Knowledge is in itself the advancement of man.

Do you also live in fear from the magnatudes more in force and number cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere? Until we can build accelerators that can beat out all such events, I think we are safe.

Surgery is a scary thing. Having robots or remote surgeons makes us nervous because it amplifies the unknowns. We are already very good at imagining bad what-if scenarios in these situations.

Likely if lag times become too great the machines will go into a safe mode until a better connection is restored, and yes there may be unlikely/unlucky scenarios where the patent dies from not being able to receive timely treatment/intervention because no qualified surgeon is close by. Of course thousands if not hundreds of thousands (millions?) already die from less than ideal surgeries at the hands of all too fallible doctors. All doctors are fallible, it is a spectrum of very competent (and yet still human) to incompetent.

Likely autonomous robotic surgery and remote surgery (and various hybrids of the two) are the wave of the future. A future many don’t want, but largely for naked fear of the unknown. Ideally quality of care will go up, access to care will go up, cost will go down (though not initially while we work out the kinks) .

Ideally automated (and largely infallible) robots will conduct the majority of surgeries and an elite squad of human surgeons will be on stand by to take over if the robot gets into trouble (though this will still be done remotely). Longer term the elite surgeons will be needed less and less until unneeded completely.

ER facilities will morph into prep-banks to stabilize patents just long enough for them to be worked on by the remotely guided or autonomous robots they keep nearby. Stabilization my include emergency cooling the body (induced hypothermia) so the patent can live long enough to receive remote care.

Patients with deadly communicable decreases will be able to receive surgery without major risks to hospital staff.

It will all be quite unnerving to witness, but what surgical intervention isn’t? If statistically lives are saved, then this is the way to go. Doing the right thing in medicine often involves overcoming a yuck factor.

I didn’t RTFA, but I suspect the truth is more complicated than the summary. I was a child in the 60’s and didn’t pay attention to music back then. Somewhere in my 40’s I was like Whoa! Why wasn’t I paying attention to Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin when it was on the radio??? I liked disco and still do. I liked New Age in the 80’s but now I’m like WTF was I thinking. Current music seems pretty good to me especially groups like Maroon 5 and OK Go. I even find my foot tapping to Katy Perry.

Different genres seem to have different peeks in different years to me. Funk was at its best in the 70s and 80s., Rap the late 80’s early 90’s. Blues and Jazz seems good in all eras. Hard Rock 60s and 70’s. Heavy Metal 80’s and 90’s. Techno from 90’s through today.

  My dad on the other hand only liked Jazz and thought Rock was fad even in the 80’s and 90’s and opined several times that he thought its age was almost over (seems Rock has out lived my dad).

How can you not be "self directed" if you are compensating for "movement of the target". It has been given a target and actively modifying its flight profile in flight. There must be some intelligence and/or sensing and/or feedback to do this. Seems like an exercise in semantics to call it not-self-directed (at least in flight).

Is this a disclaimer to avoid getting these bullets confused with things like autonomous killbots? Though it is pretty easy to assume killbots will overwhelming choose these bullets as ammo :-)

They obviously they printed replacements

It might be useful to inform an admin to look at suspicious postings, especially if they can get the accuracy higher. BUT I hope no one uses such algorithms to automatically stop suspected trolls. This can only lead to unforeseen consequences and stifling of free speech (unless of course stifling is not an unforeseen consequence, but an intended one).

Many Slashdotters already complain about the Lameness-Filter, this has the potential to be a hundred times worse.

The technology will of course be developed, let us hope its impact isn’t too negative.

In a somewhat related note, have you noticed how the automated answering at phone centers is getting more aggressive keeping you from a real representative and wasting huge amounts of your time when it doesn’t know how to process your query? Even hanging up on you when your issue is not resolved. My last experience with Verizon was a nightmare in this respect last time dealing with a technical problem with our phone. The more these things can be automated, the more they will – customer friendly or not </vent spleen>

My home computer.

To clarify. It was HR that alerted my Manager. I said the next day, but I may have been looking a few days, a week at the most, though I had probably posted inquiries the night before. It was quite sudden, unexpected, and intimidating. This was probably 5-6 years ago. As stated I am with the same company, outside this incident they have treated me well. I don't consider myself a star employee, their concern seemed more of the "Oh my gosh, we really hope you are happy here" kind. Still it caused me to stop looking. I have been coasting on my skills for several years now. I worry that should I leave this job I might find myself under-qualified for what comes next, that and that fact I am well over 50. So yes, I have let fear rule me in this instance. For those who would fault me for this, I am a family man, and at this stage in my life security and stability are greatly valued.,

From home. The main reason I think they have a honeypot listing.

This type of monitoring makes me nervous.

I have a job where a few years ago I looked at some job opportunities on a Job Site. The very next day my manager came to me asking if I was happy with my job, which in general I was, but I was unnerved that they knew I was looking at the other options. I suspect they used a honey pot job listing. I decided my job security at that time was more important than looking for other opportunities so I stopped looking altogether. If I was to job hunt to today I would do so much more surreptitiously and under a pseudonym, at least initially.

I am well compensated at my job, but dislike the idea that they are aware of my activities outside of work.

The journey to autonomous vehicles will probably be bumpy. Yes there will be lawsuits, yes sometimes the technology will misperform. It is possible that by relieving the driver of too many duties you encourage complacence that causes more accidents (or at least accidents to occur at times other than they would have, even if others are avoided).

Likely how to deal with distracted semi-autonomous operators will evolve quickly.

I have a neighbor with early onset Parkinson's disease, it would seem a good idea for his driving to have some sort of semi-autonomous assistance (yes he is still driving). How about the elderly? It is all fine and good to be indignant about the possible threat these vehicles pose (during a relatively short adoption period). But what about for those whose independence hinges on this sort of assist?

Seems there are many who forbid any period of transition with a zero tolerance policy for any mishaps regardless of how many lives might be saved.

I also assume the major auto makers who will be rolling these things out have lots a legal council and are being best advised on how to do so without being sued into bankruptcy after the first accident. The future is autonomous vehicles and the only way to be around 10 years from now as a car manufacturer is to get on the bandwagon early – despite the litigation risks.

I lightly skimmed TFA, and it appears they are concerned with how well we explain/use what we have found as an answer on the internet.

I think this is an oversimplification. I use to read books on various computer languages and could program in them sufficiently before the internet (yes I’m that old). Now I don’t learn languages as deeply for various infrequently used constructs, but look them up as needed.

Now here is the thing -- once I have used a quickly found piece of knowledge on the internet, I then nearly as quickly discard it. Does it matter as long as I applied the knowledge as needed? I might research a topic, come to some insight, then discard the steps of coming to the insight, because I realize I could recreate my steps again more efficiently should the need arise than commit volumes of information to memory. What I now remember is not the facts, but the steps needed to find the facts.

It may be that in areas where I lack expertise I assign a probability that should the need arise I could get some answer. Is that the same as overestimating my knowledge? This probability assignment includes shades of gray and that realization that a search might return wildly different answers from various sources, for instance if I’m looking up something on foreign policy decisions. This last example actually forces me to keep my knowledge more fluid. I constantly reevaluate my positions as new information comes to light, instead of defending to the death my old hard won knowledge and opinions.

Yes there may be some detrimental effects to relying on the internet augment our intelligence, say for those that have to write technical manuals for instance. But there are also benefits to be had. Sort of like JIT (Just in Time) manufacturing, we now have JIT knowledge.

Despite the outcry of many, I find this year’s April 1st theme enjoyable. Black Hole is one of those films that is bad on many levels and yet still an enjoyable viewing experience. Perhaps it is just the strange repetitive Yah-Yah-Yah-Yaaaaah-da-da-da background music that makes it so borderline creepy and memorable -- very un-Disney like.

It gets all weird and religiously allegorical at the end while at the same time paying an homage to 2001 a Space Odyssey’s final scenes. I usually just quit insisting the ending make any kind of scientific sense and just accept it as a Deus Ex Machina.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised that it apparently it must be considered essential for nerd viewing (else it wouldn’t be skewered in this year's collection). Still hoping for a clever Blade Runner entry.

I started to read TFA, but it started to ramble and loose focus. Something, blah, blah, critical thinking, something, something, poor standing on international tests in the STEM fields – it seems to whiplash back and forth contradicting itself.

Teaching is hard. Sure education needs to be well rounded.
That said, STEM will be more and more important going forward for the majority wanting a good paying job. Guess that sucks for the humanities majors. Life’s not fair sometimes. I suspect we can put an emphasis on STEM, give them a well rounded education that includes some humanities, like, oh I don’t know, like EVERY Bachelor of Science degree I know of. I doubt very much our nation will suffer a lack of critically needed non-STEM majors. From what I hear non-STEM fields have stagnant wages – so de-emphasizing them should increase wages for those that really wish to peruse these as their passion.

Ahhh, but you are looking at the one situation in isolation. The moral thing to do is everyone hand over the driving to the machines as that will save the greatest number of lives in the long run. By being unwilling to hand the decision to a machine you are choosing to kill a greater number of humans in practice on average – just so you can exercise the moral decision in some outlier. If self-driving cars were only as good as, or even possibly just a little better than us at driving, I might side with you, but likely they will be orders of magnitude better.

BTW I meant “former” not “latter” in my first post.

Why this obsession with moral reasoning on the part of the car? If using self-driving cars are in 10x fewer accidents than human driven cars, why the requirement to act morally in the few accidents they do have. And it isn’t as if the morality is completely missing, it is implicit in not trying to to hit objects, be they human or otherwise. Sure try to detect which are objects are human and avoid them at great cost, but deciding which human to hit in highly unlikely situations seems unneeded and perhaps even unethical in a fashion. As it is now, who gets hit in these unlikely scenarios is random, akin to an Act of God. Once you start programming in morality you’re open to criticism on why you chose the priorities you did. Selfishly I would have my car hit the pedestrian instead of another car, if the latter were more likely to kill me. No need to ascertain the number of occupants in the other car. Instinctively this is what we humans do already -- try not to hit anything, but save ourselves as a first priority. In my few new misses (near hits) I’ve had, I never find myself counting the number of occupants in the other car as I make my driving decisions.