No, you could just as well have said "magic fairy dust" and been almost as accurate. They'll be here, eventually. It won't be like you're expecting nor will it be in the time frame you're expecting. If you disagree, find an escrow service and put up some numbers and I'll be willing to make a large bet with you. Let's play a game, shall we?
I'll give you 5:1 odds for 10 years, following today's date, that the percentage of fully autonomous private transport vehicles on the highways, world wide, will be no higher than 10%. If you're willing to put the money into escrow then I'll take the bet. Minimal input, from you, is $5000 USD - I'll put up $25000 no later than Tuesday afternoon, say 1400 hrs EDT. Reliable escrow only - I'll need to vet their history and reputation, full total of monies must be paid at time of accepting the bet. Withdrawal from the bet prior to the date, ten years hence, will result in a 50% forfeiture - applicable to both parties. Any applicable escrow fees to be paid by the winner, of course. If you want to make it more interesting. then I'll take the wager and you can opt to raise the wager amount to $20000 USD.
There's the chance for you to win a year's salary. It'll happen but it's going to be a long time in the coming. I'm so positive of this that I'm willing to stake this. You have approximately 48 hours to decide. For those who think that autonomous vehicles are a viable solution, again I say, "The math is hard." There are lots of places where autonomy will (and should) work - even in the short term. However, they're not a solution and won't be for a while.
Ah well... LOL Sorry, wandered a bit off topic there but I'm gonna post it anyhow. I've offered and nobody's taken me up on it yet. The human brain is still faster than a computer. We're gonna have people driving for a while to come. So, no, it's not really a viable solution - not yet at any rate. I do expect to see more autonomy but not complete autonomy and we're looking for theoretical perfection not partial improvements.
Obviously. It's only constructive if it's misleading, off-topic, or in other ways prevents anything negative from being said. Just up the thread there was someone decrying this as THE BEST FEATURE! No, not the ability to make a fucking phone call but the wireless assist function was the BEST FEATURE!!!11eleventy!
It's constructive if it prevents actual constructive criticism. You know, not actually constructive. Alas, I'm preaching to the choir, I know. Ah well, karma to burn, baby. Karma to burn.
That's the *best* feature? Really? Really? Not the ability to make a fucking phone call but WiFi Assist is the *best* feature "for me."
What's this? I don't even... Do you get paid to post that shit? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a shill (except for gangadude who invites it with his signature and then only in jest as a 'shill for the marijuana industry') but I am wondering if this might actually be a paid post. No, not the ability to make a phone call, that's not the best feature. The best feature is a wireless assist technology that, it appears, causes people to spend money they didn't know they were going to be obligated to pay.
Yup. That's the absolutely bestest fucking feature on the phone. I hope, for your sake, you're drunk or have the phone shoved up your ass so that you're able to get a little prostate massage from it. Want me to call so it vibrates?
I don't actually normally even see my bill or anything but, due to a conversation here on/. recently, I got my username and password and logged in to see my data usage. I have 50 GB service and it appears, going through the history, that I have approached that limit twice. No, I have no idea what I was doing at the time and most of the time I use less than 1% of the data. I can only assume I was out of WiFi range and on the road somewhere.
Anyhow, the cellular company hasn't ever sent me an email, a text, or anything of that nature to tell me that I'm approaching a limit. They did send me 'special offers' via text but I had my accountant call them and they have stopped sending me those text messages. I'm told that they don't contact her, either, if I approach the limit. To be completely honest, it may be my own failing? I simply don't recall having ever done anything to make use of that much data. I've watched maybe a half dozen documentaries on Netflix, total - in my life, on my phone. Sure, I've done an ISO here and there when it was tethered. My usage history tends to reflect that, except for two months where I hit in the 90% range.
*shrugs* I don't know. They were two months in a row and the pattern didn't continue. I don't have a bunch of apps installed so it's probably not malware. I can only assume that I left it connected and was using it without paying attention. I sometimes end up concentrating on something so much that other things get forgotten. So, it must be that. Well, it probably is that.
I do wish that they'd send me (or my accountant) a warning. Maybe we need some sort of regulation, like Australia. I don't think I'd have ever said that before.
To be fair, I've never seen an "Unlimited" plan, well - not in a long time and I'm not sure if the one I saw before was "Unlimited." They've all been, "Unlimited*" and the asterisk is important. I make it a point to read the fine print. If i don't agree then I don't sign.
I clicked the link, kind of excited, thinking that, "Oh, I wonder how dark it is?" Then I realized I'm a moron. It's not like the pixels on my screen have a new setting saying, "This is the new black!"
Yes, there are some now. I was at the cusp which is why I'm where I am today. I am a mathematician - I modeled traffic 'on a computer.' Which, to be fair, meant dealing with TB sized data sets in the late 90s. It's still a fairly young industry. I'd expected to remain in academia but was offered a no-bid contract for the State of Massachusetts via way of my advisor while still doing my thesis - well, preparing to defend it. Needless to say, it was *very* lucrative and expansion started almost as soon as I accepted the contract.
I literally had business before I'd even really gotten started on collecting real world data. Eventually, I was offered a sizable chunk of money and sold my business. The new parent company does nothing, pretty much, but fill government contracts in a variety of areas such as logistics, security, information technology, and even food stuffs. That might narrow them down a little. They're almost a household name. Me? I won the lottery, so to speak. No great skills, I guess, just a person at the right place, at the right time, and able to take the risks associated.
I mention that because I've seen some of your other posts. It may be something you can get into - it's not easy but it is lucrative.
This might be a little below you but maybe not - it's a good grounding: http://ashley-transport-modell... Note: I may be biased, a little, by the author of the above - they do good work. They also excel in being able to describe things without being overly verbose.
Disclosure: I had personal involvement in this project. This is not an answer. This is a good descriptor which you can use to find other answers or, if you want, to learn which questions need asking: http://web.mit.edu/professiona...
Working our way up a little, this is an easy to read and information-filled paper, I know the authors by reputation and may be tangentially cited IIRC but I'm too lazy to double check: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
I'm not sure how much I can disclose, I'm pretty much forever covered by an NDA and a non-compete. Let's just say that I'm intimately familiar with this program: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/pla... That is not an answer or anything but might give you an idea of some of what we did beyond just vehicular traffic models.
We also did pedestrian traffic (think malls, grocery stores, a museum or two, hazard plans for large in-planning-stage buildings, and even outdoor events where traffic might be constricted or at stadiums). That's a whole other bowl of wax. As I was entering, it was just starting to maybe reach a bit of maturity - it still hasn't. It has only really been an idea since the 50s, I guess. It has been done, to some extent, since the 70s. However, I jumped in in the late 1980s and early 90s. The times were changing and compute power, specifically storage and compute cycles as well as RAM, were getting to be more accessible.
My email address works and is real. Once you've digested those, feel free to ping me. If you've a penchant then you may only need cross-training to work as a Traffic Engineer. Traffic Engineers are not the same as modelers but they may also do modeling. In the end, I employed about 200 people in three offices and two skeleton offices. Many of which were considered traffic engineers but were also programmers or the likes. We split into two teams with lots of cross-over. I'm not sure why companies don't train so often today. It's actually a good idea and we had an absurdly low turn-over rate. (Low enough to where I'd expect you to call me a liar if I told
Some of us are human enough to be willing to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Some of us accept that we're a part of society and didn't make it on our own. Some of us are willing to accept risks on behalf of those who can not or will not. It's called, "doing the ethical thing." You may have fewer ethics and, well, that's okay. Someday, when you're in the ditch and I offer you a hand up - maybe you'll understand the idea.
Hey - look: I can put you away (& I like you too) easily with 100's of upmods of my posts that say otherwise vs. purely arbitrary bullshit, EASILY - want proof of them? Just ask - THAT is EXACTLY how I put away fools giving me guff, with concrete, undeniable & verifiable fact - every time... apk
There's an example of what I mean. I'd call that confrontational. You can call it what you want. It won't fly on Wikipedia, they'll get grouchy. Also, Wikipedia doesn't do "PS" and the likes. However, I'm pretty sure you know that was mild banter for humor sake. As for moderation? I don't even use my mod points. Who am I to judge?
I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the premise that the problem is open source and not stupid people. No, my friend, the problem is stupid people. I'm not sure how we'll work around that. You'll get stupid people doing stupid things no matter what the source licensing is. Look at all the idiots who argue that a hosts file isn't any good for anything. See? Stupid people. They'll be stupid people even if the source is locked away.
We have some good Whiskey. I don't drink any more but I miss it. I do like my Molson. They stopped having their festival and I don't think they get you hammered during tours any more.;-) I'm a dual-citizen but I'm mostly an USian. I'm a citizen by grace of birth - Micmac.
You are, in fact, preaching to the choir, yes. Some days, I hope we do go extinct before we ruin it for the truly enlightened beings that follow us. I could go on, oh, I could... As tempting as it is, well, you're already aware of this. We could have nice things but humans are idiots. I'm glad I'm not a human.
So you don't mind if I just sleep on your couch and take the money from your bank account, then? I hope you, at least, have an attractive wife or daughter.
This is another well worded description. I am impressed with/. tonight. Usually, where mathematics is concerned, I only chuckle at the replies. As a group, we do well with comp sci and physics and even chemistry. Not so much for maths. Not long after I retired, I was invited to and took up the chance to give instruction at the University of Maine at Farmington. While difficult, it's not impossible to give applicable descriptions for difficult mathematics concepts. They're much easier to grasp when put into GOOD examples, such as the above.
Anyhow, I'd rather be bored than teach college students at a university geared towards creating good teachers. I'm sorry but your children are being educated by people who are as dumb as a box of rocks. They show no sign of improving. I suspect that some of the students, given the above example, would have asked (three weeks later and just prior to an exam) what a jigsaw puzzle was.
Either way, I don't actually use my mod points but I do appreciate your post. Coupled with the AC's post, above, I have to say I'm impressed. I dare say that both are better than I could have worded it myself. My instruction was by way of LEGO blocks. Yes, yes I had awesome professors. And yes, yes we did have LEGOs back then.
Oh, I agree entirely. I just thought you might find it interesting if you'd never read it. I was kind of fascinated by their process but their outcome was as anticipated - they didn't conclude anything "new" or "revolutionary" really. Also, to be fair, I'm a human (sort of) and this is of interest to me, albeit reflectively. My company modeled traffic - vehicular and then increased model pedestrian, as well. (To give a small hint - I sold in 2007 and, obviously, retired. If you know the market then you can probably make some assumptions from there.)
Either way, assuming you meant the typical human, you're entirely correct. They have no interest at all. It may well impact their lives, however. I did some initial scanning of the paper and did some speculation as to how it might be used further up the thread and specifically with my area of interest. I lacked the time and willpower to go into depth but I think I summed up what it looks like they're improving on.
I'm forced to wonder, do people actually understand the complexity? Even when you've the finest algorithm in the theoretical world - as soon as you take it out to mash it up with real world data, you find it's crap. No, there will be no universal optimization (no free lunch, indeed). If anything, the increased complexity and increased compute power mean we're going to end up with something akin to a fractal. How long, exactly, is the coast of the United Kingdom, anyhow?
You'd think so, especially today... Not everyone's logical or has pure intentions, I guess.
Mine? I was on the outskirts of Kansas, had just helped clean up after a major tornado had taken out a whole town - I just happened to be in the area (I was in Clinton OK prior to that and not doing anything but engaging in wanderlust) and was on my way out after a week of helping clean up. I stop, I want a few hours sleep and I'm too lazy to go get a hotel so I pull in behind a factory and go to sleep.
I'm woken up by cops banging on the window with a flashlight. They're really curious as to why I'm there. They don't believe my story. They're just looking for an excuse. They ask me to search my vehicle. I politely decline. They ask again. I decline again. They say they're going to call for the drug dog. I'm fine with that. Now...
(They never did call for that dog.)
The next one gets fun - they say, "You know, refusing to allow us to search your vehicle is probable cause for searching your vehicle." I literally laughed out loud and told him to call his supervisor and asked if they minded if I called my lawyer. I explained that I wasn't a dumb teen. The vehicle was a brand new BMW, much like the one I'm driving today. It's not like it was shabby or anything but I do have long hair - but I do dress nicely in clothing from L.L. Bean typically (or similar).
Needless to say, they never called the supervisor nor did they arrest me. They told me that I had, "One hour to clear out of Kansas and if they ever saw me again they were going to arrest me on the spot." I chuckled a bit at that, as well. The quotes aren't verbatim, I don't think, but close enough. The gist isn't changed to glorify anything and the verbiage was similar, if not the same.
The strange thing is, well, throughout my history, I've been a bit eccentric which has meant that I've had more than my share of encounters with the police. Once, I broke a police man's jaw (and, sort of, got away with it as he'd failed to identify himself so it was simple assault and not assaulting a police officer - an even longer story) and, yet, with all these encounters, being not-white, being antagonistic, being drunk (I no longer drink), being a drug using hippie, and generally being a malcontent as far as they're concerned - I've had only that one instance of harassment and abuse.
-- I'd call the attempt to lie and claim they'd probable cause 'abuse.'
Anyhow, I'd just come from spending my time, money, and labor in Greensburg, Kansas and was still treated like that, albeit over on the Missouri side. If I recall correctly, this was 2007 (I'd just retired not long before, sold my company and was just rambling down the highway at random). Something like 95% of the town had been a total loss. Yet the cops, in a fairly good sized city, decided I was an outlaw, tried to strip me of my Constitutional rights, and detained me by withholding my papers and by threat of force (implied). I was not impressed.
Oddly, that's the worst they've done. In the scope of life, and with scaling being honest, I probably should have encountered more but I've had good fortune throughout my entire life. It's often undeserved fortune but I'm grateful for it. Ah well...
Great, in theory. Then you end up with some drunk guy, driving backwards, on a one way street. As someone who made a career of modeling traffic, well, if we had intelligent drivers then I'd not have been able to retire at 50 after selling my company. Some dumb ass will ram the pylons and actually increase the overall time needed because emergency crews will be on-scene and the vehicle will be disabled. YOU might obey the rules but, well, you know how far that gets you.
Also, in an ideal world? We'd not need one single signal light nor stop sign. Yup. It could be done with ease. The only flaw in my world-overthrowing-plan is that humans are inherently stupid and more so when they're behind the wheel of an automobile. Trust me on this - I dare say that this is the one subject where I can speak authoritatively. Coming up with, and believing in, an ideal system that relies on the intelligence of the operators is as doomed as any political ideology that follows the same principles - meaning you're gonna need to be really draconian and authoritarian.
In short, we could just take the cars away. That'd make about as much sense as any other solution. Which, by the way, is me agreeing with you. It won't be perfect. No, it won't. However, your idea may actually mean that the overall throughput slows down and doesn't return to normal or result in an increased rate. It takes, on average, as long as THREE YEARS for them to acclimate to a new traffic pattern. Some, like the 'Magic Roundabouts' in the UK are just skipped by the locals who simply avoid them rather than adapt.
For every model of improvements you make, we'll invent a newer and dumber human. So, no... It won't be perfect. The pylons might be a stretch too far. Some places have actually opted to remove the tire puncture strips for those who go the wrong way on a one way route. Why? Idiots ended up holding up traffic. Sure, it had the desired result but there are more idiots. See the UK where they put in the pylons that rise up from the street, for example, and then lower only for certain vehicles with an attached sensor. People do exactly what you think they'll do - on a *very* regular basis, some of them even picking up speed to try to beat it. They don't. They do it again. And again... And again... And again...
Pylons probably aren't the solution - drivers education and mandatory re-licensing with strict adherence to testing standards might go somewhere but that's politically infeasible in my country.
Indeed. I've given it a bit of a scan at this point (posted up-thread) and it appears that, with first glance, the best way to describe it (to this crowd) is optimized sub-routines in a program. It looks like optimization done where the additional data is being inserted, calculated, and run. It's sort of like, I guess, object oriented programming (for lack of a more accurate description). I can see this coming in handy in traffic modeling and will give it a good, more thorough, read later to see what I can glean from it. It "just" looks more like an efficient method of inserting data and a more efficient way to insert more data than before. The word 'just' is used lightly in this case.
Subsequently it was shown that the No Free Lunch theorem only holds if the set of objective functions under consideration is closed under permutation (c.u.p.).
It's worth a read. IIRC, it was cited later by Hinkley and further work has been done since then but, well, I'm kind of lazy at the moment. Either way, it's worth looking at if you're curious and have been out of academia for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-driving cars.
Not a viable solution at this time.
Enough said.
No, you could just as well have said "magic fairy dust" and been almost as accurate. They'll be here, eventually. It won't be like you're expecting nor will it be in the time frame you're expecting. If you disagree, find an escrow service and put up some numbers and I'll be willing to make a large bet with you. Let's play a game, shall we?
I'll give you 5:1 odds for 10 years, following today's date, that the percentage of fully autonomous private transport vehicles on the highways, world wide, will be no higher than 10%. If you're willing to put the money into escrow then I'll take the bet. Minimal input, from you, is $5000 USD - I'll put up $25000 no later than Tuesday afternoon, say 1400 hrs EDT. Reliable escrow only - I'll need to vet their history and reputation, full total of monies must be paid at time of accepting the bet. Withdrawal from the bet prior to the date, ten years hence, will result in a 50% forfeiture - applicable to both parties. Any applicable escrow fees to be paid by the winner, of course. If you want to make it more interesting. then I'll take the wager and you can opt to raise the wager amount to $20000 USD.
There's the chance for you to win a year's salary. It'll happen but it's going to be a long time in the coming. I'm so positive of this that I'm willing to stake this. You have approximately 48 hours to decide. For those who think that autonomous vehicles are a viable solution, again I say, "The math is hard." There are lots of places where autonomy will (and should) work - even in the short term. However, they're not a solution and won't be for a while.
Ah well... LOL Sorry, wandered a bit off topic there but I'm gonna post it anyhow. I've offered and nobody's taken me up on it yet. The human brain is still faster than a computer. We're gonna have people driving for a while to come. So, no, it's not really a viable solution - not yet at any rate. I do expect to see more autonomy but not complete autonomy and we're looking for theoretical perfection not partial improvements.
Obviously. It's only constructive if it's misleading, off-topic, or in other ways prevents anything negative from being said. Just up the thread there was someone decrying this as THE BEST FEATURE! No, not the ability to make a fucking phone call but the wireless assist function was the BEST FEATURE!!!11eleventy!
It's constructive if it prevents actual constructive criticism. You know, not actually constructive. Alas, I'm preaching to the choir, I know. Ah well, karma to burn, baby. Karma to burn.
That's the *best* feature? Really? Really? Not the ability to make a fucking phone call but WiFi Assist is the *best* feature "for me."
What's this? I don't even... Do you get paid to post that shit? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a shill (except for gangadude who invites it with his signature and then only in jest as a 'shill for the marijuana industry') but I am wondering if this might actually be a paid post. No, not the ability to make a phone call, that's not the best feature. The best feature is a wireless assist technology that, it appears, causes people to spend money they didn't know they were going to be obligated to pay.
Yup. That's the absolutely bestest fucking feature on the phone. I hope, for your sake, you're drunk or have the phone shoved up your ass so that you're able to get a little prostate massage from it. Want me to call so it vibrates?
Best feature... *sighs*
I don't actually normally even see my bill or anything but, due to a conversation here on /. recently, I got my username and password and logged in to see my data usage. I have 50 GB service and it appears, going through the history, that I have approached that limit twice. No, I have no idea what I was doing at the time and most of the time I use less than 1% of the data. I can only assume I was out of WiFi range and on the road somewhere.
Anyhow, the cellular company hasn't ever sent me an email, a text, or anything of that nature to tell me that I'm approaching a limit. They did send me 'special offers' via text but I had my accountant call them and they have stopped sending me those text messages. I'm told that they don't contact her, either, if I approach the limit. To be completely honest, it may be my own failing? I simply don't recall having ever done anything to make use of that much data. I've watched maybe a half dozen documentaries on Netflix, total - in my life, on my phone. Sure, I've done an ISO here and there when it was tethered. My usage history tends to reflect that, except for two months where I hit in the 90% range.
*shrugs* I don't know. They were two months in a row and the pattern didn't continue. I don't have a bunch of apps installed so it's probably not malware. I can only assume that I left it connected and was using it without paying attention. I sometimes end up concentrating on something so much that other things get forgotten. So, it must be that. Well, it probably is that.
I do wish that they'd send me (or my accountant) a warning. Maybe we need some sort of regulation, like Australia. I don't think I'd have ever said that before.
To be fair, I've never seen an "Unlimited" plan, well - not in a long time and I'm not sure if the one I saw before was "Unlimited." They've all been, "Unlimited*" and the asterisk is important. I make it a point to read the fine print. If i don't agree then I don't sign.
My signature, it is on topic for once.
I clicked the link, kind of excited, thinking that, "Oh, I wonder how dark it is?" Then I realized I'm a moron. It's not like the pixels on my screen have a new setting saying, "This is the new black!"
Yes, there are some now. I was at the cusp which is why I'm where I am today. I am a mathematician - I modeled traffic 'on a computer.' Which, to be fair, meant dealing with TB sized data sets in the late 90s. It's still a fairly young industry. I'd expected to remain in academia but was offered a no-bid contract for the State of Massachusetts via way of my advisor while still doing my thesis - well, preparing to defend it. Needless to say, it was *very* lucrative and expansion started almost as soon as I accepted the contract.
I literally had business before I'd even really gotten started on collecting real world data. Eventually, I was offered a sizable chunk of money and sold my business. The new parent company does nothing, pretty much, but fill government contracts in a variety of areas such as logistics, security, information technology, and even food stuffs. That might narrow them down a little. They're almost a household name. Me? I won the lottery, so to speak. No great skills, I guess, just a person at the right place, at the right time, and able to take the risks associated.
I mention that because I've seen some of your other posts. It may be something you can get into - it's not easy but it is lucrative.
Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This might be a little below you but maybe not - it's a good grounding:
http://ashley-transport-modell...
Note: I may be biased, a little, by the author of the above - they do good work. They also excel in being able to describe things without being overly verbose.
Disclosure: I had personal involvement in this project. This is not an answer. This is a good descriptor which you can use to find other answers or, if you want, to learn which questions need asking:
http://web.mit.edu/professiona...
Working our way up a little, this is an easy to read and information-filled paper, I know the authors by reputation and may be tangentially cited IIRC but I'm too lazy to double check:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
I'm not sure how much I can disclose, I'm pretty much forever covered by an NDA and a non-compete. Let's just say that I'm intimately familiar with this program:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/pla...
That is not an answer or anything but might give you an idea of some of what we did beyond just vehicular traffic models.
We also did pedestrian traffic (think malls, grocery stores, a museum or two, hazard plans for large in-planning-stage buildings, and even outdoor events where traffic might be constricted or at stadiums). That's a whole other bowl of wax. As I was entering, it was just starting to maybe reach a bit of maturity - it still hasn't. It has only really been an idea since the 50s, I guess. It has been done, to some extent, since the 70s. However, I jumped in in the late 1980s and early 90s. The times were changing and compute power, specifically storage and compute cycles as well as RAM, were getting to be more accessible.
My email address works and is real. Once you've digested those, feel free to ping me. If you've a penchant then you may only need cross-training to work as a Traffic Engineer. Traffic Engineers are not the same as modelers but they may also do modeling. In the end, I employed about 200 people in three offices and two skeleton offices. Many of which were considered traffic engineers but were also programmers or the likes. We split into two teams with lots of cross-over. I'm not sure why companies don't train so often today. It's actually a good idea and we had an absurdly low turn-over rate. (Low enough to where I'd expect you to call me a liar if I told
Yup. There are quite a few.
For those interested:
https://www.google.com/search?...
I guess I'm a pedo - baiting kids, and all.
Some of us are human enough to be willing to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Some of us accept that we're a part of society and didn't make it on our own. Some of us are willing to accept risks on behalf of those who can not or will not. It's called, "doing the ethical thing." You may have fewer ethics and, well, that's okay. Someday, when you're in the ditch and I offer you a hand up - maybe you'll understand the idea.
Hey - look: I can put you away (& I like you too) easily with 100's of upmods of my posts that say otherwise vs. purely arbitrary bullshit, EASILY - want proof of them? Just ask - THAT is EXACTLY how I put away fools giving me guff, with concrete, undeniable & verifiable fact - every time... apk
There's an example of what I mean. I'd call that confrontational. You can call it what you want. It won't fly on Wikipedia, they'll get grouchy. Also, Wikipedia doesn't do "PS" and the likes. However, I'm pretty sure you know that was mild banter for humor sake. As for moderation? I don't even use my mod points. Who am I to judge?
Which one of us is going to dress up in a suit, fake a letter, and deliver it to the other one while pretending to be the NSA?
Yes, yes I did ask for it. ;-)
I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the premise that the problem is open source and not stupid people. No, my friend, the problem is stupid people. I'm not sure how we'll work around that. You'll get stupid people doing stupid things no matter what the source licensing is. Look at all the idiots who argue that a hosts file isn't any good for anything. See? Stupid people. They'll be stupid people even if the source is locked away.
We have some good Whiskey. I don't drink any more but I miss it. I do like my Molson. They stopped having their festival and I don't think they get you hammered during tours any more. ;-) I'm a dual-citizen but I'm mostly an USian. I'm a citizen by grace of birth - Micmac.
You are, in fact, preaching to the choir, yes. Some days, I hope we do go extinct before we ruin it for the truly enlightened beings that follow us. I could go on, oh, I could... As tempting as it is, well, you're already aware of this. We could have nice things but humans are idiots. I'm glad I'm not a human.
I am an inconsiderate clod you... Oh, wait...
In Soviet Russia inconsiderate clods you?
So you don't mind if I just sleep on your couch and take the money from your bank account, then? I hope you, at least, have an attractive wife or daughter.
Ha! Of course they measure it in bottles of wine. We Americans need that converted to bottles of Whiskey!
Or malt liqueur, which ever you prefer.
This is another well worded description. I am impressed with /. tonight. Usually, where mathematics is concerned, I only chuckle at the replies. As a group, we do well with comp sci and physics and even chemistry. Not so much for maths. Not long after I retired, I was invited to and took up the chance to give instruction at the University of Maine at Farmington. While difficult, it's not impossible to give applicable descriptions for difficult mathematics concepts. They're much easier to grasp when put into GOOD examples, such as the above.
Anyhow, I'd rather be bored than teach college students at a university geared towards creating good teachers. I'm sorry but your children are being educated by people who are as dumb as a box of rocks. They show no sign of improving. I suspect that some of the students, given the above example, would have asked (three weeks later and just prior to an exam) what a jigsaw puzzle was.
Either way, I don't actually use my mod points but I do appreciate your post. Coupled with the AC's post, above, I have to say I'm impressed. I dare say that both are better than I could have worded it myself. My instruction was by way of LEGO blocks. Yes, yes I had awesome professors. And yes, yes we did have LEGOs back then.
Oh, I agree entirely. I just thought you might find it interesting if you'd never read it. I was kind of fascinated by their process but their outcome was as anticipated - they didn't conclude anything "new" or "revolutionary" really. Also, to be fair, I'm a human (sort of) and this is of interest to me, albeit reflectively. My company modeled traffic - vehicular and then increased model pedestrian, as well. (To give a small hint - I sold in 2007 and, obviously, retired. If you know the market then you can probably make some assumptions from there.)
Either way, assuming you meant the typical human, you're entirely correct. They have no interest at all. It may well impact their lives, however. I did some initial scanning of the paper and did some speculation as to how it might be used further up the thread and specifically with my area of interest. I lacked the time and willpower to go into depth but I think I summed up what it looks like they're improving on.
I'm forced to wonder, do people actually understand the complexity? Even when you've the finest algorithm in the theoretical world - as soon as you take it out to mash it up with real world data, you find it's crap. No, there will be no universal optimization (no free lunch, indeed). If anything, the increased complexity and increased compute power mean we're going to end up with something akin to a fractal. How long, exactly, is the coast of the United Kingdom, anyhow?
You'd think so, especially today... Not everyone's logical or has pure intentions, I guess.
Mine? I was on the outskirts of Kansas, had just helped clean up after a major tornado had taken out a whole town - I just happened to be in the area (I was in Clinton OK prior to that and not doing anything but engaging in wanderlust) and was on my way out after a week of helping clean up. I stop, I want a few hours sleep and I'm too lazy to go get a hotel so I pull in behind a factory and go to sleep.
I'm woken up by cops banging on the window with a flashlight. They're really curious as to why I'm there. They don't believe my story. They're just looking for an excuse. They ask me to search my vehicle. I politely decline. They ask again. I decline again. They say they're going to call for the drug dog. I'm fine with that. Now...
(They never did call for that dog.)
The next one gets fun - they say, "You know, refusing to allow us to search your vehicle is probable cause for searching your vehicle." I literally laughed out loud and told him to call his supervisor and asked if they minded if I called my lawyer. I explained that I wasn't a dumb teen. The vehicle was a brand new BMW, much like the one I'm driving today. It's not like it was shabby or anything but I do have long hair - but I do dress nicely in clothing from L.L. Bean typically (or similar).
Needless to say, they never called the supervisor nor did they arrest me. They told me that I had, "One hour to clear out of Kansas and if they ever saw me again they were going to arrest me on the spot." I chuckled a bit at that, as well. The quotes aren't verbatim, I don't think, but close enough. The gist isn't changed to glorify anything and the verbiage was similar, if not the same.
The strange thing is, well, throughout my history, I've been a bit eccentric which has meant that I've had more than my share of encounters with the police. Once, I broke a police man's jaw (and, sort of, got away with it as he'd failed to identify himself so it was simple assault and not assaulting a police officer - an even longer story) and, yet, with all these encounters, being not-white, being antagonistic, being drunk (I no longer drink), being a drug using hippie, and generally being a malcontent as far as they're concerned - I've had only that one instance of harassment and abuse.
-- I'd call the attempt to lie and claim they'd probable cause 'abuse.'
Anyhow, I'd just come from spending my time, money, and labor in Greensburg, Kansas and was still treated like that, albeit over on the Missouri side. If I recall correctly, this was 2007 (I'd just retired not long before, sold my company and was just rambling down the highway at random). Something like 95% of the town had been a total loss. Yet the cops, in a fairly good sized city, decided I was an outlaw, tried to strip me of my Constitutional rights, and detained me by withholding my papers and by threat of force (implied). I was not impressed.
Oddly, that's the worst they've done. In the scope of life, and with scaling being honest, I probably should have encountered more but I've had good fortune throughout my entire life. It's often undeserved fortune but I'm grateful for it. Ah well...
Great, in theory. Then you end up with some drunk guy, driving backwards, on a one way street. As someone who made a career of modeling traffic, well, if we had intelligent drivers then I'd not have been able to retire at 50 after selling my company. Some dumb ass will ram the pylons and actually increase the overall time needed because emergency crews will be on-scene and the vehicle will be disabled. YOU might obey the rules but, well, you know how far that gets you.
Also, in an ideal world? We'd not need one single signal light nor stop sign. Yup. It could be done with ease. The only flaw in my world-overthrowing-plan is that humans are inherently stupid and more so when they're behind the wheel of an automobile. Trust me on this - I dare say that this is the one subject where I can speak authoritatively. Coming up with, and believing in, an ideal system that relies on the intelligence of the operators is as doomed as any political ideology that follows the same principles - meaning you're gonna need to be really draconian and authoritarian.
In short, we could just take the cars away. That'd make about as much sense as any other solution. Which, by the way, is me agreeing with you. It won't be perfect. No, it won't. However, your idea may actually mean that the overall throughput slows down and doesn't return to normal or result in an increased rate. It takes, on average, as long as THREE YEARS for them to acclimate to a new traffic pattern. Some, like the 'Magic Roundabouts' in the UK are just skipped by the locals who simply avoid them rather than adapt.
For every model of improvements you make, we'll invent a newer and dumber human. So, no... It won't be perfect. The pylons might be a stretch too far. Some places have actually opted to remove the tire puncture strips for those who go the wrong way on a one way route. Why? Idiots ended up holding up traffic. Sure, it had the desired result but there are more idiots. See the UK where they put in the pylons that rise up from the street, for example, and then lower only for certain vehicles with an attached sensor. People do exactly what you think they'll do - on a *very* regular basis, some of them even picking up speed to try to beat it. They don't. They do it again. And again... And again... And again...
Pylons probably aren't the solution - drivers education and mandatory re-licensing with strict adherence to testing standards might go somewhere but that's politically infeasible in my country.
Indeed. I've given it a bit of a scan at this point (posted up-thread) and it appears that, with first glance, the best way to describe it (to this crowd) is optimized sub-routines in a program. It looks like optimization done where the additional data is being inserted, calculated, and run. It's sort of like, I guess, object oriented programming (for lack of a more accurate description). I can see this coming in handy in traffic modeling and will give it a good, more thorough, read later to see what I can glean from it. It "just" looks more like an efficient method of inserting data and a more efficient way to insert more data than before. The word 'just' is used lightly in this case.
Marshal and HInton did some work on this. It's a good read. I'll find it for you.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1597...
An interesting quote in 1.1 would be:
Subsequently it was shown that the No Free Lunch theorem only holds if the set of objective functions under consideration is closed under permutation (c.u.p.).
It's worth a read. IIRC, it was cited later by Hinkley and further work has been done since then but, well, I'm kind of lazy at the moment. Either way, it's worth looking at if you're curious and have been out of academia for a while.