Robots have better ability to examine things closely. Security cameras often have major limitations on what they see. For example, typically they can only read license plates if the car is in a specific location (i.e. the entrance/exit). They can't see what's going on everywhere, and can be blocked.
Assume someone rents a big van, enters the lot, parks his van in front of the camera. Get out on the other side (protected by the van), and proceeds to break into a trunk, plants some evidence, or perhaps a GPS tracker, removes the radio, etc. No one can ever tell what happened. The robot avoids this issue.
Every time they try to do this they make major mistakes. The main one is trying to be 'race blind'. But the system is already rigged against certain races, and screws over black men.
Example, they count interactions with police, if without an arrest. So a 45 year old white man that no previous 'listed' interactions with the police (as every time he almost got caught, he talked his way out of it) is listed as a low risk, while a black teenager has 20 stops by police - none of which resulted in arrest - because of where he lives.
So the white man goes free, while the black kid is listed as high risk.
I am white, but I am not stupid enough to believe the data they are using is good.
How much were you paid to spread this silliness? Because everything you said demonstrates either immense ignorance or a willingness to troll on line for money.
Look, if you make all airports safe from terrorist attack, the terrorists attack malls, or office buildings, or schools. So making airports safe from terrorist attack is something only a MORON does. It isn't worth it.
Airports are not particularly important, the way that airplanes are.
The danger with planes is not that they are connected with air travel, but that there is little difference between a airplane and a guided missile. A guided missile that the terrorists did not pay for and could not afford, but can be used to attack another buildings.
Any idiot that tries to protect airports from generic terrorists attacks is a fool, wasting our money because they have no idea of the difference between a high priority target and a low priority one.
Airplanes are high priority targets and need to be protected. Airports are low priority targets that should not be heavily protected, except to prevent people from gaining access to the planes.
Lets say you are driving your old, 2001 model car. The brakes go out, would you aim for a crowd of soft people? No of course not. You do your best to miss everything, eventually you hit something, most likely a wall or other barrier - after you intentionally AVOID the people.
Because that is exactly what the idiots posing this question are talking about. The car will not be programmed to ram into people to slow down, no matter what the circumstances.
You are correct that Japan and Germany started out with pilots that were better than the US had - but the US was a pacifist country at that time, staying out of the 'European conflict'. Germany and Japan had been at war already and trained up their pilots. Their failure to maintain their capacity was a direct result of their culture.
As for your claims about experienced Russian pilots - they were not allowed to fly because too often they would get into their military aircraft and fly them to free countries. It happened six times during the cold war - we got 3 MIGS, 1 Tu-2 bomber, and 2 Sukhoi's. Not a single US pilot took a jet aircraft outside the US (we did lose 3 propeller plans, Cesna, Piper and an out dated T34 trainer).
Having a small number of experienced Russian pilots that could not be trusted, did not in any way compare with the much larger US air force.
Let's try that bit of stupidity you presented in the worst case scenarios:
If you don't like the arsenic and mercury in your water, don't buy it. And if you don't like slavery, don't buy a human being.
Sorry, but your understanding of how capitalism works fails. It has to obey laws, and that includes no deception. Claiming you are 'selling' something means you got no power over. You can't stop me from opening it up, and you can't give anyone else control over it.
This is at heart an evil product, designed to let corrupt governments and businesses unduly interfere with your property. I own it, I have rights to it. They want to stop me from breaking the law with it, they have to prove a law was broken - and they have to do it AFTERWARDS, they can't stop it before.
You are correct there is currently no inherent right to go to a website. But that is only because there is NO SUCH THING as an "inherent right". Rights are granted by laws, not by inherentance.
So when I said "there should be a law" that is me saying "we need to create a right to visit websites".
Basically, internet corps have abused the crap out of our privacy and I think we need to start passing laws to reign them in. This would be one.
Stop thinking like a subject (obeying your superiors) and start thinking like a citizen (creating the laws).
Your argument about a private company is bull shit. What, you think government can't pass laws that affect private companies?
They do it all the time - for lots of things.
If I said "right to privacy, this is already illegal" then you would have a point. But being a private company is not a magic shield that prevents governments from passing laws regulating what you can and can not do.
Or if you had some argument about less regulation being a good thing, then I would have had to convince you that in this particular case, less regulation is not a good thing.
But you got nothing but a half remembered argument that someone else once said. Not convincing at all.
Shark Tank rejected a business woman that had this model because they knew Pinterest could do it better.
But it won't work unless Pinterst scraps the "need an account" to view functionality.
Which come to think of it, should be a law. The entire "need an account to view" idea is there to let them track you. That should be illegal - no tracking unless you agree to be tracked.
For the past 70 years, one of the main advantages the US has had has been our pilots.
During World War II, most of the time the enemy had better planes (Japan at the beginning, Germany at the end - jets vs props.) After World War II, the Russian MIGS were better planes, at least until the end of the cold war.
What the US had better were pilots. Brilliant, creative, free thinking men that could out fly the enemy, no matter how much money they spent on aircraft.
From this point on, air superiority is for sale, rather than something you have to earn with freedom. China, Russia, etc. can build a good drone and put good software in it, without having to worry about raising their citizens up to be creative and brilliant.
The problem is the algorithms were optimized for a specific set of people, and guess what, they weren't the most common offenders.
That is, the algorithms are supposed to predict what you will do after you get out - go legit or commit more crimes.
But they are very accurate for older, white offenders, but very inaccurate for younger, black offenders. Effectively the algorithms were written in an attempt to be race blind by ignoring race. But certain activities, like number of previous interactions with the police, contain built in bias against younger, black people.
While a 40 year old white man that's been questioned by the police 5 times is likely a habitual criminal, a 20 year old black man that been questioned 10 times was just walking while black.
Ideally the virus is not sexually transmittable. They want to use viruses that do not have the ability to reproduce in a cell. They can only reproduce in the lab. So you manufacture the viruses in large quantities, remove T Cells, then infect the T Cells. The T cells have their DNA modified in a way to make them more likely to fight the cancer, but do NOT have their DNA modified to make more viruses - that code is not built into the viruses.
Then you inject them back into the human, where the T Cells make their way back to your natural immune system. The natural immune system sees the modified DNA in their T Cells and copies it - again without coying any of the original virus.
If you start out talking about "100k in Gross Fares" then reveal that number was wrong, you need to tell us what the actual GROSS FARE was. Switching to take hour earnings, after expenses is the mark of an incompetent statistician, and a poor journalist. At the very least.
For those of you that did not read the article, they claimed that expenses were 25-33%, so at 100k, that would be somewhere between 66 and 75k, assuming 60 hour week that would have been $22 an hour, far more than the current claims of $13.25 (which sound exaggerated to me.)
A huge number of lawyers will be out of work. Our judicial system will reduce the cases clogging our courts.
More importantly, a whole SWATH of small, corrupt towns across the nation will lose the majority of their funding and be forced to actually charge their townsmen taxes instead of depending on speed tracks.
First, those types of situations are so rare that they would be not be considered by the law.
Second, the car will never decide to 'save a 45 year old man vs a 10 year old girl.'. It will try to not hit either, but may in it's attempts to miss the old man it may fail to miss the little girl. It's a program, not a real consciousness.
That may seem like a minor wording change to you, but it will be how the incident will be described, and from a legal standpoint it makes a huge difference.
Look, if I wanted an all video experience, I would TURN ON THE TV.
I despise most videos on the internet.
1) You can't have 20 tabs open, because one of them will autostart.
2) The ads invade are far more invasive - taking more attention and of course, more your ears as well as your eyes. And the audio means you can't goof at work;D
3) You have to consume it at THEIR convenience, not yours - even if you can pause/restart it, it generally means you miss a thing or two. No stopping at will to read an email.
4) In general it takes more brain power, more bandwidth, and more time to consume video than words
The studios steal from the creators via abusive contracts as much, if not MORE than YouTube steals from the musicians.
Despising one and not the other is hypocritical.
Part of the major problem is that the value of music has gone down and musicians dislike that. Music used to be a rare skill that was incredibly expensive to distribute. But distribution costs went down, they refused to lower the price, we found ways to use computers to enhance music (auto tune is just one of many such advancements), and the number of people that want to do it went up.
How many kids want to be rock stars? They depressed the market causing the prices to drop - it's simple supply and demand.
The profit went away but it wasn't YouTube's fault.
2) Plays to a cultural stereotype - Chinese are overly concerned with 'face'.
3) Coverage is via an unheard of news sight, rather than major media.
Also - there is no power for the person that takes out the loan - once you give them the power to blackmail you there is no reason for them to stop just at the amount you owe. What if they get hacked?
That's not my take away. Computers are by definition generic machines. They have to do everything - be a spreadsheet, be a word processer, be a video player, connect to the internet, be a phone, etc.
That is what I object to - putting all that EXTRA tech in my dedicated Video viewing device. When you make something do too much, it DECREASES it's life expectancy and tremendously decreases the chance something will go wrong.
Basically, you can NEVER get a good SmartTV, no matter how much you try because it gets torn in too many different directions while also suffering from pre-mature obsolesce for PART of it but not the whole thing.
Affecting Electromagnetic Waves with acoustic waves is interesting, but we already rule both. It'd be far more interesting if they can get any change in gravity waves the Strong Force and Weak Force, merely by using sound or light.
Multiple function devices always give up some functionality. "Flying cars" are expensive, poor cars and expensive, poor planes. Swiss army knives are great, but never as nice a blade as a good hunting knife.
TV/VCR Combo are stupid know. Ten years from now, the smart TV will also be stupid. Better to get a huge monitor and connect it to a good computer - that you can update in 5 years, keeping the monitor for another 10
Slashdot Mirror
Robots have better ability to examine things closely. Security cameras often have major limitations on what they see. For example, typically they can only read license plates if the car is in a specific location (i.e. the entrance/exit). They can't see what's going on everywhere, and can be blocked.
Assume someone rents a big van, enters the lot, parks his van in front of the camera. Get out on the other side (protected by the van), and proceeds to break into a trunk, plants some evidence, or perhaps a GPS tracker, removes the radio, etc. No one can ever tell what happened. The robot avoids this issue.
Every time they try to do this they make major mistakes. The main one is trying to be 'race blind'. But the system is already rigged against certain races, and screws over black men.
Example, they count interactions with police, if without an arrest. So a 45 year old white man that no previous 'listed' interactions with the police (as every time he almost got caught, he talked his way out of it) is listed as a low risk, while a black teenager has 20 stops by police - none of which resulted in arrest - because of where he lives.
So the white man goes free, while the black kid is listed as high risk.
I am white, but I am not stupid enough to believe the data they are using is good.
How much were you paid to spread this silliness? Because everything you said demonstrates either immense ignorance or a willingness to troll on line for money.
Look, if you make all airports safe from terrorist attack, the terrorists attack malls, or office buildings, or schools. So making airports safe from terrorist attack is something only a MORON does. It isn't worth it.
Airports are not particularly important, the way that airplanes are.
The danger with planes is not that they are connected with air travel, but that there is little difference between a airplane and a guided missile. A guided missile that the terrorists did not pay for and could not afford, but can be used to attack another buildings.
Any idiot that tries to protect airports from generic terrorists attacks is a fool, wasting our money because they have no idea of the difference between a high priority target and a low priority one.
Airplanes are high priority targets and need to be protected. Airports are low priority targets that should not be heavily protected, except to prevent people from gaining access to the planes.
Lets say you are driving your old, 2001 model car. The brakes go out, would you aim for a crowd of soft people? No of course not. You do your best to miss everything, eventually you hit something, most likely a wall or other barrier - after you intentionally AVOID the people.
Because that is exactly what the idiots posing this question are talking about. The car will not be programmed to ram into people to slow down, no matter what the circumstances.
You are correct that Japan and Germany started out with pilots that were better than the US had - but the US was a pacifist country at that time, staying out of the 'European conflict'. Germany and Japan had been at war already and trained up their pilots. Their failure to maintain their capacity was a direct result of their culture.
As for your claims about experienced Russian pilots - they were not allowed to fly because too often they would get into their military aircraft and fly them to free countries. It happened six times during the cold war - we got 3 MIGS, 1 Tu-2 bomber, and 2 Sukhoi's. Not a single US pilot took a jet aircraft outside the US (we did lose 3 propeller plans, Cesna, Piper and an out dated T34 trainer).
Having a small number of experienced Russian pilots that could not be trusted, did not in any way compare with the much larger US air force.
Let's try that bit of stupidity you presented in the worst case scenarios:
If you don't like the arsenic and mercury in your water, don't buy it. And if you don't like slavery, don't buy a human being.
Sorry, but your understanding of how capitalism works fails. It has to obey laws, and that includes no deception. Claiming you are 'selling' something means you got no power over. You can't stop me from opening it up, and you can't give anyone else control over it.
This is at heart an evil product, designed to let corrupt governments and businesses unduly interfere with your property. I own it, I have rights to it. They want to stop me from breaking the law with it, they have to prove a law was broken - and they have to do it AFTERWARDS, they can't stop it before.
I buy it, I own, I do what I want with it unless that breaks a law.
Making a device that lets other, non-governmental people stop me from using it is not a service, it's a theft.
You are correct there is currently no inherent right to go to a website. But that is only because there is NO SUCH THING as an "inherent right". Rights are granted by laws, not by inherentance.
So when I said "there should be a law" that is me saying "we need to create a right to visit websites".
Basically, internet corps have abused the crap out of our privacy and I think we need to start passing laws to reign them in. This would be one.
Stop thinking like a subject (obeying your superiors) and start thinking like a citizen (creating the laws).
Your argument about a private company is bull shit. What, you think government can't pass laws that affect private companies?
They do it all the time - for lots of things.
If I said "right to privacy, this is already illegal" then you would have a point. But being a private company is not a magic shield that prevents governments from passing laws regulating what you can and can not do.
Or if you had some argument about less regulation being a good thing, then I would have had to convince you that in this particular case, less regulation is not a good thing.
But you got nothing but a half remembered argument that someone else once said. Not convincing at all.
Shark Tank rejected a business woman that had this model because they knew Pinterest could do it better.
But it won't work unless Pinterst scraps the "need an account" to view functionality.
Which come to think of it, should be a law. The entire "need an account to view" idea is there to let them track you. That should be illegal - no tracking unless you agree to be tracked.
For the past 70 years, one of the main advantages the US has had has been our pilots.
During World War II, most of the time the enemy had better planes (Japan at the beginning, Germany at the end - jets vs props.) After World War II, the Russian MIGS were better planes, at least until the end of the cold war.
What the US had better were pilots. Brilliant, creative, free thinking men that could out fly the enemy, no matter how much money they spent on aircraft.
From this point on, air superiority is for sale, rather than something you have to earn with freedom. China, Russia, etc. can build a good drone and put good software in it, without having to worry about raising their citizens up to be creative and brilliant.
The problem is the algorithms were optimized for a specific set of people, and guess what, they weren't the most common offenders.
That is, the algorithms are supposed to predict what you will do after you get out - go legit or commit more crimes.
But they are very accurate for older, white offenders, but very inaccurate for younger, black offenders. Effectively the algorithms were written in an attempt to be race blind by ignoring race. But certain activities, like number of previous interactions with the police, contain built in bias against younger, black people.
While a 40 year old white man that's been questioned by the police 5 times is likely a habitual criminal, a 20 year old black man that been questioned 10 times was just walking while black.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. In my experience, all the hospitals do it the wrong way - which is to write down the actual password.
The correct way to do it is simple, right down a password that is systematically wrong.
If the password is 845, write down 734.
If the password is EmerC@rE, write down eMERc2Re, or perhaps R,rV#tR (check your keyboard).
simple cryptography works fine.
Ideally the virus is not sexually transmittable. They want to use viruses that do not have the ability to reproduce in a cell. They can only reproduce in the lab. So you manufacture the viruses in large quantities, remove T Cells, then infect the T Cells. The T cells have their DNA modified in a way to make them more likely to fight the cancer, but do NOT have their DNA modified to make more viruses - that code is not built into the viruses.
Then you inject them back into the human, where the T Cells make their way back to your natural immune system. The natural immune system sees the modified DNA in their T Cells and copies it - again without coying any of the original virus.
If you start out talking about "100k in Gross Fares" then reveal that number was wrong, you need to tell us what the actual GROSS FARE was. Switching to take hour earnings, after expenses is the mark of an incompetent statistician, and a poor journalist. At the very least.
For those of you that did not read the article, they claimed that expenses were 25-33%, so at 100k, that would be somewhere between 66 and 75k, assuming 60 hour week that would have been $22 an hour, far more than the current claims of $13.25 (which sound exaggerated to me.)
Now, all we need is for Lotus to come out with an all white version of the car.
Foils, periscope, ejection seat and torpedo optional.
A huge number of lawyers will be out of work. Our judicial system will reduce the cases clogging our courts.
More importantly, a whole SWATH of small, corrupt towns across the nation will lose the majority of their funding and be forced to actually charge their townsmen taxes instead of depending on speed tracks.
First, those types of situations are so rare that they would be not be considered by the law.
Second, the car will never decide to 'save a 45 year old man vs a 10 year old girl.'. It will try to not hit either, but may in it's attempts to miss the old man it may fail to miss the little girl. It's a program, not a real consciousness.
That may seem like a minor wording change to you, but it will be how the incident will be described, and from a legal standpoint it makes a huge difference.
Look, if I wanted an all video experience, I would TURN ON THE TV.
I despise most videos on the internet.
1) You can't have 20 tabs open, because one of them will autostart.
2) The ads invade are far more invasive - taking more attention and of course, more your ears as well as your eyes. And the audio means you can't goof at work ;D
3) You have to consume it at THEIR convenience, not yours - even if you can pause/restart it, it generally means you miss a thing or two. No stopping at will to read an email.
4) In general it takes more brain power, more bandwidth, and more time to consume video than words
The studios steal from the creators via abusive contracts as much, if not MORE than YouTube steals from the musicians.
Despising one and not the other is hypocritical.
Part of the major problem is that the value of music has gone down and musicians dislike that. Music used to be a rare skill that was incredibly expensive to distribute. But distribution costs went down, they refused to lower the price, we found ways to use computers to enhance music (auto tune is just one of many such advancements), and the number of people that want to do it went up.
How many kids want to be rock stars? They depressed the market causing the prices to drop - it's simple supply and demand.
The profit went away but it wasn't YouTube's fault.
1) Foreign story - in China.
2) Plays to a cultural stereotype - Chinese are overly concerned with 'face'.
3) Coverage is via an unheard of news sight, rather than major media.
Also - there is no power for the person that takes out the loan - once you give them the power to blackmail you there is no reason for them to stop just at the amount you owe. What if they get hacked?
No - stupid business idea. Probably a fake story
That's not my take away. Computers are by definition generic machines. They have to do everything - be a spreadsheet, be a word processer, be a video player, connect to the internet, be a phone, etc.
That is what I object to - putting all that EXTRA tech in my dedicated Video viewing device. When you make something do too much, it DECREASES it's life expectancy and tremendously decreases the chance something will go wrong.
Basically, you can NEVER get a good SmartTV, no matter how much you try because it gets torn in too many different directions while also suffering from pre-mature obsolesce for PART of it but not the whole thing.
Affecting Electromagnetic Waves with acoustic waves is interesting, but we already rule both. It'd be far more interesting if they can get any change in gravity waves the Strong Force and Weak Force, merely by using sound or light.
Multiple function devices always give up some functionality. "Flying cars" are expensive, poor cars and expensive, poor planes. Swiss army knives are great, but never as nice a blade as a good hunting knife.
TV/VCR Combo are stupid know. Ten years from now, the smart TV will also be stupid. Better to get a huge monitor and connect it to a good computer - that you can update in 5 years, keeping the monitor for another 10
Smart TV's etc. are not worth it.