Exactly. The same bastards that caused WWI. Well, they are Polish, Austrian, Russian, and German now. Sad that Persia doesn't exist anymore, but I guess they deserved it.
Well, the Hutterites are Arabs, so it stands to reason the Hittites are too. Right? As technophobic bearded men who are very religious, Hutterites are more Arab than a lot of Iranians are.
That's solid wood, however, possibly dense old-growth wood. These are modern composites. I have no idea if that makes them more or less durable over a century.
What it likely makes them is hard to repair, unless the particular composite method they used becomes the dominant one. With a quick skim, I see about 4 competing technologies for pre-engineered, mass-produced wood composites. If you build with one and it falls out of favor, it might be tricky in the future to do any repairs. If nobody is making nail laminated timber and you need to sub in cross laminated timber, what are the ramifications?
I feel the opposite way. I love my wireless charging. Set the phone down, it charges. Pick it up to use it, it stops. No fiddling with plugs or wires. Once every few months I need to fast charge my phone, so I plug it in. 15 minutes and I've got 3-4 hrs of battery ready to go. But other than that, plugging it in is a hassle. And the micro USB port was what went on my last two phones, so I'm hoping that the wireless gets me another couple of years out of this phone.
I'm with you up to the wireless charging. I thought it was a gimmick, but two things changed my mind: 1) The first thing to fail on my last 2 phones was the charging port. 2) It's so god damned convenient.
Yes, it's not as efficient as wired charging. But the electricity cost is marginal. At work I toss my phone on my desk and it charges. At home I set it in the cradle and not only can I glance over to see what text or email came in because it's standing up, but it charges. Need to use the phone? Just pick it up. No cable to have to fiddle with, untangle, or unplug. The only place where I really plug my phone in anymore is in the car. And that's only on long drives, or after extended periods out hiking/walking.
I did not expect to love wireless charging this much.
Making an absolute claim like this is always a great way to make yourself look stupid.
Which is why you only find this claim in the shit journalism that's trying to pander to a mainstream audience and not in the paper itself. I really wish I had millions of dollars, because I'd buy/., hire some competent people, and go right to the actual research rater than the sensational, misleading bullshit that is used to get ad-views.
Not to mention that robots will follow the rules. That means safe following distances and logical decisions, following the speed limit and staying in their lanes. And yes, sometimes these are actually less safe choices, but not often.
Humans are bad drivers. Even the median human is a bad driver. Even the top 25% of human drivers have bad moments and bad days.
You said the magic word: consistently
That's what robot driving will get us. Something that humans are really, really bad at.
Human Resources. Not a Personnel Office, not Staff Development, not Employee Support.
Human Resources. You are humans, and you are a resource for the company to find, use up, and exploit. Maybe a valuable enough resource to conserve and foster, but likely not.
While some companies are rebranding HR something more positive, I really have to wonder how serious they are about changing the underlying culture of how they treat their employees.
By far the most rational justification here. Well done.
Although I suspect that there will be some ultra-rich who will want the status of actual humans and will be willing to pay enough to make sure they have staff. And I suspect that some ultra-rich will want only robots around, because actual humans are not to their liking.
The rest of us will get robots, because they are cheap.
Bumper mounted radar can already bounce off pavement, hit something, and return. It's already working that way for highway driving - will slow or stop a car if the car in front of the car in front of you is slowing down, but the one in front of you isn't. But even if that doesn't work for pedestrians, you're likely only doing 30mph if you're passing parked cars. In that case, the automated braking can probably stop in a car length or two. The amount of damage in a collision at that point is largely mitigated, if the collision itself isn't.
The chance of a kid flying into a road after a ball with timing such that a human could react to the ball but the automated car couldn't react to the kid is likely minimal.
If they wanted to use a functional example, how about a human seeing a parked car with the brakes on, and then the flash of the back-up lights as the driver shifted through reverse and into drive. That's an example where human vision and experience currently doesn't have a solid computer analogue. I know that that means the driver may be pulling out, but there aren't any automated cars out there, as far as I know, that would recognize that. I might slow down or change lanes if I see that up ahead, but no automated cars would, and none will likely do so for another generation or two of tech improvements in self-driving.
But even that scenario is mitigated by the chance that the formerly parked car might have cross-traffic and blind-spot detection. And as time goes on, that is more and more likely. Really, the situations where a human driver is going to be consistently better than a computer at driving are already starting to dry up. The author's inability to understand this is rather telling.
Lots of random postulation in TFA, with little useful substance. Clear that the authors needed to write about something, and this was something. Even if they didn't know anything about the topic, and couldn't be bothered to learn.
It's still not clear, however, which human tasks computers will be able to replace, and what the effects will be.
Oh really? Then what is the point of your guesswork here?
The most difficult tasks for computers involve unforeseen problems that do not match any programmed routine....the example of a driverless car that sees a little ball pass in front of it. This ball poses no danger to the car, which therefore has no reason to slam on the brakes. A human being, on the other hand, will probably foresee that the ball may be followed by a young child, and will therefore have a different reaction. The driverless car will not have enough experience to react appropriately.
Yep. No idea what they're talking about. It's like each driverless car has to learn how to drive on its own, and can't possibly learn from all of the other ones on the road. And there's no possibility that the car would detect the cross-traffic of a child which is large enough to trigger auto-breaking far before a human could notice and react. Even under parked cars, which is technology we currently have. Can I get paid to write about things I have no clue about? How do I sign up for that job?
UBI isn't designed to give people money to spend doing what they enjoy. It's designed to provide a basic income which allows us to do away with many different programs, such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, social security, etc. It's not designed to do anything more than provide enough to live on. If you like a free hobby like walks in the park and writing poetry, then UBI might work. But if a hobby costs any amount of real money, you're not going to be able to afford it on UBI.
The 15-25 year old kids in my decently wealthy neighborhood have plenty of money and lots of toys and hobbies. But they still occasionally do stupid shit like lighting the shredded rubber chips on the playground on fire and blowing up mailboxes with soda-bottle bombs because they get bored.
Boredom causes a lot of issues. Working keeps people out of trouble. When you have to be up at 6am to go to work, you generally don't get a fractured skull at 2am outside of a bar because you probably went to bed at 10 or 11. A very large portion of the social unrest I see in my community is boredom driven. UBI doesn't fix that. A job does.
I agree with most of your comment, but there is one place I disagree: UBI
For a long time I was on the UBI wagon, believing that it would solve a lot of the problems we're facing with the mismatch between skills in the labor force and jobs available. But moving from a somewhat rough neighborhood to a somewhat well-off suburb has changed my opinion.
The largest amount of trouble in both neighborhoods is caused by people with nothing to do. In the rough neighborhood it was the teens and young adults suffering 20% unemployment, and in the white suburb it is the teens and college kids living with mom and dad.
I don't think we're culturally equipped to have a large percentage of our population with their basic needs met with nothing to do. As you noted, there is a stigma of "lazy" applied to people getting benefits. Culturally, our self-worth is tied to what we do for our families and our community. If we do nothing, that does hit self-esteem, and it does cause mental stress. That, in turns, leads to some poor behaviors and substance abuse, if we see no way out of that trap. It leads to people trying to find some entertainment, and going to more and more extreme lengths to bring some excitement into their life.
I think that instead of UBI we're going to have to go to make-work programs. This is what pulled the US out of the great depression, created the highway system, and built a lot of the infrastructure of the country. This is work that could be done better, faster, and cheaper by robots. This is work that requires minimal skill, minimal supervision, but which makes communities better.
But with all that said, it's work. It's exchanging labor for money, getting your hands dirty, feeling tired but accomplished at the end of the day. It's something you can show your kids and say, "that's what I made". And yes, we'll still need disability pay, for those that can't.
Until we have a cultural revolution where we no longer draw some of our value as a human being from working, and until we have a cultural revolution where we invest our free time in making our communities better, we can't not work. And that means we can't do UBI.
How is my Samsung TV listening to me? It doesn't seem to have a microphone nor a SIM to access the cell network, and it's not connected to the internet. Is it sending the audio it captures through it's secret microphone back through the HDMI or the power cable?
You said, "which is required by law", then pointed to an FAA regulation, which is not the same thing. And on top of that, it references that it's a carrier decision, making that a fairly worthless thing to point to without fully examining carrier restrictions.
Your bolding for the United statement also missed the previous word, which is radio. Nowhere on the United page does it cover GPS, permitted or restricted. And while you could argue that GPS signals which fall generally in the 1.1-1.5 GHz range are "radio", that doesn't overlap with any of the more common definitions of radio being shortwave, AM, FM, etc. Given how the United page seems to be written to a non-technical audience, I'm going to assume that they are talking about AM/FM sorts of communication.
I think I was wrong about the transmission vs reception part, as WIFI is now allowed, which throws that out. Especially Delta's new "Free In-Air Texting" which isn't texting, but is a handful of messaging protocols that are running over WIFI, and seemingly without the 10,000 ft limitation. (The copilot on my last flight was telling a flight attendant that he was getting messages all the way through landing, which is not comforting.)
[ Or thought about Airplane Mode, which is required by law to disable GPS. ]
Since that doesn't seem happen when I put my phone in airplane mode, I'm assuming you're full of shit. Can you point to where in the law GPS needs to be turned off in airplane mode? That mode is to limit transmission, not reception.
I think you're describing how to break a system that's not overly broken at the moment. Adding an order of magnitude more score range would make it meaningless to set a floor for comments to see. So I want to see everything over -29. Do you really think that, on average, posts modded -30 are going to be substantially different? As it is now, the difference between 1 and 3 is not that large.
This also only works if people have the mods to do it. If there aren't enough mods, then a huge percent of the comments are going to stay at their default, while a small handful will bump up or down.
Allowing everyone to metamod also breaks the system. Trivial to create a bunch of accounts, and set up a script to metamod a subset of users or topics a certain way. That then penalizes the mods, and discourages that sort of modding from being done.
No, this system is far from perfect. But most of the changes you could make to it would make it worse rather than better.
Slashdot Mirror
Well yeah. That far East they were more likely Prussian, like the Iranians.
Exactly. The same bastards that caused WWI. Well, they are Polish, Austrian, Russian, and German now. Sad that Persia doesn't exist anymore, but I guess they deserved it.
True that. I'm all for truth in labeling.
Well, the Hutterites are Arabs, so it stands to reason the Hittites are too. Right? As technophobic bearded men who are very religious, Hutterites are more Arab than a lot of Iranians are.
That's solid wood, however, possibly dense old-growth wood. These are modern composites. I have no idea if that makes them more or less durable over a century.
What it likely makes them is hard to repair, unless the particular composite method they used becomes the dominant one. With a quick skim, I see about 4 competing technologies for pre-engineered, mass-produced wood composites. If you build with one and it falls out of favor, it might be tricky in the future to do any repairs. If nobody is making nail laminated timber and you need to sub in cross laminated timber, what are the ramifications?
I completely agree.
I feel the opposite way. I love my wireless charging. Set the phone down, it charges. Pick it up to use it, it stops. No fiddling with plugs or wires. Once every few months I need to fast charge my phone, so I plug it in. 15 minutes and I've got 3-4 hrs of battery ready to go. But other than that, plugging it in is a hassle. And the micro USB port was what went on my last two phones, so I'm hoping that the wireless gets me another couple of years out of this phone.
I'm with you up to the wireless charging. I thought it was a gimmick, but two things changed my mind: 1) The first thing to fail on my last 2 phones was the charging port. 2) It's so god damned convenient.
Yes, it's not as efficient as wired charging. But the electricity cost is marginal. At work I toss my phone on my desk and it charges. At home I set it in the cradle and not only can I glance over to see what text or email came in because it's standing up, but it charges. Need to use the phone? Just pick it up. No cable to have to fiddle with, untangle, or unplug. The only place where I really plug my phone in anymore is in the car. And that's only on long drives, or after extended periods out hiking/walking.
I did not expect to love wireless charging this much.
Making an absolute claim like this is always a great way to make yourself look stupid.
Which is why you only find this claim in the shit journalism that's trying to pander to a mainstream audience and not in the paper itself. I really wish I had millions of dollars, because I'd buy /., hire some competent people, and go right to the actual research rater than the sensational, misleading bullshit that is used to get ad-views.
Not to mention that robots will follow the rules. That means safe following distances and logical decisions, following the speed limit and staying in their lanes. And yes, sometimes these are actually less safe choices, but not often.
Humans are bad drivers. Even the median human is a bad driver. Even the top 25% of human drivers have bad moments and bad days.
You said the magic word: consistently
That's what robot driving will get us. Something that humans are really, really bad at.
No idea. I wasn't clicking it!
Human Resources. Not a Personnel Office, not Staff Development, not Employee Support.
Human Resources. You are humans, and you are a resource for the company to find, use up, and exploit. Maybe a valuable enough resource to conserve and foster, but likely not.
While some companies are rebranding HR something more positive, I really have to wonder how serious they are about changing the underlying culture of how they treat their employees.
Hey, we've all got our fetishes....
Quick! Soothe their eyes! Cutest Disney Animals evaaaaa! Click NOOOW! CLICK NOOOWWW!.
I believe there always will be bartenders.
Yes. They'll just be robots.
By far the most rational justification here. Well done.
Although I suspect that there will be some ultra-rich who will want the status of actual humans and will be willing to pay enough to make sure they have staff. And I suspect that some ultra-rich will want only robots around, because actual humans are not to their liking.
The rest of us will get robots, because they are cheap.
Bumper mounted radar can already bounce off pavement, hit something, and return. It's already working that way for highway driving - will slow or stop a car if the car in front of the car in front of you is slowing down, but the one in front of you isn't. But even if that doesn't work for pedestrians, you're likely only doing 30mph if you're passing parked cars. In that case, the automated braking can probably stop in a car length or two. The amount of damage in a collision at that point is largely mitigated, if the collision itself isn't.
The chance of a kid flying into a road after a ball with timing such that a human could react to the ball but the automated car couldn't react to the kid is likely minimal.
If they wanted to use a functional example, how about a human seeing a parked car with the brakes on, and then the flash of the back-up lights as the driver shifted through reverse and into drive. That's an example where human vision and experience currently doesn't have a solid computer analogue. I know that that means the driver may be pulling out, but there aren't any automated cars out there, as far as I know, that would recognize that. I might slow down or change lanes if I see that up ahead, but no automated cars would, and none will likely do so for another generation or two of tech improvements in self-driving.
But even that scenario is mitigated by the chance that the formerly parked car might have cross-traffic and blind-spot detection. And as time goes on, that is more and more likely. Really, the situations where a human driver is going to be consistently better than a computer at driving are already starting to dry up. The author's inability to understand this is rather telling.
Lots of random postulation in TFA, with little useful substance. Clear that the authors needed to write about something, and this was something. Even if they didn't know anything about the topic, and couldn't be bothered to learn.
It's still not clear, however, which human tasks computers will be able to replace, and what the effects will be.
Oh really? Then what is the point of your guesswork here?
The most difficult tasks for computers involve unforeseen problems that do not match any programmed routine....the example of a driverless car that sees a little ball pass in front of it. This ball poses no danger to the car, which therefore has no reason to slam on the brakes. A human being, on the other hand, will probably foresee that the ball may be followed by a young child, and will therefore have a different reaction. The driverless car will not have enough experience to react appropriately.
Yep. No idea what they're talking about. It's like each driverless car has to learn how to drive on its own, and can't possibly learn from all of the other ones on the road. And there's no possibility that the car would detect the cross-traffic of a child which is large enough to trigger auto-breaking far before a human could notice and react. Even under parked cars, which is technology we currently have. Can I get paid to write about things I have no clue about? How do I sign up for that job?
If they outright own their truck. If they're still making payments, goodbye everything.
Well, no. Tonic, at least as sold in the US, is soda. Sugary, awful soda. You're just doubling your type-2 diabetes chance with gin and tonic.
Do what I do, and play it safe: Drink martinis.
(At least until weed is legal around here, then I'll likely happily switch to edibles.)
UBI isn't designed to give people money to spend doing what they enjoy. It's designed to provide a basic income which allows us to do away with many different programs, such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, social security, etc. It's not designed to do anything more than provide enough to live on. If you like a free hobby like walks in the park and writing poetry, then UBI might work. But if a hobby costs any amount of real money, you're not going to be able to afford it on UBI.
The 15-25 year old kids in my decently wealthy neighborhood have plenty of money and lots of toys and hobbies. But they still occasionally do stupid shit like lighting the shredded rubber chips on the playground on fire and blowing up mailboxes with soda-bottle bombs because they get bored.
Boredom causes a lot of issues. Working keeps people out of trouble. When you have to be up at 6am to go to work, you generally don't get a fractured skull at 2am outside of a bar because you probably went to bed at 10 or 11. A very large portion of the social unrest I see in my community is boredom driven. UBI doesn't fix that. A job does.
I agree with most of your comment, but there is one place I disagree: UBI
For a long time I was on the UBI wagon, believing that it would solve a lot of the problems we're facing with the mismatch between skills in the labor force and jobs available. But moving from a somewhat rough neighborhood to a somewhat well-off suburb has changed my opinion.
The largest amount of trouble in both neighborhoods is caused by people with nothing to do. In the rough neighborhood it was the teens and young adults suffering 20% unemployment, and in the white suburb it is the teens and college kids living with mom and dad.
I don't think we're culturally equipped to have a large percentage of our population with their basic needs met with nothing to do. As you noted, there is a stigma of "lazy" applied to people getting benefits. Culturally, our self-worth is tied to what we do for our families and our community. If we do nothing, that does hit self-esteem, and it does cause mental stress. That, in turns, leads to some poor behaviors and substance abuse, if we see no way out of that trap. It leads to people trying to find some entertainment, and going to more and more extreme lengths to bring some excitement into their life.
I think that instead of UBI we're going to have to go to make-work programs. This is what pulled the US out of the great depression, created the highway system, and built a lot of the infrastructure of the country. This is work that could be done better, faster, and cheaper by robots. This is work that requires minimal skill, minimal supervision, but which makes communities better.
But with all that said, it's work. It's exchanging labor for money, getting your hands dirty, feeling tired but accomplished at the end of the day. It's something you can show your kids and say, "that's what I made". And yes, we'll still need disability pay, for those that can't.
Until we have a cultural revolution where we no longer draw some of our value as a human being from working, and until we have a cultural revolution where we invest our free time in making our communities better, we can't not work. And that means we can't do UBI.
How is my Samsung TV listening to me? It doesn't seem to have a microphone nor a SIM to access the cell network, and it's not connected to the internet. Is it sending the audio it captures through it's secret microphone back through the HDMI or the power cable?
You said, "which is required by law", then pointed to an FAA regulation, which is not the same thing. And on top of that, it references that it's a carrier decision, making that a fairly worthless thing to point to without fully examining carrier restrictions.
Your bolding for the United statement also missed the previous word, which is radio. Nowhere on the United page does it cover GPS, permitted or restricted. And while you could argue that GPS signals which fall generally in the 1.1-1.5 GHz range are "radio", that doesn't overlap with any of the more common definitions of radio being shortwave, AM, FM, etc. Given how the United page seems to be written to a non-technical audience, I'm going to assume that they are talking about AM/FM sorts of communication.
I think I was wrong about the transmission vs reception part, as WIFI is now allowed, which throws that out. Especially Delta's new "Free In-Air Texting" which isn't texting, but is a handful of messaging protocols that are running over WIFI, and seemingly without the 10,000 ft limitation. (The copilot on my last flight was telling a flight attendant that he was getting messages all the way through landing, which is not comforting.)
And here's Delta's list of approved devices. You'll notice that GPS receivers are allowed in all stages of flight.
So, are you going to retract your statement about Airplane Mode being required by law to disable GPS?
[ Or thought about Airplane Mode, which is required by law to disable GPS. ]
Since that doesn't seem happen when I put my phone in airplane mode, I'm assuming you're full of shit. Can you point to where in the law GPS needs to be turned off in airplane mode? That mode is to limit transmission, not reception.
I think you're describing how to break a system that's not overly broken at the moment. Adding an order of magnitude more score range would make it meaningless to set a floor for comments to see. So I want to see everything over -29. Do you really think that, on average, posts modded -30 are going to be substantially different? As it is now, the difference between 1 and 3 is not that large.
This also only works if people have the mods to do it. If there aren't enough mods, then a huge percent of the comments are going to stay at their default, while a small handful will bump up or down.
Allowing everyone to metamod also breaks the system. Trivial to create a bunch of accounts, and set up a script to metamod a subset of users or topics a certain way. That then penalizes the mods, and discourages that sort of modding from being done.
No, this system is far from perfect. But most of the changes you could make to it would make it worse rather than better.