There are Commodore 64's still running just fine today.
And nearly all Dell Optiplex GX270s and GX280s failed within five years because of faulty capacitors.
I have about 50,000 computers and about 3,000 switches and routers that I deal with on a regular basis. I have to replace enterprise-grade switches monthly due to failures in equipment that's less than five years old. We routinely replace circuit boards in laptops and tablets. I know how often computers and computing devices fail. Do you?
The human being knows when the directions provided are bullshit, or has a better chance of determining that.
To your 85-IQ example, the person whose job is to direct traffic to park in those conditions very well may be the person with the lowest intelligence in your little pet scenario. It may well be in the interest of the driver to ignore him because the directions are bad, ambiguous, or outright malicious.
Now how is your car computer going to know the difference and what choice is it going to make?
If you're talking about the likes of node.js and jquery, I have no idea why people seem to think it's a good idea to rely on them, hosted on someone else's server. That's really what "cloud services" are, "someone else's server". That doesn't mean that it's inherently evil, but it does mean that whoever's deciding to use cloud computing needs to understand that they're literally using someone else's server and to take steps to mitigate the damage caused if that someone else's server stops performing the way that they need it to. That could be as little as having a mirror of everything within one's control to spin-up services somewhere else, or it could mean having only part of one's enterprise on that cloud system, with some of one's production environment running on one's own systems so that the load balancer can drop the cloud portion if it must, but something has to be accounted for if it goes away.
Obviously they'll be hidden from view, but the design of the car body must put the sensors where they need to be in order to function, hence my commentary on windshields and rooflines.
We already see this trend beginning with the boxes installed up against the glass in front of the rearview mirrors on many new vehicles, they hide all sorts of stuff in there depending on how the vehicle was ordered.
In some ways Tesla is the aberration in teh all-or-nothing approach. Granted they started by upfitting Lotus bodies but they didn't stay there for long before producing whole vehicles successfully.
Why would it burn up pads any more than pressing the brake pedal would?
I've seen vehicles overcome their parking brakes. Hell, I've done it a couple of times myself by accident. I do not trust parking brakes to stop a vehicle at-speed, and especially when the throttle is wide open.
And in those cases the autonomous vehicle should detect that there's an obstruction and that there are adverse road conditions and to work around them.
Typically such a crew would have a truck. It would not be unreasonable to include, as a function of how that truck being used is upfit, to issue such broadcasts about the nature of the road work. Already light-trucks used for construction may be upfit with extra lights that strobe similarly to how many police and emergency vehicles strobe, it would not be unreasonable to require upfit with this extra system at the same time, that engages when the vehicle is strobing its lights.
In fact I would not be surprised if engineers at companies like Whalen are working on that very system.
Electric-assist steering can be made to steer in addition to provide assist, right? You don't have to remove the column linkage at all.
On top of that there are already purely electric steering systems and have been for some time. There are heavy trucks whose steering and other controls can be moved from side to side so that the truck is easy to operate whether in a left-hand-drive or right-hand-drive country. They don't seem to have problem getting out of synch.
My wife's '15 Renegade has electric-assist steering. It still uses a column but uses electricity to reduce the amount of effort that the driver has to exert instead of a hydraulic pump. Still offers resistance.
Samsung already has a history of producing automobiles, and that history predates their producing smartphones. I'd probably trust a Samsung automobile more than I would a Samsung phone.
Yeah. One of my neighbors works for Intel and has been working on their autonomous vehicle project and we've talked about it. Basically in an urban environment where The Authorities are closing or modifying the route of the street it is expected that they would have to use some kind of barricade with the ability to instruct the cars that the road does not match the original configuration and to follow an alternate path, and the police officer or other traffic-control person would have to have some kind of similar technology in traffic-control devices.
Thing is, while it *might* be possible for a venue to obtain the cones or other barricades from a rental place, I would not expect that the human-held devices would be generally available if only to prevent them from being abused for things like stopping vehicles to rob the occupants or for carjacking. I would expect that tight controls would be necessary, and even the cones themselves might be subject to close regulation and scrutiny if they're capable of actively communicating with vehicle controllers. Otherwise it would be far too easy for someone to do something malicious.
Steering hasn't really worked that way for decades. Under the dasboard, the column bolts to structural elements. A shaft from the column enters a universal-joint and then continues through another shaft to another universal-joint, then through the firewall and down to the rack and pinion bolted to the body of the car, which in-turn moves the tie rods to push and pull on the steering knuckles. Automakers usually introduce a series of rubber isolators through the shafts to further reduce vibration.
This system helps to protect the driver from being impaled on the steering column in a severe accident, the u-joints will allow the deforming car body to not press the whole column right at the driver, the part bolted to the dash remains bolted to the dash while the shafts bend around each other in a sufficiently serious accident.
You're probably going to get as much feel through the vibrations from the suspension through the chassis into the body then through the dash to where the column is mounted as you would through the shaft.
E-brake is a misnomer anyway. The purpose of that kind of brake is to prevent the vehicle from rolling when it's off, should the transmission somehow end up out of park or gear. I don't know off-hand the amount of clamping-force that the electric-engaged parking brakes have, but if it's anything like the cable-actuated brakes then it's not much compared to the hydraulic with vacuum-assist or hydraulic with electric-assist that the brake pedal provides.
Build the AI, when that works put it into an existing car, then integrate the AI and car. Trying to do both at once is stupid, costly, and a waste.
That may work for prototypes, but at some point the design of the control system informs the design of the car, and the design of the car informs the design of the control system. It becomes necessary to evolve the design of the two in-concert with each other.
If you look at the systems they use to autonomously drive, there are all kinds of sensors mounted high-up on vehicles. Basically no customer would be willing to have that kind of configuration strapped on to an existing car. It becomes necessary to design the car body to accommodate the sensors, and it becomes necessary to make sensors that can be packaged in ways that the buyer finds acceptable.
I sort of expect windshields to return to the angles that were common in the sixties through the early nineties, when the glass was more vertical than horizontal. Hell, we could even see bubbled-out windshields like were common in the fifties return it that allows the sensory equipment to stick out further to get a wider field of view.
And more to the point, a self-driving car is not going to be reliant on a single technology to operate. Sure it uses GPS, but it also actively looks at the damn road and presumably would expect GPS to cut in and out, so it would simply keep following the road for a predetermined amount of time as it anticipates re-establishing GPS. Arguably it would only need to observe GPS signals intermittently anyway since it should understand its bearing and odometer to know how far it's driven and in what direction, using GPS to help maintain calibration.
If I sanitize this for polite company, it sounds like you're describing a company that has ideas that are greater than its ability to follow-through with, and is short-sighted enough that it doesn't perform the kind of maintenance that brings the product to a state of long-term maturity.
Given their abandoning and shutting of several APIs throughout the years I happen to agree and I find it annoying that they do this. It's also definitely colored my view on trusting a third-party to continue to maintain services on my behalf that are not locally-hosted on my own equipment. After all, I don't really know when they'll yank the rug out from under me.
That is so small a percentage of the population as to almost not be worth thinking over, and if autonomous capability indeed becomes ubiquitous will become an even smaller percentage yet. If courts do continue to order the use of technology to prevent a previously-convicted intoxicated person from directly operating the vehicle, it would be simple enough to program the vehicle to operate in autonomous mode by default and to only switch into human-operated mode after passing a breathalyzer test. Simply put, until the user proves that they're sober the car would simply self-drive instead of letting the user have a chance.
There are simply too many conditions in which a self-driving car could occasionally need a human pilot, and the vast majority of those are when a quick decision that is not safety related is required, and the rest are when the vehicle is operating on something other than conventional roads.
For example, if I'm going to an event in a rural area I'm probably going to have to park in an improvised parking area on an unimproved or only marginally improved surface. I may have to drive down a trail that itself is unimproved or only marginally improved, either following the directions of humans waving at me or else following something like the occasional orange cone or even the tracks of previous vehicles. A self-driving car is probably not going to interpret the directions of a teenager with a yellow safety vest and will instead see the person merely as an object to avoid colliding with. It will not see bits of orange tape on the ground or ruts as a path. It probably won't handle being told to enqueue to park in rows, peeling off after the next vehicle to park per human-guided hand signals.
In this kind of scenario, which is common to outdoor concerts, festivals, campgrounds, renaissance festivals, theme-parks, lodges, and many other situations, a car that cannot be directly driven by a human being would not be able to function. The vehicle may well drive the vast majority of the time on its own, but it still needs to be capable of being occasionally human-operated or at least very directly human-instructed. Entirely eliminating the conventional driver controls makes that difficult.
Furthemore, having owned many vehicles in various states of repair and condition for around twenty years now, I do not want a vehicle to be stranded when its autonomous systems have malfuctioned. Flat out that's a non-starter. Vehicles break. This is a fact of life. I don't want a vehicle with no issues with the powertrain to strand me because the controller can't figure out how to drive on the road. If nothing else, in general emergencies it may be necessary for me to make decisions that the vehicle is not capable of making itself, like in having to drive in the aftermath of a hurricane or tornado when the roads are messed up with debris.
Don't get me wrong, the idea of a vehicle functioning as a hackney carriage, getting in and telling it where to go and it does that, has appeal, but I don't want it to only function that way.
I wouldn't give citizenship specifically, but a different kind of visa, basically to allow for the worker to be a Permanent Resident Alien, where they are acknowledged as being allowed to be here regardless of work status.
Basically I'm generally in-favor of rules that benefit the worker. I want Americans to retain their jobs and not be replaced by companies soliciting for immigrant workers to drive wages down. If immigrant workers are necessary because of a real and true dearth of an existing workforce (and I would like to see employers have to jump through large numbers of hoops outside of academia in order to prove this) then I would like to see those workers hired as a result of those conditions secure in their positions as well; don't want to see a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads where the employer uses the threat of deportation to depress wages. Depressed wages hurt all workers, including American workers.
The H1B position itself must not be used to displace existing workers.
In fact, it's not supposed to be able to do that.
What I think they need to do is to enforce the law that H1B isn't to displace existing workers, and that this needs to be based on effective position and on facility rather than on the company finally paying the end-worker. If no one will obey this or they manage to work around it then the law needs to be changed to further strengthen it.
I do not have a problem with people looking to come to the United States to work, but I have a big problem with Americans being fired in order to specifically hire foreign workers.
Before he became a homicidal maniac, Phil Spector was a maniac responsible for the sound that many acts had. He was not ever considered part of the bands that he was ostensibly a Producer for, but he made lineup choices, made arrangements of the tunes brought by bands, and worked extensively in the editing booth after the tracks were laid-down.
If anything the only change is that modern technology lets the producer involve far fewer other people in crafting an act's sound, and makes it possible for the act to tour with what used to be only achievable as a studio sound.
It almost doesn't matter how an act is discovered, what the people in the group must be willing to let their act be subjected-to is what will define where the label is willing to market them and how much effort they're willing to spend.
Jack Valenti, who shaped the modern era of the MPAA as its President for 38 years, was not Jewish. His parents were Italian immigrants, so it's fairly likely that he was Catholic.
On Valenti's stepping-down in 2004, Dan Glickman was made President of the MPAA. He admittedly was Jewish, but he doesn't appear to have changes Valenti's policies too dramatically.
Glickman left the MPAA in 2010 after only six years, to be replaced by Chuck Dodd, who is not Jewish.
So for the last fifty years, someone whose religion can be described as Jewish was the head of the MPAA only 12% of the time. This seems to rather invalidate your argument.
You don't need to be an expert to know that FTP/TELNET is unsafe. So is SSH in some configurations.
Actually you do. Non-experts don't even know what FTP and telnet are in the vast majority of cases. Hell, your average person doesn't even know why a web address starts out with "http://" or "https://", especially since browsers have largely done away with the need to type that stuff. Hell, most users don't even know why there's a tertiary level domain or even that domains are heirarchical in the first place.
Don't confuse your professional or hobbyist knowledge with that which the average person would have. After all, if they had this knowledge they wouldn't need to pay you to take care of their computers for them.
Slashdot Mirror
There are Commodore 64's still running just fine today.
And nearly all Dell Optiplex GX270s and GX280s failed within five years because of faulty capacitors.
I have about 50,000 computers and about 3,000 switches and routers that I deal with on a regular basis. I have to replace enterprise-grade switches monthly due to failures in equipment that's less than five years old. We routinely replace circuit boards in laptops and tablets. I know how often computers and computing devices fail. Do you?
The human being knows when the directions provided are bullshit, or has a better chance of determining that.
To your 85-IQ example, the person whose job is to direct traffic to park in those conditions very well may be the person with the lowest intelligence in your little pet scenario. It may well be in the interest of the driver to ignore him because the directions are bad, ambiguous, or outright malicious.
Now how is your car computer going to know the difference and what choice is it going to make?
If you're talking about the likes of node.js and jquery, I have no idea why people seem to think it's a good idea to rely on them, hosted on someone else's server. That's really what "cloud services" are, "someone else's server". That doesn't mean that it's inherently evil, but it does mean that whoever's deciding to use cloud computing needs to understand that they're literally using someone else's server and to take steps to mitigate the damage caused if that someone else's server stops performing the way that they need it to. That could be as little as having a mirror of everything within one's control to spin-up services somewhere else, or it could mean having only part of one's enterprise on that cloud system, with some of one's production environment running on one's own systems so that the load balancer can drop the cloud portion if it must, but something has to be accounted for if it goes away.
Obviously they'll be hidden from view, but the design of the car body must put the sensors where they need to be in order to function, hence my commentary on windshields and rooflines.
We already see this trend beginning with the boxes installed up against the glass in front of the rearview mirrors on many new vehicles, they hide all sorts of stuff in there depending on how the vehicle was ordered.
In some ways Tesla is the aberration in teh all-or-nothing approach. Granted they started by upfitting Lotus bodies but they didn't stay there for long before producing whole vehicles successfully.
Why would it burn up pads any more than pressing the brake pedal would?
I've seen vehicles overcome their parking brakes. Hell, I've done it a couple of times myself by accident. I do not trust parking brakes to stop a vehicle at-speed, and especially when the throttle is wide open.
And in those cases the autonomous vehicle should detect that there's an obstruction and that there are adverse road conditions and to work around them.
Typically such a crew would have a truck. It would not be unreasonable to include, as a function of how that truck being used is upfit, to issue such broadcasts about the nature of the road work. Already light-trucks used for construction may be upfit with extra lights that strobe similarly to how many police and emergency vehicles strobe, it would not be unreasonable to require upfit with this extra system at the same time, that engages when the vehicle is strobing its lights.
In fact I would not be surprised if engineers at companies like Whalen are working on that very system.
Electric-assist steering can be made to steer in addition to provide assist, right? You don't have to remove the column linkage at all.
On top of that there are already purely electric steering systems and have been for some time. There are heavy trucks whose steering and other controls can be moved from side to side so that the truck is easy to operate whether in a left-hand-drive or right-hand-drive country. They don't seem to have problem getting out of synch.
My wife's '15 Renegade has electric-assist steering. It still uses a column but uses electricity to reduce the amount of effort that the driver has to exert instead of a hydraulic pump. Still offers resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Samsung_Motors
Samsung already has a history of producing automobiles, and that history predates their producing smartphones. I'd probably trust a Samsung automobile more than I would a Samsung phone.
Yeah. One of my neighbors works for Intel and has been working on their autonomous vehicle project and we've talked about it. Basically in an urban environment where The Authorities are closing or modifying the route of the street it is expected that they would have to use some kind of barricade with the ability to instruct the cars that the road does not match the original configuration and to follow an alternate path, and the police officer or other traffic-control person would have to have some kind of similar technology in traffic-control devices.
Thing is, while it *might* be possible for a venue to obtain the cones or other barricades from a rental place, I would not expect that the human-held devices would be generally available if only to prevent them from being abused for things like stopping vehicles to rob the occupants or for carjacking. I would expect that tight controls would be necessary, and even the cones themselves might be subject to close regulation and scrutiny if they're capable of actively communicating with vehicle controllers. Otherwise it would be far too easy for someone to do something malicious.
Steering hasn't really worked that way for decades. Under the dasboard, the column bolts to structural elements. A shaft from the column enters a universal-joint and then continues through another shaft to another universal-joint, then through the firewall and down to the rack and pinion bolted to the body of the car, which in-turn moves the tie rods to push and pull on the steering knuckles. Automakers usually introduce a series of rubber isolators through the shafts to further reduce vibration.
This system helps to protect the driver from being impaled on the steering column in a severe accident, the u-joints will allow the deforming car body to not press the whole column right at the driver, the part bolted to the dash remains bolted to the dash while the shafts bend around each other in a sufficiently serious accident.
You're probably going to get as much feel through the vibrations from the suspension through the chassis into the body then through the dash to where the column is mounted as you would through the shaft.
E-brake is a misnomer anyway. The purpose of that kind of brake is to prevent the vehicle from rolling when it's off, should the transmission somehow end up out of park or gear. I don't know off-hand the amount of clamping-force that the electric-engaged parking brakes have, but if it's anything like the cable-actuated brakes then it's not much compared to the hydraulic with vacuum-assist or hydraulic with electric-assist that the brake pedal provides.
Build the AI, when that works put it into an existing car, then integrate the AI and car. Trying to do both at once is stupid, costly, and a waste.
That may work for prototypes, but at some point the design of the control system informs the design of the car, and the design of the car informs the design of the control system. It becomes necessary to evolve the design of the two in-concert with each other.
If you look at the systems they use to autonomously drive, there are all kinds of sensors mounted high-up on vehicles. Basically no customer would be willing to have that kind of configuration strapped on to an existing car. It becomes necessary to design the car body to accommodate the sensors, and it becomes necessary to make sensors that can be packaged in ways that the buyer finds acceptable.
I sort of expect windshields to return to the angles that were common in the sixties through the early nineties, when the glass was more vertical than horizontal. Hell, we could even see bubbled-out windshields like were common in the fifties return it that allows the sensory equipment to stick out further to get a wider field of view.
And more to the point, a self-driving car is not going to be reliant on a single technology to operate. Sure it uses GPS, but it also actively looks at the damn road and presumably would expect GPS to cut in and out, so it would simply keep following the road for a predetermined amount of time as it anticipates re-establishing GPS. Arguably it would only need to observe GPS signals intermittently anyway since it should understand its bearing and odometer to know how far it's driven and in what direction, using GPS to help maintain calibration.
If I sanitize this for polite company, it sounds like you're describing a company that has ideas that are greater than its ability to follow-through with, and is short-sighted enough that it doesn't perform the kind of maintenance that brings the product to a state of long-term maturity.
Given their abandoning and shutting of several APIs throughout the years I happen to agree and I find it annoying that they do this. It's also definitely colored my view on trusting a third-party to continue to maintain services on my behalf that are not locally-hosted on my own equipment. After all, I don't really know when they'll yank the rug out from under me.
That is so small a percentage of the population as to almost not be worth thinking over, and if autonomous capability indeed becomes ubiquitous will become an even smaller percentage yet. If courts do continue to order the use of technology to prevent a previously-convicted intoxicated person from directly operating the vehicle, it would be simple enough to program the vehicle to operate in autonomous mode by default and to only switch into human-operated mode after passing a breathalyzer test. Simply put, until the user proves that they're sober the car would simply self-drive instead of letting the user have a chance.
There are simply too many conditions in which a self-driving car could occasionally need a human pilot, and the vast majority of those are when a quick decision that is not safety related is required, and the rest are when the vehicle is operating on something other than conventional roads.
For example, if I'm going to an event in a rural area I'm probably going to have to park in an improvised parking area on an unimproved or only marginally improved surface. I may have to drive down a trail that itself is unimproved or only marginally improved, either following the directions of humans waving at me or else following something like the occasional orange cone or even the tracks of previous vehicles. A self-driving car is probably not going to interpret the directions of a teenager with a yellow safety vest and will instead see the person merely as an object to avoid colliding with. It will not see bits of orange tape on the ground or ruts as a path. It probably won't handle being told to enqueue to park in rows, peeling off after the next vehicle to park per human-guided hand signals.
In this kind of scenario, which is common to outdoor concerts, festivals, campgrounds, renaissance festivals, theme-parks, lodges, and many other situations, a car that cannot be directly driven by a human being would not be able to function. The vehicle may well drive the vast majority of the time on its own, but it still needs to be capable of being occasionally human-operated or at least very directly human-instructed. Entirely eliminating the conventional driver controls makes that difficult.
Furthemore, having owned many vehicles in various states of repair and condition for around twenty years now, I do not want a vehicle to be stranded when its autonomous systems have malfuctioned. Flat out that's a non-starter. Vehicles break. This is a fact of life. I don't want a vehicle with no issues with the powertrain to strand me because the controller can't figure out how to drive on the road. If nothing else, in general emergencies it may be necessary for me to make decisions that the vehicle is not capable of making itself, like in having to drive in the aftermath of a hurricane or tornado when the roads are messed up with debris.
Don't get me wrong, the idea of a vehicle functioning as a hackney carriage, getting in and telling it where to go and it does that, has appeal, but I don't want it to only function that way.
I wouldn't give citizenship specifically, but a different kind of visa, basically to allow for the worker to be a Permanent Resident Alien, where they are acknowledged as being allowed to be here regardless of work status.
Basically I'm generally in-favor of rules that benefit the worker. I want Americans to retain their jobs and not be replaced by companies soliciting for immigrant workers to drive wages down. If immigrant workers are necessary because of a real and true dearth of an existing workforce (and I would like to see employers have to jump through large numbers of hoops outside of academia in order to prove this) then I would like to see those workers hired as a result of those conditions secure in their positions as well; don't want to see a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads where the employer uses the threat of deportation to depress wages. Depressed wages hurt all workers, including American workers.
The H1B position itself must not be used to displace existing workers.
In fact, it's not supposed to be able to do that.
What I think they need to do is to enforce the law that H1B isn't to displace existing workers, and that this needs to be based on effective position and on facility rather than on the company finally paying the end-worker. If no one will obey this or they manage to work around it then the law needs to be changed to further strengthen it.
I do not have a problem with people looking to come to the United States to work, but I have a big problem with Americans being fired in order to specifically hire foreign workers.
At least there's an IT administration angle here. Compared to the dark days of Dice this is quite the improvement.
This is absolutely nothing new.
Before he became a homicidal maniac, Phil Spector was a maniac responsible for the sound that many acts had. He was not ever considered part of the bands that he was ostensibly a Producer for, but he made lineup choices, made arrangements of the tunes brought by bands, and worked extensively in the editing booth after the tracks were laid-down.
If anything the only change is that modern technology lets the producer involve far fewer other people in crafting an act's sound, and makes it possible for the act to tour with what used to be only achievable as a studio sound.
It almost doesn't matter how an act is discovered, what the people in the group must be willing to let their act be subjected-to is what will define where the label is willing to market them and how much effort they're willing to spend.
Jack Valenti, who shaped the modern era of the MPAA as its President for 38 years, was not Jewish. His parents were Italian immigrants, so it's fairly likely that he was Catholic.
On Valenti's stepping-down in 2004, Dan Glickman was made President of the MPAA. He admittedly was Jewish, but he doesn't appear to have changes Valenti's policies too dramatically.
Glickman left the MPAA in 2010 after only six years, to be replaced by Chuck Dodd, who is not Jewish.
So for the last fifty years, someone whose religion can be described as Jewish was the head of the MPAA only 12% of the time. This seems to rather invalidate your argument.
Well it was an adult care foster home, so that kind of goes without saying.
But at that point the damage would have already been done...
You don't need to be an expert to know that FTP/TELNET is unsafe. So is SSH in some configurations.
Actually you do. Non-experts don't even know what FTP and telnet are in the vast majority of cases. Hell, your average person doesn't even know why a web address starts out with "http://" or "https://", especially since browsers have largely done away with the need to type that stuff. Hell, most users don't even know why there's a tertiary level domain or even that domains are heirarchical in the first place.
Don't confuse your professional or hobbyist knowledge with that which the average person would have. After all, if they had this knowledge they wouldn't need to pay you to take care of their computers for them.