And everyone with a car navigation system all know that the maps are always going to be completely accurate and should be trusted...
When driving, I usually consult the map for the actual speed limit than try to rely on the (often missing) signs. So many times, I've merged on a freeway, and not seen an actual sign near the on-ramp.
Either way, the self-driving car can still read the signs, use map when sign is missing or unreadable, pick the safest option in case of a conflict, and report inconsistencies.
Small changes in the environment shouldn't matter. In the future, they could automatically make updates to the map using the 3D scans from all the cars passing points that show discrepancies in the old map. Maybe they're already doing that.
The deliberate fakes are carefully tuned to a particular network. If you don't know the network, you can't just make a fake.
Besides, is this really a problem ? You could replace a 35 mph speed limit sign with a deliberate fake that says 65, if you wanted, but that's not really a major issue, it seems.
The most popular form of copyright infringement is stream-ripping (32%) using easily available software to record the audio from sites like YouTube at a low-quality bit rate
Sounds like a lot of work. I just listen to youtube with an ad blocker. Gives me exactly the same result, and it's not copyright infringement.
Technically it's not your fault, but legally it is. Doesn't matter much, because the insurance picks up the tab anyway. They don't send a driver to prison for causing a deadly accident.
Where I live, it's the same when there's a collision between a car and a bicycle or pedestrian. Legally, the car is always at fault, even if it did nothing wrong.
most modern screens emit light only at 3 specific frequencies
Only OLEDs do that (and they don't work with these glasses).
Normal TFT LCD screens use white backlight and 3 different colored filters. The filters are fairly wide band (easier to make and also better for increased brightness). The white backlight spectrum differs based on the light source. Older screens used fluorescent CCFL bulbs with fairly narrow spectral lines, but they had quite many, and the position depends on the phosphor mixture. Newer screens use white LEDs (typically blue/UV LED + yellow phosphor) with wide spectrum.
GP was talking about LED traffic lights, not screens.
And the polarization in screens is not to reduce glare, but because that's how the liquid crystals operate. A voltage on pixel doesn't make the liquid crystal dark, it just turns the polarization angle. They mount a polarizing filter in front of the display to actually make it dark. Old trick is to remove the filter from a screen and turn it. This will invert the colors. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They use different angle of polarization, that's all. There is no way they can block out the wavelengths, because TFT displays work with fairly wide filters.
block the wavelengths of light that comes from LED and LCD
Has nothing to do with wavelength, but with polarization of the light. Anybody who has looked at screens with polarizing sunglasses is familiar with the effect.
A deadline based on the idea that nothing goes wrong is a good strategy. Obviously, things will go wrong, and you'll slip. But if you had put in sufficient slack right from the start, people would use up the slack, and then still hit problems.
Even shorter deadlines are counterproductive, because if prospects are completely hopeless, people start giving up. You want to give the engineers just enough hope that they can do it.
So what do you suggest? That we tax fossil fuel use to oblivion or stop it entirely.
I suggest that we gradually phase out fossil fuels, starting in 1980. Take 30 years to do first half, and then another 30 years to do the second half. Increasing taxation sounds like a reasonable plan to make the market do the work in an efficient manner.
Let's assume that we can go *snap* and all the fossil fuels are locked away from us and can't be touched for 100 years.
That's the current plan. Keep using fossil fuels until they are too expensive, and then go *snap*. Where's your analysis of that situation ?
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
I wouldn't be so sure. Switching will take huge investments, not just in money but also in energy. If you wait until fossil fuels are more expensive, then switching also becomes more expensive.
It is entirely possible for a society to wait so long that they can no longer afford to switch.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not normal to be conducting trials where people are not given the option of refusing to consent specifically because things can go wrong
Thousands of people die every day because things went wrong they didn't consent to.
And everyone with a car navigation system all know that the maps are always going to be completely accurate and should be trusted...
When driving, I usually consult the map for the actual speed limit than try to rely on the (often missing) signs. So many times, I've merged on a freeway, and not seen an actual sign near the on-ramp.
Either way, the self-driving car can still read the signs, use map when sign is missing or unreadable, pick the safest option in case of a conflict, and report inconsistencies.
they haven't way over 99.99% of the human race has never been in, with or near a driverless Waymo car.
They let me drive legally on the road after a single 1 hour test, where I also didn't see 99.99% of the human race, maybe even more.
Waymo's had quite a few.
In how many cases was their driverless vehicle to blame ?
But no one is going to see a 65 MPH speed limit sign on a residential road
It was just an example. If you can think of a better example of people tampering with traffic signs, use that instead.
A self driving car wouldn't get fooled by the sign either. It has a map with all the speed limits.
Small changes in the environment shouldn't matter. In the future, they could automatically make updates to the map using the 3D scans from all the cars passing points that show discrepancies in the old map. Maybe they're already doing that.
They should have racked up a million miles on test tracks before moving to anything with even limited public exposure.
Why ? How many accidents did they cause ?
Don't worry. Every slashdot comment is framed and hung up in the board room. True goldmine here.
Even if they put 3 trillion miles on their system, if they confine it to just a few geographical areas, I don't trust it very much
Outside those areas, you wouldn't have to trust it, because they won't be driving there.
The deliberate fakes are carefully tuned to a particular network. If you don't know the network, you can't just make a fake.
Besides, is this really a problem ? You could replace a 35 mph speed limit sign with a deliberate fake that says 65, if you wanted, but that's not really a major issue, it seems.
The most popular form of copyright infringement is stream-ripping (32%) using easily available software to record the audio from sites like YouTube at a low-quality bit rate
Sounds like a lot of work. I just listen to youtube with an ad blocker. Gives me exactly the same result, and it's not copyright infringement.
They will add a generator to the wheels. Resistance will be set according to your fitness.
Technically it's not your fault, but legally it is. Doesn't matter much, because the insurance picks up the tab anyway. They don't send a driver to prison for causing a deadly accident.
Where I live, it's the same when there's a collision between a car and a bicycle or pedestrian. Legally, the car is always at fault, even if it did nothing wrong.
Transmissive panels use white light as their backlight. The pixels have RGB filters in them.
most modern screens emit light only at 3 specific frequencies
Only OLEDs do that (and they don't work with these glasses).
Normal TFT LCD screens use white backlight and 3 different colored filters. The filters are fairly wide band (easier to make and also better for increased brightness). The white backlight spectrum differs based on the light source. Older screens used fluorescent CCFL bulbs with fairly narrow spectral lines, but they had quite many, and the position depends on the phosphor mixture. Newer screens use white LEDs (typically blue/UV LED + yellow phosphor) with wide spectrum.
GP was talking about LED traffic lights, not screens.
And the polarization in screens is not to reduce glare, but because that's how the liquid crystals operate. A voltage on pixel doesn't make the liquid crystal dark, it just turns the polarization angle. They mount a polarizing filter in front of the display to actually make it dark. Old trick is to remove the filter from a screen and turn it. This will invert the colors. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So their glasses only work with 85-90% of the displays.
They use different angle of polarization, that's all. There is no way they can block out the wavelengths, because TFT displays work with fairly wide filters.
LED lights aren't polarized, so the glasses have no effect on them.
block the wavelengths of light that comes from LED and LCD
Has nothing to do with wavelength, but with polarization of the light. Anybody who has looked at screens with polarizing sunglasses is familiar with the effect.
A deadline based on the idea that nothing goes wrong is a good strategy. Obviously, things will go wrong, and you'll slip. But if you had put in sufficient slack right from the start, people would use up the slack, and then still hit problems.
Even shorter deadlines are counterproductive, because if prospects are completely hopeless, people start giving up. You want to give the engineers just enough hope that they can do it.
Ocean acidification is still a problem, though. Potentially more serious than global warming.
So what do you suggest? That we tax fossil fuel use to oblivion or stop it entirely.
I suggest that we gradually phase out fossil fuels, starting in 1980. Take 30 years to do first half, and then another 30 years to do the second half. Increasing taxation sounds like a reasonable plan to make the market do the work in an efficient manner.
Let's assume that we can go *snap* and all the fossil fuels are locked away from us and can't be touched for 100 years.
That's the current plan. Keep using fossil fuels until they are too expensive, and then go *snap*. Where's your analysis of that situation ?
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
I wouldn't be so sure. Switching will take huge investments, not just in money but also in energy. If you wait until fossil fuels are more expensive, then switching also becomes more expensive.
It is entirely possible for a society to wait so long that they can no longer afford to switch.
Not doing anything is not a long term option, because the fossil fuels will run out, or become too expensive to exploit.
The question is not if we should move away from fossil fuels, but when.
Also the Dragon capsule has its own thrusters and guidance system to make the necessary orbital adjustments to dock with ISS, so there's no problem.