Re: A massive market
If they think a sarcasm detector bot will be the best thing since sliced bread, an irony detector bot will be the toaster, or something, I need an analogy bot.
1902 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Apr 2007
I read a comment recently about drivers who have been screwing with the autopilot feature of Teslas; whilst on freeways people purposely swerving into the lane of a Tesla driver so their car has to react, ie automatically braking or changing lanes.
I did try and find video evidence of this happening, but all I could really find was YouTube videos of how the autopilot has avoided crashes due to the incumbency of other drivers (often rather reasurring evidence of how computers will spot something a human driver misses) but also the occasional piece of footage of the car screwing up and swerving into oncominrg traffic, causing the driver to take back control of the steering wheel, indicating the technology still has a long way to go before full automation on the roads can be completely trusted.
It leaves me wondering what the future of driving will be like when the ratio of computer to human drivers gets close to 1:1.
In the case of human drivers 'trolling' the computer drivers, swerving into the path of them etc., at least those computer driven vehicles will have dashcam evidence of the himan drivers acting like arseholes, because who would design a computer driven vehicle without cameras recording everything that's going on for in the event of something going wrong.
But you don't need electricity or any knowledge of computers to use a pen & paper.
Upgrading your pen won't render your paper useless.
Your pen & paper can't get infected by ransomware.
Downsides? Reading people''s handwriting and other numerous things you can only do with digitial information (ease of copy/backup/instant distribution to other people etc.)
From the Clear Vision Security article about the drone collision study:
Non-Certified Windscreens
One of the proven threats involved the testing of non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens. These were shown to fail when hit by drones, which is no great surprise since they also fail when struck by birds, as their name would suggest.
In general aviation (GA), windscreens don’t need to be certified to withstand birdstrikes, so the findings of this study are applicable to a wide variety of aircraft within the GA field. In short they found that if your windscreen won’t withstand a birdstrike it won’t withstand a drone strike either.
To put this within context there were 1835 confirmed birdstrikes reported to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 2016. To date there has never been a single confirmed drone strike reported to the CAA.
Registration won't work in terms of tracking down law breakers - it's just security theater, giving the authorities the ability to show they're doing something about the 'problem'.
All that will happen is that those who do, and those who are going to, fly safely within the current regulations will continue to do so, but those who have no intention of good flying won't register, so the list will be useless.
If you're thinking about the notion that you'll have to register when you purchase a drone, that'll just make people buy from places that don't make you register, like direct from China which was my where I ordered my first 'proper size' drone from.
About that, they should just put aside their differences and get along...
http://www.haku.co.uk/b3ta/StarTrekWars.jpg
Could be interesting, but I'd watch the crap out of this mashup:
This USB stick can destroy most computers in seconds - usbkill.com (url purposely non-clickable)
There are several YouTube videos if you want to see how deadly those things are - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=usb+killer
If we do get wiped out by robots it'll probably be due to apathy not a Terminator style war.
"I for one welcome our robot overlords, because I'm too lazy to fi.... Siri, turn the tv to the funny clips channel."
I don't think the current worry of AI is sentient robots who see the human race as flawed so must eradicate them, but more along the lines of people letting algorithms decide the fate of people's lives in the fields of healthcare & insurance, especially with the ever increasing research into human DNA and the how people are trying to use that information to give a percentage on how likely you are to get certain types of cancer in your life.
That would really suck, unable to get life insurance even though you're fit as a fiddle but the computer says no because it looked at your DNA.
I've flown my 380 size quadcopter, about 1.2kg with the camera & gimbal attached, straight up 100 meters to get some scenic view footage.
At that distance away it can be near impossible to spot it when you're looking at wide open sky, even though you know where it's supposed to be and can hear it, and see its camera view from the ground.
If it's so difficult to spot a stationary drone from a stationary spot, that's only 100 meters away, how the hell do those pilots, flying at hundreds of miles an hour, can say with absolute certainty that tiny speck in the distance is a drone?
I call bullshit on that.
All this will do is screw over everyone who is already going by the rules.
Making a list of drone owners will only give them a list of people who aren't likely to do bad things, namely because they registered.
There won't be a list of people who fly drones where they shouldn't, because they won't fucking register!
How are they going to police it? It's not like the police force is suddenly going to get a boost in funds to deal with all the new 'crime' they plan on legislating.
Sci-fi films/tv have had people talking to computers since the start but my interaction with computers began with almost unresponsive flat keyboards (ZX81) which progressed to rubber ones (Spectrum) then 'proper' keyboards (BBC Micros), then mice, then touchpads & touchscreens (not forgetting joysticks/joypads for gaming), which could explain why it always feels weird talking to my phone unless I'm actually making a call.
Are those futurists still predicting everyone interacting with computers through speech? Because for many uses it's far simpler/quicker/easier to press buttons/screens than to talk to the device.
I'm totally with you on the whole spoilers thing, often friends ask me "have you seen the trailer for [new film]?" to which my answer is almost always "no", especially when it's a film I want to watch because I like going in 'blind' and knowing as little about it as possible beyond the title.
The internet has really helped erode the element of surprise in this respect.
Can you imagine a programme like Watchdog on a paid-for-by-adverts tv channel?
It would be muzzled so heavily it couldn't breathe properly, producers would be told that certain topics cannot be covered, because companies that pay their bills through advertisments would not want their products being the focus of the programme.
@ Adam JC
High quality 3-axis gimbals are extremely good at filtering out 'wind wobble' and vibrations from the drone itself.
This is one of my most stable pieces of quadcopter footage I've taken, using a Zhiyun Z1-Tiny2 3-axis gimbal holding a Xiaomi Yi camera, granted there was practically no wind on that day but even on windy days it's still just as stable in regards to filtering out vibrations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSLPnH5nmGc
One of the biggest problems with using drones for spy work in this way is the lack of airtime per battery, you're looking in the region of 15 useable minutes for an Inspire.
To get the kind of flight time that would really help tackle rural crime, a hydrogen fuel cell system is what the doctor ordered to give you hours instead of minutes of flight time.
Something like this: http://www.mmcuav.com/drones/hydrone1550/ But the lack of prices anywhere on the web mean it's probably going to cost a small fortune.
However there is an alternative, tethered power systems like this http://cardinalsecurity.co.uk/tethered-drone-systems/, enabling the drone to stay aloft indefinitely. But the drawback is the only place it's likely to fly is straight up, which actually could be advantageous if you attach a camera with a powerful zoom lens to the drone to track where the 'criminal' is, what they and their vehicle looks like and where they're going.
Not many do, it has turned from a physical act into a recognised expression.
If you want to go down the pedant route, you might want to think about what digital video recorders do with their captured video, they effectively save the video data to their storage medium.
But having a title with "said in his video data saved speech" doesn't seem right, so "video-taped" is still appropriate.
Hadn't seen that video before, I liked it.
But the possible reality of an actual working transporter is far far scarier than accidentally merging two entities together.
Sleep tight!
Whilst I'm on the subject of TV show mashups, an old picture I made:
haku.co.uk/b3ta/KnightTeamTrek.jpg
"I aint getting in no transporter, fool!"
Can you imagine the reaction of US residents if their next president decided to follow suit with France's ban on the sale of vehicles that are soley powered by petrol or diesel by 2040?
I'd probably end up in hospital suffering from an acute laughing fit.
I had to closely look at the site to see what that whacko was complaining about - that little rainbow sticker on the back of the monitor in the drawing??
What the hell?
Reminds me of that Brass Eye episode where Gary Lineker showed a photo of a hillside and said the small, almost unrecognisable blue speck was a child and a paedophile would try and attack the picture. Watch the first 35 seconds of the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU
I say that because he's had 2-3 hour long chats with some really interesting people such as Louis Theroux, Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson etc. (YouTube links)
But the one Joe Rogan podcast I refuse to listen to/watch is the one with Alex Jones because that guy is an absolute fucking nutjob, his perception on the world is completely whack, plus I just can't stand his voice.