I don't disagree with you on most of that, but Russia is most definitely our adversary. Maybe not in the sense of lobbing ICBMs at us on a hair trigger, but they're definitely working to improve their own position by harming ours. You can't look be looking at recent history and believe otherwise.
Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire in some shape. That's not really something we're going to want to see. It's destabilizing and it's mostly due to their paranoia that they feel they need a buffer zone. Russia has plenty of land and natural resources already, but that's not enough for his pride-based appeal.
Trump will have an uphill battle to get the nomination, and his election is nearly impossible, but nothing about winning the primary has put him much closer to ending his bid. Christie and Carson are next to go. Bush has enough PAC money to hold on, and Rubio is trying to become the anti-Trump. Cruz, of course, is far from out, either.
Kaisch is the only guy I am truly surprised about, and I'm happy to see him actually make a showing. Unfortunately, it still seems pretty stacked against him.
Re:She's a dumb woman who drove HP into the ground
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Nothing about Fiorina leads me to believe she is "dumb". As far as I can tell, she's both wealthy, was made the CEO of a major corporation, and had enough support to run for two offices. Despite the fact that they were both unsuccessful attempts, they likely have not hurt her in the slightest and is significantly closer than 99.9% of America has ever come to the Presidency.
Now if you were to say that she was a bad manager, selfish, incapable and just a very bad selection as a leader, I'd agree with you. But never confuse that with someone being "dumb". That's the mistake people make before they find themselves underestimating the person they are talking about and then being run over.
Re:Hasn't she always been polling at below 5%?
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
She was never "in", but up until now, there were no actual votes.
You really don't pull out of a campaign before the first few primaries.
Otherwise, you're letting the media and their polls tell you what you should be doing, and if you're a serious candidate, you are going to actually want to see what actual voters have to say about you. Most of the candidates are depending on these primaries to get them enough momentum with financers and supporters to continue their campaigns. That's why these first tiny states are more important than they would otherwise be in any other way. They're the first actual votes that matter.
You can theoretically walk into a primary with a single digit "approval" and walk out of it as a contender, although its certainly an uphill battle. That's why nothing but very bad financial planning causes the field to narrow until now.
Re:One down.
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split. Even 33% of the vote isn't enough to win the nomination. If the others drop out soon, Trump will need to come to grips with the other 64% of the Republican voters.
Trump is one of those people that will never get the rest of the party to unite behind him. The establishment candidates would usually start supporting the front-runner after they drop out in the name of party unity, but none of them will support Trump because they believe he will permanently ruin the party's chances of winning a national election. They will support the person who is not Trump who is left over after the bloodbath.
That's why this primary is deceptive. Alone, the other candidates represent only a sliver of votes compared to Trump. Together, they are the majority. It would be one thing if Trump could get some upside from the others dropping out, but anyone who voted for Christie or Fiorina or Carson isn't going to be voting for Trump.
Trump's support base is solid, but he has nowhere to go.
A pull request is a definitely a "git-ism". It's a request to other coders to update their own local git codebase to incorporate the changes that the requester has made. So it is like a "request to commit" to some degree, but allows for decentralization.
So, you can accept a pull request to your own personal branch/fork and it doesn't have to go on the main branch. This allows two (or more) coders to sync their branches with each other, without necessarily impacting the main branch. Then at some point, when there is full agreement among the collaborators about what they want to submit to main, the merged branch with all their work (or any one of the up-to-date branches) has a PR generated for it, and the request is made to update the main. (Or perhaps their branch just becomes a fork of the original code and now that branch is "main").
Obviously, if the PR is accepted to the main, there could be rules about who can do it and/or under what circumstances. There may be a main branch committer, or there could just be rules to allow anyone to commit, as long as they aren't the author and that they have verified the changes meet the appropriate code review and testing requirements. There's no actual difference in the mechanical aspects of it; the main branch works just like any other branch aside from the designation of that branch as the "authoritative" code base for the builds and release candidates.
You think the accountants and legal teams in Apple, IBM, Google, Red Hat, etc. are using Windows?
Maybe not the ones at Apple, but I totally believe the accountants and lawyers at the rest of them are using Windows. Maybe some MacOS too, but they're sure as shit not using Linux distros for their Desktop applications.
To be sure, I think the terminology will not be "minor" vs. "adult". I was meaning to imply that the AI might be considered to be similar to a permitted learner or restricted driver who requires certain supervision. I doubt we would attempt to consider the AI to be a person and that is a entirely unnecessary development for this level of computing intelligence.
To his defense, I'd point out that Europe is the most likely customer for North African power, and Spain is quite close to Morocco, plenty close enough for power transmission, assuming that it was worth it to do so.
Phase 2: increase speed by 10mph and put laws in place that a car in AI mode is exempted from DWI (as long as the car is driving directly HOME or to the nearest medical facility)
I don't think that the restriction is required. The problem with DWI isn't your location, it's your ability to control the vehicle safely. If drunk guy wants his car to drive itself to the middle of nowhere, and it is under the control of the AI the entire way, I don't see why he'd be busted for operating a vehicle under the influence. He might wonder why he was at the county landfill in the morning when he sobered up, but he would have gotten there safely.
Huh? If you lease any car you have to carry a $100,000 PIP. It's certainly more expensive, but it's hardly out of reach for a normal driver. I was carrying that level of policy when I was 22 years old.
They'll still find a way to make a human responsible for this. The car makers or Google or whoever, will have more responsibility, but unless it was a completely maliciously covered up bug, then I imagine that AI failure would be treated like a brake failure where the manufacturer will be responsible, but *only* if the AI was being maintained and patched according to the stated guidelines.
Let's wait until we see if the cars develop sentience and start gunning for pedestrians before we think about giving AI's the ability to order nuclear weapons launches.
Well... if it was a salesperson using the car time for taking and making calls, they might still have to travel to their client sites for face-to-face meetings and demos.
The context does sound like an office worker, but it doesn't have to be.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "driver" was considered a "minor", and the person in the driver's seat was considered to be in an overseeing position with overall responsibility for ensuring that an accident did not occur. Obviously, that would require that the "adult" have the ability to take over safely and at least get the car pulled over to the shoulder or to evade a problem. More to the point, the "adult" would have to be paying attention to some degree.
I doubt that anyone is going to allow the driver to be completely off the hook for this, although they could simply set it up so that the owner was responsible if they were not keeping their car patched.
Because only someone looking for lawsuits and lost business allows something, takes payment for it, and then rips that shit out from under you because they suddenly don't like it. That's why.
Flash sucks, but it's not as simple as dropping it overnight. By doing this, Google is drawing the line in the sand, but allowing their customers to make the needed changes so that this can be absorbed by their customers without trauma. Sounds good to me.
In the meantime, just keep blocking Flash like you already were.
I don't know that the ad blocker can overcome some of the things Forbes has done to deny content to those who use ad blockers.
And to some extent, I don't necessarily blame Forbes for refusing to present content that is supported by something I am blocking, I just wish they'd have ads that I didn't need to block for the sake of mere safe browsing.
I do think that Slashdot might reasonably be asked to not post links to sites which use that sort of brute forced tactic. I don't personally care one way or another, but it is a reasonable request. I won't read a Forbes article, and that makes me less likely to comment on it.
This reminds me of driving in Bangalore. The trucks tend to have only one signal, which hilariously needs a sign that says "Turn signal".
They do manage to drive there, and I lived through my experience, but their traffic at rush hour is a complete disaster, even with the tiny cars and motorcycles they like to use. In the US, it would take you like eight times longer to get home in that chaos.
I agree that we shouldn't have divided highway sorts of things in places than don't need them.
On the other hand, I become extremely wary of trying to psych out drivers in this way. The rules should be clear and visible for a road, unless it is impractical. Humans have a very strong ability to overcome their psychology (and common sense) if they sense an advantage by using behavior contrary to expectations.
This will slow down people used to the lines, but when you have years of people who have no longer used the lines as a crutch, it's just going to creep back up again.
For instance, I slow down when there are lines where I expected them to be, but that's because that is a sign that construction work may be going on, and something has changed. If I know the road has no lines to begin with, and isn't being worked on, I do my normal cruising speed on the surface.
200mph on any highway, including the Autobahn is *not* "very" safe, even if you had zero traffic.
For one thing, you'd need to be on straight, well engineered roads, and you'd have to not deal with any sort of moisture or surface problem like oil or something that you wouldn't see until it is too late, and which is not going to be cleaned up as regularly on a rural road as it would on a more urban one.
I agree that you can go much, much faster on rural roads and that we should increase our speed limits to match the engineered capabilities of the roads and surface, but let's not get crazy here. No one has engineered even an Interstate to accept 200mph traffic. It may be safer if you have a well tuned automobile and good conditions, but you're dead meat along with anyone else in that accident if this is your unlucky day.
One should always assume the worst. In that sense, while it seems unlikely that this would go out without testing, that could certainly happen. You'd think that someone would have tested the pipes in Flint, MI before changing the water supply.
More to the point, one should never assume that the "testing" covers all the variables that they are altering by making the change they want to make.
In one situation, they showed fewer accidents, but they noted that they had also added a new skid resistant surface at the same time. Presumably, fewer skids would have an effect on accidents and although it may have a different effect than changing speeds or a lack of lines, you can't tell what they would be without testing for all variables.
Never assume the government knows what it is doing without positively assuring yourself that they have *adequately* tested.
This depends on what the scientists were employed by the government to do. We need to separate the usefulness of Climate Scientists in general from the specifics of their grant or of the program that they were employed by. It may be that the program was not created for the purpose of going further than settling the science and they believe it can now be picked up by someone else or at least some other program.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with you on most of that, but Russia is most definitely our adversary. Maybe not in the sense of lobbing ICBMs at us on a hair trigger, but they're definitely working to improve their own position by harming ours. You can't look be looking at recent history and believe otherwise.
Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire in some shape. That's not really something we're going to want to see. It's destabilizing and it's mostly due to their paranoia that they feel they need a buffer zone. Russia has plenty of land and natural resources already, but that's not enough for his pride-based appeal.
Trump will have an uphill battle to get the nomination, and his election is nearly impossible, but nothing about winning the primary has put him much closer to ending his bid. Christie and Carson are next to go. Bush has enough PAC money to hold on, and Rubio is trying to become the anti-Trump. Cruz, of course, is far from out, either.
Kaisch is the only guy I am truly surprised about, and I'm happy to see him actually make a showing. Unfortunately, it still seems pretty stacked against him.
Nothing about Fiorina leads me to believe she is "dumb". As far as I can tell, she's both wealthy, was made the CEO of a major corporation, and had enough support to run for two offices. Despite the fact that they were both unsuccessful attempts, they likely have not hurt her in the slightest and is significantly closer than 99.9% of America has ever come to the Presidency.
Now if you were to say that she was a bad manager, selfish, incapable and just a very bad selection as a leader, I'd agree with you. But never confuse that with someone being "dumb". That's the mistake people make before they find themselves underestimating the person they are talking about and then being run over.
She was never "in", but up until now, there were no actual votes.
You really don't pull out of a campaign before the first few primaries.
Otherwise, you're letting the media and their polls tell you what you should be doing, and if you're a serious candidate, you are going to actually want to see what actual voters have to say about you. Most of the candidates are depending on these primaries to get them enough momentum with financers and supporters to continue their campaigns. That's why these first tiny states are more important than they would otherwise be in any other way. They're the first actual votes that matter.
You can theoretically walk into a primary with a single digit "approval" and walk out of it as a contender, although its certainly an uphill battle. That's why nothing but very bad financial planning causes the field to narrow until now.
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split. Even 33% of the vote isn't enough to win the nomination. If the others drop out soon, Trump will need to come to grips with the other 64% of the Republican voters.
Trump is one of those people that will never get the rest of the party to unite behind him. The establishment candidates would usually start supporting the front-runner after they drop out in the name of party unity, but none of them will support Trump because they believe he will permanently ruin the party's chances of winning a national election. They will support the person who is not Trump who is left over after the bloodbath.
That's why this primary is deceptive. Alone, the other candidates represent only a sliver of votes compared to Trump. Together, they are the majority. It would be one thing if Trump could get some upside from the others dropping out, but anyone who voted for Christie or Fiorina or Carson isn't going to be voting for Trump.
Trump's support base is solid, but he has nowhere to go.
A pull request is a definitely a "git-ism". It's a request to other coders to update their own local git codebase to incorporate the changes that the requester has made. So it is like a "request to commit" to some degree, but allows for decentralization.
So, you can accept a pull request to your own personal branch/fork and it doesn't have to go on the main branch. This allows two (or more) coders to sync their branches with each other, without necessarily impacting the main branch. Then at some point, when there is full agreement among the collaborators about what they want to submit to main, the merged branch with all their work (or any one of the up-to-date branches) has a PR generated for it, and the request is made to update the main. (Or perhaps their branch just becomes a fork of the original code and now that branch is "main").
Obviously, if the PR is accepted to the main, there could be rules about who can do it and/or under what circumstances. There may be a main branch committer, or there could just be rules to allow anyone to commit, as long as they aren't the author and that they have verified the changes meet the appropriate code review and testing requirements. There's no actual difference in the mechanical aspects of it; the main branch works just like any other branch aside from the designation of that branch as the "authoritative" code base for the builds and release candidates.
You think the accountants and legal teams in Apple, IBM, Google, Red Hat, etc. are using Windows?
Maybe not the ones at Apple, but I totally believe the accountants and lawyers at the rest of them are using Windows. Maybe some MacOS too, but they're sure as shit not using Linux distros for their Desktop applications.
Luckily, they totally can use it for everything... provided that they can figure out the right command-meta key sequence to do it with.
To be sure, I think the terminology will not be "minor" vs. "adult". I was meaning to imply that the AI might be considered to be similar to a permitted learner or restricted driver who requires certain supervision. I doubt we would attempt to consider the AI to be a person and that is a entirely unnecessary development for this level of computing intelligence.
To his defense, I'd point out that Europe is the most likely customer for North African power, and Spain is quite close to Morocco, plenty close enough for power transmission, assuming that it was worth it to do so.
Phase 2: increase speed by 10mph and put laws in place that a car in AI mode is exempted from DWI (as long as the car is driving directly HOME or to the nearest medical facility)
I don't think that the restriction is required. The problem with DWI isn't your location, it's your ability to control the vehicle safely. If drunk guy wants his car to drive itself to the middle of nowhere, and it is under the control of the AI the entire way, I don't see why he'd be busted for operating a vehicle under the influence. He might wonder why he was at the county landfill in the morning when he sobered up, but he would have gotten there safely.
Huh? If you lease any car you have to carry a $100,000 PIP. It's certainly more expensive, but it's hardly out of reach for a normal driver. I was carrying that level of policy when I was 22 years old.
They'll still find a way to make a human responsible for this. The car makers or Google or whoever, will have more responsibility, but unless it was a completely maliciously covered up bug, then I imagine that AI failure would be treated like a brake failure where the manufacturer will be responsible, but *only* if the AI was being maintained and patched according to the stated guidelines.
Let's wait until we see if the cars develop sentience and start gunning for pedestrians before we think about giving AI's the ability to order nuclear weapons launches.
Well... if it was a salesperson using the car time for taking and making calls, they might still have to travel to their client sites for face-to-face meetings and demos.
The context does sound like an office worker, but it doesn't have to be.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "driver" was considered a "minor", and the person in the driver's seat was considered to be in an overseeing position with overall responsibility for ensuring that an accident did not occur. Obviously, that would require that the "adult" have the ability to take over safely and at least get the car pulled over to the shoulder or to evade a problem. More to the point, the "adult" would have to be paying attention to some degree.
I doubt that anyone is going to allow the driver to be completely off the hook for this, although they could simply set it up so that the owner was responsible if they were not keeping their car patched.
That's right. This is HyperTEXT Markup Language we are talking about here. No images or scripts!
This is the sort of crap that is allowed to happen to perfectly good academic projects when those commercial folks get their hooks into it.
I drew the line at NCSA Mosaic's perversion of my beloved HTML and I haven't looked back.
Because only someone looking for lawsuits and lost business allows something, takes payment for it, and then rips that shit out from under you because they suddenly don't like it. That's why.
Flash sucks, but it's not as simple as dropping it overnight. By doing this, Google is drawing the line in the sand, but allowing their customers to make the needed changes so that this can be absorbed by their customers without trauma. Sounds good to me.
In the meantime, just keep blocking Flash like you already were.
I don't know that the ad blocker can overcome some of the things Forbes has done to deny content to those who use ad blockers.
And to some extent, I don't necessarily blame Forbes for refusing to present content that is supported by something I am blocking, I just wish they'd have ads that I didn't need to block for the sake of mere safe browsing.
I do think that Slashdot might reasonably be asked to not post links to sites which use that sort of brute forced tactic. I don't personally care one way or another, but it is a reasonable request. I won't read a Forbes article, and that makes me less likely to comment on it.
This reminds me of driving in Bangalore. The trucks tend to have only one signal, which hilariously needs a sign that says "Turn signal".
They do manage to drive there, and I lived through my experience, but their traffic at rush hour is a complete disaster, even with the tiny cars and motorcycles they like to use. In the US, it would take you like eight times longer to get home in that chaos.
I agree that we shouldn't have divided highway sorts of things in places than don't need them.
On the other hand, I become extremely wary of trying to psych out drivers in this way. The rules should be clear and visible for a road, unless it is impractical. Humans have a very strong ability to overcome their psychology (and common sense) if they sense an advantage by using behavior contrary to expectations.
This will slow down people used to the lines, but when you have years of people who have no longer used the lines as a crutch, it's just going to creep back up again.
For instance, I slow down when there are lines where I expected them to be, but that's because that is a sign that construction work may be going on, and something has changed. If I know the road has no lines to begin with, and isn't being worked on, I do my normal cruising speed on the surface.
200mph on any highway, including the Autobahn is *not* "very" safe, even if you had zero traffic.
For one thing, you'd need to be on straight, well engineered roads, and you'd have to not deal with any sort of moisture or surface problem like oil or something that you wouldn't see until it is too late, and which is not going to be cleaned up as regularly on a rural road as it would on a more urban one.
I agree that you can go much, much faster on rural roads and that we should increase our speed limits to match the engineered capabilities of the roads and surface, but let's not get crazy here. No one has engineered even an Interstate to accept 200mph traffic. It may be safer if you have a well tuned automobile and good conditions, but you're dead meat along with anyone else in that accident if this is your unlucky day.
One should always assume the worst. In that sense, while it seems unlikely that this would go out without testing, that could certainly happen. You'd think that someone would have tested the pipes in Flint, MI before changing the water supply.
More to the point, one should never assume that the "testing" covers all the variables that they are altering by making the change they want to make.
In one situation, they showed fewer accidents, but they noted that they had also added a new skid resistant surface at the same time. Presumably, fewer skids would have an effect on accidents and although it may have a different effect than changing speeds or a lack of lines, you can't tell what they would be without testing for all variables.
Never assume the government knows what it is doing without positively assuring yourself that they have *adequately* tested.
That said, I can decrease automobile accidents to zero if I outlaw vehicles on the road.
Sometimes, the question isn't "does this decrease automobile accidents?"
Sometimes, the question is, "is this the best way to make things safer, while not sacrificing efficiency and utility?"
This depends on what the scientists were employed by the government to do. We need to separate the usefulness of Climate Scientists in general from the specifics of their grant or of the program that they were employed by. It may be that the program was not created for the purpose of going further than settling the science and they believe it can now be picked up by someone else or at least some other program.