computers are also: 1. hackable.. one bored 16yo with a laptop on an overpass + 20000 wirelessly networked cars on a highway = fun.. oh and state mandated kill switches are only there for the children, right?
2. careless about self preservation. A computer will happily cause an accident due to a programming bug or sensor fail. Was that a rock or a plastic bag? A human can tell, but your computer? doubtful. How about that truck carrying those huge metal pipes? Is that top pipe about to fall off the back and flatten your car? A human can tell, a computer? hell no. A kid decides to step into the road at the last moment, you saw him running down the driveway from behind a line of parked cars on the side of the road. Did the computer? of course not. Did it see that huge pot hole? nope.
3. Only as good as the programmer that programmed it. Yes, a half million carefully selected miles with a person who knows the details of the system being tested in the vehicle..oh and he has an override capability that the rest of us will lack. Speed is 'a' factor, but not always 'the' factor in accidents, although the cops love to say it is (to help justify keeping the limits lower so they can rake in more cash). If that aforementioned truck is about to jackknife, it might actually be more prudent to get out from around it which will probably mean violating the speed limit. It just depends on what your options are at that moment. It would also take a human to see the fact the truck is in trouble. All the computer can do is react by hitting the brakes after it detects the truck blocking the way... gl with that, even if it was following a 'safe' distance.
As chaotic and inconsistent as humans can be, I think we're better off fixing the newfound inattentiveness while driving than trying to shoehorn more complacency and dependence into his life. Owning your mobility is an important distinction between those who are free and those who only go where they are told...and you can't tell me that governments won't want backdoor access to this.
This is just more schlock choose-your-facts 'science' to drive home the 'stay-at-home-dad' shit that feminists are pushing on men as well as to normalize same sex parents. Whether you think this is good or bad, it's pretty clear this article's language is ideologically charged. My issue is the politicization of science. It's no better than creationists cherry picking from biology, geology, and anthropology to lend false credence to their bible babble.
"But it's clear that we're all born with the circuitry to help us be sensitive caregivers, and the network can be turned up through parenting."
Because after all, that's what we're all (especially men) 'supposed' to be, right? All communal and caring 24/7? Yuck.
Zuckerberg built a mediocre site that was in the right place at the right time to make a quick buck off of it, and the modern iteration is not maintained by him. The only reason we're hearing from him is because of how much money he makes. The only reason we hear from chelsea clinton at all is because she's a clinton, and she's just repeating her mother's party line, nothing new.
Neither are 'computer scientists' nor are they informed enough to speak for education or technology in general. One speaks from arrogance and self interest and the other from ideological assumptions. At best, zuckerberg is the better of the two, but only because he's actually written a few lines of code.
You'd be foolish to give up so much control over your mobility to whoever's in control of the system. They are NOT looking out for your best interests, only theirs.
Granting sufficient contextual awareness to free roaming vehicles is too intractable. The computer is clueless about compound cause-effect situations where prevention is better than reaction. You have it backwards. If the automated system can handle 90% of the situational dynamics of driving, you want the human to be able to override it when it's clearly about to get something wrong. I am being 'extremely' generous with that 90% btw.. It's unlikely we'll get that far. computers are faster, but humans have far better intellectual contextual awareness. They can reason preemptively, know what data to filter and what not to (is that a plastic bag or a big rock in the road?), and have an interest in survival, which makes up for their less consistent behavior. The computer is just a complex state machine programmed by cut rate programmers who're not in the car with you taking the risk. If you're concerned about today's shitty drivers, that is what should be dealt with. Your solution just breeds better, more dependent idiots.
Actually, I would. If pilot and copilot are incapacitated, what have the passengers got to lose by trying?
I guess we have different definitions of 'proven'. In the sense of miles driven, humans are the 'proven' machines. We know what the failure rates are, and we know what has to be done to mitigate them (I blame cellphones mainly). The computers on the other hand are 'proven' only in carefully controlled situations, where the human, one who's aware of the internals of the autopilot, can override. Also, they're not secure (they'll be networked wirelessly) and the current status of computer-assist in cars is mediocre at best, and that is only for simplistic control systems (toyota's accelerator for ex). They can't even keep bugs out of the software that drives those console/entertainment systems, so what makes you think the software in more critical systems is any better? These failures are cases of failure to KISS, which a lot of manufacturers for a lot of different things are violating nowadays, leading to unnecessary up front costs and failure rates. 'Safe' to you might be a computer controlled everything robot that makes gross, heuristic assumptions about the reality around it.. 'Safe' to me is a mechanically cabled accelerator, spring-loaded to drop to idle RPM if it breaks, and a human with superior situational awareness capability who cares about his survival behind the wheel. Lets fix the human rather than hobble and distract him with more uselessly complex machines.
If the victim was male, then they still would've found some twisted way to blame him. After all, she's always the victim and he can never be. (sarcasm)
1. So you're not constantly panning your vision around to see. 2. So you can have a lot of windows open simultaneously. you're not 6ft away, you're 2ft away, making this viable. 3. you pay for the privilege of not having a bezel in the middle. 4. yes it is overpriced atm.
This is not a troll statement. The premise was that the computer was safer than a driver who isn't aware of the terrain. My point was that a programmer designing for terrain he's unfamiliar with creates the same problem. The fact is I'd trust a human unfamiliar with mountain driving over a computer programmed by someone whoassumed a relatively flat city or suburban area, and who's not even in the car taking the same risks with us.
Slashdot Mirror
how does ad hominem make his statement more or less valid?
Yes.
We can't even keep our little text workstation software free of bugs.. You've got to be kidding me.
computers are also:
1. hackable.. one bored 16yo with a laptop on an overpass + 20000 wirelessly networked cars on a highway = fun.. oh and state mandated kill switches are only there for the children, right?
2. careless about self preservation. A computer will happily cause an accident due to a programming bug or sensor fail. Was that a rock or a plastic bag? A human can tell, but your computer? doubtful. How about that truck carrying those huge metal pipes? Is that top pipe about to fall off the back and flatten your car? A human can tell, a computer? hell no. A kid decides to step into the road at the last moment, you saw him running down the driveway from behind a line of parked cars on the side of the road. Did the computer? of course not. Did it see that huge pot hole? nope.
3. Only as good as the programmer that programmed it. Yes, a half million carefully selected miles with a person who knows the details of the system being tested in the vehicle..oh and he has an override capability that the rest of us will lack. Speed is 'a' factor, but not always 'the' factor in accidents, although the cops love to say it is (to help justify keeping the limits lower so they can rake in more cash). If that aforementioned truck is about to jackknife, it might actually be more prudent to get out from around it which will probably mean violating the speed limit. It just depends on what your options are at that moment. It would also take a human to see the fact the truck is in trouble. All the computer can do is react by hitting the brakes after it detects the truck blocking the way... gl with that, even if it was following a 'safe' distance.
As chaotic and inconsistent as humans can be, I think we're better off fixing the newfound inattentiveness while driving than trying to shoehorn more complacency and dependence into his life. Owning your mobility is an important distinction between those who are free and those who only go where they are told...and you can't tell me that governments won't want backdoor access to this.
Have you nothing besides ad hominem to hurl at his argument?
This is just more schlock choose-your-facts 'science' to drive home the 'stay-at-home-dad' shit that feminists are pushing on men as well as to normalize same sex parents. Whether you think this is good or bad, it's pretty clear this article's language is ideologically charged. My issue is the politicization of science. It's no better than creationists cherry picking from biology, geology, and anthropology to lend false credence to their bible babble.
"But it's clear that we're all born with the circuitry to help us be sensitive caregivers, and the network can be turned up through parenting."
Because after all, that's what we're all (especially men) 'supposed' to be, right? All communal and caring 24/7? Yuck.
output of a game being played != a copy of the game.
Compared with?
The claim of protection is just the public plausible deniability excuse.. The real reason is to force people to use their stupid 'app store.'
Maybe a lack of all these bloated runtimes will help filter out the terrible programmers.
yes it can. 320x200x8 at 35fps
No, I'm not.
Zuckerberg built a mediocre site that was in the right place at the right time to make a quick buck off of it, and the modern iteration is not maintained by him. The only reason we're hearing from him is because of how much money he makes. The only reason we hear from chelsea clinton at all is because she's a clinton, and she's just repeating her mother's party line, nothing new.
Neither are 'computer scientists' nor are they informed enough to speak for education or technology in general. One speaks from arrogance and self interest and the other from ideological assumptions. At best, zuckerberg is the better of the two, but only because he's actually written a few lines of code.
Better place for whom?
Yes, actually, and it's done.
You'd be foolish to give up so much control over your mobility to whoever's in control of the system. They are NOT looking out for your best interests, only theirs.
Granting sufficient contextual awareness to free roaming vehicles is too intractable. The computer is clueless about compound cause-effect situations where prevention is better than reaction. You have it backwards. If the automated system can handle 90% of the situational dynamics of driving, you want the human to be able to override it when it's clearly about to get something wrong. I am being 'extremely' generous with that 90% btw.. It's unlikely we'll get that far. computers are faster, but humans have far better intellectual contextual awareness. They can reason preemptively, know what data to filter and what not to (is that a plastic bag or a big rock in the road?), and have an interest in survival, which makes up for their less consistent behavior. The computer is just a complex state machine programmed by cut rate programmers who're not in the car with you taking the risk. If you're concerned about today's shitty drivers, that is what should be dealt with. Your solution just breeds better, more dependent idiots.
Actually, I would. If pilot and copilot are incapacitated, what have the passengers got to lose by trying?
I guess we have different definitions of 'proven'. In the sense of miles driven, humans are the 'proven' machines. We know what the failure rates are, and we know what has to be done to mitigate them (I blame cellphones mainly). The computers on the other hand are 'proven' only in carefully controlled situations, where the human, one who's aware of the internals of the autopilot, can override. Also, they're not secure (they'll be networked wirelessly) and the current status of computer-assist in cars is mediocre at best, and that is only for simplistic control systems (toyota's accelerator for ex). They can't even keep bugs out of the software that drives those console/entertainment systems, so what makes you think the software in more critical systems is any better? These failures are cases of failure to KISS, which a lot of manufacturers for a lot of different things are violating nowadays, leading to unnecessary up front costs and failure rates. 'Safe' to you might be a computer controlled everything robot that makes gross, heuristic assumptions about the reality around it.. 'Safe' to me is a mechanically cabled accelerator, spring-loaded to drop to idle RPM if it breaks, and a human with superior situational awareness capability who cares about his survival behind the wheel. Lets fix the human rather than hobble and distract him with more uselessly complex machines.
If the victim was male, then they still would've found some twisted way to blame him. After all, she's always the victim and he can never be. (sarcasm)
1. So you're not constantly panning your vision around to see.
2. So you can have a lot of windows open simultaneously. you're not 6ft away, you're 2ft away, making this viable.
3. you pay for the privilege of not having a bezel in the middle.
4. yes it is overpriced atm.
It's not just pixel resolution, it's color depth and gamut range too.
This is not a troll statement. The premise was that the computer was safer than a driver who isn't aware of the terrain. My point was that a programmer designing for terrain he's unfamiliar with creates the same problem. The fact is I'd trust a human unfamiliar with mountain driving over a computer programmed by someone whoassumed a relatively flat city or suburban area, and who's not even in the car taking the same risks with us.
Another case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Because computers have a contextual awareness roughly equivalent to a cat? ..at best
Why? Because it was programmed by a bunch of indians thousands of miles away?
No, but humans are much more contextually aware than computers.