If there's something in her physiology which makes the pill less effective then the second failure is much, much, much more likely.
If there's something in her physiology which makes the pill less effective, then the first failure is also much, much, much more likely... you just didn't know to use the revised statistic the first time round.
And yet a cheque allows an individuals to pay other individuals without any infrastructure needed apart from a pre-issued cheque book and access to a bank branch or a post box.
cheques are a painfully slow method of payment but nothing beats them for occasional payment to people who don't normally receive money, everything from individual to individual, to one off small scale charity payments. For example; I can't see the village church taking debit or credit cards for an emergency roof fixing fund but I could see donations being bigger than the amount of cash someone normally carries around with them.
Electronic payments need local readers and telecommunications which mean significant upfront investment for small scale, short term events
even if it's just the pilot, that signal will be a "new" one, which pops up in an area that is of interest, as it will have a line of sight access to the areas being protected.
Unless:
the pilot thought to install a remote camera meaning the drone itself isn't emitting anything, just receiving while the pilot is still in WiFi range but not necessarily in an area with a line of sight.
or connect the drone to a WiFi access point and control from somewhere more remote, making the drone more detectable (it's now transmitting) but the operator much harder to find quickly
If the drone is really a threat, as opposed to just a drone being somewhere it's not meant to be, then you have to assume the operator will take basic steps to increase the time until they are found.
True, but the question wasn't what sort of career you could choose that can't be replaced by robots. It was what sort of career you could choose that couldn't readily be replaced by a human on the other side of the planet
But what's the point of jumping to a new career to avoid potential threats to your current career if you don't consider the potential threats to the career you are jumping to
Outsourcing is a real threat to knowledge based jobs and automation is a real threat to low skilled (although the bar for skills safe from automation is constantly rising) jobs which need to be done locally. The sort of job you might switch to to avoid Outsourcing will eventually be threatened by automation.
After a number of high profile cases have been dropped due to prosecutors not being allowed to explain how the device works in court. It's become a very expensive evidence gathering tool which can't be used to collect usable evidence.
This isn't a blow against secret terms of use, it's a business decision to not buy something which can't be used for it's intended purpose.
They'll spin round, walk out and go to the outfit down the street - or on the other side of the world.
...and talk to your competition who are now exposed to exactly the same risk you feared you were taking on yourself. If anything, I'd say that was a good thing, because you are able to lose a competitor.
customer expectation management, that tends to be a good thing for the real techies.
Those good negotiators you are hoping will be promoted out of harms way are exactly the sort of person who tells the customer anything is possible and then leaving the small details like actually implementing the feature up to the techies.
All Ellen Pao is doing here is guaranteeing overpayment for mediocre workers. Think about it. To get the best talent she'll have to pay top dollar. But that doesn't guarantee everyone hired is top talent.
If you read the summary carefully, they are not stating a salary value for a job in advance of making a offer to someone.
They are interviewing and then making an offer they feel is appropriate for that interviewee, that means that they can still adjust the offer based on the person in front of them (and who is to say the hiring managers don't offer less to women?). All thats changed is that the offer is set in stone, the interviewee either takes it or leaves it.
This scheme will live or die on how well they predict the job market for the roles they are hiring for but I don't see how it really addresses the stated goal of equalizing pay ranges between genders.
For eg., what was his reason for serving cold food?
Top Gear had hired most of a small hotel for a filming shoot. The shoot went on longer than expected and when they got back to the hotel they found the kitchen was closed. Not exactly unexpectedly since the kitchen open hours were stated.
So the idea that this was somehow a conspiracy by the producer to get Clarkson fired seems like a stretch unless you think he deliberately delayed the shoot so they would get back after the kitchen was closed.
literary mafia who wouldn't know a decent book if it was tattooed onto their backsides.
To be fair, assuming the decent book had to be read with a mirror, then the entire tattoo would have to be written backwards which is very error prone and curves and saggy skin will make it likely that sentences will be unreadable so identifying a decent book under those circumstances is really hard.
My understanding of those robot turrets is that they can identify human shaped targets and lock on, but they can't tell friend or foe so their default operating mode is to wait for an operator to give a fire order by feeding the video stream back to a console
They can be left in full auto mode in case of all out attack but in that mode they a just an area denial weapon, more technology than a land mine but no less indiscriminate.
So although they are a robotic weapon system with the ability to decide whether or not to fire by itself, it's not what most people think about when they talk about a fully autonomous weapon system in which a system can make strategic decisions about how to complete an arbitrary objective.
You don't always get to choose where you get attacked. As someone pointed out further up the threads, imagine someone got even a few 10s of these drones into a US city, each one carrying 1 hand grenade and the waypoint at which to drop it and then to return to collect more grenades - especially if the pick up is automated as well so you don't have to be there when they find that pickup location.
Only looking for the most destructive defense possible limits the locations where the defense can be deployed. Basically, you are trying to defend in active warzones, while the most obvious place for a mass of drones would be high density population centers well away from active warzones because that's where they would be more affective.
You would use a massed drone attack because you don't control the land you are attacking, you'd get within drone range, hit the attack button then retreat.
That means from a defense point of view, you are going to be facing a massed drone attack at low altitude over Forward Operating Bases, Friendly Populations etc. Is that where you want to be firing frag shells into the air? You'd cause more damage than the drones would have.
It's been mentioned above, but shot would seem the obvious answer, limited range but that range limit is what you'd want to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.
Radar tracks the trajectory of the mortar round, calculates it's original (since it's only a ballistic flight arc, that is trivial) and can feed that co-ordinate back to friendly units instantly
With automated fire control system, the return fire is normally in the air before you fire the second round.
After all, human being the designer of the AI, everything the AI does (thinks, calculates, ponders, measures, decision making, everything) it is a poor copy of human thought process
Everything a human does is limited by our biology, there is a limit to how quickly we can be trained, with more advanced subjects taking ever longer to understand. For example, whats the average age to acquire a PhD?
There is a limit to how much information we store for processing, and a limit to how quickly more information can be fed in.
The beauty of an AI system is the system can be designed from the ground up avoid the restrictions we have. Even if it were true that human's couldn't create something smarter than us, we certainly can create something which matches our intelligence but without the hardware restrictions we have ourselves.
2. There are two reasons why America's work force has gained skill at a slower rate than in the past --
A. The new immigrants to America are simply not as smart as the immigrants that moved to America decades ago
Previous waves of immigrants to America came from Europe
Current waves of immigrants who land on American soil came from Latin America and the Islamic countries
Bollocks, the first waves of mass immigration into America were from Europes poorest groups, low education, subsistence farmers in a lot of cases or groups with poor relationships to local authorities for whatever reason.
I'm not sure how you plan to measure the gain in skills between people now and then, unless there were lots of scientific studies conducted back then to record how long a new skill takes to learn which can be repeated now.
If you think about it, that was always going to be the outcome.
There is a cost to hiring, training and retaining each employee, so if advances in technology made a task which required 2 men a week to complete, can now be done with 1 man in the same time, it will be cheaper to have 1 man work full time rather than 2 men work part time.
The more specialized the job, and hence the more training needed, the more that is true.
In tasks where the training requirement is very low, you have zero hour contracts being increasingly used. It has higher hiring costs, but the training costs are low and the retaining costs are pretty much non-existent.
As a result of it being cheaper to hire one highly skilled employee full time, but cheaper to hire many lower skilled employee's part/no time, you end up with a growing divide between the bottom and top, with those in the middle get dragged either up or or down and slowly the middle is removed entirely.
Either they totally overestimated the speeding issue, or they underestimated the dissuasive effect of those cameras (which means they work actually pretty well... assuming they are correctly placed).
In both cases, a data set of vehicle speed at the site in the year before and after the cameras were introduced would be very useful.
Case 1: No change in traffic speed
Case 2: Dramatic reduction in traffic speed
Assuming they had that data set.
Case 1: would be kept as quiet as possible because it means the camera were either not needed for safety or not put in for safety.
Case 2: would be shouted from the rooftops (from both the local authority and the company running the scheme) because it would have shown a positive safety effect which is how these scheme are always sold as being a benefit to the community.
I know it's unlikely, but if the shore was made up largely of vertical walls rather than slopes, then a tide wouldn't change the shore line much but could reveal sub surface shelves.
The system and safety protocols are working precisely as they were designed.
Actually, the faults were found by chance, there wasn't a specific check for this which could be scheduled and signed off, it was just an engineer noticed something odd while doing other inspections.
So while you are right in that this is not a huge safety issue and we weren't minutes from disaster, I wouldn't agree that the system and safety protocols are particularly brilliant either.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's something in her physiology which makes the pill less effective, then the first failure is also much, much, much more likely... you just didn't know to use the revised statistic the first time round.
And yet a cheque allows an individuals to pay other individuals without any infrastructure needed apart from a pre-issued cheque book and access to a bank branch or a post box.
cheques are a painfully slow method of payment but nothing beats them for occasional payment to people who don't normally receive money, everything from individual to individual, to one off small scale charity payments. For example; I can't see the village church taking debit or credit cards for an emergency roof fixing fund but I could see donations being bigger than the amount of cash someone normally carries around with them.
Electronic payments need local readers and telecommunications which mean significant upfront investment for small scale, short term events
Unless:
If the drone is really a threat, as opposed to just a drone being somewhere it's not meant to be, then you have to assume the operator will take basic steps to increase the time until they are found.
But what's the point of jumping to a new career to avoid potential threats to your current career if you don't consider the potential threats to the career you are jumping to
Outsourcing is a real threat to knowledge based jobs and automation is a real threat to low skilled (although the bar for skills safe from automation is constantly rising) jobs which need to be done locally. The sort of job you might switch to to avoid Outsourcing will eventually be threatened by automation.
After a number of high profile cases have been dropped due to prosecutors not being allowed to explain how the device works in court. It's become a very expensive evidence gathering tool which can't be used to collect usable evidence.
This isn't a blow against secret terms of use, it's a business decision to not buy something which can't be used for it's intended purpose.
Hypermiling?
Do you think there is much powerline networking going on in Nepal right now?
That depends entirely on the source of CO2
I don't think sociopathic is the word you are looking for there. Although I can't find the right word to replace it.
That's why I'd go with optical storage in the safety deposit box, well defined standards that any optical drive in the world can read later on.
Those good negotiators you are hoping will be promoted out of harms way are exactly the sort of person who tells the customer anything is possible and then leaving the small details like actually implementing the feature up to the techies.
That's not a good thing for real techies.
If you read the summary carefully, they are not stating a salary value for a job in advance of making a offer to someone.
They are interviewing and then making an offer they feel is appropriate for that interviewee, that means that they can still adjust the offer based on the person in front of them (and who is to say the hiring managers don't offer less to women?). All thats changed is that the offer is set in stone, the interviewee either takes it or leaves it.
This scheme will live or die on how well they predict the job market for the roles they are hiring for but I don't see how it really addresses the stated goal of equalizing pay ranges between genders.
Top Gear had hired most of a small hotel for a filming shoot. The shoot went on longer than expected and when they got back to the hotel they found the kitchen was closed. Not exactly unexpectedly since the kitchen open hours were stated.
So the idea that this was somehow a conspiracy by the producer to get Clarkson fired seems like a stretch unless you think he deliberately delayed the shoot so they would get back after the kitchen was closed.
To be fair, assuming the decent book had to be read with a mirror, then the entire tattoo would have to be written backwards which is very error prone and curves and saggy skin will make it likely that sentences will be unreadable so identifying a decent book under those circumstances is really hard.
My understanding of those robot turrets is that they can identify human shaped targets and lock on, but they can't tell friend or foe so their default operating mode is to wait for an operator to give a fire order by feeding the video stream back to a console
They can be left in full auto mode in case of all out attack but in that mode they a just an area denial weapon, more technology than a land mine but no less indiscriminate.
So although they are a robotic weapon system with the ability to decide whether or not to fire by itself, it's not what most people think about when they talk about a fully autonomous weapon system in which a system can make strategic decisions about how to complete an arbitrary objective.
You don't always get to choose where you get attacked. As someone pointed out further up the threads, imagine someone got even a few 10s of these drones into a US city, each one carrying 1 hand grenade and the waypoint at which to drop it and then to return to collect more grenades - especially if the pick up is automated as well so you don't have to be there when they find that pickup location.
Only looking for the most destructive defense possible limits the locations where the defense can be deployed. Basically, you are trying to defend in active warzones, while the most obvious place for a mass of drones would be high density population centers well away from active warzones because that's where they would be more affective.
You would use a massed drone attack because you don't control the land you are attacking, you'd get within drone range, hit the attack button then retreat.
That means from a defense point of view, you are going to be facing a massed drone attack at low altitude over Forward Operating Bases, Friendly Populations etc. Is that where you want to be firing frag shells into the air? You'd cause more damage than the drones would have.
It's been mentioned above, but shot would seem the obvious answer, limited range but that range limit is what you'd want to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.
You don't have someone come look for you.
Radar tracks the trajectory of the mortar round, calculates it's original (since it's only a ballistic flight arc, that is trivial) and can feed that co-ordinate back to friendly units instantly
With automated fire control system, the return fire is normally in the air before you fire the second round.
Who says language has to be vocal?
Everything a human does is limited by our biology, there is a limit to how quickly we can be trained, with more advanced subjects taking ever longer to understand. For example, whats the average age to acquire a PhD?
There is a limit to how much information we store for processing, and a limit to how quickly more information can be fed in.
The beauty of an AI system is the system can be designed from the ground up avoid the restrictions we have. Even if it were true that human's couldn't create something smarter than us, we certainly can create something which matches our intelligence but without the hardware restrictions we have ourselves.
Bollocks, the first waves of mass immigration into America were from Europes poorest groups, low education, subsistence farmers in a lot of cases or groups with poor relationships to local authorities for whatever reason.
I'm not sure how you plan to measure the gain in skills between people now and then, unless there were lots of scientific studies conducted back then to record how long a new skill takes to learn which can be repeated now.
If you think about it, that was always going to be the outcome.
There is a cost to hiring, training and retaining each employee, so if advances in technology made a task which required 2 men a week to complete, can now be done with 1 man in the same time, it will be cheaper to have 1 man work full time rather than 2 men work part time.
The more specialized the job, and hence the more training needed, the more that is true.
In tasks where the training requirement is very low, you have zero hour contracts being increasingly used. It has higher hiring costs, but the training costs are low and the retaining costs are pretty much non-existent.
As a result of it being cheaper to hire one highly skilled employee full time, but cheaper to hire many lower skilled employee's part/no time, you end up with a growing divide between the bottom and top, with those in the middle get dragged either up or or down and slowly the middle is removed entirely.
In both cases, a data set of vehicle speed at the site in the year before and after the cameras were introduced would be very useful.
Case 1: No change in traffic speed
Case 2: Dramatic reduction in traffic speed
Assuming they had that data set.
Case 1: would be kept as quiet as possible because it means the camera were either not needed for safety or not put in for safety.
Case 2: would be shouted from the rooftops (from both the local authority and the company running the scheme) because it would have shown a positive safety effect which is how these scheme are always sold as being a benefit to the community.
I know it's unlikely, but if the shore was made up largely of vertical walls rather than slopes, then a tide wouldn't change the shore line much but could reveal sub surface shelves.
Actually, the faults were found by chance, there wasn't a specific check for this which could be scheduled and signed off, it was just an engineer noticed something odd while doing other inspections.
So while you are right in that this is not a huge safety issue and we weren't minutes from disaster, I wouldn't agree that the system and safety protocols are particularly brilliant either.