Go look objectively at the statistics for plane crashes since commercial flights began, then come back and say that with a straight face.
There are multiple cases of airliners following the 'it's ok, we don't have to be able to handle all conditions, we'll just hand control back to the pilot if we can't figure out going wrong' and the pilots crashing a perfectly good plane when it happens.
Which part of this is hard to understand? The pilots have been taken out of the loop, have no idea of what's going on, and no idea how to get out of it.
On Youtube, there's a video from the 50s about how you'll soon be able to get on the highway and your self-driving car will take you to your destination. Of course, they had 'road traffic control' towers controlling the cars, not computers.
If the problems were really as unsolvable as you suggest, I'd expect we'd have read about a number of hilarious and/or tragic mishaps by now.
Yeah, and if overclocking our chips was dangerous, we wouldn't have been running them at 3GHz in the pre-release benchmarks (oops, we picked the chips that were capable of running at that speed, not the ones we'd sell to you for $200, but don't tell anyone).
How many of those cars were being driven in sunny weather by Google employees who were paying full attention to what's going on around them? And how many of those cars were being 'driven' by soccer moms talking on their cellphones in between yelling at three kids in the back seat? In a snow storm? When they hadn't cleaned the car's sensors in six months, or checked the brakes in six years?
Why not, that is the design philosophy for airliners made in the past 30 years and their pilots who operate them.
And, quite often, the pilot then crashes the plane, even though they have minutes to figure out the problem.
This design philosophy has been disastrous in aviation, where there are far less 'self-driving' vehicles and the people monitoring the computers are much better trained and have much more time to respond. It's not going to work at all with cars.
"This makes Google think autonomous cars need an all-or-nothing approach."
Some of us have been saying this for a long time.
There's a real market for automated cruise control on the highway, where you can be driving for hours with little traffic or other hazards. There's no market for a half-assed 'self driving' car in the city, where any screwup can kill a kid well before the driver has time to do anything about it.
If trained airline pilots can crash into the sea two minutes after their 'self-driving plane' hands control back to them, a driver has no chance of missing that kid when he runs out into the road and their 'self-driving car' hands control back them to avoid legal liability. If you can't sleep all the way, it's not safe enough to be on city roads.
Nope, what ABS does is rapidly pulse the brakes for you (and much faster than you can) when it detects a situation where the brakes would lock and the car would simply skid.
But modern cars use the ABS system to do much more than that. Mine, for example, detects wheelspin and can automatically apply the brakes on that wheel, rather than cut the power to all four wheels. It will also apply additional brake pressure if it decides you're trying to do an emergency stop, but not pushing as hard on the pedal as you could.
The former is useful. Not so sure about the latter, as I've never triggered it yet.
For a bullet to knock you over, it would have to come out of the gun with enough recoil to be able to knock over the shooter. When someone is knocked over by a bullet, it's either because they're dead, or because of their reaction to being shot.
The fact that you don't understand the meaning of a simple word like "tolerant" makes your entire post rather superfluous.
He's writing SJW, where 'tolerant' means 'telling everyone else what to do, and punishing those who disagree with you'. Generally speaking, if you take every word an SJW says and reverse its meaning, you'll get what they're really trying to say.
Fortunately the Chinese have no tolerance for SJWs, so they won't care in the least about what they say about this.
They've lost a lot more customers than that. Many people I know who used to use Windows desktops or laptops at home now use iPads or Android tablets instead. Other than the company's ancient burner Dells for business trips, I now see more Mac laptops than Windows among the people I know and work with.
The only market Microsoft still own is the business desktop, and their recent behaviour is only going to accelerate the move away from Windows there, too.
Yeah, that's why Windows totally owns the tablet market. No-one's willing to dump Windows lock-in to buy a device from Apple or Google.
Back in the real world, most of the 'lock-in' is in people's heads. It's not that they MUST RUN WIZZYWORD 2000, which is only available on Windows, but that they can't be bothered to learn anything else without a good reason to switch.
of all the reasons why this is an annoyance, you went for "it takes space on my hdd" ?
Um, my Windows box has a 120GB SSD for the boot drive. I do not want Windows 10 on that machine. I sure as hell do not want it wasting 10% of the space on that SSD.
Nor, for that matter, do I want it hogging the network sucking down a 10GB file in the first place.
This just proves that Microsoft has gone batshit crazy.
Even if you were right, and there's at best a 50% chance of that. Why would it matter to anyone who doesn't have Apple shares. Which is nearly everyone.
So you don't have any money in a savings or pension fund that owns Apple shares?
Tablet sales are declining, because most people who want one already have one, and it's good enough. Apple need to keep producing new things if they want to maintain their current place, let alone grow any more enormous than they currently are.
You've got the iPad Mini to carry around, the iPad Air to use on the sofa, and the iPad Pro to use on a desk. Then you just have the current version or the older, cheapo version.
Doesn't seem like a huge problem to choose between them, to me. At least the Mini 4 is a real upgrade, rather than 'let's throw in a fingerprint sensor and add $100 to the price'.
Why does there have to be something "revolutionary" every year (or two years)?
Because Apple's stock price won't stay in the stratosphere if they just keep pumping out 'same but better' products like these. It's priced on 'revolutionary', not 'bread and butter'.
You do realize that companies don't pay tax, right? If taxes are high, they cut wages or outsource, they cut dividends to shareholders, or they raise prices. Unless it's a company whose customers are primarily foreigners, you end up paying, either way.
Yes, but the share price will go up, and the managers who outsourced all that stuff will exercise their stock options and move on before the inevitable disasters happen.
In most business, reward systems encourage managers to make short-term savings with no concern about the long term. So they do exactly that.
In a world without patents or copyright, there would be only curiosity left to drive innovation. But curiosity isn't the force behind capitalism, behind the economy, greed is. Try to build a society out of curiosity, you'll fail. It might be possible with future technological advancements, when we don't need humans to work anymore because all work is done by machines, but not now.
My God, you're so right! How did our ancestors ever manage to make things for thousands of years with no patents to protect them from new, more innovative competitors?
Slashdot Mirror
Go look objectively at the statistics for plane crashes since commercial flights began, then come back and say that with a straight face.
There are multiple cases of airliners following the 'it's ok, we don't have to be able to handle all conditions, we'll just hand control back to the pilot if we can't figure out going wrong' and the pilots crashing a perfectly good plane when it happens.
Which part of this is hard to understand? The pilots have been taken out of the loop, have no idea of what's going on, and no idea how to get out of it.
On Youtube, there's a video from the 50s about how you'll soon be able to get on the highway and your self-driving car will take you to your destination. Of course, they had 'road traffic control' towers controlling the cars, not computers.
If the problems were really as unsolvable as you suggest, I'd expect we'd have read about a number of hilarious and/or tragic mishaps by now.
Yeah, and if overclocking our chips was dangerous, we wouldn't have been running them at 3GHz in the pre-release benchmarks (oops, we picked the chips that were capable of running at that speed, not the ones we'd sell to you for $200, but don't tell anyone).
How many of those cars were being driven in sunny weather by Google employees who were paying full attention to what's going on around them? And how many of those cars were being 'driven' by soccer moms talking on their cellphones in between yelling at three kids in the back seat? In a snow storm? When they hadn't cleaned the car's sensors in six months, or checked the brakes in six years?
Why not, that is the design philosophy for airliners made in the past 30 years and their pilots who operate them.
And, quite often, the pilot then crashes the plane, even though they have minutes to figure out the problem.
This design philosophy has been disastrous in aviation, where there are far less 'self-driving' vehicles and the people monitoring the computers are much better trained and have much more time to respond. It's not going to work at all with cars.
"This makes Google think autonomous cars need an all-or-nothing approach."
Some of us have been saying this for a long time.
There's a real market for automated cruise control on the highway, where you can be driving for hours with little traffic or other hazards. There's no market for a half-assed 'self driving' car in the city, where any screwup can kill a kid well before the driver has time to do anything about it.
If trained airline pilots can crash into the sea two minutes after their 'self-driving plane' hands control back to them, a driver has no chance of missing that kid when he runs out into the road and their 'self-driving car' hands control back them to avoid legal liability. If you can't sleep all the way, it's not safe enough to be on city roads.
Nope, what ABS does is rapidly pulse the brakes for you (and much faster than you can) when it detects a situation where the brakes would lock and the car would simply skid.
But modern cars use the ABS system to do much more than that. Mine, for example, detects wheelspin and can automatically apply the brakes on that wheel, rather than cut the power to all four wheels. It will also apply additional brake pressure if it decides you're trying to do an emergency stop, but not pushing as hard on the pedal as you could.
The former is useful. Not so sure about the latter, as I've never triggered it yet.
the whole point here is that humans are really poor drivers
I think you misspelt "Americans" there.
Uh... conservation of momentum, dude.
For a bullet to knock you over, it would have to come out of the gun with enough recoil to be able to knock over the shooter. When someone is knocked over by a bullet, it's either because they're dead, or because of their reaction to being shot.
The fact that you don't understand the meaning of a simple word like "tolerant" makes your entire post rather superfluous.
He's writing SJW, where 'tolerant' means 'telling everyone else what to do, and punishing those who disagree with you'. Generally speaking, if you take every word an SJW says and reverse its meaning, you'll get what they're really trying to say.
Fortunately the Chinese have no tolerance for SJWs, so they won't care in the least about what they say about this.
They've lost a lot more customers than that. Many people I know who used to use Windows desktops or laptops at home now use iPads or Android tablets instead. Other than the company's ancient burner Dells for business trips, I now see more Mac laptops than Windows among the people I know and work with.
The only market Microsoft still own is the business desktop, and their recent behaviour is only going to accelerate the move away from Windows there, too.
Yeah, that's why Windows totally owns the tablet market. No-one's willing to dump Windows lock-in to buy a device from Apple or Google.
Back in the real world, most of the 'lock-in' is in people's heads. It's not that they MUST RUN WIZZYWORD 2000, which is only available on Windows, but that they can't be bothered to learn anything else without a good reason to switch.
Maybe now, they'll dump the 'climate change' claptrap, and it will be worth reading again.
of all the reasons why this is an annoyance, you went for "it takes space on my hdd" ?
Um, my Windows box has a 120GB SSD for the boot drive. I do not want Windows 10 on that machine. I sure as hell do not want it wasting 10% of the space on that SSD.
Nor, for that matter, do I want it hogging the network sucking down a 10GB file in the first place.
This just proves that Microsoft has gone batshit crazy.
Says every shakedown artist in every government on the planet.
Even if you were right, and there's at best a 50% chance of that. Why would it matter to anyone who doesn't have Apple shares. Which is nearly everyone.
So you don't have any money in a savings or pension fund that owns Apple shares?
Tablet sales are declining, because most people who want one already have one, and it's good enough. Apple need to keep producing new things if they want to maintain their current place, let alone grow any more enormous than they currently are.
The cloud! The cloud!
Apple's base iPad model has always been 16GB (or less?), so they can advertise a low price for the version few people want to buy.
Call the iPad Pro what it is, the iSurface RT.
Except this one doesn't suck.
without real productivity apps, what purpose does the iPad Pro serve?
Reading magazines and print PDFs without having to scroll around and zoom in on the page?
You've got the iPad Mini to carry around, the iPad Air to use on the sofa, and the iPad Pro to use on a desk. Then you just have the current version or the older, cheapo version.
Doesn't seem like a huge problem to choose between them, to me. At least the Mini 4 is a real upgrade, rather than 'let's throw in a fingerprint sensor and add $100 to the price'.
Why does there have to be something "revolutionary" every year (or two years)?
Because Apple's stock price won't stay in the stratosphere if they just keep pumping out 'same but better' products like these. It's priced on 'revolutionary', not 'bread and butter'.
Do I want crimes against me unpunished because somebody can run to Russia?
So you are happy with Russia getting an American company to hand over your emails, then?
You do realize that companies don't pay tax, right? If taxes are high, they cut wages or outsource, they cut dividends to shareholders, or they raise prices. Unless it's a company whose customers are primarily foreigners, you end up paying, either way.
Oh, sorry, no, obviously you don't.
You agree that Microsoft can abuse its multinational status to ignore US law?
Do you want your emails on an American server handed over to Russia because the Russians claim you broke some law there?
Yes, but the share price will go up, and the managers who outsourced all that stuff will exercise their stock options and move on before the inevitable disasters happen.
In most business, reward systems encourage managers to make short-term savings with no concern about the long term. So they do exactly that.
Damn! You're right! How could I have been so stupid? If only the ancient Egyptians had patents, we'd have had computers five thousand years ago!
In a world without patents or copyright, there would be only curiosity left to drive innovation. But curiosity isn't the force behind capitalism, behind the economy, greed is. Try to build a society out of curiosity, you'll fail. It might be possible with future technological advancements, when we don't need humans to work anymore because all work is done by machines, but not now.
My God, you're so right! How did our ancestors ever manage to make things for thousands of years with no patents to protect them from new, more innovative competitors?