If the monthly updates took five minutes and the semi-annual updates took 30, instead of the hours they currently take, I think it would go a long way to solving the other issues.
Would it solve the issue of a forced reboot three days into a four day model run? Really?
Will faster updates fix the issue of broken software? Really?
A transistor even giving out a 0 bit is still using energy.
What passes for nerds today. Really. A static data bit doesn't consume much energy. It is changing ones to zeros and zeros to ones, with the associated charges on the explicit and implicit capacitances of the circuitry that consumes the power. That's why a faster computer consumes more energy. That's why computing something instead of being idle consumes more power.
That said, The claim that it will not use additional battery life is dubious.
It's Microsoft. When is any of their claims not dubious?
As it may write the data before the drive spins down,
Another energy sink: moving the drive's heads for spinning rust. Or writing to an SSD. Just writing data to disk means it uses more power than normal.
If they only execute while on AC power they won't affect battery life.
Thank you captain obvious. Why would they make such an obvious statement? The implication is that they don't affect battery life WHEN RUNNING ON BATTERY, because obviously they wouldn't if you're on AC power. Do'h. Do you think they need to say "our unwanted upgrades won't make your laptop heavier", or "our forced reboot after an undesired update won't make your coffee get colder"?
then they'll only execute when the CPU and IO aren't doing anything else so strictly speaking they will increase CPU load but the user won't ever notice because they'll always have priority.
And that brings us back to the issue of battery life, because even if they execute while the CPU is otherwise idle they'll be using power -- when the computer is on battery -- and that shortens battery life. The issue isn't "you won't notice us raping your computer with unwanted upgrades", it is "you're sucking down the battery I need later while doing it". And "you're doing it" is an issue all by itself.
I humbly suggest you don't completely understand heat pumps.
I humbly suggest that I understand them better than you do.
It's just moving energy around, not creating any.
You truly do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, do you? Nobody is suggesting that energy is created. But, if you "move around" 200J of heat using 100J of energy, then have an engine that produces just 101J from letting that 200J go back, then you've gained 1J in the process.
That's called a perpetual motion machine -- you get more out of the system than you put in.
Now, either you were spouting nonsense when you claimed that your heat pump was working at 200% efficiency, or you're not including all the energy inputs and trying to blow smoke about how efficient heat pumps are.
I understand heat pumps. I understand geothermal. I also understand perpetual motion machines. If you move 200J using 100J of energy, then you can use any power generating system that is more than 50% efficient to create the 100J, and then move more heat, and then create more energy -- perpetual motion.
Heavy non-industrial users were getting same rates as households.
What you quoted doesn't say that. It refers to "traditional commercial customers".
This is the right way to do it, and shame on the summary author for lying about the actual rules. It shouldn't be earth-shattering news that a power company has high rates for heavy users. Why didn't the cities and the PSC consider this when they implemented the rates in the beginning? If aluminum smelting was a more portable operation, they probably would have triggered this response decades ago.
It's more accurate to assume that everyone's demand or energy savings comes out of the same mix of generation.
Pacific Power calling. We'll happily sell you green power (power from renewable sources like wind) at a higher rate than standard old power from whatever source we're using today. We don't paint the electrons green or use a different wire to send them to you so you can't tell them apart, but we'll charge you for it anyway.
Keep in mind that the only thing that is really happening here is that only a fixed amount of electricity is available each month at subsidized pricing rates.
It's not a subsidized rate. It's the rate the city is being charged. The city has failed by refusing to buy enough power, a scarcity that is created by city managers not physical limits.
The only change here is that crypto miners get lowest priority of subsidized power.
Did you read the same summary I did? The change is that the cities are being allowed to charge more for certain uses of power. That's not getting "lowest priority", that's getting the same priority but paying more.
Why not just implement tiered pricing like every other electric company I've ever dealt with has? That way EVERYONE trying to take advantage of the low-cost power pays more, not just one specific kind of user.
Seems pretty reasonable to me... the miners still get access to some cheap power,
If they have to pay more for the same power someone else gets cheaper, then no, they aren't getting access to cheap power. They're paying more than other people using the same amount.
This is a stupid situation. The city is creating a scarcity by not contracting for more power and the city is charging specific uses of power more than others, which is social engineering using a government granted and operated monopoly. You can use all the power you want at the cheap rate as long as it isn't for crypto-mining. Why should the city care what you use the electricity you have bought from them for? Should they also put special rates for certain services on any municipal network they run, because some kinds of services consume all the "cheap bandwidth", or should they just charge a tiered rate so that you pay more per kWH when you use more kWH? Would anyone be happy if a city ISP decides to charge Netflix double the standard network rates because Netflix uses a lot of capacity?
Why do you think the ABC15 report should tell you if she was running or not?
Because that would be part of the story if she were. I know, expecting good reporting is a fault. But I do expect that what is reported would be relevant. "Outside the crosswalk". "Near an intersection".
Do you think they interviewed her and asked? Unlikely.
Do you think they need to interview someone to know anything about what happened? That's the only way they can find out any details?
She was't a threat until she actually got close and
decided to leap into this 6-lane highway directly in front of an approaching car,
The story doesn't say any such thing. You're trying to paint a picture of a completely innocent AV attacked by a lunatic human. You're assuming details that are not in evidence.
It's not likely for enough facts of the accident to be available to judge until after the investigation.
And yet you have this woman leaping into the middle of a 6 lane highway directly in front of an AV. You seem to think you have enough facts.
I don't remember if you specifically made that claim
Yes, it was you. You said:
My passport photo is in a searchable database.
My travel data is already in a searchable database.
My photo taken as I cross each border is NOT.
Your photo is almost certainly being taken at each of three points as you depart through that airport. Either you assume they're going to keep all the photos they take of you or you dont' assume that. If you assume they do, they you can't claim that this facial recognition system gives them anything new, because they've already got the photos of you traveling. In fact, they'll have a photo of you as you are scanning your boarding pass -- the same point in your travel that the facial recognition system is taking one.
If you assume they DON'T keep the photos of you traveling, then you have no basis to assume they'll keep the photo that this facial recognition system takes. Be consistent. Either they're out to get you and gather as much info about you as they can or they aren't.
If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times, then you aren't a very good conspiracy theorist, are you?"
That's what I said about you.
So let me get this straight; I'm "making it up" by asserting they keep the photo they take at the automated passport control terminal.
You had no support for that claim when I suggested you were, so what should I assume? We're not talking about the "automated passport control terminal". That's done for inbound passengers from international flights.
But, you are going to assert, without any proof, that they've kept all the surveillance video.
I made no such claim. I said that they can easily match your image in that video with your location at up to at least three specific places where you must present ID of some kind. Whether they keep the rest of the video or not is irrelevant.
Where they keep all surveillance VIDEO of the hallways...
You're the only one talking about the hallways. I gave you three specific places, none of which were in a hallway. Checkin, at the checkin counter or kiosk, TSA security checkpoint, and at the gate (where this facial recognition system is.)
but discard the PHOTOS at passport control?
We don't have "passport control" in the US for outbound passengers. I thought I pointed that out to you already. Germany does, as does many other countries. US does not. You do not need permission to depart.
The default is to assume they are keeping the photos.
And yet you seem to think they don't have photos of you from check-in, TSA check, and the gate? Which is it, assume they keep them all and they already have anything that this facial recognition system would be snapping, or they don't keep anything until now they will with this facial system?
The point is, this facial recognition system gives them NOTHING that they don't already have. It allows matching two images they already have -- you in the line to leave and your passport or other entry photo. That's all.
Of course they can. But do you think there is a database anywhere out there indexed by every single passengers name and passport
Yes. That information is provided to them by the airlines long before you depart.
with links to all the bits of video footage of them walking around airports?
You're the only one trying to make that connection.
find me at check-in as a starting point
They don't have to find you. You hand the agent your passport and she scans it. They know where you are. You've just told them. They know what camera covers that check-in terminal and they snap your image. Bingo, they have your image.
and then work through all the hundreds of cameras to find my path through the airport camera to camera to camera from point A to the restaurant
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I said or are you really that dense? They don't have to track you camera by camera, and they don't care about the restaurant. I said that the second place they get your picture is at the TSA checkpoint, where you once again hand the agent your ID that is scanned and bingo, they have your image. Don't you think they know which camera covers which checkpoint?
And the third point where you have your identification (this time a boarding pass) scanned is at the gate, and once again, they know perfectly well what camera covers that gate and they once again have your picture.
What information specifically are you talking about,
The information that is allegedly being captured for the first time by the facial recognition system that is the topic of this discussion. A picture of you today, as you are traveling, as compared
This woman was crossing a multi-lane divided highway at 10PM not at a crosswalk.
The report says "outside the crosswalk". It does not say how far outside she was. If it had been in "the middle of the street" (i.e., halfway between two intersections) I assume it would have said that. Outside the crosswalk could mean she was two feet outside.
but I'm not going to AI blame for something that may have turned out the same for even the most highly trained human drivers.
AV are supposed to be better than even the most highly trained drivers. That's the normal claim made here in/. by avid AV proponents.
To totally free yourself from liability you would have to rent the vehicle.
"The accident occurred when you were five miles past the mandatory 2000 mile maintenance that you had scheduled for the next day." Guess who will be liable. Renting won't save you.
If you're driving 50 MPH down a road that is signed for 50 MPH not near an intersection, and some woman runs out in front of you 20 feet away.
I read the ABC15 report. It says she was "outside the crosswalk" "near" a certain intersection. That implies there was a crosswalk nearby and an intersection. It does not put her "not near an intersection", does not have her "running".
While the fault is yet to be determined, the accident does say a lot about the perfection that is to be expected from these vehicles.
it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of.
While it may have been unlikely for a human driver to see the woman prior to her entering the roadway, aren't autonomous sensors supposed to be better than human and use multiple modes -- radar, IR, visible, etc -- to detect threats before they become deaths? I.e., be BETTER than humans, not "as bad as"?
I suggest you try actually turning the power to your brain off for even just a few minutes and then come back to tell us all about it. You will be even better than Houdini, who only promised to communicate from the dead.
virtually worthless unless someone was paid to watch it, looking for you.
They don't have to look for you. They have you scanning your boarding pass at TSA, and then again at the gate when you get on. Two specific times where they know who you are and where you are standing. Make that three if you check in at the airport. If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times, then you aren't a very good conspiracy theorist, are you?
I know you aren't that naive.
In other words, you are making that part up. Thanks for admitting it. As for me being naive, who is it that thinks they don't already have the information that you think they are getting from this facial recognition system?
No, because the amount of real positives is still incredibly small they'll actually be more distracted and bored.
Wrong. They will have other tasks to do -- the same tasks they do now. And it is hard to be distracted when the line comes to a complete stop with a "bong" sound and the human must focus on the task of comparing IDs for just ten seconds or so.
The TSA droid who checks IDs and boarding passes does the same thing over and over and over. The gate agent who is called to verify an ID is doing a single thing upon demand that has to be resolved.
Will gate agents get into the habit of pencil-whipping approvals? Maybe. Will there be someone testing the system to catch such failures? Probably. Will it be perfect. Of course not. What system is?
Similarly, it will be a "learning experience" when false negatives allow people to get through who should never have.
My understanding was it was a very good rate for a limited amount.
Which makes "free market" irrelevant here. The actual amount wasn't limited, it was an artificial limit imposed by a city contract.
The miners then took all the cheap stuff.
The miners bought what was being sold at the rate the city charged for it. Just like Gramma bought what was being sold at the rate the city charged for it. Are the miners to blame for the city being inept and creating an artificial scarcity?
Do you expect your electrical bill to be fixed every month?
Where did you get that ridiculous idea? I said nothing even close to that. I expect the rates to be fixed and not as flexible as this city is making them. That means the bill will vary. Where did I say otherwise?
Electricity is not changed by capacity.
Huh? Where did I say THAT? How would it change?
"overage" is merely usage tiers:
No, "overage" means a charge if you exceed a certain amount. Tiered pricing, which I've already talked about, is not the same thing.
For (consumer) internet, the resource being sold is bandwidth, regardless of volume.
It is not regardless of volume. When people make too much use of their bandwidth, they're sometimes getting overage charges, or sometimes getting capped. That's why this is a perfect analogy for Internet. (And I will also point out, there are many Internet plans that are volume with no mention of bandwidth.)
If you buy a 60A service, there should be no point where an overage charge kicks in. You should be able to draw 60A 24/7/365 and not be capped or find a new charge on your bill for being over. Just like many, if not most, people here argue that if you buy "up to 100Mbps Internet" you should not find yourself capped or with an extra fee because you went over some limit.
As a further analogy, why is the city electric company not able to provide the service it sells? If they sell 1000 60A services, then they should be able to provide 60kA 24/7, or for a 30 day month, 43MWH. (The true number for this city is certainly much higher, but this is an example.) For Internet, this would be analogous to selling 1000 100Mbps lines and therefore should be able to handle 100Gbps and a total of 30Tb for a month to their customers. That's what people say when the issue is Internet, why isn't anyone pointing this out for electricity?
No, I mean seeing that the end arbiter is a human, how is this expensive system with a 100% chance of false positives any better than just a human?
Do you participate in any of the autonomous vehicle discussions? I'd be fascinated to know your stand on "computers are better"/"humans are better" in that context.
Humans get tired, they get distracted, they get bored. The end arbiter is not a human for most cases. For most cases the computer will say "ok" and the gates open. Only for those that the computer generates a false (or real) positive does a human get involved.
Big deal. They can look up your photo they already have from your travel data.
It is very different to have a single photo taken for an identification paperwork to being photographed everywhere you go.
Then don't go to an airport because they already video everyone there.
There really is nothing new they are learning about you by this system. You don't even know that they are keeping the facial scan once you leave, you're just making that part up. We can make up all kinds of evil things, but unless they actually happen they're just make-believe intended to create more flames than info.
You are really asking if they aren't comparing people's birthdays as a means of identifying immigration scofflaws then what's the advantage? Really? The advantage is pretty clear. Using birthdays to determine identity is pretty stupid, but facial recognition isn't. If your face matches the face of someone who entered the country on a short-term visa and you were supposed to have left already, you're caught. If your face doesn't match the face that was recorded when you entered, then you're not the person who is supposed to be leaving, and you are caught. Catching law breakers is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
If the monthly updates took five minutes and the semi-annual updates took 30, instead of the hours they currently take, I think it would go a long way to solving the other issues.
Would it solve the issue of a forced reboot three days into a four day model run? Really?
Will faster updates fix the issue of broken software? Really?
A transistor even giving out a 0 bit is still using energy.
What passes for nerds today. Really. A static data bit doesn't consume much energy. It is changing ones to zeros and zeros to ones, with the associated charges on the explicit and implicit capacitances of the circuitry that consumes the power. That's why a faster computer consumes more energy. That's why computing something instead of being idle consumes more power.
That said, The claim that it will not use additional battery life is dubious.
It's Microsoft. When is any of their claims not dubious?
As it may write the data before the drive spins down,
Another energy sink: moving the drive's heads for spinning rust. Or writing to an SSD. Just writing data to disk means it uses more power than normal.
If they only execute while on AC power they won't affect battery life.
Thank you captain obvious. Why would they make such an obvious statement? The implication is that they don't affect battery life WHEN RUNNING ON BATTERY, because obviously they wouldn't if you're on AC power. Do'h. Do you think they need to say "our unwanted upgrades won't make your laptop heavier", or "our forced reboot after an undesired update won't make your coffee get colder"?
then they'll only execute when the CPU and IO aren't doing anything else so strictly speaking they will increase CPU load but the user won't ever notice because they'll always have priority.
And that brings us back to the issue of battery life, because even if they execute while the CPU is otherwise idle they'll be using power -- when the computer is on battery -- and that shortens battery life. The issue isn't "you won't notice us raping your computer with unwanted upgrades", it is "you're sucking down the battery I need later while doing it". And "you're doing it" is an issue all by itself.
I humbly suggest you don't completely understand heat pumps.
I humbly suggest that I understand them better than you do.
It's just moving energy around, not creating any.
You truly do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, do you? Nobody is suggesting that energy is created. But, if you "move around" 200J of heat using 100J of energy, then have an engine that produces just 101J from letting that 200J go back, then you've gained 1J in the process.
That's called a perpetual motion machine -- you get more out of the system than you put in.
Now, either you were spouting nonsense when you claimed that your heat pump was working at 200% efficiency, or you're not including all the energy inputs and trying to blow smoke about how efficient heat pumps are.
I understand heat pumps. I understand geothermal. I also understand perpetual motion machines. If you move 200J using 100J of energy, then you can use any power generating system that is more than 50% efficient to create the 100J, and then move more heat, and then create more energy -- perpetual motion.
Heavy non-industrial users were getting same rates as households.
What you quoted doesn't say that. It refers to "traditional commercial customers".
This is the right way to do it, and shame on the summary author for lying about the actual rules. It shouldn't be earth-shattering news that a power company has high rates for heavy users. Why didn't the cities and the PSC consider this when they implemented the rates in the beginning? If aluminum smelting was a more portable operation, they probably would have triggered this response decades ago.
It's more accurate to assume that everyone's demand or energy savings comes out of the same mix of generation.
Pacific Power calling. We'll happily sell you green power (power from renewable sources like wind) at a higher rate than standard old power from whatever source we're using today. We don't paint the electrons green or use a different wire to send them to you so you can't tell them apart, but we'll charge you for it anyway.
Typically heat pumps are used, with efficiencies far greater than 100%.
Umm, I think one of the LAWS of thermodynamics would like to talk to you.
Keep in mind that the only thing that is really happening here is that only a fixed amount of electricity is available each month at subsidized pricing rates.
It's not a subsidized rate. It's the rate the city is being charged. The city has failed by refusing to buy enough power, a scarcity that is created by city managers not physical limits.
The only change here is that crypto miners get lowest priority of subsidized power.
Did you read the same summary I did? The change is that the cities are being allowed to charge more for certain uses of power. That's not getting "lowest priority", that's getting the same priority but paying more.
Why not just implement tiered pricing like every other electric company I've ever dealt with has? That way EVERYONE trying to take advantage of the low-cost power pays more, not just one specific kind of user.
Seems pretty reasonable to me... the miners still get access to some cheap power,
If they have to pay more for the same power someone else gets cheaper, then no, they aren't getting access to cheap power. They're paying more than other people using the same amount.
This is a stupid situation. The city is creating a scarcity by not contracting for more power and the city is charging specific uses of power more than others, which is social engineering using a government granted and operated monopoly. You can use all the power you want at the cheap rate as long as it isn't for crypto-mining. Why should the city care what you use the electricity you have bought from them for? Should they also put special rates for certain services on any municipal network they run, because some kinds of services consume all the "cheap bandwidth", or should they just charge a tiered rate so that you pay more per kWH when you use more kWH? Would anyone be happy if a city ISP decides to charge Netflix double the standard network rates because Netflix uses a lot of capacity?
Why do you think the ABC15 report should tell you if she was running or not?
Because that would be part of the story if she were. I know, expecting good reporting is a fault. But I do expect that what is reported would be relevant. "Outside the crosswalk". "Near an intersection".
Do you think they interviewed her and asked? Unlikely.
Do you think they need to interview someone to know anything about what happened? That's the only way they can find out any details?
She was't a threat until she actually got close and decided to leap into this 6-lane highway directly in front of an approaching car,
The story doesn't say any such thing. You're trying to paint a picture of a completely innocent AV attacked by a lunatic human. You're assuming details that are not in evidence.
It's not likely for enough facts of the accident to be available to judge until after the investigation.
And yet you have this woman leaping into the middle of a 6 lane highway directly in front of an AV. You seem to think you have enough facts.
I don't remember if you specifically made that claim
Yes, it was you. You said:
My passport photo is in a searchable database. My travel data is already in a searchable database. My photo taken as I cross each border is NOT.
Your photo is almost certainly being taken at each of three points as you depart through that airport. Either you assume they're going to keep all the photos they take of you or you dont' assume that. If you assume they do, they you can't claim that this facial recognition system gives them anything new, because they've already got the photos of you traveling. In fact, they'll have a photo of you as you are scanning your boarding pass -- the same point in your travel that the facial recognition system is taking one.
If you assume they DON'T keep the photos of you traveling, then you have no basis to assume they'll keep the photo that this facial recognition system takes. Be consistent. Either they're out to get you and gather as much info about you as they can or they aren't.
If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times, then you aren't a very good conspiracy theorist, are you?"
That's what I said about you.
So let me get this straight; I'm "making it up" by asserting they keep the photo they take at the automated passport control terminal.
You had no support for that claim when I suggested you were, so what should I assume? We're not talking about the "automated passport control terminal". That's done for inbound passengers from international flights.
But, you are going to assert, without any proof, that they've kept all the surveillance video.
I made no such claim. I said that they can easily match your image in that video with your location at up to at least three specific places where you must present ID of some kind. Whether they keep the rest of the video or not is irrelevant.
Where they keep all surveillance VIDEO of the hallways.. .
You're the only one talking about the hallways. I gave you three specific places, none of which were in a hallway. Checkin, at the checkin counter or kiosk, TSA security checkpoint, and at the gate (where this facial recognition system is.)
but discard the PHOTOS at passport control?
We don't have "passport control" in the US for outbound passengers. I thought I pointed that out to you already. Germany does, as does many other countries. US does not. You do not need permission to depart.
The default is to assume they are keeping the photos.
And yet you seem to think they don't have photos of you from check-in, TSA check, and the gate? Which is it, assume they keep them all and they already have anything that this facial recognition system would be snapping, or they don't keep anything until now they will with this facial system?
The point is, this facial recognition system gives them NOTHING that they don't already have. It allows matching two images they already have -- you in the line to leave and your passport or other entry photo. That's all.
Of course they can. But do you think there is a database anywhere out there indexed by every single passengers name and passport
Yes. That information is provided to them by the airlines long before you depart.
with links to all the bits of video footage of them walking around airports?
You're the only one trying to make that connection.
find me at check-in as a starting point
They don't have to find you. You hand the agent your passport and she scans it. They know where you are. You've just told them. They know what camera covers that check-in terminal and they snap your image. Bingo, they have your image.
and then work through all the hundreds of cameras to find my path through the airport camera to camera to camera from point A to the restaurant
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I said or are you really that dense? They don't have to track you camera by camera, and they don't care about the restaurant. I said that the second place they get your picture is at the TSA checkpoint, where you once again hand the agent your ID that is scanned and bingo, they have your image. Don't you think they know which camera covers which checkpoint?
And the third point where you have your identification (this time a boarding pass) scanned is at the gate, and once again, they know perfectly well what camera covers that gate and they once again have your picture.
What information specifically are you talking about,
The information that is allegedly being captured for the first time by the facial recognition system that is the topic of this discussion. A picture of you today, as you are traveling, as compared
This woman was crossing a multi-lane divided highway at 10PM not at a crosswalk.
The report says "outside the crosswalk". It does not say how far outside she was. If it had been in "the middle of the street" (i.e., halfway between two intersections) I assume it would have said that. Outside the crosswalk could mean she was two feet outside.
but I'm not going to AI blame for something that may have turned out the same for even the most highly trained human drivers.
AV are supposed to be better than even the most highly trained drivers. That's the normal claim made here in /. by avid AV proponents.
To totally free yourself from liability you would have to rent the vehicle.
"The accident occurred when you were five miles past the mandatory 2000 mile maintenance that you had scheduled for the next day." Guess who will be liable. Renting won't save you.
If you're driving 50 MPH down a road that is signed for 50 MPH not near an intersection, and some woman runs out in front of you 20 feet away.
I read the ABC15 report. It says she was "outside the crosswalk" "near" a certain intersection. That implies there was a crosswalk nearby and an intersection. It does not put her "not near an intersection", does not have her "running".
While the fault is yet to be determined, the accident does say a lot about the perfection that is to be expected from these vehicles.
it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of.
While it may have been unlikely for a human driver to see the woman prior to her entering the roadway, aren't autonomous sensors supposed to be better than human and use multiple modes -- radar, IR, visible, etc -- to detect threats before they become deaths? I.e., be BETTER than humans, not "as bad as"?
I suggest you try actually turning the power to your brain off for even just a few minutes and then come back to tell us all about it. You will be even better than Houdini, who only promised to communicate from the dead.
virtually worthless unless someone was paid to watch it, looking for you.
They don't have to look for you. They have you scanning your boarding pass at TSA, and then again at the gate when you get on. Two specific times where they know who you are and where you are standing. Make that three if you check in at the airport. If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times, then you aren't a very good conspiracy theorist, are you?
I know you aren't that naive.
In other words, you are making that part up. Thanks for admitting it. As for me being naive, who is it that thinks they don't already have the information that you think they are getting from this facial recognition system?
No, because the amount of real positives is still incredibly small they'll actually be more distracted and bored.
Wrong. They will have other tasks to do -- the same tasks they do now. And it is hard to be distracted when the line comes to a complete stop with a "bong" sound and the human must focus on the task of comparing IDs for just ten seconds or so.
The TSA droid who checks IDs and boarding passes does the same thing over and over and over. The gate agent who is called to verify an ID is doing a single thing upon demand that has to be resolved.
Will gate agents get into the habit of pencil-whipping approvals? Maybe. Will there be someone testing the system to catch such failures? Probably. Will it be perfect. Of course not. What system is?
Similarly, it will be a "learning experience" when false negatives allow people to get through who should never have.
Sure. You think a system has to be perfect?
When we're talking about a facial recognition system at an airport, it is kinda relevant whether you are at an airport or not. Don'tch think maybe?
My understanding was it was a very good rate for a limited amount.
Which makes "free market" irrelevant here. The actual amount wasn't limited, it was an artificial limit imposed by a city contract.
The miners then took all the cheap stuff.
The miners bought what was being sold at the rate the city charged for it. Just like Gramma bought what was being sold at the rate the city charged for it. Are the miners to blame for the city being inept and creating an artificial scarcity?
Do you expect your electrical bill to be fixed every month?
Where did you get that ridiculous idea? I said nothing even close to that. I expect the rates to be fixed and not as flexible as this city is making them. That means the bill will vary. Where did I say otherwise?
Electricity is not changed by capacity.
Huh? Where did I say THAT? How would it change?
"overage" is merely usage tiers:
No, "overage" means a charge if you exceed a certain amount. Tiered pricing, which I've already talked about, is not the same thing.
For (consumer) internet, the resource being sold is bandwidth, regardless of volume.
It is not regardless of volume. When people make too much use of their bandwidth, they're sometimes getting overage charges, or sometimes getting capped. That's why this is a perfect analogy for Internet. (And I will also point out, there are many Internet plans that are volume with no mention of bandwidth.)
If you buy a 60A service, there should be no point where an overage charge kicks in. You should be able to draw 60A 24/7/365 and not be capped or find a new charge on your bill for being over. Just like many, if not most, people here argue that if you buy "up to 100Mbps Internet" you should not find yourself capped or with an extra fee because you went over some limit.
As a further analogy, why is the city electric company not able to provide the service it sells? If they sell 1000 60A services, then they should be able to provide 60kA 24/7, or for a 30 day month, 43MWH. (The true number for this city is certainly much higher, but this is an example.) For Internet, this would be analogous to selling 1000 100Mbps lines and therefore should be able to handle 100Gbps and a total of 30Tb for a month to their customers. That's what people say when the issue is Internet, why isn't anyone pointing this out for electricity?
No, I mean seeing that the end arbiter is a human, how is this expensive system with a 100% chance of false positives any better than just a human?
Do you participate in any of the autonomous vehicle discussions? I'd be fascinated to know your stand on "computers are better"/"humans are better" in that context.
Humans get tired, they get distracted, they get bored. The end arbiter is not a human for most cases. For most cases the computer will say "ok" and the gates open. Only for those that the computer generates a false (or real) positive does a human get involved.
In Germany, you can literally walk across the French border without being screened. e.g.
What does that have to do with what happens at an airport?
The rest of this flight of fiction could be fascinating, but not tonight. It's a waste of time playing "what if" games.
My photo taken as I cross each border is NOT.
Big deal. They can look up your photo they already have from your travel data.
It is very different to have a single photo taken for an identification paperwork to being photographed everywhere you go.
Then don't go to an airport because they already video everyone there.
There really is nothing new they are learning about you by this system. You don't even know that they are keeping the facial scan once you leave, you're just making that part up. We can make up all kinds of evil things, but unless they actually happen they're just make-believe intended to create more flames than info.
So what's the advantage of this system then?
You are really asking if they aren't comparing people's birthdays as a means of identifying immigration scofflaws then what's the advantage? Really? The advantage is pretty clear. Using birthdays to determine identity is pretty stupid, but facial recognition isn't. If your face matches the face of someone who entered the country on a short-term visa and you were supposed to have left already, you're caught. If your face doesn't match the face that was recorded when you entered, then you're not the person who is supposed to be leaving, and you are caught. Catching law breakers is a good thing.