No, that's just plain wrong. The first amendment only applies the US government. Freedom of speech is a universal ideal. The right to freedom of speech is a legal quandary. Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity. If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.
That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....
It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments are worthy of protection, despite how offensive they are to you and me.
"I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
But yeah, Drew can do whatever he want with his site. I stopped going there years ago so it's really no skin off my teeth.
If you're good you should be in charge of more people,
If you're good at X, people should listen to what you say when it pertains to X. That's not quite the same thing as "in charge of people". If you're a god of TCP/IP, and you walk in and say how the server should handle traffic then people should listen to you, do the things you tell them to do, and things should be done the way you say they should be done. That's power. Control. You would most certainly be "in charge". But you're in charge of your corner of the world. Just because you know your shit when it comes to TCP/IP traffic doesn't mean you know jack fucking shit about how to get people to work together, or how to prove to the client that they really want new feature X, or how to test the damn thing after it's made.
Seriously, if you have one concept of what "good" means, and you think it's tied to management, then you've got a pretty fucked up business sense and I don't particularly want to work for you, work with you, or have you work for me.
This is what I immediately thought. They're looking to take it into the limelight and actually use it publicly, as opposed to using it and hiding the fact through "Parallel Construction".
"We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures." What a pathetic retort
What do you want? "Yeah, we all think he's full of shit". Something like that? That's just a translation issue between official-speak and straight-dope. Let me rephrase that: That's EXACTLY what they said, just in a different dialect.
The correct response, if you care enough, is to follow up by pointing out where their interpretation falls short
The CIA armed, trained, and helped fund the people who went on to found Al Quaeda. Taliban too for that matter.
I do not think you realize how difficult it is to train third world people to use state of the art military equipment.
Quite. Operation Cyclone funneled $20 Billion into the country over the course of 10 years. Stinger missiles aren't rocket science, but you need to be trained. At least we didn't hand them something like in Ukraine with that passenger jet.
been there done that. not even something worth doing
DAMN STRAIGHT. Wasn't worth it back in 1980 either. Blow back is a bitch.
besides these weapons should be fairly easy to neutralize by any reasonably modern military.
Neutralized? You mean like with body armor? That's a good point. Someone wanting to quickly arm the rabble and pretend they're snipers would probably only have access to, you know, the smaller of the small arms. A.22 long isn't going to do much to someone wearing full protective gear, and an AK isn't a sniper rifle.
But it lowers the bar. If they can get accurate high caliber weapons, then they don't have to have highly trained special agents to make use of them.
HAHAHAHAHA! That's cute son. But no, let me spell it out for you. This is the way things are going to go:
1) New way of doing something makes a buck. 2) Uber or Lyft or whoever pop up and lambast regulation that keeps them from making a buck. They promote competition. 3) The competition gets ugly, 4) Uber or Lyft will sue one another for blatantly malicious acts meant to destroy the competition. Everyone* agrees things got out of hand. Everyone* agrees that you really shouldn't... say... profile your clients for homicidal tendencies and then call a competitors cab with false information and pass the irrate and dangerous client off to the unsuspecting murder victim. Clearly anti-competitive, and while a criminal verdict is pending, everyone* agrees that NEW regulation will put a stop to that terrible practice.
If everyone* agrees that the old regulation is pretty busted, but everyone* agrees that things need to change, then sadly the typical course of action is to slap on new regulation. Then we'd have official non-taxi ride-sharing regulation. Just in time to get in the door before the automated taxi companies pop up and lambast these stupid regulations.
*Everyone: The CEOs at Uber and Lyft, the politicians, the judges, and enough of the customers. All of whom really don't give a shit about what wisdom you trust.
So Toss his ass into Gitmo and wait 15 years to bring him to trial.
Whoa there, I think the man violated the law. I think he and his organization is specifically out of control and has a real chance to subvert the only check on their power. I even think that this poses a threat to the democratic nature of the USA. To that extent, this is a matter of national security. Our nation is at risk of being subverted and controlled by a small group of individuals with the whole constitution being thrown out the window.
But I am not willing to throw out the man's right to a speedy trial because he nearly destroyed the constitution. Simply put, we have to be better than he is.
I could never get into the 1994 sega genesis game. It might have been fun a the time, but the platform is showing it's age. The interface was just too cumbersome to be enjoyable. Never played the SNES vesion, but I imagine it's similar to the genesis version. There was a mega-drive version!? The 2007 FPS game had some aspects of shadowrun, but it's an entirely different genre. The 2013 PC version was a throwback. It would be a GREAT game if it was released in the 90's. Painful dialog, simplistic combat, rail-road plot. And that fucking clown in the end. It just didn't have the magic.
But oh, wait, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE is a solo-only game. No multiplayer. No friends. No social interaction. No open-ended world with open-ended rules limited only by your creativity. It's like you don't even understand the premise of table-top roleplaying. Do you even know who Gygax was?
That multiplayer game is still TBA though, and the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.
Just had a Shadowrun one-shot. DEAR FUCKING GOD! I love the setting and tolerate the magical bullshit they throw in for whatever reason. But the mechanics of the system are just SO BLOODY PAINFUL. Guy with a grenade launcher. He rolls his to-hit, minus distance penalties, minus lighting conditions, negated by thermal vision, we roll scatter direction and distance (the rules are internally inconstant about the distance they scatter), his hits reduce this damage, the targets dodge (just reaction, as it's not melee)(and only half that because it's area effect), the damage is applied, they resist with their armor and body (plus 1 for cyberlimbs, plus 2 for bone lacing, you just have to know), but for that guy the damage is -2 per meter distance from the blast, and that guy is next to a wall so he gets the blast wave twice.
And HALF those rules don't apply when the mage whips out the magic casting system and we have to distinguish between direct/indirect, elemental, permanent/mental, sustained, the different schools, and each spell does things a little differently. The magic spell casting ability is not to be confused with the magic attribute, the force of the spell, the threshold of the spell, the hits the spell is cast with, or the drain value of the spell. It didn't help that he confused DV as the damage value as opposed to drain value, but WHATEVER.
And mechanics aside, the whole thing suffers from a failure to engage different players. Indeed, they go out of their way to give players special things that only their character can do: Matrix, astral, rigging, driving, stealth, social, combat. You can specialize in those fields and if you didn't, then you pretty much just sit there while the other players do their thing.
The whole god-damned thing is kludge by authors who want to be game designers but don't know how.
a game where most of the participants act like that one asshole
Every single starcraft match I've watched has had every participant sit there like a robot with a slightly furrowed brow until the match is over. "dramatic flare" reduces your APM and lets the zerglings rush you.
On the flip side, do you know the rules to rugby? Lacross? Cricket?
If I were to say the fencer on the left had a beautiful Pris-de-fare, but the fencer on the right's remise landed first, do you know who got the touch?
Because there are things out there which people enjoy, which you might not be aware of. Hey, if you like to know which hollywood celebrity is sleeping with who, or what caliber the Austrian special forces use, that's fine.
And some people like reaver drops and forge-first-expansions.
There's a whole world of bigotry out there that doesn't revolve around racism. Sure, it's typically used in association with easy visual targets, like the color of one's skin or gender, but bigotry can also crop up with regard to sexual orientation, nationalism, wealth, cultural trends (those hipster, amIright?), political orientation, or really anything at all. As soon as you carry negative associations with a group or label, you've engaged in bigotry whenever you deal with that someone of that group. Me? I detest salesmen. Even the nicest of people, if introduced as a salesmen, get the stinkeye from me. What can I say, we all have issues.
You could quite easily argue that the presumed bigotry from the above post is targeted towards military involvement. Considering he has two references to the "war-mongering military industrial complex". Or kings, as he has two references to that as well.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Fuck you and your "you played the race card" card.
Of course, saying that he "doesn't suffer bigoted fools lightly" is a little ironic. "Not suffering [group]" pretty much makes him a bigot himself. It's not that bad of an irony though. I mean, really, bigots. Fuck'em.
Freedom of speech is a larger subject than the first amendment, the constitution of the USA, and the USA as a whole.
While the first amendment restricts what the US governments can do, it is Valve and such's policy that affects people's freedom of speech while playing these games.
Yes, they are legally allowed to do what they wish with their property. It doesn't mean that has zero impact on my freedom of speech.
And no, I don't think that they should be forced to let these hate-filled douchbags shit up the gameplay on their servers. But don't imagine for a moment that they are absolved of all issues revolving around freedom of speech. If they went full authoritarian commune-nazi, they would no longer have me as a customer.
People are bitching because they are seeing a company that was taking advantage of new technology under the radar suddenly getting fought tooth and nail by the established old guard.
You are right that licensing fees by the studios are a major cause of this problem, but those problems only apply to the company paying those fees and all services that company offers.
And just like the established old guard needs to adapt to a brave new world of changing technology, so too do the customers that were riding the wave of first-adopter-perks. The political landscape of the industry has changed. Sucks for anyone that liked the old ways of doing things. Sometimes the beaver population is just no longer there. To be a real dick about it: Nobody moved your cheese, the cheese is simply no longer there.
Whoa there, it turns "innovation", "IP", "the free market", and "network neutrality" into sad jokes. And there's not a lot of respect for that sort of stuff in China. The country is still fairly repressive by modern standards.
But it very much funnels users and money back towards China. This sort of thing will not be fought by the officials in China. The minor officials get shark-fin soup, so they're all for it. But the higher ups like it just the same as it keep money from leaving the country. It's essentially protectionism.
Imagine his scenario applied to the wee little people:
Right now Verizon doesn't pay it's customers any additional money for the data being sent their way (Transport is usually paid by the shipper -- when I order a physical product I pay for shipping to the vendor, who pays the transporter).
He wants to purchase a search result form Google, who would pay Verizon to send it to him. Oh hell no.
So are you assuming the "separatists" are pro-Russian Ukrainians who somehow got their hands on a missile, or are you assuming the separatists are Russian military?
Even then, for both cases, you have to question how much training such soldiers received. Is #1, where some dumbasses with a missile shot down a convenient target, so much of a stretch? Also, why can't #1 and #3 be true?
Yeah, this, and he would have picked that up if he was an engineer worth his salt who could read english.
I'd even go so far as to say that it's OH-SHIT mode wouldn't give two shits if BOTH the grandma and the little kid would both be hit. Seriously, the alternative is trying to swerve away, off the road, into god-knows what, or barreling headlong into traffic, in an effort to play hero. At a policy level, that's fucking stupid.
No. Oh Shit = Hit the brakes. That's it. No grand overly convoluted AI ethic and morality neural-net enforcing Asimov's three laws. Keep it simple, stupid.
Imagine a car manufacturer who does not build in such a device!
Imagine a table saw manufacturer who doesn't have a shut-off when someone puts their finger in it! Because that's possible today. There's a competitor that creates such table saws. They're really expensive. Regular table-saw manufacturers haven't been sued to oblivion.
A driverless car cannot stop within abrupt short time.
Uh..... yes it can? Better than a human can at any rate if you boil it down to reaction times. It's still, you know, a car.
Just one, one only, example: If presented by either hitting a 4-year-old child or an octogenarian; should it take a random selection, or being programmed? If the latter is the case: who is it programmed to kill?
I imagine it'd be program to slam on the breaks and stop, minimizing the damage. Don't give me that bullshit about swerving to the side. In that case it's program to kill whoever is in violation of it's right-of-way.
Okay, a second example: You are sitting in a driverless car, with 4 of your family. A bus with 12 passengers comes up frontally (driven by an imperfect human driver, I guess). The whole thing on a narrow bridge, if you hit the bus, probabilities are it will slide to the side and tumble into a canyon. How would you think your perfect driverless car ought to be programmed?
To stop and share the narrow bridge, allowing the human-driven bus to navigate it first. Sorry, but you haven't explained how this is a critical scenario that will lead to crash.
I think you're trying to describe the scenario where how the car should sacrifice itself to save the bus. A us-or-the-bus scenario. In that case: Slam on the breaks, minimizing the damage.
Really, you think that the car is going to have some sort of morality judgement function. No. It's going to have a "crash imminent mode" where it tries to stop. That's it.
The outcome of such a reaction might be hitting a kid. Or hitting a bus. Or whatever. But as a standard oh-shit procedure, it's solid.
the perfect driverless car becomes a pragmatic killing machine.
Pft, please. No more so than SCUBA gear, power tools, and industrial robots. Shit hits the fan, they try to stop.
The fact that a company blatantly states that they try to "enhance online branding and clear negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" means that are bold-faced EVIL. They are no longer even trying to hide it. That have accepted that society is malleable and that they can make a buck distorting the truth for the highest bidder.
They are mercenaries. They might not be shooting people in the face for money, but they're destroying the truth for money. They are paid to go censor people in the open square. It's not even the polite sort of lie of an advertisement or a commercial. No. They are paid to suppress the statements of others. To effectively gag them.
This company and ones like them are not just leeches on society, they are ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST SOCIETY. I have no better definition of evil. Their existence is detrimental to the rest of us. Anyone who does business with them should be scorned and their names remembered.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Censorship only applies to governments.
No, that's just plain wrong.
The first amendment only applies the US government.
Freedom of speech is a universal ideal.
The right to freedom of speech is a legal quandary.
Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity.
If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.
That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....
It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments are worthy of protection, despite how offensive they are to you and me.
"I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
But yeah, Drew can do whatever he want with his site. I stopped going there years ago so it's really no skin off my teeth.
If you're good you should be in charge of more people,
If you're good at X, people should listen to what you say when it pertains to X. That's not quite the same thing as "in charge of people".
If you're a god of TCP/IP, and you walk in and say how the server should handle traffic then people should listen to you, do the things you tell them to do, and things should be done the way you say they should be done. That's power. Control. You would most certainly be "in charge". But you're in charge of your corner of the world. Just because you know your shit when it comes to TCP/IP traffic doesn't mean you know jack fucking shit about how to get people to work together, or how to prove to the client that they really want new feature X, or how to test the damn thing after it's made.
Seriously, if you have one concept of what "good" means, and you think it's tied to management, then you've got a pretty fucked up business sense and I don't particularly want to work for you, work with you, or have you work for me.
Only if they start labeling personality characteristics as mental defects. I mean, it's not like they have any syndromes that describe geeks, right?
See: Panopticon
This is what I immediately thought. They're looking to take it into the limelight and actually use it publicly, as opposed to using it and hiding the fact through "Parallel Construction".
"We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures." What a pathetic retort
What do you want? "Yeah, we all think he's full of shit". Something like that? That's just a translation issue between official-speak and straight-dope. Let me rephrase that: That's EXACTLY what they said, just in a different dialect.
The correct response, if you care enough, is to follow up by pointing out where their interpretation falls short
Yeah, that'd be nice.
the US did not create Al Quaeda, stop repeating that lie
Of course they didn't. That's absurd conspiracy-level bullshit. But that's not what the grandparent said. Check it:
the way the U.S. armed the Mujahideen (al Quaeda),
Really, Operation Cyclone look it up.
The CIA armed, trained, and helped fund the people who went on to found Al Quaeda. Taliban too for that matter.
I do not think you realize how difficult it is to train third world people to use state of the art military equipment.
Quite. Operation Cyclone funneled $20 Billion into the country over the course of 10 years. Stinger missiles aren't rocket science, but you need to be trained. At least we didn't hand them something like in Ukraine with that passenger jet.
been there done that. not even something worth doing
DAMN STRAIGHT. Wasn't worth it back in 1980 either. Blow back is a bitch.
besides these weapons should be fairly easy to neutralize by any reasonably modern military.
Neutralized? You mean like with body armor? That's a good point. Someone wanting to quickly arm the rabble and pretend they're snipers would probably only have access to, you know, the smaller of the small arms. A .22 long isn't going to do much to someone wearing full protective gear, and an AK isn't a sniper rifle.
But it lowers the bar. If they can get accurate high caliber weapons, then they don't have to have highly trained special agents to make use of them.
HAHAHAHAHA! That's cute son. But no, let me spell it out for you. This is the way things are going to go:
1) New way of doing something makes a buck.
2) Uber or Lyft or whoever pop up and lambast regulation that keeps them from making a buck. They promote competition.
3) The competition gets ugly,
4) Uber or Lyft will sue one another for blatantly malicious acts meant to destroy the competition. Everyone* agrees things got out of hand. Everyone* agrees that you really shouldn't... say... profile your clients for homicidal tendencies and then call a competitors cab with false information and pass the irrate and dangerous client off to the unsuspecting murder victim. Clearly anti-competitive, and while a criminal verdict is pending, everyone* agrees that NEW regulation will put a stop to that terrible practice.
If everyone* agrees that the old regulation is pretty busted, but everyone* agrees that things need to change, then sadly the typical course of action is to slap on new regulation. Then we'd have official non-taxi ride-sharing regulation. Just in time to get in the door before the automated taxi companies pop up and lambast these stupid regulations.
*Everyone: The CEOs at Uber and Lyft, the politicians, the judges, and enough of the customers. All of whom really don't give a shit about what wisdom you trust.
So Toss his ass into Gitmo and wait 15 years to bring him to trial .
Whoa there,
I think the man violated the law. I think he and his organization is specifically out of control and has a real chance to subvert the only check on their power. I even think that this poses a threat to the democratic nature of the USA. To that extent, this is a matter of national security. Our nation is at risk of being subverted and controlled by a small group of individuals with the whole constitution being thrown out the window.
But I am not willing to throw out the man's right to a speedy trial because he nearly destroyed the constitution. Simply put, we have to be better than he is.
Yeah, gee, that would be kinda neat.
I could never get into the 1994 sega genesis game. It might have been fun a the time, but the platform is showing it's age. The interface was just too cumbersome to be enjoyable.
Never played the SNES vesion, but I imagine it's similar to the genesis version.
There was a mega-drive version!?
The 2007 FPS game had some aspects of shadowrun, but it's an entirely different genre.
The 2013 PC version was a throwback. It would be a GREAT game if it was released in the 90's. Painful dialog, simplistic combat, rail-road plot. And that fucking clown in the end. It just didn't have the magic.
But oh, wait, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE is a solo-only game. No multiplayer. No friends. No social interaction. No open-ended world with open-ended rules limited only by your creativity. It's like you don't even understand the premise of table-top roleplaying. Do you even know who Gygax was?
That multiplayer game is still TBA though, and the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.
Just had a Shadowrun one-shot.
DEAR FUCKING GOD! I love the setting and tolerate the magical bullshit they throw in for whatever reason. But the mechanics of the system are just SO BLOODY PAINFUL.
Guy with a grenade launcher. He rolls his to-hit, minus distance penalties, minus lighting conditions, negated by thermal vision, we roll scatter direction and distance (the rules are internally inconstant about the distance they scatter), his hits reduce this damage, the targets dodge (just reaction, as it's not melee)(and only half that because it's area effect), the damage is applied, they resist with their armor and body (plus 1 for cyberlimbs, plus 2 for bone lacing, you just have to know), but for that guy the damage is -2 per meter distance from the blast, and that guy is next to a wall so he gets the blast wave twice.
And HALF those rules don't apply when the mage whips out the magic casting system and we have to distinguish between direct/indirect, elemental, permanent/mental, sustained, the different schools, and each spell does things a little differently. The magic spell casting ability is not to be confused with the magic attribute, the force of the spell, the threshold of the spell, the hits the spell is cast with, or the drain value of the spell. It didn't help that he confused DV as the damage value as opposed to drain value, but WHATEVER.
And mechanics aside, the whole thing suffers from a failure to engage different players. Indeed, they go out of their way to give players special things that only their character can do: Matrix, astral, rigging, driving, stealth, social, combat. You can specialize in those fields and if you didn't, then you pretty much just sit there while the other players do their thing.
The whole god-damned thing is kludge by authors who want to be game designers but don't know how.
But I do like me some cyberpunk.
a game where most of the participants act like that one asshole
Every single starcraft match I've watched has had every participant sit there like a robot with a slightly furrowed brow until the match is over. "dramatic flare" reduces your APM and lets the zerglings rush you.
On the flip side, do you know the rules to rugby? Lacross? Cricket?
If I were to say the fencer on the left had a beautiful Pris-de-fare, but the fencer on the right's remise landed first, do you know who got the touch?
Because there are things out there which people enjoy, which you might not be aware of.
Hey, if you like to know which hollywood celebrity is sleeping with who, or what caliber the Austrian special forces use, that's fine.
And some people like reaver drops and forge-first-expansions.
There's a whole world of bigotry out there that doesn't revolve around racism. Sure, it's typically used in association with easy visual targets, like the color of one's skin or gender, but bigotry can also crop up with regard to sexual orientation, nationalism, wealth, cultural trends (those hipster, amIright?), political orientation, or really anything at all. As soon as you carry negative associations with a group or label, you've engaged in bigotry whenever you deal with that someone of that group. Me? I detest salesmen. Even the nicest of people, if introduced as a salesmen, get the stinkeye from me. What can I say, we all have issues.
You could quite easily argue that the presumed bigotry from the above post is targeted towards military involvement. Considering he has two references to the "war-mongering military industrial complex". Or kings, as he has two references to that as well.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Fuck you and your "you played the race card" card.
Of course, saying that he "doesn't suffer bigoted fools lightly" is a little ironic. "Not suffering [group]" pretty much makes him a bigot himself. It's not that bad of an irony though. I mean, really, bigots. Fuck'em.
Freedom of speech is a larger subject than the first amendment, the constitution of the USA, and the USA as a whole.
While the first amendment restricts what the US governments can do, it is Valve and such's policy that affects people's freedom of speech while playing these games.
Yes, they are legally allowed to do what they wish with their property. It doesn't mean that has zero impact on my freedom of speech.
And no, I don't think that they should be forced to let these hate-filled douchbags shit up the gameplay on their servers. But don't imagine for a moment that they are absolved of all issues revolving around freedom of speech. If they went full authoritarian commune-nazi, they would no longer have me as a customer.
People are bitching because they are seeing a company that was taking advantage of new technology under the radar suddenly getting fought tooth and nail by the established old guard.
You are right that licensing fees by the studios are a major cause of this problem, but those problems only apply to the company paying those fees and all services that company offers.
And just like the established old guard needs to adapt to a brave new world of changing technology, so too do the customers that were riding the wave of first-adopter-perks. The political landscape of the industry has changed. Sucks for anyone that liked the old ways of doing things. Sometimes the beaver population is just no longer there. To be a real dick about it: Nobody moved your cheese, the cheese is simply no longer there.
It's a joke.
Whoa there, it turns "innovation", "IP", "the free market", and "network neutrality" into sad jokes. And there's not a lot of respect for that sort of stuff in China. The country is still fairly repressive by modern standards.
But it very much funnels users and money back towards China. This sort of thing will not be fought by the officials in China. The minor officials get shark-fin soup, so they're all for it. But the higher ups like it just the same as it keep money from leaving the country. It's essentially protectionism.
Most people just call that the Dead Sea Effect.
Yeah, jesus christ does Mycroft-X have it wrong.
Imagine his scenario applied to the wee little people:
Right now Verizon doesn't pay it's customers any additional money for the data being sent their way (Transport is usually paid by the shipper -- when I order a physical product I pay for shipping to the vendor, who pays the transporter).
He wants to purchase a search result form Google, who would pay Verizon to send it to him. Oh hell no.
So are you assuming the "separatists" are pro-Russian Ukrainians who somehow got their hands on a missile, or are you assuming the separatists are Russian military?
Even then, for both cases, you have to question how much training such soldiers received. Is #1, where some dumbasses with a missile shot down a convenient target, so much of a stretch? Also, why can't #1 and #3 be true?
Yeah, this, and he would have picked that up if he was an engineer worth his salt who could read english.
I'd even go so far as to say that it's OH-SHIT mode wouldn't give two shits if BOTH the grandma and the little kid would both be hit. Seriously, the alternative is trying to swerve away, off the road, into god-knows what, or barreling headlong into traffic, in an effort to play hero. At a policy level, that's fucking stupid.
No. Oh Shit = Hit the brakes. That's it. No grand overly convoluted AI ethic and morality neural-net enforcing Asimov's three laws. Keep it simple, stupid.
Imagine a car manufacturer who does not build in such a device!
Imagine a table saw manufacturer who doesn't have a shut-off when someone puts their finger in it! Because that's possible today. There's a competitor that creates such table saws. They're really expensive. Regular table-saw manufacturers haven't been sued to oblivion.
A driverless car cannot stop within abrupt short time.
Uh..... yes it can? Better than a human can at any rate if you boil it down to reaction times. It's still, you know, a car.
Just one, one only, example: If presented by either hitting a 4-year-old child or an octogenarian; should it take a random selection, or being programmed? If the latter is the case: who is it programmed to kill?
I imagine it'd be program to slam on the breaks and stop, minimizing the damage. Don't give me that bullshit about swerving to the side. In that case it's program to kill whoever is in violation of it's right-of-way.
Okay, a second example: You are sitting in a driverless car, with 4 of your family. A bus with 12 passengers comes up frontally (driven by an imperfect human driver, I guess). The whole thing on a narrow bridge, if you hit the bus, probabilities are it will slide to the side and tumble into a canyon. How would you think your perfect driverless car ought to be programmed?
To stop and share the narrow bridge, allowing the human-driven bus to navigate it first. Sorry, but you haven't explained how this is a critical scenario that will lead to crash.
I think you're trying to describe the scenario where how the car should sacrifice itself to save the bus. A us-or-the-bus scenario.
In that case: Slam on the breaks, minimizing the damage.
Really, you think that the car is going to have some sort of morality judgement function. No. It's going to have a "crash imminent mode" where it tries to stop. That's it.
The outcome of such a reaction might be hitting a kid. Or hitting a bus. Or whatever. But as a standard oh-shit procedure, it's solid.
the perfect driverless car becomes a pragmatic killing machine.
Pft, please. No more so than SCUBA gear, power tools, and industrial robots.
Shit hits the fan, they try to stop.
And it will never be perfect. Just good enough.
The fact that a company blatantly states that they try to "enhance online branding and clear negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" means that are bold-faced EVIL. They are no longer even trying to hide it. That have accepted that society is malleable and that they can make a buck distorting the truth for the highest bidder.
They are mercenaries. They might not be shooting people in the face for money, but they're destroying the truth for money. They are paid to go censor people in the open square. It's not even the polite sort of lie of an advertisement or a commercial. No. They are paid to suppress the statements of others. To effectively gag them.
This company and ones like them are not just leeches on society, they are ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST SOCIETY. I have no better definition of evil. Their existence is detrimental to the rest of us. Anyone who does business with them should be scorned and their names remembered.
Hmmmm, if it has guidance in the bullet, does that mean you need to fire it out of a smoothbore barrel?
Also, where is the computer assisted laser pointer?
"Playing". Because the best sound comes from a vinyl LP powered by a Magnetar with monster cables, of course.