It astounds me the level of bullshit and ignorance in this entire discussion. Not one person has cited actual research prototypes (stories about which have been popping up on/. for YEARS) and instead has relied on their own fantastical bullshit to either criticize or praise the idea. You just happen to be one of the worst--the DARPA challenge for self-driving cars specifically focuses on this scenario, and the cars are already doing pretty good at it. The tech isn't mature yet, but it's a problem with a clear solution in sight.
You should sit down. What I'm about to say will probably come as a shock: The US != the whole world. Take a minute to catch your breath if you need to. I understand.
And here's the problem with robotic drivers... They are all identical. Every one on a particular model will be byte for byte identical. Which means a fault in one is a fault in all.
No they aren't. Do a little research before you spew.
Modern AI drivers are based on heuristics and learn adaptively. This has been the case for several years. Each AI driver would be the sum total of it's own experience (plus shared base code). They wouldn't all be the same. What makes them safer is that they never get tired, distracted, drunk, or panicked, and their reaction times are much better with much more precise control.
People can, and do, routinely sue the federal government (and state, and local). Hell, that's how Judicial Review was established in the first place. The FTCA establishes pretty clearly that sovereign immunity would not apply in that case.
Of course, it's more fun to just ignorantly spout bullshit.
It doesn't. It says that in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
which gives Congress exactly that authority. Seeing as the 1st Amendment has never been understood (including by the people who wrote it) as altering that clause, well.....turns out the constitution is pretty clear that
Trading in illegally copied material is not protected speech, in America
Granted, I think current copyright law is insane, and I'm to the left of Cory Doctorow on this point, but you're still a moron.
Only if you're a moron. The 32oz have 320mg of caffeine, less than a full pot of coffee. The fuckton of sugar in it is more hazardous to your health. Those warnings are there for morons.
I was really hoping for a reply about how I was installing Linux incorrectly if I was getting severe, crippling indigestion. You've disappointed me dearly.
You must have recently immigrated to America. Welcome. For your first lesson in American idiom:
Soviet n. 2. A citizen of the U.S.S.R. Chiefly in pl. (hence loosely, = the Soviet Union or its leaders). [Courtesy of the OED]
with the first cited usage dating to 1920:
1920 Commercial & Financial Chron. 24 Jan. 288/1 He [sc. Clemenceau] insisted upon writing the final paragraph, ‘affirming that the Allies had not changed their attitude towards the Soviets’. 1930 Amer. Speech 6 121 (heading) Jailed Soviets go on hunger strike. 1959 Daily Tel. 7 Feb. 11/4 President Eisenhower, seeking one word to cover citizens of the Soviet Union, has braved the criticism of purists and adopted the term ‘Soviets’.
This concludes your daily lesson in American Idiom.
People not involved in publishing like to VASTLY overestimate printing and distribution costs. For a paper with NYT's circulation per-copy printing cost is miniscule and per-copy distribution isn't much either.
Here's empirical evidence that if you spend an additional $X, you get demonstratively better results - why wouldn't parents be yelling because only selected kids get the bonus cash?
You have a strange definition of evidence then. The charter schools pick their students, and you assume money is the reason their students do better and not the fact that they PICK THEIR STUDENTS? Even when, if you look nationwide, district by district, there is no correlation between per-student spending and academic performance?
Out of curiosity, do you also think John Edwards's television show is evidence that he is psychic?
Stupid from whose perspective? If you're a legislator it's an effective way to get what you want while giving up things you don't care about. That it makes for bad public policy and governance is irrelevant from their perspective. It's all about what is useful for THEM, not us.
Executive orders have less authority than acts of Congress. If Congress says no transferring prisoners out of Gitmo, and the President does it anyway, it will end up in the Supreme Court and the President will lose. The President could then choose not to enforce the Supreme Court's decision (like Andrew Jackson did when the Supreme Court told him to stop purging Georgia of Cherokee Natives and he gave the Court the finger and sent the whole tribe packing to Oklahoma anyway), at which point it would be up to Congress to decide whether they want to impeach the President and potentially remove him from office. Obama, with the current Congress, would almost certainly be impeached by the House, but would probably escape conviction in the Senate.
It's about horse trading. The smaller, unrelated provisions get lumped into the large bill as a way of buying votes for the larger bill from the one or two congressmen who actually want the unrelated provision, allowing the majority leader to get enough votes to pass the larger bill. This also how we end up with spending earmarks, same thing.
WikiLeaks leaked information that the US wants to keep secret
Bananas taste like snozzberries!
See, it's fun to make shit up!
Wikileaks PUBLISHED information, they didn't leak it. Whoever had it legitimately and gave it to them leaked it. The two acts are NOT synonmous, legally speaking or otherwise. No one has ever been thrown in jail for simply publishing classified material. Some people have been executed for leaking it though (Rosenbergs, for example). The New York Times published the same (and other) classified information (Pentagon Papers, for example). None of their editors have ever been charged for anything for it, because it's not a crime.
That's not his logic, that's the way the law is written (in some states anyway). Just because you don't like it (and, for the record, neither do I) doesn't make him wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It astounds me the level of bullshit and ignorance in this entire discussion. Not one person has cited actual research prototypes (stories about which have been popping up on /. for YEARS) and instead has relied on their own fantastical bullshit to either criticize or praise the idea. You just happen to be one of the worst--the DARPA challenge for self-driving cars specifically focuses on this scenario, and the cars are already doing pretty good at it. The tech isn't mature yet, but it's a problem with a clear solution in sight.
We're all individuals and safety is handled rationally by individuals!
Are there unicorn that fart rainbows in this delusion of yours too?
Why will people pay for parking when they can just get dropped off, let the car drive home, then get picked up later.
Because fuel isn't free? So long as parking is cheaper than the cost of a second two-way trip for the car people will do it.
You should sit down. What I'm about to say will probably come as a shock: The US != the whole world. Take a minute to catch your breath if you need to. I understand.
And here's the problem with robotic drivers... They are all identical. Every one on a particular model will be byte for byte identical. Which means a fault in one is a fault in all.
No they aren't. Do a little research before you spew.
Modern AI drivers are based on heuristics and learn adaptively. This has been the case for several years. Each AI driver would be the sum total of it's own experience (plus shared base code). They wouldn't all be the same. What makes them safer is that they never get tired, distracted, drunk, or panicked, and their reaction times are much better with much more precise control.
People can, and do, routinely sue the federal government (and state, and local). Hell, that's how Judicial Review was established in the first place. The FTCA establishes pretty clearly that sovereign immunity would not apply in that case.
Of course, it's more fun to just ignorantly spout bullshit.
I hope they're not still listening to those snake-oil profilers after a decades long track record on par with dowsing rods.
Where does it say that in the first amendment?
It doesn't. It says that in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
which gives Congress exactly that authority. Seeing as the 1st Amendment has never been understood (including by the people who wrote it) as altering that clause, well.....turns out the constitution is pretty clear that
Trading in illegally copied material is not protected speech, in America
Granted, I think current copyright law is insane, and I'm to the left of Cory Doctorow on this point, but you're still a moron.
Do you expect a marketing droid to know there's a difference between those two things?
I feel quite safe in believing that Constantine never went about saying "do dah do dah".
Well, yeah, he would have said it in Latin.
That warning is pretty accurate, by the way.
Only if you're a moron. The 32oz have 320mg of caffeine, less than a full pot of coffee. The fuckton of sugar in it is more hazardous to your health. Those warnings are there for morons.
I was really hoping for a reply about how I was installing Linux incorrectly if I was getting severe, crippling indigestion. You've disappointed me dearly.
they get me free lunches from places like Perkins and Dennys all the time.
Like with free software, those meals are only free if your time spent recovering from severe, crippling indigestion is also free.
You must have recently immigrated to America. Welcome. For your first lesson in American idiom:
Soviet n. 2. A citizen of the U.S.S.R. Chiefly in pl. (hence loosely, = the Soviet Union or its leaders). [Courtesy of the OED]
with the first cited usage dating to 1920:
1920 Commercial & Financial Chron. 24 Jan. 288/1 He [sc. Clemenceau] insisted upon writing the final paragraph, ‘affirming that the Allies had not changed their attitude towards the Soviets’.
1930 Amer. Speech 6 121 (heading) Jailed Soviets go on hunger strike.
1959 Daily Tel. 7 Feb. 11/4 President Eisenhower, seeking one word to cover citizens of the Soviet Union, has braved the criticism of purists and adopted the term ‘Soviets’.
This concludes your daily lesson in American Idiom.
People not involved in publishing like to VASTLY overestimate printing and distribution costs. For a paper with NYT's circulation per-copy printing cost is miniscule and per-copy distribution isn't much either.
He was referring to Wickard v Fillburn, which was in 1942. That's over 150 years.
Here's empirical evidence that if you spend an additional $X, you get demonstratively better results - why wouldn't parents be yelling because only selected kids get the bonus cash?
You have a strange definition of evidence then. The charter schools pick their students, and you assume money is the reason their students do better and not the fact that they PICK THEIR STUDENTS? Even when, if you look nationwide, district by district, there is no correlation between per-student spending and academic performance?
Out of curiosity, do you also think John Edwards's television show is evidence that he is psychic?
Stupid from whose perspective? If you're a legislator it's an effective way to get what you want while giving up things you don't care about. That it makes for bad public policy and governance is irrelevant from their perspective. It's all about what is useful for THEM, not us.
Executive orders have less authority than acts of Congress. If Congress says no transferring prisoners out of Gitmo, and the President does it anyway, it will end up in the Supreme Court and the President will lose. The President could then choose not to enforce the Supreme Court's decision (like Andrew Jackson did when the Supreme Court told him to stop purging Georgia of Cherokee Natives and he gave the Court the finger and sent the whole tribe packing to Oklahoma anyway), at which point it would be up to Congress to decide whether they want to impeach the President and potentially remove him from office. Obama, with the current Congress, would almost certainly be impeached by the House, but would probably escape conviction in the Senate.
It's about horse trading. The smaller, unrelated provisions get lumped into the large bill as a way of buying votes for the larger bill from the one or two congressmen who actually want the unrelated provision, allowing the majority leader to get enough votes to pass the larger bill. This also how we end up with spending earmarks, same thing.
consider that you're the only real human interacting with Slashdot (or the world, for that matter).
Oh dear god it all finally makes sense!
WikiLeaks leaked information that the US wants to keep secret
Bananas taste like snozzberries!
See, it's fun to make shit up!
Wikileaks PUBLISHED information, they didn't leak it. Whoever had it legitimately and gave it to them leaked it. The two acts are NOT synonmous, legally speaking or otherwise. No one has ever been thrown in jail for simply publishing classified material. Some people have been executed for leaking it though (Rosenbergs, for example). The New York Times published the same (and other) classified information (Pentagon Papers, for example). None of their editors have ever been charged for anything for it, because it's not a crime.
For what definition of "wrong"?
The one that is synonymous with factually incorrect, but nice non sequitur.
The wealthy head of a crime (smuggling) syndicate.
That's not his logic, that's the way the law is written (in some states anyway). Just because you don't like it (and, for the record, neither do I) doesn't make him wrong.