There is a significant density of Android phones. Just about everywhere. I just whistled up a map of Calgary, and turned on the Traffic layer. I can see every traffic jam in the city in real time.
If you can't see that, perhaps you need to learn how to actually use your phone.
How ever did you survive without this stuff swirling around in your life?
And is your life really so drab that you ACTUALLY give a rats ass about the quality of evidence for minimum price of drinks in countries that you don't even live in?
Wouldn't you be really happier without all that garbage do deal with?
What do Monsoons have to do with technology? They've been happening annually since the Pleistocene, and nobody has any records that prove any technology link.
Google Maps already does this with Android phones feeding google traffic density and speed data. Its eerily accurate.
Traveling over the holiday weekend we got into some crawling slow traffic on the freeway. Google maps traffic layer said the red zone would end ahead as soon as we passed a particular location which just happened to be near a car dealership. As soon as we drove by that dealership traffic resumed normal flow.
And they do this with zero additional infrastructure. Why is Calgary wasting tax payer money installing additional sensors, when they could buy the service from Google, or probably just use it for free?
Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?
You've probably hit on the principal reason for the mixed results. The systems were designed to serve one purpose, but the money was just too good to pass up. The system was perverted to serve a different purpose.
People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping when the safest thing to do is just to roll across the intersection. Most intersections have an all-ways-red interval to handle the guy who enters on what he thought would be a late yellow, but actually was red due to a shortened yellow.
If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.
But as I said, there exists no way to determine if the vehicle is facing a moral decision. Let alone, what the proper choice is.
There is no programming which can take all of this into account. The best we can do is handle two choices at a time. (maybe three, Action A, Action B, or Do Nothing).
Well, you'd need to have more people run out than the number in the car. But, you raise a good point. Still, isn't suicide illegal? Do you really want the car aiding and abetting?:)
If the decision is between committing murder of the occupants vs un-willful participation in a suicide, is there any real moral dilemma?
One would have to ask: Why is the car going so fast in the presence of pedestrians that hitting the wall is necessary? Surely the car would not over drive its airbag response time in the presence of walls, would it? If people can dart out from hidden places and cause wall crashes, wouldn't it naturally become a sport of hooligans? Pamplona anyone? If people intentionally dart out from hidden places didn't THEY, by that very act assume all liability and risk?
there's just not much room for granting moral leeway to a bunch of executives or engineers sitting in a boardroom calmly deciding what the autopilot should do in a crisis.
If engineers or executives can't be trusted (why not?), throw a judge, rabbi or priest in there with them. Problem solved.
But I doubt you could foresee anything but the most obvious and contrived moral decisions anyway, and there exists no way to distinguish these as moral decisions vs simple sequential collision avoidance decisions.
the standard of comparison is an Average American Driver. Yes, those idiots who eat their donuts and drink their coffee and shave their faces and read their newspapers and apply lipstick and mascara and text their spouses lies about their whereabouts while sitting behind the wheel of their two ton vehicles traveling at 65 MPH.
But above these two problems, far and away above *all* problems with driverless cars is the real reason I think we'll never see anything more than driver *assisting* cars on the road: legal liability.
Well, you have the seeds of the answer right there in the question.
Modern cars, at least those above entry-level priced vehicles, already have Autonomous Emergency Braking systems, collision avoidance radars, Cruise Control, Adaptive Cruise Control, Blind Spot monitoring, Lane monitoring, Automatic Parking, and a host of other features that in some situations can take control of the vehicle for routine or emergency tasks.
Yet at no time does the legal liability leave the driver. There will always be a driver on board or the ability to over-ride the computer. And because of this, liability would rest with the operator of the vehicle.
To say that no one would manufacture an item because they would have to assume all liability flies in the face of our legal system, which already takes care of such situations, by the simple legal expedient of shifting all liability to the owner/operator.
Airplanes, Guns, Chainsaws, Cars, Electricity itself, essentially any products that have some aspect that is inherently unsafe, are treated in this way by the law. The law and the courts recognizes that any other solution is unworkable. Society has long ago decided that living in the dark or burning candles because no one is willing to take total responsibility for the inherent dangers of electricity is not an acceptable solution.
The same would apply to automated vehicles. Even fully automated trains have a supervisor remotely monitoring the system, and/or an emergency stop buttons in each car.
It's a choice the human driver would have to make, so when first starting your driverless car, it might as well prompt you with a series of moral questions like "should I crash into a bus or veer off a bridge if the situation arises?"
Human drivers don't make these decisions in any moral way in the real world, so why would the program in anything into a car?
Split second decisions are involved in any accident situation, or, the lack of the ability to decide, resulting in the default. Nobody ponders the morality of the situation when their life is on the line. Its all instinct from that point.
So then you claim detailrd knowledge of the inner workings of thid particular constabulary I see. With your credentials thusly established, perhaps you could offer an explanation on how this all came raining down as confetti.
You still don't get it. The expected message has certain bounds. The recipient knows what the range of messages is likely to be. They know all the historical algorithms used with the otp. They know that soldiers wouldn't waste a pigeon to send a love note.
This isn't some introduction to cryptography 101 course where you intercept a message the contents of which you haven't a clue.
But as stated elsewhere, messages are not random, so the laboratory exercise does not represent the real world. When you send a spy in to determine the number of tanks crossing a certain bridge, you don't consider an order for lamb chops and left hand threded eels to be a proper decoding.
While that is true, you will note that i said probable content. Yes there are any number of equally valid decodings. However few will make sense in the context in which they were sent.
The assertion that there are any number of possible decodings only works when you have zero knowledge of expected content, and as such its a tired and juvenile objection.
For all we know 4 or 5 pigeons were released, each with only every 4th or 5th letter of the text, all encoded differently. With that kind of packet loss even three letter agencies would be at a loss
One time pads are not impossible to crack, provided you have some clues about detecting a successful decoding. A decoding that renders a perfectly structured sentence with proper spelling, and/or recognized jargon could be picked out by computer as a "highly probable content" from all the other gibberish decoding.
Even given the possibility of brute forcing the message, it could potentially be hard or impossible to recognize any "probable content" even after you stumble upon the correct one time pad combination by an exhaustive process of elimination.
Messages small enough to be carried by pigeon were most likely necessarily small, and probably not sentences build of words, but more likely simply shorthand codes for times, places, dates, numbers of items/soldiers, etc, where only the intended receiver would know how to parse the fully decoded stream into meaningful information.
Wireless (cellular) still costs money, and ties your p0rn downloads to you. Sneaking onto some unsuspecting dope's unprotected wifi is much easier.
Still, the story seems a little odd. Penetration tools on a motorbike make no sense. Even at a walking pace, you are out of range before you can penetrate any other station on the network. On an idling bike, you would certainly arose suspicion.
The best you can determine is if it is open or not on a drive by. But you can do that with any cell phone and Any of several Wardriving tools.
(I read somewhere that the number of village idiots in Pakistan and Afghanistan has fallen to nearly zero.)
Unfortunately, no. Humanity is exceptionally efficient in this regard. No matter how quickly we use them up, we make more of them even faster.
I suppose you are right, especially given the level of inbreeding over there.
The story I read was in the news when a pretty dim witted woman was convinced to carry a backpack into a market. After they identified the body, they were able to trace her to a village where her family had grown tired of caring for her with no prospect of a mahr.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a significant density of Android phones. Just about everywhere.
I just whistled up a map of Calgary, and turned on the Traffic layer. I can see every traffic jam in the city in real time.
If you can't see that, perhaps you need to learn how to actually use your phone.
How ever did you survive without this stuff swirling around in your life?
And is your life really so drab that you ACTUALLY give a rats ass about the quality of evidence for minimum price of drinks in countries that you don't even live in?
Wouldn't you be really happier without all that garbage do deal with?
What do Monsoons have to do with technology?
They've been happening annually since the Pleistocene, and nobody has any records that prove any technology link.
Google Maps already does this with Android phones feeding google traffic density and speed data.
Its eerily accurate.
Traveling over the holiday weekend we got into some crawling slow traffic on the freeway. Google maps traffic layer said the red zone would end ahead as soon as we passed a particular location which just happened to be near a car dealership. As soon as we drove by that dealership traffic resumed normal flow.
And they do this with zero additional infrastructure. Why is Calgary wasting tax payer money installing additional sensors, when they could buy the service from Google, or probably just use it for free?
I don't need to promote it, it's already the standard.
Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?
You've probably hit on the principal reason for the mixed results. The systems were designed to serve one purpose, but the money was just too good to pass up. The system was perverted to serve a different purpose.
People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping when the safest thing to do is just to roll across the intersection. Most intersections have an all-ways-red interval to handle the guy who enters on what he thought would be a late yellow, but actually was red due to a shortened yellow.
If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.
But as I said, there exists no way to determine if the vehicle is facing a moral decision. Let alone, what the proper choice is.
There is no programming which can take all of this into account. The best we can do is handle two choices at a time. (maybe three, Action A, Action B, or Do Nothing).
Well, you'd need to have more people run out than the number in the car. But, you raise a good point. Still, isn't suicide illegal? Do you really want the car aiding and abetting? :)
If the decision is between committing murder of the occupants vs un-willful participation in a suicide, is there any real moral dilemma?
One would have to ask:
Why is the car going so fast in the presence of pedestrians that hitting the wall is necessary?
Surely the car would not over drive its airbag response time in the presence of walls, would it?
If people can dart out from hidden places and cause wall crashes, wouldn't it naturally become a sport of hooligans? Pamplona anyone?
If people intentionally dart out from hidden places didn't THEY, by that very act assume all liability and risk?
there's just not much room for granting moral leeway to a bunch of executives or engineers sitting in a boardroom calmly deciding what the autopilot should do in a crisis.
If engineers or executives can't be trusted (why not?), throw a judge, rabbi or priest in there with them. Problem solved.
But I doubt you could foresee anything but the most obvious and contrived moral decisions anyway, and there exists no way to distinguish these as moral decisions vs simple sequential collision avoidance decisions.
the standard of comparison is an Average American Driver. Yes, those idiots who eat their donuts and drink their coffee and shave their faces and read their newspapers and apply lipstick and mascara and text their spouses lies about their whereabouts while sitting behind the wheel of their two ton vehicles traveling at 65 MPH.
[Thanks for the ad hominem attack.]
It's like discovering nuclear power and wondering what kind of steam locomotive we could build with it.
Odd then, that just about every use of nuclear power is to drive a steam engine/turbine first, and a generator second.
Old tech never dies, it just gets embedded.
But above these two problems, far and away above *all* problems with driverless cars is the real reason I think we'll never see anything more than driver *assisting* cars on the road: legal liability.
Well, you have the seeds of the answer right there in the question.
Modern cars, at least those above entry-level priced vehicles, already have Autonomous Emergency Braking systems, collision avoidance radars, Cruise Control, Adaptive Cruise Control, Blind Spot monitoring, Lane monitoring, Automatic Parking, and a host of other features that in some situations can take control of the vehicle for routine or emergency tasks.
Yet at no time does the legal liability leave the driver. There will always be a driver on board or the ability to over-ride the computer.
And because of this, liability would rest with the operator of the vehicle.
To say that no one would manufacture an item because they would have to assume all liability flies in the face of
our legal system, which already takes care of such situations, by the simple legal expedient of shifting all
liability to the owner/operator.
Airplanes, Guns, Chainsaws, Cars, Electricity itself, essentially any products that have some aspect that is inherently unsafe, are treated in this way by the law. The law and the courts recognizes that any other solution is unworkable. Society has long ago decided that living in the dark or burning candles because no one is willing to take total responsibility for the inherent dangers of electricity is not an acceptable solution.
The same would apply to automated vehicles. Even fully automated trains have a supervisor remotely monitoring the system, and/or an emergency stop buttons in each car.
It's a choice the human driver would have to make, so when first starting your driverless car, it might as well prompt you with a series of moral questions like "should I crash into a bus or veer off a bridge if the situation arises?"
Human drivers don't make these decisions in any moral way in the real world, so why would the program in anything into a car?
Split second decisions are involved in any accident situation, or, the lack of the ability to decide, resulting in the default.
Nobody ponders the morality of the situation when their life is on the line. Its all instinct from that point.
So then you claim detailrd knowledge of the inner workings of thid particular constabulary I see.
With your credentials thusly established, perhaps you could offer an explanation on how this all came raining down as confetti.
I could come over and break some windows for you next Saturday.
(I work cheap, and my brother is a glazier.)
What idiotic police department lists tax and banking information in a report containing a list of undercover police officers?
Maybe the payroll department?
You still don't get it.
The expected message has certain bounds. The recipient knows what the range of messages is likely to be.
They know all the historical algorithms used with the otp.
They know that soldiers wouldn't waste a pigeon to send a love note.
This isn't some introduction to cryptography 101 course where you intercept a message the contents of which you haven't a clue.
And you clearly don't understand the real world.
Think about that. You don't expect a political diatribe or a recipe for cookies, when the spy is to send you the time for the air drop.
Use your head son. And consider the age of these messages.
But as stated elsewhere, messages are not random, so the laboratory exercise does not represent the real world.
When you send a spy in to determine the number of tanks crossing a certain bridge, you don't consider an order for lamb chops and left hand threded eels to be a proper decoding.
While that is true, you will note that i said probable content. Yes there are any number of equally valid decodings. However few will make sense in the context in which they were sent.
The assertion that there are any number of possible decodings only works when you have zero knowledge of expected content, and as such its a tired and juvenile objection.
For all we know 4 or 5 pigeons were released, each with only every 4th or 5th letter of the text, all encoded differently.
With that kind of packet loss even three letter agencies would be at a loss
Exactly.
One time pads are not impossible to crack, provided you have some clues about detecting a successful decoding. A decoding that renders a perfectly structured sentence with proper spelling, and/or recognized jargon could be picked out by computer as a "highly probable content" from all the other gibberish decoding.
Even given the possibility of brute forcing the message, it could potentially be hard or impossible to recognize any "probable content" even after you stumble upon the correct one time pad combination by an exhaustive process of elimination.
Messages small enough to be carried by pigeon were most likely necessarily small, and probably not sentences build of words, but more likely simply shorthand codes for times, places, dates, numbers of items/soldiers, etc, where only the intended receiver would know how to parse the fully decoded stream into meaningful information.
The cell phone in they guy's pocket probably does a better job as a war driving tool.
Park a motor bike outside my house and get on a keyboard and see how long it takes for me and/or the cops to be looking over your sholder.
Wireless (cellular) still costs money, and ties your p0rn downloads to you. Sneaking onto some unsuspecting dope's unprotected wifi is much easier.
Still, the story seems a little odd. Penetration tools on a motorbike make no sense. Even at a walking pace, you are out of range before you can penetrate any other station on the network. On an idling bike, you would certainly arose suspicion.
The best you can determine is if it is open or not on a drive by.
But you can do that with any cell phone and Any of several Wardriving tools.
(I read somewhere that the number of village idiots in Pakistan and Afghanistan has fallen to nearly zero.)
Unfortunately, no. Humanity is exceptionally efficient in this regard. No matter how quickly we use them up, we make more of them even faster.
I suppose you are right, especially given the level of inbreeding over there.
The story I read was in the news when a pretty dim witted woman was convinced to carry a backpack into a market.
After they identified the body, they were able to trace her to a village where her family had grown tired of caring for
her with no prospect of a mahr.