TFL actually mentions that it didn't differentiate between the 3g and 3gs. Since the BB Curve series is only.3% behind, if they didn't combine them then the iPhone wouldn't be #1. Hence the "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" bit.
But not better than all/I> the BB's. It looked like they combined the iPhone models, but not the rest. Lies, Damn lies, and all that...
Regardless of whether it is the top, or close to the top, it is indisputable that it's up there, and not providing the necessary service for it is simply inexcusable.
but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person; wouldn't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine? A cell phone is not different, is it?
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
For reinforcing how confident he is in his company and its talent that they don't have to horde every last engineer? Yeah, sucks to have that in a VP. It would be so much better to have a VP afraid to say anything, who has no confidence in his own workforce, and who thinks that if he doesn't have every last talented engineer it means ZOMG DOOM!
The reason so many people have issues with Google isn't because they do things differently, it's because they do things differently and are more successful than those doing it the old way.
I've seen that too. I don't know if it is laziness, intentional, or if they just don't understand what it is that they are reporting.
As for Murdoch and his lot: it's not like they are the only ones reporting these stories. If he removes his sites, the same stories are still going to be covered by dozens of other sources. You would need all of them to migrate away from Google, and that just won't happen. Too many others will see the opportunity that Murdoch either cannot or will not.
That's because in ten years we will be moving away from technology and into the realm of latent psychic abilities.
If I'm wrong, no one will remember; but, if I'm right, I'm a frickin' genius!
For all the technologies that SciFi imagined and helped create, tehre are thousands more that just didn't happen. So of the thousands upon thousands of SciFi stories being written every year, i think you will be able to find some that accurately predicted the rise in tech. They just may not be the mainstream, big name ones. That is perhaps the difference.
Many a SciFi story I've read has used this kind of thing for wounds. I wonder how soon until they have it to the point where these slices are vacuum packed and you can open it and stuff it into a wound in the field?
Yeah I tried Wolfram|Alpha out when it was first released with pretty crappy results. Just not sure how a meh site is going to improved by a crappy one.
Ever since we developed the bow we need to worry about people abusing the ability to kill at a distance but this drone tech isn't revolutionary
Right, but you had to be in bow distance yourself. Drone allow for no reciprocity. The sub that launched the torpedo was subject to depth charges. The captive mines had to be placed by ship or sub, also at risk. That's the point. the risk with drones is only to the drone, not to the operator. That's the change. I'm not saying that's not a logical progression from cruise missiles and smart weapon systems, I'm aying its a step in the wrong direction long term.
I appreciate that you are focused on denying their ability for sentience and don't argue taht point at all. My point was that we have the technology for drones to fly from point A to B without human interaction, to distinguish between vehicles and stationary targets, and to carry weapon systems that allow them to engage these targets. The Autonomous point doesn't revolve around them deciding of their own accord to it, it has to do with the technology necessary for them to carry out their mission without a human safegaurd. Just because you build them now with the intelligence of a moth, doesn't mean that you always will. Hell, even hobbyists have built model airplanes that can fly across the atlantic using a GPS and homebrew autopilot.
The point is far deeper than that though, and it is one that you avoided completely: The fear, at least mine, isn't predicated on the computers suddenly becoming self aware, it has to do with the concept itself. The argument, at its very core, is that using drones to do our fight removes the human cost of casualties, but only for us. So it allows the use of force, without a corresponding risk. That's the balance that is out of whack. That is why we should not be pursuing this technology, and that is the point that you assiduously avoided.
The question is, are you OK employing a technology that kills people, whilst leaving the human deciding that free from mortal harm themselves. Bombers have to deal with enemy fighters, flak, and SAM's. Tanks have to deal with anti-tank crews and enemy aircraft. Soldiers have to deal with all that and more. Why is it OK to exact death from a distance without personally putting yourself in harm's way? Long term that path leads to far more bad things than good, IMHO, and that is from whence the fear comes. Not your strawman.
Sure its FUD now, but how much of a technological leap will be required for a swarm of autonomous drones to leave a base, independently traverse the intervening terrain, and then independently attack targets based on whatever parameter is fed into them? All without any human intervention other than the initial order? None?
The fear, at least mine, isn't predicated on the computers suddenly becoming self aware, it has to do with the concept itself. The more immediate fear is that the safegaurds in place will become slackened over time. As it is, if we weren't remotely concerned about civilian casualties or friendly fire, would have even half the restraints we do now? How much easier will it be to lessen those when none of our guys are anywhere near the enemy?
I realize at its base this is the same fear as went with the launching of nuclear missiles, with the near instant destruction of entire cities at only a few fingertips. So much destructive force could never allow an easing of those regulations though. It just couldn't. But a swarm of drones can't do the same damage as nuke (yet), so how much longer will all those extra measures remain in place? Especially when anyone or anything near the target is regarded as an enemy?
The other issue is a far more fundamental one in regards to the use of drones at all. Precisely because they allow for the inflicting of destruction without putting any of our people in harms way. There is something deeply wrong with that. The use of force has always been one of balances. If you are willing to use military force, than you must also be willing to accept the losses. That's the balance, the cost for the benefit. Drones change that balance. You can get the benefit without paying the cost, essentially. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything good coming from that equation, and that is the core basis of my fear, too much power, with not enough checks on it, has always ended badly for all concerned.
a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.
I understand where you're coming from, because I used to think that way, too. But the reality is that traffic laws, regardless of their merit, are a variable that is part of driving. Same as rain, fog, curves, and traffic. If you ignore them, it is same as if you ignore the rain or an upcoming curve, and indicates that you don't actually have your car fully in control. That doesn't mean that you can't handle the car better or more precisely than someone who always follows the laws, it just means that it is as much of a variable as the others, and that not addressing does affect how in control you are.
Also, my comment about it you at the end in hindsight was snarky and unnecessary. Sorry for that.
Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.
If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'd give 'em two ones and tell them to keep the change.
How do you secretly MAKE people submit to new body searches
By telling them afterwards, "This is our little secret..."
TFL actually mentions that it didn't differentiate between the 3g and 3gs. Since the BB Curve series is only .3% behind, if they didn't combine them then the iPhone wouldn't be #1. Hence the "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" bit.
But not better than all/I> the BB's. It looked like they combined the iPhone models, but not the rest. Lies, Damn lies, and all that...
Regardless of whether it is the top, or close to the top, it is indisputable that it's up there, and not providing the necessary service for it is simply inexcusable.
There's an app for that.
but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person; wouldn't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine? A cell phone is not different, is it?
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
Bummer the Zombiacolypse is slated to occur when you and your buddies are in Vegas for that bachelor party...
Think of how much damage a 9mm does and then realize it was probably a 35mm camera! It must be like 3 times as powerful!
For reinforcing how confident he is in his company and its talent that they don't have to horde every last engineer? Yeah, sucks to have that in a VP. It would be so much better to have a VP afraid to say anything, who has no confidence in his own workforce, and who thinks that if he doesn't have every last talented engineer it means ZOMG DOOM!
The reason so many people have issues with Google isn't because they do things differently, it's because they do things differently and are more successful than those doing it the old way.
If only they had offered eggs with their Spam...
I've seen that too. I don't know if it is laziness, intentional, or if they just don't understand what it is that they are reporting.
As for Murdoch and his lot: it's not like they are the only ones reporting these stories. If he removes his sites, the same stories are still going to be covered by dozens of other sources. You would need all of them to migrate away from Google, and that just won't happen. Too many others will see the opportunity that Murdoch either cannot or will not.
That's because in ten years we will be moving away from technology and into the realm of latent psychic abilities.
If I'm wrong, no one will remember; but, if I'm right, I'm a frickin' genius!
For all the technologies that SciFi imagined and helped create, tehre are thousands more that just didn't happen. So of the thousands upon thousands of SciFi stories being written every year, i think you will be able to find some that accurately predicted the rise in tech. They just may not be the mainstream, big name ones. That is perhaps the difference.
Just give him a Gnubel Prize and call it good.
Many a SciFi story I've read has used this kind of thing for wounds. I wonder how soon until they have it to the point where these slices are vacuum packed and you can open it and stuff it into a wound in the field?
That was my thought, too. It doesn't seem like they are in different categories so much as different leagues.
Yeah I tried Wolfram|Alpha out when it was first released with pretty crappy results. Just not sure how a meh site is going to improved by a crappy one.
Well played, sir!
And why exactly hasn't Glenn Beck come to his fan's defense and denied that they are drooling retards? Why indeed...
Ever since we developed the bow we need to worry about people abusing the ability to kill at a distance but this drone tech isn't revolutionary
Right, but you had to be in bow distance yourself. Drone allow for no reciprocity. The sub that launched the torpedo was subject to depth charges. The captive mines had to be placed by ship or sub, also at risk. That's the point. the risk with drones is only to the drone, not to the operator. That's the change. I'm not saying that's not a logical progression from cruise missiles and smart weapon systems, I'm aying its a step in the wrong direction long term.
I appreciate that you are focused on denying their ability for sentience and don't argue taht point at all. My point was that we have the technology for drones to fly from point A to B without human interaction, to distinguish between vehicles and stationary targets, and to carry weapon systems that allow them to engage these targets. The Autonomous point doesn't revolve around them deciding of their own accord to it, it has to do with the technology necessary for them to carry out their mission without a human safegaurd. Just because you build them now with the intelligence of a moth, doesn't mean that you always will. Hell, even hobbyists have built model airplanes that can fly across the atlantic using a GPS and homebrew autopilot.
The point is far deeper than that though, and it is one that you avoided completely: The fear, at least mine, isn't predicated on the computers suddenly becoming self aware, it has to do with the concept itself. The argument, at its very core, is that using drones to do our fight removes the human cost of casualties, but only for us. So it allows the use of force, without a corresponding risk. That's the balance that is out of whack. That is why we should not be pursuing this technology, and that is the point that you assiduously avoided.
The question is, are you OK employing a technology that kills people, whilst leaving the human deciding that free from mortal harm themselves. Bombers have to deal with enemy fighters, flak, and SAM's. Tanks have to deal with anti-tank crews and enemy aircraft. Soldiers have to deal with all that and more. Why is it OK to exact death from a distance without personally putting yourself in harm's way? Long term that path leads to far more bad things than good, IMHO, and that is from whence the fear comes. Not your strawman.
Sure its FUD now, but how much of a technological leap will be required for a swarm of autonomous drones to leave a base, independently traverse the intervening terrain, and then independently attack targets based on whatever parameter is fed into them? All without any human intervention other than the initial order? None?
The fear, at least mine, isn't predicated on the computers suddenly becoming self aware, it has to do with the concept itself. The more immediate fear is that the safegaurds in place will become slackened over time. As it is, if we weren't remotely concerned about civilian casualties or friendly fire, would have even half the restraints we do now? How much easier will it be to lessen those when none of our guys are anywhere near the enemy?
I realize at its base this is the same fear as went with the launching of nuclear missiles, with the near instant destruction of entire cities at only a few fingertips. So much destructive force could never allow an easing of those regulations though. It just couldn't. But a swarm of drones can't do the same damage as nuke (yet), so how much longer will all those extra measures remain in place? Especially when anyone or anything near the target is regarded as an enemy?
The other issue is a far more fundamental one in regards to the use of drones at all. Precisely because they allow for the inflicting of destruction without putting any of our people in harms way. There is something deeply wrong with that. The use of force has always been one of balances. If you are willing to use military force, than you must also be willing to accept the losses. That's the balance, the cost for the benefit. Drones change that balance. You can get the benefit without paying the cost, essentially. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything good coming from that equation, and that is the core basis of my fear, too much power, with not enough checks on it, has always ended badly for all concerned.
Skynet!
a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.
I understand where you're coming from, because I used to think that way, too. But the reality is that traffic laws, regardless of their merit, are a variable that is part of driving. Same as rain, fog, curves, and traffic. If you ignore them, it is same as if you ignore the rain or an upcoming curve, and indicates that you don't actually have your car fully in control. That doesn't mean that you can't handle the car better or more precisely than someone who always follows the laws, it just means that it is as much of a variable as the others, and that not addressing does affect how in control you are.
Also, my comment about it you at the end in hindsight was snarky and unnecessary. Sorry for that.
Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.
If you cannot maintain your speed at the posted limit, and have no respect for when a U-Turn is allowed or appropriate, than you are not maintaining "superior control" of your vehicle. You're just trying to justify your asshattery. (Yes, we all got that you're talking about youself.)
Isn't this what the Mayan's prophisied for 2012?
C'mon Slashdot, you can do better than that.