If you were to take a balanced sample of people across the world throughout history you'd conclude that nobody has any rights, or as close as makes any difference.
It's a fallacy, an argument from authority squared.
But you still have to file, even under first-to-invent.
It just means that evidence that you were working on it at a certain date is taken into account and that might trump the guy who got to the office first.
But with an AI driven car you could make those decisions in advance. In fact it would be one of the things you'd have to do when designing the software.
Bollocks. Even some hobby drones can be set that if they lose comms for X amount of time they revert to some other behaviour - circle, hover, land, head for home...
If this was in a simulator, the AI must have been given access to all of the flight data with perfect precision.
On what grounds? It'd be trivial to add random or systematic errors to data, or cause certain sensors to appear mute. I played some old military sims that had an option for "fog of war".
AI can't do shit against a enemy that can radar jam its senses. It would be blind as a bat.
As would a manned aircraft in a BVR engagement.
If you can actually see the target with the old Mk1s you're probably doing it wrong.
The simple fact is that image and pattern recognition on radar and camera's are not good enough in real time for an AI pilot to work with.
Are you suggesting that they point a camer at the HUD?
The data's already in digital form. Instead of feeding it to a display panel feed it straight to the AI. Controls are fly-by-wire anyway, so why pass it through an expensive and delicate carbon unit?
There are other tests that take into account other things important to intelligence like the ability to communicate with others (a high IQ isn't useful if one can't understand a problem to be solved) etc.
And swimming. Because a high IQ isn't useful if you drown. Oh, and fencing. A high IQ isn't useful if someone kills you with a sword.
If they all met in one big battle of doom, the Germans would have to achieve a kill (not hit) ratio of well over 50% or they'd run out of ammo before the Russians ran out of tanks.
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way. Because if there's one thing Brits absolutely love, it's being pushed around by foreigners, which, duh, was the whole fucking point of the question.
Really, if I was some head of state, I'd be like "That's a matter for the people of X". At the very strongest, if pushed, I'd say "Well, personally, I'd prefer..." or "If I was one of them, I'd probably choose...". I wouldn't make threats.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the kind of shallow pointless shit that hipsters love.
If you were to take a balanced sample of people across the world throughout history you'd conclude that nobody has any rights, or as close as makes any difference.
It's a fallacy, an argument from authority squared.
Am I the only one who's noticed that these mass extinctions tend to occur around changeovers from one geological period to the next?
I think a little extra caution is warranted around those times.
You are so exponentially wrong that it literally makes my blood boil.
Bullshit? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUr...
It's certainly truer than this: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Fucking hell, you must have lived in some dangerous places!
But you still have to file, even under first-to-invent.
It just means that evidence that you were working on it at a certain date is taken into account and that might trump the guy who got to the office first.
But with an AI driven car you could make those decisions in advance. In fact it would be one of the things you'd have to do when designing the software.
Rubbish again. Inertial navigation and terrain matching are more than good enough to get you home.
Did I say those were the only possible options for a combat drone? It could be anything you want.
I expect that kind of stupidity from the other guy, but you usually have a bit more sense.
If an assessment was done, they ignored it.
Bollocks. Even some hobby drones can be set that if they lose comms for X amount of time they revert to some other behaviour - circle, hover, land, head for home...
SF made me reigistar to get a frosty piss!
Then their marksmanship is appalling if Kent State is anything to go by.
On what grounds? It'd be trivial to add random or systematic errors to data, or cause certain sensors to appear mute. I played some old military sims that had an option for "fog of war".
As would a manned aircraft in a BVR engagement.
If you can actually see the target with the old Mk1s you're probably doing it wrong.
God, I hope not.
Signed,
Roy Hodgson.
He thinks it's still 1940. Like half of the British electorate.
You're able to walk because your great-times-n grandfather did something dangerous, namely coming down from the trees.
Maybe n isn't so large, given this gem.
Are you suggesting that they point a camer at the HUD?
The data's already in digital form. Instead of feeding it to a display panel feed it straight to the AI. Controls are fly-by-wire anyway, so why pass it through an expensive and delicate carbon unit?
They won't do it for the pay offered.
And swimming. Because a high IQ isn't useful if you drown. Oh, and fencing. A high IQ isn't useful if someone kills you with a sword.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
The Soviets produced about 80,000 T34s in WW2.
The Germans produced 1,300 Tigers.
If they all met in one big battle of doom, the Germans would have to achieve a kill (not hit) ratio of well over 50% or they'd run out of ammo before the Russians ran out of tanks.
The British one from about 1980, with the bald guy? I loved that!
Or did I?
I thought it was only married men that live shorter lives.
Because they want to.
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way. Because if there's one thing Brits absolutely love, it's being pushed around by foreigners, which, duh, was the whole fucking point of the question.
Really, if I was some head of state, I'd be like "That's a matter for the people of X". At the very strongest, if pushed, I'd say "Well, personally, I'd prefer..." or "If I was one of them, I'd probably choose...". I wouldn't make threats.