The words "set to", "will", "planning", and "plans" come up a lot that article. They aren't going to build it for another 20 years, and it's anticipated to cost twice as much as a conventional high-rise.
Granted, there is a link in the bottom of that story to an existing wooden building that is 18 stories tall. It's in Vancouver. Notice what's at the core of that building? Two giant concrete towers. Underneath it? A concrete pedestal. GP's point stands as stated.
say they will hasten the end of Alaska's remote weather offices, where forecasting duties and hours have already been slashed
Go to a mirror, look yourself in the eye and shout: "YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JOB!" Things have been this way literally since the stone age. In order to raise up the whole, things must be made more efficient. Tools are invented that make manual tasks obsolete, and put people out of work. Some continue to work in the niches of the field, some retire, some re-train and do something else. This has been and always will be a way of life.
Leaders generally don't stagnate (or regress) because they know they will get passed up in short order. We may currently be leading in per-capita renewable energy production, but at China's current rate how long are we going to be there? They have "Made in China 2025" focusing on being a world leader in many industries (including renewable energy), we have "Make America Great Again" which is focusing on bringing back coal.
A fire alarm system isn't designed to extinguish a fire, a suppression system is. I hate to be pedantic, but there is a difference. The device in your home that disturbs fajita night is an alarm system...
150 thousand a year (from a no risk investment of 5 million) is a modest retirement?
Wow! I sometimes wonder if I live on the same planet as some of the posters here.:-/
It's all relative. In 2038 150k/year is the equivalent of a 90k/year salary today (using 2.5% inflation. I used this site: here) Which for Podunk may be a good number, Minneapolis I would barely call that a modest income, if you are looking at New York City that's pretty much barely scraping by.
but I've heard that some tvs actually require an internet connection during the setup process... (Actually I believe it was another Slashdot thread on a similar topic - and unfortunately it seems entirely too plausible to discount...
I've said it before, and I know others have as well. Literally cannon configure the TV without hooking it to their app. Granted, once done you can delete the app, disconnect the wifi, etc.
I question, especially with the prevalence of Xfinity's "Xfinity-wifi" in my area and free MVNOs, if I'll even need to give future devices access to MY network for it to be phoning home on me.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. No company is going to sign on to do X years of free development.
So you have one of 3 options: 1) Nobody pays for it, companies stop patching their gear. (Not likely to happen) 2) The consumers pay for the support, either up front (built in to the cost of the device) or as part of a service agreement. or 3) The government (all of us) pay for it.
The gov't can legislate all it wants to, but it boils down to the end question. Who pays for it? And for a multitude of reasons, I want the government's fingers as far away from our technology as possible.
It's possible you just don't understand the argument.
No, I think I understand the argument, and I tend to agree with it. I'm just of the mind that this isn't something that should be solved legislatively.
The argument is that they shouldn't be able to deny them just because someone isn't paying a service contract...They need to roll the cost of the maintenance into the product.
So you and I are both understanding that there is a real cost associated with supporting security patches for these types of things. You think the government mandate it should be paid up front, I think it should be between the consumer and and company to decide.
it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe?
You do realize that the reason the protective barrier was reduced/removed was because someone hit it the prior week (ish), right? Even though millions of cars drive by that same spot, and (I forget the number off the top of my head, but it wasn't a low number) Teslas have successfully driven past that same spot with autopilot engaged. So now we have at 1 Tesla on autopilot and at least 1 other "regular" car that failed to properly negotiate that area, how many cars have do you figure have smashed into that same barrier? Guessing it's a lot more than 2.
Point being, we have illustrated instances of regular drivers and auto-pilots both successfully navigating that stretch, and instances of both of those failing to do so. Your blanket statement of: Drivers can navigate this, why can't autopilot? isn't valid.
For solicited advice, sure, I'll buy that non-parents may have valuable input on a particular situation. Specifically for the reasons you stated, outside perspective can be valuable. But when people with no kids chime in with "If I were a parent I would do X" or "That would never happen to my kids" 99 times out of 100 they are full of shit, and have no clue.
Just like the best doctors are those who don't have the disease you want treated.
Different situation, doctors are (hopefully) highly trained and have experience treating diseases. Unless the non-parent is highly trained and experienced in a specific area related to my child (psychiatrist, sporting coach, etc.) the chance of them having valuable insight is pretty slim. How much would you trust advice about a car issue from someone who has never owned, driven, or worked on a car? Again, pretty slim chance.
How long can a baby/toddler swim? Long enough for the parent that though they were in their crib taking a nap to figure out that the kid has escaped? (Or the parent who thought the other parent was watching the kid. Or the parent that... Or the parent that...)
for parents who care to teach their children
How's the view from up on your high horse? Glad you're doing a perfect job raising your kids so far.
There's two kinds of people in the world:
Those who think they are in complete control, and people who have had kids.
Right on. People that don't have kids are always the best parents. They have all of the answers, and are able to pick apart just about every decision you make. They are second only to the "Not my kids" people. You know, the "perfect" parents whose kids would never do anything wrong, and who would have had the foresight to prevent whatever just happened to your kids?
To both of those groups, I have one message: You can fuck right off.
Agree wholeheartedly. Buying things like brake discs or air conditioning pumps from a supplier is probably a safe bet, as there are likely dozens of OEMs that could ramp up volume quite quickly. But "I need to ramp up to 5000 battery packs per week within 6 months" is likely to get you laughed out of the room.
There also is the risk that they will not invest enough in key battery vehicle technology
I think this is going to be the key disadvantage that the other major automakers will face when they finally decide that EVs make sense. They may know how to make the batteries, but actually being able to get them made is going to be difficult. I think they are making a mistake by letting Tesla get out ahead of them on battery production, that's going to be a harder gap to close than making the rest of the car.
so was unable to calculate that he would only reach 600 meters.
When you can disregard gravity as "pseudo science", it makes it easier to figure how his rocket would get him to "space" Clearly the dome is 600 meters high, he must have hit that.
That's what I've taught my kids. Who's right and who's wrong doesn't make a bunch of difference when you're dead. Look both ways before crossing the street, and assume the other guy didn't see you.
Armchair quarterback says that Uber will be found in the wrong here. If the vehicle sensors didn't see this obstacle they should have. If the vehicles programming didn't react to the sensor input, it should have. We've been told time and time again that this technology is AT LEAST as good as a human, and should be better at things like reaction time. Not going to get into an argument as to whether a human could have/should have seen her, but a LIDAR sure as hell should have.
Whoever is right or whoever is wrong doesn't change the outcome, to the point you were trying to make. I feel bad for the family this lady left behind, but she had no business walking, dawdling, practically crawling, across a 35/40mph zone at night.
I agree with David's (and your 2nd) interpretation. But your semantics are a bit off, you need a set of outer parenthesis. IF((condition A) or (condition B)).
that this software is somehow any better than the human in the driving seat (who also didn't spot her).
You just proved the point you were trying to refute. The human backup didn't see her in time to react either. And you have absolutely now way of knowing, unless you were the driver in question, whether they were paying attention or not.
"Jaywalking" is a stupid law
In a perfect world wouldn't need any laws, but we don't live in one of those. Now, should it be perfectly legal to cross a street outside of a cross walk? Absolutely, assuming it's safe to do so. Should it be legal to literally run out in traffic without checking to see if it's safe? Maybe, maybe not. How about this, maybe we make it illegal to run someone over and we also make it illegal to run into traffic? That way when something like this happens (whether it's an automated vehicle or not) we can let the courts figure out who was in the wrong? That's how I taught it to my kids anyway: If you get killed crossing a street, it seems kind of irrelevant as to whose fault it was. Maybe it's just better to pay attention, and not cross the road unless you're damn sure they saw and acknowledged you.
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid, it is just a wrong belief about how she can expect cars to react.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. Not dying the first time (or the first hundred times) you do something stupid and dangerous doesn't make the action any less stupid or dangerous.
I'm not saying, one way or the other, if the change in outcome was due to a failure of the vehicle or some other change in circumstance. We don't know that yet. But your conclusion that jaywalking isn't dangerous or stupid because most people don't die while doing it is, frankly, dangerous and stupid.
It's not that hard... There's a big damn button in the middle of the screen, "Store Pickup". 97 of the 114 items in the link posted are available to pick up locally in 1 hour. (Obviously ymmv based on your physical location. I'm in a metro area, I would expect Podunk would have a lower selection)
The problem with the science kits and educational toys is they likely don't make as much money on them as they do on the TV/Movie/Cartoon related crap. Which one of those is going to be place more prominently in the store, have the most "features", and receive the most advertising? It's likely that all of the "good" stuff he was looking for was there, but drowned out over the noise of the "mindless un-fun corporate shit."
Slashdot Mirror
The words "set to", "will", "planning", and "plans" come up a lot that article. They aren't going to build it for another 20 years, and it's anticipated to cost twice as much as a conventional high-rise.
Granted, there is a link in the bottom of that story to an existing wooden building that is 18 stories tall. It's in Vancouver. Notice what's at the core of that building? Two giant concrete towers. Underneath it? A concrete pedestal. GP's point stands as stated.
say they will hasten the end of Alaska's remote weather offices, where forecasting duties and hours have already been slashed
Go to a mirror, look yourself in the eye and shout: "YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JOB!" Things have been this way literally since the stone age. In order to raise up the whole, things must be made more efficient. Tools are invented that make manual tasks obsolete, and put people out of work. Some continue to work in the niches of the field, some retire, some re-train and do something else. This has been and always will be a way of life.
Next you're going to tell me that Abigail Van Buren isn't writing advice columns any more and has been replaced with someone else.
You should really update your website. It looks like one I made in High School, 15 years ago.
Leaders generally don't stagnate (or regress) because they know they will get passed up in short order. We may currently be leading in per-capita renewable energy production, but at China's current rate how long are we going to be there? They have "Made in China 2025" focusing on being a world leader in many industries (including renewable energy), we have "Make America Great Again" which is focusing on bringing back coal.
A fire alarm system isn't designed to extinguish a fire, a suppression system is. I hate to be pedantic, but there is a difference. The device in your home that disturbs fajita night is an alarm system...
Exactly. That's the key to technical writing, use exactly as many words as are necessary to accurately get a point across, and no more.
150 thousand a year (from a no risk investment of 5 million) is a modest retirement?
Wow! I sometimes wonder if I live on the same planet as some of the posters here. :-/
It's all relative. In 2038 150k/year is the equivalent of a 90k/year salary today (using 2.5% inflation. I used this site: here) Which for Podunk may be a good number, Minneapolis I would barely call that a modest income, if you are looking at New York City that's pretty much barely scraping by.
but I've heard that some tvs actually require an internet connection during the setup process... (Actually I believe it was another Slashdot thread on a similar topic - and unfortunately it seems entirely too plausible to discount...
I've said it before, and I know others have as well. Literally cannon configure the TV without hooking it to their app. Granted, once done you can delete the app, disconnect the wifi, etc.
I question, especially with the prevalence of Xfinity's "Xfinity-wifi" in my area and free MVNOs, if I'll even need to give future devices access to MY network for it to be phoning home on me.
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10052705&cid=53566341#comments
they should be free
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. No company is going to sign on to do X years of free development.
So you have one of 3 options:
1) Nobody pays for it, companies stop patching their gear. (Not likely to happen)
2) The consumers pay for the support, either up front (built in to the cost of the device) or as part of a service agreement. or
3) The government (all of us) pay for it.
The gov't can legislate all it wants to, but it boils down to the end question. Who pays for it? And for a multitude of reasons, I want the government's fingers as far away from our technology as possible.
It's possible you just don't understand the argument.
No, I think I understand the argument, and I tend to agree with it. I'm just of the mind that this isn't something that should be solved legislatively.
The argument is that they shouldn't be able to deny them just because someone isn't paying a service contract...They need to roll the cost of the maintenance into the product.
So you and I are both understanding that there is a real cost associated with supporting security patches for these types of things. You think the government mandate it should be paid up front, I think it should be between the consumer and and company to decide.
And how long would these companies legally be required to issue software patches for free?
it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe?
You do realize that the reason the protective barrier was reduced/removed was because someone hit it the prior week (ish), right? Even though millions of cars drive by that same spot, and (I forget the number off the top of my head, but it wasn't a low number) Teslas have successfully driven past that same spot with autopilot engaged. So now we have at 1 Tesla on autopilot and at least 1 other "regular" car that failed to properly negotiate that area, how many cars have do you figure have smashed into that same barrier? Guessing it's a lot more than 2.
Point being, we have illustrated instances of regular drivers and auto-pilots both successfully navigating that stretch, and instances of both of those failing to do so. Your blanket statement of: Drivers can navigate this, why can't autopilot? isn't valid.
You have kids? Just curious.
For solicited advice, sure, I'll buy that non-parents may have valuable input on a particular situation. Specifically for the reasons you stated, outside perspective can be valuable. But when people with no kids chime in with "If I were a parent I would do X" or "That would never happen to my kids" 99 times out of 100 they are full of shit, and have no clue.
Just like the best doctors are those who don't have the disease you want treated.
Different situation, doctors are (hopefully) highly trained and have experience treating diseases. Unless the non-parent is highly trained and experienced in a specific area related to my child (psychiatrist, sporting coach, etc.) the chance of them having valuable insight is pretty slim. How much would you trust advice about a car issue from someone who has never owned, driven, or worked on a car? Again, pretty slim chance.
Babies learn to swim at 3 months
How long can a baby/toddler swim? Long enough for the parent that though they were in their crib taking a nap to figure out that the kid has escaped? (Or the parent who thought the other parent was watching the kid. Or the parent that... Or the parent that...)
for parents who care to teach their children
How's the view from up on your high horse? Glad you're doing a perfect job raising your kids so far.
There's two kinds of people in the world: Those who think they are in complete control, and people who have had kids.
Right on. People that don't have kids are always the best parents. They have all of the answers, and are able to pick apart just about every decision you make. They are second only to the "Not my kids" people. You know, the "perfect" parents whose kids would never do anything wrong, and who would have had the foresight to prevent whatever just happened to your kids?
To both of those groups, I have one message: You can fuck right off.
Agree wholeheartedly. Buying things like brake discs or air conditioning pumps from a supplier is probably a safe bet, as there are likely dozens of OEMs that could ramp up volume quite quickly. But "I need to ramp up to 5000 battery packs per week within 6 months" is likely to get you laughed out of the room.
There also is the risk that they will not invest enough in key battery vehicle technology
I think this is going to be the key disadvantage that the other major automakers will face when they finally decide that EVs make sense. They may know how to make the batteries, but actually being able to get them made is going to be difficult. I think they are making a mistake by letting Tesla get out ahead of them on battery production, that's going to be a harder gap to close than making the rest of the car.
so was unable to calculate that he would only reach 600 meters.
When you can disregard gravity as "pseudo science", it makes it easier to figure how his rocket would get him to "space" Clearly the dome is 600 meters high, he must have hit that.
That's what I've taught my kids. Who's right and who's wrong doesn't make a bunch of difference when you're dead. Look both ways before crossing the street, and assume the other guy didn't see you.
Armchair quarterback says that Uber will be found in the wrong here. If the vehicle sensors didn't see this obstacle they should have. If the vehicles programming didn't react to the sensor input, it should have. We've been told time and time again that this technology is AT LEAST as good as a human, and should be better at things like reaction time. Not going to get into an argument as to whether a human could have/should have seen her, but a LIDAR sure as hell should have.
Whoever is right or whoever is wrong doesn't change the outcome, to the point you were trying to make. I feel bad for the family this lady left behind, but she had no business walking, dawdling, practically crawling, across a 35/40mph zone at night.
I agree with David's (and your 2nd) interpretation. But your semantics are a bit off, you need a set of outer parenthesis. IF((condition A) or (condition B)).
that this software is somehow any better than the human in the driving seat (who also didn't spot her).
You just proved the point you were trying to refute. The human backup didn't see her in time to react either. And you have absolutely now way of knowing, unless you were the driver in question, whether they were paying attention or not.
"Jaywalking" is a stupid law
In a perfect world wouldn't need any laws, but we don't live in one of those. Now, should it be perfectly legal to cross a street outside of a cross walk? Absolutely, assuming it's safe to do so. Should it be legal to literally run out in traffic without checking to see if it's safe? Maybe, maybe not. How about this, maybe we make it illegal to run someone over and we also make it illegal to run into traffic? That way when something like this happens (whether it's an automated vehicle or not) we can let the courts figure out who was in the wrong? That's how I taught it to my kids anyway: If you get killed crossing a street, it seems kind of irrelevant as to whose fault it was. Maybe it's just better to pay attention, and not cross the road unless you're damn sure they saw and acknowledged you.
26 comments on this article so far? You need a different hobby dude.
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid, it is just a wrong belief about how she can expect cars to react.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. Not dying the first time (or the first hundred times) you do something stupid and dangerous doesn't make the action any less stupid or dangerous.
I'm not saying, one way or the other, if the change in outcome was due to a failure of the vehicle or some other change in circumstance. We don't know that yet. But your conclusion that jaywalking isn't dangerous or stupid because most people don't die while doing it is, frankly, dangerous and stupid.
It's not that hard... There's a big damn button in the middle of the screen, "Store Pickup". 97 of the 114 items in the link posted are available to pick up locally in 1 hour. (Obviously ymmv based on your physical location. I'm in a metro area, I would expect Podunk would have a lower selection)
The problem with the science kits and educational toys is they likely don't make as much money on them as they do on the TV/Movie/Cartoon related crap. Which one of those is going to be place more prominently in the store, have the most "features", and receive the most advertising? It's likely that all of the "good" stuff he was looking for was there, but drowned out over the noise of the "mindless un-fun corporate shit."