Actually, all kidding aside, yeah he is (wrong). Amusing, possibly. But wrong, definately.
He did the work under contract. Just as the work I do under contract isn't mine, neither was his. He's pissed because back then, he agreed to such a setup (or more accurately the Writers Guild agreed, which he was a member of), but legally he's got about as much ground to stand on as someone living in New Orleans during Katrina.
That's the beast, and it's been that way for a long long time. Artists own their work, employees don't. He chose to go the route of sure food and became an employee. Now he want's the lottery winnings of being an Artist. Someday they might make it work that way, but I doubt that day will be today, or tomorrow.
The "everything gets sucked out" myth is a load of crap.
...a small section on the left side of the roof ruptured. The resulting explosive decompression tore off a large section of the roof, consisting of the entire top half of the aircraft skin extending from just behind the cockpit to the fore-wing area......At the time of the decompression, the chief flight attendant, Clarabelle "C.B." Lansing, was standing at seat row 5 collecting drink cups from passengers. According to passengers' accounts, Lansing was ejected through a hole in the side of the airplane.
Flight attendant Michelle Honda, who was standing near rows #15 and #16, was thrown violently to the floor during the decompression. Despite her injuries, she was able to crawl up and down the aisle to assist and calm the terrified passengers. Flight attendant Jane Sato-Tomita, who was at the front of the plane, was seriously injured by flying debris and was thrown to the floor. Passengers held onto her during the descent into Maui......65 people were reported injured, eight seriously...
No, it wasn't a black hole, but tell me that wasn't a Hollywood movie scale disaster.
On one hand, we have the tired old story of a writer/creative not receiving due credit for his work. On the other hand, said creative is possibly the most obnoxious asshole still living that I've known of.
On the third hand, this is Star Trek.
God, I'm so conflicted here, who do I want screwed over the most?
I would combine your response to A&B&C into the category of "unlikely circumstances".
You are correct, of course. But what this means is that you are in a plane that is currently not filled with smoke, is currently under control sufficiently that you have time to put on the parachute and descend to a lower altitude.
The pilots actually anticipate being under control for that amount of time, but at some unspecified time in the future after that, expect a catastrophic crash that would warrant people thinking jumping out of the plane would be a better alternative to sitting tight and praying.
Granted, it could happen. It's just not the most likely scenario.
Training jumps are done at a set height and thus things like "when to open the chute" can be pre-decided for you. Airline emergencies don't have that luxury, of course, in the above scenario one might hope that there was a 'preset' altitude to jump at, but then the chutes become dangerous to use in any situation below that level.
I also agree with you that most of the issues could be minimized or even resolved with thought and engineering put into them. And that it's unlikely that we'll ever see that decision being made.
I agree that such a system is unlikely to be spearheaded in a nation such as current day America. I disagree that current day American citizens represent what once can expect future global drivers to be. And while we are admittidly slow when it comes to picking up systems with NIH (not invented here) issues, that simply means the system would have to succeed elsewhere first and we'd once again get dragged along as the johny-come-latelies.
And the "madmen vs robots" issue is easily solved by giving both their own lane/area to drive through.
After all, the folk on automatic are going to be the ones who can't be bothered to pay attention to their driving, not the speed freaks who think they are Grand Prix drivers. Darwin or the cost of insurance after repeated tickets tends to resolve folk with that problem.
A. Putting a parachute on takes enough time that if you aren't wearing it, it's not going to help you in anything but the most unlikely circumstances.
B. I'm sure you've noticed those little masks that drop from the ceiling in "the event of sudden air pressure loss". Those are needed because most commercial flights operate high enough that there so little oxygen (or air pressure) outside you'd be unconscious in a matter of seconds without supplimental oxygen.
C. Unlike exploding cars, those action movies where the hero opens the hatch on a plane and everything suddenly gets sucked out aren't that far off from the truth. Overpressure in the cabin means even at low altitude, opening that hatch is likely to get a lot of people hurt.
D. Actually, parachutes require a lot of training to use properly. Even if you got one on, and the plane was low enough to jump, and you didn't get screwed over when the door opened and suddenly everyone is in a pile in the aisle, you still have a really low chance of actually surviving the fall.
Those are the 'reality' reasons why.
But also remember that airlines already have to deal with the issue of people considering them unsafe. Would you want to be the airline that introduced "Parachutes for every passenger" as a marketing campaign? When they are counting the number of peanuts you get in each bag, do you think the idea of inspecting each parachute before every flight to ensure the last passenger didn't screw theirs up is going to go over well? How about the liability when someone lives a crash but ends up a paraplegic due to their failed landing?
At the end of the day, there's just too little benefit anticipated from such a plan for anyone to consider it.
And in both cases... how many fatalities? Zero, right?
I didn't say remove the human component altogether, I said remove the problem of most of the people acting as if they were in their living room and not paying attention to what they were doing.
Lets be realistic here, often idiots do things that get could themselves killed. Period.
Just as the two incidents you allude to could have been complete disaters with less competent pilots, failures in an automated driving system would fall to the skill of the driver. Which, is the same as it would be today for 100% of the time.
The difference is, today, 100% of the time we are surrounded by folk who aren't paying attention or driving at all as close to 'safe' as the automated system could.
But rather than look for ways to fight our nature, embrace it and make the car a living room. Take the steering wheel out of the hands of our admittedly poor hands and automate it.
The modern airliner is also as close to 'not flying' for the pilot. If they can take something as complicated as that and automate it to the point where you just need the equivalent of a dead man switch for the majority of the flight, you can do it for those long stretches of highway/freeway.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand
I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.
I think Yfying is something completely different from the discussed device and most people prefer to bleach their eyes should they accidently encounter it.
If he didn't post anything prior to the verdict, it's a tempest in a teapot. Jurors can say whatever the eff they want once they are out of the courtroom. How many times have big news shows had interviews with jurors that have started along the lines of "And how far into the the trial did you decide that the defendant needed to fry?" In that he's lucky he's in the US, as he's still get his ass handed to him in other countries.
If he posted anything during the trial proper, then I imagine it's not going to matter whether he got feedback or not. He's going to get his ass handed to him. The judge isn't going to care about the technicalities, it'll be pure contempt of court.
Must not have read the summary that hard, obviously they think the problem is they already have that demographic and they want to offload it for the young teen girl market.
Still expect the same deluge of crap, it's just instead of the drunk girl in the bikini, it'll be some sad eyed teen idol.
Which, realisticly, is a valid option. While I'm sure that the CPUs of cameras are also being upgraded as time goes along, more power = more power drain. Batteries aren't all that more effcient than they were in the 4MP 'era'.
Doubling the amount of data to compress means you have either have to crunch it faster to not seem unrepsonsive, or you have to crunch it less.
I imagine, given the choice of carrying around an extra set of memory cards, or an extra set of cammera batteries, most would choose the memory card.
You need to feed the goldfish the sharks will be eating on something. Sounds like a perfect ecosystem. Sharks fry mosquitoes, goldfish eat fried mosquito, and sharks eat goldfish. When you run out of mosquitoes, you can hang a banner across the drawbridge: "Mission Accomplished!" and celebrate.
Scotland has around 5 million people living in it. New York City has about 8 million. The city, not the state. The US in total has around 300 million people living in it. That's almost a hundred times more.
As the size of the governed increases, proportional representation breaks down horribly. The number of minority groups increases and the chances of any one group ever taking effective leadership of the whole, without having a whole web of political infighting and side deals for special interests, are exactly nil.
What you end up with is a government full of people who are always dealing and double dealing and back stabbing in order to gain enough power to push through their own particular brand of "bread and circuses" before losing power again. Hardly an effective government in the least.
Actually most of the people who painted him as the Dark Lord of Evil are now the ones complaining about the rest of us treating him as the Second Coming. See, they are so invested in the idea that having a black/Democrat/non-neocon president running things will be the end of the world, that they've assumed the only way the rest of us could vote for him was if we had the same level of opposite worship.
In reality, we picked him because having lived through eight years of the Dark Lord's reign while the neocons praised him as the Second Coming responsible for revitalizing the American Empire, we just wanted change.
Noonan filed a complaint that said Staples had defamed him and violated several employment agreements. US District Court Judge Morris E. Lasker dismissed the claim, writing that "truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action under Massachusetts law."
Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 state law.
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
Sibbison - who says her client, Noonan, was a "sloppy record keeper" but not a thief - said the ruling lets him sue a company that "violated its own policies on employee privacy" through the mass e-mail.
Rather than wait for a lawyer, you can just read the relevant part of the article.
Regardless of whether the researchers understand what is going on, the question is whether the project itself is being presented with that understanding. It wouldn't be the first or last time a researcher presented what were ulitmately "useless in the real world" findings with the full internal knowledge that they would prove as such, simply to secure more grant money.
Nor would it be the first or last time a wild eyed science journalist took a small breakthrough and extrapolated men on mars with jetpacks from it.
Looking at things with a critical eye can help you know.
More importantly, you can stack several chemical batteries together for more power and the only issue you have to worry about is heat.
Stack several magnetic based batteries together, are you going to have to worry about their fields interfering with each other? What if this is only a workable model when the battery IS the width of a human hair.
Google won't be the one hurt here, nor will it be the advertisers. It'll be the poor fools who host ads and attract such a user base that would willingly screw them over.
Have your site pegged as one committing click fraud, and your account is yanked. It'll be up to them to prove to Google that they were victims here, while their legitimately earned ad revenues trickle away.
And thus you prove me right in labeling your meanderings as Art Bellish.
Do you honestly want want to make the absurd and failed comparisons you just made or are you simply incapable of admitting that not everyone is as paranoid as you are over this topic and are reaching for anything to keep the arguement going.
Slashdot Mirror
With your nick, I shall take you at your word. ^_^
Actually, all kidding aside, yeah he is (wrong). Amusing, possibly. But wrong, definately.
He did the work under contract. Just as the work I do under contract isn't mine, neither was his. He's pissed because back then, he agreed to such a setup (or more accurately the Writers Guild agreed, which he was a member of), but legally he's got about as much ground to stand on as someone living in New Orleans during Katrina.
That's the beast, and it's been that way for a long long time. Artists own their work, employees don't. He chose to go the route of sure food and became an employee. Now he want's the lottery winnings of being an Artist. Someday they might make it work that way, but I doubt that day will be today, or tomorrow.
No, it wasn't a black hole, but tell me that wasn't a Hollywood movie scale disaster.
On one hand, we have the tired old story of a writer/creative not receiving due credit for his work. On the other hand, said creative is possibly the most obnoxious asshole still living that I've known of.
On the third hand, this is Star Trek.
God, I'm so conflicted here, who do I want screwed over the most?
I would combine your response to A&B&C into the category of "unlikely circumstances".
You are correct, of course. But what this means is that you are in a plane that is currently not filled with smoke, is currently under control sufficiently that you have time to put on the parachute and descend to a lower altitude.
The pilots actually anticipate being under control for that amount of time, but at some unspecified time in the future after that, expect a catastrophic crash that would warrant people thinking jumping out of the plane would be a better alternative to sitting tight and praying.
Granted, it could happen. It's just not the most likely scenario.
Training jumps are done at a set height and thus things like "when to open the chute" can be pre-decided for you. Airline emergencies don't have that luxury, of course, in the above scenario one might hope that there was a 'preset' altitude to jump at, but then the chutes become dangerous to use in any situation below that level.
I also agree with you that most of the issues could be minimized or even resolved with thought and engineering put into them. And that it's unlikely that we'll ever see that decision being made.
I agree that such a system is unlikely to be spearheaded in a nation such as current day America. I disagree that current day American citizens represent what once can expect future global drivers to be. And while we are admittidly slow when it comes to picking up systems with NIH (not invented here) issues, that simply means the system would have to succeed elsewhere first and we'd once again get dragged along as the johny-come-latelies.
And the "madmen vs robots" issue is easily solved by giving both their own lane/area to drive through.
After all, the folk on automatic are going to be the ones who can't be bothered to pay attention to their driving, not the speed freaks who think they are Grand Prix drivers. Darwin or the cost of insurance after repeated tickets tends to resolve folk with that problem.
A. Putting a parachute on takes enough time that if you aren't wearing it, it's not going to help you in anything but the most unlikely circumstances.
B. I'm sure you've noticed those little masks that drop from the ceiling in "the event of sudden air pressure loss". Those are needed because most commercial flights operate high enough that there so little oxygen (or air pressure) outside you'd be unconscious in a matter of seconds without supplimental oxygen.
C. Unlike exploding cars, those action movies where the hero opens the hatch on a plane and everything suddenly gets sucked out aren't that far off from the truth. Overpressure in the cabin means even at low altitude, opening that hatch is likely to get a lot of people hurt.
D. Actually, parachutes require a lot of training to use properly. Even if you got one on, and the plane was low enough to jump, and you didn't get screwed over when the door opened and suddenly everyone is in a pile in the aisle, you still have a really low chance of actually surviving the fall.
Those are the 'reality' reasons why.
But also remember that airlines already have to deal with the issue of people considering them unsafe. Would you want to be the airline that introduced "Parachutes for every passenger" as a marketing campaign? When they are counting the number of peanuts you get in each bag, do you think the idea of inspecting each parachute before every flight to ensure the last passenger didn't screw theirs up is going to go over well? How about the liability when someone lives a crash but ends up a paraplegic due to their failed landing?
At the end of the day, there's just too little benefit anticipated from such a plan for anyone to consider it.
And in both cases... how many fatalities? Zero, right?
I didn't say remove the human component altogether, I said remove the problem of most of the people acting as if they were in their living room and not paying attention to what they were doing.
Lets be realistic here, often idiots do things that get could themselves killed. Period.
Just as the two incidents you allude to could have been complete disaters with less competent pilots, failures in an automated driving system would fall to the skill of the driver. Which, is the same as it would be today for 100% of the time.
The difference is, today, 100% of the time we are surrounded by folk who aren't paying attention or driving at all as close to 'safe' as the automated system could.
Unfortunately, those who need it the most will be the ones who fight it the hardest.
But rather than look for ways to fight our nature, embrace it and make the car a living room. Take the steering wheel out of the hands of our admittedly poor hands and automate it.
The modern airliner is also as close to 'not flying' for the pilot. If they can take something as complicated as that and automate it to the point where you just need the equivalent of a dead man switch for the majority of the flight, you can do it for those long stretches of highway/freeway.
I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.
I think Yfying is something completely different from the discussed device and most people prefer to bleach their eyes should they accidently encounter it.
From his tone, I imagine he'll call it Bait. messaging will be call baiting, and thus he'll be the master baiter.
If he didn't post anything prior to the verdict, it's a tempest in a teapot. Jurors can say whatever the eff they want once they are out of the courtroom. How many times have big news shows had interviews with jurors that have started along the lines of "And how far into the the trial did you decide that the defendant needed to fry?" In that he's lucky he's in the US, as he's still get his ass handed to him in other countries.
If he posted anything during the trial proper, then I imagine it's not going to matter whether he got feedback or not. He's going to get his ass handed to him. The judge isn't going to care about the technicalities, it'll be pure contempt of court.
Must not have read the summary that hard, obviously they think the problem is they already have that demographic and they want to offload it for the young teen girl market.
Still expect the same deluge of crap, it's just instead of the drunk girl in the bikini, it'll be some sad eyed teen idol.
Which, realisticly, is a valid option. While I'm sure that the CPUs of cameras are also being upgraded as time goes along, more power = more power drain. Batteries aren't all that more effcient than they were in the 4MP 'era'.
Doubling the amount of data to compress means you have either have to crunch it faster to not seem unrepsonsive, or you have to crunch it less.
I imagine, given the choice of carrying around an extra set of memory cards, or an extra set of cammera batteries, most would choose the memory card.
You need to feed the goldfish the sharks will be eating on something. Sounds like a perfect ecosystem. Sharks fry mosquitoes, goldfish eat fried mosquito, and sharks eat goldfish. When you run out of mosquitoes, you can hang a banner across the drawbridge: "Mission Accomplished!" and celebrate.
Scotland has around 5 million people living in it. New York City has about 8 million. The city, not the state. The US in total has around 300 million people living in it. That's almost a hundred times more.
As the size of the governed increases, proportional representation breaks down horribly. The number of minority groups increases and the chances of any one group ever taking effective leadership of the whole, without having a whole web of political infighting and side deals for special interests, are exactly nil.
What you end up with is a government full of people who are always dealing and double dealing and back stabbing in order to gain enough power to push through their own particular brand of "bread and circuses" before losing power again. Hardly an effective government in the least.
Actually most of the people who painted him as the Dark Lord of Evil are now the ones complaining about the rest of us treating him as the Second Coming. See, they are so invested in the idea that having a black/Democrat/non-neocon president running things will be the end of the world, that they've assumed the only way the rest of us could vote for him was if we had the same level of opposite worship.
In reality, we picked him because having lived through eight years of the Dark Lord's reign while the neocons praised him as the Second Coming responsible for revitalizing the American Empire, we just wanted change.
Oh Archie and Veronica, how I miss thee.
Rather than wait for a lawyer, you can just read the relevant part of the article.
Regardless of whether the researchers understand what is going on, the question is whether the project itself is being presented with that understanding. It wouldn't be the first or last time a researcher presented what were ulitmately "useless in the real world" findings with the full internal knowledge that they would prove as such, simply to secure more grant money.
Nor would it be the first or last time a wild eyed science journalist took a small breakthrough and extrapolated men on mars with jetpacks from it.
Looking at things with a critical eye can help you know.
More importantly, you can stack several chemical batteries together for more power and the only issue you have to worry about is heat.
Stack several magnetic based batteries together, are you going to have to worry about their fields interfering with each other? What if this is only a workable model when the battery IS the width of a human hair.
Won't help. They also know where to buy $5 wrenches.
http://xkcd.com/538/
Google won't be the one hurt here, nor will it be the advertisers. It'll be the poor fools who host ads and attract such a user base that would willingly screw them over.
Have your site pegged as one committing click fraud, and your account is yanked. It'll be up to them to prove to Google that they were victims here, while their legitimately earned ad revenues trickle away.
And thus you prove me right in labeling your meanderings as Art Bellish.
Do you honestly want want to make the absurd and failed comparisons you just made or are you simply incapable of admitting that not everyone is as paranoid as you are over this topic and are reaching for anything to keep the arguement going.