I don't think they are, but I'm prepared to be persuaded.
The only difference I can see is that the examples I used didn't end in a fatalistic outcome whereas the ones you gave did. That would mean saying "I've owned a million Apple products and will probably keep buying them even though they piss me off to no end and make some of the stupidest crap ever and charge WAAAAY too much" would NOT be a concern troll, but it WOULD be if I said "I've owned a million Apple products over the years but the design direction they're taking now makes me think the market segment I'm in might now be better served by alternatives."
I don't buy it. I stand by my position that people cry "Concern Troll!" to silence dissenters. It absolutely *IS* possible to be a dissatisfied repeat user. Like me. Apple makes me CRAZY but I hate Apple less than the alternatives so I keep buying Apple products. Saying "I own and use [fill in the blank] and have this ongoing complaint" isn't intended to deflect criticism from my opinion, it's to demonstrate that I'm not a misinformed outsider, I actually deal with [bitch du-jour] personally.
But this whole discussion started by responding to someone who doing exactly that: I like Apple, but I think they are dying, essentially.
Not sure if you've heard, but cars with drivers kill a lot of people too.
There are solutions to the problems you've stated, and no doubt Google is looking to make the system as robust as possible, with a manual drive contingency when there are enough flags of doubt raised by the system.
Brakes fail, we don't ban brakes. Drivers fail, we don't ban drivers. When driverless reaches a point where advantages outweigh disadvantages and enough doubts have been satisfied, it'll be allowed.
When brakes fail we fine the company or initiate criminal proceedings against them, when drivers fail we jail them if they are culpable of vehicular manslaughter or bad driving.
But like all fantasists about driverless cars you didn't even begin to understand the problem. I listed two of ten billion issues where a human driver would react better than a machine - which is after all programmed by a human. In London when I stopped because the guy flagging me down was a cop I had to know he was a cop ( you don't want to stop for any hand waving idiot) and unless programmed to recognise a bobby the driverless car would have continued on. And crashed.
There is no way the human programmers could program the driverless car to work all unhappy paths. Result. Death. Result. Class action suits or culpable homicide cases against google.
And handing back control to the driver is a non solution. Firstly it may not happen in a timely fashion, secondly the driver has to be alert all the time anyway in case the driving gets difficult ( so why not drive the easy bits?). Driverless cars are basically computer taxis. Unlike human driven taxis, however, we will be given a steering wheel, told to keep our eyes on the road,and advised that we will take over control when the shit hits the fan.
WHAT?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!! You don't think Google has revolutionized anything?
Google so utterly DEFINED the concept of the web search that they wiped out every alternative on the planet and became a VERB! But for the creation of the web itself, Google's is arguably the most significant revolution in the online world to date.
There was a typo, so you are really responding to AaronJ (I don't at all disagree with you).
1. OF COURSE the iPhone is more than simply hardware. I never said it wasn't.
2. Cars are connected to Apple's business because computers are part of cars now. OK, so what? Computers are part of practically anything you use on a daily basis that is more complicated than a fork or a glass. Airplanes. Ships. Those devices that tell you exact yardage on a golf course (illegal btw, but that doesn't seem to stop people). Refrigerators. Etc.
Should Apple now get into the shipbuilding business, or make golf clubs?
You sound like someone with nothing to say but who insists on shouting anyway.
Because I think it is more than safe to say that the web is the BY FAR the most significant on-line development since the creation of the internet itself.
When brakes fail we fine the company or initiate criminal proceedings against them, when drivers fail we jail them if they are culpable of vehicular manslaughter or bad driving.
But like all fantasists about driverless cars you didn't even begin to understand the problem. I listed two of ten billion issues where a human driver would react better than a machine - which is after all programmed by a human. In London when I stopped because the guy flagging me down was a cop I had to know he was a cop ( you don't want to stop for any hand waving idiot) and unless programmed to recognise a bobby the driverless car would have continued on. And crashed.
There is no way the human programmers could program the driverless car to work all unhappy paths. Result. Death. Result. Class action suits or culpable homicide cases against google.
And handing back control to the driver is a non solution. Firstly it may not happen in a timely fashion, secondly the driver has to be alert all the time anyway in case the driving gets difficult ( so why not drive the easy bits?). Driverless cars are basically computer taxis. Unlike human driven taxis, however, we will be given a steering wheel, told to keep our eyes on the road,and advised that we will take over control when the shit hits the fan.
No thanks.
I'm the fantasist yet you're the one conceiving of a full blown driverless car implementation with no extra conditions or changes to our road systems.
Obviously that won't happen. But more machine-assisted driving or a partial driverless implementation in certain zoned "safe" areas could be on the cards (cruise control is already deployed as someone else mentioned).
Handing control back to a driver in specific conditions, such as rural roads is a solution until the technology is tried, tested, and much improved with inch-perfect maps and super brakes.
And your policeman? Standard issue in all police cars: an emergency services wireless broadcast device that alerts all nearby cars. Done.
It doesn't take fantasy, just a little bit of imagination. And a lot of road testing, of course.
But this whole discussion started by responding to someone who doing exactly that: I like Apple, but I think they are dying, essentially.
I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.
I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.
Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.
I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."
You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."
What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."
Not fully autonomous ones or the DARPA Grand Challenge would have been unnecessary. And we still aren't there yet. The ones that come closest are the ones fielded since 2004. Not "decades". Currently fielded UGVs are either controlled by an operator or very limited in operational capability (IE fully mapped terrain, electronics embedded in roads, tunnels, etc). In other words, not driverless cars where running over civs and friendly troops is looked down upon.
If we had driverless humvees it would have a made tremendous difference. If we could field driverless lead vehicles in convoys we would have whatever the cost. Even just reliably tele operated ones. It's not like MRAPs were cheap either.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It's nice that Google is funding the DARPA grand challenge winner but the innovation award belongs elsewhere. Like DARPA.
More than one entity deserves recognition. You really are clueless, aren't you?
DARPA has been a major driver (heh) of US research since the late 50s as a lot of funding has been funneled through DARPA (around half depending on which year you might look at). Everything from SATNAV (TRANSIT) to the Internet (ARPANET) to time sharing operating systems (MULTICS) to computer mice (Englebart) were all DARPA funded firsts. While individual service research offices (like ONR) funds a lot of research they tend to be more focused on a particular domain (which makes sense).
Google is like Xerox PARC in this regard. They grabbed technology first funded by DARPA (mice, GUI, etc) and continued the work. And it's not like DARPA randomly writes checks. The DARPA project managers/PIs I've met have been very sharp even in comparison to their equivalents in other organizations (NASA, ONR, NSF).
With respect to autonomous vehicles the Grand Challenge isn't DARPA's first forays into that domain. They have funded research in that domain in the 80s if not earlier. That's even ignoring autonomous weapons like missiles and such.
Oh, I WISH I were working them! Of course, that would mean being Sochi. Hmm. But I do absolutely love the Olympics, especially the Winter Games.
No, the thing is that I HATE HATE HATE that NBC delays everything. I practically have to avoid all media if I don't want to see results hours and hours before I see the event.
So, I watch on CBC (I live right across the lake from Canada). They show stuff live. The problem is that their coverage starts at 12AM ET and ends somewhere around 12PM. And my sleep schedule has been completely screwed up, therefore. If I can just get it straightened out for one day, then everything will be. It's a lot like the when the Australian Open is on; similar schedule. It takes me a few days to adjust, but before I do adjust I'm constantly tired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.
I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.
Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.
I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."
You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."
What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."
Actually, I think at this point we basically agree.
I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.
Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.
I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."
You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."
What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."
You're getting bogged down in details. Trolls are identified by the intent, tone and agenda of their postings.
One-hit wonder trolls tend to have numbers in their name and use the classic "I love Apple but..."
Regular trolls tend to take a weasely or negative stance on the most optimistic news about Apple.
At this point, concern over concern trolling is itself becoming pretty troll-like in its disruptiveness. Maybe even moreso than genuine concern trolling.
Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.
(Before people jump on me: I've been using Apple products since the 1970s and I am articulate. Ha.)
Tim,
Please wake up and shut up and put pressure on software group.
Hardware is top notch.
But why do I have issues with calendar app? Access not permitted? I can't even use it at all. FIX.
FIX Mavericks and stop stalking about how great everything is.
Tim reads hundreds of emails everyday?
He needs to get on people's asses and get shi1t fixed.
At this point, concern over concern trolling is itself becoming pretty troll-like in its disruptiveness. Maybe even moreso than genuine concern trolling.
Look, I love Apple Insider and have been reading and posting here since Version 1.0 in 1997, but if it keeps this up it's doomed.
Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.
Comments
Yeah, that's what I said. Google search is the second biggest development, which makes it a really, really, really big deal.
One doesn't have to like Google to recognize that they completely revolutionized web searching.
Oh, oops. Sorry about that. (getting tired; the Olympics have thrown my schedule completely into chaos)
I still don't agree with you, but at least now I know what you actually said.
I don't think they are, but I'm prepared to be persuaded.
The only difference I can see is that the examples I used didn't end in a fatalistic outcome whereas the ones you gave did. That would mean saying "I've owned a million Apple products and will probably keep buying them even though they piss me off to no end and make some of the stupidest crap ever and charge WAAAAY too much" would NOT be a concern troll, but it WOULD be if I said "I've owned a million Apple products over the years but the design direction they're taking now makes me think the market segment I'm in might now be better served by alternatives."
I don't buy it. I stand by my position that people cry "Concern Troll!" to silence dissenters. It absolutely *IS* possible to be a dissatisfied repeat user. Like me. Apple makes me CRAZY but I hate Apple less than the alternatives so I keep buying Apple products. Saying "I own and use [fill in the blank] and have this ongoing complaint" isn't intended to deflect criticism from my opinion, it's to demonstrate that I'm not a misinformed outsider, I actually deal with [bitch du-jour] personally.
But this whole discussion started by responding to someone who doing exactly that: I like Apple, but I think they are dying, essentially.
When brakes fail we fine the company or initiate criminal proceedings against them, when drivers fail we jail them if they are culpable of vehicular manslaughter or bad driving.
But like all fantasists about driverless cars you didn't even begin to understand the problem. I listed two of ten billion issues where a human driver would react better than a machine - which is after all programmed by a human. In London when I stopped because the guy flagging me down was a cop I had to know he was a cop ( you don't want to stop for any hand waving idiot) and unless programmed to recognise a bobby the driverless car would have continued on. And crashed.
There is no way the human programmers could program the driverless car to work all unhappy paths. Result. Death. Result. Class action suits or culpable homicide cases against google.
And handing back control to the driver is a non solution. Firstly it may not happen in a timely fashion, secondly the driver has to be alert all the time anyway in case the driving gets difficult ( so why not drive the easy bits?). Driverless cars are basically computer taxis. Unlike human driven taxis, however, we will be given a steering wheel, told to keep our eyes on the road,and advised that we will take over control when the shit hits the fan.
No thanks.
WHAT?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!! You don't think Google has revolutionized anything?
Google so utterly DEFINED the concept of the web search that they wiped out every alternative on the planet and became a VERB! But for the creation of the web itself, Google's is arguably the most significant revolution in the online world to date.
There was a typo, so you are really responding to AaronJ (I don't at all disagree with you).
1. OF COURSE the iPhone is more than simply hardware. I never said it wasn't.
2. Cars are connected to Apple's business because computers are part of cars now. OK, so what? Computers are part of practically anything you use on a daily basis that is more complicated than a fork or a glass. Airplanes. Ships. Those devices that tell you exact yardage on a golf course (illegal btw, but that doesn't seem to stop people). Refrigerators. Etc.
Should Apple now get into the shipbuilding business, or make golf clubs?
You sound like someone with nothing to say but who insists on shouting anyway.
Because I think it is more than safe to say that the web is the BY FAR the most significant on-line development since the creation of the internet itself.
This actually makes little sense.
Obviously that won't happen. But more machine-assisted driving or a partial driverless implementation in certain zoned "safe" areas could be on the cards (cruise control is already deployed as someone else mentioned).
Handing control back to a driver in specific conditions, such as rural roads is a solution until the technology is tried, tested, and much improved with inch-perfect maps and super brakes.
And your policeman? Standard issue in all police cars: an emergency services wireless broadcast device that alerts all nearby cars. Done.
It doesn't take fantasy, just a little bit of imagination. And a lot of road testing, of course.
(getting tired; the Olympics have thrown my schedule completely into chaos)
Working them or watching them?
But this whole discussion started by responding to someone who doing exactly that: I like Apple, but I think they are dying, essentially.
I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.
I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.
Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.
I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."
You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."
What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."
Military UGVs have been around for decades.
Not fully autonomous ones or the DARPA Grand Challenge would have been unnecessary. And we still aren't there yet. The ones that come closest are the ones fielded since 2004. Not "decades". Currently fielded UGVs are either controlled by an operator or very limited in operational capability (IE fully mapped terrain, electronics embedded in roads, tunnels, etc). In other words, not driverless cars where running over civs and friendly troops is looked down upon.
If we had driverless humvees it would have a made tremendous difference. If we could field driverless lead vehicles in convoys we would have whatever the cost. Even just reliably tele operated ones. It's not like MRAPs were cheap either.
It's nice that Google is funding the DARPA grand challenge winner but the innovation award belongs elsewhere. Like DARPA.
More than one entity deserves recognition. You really are clueless, aren't you?
DARPA has been a major driver (heh) of US research since the late 50s as a lot of funding has been funneled through DARPA (around half depending on which year you might look at). Everything from SATNAV (TRANSIT) to the Internet (ARPANET) to time sharing operating systems (MULTICS) to computer mice (Englebart) were all DARPA funded firsts. While individual service research offices (like ONR) funds a lot of research they tend to be more focused on a particular domain (which makes sense).
Google is like Xerox PARC in this regard. They grabbed technology first funded by DARPA (mice, GUI, etc) and continued the work. And it's not like DARPA randomly writes checks. The DARPA project managers/PIs I've met have been very sharp even in comparison to their equivalents in other organizations (NASA, ONR, NSF).
With respect to autonomous vehicles the Grand Challenge isn't DARPA's first forays into that domain. They have funded research in that domain in the 80s if not earlier. That's even ignoring autonomous weapons like missiles and such.
Working them or watching them?
Oh, I WISH I were working them! Of course, that would mean being Sochi. Hmm. But I do absolutely love the Olympics, especially the Winter Games.
No, the thing is that I HATE HATE HATE that NBC delays everything. I practically have to avoid all media if I don't want to see results hours and hours before I see the event.
So, I watch on CBC (I live right across the lake from Canada). They show stuff live. The problem is that their coverage starts at 12AM ET and ends somewhere around 12PM. And my sleep schedule has been completely screwed up, therefore. If I can just get it straightened out for one day, then everything will be. It's a lot like the when the Australian Open is on; similar schedule. It takes me a few days to adjust, but before I do adjust I'm constantly tired.
I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.
I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.
Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.
I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."
You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."
What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."
Actually, I think at this point we basically agree.
You're getting bogged down in details. Trolls are identified by the intent, tone and agenda of their postings.
One-hit wonder trolls tend to have numbers in their name and use the classic "I love Apple but..."
Regular trolls tend to take a weasely or negative stance on the most optimistic news about Apple.
Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.
(Before people jump on me: I've been using Apple products since the 1970s and I am articulate. Ha.)
Tim,
Please wake up and shut up and put pressure on software group.
Hardware is top notch.
But why do I have issues with calendar app? Access not permitted? I can't even use it at all. FIX.
FIX Mavericks and stop stalking about how great everything is.
Tim reads hundreds of emails everyday?
He needs to get on people's asses and get shi1t fixed.
At this point, concern over concern trolling is itself becoming pretty troll-like in its disruptiveness. Maybe even moreso than genuine concern trolling.
Look, I love Apple Insider and have been reading and posting here since Version 1.0 in 1997, but if it keeps this up it's doomed.
One-hit wonder trolls tend to have numbers in their name and use the classic "I love Apple but..."
Got it. That's the difference between me and the typical troll then. My posts start with "I freakin' HATE Apple but…"
No, because the examples you gave are of a completely different nature.
Better examples, that would fit with what we're talking about, are things like:
"Look, I love my wife. I do. But she's getting really fat and I don't see this marriage lasting much longer."
"Look, I've listened to rap for years, but I think it's a dying art form due there being nothing but crap being produced anymore."
And the like.
Well... that difference should be explained to a few people on here.
For them, all you have to do is mention, "I've been an Apple user for a few years..." "CONCERN TROLL CONCERN TROLL!!! ALERT ALERT!!"
I may steal that.
Just FYI... Spewgle didn't innovate ANYTHING.
These techs were licensed or acquired.
Goople is an ADVERTISING company. Nothing else.
It's all an illusion....
...and investors will soon catch on.
Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.
Infographic Templates | Infographics Designers