I know, like most Americans, I spend a lot of time worrying about offending the Northern Irish.
like referring to the US as the "Contiguous United States".
More like saying "America", which people actually do. And somehow you don't meet a lot of angry Hawaiians, Mexicans, or Canadians.
In all seriousness, like many things it's probably a holdover in American English from when the US became independent. At the time, it was indeed the Kingdom of Great Britain - they didn't hook up with Ireland for another few years when it became the UK. Then another name change after WW1. Who can keep up?:)
in my country we have robot trains that have a "driver", who is really just an "observer/safety officer".
I think this is just temporary - or as in Washington, DC a reflection on the crappiness of the automation. In Singapore they operate fully automated trains.
do you really think in this legal/risk averse climate, that robot cars will be?
I think that is the greatest risk to the technology. But again, temporary. The cool thing about having 50 states is that you figure at least one crazy state will go all-in. Then you start to get data and if the automatons are better than human drivers, the others will follow. The feds, as usual, will only step in once there is a bandwagon to jump on.
No amount of robot car AI is getting anywhere near that level of capacity
I assume you mean robot car AI? Because automatic mass transit already exists.
I would seriously doubt that statistical models can cope with a transition from car ownership to on-demand car rental services, but I welcome the opportunity to be enlightened. It's almost as if a new gas were introduced and asking existing climate models to deal with it.
Eh what? Just change costs? Good luck getting that one across the next election
No harder than figuring out how to legalize and regulate the autonomous cars themselves.
If your tool solves one problem but then creates another, that is a problem.
It can't create a problem merely by existing. These things operate on public roads, which means you have all the usually public policy tools at your disposal. If your vision of the future is the correct one and people flock to self-driving cars creating traffic nightmares, this is something that can be attacked using existing tools, and new tools if need be. But that's a big "if".
Maybe I was spoiled by my previous iPhone, but I found Gingerbread to be lacking compared to iOS. My later phones have been much better. Faster and with more memory, sure - but the software is much more polished now. I don't really consider it a walled garden unless you need the Google services. That said, I do use Google's stuff so I'm sure there are frustrations that I'm missing.
In summary, the solution is not robot cars, although robot uber might play a part, but robot buses and trains. And with detailed trip logs, road planning and taxing can be made far fairer and more effective.
I suspect we are talking past one another a bit. Automatic trains and buses will absolutely be valuable. I can't imagine that self-driving cars will be a thing, but not trains - the problem is much, much simpler to solve. In New York, roughly 36% of the transit budget is salaries. Not all drivers, but nonetheless there is a lot of cost to be saved with automation of buses and trains.
It might even be that it only pays to operate the mass transit stuff during peak hours, while renting the more efficient small vehicles when there are few passengers. I've been on many a late-night empty subway train or city bus. Incredibly inefficient. At 2AM it might be more cost-effective for the transit service to contract for some self-driving cars.
I still don't see people who formerly took a bus or some other form of mass transit suddenly abandoning that for a more expensive option. I can see people using the robotic cars to get to a transportation hub.
But this is all mental masturbation. If these things cause congestion, we fix it by changing the costs. Easy. The technology itself is just a tool and does not present problems by itself.
They didn't make Voice, either. On my list, only Keep and their hosting services were 100% Google. I think we can give them Android - it was not created there, but they got it in a fairly unpleasant state and have made it into a serious rival for iOS. It was only 2 years old when they bought it and it's had 11 years of intensive development since. While we're at it, Chrome and the ChromeOS aren't all bad.
I largely agree, but add some more products to the "good" list: Android is good and has improved over time. YouTube, for all it's warts, is still the best of the video sharing sites (and a modern miracle when doing appliance repair). Waze is my favorite commuting app - the real-time traffic and rerouting works really well. Google Voice is getting long in the tooth, but still offers some killer features, very good international prices, and free US calling. Google's cloud/hosting/whatever is pretty good - I rented some time for some heavy computation and found it to be at least as nice as the AWS offerings. And finally, I actually like Keep.
You'll note that I was referring to "public radio" in the US, not NPR specifically. The NPR news shows do make a very professional effort to be balanced. Some shows, like "Fresh Air" don't really emphasize that - or if they do are not particularly successful at it. I mean, there is only so much you can do when your on-air personalities and audience are overwhelmingly of a particular political persuasion.
Yeah, NPR tries to be as neutral as they can while all voting Democrat. They make the effort. But public radio as a whole is liberal leaning (e.g. Harry Shearer's "Le Show", "Fresh Air", etc). It's all good - there certainly is no shortage of conservative radio.
Not state-run, public. Admittedly, it's got more and more commercials/sponsors now, but very little money actually comes from the feds. It's probably a misnomer to call it "public", but that's what it's known as. And since they lean quite liberal, it's sometimes antagonistic to the party in power - hardly a mouthpiece of the state.
Labor is reduced, sure. But all things being equal, a car with more passengers offers a larger return on invested capital than a car with fewer passengers. The self-driving carpool service will always be cheaper than the self-driving single-passenger service.
No, that's exactly what it means. There is no problem. A service is offered that he does not take advantage of. No harm, no foul. There is no problem with lamb being offered at the grocery store even if you personally hate lamb.
No, I think you are wrong. Robot cars allow better correlation between activities which cause congestion and cost. Right now, your private car has a driver cost of zero because you don't count your own time. You don't consider the cost of the car on each trip because it is already a sunk cost, and psychologically you don't see the cost of a few more miles on your private car. With robot cars, rides with more passengers will be cheaper. A ride to the local park-n-ride will be cheaper (and no parking fee!) than a ride into the downtown. A direct economic incentive like this will surely reduce congestion. And with detailed trip logs, road planning and taxing can be made far fairer and more effective.
If you are going to get this grant, you need to come up with better than that. First, define "progressive" such that it includes proficiency in domestic skills by both partners. Then look for statistical correlation with any single domestic skill (in this case, "cooking"). NOW, you're playing with power.
That is exactly what this study did, by the way, only they used "education" as the definition and "math" as the correlated variable. Educated girls are better at math! Wow!
You would need to show that (a) there is a statistically significant problem worth solving and (b) that the regular taxi vetting process would help with a problem that has been identified. If we ignore significance, then we are crafting policy based on human hunches. If those were satisfactory, we would not need science.
Slashdot Mirror
They smiled while they took my money :)
I know, like most Americans, I spend a lot of time worrying about offending the Northern Irish.
like referring to the US as the "Contiguous United States".
More like saying "America", which people actually do. And somehow you don't meet a lot of angry Hawaiians, Mexicans, or Canadians.
In all seriousness, like many things it's probably a holdover in American English from when the US became independent. At the time, it was indeed the Kingdom of Great Britain - they didn't hook up with Ireland for another few years when it became the UK. Then another name change after WW1. Who can keep up? :)
in my country we have robot trains that have a "driver", who is really just an "observer/safety officer".
I think this is just temporary - or as in Washington, DC a reflection on the crappiness of the automation. In Singapore they operate fully automated trains.
do you really think in this legal/risk averse climate, that robot cars will be?
I think that is the greatest risk to the technology. But again, temporary. The cool thing about having 50 states is that you figure at least one crazy state will go all-in. Then you start to get data and if the automatons are better than human drivers, the others will follow. The feds, as usual, will only step in once there is a bandwagon to jump on.
No amount of robot car AI is getting anywhere near that level of capacity
I assume you mean robot car AI? Because automatic mass transit already exists.
I would seriously doubt that statistical models can cope with a transition from car ownership to on-demand car rental services, but I welcome the opportunity to be enlightened. It's almost as if a new gas were introduced and asking existing climate models to deal with it.
Eh what? Just change costs? Good luck getting that one across the next election
No harder than figuring out how to legalize and regulate the autonomous cars themselves.
If your tool solves one problem but then creates another, that is a problem.
It can't create a problem merely by existing. These things operate on public roads, which means you have all the usually public policy tools at your disposal. If your vision of the future is the correct one and people flock to self-driving cars creating traffic nightmares, this is something that can be attacked using existing tools, and new tools if need be. But that's a big "if".
Maybe I was spoiled by my previous iPhone, but I found Gingerbread to be lacking compared to iOS. My later phones have been much better. Faster and with more memory, sure - but the software is much more polished now. I don't really consider it a walled garden unless you need the Google services. That said, I do use Google's stuff so I'm sure there are frustrations that I'm missing.
In summary, the solution is not robot cars, although robot uber might play a part, but robot buses and trains. And with detailed trip logs, road planning and taxing can be made far fairer and more effective.
I suspect we are talking past one another a bit. Automatic trains and buses will absolutely be valuable. I can't imagine that self-driving cars will be a thing, but not trains - the problem is much, much simpler to solve. In New York, roughly 36% of the transit budget is salaries. Not all drivers, but nonetheless there is a lot of cost to be saved with automation of buses and trains.
It might even be that it only pays to operate the mass transit stuff during peak hours, while renting the more efficient small vehicles when there are few passengers. I've been on many a late-night empty subway train or city bus. Incredibly inefficient. At 2AM it might be more cost-effective for the transit service to contract for some self-driving cars.
Congestion? I was replying to someone who didn't want their kid to ride with strangers. I told him not to use the sharing service.
I still don't see people who formerly took a bus or some other form of mass transit suddenly abandoning that for a more expensive option. I can see people using the robotic cars to get to a transportation hub.
But this is all mental masturbation. If these things cause congestion, we fix it by changing the costs. Easy. The technology itself is just a tool and does not present problems by itself.
They didn't make Voice, either. On my list, only Keep and their hosting services were 100% Google. I think we can give them Android - it was not created there, but they got it in a fairly unpleasant state and have made it into a serious rival for iOS. It was only 2 years old when they bought it and it's had 11 years of intensive development since. While we're at it, Chrome and the ChromeOS aren't all bad.
Throw enough shit at the wall, and not only will some of it stick, but there is a non-zero probability that it might look like a piece of art.
I largely agree, but add some more products to the "good" list: Android is good and has improved over time. YouTube, for all it's warts, is still the best of the video sharing sites (and a modern miracle when doing appliance repair). Waze is my favorite commuting app - the real-time traffic and rerouting works really well. Google Voice is getting long in the tooth, but still offers some killer features, very good international prices, and free US calling. Google's cloud/hosting/whatever is pretty good - I rented some time for some heavy computation and found it to be at least as nice as the AWS offerings. And finally, I actually like Keep.
You can see it.
You'll note that I was referring to "public radio" in the US, not NPR specifically. The NPR news shows do make a very professional effort to be balanced. Some shows, like "Fresh Air" don't really emphasize that - or if they do are not particularly successful at it. I mean, there is only so much you can do when your on-air personalities and audience are overwhelmingly of a particular political persuasion.
She got her JD from the School of Hard Knocks.
Yeah, NPR tries to be as neutral as they can while all voting Democrat. They make the effort. But public radio as a whole is liberal leaning (e.g. Harry Shearer's "Le Show", "Fresh Air", etc). It's all good - there certainly is no shortage of conservative radio.
Not state-run, public. Admittedly, it's got more and more commercials/sponsors now, but very little money actually comes from the feds. It's probably a misnomer to call it "public", but that's what it's known as. And since they lean quite liberal, it's sometimes antagonistic to the party in power - hardly a mouthpiece of the state.
Labor is reduced, sure. But all things being equal, a car with more passengers offers a larger return on invested capital than a car with fewer passengers. The self-driving carpool service will always be cheaper than the self-driving single-passenger service.
No, that's exactly what it means. There is no problem. A service is offered that he does not take advantage of. No harm, no foul. There is no problem with lamb being offered at the grocery store even if you personally hate lamb.
No, I think you are wrong. Robot cars allow better correlation between activities which cause congestion and cost. Right now, your private car has a driver cost of zero because you don't count your own time. You don't consider the cost of the car on each trip because it is already a sunk cost, and psychologically you don't see the cost of a few more miles on your private car. With robot cars, rides with more passengers will be cheaper. A ride to the local park-n-ride will be cheaper (and no parking fee!) than a ride into the downtown. A direct economic incentive like this will surely reduce congestion. And with detailed trip logs, road planning and taxing can be made far fairer and more effective.
If you are going to get this grant, you need to come up with better than that. First, define "progressive" such that it includes proficiency in domestic skills by both partners. Then look for statistical correlation with any single domestic skill (in this case, "cooking"). NOW, you're playing with power.
That is exactly what this study did, by the way, only they used "education" as the definition and "math" as the correlated variable. Educated girls are better at math! Wow!
You would need to show that (a) there is a statistically significant problem worth solving and (b) that the regular taxi vetting process would help with a problem that has been identified. If we ignore significance, then we are crafting policy based on human hunches. If those were satisfactory, we would not need science.
On the other hand, the women from those societies are far better cooks relative to the men. And laundry... my whites have never been so white!
Really? It hasn't come up on my Google Reader feed yet?
Welcome to Google Wave!