Face it, America, your police have become fascists.
The people are fascists. The police and politicians are a reflection.
It's like how, after WW2, it turns out there were only a few Nazis all along. Hitler managed to fool tens of millions of innocent Germans into behaving like Nazis, but they didn't really mean it.
Patrolling isn't as useful as responding. Even an inexperienced criminal can probably manage to not do anything obviously illegal while a police officer is walking by. If somebody is breaking into my house, I call 911, and the nearest police officer is half a mile away, I'd much rather that officer be in a car.
Yes, because obviously you'd have no cops in cars at all. It would definitely have to be an all or nothing choice between everyone in cars or everyone on foot.
I still have problems getting audio to work, plus you can't get printer drivers for my 1985 HP Laserjet 1.19L. Also, DVD playback doesn't work out of the box.
When someone bribes someone else, both the giver and the recipient of the bribe have committed a crime.
Generally, the recipient has committed the greater crime though.
If a criminal bribes a police officer to reveal the address of a witness so that he can go round and intimidate him, in terms of the public good, it is the police officer who is the worse offender.
Yes, the backup camera is amazingly useful in a lot of scenarios. Probably the best new car tech since they added blinker lights to the mirrors.
What I'd find even more useful would be cameras on the front sides so that I could see around corners blocked by bushes or whatever. I have having to blindly stick my front out to do that.
I've seen adverts for cars with 360 degree cameras, not sure how far they see though (I think they're mainly for parking in tight spots).
My last long distance trip I noticed a new feature in some cars. If the owner hits the brakes hard the emergency flashers blink for a few seconds to warn other drivers. Simple, smart and it probably saves many more lives than backup cameras.
Oh, I thought that was people putting the hazards on manually, in the same way that they now seem to use them to say thank you when you let them out of a junction or whatever.
She has practiced carefully, but she just can't judge distances and angles well
Oh nonsense, if you're able to judge distances and angles well enough drive, you're able to judge them well enough to parallel park. It really is just practise. Nobody I know was a natural at parallel parking without a lot of patient instruction and practise.
Here in the UK it's one of the things you are highly likely to be tested on during your driving test, so everyone has to get at least reasonably good at it.
Also, you do get rusty if you don't do it very often, so it's definitely a skill rather than some innate ability.
Quite a lot of Africa has very good public transport if what you want is to be able to get somewhere at any time of day or night quickly and cheaply. However, it is public in the sense of Uber, not in the sense of socialist.
Says everyone who uses current software, which is everyone. Almost none of it has been formally verified. Why should NNs be held to a different standard?
I think you're using a different definition of "verifiable" than the rest of us.
What we mean is that you can reproduce the results given a certain set of inputs, which you most certainly can do with most software.
You seem to be thinking of some form of pre-approval testing for 100% accuracy, which is a different question.
"Fortunately we can understand the processes within real people that lead to their actions. "
Since when? Psychiatrics have been claiming that for years but I see little evidence for it beyond simple actions. Sometimes even the person themselves doesn't understand why they do something if it was subconsious.
But in this context, it's usually something along the lines of "I was texting on my phone while eating a burrito and slapping my kid's face in the seat behind me, which is why I failed to see the red light and hit the schoolbus without even braking".
It's not really a question of subtle psychological explanations.
A human programmer cannot possibly think of every possible situation a car might encounter on the street and pre-program an appropriate response.
I watched a talk by a Google self-driving car engineer; the funniest moment (and an example of your point about pre-programming) was the video showing the time when a Google car came across a woman driving a motorized wheelchair around chasing ducks in the middle of the street.
Where I live I have seen motorized wheelchairs in the middle of the road, and also ducks crossing the road, although not this precise scenario. The point is that while it might seem unusual to see this on a Californian desert freeway, it isn't really that difficult to enumerate most possible hazards.
If your automatic car crashes because of trans-dimensional anti-matter vampire bats or something, I hardly think anyone's going to worry about the programming missing out on that possibility.
goods and services are worth whatever people are willing to pay
Something can be morally wrong while still being legal.
For example, I would categorise all the mediums/spiritualists charging bereaved families for messages from their loved ones in heaven to be purely a scam, but it's apparently not illegal.
I feel caught between a rock and a hard place, because switching to a Mac would be an unwelcome expense for us. Also an business risk, since I can cheaply repair or upgrade a PC, but I have not expectation of being able to do that on a Mac. So if a Mac craps out near one of her deadlines, I'm not confident that I can get it (or a replacement) online as fast as we really want.
No offence, but is your business really so small you can't afford a spare Mac? Judging by the prices of professional photographic hardware, I'd have thought the price of a spare laptop was chicken feed.
I'm just trying to figure out exactly were they doing with all those people... Does it actually require dozens of people to create an Angry Birds game? I'm having a hard time figuring out what they actually *did* with so many people.
I imagine most of those people were in marketing, merchandising and so on.
The first thing I thought of was the movie M. Something's wrong when it's natural to make the association between your site and an iconic story of a child killer.
It's likely nobody else thought of it because that movie is almost 90 years old.
They should have called it Macbeth, because that play is like 400 years old so literally no one has heard of it.
You're obviously not aware of what kinds of decision trees are at work within trading programs.
Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's intelligent. The current internet is a huge repository of constantly changing information, buti it's not Skynet.
Have you noticed that all those examples of "helping" their customers are examples of purchasing goods and services? Why don't they call it what it is: an intelligent advertising agent.
If someone is stupid enough to (say) book a restaurant purely on the basis of the recommendations of the Facebook "AI" it's really hard to feel any sympathy for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Face it, America, your police have become fascists.
The people are fascists. The police and politicians are a reflection.
It's like how, after WW2, it turns out there were only a few Nazis all along. Hitler managed to fool tens of millions of innocent Germans into behaving like Nazis, but they didn't really mean it.
Patrolling isn't as useful as responding. Even an inexperienced criminal can probably manage to not do anything obviously illegal while a police officer is walking by. If somebody is breaking into my house, I call 911, and the nearest police officer is half a mile away, I'd much rather that officer be in a car.
Yes, because obviously you'd have no cops in cars at all. It would definitely have to be an all or nothing choice between everyone in cars or everyone on foot.
The Year of Contiki on the Desktop has arrived!
I still have problems getting audio to work, plus you can't get printer drivers for my 1985 HP Laserjet 1.19L. Also, DVD playback doesn't work out of the box.
Since you're complaining about the term not being explained instead of asking what it means, I'd say it's ubiquitous.
What, it's ubiquitous because I know what it means? I had no idea I was the Arbiter of Ubiquity.
Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!
your 7th grade apple ][ instruction is a fucking moron.
Apple zealots have been ever thus.
When someone bribes someone else, both the giver and the recipient of the bribe have committed a crime.
Generally, the recipient has committed the greater crime though.
If a criminal bribes a police officer to reveal the address of a witness so that he can go round and intimidate him, in terms of the public good, it is the police officer who is the worse offender.
"Shambles" is a standard English word meaning "to move with a slow, shuffling, awkward gait. "
Yes, the backup camera is amazingly useful in a lot of scenarios. Probably the best new car tech since they added blinker lights to the mirrors.
What I'd find even more useful would be cameras on the front sides so that I could see around corners blocked by bushes or whatever. I have having to blindly stick my front out to do that.
I've seen adverts for cars with 360 degree cameras, not sure how far they see though (I think they're mainly for parking in tight spots).
it's a service, delivered via OnStar (or similar) that lets you contact someone to make dinner or entertainment reservations from your car
Unless you actually live in your car, this seems entirely pointless.
My last long distance trip I noticed a new feature in some cars. If the owner hits the brakes hard the emergency flashers blink for a few seconds to warn other drivers. Simple, smart and it probably saves many more lives than backup cameras.
Oh, I thought that was people putting the hazards on manually, in the same way that they now seem to use them to say thank you when you let them out of a junction or whatever.
Driverless cars where people spend time in virtual reality facebook *are* coming, and everyone will wonder how we ever lived without them.
If you're trying to be utopian here, I'd recommend you leave facebook out of it.
She has practiced carefully, but she just can't judge distances and angles well
Oh nonsense, if you're able to judge distances and angles well enough drive, you're able to judge them well enough to parallel park. It really is just practise. Nobody I know was a natural at parallel parking without a lot of patient instruction and practise.
Here in the UK it's one of the things you are highly likely to be tested on during your driving test, so everyone has to get at least reasonably good at it.
Also, you do get rusty if you don't do it very often, so it's definitely a skill rather than some innate ability.
Quite a lot of Africa has very good public transport if what you want is to be able to get somewhere at any time of day or night quickly and cheaply. However, it is public in the sense of Uber, not in the sense of socialist.
So it's what us old-timers call "taxis".
The software does NOT have to be "verifiable"
Says who?
Says everyone who uses current software, which is everyone. Almost none of it has been formally verified. Why should NNs be held to a different standard?
I think you're using a different definition of "verifiable" than the rest of us.
What we mean is that you can reproduce the results given a certain set of inputs, which you most certainly can do with most software.
You seem to be thinking of some form of pre-approval testing for 100% accuracy, which is a different question.
"Fortunately we can understand the processes within real people that lead to their actions. "
Since when? Psychiatrics have been claiming that for years but I see little evidence for it beyond simple actions. Sometimes even the person themselves doesn't understand why they do something if it was subconsious.
But in this context, it's usually something along the lines of "I was texting on my phone while eating a burrito and slapping my kid's face in the seat behind me, which is why I failed to see the red light and hit the schoolbus without even braking".
It's not really a question of subtle psychological explanations.
A human programmer cannot possibly think of every possible situation a car might encounter on the street and pre-program an appropriate response .
I watched a talk by a Google self-driving car engineer; the funniest moment (and an example of your point about pre-programming) was the video showing the time when a Google car came across a woman driving a motorized wheelchair around chasing ducks in the middle of the street.
Where I live I have seen motorized wheelchairs in the middle of the road, and also ducks crossing the road, although not this precise scenario. The point is that while it might seem unusual to see this on a Californian desert freeway, it isn't really that difficult to enumerate most possible hazards.
If your automatic car crashes because of trans-dimensional anti-matter vampire bats or something, I hardly think anyone's going to worry about the programming missing out on that possibility.
goods and services are worth whatever people are willing to pay
Something can be morally wrong while still being legal.
For example, I would categorise all the mediums/spiritualists charging bereaved families for messages from their loved ones in heaven to be purely a scam, but it's apparently not illegal.
I've been missing moo.
I feel caught between a rock and a hard place, because switching to a Mac would be an unwelcome expense for us. Also an business risk, since I can cheaply repair or upgrade a PC, but I have not expectation of being able to do that on a Mac. So if a Mac craps out near one of her deadlines, I'm not confident that I can get it (or a replacement) online as fast as we really want.
No offence, but is your business really so small you can't afford a spare Mac? Judging by the prices of professional photographic hardware, I'd have thought the price of a spare laptop was chicken feed.
I'm just trying to figure out exactly were they doing with all those people... Does it actually require dozens of people to create an Angry Birds game? I'm having a hard time figuring out what they actually *did* with so many people.
I imagine most of those people were in marketing, merchandising and so on.
Could someone please explain what exactly this means and why they chose such a fucking stupid name for it?
The first thing I thought of was the movie M. Something's wrong when it's natural to make the association between your site and an iconic story of a child killer.
It's likely nobody else thought of it because that movie is almost 90 years old.
They should have called it Macbeth, because that play is like 400 years old so literally no one has heard of it.
You're obviously not aware of what kinds of decision trees are at work within trading programs.
Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's intelligent. The current internet is a huge repository of constantly changing information, buti it's not Skynet.
Have you noticed that all those examples of "helping" their customers are examples of purchasing goods and services? Why don't they call it what it is: an intelligent advertising agent.
If someone is stupid enough to (say) book a restaurant purely on the basis of the recommendations of the Facebook "AI" it's really hard to feel any sympathy for them.
That's one rugby club night I won't forget in a hurry.