I used to work in the area. We used to distinguish between AI, machine learning, and pattern recognition, and techiques, such as neural networks. Now, I feel the term is very much devalued.
When was this time when being smarter was required to be rich? In most of human history being moderately smart, and then physical strong, ruthless, or having a large army due to accident of birth was sufficient. Even now, just being born may be sufficient.
Schmidt says not enough people paying taxes. For one, older people pay a variety of taxes, and if an economy is growing, then tax on other areas of the economy (e.g. companies) should be sufficient.
"alexa, what should i wear today?"
"you had nothing suitable so I ordered you a new suit"
"I cant afford one"
"I sold one of your kidneys and they will take you to have it harvested at 5. Have a nice day"
Interesting idea, claiming that the people who came and saved your asses were "hiding" cowards.
If not for those "cowards" you'd probably be speaking German right now, and in constant fear of being sent to a labor camp until your eventual gassing for not saying the proper number of Sieg Heils every day.
The United States kept Britain free through lend / lease, and then without having a single shot fired at them by Germany put hundreds of thousands of troops into North Africa and France. The way you act, they should have just left well enough alone - maybe your ancestors would have been jailed and we wouldn't have you to deal with.
Fucking ungrateful ignorant moron.
Well, the USN had a number of minor engagements with the Kriegsmarine in 1941, and Germany declared war on the USA. Plenty more shooting before Operation Torch was launched, which was against the French.
We need to do that with a number of companies. In fact, I think that the west needs to consider saying that any company that occupies say 50+% of a niche, can not be allowed in to do business,
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
The EU is nothing but an irrelevant, undemocratic (because not directly elected), anti-capitalist (meddling with capitalist companies), authoritarian (because forcing ISPs to keep the data they want out of the hands of private companies, so they can give it to the police) institution where people are prosecuted for something as little as an "offensive" tweet.
And then you expect the rest of the world to take you seriously.
Zuckerberg was being questioned by MEPs, that are directly elected. The supreme body is the Council of Ministers, drawn from elected governments. With some irony the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK parliamentary sysyem, the country standing against more powers for MEPs being Britain.
There can be work to be done, but people do not always want to do it. Cheap transport that allows young people to be there to do the parts that are not automated, and then go to the local town can help keep young people there, as not everyone wants to spend the evening watching sunsets, or marrying cousins. I say this as someone from farming stock and only one cousin stayed farming, and his kids will not. When he retires in twenty years there may not be enough younger people with the skills.
It's a waste to build those 200 year roads when you don't even know if the city will be there for that time. Towns that were boom towns in the UK back then are in dire straights now, and Liverpool was tiny in comparison to now.
The value of a good to me isn't necessarily the cost to make it. Convenience is a factor, for example, and I'd pay $X for a hamburger at a ball game I wouldn't pay $X/2 for at other times
Previously you suggested constantly slowing down as an option. If not under control of a human then this needs more sophistication than AP to do this safely. It also requires warning and distracting other drivers with a new threat: a car will no longer be driving at the same speed as others I the lane, something known to cause both traffic jams and accidents. Pulling over its all very well but AP does not include the technology to do so safely, even assuming it is possible, as not all highways include the space to do so an not impede traffic.
Flashing, etc., internally to get attention is fine. Ditto revoking AP rights for a journey.
Tranferring control is a reasonable end goal, but how it is done is important. Perhaps the driver it's unconscious, in which case AP pulling the car over its safer than alternatives, but how do it distinguish that from lazy? Should it try to pull over, marginally increasing risk for other drivers, because there's a lazy driver? Who is to blame if that causes an accident? If it cause a traffic jam, who is responsible? There are a lot of unknowns.
No, not at all. Handing back control of something to someone who is not paying attention had decades of research to show it is a bad idea, even if it's not in conjunction with a ton or two of metal at 70mph. Making the car that do other things is also the wrong solution, as then you are distracting others, who have their own two tons of metal to pilot, for a conversation that the car and it's driver alone should be having. Again there is considerable actual research to show this is dangerous. This is not concern trolling, but evidence based.
So you are saying that if a driver is not paying attention, the car should drive in a way that endangers others? I don't think that is the answer either.
Right. Progressive at the time meant "eliminate slaverey", not "create a totalitarian surveillance state".
The latter doesn't seem to be particularly linked to progressivism, though.
Progressive is a word adopted by the extreme left in the 60s and 70's because "liberal" has such negative connotations
The term certainly long predates it, though. But the extreme left in the USA is vanishingly small. Liberal didn't, AFAIK, have such strongly negative connotations in the 1960s.
They did very similar with the civil rights movement, co-opting it after Democrats opposed civil rights bitterly, Then, once they were unable to directly fight for racism and segregation, and the problem was effectively solved by Rebublicans, on principle.
I'm baffled by what the timeline is you are proposing here.
to work to keep poor people poor.
I'm liberal, certainly not extreme left, but I've met and talked to people of a number of political persuasions, and I haven't met anyone on the left who believes in this.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work in the area. We used to distinguish between AI, machine learning, and pattern recognition, and techiques, such as neural networks. Now, I feel the term is very much devalued.
When was this time when being smarter was required to be rich? In most of human history being moderately smart, and then physical strong, ruthless, or having a large army due to accident of birth was sufficient. Even now, just being born may be sufficient.
Schmidt says not enough people paying taxes. For one, older people pay a variety of taxes, and if an economy is growing, then tax on other areas of the economy (e.g. companies) should be sufficient.
"alexa, what should i wear today?" "you had nothing suitable so I ordered you a new suit" "I cant afford one" "I sold one of your kidneys and they will take you to have it harvested at 5. Have a nice day"
In russia death metal listens to you, so staff are safe
www.vevo.com. Looks separate to me.
What kind of nonsense is that?
Paris was also spared as there was a lot if useful industry in it. 75% of French production went to Germany.
Paying for destroyers doesnt seem to be the same as lend lease.
Interesting idea, claiming that the people who came and saved your asses were "hiding" cowards.
If not for those "cowards" you'd probably be speaking German right now, and in constant fear of being sent to a labor camp until your eventual gassing for not saying the proper number of Sieg Heils every day.
The United States kept Britain free through lend / lease, and then without having a single shot fired at them by Germany put hundreds of thousands of troops into North Africa and France. The way you act, they should have just left well enough alone - maybe your ancestors would have been jailed and we wouldn't have you to deal with.
Fucking ungrateful ignorant moron.
Well, the USN had a number of minor engagements with the Kriegsmarine in 1941, and Germany declared war on the USA. Plenty more shooting before Operation Torch was launched, which was against the French.
When you probe these cases, often the reality doesnt match the headlines.
We need to do that with a number of companies. In fact, I think that the west needs to consider saying that any company that occupies say 50+% of a niche, can not be allowed in to do business,
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR? The EU is nothing but an irrelevant, undemocratic (because not directly elected), anti-capitalist (meddling with capitalist companies), authoritarian (because forcing ISPs to keep the data they want out of the hands of private companies, so they can give it to the police) institution where people are prosecuted for something as little as an "offensive" tweet. And then you expect the rest of the world to take you seriously.
Zuckerberg was being questioned by MEPs, that are directly elected. The supreme body is the Council of Ministers, drawn from elected governments. With some irony the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK parliamentary sysyem, the country standing against more powers for MEPs being Britain.
I'm no defender of MS, but it has started open sourcing number of new projects. Not Office, but certainly new stuff.
There can be work to be done, but people do not always want to do it. Cheap transport that allows young people to be there to do the parts that are not automated, and then go to the local town can help keep young people there, as not everyone wants to spend the evening watching sunsets, or marrying cousins. I say this as someone from farming stock and only one cousin stayed farming, and his kids will not. When he retires in twenty years there may not be enough younger people with the skills.
It's a waste to build those 200 year roads when you don't even know if the city will be there for that time. Towns that were boom towns in the UK back then are in dire straights now, and Liverpool was tiny in comparison to now.
Vote out the corrupt politicians?
It is not a dumb goal if you want people to farm the land too.
The value of a good to me isn't necessarily the cost to make it. Convenience is a factor, for example, and I'd pay $X for a hamburger at a ball game I wouldn't pay $X/2 for at other times
Previously you suggested constantly slowing down as an option. If not under control of a human then this needs more sophistication than AP to do this safely. It also requires warning and distracting other drivers with a new threat: a car will no longer be driving at the same speed as others I the lane, something known to cause both traffic jams and accidents. Pulling over its all very well but AP does not include the technology to do so safely, even assuming it is possible, as not all highways include the space to do so an not impede traffic.
Flashing, etc., internally to get attention is fine. Ditto revoking AP rights for a journey.
Tranferring control is a reasonable end goal, but how it is done is important. Perhaps the driver it's unconscious, in which case AP pulling the car over its safer than alternatives, but how do it distinguish that from lazy? Should it try to pull over, marginally increasing risk for other drivers, because there's a lazy driver? Who is to blame if that causes an accident? If it cause a traffic jam, who is responsible? There are a lot of unknowns .
No, not at all. Handing back control of something to someone who is not paying attention had decades of research to show it is a bad idea, even if it's not in conjunction with a ton or two of metal at 70mph. Making the car that do other things is also the wrong solution, as then you are distracting others, who have their own two tons of metal to pilot, for a conversation that the car and it's driver alone should be having. Again there is considerable actual research to show this is dangerous. This is not concern trolling, but evidence based.
No, I am simply saying that making the road more dangerous for others is not the way to deal with an issue of inattention.
So you are saying that if a driver is not paying attention, the car should drive in a way that endangers others? I don't think that is the answer either.
When someone is known to not be paying attention is not the best time to give them control
Right. Progressive at the time meant "eliminate slaverey", not "create a totalitarian surveillance state".
The latter doesn't seem to be particularly linked to progressivism, though.
Progressive is a word adopted by the extreme left in the 60s and 70's because "liberal" has such negative connotations
The term certainly long predates it, though. But the extreme left in the USA is vanishingly small. Liberal didn't, AFAIK, have such strongly negative connotations in the 1960s.
They did very similar with the civil rights movement, co-opting it after Democrats opposed civil rights bitterly, Then, once they were unable to directly fight for racism and segregation, and the problem was effectively solved by Rebublicans, on principle.
I'm baffled by what the timeline is you are proposing here.
to work to keep poor people poor.
I'm liberal, certainly not extreme left, but I've met and talked to people of a number of political persuasions, and I haven't met anyone on the left who believes in this.
Back in my day we had to write our own kernel. Regards, Linus.