If people are doing X, then it is reasonable to ask, "Why do people do X?"
It's also a flamebait troll when anyone who reads that (especially members of "X") presume it's an endorsement of "Y", and the initial poster knew or should have known that.
So, if Cuba invaded the US, Minneapolis would be the sugar cane capital of the world? I don't see how they could make a bus boy work in the cane fields, when there are none. How do restaurants work in Havana if there are no busboys? They are all working in the fields, right? So the waitresses bus their own tables, and wash their own dishes? Seems inefficient.
Like the billions in subsidies for the farmers and oil producers? My insurance didn't change, but then I'm employed at a company that had insurance before, and after, and no real change. Were you buying your own insurance? From what company? How much did the plan increase? Did the coverage change when the premiums did?
They won't be ready to take over when the car says 'fuck it, I'm out'.
Sure they will. Have the car, when it reaches that point, pull over in a safe and legal spot, and notify the driver that they have an unlimited time in a safe environment to decide how to proceed.
The 100% automated driver problem requires strong AI. Just recognizing the class 'objects that are children's toys' is beyond computerized visual recognition today.
You assert that, but I don't believe it to be true. You don't need 100% to be better than the "average" driver. Heck, 10% would probably be better than most.
V2V wouldn't need GPS. Why do you need to know the GPS of a car that's communicating with you via IR laser that you can see and track visually? ("you" being your computer, as you can't see the IR laser, or the signal encoded over it)
What failures do you expect from V2V that would come about on the public roads that wouldn't be found on the track? Why do you assume the people working on them haven't thought of them?
But even then, we already have turn signals and to work harmoniously with non-autonomous cars then really we should be trying to use the cameras on the car to detect a turn signal and to react rather than introduce a separate communications channel that isn't human detectable.
You are completely wrong here. A human has a very very low limit to processing. How can you tell when passing a line of parked cars, whether the left blinker you see is a left turn indication, indicating they are pulling out, possibly in your path, or the left side of a pair of hazard lights, the right side obscured by the car behind them? If you add information, you can distinguish them. But a human would be unable to process if every signal was received from every car at the same time. A computer can do it, trivially. So a different communications path for the computer would increase communications for V2V and not decrease communications with a person, as a multi-signal system would. Human factors of the minimum driver level prohibit useful information, like front brake lights, or right-turn signals on the left side. But a computer could process the additional information, so it seems obvious that V2V should include more than just visual signals.
But Ralph Nader argued for standards designed to protect a large *unbelted* male. How can it not be a substitute for a seatbelt when the original regulation was explicitly to protect those who weren't using seatbelts? It was less safe for those with belts, but much much better for those without. Those who chose to ignore their own safety were protected by Nader, but those who chose to protect themselves were ignored by him.
The initial aribags were no better for people in seatbelts. They reduces some injuries, and added others (broken wrists, a large number of people with allergic reactions, some life threatening).
I gave more details in a child post below, but no version of Net Neutrality has ever banned QoS, and even the phone companies have QoS on their common carrier networks (as does the post office, and other common carriers). So I'm confused why so many people think QoS can't exist with network neutrality. I can only presume it's from the anti-neutrality people lying about it.
No net neutrality bill, ruling, or proposal I saw would have baned QoS. The QoS allowed would be for thing that didn't give a competitive advantage. You could give all SIP/voice traffic a higher boost, but not boost your own voice products and not a competitors. Also, anything to help the "integrity" of the network was always allowed, with the implication that P2P would be throttable, so long as you didn't block only competitor's networks.
To hear the people on here talking about it, spam filters should be illegal because someone could receive payment to put one company's emails into spam. How much would it take from Pepsi for Google to put all Coke emails into Spam folder, and never any from Pepsi?
QoS was always allowed, but only on a fair and explicit manner. Net Neutrality wouldn't block you from controlling your network, but would make sure any controls you put on aren't anti-competitive.
Seems to me it more defines "Internet service" as unfiltered and unthrottled access to the Internet. Advertising an Internet service that doesn't provide that service is fraud.
The question becomes, why do you support companies defrauding their customers?
This includes not charging rich people more for the same government services provided for free to poor people.
The only way the military helps the poor people is when the poor people enlist. Otherwise, the poor people gain nothing from the military. Looking back to feudal times, the military battles were all for "control". The serfs didn't see any change in their daily lives. If Cuba invaded the USA and nationalized everything, do you think that someone that works in Chilis as a buss boy or dish washer would see any change in his daily life, other than the new showing more programming in Spanish? But do you think there would be any change to Bill Gate's life when his house is used by a general, and Microsoft is nationalized and handed over to Fidel?
No, for the truly poor, there would be no difference after an invasion. But the rich would see a massive change. So the rich have much much more to gain from a strong military, especially one that will fight economic wars on its behalf. The poor see nothing. So, the amount of benefit the rich sees from the government is much greater than what the poor people see. Yet the rich want the poor to pay for it while the rich don't.
Regardless of how one feels about the Democrats, the Republicans should get 500 votes in every election (the 0.01%ers), and someone else (or nobody) should get the rest. As it isn't how it happens, pointing out that disconnect is valid, and in no way supports the Democrats as the champions. The Republicans wouldn't support individual rights, so someone else had to. The only "someone else" at the moment is the Democrats, but that would change if everyone stopped voting for the Republicans.
When you have no choice, how do you exercise your rights? The choice for many is a choice between one or two providers, or going without. When the two providers collude to fix services (but not price), that is legal and functionally removed the ability of the consumer to exercise choice. The government stepping in to enforce individual rights is a good thing, and the reason the governments should exist.
I disagree. We can have no AI at all and still have a computer driver well beyond the abilities of the "average" driver. I'm not sure what your complaint is about Google cars. Though they aren't the only auto-driving car out there. I've not seen one yet that dealt with an "unknown" circumstance in an unsafe manner, though I've seen plenty of people who don't know about them assert they do. Can you give an example, or is it just a guess?
I personally blame Ralph Nader, who committed perjury with the result of killing babies. Yes, Nader is a baby killer. He lied to congress in the hearings about airbags. He was also instrumental in the first generation being the most aggressive, rather than ramping up more gently, as they were mandated for unbelted 185 lb male drivers of slightly above average height. Short women, children, babies would be harmed by the first standards, and no benefit would be seen by belted drivers.
They were sold as a seatbelt replacement, a giant pillow for those who chose to not wear a seatbelt. Now, they are supplimentary restraints to reduce ingury to belted occupants. That's a much better goal, and should have been the initial one all along. But Nader is a fascist who knows what's best for you, even if it kills you.
Slashdot Mirror
If people are doing X, then it is reasonable to ask, "Why do people do X?"
It's also a flamebait troll when anyone who reads that (especially members of "X") presume it's an endorsement of "Y", and the initial poster knew or should have known that.
So, if Cuba invaded the US, Minneapolis would be the sugar cane capital of the world? I don't see how they could make a bus boy work in the cane fields, when there are none. How do restaurants work in Havana if there are no busboys? They are all working in the fields, right? So the waitresses bus their own tables, and wash their own dishes? Seems inefficient.
Like the billions in subsidies for the farmers and oil producers? My insurance didn't change, but then I'm employed at a company that had insurance before, and after, and no real change. Were you buying your own insurance? From what company? How much did the plan increase? Did the coverage change when the premiums did?
They won't be ready to take over when the car says 'fuck it, I'm out'.
Sure they will. Have the car, when it reaches that point, pull over in a safe and legal spot, and notify the driver that they have an unlimited time in a safe environment to decide how to proceed.
The 100% automated driver problem requires strong AI. Just recognizing the class 'objects that are children's toys' is beyond computerized visual recognition today.
You assert that, but I don't believe it to be true. You don't need 100% to be better than the "average" driver. Heck, 10% would probably be better than most.
What failures do you expect from V2V that would come about on the public roads that wouldn't be found on the track? Why do you assume the people working on them haven't thought of them?
But even then, we already have turn signals and to work harmoniously with non-autonomous cars then really we should be trying to use the cameras on the car to detect a turn signal and to react rather than introduce a separate communications channel that isn't human detectable.
You are completely wrong here. A human has a very very low limit to processing. How can you tell when passing a line of parked cars, whether the left blinker you see is a left turn indication, indicating they are pulling out, possibly in your path, or the left side of a pair of hazard lights, the right side obscured by the car behind them? If you add information, you can distinguish them. But a human would be unable to process if every signal was received from every car at the same time. A computer can do it, trivially. So a different communications path for the computer would increase communications for V2V and not decrease communications with a person, as a multi-signal system would. Human factors of the minimum driver level prohibit useful information, like front brake lights, or right-turn signals on the left side. But a computer could process the additional information, so it seems obvious that V2V should include more than just visual signals.
Of *course* it's not a substitute for a seatbelt.
But Ralph Nader argued for standards designed to protect a large *unbelted* male. How can it not be a substitute for a seatbelt when the original regulation was explicitly to protect those who weren't using seatbelts? It was less safe for those with belts, but much much better for those without. Those who chose to ignore their own safety were protected by Nader, but those who chose to protect themselves were ignored by him.
The initial aribags were no better for people in seatbelts. They reduces some injuries, and added others (broken wrists, a large number of people with allergic reactions, some life threatening).
I gave more details in a child post below, but no version of Net Neutrality has ever banned QoS, and even the phone companies have QoS on their common carrier networks (as does the post office, and other common carriers). So I'm confused why so many people think QoS can't exist with network neutrality. I can only presume it's from the anti-neutrality people lying about it.
No net neutrality bill, ruling, or proposal I saw would have baned QoS. The QoS allowed would be for thing that didn't give a competitive advantage. You could give all SIP/voice traffic a higher boost, but not boost your own voice products and not a competitors. Also, anything to help the "integrity" of the network was always allowed, with the implication that P2P would be throttable, so long as you didn't block only competitor's networks.
To hear the people on here talking about it, spam filters should be illegal because someone could receive payment to put one company's emails into spam. How much would it take from Pepsi for Google to put all Coke emails into Spam folder, and never any from Pepsi?
QoS was always allowed, but only on a fair and explicit manner. Net Neutrality wouldn't block you from controlling your network, but would make sure any controls you put on aren't anti-competitive.
I've had lots of posts that got an initial bump up, then later moved back down, or vice versa. One man's insightful is another man's inciteful.
"Might never happen" happens today, on a regular basis (automated cars on public roads).
Banning fraud doesn't increase the cost in a manner that harms the people.
Vietnam was started by Eisenhower. Neither party represents the interests of 99% of the population.
Why is an attack on one support for the other? Your false dichotomy is part of the problem.
Seems to me it more defines "Internet service" as unfiltered and unthrottled access to the Internet. Advertising an Internet service that doesn't provide that service is fraud.
The question becomes, why do you support companies defrauding their customers?
See Kansas and Google. When it's illegal to build another bridge, what do you do then?
This includes not charging rich people more for the same government services provided for free to poor people.
The only way the military helps the poor people is when the poor people enlist. Otherwise, the poor people gain nothing from the military. Looking back to feudal times, the military battles were all for "control". The serfs didn't see any change in their daily lives. If Cuba invaded the USA and nationalized everything, do you think that someone that works in Chilis as a buss boy or dish washer would see any change in his daily life, other than the new showing more programming in Spanish? But do you think there would be any change to Bill Gate's life when his house is used by a general, and Microsoft is nationalized and handed over to Fidel?
No, for the truly poor, there would be no difference after an invasion. But the rich would see a massive change. So the rich have much much more to gain from a strong military, especially one that will fight economic wars on its behalf. The poor see nothing. So, the amount of benefit the rich sees from the government is much greater than what the poor people see. Yet the rich want the poor to pay for it while the rich don't.
Regardless of how one feels about the Democrats, the Republicans should get 500 votes in every election (the 0.01%ers), and someone else (or nobody) should get the rest. As it isn't how it happens, pointing out that disconnect is valid, and in no way supports the Democrats as the champions. The Republicans wouldn't support individual rights, so someone else had to. The only "someone else" at the moment is the Democrats, but that would change if everyone stopped voting for the Republicans.
When you have no choice, how do you exercise your rights? The choice for many is a choice between one or two providers, or going without. When the two providers collude to fix services (but not price), that is legal and functionally removed the ability of the consumer to exercise choice. The government stepping in to enforce individual rights is a good thing, and the reason the governments should exist.
It can be correct, but still be flamebait and/or trolling.
So we shouldn't plan for anything until it's already happened? That seems a little silly.
I disagree. We can have no AI at all and still have a computer driver well beyond the abilities of the "average" driver. I'm not sure what your complaint is about Google cars. Though they aren't the only auto-driving car out there. I've not seen one yet that dealt with an "unknown" circumstance in an unsafe manner, though I've seen plenty of people who don't know about them assert they do. Can you give an example, or is it just a guess?
I personally blame Ralph Nader, who committed perjury with the result of killing babies. Yes, Nader is a baby killer. He lied to congress in the hearings about airbags. He was also instrumental in the first generation being the most aggressive, rather than ramping up more gently, as they were mandated for unbelted 185 lb male drivers of slightly above average height. Short women, children, babies would be harmed by the first standards, and no benefit would be seen by belted drivers.
They were sold as a seatbelt replacement, a giant pillow for those who chose to not wear a seatbelt. Now, they are supplimentary restraints to reduce ingury to belted occupants. That's a much better goal, and should have been the initial one all along. But Nader is a fascist who knows what's best for you, even if it kills you.
It's not necessarily quantity, but quality.
I have. You just weren't listening.
Yeah, it'll be just like seatbelts and airbags.