They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds
No, if they did that. they would move at the lowest possible speed - walking pace (or less). And who would use them, then?
The first priority of an autonomous vehicle will be customer service. To get the paying passenger (or owner) to where they want to be while staying within the pre-defined rules of the road: speed, traffic lights, etc.
There will not ever be an AV that can compute the age of pedestrians and single-out the oldest ones to preferentially collide with, if a collision is inevitable. Worse than that, to do so would be to target a vulnerable group - one with less survivability than (say) a 25 year-old in good health. And as soon as a vehicle made any autonomous life-or-death determination, the lawsuits would bury it, its owner, its makers, its designers and anyone else who was involved, for years.
The only thing that prevents people from getting embroiled in these sorts of moral decisions is our recognised fallability. Once we expect that machines will be less fallible, they'd better be dam' well perfect. The AV makers will have a hell of a job trying to walk back from the ignorant media's view that AVs will be "perfect" drivers. Studies like this one, which imply they will be are doing nobody a service.
Who else is listening in on Trump's cellphone calls? What about the cellphones of other world leaders and senior government officials? And -- most personal of all -- what about my cellphone calls?
About the first: one would hope that the americans are listening to Trump's calls. Not just so that they know what every other world power learns from their eavesdropping, but also to gauge how well their own manipulation of his thought processes are proceeding, too.
Regarding the second point, one hopes - expects, even - that other world leaders are more circumspect. Since we don't hear about Xi on weibo or Merkel on twitter, we can assume that they are doing the statesmanlike thing and not blabbing stupidity to the world. They keep their stupidity firmly under wraps.
Finally - about your cellphone? You simply aren't important enough to waste effort on. So long as you don't do anything utterly stupid and reckless - like running your personal banking on your phone - there is no reason anyone else in the entire world would pay you any attention. But you already know that, since few people reply to your messages and nobody picks up when you call them.
I have done consultancy work on some major call centres. If it takes an agent more than 3 minutes on average to process a call, including wrap-up time after the caller has gone, then there is something wrong with the IT.
At that rate an agent working an 8 hour shift would be expected to handle about 160 calls. To require 400 agents to field 16,000 calls means they are taking 40 calls per person in a shift. Maybe down to 20 if the call centre is running 2 shifts. There will be peak times when some calls will be lost, but using those numbers as a guide means that the agents are taking far too long handling each call.
a sedentary lifestyle is worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease.
What I need is a list of options. How to balance the things I like with the things that will prolong my life to a reasonable extent (so I can continue enjoying myself).
While it might be nice to live to a grand old age, for most people their ability to be happy in old age is limited by available cash, friends / relatives who still survive (I.e. a support network) and the physical and mental faculties to enable independent thought and movement.
Another important point, not mentioned, is that of diminishing returns, At what point does the extra time required for exercise, including preparation, travel, showering, laundry, etc. take up more of a person's life than it is likely to extend it by? If someone spends an hour at the gym, 4 days a week (plus another hour for travelling, showering, etc) that is 400 hours a year. That is hours taken not from your *life* but from your quality time: after sleeping, chores, work, commuting, etc. That could easily be 25% of all your discretionary leisure time. So over 40 years of working, that amount of exercise would need to extend your life by an additional 10 years just to make up for the "lost" quality time you spent doing it.
"The message: It has the manufacturing might to crank out thousands of robot cars, while tech rivals like Alphabet's Waymo unit must equip their autonomous systems onto vehicles they purchase from traditional car companies."
Unless the AV developers can come up with a mechanism for taking a standard model (human driver) car and installing all the necessary hardware and computers inside that.
Given that an AV wouldn't need a driver, their seat could be ripped out and a "black box" put in its place. Wire up the sensors and engine interface and off you go. You lose a seat, but with average vehicle occupancy being well below an ordinary car's capacity, there would be few occasions where that would matter.
OK, so damage was done. But there is nothing to follow up on the video. IRL would the wing have fallen off, would the plane have crashed or been able to continue. And given the air flow over a wing in flight, would an impact like the one filmed actually be possible?
And more, how does this compare with a bird-strike test
Is this actually the worst case? How about hitting an engine or windscreen
convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human
So by taking out the lead vehicle, the entire convoy just stops?
Not only is the crucial vehicle now obvious (it's the one at the front), but all the firepower and bombs can be directed solely towards it. Once that is destroyed or disabled, none of the other vehicles in the convoy can follow it. They can then be eliminated at leisure.
While being a military driver has always made a person a prime target, this sounds like the job has become almost suicidal in the risks involved.
so beer availability could be further hindered by the likely prioritization of grain yields to feed cattle and other farm animals, rather than for brewing beer.
The BBC had to replace live broadcasts with recorded material on its TV news channels for about an hour on Wednesday
The BBC news channel is rolling news. It has a tiny audience and consists of the same 15 minute script repeated throughout the day.. All that changes is the person reading it and the short, light, "inserts" on subjects nobody cares about.
The question is: did anyone watching notice that it wasn't live. And if they did notice, did they care?
sounds incredibly professional, you'd fall for it, too," Haughey said.
Errr, no.
The first principle of phone banking is to never give out personal information to anyone who calls you. Never.
If you feel there is an issue that does need information to be passed, hang up and phone them on the public number. Just make sure you have actually hung up, there is a long-standing scam where the thieves actually recommend you call the bank, yourself. They then make the sound of hanging up but stay on the line. When you dial the bank's number, you are still actually talking to the scammers.
For this action to be considered "art" it would have to be performed by the artist. If someone else had triggered the shredding it is just vandalism. That implies that Banksy was controlling the action and so it would be reasonably to assume that he / she / it / them was in the room at the time.
It makes you wonder if they were the winning bidder?
Incorrect. Real-time software creates new functions that no person could perform. One could say the same about web hosting and content delivery. As well as AI.
If you've automated one job, simply ask for another. If your employer won't go along with that, go work for someone else with a more intelligent approach.
Are you confusing paid employment with a hobby?
It sounds like you have this weird notion that work should be "fun" and that the more of it you do, the more fun you have. And that doing work is in itself sufficient motivation for doing more.
If I could free up my day by fulfilling my duties (more or less, I can't send a script to a meeting) then that permits me to engage in other, possibly more fulfilling things. Maybe even ones that my employer benefits from. But provided they are satisfied with the work-product they are paying me for, it is of little concern to them how it is produced.
While I have heard about people sub-contracting their tedious, repetitive, jobs to low-paid countries, that sort of activity contravenes most employers confidentiality conditions.
A further, more relevant question would be whether it is moral to automate someone else's job? If I was able to automate my work, then there is a good chance that the same automation could be applied to others in my team. Do I owe it to them to NOT do this. Should I be loyal to my colleagues or to my company?
If by hacking an election we mean manipulating the result to favour or disadvantage one political view or another, then that is the meat and potatoes of privately owned media organisations.
It makes little difference whether the "hacking" is done on social media by extra-national agents being paid for their efforts, or by proprietors setting an editorial policy that advocates some themes and disparages others. People criticise FAKE NEWS and social media for feeding people articles they are predisposed to agree with. Which is exactly what the media does. We watch a particular channel's news broadcasts because we think it accurately represents reality. Or we read a particular newspaper because we think it is unbiased - which just means we are in accord with its politics.
You can even see articles that dissuade people from voting by suggesting that their party is comfortably ahead, so there's no need to go out in the rain. Or that one candidate or another did a bad thing and is therefore undeserving of support. All of this is manipulation. It is no different to "hack" the voters as it is to hack the voting machines. The outcome is the same.
That one is done in plain sight and the other is performed surreptitiously only reinforces the view that if the crime is big enough, it is excused.
My understanding was that Iridium phones couldn't receive a satellite signal inside buildings. If this tech is similar then it won't be much use to the billions of devices that reside in the home or office. Though I suppose that like GPS, there will be installations in vehicles that will find it useful
Now, tell me when I can buy a $10 CloudConnect device from any of the usual chinese suppliers. That is when it will become an interesting technology. Just so long as the subscription fees are in the cent's per month category.
So, we can prove all of the technologies, we can reduce all of the risks, we can try all of the different maturations that are necessary to live and work on another world.
If this guy thinks that Mars has no "surprises" up its sleeve he is going to be proved sorely mistaken. Possibly fatally so.
So we can expect to see lots of Subarus appearing in the movies. Being blown up, totalled in crashes, shot to pieces or catching fire for no good reason.
a bifurcation into a Chinese-led internet and a non-Chinese internet led by America.
I can't see that happening as all the equipment used to connect to the internet comes from China. If they make it, they can hard-wire it to work with whatever version of the intenet they please. It is the tech / manufacturing equivalent of having the intenet by the balls. I must assume that when the times comes that the chinese want to assume authority of the intenet, they will just take it.
So the "drugged up" octopus started to invade the space of the one that was trapped. The article suggests that prior to getting dosed, the free-moving octopus avoided the other one. Presumably the feeling was mutual.
Yet did anyone give any thought to the feelings of the one trapped in a basket? It might sound very empathic and touchy-feely to anthropomorphise the behaviour. However if they are naturally wary of others of their own species, then to the target of such behaviour, it becomes intrusive. Much like quietly minding your own business and then having a drunk take the seat next to you on a train or plane and spend the whole journey "getting friendly".
Regarding the "big five" personality traits. Sometimes I'm introverted, sometimes I take the lead.
I trust people I know, but I don't trust strangers. I dislike being the centre of attention, but I am not necessarily easy to satisfy.
Most times I have positive emotions, but I dislike large parties.
I like order (in my life) but I am untidy. I work hard but I don't always follow the rules. I try to avoid mistakes but I put off doing chores.
I like art, have a good imagination and can deal with complex problems but I don't think I experience emotions "intensely"
It all depends what sort of day I'm having and what the circumstances are. When I'm in the mood to fill in (silly) online quizzes I might be calm and relaxed, when working I am busy and juggling many things - or sometimes I am analytical and leading others. When socialising I can be thoughtful and kind, or exuberant. Sometimes I prefer to be on my own and other times I just think "screw it!" and want to stay in bed.
What is it with all this "one personality" stuff? Surely everyone adapts their thoughts and actions to the situation they find themselves in?
Slashdot Mirror
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds
No, if they did that. they would move at the lowest possible speed - walking pace (or less). And who would use them, then?
The first priority of an autonomous vehicle will be customer service. To get the paying passenger (or owner) to where they want to be while staying within the pre-defined rules of the road: speed, traffic lights, etc.
There will not ever be an AV that can compute the age of pedestrians and single-out the oldest ones to preferentially collide with, if a collision is inevitable. Worse than that, to do so would be to target a vulnerable group - one with less survivability than (say) a 25 year-old in good health. And as soon as a vehicle made any autonomous life-or-death determination, the lawsuits would bury it, its owner, its makers, its designers and anyone else who was involved, for years.
The only thing that prevents people from getting embroiled in these sorts of moral decisions is our recognised fallability. Once we expect that machines will be less fallible, they'd better be dam' well perfect. The AV makers will have a hell of a job trying to walk back from the ignorant media's view that AVs will be "perfect" drivers. Studies like this one, which imply they will be are doing nobody a service.
Who else is listening in on Trump's cellphone calls? What about the cellphones of other world leaders and senior government officials? And -- most personal of all -- what about my cellphone calls?
About the first: one would hope that the americans are listening to Trump's calls. Not just so that they know what every other world power learns from their eavesdropping, but also to gauge how well their own manipulation of his thought processes are proceeding, too.
Regarding the second point, one hopes - expects, even - that other world leaders are more circumspect. Since we don't hear about Xi on weibo or Merkel on twitter, we can assume that they are doing the statesmanlike thing and not blabbing stupidity to the world. They keep their stupidity firmly under wraps.
Finally - about your cellphone? You simply aren't important enough to waste effort on. So long as you don't do anything utterly stupid and reckless - like running your personal banking on your phone - there is no reason anyone else in the entire world would pay you any attention. But you already know that, since few people reply to your messages and nobody picks up when you call them.
they would need an additional 400 operators
I have done consultancy work on some major call centres. If it takes an agent more than 3 minutes on average to process a call, including wrap-up time after the caller has gone, then there is something wrong with the IT.
At that rate an agent working an 8 hour shift would be expected to handle about 160 calls. To require 400 agents to field 16,000 calls means they are taking 40 calls per person in a shift. Maybe down to 20 if the call centre is running 2 shifts. There will be peak times when some calls will be lost, but using those numbers as a guide means that the agents are taking far too long handling each call.
a sedentary lifestyle is worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease.
What I need is a list of options. How to balance the things I like with the things that will prolong my life to a reasonable extent (so I can continue enjoying myself).
While it might be nice to live to a grand old age, for most people their ability to be happy in old age is limited by available cash, friends / relatives who still survive (I.e. a support network) and the physical and mental faculties to enable independent thought and movement.
Another important point, not mentioned, is that of diminishing returns, At what point does the extra time required for exercise, including preparation, travel, showering, laundry, etc. take up more of a person's life than it is likely to extend it by? If someone spends an hour at the gym, 4 days a week (plus another hour for travelling, showering, etc) that is 400 hours a year. That is hours taken not from your *life* but from your quality time: after sleeping, chores, work, commuting, etc. That could easily be 25% of all your discretionary leisure time. So over 40 years of working, that amount of exercise would need to extend your life by an additional 10 years just to make up for the "lost" quality time you spent doing it.
"The message: It has the manufacturing might to crank out thousands of robot cars, while tech rivals like Alphabet's Waymo unit must equip their autonomous systems onto vehicles they purchase from traditional car companies."
Unless the AV developers can come up with a mechanism for taking a standard model (human driver) car and installing all the necessary hardware and computers inside that.
Given that an AV wouldn't need a driver, their seat could be ripped out and a "black box" put in its place. Wire up the sensors and engine interface and off you go. You lose a seat, but with average vehicle occupancy being well below an ordinary car's capacity, there would be few occasions where that would matter.
And more, how does this compare with a bird-strike test
Is this actually the worst case? How about hitting an engine or windscreen
convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human
So by taking out the lead vehicle, the entire convoy just stops?
Not only is the crucial vehicle now obvious (it's the one at the front), but all the firepower and bombs can be directed solely towards it. Once that is destroyed or disabled, none of the other vehicles in the convoy can follow it. They can then be eliminated at leisure.
While being a military driver has always made a person a prime target, this sounds like the job has become almost suicidal in the risks involved.
so beer availability could be further hindered by the likely prioritization of grain yields to feed cattle and other farm animals, rather than for brewing beer.
Dumbest set of priorities ever!
A femtosecond, for reference, is one quadrillionth of a second.
Probably one of the world's least useful explanations.
The BBC had to replace live broadcasts with recorded material on its TV news channels for about an hour on Wednesday
The BBC news channel is rolling news. It has a tiny audience and consists of the same 15 minute script repeated throughout the day.. All that changes is the person reading it and the short, light, "inserts" on subjects nobody cares about.
The question is: did anyone watching notice that it wasn't live. And if they did notice, did they care?
sounds incredibly professional, you'd fall for it, too," Haughey said.
Errr, no.
The first principle of phone banking is to never give out personal information to anyone who calls you. Never.
If you feel there is an issue that does need information to be passed, hang up and phone them on the public number. Just make sure you have actually hung up, there is a long-standing scam where the thieves actually recommend you call the bank, yourself. They then make the sound of hanging up but stay on the line. When you dial the bank's number, you are still actually talking to the scammers.
It makes you wonder if they were the winning bidder?
All software is automating someone else's job.
Incorrect. Real-time software creates new functions that no person could perform. One could say the same about web hosting and content delivery. As well as AI.
If you've automated one job, simply ask for another. If your employer won't go along with that, go work for someone else with a more intelligent approach.
Are you confusing paid employment with a hobby?
It sounds like you have this weird notion that work should be "fun" and that the more of it you do, the more fun you have. And that doing work is in itself sufficient motivation for doing more.
If I could free up my day by fulfilling my duties (more or less, I can't send a script to a meeting) then that permits me to engage in other, possibly more fulfilling things. Maybe even ones that my employer benefits from. But provided they are satisfied with the work-product they are paying me for, it is of little concern to them how it is produced.
While I have heard about people sub-contracting their tedious, repetitive, jobs to low-paid countries, that sort of activity contravenes most employers confidentiality conditions.
A further, more relevant question would be whether it is moral to automate someone else's job? If I was able to automate my work, then there is a good chance that the same automation could be applied to others in my team. Do I owe it to them to NOT do this. Should I be loyal to my colleagues or to my company?
It makes little difference whether the "hacking" is done on social media by extra-national agents being paid for their efforts, or by proprietors setting an editorial policy that advocates some themes and disparages others. People criticise FAKE NEWS and social media for feeding people articles they are predisposed to agree with. Which is exactly what the media does. We watch a particular channel's news broadcasts because we think it accurately represents reality. Or we read a particular newspaper because we think it is unbiased - which just means we are in accord with its politics.
You can even see articles that dissuade people from voting by suggesting that their party is comfortably ahead, so there's no need to go out in the rain. Or that one candidate or another did a bad thing and is therefore undeserving of support. All of this is manipulation. It is no different to "hack" the voters as it is to hack the voting machines. The outcome is the same.
That one is done in plain sight and the other is performed surreptitiously only reinforces the view that if the crime is big enough, it is excused.
Now, tell me when I can buy a $10 CloudConnect device from any of the usual chinese suppliers. That is when it will become an interesting technology. Just so long as the subscription fees are in the cent's per month category.
So, we can prove all of the technologies, we can reduce all of the risks, we can try all of the different maturations that are necessary to live and work on another world.
If this guy thinks that Mars has no "surprises" up its sleeve he is going to be proved sorely mistaken. Possibly fatally so.
So we can expect to see lots of Subarus appearing in the movies. Being blown up, totalled in crashes, shot to pieces or catching fire for no good reason.
Presumably the same technology can be scaled to bring down the other guy's satellites, too.
a bifurcation into a Chinese-led internet and a non-Chinese internet led by America.
I can't see that happening as all the equipment used to connect to the internet comes from China. If they make it, they can hard-wire it to work with whatever version of the intenet they please. It is the tech / manufacturing equivalent of having the intenet by the balls. I must assume that when the times comes that the chinese want to assume authority of the intenet, they will just take it.
Yet did anyone give any thought to the feelings of the one trapped in a basket? It might sound very empathic and touchy-feely to anthropomorphise the behaviour. However if they are naturally wary of others of their own species, then to the target of such behaviour, it becomes intrusive. Much like quietly minding your own business and then having a drunk take the seat next to you on a train or plane and spend the whole journey "getting friendly".
you can be almost anywhere in the Bay Area in under 15 minutes. With stops.
15 minutes transportation time. 2 hours to get through security and another hour to find some to park near the hyperloop station
I trust people I know, but I don't trust strangers. I dislike being the centre of attention, but I am not necessarily easy to satisfy.
Most times I have positive emotions, but I dislike large parties.
I like order (in my life) but I am untidy. I work hard but I don't always follow the rules. I try to avoid mistakes but I put off doing chores.
I like art, have a good imagination and can deal with complex problems but I don't think I experience emotions "intensely"
It all depends what sort of day I'm having and what the circumstances are. When I'm in the mood to fill in (silly) online quizzes I might be calm and relaxed, when working I am busy and juggling many things - or sometimes I am analytical and leading others. When socialising I can be thoughtful and kind, or exuberant. Sometimes I prefer to be on my own and other times I just think "screw it!" and want to stay in bed.
What is it with all this "one personality" stuff? Surely everyone adapts their thoughts and actions to the situation they find themselves in?
Musk said it was "nobody from Hollywood".
That doesn't narrow the field very much. Almost every actor counts as "nobody from Hollywood."
Do data breaches cause financial under performance? Or do poorly run companies not see the importance of strong defences to prevent data breaches.