As a pedestrian standing in the road, preventing your autonomous car from moving - who's really in control?
You are assuming that the AI doesn't calculate that it is safer to run over you versus subjecting the driver to being overrun by the car behind him/her. There is no more guarantee that a person in the road will be protected by an autonomous vehicle than a non-autonomous one. For both it is a judgement call, either by the driver or the programmer.
As such, my advice would be "Don't stand in the road when vehicles are coming at you."
So what happens if you are overtaking a car on a two lane road, another car is coming towards you from the other direction but you judge that you can still make it with room to spare, so you add more gas, and meanwhile your car sees the other car coming towards you, has no idea that you are going to move out of the way, and therefore applies the brakes?
Manufacturers prefer (and should prefer) having a few false negatives where the car does not brake to avoid a collision (it's still your fault after all), rather than have false positives where the car's braking actually causes an accident.
The main purpose is to avoid crashes due to the slow reactions or distractedness of the driver. If the driver suddenly stomps on the gas, that's a different situation and the car should obey. The car should not assume it's smarter than the driver (even though sometimes it might be).
Hopefully the AI in the car is able to calculate the speed of the on-coming vehicle and your speed quicker than you can and if it is safe to take the course of action you describe it will allow it, but if not, it will prevent it.
User control overrides almost all car controlled actions. If she would have removed her foot off of the accelerator, the car would have likely seen the wall and applied the brakes. At least that's how it works in all the current model cars with collision detection.
Hopefully, you are incorrect. If so, then collision avoidance is almost useless, at least in traffic as it is likely that a distracted driver would not see the obstacle or other vehicle in time to remove one's foot. The cars I have driven with this feature will brake, quite aggressivley, I might add, even if one's foot is on the accelerator.
How was the development cost of a 4k plasma screen incurred when they didn't develop a 4k plasma screen?
Sorry, I misread your post to mean that since they had already moved to 4K for their high end models, that had included the 4K plasma and that the cost to the consumer would be too high. My mistake.
No no, you are both wrong. They are staying in markets where they make more profit........
Actually, that's not true. It's not about the volume of profit, it's about the return on investment. Making $1M in profit from a $2M investment (cost) is a 50% ROI. Making $2M in profit from a $5M is a 40% ROI. Even though the latter makes more profit, it is a poorer ROI and thus a poorer decision. Most companies would choose the 50% ROI and take the extra $1M they didn't have to spend and invest it. In short, One shouldn't chase profits, but instead ROI.
But the development cost was already incurred. As such, since they were going to eat that cost anyway, they didn't have to figure it into the cost of the set.
If you read to the end of that wiki article you would find that Japan spends 1% of GDP on defense with most of it going to personnel costs. That is one of the lowest in the world. By comparison, the over the past 20 years has spent between 4.6% to currently 3.5%. For the US, that amounts to $829B which is greater than the federal deficit. If the US spent 1% of GDP on defense, then there would be no deficit and an additional $600B for US citizens to spend on goods and services. Think how that would spur the economy and create jobs.
So yes, technically, Japan does have a military. They just don't spend much on it as it's sole purpose is to defend against invasion and for internal security. In short, their military is the equivalent to the US's National Guard.
Note: data for the above obtained from linked wiki page, usgovernmentspending.com and data.worldbank.org
plasma production stopped because LCD screens were so much cheaper that it was no longer competitive. Likewise, they are stopping LCD screens for the same reason. They can't compete with the cheap screens being massed produced by others. They are staying in the niche markets where quality matters more than price, but how long is anybody's guess.
More importantly, since there is now only one major producers of LCD screens, how long before prices start going up?
Of course it is easier to advance and experience the future when you don't have a military to support and the US gives large sums of money to Japan to keep bases there. Yes, I know that the reason they don't have a military is because of the terms of surrender post WWII with the US. But that doesn't change the reality that not spending billions per year on defense allows it to be reinvested elsewhere.
Holden did not say that Snowden did a public service by releasing the data, just the opposite. What he did say was that Snowden did a public service by causing the debate. With regards to releasing the data, Holden has not changed his stance and says that Snowden needs to be prosecuted and punished for releasing the data.
Those are two very different things and are definitely not synonymous.
Is this really a proof? I was always taught that a proof shows that the argument presented is always true -- not just for the first 7,824 times as is the case here, but always (obviously given the axioms used).
For instance, in Euclidean geometry, one can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle are two 90 degree angles or 180 degrees. They don't total to 180 degrees up to some finite point as in the article.
Don't get me wrong. There was impressive work done here. It just doesn't amount to a proof, unless that is now a subjective term.
Here's a novel idea -- instead of buying a piece of equipment to read to your kids, do it yourself. Kids need quality interaction with their parents and having machine read to them is not much better than plopping them in front of the tv.
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
Well the changes to the FLSA will take care of that for your non-exempt employees. If you want them to answer emails or phone calls or whatever outside of their normal 40 hour work week, you will need to pay them for it.
I'd suggest that before December 1st, you develop a company policy prohibiting non-exempt employees from checking emails or phone messages outside normal work hours. At least if you want to be in compliance with the FLSA. And if not, your attorney will be happy with the additional business he/she will be getting.
For example, it's cool to bash rednecks, even though all of the ones I've met are some pretty honest working guys that are actually pretty fun to have a beer with, even though I don't like beer
Sorry, my grade-school kids don't drink. And I'd say calling people "rednecks" is pretty insensitive, and I would teach my kids not to use that language (unless it's so pervasive within the in-group that it's not really an epitthet anymore: see "geek").
We raised our kids, likewise. All people have value and using terms like redneck or any other stereotype simply dehumanizes the person. My grandmother, may she rest in peace, was found of saying "If you can't say anything nice about somebody, then don't say anything at all." Maybe it's time to return to that mentality.
When rednecks are being denied employment from jobs they desire, because they're readily identifiable as a redneck;
when rednecks are being denied entry to social clubs and bars they desire entry to, because they're readily identifiable as a redneck;
when rednecks realize that these things are happening, and they actually give a damn: they won't be true rednecks anymore.
The Donkey to Shrek "you don't care what anybody thinks" attitude is central to being a redneck, they don't have to be ignorant of how the label limits them socially, they just have to not care; being proud of it is sort of redneck level 2, flying a big rebel flag on the back of your pickup truck would make level 3.
So, what you area saying is that it is alright to stereotype people into various groups and treat them differently as long as you don't make hiring decisions based on it? BTW, you do realize that the term redneck has nothing to do with the south, but was a derogatory term used against rural people, particularly farmers. It was originally the equivalent of calling a person of color the "N" word. It was, and still is, used to show one's superiority over the person being called it.
Being a good member of society usually means you don't discriminate, bully, etc.
That's nice and all, but it occurs to me that the message lately has been that you the only people you don't discriminate against are legally protected groups, and it's perfectly fine to discriminate against anybody else. For example, it's cool to bash rednecks, even though all of the ones I've met are some pretty honest working guys that are actually pretty fun to have a beer with, even though I don't like beer, or country music, or any of the other stuff they're in to. I mean shit, if rednecks were a minority group, people would shame you for using the term redneck.
Don't know where abouts you are from, but we were taught in school not to bash anybody, regardless of who they are. But then, I'm a product of the 60s, so maybe they don't teach that anymore.
At what age did Tim Cook learn to program? Probably wasn't in 4th grade and yet, he seems to be pretty successful. Instead of teaching kids to program, how about teaching them how to be creative thinkers. Teach them to be problem solvers. Then, if they do decide to program, they will have something to program.
I counter your 'Tech inclined kids will find coding on their own' with:
(Drum roll please)
Parents should teach their children how to be good members of society, and it is not only not the place of schools to teach that, but it is explicitly overstepping their role to assume they have the right to teach children social values. Schools are for teaching facts and how to learn, not to shape hearts and minds (although they certainly think thats their job these days)..
Or do you think some random teacher is the best person to decide on the social values or your child? Think about it..
Where do you draw the line. Being a good member of society usually means you don't discriminate, bully, etc. Yes, parents should teach that at home. However, when it occurs in a classroom saying the school is overstepping their role in teaching social values?
The OP was simply saying that instead of teaching coding, maybe schools should go back to teaching more humanities and arts. If studying history or music is stepping beyond their bounds, then what should they be teaching?
Hey, if other people on the bus or train are annoying you with their chatter or cell phones, just go with a totally legal, oldschool jammer: http://ajournalofmusicalthings...
According to the current CIO, the report said, "Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs."
So, if they had known about it, they would have taken responsibility for securing it. I wonder if anybody ever looked at her email address? Obviously, coming from her own personal server, it wasn't on one of their State Department domains. So, either they did know and did nothing or they really are as inept as we all thought. Of course, option 3 is both are true.
Fortunately, the current CEO of McDonalds has already discovered immediate increases in revenue and profits by increasing wages and benefits of their frontline workers.
Maybe that's why this guy is the "former" CEO. Henry Ford paid his workers above the going rate so they could actually purchase the goods they were making. But hey maybe, all those savings by displacing the workers can be used to pay increased taxes to feed the people who no longer have jobs.
Maybe it's time they start teaching in the MBA programs that if you displace all of your workers to increase profits, eventually you won't have any profits because there won't be anybody to purchase your goods and services.
You also have to track the prices. US corn consumption for fuel drove up costs, and made tortillas expensive in Mexico. No joke. It impacted practically everyone down there.
I know that was the case, however, based on the USDA's own data, there was no economic reason for the price to rise as there was not a scarcity and additional acreage planted on top of that. In other words, demand did not exceed supply. However, like with the oil markets, investors bid up the price hoping to score big. As such, the rise in prices was not from actually from the use of corn in producing ethanol, but speculators.
Traditionally, the commodities markets was about buy now to lock in a price and receiving the commodity at a later date when it was ready to be shipped. What it has become, however, is speculators entering the market driving up the price now, but selling before the commodity is shipped. For instance, in the 1970s, almost 80% of the oil futures were purchased by oil companies. Today, before the slump in oil prices, less than 25% was purchased by oil companies. With the slump in prices, most of the futures are again being purchased by oil companies and the prices have fallen to what the market will bear. A lot of this market speculation occurred with tax and investment regulation changes in the 1980s and 1990s.
Unfortunately, the only people who benefit with these changes are the speculators and the wholesalers. Both the initial producer and the consumer suffer as is evidence by what happened to the price of tortillas in Mexico.
Slashdot Mirror
As a pedestrian standing in the road, preventing your autonomous car from moving - who's really in control?
You are assuming that the AI doesn't calculate that it is safer to run over you versus subjecting the driver to being overrun by the car behind him/her. There is no more guarantee that a person in the road will be protected by an autonomous vehicle than a non-autonomous one. For both it is a judgement call, either by the driver or the programmer.
As such, my advice would be "Don't stand in the road when vehicles are coming at you."
So what happens if you are overtaking a car on a two lane road, another car is coming towards you from the other direction but you judge that you can still make it with room to spare, so you add more gas, and meanwhile your car sees the other car coming towards you, has no idea that you are going to move out of the way, and therefore applies the brakes?
Manufacturers prefer (and should prefer) having a few false negatives where the car does not brake to avoid a collision (it's still your fault after all), rather than have false positives where the car's braking actually causes an accident.
The main purpose is to avoid crashes due to the slow reactions or distractedness of the driver. If the driver suddenly stomps on the gas, that's a different situation and the car should obey. The car should not assume it's smarter than the driver (even though sometimes it might be).
Hopefully the AI in the car is able to calculate the speed of the on-coming vehicle and your speed quicker than you can and if it is safe to take the course of action you describe it will allow it, but if not, it will prevent it.
User control overrides almost all car controlled actions. If she would have removed her foot off of the accelerator, the car would have likely seen the wall and applied the brakes. At least that's how it works in all the current model cars with collision detection.
Hopefully, you are incorrect. If so, then collision avoidance is almost useless, at least in traffic as it is likely that a distracted driver would not see the obstacle or other vehicle in time to remove one's foot. The cars I have driven with this feature will brake, quite aggressivley, I might add, even if one's foot is on the accelerator.
tethering?
I have ADSL on 50GB a month and there are months I use less than half that.
it might be cheaper just to ditch wired broadband if the price of mobile data comes down.
Why would data rates come down. Typically, they will get you with introductory low rates, but once you are addicted, the rates go up.
How was the development cost of a 4k plasma screen incurred when they didn't develop a 4k plasma screen?
Sorry, I misread your post to mean that since they had already moved to 4K for their high end models, that had included the 4K plasma and that the cost to the consumer would be too high. My mistake.
No no, you are both wrong. They are staying in markets where they make more profit........
Actually, that's not true. It's not about the volume of profit, it's about the return on investment. Making $1M in profit from a $2M investment (cost) is a 50% ROI. Making $2M in profit from a $5M is a 40% ROI. Even though the latter makes more profit, it is a poorer ROI and thus a poorer decision. Most companies would choose the 50% ROI and take the extra $1M they didn't have to spend and invest it. In short, One shouldn't chase profits, but instead ROI.
But the development cost was already incurred. As such, since they were going to eat that cost anyway, they didn't have to figure it into the cost of the set.
No, niche markets have nothing to do with quality. It's all about the price.
Except their niche is medical and military grade, so there probably are specs they need to live up to.
If you read to the end of that wiki article you would find that Japan spends 1% of GDP on defense with most of it going to personnel costs. That is one of the lowest in the world. By comparison, the over the past 20 years has spent between 4.6% to currently 3.5%. For the US, that amounts to $829B which is greater than the federal deficit. If the US spent 1% of GDP on defense, then there would be no deficit and an additional $600B for US citizens to spend on goods and services. Think how that would spur the economy and create jobs.
So yes, technically, Japan does have a military. They just don't spend much on it as it's sole purpose is to defend against invasion and for internal security. In short, their military is the equivalent to the US's National Guard.
Note: data for the above obtained from linked wiki page, usgovernmentspending.com and data.worldbank.org
They are staying in the niche markets where quality matters more than price...
They are staying in the niche markets where the margins are much higher.
Isn't that what I said?
plasma production stopped because LCD screens were so much cheaper that it was no longer competitive. Likewise, they are stopping LCD screens for the same reason. They can't compete with the cheap screens being massed produced by others. They are staying in the niche markets where quality matters more than price, but how long is anybody's guess.
More importantly, since there is now only one major producers of LCD screens, how long before prices start going up?
Of course it is easier to advance and experience the future when you don't have a military to support and the US gives large sums of money to Japan to keep bases there. Yes, I know that the reason they don't have a military is because of the terms of surrender post WWII with the US. But that doesn't change the reality that not spending billions per year on defense allows it to be reinvested elsewhere.
Holden did not say that Snowden did a public service by releasing the data, just the opposite. What he did say was that Snowden did a public service by causing the debate. With regards to releasing the data, Holden has not changed his stance and says that Snowden needs to be prosecuted and punished for releasing the data.
Those are two very different things and are definitely not synonymous.
Is this really a proof? I was always taught that a proof shows that the argument presented is always true -- not just for the first 7,824 times as is the case here, but always (obviously given the axioms used).
For instance, in Euclidean geometry, one can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle are two 90 degree angles or 180 degrees. They don't total to 180 degrees up to some finite point as in the article.
Don't get me wrong. There was impressive work done here. It just doesn't amount to a proof, unless that is now a subjective term.
Here's a novel idea -- instead of buying a piece of equipment to read to your kids, do it yourself. Kids need quality interaction with their parents and having machine read to them is not much better than plopping them in front of the tv.
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
Well the changes to the FLSA will take care of that for your non-exempt employees. If you want them to answer emails or phone calls or whatever outside of their normal 40 hour work week, you will need to pay them for it.
I'd suggest that before December 1st, you develop a company policy prohibiting non-exempt employees from checking emails or phone messages outside normal work hours. At least if you want to be in compliance with the FLSA. And if not, your attorney will be happy with the additional business he/she will be getting.
For example, it's cool to bash rednecks, even though all of the ones I've met are some pretty honest working guys that are actually pretty fun to have a beer with, even though I don't like beer
Sorry, my grade-school kids don't drink. And I'd say calling people "rednecks" is pretty insensitive, and I would teach my kids not to use that language (unless it's so pervasive within the in-group that it's not really an epitthet anymore: see "geek").
We raised our kids, likewise. All people have value and using terms like redneck or any other stereotype simply dehumanizes the person. My grandmother, may she rest in peace, was found of saying "If you can't say anything nice about somebody, then don't say anything at all." Maybe it's time to return to that mentality.
When rednecks are being denied employment from jobs they desire, because they're readily identifiable as a redneck;
when rednecks are being denied entry to social clubs and bars they desire entry to, because they're readily identifiable as a redneck;
when rednecks realize that these things are happening, and they actually give a damn: they won't be true rednecks anymore.
The Donkey to Shrek "you don't care what anybody thinks" attitude is central to being a redneck, they don't have to be ignorant of how the label limits them socially, they just have to not care; being proud of it is sort of redneck level 2, flying a big rebel flag on the back of your pickup truck would make level 3.
So, what you area saying is that it is alright to stereotype people into various groups and treat them differently as long as you don't make hiring decisions based on it? BTW, you do realize that the term redneck has nothing to do with the south, but was a derogatory term used against rural people, particularly farmers. It was originally the equivalent of calling a person of color the "N" word. It was, and still is, used to show one's superiority over the person being called it.
Being a good member of society usually means you don't discriminate, bully, etc.
That's nice and all, but it occurs to me that the message lately has been that you the only people you don't discriminate against are legally protected groups, and it's perfectly fine to discriminate against anybody else. For example, it's cool to bash rednecks, even though all of the ones I've met are some pretty honest working guys that are actually pretty fun to have a beer with, even though I don't like beer, or country music, or any of the other stuff they're in to. I mean shit, if rednecks were a minority group, people would shame you for using the term redneck.
Don't know where abouts you are from, but we were taught in school not to bash anybody, regardless of who they are. But then, I'm a product of the 60s, so maybe they don't teach that anymore.
At what age did Tim Cook learn to program? Probably wasn't in 4th grade and yet, he seems to be pretty successful. Instead of teaching kids to program, how about teaching them how to be creative thinkers. Teach them to be problem solvers. Then, if they do decide to program, they will have something to program.
I counter your 'Tech inclined kids will find coding on their own' with:
(Drum roll please)
Parents should teach their children how to be good members of society, and it is not only not the place
of schools to teach that, but it is explicitly overstepping their role to assume they have the right to teach
children social values. Schools are for teaching facts and how to learn, not to shape hearts and
minds (although they certainly think thats their job these days)..
Or do you think some random teacher is the best person to decide on the social values or your child?
Think about it..
Where do you draw the line. Being a good member of society usually means you don't discriminate, bully, etc. Yes, parents should teach that at home. However, when it occurs in a classroom saying the school is overstepping their role in teaching social values?
The OP was simply saying that instead of teaching coding, maybe schools should go back to teaching more humanities and arts. If studying history or music is stepping beyond their bounds, then what should they be teaching?
Hey, if other people on the bus or train are annoying you with their chatter or cell phones, just go with a totally legal, oldschool jammer: http://ajournalofmusicalthings...
According to the current CIO, the report said, "Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs."
So, if they had known about it, they would have taken responsibility for securing it. I wonder if anybody ever looked at her email address? Obviously, coming from her own personal server, it wasn't on one of their State Department domains. So, either they did know and did nothing or they really are as inept as we all thought. Of course, option 3 is both are true.
Fortunately, the current CEO of McDonalds has already discovered immediate increases in revenue and profits by increasing wages and benefits of their frontline workers.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
Maybe that's why this guy is the "former" CEO. Henry Ford paid his workers above the going rate so they could actually purchase the goods they were making. But hey maybe, all those savings by displacing the workers can be used to pay increased taxes to feed the people who no longer have jobs.
Maybe it's time they start teaching in the MBA programs that if you displace all of your workers to increase profits, eventually you won't have any profits because there won't be anybody to purchase your goods and services.
You also have to track the prices. US corn consumption for fuel drove up costs, and made tortillas expensive in Mexico. No joke. It impacted practically everyone down there.
I know that was the case, however, based on the USDA's own data, there was no economic reason for the price to rise as there was not a scarcity and additional acreage planted on top of that. In other words, demand did not exceed supply. However, like with the oil markets, investors bid up the price hoping to score big. As such, the rise in prices was not from actually from the use of corn in producing ethanol, but speculators.
Traditionally, the commodities markets was about buy now to lock in a price and receiving the commodity at a later date when it was ready to be shipped. What it has become, however, is speculators entering the market driving up the price now, but selling before the commodity is shipped. For instance, in the 1970s, almost 80% of the oil futures were purchased by oil companies. Today, before the slump in oil prices, less than 25% was purchased by oil companies. With the slump in prices, most of the futures are again being purchased by oil companies and the prices have fallen to what the market will bear. A lot of this market speculation occurred with tax and investment regulation changes in the 1980s and 1990s.
Unfortunately, the only people who benefit with these changes are the speculators and the wholesalers. Both the initial producer and the consumer suffer as is evidence by what happened to the price of tortillas in Mexico.