Interesting to see that compared to a guitar version of one of these, there's a lot more soul and funk.

BTW "Treat Her Right" was a Roy Head song, The Commitments were a fictional band and just did covers, and the very first song (Seven Nation Army) doesn't actually have a bass guitar in it (it's an electric guitar through a Digitech Whammy pedal down an octave).

Still the 4 string guys don't get nearly enough recognition, so *promote the low end!


edit: just finished watching.. no The Chain?!!?! WTF, dude!! give me back my promote, you couldnt-handle-six-strings bastard!

*skilful

Jeff Beck never really got the recognition he deserved alongside the likes of Clapton, Page, etc.

The thing is, Brand does have notions of what the post revolution system would resemble but he does so by reference to people he considers better informed than himself.

i.e. he is reluctant to give people some half baked concoction of his own as it's not the area he is most qualified to speak about. Instead he points us at philosophers and activists who have a lifetimes study and insight on such matters.

I think this is a far more laudable position than either A. defining a post revolutionary world arbitrarily or B. taking no position at all.

It's far more dangerous for a Revolution to have a half baked goal than none at all, hence he keeps his mouth shut about specifics he's not qualified to comment on as any wise person should.

The worst possible position to me is to accept the status quo regardless of what better solutions one may or may not have. There is clearly a massive problem and moreover one which causes untold suffering on a global scale. It's essential to recognise that before anything productive is going to happen.

Brands only goal is to help make recognition of this simple fact more prevalent. From there people far better qualified step in to work on the details. Such people are very much already around and have done a great deal of work to further this goal but they don't have media platforms like Brand.

All he and other such media personalities have to do is switch people on to the idea, leaving other things to the better qualified. Good revolutions are co-operative efforts rather than personality cults. (I'd even go so far as to say they go bad precisely because figureheads fail to recognise their limits)

Some of us STILL feel that way about cell phone users. ;-)
(I still say what my dad said in the 80's..."Cell phones are for people who are so unimportant that they can't afford to miss a phone call."...it's no longer true, but I still think it's funny.)
I think your examples are good theoretical reasons to tackle this issue now, while it's still possible to see the recording device....I keep wishing someone would actually make the facial recognition scrambler from 'A Scanner Darkly' for those of us that don't want to be tracked and recorded any time we leave our property. Of course, even if they did make it, I probably couldn't afford it.
I just HOPE these are just a fad and that they never catch on. I could really get behind them if they didn't have the camera/microphone built in, and instead relied on a good GPS to interact with the real world, but I know the answer to that wish...'good luck with that'.
At least, if you're correct, people can tell when the recorder is on, unless the indicator is broken or disabled. Remember, it's well known that it's fairly easy for hackers and the state to access your PC/laptop/cell phone camera without any indication that it's on, so the red light isn't a 'catch all' indicator, but it's way better than nothing.

Reaction times yes, but I think having a sufficient degree of certainty that the correct decision will be made is hard to conceive.

Imagine the legal liability of a clear software failure. Even if average accident rates were lower for automated cars, a clear incidence of failure would be a huge monetary legal risk. Whereas, if legal exceptions were carved out for the likes of Google, I doubt there would be very good consumer uptake.

I would suspect their automation algorithm are highly based on visual inputs. Pre-available GPS mapping data would get them only so far. These visual inputs are hugely variable. The number of different car makes, times of day, weather and road conditions among other things, would make for a incredible amount of scenarios to envisage.

I think voice recognition is very similar, if anything more constrained. The deciphering of combination of pitch, accent and pronunciation is a far simpler and smaller domain that we haven't mastered. That would seem to me to be demonstrable proof that automated cars to the level of reliability we would expect, are currently inconceivable.

Perhaps not the best choice of words, but what i mean is the level of accuracy and reliability required seems unattainable.

Voice recognition which I think of very comparable, requires AI 'training' and a stable voice manner to be usable. Take Google's integration of this into YouTube and the garbage subtitles it spits out as an example. This is a technology which has been around for a decade and is still woeful unusable outside limited scenarios. The multitudes of increasing processing power over this period have apparently not made much difference.

If we can't master that in 10 years, how are we going to master automated driving to the perfection required to make millisecond life or death decisions?

This just seems too far fetched at the moment. The number of variables and situations to consider, the speed of execution required, the level of reliability ... it just seems too much for today's processing power.

I mean, take something like speech recognition as an example. Computer processing continues to fail at even this. The visual spectrum is much more complex than the auditory, which is largely just wavelength and amplitude.

To jump straight into something like that, with life or death ramifications ... I just don't see them jumping to production any time in the next decade.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Although I love badges, they're more about recognition of service and don't really designate any special powers.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

My experience with some tech in inboard audio assist is the damn program being the one with the speech impediments, not just in response to user input, but invariably the weak link is in the the recognition of the systems crap software. This coming from someone who speaks clearly and articulately towards the above-average. Still too many bugs in most cheap systems. Most of the weaknesses lie I am guessing, in poor, unmatched microphones and user placement of head while speaking.

Jane Goodall is an amazing woman who deserves way more recognition for all she does. I always hear about David Attenborough, I'd like to hear more about Jane.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to get into this in depth, but this article might help to clarify my thoughts on the issue.

This is not a "competition," by any means, but I am sensitized to the issue, having been indoctrinated throughout my schooling and my upbringing by what feels like a social inequity which purports that, implicitly, men are "bad" and need to be "checked" at every turn, while women are "good," and must be protected and acquiesced at all times. As I get older, however, this attitude turns sour as I continuously find myself faced with a stark dichotomy between either heeding the social, professional, and political needs, wants, and desires of "all women," and those of protecting my own social, professional, and political needs, wants, and desires "as a man." These shouldn't be dichotomous, but for some reason, it has become such.

I am willing to look at and manage my own triggers and/or issues around this, as a personal effort (and I do on almost a daily basis), but in the meantime (and in the hopes of supporting such an effort), I feel there needs to be a lot more recognition and dialogue around what constitutes "equality" (be it gender, or financial, or otherwise) within a society that is either politically regulated and thereby "rigged," by definition on behalf of some people, at the expense of others; or it is socially imposed, whereby (for example) a man is simply expected to be the breadwinner, by virtue of his gender, and reactively judged if he is or can not be that.

I have no interest in "making a video" about this, since my energies are better placed elsewhere, at present, but I can and do make comments on videos like this one, in an effort to meet and respond to the messages with which we're inculcated, with the personal albeit opposing view that things "are as they are" for a reason, and if we're to do anything about it, it requires a fuller examination of the entire picture, and not simply a one-sided, biased and therefore "unequal," perspective which posts blame (and/or guilt) upon one side of the equation without any (or with little) insight as to what role one plays in the issue, oneself.

I am not saying that the inequities aren't there. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
that people need to come to terms with the fact that some people will always "have more" than others and, in a leveled playing field, that is the only fair situation that can exist. In other words, any forced or imposed "equality" is implicitly incompatible with both liberty and freedom, and can not (and should not) be abided as a matter of course.

I encourage you to take a look at the article posted at the top of this comment for another perspective on the same (or "similar") issue.

Actually I think it uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk. That means they pay real people on the other end to identify the photo.

Check it out here https://www.mturk.com/mturk/

The going rate for photo identification is about 2 cents for 5 photos identified. This is paid to the person who takes the contract on Mechanical Turk.

Here is TapTapSee's subscription model.

50 Picture Pack for $4.99 (no time limit)
100 Picture Pack for $7.99 (no time limit)
One Month of Unlimited Pictures for $9.99
Three Months of Unlimited Pictures for $24.99

A.I. that can identify objects using picture is not here yet. At least not like what you would believe watching the above video.

Here is a video about actual A.I. object recognition and what it involves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cULY1RYhbNI

That's pretty wicked sick object recognition. I suppose your object needs to be in their database, but even then, I'd love to see that algorithm. I did some work with OCR and it's no joke.

Thanks for the article. It kinda reads like an add for Jennifer Mathers' 'octopuses are smart' book. Her 2008 Consciousness and Cognition paper does a better job at laying out the most cephalopod behaviors impressive behaviors:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810006001504
. Don't get me wrong; I think cephaolopods totally awesome, but I don't see the case for them being cognitive leaps and bounds above other invertebrates. The behaviors that they are capable of are found elsewhere among inverts, yet people (often encouraged by Mathers or her coauthors on that book) seem to imply they are basically eight armed dogs of the sea:

Behavioral conditioning in the lab (which Mathers likes to call "learning") - Bees, butterflies
Moving objects to close off burrows - mantis shrimp
Carrying objects as temporary refuges - crabs
Individual recognition - wasps, lobsters?, mantis shrimp.
Complex spatial navigation - ants, bees.
Learning via observation - I'm not aware of other inverts that do this, but the cephalopod evidence is also pretty weak.

Maybe there are some more recent, and more convincing results?