Where did you get this gem from?
By all accounts autonomous cars are better at spotting potential road hazards, like deer and pedestrians, than people are.
If you read what I actually wrote, the problem is one of identifying that a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk has the right of way and traffic should stop. That's not a road hazard. The pedestrian is not even in the road.
I have to admit I have not been keeping up with all the press on self-driving cars. What coverage I do see is short on details of what they actually can and cannot do.
What capabilities would a self-driving car really need to be acceptable, both to passengers and to the general public, that current prototypes lack?
For example, being able to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk seems pretty important. In my (work) neighborhood we have a couple of crosswalks with no traffic lights, so drivers are supposed to see and stop for people waiting to cross. How well this works depends on the driver, but a "dumb" autonomous car is equivalent to the worst-case human driver -- it wouldn't even try to yield, traffic law notwithstanding.
What else is important? Maybe being able to follow hand signals from a traffic cop. Or at least knowing enough to hand over manual control to the driver when there's a police officer or flagman directing traffic.
Being able to deal with foul weather and icy roads seems important, as well. There could be a big payoff there, as human operators are pretty bad at dealing with ice.
Given the shroud of secrecy the NSA has created, it would be impossible to tell what evidence was real and what was fabricated. So if the NSA wanted to frame one of these "radicals" -- or a sitting member of Congress -- who would be able to refute those charges?
When are Congressmen going to publicly admit that this rogue agency is a greater danger to national security, in any meaningful sense of the term, than Al Quaeda ever was?
If you're an asshole, you want to lash out against people when they offend you. It's pretty simple. Most of the arguments for the death penalty boil down to making the state the agent of revenge for the victim's families. I think a religious person who advocates that point of view is misguided, but I also think an atheist who argues that point of view is misguided.
Everyone has to pay attention to ethics. When Scott Adams wishes a painful death on the people who actively oppose euthanasia, he's showing his true colors as a vengeful person.
By identifying the unhealthy people, we can target them for insurance-company-approved lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise, stress counseling, and mandatory maintenance drugs. How much intrusion are we prepared to accept in the name of the almighty dollar?
If US companies deny their customers the basic human right that is dignity through privacy then it will be to their extreme financial loss.
Unfortunately, current trends suggest there are not enough people who give a damn about their privacy to make a dent in the bottom line.
It's corporations who buy Cisco's routers, and they do care, because they have trade secrets and business plans to protect. But regular consumers? They *want* to be spied on by Google and Facebook.
I think it's as simple as the perceived risk of terrorism being dramatic and sudden (something blows up) and the perceived risk of climate change being gradual (droughts and hurricanes and whatnot get worse, incrementally). Add to that the fact that we're used to the weather doing bad things that we can't control -- there have always been droughts and hurricanes -- and you have a strong set of biases against doing anything about AGW.
I don't think anything can solve global warming "easily." Even if we had practical fusion today, we wouldn't be able to replace fossil fuels within 30 years (to hazard a guess). It took a century to build the grid. We can't overhaul it in one year or one decade. Not even if everyone felt a sense of urgency, and, demonstrably, not everyone does.
If people got over the idea of having everything on their computers for free the world would have a lot less corporate snooping and a lot less ad spamming. That would be nice.
And several of the current tech giants would shrivel up and die, and that would be even nicer.:-)
I really think you will get a better answer from your attorney than you will get from Slashdot. But for the sake of discussion -- why is a trademark claim the first thing that comes to mind? To my non-lawyer mind, impersonating someone's business sounds like fraud, which I believe is actionable in civil court.
Even if the courts uphold a right to privacy -- and generally they don't, preferring weasel words such as "balance of public and private interests" and "expectation of privacy" -- it's up to the executive branch to uphold that right, and they're the ones violating it. The fox guards the henhouse.
The fact that you only talk to people when you need some from them is a problem.
This.
Years ago, my boss pointed me to a good article titled "How to Be a Star Engineer." (Apologies for the annoying format; if you're an IEEE member or university student you can download a PDF).
The article essentially says communication skills and attitude are what differentiates star performers from the rank and file. Understand the people you're working with, what they need, and provide that. Everyone will enjoy working with you, and you will become well-known.
On the plus side, you get to make buckets of money for doing, essentially, nothing. I am sure they are hanging their heads in shame, all the way to the bank.
Theoretically, this could be a preparatory move to putting online their own lyrics clearninghouse, with handy links where you can buy the song or album. But, nah, that would require the RIAA to do something that benefits artists and customers, and that would be against type.
Either you pay upfront with cold hard cash, in which case you can make indignant noses about unlawful uses of your data. If you don't want to pay cash, and instead have a "free" service, your data is what the developers will try to monetize.
I would love it if I could pay for an effective search engine that didn't track my search habits in order to alter the results.
I would love it if I could pay for a social network to keep in touch with my friends and business contacts and it didn't spy on me and spam me and sell my information to all and sundry.
I would love it if I could pay for news that didn't watch me back, or for videoconferencing that gave me the same privacy assurances my landline phone has (weak as those may be).
These paid service you speak of, they don't exist. The choice is between surveillance-funded services, and no services at all.
Google does not have the ability to put us on the no-fly list.
No, but it does have the ability to control what you see on the Internet. In fact, it is doing so already, and claiming it is for your own good! Which is more important to you -- to get on an airplane or to get online?
Slashdot Mirror
Gain? You must be new here!
If you're use the highfaultin' eighteenth-century style and capitalize "state", then you should go all the way and use the long s.
If you read what I actually wrote, the problem is one of identifying that a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk has the right of way and traffic should stop. That's not a road hazard. The pedestrian is not even in the road.
I have to admit I have not been keeping up with all the press on self-driving cars. What coverage I do see is short on details of what they actually can and cannot do.
What capabilities would a self-driving car really need to be acceptable, both to passengers and to the general public, that current prototypes lack?
For example, being able to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk seems pretty important. In my (work) neighborhood we have a couple of crosswalks with no traffic lights, so drivers are supposed to see and stop for people waiting to cross. How well this works depends on the driver, but a "dumb" autonomous car is equivalent to the worst-case human driver -- it wouldn't even try to yield, traffic law notwithstanding.
What else is important? Maybe being able to follow hand signals from a traffic cop. Or at least knowing enough to hand over manual control to the driver when there's a police officer or flagman directing traffic.
Being able to deal with foul weather and icy roads seems important, as well. There could be a big payoff there, as human operators are pretty bad at dealing with ice.
What about someone who just reads erotica ... while naked and covered in butter? Hypothetically, of course!
Given the shroud of secrecy the NSA has created, it would be impossible to tell what evidence was real and what was fabricated. So if the NSA wanted to frame one of these "radicals" -- or a sitting member of Congress -- who would be able to refute those charges?
When are Congressmen going to publicly admit that this rogue agency is a greater danger to national security, in any meaningful sense of the term, than Al Quaeda ever was?
If you're an asshole, you want to lash out against people when they offend you. It's pretty simple. Most of the arguments for the death penalty boil down to making the state the agent of revenge for the victim's families. I think a religious person who advocates that point of view is misguided, but I also think an atheist who argues that point of view is misguided.
Everyone has to pay attention to ethics. When Scott Adams wishes a painful death on the people who actively oppose euthanasia, he's showing his true colors as a vengeful person.
Jesus, that was funny! :-)
The only people who get rich by going to court are the lawyers.
By identifying the unhealthy people, we can target them for insurance-company-approved lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise, stress counseling, and mandatory maintenance drugs. How much intrusion are we prepared to accept in the name of the almighty dollar?
Unfortunately, current trends suggest there are not enough people who give a damn about their privacy to make a dent in the bottom line.
It's corporations who buy Cisco's routers, and they do care, because they have trade secrets and business plans to protect. But regular consumers? They *want* to be spied on by Google and Facebook.
I think it's as simple as the perceived risk of terrorism being dramatic and sudden (something blows up) and the perceived risk of climate change being gradual (droughts and hurricanes and whatnot get worse, incrementally). Add to that the fact that we're used to the weather doing bad things that we can't control -- there have always been droughts and hurricanes -- and you have a strong set of biases against doing anything about AGW.
I don't think anything can solve global warming "easily." Even if we had practical fusion today, we wouldn't be able to replace fossil fuels within 30 years (to hazard a guess). It took a century to build the grid. We can't overhaul it in one year or one decade. Not even if everyone felt a sense of urgency, and, demonstrably, not everyone does.
And several of the current tech giants would shrivel up and die, and that would be even nicer. :-)
I really think you will get a better answer from your attorney than you will get from Slashdot. But for the sake of discussion -- why is a trademark claim the first thing that comes to mind? To my non-lawyer mind, impersonating someone's business sounds like fraud, which I believe is actionable in civil court.
Even if the courts uphold a right to privacy -- and generally they don't, preferring weasel words such as "balance of public and private interests" and "expectation of privacy" -- it's up to the executive branch to uphold that right, and they're the ones violating it. The fox guards the henhouse.
This.
Years ago, my boss pointed me to a good article titled "How to Be a Star Engineer." (Apologies for the annoying format; if you're an IEEE member or university student you can download a PDF).
The article essentially says communication skills and attitude are what differentiates star performers from the rank and file. Understand the people you're working with, what they need, and provide that. Everyone will enjoy working with you, and you will become well-known.
On the plus side, you get to make buckets of money for doing, essentially, nothing. I am sure they are hanging their heads in shame, all the way to the bank.
Let me Google that for you
Actually, the current Constitution says there are no slaves in the United States. The amendments matter.
You will. :-)
Theoretically, this could be a preparatory move to putting online their own lyrics clearninghouse, with handy links where you can buy the song or album. But, nah, that would require the RIAA to do something that benefits artists and customers, and that would be against type.
It depends on who you are. For example, I find it difficult to imagine finding a new job in my field (programming) without using the Internet.
You might argue that I do not "need" to find a new job. To which I would retort, that is an argument against freedom itself.
I would love it if I could pay for an effective search engine that didn't track my search habits in order to alter the results.
I would love it if I could pay for a social network to keep in touch with my friends and business contacts and it didn't spy on me and spam me and sell my information to all and sundry.
I would love it if I could pay for news that didn't watch me back, or for videoconferencing that gave me the same privacy assurances my landline phone has (weak as those may be).
These paid service you speak of, they don't exist. The choice is between surveillance-funded services, and no services at all.
No, but it does have the ability to control what you see on the Internet. In fact, it is doing so already, and claiming it is for your own good! Which is more important to you -- to get on an airplane or to get online?