Great point.

It's reassuring that the decision-makers in that process consider alternative ideas; basing the goal on 'human-like' sight would leave a lot of room for error (given limitations of even human perception and classification capabilities!)

Everytime I see this topic appear on Slashdot (Last time) I think:

You're putting a neural network (NN) through a classification process where it is fed this image as a "fixed input", where the input's constituent elements are constant, and you ask it to classify correctly the same way as a human would. The problem with this comparison is the human eye does not see a "constant" input stream; the eye captures a stream of images, each slightly skewed as your head moves and the images changes slightly. Based on this stream of slightly different images, the human identifies an object.

However, in this research, time and again a "team" shows a "fault" in a NN by taking a single, nonvarying image input to a NN and calling it a "deep flaw in the image processing network", and I just get a feeling that they're doing it wrong.

To your topic though: You better hope your car is not just taking one single still image and performing actions based on that. You better hope your car is taking a stream of images and making decisions, which would be a completely different class of problem than this.

However, when everything is published in English (no matter the country), then does your point matter?

listed = listen*

card = cart*

So if people listed to you and we go back to the "millennia" of yesteryear, will you think so fondly of your choice as you are dying of hunger from the food that wasn't driven to your local market on fossil fuels? Or will you get off your literal high horse and pull the food card alongside the other fellow men who try to survive in such a world?

Your comment posted at 4:52PM Eastern Time, followed by such a "hater" comment at 4:53PM Eastern time below.

This is just a textbook example of why you shouldn't trust what statistics people feed you, right?

YOU GET MY POINT ... ......

So if there were 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979, that represents 7.60% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+1979 )

..and if there were 56,800 biomedical graduate students in 2009, that represents 5.42% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+2009 )

So... c'mon man, where are the jobs?

I read it at first that he was advocating for burying the lines. Or constructing the poles out of Adamantium.

I never read it as the OP wanted to do away with electricity. His only slant seems to be anti-Power Company.

Since we're on personal anecdotes, that's great that it worked for you, but if you want to guarantee that N people learn some baseline

skills, then the OP's observation is move valid IMHO.

In addition, people with a B.S. or B.A. (or even M.S., M.A.) in a Non-STEM field. (I.E. English, etc)

Is the $15,000 fee paid yearly?

If its not, your outlined plan would seem to give even more incentive to not hire Americans. Just pay the fee once, and then for the next N years keep the immigrant non-citizen workers at a lower wage.

Assuming you're the OP... you have a lot of qualifying comments that are not the same as the OP's claim of outright banning cars.

So yes, you're right, there are several facets to the process. And it's much more constructive to talk about them rather than just straight trolling, even if elements of your response are still outright trolling.

That's a pretty near-sighted idea.

If you ban cars, how will people in areas of the world designed for cars get access to food? Heathcare?

How will companies that service utilities service the infrastructure?

How many people would consequentially die by banning cars? Much more than the car deaths per year.

You have the power... to stop being a negative, short-sighted person. Think about a solution rather than trolling.