But of course, people driving themselves *never* act unpredictably, cause delays/accidents, ignore diversions/roadworks/cops, fail in adverse conditions, or kill people due to driving like idiots/jerks/spacing out/looking at their phones.
Why would you expect 100% perfection from self-driving cars, when humans are so monumentally far from it? Self-driving cars could do all the things you mentioned, and still be waaaaaaaaay safer than we are right now. (I'm not saying they're ready right this instant - that's why they're still completely in the test testing phase. I think 3 years to road-ready is a bit optimistic, but I think 10 years to road-ready would be a completely safe bet.)
Screw that. It means *exactly* the same thing. If my hypothetical brother needs money, I'll give him money, cause he's my brother. If my brother takes that money and blows it, maybe I'll do it again, because he made a mistake and really needs the money. If my brother takes that money and blows it also, and keeps doing it, then screw him, he's on his own, you only get so many shots.
Family only goes so far - it's an immediately loyalty bonus, but still, loyalty has to go both ways, and it has to be maintained. I know some people are like, family above all else, even if they're wrong, even if they're taking advantage, and we call those people: suckers.
What's wrong with using "loyalty" to a company? Loyalty just means the chance that you'll go out of your way to use them, vs. the chance you'll ditch them for a competitor at the first chance. There are plenty of companies I feel "loyal" to, because they've done things to make me value the services the provide, like provide consistently good customer service, or uniquely quality offerings, or the best prices, etc.
(The funny thing is, the companies always *asking* for our loyalty are never remotely the ones in that category, they're always ones offering completely generic service exactly the same as what their competitors provide.)
I have no problem with a company using "value" to describe the amount of money an employee makes for them, either - that *is* your value to the company. I have a problem with a company *incorrectly* calculating an employee's value, like "if you work in internal IT, you have negative value because you're earning a paycheck but not directly making the company money", or "your work can be directly boiled down to the amount of source code you provide", because those are *factually incorrect*. Value is often difficult to quantify, and depends wildly on the company and position, but that doesn't make it a flawed use of the word.
Screw the third world, I want Google to break the cruise ship internet cartel. The third world can benefit as an added bonus, but I want Google high speed internet halfway across the Atlantic ocean. Wired internet isn't going to accomplish that.:p
> "the one branch of the industry that is likely to pass the Turing test first."
That much is certainly true - I have a great quote about it from a random forum years ago that I wrote down cause it was brilliant: "As a person's sexual desire approaches infinity, their ability to administer a turing test approaches 0." (This taken from a humor piece in which the author set up bots that were *obviously* built from ELIZA in various adult chatrooms, and watched just *tons* of people try to cyber with them. Kinda depressing, really.)
It's specifically those two movies. Ok, to be fair, the first Hunger Games movie was a pretty successful adaptation, it was only the others that sucked horribly (and also to be fair, the other two books were crap compared to the first, too, just not by as wide a margin.) Mainly it was a comment about WWZ, though, a truly breathtakingly beautiful book turned into a generic boring white-guy-saves-the-planet-from-zombies movie, that wouldn't even have hurt nearly so much if it hadn't been nominally based on the book it wasn't really based on.
Those "deep" movies are crap, and I care more about older movies than newer ones, as those are the ones I'm most likely to want to see on netflix, as I either forgot to see them in theaters, or completely missed they existed until years later. So I basically agree with you, you were overreacting to my admittedly-vague snark about WWZ sucking bigtime.
> "2. It seems to me that the proposals are not for illegal immigrants but for Visa holders. " Well, it is true, it's pretty easy to track people who use credit cards... that's why spy shows always stress paying by cash. Oh wait, not that Visa.
No, we're saying that there's a huge difference between "we added a new thing!" and "we added something you actually want!" I seriously don't understand the mindset, which I see all over, of "it's new, therefore it must be better!" Like people saying "you don't like Windows 8? Go back to Windows 95 then, you mindless anti-progress hater!" Like, no, I like progress, there's just a difference between change and progress. Progress requires change, but change doesn't inherently make something better, just different.
Give me an actual fully-self-driving Google car, then we can talk about adding entertainment features. Until then, stop shoehorning silly crap that doesn't have to do with driving into cars just to raise the price even though people aren't asking for it.
> "Who proofreads this stuff? The grammar in these sentences and paragraphs is so bad, this whole interview is unreadable to someone who is a native English speaker. Either the person who transcribed this is not a native English speaker, or they are completely illiterate. Get it together, Dice - you're embarrassing yourself."
Were you adding all those mistakes to your post ironically/to prove some point? Anyway, fixed.:p
(To be fair, it's a trope about the topic, not the specific phrase, so it encompasses a number of similar phrases. But do a search of that page on that exact phrase, you'll find a number of hits, not only Columbo.)
I would include "expensive" quite definitively as a subset of "scary". Imagine someone told you "you are required to do this thing which will cost several million dollars". Wouldn't you be scared? I would be...
"It shows up next to foot-long penis ads so..." Dang, that is one massive, monitor-spanning advertisement. Whoever is responsible for that ad monstrosity not only presumably has a massive dick, but also *is* one. [/intentional misparsing]
I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, that's one of my favorite things about English - given proper context, you can quite easily verb nouns and noun verbs. I think that's all kinds of interesting. (I wouldn't say that science "is" a verb - I would say that science is a noun, which is being used a verb in that sentence after having a null morpheme applied to it. Though particular verbs that get used as nouns *often* enough eventually do graduate to being full dictionary-level verbs.)
Ugh, I actually worked with LeadTools at work a few years ago, it was a pain. We had to rip out all the calls to a previous imaging library because they'd changed their licensing terms to one upper management didn't like... then after I'd replaced everything with calls to LeadTools, it came down that upper management didn't like their terms anyway, and we were going to end up building our own. Which was fine by me, anyway, LeadTools' API is kinda mediocre.
Not sure what that has to do with working from home, though.
On the other hand, if you're visiting your friend in the suburbs, you probably also aren't going to have a problem parking.
I'm not going to go to a time-rental model for cars completely, no matter how cheap/convenient they get, for exactly the reason you describe, plus I like having my own car I can fill up with stuff and then leave that stuff there and know it'll be there later.
Still, there *are* also plenty of times driving yourself somewhere is not nearly as convenient (mostly due to parking considerations), so right now for those, the choice is driving anyway (inconvenient), public transportation (inconvenient for different reasons), or a taxi (crazy expensive). If robot cabs push down the price of a taxi significantly, that decision would skew heavily towards using a taxi for those specific instances, which would be *nice*. They're also exactly the instances the article describes where more people using taxis would help solve traffic congestion, so everyone wins.
> "D&D does have some decent franchises of its own though, a Planescape or Dark Sun movie would probably be TOO hardcore, "
Unfortunate, as those are the two franchises I absolutely *would* go see a movie about.
Well, alright, I'd see a Dragonlance movie, too, but only if the main characters were all gnomish inventors. Actually, Spelljammer would be pretty cool too - haven't seen nearly enough properly steampunky movies done right. That'd be pretty a pretty cool setting for a movie, actually.
I don't think they'd do any of that, though - I'm expecting generic Tolkien-inspired garbage movie #388-390 before the franchise flops too badly to bother.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they did say that "nobody expects" it... so what are you doing, going around expecting it for?
But of course, people driving themselves *never* act unpredictably, cause delays/accidents, ignore diversions/roadworks/cops, fail in adverse conditions, or kill people due to driving like idiots/jerks/spacing out/looking at their phones.
Why would you expect 100% perfection from self-driving cars, when humans are so monumentally far from it? Self-driving cars could do all the things you mentioned, and still be waaaaaaaaay safer than we are right now. (I'm not saying they're ready right this instant - that's why they're still completely in the test testing phase. I think 3 years to road-ready is a bit optimistic, but I think 10 years to road-ready would be a completely safe bet.)
Screw that. It means *exactly* the same thing. If my hypothetical brother needs money, I'll give him money, cause he's my brother. If my brother takes that money and blows it, maybe I'll do it again, because he made a mistake and really needs the money. If my brother takes that money and blows it also, and keeps doing it, then screw him, he's on his own, you only get so many shots.
Family only goes so far - it's an immediately loyalty bonus, but still, loyalty has to go both ways, and it has to be maintained. I know some people are like, family above all else, even if they're wrong, even if they're taking advantage, and we call those people: suckers.
What's wrong with using "loyalty" to a company? Loyalty just means the chance that you'll go out of your way to use them, vs. the chance you'll ditch them for a competitor at the first chance. There are plenty of companies I feel "loyal" to, because they've done things to make me value the services the provide, like provide consistently good customer service, or uniquely quality offerings, or the best prices, etc.
(The funny thing is, the companies always *asking* for our loyalty are never remotely the ones in that category, they're always ones offering completely generic service exactly the same as what their competitors provide.)
I have no problem with a company using "value" to describe the amount of money an employee makes for them, either - that *is* your value to the company. I have a problem with a company *incorrectly* calculating an employee's value, like "if you work in internal IT, you have negative value because you're earning a paycheck but not directly making the company money", or "your work can be directly boiled down to the amount of source code you provide", because those are *factually incorrect*. Value is often difficult to quantify, and depends wildly on the company and position, but that doesn't make it a flawed use of the word.
Just make sure they don't stampede.
You ever see cattle stampede when they got no place to run? Itâ(TM)s kinda like a meat grinder. [/obscure quote]
Certain corners of deviantart?
* Transporters
* Warp drive
* Tricorders
* Universal replicators
* Phasers
Screw the third world, I want Google to break the cruise ship internet cartel. The third world can benefit as an added bonus, but I want Google high speed internet halfway across the Atlantic ocean. Wired internet isn't going to accomplish that. :p
> "the one branch of the industry that is likely to pass the Turing test first."
That much is certainly true - I have a great quote about it from a random forum years ago that I wrote down cause it was brilliant: "As a person's sexual desire approaches infinity, their ability to administer a turing test approaches 0." (This taken from a humor piece in which the author set up bots that were *obviously* built from ELIZA in various adult chatrooms, and watched just *tons* of people try to cyber with them. Kinda depressing, really.)
It's specifically those two movies. Ok, to be fair, the first Hunger Games movie was a pretty successful adaptation, it was only the others that sucked horribly (and also to be fair, the other two books were crap compared to the first, too, just not by as wide a margin.) Mainly it was a comment about WWZ, though, a truly breathtakingly beautiful book turned into a generic boring white-guy-saves-the-planet-from-zombies movie, that wouldn't even have hurt nearly so much if it hadn't been nominally based on the book it wasn't really based on.
Those "deep" movies are crap, and I care more about older movies than newer ones, as those are the ones I'm most likely to want to see on netflix, as I either forgot to see them in theaters, or completely missed they existed until years later. So I basically agree with you, you were overreacting to my admittedly-vague snark about WWZ sucking bigtime.
"...won't be able to watch movies like The Hunger Games and World War Z"... "betting that customers won't miss the Epix content. "
Yeah, not with examples like those I won't...
> "2. It seems to me that the proposals are not for illegal immigrants but for Visa holders. "
Well, it is true, it's pretty easy to track people who use credit cards... that's why spy shows always stress paying by cash. Oh wait, not that Visa.
"The experiment participants know that if things go wrong they will not die."
Tell that to Tom Richwood! ;)
No, we're saying that there's a huge difference between "we added a new thing!" and "we added something you actually want!" I seriously don't understand the mindset, which I see all over, of "it's new, therefore it must be better!" Like people saying "you don't like Windows 8? Go back to Windows 95 then, you mindless anti-progress hater!" Like, no, I like progress, there's just a difference between change and progress. Progress requires change, but change doesn't inherently make something better, just different.
Give me an actual fully-self-driving Google car, then we can talk about adding entertainment features. Until then, stop shoehorning silly crap that doesn't have to do with driving into cars just to raise the price even though people aren't asking for it.
> "Who proofreads this stuff?
The grammar in these sentences and paragraphs is so bad, this whole interview is unreadable to someone who is a native English speaker. Either the person who transcribed this is not a native English speaker, or they are completely illiterate. Get it together, Dice - you're embarrassing yourself."
Were you adding all those mistakes to your post ironically/to prove some point? Anyway, fixed. :p
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
(To be fair, it's a trope about the topic, not the specific phrase, so it encompasses a number of similar phrases. But do a search of that page on that exact phrase, you'll find a number of hits, not only Columbo.)
I would include "expensive" quite definitively as a subset of "scary". Imagine someone told you "you are required to do this thing which will cost several million dollars". Wouldn't you be scared? I would be...
"It shows up next to foot-long penis ads so ..."
Dang, that is one massive, monitor-spanning advertisement. Whoever is responsible for that ad monstrosity not only presumably has a massive dick, but also *is* one. [/intentional misparsing]
I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, that's one of my favorite things about English - given proper context, you can quite easily verb nouns and noun verbs. I think that's all kinds of interesting. (I wouldn't say that science "is" a verb - I would say that science is a noun, which is being used a verb in that sentence after having a null morpheme applied to it. Though particular verbs that get used as nouns *often* enough eventually do graduate to being full dictionary-level verbs.)
Signed,
A descriptivist
Wondering if I'm the only one that was thinking it was some sort of prank, that somehow we could see, say, these guys from space?
Cars go significantly faster, though, not to mention they don't poop all over the road.
Yes, I also read that. I was like, dang, I thought they killed that awful thing ages ago, now it's back, and reading jokes?
Ugh, I actually worked with LeadTools at work a few years ago, it was a pain. We had to rip out all the calls to a previous imaging library because they'd changed their licensing terms to one upper management didn't like... then after I'd replaced everything with calls to LeadTools, it came down that upper management didn't like their terms anyway, and we were going to end up building our own. Which was fine by me, anyway, LeadTools' API is kinda mediocre.
Not sure what that has to do with working from home, though.
On the other hand, if you're visiting your friend in the suburbs, you probably also aren't going to have a problem parking.
I'm not going to go to a time-rental model for cars completely, no matter how cheap/convenient they get, for exactly the reason you describe, plus I like having my own car I can fill up with stuff and then leave that stuff there and know it'll be there later.
Still, there *are* also plenty of times driving yourself somewhere is not nearly as convenient (mostly due to parking considerations), so right now for those, the choice is driving anyway (inconvenient), public transportation (inconvenient for different reasons), or a taxi (crazy expensive). If robot cabs push down the price of a taxi significantly, that decision would skew heavily towards using a taxi for those specific instances, which would be *nice*. They're also exactly the instances the article describes where more people using taxis would help solve traffic congestion, so everyone wins.
> "D&D does have some decent franchises of its own though, a Planescape or Dark Sun movie would probably be TOO hardcore, "
Unfortunate, as those are the two franchises I absolutely *would* go see a movie about.
Well, alright, I'd see a Dragonlance movie, too, but only if the main characters were all gnomish inventors. Actually, Spelljammer would be pretty cool too - haven't seen nearly enough properly steampunky movies done right. That'd be pretty a pretty cool setting for a movie, actually.
I don't think they'd do any of that, though - I'm expecting generic Tolkien-inspired garbage movie #388-390 before the franchise flops too badly to bother.