Perhaps because he's openly supporting a party and candidate who would like nothing more than to have the law changed so that he could be imprisoned and "reeducated" to take away that personal preference of his. That's hardly the action of a man who is confident in his choices.
"Even if someone catches the drone" -- well, that seems pretty much like a 100% certainty, for a drone whose stated goal is to crash head-first into something every single time it is used.
Frankly, this sounds like a laughable idea borne in tinfoil hat country. There are much simpler, stealthier ways to kill someone.
So "manufacturer's claims" are more accurate than "person who was actually there's claims", eh? After all, you haven't seen these supposed logs, and nor has anyone else. All we have is the word of the one person who has the most self-interest of all in this matter, and who has shown himself to be utterly disingenuous in the past to boot. Your fanboyism is duly noted....
It doesn't help that the technique is also *very* prone to artifacts, and those artifacts would differ per eye, making them even more noticeable in 3D.
Both of you have likely paid for those ads many times over already without realizing. You were just paying for ads in the form of product placement, instead of standalone ads...
Except that buses have predefined routes, allowing the road and signposting quality to be better controlled, and perhaps even technology built into the road itself. And bus drivers are employees who could, if needed, be subjected to regular testing and training on the capabilities of their systems, and perhaps even subjected to real-time monitoring to ensure they're not abusing the system. Agree or not, but public transport is a much better-controlled environment for a system like this.
I've yet to see any car manufacturer other than Tesla irresponsibly brand them as "autopilot", a name which implies to the almighty unwashed that the car is capable of driving itself. This is a nightmare entirely of Tesla's own making.
Yes, the idiots should be prosecuted. However, that doesn't help the fact that innocent third-parties could be maimed or killed in accidents with these idiots, and that the manufacturers should have known better than to put such half-baked systems in their vehicles in the first place, let alone declared end-users on public roads capable of performing beta-testing of such systems for them. You can be damned sure if a Tesla driver hits my car when using autopilot, I will be suing not just them, but also Tesla. And frankly, Tesla's choice of name is not helping matters here.
As for public transport, I didn't mean to imply it could mitigate *every* issue -- but it can mitigate many. When you have predefined routes, it is easier to ensure those routes have adequate road surface quality, lane and road markings, signposting, etc. Hell, you can even within the bounds of feasibility make alterations to those roads to ensure they are as appropriate as possible for autonomous driving. But when you have an entire interstate system (and eventually, an entire country's road network) to contend with, that's a MUCH tougher challenge.
Because they're operating solely on hype. Bells and whistles and form-before-function design are what generate hype. If anything, expect any negative publicity from these incidents to cause Tesla to double-down on the hype, and therefore, on the bells and whistles. (In fact, based on Musk's utterly disingenuous and insupportable claims about the number of people who would be saved if Tesla's autopilot function were standard in every car, they're already doubling down on it.)
Here's hoping it *does* mess everything up for semi-autonomous systems like Tesla's. These belong in public transport, where you have a relatively controlled environment running down predetermined routes where outside factors can be mitigated, and where the drivers are employees who can be regularly trained and tested on their knowledge of the system's capabilities. An autopilot function makes sense in, say, a bus.
Where it most definitely does not make sense is in passenger cars, where the moronic part of our population (that is, most of it) will assume it to be far more capable than it really is, and who will choose simply to ignore the system once it is operating. In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.
With a little luck, Tesla's idiotic hype will ensure that the failures of these systems get enough publicity to regulate them out of being until such time as we are able to create a system that can run reliably in all conditions and on all road types. Leave the tech whizbang crap where it belongs in public transport, and get it out of passenger cars, please!
I'm genuinely curious: What disaster? As far as I was aware, Google and Nestle both got boatloads of publicity out of that naming choice. I don't remember any headlines suggesting otherwise. Where was the disaster?
I'd be willing to bet that Tesla's subsidies aren't small on a per-vehicle basis. Total production of all vehicles worldwide for Tesla is a paltry 125k -- that would be just 4.5 *days* production for Toyota -- and yet in Nevada alone Tesla scored US$1.25 *billion* in subsidies two years ago, much of them front-loaded. That's US$10,000 per vehicle they'd made to date *and* in most of the following two years after the deal was signed thru today.
And that's just one of the subsidies from which Tesla and Musk are profiting. Another is the federal tax subsidy that's putting US$7,500 of yours and my tax dollars per vehicle sold in Tesla's pocket, and which will likely continue to do so through 2018: http://bgr.com/2016/02/12/tesl... -- and there are others, too.
Quick question, so we know if you're a partisan moron with a major case of dual standards: How many posts of yours (prior to this one, please) can you point to requesting an investigation of Colin Powell, and for all his emails to be handed over to the FBI? After all, he too used his own private email server for government business, including content which has since been reclassified.
None? You've not protested Powell's actions a single time, you say?
Yeah, I thought so. It's only bad if it's a lib doing it, amirite?
As noted in a reply above, the payroll taxes, insurance, etc. will now need to be paid to the highly-skilled robot tech instead of the unskilled burger-assembler.
Also, you're assuming that one robot alone will be able to replace the entire staff of the store. (That's almost certainly not accurate.)
And you assume that the stores will also be going take-out only, otherwise you still need HVAC, restrooms and space. And either cleaning robots capable of dealing with humans' sometimes-disgusting habits, or human employees to do the cleaning part, still.
Also, it's rather an interesting assumption that the person capable of repairing these magical, majestic robots will find their job so easy and unskilled that they'll actually be minimum wage. That, again, seems rather unlikely.
You're right that nobody will be spitting in your food, though. They'll be dripping machine oil into it, instead. Mind you, somebody in one of the suppliers could still be spitting in the raw ingredients or on the pre-prepared items (buns, patties, etc.)
Nope, but it was represented as one robot replacing one person, so I continued that logic. However, given that most restaurant business happens in three relatively short periods (and that most fast food employees are part-time), the eight-hour day for the human is already overkill. The robot will be sitting idle most of the day, just as the few humans manning the restaurant outside of peak hours already are.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. $70k is the equivalent of 2 1/3 years of a $15/hour wage (eight hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year). So even in a perfect world, it'd take 2 1/3 years to break even, assuming you can only replace one employee's job with each robot. And that also assumes that your robots never need maintenance, adjustment, calibration, cleaning etc., nor do they use any power or consumables.
That's a pretty unlikely scenario, to be honest. Far more likely is that your two robots will set you back the equivalent of around three years before you've saved a cent. After all, while you got rid of the unskilled labor to assemble burgers, you replaced it with skilled labor to maintain the robots, and you probably have to pay that skilled labor for their travel time and expenses servicing robots at many, many locations around the country. (No single location or district is going to provide sufficient work for the robot techs to live locally, so they'll be traveling to and from your stores for a large proportion of their time.) If much maintenance, calibration or cleaning is needed at all, you'll find the projected cost savings quickly vanishes.
And then what's the service life of the robots? Answer that, and you'll know whether this is going to be worth the PR downside. If a robot lasts ten years and pays for itself in three, you've got a good argument for phasing out the meat puppets it replaces. If it takes three years to pay off, but you're having to replace it after just four or five due to its service life or obsolescence, well, that's another matter entirely.
But then all of this is pulling numbers out of our butts -- both on your part and mine -- and has little to do with the real world.
No, it's not impossible. They're quite capable of updating all code which they authored, and pushing those updates themselves. They're also quite capable of changing their licensing terms such that all manufacturer cruft must be installed as user-removable apps, and the manufacturers are quite capable of complying.
Would it take some work to institute this? Definitely. Would it be much better for end users? Without question. Will it ever happen? Unlikely in the next 3-5 years, I'd guess, and in part that's because of apologism and complacency from those who should know better, but aren't pushing them to make it happen.
Oh, they have control over it if they want it. They just choose to ignore the users' demands for a proper OS which can update itself to close off security exploits. Instead, they leave security in the hands of manufacturers and carriers, both of whom have a vested interest in not updating because a) it saves them money, and b) it forces users to upgrade to the next shiny new handset a bit earlier.
The Seamless Updates feature is a beautiful example of how tone-deaf Google has become. Even if you're on one of the tiny handful of devices which get monthly security updates, updating was hardly a big pain point to begin with -- you lose access to your device for perhaps 15-25 minutes, once a month and at a time of your choosing. (In other words, you tell the thing to update right before you go to sleep, and don't even notice the downtime.)
And for most users, you don't even get monthly updates -- you get perhaps one or two updates per year, if you're lucky. So updating was an even more miniscule concern. What Seamless Updates will actually do is cause a significantly greater pain point for users of the many Android phones out there with relatively minimal built-in memory, and quite possibly no MicroSD card slot either. Those users will now find themselves with even less available space on their devices, all to save them probably a lot less than three or four hours of downtime during the entire life of their phone or tablet.
And absolutely nothing has been done to address the real issue: An over-reliance on manufacturers and carriers who hold up updates needlessly for months on end, or never even provide them at all.
Nor does taking the carrier out of the equation buying unlocked devices necessarily help much, either. My unlocked Sony Xperia Z2 sat for 4.5 *months* between Sony releasing a Stagefright 2.0 fix in some markets, and bothering to release that same patch in my own market. No carriers involved at all: Sony sat with its thumb up its butt for more than six months after Google provided it with the code to fix what's among the biggest Android exploits to date, and 4.5 months after it had already implemented the fix. And Sony is hardly alone in this attitude: My understanding is that Samsung also take ages to provide updates, if they provide them at all, and the same was true of the HTC devices I owned before this Sony.
Google really needs to get its act together and bring security updates entirely in-house.
* Unknown startup company
* Huge claims
* Big PR push
* IndieGogo campaign
Smart money says this either ships way late and barely functional, or never ships at all and the creator gets a nice new vacation home in France, Spain or Italy. Translating audio in real time is a fool's errand.
Pay attention the next time you're dictating using, say, Google's voice recognition, or you're watching automatically-generated closed captions on an unscripted TV show. (Sports commentary is a nice example.) You will *frequently* see the transcription change after the fact, replacing one or more words with others that are totally different.
If you claim to be transcribing and translating in anything approaching real time, that can't happen. Once you've said the wrong word, you've blown the meaning of the sentence. Correcting it in audio will take time, by which point you've missed (or are lagging further behind) the actual conversation. Or more likely (if this ever reaches market) your conversation is riddled with uncorrected errors and you have barely any understanding of what's actually being said.
I doubt it will ever even reach this point, though. Chances are good no product ever ships, but the money is taken regardless.
a) those addons and changes can still be made by the manufacturer -- just separately from how the OS itself is delivered. You know, exactly what happens on numerous other platforms already, and has for decades.
b) Google would be in no hotter water if it took on the updating. They're only in hot water in places where it matters -- such as giving themselves an advantage with their preinstalled browser, preinstalled search boxes, etc. The manufacturers would almost certainly prefer it too, actually, in the long run. It would save them money and work on updating, after all. They just don't want to be the ones to go first into that bold new future.
You do realize it's possible to update an OS without updating drivers, right? And that if there's a flaw in the drivers, the manufacturer can still patch them? This is an utterly specious argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps because he's openly supporting a party and candidate who would like nothing more than to have the law changed so that he could be imprisoned and "reeducated" to take away that personal preference of his. That's hardly the action of a man who is confident in his choices.
"Even if someone catches the drone" -- well, that seems pretty much like a 100% certainty, for a drone whose stated goal is to crash head-first into something every single time it is used.
Frankly, this sounds like a laughable idea borne in tinfoil hat country. There are much simpler, stealthier ways to kill someone.
Stutter and strobing are different things entirely to artifacts.
So "manufacturer's claims" are more accurate than "person who was actually there's claims", eh? After all, you haven't seen these supposed logs, and nor has anyone else. All we have is the word of the one person who has the most self-interest of all in this matter, and who has shown himself to be utterly disingenuous in the past to boot. Your fanboyism is duly noted....
It doesn't help that the technique is also *very* prone to artifacts, and those artifacts would differ per eye, making them even more noticeable in 3D.
Both of you have likely paid for those ads many times over already without realizing. You were just paying for ads in the form of product placement, instead of standalone ads...
Except that buses have predefined routes, allowing the road and signposting quality to be better controlled, and perhaps even technology built into the road itself. And bus drivers are employees who could, if needed, be subjected to regular testing and training on the capabilities of their systems, and perhaps even subjected to real-time monitoring to ensure they're not abusing the system. Agree or not, but public transport is a much better-controlled environment for a system like this.
...he said, anonymously and without a single citation to back that up. Care to show a single incorrect statement I made in that post?
I've yet to see any car manufacturer other than Tesla irresponsibly brand them as "autopilot", a name which implies to the almighty unwashed that the car is capable of driving itself. This is a nightmare entirely of Tesla's own making.
Yes, the idiots should be prosecuted. However, that doesn't help the fact that innocent third-parties could be maimed or killed in accidents with these idiots, and that the manufacturers should have known better than to put such half-baked systems in their vehicles in the first place, let alone declared end-users on public roads capable of performing beta-testing of such systems for them. You can be damned sure if a Tesla driver hits my car when using autopilot, I will be suing not just them, but also Tesla. And frankly, Tesla's choice of name is not helping matters here.
As for public transport, I didn't mean to imply it could mitigate *every* issue -- but it can mitigate many. When you have predefined routes, it is easier to ensure those routes have adequate road surface quality, lane and road markings, signposting, etc. Hell, you can even within the bounds of feasibility make alterations to those roads to ensure they are as appropriate as possible for autonomous driving. But when you have an entire interstate system (and eventually, an entire country's road network) to contend with, that's a MUCH tougher challenge.
Because they're operating solely on hype. Bells and whistles and form-before-function design are what generate hype. If anything, expect any negative publicity from these incidents to cause Tesla to double-down on the hype, and therefore, on the bells and whistles. (In fact, based on Musk's utterly disingenuous and insupportable claims about the number of people who would be saved if Tesla's autopilot function were standard in every car, they're already doubling down on it.)
Here's hoping it *does* mess everything up for semi-autonomous systems like Tesla's. These belong in public transport, where you have a relatively controlled environment running down predetermined routes where outside factors can be mitigated, and where the drivers are employees who can be regularly trained and tested on their knowledge of the system's capabilities. An autopilot function makes sense in, say, a bus.
Where it most definitely does not make sense is in passenger cars, where the moronic part of our population (that is, most of it) will assume it to be far more capable than it really is, and who will choose simply to ignore the system once it is operating. In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.
With a little luck, Tesla's idiotic hype will ensure that the failures of these systems get enough publicity to regulate them out of being until such time as we are able to create a system that can run reliably in all conditions and on all road types. Leave the tech whizbang crap where it belongs in public transport, and get it out of passenger cars, please!
I'm genuinely curious: What disaster? As far as I was aware, Google and Nestle both got boatloads of publicity out of that naming choice. I don't remember any headlines suggesting otherwise. Where was the disaster?
I'd be willing to bet that Tesla's subsidies aren't small on a per-vehicle basis. Total production of all vehicles worldwide for Tesla is a paltry 125k -- that would be just 4.5 *days* production for Toyota -- and yet in Nevada alone Tesla scored US$1.25 *billion* in subsidies two years ago, much of them front-loaded. That's US$10,000 per vehicle they'd made to date *and* in most of the following two years after the deal was signed thru today.
And that's just one of the subsidies from which Tesla and Musk are profiting. Another is the federal tax subsidy that's putting US$7,500 of yours and my tax dollars per vehicle sold in Tesla's pocket, and which will likely continue to do so through 2018: http://bgr.com/2016/02/12/tesl... -- and there are others, too.
These ones:
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/...
US$725M: 20-year 100% sales tax abatement
US$332M: 10-year 100% property tax abatement
US$120M: Transferable tax credits
US$75M: $12,500 per job transferable tax credits (6,000 jobs)
US$27M: 10-year 100% modified business tax abatement
US$8M: Discounted electricity rates for eight years
Quick question, so we know if you're a partisan moron with a major case of dual standards: How many posts of yours (prior to this one, please) can you point to requesting an investigation of Colin Powell, and for all his emails to be handed over to the FBI? After all, he too used his own private email server for government business, including content which has since been reclassified.
None? You've not protested Powell's actions a single time, you say?
Yeah, I thought so. It's only bad if it's a lib doing it, amirite?
As noted in a reply above, the payroll taxes, insurance, etc. will now need to be paid to the highly-skilled robot tech instead of the unskilled burger-assembler. Also, you're assuming that one robot alone will be able to replace the entire staff of the store. (That's almost certainly not accurate.)
And you assume that the stores will also be going take-out only, otherwise you still need HVAC, restrooms and space. And either cleaning robots capable of dealing with humans' sometimes-disgusting habits, or human employees to do the cleaning part, still.
Also, it's rather an interesting assumption that the person capable of repairing these magical, majestic robots will find their job so easy and unskilled that they'll actually be minimum wage. That, again, seems rather unlikely.
You're right that nobody will be spitting in your food, though. They'll be dripping machine oil into it, instead. Mind you, somebody in one of the suppliers could still be spitting in the raw ingredients or on the pre-prepared items (buns, patties, etc.)
Nope, but it was represented as one robot replacing one person, so I continued that logic. However, given that most restaurant business happens in three relatively short periods (and that most fast food employees are part-time), the eight-hour day for the human is already overkill. The robot will be sitting idle most of the day, just as the few humans manning the restaurant outside of peak hours already are.
All of which will be applicable to the service techs.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. $70k is the equivalent of 2 1/3 years of a $15/hour wage (eight hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year). So even in a perfect world, it'd take 2 1/3 years to break even, assuming you can only replace one employee's job with each robot. And that also assumes that your robots never need maintenance, adjustment, calibration, cleaning etc., nor do they use any power or consumables.
That's a pretty unlikely scenario, to be honest. Far more likely is that your two robots will set you back the equivalent of around three years before you've saved a cent. After all, while you got rid of the unskilled labor to assemble burgers, you replaced it with skilled labor to maintain the robots, and you probably have to pay that skilled labor for their travel time and expenses servicing robots at many, many locations around the country. (No single location or district is going to provide sufficient work for the robot techs to live locally, so they'll be traveling to and from your stores for a large proportion of their time.) If much maintenance, calibration or cleaning is needed at all, you'll find the projected cost savings quickly vanishes.
And then what's the service life of the robots? Answer that, and you'll know whether this is going to be worth the PR downside. If a robot lasts ten years and pays for itself in three, you've got a good argument for phasing out the meat puppets it replaces. If it takes three years to pay off, but you're having to replace it after just four or five due to its service life or obsolescence, well, that's another matter entirely.
But then all of this is pulling numbers out of our butts -- both on your part and mine -- and has little to do with the real world.
No, it's not impossible. They're quite capable of updating all code which they authored, and pushing those updates themselves. They're also quite capable of changing their licensing terms such that all manufacturer cruft must be installed as user-removable apps, and the manufacturers are quite capable of complying.
Would it take some work to institute this? Definitely. Would it be much better for end users? Without question. Will it ever happen? Unlikely in the next 3-5 years, I'd guess, and in part that's because of apologism and complacency from those who should know better, but aren't pushing them to make it happen.
Oh, they have control over it if they want it. They just choose to ignore the users' demands for a proper OS which can update itself to close off security exploits. Instead, they leave security in the hands of manufacturers and carriers, both of whom have a vested interest in not updating because a) it saves them money, and b) it forces users to upgrade to the next shiny new handset a bit earlier.
The Seamless Updates feature is a beautiful example of how tone-deaf Google has become. Even if you're on one of the tiny handful of devices which get monthly security updates, updating was hardly a big pain point to begin with -- you lose access to your device for perhaps 15-25 minutes, once a month and at a time of your choosing. (In other words, you tell the thing to update right before you go to sleep, and don't even notice the downtime.)
And for most users, you don't even get monthly updates -- you get perhaps one or two updates per year, if you're lucky. So updating was an even more miniscule concern. What Seamless Updates will actually do is cause a significantly greater pain point for users of the many Android phones out there with relatively minimal built-in memory, and quite possibly no MicroSD card slot either. Those users will now find themselves with even less available space on their devices, all to save them probably a lot less than three or four hours of downtime during the entire life of their phone or tablet.
And absolutely nothing has been done to address the real issue: An over-reliance on manufacturers and carriers who hold up updates needlessly for months on end, or never even provide them at all.
Nor does taking the carrier out of the equation buying unlocked devices necessarily help much, either. My unlocked Sony Xperia Z2 sat for 4.5 *months* between Sony releasing a Stagefright 2.0 fix in some markets, and bothering to release that same patch in my own market. No carriers involved at all: Sony sat with its thumb up its butt for more than six months after Google provided it with the code to fix what's among the biggest Android exploits to date, and 4.5 months after it had already implemented the fix. And Sony is hardly alone in this attitude: My understanding is that Samsung also take ages to provide updates, if they provide them at all, and the same was true of the HTC devices I owned before this Sony.
Google really needs to get its act together and bring security updates entirely in-house.
This one ticks all the boxes:
* Unknown startup company
* Huge claims
* Big PR push
* IndieGogo campaign
Smart money says this either ships way late and barely functional, or never ships at all and the creator gets a nice new vacation home in France, Spain or Italy. Translating audio in real time is a fool's errand.
Pay attention the next time you're dictating using, say, Google's voice recognition, or you're watching automatically-generated closed captions on an unscripted TV show. (Sports commentary is a nice example.) You will *frequently* see the transcription change after the fact, replacing one or more words with others that are totally different.
If you claim to be transcribing and translating in anything approaching real time, that can't happen. Once you've said the wrong word, you've blown the meaning of the sentence. Correcting it in audio will take time, by which point you've missed (or are lagging further behind) the actual conversation. Or more likely (if this ever reaches market) your conversation is riddled with uncorrected errors and you have barely any understanding of what's actually being said.
I doubt it will ever even reach this point, though. Chances are good no product ever ships, but the money is taken regardless.
a) those addons and changes can still be made by the manufacturer -- just separately from how the OS itself is delivered. You know, exactly what happens on numerous other platforms already, and has for decades. b) Google would be in no hotter water if it took on the updating. They're only in hot water in places where it matters -- such as giving themselves an advantage with their preinstalled browser, preinstalled search boxes, etc. The manufacturers would almost certainly prefer it too, actually, in the long run. It would save them money and work on updating, after all. They just don't want to be the ones to go first into that bold new future.
You do realize it's possible to update an OS without updating drivers, right? And that if there's a flaw in the drivers, the manufacturer can still patch them? This is an utterly specious argument.