It's pretty easy for you to condemn him when the most angst you have in your life is not hearing your name called in Starbucks... You have no idea what he had to go through, yet you think you can judge a guy's actions and motives because of a snippet on the TV? That speaks more to your willingness to condemn than it does the honour (or lack thereof) of the guy being condemned.
Apart from all the successful predictions made by the models, you are absolutely right! You sound like someone parroting what they heard someone else say, and neither of you had a clue, hence you thinking it's somehow helpful to you to out yourself as a scientific illiterate for all to see, with great pride and pomp. Yay you! Good work!
What makes humans terrible drivers is our ability to think like a human. It's not a great gift when driving. The best drivers remove as much of the "human" in "human driver" as possible, and just stick to using the inputs provided by the car in order to move it around.
Your argument fell apart when you assumed that humans thinking is a good thing in cars at all. It's demonstrably not.
So much guesswork! So much vitriol! It looks like an argument, but it reads like a rant against how you imagine these cars to operate, with no thought given to them actually improving over time (as most technology seems to do).
3. Those who understand that it is possible for autonomous cars to be better than human drivers (and that they already are in a wide variety of situations), and who see that the market is going to drip these automation features into new models of cars as the years progress, with some manufacturers opting to introduce more features more quickly compared to others.
4. People who make ridiculous oversimplifications in order to tortuously make a dig at a group of people they don't agree with by concocting a complete misrepresentation of their concerns and understanding, and then attacking it.
You just claimed the world's experts on autonomous vehicles think autonomous vehicles simply can't work. Clearly that's not the case, so you must be wrong. I guess that's the danger of massive oversimplifications and generalizations - they're so frequently wrong it makes the person making the claim look an absolute gibbering idiot for ever thinking it was a coherent, intelligent thing to say.
"I don't know how this works. I have absolutely no idea. I also seem to think that if i don't understand something, no one can. I am the be-all and end-all of human knowledge."
So just because you can't figure out how to make a car follow directions (or other cars), doesn't mean the countless people brighter than you can't.
The automated cars are already better than people, and they're relatively new technology. You don't really have an argument. That's not to say you can't find a good argument for your side, just that you've not found it yet.
The current automatic cars are doing a lot better than people, so I don't know what your point is. I also suspect you don't know what your point is either.
Insurance companies don't just make wild guesses as you just did - they will spend a long time calculating their rates. And it's probably not a good idea to steal or vandalize hardware covered in cameras with an internet connection and precise knowledge about where it is, so I doubt that would be as big a problem as you seem to think it is.
You do not remember correctly. Or, if you do, you read some pretty bad sources. You've just managed to badly mangle one side of the dispute and entirely ignore the other side. I'm not sure what point you tried to make, but the only point you ended up making was "KGIII gets confused and spouts some rather bizarre nonsense".
You should see who breaks the most agreed cease-fires. Hint: It's not Hamas. If Israel wanted peace they would stop building the settlements (as they are the first thing to go after any lasting agreement) and stop breaking cease-fires. As long as Israel is settling, it doesn't want peace.
If you are scared of how it can be misused, then you should call for the immediate disbanding of the armed forces, as those have been used by every single dictator in history to great effect.
You not understanding the important of a census doesn't make you look to knowledgeable of this subject.
Your analogy doesn't seem accurate. It's more like if you had a hammer - all hammerlike and useful, but because of the laziness of the hammer creator, can be remotely made to fly around your workshop smashing into things by anyone wishing to make it do so.
The security holes which do not affect functionality should be fixed, and commonly are not. That is the problem.
Capitalism was only successful once reined in by regulations. Capitalism without regulations truly is a race to the bottom, as we saw in the industrial revolution, before regulation had a chance to ensure the capitalist operators ceased using human labour as a consumable.
He doesn't want to learn. He pops up in almost every thread to do with terrorism or Islam and spouts his nonsense. Sometimes the thread has nothing to do with that topic yet still he pops up, vomits his ill-informed hatred everywhere, and then disappears back into the sewers from whence he came.
There you go again, proving to the world you don't know the difference between a group and some of its members. As not every westerner (dressed as such) gets hated, attacked or killed, I'd say your point is well and truly destroyed.
Hint: You won't make any logical sense when you start off on a very illogical footing.
Not really. There is another explanation (one which I don't personally believe, but which could still be true nonetheless): TSA is ineffective, but terrorists don't think it to be so.
So no, the lack of attacks after the TSA was set up doesn't prove that the TSA's benefits are entirely imaginary.
So you want to greatly increase the risk of there being a shooting on a plane in order to slightly increase the chances of being able to stop one should it happen?? Brilliant logic.
Relentlessly stalking people is precisely the worst way to dispel the "APK is suffering from serious mental illnesses" rumor.
You are the only one who cares about your software. Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software, but software written by professionals who don't trawl slashdot drooling on people who call them out for their insanity.
I look forward to your sock puppets coming out in defense of you. It's strange these defenders of yours are never signed in and write in a very similar style to you.
So what if she's a CEO of a cloud services company - it doesn't mean she's incorrect.
If you hack into Amazon's AWS you won't get a directory with "creditcards.xls" and "passwords.txt" in it, you'll be faced with a network architecture you won't understand, with hundreds of thousands of servers you won't recognize, virtualized and sequestered in ways you've never heard of.
It would help if you understood what's being discussed before leaping into a rant about your imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty easy for you to condemn him when the most angst you have in your life is not hearing your name called in Starbucks... You have no idea what he had to go through, yet you think you can judge a guy's actions and motives because of a snippet on the TV? That speaks more to your willingness to condemn than it does the honour (or lack thereof) of the guy being condemned.
Apart from all the successful predictions made by the models, you are absolutely right! You sound like someone parroting what they heard someone else say, and neither of you had a clue, hence you thinking it's somehow helpful to you to out yourself as a scientific illiterate for all to see, with great pride and pomp. Yay you! Good work!
What makes humans terrible drivers is our ability to think like a human. It's not a great gift when driving. The best drivers remove as much of the "human" in "human driver" as possible, and just stick to using the inputs provided by the car in order to move it around.
Your argument fell apart when you assumed that humans thinking is a good thing in cars at all. It's demonstrably not.
That's your argument - technology fails, so we shouldn't/can't ever use it? Brilliant work, sparky!
So much guesswork! So much vitriol! It looks like an argument, but it reads like a rant against how you imagine these cars to operate, with no thought given to them actually improving over time (as most technology seems to do).
You also forgot the third and fourth 'camps':
3. Those who understand that it is possible for autonomous cars to be better than human drivers (and that they already are in a wide variety of situations), and who see that the market is going to drip these automation features into new models of cars as the years progress, with some manufacturers opting to introduce more features more quickly compared to others.
4. People who make ridiculous oversimplifications in order to tortuously make a dig at a group of people they don't agree with by concocting a complete misrepresentation of their concerns and understanding, and then attacking it.
You just claimed the world's experts on autonomous vehicles think autonomous vehicles simply can't work. Clearly that's not the case, so you must be wrong. I guess that's the danger of massive oversimplifications and generalizations - they're so frequently wrong it makes the person making the claim look an absolute gibbering idiot for ever thinking it was a coherent, intelligent thing to say.
Let me sum up every single one of your questions:
"I don't know how this works. I have absolutely no idea. I also seem to think that if i don't understand something, no one can. I am the be-all and end-all of human knowledge."
So just because you can't figure out how to make a car follow directions (or other cars), doesn't mean the countless people brighter than you can't.
The automated cars are already better than people, and they're relatively new technology. You don't really have an argument. That's not to say you can't find a good argument for your side, just that you've not found it yet.
The current automatic cars are doing a lot better than people, so I don't know what your point is. I also suspect you don't know what your point is either.
Insurance companies don't just make wild guesses as you just did - they will spend a long time calculating their rates. And it's probably not a good idea to steal or vandalize hardware covered in cameras with an internet connection and precise knowledge about where it is, so I doubt that would be as big a problem as you seem to think it is.
You do not remember correctly. Or, if you do, you read some pretty bad sources. You've just managed to badly mangle one side of the dispute and entirely ignore the other side. I'm not sure what point you tried to make, but the only point you ended up making was "KGIII gets confused and spouts some rather bizarre nonsense".
You should see who breaks the most agreed cease-fires. Hint: It's not Hamas. If Israel wanted peace they would stop building the settlements (as they are the first thing to go after any lasting agreement) and stop breaking cease-fires. As long as Israel is settling, it doesn't want peace.
They have done something, though. You stating they haven't doesn't change that.
If you are scared of how it can be misused, then you should call for the immediate disbanding of the armed forces, as those have been used by every single dictator in history to great effect.
You not understanding the important of a census doesn't make you look to knowledgeable of this subject.
Your analogy doesn't seem accurate. It's more like if you had a hammer - all hammerlike and useful, but because of the laziness of the hammer creator, can be remotely made to fly around your workshop smashing into things by anyone wishing to make it do so.
The security holes which do not affect functionality should be fixed, and commonly are not. That is the problem.
No, no no - we have BitZtream, and he says it's all rubbish, so it must be rubbish. BitZtream is never wrong - it's physically impossible.
And it scales, so that's not a problem - just get more people to help with the counting. It would still save money and be less prone to fraud.
Side note: do you also chime in with "but the US is so biiiig!" when the shitty state of US internet is mentioned? Gotta have those excuses ;)
Capitalism was only successful once reined in by regulations. Capitalism without regulations truly is a race to the bottom, as we saw in the industrial revolution, before regulation had a chance to ensure the capitalist operators ceased using human labour as a consumable.
He doesn't want to learn. He pops up in almost every thread to do with terrorism or Islam and spouts his nonsense. Sometimes the thread has nothing to do with that topic yet still he pops up, vomits his ill-informed hatred everywhere, and then disappears back into the sewers from whence he came.
There you go again, proving to the world you don't know the difference between a group and some of its members. As not every westerner (dressed as such) gets hated, attacked or killed, I'd say your point is well and truly destroyed.
Hint: You won't make any logical sense when you start off on a very illogical footing.
Not really. There is another explanation (one which I don't personally believe, but which could still be true nonetheless): TSA is ineffective, but terrorists don't think it to be so.
So no, the lack of attacks after the TSA was set up doesn't prove that the TSA's benefits are entirely imaginary.
Stop dressing like a dick? Is that the answer?
So you want to greatly increase the risk of there being a shooting on a plane in order to slightly increase the chances of being able to stop one should it happen?? Brilliant logic.
Relentlessly stalking people is precisely the worst way to dispel the "APK is suffering from serious mental illnesses" rumor.
You are the only one who cares about your software. Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software, but software written by professionals who don't trawl slashdot drooling on people who call them out for their insanity.
I look forward to your sock puppets coming out in defense of you. It's strange these defenders of yours are never signed in and write in a very similar style to you.
So what if she's a CEO of a cloud services company - it doesn't mean she's incorrect.
If you hack into Amazon's AWS you won't get a directory with "creditcards.xls" and "passwords.txt" in it, you'll be faced with a network architecture you won't understand, with hundreds of thousands of servers you won't recognize, virtualized and sequestered in ways you've never heard of.
It would help if you understood what's being discussed before leaping into a rant about your imagination.