"In an accident the car should be following the same decision tree as any normal driver." Most driver will instinctively swerve, regardless of the decision tree.
ANECDOTE ALERT! Saw a guy veer out of the way on an on coming car. He went off a 75 foot cliff, taking his family with him. Man I wish I didn't remember that,. Now I wont sleep for tonight. Just pondering the moment when the father realize he was taking his family off a cliff. I used to dwell on the moment for weeks on end. I didn't sleep for about 3 days after that,. Fuck.
" Computers can no more have morals than they can have intelligence. " wrong. machines have intelligence. In fact there are many machines that if you just monitored it's action without knowing it's a machine you would think it was exhibiting intelligence. Primitive, but intelligence none the less.
AI is a moving target. So many things are done today where 20 years ago they would be considered AI. But we figure it out, implement systems and then the bar of what is AI moves. The more we understand the brain, the less magical it becomes. Some people can't handle that. Interestingly enough, we have seen this before, but with the stomach. People used to consider it unknowable. Assigned it all kinds of properties, many could only be described as 'magical'. The we figured it out .
If I have a computer that looks at a pendulum, and then through trial an error comes up with F=MA on it's own, is that intelligence? What if you give it data for a biological process we don't understand, and it gives back a formula that has 100% predictive power? Even if we don't understand why the formula works? is that intelligence?
I ask because computers have done those very things.
Please try to understand what a rhetoric question is, cause that's a horrid one.
Also, you might want to try and stay on top of Computer decisions and AI instead of make stupid "rhetoric questions" about the topics. Or keep programming crappy Access application at the insurance company you work at, I don't really care.
You should try some real world industrial programming. These problems have either been completely dealt with, or are so rare they are far better then human operators.
"..glitch due to after-market modifications.." No, we can't just like you can't today. Modifying components of cars is as old as cars. Everything from throttle adjustments, to carb adjustments, to nitro, to cars that jump up and down, to CPU modifications.
" Have you seen how stupid people drive these days?" it's actually better. But you go on about the good ol' days.
There are fewer accidents then ever. And then number keeps declining.
" They race from red light to red light as if they're actually going to get there faster that way." yeah, these days, that certainly didn't happen 10, or 20, or 30 years ago~ I've only been driving for around 30 years I suspect peoplewere doing that before I was driving.
"the idiot driver thought the car was in reverse" also been happening, rarely, for decades.
Come on man, don't fall into that trap.
For the record, I am a huge fan of automated driving systems. When I am older I won't have to depend on others to get around. My car will do it for me.
" the system ALREADY FAILED." no it hasn't. One time, I saw a plane crash onto the freeway. complete nose drive. If memory serves it was in '86 on the 10. SO there will be unaccountable incidents. OR maybe the bus isn't automated but your car is. Say during a transition period. Or their was a mechanical failure with the bus. That doesn't mean Your system failed.
Of course, the question is silly becasue all you car should do is brake and hit the bus. The mass difference means the bus will be fine, and in all likelihood you will be fine too.
" We know how well prohibitions work right?" Alcohol prohibition in the US worked extremely well. It did everything it set out to do. Domestic crime nearly disappeared, many other crimes dropped significantly. We just changed are mind.
The fact that the media had just lost a sizable chunk of revenue may have had something to so with the over sensationalism of illegal operators.
Of course you can... or will. Morality isn't some magic box. It's a series of chemicals responding to social pressure and conditioning.
"Again, what car company wouldn't take that into account when asking themselves if they want to be a pioneer in this field?" cars companies that want to make money. I have heard similar complaints about seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, automatic breaking. Right now, you can buy a car that will park for you, brakes for you, even safely follow the car in front of you.
". So let's say that a good 25% of those first " why? The number ONE(1) reason for accident is that the driver isn't paying attention. Either distracted, or just zoned out. Something that doesn't happen to automated systems.
The item you bring up have been dealt with and the insurance companies know how to handle it.
I'm glad you are being frank. Do one better and do some investigation. We are talking 10's of thousands of deaths to millions. And it's a different immune response for each strain.
". Over a period of 30 years, between 1976 and 2006, estimates of flu-associated deaths in the United States range from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people. "
You klive in a world with decent herd immunity, so you haven't been exposed to how nasty it can be without herd immunity. Sadly, a generation or two of people haven't experiences the shit hitting the fan, so they don't think vaccines are a 'big deal'.
Non vaccinated people are a vector for mutation. No vaccinated people can get it and just be a carrier. SO you are infecting other people and not even know it.
Vaccines are not 100%, so herd immunity protects those people.
I used to think like your post, decades ago. When I actual got influenza* and it's hell. The I looked into it.
Anyways, I highly recommend the 'quackcast' podcast by Mark Crislip. He goes into details about a number of medical issues. At least listen to the ones regard influenza. http://moremark.squarespace.com/quackcast-home/ he is snarky and sarcastic.
*many thing attributed to the 'flu' but the common person aren't influenza. For examples 'stomach flu' actually makes no sense.
Of course he can. When you are in a town without a lot of opportunity, that alone gives him power to force you to do something. The fact that it isn't immediate and violent doesn't mean it's not there.
Which just underscores the real issue. The gap between the 1% and everyone else. There will always be a top 1%, duh. But the gulf is larger then ever and widening. You can be in the top 20% and not be rich or privileged.
I posted this once in this thread, but since you are going to be a researcher, I'll do it again.
The profit for treatment meme is false. Let me explain: You have a board, a CEO, and a bunch of other upper management people. The better the stock does, the more money they get. Announcing a cure increases you stock value. All those people make more money, right now.
These companies are competing, sitting on a cure, mean your competitor may develop a cure, go to market and make money from there stock bump. And if it's another company you loose any revenue you would have got from treatment and get no revenue from the cure. The only win for the people running the companies is selling the cure. Unless you think companies are run by people who would rather put off serious bonus for the next guy rather then themselves?
Many companies got out of the flu vaccine business becasue they can't make any money. The profits margin is slim and they are tightly regulated. The flu vaccine is a commodity. The feds buy vaccines at a low fixed rate.
ProTip: look into how pharmaceutical patent regulation.
"It is more profitable to treat than cure" not really, but you continue to not understand business and spout nonsense anyways. Let me explain: You have a board, a CEO, and a bunch of other upper management people. The better the stock does, the more money they get. Announcing a cure increases you stock value. All those people make more money, right now.
These companies are competing, sitting on a cure, mean your competitor may develop a cure, go to market and make money from there stock bump. And if it's another company you loose any revenue you would have got from treatment and get no revenue from the cure.
The only win for the people running the companies is selling the cure.
Unless you think companies are run by people who would rather put off serious bonus for the next guy rather then themselves?
ProTip: look into how pharmaceutical patent regulation.
On to you're next incorrect statement: " The media treats each new flu variant as a bigger deal than it needs to be. " No, it does not. The H1 story? remember that? hospital around the country were full. The hospitals here in Oregon where at a point where they didn't know where they were going to put people. Completely full. Fortunately that was the point at which it peaked. Dodging a bullet buy centimeters.
You know why that's where it peaked? Media discussing the flu, reporting on the higher number of deaths in the normally high survivable age range and health. Without that media coverage, We would have had thousands of people unable to get treatment, and 100s of more deaths. That is the best case.
Another case of people doing the right thing to head off catastrophe and the ignorant public thinking it was a waste of time because there wasn't
a catastrophe
Black death had a peak of two years, and that was in a world were people walking most places.
tl;dr People running corporations like money now. The media is critical in helping to limit outbreaks.
Not a lot, and that's do yo infrastructure spending. But has infrastructure spending decline in lieu of bonuses, you will see more.* This example in Boston was a lucky break,. Becasue of they are loosing that much gas, and the utilities haven't don't anything about it, then they aren't likely to have done anything anytime soon. Or maybe they where just getting ready to fix them.
*as opposed as paddle balls in lieu of pay. (Thanks Mel books!)
"why does it cost 1.5 mil to dig a hole and patch a pipe?" engineering, laying pipe, testing remove old pipe properly putting the street back together all costs money. It isn't 1.5 million to " dig a hole and patch a pipe"
Anyways, there are a lot of reason why ti's expensive. Mostly your ignorance on what it takes do do this work and keep a city running. I suggest you study civil engineering. You come up with a better way that works, you will be rich.
Or do you thinking the utilities should just be able to dig up the street however they like, stop traffic when ever, and then not bother to put the street back together?
"not sure why lots of people think the previous should be the preferred way." because the latter way is already being done by companies all the time. I'm not sure why someone who clearly has some ignorant myopic view of how a city works would bother expressing an opinion based on nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
"In an accident the car should be following the same decision tree as any normal driver."
Most driver will instinctively swerve, regardless of the decision tree.
ANECDOTE ALERT!
Saw a guy veer out of the way on an on coming car. He went off a 75 foot cliff, taking his family with him.
Man I wish I didn't remember that,. Now I wont sleep for tonight.
Just pondering the moment when the father realize he was taking his family off a cliff. I used to dwell on the moment for weeks on end. I didn't sleep for about 3 days after that,.
Fuck.
into the bus.
You got a hard one?
"Totally agree."
I agree
" Computers can no more have morals than they can have intelligence. "
wrong. machines have intelligence. In fact there are many machines that if you just monitored it's action without knowing it's a machine you would think it was exhibiting intelligence. Primitive, but intelligence none the less.
AI is a moving target. So many things are done today where 20 years ago they would be considered AI.
But we figure it out, implement systems and then the bar of what is AI moves.
The more we understand the brain, the less magical it becomes. Some people can't handle that.
Interestingly enough, we have seen this before, but with the stomach. People used to consider it unknowable. Assigned it all kinds of properties, many could only be described as 'magical'.
The we figured it out .
If I have a computer that looks at a pendulum, and then through trial an error comes up with F=MA on it's own, is that intelligence?
What if you give it data for a biological process we don't understand, and it gives back a formula that has 100% predictive power? Even if we don't understand why the formula works? is that intelligence?
I ask because computers have done those very things.
Please try to understand what a rhetoric question is, cause that's a horrid one.
Also, you might want to try and stay on top of Computer decisions and AI instead of make stupid "rhetoric questions" about the topics. Or keep programming crappy Access application at the insurance company you work at, I don't really care.
" You can't program morality into a person,"
wrong.
Society, and response to society create morals.
"duuurr I don't understand something, therefore no one can and it's impossible to understand. derp.. derp.."
Do you see what you sound like?
Morality has nothing to do with your mythical soul.
If we did program morality, itr would reflects are, so in all likelyhood it would be the child first.
Unless I program it, then it will be:
Is it my family?
Is it me?
then the rest~
You should try some real world industrial programming. These problems have either been completely dealt with, or are so rare they are far better then human operators.
"..glitch due to after-market modifications.."
No, we can't just like you can't today. Modifying components of cars is as old as cars.
Everything from throttle adjustments, to carb adjustments, to nitro, to cars that jump up and down, to CPU modifications.
Some how, will manage.
" Have you seen how stupid people drive these days?"
it's actually better. But you go on about the good ol' days.
There are fewer accidents then ever. And then number keeps declining.
" They race from red light to red light as if they're actually going to get there faster that way."
yeah, these days, that certainly didn't happen 10, or 20, or 30 years ago~
I've only been driving for around 30 years I suspect peoplewere doing that before I was driving.
"the idiot driver thought the car was in reverse"
also been happening, rarely, for decades.
Come on man, don't fall into that trap.
For the record, I am a huge fan of automated driving systems. When I am older I won't have to depend on others to get around. My car will do it for me.
" the system ALREADY FAILED."
no it hasn't.
One time, I saw a plane crash onto the freeway. complete nose drive. If memory serves it was in '86 on the 10.
SO there will be unaccountable incidents.
OR maybe the bus isn't automated but your car is. Say during a transition period.
Or their was a mechanical failure with the bus. That doesn't mean Your system failed.
Of course, the question is silly becasue all you car should do is brake and hit the bus. The mass difference means the bus will be fine, and in all likelihood you will be fine too.
.
Try driving one down the freeway.
" We know how well prohibitions work right?"
Alcohol prohibition in the US worked extremely well. It did everything it set out to do.
Domestic crime nearly disappeared, many other crimes dropped significantly.
We just changed are mind.
The fact that the media had just lost a sizable chunk of revenue may have had something to so with the over sensationalism of illegal operators.
That's you reason? Not the fact that anti gravity is impossible? Or the amount of energy to lift a vehicle vs. just driving it some place?
If flying cars become common place a'la '5th Element' then they will be able to be easy to maintain.
Of course you can... or will.
Morality isn't some magic box. It's a series of chemicals responding to social pressure and conditioning.
"Again, what car company wouldn't take that into account when asking themselves if they want to be a pioneer in this field?"
cars companies that want to make money.
I have heard similar complaints about seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, automatic breaking.
Right now, you can buy a car that will park for you, brakes for you, even safely follow the car in front of you.
". So let's say that a good 25% of those first "
why? The number ONE(1) reason for accident is that the driver isn't paying attention. Either distracted, or just zoned out.
Something that doesn't happen to automated systems.
The item you bring up have been dealt with and the insurance companies know how to handle it.
You should read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-flu-vaccine-and-narcolepsy/
I'm glad you are being frank. Do one better and do some investigation.
We are talking 10's of thousands of deaths to millions.
And it's a different immune response for each strain.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/disease.htm
". Over a period of 30 years, between 1976 and 2006, estimates of flu-associated deaths in the United States range from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people. "
You klive in a world with decent herd immunity, so you haven't been exposed to how nasty it can be without herd immunity.
Sadly, a generation or two of people haven't experiences the shit hitting the fan, so they don't think vaccines are a 'big deal'.
Non vaccinated people are a vector for mutation. No vaccinated people can get it and just be a carrier. SO you are infecting other people and not even know it.
Vaccines are not 100%, so herd immunity protects those people.
I used to think like your post, decades ago. When I actual got influenza* and it's hell. The I looked into it.
Anyways, I highly recommend the 'quackcast' podcast by Mark Crislip. He goes into details about a number of medical issues. At least listen to the ones regard influenza.
http://moremark.squarespace.com/quackcast-home/
he is snarky and sarcastic.
*many thing attributed to the 'flu' but the common person aren't influenza. For examples 'stomach flu' actually makes no sense.
Of course he can.
When you are in a town without a lot of opportunity, that alone gives him power to force you to do something. The fact that it isn't immediate and violent doesn't mean it's not there.
Which just underscores the real issue. The gap between the 1% and everyone else.
There will always be a top 1%, duh. But the gulf is larger then ever and widening. You can be in the top 20% and not be rich or privileged.
PTO is horrid and it always, always, screws over the employee.
The company that announce a universal cure will get an immediate stock bump, plus drive their competitors out of business.k
So the CEO makes millions in bonuses, and long term they are far better off then their competitors.
The buy sitting on a cure, they risk their competitors releasing a cure and taking all their business.
Not looking for a cure and Sitting on a cure is a huge risks.
The it requires a mass conspiracy of 100s, if not thousands, of people.
I posted this once in this thread, but since you are going to be a researcher, I'll do it again.
The profit for treatment meme is false.
Let me explain:
You have a board, a CEO, and a bunch of other upper management people.
The better the stock does, the more money they get.
Announcing a cure increases you stock value. All those people make more money, right now.
These companies are competing, sitting on a cure, mean your competitor may develop a cure, go to market and make money from there stock bump.
And if it's another company you loose any revenue you would have got from treatment and get no revenue from the cure.
The only win for the people running the companies is selling the cure.
Unless you think companies are run by people who would rather put off serious bonus for the next guy rather then themselves?
Many companies got out of the flu vaccine business becasue they can't make any money. The profits margin is slim and they are tightly regulated.
The flu vaccine is a commodity. The feds buy vaccines at a low fixed rate.
ProTip: look into how pharmaceutical patent regulation.
I am pro socialization of healthcare.
THAT"S your example? They guy using a vary dangerous 'cure' couldn';t get approval to use his drug on children?
That's a good thing.
"It is more profitable to treat than cure"
not really, but you continue to not understand business and spout nonsense anyways.
Let me explain:
You have a board, a CEO, and a bunch of other upper management people.
The better the stock does, the more money they get.
Announcing a cure increases you stock value. All those people make more money, right now.
These companies are competing, sitting on a cure, mean your competitor may develop a cure, go to market and make money from there stock bump.
And if it's another company you loose any revenue you would have got from treatment and get no revenue from the cure.
The only win for the people running the companies is selling the cure.
Unless you think companies are run by people who would rather put off serious bonus for the next guy rather then themselves?
ProTip: look into how pharmaceutical patent regulation.
On to you're next incorrect statement:
" The media treats each new flu variant as a bigger deal than it needs to be. "
No, it does not. The H1 story? remember that? hospital around the country were full. The hospitals here in Oregon where at a point where they didn't know where they were going to put people. Completely full. Fortunately that was the point at which it peaked. Dodging a bullet buy centimeters.
You know why that's where it peaked? Media discussing the flu, reporting on the higher number of deaths in the normally high survivable age range and health.
Without that media coverage, We would have had thousands of people unable to get treatment, and 100s of more deaths. That is the best case.
Another case of people doing the right thing to head off catastrophe and the ignorant public thinking it was a waste of time because there wasn't
a catastrophe
Black death had a peak of two years, and that was in a world were people walking most places.
tl;dr
People running corporations like money now.
The media is critical in helping to limit outbreaks.
Not a lot, and that's do yo infrastructure spending.
But has infrastructure spending decline in lieu of bonuses, you will see more.*
This example in Boston was a lucky break,. Becasue of they are loosing that much gas, and the utilities haven't don't anything about it, then they aren't likely to have done anything anytime soon. Or maybe they where just getting ready to fix them.
*as opposed as paddle balls in lieu of pay. (Thanks Mel books!)
Ye sit is, and you are ignorant on tat subject. You are also stupid for saying things about topic you clearly no nothing about.
"why does it cost 1.5 mil to dig a hole and patch a pipe?"
engineering, laying pipe, testing remove old pipe properly putting the street back together all costs money.
It isn't 1.5 million to " dig a hole and patch a pipe"
Anyways, there are a lot of reason why ti's expensive. Mostly your ignorance on what it takes do do this work and keep a city running.
I suggest you study civil engineering. You come up with a better way that works, you will be rich.
Or do you thinking the utilities should just be able to dig up the street however they like, stop traffic when ever, and then not bother to put the street back together?
"not sure why lots of people think the previous should be the preferred way."
because the latter way is already being done by companies all the time.
I'm not sure why someone who clearly has some ignorant myopic view of how a city works would bother expressing an opinion based on nothing.
The part where it's about a boring an irrelevant sport.
And brains aren't winning over brawn. If they tried this with you, you would fail.
Brawn(endurance, really) is still needed.