giving 2 bytes per char is enough as sufficient redundancy is not lost; for n languages, we need to multiply by n, the average size per language - yes in this case 5.1bytes are enough - i think they seem to use only small case.. so 5-bits per char is sufficient for an English like language]
Also 3 words don't need 30.6 bytes; you just store the 3 indices into the dictionary; ie 3 times 16bits; or 6 bytes each. [16 bits can index upto 64k words]. Also all 4B addresses can be ordered; hence you don't really need to explicitly store the lat, long; I believe they use some perfect hash tables to map this 4B address space into a 3 tuple of 16-bits each. [or take care of collisions in some way.. of course using direct storing requries 4B by 6 or 24GB]
Then why are the drivers inside of the vehicle?
Because the sponsors are castrol? [see the placement at about 1:15 -- seems they are pouring castrol into the simulator car which is anyway standstill]. May be if it were a tech company, the drivers will be in a data-center kind of environment.
Lot of file-system design was built over the block architecture of a disk; a spinning disk performs better for sequential data access [where the read-head stays in the same track]. So break up a file into blocks of say 4k bytes. Since SSD, I assume has same seek-time everywhere, it is like RAM. Does any file-system architecture exploit this new ability and drop any overhead associated with the HDD's block managements [like tracking i-nodes, de-fragmentation] etc.
I believe just like a malloc library, it can manage the SSD since access cost is same to all locations.
He's not giving anything away. This is a 'donation' to his family 'charity'. In other words a way to get around the inheritance tax. It's not by accident that this decision comes just after having a child.
I believe it also avoids capital gain tax [currently 15%] since the cost-basis resets for the recipient [not a CPA; but fairly sure this is how the rules are]. If Z'berg would sell say $100M of FB, almost all of this will be capital-gain [since his price/IPO price should be theoretically zero]; so he will owe 15% tax on this $100M. By donating/transferring to a "charity", the new charity gets cost-basis set to today's price and hence gain is zero/ no tax.
The plane can't get into that situation while the computer is in control. The Airbus flight computer has a final mode where it basically tells the pilots, "I give up, you fly the plane."
Seems in this case pilots never saw the "I give up message". The point is why did the software let the pilot to turn itself off; it should make it really really hard to let the pilot kill the automation [yes it takes crucial seconds, but too many accidents happen because the pilot could not recover the plane later]. May ask consent from all pilots/ introduce a time delay/ask a ground station .. yes this all takes time, but just killing automation these days sounds like sure death. Giving the ability to turn off automation is like a human having the ability to stop his heart from beating(which we don't have and there is a reason why evolution didn't give us that ability)
If we accept each human is equal, one-vote, one-person has to be accepted. Hence democracy is the solution. Now what's the problem -- I think in US, with just two parties (democrats/republicans), its easier for the 1P (1%-ers/powers-at-top/top-wealth-holders) to buy both the candidates. There should be ways for a 3rd party to rise quickly
Information flow/distribution is the key. If a society allows this easily, the grip of 1P gets weaked. [state controlled media (like in North Korea), or 1P controlled media like CNN..who knows even GOOG/FB .. work for 1P and not the 99P (the other 99%)]. Now Internet can make a huge difference as Truth/Information can flow/spread much more easily. Just like why we don't see snake-oil salesmen today [but were present say 200 years ago], people can see thru' a lie -- when things are not working for the 99P but only for 1P.
As I see it, as long as science/technology/innovation is being allowed to expand and information is freely flowing, a society will thrive. When we go opposite [like in dark-ages or how it's happening now with ISIS], the group is kinda doomed [atleast temporarily...like few decades/centuries]
Greed is a great motivator (probably next only to Fear in selfishness-driven motives); so polarization of wealth may not be such a big deal after all.. Just watch/ensure if people (99P) are having a good time/standard of living..that's it. [if someone takes to alcohol/drugs n sit before the large LCD/LED screen.. hmm..it's his/her choice..society can make available information that they can find that/better happiness in something else too if they try.. v hard]
So asking an industry to not engage in certain acts xyz, is not going to work. You can make the act illegal. e.g. like anti-trust, get laws say Impeding-Innovation (II) [something which will benefit the vast majority of population]. Then prove/draw-to-court that an industry/company willfully engaged in II violation.
As you said, bribe exists. And of course you should build newer rules to counter it. It's an never ending war -- arms race; as power accumulates, you put in place checks-n-balances to counter it.. build some kind of negative-feedback loops so there is no runway polarization. Currently there is no better alternative to democracy; so need to work within it.
(3) A kind of dumb mind that can't see the stupidity of most tasks you were asked to perform. A liking to be an yes-man and a willingness to fit-in.
True; the oil giants were asleep at job. They should've plugged all holes [given they were at top - super power] .. so no enemy can raise its head to challenge their number one position. Just make all the 7 billion follow some standard rules and ensure those rules don't allow a competitor to grow out of its infancy. job done.
What's wrong in protecting one's own business interest? in protecting one's current and future revenue stream? This is the way the system is setup. The rules of the game. May be you can provide better rules [like say more transparency of capital flows, who is owning what and where they are directing their capital]; when someone is playing by the rules, you can't ask/beg them to change it [because you feel it's better for the world in large]
You say 'we accept'... how do you know 'we' exist? Can't it be that except you, all the rest are just robots? [ie they don't have any thoughts/thinking/emotions]. You never went into their head/mind/being to confirm they are also like you.
They will replace paid human drivers much faster than we can foresee. Capitalism and cutting costs will not wait even 1 second longer than when they can fire a bunch of vehicle (trunk, cab) drivers. I think the real market autonomous driving may be eyeing for is the long-haul trucking business.
Similarly in languages like python, operations on collections [like lists, iterators] can happen in parallel. e.g. if I call find-max(list_foo), the library can fire up as many threads into various cores at runtime to utilize the h/w better. That is a kind of micro parallelism which happens at runtime.
Of course if the problem is amenable to massive parallelism at top-level (ie at design/algorithm stage), the programmer can use explicit multi-threading programming paradigms.
Whether it impacts other NP problems or not depends on the NP problem (p1) that just got a smart solution. p1 no long is NP but goes into P. There is a subset of NP problems called NP-complete (NPC). These are kind of the most tough ones in NP; if one of these got solved in P, all NP are P [ie P == NP]. So if p1 belongs in NPC, it will impact all NP problems else no. [The reason NPC is special is because any NP problem can be transformed to some NPC problem in polynomial time]
yes, though initially it sounds counter intuitive; walmart knows how to keep the labor costs the bare minimum; it's in their DNA. When most of the tech part [say in a specific cloud solution] is commoditized, the major operating-expense is going to be labor. Walmart can drive this low as they are experts on how to do this. The competition may not have the time to react to this assault. Again the same force which drives the middle-class to vanish will work on the higher and higher white collar tech jobs.
So always ask for expense report so you know where your money is going.
One of the aspects of AI/machine-learning is deep down it's only one algorithm. Just like a human mind/brain, it learns any skill-- the underlying brain structure/neurons is the same. It can do things like object recognition in images(already available in google my-photos), facial recognition, voice recognition, language translation etc.
So to call something as AI it must just take in huge amounts of data and figure out a structure/classification in the data all by itself. It's like you are given 100 pictures of cats and dogs (50 each) and then a new unforeseen picture is shown, the system tells it's a cat or a dog. The system was never told first there are two classes of objects (ie dogs/cats).it automatically figures out there are two "types" of objects [may do something like curve fitting -- say in simplistic 2D, it's two straight lines..one for dogs and another for cats.. a new point is given and you figure out if it's closer to one of the lines]
So in this case, their system [if it's truly AI and not just using the buzzword to grab attention] should automatically figure out what a normal traffic pattern is and what an attack pattern is; and then take mitigation steps. That is all they need as input is the traffic data [like a network's netflow data]
That condition you state is hypothetical and exists only in imagination. It's like saying 1+1 is two and asking to refute it and give support. And the words you say 'more effective than gun' --> it pretty much takes care of any argument [Things like tasers are non-lethal but they can still leave the other guy potentially capable of firing back]. Or basically there can't be any reply to that situation. Yeah 'Fun' could be a reply or 'I like it' could be another.
That is, the Phaser you mention does not exist today in real world. A device which will guarantee to remove threat and ensure officer safety.
If the person is unarmed [and you can confirm this 100%], then yes there is no place for a gun and a non-lethal weapon can do the job.
Probably in future smart sensors (like radar) coupled with AI [google glass like thing which can say scan the subject for lethal weapons] can tell the officer the subject is unarmed and hence can avoid using lethal weapon; ie even if the person reaches for the pocket/car-glove-compartment, the officer knows the situation doesn't need the use of gun.