In China the law is a little different, it's hard for them to understand Western law.
Canadian officials said something similar when China asked to have the accused Huawei executive handed back to China immediately.
Canadian officials kept emphasizing their separation of powers requires that the courts finish their job, barring some national emergency. In the Chinese system, if the leader(s) say "do X" you do X, no questions asked. Business hierarchies there are similar, I hear, at least more so than the USA.
To be fair, it was probably Kodak's safest decision. If they went digital earlier, they may have turned the industry into an electronics-centric battle, which was not their area of expertise. It's hard to just change your spots. I suspect they'd be doomed either way. Their number was simply up.
Near-monopolies have a hard time competing on merit alone when the market changes. They get slow and bloated and there's no sure-shot recipe to debloat a behemoth. Microsoft keeps losing on new products that don't/can't leverage ties to Windows standards.
The invention of the GUI and mouse to the extreme liability of putting a driverless car on the streets.
RSI sufferers may disagree. Keyboards spread the load between hands better, and arguably require less body movement if the keyboard-centric interface is designed well.
It's dangerous enough out there driving sober, or being a pedestrian. Just too chaotic to toss a machine into the mix.
I expect bots will be driving safer than the average human soon, but bot-involved accidents get heavy negative press. People afraid of bots taking their jobs or just taking over in general seem eager to see bots fail. The security bot slipping into the water fountain made international headlines.
Ironically, some were bashing "California big-gov't regulation" when Uber moved from CA to AZ after CA officials wanted more safety-related info. Then the AZ collision happened, and most of the same people went silent.
I believe Wymo learned that the lawsuit and bad P/R risk is very high in their industry, and thus decided to take the careful approach.
Some slick-sounding startup may look like they are pulling ahead, until their crashes make the news and sink their stock. The careful approach is the best route in my opinion, no pun intended.
It's not that we are inherently trustworthy, it's that we have a mostly open system so that our flaws are likely to be eventually found out such that we have to keep ourselves in check.
If you can get away with bad deeds, you will most likely increase your bad deeds. That's Human Nature 101. Checks and balances matter, and that generally requires openness, something China & Russia lack.
That definition implies it's corrupt by design. Alternative definitions say something like, "controlled by the mutual interaction between buyers and sellers". Ownership is not a key factor in such, beyond owning money & goods to buy and sell with.
Their argument seems to be "Apollo astronauts discovered new things, therefore astronauts are better." However, bots have also discovered new things.
Most important lunar discoveries have been from analyzing the samples returned to the Earth, not things the astronauts actually did on the moon. Bots can return far more samples per dollar.
Lets do a example out of a story I once read. If opportunity had rolled up on a patch of land and found a set of tracks, how far could opportunity follow those tracks? A human team could do so immediately.
So what if it took several weeks or months to investigate? Got time. The rocks etc. have been there for millions of years; they aren't going anywhere. A one-year bot exploration time for $20 mil is a better bargain than a two-week astronaut exploration for $100 mil. And bot eyes can see more "colors".
If you mean chasing down a walking alien, okay, you won.
It's possible the dust storm coated it heavily, and a whirlwind will clean the rover one of these days and it will be functional. It's also possible the timer/clock got mis-set such that broadcasts are not arriving at the expected time.
The problem with both scenarios is that nobody may be listening when it does talk. There was mention of NASA occasionally listening in, but I haven't seen confirmation. I wonder if amature radio astronomers could detect its signal?
The bot-vs-man debate can be long and involved such that I won't reinvent those details here. I'm of the opinion that bots give more science per dollar, and are of course less risky to humans.
There are indeed some things astronauts do better than remote bots, but the reverse is also true, and if you weigh it all, bots just come out on top when you "add the scores".
But "glory" also matters to most people, for good or bad, and human visitors provide that. I hope someday we'll have the resources to do both because they can complement each other: bots better at broad surveys and humans better at feedback-driven dissection of specific sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Canadian officials said something similar when China asked to have the accused Huawei executive handed back to China immediately.
Canadian officials kept emphasizing their separation of powers requires that the courts finish their job, barring some national emergency. In the Chinese system, if the leader(s) say "do X" you do X, no questions asked. Business hierarchies there are similar, I hear, at least more so than the USA.
To be fair, it was probably Kodak's safest decision. If they went digital earlier, they may have turned the industry into an electronics-centric battle, which was not their area of expertise. It's hard to just change your spots. I suspect they'd be doomed either way. Their number was simply up.
Near-monopolies have a hard time competing on merit alone when the market changes. They get slow and bloated and there's no sure-shot recipe to debloat a behemoth. Microsoft keeps losing on new products that don't/can't leverage ties to Windows standards.
RSI sufferers may disagree. Keyboards spread the load between hands better, and arguably require less body movement if the keyboard-centric interface is designed well.
I expect bots will be driving safer than the average human soon, but bot-involved accidents get heavy negative press. People afraid of bots taking their jobs or just taking over in general seem eager to see bots fail. The security bot slipping into the water fountain made international headlines.
Ironically, some were bashing "California big-gov't regulation" when Uber moved from CA to AZ after CA officials wanted more safety-related info. Then the AZ collision happened, and most of the same people went silent.
I believe Wymo learned that the lawsuit and bad P/R risk is very high in their industry, and thus decided to take the careful approach.
Some slick-sounding startup may look like they are pulling ahead, until their crashes make the news and sink their stock. The careful approach is the best route in my opinion, no pun intended.
It's not that we are inherently trustworthy, it's that we have a mostly open system so that our flaws are likely to be eventually found out such that we have to keep ourselves in check.
If you can get away with bad deeds, you will most likely increase your bad deeds. That's Human Nature 101. Checks and balances matter, and that generally requires openness, something China & Russia lack.
"We take your privacy seriously, but profits even more seriously."
For one, his eyebrows went funny. They weren't like that during his "skinny" days.
I think the anti-caravan/wall lobbyists got there first.
A lot of their arguments seem to be that small companies are less ethical than large ones.
What the hell did Carrot Top do to his face? It's spaced out.
It's not mutually exclusive.
That definition implies it's corrupt by design. Alternative definitions say something like, "controlled by the mutual interaction between buyers and sellers". Ownership is not a key factor in such, beyond owning money & goods to buy and sell with.
Poke-e-mon.
Imagin what wud happin if Slahsdot let us fix are typos.
Chiwawas will evolve to say "meow".
Bits are getting more expensive and bigger. My chips turned into vacuum tubes.
They may not care; take the immediate money and retire to a fat mansion. To them, it's somebody else's problem.
CNN snuck doctored slides into the microscopes, fake news!
Their argument seems to be "Apollo astronauts discovered new things, therefore astronauts are better." However, bots have also discovered new things.
Most important lunar discoveries have been from analyzing the samples returned to the Earth, not things the astronauts actually did on the moon. Bots can return far more samples per dollar.
So what if it took several weeks or months to investigate? Got time. The rocks etc. have been there for millions of years; they aren't going anywhere. A one-year bot exploration time for $20 mil is a better bargain than a two-week astronaut exploration for $100 mil. And bot eyes can see more "colors".
If you mean chasing down a walking alien, okay, you won.
It's possible the dust storm coated it heavily, and a whirlwind will clean the rover one of these days and it will be functional. It's also possible the timer/clock got mis-set such that broadcasts are not arriving at the expected time.
The problem with both scenarios is that nobody may be listening when it does talk. There was mention of NASA occasionally listening in, but I haven't seen confirmation. I wonder if amature radio astronomers could detect its signal?
The bot-vs-man debate can be long and involved such that I won't reinvent those details here. I'm of the opinion that bots give more science per dollar, and are of course less risky to humans.
There are indeed some things astronauts do better than remote bots, but the reverse is also true, and if you weigh it all, bots just come out on top when you "add the scores".
But "glory" also matters to most people, for good or bad, and human visitors provide that. I hope someday we'll have the resources to do both because they can complement each other: bots better at broad surveys and humans better at feedback-driven dissection of specific sites.
It "worked" for the Orange CEO.
"Sorry, Dave, I cannot open heaven's gate bay doors."