And as TFA points out, staying alert enough to handle ONLY emergencies is impracticable. (Yes, "impracticable" was the word I chose because it has specific legal meaning).
The Google dirverless cars only have a human ready to take over because the law requires it. And to date, Google has not published any figures about how often drivers have to take over. The one recorded accident (minor fender bender) of the Google test cars happened when the driver was manually controlling the car. Why? Because the car system was too stupid to get to the test route on its own, and had to be driven to the starting point manually.
Generally it is the rider. I have seen drunk riders pulled over in New Mexico, where horses are used when a driver has their license taken away for DUI. Seriously, I have seen this twice in Taos.
Unless the horse was pulling a wagon, it is not a vehicle. You might be charged with drunk and disorderly citations, but you will not be charged with RUI. Its equally possible you just made this up.
Perhaps automobiles should come with manufacturer insurance for the life of the vehicle (while kept in good repair). If Ford and Google are in control, then let them bear the legal liability.
I'd like to see Google take their cars to someplace where it actually snows, where black Ice builds up, or where the landscape one morning is nothing but subtle shades of white one minute and glare Ice the next.
you might as well ask what would happen if it turned out that the number of angels that can dance on a pin turned out to be finite.
Except that Driver-less cars are real and they are running around on the streets in several places today. That you appear unaware of this, while at the same time you feel qualified to post on the issue, is telling.
Hand waive it away if you like, but the problem is real.
Current Law not appropriate for Future Technology = Poorly designed law. Such a law should be repealed immediately. Replacement should be technology neutral. There are always flaws in every system, we cannot eliminate all flaws, but we can mitigate against them.
When you start out like that, its clear you haven't given this one second of thought. Yes, lets by all means repeal all current law. What could Possibly go wrong with that?
I can see it now: "If you like your current laws, you will be able to KEEP your current laws." (Cheers and huzzahs by the easily duped.)
*nod* I could see the liability resting on your insurance carrier, then premiums being based off the model of car, version of software, or configuration.
Wait, why should I pay insurance once I'm not in control of the vehicle?
Shouldn't Ford Chevy and Google be buying the insurance?
And if I do still have to pay insurance, what confidence do you really have that Ford won't lean on the insurance company to not publish higher rates for Ford cars than for Chevy cars? Some money under the table, and you are none the wiser, but you are still guilty in the eyes of the law?
A machine equipped with the full range of sensors available today will probably be able to detect, decide and alert the passengers to the threat faster than the average human driver would be able to detect and react to the same threat in the majority of situations.
Doesn't mean that the humans would be able to do anything about it. An alert human who was driving might be able to do so. but one chatting or reading a book won't be able to do anything.
So you've added nothing to the conversation except a bunch of Rah Rah Raw Hip Hip Hooray for automated cars, with vague promises of increased safety and unproven assurances.
But you've done nothing to answer the question under discussion, which makes that totally board and intentionally disengaged driver legally responsible for the vehicle's decision to run over the child in the street rather than intentionally crashing into other vehicles when presented with the facts. You appear to accept the fact that the machine should decide for "the greater good".
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do.
I'm not allowed to run the train The whistle I can't blow I'm not allowed to say how far The railroad cars can go. I'm not allowed to shoot off steam, Nor even clang the bell But let the damn train jump the track And see who catches Hell!
As the old poem suggests, and the article makes clear, There is no way a human can be awakened and handed an emergency when automation exceeds its limitations. This might work on a milling machine, when a tool runs out of raw materials, but it can't work at 70mph with impending death 1.3 seconds ahead.
You've merely restated the current legal conundrum, and not added a thing to the conversation.
Profit: The difference between what's gained and what's spent. If you spend $50 and gain something equivalent to a $5000 camera, then you have essentially created a $4500 profit.
Well, I posted purely in jest.
You appear to be serious in equating avoidance of cost with profit. They are quite different in economic terms.
The fact that alternative methods are NOT used commercially suggests that there is no market for images of this size, given the cost involved. Had there been such a market, this guy could corner said market. However, he would also not be able to demand the same price. (Because there is no market at that price).
Since there is essentially ZERO market for his images, the whole point is moot until he starts making sales.
So if I buy a bicycle instead of that Bugatti Veyron I've been lusting for, it means I have a tax problem because of that $1,700,000 profit, (minus the cost of the bicycle)?
Brilliant! All the government's budget deficit problems were nothing but an accounting error!
This kind of estimating may have an order of magnitude error. So it could easily be only 1 asteroid worth mining. Let the asteroid war begin!
Four guys doing back of the envelope calculations does not justify any mad rush to start mining.
Even the summary ends with a totally unwarranted suggestion:
With so few commercially-viable space rocks out there, knowing which ones to pursue will be hugely valuable information, concludes the study. And that means the prospecting of asteroids is likely to become a highly secretive commercial endeavor in the not-too-distant future."
The submitter suggests that since there are so few valuable asteroids and since its (currently) impossible to mine them, that a commercial mad rush to do so is bound to start any minute now.
I understand GPL allowing CentOS and Scientific Linux to use Redhat in their respective products, but I find it really puzzling that they would actively *help* CentOS... Doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
Didn't this use to be the norm? A paid distro, with full support and a community distro side by side? Suse Linux and Opensuse? Red Hat and Fedora?
Yeah, so what? Selecting only those you can save, by simple expedients of cauterizing wounds while the rest aren't even removed from the battle field is not exactly the best medicine, but it helps your "patients saved" stats, especially when the badly wounded never darken your door.
Slashdot Mirror
And as TFA points out, staying alert enough to handle ONLY emergencies is impracticable. (Yes, "impracticable" was the word I chose because it has specific legal meaning).
The Google dirverless cars only have a human ready to take over because the law requires it.
And to date, Google has not published any figures about how often drivers have to take over.
The one recorded accident (minor fender bender) of the Google test cars happened when the driver was manually controlling the car. Why? Because the car system was too stupid to get to the test route on its own, and had to be driven to the starting point manually.
Generally it is the rider. I have seen drunk riders pulled over in New Mexico, where horses are used when a driver has their license taken away for DUI. Seriously, I have seen this twice in Taos.
Then I guess they get charged with RUI.
There is no such provision in New Mexico law.
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter66/article8/section66-8-102
Unless the horse was pulling a wagon, it is not a vehicle.
You might be charged with drunk and disorderly citations, but you will not be charged with RUI.
Its equally possible you just made this up.
Perhaps automobiles should come with manufacturer insurance for the life of the vehicle (while kept in good repair).
If Ford and Google are in control, then let them bear the legal liability.
I'd like to see Google take their cars to someplace where it actually snows, where black Ice builds up, or where the landscape one morning is nothing but subtle shades of white one minute and glare Ice the next.
Its a good thing you are posting as AC.
Again, I ask, Why should the owner of a car pay insurance, when they are not in control of the vehicle?
you might as well ask what would happen if it turned out that the number of angels that can dance on a pin turned out to be finite.
Except that Driver-less cars are real and they are running around on the streets in several places today. That you appear unaware of this, while at the same time you feel qualified to post on the issue, is telling.
Hand waive it away if you like, but the problem is real.
Current Law not appropriate for Future Technology = Poorly designed law. Such a law should be repealed immediately. Replacement should be technology neutral. There are always flaws in every system, we cannot eliminate all flaws, but we can mitigate against them.
When you start out like that, its clear you haven't given this one second of thought.
Yes, lets by all means repeal all current law.
What could Possibly go wrong with that?
I can see it now:
"If you like your current laws, you will be able to KEEP your current laws." (Cheers and huzzahs by the easily duped.)
*nod* I could see the liability resting on your insurance carrier, then premiums being based off the model of car, version of software, or configuration.
Wait, why should I pay insurance once I'm not in control of the vehicle?
Shouldn't Ford Chevy and Google be buying the insurance?
And if I do still have to pay insurance, what confidence do you really have that Ford won't lean on the insurance company to
not publish higher rates for Ford cars than for Chevy cars? Some money under the table, and you are none the wiser, but
you are still guilty in the eyes of the law?
A machine equipped with the full range of sensors available today will probably be able to detect, decide and alert the passengers to the threat faster than the average human driver would be able to detect and react to the same threat in the majority of situations.
Doesn't mean that the humans would be able to do anything about it. An alert human who was driving might be able to do so. but one chatting or reading a book won't be able to do anything.
So you've added nothing to the conversation except a bunch of Rah Rah Raw Hip Hip Hooray for automated cars, with vague promises of increased safety and unproven assurances.
But you've done nothing to answer the question under discussion, which makes that totally board and intentionally disengaged driver legally responsible for the vehicle's decision to run over the child in the street rather than intentionally crashing into other vehicles when presented with the facts. You appear to accept the fact that the machine should decide for "the greater good".
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do.
I'm not allowed to run the train
The whistle I can't blow
I'm not allowed to say how far
The railroad cars can go.
I'm not allowed to shoot off steam,
Nor even clang the bell
But let the damn train jump the track
And see who catches Hell!
As the old poem suggests, and the article makes clear, There is no way a human can be awakened and handed an emergency when automation exceeds its limitations. This might work on a milling machine, when a tool runs out of raw materials, but it can't work at 70mph with impending death 1.3 seconds ahead.
You've merely restated the current legal conundrum, and not added a thing to the conversation.
That is ridiculous.
Don't forget: Successful books relied on:
verbs describing
.
All this time I thought adjectives described. Silly me. No wonder my great novel failed.
Ah, yes, testbed for SUSE is about the only reason OS exists.
You are assuming the OP meant "mine in orbit". Nothing in the requirements stated that.
Because anything else is asinine.
Profit: The difference between what's gained and what's spent. If you spend $50 and gain something equivalent to a $5000 camera, then you have essentially created a $4500 profit.
Well, I posted purely in jest.
You appear to be serious in equating avoidance of cost with profit. They are quite different in economic terms.
The fact that alternative methods are NOT used commercially suggests that there is no market for images of
this size, given the cost involved. Had there been such a market, this guy could corner said market.
However, he would also not be able to demand the same price. (Because there is no market at that price).
Since there is essentially ZERO market for his images, the whole point is moot until he starts making sales.
Pretty much my take too.
He may have a boat load of resolution, but until he finds a way to use it, it is largely a technical exercise.
Not more dramatic than these: http://70gigapixel.cloudapp.net/ or these http://www.dresden-26-gigapixels.com/dresden26GP but possibly done
with cheaper methods.
Still, people have been stitching images like this for a long time with equally cheap equipment, although they can't capture motion.
Well in this case, he went to an awful lot of trouble to get some rather mundane pictures.
So if I buy a bicycle instead of that Bugatti Veyron I've been lusting for, it means I have a tax problem because of that $1,700,000 profit, (minus the cost of the bicycle)?
Brilliant!
All the government's budget deficit problems were nothing but an accounting error!
Cold hearted orb that rules the night.
so there could be -10 asteroids worth mining? Somebody has to make the 10 asteroids first?
Think of the tax write-offs!!! Negative Revenue! Negative Profit! Negative Inventory! Tax attorney Nirvana!
This kind of estimating may have an order of magnitude error. So it could easily be only 1 asteroid worth mining. Let the asteroid war begin!
Four guys doing back of the envelope calculations does not justify any mad rush to start mining.
Even the summary ends with a totally unwarranted suggestion:
With so few commercially-viable space rocks out there, knowing which ones to pursue will be hugely valuable information, concludes the study. And that means the prospecting of asteroids is likely to become a highly secretive commercial endeavor in the not-too-distant future."
The submitter suggests that since there are so few valuable asteroids and since its (currently) impossible to mine them, that a commercial mad rush to do so is bound to start any minute now.
That is just daft.
Mining is the act of removing very small amounts of valuable minerals from large chunks of rock.
Bringing them HERE means the tailings all end up in earth orbit.
We've got enough crap orbiting the earth and taking out Satellites without adding to this mess.
Processing them on the mood might make more sense, but if you have the ability to do that, why not just mine the moon?
Recycling you Neanderthal!
I understand GPL allowing CentOS and Scientific Linux to use Redhat in their respective products, but I find it really puzzling that they would actively *help* CentOS... Doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
Didn't this use to be the norm?
A paid distro, with full support and a community distro side by side?
Suse Linux and Opensuse?
Red Hat and Fedora?
Yeah, so what?
Selecting only those you can save, by simple expedients of cauterizing wounds while the rest aren't even removed from the battle field is not exactly the best medicine, but it helps your "patients saved" stats, especially when the badly wounded never darken your door.
Triage is not medicine.