Let's talk about the now shall we? Traffic data is available today, but it's not precise enough to make decisions like the ones I gave examples of. It sees the semi because it's right next to it. If it sees the car on the ramp at all, it's registered as a small, dim cluster of points by lidar - *if* it has lidar. In any case, would you rely on it to notice that you need to move out of the way in the next 4 seconds to allow the semi to move over? I wouldn't. Maybe that's actually in there, I don't know. Considering the example in the summary, you can't fault me for doubting it. It knows the speed of cars captured in it's radar, but without mandating that every car contain a networked black box, it won't know the speed of anything else. Maybe it'll know about roadway obstructions, maybe it won't. Google seems good about knowing when a section of freeway is under construction, but what about everything else?
I'll grant you that it's within the realm of the possible, but right now, these self driving cars don't need to be on the road. In the future, don't count on your AI being perfect when the corporations that develop them are satisfied with a profit/loss informed "good enough." Think about it, these guys are perfectly fine cutting corners during testing. You don't really think it'll stop there do you?
Recently I had a scenario in which a car was trying to merge on a four lane freeway. I was passing a semi when I noticed this car coming up the ramp ahead. It's doubtful to me that a computer would think to accelerate an additional 20 MPH to get out of the way of a semi that wants to get out of the way of a car. As far as it's sensors could probably tell, there wasn't any threat of a collision, just a turn signal from a vehicle that it's passing anyway. However, I was aware the ramp was short, the semi long, and that an accelerating car up ahead needed somewhere to go. Either it would need to slow down, which is dangerous, or I would need to get out of the way.
It wasn't even a close call. No individual was in any real danger so long as they remained aware of their surroundings. But I think of self driving cars in situations like that. I don't expect them to take an preemptive evasive action, especially ones that don't follow the rules (speeding, for example). They say you don't just drive for yourself, you drive for others. Anticipating what they want and what they're aware of can go a long way towards preventing a tragedy. You can for instance, determine when someone's about to change lanes even if they never use signal. Yet as far as AI is concerned, you and everyone else are billiard balls with a set vector. There's probably no thought made regarding intent.
Even if AI could one day handle that, there are other situations that are either uncommon or unique to a specific location in which a ride would benefit from a human touch. I know that during rush hour, while driving East on a specific street near my job, I need to be in the right lane because most people on the other one are going to be trying to turn left towards the restaurants and homes there. Traffic builds up during this time such that you will want to change lanes anyway. However, if you're not already in the right lane, someone else is. Thus, by being unfamiliar with the area, or unaware because you're a computer algorithm, you slow traffic for everyone else, you slow your own trip, and you increase the likelihood of causing a fender bender when you try to change into a moving lane from a complete stop.
Driving is social. We're like bees doing a dance. Engineers have a long way to go before they can emulate that dance. I doubt that they'll ever get it just right. Perfection isn't economically viable anyway. It'll be "good enough" when people aren't dying as much in yearly aggregates... just pay no mind to how easily avoidable those deaths will be.
“[The new fuel efficiency proposal] is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule,” the EPA wrote in a press release about the announcement. The EPA said the proposed changes would save 1,000 lives per year.
"The sudden loss of access to previously affordable goods will encourage workers to be more passionate about their career. This will spur the economy further and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor." - government analyst probably.
Goes to show that corporations are people only when it's convenient. It's bullshit otherwise. In any case, I have a hard time worrying too much about them. They'll manage. Instead I'm wondering how slippery that slope is, and when they'll start threatening to break individuals.
I bet the chance of a massacre increases with the population size of a gathering. Therefore: either boost security or reduce capacity. This isn't exactly rocket science, we know how to secure large venues.
What good are values you're not willing to suffer for? The whole point is to do what you think is right in spite of temptation or fear.
It's what bothers me the most about Republicans today - even if I disagree with them, I can respect a person with grit. You'll have a hard time finding that among their ranks today.
Maybe I was doubly lucky, I had a Media class with a similar professor and had a comparable experience. Granted, I took both classes over ten years ago, but it might be why I don't automatically subscribe to the notion that "Universities are Indoctrinating the Youth!" Academia always gets smack from the types of people who say that. It's nothing new. It's a free country though - they can keep out and professors can keep on doing what they do in accordance to what they think works. So long as this remains the case I don't really care all that much.
As for your experience, I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad one. I had some bad experiences too (hard to understand foreign teachers, one really irritated Iranian who did not appreciate being taped, and one instructor who didn't quite know what she was doing). You gotta take some of the good with some of the bad. Understand that your experience need not be the rule nor the exception. Just know that it's not a zero sum choice between rote memorization and pointless free-for-all: it *can* be good, yes, even liberal arts.
I took an ethics class as part of my CS curriculum. There was a lot of psychology in it, and we weren't graded for approved opinion or how well we memorized the material. What the professor wanted to see was how well we understood what was being taught - and yes your participation is a good way of measuring that. It's like that because a good professor will understand that different opinions are to be expected - so long as you gave it sufficient thought, you're doing good. Not every student wants to do that. Some people just want to be told what the answer is so that they can commit it to memory and regurgitate it later - these are most in need of such classes.
Can you imagine being arrested on suspicion of a serious crime because 30 minutes prior to the crime, in the "walking distance" proximity, you bought a pack of gum with your implant (or your debit card, or your smartphone)?
That happens already without the sci-fi scenario. It comes with a non-zero chance of being killed, and subsequently having your name dragged in the mud by the media.
This might sound weird coming from a Democrat, but I'll tell you: don't Jedi Mind Trick yourself into voting for something you don't agree with just because you're mad. Neither of us are really represented by any mainstream party. In our case perhaps it's best to vote for independent-minded individuals when they have a chance, and "lesser evils" when they don't. That doesn't fix anything sure, but the truth is that nothing can fix it.
The American quality of life will continue to deteriorate with the procured leadership selection that we have. We're just stalling for time. Time is valuable. It means we can better prepare and adapt to these changes. Maybe you won't hit rock bottom when the country does.
You don't need to pay your student loans when you're unemployed. Just file for Income Based Repayment once a year. If your income is zero, then your payment will be zero. There are other options available too, but I'm only familiar with the one that I use.
Though Comcast is my only option, I'm prepared to give up home internet if things get much worse. The neat thing about streaming, cloud DVRs, and such is the fact that you don't really need internet at home, nor an expensive unlimited cellular plan to enjoy it. Just sit in a coffee house for the hour or two you want to watch a show, then go about your business.
It might even be better for us physically and spiritually to remove ourselves from that always-on limitless distraction.
Yeah I experienced some of that - major throttling of YouTube and Netflix under Comcast. At the time, I used my work VPN to get around it (until I was told not to). As a cord-cutter I will be signing up for a commercial VPN within days.
I only watch a couple channels anyway. I get them on Sling and saved $50 a month even considering the cost of the new service. I can probably save more if I downgrade my internet to just above the requirements of HD video streaming.
Slashdot Mirror
"could easily handle", "will have", "it'll have", "is going to have", "it will"
Let's talk about the now shall we? Traffic data is available today, but it's not precise enough to make decisions like the ones I gave examples of. It sees the semi because it's right next to it. If it sees the car on the ramp at all, it's registered as a small, dim cluster of points by lidar - *if* it has lidar. In any case, would you rely on it to notice that you need to move out of the way in the next 4 seconds to allow the semi to move over? I wouldn't. Maybe that's actually in there, I don't know. Considering the example in the summary, you can't fault me for doubting it. It knows the speed of cars captured in it's radar, but without mandating that every car contain a networked black box, it won't know the speed of anything else. Maybe it'll know about roadway obstructions, maybe it won't. Google seems good about knowing when a section of freeway is under construction, but what about everything else?
I'll grant you that it's within the realm of the possible, but right now, these self driving cars don't need to be on the road. In the future, don't count on your AI being perfect when the corporations that develop them are satisfied with a profit/loss informed "good enough." Think about it, these guys are perfectly fine cutting corners during testing. You don't really think it'll stop there do you?
Recently I had a scenario in which a car was trying to merge on a four lane freeway. I was passing a semi when I noticed this car coming up the ramp ahead. It's doubtful to me that a computer would think to accelerate an additional 20 MPH to get out of the way of a semi that wants to get out of the way of a car. As far as it's sensors could probably tell, there wasn't any threat of a collision, just a turn signal from a vehicle that it's passing anyway. However, I was aware the ramp was short, the semi long, and that an accelerating car up ahead needed somewhere to go. Either it would need to slow down, which is dangerous, or I would need to get out of the way.
It wasn't even a close call. No individual was in any real danger so long as they remained aware of their surroundings. But I think of self driving cars in situations like that. I don't expect them to take an preemptive evasive action, especially ones that don't follow the rules (speeding, for example). They say you don't just drive for yourself, you drive for others. Anticipating what they want and what they're aware of can go a long way towards preventing a tragedy. You can for instance, determine when someone's about to change lanes even if they never use signal. Yet as far as AI is concerned, you and everyone else are billiard balls with a set vector. There's probably no thought made regarding intent.
Even if AI could one day handle that, there are other situations that are either uncommon or unique to a specific location in which a ride would benefit from a human touch. I know that during rush hour, while driving East on a specific street near my job, I need to be in the right lane because most people on the other one are going to be trying to turn left towards the restaurants and homes there. Traffic builds up during this time such that you will want to change lanes anyway. However, if you're not already in the right lane, someone else is. Thus, by being unfamiliar with the area, or unaware because you're a computer algorithm, you slow traffic for everyone else, you slow your own trip, and you increase the likelihood of causing a fender bender when you try to change into a moving lane from a complete stop.
Driving is social. We're like bees doing a dance. Engineers have a long way to go before they can emulate that dance. I doubt that they'll ever get it just right. Perfection isn't economically viable anyway. It'll be "good enough" when people aren't dying as much in yearly aggregates... just pay no mind to how easily avoidable those deaths will be.
Step 1. "That'll never happen. You're being overly dramatic."
Step 2. It happens.
Step 3. "He's a different kind of President. You'll just have to accept these kinds of things."
Repeat.
Can't. Where I live, that'd limit my tech purchases to Bestbuy and Walmart.
I can't imagine this hurting anybody but the US consumer
No, it hurts the Trump agenda too.
If you enjoyed that joke, check this one out. The EPA quickly took it down as they found it quite embarrassing.
As reported by Vox:
“[The new fuel efficiency proposal] is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule,” the EPA wrote in a press release about the announcement. The EPA said the proposed changes would save 1,000 lives per year.
No one is really concerned about the debt until Republicans make a fuss. I'll give them credit here. But if they don't care anymore, should we?
The US Dollar is the world reserve currency, so that affords us some margin of safety right? What's the worst that could happen?
"The sudden loss of access to previously affordable goods will encourage workers to be more passionate about their career. This will spur the economy further and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor." - government analyst probably.
Goes to show that corporations are people only when it's convenient. It's bullshit otherwise. In any case, I have a hard time worrying too much about them. They'll manage. Instead I'm wondering how slippery that slope is, and when they'll start threatening to break individuals.
I bet the chance of a massacre increases with the population size of a gathering. Therefore: either boost security or reduce capacity. This isn't exactly rocket science, we know how to secure large venues.
This is called the Color Rendering Index. Old street lamps have a low index, which is why everything beneath it shines a monochromatic orange.
What good are values you're not willing to suffer for? The whole point is to do what you think is right in spite of temptation or fear.
It's what bothers me the most about Republicans today - even if I disagree with them, I can respect a person with grit. You'll have a hard time finding that among their ranks today.
If that's your standard of tolerance you're essentially broken.
Maybe I was doubly lucky, I had a Media class with a similar professor and had a comparable experience. Granted, I took both classes over ten years ago, but it might be why I don't automatically subscribe to the notion that "Universities are Indoctrinating the Youth!" Academia always gets smack from the types of people who say that. It's nothing new. It's a free country though - they can keep out and professors can keep on doing what they do in accordance to what they think works. So long as this remains the case I don't really care all that much.
As for your experience, I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad one. I had some bad experiences too (hard to understand foreign teachers, one really irritated Iranian who did not appreciate being taped, and one instructor who didn't quite know what she was doing). You gotta take some of the good with some of the bad. Understand that your experience need not be the rule nor the exception. Just know that it's not a zero sum choice between rote memorization and pointless free-for-all: it *can* be good, yes, even liberal arts.
As always, AC delivers. (Garbage that is.)
Perhaps people don't value it because most of what they're seeing as a consequence pisses them off.
I took an ethics class as part of my CS curriculum. There was a lot of psychology in it, and we weren't graded for approved opinion or how well we memorized the material. What the professor wanted to see was how well we understood what was being taught - and yes your participation is a good way of measuring that. It's like that because a good professor will understand that different opinions are to be expected - so long as you gave it sufficient thought, you're doing good. Not every student wants to do that. Some people just want to be told what the answer is so that they can commit it to memory and regurgitate it later - these are most in need of such classes.
Can you imagine being arrested on suspicion of a serious crime because 30 minutes prior to the crime, in the "walking distance" proximity, you bought a pack of gum with your implant (or your debit card, or your smartphone)?
That happens already without the sci-fi scenario. It comes with a non-zero chance of being killed, and subsequently having your name dragged in the mud by the media.
Apple computers are for writing Apple apps for Apple iPhones.
The wealthiest people will be the ruthless, the conniving, and the well positioned, not the skilled.
This might sound weird coming from a Democrat, but I'll tell you: don't Jedi Mind Trick yourself into voting for something you don't agree with just because you're mad. Neither of us are really represented by any mainstream party. In our case perhaps it's best to vote for independent-minded individuals when they have a chance, and "lesser evils" when they don't. That doesn't fix anything sure, but the truth is that nothing can fix it.
The American quality of life will continue to deteriorate with the procured leadership selection that we have. We're just stalling for time. Time is valuable. It means we can better prepare and adapt to these changes. Maybe you won't hit rock bottom when the country does.
Point #3 is a distinction without a difference. In both countries, industry interests take center seat in our houses of congress.
You don't need to pay your student loans when you're unemployed. Just file for Income Based Repayment once a year. If your income is zero, then your payment will be zero. There are other options available too, but I'm only familiar with the one that I use.
We'll do that too.
Though Comcast is my only option, I'm prepared to give up home internet if things get much worse. The neat thing about streaming, cloud DVRs, and such is the fact that you don't really need internet at home, nor an expensive unlimited cellular plan to enjoy it. Just sit in a coffee house for the hour or two you want to watch a show, then go about your business.
It might even be better for us physically and spiritually to remove ourselves from that always-on limitless distraction.
Yeah I experienced some of that - major throttling of YouTube and Netflix under Comcast. At the time, I used my work VPN to get around it (until I was told not to). As a cord-cutter I will be signing up for a commercial VPN within days.
I only watch a couple channels anyway. I get them on Sling and saved $50 a month even considering the cost of the new service. I can probably save more if I downgrade my internet to just above the requirements of HD video streaming.