I can only speak for myself but from my experience and point of view, the alt-right and alt-left appear to be the extremes of both groups.
That's the point of calling them "alt". They separate themselves from ordinary conservatives because they find that ordinary, rational conservatives aren't extreme or rational enough for their liking. Same with the alt-left (which isn't really a thing any more, there aren't any extreme left groups of note). Alt-Right/Left groups have rejected normal right and left philosophies. Alt-Right was coined by a white nationalist/supremacist to disguise their movements extremism.
s you move center, you find the next group that'll vote R or D no matter what the platform. Too much nonsense and there's a good chance they'll stay home. Continuing you find people who are one major and maybe a few minor issue voters. Most likely vote R or D but should the respective person be too light on the major and heavy on a minor, they most likely will not vote. Closer center and you find the lean left and right folks.
90% of any electorate already has their mind made up. In countries with 2 party systems like the US, UK and Australia this is roughly split on 50/50 lines so both parties will receive 45% of the vote (on a national scale, local electorates will have clear biases). So it really is up to the 10% to decide who wins. in the Westminster system that allows minor parties, these are often single issue voters (which is how the UK conservatives ended up depending on norther Irish parties Sinn Fein and DUP to form a government).
That being said, most of the 10% is not easily influenced by outright lies and propaganda... Normally, the 2016 election (and Brexit referendum) were aberrations and huge wake up calls. As a result, the Alt-Right has been losing popularity the world over. In countries where the Left actually exists like Holland, they've been benefiting from this.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
It seems that many people on Slashdot have been afflicted with outrage blindness when they read something upsetting because they never seem to read the part that would otherwise defuse their outrage.
These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.
Most people don't have an issue with that. The problem is with extremist philosophies that require their outright lies and hoaxes to be perpetuated in order to gain momentum (Ironically, see Hitler's "Big Lie"). So when a large organisation is willing to point out when people are being lied to, it upsets the organisations that depend on spreading lies to remain relevant.
The alt-right are getting their panties in a bunch because social media has become the place where they spread their lies and propaganda, and it's been quite effective for them in garnering support. If ordinary people are informed that their posts are lies, that will relegate them back to obscurity. So of course they're going to oppose that with every weapon in their arsenal, which of course does not anything remotely factual. Like all extremists, they fear irrelevance.
Oh right, make a unsubstantiated claim, then make a conclusion based on your own stupid premise. That isn't how logic works
No, I made a cynical remark about the bigotry and ignorance of Democrats. You fit right in with them.
Nope, you made an incorrect statement that is easily disproved. All you demonstrated is that you've got no attachment to reality and are just trying to validate your delusions.
Well, the definition of "alt-right" is evidently "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary".
Wrong, quoting Wikipedia:
"The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism."
Alt-right was a term invented by racists to hide the fact they're racist. It's little wonder that alt-right has become a byword for racism and other forms of bigotry used by the far-right.
Trying to change the definition of terms is a tactic favoured by extremists in an attempt to disguise what is ultimately a very distasteful philosophy to most people. The only people who think that Alt-Right refers to anyone who "didn't vote for hillary" are people who are extremely deluded. Also adding to your delusion is the idea that 3/4 voters voted for Trump... when it was Hillary that won the popular vote.
Your kind of revisionism is exactly why normal people, whether they be conservative or liberal, detest the alt-right. You're attempting to outright lie to us, then telling us anyone contradicting you is oppressing you. There's not point in getting upset that no-one outside your echo chamber is buying your absurdities.
Apple simply "planning an upgrade" makes news! Really? Think about it...Merely "planning" making news!
So next time Apple "plans" to upgrade another of its products will also make news I guess, right?
This is very important as it signifies that Apple is planning to invent 4K set top boxes. It's not like you can just get one off of Amazon for $50 that plugs right into your HDMI port and has Netflix and Amazon Prime. Nope, no sireee, Apple is first to market as always.
300HP wasn't hot shit since the last Amiga. (With that said, my car has 300HP, and I am recently tinkering with an Amiga 1200...)
You're doing it wrong.
300HP is plenty, just get something smaller and lighter than a tank.
Lotus had it right, to make a car fast, add lightness.
A 200HP light car will be faster in a straight line and the corners than a heavier 300HP car. There's a reason the V8 Mustang and V8 Commodores share the crown of "worlds slowest 400HP car". high power + high weight == slow. Low power + low weight == fast. This is why a Lotus Elise, Caterham 7 or Ariel Atom will completely decimate large V8's at track days and on the motorway. Acceleration and top speed are best measured by power to weight, not power.
300 HP is plenty, as long as you're not weighing it down with heavy body or crippling it with a crap chassis.
Most people who answered this question have no knowledge allowing them to make an informed decision on this question. A good portion of them have never even thought about the question. Some of them weren't even sure what an autonomous vehicle is.
Remember that statement cuts both ways. Youre assuming and making the inference that people who didn't want autonomous cars were technophobes and those who did were informed. I can say that more people who dont have concerns about autonomous cars will be more technologically ignorant.
The problem you've got is that the average person thinks that cars will be 100% autonomous and require no user input beyond "Car, take me to Aunt Sally's". They think they're going to sit back with a cocktail with their facebooks and watching the latest hollywood dross on their phones.
This will not be the case, not technologically, not legally. Cars will have to throw decisions it cant make back to the driver, the driver will need to be ready to accept this (this is how a autopilot works on an aeroplane). Given the number of things the sensors wont be able to identify and handle, this will have to happen quite a bit. Autonomous cars use LIDAR a lot. The google car uses the Velodyne HDL-64 unit. I've used this, it's a fantastic unit albeit expensive. However it's got one really bad problem, it doesn't like water, or ice... in fact rain, snow or ice tends to screw up readings pretty badly. Living in England where people panic when this strange yellow sphere appears in the sky, I cant see autonomous cars working as people imagine them.
Legally, nothing will change, nothing needs to. The person controlling the car is still the driver, the driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is safe. If the computer makes a bad decision and the driver does not correct, the driver is still at fault (liable). So the pipe dream of sitting in a commute facebooking is nothing but a fantasy.
I know quite a bit about the technology involved... which is why I wouldn't want to ride in an autonomous car that had no-one in control of it. Humans can react to unknown situations, not always well but they can. Computers fail when they encounter situations outside their programming. Until that last one is solved (I.E. Strong AI/AGI will be required) then autonomous cars will require a human driver.
The self-driving car pulls to the side of the road, comes to a complete stop, request your AAA membership to call for a tow, and then calls Uber or Lyft to pick you up.
Driving along the M3, no shoulder, no pull over lanes for 1.5 miles. Illegal to pick up fares on the motorway. Where is your automated god now?
But what people mean when they say "when it fails" they mean when the computer made by the lowest bidder, running the OS cobbled together with hundreds of redundant libraries throws a Java JEE exception in steering.h. I can tell you what will happen, it'll at best, throw control back at the driver and the driver, who will be too busy to on their phone to pay attention will be in a collision. How do I know this.
1. Thats how current autopilots work. That's how they've worked for decades.
2. Take your head out of your phone on the road and look around at how many people are intently staring at their crotch.
High resolution Doppler radar (weather radar) can detect them. The stealth feature in aircraft comes in being difficult to target with automatic systems. IIRC, the Serbians shot down an F-117 with an old fashioned AA gun (ZSU 23 or something just as common), not a high tech missile.
People seem to think autonomous vehicles need to have a near-zero accident rate before they're an acceptable alternative to human-driven cars - which really doesn't make much sense.
It seems likely that autonomous cars could lower that number significantly.
Using the US is a terrible example, you have approximately 12 deaths per 100,000 pop. Humans are much better than this, the UK has around 3 deaths per 100,000 pop. So autonomous cars will need to be better than that.
The problem you have is that no autonomous car has been demonstrated to be better than a human. They've all be tested with humans at the wheel. In fact, Google's autonomus car caused an accident when both the car and human made a mistake (which was pretty fecking obvious to someone who drives in the UK, a bus is not going to stop for you pulling out of a parking space). The only reason Google's car has such a good rating is because it has a full time driver paying attention, note Google have not released any information over how often the driver has had to correct the car.
So realistically all you can say is that the car and driver working together is better than a driver on it's own. I'm still yet to see evidence that an autonomous car is better than a defensive driver and I doubt we'll see that for a while because a defensive driver predicts hazards where as autonomous cars react to them. With this in mind, we should be training drivers to be better drivers, not coddling them with technologies that make them lazier.
Remember that for quite some time, the rumor was that Apple was going to release its own line of TV sets. Many people (including myself) thought that was a stupid idea, since it would put Apple into the TV manufacturing business, which is pretty cutthroat.
I think the same problems occur with the concept of Apple building its own self-driving car, except that car manufacturing is far more complex, capital-intensive, and labor-intensive than building TV sets, while still being just as cutthroat (note that US car mfgrs are dealing with slowing sales and mounting inventory). So, Apple's move is, generally speaking, a sane one.
#
This is more like Apple realising that they know nothing about building cars. I can imagine the Apple car to be crappier than a Nissan leaf but costing more than a top of the range C-Class.
On the other hand, Apple has largely blown its approach to the actual Apple TV to date (I own two and am a fan, but I love my Echo and Dot more), so who knows what it will achieve on the automotive front.
Not much really. The Apple TV really did nothing for the entertainment industry. The same with their car audio products, floundering on a competitive market.
I recently bought a new 240i, In order to get Apple CarPlay that gives me the same functionality as ordinary bluetooth on non-Apple phones I had to get a £300 options. I said no, the same as I said no to the parking sensors, lane departure warning, touch screens and all the other crap I didn't need.
there are about 10 companies ahead of them in the race. They got put back in their box.
More like they realised just how much technology they'd need to pay for to make a car AND how much technology they'd need to share.
There are a lot of patents and technology sharing agreements in the auto industry. Apple are well known for not paying license fees and not sharing their toys.
Chrome Adds Warning For Extensions That Take Over Your Proxy Settings...
Why does Chrome allow extensions that can hijack proxy settings?
Because sometimes, thats what we want an extention to do. Getting around government restrictions forced on us by Hollywood is just one of the many reasons.
What we don't want are extensions that surreptitiously change proxy settings to inject ads or malware.
I think Mr. Herbert had it right. We should start the engineering at the animal level and shoot for a creating a mindless animal that grows continuously without movement. Just shovel garbage in one end and slice meat off the other.
The slig is an awesome idea!
I think Mr Adams is more correct.
The meat should want to die, knowing that filling others with it's tasty body is the culmination of its life's work. It'll make meat much cheaper at the supermarket as you don't need to build slaughtering facilities, just give the beast a shotgun and send it out back. I'm sure it'll be very humane about it. An emo roast would cut itself, I don't see the downside.
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.
We do, this is why Quorn advertises itself as a "protein" product. Other doubleplus good terms are "meat-free" and "meat-replacement", "meat-like" will probably be along shortly.
You must be thinking of other bollocks terms like "natural" and "organic" which dont have legal definitions. However these labels are just there to swindle extra money out of idiots who believe in "toxins" by getting them to pay extra for the same product, responsible capitalism in other words (like the cafe who gives me 50p off by paying for my coffee with a £2 coin rather than sticking it on my card, but I digress).
BTW, there aren't any problems with processed food, there are problems with people who wont cook or do anything for themselves. Its easy to knock up a healthy meal out of fresh meat and veg in 15 mins (fajitas, stir-fry, steak salad just of the top of my head) or cook in bulk on the weekends. We dont need the government interfering with food beyond making sure its safe and setting nutritional label standards.
I think it's important to differentiate between bricks (dark, historically clay-fired) and concrete blocks.
I don't think bricks are used for structural features anymore, but concrete block still is used for foundations and sometimes walls. The challenge for concrete block, though, is even in large scale construction where you would use them they already face competition from poured concrete and precast concrete panels. I think both are structurally sounder and allow rapid assembly of large buildings. Most new warehouses or industrial buildings made from concrete are built this way.
I live in an older neighborhood that's seen a fair amount of teardown new construction and the basement foundations are almost universally made from form-based poured concrete from what I've seen. In the types of construction where concrete block is still used, the scale often seems small -- a limited set of block courses before switching to wood or steel framing.
I'm not sure how much robotics works in this market.
Not sure where you live, but pretty certain you've never seen a house being built.
A concrete slab is used for the foundation, but bricks are still used for walls because they've got better insulation properties than concrete blocks. Larger buildings aren't made primarily of either, but we're talking about houses here. Only very cheap houses are made from precast concrete. Point in short, there's no shortage of bricklaying jobs.
BTW, for many centuries, bricks have been available in many colours. red/brown are the natural colours (depending on where the clay is mined, higher ferrous content in the soil produces redder bricks as are common in Australia) but that hasn't been a restriction for some time.
Just go to Weather Underground instead, you don't need an 'app'. Or if you think that's too commercial and you're going to get tracked, then just go to the National Weather Service. Seriously, you don't need an 'app' for everything.
This, for the love of whatever deity or holy person you worship, this.
OK, I'm on Android, the web browser works well so I tend not to see the cause to have an App and a half for every web service I access. Not sure about IOS, I like to maintain my standards.
I can think of three reasons you'd use an app over a web service.
1. You need content offline. 99% of my web services require live results (I.E. bank, weather, news).
2. You need access to local compute resources or hardware that is not accessible remotely. I.E. accelerometer or gyroscope. Thinking of navigation apps.
3. Your browser is so shitty it cant render anything as well as a laptop/desktop. Never encountered this since getting my first Android phone.
The overwhelming majority of apps do not meet any of these criteria. I suspect most of them are simply tools for collecting data.
Also, smug mode on, for all the vaunted security of IOS, it turns out this is right under their noses and I suspect is very wide spread.
So, if I'm in an auto accident, or I trip and fall face-first into the sidewalk, or if I'm assaulted and have a broken nose, a black eye and blood on my face, will the "facial recognition" still unlock my phone and let me call the cops?
Facial recognition for anything really urgent sounds like a REALLY bad idea.
Probably, facial recognition with consumer grade equipment is notoriously unreliable. Hell, Quasimodo could probably open your phone.
But it's hard to believe. Apple sold ApplePay to banks and card companies based on the security of their fingerprint scanner. Fingerprints have a hundred year history of being a means of unique biological identification. Facial recognition has a few years of history marked by some successes and some embarrassing failures.
Apple sold ApplePay based on the greed of the banks, as the financial institutions accepted the liability, they set the terms.
Fingerprints, much like faces are quite unique and are very good methods of identification if used properly. The problem you have with facial recognition is the same as exists with fingerprint scanners. Most fingerprint scanners are incredibly easy to fool and shouldn't be relied on for security (this is why we still issue people with security badges and RSA tokens instead of letting them use their finger (plus we don't know where said finger has been)). To get fingerprint scanning up to a secure level, you need a lot more accuracy and processing power than it available in your average phone. Much like with laptops in the early 00's, fingerprint scanning on phones is a gimmick, not a usable security measure.
Besides, think of the narcissists. How much would they love having to look at themselves to unlock their phones.
While we're actually on the same side, I disagree with your logic:
Coke isn't trademarked. Cola isn't trademarked. COCA-COLA is.
So your argument isn't directly applicable to the discussion without some additional link from "part of a word" == "whole word." Nobody is arguing Microsoft owns "micro" or "soft." Then again, Microsoft HAS argued Lindows infringed on the Windows trademark.
Sigh, being pedantic only makes you look silly. We all knew what he meant.
He was trying to say that just because a trademark becomes generic does not make it indefensible. Sure Coke (or Coca-Cola(TM) or whatever, annoying Grammar nazi's; and pendants pleases me mightily) can't stop their trademark being used in film, media or general conversation because it's generic, but if someone tried to produce a carbonated beverage called Coke (not Coca-Cola(TM)) or even Coak, then sure as hell they can sue them into oblivion for trademark infringement.
BTW, Coke is a registered trademark of Coca-Cola Amatil.
Genericised trademarks still do not allow you to release a similar product with a similar sounding brand name. I.E. you cant market a box of tissues as "Cleaneckses" because it's too similar to "Kleenex".
Google may have become a generic term for search, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to defend their trademark from anyone attempting to co-opt it.
Besides this, the article mentioned that a less than scrupulous sounding person purchased in excess of 750 domain names featuring the word "google". Sounds like he's using some incredibly crappy SEO to try and sell these domain names to the legitimate owners for a profit (read: extortion).
But it always pisses me off that it's necessary to do that. Just go with version numbers, people!
Google Android engineer here: In most cases I don't actually know what the numbers are without looking them up. I kind of get the complaint in Debian's case, since the choice of Toy Story character is arbitrary, but both Ubuntu and Android have been going in alphabetical order (though Ubuntu has to wrap, or something, in October), so it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered. Internally, we pretty much only use the code names (or letters, before the names are announced).
This, average people don't talk in version numbers. Numbers are computationally convenient but very user unfriendly. The names give users an easy point of reference for people not intimately familiar with the product. Besides, many products with numbers in the title aren't always in order, Windows 7 is newer than Windows 95.
Nope. Driver-less cars, using CURRENT technology would be safer than what we have now.
That's incorrect. Right now, no 100% autonomous car has been tested. Every single one has had a human driver watching over it.
So what you really meant to say is that human and car working together is safer than what we have now.
What will happen when your average, mouth breathing, insta-face-app addled moron gets it into their head that they now consciously don't have to pay attention to the road will be a very different thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only speak for myself but from my experience and point of view, the alt-right and alt-left appear to be the extremes of both groups.
That's the point of calling them "alt". They separate themselves from ordinary conservatives because they find that ordinary, rational conservatives aren't extreme or rational enough for their liking. Same with the alt-left (which isn't really a thing any more, there aren't any extreme left groups of note). Alt-Right/Left groups have rejected normal right and left philosophies. Alt-Right was coined by a white nationalist/supremacist to disguise their movements extremism.
s you move center, you find the next group that'll vote R or D no matter what the platform. Too much nonsense and there's a good chance they'll stay home. Continuing you find people who are one major and maybe a few minor issue voters. Most likely vote R or D but should the respective person be too light on the major and heavy on a minor, they most likely will not vote. Closer center and you find the lean left and right folks.
90% of any electorate already has their mind made up. In countries with 2 party systems like the US, UK and Australia this is roughly split on 50/50 lines so both parties will receive 45% of the vote (on a national scale, local electorates will have clear biases). So it really is up to the 10% to decide who wins. in the Westminster system that allows minor parties, these are often single issue voters (which is how the UK conservatives ended up depending on norther Irish parties Sinn Fein and DUP to form a government).
That being said, most of the 10% is not easily influenced by outright lies and propaganda... Normally, the 2016 election (and Brexit referendum) were aberrations and huge wake up calls. As a result, the Alt-Right has been losing popularity the world over. In countries where the Left actually exists like Holland, they've been benefiting from this.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
It seems that many people on Slashdot have been afflicted with outrage blindness when they read something upsetting because they never seem to read the part that would otherwise defuse their outrage.
These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.
Most people don't have an issue with that. The problem is with extremist philosophies that require their outright lies and hoaxes to be perpetuated in order to gain momentum (Ironically, see Hitler's "Big Lie"). So when a large organisation is willing to point out when people are being lied to, it upsets the organisations that depend on spreading lies to remain relevant.
The alt-right are getting their panties in a bunch because social media has become the place where they spread their lies and propaganda, and it's been quite effective for them in garnering support. If ordinary people are informed that their posts are lies, that will relegate them back to obscurity. So of course they're going to oppose that with every weapon in their arsenal, which of course does not anything remotely factual. Like all extremists, they fear irrelevance.
No, I made a cynical remark about the bigotry and ignorance of Democrats. You fit right in with them.
Nope, you made an incorrect statement that is easily disproved. All you demonstrated is that you've got no attachment to reality and are just trying to validate your delusions.
Well, the definition of "alt-right" is evidently "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary".
Wrong, quoting Wikipedia:
"The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism."
Alt-right was a term invented by racists to hide the fact they're racist. It's little wonder that alt-right has become a byword for racism and other forms of bigotry used by the far-right.
Trying to change the definition of terms is a tactic favoured by extremists in an attempt to disguise what is ultimately a very distasteful philosophy to most people. The only people who think that Alt-Right refers to anyone who "didn't vote for hillary" are people who are extremely deluded. Also adding to your delusion is the idea that 3/4 voters voted for Trump... when it was Hillary that won the popular vote.
Your kind of revisionism is exactly why normal people, whether they be conservative or liberal, detest the alt-right. You're attempting to outright lie to us, then telling us anyone contradicting you is oppressing you. There's not point in getting upset that no-one outside your echo chamber is buying your absurdities.
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about.
Yep, the Trump-Hitler analogy is right off.
There's no way Trump is capable of writing a book.
Apple simply "planning an upgrade" makes news! Really? Think about it...Merely "planning" making news!
So next time Apple "plans" to upgrade another of its products will also make news I guess, right?
This is very important as it signifies that Apple is planning to invent 4K set top boxes. It's not like you can just get one off of Amazon for $50 that plugs right into your HDMI port and has Netflix and Amazon Prime. Nope, no sireee, Apple is first to market as always.
300HP wasn't hot shit since the last Amiga. (With that said, my car has 300HP, and I am recently tinkering with an Amiga 1200...)
You're doing it wrong.
300HP is plenty, just get something smaller and lighter than a tank.
Lotus had it right, to make a car fast, add lightness.
A 200HP light car will be faster in a straight line and the corners than a heavier 300HP car. There's a reason the V8 Mustang and V8 Commodores share the crown of "worlds slowest 400HP car". high power + high weight == slow. Low power + low weight == fast. This is why a Lotus Elise, Caterham 7 or Ariel Atom will completely decimate large V8's at track days and on the motorway. Acceleration and top speed are best measured by power to weight, not power.
300 HP is plenty, as long as you're not weighing it down with heavy body or crippling it with a crap chassis.
Most people who answered this question have no knowledge allowing them to make an informed decision on this question. A good portion of them have never even thought about the question. Some of them weren't even sure what an autonomous vehicle is.
Remember that statement cuts both ways. Youre assuming and making the inference that people who didn't want autonomous cars were technophobes and those who did were informed. I can say that more people who dont have concerns about autonomous cars will be more technologically ignorant.
The problem you've got is that the average person thinks that cars will be 100% autonomous and require no user input beyond "Car, take me to Aunt Sally's". They think they're going to sit back with a cocktail with their facebooks and watching the latest hollywood dross on their phones.
This will not be the case, not technologically, not legally. Cars will have to throw decisions it cant make back to the driver, the driver will need to be ready to accept this (this is how a autopilot works on an aeroplane). Given the number of things the sensors wont be able to identify and handle, this will have to happen quite a bit. Autonomous cars use LIDAR a lot. The google car uses the Velodyne HDL-64 unit. I've used this, it's a fantastic unit albeit expensive. However it's got one really bad problem, it doesn't like water, or ice... in fact rain, snow or ice tends to screw up readings pretty badly. Living in England where people panic when this strange yellow sphere appears in the sky, I cant see autonomous cars working as people imagine them.
Legally, nothing will change, nothing needs to. The person controlling the car is still the driver, the driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is safe. If the computer makes a bad decision and the driver does not correct, the driver is still at fault (liable). So the pipe dream of sitting in a commute facebooking is nothing but a fantasy.
I know quite a bit about the technology involved... which is why I wouldn't want to ride in an autonomous car that had no-one in control of it. Humans can react to unknown situations, not always well but they can. Computers fail when they encounter situations outside their programming. Until that last one is solved (I.E. Strong AI/AGI will be required) then autonomous cars will require a human driver.
[...] and what happens if something goes wrong.
The self-driving car pulls to the side of the road, comes to a complete stop, request your AAA membership to call for a tow, and then calls Uber or Lyft to pick you up.
Driving along the M3, no shoulder, no pull over lanes for 1.5 miles. Illegal to pick up fares on the motorway. Where is your automated god now?
But what people mean when they say "when it fails" they mean when the computer made by the lowest bidder, running the OS cobbled together with hundreds of redundant libraries throws a Java JEE exception in steering.h. I can tell you what will happen, it'll at best, throw control back at the driver and the driver, who will be too busy to on their phone to pay attention will be in a collision. How do I know this.
1. Thats how current autopilots work. That's how they've worked for decades.
2. Take your head out of your phone on the road and look around at how many people are intently staring at their crotch.
High resolution Doppler radar (weather radar) can detect them. The stealth feature in aircraft comes in being difficult to target with automatic systems. IIRC, the Serbians shot down an F-117 with an old fashioned AA gun (ZSU 23 or something just as common), not a high tech missile.
People seem to think autonomous vehicles need to have a near-zero accident rate before they're an acceptable alternative to human-driven cars - which really doesn't make much sense.
Something already "goes wrong" - very wrong - with human-driven cars at the rate of greater than 30,000 times a year, just in the United States.
It seems likely that autonomous cars could lower that number significantly.
Using the US is a terrible example, you have approximately 12 deaths per 100,000 pop. Humans are much better than this, the UK has around 3 deaths per 100,000 pop. So autonomous cars will need to be better than that.
The problem you have is that no autonomous car has been demonstrated to be better than a human. They've all be tested with humans at the wheel. In fact, Google's autonomus car caused an accident when both the car and human made a mistake (which was pretty fecking obvious to someone who drives in the UK, a bus is not going to stop for you pulling out of a parking space). The only reason Google's car has such a good rating is because it has a full time driver paying attention, note Google have not released any information over how often the driver has had to correct the car.
So realistically all you can say is that the car and driver working together is better than a driver on it's own. I'm still yet to see evidence that an autonomous car is better than a defensive driver and I doubt we'll see that for a while because a defensive driver predicts hazards where as autonomous cars react to them. With this in mind, we should be training drivers to be better drivers, not coddling them with technologies that make them lazier.
Remember that for quite some time, the rumor was that Apple was going to release its own line of TV sets. Many people (including myself) thought that was a stupid idea, since it would put Apple into the TV manufacturing business, which is pretty cutthroat.
I think the same problems occur with the concept of Apple building its own self-driving car, except that car manufacturing is far more complex, capital-intensive, and labor-intensive than building TV sets, while still being just as cutthroat (note that US car mfgrs are dealing with slowing sales and mounting inventory). So, Apple's move is, generally speaking, a sane one.
#
This is more like Apple realising that they know nothing about building cars. I can imagine the Apple car to be crappier than a Nissan leaf but costing more than a top of the range C-Class.
On the other hand, Apple has largely blown its approach to the actual Apple TV to date (I own two and am a fan, but I love my Echo and Dot more), so who knows what it will achieve on the automotive front.
Not much really. The Apple TV really did nothing for the entertainment industry. The same with their car audio products, floundering on a competitive market.
I recently bought a new 240i, In order to get Apple CarPlay that gives me the same functionality as ordinary bluetooth on non-Apple phones I had to get a £300 options. I said no, the same as I said no to the parking sensors, lane departure warning, touch screens and all the other crap I didn't need.
there are about 10 companies ahead of them in the race. They got put back in their box.
More like they realised just how much technology they'd need to pay for to make a car AND how much technology they'd need to share.
There are a lot of patents and technology sharing agreements in the auto industry. Apple are well known for not paying license fees and not sharing their toys.
Chrome Adds Warning For Extensions That Take Over Your Proxy Settings...
Why does Chrome allow extensions that can hijack proxy settings?
Because sometimes, thats what we want an extention to do. Getting around government restrictions forced on us by Hollywood is just one of the many reasons.
What we don't want are extensions that surreptitiously change proxy settings to inject ads or malware.
I think Mr. Herbert had it right. We should start the engineering at the animal level and shoot for a creating a mindless animal that grows continuously without movement. Just shovel garbage in one end and slice meat off the other.
The slig is an awesome idea!
I think Mr Adams is more correct.
The meat should want to die, knowing that filling others with it's tasty body is the culmination of its life's work. It'll make meat much cheaper at the supermarket as you don't need to build slaughtering facilities, just give the beast a shotgun and send it out back. I'm sure it'll be very humane about it. An emo roast would cut itself, I don't see the downside.
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.
We do, this is why Quorn advertises itself as a "protein" product. Other doubleplus good terms are "meat-free" and "meat-replacement", "meat-like" will probably be along shortly.
You must be thinking of other bollocks terms like "natural" and "organic" which dont have legal definitions. However these labels are just there to swindle extra money out of idiots who believe in "toxins" by getting them to pay extra for the same product, responsible capitalism in other words (like the cafe who gives me 50p off by paying for my coffee with a £2 coin rather than sticking it on my card, but I digress).
BTW, there aren't any problems with processed food, there are problems with people who wont cook or do anything for themselves. Its easy to knock up a healthy meal out of fresh meat and veg in 15 mins (fajitas, stir-fry, steak salad just of the top of my head) or cook in bulk on the weekends. We dont need the government interfering with food beyond making sure its safe and setting nutritional label standards.
That's gonna be interesting watching a 96x54 pixel YouTube video while you read your report 3 words at a time.
Android phones have had 1280 x 768 pixels for years now, even your cheap phones have 800 x 400 ish screens.
I think it's important to differentiate between bricks (dark, historically clay-fired) and concrete blocks.
I don't think bricks are used for structural features anymore, but concrete block still is used for foundations and sometimes walls. The challenge for concrete block, though, is even in large scale construction where you would use them they already face competition from poured concrete and precast concrete panels. I think both are structurally sounder and allow rapid assembly of large buildings. Most new warehouses or industrial buildings made from concrete are built this way.
I live in an older neighborhood that's seen a fair amount of teardown new construction and the basement foundations are almost universally made from form-based poured concrete from what I've seen. In the types of construction where concrete block is still used, the scale often seems small -- a limited set of block courses before switching to wood or steel framing.
I'm not sure how much robotics works in this market.
Not sure where you live, but pretty certain you've never seen a house being built.
A concrete slab is used for the foundation, but bricks are still used for walls because they've got better insulation properties than concrete blocks. Larger buildings aren't made primarily of either, but we're talking about houses here. Only very cheap houses are made from precast concrete. Point in short, there's no shortage of bricklaying jobs.
BTW, for many centuries, bricks have been available in many colours. red/brown are the natural colours (depending on where the clay is mined, higher ferrous content in the soil produces redder bricks as are common in Australia) but that hasn't been a restriction for some time.
Just go to Weather Underground instead, you don't need an 'app'. Or if you think that's too commercial and you're going to get tracked, then just go to the National Weather Service. Seriously, you don't need an 'app' for everything.
This, for the love of whatever deity or holy person you worship, this.
OK, I'm on Android, the web browser works well so I tend not to see the cause to have an App and a half for every web service I access. Not sure about IOS, I like to maintain my standards.
I can think of three reasons you'd use an app over a web service.
1. You need content offline. 99% of my web services require live results (I.E. bank, weather, news).
2. You need access to local compute resources or hardware that is not accessible remotely. I.E. accelerometer or gyroscope. Thinking of navigation apps.
3. Your browser is so shitty it cant render anything as well as a laptop/desktop. Never encountered this since getting my first Android phone.
The overwhelming majority of apps do not meet any of these criteria. I suspect most of them are simply tools for collecting data.
Also, smug mode on, for all the vaunted security of IOS, it turns out this is right under their noses and I suspect is very wide spread.
So, if I'm in an auto accident, or I trip and fall face-first into the sidewalk, or if I'm assaulted and have a broken nose, a black eye and blood on my face, will the "facial recognition" still unlock my phone and let me call the cops?
Facial recognition for anything really urgent sounds like a REALLY bad idea.
Probably, facial recognition with consumer grade equipment is notoriously unreliable. Hell, Quasimodo could probably open your phone.
But it's hard to believe. Apple sold ApplePay to banks and card companies based on the security of their fingerprint scanner. Fingerprints have a hundred year history of being a means of unique biological identification. Facial recognition has a few years of history marked by some successes and some embarrassing failures.
Apple sold ApplePay based on the greed of the banks, as the financial institutions accepted the liability, they set the terms.
Fingerprints, much like faces are quite unique and are very good methods of identification if used properly. The problem you have with facial recognition is the same as exists with fingerprint scanners. Most fingerprint scanners are incredibly easy to fool and shouldn't be relied on for security (this is why we still issue people with security badges and RSA tokens instead of letting them use their finger (plus we don't know where said finger has been)). To get fingerprint scanning up to a secure level, you need a lot more accuracy and processing power than it available in your average phone. Much like with laptops in the early 00's, fingerprint scanning on phones is a gimmick, not a usable security measure.
Besides, think of the narcissists. How much would they love having to look at themselves to unlock their phones.
While we're actually on the same side, I disagree with your logic:
Coke isn't trademarked. Cola isn't trademarked. COCA-COLA is.
So your argument isn't directly applicable to the discussion without some additional link from "part of a word" == "whole word." Nobody is arguing Microsoft owns "micro" or "soft." Then again, Microsoft HAS argued Lindows infringed on the Windows trademark.
Sigh, being pedantic only makes you look silly. We all knew what he meant.
He was trying to say that just because a trademark becomes generic does not make it indefensible. Sure Coke (or Coca-Cola(TM) or whatever, annoying Grammar nazi's; and pendants pleases me mightily) can't stop their trademark being used in film, media or general conversation because it's generic, but if someone tried to produce a carbonated beverage called Coke (not Coca-Cola(TM)) or even Coak, then sure as hell they can sue them into oblivion for trademark infringement.
BTW, Coke is a registered trademark of Coca-Cola Amatil.
See Kleenex(TM), Xerox(TM), Band-Aid(TM), etc.
Why so? There are plenty of genericized trademarks, like Thermos, or Dumpster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Genericised trademarks still do not allow you to release a similar product with a similar sounding brand name. I.E. you cant market a box of tissues as "Cleaneckses" because it's too similar to "Kleenex".
Google may have become a generic term for search, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to defend their trademark from anyone attempting to co-opt it.
Besides this, the article mentioned that a less than scrupulous sounding person purchased in excess of 750 domain names featuring the word "google". Sounds like he's using some incredibly crappy SEO to try and sell these domain names to the legitimate owners for a profit (read: extortion).
But it always pisses me off that it's necessary to do that. Just go with version numbers, people!
Google Android engineer here: In most cases I don't actually know what the numbers are without looking them up. I kind of get the complaint in Debian's case, since the choice of Toy Story character is arbitrary, but both Ubuntu and Android have been going in alphabetical order (though Ubuntu has to wrap, or something, in October), so it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered. Internally, we pretty much only use the code names (or letters, before the names are announced).
This, average people don't talk in version numbers. Numbers are computationally convenient but very user unfriendly. The names give users an easy point of reference for people not intimately familiar with the product. Besides, many products with numbers in the title aren't always in order, Windows 7 is newer than Windows 95.
Nope. Driver-less cars, using CURRENT technology would be safer than what we have now.
That's incorrect. Right now, no 100% autonomous car has been tested. Every single one has had a human driver watching over it.
So what you really meant to say is that human and car working together is safer than what we have now.
What will happen when your average, mouth breathing, insta-face-app addled moron gets it into their head that they now consciously don't have to pay attention to the road will be a very different thing.