Of course, the guard will be a robot too.
Of course, the guard will be a robot too.
Agreed. The novelty and utility of not having to own a car will more than compensate for the added inconveniences that the fleet owners will require when they first arrive on the market.
Adter all, something like 4 million people now make their living driving cars and trucks and buses. They and their unions will put up a hell of a fight against automation. Fleet owners will have to bend backwards to allay the many threat scenarios proposed. Validation of driver ID and car passenger is a very small bump in the road.
I think the TSA is an effective counterargument to your overconfidence that people will accept that risk. Requiring the removal of belts, shoes, watches, and anything steel shows the absurd lengths bureaucrats will go to when overreacting to threats, even very rare ones. I'm sure the giant corporations behind AV cars will be comparably risk averse. After all, should someone actually deliver a bomb in such a car, they could see an immediate end to their entire business, or such a severe curtailment, stockholders could lose faith and sell off.
No, the adoption of AV cars will be gradual and become easier as everyone learns their limits. Initially, the rules for their use will be stricter. As the tech and infrastructure improves, their use will broaden and more variatons will be permitted.
For instance, I'm sure children will not be able to ride unattended until the system gets a few million miles under its belt. The same is likely for unattended package delivery. All it takes is one bomb in one tunnel...
Actually, I think the parent poster is right. AVs can be set up so that the customer can't send the car to a destination. In the early days of AV cars, no package deliveries will be permitted without a person riding in the car who can answer authentication questions en route.
Also, when renting the car, probably you will be required to show a preregistered ID, and perhaps a message will be sent to your cell phone requiring further authentication responses.
No. I think AV cars *can* be made acceptably secure. But it'll be a little tricky and sometimes annoying, requiring some of the conventions we use now when renting a car.
Until cops take responsibility for their mistakes and misdeeds, they should be given less power, not more.
I foresee many police-driven autocar crashes where the cops say simply, "Oh well", and walk away from responsibility.
I suspect most Slashdot responses on this topic don't arise from a sample that's uniformly distributed across its readership, much less the larger IT crowd.
For some curious reason, any gun-related discussion, even an indirect and abstract variant like 'the impact of electric guns', seem to elicit a big knee jerk response everywhere in America, no doubt drawing disproportionate interest from the substantial libertarian contingent at Slashdot Central.
Frequent sophomorism like this, I think, is a big reason why Slashdot has lost many readers to other venues like Hacker News, which somehow manages to avoid political minefield topics that quickly devolve into pointless Sturm und Drang. Like this one.
In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 2nd amendment applies?
An semi-auto assault rifle? Generally legal.
A fully-auto assault rifle? Generally not legal.
A grenade launcher? A guided missile? A booby trap bomb? Not legal in the US, today.
So there are limits to protected "arms", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 2nd amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.
If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen? If self defense, and since there are many more ways to defend one's home and family today than in 1789, should we amend the 2nd to emphasize the goal of self defense rather than allow it to advocate arms as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever deadlier offensive weapons - pistols and rifles?
Given the huge difference between an 18th century musket and modern light arms, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of guns protected by the 2nd amendment is going to cross a line, and soon.
Effective and persistent weight loss therapy does exist. But it's very hard to implement and usually fails because the process is compound and complex, requiring multiple agents to coordinate and remain diligent, and the process ends only when the patient dies.
But the benefits of long term weight loss outweigh all other medical procedures. Combined.
Yep. Or I'd carry a second paper book in case I got tired of reading the first or just wanted a different style or topic from the first. Sometimes I'd even carry three...
Yes, IMHO paper books are usually preferable, but ebooks have advantages since they:
- can be read in the dark (or poor lighting)
- can enlarge / change their font
- allow dictionary lookup of a word, effortlessly
- can share a bookmark across devices
- can be bought / downloaded instantly
- are usually cheaper than paper
- they don't destroy trees
- they don't cause my floors to sag under their weight
I expect to buy more of both indefinitely.
Apparently we agree that the increased need for web content findability was ill served by hypertext links alone.
My grander point was that the visibility and ubiquity of links served the wild wild west mentality of Web 1.0 and its aesthetic of maximum content visibility and its sense of freedom and "infinite content". That's not unlike the advent of Arts and Crafts as society's attempt to beautify the rise (and counter the dehumanization) of industrialization. Both movements sought to celebrate the winsomeness of tech, but couldn't survive the growth of tech for long.
And yes I used an analogy (a metaphor, actually). But EVERYTHING shared is analogy. Says Plato anyway, and who am I to gainsay an icon like Plato?
The OP is channeling McLuhan. He's resurrected cool vs hot media all over again -- the cool aging hyperlink vs the hot social site or app or vendor supplied smartphone service. Inevitably media evolves.
In architectural terms, hyperlinks were akin to craftsman-style houses and mission-style furniture: the building's infrastructure was left exposed so the mechanisms of its construction were part of the art. But of course that lovely transparency limited the architect's range of artistic expression possible in that medium. When skyscrapers arrived on the scene, it was no longer feasible to expose the inner workings of such a behemoth in an aestheticly pleasing and accessible way. The internet is no different.
With the rise of audio and video and ephemeral mesaging content, the web's infrastructure had to grow up or stultify. None of us wants to dwell online by having to dig our way through the now nearly infinite morass of net content: new, aging, old, long dead, and better-it-had-never-lived. Organization of relevant from irrelevant is now essential.
But who's going to do this? A curated web made of hypertext is not gonna happen. Too expensive and too slow. So we get the next best thing -- a hosted web, where the hypertext disapears into the architecture. Corporations invest in building virtual communities to attract content providers and consumers. Like it or not, the web's architecture grows up, sheds its skin, and moves on.
I think the gist is that MIT has improved SLAM via better use of object recognition, not that they've improved object recognition. And at best this news is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
A sensible response.
I think the author isn't proposing policy. He's making a point, and I think an increasingly valid one. All media is manipulative. Not just the ads. Broadcast content uses a continuum of malicious devices that suck up our dollars and shape our votes and our opinions. The more we're made aware that we are being manipulated, the better for our autonomy. And our sanity.
Is there a change in policy out there that could address this in a positive way? I don't know. But I'd love to have discussions with other interested motivated intelligent folks to see if anyone can propose a better way, because what we have now really sucks.
Marketing has to be TRUE? Do you really believe this or are you just trolling?
There is no SHOULD in marketing. Nothing in law or theory requires marketing to be true or proper. As in the US judicial system, truth is irrelevant. There is only legal and illegal. Thus by law, marketing must be lawful, or at least not so over the top that it is called out for patently indefensible abuses and lose the case in court, whatever the legal reason.
Making broad assuptions about the presence of principles in a process whose sole objective is to manipulate people -- that isn't just absurd. It's insane.
The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981