Those who've actually done it know that it's actually more productive than multiple displays because of less eye panning. You can see more in less space. I had a high res 21" crt which, with the software back then, was far more productive for me than having two of today's 1080p monitors and the modern software UI designs he talks about.
Loss of autonomy and liberty is not worth diminishing returns in safety. Most people driving are not kids having fun at the expense of safety.
Lastly, an autonomous and self-driving car doesn't decide when and where you go, you still decide.
No. The people in control of the onboard computer decide where/when/why you may go. Maybe people like you should focus on fixing the growing antipathy towards liberty in our society first before demanding the rest of us hop on to the latest techno-utopian bandwagon, in this case, one that's not even out of development yet.
What's even more dangerous is 3000 lbs of metal controlled by a computer programmed by ego maniacs with the arrogance to assume their heuristic model accurately interprets the reality of free-range driving. A human is slow compared to a computer, but is far better at preemption and situational awareness.
Considering the fact we cannot eliminate the probability of bugs from far simpler software meant to solve far simpler problems, the probability of them cropping up in the car's firmware is quite high. Then we have deliberate attacks on the network they'll use. Finally, we have deliberate kill switches/overrides/tracking demanded by authorities, public and private.. Really, I'll pass. I won't ride in one of these over 20mph, and I don't want them anywhere near me while I'm driving.
Those other travel options are just that, options, several of which come with a ton of overhead annoyances and cost. The only reason we tolerate them is because there's no other way to get to the destination.
Film is not a safety concern so that is not a valid comparison. Emotional appeals like this are empty promises. I'll keep my 'dumb' car, thank you very much. It always does what it's told and that is not a limitation, it's a feature.
Libertarians generally don't look for utopia. That's usually a progressive attitude where the individual must ever-sacrifice for the good of the (power elite promised) utopian collective that will come...someday. A libertarian doesn't make appeasements to corporate lordship anymore than he would for government. The people who are doing this now are neoconservatives who might be calling themselves libertarian to garner populist style favor (lately, this has also been showing up from the left as well, mainly on college campuses). Elections are coming soon and libertarian views are gaining more public attention, both positive and negative.
This (imo) over regulation runs counter to the libertarian perspective of a freer (notice I didn't say anarchy) market that would bring much needed competition from future would-be players. What I don't get is why left wing supporters bitch about monopolies yet want ADDITIONAL control given to the biggest, hardest one to control of all, one that also imprisons and steals from those whom it has disagreements. So now it's ISPs AND the state dictating rules, not just the ISPs, or even windfall benefit from a conflict between the two. If we also subsidize development the way the europeans do, then all we're doing is subsidizing the same substandard service from the same monopolies, except now we can't just refuse to pay the would-be network access tax for the same shitty service.
Really, the problem is that bureaucracies, public or private, take on lives of their own, and they are not friendly to anyone they don't have to be. This is a hard problem to solve, but surely the answer is not to allow powerful public and private ones to merge, with revolving doors for the power elite.. All net 'neutrality' will do is help reenforce the status quo in the form of protection for the existing players in the ISP market as well as help justify future state access and control of private communications. If the fed really wanted to break apart the monopolies, then it would drop the barriers of entry for those willing to invest in running new lines with newer technology instead of making 'compromises' with the existing players.
Naturally, state agencies would love to have it all under one authoritative roof.. Makes it easier for them, right? I'm sure there are already loopholes for surveillance built into any bill that supposedly protects citizen rights, never mind the fact that the citizen is supposed to have those rights by default anyway. If not, exemptions will be added soon enough, or after the fact when the conflict emerges in court. With today's democrats and republicans, the constitution only matters when it's not inconvenient and is only invoked when it appears to make their actions look good. I even wonder about the self-labeled libertarian politicians already in government..
DMCA ring a bell? how about SOPA/PIPA? or the old SSSCA? How about all this recent wrangling over 'hate speech' and 'online harassment' that conveniently silences views criticizing 'progressive' expression? Obama's 'kill switch'? Bush's 'there ought to be limits on freedom'? The state's current view on public use of crypto? The behavior of the NSA learned from the snowden leaks?
I haven't read 'reason' so I can't speak to their views, but the above is certainly something a libertarian would have problems with. People who think stuff like the above is justified are either progressives or neoconservatives. Neither are really libertarian.
"why I don't call myself a socialist" also applies in this case. This is because we're damned either way. We get network balkanization due to monopolies squabbling for control of the backbone or we get increased state control of the network. Neither are good for liberty, rights, or hell, even a relatively free market.
We had a brief window of what liberty could be like on the network, but that died awhile ago.
non native resolutions have to be rescaled to fit, either by the gpu (eating performance) or by the display (usually with significant latency). If you're lucky, you'll have a smart enough panel that'll scale even multiples of lower resolutions with almost no impact on latency... most panels aren't though, and force the use of some shitty bilinear filtering that requires latency adding onboard processing.
crts actually let you configure the number of scanlines...
There is nothing about internet taxes or content control that benefits anyone except the ruling class. They're the ones who will get to do the controlling.
I think you are glossing over the intractable problems associated with the limitations of current AI and sensor technology. There's a video out there explaining that the google cars work with a database of preprogrammed situations that some heuristic chooses from based on input from the sensors. This is an idiotic way to drive, and a human caught driving like this would be stripped of his license. The human might be slower in reaction time and distracted at times, but the computer is utterly retarded enough that the smarts of the human more than make up for 100ms reaction times or slavish adherence to rules. I don't want to be anywhere near or inside these things.
Sorry, but delays are inevitable when there are a fixed number of cars with relatively fixed arrival times and varying departure times. This will always suck in comparison to hopping into your own car and leaving when you need to and picking your own route and speed. While people tolerate the inconveniences of a taxi ride to the airport to avoid paying fees for parking/storage, or for local rides around a city, the inconvenience of having to wait 20-40 minutes for a pickup every trip is too much. Like every public system, there'll never be enough seats going enough places to meet peaktime demands.
At some point access to this remote controlled system will likely be subject to that person's status according to an ever growing list of bureaucratic rules (taxes paid?, affirmative action caste membership, etc). I'm sure the authorities' vaginas are also wet over the idea of having an id assigned to every trip taken. I'll drive myself, thanks.
what a mishmash of broken garbage these stacks are now.. no wonder nothing's secure and simple program logic that was fine with 66mhz and half a meg of ram now needs a 3ghz cpu and 2gb to run acceptably.
None of that makes sense if performance is of any concern (it should be), along with seamless integration into the environment.
I suppose that works as long as the two of you are willing to accept that placebo as reality. You didn't really spend all that time as her buddy. You read a few lines and looked at a few pics on a web page. You are not closer to your friends. It's all in your head.
Graduating from car to autonomous car is not the same as from horse to car. Owning a car and owning a horse give you power: the ability to travel when you wish. Graduating from horse to car allowed us greater benefits while retaining that basic power. 'desubsidizing' that with remote controlled autonomous traffic will make such things impossible for the average person. Even the simplistic public transport systems we have now are chronically late. Fuck that.
It will not be two minutes. It'll be whenever his turn comes up in a queue. He's right, nothing beats the convenience of just getting in your own car and going somewhere.
Nice fallacy. Just because you never carry anything when going anywhere doesn't mean other people don't. Your high premium excuse does not really address his point either.
yeah.. no. That fantasy will last precisely until the first hardware failure, software bug, or exploit causes a massive pileup. I'll pass. I don't want to ride in or drive anywhere near such ticking timebombs.
However, you are right that most people will be dumb enough to fall for the allure..
Nope. It's 'crony capitalism', where large corps grow the size of the state with lobbies and use it to corner the market and impose the ethics of the principals on the rest of us. It's a revolving door at the top of the pyramid, and they're all friends. A corp can only refuse to employ you or refuse to sell to you, the state can confiscate your property and imprison.. It's both tracks together that create tyranny.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who've actually done it know that it's actually more productive than multiple displays because of less eye panning. You can see more in less space. I had a high res 21" crt which, with the software back then, was far more productive for me than having two of today's 1080p monitors and the modern software UI designs he talks about.
Loss of autonomy and liberty is not worth diminishing returns in safety. Most people driving are not kids having fun at the expense of safety.
Lastly, an autonomous and self-driving car doesn't decide when and where you go, you still decide.
No. The people in control of the onboard computer decide where/when/why you may go. Maybe people like you should focus on fixing the growing antipathy towards liberty in our society first before demanding the rest of us hop on to the latest techno-utopian bandwagon, in this case, one that's not even out of development yet.
What's even more dangerous is 3000 lbs of metal controlled by a computer programmed by ego maniacs with the arrogance to assume their heuristic model accurately interprets the reality of free-range driving. A human is slow compared to a computer, but is far better at preemption and situational awareness.
Considering the fact we cannot eliminate the probability of bugs from far simpler software meant to solve far simpler problems, the probability of them cropping up in the car's firmware is quite high. Then we have deliberate attacks on the network they'll use. Finally, we have deliberate kill switches/overrides/tracking demanded by authorities, public and private.. Really, I'll pass. I won't ride in one of these over 20mph, and I don't want them anywhere near me while I'm driving.
Those other travel options are just that, options, several of which come with a ton of overhead annoyances and cost. The only reason we tolerate them is because there's no other way to get to the destination.
Film is not a safety concern so that is not a valid comparison. Emotional appeals like this are empty promises. I'll keep my 'dumb' car, thank you very much. It always does what it's told and that is not a limitation, it's a feature.
People like you help enable state sponsored terror.
Libertarians generally don't look for utopia. That's usually a progressive attitude where the individual must ever-sacrifice for the good of the (power elite promised) utopian collective that will come...someday. A libertarian doesn't make appeasements to corporate lordship anymore than he would for government. The people who are doing this now are neoconservatives who might be calling themselves libertarian to garner populist style favor (lately, this has also been showing up from the left as well, mainly on college campuses). Elections are coming soon and libertarian views are gaining more public attention, both positive and negative.
This (imo) over regulation runs counter to the libertarian perspective of a freer (notice I didn't say anarchy) market that would bring much needed competition from future would-be players. What I don't get is why left wing supporters bitch about monopolies yet want ADDITIONAL control given to the biggest, hardest one to control of all, one that also imprisons and steals from those whom it has disagreements. So now it's ISPs AND the state dictating rules, not just the ISPs, or even windfall benefit from a conflict between the two. If we also subsidize development the way the europeans do, then all we're doing is subsidizing the same substandard service from the same monopolies, except now we can't just refuse to pay the would-be network access tax for the same shitty service.
Really, the problem is that bureaucracies, public or private, take on lives of their own, and they are not friendly to anyone they don't have to be. This is a hard problem to solve, but surely the answer is not to allow powerful public and private ones to merge, with revolving doors for the power elite.. All net 'neutrality' will do is help reenforce the status quo in the form of protection for the existing players in the ISP market as well as help justify future state access and control of private communications. If the fed really wanted to break apart the monopolies, then it would drop the barriers of entry for those willing to invest in running new lines with newer technology instead of making 'compromises' with the existing players.
Naturally, state agencies would love to have it all under one authoritative roof.. Makes it easier for them, right? I'm sure there are already loopholes for surveillance built into any bill that supposedly protects citizen rights, never mind the fact that the citizen is supposed to have those rights by default anyway. If not, exemptions will be added soon enough, or after the fact when the conflict emerges in court. With today's democrats and republicans, the constitution only matters when it's not inconvenient and is only invoked when it appears to make their actions look good. I even wonder about the self-labeled libertarian politicians already in government..
DMCA ring a bell? how about SOPA/PIPA? or the old SSSCA? How about all this recent wrangling over 'hate speech' and 'online harassment' that conveniently silences views criticizing 'progressive' expression? Obama's 'kill switch'? Bush's 'there ought to be limits on freedom'? The state's current view on public use of crypto? The behavior of the NSA learned from the snowden leaks?
I haven't read 'reason' so I can't speak to their views, but the above is certainly something a libertarian would have problems with. People who think stuff like the above is justified are either progressives or neoconservatives. Neither are really libertarian.
"why I don't call myself a socialist" also applies in this case. This is because we're damned either way. We get network balkanization due to monopolies squabbling for control of the backbone or we get increased state control of the network. Neither are good for liberty, rights, or hell, even a relatively free market.
We had a brief window of what liberty could be like on the network, but that died awhile ago.
No we don't. What we need is to abolish identity politics and tell the crybabies who bitch over pronoun use to get lives.
non native resolutions have to be rescaled to fit, either by the gpu (eating performance) or by the display (usually with significant latency). If you're lucky, you'll have a smart enough panel that'll scale even multiples of lower resolutions with almost no impact on latency... most panels aren't though, and force the use of some shitty bilinear filtering that requires latency adding onboard processing.
crts actually let you configure the number of scanlines...
There is nothing about internet taxes or content control that benefits anyone except the ruling class. They're the ones who will get to do the controlling.
I think you are glossing over the intractable problems associated with the limitations of current AI and sensor technology. There's a video out there explaining that the google cars work with a database of preprogrammed situations that some heuristic chooses from based on input from the sensors. This is an idiotic way to drive, and a human caught driving like this would be stripped of his license. The human might be slower in reaction time and distracted at times, but the computer is utterly retarded enough that the smarts of the human more than make up for 100ms reaction times or slavish adherence to rules. I don't want to be anywhere near or inside these things.
Sorry, but delays are inevitable when there are a fixed number of cars with relatively fixed arrival times and varying departure times. This will always suck in comparison to hopping into your own car and leaving when you need to and picking your own route and speed. While people tolerate the inconveniences of a taxi ride to the airport to avoid paying fees for parking/storage, or for local rides around a city, the inconvenience of having to wait 20-40 minutes for a pickup every trip is too much. Like every public system, there'll never be enough seats going enough places to meet peaktime demands.
At some point access to this remote controlled system will likely be subject to that person's status according to an ever growing list of bureaucratic rules (taxes paid?, affirmative action caste membership, etc). I'm sure the authorities' vaginas are also wet over the idea of having an id assigned to every trip taken. I'll drive myself, thanks.
what a mishmash of broken garbage these stacks are now.. no wonder nothing's secure and simple program logic that was fine with 66mhz and half a meg of ram now needs a 3ghz cpu and 2gb to run acceptably.
None of that makes sense if performance is of any concern (it should be), along with seamless integration into the environment.
I suppose that works as long as the two of you are willing to accept that placebo as reality. You didn't really spend all that time as her buddy. You read a few lines and looked at a few pics on a web page. You are not closer to your friends. It's all in your head.
Yet someone who doesn't need attention all the time would make a better employee..
One more reason to have all email converted to plain text.
You dodged a bullet..
In cases like that, it's preferable to get some of the data back rather than none.
You're assuming that 90%.
Graduating from car to autonomous car is not the same as from horse to car. Owning a car and owning a horse give you power: the ability to travel when you wish. Graduating from horse to car allowed us greater benefits while retaining that basic power. 'desubsidizing' that with remote controlled autonomous traffic will make such things impossible for the average person. Even the simplistic public transport systems we have now are chronically late. Fuck that.
It will not be two minutes. It'll be whenever his turn comes up in a queue. He's right, nothing beats the convenience of just getting in your own car and going somewhere.
Nice fallacy. Just because you never carry anything when going anywhere doesn't mean other people don't. Your high premium excuse does not really address his point either.
yeah.. no.
That fantasy will last precisely until the first hardware failure, software bug, or exploit causes a massive pileup. I'll pass. I don't want to ride in or drive anywhere near such ticking timebombs.
However, you are right that most people will be dumb enough to fall for the allure..
Says the guy promoting communism..
Nope. It's 'crony capitalism', where large corps grow the size of the state with lobbies and use it to corner the market and impose the ethics of the principals on the rest of us. It's a revolving door at the top of the pyramid, and they're all friends. A corp can only refuse to employ you or refuse to sell to you, the state can confiscate your property and imprison.. It's both tracks together that create tyranny.
Nah.. an apple hypercard 'app'..
Expecting jokes of a more technical nature on a technical site is not entitlement.