The thing about submarines is that the low tech ones are actually quieter than the fancy ones when running on batteries. They have to make a bunch of noise to recharge, but if you're just moving one submarine one time there are ways to avoid that, like having it follow under a regular civilian ship and running generators on the ship. That obviously won't work for a whole fleet, and won't work repeatedly, but there are lots of schemes to get a battery powered sub through the defenses one time. Even the drug smugglers manage it. They might even buy it somewhere else, and it wouldn't even have ever been to North Korea.
I'm not sure what difference you think you would see if it has nukes, vs not having them.
Things like plankton plumes are what you would worry about with a nuclear powered submarine that generates a lot of waste heat, it has nothing to do with a battery-powered submarine that is simply carrying nuclear warheads.
Perhaps you read something talking about the cold-war techniques developed to try to keep track of submarines, and mistook it for an absolute capability instead of a bag of tricks that sometimes work.
Exactly, they need to be disarmed before they miniaturize their warheads. The missile stuff is mostly a red herring. If they do another nuke test, they have to be immediately stopped because they're just too close.
I keep hearing the South Korean media blather on and on, misunderstanding the word "consult" for "seek permission." I guess that is why they had protests when some of their politicians wanted local military control. When war comes, saying no to it just means you one of the dead. North Korea is a real threat, if they were not a real threat they would be staying close to China and there would be no problems. They could have Chinese troops protecting them if they would give up the nukes, but they won't do it.
Some people forget that history has shown examples of evil regimes not only willing but eager to kill millions. When they say they're going to nuke us, and they're really trying to develop the needed technology, it might be worth taking them at their word.
Indeed, since no country in the world parades actual missiles, they're guaranteed to be pretty green compared to the kind that can explode, or fly, or both in North Korea's case.
It is pretty funny reading transcripts from these talking heads who fly all the way to Korea to get on the teevee and pretend that nobody told them that parades have fake weapons.
Countries with higher quality missile programs can use empty canisters from otherwise-real missiles, and show off a high degree of consistency from one missile to the next. Real missiles are built on assembly lines with everything exactly the same, because it really helps if they're predictable and all only explode under the exact same conditions, which can then be well known.
When you see a "Frankenmissile," it means that they don't have spare canisters for real missiles, and the mockups are built one at a time in more of an art-studio type environment, probably by people who are not engineers are don't have an eye for faking manufactured goods to the level needed to make them even look real.
And the media guys who breathly speculate... know all that. They're just totally shameless.
You're probably oriented sideways. One car per lane. How wide it is depends on the street, of course. Even if it is 4 lane street, traffic can continue fairly well that way, one row one way, one row the other way. A few idiots get out of sync, but the swarm quickly corrects. It only works if the people are prepared to conspire to maintain correct traffic flow; many places in the world just get traffic jams when the signals go out.
Sure, for poor people using the discount model car with pure optical navigation.
But most people will have the lidar stuff and the car already knows the shape the sign, and won't even see the sticker as a triangle just a color splotch on a stop sign. The whole stop sign will probably be masked to the other processing layers since it has already been identified. Really it should be using the placement and orientation of the sign to determine who has to stop, no need to read the color at all.
That's funny. Where I am, everybody knows that if the traffic lights are all off, it becomes an "all-way stop" and the traffic alternates: one row from one side, one row from the next side. It works really well if the people know what to do.
If the people know to use that stop sign when the light is off... they already know they have to do something different when the light fails, and they already know what it is. The sign is redundant.
This whole "it will work until it doesn't" thing is a major problem.
I'd be worried if the engineers were saying it, but since it is just the internet pundits I'm not really worried.
Get over it, if it doesn't "work" better than the human idiot, it isn't going to be sold. It will still be only under development.
It is fairly easy for most of the sensor systems in use with cars to detect a physical traffic sign. Then it knows there is a sign there, it knows the shape of the sign, and actually now it already knows if it is a stop sign even if the workers forgot to paint it at all! I know when I took my driving test I had to also pass a vision test that included identifying the signs by shape.
People don't imagine that humans get confused, and don't just park the car. Computerized cars also might get programmed with some other system of resolving the confusion. You didn't think of that, but to the engineers building the car, that is obvious. So take heart little one.
Traditionally, slashdot users avoid the linked article because it is a clickbait ad, and because they do in fact do lots of research about the same topics on their own. That's what you do, you ignore the story, you ignore the summary, and instead go read about the subject from a reliable source.
Because they're not a "they," they're part of "us" and it is something that we own so stop trying to covet it as if it was just yours personally. You're not King, and neither is anybody else. Get over it.
Maybe this is good, T-Mobile might have better coverage and be better able to compete with Verizon for people that need that. Verizon not getting any new spectrum has to be good for competition.
How do you expect mosquitoes to keep the lights on if you don't let them into your bedroom to drink your blood? Make sure not to leave any out, YOU just want to take their content without compensating, and leech off the people that support the infestation.
No, I don't want their fucking content. The only content worth watching on youtube is stuff that was put their by individuals without any significant compensation.
The independent content generations making a career out of it all have external "patronage" sites to collect donations because youtube doesn't pay content creators an amount of money that would actually "keep the lights on."
The only broadcaster whose opinion I value is PBS, because they're the only one with content I care about.
My favorite word issue with Apple was when they introduced SCSI they wanted it to be pronounced "sexy" and for their effort they were rewarded with "scuzzy."
Apple just tried too hard that time.
English mixes numerous languages, that is the real reason why it is the common language.
The thing about the voice processing features is that it doesn't really matter. If it can accurately differentiate the sounds used in the language, then even old-school search algorithms can find the repeating patterns in the sample data and convert those to an internal DSL. No problem. The algorithm isn't going to be taught the semantics of each language. It doesn't know Korean, it simply has an instantiation that was trained on a Korean dataset. This is the engineering department probably, but not actually an engineering problem. They just have to continue assembling training data until the results are deemed good enough.
You can just say "accessibility," you don't have to drag people's medical information out.
People who need special features from their technology should not be wasting their time worrying about a new model of phone having those features in Korea a month and a half before they have it in the US. That is just silly. They have real problems to focus on, like using the voice controls they already have.
This story relates to technology fads, brand teams, and nationalism, it has nothing at all to do with accessibility.
If you can read, you might want to consider parsing the words such that you understand the promised features to have been completed in Korean, with English localization expected to be finished in a month or two.
I don't care who anybody blames, the user did it to themselves when they gave up control of their devices.
And if they still have any control left, they can always build an external DVR for their DVR; after the primary DVR records the content from the original source, the secondary DVR requests playback and converts to unrestricted local format. It is even legal, because no copies are shared! Well, as long as you build it yourself...
You can't do anything more valuable because you don't have trust. It doesn't matter what skills they have that they could theoretically utilize. You're not going to have enough people with the same advanced skill in order to average things out and make up for the lack of trust, so you could never actually promise to do an advanced service. And that's even if you found a low-trust but high-value service, which is difficult. For products it is that much more difficult.
The main prison work industries are textiles and call centers.
You also have to consider, your worker might get in a fight in the lunch line and be in a disciplinary unit for months. And it might not even be his fault. You can't control for that stuff just by finding the special inmates that lay golden eggs. You have to focus on tasks that any number with a shift of training can complete.
The trouble with technology in the workplace is that once it crosses the threshold from necessary to efficiency, it benefits the owner almost to the excusion of the workers.
Star Trek or Babylon 5, that is the choice that society faces.
Where they do work, Inmates receive a wage for their work. Most prisons are not privately owned.
They get paid, but not minimum wage; far below it. That is the benefit. There are lots of prisons with attached factories. The only reason it is limited is that many of the prisoners are unsuited to the sorts of repetitive labor that benefits from low wage work. The product itself generally has to be low cost for the labor savings to have good value. So they're sucky boring jobs, and stabbing your neighbor with a tool might start to sound more interesting to some of these guys when they get that bored.
The ownership is a red herring. In my area the prisons with the most factory labor are State run, and they pass the costs through to the company that is paying for their product to be made. Any harmful feedback loops that would be present with private prisons are present with public prisons.
It seems like a no-brainer that private prisons cost the State more than doing it themselves. Otherwise, where is the profit?
Nobody is misunderstanding you, it is just that when they say, "these devices are already a threat," and you say something like, "I don't see them as a threat," then you are in no way contradicting what others say. You're saying they're wrong, but the case you makes only says you wouldn't do what they did, not that they were wrong. We know for a fact that many of us believe these devices to be a threat as soon as they're connected to the network without being secured. In the same way that if a neighbor piled wood next to the property line and doused it with gasoline, I would consider that action to create a fire danger, and if neighborhood kids came by and set it on fire, and your house burns down, the kids would be guilty of arson, and the neighbor would be guilty of creating a fire hazard that in actual fact destroyed stuff. Obviously the kids are not innocent, but obviously the person who created the fire hazard is also not the victim. The neighbor is the victim.
Here, the people owning these devices are not the victim. Sure, sure, their crime is lesser than the script-kiddie. But they're complicit in the wrongdoing that creates the situation. For the neighbor who is endangered by their devices, they're also the primary cause of the whole situation, the source of the danger.
Keep typing away, I'm not going to read any of it after having already not read what you wrote above, and told you so.
You wanted to disagree with me, but you were only starting from an elementary-school "do you know what an airbase is" level. And before that you were already saying stupid, ignorant things. So no, there is no way I will care what you say, or read it. Next time, start out by saying something insightful. If you start out being an idiot, I'm not going to dredge around in your comment looking for some minor redeeming value.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they still threatening to nuke us? If so, then no, that is not paranoia at all, but awareness of consequences!
If they had stopped threatening us and still felt that way, then it would be paranoia.
The thing about submarines is that the low tech ones are actually quieter than the fancy ones when running on batteries. They have to make a bunch of noise to recharge, but if you're just moving one submarine one time there are ways to avoid that, like having it follow under a regular civilian ship and running generators on the ship. That obviously won't work for a whole fleet, and won't work repeatedly, but there are lots of schemes to get a battery powered sub through the defenses one time. Even the drug smugglers manage it. They might even buy it somewhere else, and it wouldn't even have ever been to North Korea.
I'm not sure what difference you think you would see if it has nukes, vs not having them.
Things like plankton plumes are what you would worry about with a nuclear powered submarine that generates a lot of waste heat, it has nothing to do with a battery-powered submarine that is simply carrying nuclear warheads.
Perhaps you read something talking about the cold-war techniques developed to try to keep track of submarines, and mistook it for an absolute capability instead of a bag of tricks that sometimes work.
Exactly, they need to be disarmed before they miniaturize their warheads. The missile stuff is mostly a red herring. If they do another nuke test, they have to be immediately stopped because they're just too close.
I keep hearing the South Korean media blather on and on, misunderstanding the word "consult" for "seek permission." I guess that is why they had protests when some of their politicians wanted local military control. When war comes, saying no to it just means you one of the dead. North Korea is a real threat, if they were not a real threat they would be staying close to China and there would be no problems. They could have Chinese troops protecting them if they would give up the nukes, but they won't do it.
Some people forget that history has shown examples of evil regimes not only willing but eager to kill millions. When they say they're going to nuke us, and they're really trying to develop the needed technology, it might be worth taking them at their word.
Indeed, since no country in the world parades actual missiles, they're guaranteed to be pretty green compared to the kind that can explode, or fly, or both in North Korea's case.
It is pretty funny reading transcripts from these talking heads who fly all the way to Korea to get on the teevee and pretend that nobody told them that parades have fake weapons.
Countries with higher quality missile programs can use empty canisters from otherwise-real missiles, and show off a high degree of consistency from one missile to the next. Real missiles are built on assembly lines with everything exactly the same, because it really helps if they're predictable and all only explode under the exact same conditions, which can then be well known.
When you see a "Frankenmissile," it means that they don't have spare canisters for real missiles, and the mockups are built one at a time in more of an art-studio type environment, probably by people who are not engineers are don't have an eye for faking manufactured goods to the level needed to make them even look real.
And the media guys who breathly speculate... know all that. They're just totally shameless.
That sounds awfully vague. How long is a row?
One car.
You're probably oriented sideways. One car per lane. How wide it is depends on the street, of course. Even if it is 4 lane street, traffic can continue fairly well that way, one row one way, one row the other way. A few idiots get out of sync, but the swarm quickly corrects. It only works if the people are prepared to conspire to maintain correct traffic flow; many places in the world just get traffic jams when the signals go out.
They obviously fooled the slashdot AI into thinking it was news.
Sure, for poor people using the discount model car with pure optical navigation.
But most people will have the lidar stuff and the car already knows the shape the sign, and won't even see the sticker as a triangle just a color splotch on a stop sign. The whole stop sign will probably be masked to the other processing layers since it has already been identified. Really it should be using the placement and orientation of the sign to determine who has to stop, no need to read the color at all.
That's funny. Where I am, everybody knows that if the traffic lights are all off, it becomes an "all-way stop" and the traffic alternates: one row from one side, one row from the next side. It works really well if the people know what to do.
If the people know to use that stop sign when the light is off... they already know they have to do something different when the light fails, and they already know what it is. The sign is redundant.
This whole "it will work until it doesn't" thing is a major problem.
I'd be worried if the engineers were saying it, but since it is just the internet pundits I'm not really worried.
Get over it, if it doesn't "work" better than the human idiot, it isn't going to be sold. It will still be only under development.
It is fairly easy for most of the sensor systems in use with cars to detect a physical traffic sign. Then it knows there is a sign there, it knows the shape of the sign, and actually now it already knows if it is a stop sign even if the workers forgot to paint it at all! I know when I took my driving test I had to also pass a vision test that included identifying the signs by shape.
People don't imagine that humans get confused, and don't just park the car. Computerized cars also might get programmed with some other system of resolving the confusion. You didn't think of that, but to the engineers building the car, that is obvious. So take heart little one.
Traditionally, slashdot users avoid the linked article because it is a clickbait ad, and because they do in fact do lots of research about the same topics on their own. That's what you do, you ignore the story, you ignore the summary, and instead go read about the subject from a reliable source.
Because they're not a "they," they're part of "us" and it is something that we own so stop trying to covet it as if it was just yours personally. You're not King, and neither is anybody else. Get over it.
Maybe this is good, T-Mobile might have better coverage and be better able to compete with Verizon for people that need that. Verizon not getting any new spectrum has to be good for competition.
s/their(?=\sby)/there/
How do you expect mosquitoes to keep the lights on if you don't let them into your bedroom to drink your blood? Make sure not to leave any out, YOU just want to take their content without compensating, and leech off the people that support the infestation.
No, I don't want their fucking content. The only content worth watching on youtube is stuff that was put their by individuals without any significant compensation.
The independent content generations making a career out of it all have external "patronage" sites to collect donations because youtube doesn't pay content creators an amount of money that would actually "keep the lights on."
The only broadcaster whose opinion I value is PBS, because they're the only one with content I care about.
My favorite word issue with Apple was when they introduced SCSI they wanted it to be pronounced "sexy" and for their effort they were rewarded with "scuzzy."
Apple just tried too hard that time.
English mixes numerous languages, that is the real reason why it is the common language.
The thing about the voice processing features is that it doesn't really matter. If it can accurately differentiate the sounds used in the language, then even old-school search algorithms can find the repeating patterns in the sample data and convert those to an internal DSL. No problem. The algorithm isn't going to be taught the semantics of each language. It doesn't know Korean, it simply has an instantiation that was trained on a Korean dataset. This is the engineering department probably, but not actually an engineering problem. They just have to continue assembling training data until the results are deemed good enough.
You can just say "accessibility," you don't have to drag people's medical information out.
People who need special features from their technology should not be wasting their time worrying about a new model of phone having those features in Korea a month and a half before they have it in the US. That is just silly. They have real problems to focus on, like using the voice controls they already have.
This story relates to technology fads, brand teams, and nationalism, it has nothing at all to do with accessibility.
The point of stories like this is that some people dislike Samsung, and want to wave their eToilets in the air and shout, "hA-Ha!" and feel superior.
Others of us simply gaze lovingly at the nearest text terminal and smugly deride voice controls.
Don't worry, you'll figure out this "slashdot stuff" once you've been here a few more years.
If you can read, you might want to consider parsing the words such that you understand the promised features to have been completed in Korean, with English localization expected to be finished in a month or two.
tldr; completed is different than not completed
Yes indeed, Mr. Harry Potter, I'm sure they never imagined you would have a jammer spell. Those defense engineers are so dreamy!
I don't care who anybody blames, the user did it to themselves when they gave up control of their devices.
And if they still have any control left, they can always build an external DVR for their DVR; after the primary DVR records the content from the original source, the secondary DVR requests playback and converts to unrestricted local format. It is even legal, because no copies are shared! Well, as long as you build it yourself...
You can't do anything more valuable because you don't have trust. It doesn't matter what skills they have that they could theoretically utilize. You're not going to have enough people with the same advanced skill in order to average things out and make up for the lack of trust, so you could never actually promise to do an advanced service. And that's even if you found a low-trust but high-value service, which is difficult. For products it is that much more difficult.
The main prison work industries are textiles and call centers.
You also have to consider, your worker might get in a fight in the lunch line and be in a disciplinary unit for months. And it might not even be his fault. You can't control for that stuff just by finding the special inmates that lay golden eggs. You have to focus on tasks that any number with a shift of training can complete.
The trouble with technology in the workplace is that once it crosses the threshold from necessary to efficiency, it benefits the owner almost to the excusion of the workers.
Star Trek or Babylon 5, that is the choice that society faces.
Where they do work, Inmates receive a wage for their work. Most prisons are not privately owned.
They get paid, but not minimum wage; far below it. That is the benefit. There are lots of prisons with attached factories. The only reason it is limited is that many of the prisoners are unsuited to the sorts of repetitive labor that benefits from low wage work. The product itself generally has to be low cost for the labor savings to have good value. So they're sucky boring jobs, and stabbing your neighbor with a tool might start to sound more interesting to some of these guys when they get that bored.
The ownership is a red herring. In my area the prisons with the most factory labor are State run, and they pass the costs through to the company that is paying for their product to be made. Any harmful feedback loops that would be present with private prisons are present with public prisons.
It seems like a no-brainer that private prisons cost the State more than doing it themselves. Otherwise, where is the profit?
Nobody is misunderstanding you, it is just that when they say, "these devices are already a threat," and you say something like, "I don't see them as a threat," then you are in no way contradicting what others say. You're saying they're wrong, but the case you makes only says you wouldn't do what they did, not that they were wrong. We know for a fact that many of us believe these devices to be a threat as soon as they're connected to the network without being secured. In the same way that if a neighbor piled wood next to the property line and doused it with gasoline, I would consider that action to create a fire danger, and if neighborhood kids came by and set it on fire, and your house burns down, the kids would be guilty of arson, and the neighbor would be guilty of creating a fire hazard that in actual fact destroyed stuff. Obviously the kids are not innocent, but obviously the person who created the fire hazard is also not the victim. The neighbor is the victim.
Here, the people owning these devices are not the victim. Sure, sure, their crime is lesser than the script-kiddie. But they're complicit in the wrongdoing that creates the situation. For the neighbor who is endangered by their devices, they're also the primary cause of the whole situation, the source of the danger.
Keep typing away, I'm not going to read any of it after having already not read what you wrote above, and told you so.
You wanted to disagree with me, but you were only starting from an elementary-school "do you know what an airbase is" level. And before that you were already saying stupid, ignorant things. So no, there is no way I will care what you say, or read it. Next time, start out by saying something insightful. If you start out being an idiot, I'm not going to dredge around in your comment looking for some minor redeeming value.