Please explain why did they make such a big deal out of trading the "formula" for "transparent aluminum" in the Star Trek IV movie, when it was just plain old sapphire ?
Yes, if all you need is a simple and slow sensor, then there are low-power options available. This device is targeted for more higher-end IoT applications.
How well is any piece of home hardware sitting on your local network going to withstand a "well-engineered attack".
If it runs the same linux kernel and internet services that people run on their public network, it's going to be comparatively hard to attack (DoS attacks excluded, of course).
A networked home device does not need to withstand anything of that sort
That depends on how it is employed. Some IoT devices run as WiFi AP, for instance. Others may have open ports to the outside world. Or maybe they are used on a company network, and you don't want your employees to have any kind of unauthorized access.
but real IoT devices live on a dirt cheap processor in a few kbytes, not Mbytes or GBytes and last for a year on a single battery.
Not if they are wifi-connected. That sucks power. Also, running a full TCP/IP stack with all the bells and whistles isn't going to work very well on a few kB. Sure, you can cram something in there that will work to some degree, but how is it going to withstand a well engineered attack for instance ?
they know they won't have deal with the consequences.
Of course they will. If one car manufacturer makes more accident-prone cars, the insurance company will notice this very quickly, and raise the premiums for those cars, or even refuse to insure. The consumers will then stop buying those cars.
There's no reason why there should automatically be a no-claims bonus in a self-driving car. If you have thousands of identical cars driving around, with the same sensors and software version, it makes no sense that the premium goes up for a single car that happened to be involved in an accident, since it is not any more or less likely to get in an accident than all the other similar cars.
A more sensible approach could be that the insurance company charges different rates for different model cars, based on averaged accident rates, but then you'd expect the manufacturer's insurance cost to be similar anyway.
If I have a personal insurance for the car, there's no burden on the consumer. I get into an accident, and the insurance company pays out, like they always do.
If it turns out the manufacturer of the car was negligent in some way, the insurance company is then quite capable of suing the car company and reclaim their expenses.
If one brand of car has structurally higher accident rates that require higher premiums, then I can choose not to buy one of those cars.
This already works well enough for any non-AI related flaws in current products. There's no need to make a special case out of AI.
So it would be better if the car had its own insurance
I don't see how that would be better. The insurance would still cost the same, except you'd be paying it to the manufacturer, instead of to the insurance company. But it gives you less flexibility in choosing an insurance company, and/or a suitable package for your individual needs.
Capital crimes can be dealt with by destruction of the robot.
And then the robot will be replaced by an identical one, with the same flaws ? And how does a jail punish a robot ? It'll just go into sleep mode until the sentence is over.
if your robot screws up then we take the robot from you
If you want to punish a company, simply give them an appropriate fine. Taking an arbitrarily priced robot is too random.
what would happen if a robot was put on trial? No robot can defend itself
There's no need to argue personhood until the robot can defend itself, or get its own lawyer, from its own income.
Slashdot Mirror
Sapphire glass fits the bill
Please explain why did they make such a big deal out of trading the "formula" for "transparent aluminum" in the Star Trek IV movie, when it was just plain old sapphire ?
That's a ceramic, not a metal. We've had transparent aluminum-based ceramics (corundum) forever.
Yes, if all you need is a simple and slow sensor, then there are low-power options available. This device is targeted for more higher-end IoT applications.
"the raspberry HAS wifi, and ethernet - and bluetooth too!"
Not native in the SoC, though. It uses an external SDIO/WiFi module and USB/Ethernet adapter.
How well is any piece of home hardware sitting on your local network going to withstand a "well-engineered attack".
If it runs the same linux kernel and internet services that people run on their public network, it's going to be comparatively hard to attack (DoS attacks excluded, of course).
A networked home device does not need to withstand anything of that sort
That depends on how it is employed. Some IoT devices run as WiFi AP, for instance. Others may have open ports to the outside world. Or maybe they are used on a company network, and you don't want your employees to have any kind of unauthorized access.
Which TOS exactly ?
after connecting a computer to the MIT network in an unmarked and unlocked closet,
How is that the same as downloading from a public facing web server ?
include WiFi connectivity as well as a number of other I/O options." so... pretty much exactly the specs of the original raspberry pi.
Yes, pretty much exactly, except for the part where the raspberry pi has no WiFi (or even Ethernet)
take something that isn't yours.
He didn't do that. He downloaded articles on a public facing web server.
but real IoT devices live on a dirt cheap processor in a few kbytes, not Mbytes or GBytes and last for a year on a single battery.
Not if they are wifi-connected. That sucks power. Also, running a full TCP/IP stack with all the bells and whistles isn't going to work very well on a few kB. Sure, you can cram something in there that will work to some degree, but how is it going to withstand a well engineered attack for instance ?
they know they won't have deal with the consequences.
Of course they will. If one car manufacturer makes more accident-prone cars, the insurance company will notice this very quickly, and raise the premiums for those cars, or even refuse to insure. The consumers will then stop buying those cars.
Loss of no-claims bonus, increases premiums etc.
There's no reason why there should automatically be a no-claims bonus in a self-driving car. If you have thousands of identical cars driving around, with the same sensors and software version, it makes no sense that the premium goes up for a single car that happened to be involved in an accident, since it is not any more or less likely to get in an accident than all the other similar cars.
A more sensible approach could be that the insurance company charges different rates for different model cars, based on averaged accident rates, but then you'd expect the manufacturer's insurance cost to be similar anyway.
We also let people make honest mistakes behind the wheel and kill other people. What are we going to do about that ?
And if Cable 1 is on VLAN 1 and Cable 2 is on VLAN 2
That is a physical cable isolation.
A VLAN may not help if the device can be compromised. It should be operated on a different physical network.
Why are they in casinos? Shouldn't they be swimming in the ocean?
Just read the article. They were in the lobby fish tank.
That's why making Volkswagen have mandatory insurance for their AI is a good idea
No, that's why having mandatory insurance is a good idea. Whether that is arranged by the manufacturer or the owner doesn't matter.
Why does anyone need a humanoid robot, why the fetish for a synthetic human slave, really at it's core extremely disturbing
Why isn't it equally disturbing when a blind person gets a guide dog as a canine slave ?
The manufacturer will have to bear the cost
If I have a personal insurance for the car, there's no burden on the consumer. I get into an accident, and the insurance company pays out, like they always do.
If it turns out the manufacturer of the car was negligent in some way, the insurance company is then quite capable of suing the car company and reclaim their expenses.
If one brand of car has structurally higher accident rates that require higher premiums, then I can choose not to buy one of those cars.
This already works well enough for any non-AI related flaws in current products. There's no need to make a special case out of AI.
So it would be better if the car had its own insurance
I don't see how that would be better. The insurance would still cost the same, except you'd be paying it to the manufacturer, instead of to the insurance company. But it gives you less flexibility in choosing an insurance company, and/or a suitable package for your individual needs.
Capital crimes can be dealt with by destruction of the robot.
And then the robot will be replaced by an identical one, with the same flaws ? And how does a jail punish a robot ? It'll just go into sleep mode until the sentence is over.
if your robot screws up then we take the robot from you
If you want to punish a company, simply give them an appropriate fine. Taking an arbitrarily priced robot is too random.
what would happen if a robot was put on trial? No robot can defend itself
There's no need to argue personhood until the robot can defend itself, or get its own lawyer, from its own income.
I've seen several lkml posts asking "is anyone using _____? If not, we'll remove it."
lkml is mostly for developers, though.
What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to go through to keep 68000 but drop the much newer Blackfin DSP
No mental gymnastics required. You just need a developer willing to support the 68k, and not have a developer for the Blackfin.
A robot doesn't need personhood until itself can argue for it.
This article talks about 'personhood' so that robots can be insured individually for damage they cause
My robot doesn't need personhood for me to get insurance for it. I'm the one paying for the insurance.
And heaven forbid taxes!
Taxes are fine. Robot taxes are crazy stupid.