Comment: Entertaining read (Score 1) 637
This reads a little like some of the old Leonard J. Crabs articles from Something Awful back in the day.
|
|
This reads a little like some of the old Leonard J. Crabs articles from Something Awful back in the day.
I was more thinking on the lines of the conspiracy theriosts that would say this was to prevent proving the landing was a hoax.
Or plausible deniability when investigators don't actually find anything.*
"Well, sure, you didn't find anything because YOU stole it and wiped out the footprints."
* full disclosure: I'm quite sure we actually went to the moon.
Go away astroturfer scum
EA offering to lend you a hand is a little like making a deal with the Devil.
This link is much better and gets right to the point: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/morgan-stanley-goldman-got-53-of-facebook-shares-2012-05-18
and how do you know which one is right?
With 4 chips, you can get 4 different answers.
But sometimes it's not important to be "right". Maybe you just need values compared with some previous sampling, so that the difference between two answers that are wrong is the same that the difference between two answers that are right. Maybe that delta only needs to be accurate to a certain number of significant digits.
Unfortunately neither of the articles really describes what an "occasional error" actually entails. Are these chips occasionally wrong in a predictable way? Are they wrong by a random amount? Are they always wrong for certain calculations or does it depend on the operands?
In neither of these cases does imprecise math help the intelligence of they system.
It might, if the fuzzy math enables calculations 10,000 times a second instead of 10 times a second.
That's not turning away wealth, that's turning away discomfort.
Sort of like jumping into water just to jump into water, and jumping into water to put out your inconveniently burning body.
Not yet anyway. If someone else comes out with a better equivalent to Siri, or Siri starts producing terrible results that aren't for gimmicky questions people will drop it like a rock.
Nope, because Apple would simply disallow any app from their market from competing with Siri (just like alternate web browsers, alternate stores, etc). iPhone users can't run what they want without talented hackers.
I would absolutely use a car that had an auto-drive mode. If everyone did, then you wouldn't even need stop lights or other controls at intersections, or speed limits, as the vehicles would work together to melt traffic into a perfect flow. It might be a bit unnerving at first, watching traffic weaving through intersections, but we would get used to it.
Google or not.
I don't know if that is completely true. You still have to account for mechanical failure. A overlord system would have to monitor for such failures externally and space traffic enough so that it can compensate when a failure occurs.
There aren't a whole lot of mechanical failures that couldn't be predicted. Granted, cars use "miles/km" for wear instead of a more appropriate "hours" like everything else motorized, but with all the datapoints a proper AI car would have to gather, a subsampling can easily detect if the tires are near blowout, if the shocks aren't absorbing what they should, brake response is delayed, and the car can refuse to function until it's corrected.
Even things like roadkill or debris on the road could be noticed by one car's sensors and communicated to all others in short order.
p>What worries me is the increasing incidence of big-rig drivers to run GPS Jammers just so their cargo can't track its own route. I've had my GPS jump two states away just because an 18 wheeler pulled up behind me. I whipped out my phone only to find it couldn't get a fix either. 10 miles this went on, then the trucker tuned onto a different highway, and everything went back to normal.
Where was this, if you don't mind me asking? In the US, I'm pretty sure the FCC prohibits jamming devices, so if a cargo company is deploying them wholesale it would be a very interesting allegation.
Brain off-line, please wait.