I skimmed the full opinion, but a 1928 case is instructive. In the 1928 case of Palsgraf v. LIRR a women in a train station was injured when another passenger dropped a box of fireworks that caused some heavy equipment to fall on the women. The women sued the railroad company (as they likely had deeper pockets than the person dropping the fireworks). The court found that the rail road was too far removed from the events that occurred to find them liable. Here too, Twitter is too far removed from the actions of terrorists to find them liable.
This is a pretty interesting example of classic legal concepts being applied to new technology. Anyone who says that the law is outmoded or needs to catch up, only needs to read this opinion.
You're wrong about H.265. It offers massive compression improvements but also requires massively greater processing power to play back.
I've heard that on real-world cases, you typically see a 20-30% improvement. That's laudable and will certainly reduce YouTube's bandwidth bill, but hardly groundbreaking. It doesn't seem to be significant enough to enable new use-cases. And given the increased playback requirements, it may actually be a step backwards on mobile devices.
the path we're on right now is what has us voting for the worst possible people to hold office. The only effort I'm suggesting is showing up on election day...presumably only those that care enough would make the sacrifice. It would also severely limit the ability to vote harvest over weeks - and by that I mean individuals or groups that round up what can only be called "useful idiots" to cast votes in return for whatever - food, money, a ride, something to do, nothing, etc.
If the goal is improving vote quality, then it's much safer to improve the media and education apparatus, than to come up with artificial hurdles for voters. While it would be nice if there was a philosopher king that could choose voters based on education, intelligence, effort, etc., it's just too much power to give any one person or government entity. It's better to make voting incredibly easy, and develop strong first amendment rights (free flow of information) and quality institutions that utilize those rights. This way, the power to influence voting is spread among many instead of the few. It's not ideal, but it much less prone to developing too much power in too few.
I'm unsure whether technology itself is slowing down, humans have become accustomed to technological innovation, or constant marketing hype of failed tech dreams have taken a toll (there are arguments for all), but technology has begun to lose its luster. Long are the good old days when the mass of nerds would wait at the edge of their seat for the newest chip from intel, a new linux distro that did package management differently, a new type of modem or internet connection that was X% faster. Now, even drones and the constant ho-hum of AI technology barely raises most nerds attention from their breakfast cereal.
I have heard that the newest video code, H.265 (or HEVC), is extremely complex, while only offering minor performance gains. What is your opinion on this? Do you think it will catch on or go the way of JPEG2000?
Making threats easier to make increases the number of threats
Some points:
A - The purported purpose is to reduce violence, not reduce threats.
B - How does a gun emoji make it "easier" or encourage people to make threats when they can just type "gun", or "I'm gonna shoot you"?
C - Even assuming there is a link (which I don't think there is), how can that possibly be more important than censorship?
The iconic Blackberry has now become a patent troll. Sad.
They're a real company, with real patents, and sued someone in their industry who is infringing. Why is that a troll? How is that not just proper use of the patent system?
How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? I'm a pretty liberal guy, but this is liberalism going crazy. Removing characters from our language is not going to make the world more or less peaceful (and I'm sorry, but now emojis for better or worse, are part of our language). This is some crazy 1984 New Speak stuff.
Exactly the kind of government pork projects that we undertake in the USA. Except it would take 11 years and tens if billions of taxpayer dollars to get the pilot off the ground, which would fail miserably, then be abandoned.
China today is like the U.S. in the 40s to 70s. And I mean that in a good way.
You have the expense of laying track, plus the expense of producing a very small number of these extremely specialized vehicles.
There is a lot to criticize in this project, but the pace in which China can take crazy ideas, add manufacturing innovation, and put them into the real world is pretty spectacular.
This hacker was able to break into the security of LinkedIn, Tumblr, MySpace, and now Yahoo, and has only made a measly $65k? He or she could easily get triple that in less time by working for a reputable IT security company.
The reason why frauds like this persist has more to do with the media pushing the company's success story than the founders themselves. In the video attached to the article, you can see reporter Meg Tirrell bending over backwards to find the silver lining for Therenos. A little bit more realism and expertise in journalism would go a long way to preventing this harmful hype.
It does not mean 100% full-time hands-off operation while it engages you in witty banter with the voice of Anthony Daniels.
You can take your hands off of an airplane's controls while operating autopilot for seconds, or often even minutes. You cannot do that with Tesla's autopilot at all.
It sounds like really poor design if the car cannot detect some overhanging object that is above road level but can hit the roof of the Tesla. The Tesla engineers definitely missed a common use-case.
Yes, this is an extremely common use case. Tesla will likely fix it. But it does suggest that they have not put the appropriate thought into the thousands of less common use cases that will creep up when this product gets into the hands of more people.
A big part of road safety is that both drivers are trying to avoid an accident. When one driver abandons that philosophy, the chances of an accident instantly double. When both drivers abandon that philosophy, you pretty much guarantee there will be an accident.
But what makes this case unique, is that the Tesla driver's "mistake", was apparently putting too much trust in the autopilot system.
The only problem with the terminology is that there is a disconnect between what the common person on the street thinks the capabilities of an autopilot is versus its actual capabilities.
That's a big effing problem!! It's already led to one death, and can easily lead to many more.
Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.
tesla never called it safe or secure it clearly says keep hands on wheel.
This is from their website:
Tesla Autopilot relieves drivers of the most tedious and potentially dangerous aspects of road travel. We're building Autopilot to give you more confidence behind the wheel, increase your safety on the road, and make highway driving more enjoyable.
They don't say you can take your hands of the wheel, but they certainly give that impression.
Slashdot Mirror
I skimmed the full opinion, but a 1928 case is instructive. In the 1928 case of Palsgraf v. LIRR a women in a train station was injured when another passenger dropped a box of fireworks that caused some heavy equipment to fall on the women. The women sued the railroad company (as they likely had deeper pockets than the person dropping the fireworks). The court found that the rail road was too far removed from the events that occurred to find them liable. Here too, Twitter is too far removed from the actions of terrorists to find them liable.
This is a pretty interesting example of classic legal concepts being applied to new technology. Anyone who says that the law is outmoded or needs to catch up, only needs to read this opinion.
You're wrong about H.265. It offers massive compression improvements but also requires massively greater processing power to play back.
I've heard that on real-world cases, you typically see a 20-30% improvement. That's laudable and will certainly reduce YouTube's bandwidth bill, but hardly groundbreaking. It doesn't seem to be significant enough to enable new use-cases. And given the increased playback requirements, it may actually be a step backwards on mobile devices.
If you think that "s(:Ú÷Sòoè/$QÓ4dr£'XåÒúZúsUjÏpáåìa±‘2à¥n úÜê–¦G÷ájç4Íï`Ý^în&ä\ð}.Fú?x¥P. øòzóæ|w;¥Jt/6VÑTUýõ$mHôÿ ]}uóæ|/3àj½óTá`ümØ{*.?@8ÕG3àiå{üæò(#ÿ ñãWQÄÀ—€|åyð£ÎWÀü+‘\]r{25½öBÆaúvç+Ìø'3à~EX©5—ßÝ(ÊÆÛ]" is hot, then you're an idiot...
Until you get used to it. All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead.
Dude! You mistook that upper case "I" for a lowercase "l"... that chick has a dong.
the path we're on right now is what has us voting for the worst possible people to hold office. The only effort I'm suggesting is showing up on election day...presumably only those that care enough would make the sacrifice. It would also severely limit the ability to vote harvest over weeks - and by that I mean individuals or groups that round up what can only be called "useful idiots" to cast votes in return for whatever - food, money, a ride, something to do, nothing, etc.
If the goal is improving vote quality, then it's much safer to improve the media and education apparatus, than to come up with artificial hurdles for voters. While it would be nice if there was a philosopher king that could choose voters based on education, intelligence, effort, etc., it's just too much power to give any one person or government entity. It's better to make voting incredibly easy, and develop strong first amendment rights (free flow of information) and quality institutions that utilize those rights. This way, the power to influence voting is spread among many instead of the few. It's not ideal, but it much less prone to developing too much power in too few.
I'm unsure whether technology itself is slowing down, humans have become accustomed to technological innovation, or constant marketing hype of failed tech dreams have taken a toll (there are arguments for all), but technology has begun to lose its luster. Long are the good old days when the mass of nerds would wait at the edge of their seat for the newest chip from intel, a new linux distro that did package management differently, a new type of modem or internet connection that was X% faster. Now, even drones and the constant ho-hum of AI technology barely raises most nerds attention from their breakfast cereal.
I have heard that the newest video code, H.265 (or HEVC), is extremely complex, while only offering minor performance gains. What is your opinion on this? Do you think it will catch on or go the way of JPEG2000?
I only want people voting who put some effort into it.
And whomever gets to define "some effort" wins the elections.
this is about preventing issues arising from careless misuse of encapsulated messages with legal implications.
So we have to limit language in order to prevent people from using it "carelessly"? This is censorship in it's clearest form.
Oh the sore thumbs that will ensue! Apple, what have you done!
Making threats easier to make increases the number of threats
Some points:
A - The purported purpose is to reduce violence, not reduce threats.
B - How does a gun emoji make it "easier" or encourage people to make threats when they can just type "gun", or "I'm gonna shoot you"?
C - Even assuming there is a link (which I don't think there is), how can that possibly be more important than censorship?
The iconic Blackberry has now become a patent troll. Sad.
They're a real company, with real patents, and sued someone in their industry who is infringing. Why is that a troll? How is that not just proper use of the patent system?
How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? I'm a pretty liberal guy, but this is liberalism going crazy. Removing characters from our language is not going to make the world more or less peaceful (and I'm sorry, but now emojis for better or worse, are part of our language). This is some crazy 1984 New Speak stuff.
Exactly the kind of government pork projects that we undertake in the USA. Except it would take 11 years and tens if billions of taxpayer dollars to get the pilot off the ground, which would fail miserably, then be abandoned.
China today is like the U.S. in the 40s to 70s. And I mean that in a good way.
You have the expense of laying track, plus the expense of producing a very small number of these extremely specialized vehicles.
There is a lot to criticize in this project, but the pace in which China can take crazy ideas, add manufacturing innovation, and put them into the real world is pretty spectacular.
This hacker was able to break into the security of LinkedIn, Tumblr, MySpace, and now Yahoo, and has only made a measly $65k? He or she could easily get triple that in less time by working for a reputable IT security company.
The reason why frauds like this persist has more to do with the media pushing the company's success story than the founders themselves. In the video attached to the article, you can see reporter Meg Tirrell bending over backwards to find the silver lining for Therenos. A little bit more realism and expertise in journalism would go a long way to preventing this harmful hype.
resulting in a very high engineering drag coefficient
Eccentric billionaires... why must they use confounding jargon to say simple things!
It's already led to one death, and can easily lead to many more.
aka, "rich people problems". or rather, "stupid people who are rich, problems."
Tesla plans on rolling out this technology to the masses. If they're being this haphazard with the rich, I wonder what they'll do with everyone else.
It does not mean 100% full-time hands-off operation while it engages you in witty banter with the voice of Anthony Daniels.
You can take your hands off of an airplane's controls while operating autopilot for seconds, or often even minutes. You cannot do that with Tesla's autopilot at all.
It sounds like really poor design if the car cannot detect some overhanging object that is above road level but can hit the roof of the Tesla. The Tesla engineers definitely missed a common use-case.
Yes, this is an extremely common use case. Tesla will likely fix it. But it does suggest that they have not put the appropriate thought into the thousands of less common use cases that will creep up when this product gets into the hands of more people.
A big part of road safety is that both drivers are trying to avoid an accident. When one driver abandons that philosophy, the chances of an accident instantly double. When both drivers abandon that philosophy, you pretty much guarantee there will be an accident.
But what makes this case unique, is that the Tesla driver's "mistake", was apparently putting too much trust in the autopilot system.
The only problem with the terminology is that there is a disconnect between what the common person on the street thinks the capabilities of an autopilot is versus its actual capabilities.
That's a big effing problem!! It's already led to one death, and can easily lead to many more.
Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.
tesla never called it safe or secure it clearly says keep hands on wheel.
This is from their website:
Tesla Autopilot relieves drivers of the most tedious and potentially dangerous aspects of road travel. We're building Autopilot to give you more confidence behind the wheel, increase your safety on the road, and make highway driving more enjoyable.
They don't say you can take your hands of the wheel, but they certainly give that impression.
Everything I've read about the auto pilot feature states that you need to have your hands on the wheel at all times.
Everything but the name itself. Autopilot implies automatic piloting, i.e., little to no human intervention.