What? Sorry, but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving. This is about the continued abdication of personal responsibility. When you get behind the wheel of a car, anything you do is your responsibility.
It's quite the opposite. The OP argued that someone bringing peanut sandwiches, fully knowing that they would be lethal to Bob from accounting, should take personal responsibility for their actions.
Who, exactly, is at fault when a self-driving car causes an accident? The owner? The passenger? The car maker? The software programmer? No state currently has laws in place that address this issue.
As a simple example, in Germany you pay car insurance for a car. The insurance will pay third parties for any damages caused by that car unless caused intentionally. And it will cover any legitimate driver. So if it is legal for the car to drive itself, it would be covered by insurance.
Autonomous cars still have a minimum stopping distance, and it would be unwise for an autonomous car to tailgate even another autonomous car since unexpected situations which can force an emergency brake (such as a child running out onto the road) can still arise. If the car ahead had to stop unexpectedly, a distance of only a few centimeters would not be sufficient for your own vehicle to safely stop in time, even though you've taken human reaction time entirely out of the equation. I expect, instead, that minimum car spacing may still be reduced... but still somehow be a function of the posted speed limit.
Consider cars communicating with each other, so they brake absolutely simultaneously. Next, if they are bumper on bumper, there is actually no speed difference. Even if the first car brakes a little bit harder than the following car, there will be no damage at all; the second car would just be pushing the first one a little bit. The cars being a few meters apart would actually be worse, because there would be some speed difference when the second car catches up.
Maybe I fail at reading, but how do you get a negative expected value. If I guess the answer to a question I have a.25 chance of scoring 1 point and a.75 chance of scoring -.25 points. Add it up and I get an expected outcome of 0.25x1 +0.75x(-.25)= 0.0625 points per question.
And how much does learning the test actually help you drive? Here in America, my wife took the real estate exams and had to memorize all the questions and answers, even though I could demonstrably prove that several of the questions were completely false, since I worked for a mortgage company that dealt with that stuff all day long for real. Didn't matter, she had to memorize the incorrect answers.
I just gave an example where guessing leads to complete and total failure. Not answering = 100% chance of 1 mistake. Guessing: 25% chance of 0 mistakes, 75% chance of 2 mistakes. Worse than not answering (assuming the question had exactly one correct answers, which many had not).
They tried that the result was the Surface. Surface didn't sell. The whole reason they are here is they copied Apple. Apple have their own problems.
Reading your posts, shouldn't you change your username to "Apple has problems"?
Surface didn't copy Apple. Surface copied what the fanboys demanded that Apple should do: Combine MacOS X and iOS. Except Apple knew that it was a rubbish idea and didn't do it.
Even if that is true you are ignoring the fact that both Intel and Microsoft comfortably sit on 70% Gross margins. Kind of the point here, and ignoring success from Chrome OS. Apple is failing in the computer market too with drops in sales. Interestingly Chrome OS selling well, Maybe Microsoft is not keeping Google in check.
What are you going on about? What do Intel and Microsoft gross margins have to do with the fact that Apple is the most profitable computer manufacturer around? "Apple failing in the computer market" is pure nonsense. Apple's computer sales are dropping slightly, while the overall computer market is dropping massively, because _Apple_ has a product that keeps people from buying computers. 20 million iPads means 500,000 fewer Mac sales and 19.5 million fewer sales of other computers.
The smartphone killed iPod sales. Price and competition is destroying the growth of iPhone; IPad and Mac Sales. Apple has its own problems right now with profits down; Market share down; Brand Value Down; Sales Down.
Some people just can't stand the idea that something positive could be said about Apple. Seems to be quite obsessive
Fact is: iPhone sales are growing. iPhone share of the phone market is growing. Mac share of the computer market is growing.
Yes, sure. Quantity over quality: quite an intelligent choice.
(education tends to have a positive feedback into society. Dumb it down and down you'll go; faster as the time passes. Just look around you on how "No kid let behind" is progressing. Have you reached the "no kid gets ahead" level yet?)
Assume you have the choice between having 100 excellent school teachers or 1000 not quite so good school teachers in five years time. Instead of 4000 kids educated by good teachers and 36,000 getting no education, you have 40,000 kids with teachers who do their best.
No what has caused MSFT to go off the rails and what any CEO with a brain, hell what ANY person with a brain should do in that situation is simple....LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS!
Clarification: Listen to your customers, and figure out how to make them _want_ to give you their money and come back for more, instead of figuring out how to take their money away from them.
When you talk about out-Apple Apple, I have the impression that Surface is what all the fanboys asked Apple to do with MacOS X, and what they predicted Apple do to, and Apple just wasn't stupid enough to do it:) Microsoft was. So _listening_ to people has its dangers as well.
If OSX were to ever be licensed to generic PC's, I strongly suspect that Microsoft would be in deep shit within two years. The only thing that keeps that from happening is that Apple doesn't want their own profits diluted.
Apple is taking according to some figures 45% of all profits in the computer hardware market. With Dell and HP profits in that segment dropping, it might be more today. It's not Apple's livelihood anymore, they make more money elsewhere, but much too much money to fritter away.
Now if there was a strategic benefit to it, then Apple could do it. But there is no strategic benefit today for Apple in inflicting damage on Microsoft. Right now, Apple probably wants Microsoft as strong as possible to keep Google in check.
Problem is, Microsoft doesn't let them be self-contained. Everything is geared towards protecting Windows and Office. Divisions have been shuffled around as needed when the SEC reports and/or marketing needs a boost.
Apple doesn't let its product lines be self-contained. But instead of trying to protect certain products, they try very hard to make everything work together well.
Re:What's good for others apparently is no good fo
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Imagine if the Apple Mac department had blocked the iPhone and/or iPad because it could eat into the Mac market share (which I'm sure it did). I guess Apple would by far not be as profitable as it is now.
The iPhone is indeed killing iPod sales. The iPad is destroying all growth in Mac sales. And Apple is quite happy with that. Steve Jobs himself said (and I'm quite sure he quoted someone else) that "if you don't cannibalise your products, someone else will".
One of the most successful companies of all time, which is still doing billions in business, and everyone can't wait to tell them how they are fucking it up...
Well, they are fucking up. There's the old joke: What's the easiest way to become a millionaire? Start with a billion... Microsoft was in a very, very strong position ten years ago. That's why they are still in a reasonably strong position today. But really, if Ballmer had done a good job then we would all have been using Surface tablets for the last three years with the some UI as the M-Phones we were using for the last six years, and we would be poking fun at Apple's and Google's feeble attempts to get into the market. If we wanted to know anything, we would bing it, not google it.
Dumb down the teaching to accommodate the 900 know-nothing and screw the 100 that has chances to learns something? Where's the social benefit in doing this? This is one of the best example of compromise-that-compromises (a.k.a. lose-lose solution).
What a fucking ignorant post. This is Liberia. After a civil war. By educating the 1,000 best candidates at a level where they can achieve, you end up with 1,000 people who may not know as much as you'd like, but who know enough to bring their country one level forward.
And judging by your post, these 1000 would have a lot more intelligence than you show and a much better chance of achieving.
Yes, but we're talking a multiple choice tick box test here. Statistically, even if 24,000 people tick boxes at random, you'd have to have a LOT of options in a LOT of questions so that ZERO people come up with 70% correct boxes. I'm not in the mood to start throwing numbers about to pull some weak statistic out of my rear end, but I think it's kinda obvious to anyone who has ever done a multiple choice test. We all know that there are always those "no, that can't be right" answers, and usually if you don't know it, it's a 50/50 between two that sound equally likely. Now take 100 questions, 5 possible answers each. And consider that you have to get 70 out of them right.
Go to Germany and try to get a driving license. In the theory test, every incorrect answer counts. And you are not told how many answers are correct. If you guess one of two that sound equally likely, there's the chance you make a mistake because they are both right, there's the chance that you get two mistakes because you picked the wrong one _and_ you didn't pick the right one, a tiny chance that your guess was perfect, and of course the chance that you get more mistakes because something entirely different was correct. Two or three mistakes allowed in forty questions. You've got no choice but to learn until you know all the test questions and answers.
Too afraid to tell people they're stupid? No, it's not you fault. We're expecting too much.
It's thinking like this that leads to grade inflation, and ultimately to even the most mundane of jobs requiring a college degree.
If 24,000 people actually paid money to take a test, and not one of them passes, then I'm not afraid to call you a stupid idiot for blaming it on the people taking the test.
Among 24,000 random people you will have a few hundred with an IQ > 130. You will have two or three with an IQ of 150. These two or three with an IQ of 150 failed the test, even though they would make me look stupid and you look like an imbecile in a fair competition.
24,000 failed out of 24,000 taking the test cannot be explained by stupidity of the people taking the test. Far more logical explanations would be tampering with the results, or stupid things like giving students a test A and checking if they gave the right answers for test B. Or asking students to write an essay in French and then telling them they failed their English test. Or calculating percentages wrong, like percentage = (correct answers divided by number of questions) times ten instead of times hundred.
Really? Selecting candidates that don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand what's being taught? Wouldn't this be a waste of time/money?
Let's say you have money to run a university that teaches 1000 students. You set up some reasonable entry criterion and 10,000 students pass. You can't take them all so you make the criterion harder. Tough for 9,000 that were good enough to enter, but you get the best value for your money.
Now say only 100 students pass your entirely reasonable entry criterion, because education in that country is just awfully bad. There are no 1000 students who can pass. What are you going to do? Educate 100 people only? Or take the 1000 best, and scale down your courses so these 1000 can handle, and give 1000 people the best education you can give them?
When I was at school, the teachers called them multiple choice, the students called them multiple guess. At the time it was meant as a joke, but maybe it was really the beginning of an evolution of the English language, given that my generation are now the teachers.
The theory test that I needed to get my driving license many years ago was multiple choice. A question, three or four possible answers with unknown number of correct answers. Don't tick a right answer, one mistake counted against you. Tick a wrong answer, one mistake counted against you. If you _guessed_ there is one correct answer and then _guessed_ wrongly which one is correct, that's two mistakes; one for not ticking a correct answer, one for ticking a wrong one. Leave the question unanswered, just one mistake.
You simply cannot calculate the chance of having an accident that way. Driving 300,000 miles in Montana is going to be different than driving 300,000 miles in New York City. If you want accident statistic rates, one need look no further that auto insurance. If it was a matter of dividing total mileage by number of accidents, none of us could afford our premiums.
Another thing to consider: How bad are these accidents? I've been in accidents with very little damage because someone (sometimes me) made a stupid little mistake. Do self driven cars make stupid little mistakes? Like reversing into a low wall, accidents while parking a car, and so on? They are all accidents with very little impact. If self driven cars only are involved in big accidents, that would make them worse than "1 accident in 300,000 miles" would suggest.
Had Mr. Shreateh not been Palestinian, I'm forced to wonder if Mr. Facebook's reaction would have been different.
The bug report that he sent them was totally useless and not worth a penny. I suppose "close friend of Zukerberg" would have helped getting paid, but "white male American" wouldn't.
Facebook isn't going to pay money if someone tells them there's a bug. They know there are plenty of bugs. They are going to pay if you give them information that helps them fixing a bug, and what he posted didn't help them in any way.
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly. Take a bus or drive perhaps?
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, find the name of one TSA employee, get him in a dark night and beat him to a pulp. If only 10,000 people do that, the problem would be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the fact that the sender has no real way of knowing if the recipient is operating a vehicle unless they are in the vehicle with them,
When I leave home in the morning, my wife will know that 20 minutes later chances are higher than 90% that I will be driving.
What? Sorry, but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving. This is about the continued abdication of personal responsibility. When you get behind the wheel of a car, anything you do is your responsibility.
It's quite the opposite. The OP argued that someone bringing peanut sandwiches, fully knowing that they would be lethal to Bob from accounting, should take personal responsibility for their actions.
Who, exactly, is at fault when a self-driving car causes an accident? The owner? The passenger? The car maker? The software programmer? No state currently has laws in place that address this issue.
As a simple example, in Germany you pay car insurance for a car. The insurance will pay third parties for any damages caused by that car unless caused intentionally. And it will cover any legitimate driver. So if it is legal for the car to drive itself, it would be covered by insurance.
Autonomous cars still have a minimum stopping distance, and it would be unwise for an autonomous car to tailgate even another autonomous car since unexpected situations which can force an emergency brake (such as a child running out onto the road) can still arise. If the car ahead had to stop unexpectedly, a distance of only a few centimeters would not be sufficient for your own vehicle to safely stop in time, even though you've taken human reaction time entirely out of the equation. I expect, instead, that minimum car spacing may still be reduced... but still somehow be a function of the posted speed limit.
Consider cars communicating with each other, so they brake absolutely simultaneously. Next, if they are bumper on bumper, there is actually no speed difference. Even if the first car brakes a little bit harder than the following car, there will be no damage at all; the second car would just be pushing the first one a little bit. The cars being a few meters apart would actually be worse, because there would be some speed difference when the second car catches up.
Maybe I fail at reading, but how do you get a negative expected value. If I guess the answer to a question I have a .25 chance of scoring 1 point and a .75 chance of scoring -.25 points. Add it up and I get an expected outcome of 0.25x1 +0.75x(-.25)= 0.0625 points per question.
And how much does learning the test actually help you drive? Here in America, my wife took the real estate exams and had to memorize all the questions and answers, even though I could demonstrably prove that several of the questions were completely false, since I worked for a mortgage company that dealt with that stuff all day long for real. Didn't matter, she had to memorize the incorrect answers.
I just gave an example where guessing leads to complete and total failure. Not answering = 100% chance of 1 mistake. Guessing: 25% chance of 0 mistakes, 75% chance of 2 mistakes. Worse than not answering (assuming the question had exactly one correct answers, which many had not).
They tried that the result was the Surface. Surface didn't sell. The whole reason they are here is they copied Apple. Apple have their own problems.
Reading your posts, shouldn't you change your username to "Apple has problems"?
Surface didn't copy Apple. Surface copied what the fanboys demanded that Apple should do: Combine MacOS X and iOS. Except Apple knew that it was a rubbish idea and didn't do it.
Even if that is true you are ignoring the fact that both Intel and Microsoft comfortably sit on 70% Gross margins. Kind of the point here, and ignoring success from Chrome OS. Apple is failing in the computer market too with drops in sales. Interestingly Chrome OS selling well, Maybe Microsoft is not keeping Google in check.
What are you going on about? What do Intel and Microsoft gross margins have to do with the fact that Apple is the most profitable computer manufacturer around? "Apple failing in the computer market" is pure nonsense. Apple's computer sales are dropping slightly, while the overall computer market is dropping massively, because _Apple_ has a product that keeps people from buying computers. 20 million iPads means 500,000 fewer Mac sales and 19.5 million fewer sales of other computers.
The smartphone killed iPod sales. Price and competition is destroying the growth of iPhone; IPad and Mac Sales. Apple has its own problems right now with profits down; Market share down; Brand Value Down; Sales Down.
Some people just can't stand the idea that something positive could be said about Apple. Seems to be quite obsessive
Fact is: iPhone sales are growing. iPhone share of the phone market is growing. Mac share of the computer market is growing.
Yes, sure. Quantity over quality: quite an intelligent choice. (education tends to have a positive feedback into society. Dumb it down and down you'll go; faster as the time passes. Just look around you on how "No kid let behind" is progressing. Have you reached the "no kid gets ahead" level yet?)
Assume you have the choice between having 100 excellent school teachers or 1000 not quite so good school teachers in five years time. Instead of 4000 kids educated by good teachers and 36,000 getting no education, you have 40,000 kids with teachers who do their best.
No what has caused MSFT to go off the rails and what any CEO with a brain, hell what ANY person with a brain should do in that situation is simple....LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS!
Clarification: Listen to your customers, and figure out how to make them _want_ to give you their money and come back for more, instead of figuring out how to take their money away from them.
:) Microsoft was. So _listening_ to people has its dangers as well.
When you talk about out-Apple Apple, I have the impression that Surface is what all the fanboys asked Apple to do with MacOS X, and what they predicted Apple do to, and Apple just wasn't stupid enough to do it
If OSX were to ever be licensed to generic PC's, I strongly suspect that Microsoft would be in deep shit within two years. The only thing that keeps that from happening is that Apple doesn't want their own profits diluted.
Apple is taking according to some figures 45% of all profits in the computer hardware market. With Dell and HP profits in that segment dropping, it might be more today. It's not Apple's livelihood anymore, they make more money elsewhere, but much too much money to fritter away.
Now if there was a strategic benefit to it, then Apple could do it. But there is no strategic benefit today for Apple in inflicting damage on Microsoft. Right now, Apple probably wants Microsoft as strong as possible to keep Google in check.
Problem is, Microsoft doesn't let them be self-contained. Everything is geared towards protecting Windows and Office. Divisions have been shuffled around as needed when the SEC reports and/or marketing needs a boost.
Apple doesn't let its product lines be self-contained. But instead of trying to protect certain products, they try very hard to make everything work together well.
Imagine if the Apple Mac department had blocked the iPhone and/or iPad because it could eat into the Mac market share (which I'm sure it did). I guess Apple would by far not be as profitable as it is now.
The iPhone is indeed killing iPod sales. The iPad is destroying all growth in Mac sales. And Apple is quite happy with that. Steve Jobs himself said (and I'm quite sure he quoted someone else) that "if you don't cannibalise your products, someone else will".
One of the most successful companies of all time, which is still doing billions in business, and everyone can't wait to tell them how they are fucking it up...
Well, they are fucking up. There's the old joke: What's the easiest way to become a millionaire? Start with a billion... Microsoft was in a very, very strong position ten years ago. That's why they are still in a reasonably strong position today. But really, if Ballmer had done a good job then we would all have been using Surface tablets for the last three years with the some UI as the M-Phones we were using for the last six years, and we would be poking fun at Apple's and Google's feeble attempts to get into the market. If we wanted to know anything, we would bing it, not google it.
I feel like I'm reading a disguised form of the "It's the white man's fault. They're holding me down!" excuse.
I admire your reading ability, since I cannot read that at all. I read it more like "there's been a major fuck up here, and we need to fix it".
Dumb down the teaching to accommodate the 900 know-nothing and screw the 100 that has chances to learns something? Where's the social benefit in doing this? This is one of the best example of compromise-that-compromises (a.k.a. lose-lose solution).
What a fucking ignorant post. This is Liberia. After a civil war. By educating the 1,000 best candidates at a level where they can achieve, you end up with 1,000 people who may not know as much as you'd like, but who know enough to bring their country one level forward.
And judging by your post, these 1000 would have a lot more intelligence than you show and a much better chance of achieving.
Yes, but we're talking a multiple choice tick box test here. Statistically, even if 24,000 people tick boxes at random, you'd have to have a LOT of options in a LOT of questions so that ZERO people come up with 70% correct boxes. I'm not in the mood to start throwing numbers about to pull some weak statistic out of my rear end, but I think it's kinda obvious to anyone who has ever done a multiple choice test. We all know that there are always those "no, that can't be right" answers, and usually if you don't know it, it's a 50/50 between two that sound equally likely. Now take 100 questions, 5 possible answers each. And consider that you have to get 70 out of them right.
Go to Germany and try to get a driving license. In the theory test, every incorrect answer counts. And you are not told how many answers are correct. If you guess one of two that sound equally likely, there's the chance you make a mistake because they are both right, there's the chance that you get two mistakes because you picked the wrong one _and_ you didn't pick the right one, a tiny chance that your guess was perfect, and of course the chance that you get more mistakes because something entirely different was correct. Two or three mistakes allowed in forty questions. You've got no choice but to learn until you know all the test questions and answers.
Too afraid to tell people they're stupid? No, it's not you fault. We're expecting too much.
It's thinking like this that leads to grade inflation, and ultimately to even the most mundane of jobs requiring a college degree.
If 24,000 people actually paid money to take a test, and not one of them passes, then I'm not afraid to call you a stupid idiot for blaming it on the people taking the test.
Among 24,000 random people you will have a few hundred with an IQ > 130. You will have two or three with an IQ of 150. These two or three with an IQ of 150 failed the test, even though they would make me look stupid and you look like an imbecile in a fair competition.
24,000 failed out of 24,000 taking the test cannot be explained by stupidity of the people taking the test. Far more logical explanations would be tampering with the results, or stupid things like giving students a test A and checking if they gave the right answers for test B. Or asking students to write an essay in French and then telling them they failed their English test. Or calculating percentages wrong, like percentage = (correct answers divided by number of questions) times ten instead of times hundred.
Really? Selecting candidates that don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand what's being taught? Wouldn't this be a waste of time/money?
Let's say you have money to run a university that teaches 1000 students. You set up some reasonable entry criterion and 10,000 students pass. You can't take them all so you make the criterion harder. Tough for 9,000 that were good enough to enter, but you get the best value for your money.
Now say only 100 students pass your entirely reasonable entry criterion, because education in that country is just awfully bad. There are no 1000 students who can pass. What are you going to do? Educate 100 people only? Or take the 1000 best, and scale down your courses so these 1000 can handle, and give 1000 people the best education you can give them?
When I was at school, the teachers called them multiple choice, the students called them multiple guess. At the time it was meant as a joke, but maybe it was really the beginning of an evolution of the English language, given that my generation are now the teachers.
The theory test that I needed to get my driving license many years ago was multiple choice. A question, three or four possible answers with unknown number of correct answers. Don't tick a right answer, one mistake counted against you. Tick a wrong answer, one mistake counted against you. If you _guessed_ there is one correct answer and then _guessed_ wrongly which one is correct, that's two mistakes; one for not ticking a correct answer, one for ticking a wrong one. Leave the question unanswered, just one mistake.
You simply cannot calculate the chance of having an accident that way. Driving 300,000 miles in Montana is going to be different than driving 300,000 miles in New York City. If you want accident statistic rates, one need look no further that auto insurance. If it was a matter of dividing total mileage by number of accidents, none of us could afford our premiums.
Another thing to consider: How bad are these accidents? I've been in accidents with very little damage because someone (sometimes me) made a stupid little mistake. Do self driven cars make stupid little mistakes? Like reversing into a low wall, accidents while parking a car, and so on? They are all accidents with very little impact. If self driven cars only are involved in big accidents, that would make them worse than "1 accident in 300,000 miles" would suggest.
Had Mr. Shreateh not been Palestinian, I'm forced to wonder if Mr. Facebook's reaction would have been different.
The bug report that he sent them was totally useless and not worth a penny. I suppose "close friend of Zukerberg" would have helped getting paid, but "white male American" wouldn't.
Thanks for that link.
Facebook isn't going to pay money if someone tells them there's a bug. They know there are plenty of bugs. They are going to pay if you give them information that helps them fixing a bug, and what he posted didn't help them in any way.
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly. Take a bus or drive perhaps?
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, find the name of one TSA employee, get him in a dark night and beat him to a pulp. If only 10,000 people do that, the problem would be solved.
Living in the US with dark skin is like being a jew in NAZI Germany.
Not quite. The guy is alive and able to post on the internet.