Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane (Score 2) 86

by Qzukk (#47807959) Attached to: Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"

with the addition of a fast lane

So "they" say, but "they" have been promising infrastructure upgrades for years, even taking subsidies from the government for a fiber rollout that never delivered. This time it's different?

What everyone expects is the same thing that happened when they installed a toll lane on the freeway here. They didn't add any new lanes, instead they walled off the left lane, narrowed the remaining lanes to make room for the wall and new shoulder, then kept the toll lane speed limit the same. The only difference is that when I drive on the freeway *I* have to pay more to go the same speed I always had before, while the cablcos/telcos expect the *sites I visit* to pay up so that I can use the "fast" lane and get the same speeds I was paying for.

Comment: Re:I see 2 problems (Score 1) 83

by Qzukk (#47742901) Attached to: Sources Say Amazon Will Soon Be Targeting Ads, a la Google AdWords

it's very difficult for the algorithm to determine the difference

Again. They aren't false positives. You buy stuff like that. The system doesn't care who you buy it for, or why you buy it. If you bought it for others before, you're likely to do it again, and while you may have never wanted it in the first place, you clearly wanted to buy it, or you wouldn't have purchased it.

Except for the case where I bought something from a wishlist and had it shipped to the person who put it on the wishlist. Then

A) it should be trivial to determine that this is a gift
2) The appropriate response is to show me other things that person also wished for.

Personally, I think both of you are wrong.

Comment: Re:MUCH easier. (Score 1) 239

but can accurately detect where they are.

From what range, 2 inches? Maybe if you lined up A-J across the road edge-to-edge it would have a hard time getting around them, but I'd like to believe that the sensors would be able to observe an obstruction from far enough ahead that it would be able to stop safely in this event. So instead you have A-J moving about. The laws of physics mean that nothing can simply teleport in front of us, nor can anything attain infinite acceleration, so we can detect the vehicle, child and/or dog that is moving towards our current path well before it cuts us off.

D) would probably be the worst hazard of the lot, since being light-weight it would be able to accelerate and change direction much faster than most of the other obstacles. Worst case, having come to a complete stop to wait for it to cross the road, the vehicle is blocking the breeze that was pushing it in the first place, leaving us at a standstill.

Comment: Re:MUCH easier. (Score 1) 239

For example, hitting an elderly person in order to avoid hitting a small child.

Or maybe it will just note the existence of an object moving at x m/s to the right towards the current lane while the obstacle is y meters away while establishing a list of the smoothest paths out of the infinitely many paths that would prevent the vehicle from striking any of the obstacles.

Definitely easier than trying to determine whether the first obstacle is a baby carriage and the second obstacle is granny. Believe it or not, that light pole did NOT just "jump out in front of you" no matter how drunk you insist you aren't. Neither did granny and/or the baby.

Comment: Re:Saw the video, not buying the premise. (Score 1) 304

by Qzukk (#47681723) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

Do you honestly think that a business is going to sink billions of dollars in capital outlays to make a gigantic automated factory which produces crap that no one can buy?

How many billions of dollars were sunk into building houses nobody could afford the mortgages on?

Comment: Re:Arthur C. Clarke called it a long time ago (Score 1) 304

by Qzukk (#47681651) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

What people don't seem to realize is that the robots that replace workers will be cheap


To replace workers, they don't have to be cheap, they simply have to be cheapER than the worker they replaced. Just because I make $x/yr doesn't mean I can afford a robot that costs ($x-$50).

Comment: Re:We need to push full time hours down with force (Score 1) 304

by Qzukk (#47681641) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

But do you real want bob to be working 0 hours and have jack working 60-80 all the time?

If he's Bob, of course!
If he's Jack, of course not!

If he's hiring Jack, of course he wants to hire Jack to work 80 hours a week in an overtime exempt position so they don't have to pay two people to do the work one person can do.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly