TFA seems to waffle between: "Free, open and shared is good, attracts the right kind of talent, ensures everyone has access" and "Even though it is free, it is likely to be tailored to serve the owners of big data, i.e. the sponsors."
We know how to kill (and otherwise control) people that get out of hand. Most AI gone bad fantasies have an element of the humans being incapable of turning the AI off.
The cynic would say that these upper echelon individuals don't need your capitalist system funding in order to pursue their AI goals, the resource demands just aren't that high, at least for anything that will find a near-term broad market application.
The cynic would also say that these same individuals may not care whether they succeed or fail, having already met the capital requirements for the basic needs of themselves and their next 4 generations of progeny. But, on the off chance that they do succeed, they may have control of a tool so powerful that they can grab the capitalist system by the balls and yank a thousand times harder than they managed on their last joyride.
The better ones will fly a pre-programmed route, GPS controlled. If you're flying one without that level of sophistication FPV NLOS, you're almost always overreaching the capabilities of the platform. Not that idiots won't do it, but of the 900+ cataloged drone - manned aircraft interactions in the referenced article, I'd be shocked if even 100 of those were being controlled NLOS at the time of the incident.
I do like the linked article about drone "incidents."
921 incidents reported and analyzed.
0 collisions.
28 instances where the manned aircraft maneuvered to avoid the drones.
What I'm waiting for are the reports of what damage actually happens when a collision happens - seems like in most cases we'll be looking at a scratch on a passenger jet vs a trashed toy - but, we haven't actually reported a case of that yet. When it does start happening, we can compare it with bird-strike frequencies and damage results.
Old remote controlled planes left operators line of sight all the time, and it didn't usually end well for the RC plane. Adding a remote camera to an "old remote controlled plane" is a pretty simple thing to do - would that transform it into a "drone?"
In the 1980s it worked well enough, based on the premise that you'd need a hell of a network traffic processor to sort out all the crap, and unobtrusive portable PCs just weren't up to the task, back then. At least, that's what the network security officer was shining me on with during my interview - I nodded politely, having already decided that the place was too full of lies, contradictions, and sources of radiation for me.
This is actually a method that a (partially) top-secret government installation used back in the 1980s. They have a huge campus, with network covering all of it, but they run really small packet size and keep a healthy quantity of random BS traversing the network at all times, so even before any interceptor can start working on the top-secret encryption, they've got to sort all the chaff packets. Also helps when the academic types get careless with secret info and forget to use the encryption layer, still bloody well impossible to sift the 0.001% interesting traffic out of the garbage when packets are flying around with 1 byte payloads.
As a person with aging, used to be 20/10, vision, I would imagine that the glass cockpits also allow for larger, more legible readouts than a panel of fixed analog needles, gauges, etc.
Crash hard based on input is just inexcusable, period. But, yeah, I've met the "by the book" solvers - frustrating to work with, but if you get ultra pedantic with them, you can eventually get them to implement a little common sense.
As a developer, I cannot think up all of the edge cases,
As a singular human being, you have a singular perspective on the problem - that's what's nice about having a "separate" QA department - people who see things differently - looking at the problem too. Sure, you can "pair off" with the guy in the next cube and do a little better than just looking at it yourself, but if the testers answer to a different management chain and see the product at intervals rather than minute to minute during development, they're going to inherently have a more diverse perspective. Ideally, they'd have the customer's perspective, but that's hoping for a bit much.
Put another way, Boeing and Airbus have been doing this for a very long time - when is the last time a passenger jet design was constructed and flown by a "test pilot" to shake out the bugs and check for nasty handling behavior?
ISO 9000 has been driving "quality" into the design phase of the project for 20 years. If you've stopped "testing quality into the product at the end of development" then, you've adopted QA tech that was mandated in many industries in the mid 1990s.
Where are my mod points? TDD is not the elimination of test and quality assurance, it's the procedualization / automation of it - along with driving it further forward in the product development cycle.
To do TDD, you need less (or no) QA people at the end, and more QA work in early development. If you choose to do this by firing the QA department, you probably are getting your product to market slower. If, instead, you transition the frustrated programmers who have been stuck in QA since graduating into design, implementation, and maintenance of automated tests for the project, you're probably winning big.
Well, I think we're saying the same thing here... $60K used to be a decent salary in 1990, but today it barely pays a share of rent in many tech employment centers. So, if that $60K were adjusted back up to a decent salary for today - we'd all be peachy again.
In Florida, we have "homestead exemption" from property tax - when enacted, $25K was 90% of the value of most modest homes, it was a very significant tax break for the average homeowner. Even in 1990, when I bought my first (2br 1ba) home, the exemption cut 50% of my property taxes. Today, a "modest" home in Florida is around $200K, and that $25K exemption is in the noise - your assessment error is likely more than $25K these days (in which direction mostly depends on the county you live in.)
In short: laws that call out dollar amounts, but do not get adjusted for inflation, are silly.
If you're sharing a 1 bedroom apartment with 4 other people - we're concerned that we don't want to be bringing our standard of living down to that level just to compete with immigrant labor.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA seems to waffle between: "Free, open and shared is good, attracts the right kind of talent, ensures everyone has access" and "Even though it is free, it is likely to be tailored to serve the owners of big data, i.e. the sponsors."
We know how to kill (and otherwise control) people that get out of hand. Most AI gone bad fantasies have an element of the humans being incapable of turning the AI off.
The cynic would say that these upper echelon individuals don't need your capitalist system funding in order to pursue their AI goals, the resource demands just aren't that high, at least for anything that will find a near-term broad market application.
The cynic would also say that these same individuals may not care whether they succeed or fail, having already met the capital requirements for the basic needs of themselves and their next 4 generations of progeny. But, on the off chance that they do succeed, they may have control of a tool so powerful that they can grab the capitalist system by the balls and yank a thousand times harder than they managed on their last joyride.
Like 20 years late to the game, but nice going, getting that simplest of features implemented.
Let's hope it's not a buggy 1.0 release.
If you really want to be disappointed in costumes, try to watch the Ewoks movies.
The better ones will fly a pre-programmed route, GPS controlled. If you're flying one without that level of sophistication FPV NLOS, you're almost always overreaching the capabilities of the platform. Not that idiots won't do it, but of the 900+ cataloged drone - manned aircraft interactions in the referenced article, I'd be shocked if even 100 of those were being controlled NLOS at the time of the incident.
I do like the linked article about drone "incidents."
921 incidents reported and analyzed.
0 collisions.
28 instances where the manned aircraft maneuvered to avoid the drones.
What I'm waiting for are the reports of what damage actually happens when a collision happens - seems like in most cases we'll be looking at a scratch on a passenger jet vs a trashed toy - but, we haven't actually reported a case of that yet. When it does start happening, we can compare it with bird-strike frequencies and damage results.
Old remote controlled planes left operators line of sight all the time, and it didn't usually end well for the RC plane. Adding a remote camera to an "old remote controlled plane" is a pretty simple thing to do - would that transform it into a "drone?"
See also: Steganography: http://mangocats.com/stegamail... (and many others)
In the 1980s it worked well enough, based on the premise that you'd need a hell of a network traffic processor to sort out all the crap, and unobtrusive portable PCs just weren't up to the task, back then. At least, that's what the network security officer was shining me on with during my interview - I nodded politely, having already decided that the place was too full of lies, contradictions, and sources of radiation for me.
We're not as afraid of war now as we were then.
This is potentially good for an obfuscated messaging service, not an encrypted internet proxy for all traffic.
Kind of how I feel about bitcoin...
This is actually a method that a (partially) top-secret government installation used back in the 1980s. They have a huge campus, with network covering all of it, but they run really small packet size and keep a healthy quantity of random BS traversing the network at all times, so even before any interceptor can start working on the top-secret encryption, they've got to sort all the chaff packets. Also helps when the academic types get careless with secret info and forget to use the encryption layer, still bloody well impossible to sift the 0.001% interesting traffic out of the garbage when packets are flying around with 1 byte payloads.
Nice thought, I can only assume that it is because well written requirements are even less common than well written tests.
There's a difference between testing the assembly correctness and testing the design.
Software is a design-only product, very few problems in reproduction of the binaries.
As a person with aging, used to be 20/10, vision, I would imagine that the glass cockpits also allow for larger, more legible readouts than a panel of fixed analog needles, gauges, etc.
Crash hard based on input is just inexcusable, period. But, yeah, I've met the "by the book" solvers - frustrating to work with, but if you get ultra pedantic with them, you can eventually get them to implement a little common sense.
As a developer, I cannot think up all of the edge cases,
As a singular human being, you have a singular perspective on the problem - that's what's nice about having a "separate" QA department - people who see things differently - looking at the problem too. Sure, you can "pair off" with the guy in the next cube and do a little better than just looking at it yourself, but if the testers answer to a different management chain and see the product at intervals rather than minute to minute during development, they're going to inherently have a more diverse perspective. Ideally, they'd have the customer's perspective, but that's hoping for a bit much.
Do you use Warp Drive? Do you even know what Warp Drive is? I don't.
Put another way, Boeing and Airbus have been doing this for a very long time - when is the last time a passenger jet design was constructed and flown by a "test pilot" to shake out the bugs and check for nasty handling behavior?
ISO 9000 has been driving "quality" into the design phase of the project for 20 years. If you've stopped "testing quality into the product at the end of development" then, you've adopted QA tech that was mandated in many industries in the mid 1990s.
Where are my mod points? TDD is not the elimination of test and quality assurance, it's the procedualization / automation of it - along with driving it further forward in the product development cycle.
To do TDD, you need less (or no) QA people at the end, and more QA work in early development. If you choose to do this by firing the QA department, you probably are getting your product to market slower. If, instead, you transition the frustrated programmers who have been stuck in QA since graduating into design, implementation, and maintenance of automated tests for the project, you're probably winning big.
Well, I think we're saying the same thing here... $60K used to be a decent salary in 1990, but today it barely pays a share of rent in many tech employment centers. So, if that $60K were adjusted back up to a decent salary for today - we'd all be peachy again.
In Florida, we have "homestead exemption" from property tax - when enacted, $25K was 90% of the value of most modest homes, it was a very significant tax break for the average homeowner. Even in 1990, when I bought my first (2br 1ba) home, the exemption cut 50% of my property taxes. Today, a "modest" home in Florida is around $200K, and that $25K exemption is in the noise - your assessment error is likely more than $25K these days (in which direction mostly depends on the county you live in.)
In short: laws that call out dollar amounts, but do not get adjusted for inflation, are silly.
The Texas attorney general is full of fail if he can't prosecute comanies that do that. Assuming Texas outlaws it, as many states do.
Which side is Texas Toast buttered on? Both.
Congratulations.
If you're sharing a 1 bedroom apartment with 4 other people - we're concerned that we don't want to be bringing our standard of living down to that level just to compete with immigrant labor.