While San Francisco is a big city, that just feels like a big number to me. I imagine the assessor's office has a huge database to deal with, but there's still a finite number of employee users and whatever outward facing public interface. And while every city wants to think they are unique, it's also hard to imagine their ultimate needs are radically different than Chicago, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Phoenix or any other random big city. So I guess the number is big if they start wanting a completely bespoke system, unlike any other system in the country used by a city with the same needs. They pay a group of consultants to spend time and money telling them that what they need isn't an off-the-shelf solution that's faster and cheaper to deploy, but something tailored to their specific set of requirements. And because they go through this every single time they ponder upgrading they shy away from it, pushing it back and making the next upgrade task that much larger. Government efficiency as usual.
No argument here. I've told people for years that the Nexus 5 hit the sweet spot. Big enough, but not too big for 1-handed use. Square sides which pretend to look like a thinner phone but made it easier to grip. While newer phones have some cute gimmicks, If I had a chance to get a Nexus 5 today with an updated processor and such so it ran the latest Android well I'd jump on it.
I wouldn't have guessed, but not too surprised when it showed that gambling sites were primarily in Chinese. What did surprise me was the same held true for porn sites. My guess is that the great firewall would filter those out, though that was just an assumption. if true, are those sites aimed at ex-pats?
Just for research purposes only, I searched Google for the word "porn" and got 4.2 billion hits. Searching for the Chinese word for porn gave me 600 million. Then I searched for the Chinese word for pornography which gave more hits, 700 million. Interestingly, clicking on "images " for the Chinese word for porn showed almost all very explicit images, while the word pornography showed suggestively, but not explicit images. Searching in English is similar, but where porn gives you porn images, searching for pornography gives you mostly anti-porn images.
https://lifehacker.com/intermi...
Often I'll read a topic somewhere else and see it show up on Slashdot hours or days later. When I saw this I was sure it was the post I'd read earlier in the day. Imagine my surprise to find it had the opposite conclusion.
A drone does not necessarily require a radio to be guided. It can steer itself via GPS+IMU, no need for the operator to communicate.
So finding it, or it's operator, via any transmitted signals, isn't the most reliable method of deterrence.
If your object is mischief, it's best not to be standing outside underneath it with a box and a big antenna looking up.
Could a few dozen drones, a few at each of major airports, with some nice shiny radar reflectors, clog the air traffic system?
They could pop out of parked cars spook everyone, to hide after a minute or two, or be replaced by the next one in the queue.
Can it be that easy? I would hope not.
Might as well ban bicycles too. There's no way riding a bicycle is as safe as crumple-zoned, air-bagged, seat-belted vehicle with automatic 911 calling in an accident.
Oh, and Johns Hopkins reports "More than 775,000 children, ages 14 and younger, are treated in hospital emergency rooms for sports-related injuries each year" Limit exercise to non-contact, indoor activities.
Of course, for now, we still have a little freedom of choice. So sports could still exist for adults, but to protect the children, be illegal under aged 18. Want to compete? That's what video games are for.
while the safer thing to do would have been to slow down and let the Camry in what was preventing the Camry from slowing down and merging in behind i.e. giving way to existing traffic as it merged?
I've been screwed by the people who think slowing down to "let merging traffic in" is safer. I enter an onramp and adjust my speed to slip behind the person in the lane. What do they do? Slow down as well, hanging out in my blind spot as I run out of onramp. If you're on the road maintain your speed, don't speed up to cut someone off but don't slow down either. Then the person who's merging knows where you are and how fast you're going.
If I see a slow vehicle merging onto the road and it seems we might be trying to share the same space I'll change lanes to the left, leaving them the lane to merge into. I do not alter my speed except to avoid an accident with an idiot who doesn't know how to enter a freeway.
I have operated a vehicle like this, a light rail vehicle operating in traffic. It does seem to be a good use case for autonomy. While the requirements would be less than a car, it's definitely more than one operating in a loop on a closed course like at an airport.
There are obstacles to contend with. While the track may be separate, there is car traffic to watch out for as well as pedestrians who step out in front of you. Unlike a car, you don't have the option to swerve around an obstacle but are limited to speeding up, slowing down or stopping. For the system to react to vehicles or people in its path seems straightforward enough, but I would think that discerning intent would be harder. A person just outside your path that's looking at you, waiting for you to pass is different than a person at the same spot with their back to you wearing headphones.
I also wonder how long before these types of vehicles are targets of mischief. Would a traffic cone or cardboard box plopped on the track bring the train to a halt? Could (or should) a remote operator override the system and drive over it? I can't see them opening the doors to have a passenger move it out of the way. A similar thing in a street might be dealt with by a human driver, but on a dedicated track, the obstacle could be there a while.
Increasing the sensitivity of the receiving antenna decreases the power requirement on the transmitter. Mobile phones have less of a problem receiving a signal from the tower than the tower does receiving from the mobile. Since the towers already report back the strength of the signal received, and the mobiles adjust power output as needed, a more sensitive antenna at the tower could have a positive effect on mobile phone use with no changes needed at the mobile.
Saying that a new receiving antenna is useless for transmitting ignores the fact that transmitters and receivers are part of a system and improvements in the performance of one can result in improvements in the overall system.
So this AI bot creates a Wikipedia page ( barely a snippet from what I saw ) from already accessible information. Is there going to be another bot trolling Wikipedia to find pages to link to this page? How will it fold the link in context? Because if no other Wikipedia page links to it people won't find it within Wikipedia without explicitly searching for it. And since no pages link to it, and it contains the same content as the easily discoverable original page it's going to be low ranked and redundant.
Maybe, just maybe, it might be worth it if the bot could crawl Wikipedia and find the red links to people that are already mentioned in other pages but have no page of their own. At least those people are already on Wikipedia after a fashion and there will be at least one link to the new bot-created page.
Tiny pages with no incoming links have little to no value. The bot might be able to compose a tiny page, but so could any person in minutes after assessing if the page will have value. We need to asses for value first, create the page after.
If the film will last 500 years, then don't get rid of it. But if the reader takes several people to move then it seems suitable for an upgrade. A transport mechanism for the film along with a camera to display the film on a computer or monitor would seem to be the way to go. It also wouldn't seem to to be too hard to have the reader be able to count frames, making quick access to go forward or back semi-automated.
Differentiating between audio and video recordings make silent video security cameras legal. An area that requires 2 party consent would not be able to record audio with video, but could record video only ( unless there's another law for that )
I suspect there are many 1000s of businesses in Missouri that have legal audio and video recordings, probably some taxis too, while in other areas video only is quite common.
It would be bad for business though if every bar live streamed their security video, with or without audio, even if it were legal.
I feel about the same way for spectator sports. But I think I know the way they will die, at least televised ones: CGI sports.
With 1000s of hours of video for any specific team there's more than enough raw material to generate a CGI version of any team playing any other team. With a high-quality simulation of teams and players it would be possible to orchestrate any outcome. More important, it would be possible to not just arrange a game to have team A or team B win but to build up the tension with one barely defeating the other in the final seconds, or a total blowout.
The markets for fantasy sports and e-sports together show that human players in an actual game are not necessary to have an audience.
Sports Illustrated reports the highest grossing sports films: 1. The Blind Side: $256million 2. The Waterboy: $162million 3. The Longest Yard (2005): $158million 4. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby: $148million 5. Rocky IV: $128million 6. Rocky III: $124million 7. Seabiscuit: $120million 8. Blades of Glory: $119million 9. Remember the Titans: $116million 10. Unbroken: $115million
This suggests there's already plenty of money to be made in made-up sports. With the mechanics in place, a group of writers/choreographers could program a whole season.
The above comment can't be read as anything but a failure to read the linked article.
"The proposed settlement does not mention the safety allegations but focuses on the delay in making the promised features available to consumers."
The "completely inoperable" part of the claim appears then to refer to the system's status between the time of delivery of the vehicle and the time of the OTA update.
The article, and presumably the settlement, make no comment on the safety or efficacy of the autopilot or automatic braking systems. Nor does it mention Tesla admitting to delivering anything dangerous.
In short: A string of words in a voice conversation was interpreted to be "send a voice message", which it did. Probably the best fix: Make sure the Echo's voice responses through the several steps needed to accomplish this cannot be muted and are played at a volume level louder than the ambient noise in the room.
This makes the whole thing the equivalent of a butt dial to voicemail circa 1997. Sit on your non-flip phone and either speed dial someone or re-dial a previous number. The call goes to VM and if you're talking the whole time someone gets a 30-minute "file" of someone talking and not knowing they are being recorded.
Replying to my own comment for those who don't follow the link to the details of the standard Volvo system.
Cyclists crossing the path of the car or suddenly swerving out in front it. Depending on the situation, City Safety is able to avoid a collision if the relative speed difference is up to 45 km/h (28 mph). At higher speeds, the automatic braking can mitigate the consequences of the collision.
Pedestrians walking out in front of the car. City Safety is able to avoid a collision at speeds up to 45 km/h (28 mph). At higher speeds, the automatic braking can help mitigate the consequences of the collision.
According to the article, the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph which is 15 mph, or more than 50% faster than the "able to avoid a collision" speeds listed above. Mitigate the consequences? Probably. Then again the pedestrian not wearing dark clothes or having reflectors on the bike while walking in front of a car at night would probably have helped more.
A very poorly written article which resulted in a poorly written summary.
Buried in the article: "Uber also disabled the Volvo's factory-equipped automatic emergency braking system when the vehicle is in autonomous mode, the report said."
This is an auto-braking system with sensors. Uber's autonomous system has its own braking and sensors. It's understandable from a system perspective that they don't have two separate, independent, systems deciding when to apply the brakes operational at the same time.
The poorly written article makes it sound like Uber's system either didn't have a feature for braking for obstacles or that it was disabled. This is not accurate. It does appear that Uber's system failed to either detect the pedestrian or to brake when detected.
It's probably also true that when testing they don't use the factory cruise control to maintain speed on the highway. There are likely other standard functions not used when the autonomous equipment is under test.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/channe...
While San Francisco is a big city, that just feels like a big number to me. I imagine the assessor's office has a huge database to deal with, but there's still a finite number of employee users and whatever outward facing public interface. And while every city wants to think they are unique, it's also hard to imagine their ultimate needs are radically different than Chicago, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Phoenix or any other random big city. So I guess the number is big if they start wanting a completely bespoke system, unlike any other system in the country used by a city with the same needs. They pay a group of consultants to spend time and money telling them that what they need isn't an off-the-shelf solution that's faster and cheaper to deploy, but something tailored to their specific set of requirements. And because they go through this every single time they ponder upgrading they shy away from it, pushing it back and making the next upgrade task that much larger. Government efficiency as usual.
No argument here. I've told people for years that the Nexus 5 hit the sweet spot. Big enough, but not too big for 1-handed use. Square sides which pretend to look like a thinner phone but made it easier to grip. While newer phones have some cute gimmicks, If I had a chance to get a Nexus 5 today with an updated processor and such so it ran the latest Android well I'd jump on it.
I wouldn't have guessed, but not too surprised when it showed that gambling sites were primarily in Chinese. What did surprise me was the same held true for porn sites. My guess is that the great firewall would filter those out, though that was just an assumption. if true, are those sites aimed at ex-pats? Just for research purposes only, I searched Google for the word "porn" and got 4.2 billion hits. Searching for the Chinese word for porn gave me 600 million. Then I searched for the Chinese word for pornography which gave more hits, 700 million. Interestingly, clicking on "images " for the Chinese word for porn showed almost all very explicit images, while the word pornography showed suggestively, but not explicit images. Searching in English is similar, but where porn gives you porn images, searching for pornography gives you mostly anti-porn images.
https://lifehacker.com/intermi... Often I'll read a topic somewhere else and see it show up on Slashdot hours or days later. When I saw this I was sure it was the post I'd read earlier in the day. Imagine my surprise to find it had the opposite conclusion.
A drone does not necessarily require a radio to be guided. It can steer itself via GPS+IMU, no need for the operator to communicate. So finding it, or it's operator, via any transmitted signals, isn't the most reliable method of deterrence. If your object is mischief, it's best not to be standing outside underneath it with a box and a big antenna looking up.
Could a few dozen drones, a few at each of major airports, with some nice shiny radar reflectors, clog the air traffic system? They could pop out of parked cars spook everyone, to hide after a minute or two, or be replaced by the next one in the queue. Can it be that easy? I would hope not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Might as well ban bicycles too. There's no way riding a bicycle is as safe as crumple-zoned, air-bagged, seat-belted vehicle with automatic 911 calling in an accident. Oh, and Johns Hopkins reports "More than 775,000 children, ages 14 and younger, are treated in hospital emergency rooms for sports-related injuries each year" Limit exercise to non-contact, indoor activities. Of course, for now, we still have a little freedom of choice. So sports could still exist for adults, but to protect the children, be illegal under aged 18. Want to compete? That's what video games are for.
while the safer thing to do would have been to slow down and let the Camry in what was preventing the Camry from slowing down and merging in behind i.e. giving way to existing traffic as it merged?
I've been screwed by the people who think slowing down to "let merging traffic in" is safer. I enter an onramp and adjust my speed to slip behind the person in the lane. What do they do? Slow down as well, hanging out in my blind spot as I run out of onramp. If you're on the road maintain your speed, don't speed up to cut someone off but don't slow down either. Then the person who's merging knows where you are and how fast you're going. If I see a slow vehicle merging onto the road and it seems we might be trying to share the same space I'll change lanes to the left, leaving them the lane to merge into. I do not alter my speed except to avoid an accident with an idiot who doesn't know how to enter a freeway.
I have operated a vehicle like this, a light rail vehicle operating in traffic. It does seem to be a good use case for autonomy. While the requirements would be less than a car, it's definitely more than one operating in a loop on a closed course like at an airport. There are obstacles to contend with. While the track may be separate, there is car traffic to watch out for as well as pedestrians who step out in front of you. Unlike a car, you don't have the option to swerve around an obstacle but are limited to speeding up, slowing down or stopping. For the system to react to vehicles or people in its path seems straightforward enough, but I would think that discerning intent would be harder. A person just outside your path that's looking at you, waiting for you to pass is different than a person at the same spot with their back to you wearing headphones. I also wonder how long before these types of vehicles are targets of mischief. Would a traffic cone or cardboard box plopped on the track bring the train to a halt? Could (or should) a remote operator override the system and drive over it? I can't see them opening the doors to have a passenger move it out of the way. A similar thing in a street might be dealt with by a human driver, but on a dedicated track, the obstacle could be there a while.
Link to an article that mentions the claims were not confirmed.
Increasing the sensitivity of the receiving antenna decreases the power requirement on the transmitter. Mobile phones have less of a problem receiving a signal from the tower than the tower does receiving from the mobile. Since the towers already report back the strength of the signal received, and the mobiles adjust power output as needed, a more sensitive antenna at the tower could have a positive effect on mobile phone use with no changes needed at the mobile. Saying that a new receiving antenna is useless for transmitting ignores the fact that transmitters and receivers are part of a system and improvements in the performance of one can result in improvements in the overall system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
..is it visible?
So this AI bot creates a Wikipedia page ( barely a snippet from what I saw ) from already accessible information. Is there going to be another bot trolling Wikipedia to find pages to link to this page? How will it fold the link in context? Because if no other Wikipedia page links to it people won't find it within Wikipedia without explicitly searching for it. And since no pages link to it, and it contains the same content as the easily discoverable original page it's going to be low ranked and redundant.
Maybe, just maybe, it might be worth it if the bot could crawl Wikipedia and find the red links to people that are already mentioned in other pages but have no page of their own. At least those people are already on Wikipedia after a fashion and there will be at least one link to the new bot-created page.
Tiny pages with no incoming links have little to no value. The bot might be able to compose a tiny page, but so could any person in minutes after assessing if the page will have value. We need to asses for value first, create the page after.
The summary says they started with a 2D algorithm made for herding sheep, so yes, it has been done and has been mentioned.
If the film will last 500 years, then don't get rid of it. But if the reader takes several people to move then it seems suitable for an upgrade. A transport mechanism for the film along with a camera to display the film on a computer or monitor would seem to be the way to go. It also wouldn't seem to to be too hard to have the reader be able to count frames, making quick access to go forward or back semi-automated.
The proposed ban on cafeterias is not retroactive, it would apply to new offices only.
Differentiating between audio and video recordings make silent video security cameras legal. An area that requires 2 party consent would not be able to record audio with video, but could record video only ( unless there's another law for that )
I suspect there are many 1000s of businesses in Missouri that have legal audio and video recordings, probably some taxis too, while in other areas video only is quite common.
It would be bad for business though if every bar live streamed their security video, with or without audio, even if it were legal.
Here's a non-GMO, non-radiated potato you'll want to avoid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I feel about the same way for spectator sports. But I think I know the way they will die, at least televised ones: CGI sports.
With 1000s of hours of video for any specific team there's more than enough raw material to generate a CGI version of any team playing any other team. With a high-quality simulation of teams and players it would be possible to orchestrate any outcome. More important, it would be possible to not just arrange a game to have team A or team B win but to build up the tension with one barely defeating the other in the final seconds, or a total blowout.
The markets for fantasy sports and e-sports together show that human players in an actual game are not necessary to have an audience.
Sports Illustrated reports the highest grossing sports films:
1. The Blind Side: $256million
2. The Waterboy: $162million
3. The Longest Yard (2005): $158million
4. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby: $148million
5. Rocky IV: $128million
6. Rocky III: $124million
7. Seabiscuit: $120million
8. Blades of Glory: $119million
9. Remember the Titans: $116million
10. Unbroken: $115million
This suggests there's already plenty of money to be made in made-up sports. With the mechanics in place, a group of writers/choreographers could program a whole season.
The above comment can't be read as anything but a failure to read the linked article.
"The proposed settlement does not mention the safety allegations but focuses on the delay in making the promised features available to consumers."
The "completely inoperable" part of the claim appears then to refer to the system's status between the time of delivery of the vehicle and the time of the OTA update.
The article, and presumably the settlement, make no comment on the safety or efficacy of the autopilot or automatic braking systems. Nor does it mention Tesla admitting to delivering anything dangerous.
An update on Ars Technica has details: https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
In short: A string of words in a voice conversation was interpreted to be "send a voice message", which it did. Probably the best fix: Make sure the Echo's voice responses through the several steps needed to accomplish this cannot be muted and are played at a volume level louder than the ambient noise in the room.
This makes the whole thing the equivalent of a butt dial to voicemail circa 1997. Sit on your non-flip phone and either speed dial someone or re-dial a previous number. The call goes to VM and if you're talking the whole time someone gets a 30-minute "file" of someone talking and not knowing they are being recorded.
Replying to my own comment for those who don't follow the link to the details of the standard Volvo system.
Cyclists crossing the path of the car or suddenly swerving out in front it. Depending on the situation, City Safety is able to avoid a collision if the relative speed difference is up to 45 km/h (28 mph). At higher speeds, the automatic braking can mitigate the consequences of the collision.
Pedestrians walking out in front of the car. City Safety is able to avoid a collision at speeds up to 45 km/h (28 mph). At higher speeds, the automatic braking can help mitigate the consequences of the collision.
According to the article, the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph which is 15 mph, or more than 50% faster than the "able to avoid a collision" speeds listed above. Mitigate the consequences? Probably. Then again the pedestrian not wearing dark clothes or having reflectors on the bike while walking in front of a car at night would probably have helped more.
A very poorly written article which resulted in a poorly written summary.
Buried in the article: "Uber also disabled the Volvo's factory-equipped automatic emergency braking system when the vehicle is in autonomous mode, the report said."
The Volvo XC90 comes with a feature they call "City Safety". https://www.media.volvocars.co...
This is an auto-braking system with sensors. Uber's autonomous system has its own braking and sensors. It's understandable from a system perspective that they don't have two separate, independent, systems deciding when to apply the brakes operational at the same time.
The poorly written article makes it sound like Uber's system either didn't have a feature for braking for obstacles or that it was disabled. This is not accurate. It does appear that Uber's system failed to either detect the pedestrian or to brake when detected.
It's probably also true that when testing they don't use the factory cruise control to maintain speed on the highway. There are likely other standard functions not used when the autonomous equipment is under test.