I agree, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that it'll be half the vehicles today and the other half tomorrow. Instead it says "Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive... for a few days" You'd think it'd be odd numbered plates on odd numbered days and even plates on even days, but that's not what it says.
"It" being an Australian news source that is being a bit vague. What actually happens in Paris is that it goes by whether the day of the month is odd or even. Monday is 23rd, so only odd digit cars are allowed on the road. If it extends to the 24th, then only even numbered cars will be allowed.
And the ban certainly does apply within the city. Pleading ignorance will still get you a fine.
Not at all. A decade ago, DARPA had a competition for autonomous vehicles to go around a fixed off-road course of 100 miles or so , which the developers could study beforehand. And not a single vehicle even got halfway. Autonomous vehicles on the roads seemed like many decades away right then.
And before that, they'd seemed science fiction, not a decade away.
They've never seemed closer than now. In fact they are actually working right now, as prototypes, successfully mixing with ordinary traffic.
Autonomous vehicles are not in the category of flying cars or hoverboards. They don't have any insurmountable hurdles. Just a continued path of improvement until they are judged superior to human drivers in virtually all safety considerations. At that point those that can afford them and want them will buy them.
I agree with you that ever increasing driver assist is another path that will be followed, eventually meeting up the fully autonomous prototypes.
Just as autopilot started out as assists to maintain a fixed level and/or course, but are now capable of doing a complete journey from takeoff to landing by themselves.
...isn't a big problem. I have good eyes...have eyes that can pick details out....pinch zoom...input limitations...irritating...sometimes it is faster and more accurate to have a mouse and typing with a keyboard is always faster... it is annoying to interface with it... I have a tiny bluetooth keyboard and mouse... I want my keyboard out because typing it all out using the onscreen keyboard is a pain in the ass... I need a bit more dexterity...
Take out the excuses, and you do see all the problems.
These little computers are quite capable.
They are absolutely amazing. And part of that amazingness is they have UIs tailored to the size and the I/O available. As general purpose computer's they'd be crap.
I understand your markets religion. I've read some of it's holy scriptures. I'm just not a believer.
At no time did I say anything about central planning committees. I explicitly said regulation. They don't need to be centralised, nor the same for different areas of regulation. And indeed they are not. For taxis for example, every city and area has their own regulations.
And note, your beloved capitalism has it's central planning committees. They are boards of directors of multinational companies. The board of Ford hold far more sway than the taxi regulators of Springfield.
Additionally, you don't introduce a change like this overnight. You start with a nominal sum as a basic income, and then each year you ratchet it up above inflation. You get to the essentials being covered gradually, and each person will reach that point at a different time. So if there are problems they are dealt with over the years as the system unfolds.
As pointed out by the anonymous poster, the concept that everyone is going to give up TV, internet, alcohol, vacations, whatever else in order not to work is a nonsense. And plenty of people enjoy working. So your hypothetical is an impossible.
But it also misses the point that this is about the robots doing the work. Robots get no choice. So the people that are profiting from the robots doing the work are taxed to pay for the basic income.
You're only considering functions and power. The limiting factors on phone OSs are UI, considering the limitations of screen size and input capabilities. And the user attachment time - Phone OSs concentrate on activities that take seconds, desktops on on activities that take minutes to hours.
There's no problem with having the kernel and lower levels general purpose. But trying to make the UI/shell that is a fools errand.
It's no more difficult to insure a machine than it is to insure a person. Sure autonomous cars may kill the odd person but so do cars now. When the do the insurance will cover the legal costs. Just like now. It may look right now like th liability moves from the driver to the manufacturer, but that's just a matter of legislation or business model. For sure the cost of that insurance will be passed on. To the car owner in one way or another. There is no hurdle there that need slow the path to autonomous cars by a single day. The hard part is the technical challenges, not how insurance premiums are going through get passed on to car users.
You may not hav noticed, but Laissez Faire Capitalism is a busted flush. It may have been fashionable, coming out of the 1980s, but since 2008, ever fear people are buying into it. If it was actually the one true way, the right wouldn't need a fake news channel to lie to them 24 hours a day.
The answer to that is easy. A Basic Income policy. A standard amount paid to every one. Enough to cover the essentials. Then work is something you do to pay for the extras, not to survive.
It could not be closer to a tragedy of the commons. The roads are a common space, limited in size. Taxis are animals grazing from the fares, and taxi companies are farmers. The symptoms of tragedy are gridlock, no taxi service when needed, and the inability of either animals(taxis) or passengers (grass) to thrive.
Too many taxis, gridlock. Too few and the public don't have a service they rely on.
There is absolutely nothing about the market that optimises for the best public service without clogging the roads. Nor that keeps the taxi-drivers decently paid. The market will find levels of taxi service at different hours of the days and different areas, but they will not be optimum except by pure chance.
Adam Smith's invisible hand is religion, not actuality.
The only thing the market incentive does is to make the Taxi firm owners act to maximise their income. That would only match what people want from a service in "the commons" by pure fluke.
Taxi drivers will of course try to maximise their income, and the more of them that do that, the lower their income becomes. The tendency is for them to work very long days and nights (with the safety implications of that) and yet earn an average less than the minimum wage.
And then there's the massive overcharging and cheating that takes place when taxis have no meters. Drivers have all the information, passengers have little, most of the time the service takes place before the fee is finalised. And reputation has no bearing, at least on the classic taxi system, as passengers get a random driver each time, not of their choosing.
Don't get me wrong, I welcome new technology, the ability to call a cab from an app, and to rate drivers, and to get calculated estimates or quote before a trip etc. But there's no reason why that shouldn't happen within the regulated systems. It does in the UK.
But some people want to government to control all the things, and any excuse will do.
Assigning bogus motivations to people who have different opinions doesn't help your argument.
Yes, a major part of the justification for licensing is safety. But that's not all. Regulation is also required where there for tragedy of the commons situations, and taxis are potentially that, depending what city or area it is.
A 64GB iPhone 6 is $750, not $900. And those who are price conscious can get a 5S from $550.
And they'll last longer than 2 years. The 2 year thing applies to people who have contracts that let them get a new phone after 2 years. Since we're talking unlocked prices, that's irrelevant. People will tend to use them longer.
The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've executed someone else themselves. This isn't a difficult concept really.
No, it's a really simple one. Simple as in unintelligent.
Euthasol is patented by a Danish company, for reference, and they refuse to allow it to be sold to a state government for the purpose of executions.
Because Denmark have a moral government, and certain US states are in line with some pretty ugly regimes around the world on this issue.
Of course, as demonstrated by Utah, executing people isn't difficult, they'll just shoot them or hang them, thats ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. Instead of people being terminated quickly, painlessly and with no suffering, now they are fully aware of the end of their life as it happens. This is clearly a much better solution.
No, sorry, but that too is a morally unsophisticated view. Helping with one moral crime is not justified because the offender would commit a worse one otherwise.
Personally, I'm happy for the lack of availability of Euthasol for use in human executions. Anyone who deserves execution does not deserve a quick, painless termination, they deserve to suffer as much as possible.
I'm sorry I'm not the slightest bit interested in the BBC having to justify their actions. I lived through it, and it was a wonderful thing. That's good enough for me. Actually more than good enough for me, that BBC Micro started me off into my career.
It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected.
Two ways of saying the same thing. Match demand to the supply. The waiting list was a couple of months or so at the time as I recall, and Acorn were having cash flow problems increasing production so dampening demand whilst upping the revenue was a sensible decision.
Surprised the contract with the BBC was flexible enough to let them do it though.
The BBC Micro was a phenomenal success in the 1980s. And I don't mean just in terms of sales, I mean in terms of priming the pumps for computer literacy. The BBC Micro, in combination with the TV programmes, and it's classroom ruggedness was vital. The ZX Spectrum was seldom used for anything but playing poor quality games in kids bedrooms.
Why the BBC now? Because it'll combine with educational TV programmes.
Paranoid much? You seem to think that everyone that doesn't agree with you must be the same person in disguise. I think you might be the one needing mental health attention.
That is external. Many Windows Laptops now support 4k without a monitor.
Of course it is. 4K on a 12" screen would be completely pointless. And I don't believe for one moment that there are any genuine Windows 12" laptops with 4K.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that it'll be half the vehicles today and the other half tomorrow. Instead it says "Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive... for a few days" You'd think it'd be odd numbered plates on odd numbered days and even plates on even days, but that's not what it says.
"It" being an Australian news source that is being a bit vague. What actually happens in Paris is that it goes by whether the day of the month is odd or even. Monday is 23rd, so only odd digit cars are allowed on the road. If it extends to the 24th, then only even numbered cars will be allowed.
And the ban certainly does apply within the city. Pleading ignorance will still get you a fine.
Not at all. A decade ago, DARPA had a competition for autonomous vehicles to go around a fixed off-road course of 100 miles or so , which the developers could study beforehand. And not a single vehicle even got halfway. Autonomous vehicles on the roads seemed like many decades away right then.
And before that, they'd seemed science fiction, not a decade away.
They've never seemed closer than now. In fact they are actually working right now, as prototypes, successfully mixing with ordinary traffic.
Autonomous vehicles are not in the category of flying cars or hoverboards. They don't have any insurmountable hurdles. Just a continued path of improvement until they are judged superior to human drivers in virtually all safety considerations. At that point those that can afford them and want them will buy them.
I agree with you that ever increasing driver assist is another path that will be followed, eventually meeting up the fully autonomous prototypes.
Just as autopilot started out as assists to maintain a fixed level and/or course, but are now capable of doing a complete journey from takeoff to landing by themselves.
...isn't a big problem. I have good eyes...have eyes that can pick details out....pinch zoom...input limitations...irritating...sometimes it is faster and more accurate to have a mouse and typing with a keyboard is always faster... it is annoying to interface with it... I have a tiny bluetooth keyboard and mouse... I want my keyboard out because typing it all out using the onscreen keyboard is a pain in the ass... I need a bit more dexterity...
Take out the excuses, and you do see all the problems.
These little computers are quite capable.
They are absolutely amazing. And part of that amazingness is they have UIs tailored to the size and the I/O available. As general purpose computer's they'd be crap.
I understand your markets religion. I've read some of it's holy scriptures. I'm just not a believer.
At no time did I say anything about central planning committees. I explicitly said regulation. They don't need to be centralised, nor the same for different areas of regulation. And indeed they are not. For taxis for example, every city and area has their own regulations.
And note, your beloved capitalism has it's central planning committees. They are boards of directors of multinational companies. The board of Ford hold far more sway than the taxi regulators of Springfield.
But of course the facts don't sway the religious.
Additionally, you don't introduce a change like this overnight. You start with a nominal sum as a basic income, and then each year you ratchet it up above inflation. You get to the essentials being covered gradually, and each person will reach that point at a different time. So if there are problems they are dealt with over the years as the system unfolds.
As pointed out by the anonymous poster, the concept that everyone is going to give up TV, internet, alcohol, vacations, whatever else in order not to work is a nonsense. And plenty of people enjoy working. So your hypothetical is an impossible.
But it also misses the point that this is about the robots doing the work. Robots get no choice. So the people that are profiting from the robots doing the work are taxed to pay for the basic income.
You're only considering functions and power. The limiting factors on phone OSs are UI, considering the limitations of screen size and input capabilities. And the user attachment time - Phone OSs concentrate on activities that take seconds, desktops on on activities that take minutes to hours.
There's no problem with having the kernel and lower levels general purpose. But trying to make the UI/shell that is a fools errand.
A store where you can find absolutely every app for the platform is far more use than having to search a multitude of competing stores.
It's an is for phones and at a pinch, tablets. There is nothing to be gained in making it general purpose. Jack of all trades = master of none.
It's no more difficult to insure a machine than it is to insure a person. Sure autonomous cars may kill the odd person but so do cars now. When the do the insurance will cover the legal costs. Just like now. It may look right now like th liability moves from the driver to the manufacturer, but that's just a matter of legislation or business model. For sure the cost of that insurance will be passed on. To the car owner in one way or another. There is no hurdle there that need slow the path to autonomous cars by a single day. The hard part is the technical challenges, not how insurance premiums are going through get passed on to car users.
You may not hav noticed, but Laissez Faire Capitalism is a busted flush. It may have been fashionable, coming out of the 1980s, but since 2008, ever fear people are buying into it. If it was actually the one true way, the right wouldn't need a fake news channel to lie to them 24 hours a day.
The answer to that is easy. A Basic Income policy. A standard amount paid to every one. Enough to cover the essentials. Then work is something you do to pay for the extras, not to survive.
Average speed of traffic in London is 11mph. Why? It's full of cars.
It could not be closer to a tragedy of the commons. The roads are a common space, limited in size. Taxis are animals grazing from the fares, and taxi companies are farmers. The symptoms of tragedy are gridlock, no taxi service when needed, and the inability of either animals(taxis) or passengers (grass) to thrive.
Too many taxis, gridlock. Too few and the public don't have a service they rely on.
There is absolutely nothing about the market that optimises for the best public service without clogging the roads. Nor that keeps the taxi-drivers decently paid. The market will find levels of taxi service at different hours of the days and different areas, but they will not be optimum except by pure chance.
Adam Smith's invisible hand is religion, not actuality.
The only thing the market incentive does is to make the Taxi firm owners act to maximise their income. That would only match what people want from a service in "the commons" by pure fluke.
Taxi drivers will of course try to maximise their income, and the more of them that do that, the lower their income becomes. The tendency is for them to work very long days and nights (with the safety implications of that) and yet earn an average less than the minimum wage.
And then there's the massive overcharging and cheating that takes place when taxis have no meters. Drivers have all the information, passengers have little, most of the time the service takes place before the fee is finalised. And reputation has no bearing, at least on the classic taxi system, as passengers get a random driver each time, not of their choosing.
Don't get me wrong, I welcome new technology, the ability to call a cab from an app, and to rate drivers, and to get calculated estimates or quote before a trip etc. But there's no reason why that shouldn't happen within the regulated systems. It does in the UK.
But some people want to government to control all the things, and any excuse will do.
Assigning bogus motivations to people who have different opinions doesn't help your argument.
Yes, a major part of the justification for licensing is safety. But that's not all. Regulation is also required where there for tragedy of the commons situations, and taxis are potentially that, depending what city or area it is.
A 64GB iPhone 6 is $750, not $900. And those who are price conscious can get a 5S from $550.
And they'll last longer than 2 years. The 2 year thing applies to people who have contracts that let them get a new phone after 2 years. Since we're talking unlocked prices, that's irrelevant. People will tend to use them longer.
You're quite the fantasist.
The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've executed someone else themselves. This isn't a difficult concept really.
No, it's a really simple one. Simple as in unintelligent.
Euthasol is patented by a Danish company, for reference, and they refuse to allow it to be sold to a state government for the purpose of executions.
Because Denmark have a moral government, and certain US states are in line with some pretty ugly regimes around the world on this issue.
Of course, as demonstrated by Utah, executing people isn't difficult, they'll just shoot them or hang them, thats ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.
Instead of people being terminated quickly, painlessly and with no suffering, now they are fully aware of the end of their life as it happens. This is clearly a much better solution.
No, sorry, but that too is a morally unsophisticated view. Helping with one moral crime is not justified because the offender would commit a worse one otherwise.
Personally, I'm happy for the lack of availability of Euthasol for use in human executions. Anyone who deserves execution does not deserve a quick, painless termination, they deserve to suffer as much as possible.
You're a bloodthirsty thug.
Stick your UKIP nonsense up your jacksie.
I'm sorry I'm not the slightest bit interested in the BBC having to justify their actions. I lived through it, and it was a wonderful thing. That's good enough for me. Actually more than good enough for me, that BBC Micro started me off into my career.
Relative to what?
To computer illiteracy.
So what?
Is this grumpy pointless question time?
It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected.
Two ways of saying the same thing. Match demand to the supply. The waiting list was a couple of months or so at the time as I recall, and Acorn were having cash flow problems increasing production so dampening demand whilst upping the revenue was a sensible decision.
Surprised the contract with the BBC was flexible enough to let them do it though.
The BBC Micro was a phenomenal success in the 1980s. And I don't mean just in terms of sales, I mean in terms of priming the pumps for computer literacy. The BBC Micro, in combination with the TV programmes, and it's classroom ruggedness was vital. The ZX Spectrum was seldom used for anything but playing poor quality games in kids bedrooms.
Why the BBC now? Because it'll combine with educational TV programmes.
Paranoid much? You seem to think that everyone that doesn't agree with you must be the same person in disguise.
I think you might be the one needing mental health attention.
That is external. Many Windows Laptops now support 4k without a monitor.
Of course it is. 4K on a 12" screen would be completely pointless. And I don't believe for one moment that there are any genuine Windows 12" laptops with 4K.
You're ridiculous.