I know I'm feeding the troll, but vaccines aren't 100% effective. Little Johnny Pathogen could still be spewing out a virus he has no effective defense against.
At age 48, I was required to have proof of measles vaccine before being allowed to attend Arizona State University. I did think it was a ridiculous requirement, but only because I was I was enrolled as an online student from Minnesota.
Vaccines don't cure diseases; that's not how they work. They only teach your immune system how to fight the disease without exposing you to a lethal dose, which is why they give you a "weakened strain" or a "killed virus". Because of this, vaccines are almost never 100% effective. Sometimes they are so weak your body doesn't learn how to fight, or sometimes your body isn't capable of fighting. Some vaccines are only 40-60% effective. Efficacy also depends on other factors, including whether or not the disease you're exposed to is close enough to the antibodies the vaccine caused you to produce. And there are about 10% of the population who physically cannot get vaccinated, due to allergies or pre-existing health reasons.
In epidemic diseases, particularly those that readily mutate like influenza, it's hoped the vaccine is effective enough on enough people to keep the spread contained or manageable. A 90% vaccination rate is barely enough to convey herd immunity.
On the other hand you've got ignorant pop stars, preachers, and pandering politicians who promote non-scientific claims from a discredited researcher about vaccines causing autism in toddlers. By allowing those 20% of extremely stupid people to excuse themselves out of the herd, it's become tough to protect the rest of us. If the flu vaccine has only a 60% chance of protecting you should you become exposed, and the herd is unprotected, you still have a chance of dying from flu, even with a flu shot.
As for the rest of your post, there is a tremendous amount of experience and data on vaccines. They know the types of side effects, the rates of side effects, the rate of allergic reactions to the components, and can even predict the expected efficacy of each vaccine. They also know the expected mortality rate of the vaccines, and it's pretty easy to compare that to the mortality rate of the diseases they control. If the vaccine kills 1 in 3000000 people, and the flu kills 1 in 300 people (or 1 in 6, like the Spanish influenza of 1918), what do you think the ethical choices for a society are? Let the superstitious people kill off a bunch of us?
My Sync is terrible at voice control. We were visiting friends at a city we hadn't been at before, and they took us to dinner someplace near the state's Capitol building. We decided we wanted to go back the next day for sight seeing. I repeatedly tried asking it variations of "Find capitol building, find capitol, find state capitol", etc. It replied a bunch of random things like "Finding carpet cleaners", "finding shopping", and "finding pizza." (?) Actually, the last one sort-of helped, because I remembered to ask for the restaurant we ate at that was near the capitol building, and it managed to take us close enough.
That's funny, because YouTube happily rolls over to HTML5 when you don't have Flash installed, and it works just fine.
As much as it pissed me off when Jobs said 'no Flash on the iPhone', it was a brilliant move at weaning the world from one of the least secure software packages in history. It's impossible to change the whole world at once, especially when Adobe is trying so desperately to cling to this albatross, but Adobe has never taken the responsibility for building a new, secure engine and eliminating the backward compatibility holes. They just keep enabling vulnerability after vulnerability.
Flash may not be dead, but it's long past its time to live.
Those that need verification prompts to exist in our society, need to seriously rethink their basic thought process and self control.
That's exactly what this tool is for. Those that could benefit from verification prompts are completely unaware that they even have a problem. It's possible that some of them may start questioning their life choices as a result.
Of course, it's also likely to gamify alcoholism: "Dude, Facebook says I've posted drunk for 100 days in a row, that's gotta be some kind of record."
The idea behind a fitness tracker is that the data is primarily useful within a shorter timeframe, such as an individual workout, or a day. A fitbit has no functional need to contain your year-old stats; even if it kept them, the user interface is so limited it couldn't show you anything meaningful. For historical data to be useful to the general user, the device has to transfer its data to a computer, where it can be stored, retrieved, and plotted. If the device was its own database, it would take extra time and energy to access it via Bluetooth.
So the issue really is: where should the developer choose to store it all? It could live on your average user's PC or Mac, where you have to field a ton of support calls and questions from people who lose their stuff for a thousand reasons, or you keep it on a database in your own data center (where you can incidentally mine it for fun and profit.)
Actually, I've never gotten the whole "Chrome is the greatest browser ever" thing. I think it's probably a "more of what I'm used to", but the Firefox plug-in ecosystem has always appealed to me, as it does everything I want, the way I want.
And my "Internet ads" are all equally un-horrible - adblock sees to that.
My privacy boils down to two simple choices: I can guess which providers and trackers might honestly respect my opt-out wishes and not track every step I take (and I also have to guess what that means regarding their anonymised statistics gathering); or I can simply never send any of them any of my data, and know for sure.
The last version I want is V28. After that, their password sync system was changed in ways I no longer trust. NoScript, AdBlockPlus, Ghostery help keep me safe, and browsing fast; and there's no Google spyware. So it's still the best option.
I think South Korea's regulatory framework requires a shitload of money be paid to the government to sell your devices. This extortion is clad in the veil of "regulations".
Notice how you are guilty if it is an "unregistered" device, not a "non-compliant" device. That's the trademark of government corruption.
Or did you mean that you didn't participate in the brick and mortar competitive fracas, which has nothing to do with the response times of web pages, which is what TFA is actually about? Even reading enough of the article title to post what you wrote indicates the story is about web pages, which you can't "die for".
I have not heard of a good way to authorize recurring payments, or to enable payments on behalf of others. There is a way to use crypto to authenticate web transactions without a card reader, if they get off their butts and enable it. They really need to make these things more widely understood so people won't be so hesitant to change.
There is a fix coming, but it requires coercing millions of merchants to change over their systems from mag stripes to chip and PIN. For operators of parking systems, which have readers built in to their gate-paying systems, this may not be a small expense. And for banks, who have to issue expensive chip cards, and install complex key management systems to secure the accounts of thousands of customers, the expense is even higher, so they've been fighting the change. As late as last year, Visa was about to delay Chip and PIN in the U.S. once again.
But that all changed after Target got hacked, and other big retailers began to fall. The retailers said "enough with this bullshit insecure system. Fix it now, not later." The deferment was canceled, and Chip and PIN is still on for deployment by next October.
Chip and PIN is different. Instead of some easily copied fixed data representing both your identity and your authorization to pay for something, your identity (account number) no longer has to be kept secret. The secrets are instead baked into the chips by the banks, and can't easily be copied or replayed. The merchant terminal will no longer need to be a trusted partner in providing authentication. Your chip is an extension of the bank's security system.
It just takes a long time to get tens of thousands of banks and millions of retailers to coordinate this shift. Once it's done and mag stripes are sunsetted, the security will be vastly improved.
You don't have to lower the math standards any, you just have to fail to raise them for the next 20 years. Even then it won't matter, because so many people are so bad at statistics and estimating, even when they know better.
Gerrymandering has a long, proud tradition in U.S. politics. I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in advantage to one side about half the time.
It seems that political power is self-limiting. One side will occupy Congress for a while, until the other side gets fed up and makes a switch. As long as one party doesn't control the whole Congress plus the presidency, gridlock keeps us safe from most of the excesses of either side. It's only when one side runs the whole show that it's time to worry.
The radio generally isn't on the same CAN bus as the ECM. The ECM is on the high speed bus which usually is reserved for engine and safety systems, like airbags and ABS. But as you noted, there are places where messages have to cross over: airbags need to be able to tell the entertainment system to have the connected cell phone dial 911. There are commercial CAN bus bridges available that provide this function, and they can be configured like a firewall to isolate all messages except those identified as needing to pass through.
Whether or not these bridges are actual security appliances is a different question. Who has the authority to alter those routing tables? Where is the password kept? How are they secured? CAN is a low level protocol that was never designed to be secured.
The military is good at physical security. That's their mandate, after all. It seems logical to put them together.
However, they seem to suck at this aspect of it. There is no reason that an American vehicle (or weapons system) left in the hands of an Iraqi army battalion should ever be able to be commandeered by troops who switched allegiance to ISIL. There should be an American satellite link required for occasional checking-in, and the vehicle should be disabling itself if it's failing to check in, or if it's been added to the "captured vehicle list", or whatever. High-risk auto leasing operations are already doing something like this today, with a kind of inverted Lo-jack system.
And from a maintenance standpoint, this shouldn't be an issue. The machines already require sophisticated computer control to turn on and run. All it has to do is wipe out its program when the "blacklist" threshold is hit, whatever that may be. It's not like ISIL would be able to order a replacement aftermarket electronic control system for these from Alibaba. For that matter, the engines could include embedded charges (think exploding bolts) that would physically disable the machine on receipt of a suitably authenticated "hostile takeover" signal. Or they could simply continuously report their ID and coordinates, and a J-DAM could sort them out right quick.
Yes, I'd raise holy hell if my car's computer shut me down because the manufacturer added me to their blacklist. But this is like a commercial operation, where the assets don't belong to the drivers, they belong to the Army. And they never, ever belong to ISIL.
Until they get this right, why do we think they are going to get consumer car security right?
Infrastructure has to be built one sale at a time. Tesla is demonstrating one way to do it with their supercharger network, with trickle chargers in the home, and supercharging stations scattered around the country, trying to bridge gaps in coverage.
A hydrogen infrastructure will look different, because pressurized hydrogen isn't as ubiquitous as electricity. They might have better luck with a regional approach, selling commuter cars in one city, and building up an infrastructure there just to prove it can be done. This could go hand-in-glove with a partnership with a rental car company, where your car price comes with discounted rentals for cross country trips. They might even be able to start with some fleet approaches: delivery vans, local taxi services, city government inspectors, etc. Get a few vehicles out there first, then expand into the consumer market. Once the hydrogen delivery trucks start making rounds to carry fuel to the fleet terminals, it's not a stretch to get them delivering to consumer facing refueling stations.
Or maybe hydrogen delivery service stations could be provided in a novel format, like a standard shipping container. Build a tank and pump system into a steel box, and make arrangements with a company like BP to drop one in the parking lot of an existing refueling station whenever you sell a car that's not within 10 miles of an existing station. BP may like drilling for oil, but their primary business is selling vehicle fuel. This is an opportunity that doesn't bypass them, like home charging stations do.
The one thing that would be likely to fail would be to take billions of dollars of investment, and build a national network of thousands hydrogen refueling stations before the arrival of millions of hydrogen consumers.
In suburban-heavy US metropolitan regions, Zipcars haven't made inroads yet because the sources and destinations of people are not close to each other. Suburbs are all houses (sources of people) but have no shops, factories, or businesses (no destinations). If my neighborhood was to have a successful zipcar garage that served everyone, it would have to contain as many cars as there are nearby residents, and it would still be emptied quite early in the mornings. The urban centers have few residents who would commute away from the city to work, and would not provide a demand for the tens of thousands of cars that would arrive every morning.
If the cars were self-driving, they'd be able to return to the suburbs to provide many trips per day. More trips per car means fewer cars are needed.
"Hey, Joe, now that we've finished surrounding the Capitol building lawns with mines, we've still got a bunch of extra mines. What should we do with them?"
"They're not extra. They said ring the building, so the plans are to mine the walks and driveways, too. Maybe if they wrote the policy better, they'd have thought to add an access route."
This is the same thing that every company big enough to do public relations at all does, except it's being described using inflammatory terminology.
That's what I was thinking. If they are getting real people to agree with their position and sign up with their on-line site, how would that make their individual choices illegitimate? How could that be painted as "astroturf" when it's clearly legitimate support?
Look at the other side. If I worked for a railroad that operated thousands of tanker cars that ship oil across the country, I might go to the stop-the-oil-pipeline.org site and pledge my support. As a railroad, I burn thousands of gallons of oil to ship millions of gallons of crude. I have no interest in protecting the environment, yet here I am, signing up. It's not because I'm an environmentalist, it's because I don't want the competition to take away my business. Where is the story claiming this makes the environmentalists an astroturf organization? There isn't one, because it's not.
Why isn't this story looking into the CRM software in use by the environmentalists? Perhaps their bias is a bit too evident.
Isn't an atomic bomb just a very, very simple robot?
while (altitude() > TARGET_ALTITUDE)
sleep(1); explode();
And yes, it is impossible to determine if that algorithm will ever terminate.
A "good" compiler should throw an error and refuse to compile it, because the function's return can never be reached. An "evil" compiler will spit out an ignorable warning, but let you build your bomb. That implies we need to use evil compilers to program the Kill-O-Bots.
So how many humans have to die before recognizing the AED is faulty? If it's a subtle fault, it might be delivering a barely ineffective treatment, and confused with an unsaveable patient. The THERAC 25 failure was a bit more dramatic, but it still killed many patients.
Would we accept the same levels of failure from the Kill-O-Bot 2000? We already fire missiles into crowds of people or convoys in order to take out a single high value target. If the Kill-O-Bot was more specific than a missile, but less than perfect, isn't it still a better choice?
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'm feeding the troll, but vaccines aren't 100% effective. Little Johnny Pathogen could still be spewing out a virus he has no effective defense against.
At age 48, I was required to have proof of measles vaccine before being allowed to attend Arizona State University. I did think it was a ridiculous requirement, but only because I was I was enrolled as an online student from Minnesota.
Vaccines don't cure diseases; that's not how they work. They only teach your immune system how to fight the disease without exposing you to a lethal dose, which is why they give you a "weakened strain" or a "killed virus". Because of this, vaccines are almost never 100% effective. Sometimes they are so weak your body doesn't learn how to fight, or sometimes your body isn't capable of fighting. Some vaccines are only 40-60% effective. Efficacy also depends on other factors, including whether or not the disease you're exposed to is close enough to the antibodies the vaccine caused you to produce. And there are about 10% of the population who physically cannot get vaccinated, due to allergies or pre-existing health reasons.
In epidemic diseases, particularly those that readily mutate like influenza, it's hoped the vaccine is effective enough on enough people to keep the spread contained or manageable. A 90% vaccination rate is barely enough to convey herd immunity.
On the other hand you've got ignorant pop stars, preachers, and pandering politicians who promote non-scientific claims from a discredited researcher about vaccines causing autism in toddlers. By allowing those 20% of extremely stupid people to excuse themselves out of the herd, it's become tough to protect the rest of us. If the flu vaccine has only a 60% chance of protecting you should you become exposed, and the herd is unprotected, you still have a chance of dying from flu, even with a flu shot.
As for the rest of your post, there is a tremendous amount of experience and data on vaccines. They know the types of side effects, the rates of side effects, the rate of allergic reactions to the components, and can even predict the expected efficacy of each vaccine. They also know the expected mortality rate of the vaccines, and it's pretty easy to compare that to the mortality rate of the diseases they control. If the vaccine kills 1 in 3000000 people, and the flu kills 1 in 300 people (or 1 in 6, like the Spanish influenza of 1918), what do you think the ethical choices for a society are? Let the superstitious people kill off a bunch of us?
My Sync is terrible at voice control. We were visiting friends at a city we hadn't been at before, and they took us to dinner someplace near the state's Capitol building. We decided we wanted to go back the next day for sight seeing. I repeatedly tried asking it variations of "Find capitol building, find capitol, find state capitol", etc. It replied a bunch of random things like "Finding carpet cleaners", "finding shopping", and "finding pizza." (?) Actually, the last one sort-of helped, because I remembered to ask for the restaurant we ate at that was near the capitol building, and it managed to take us close enough.
That's funny, because YouTube happily rolls over to HTML5 when you don't have Flash installed, and it works just fine.
As much as it pissed me off when Jobs said 'no Flash on the iPhone', it was a brilliant move at weaning the world from one of the least secure software packages in history. It's impossible to change the whole world at once, especially when Adobe is trying so desperately to cling to this albatross, but Adobe has never taken the responsibility for building a new, secure engine and eliminating the backward compatibility holes. They just keep enabling vulnerability after vulnerability.
Flash may not be dead, but it's long past its time to live.
Those that need verification prompts to exist in our society, need to seriously rethink their basic thought process and self control.
That's exactly what this tool is for. Those that could benefit from verification prompts are completely unaware that they even have a problem. It's possible that some of them may start questioning their life choices as a result.
Of course, it's also likely to gamify alcoholism: "Dude, Facebook says I've posted drunk for 100 days in a row, that's gotta be some kind of record."
The idea behind a fitness tracker is that the data is primarily useful within a shorter timeframe, such as an individual workout, or a day. A fitbit has no functional need to contain your year-old stats; even if it kept them, the user interface is so limited it couldn't show you anything meaningful. For historical data to be useful to the general user, the device has to transfer its data to a computer, where it can be stored, retrieved, and plotted. If the device was its own database, it would take extra time and energy to access it via Bluetooth.
So the issue really is: where should the developer choose to store it all? It could live on your average user's PC or Mac, where you have to field a ton of support calls and questions from people who lose their stuff for a thousand reasons, or you keep it on a database in your own data center (where you can incidentally mine it for fun and profit.)
Actually, I've never gotten the whole "Chrome is the greatest browser ever" thing. I think it's probably a "more of what I'm used to", but the Firefox plug-in ecosystem has always appealed to me, as it does everything I want, the way I want.
And my "Internet ads" are all equally un-horrible - adblock sees to that.
My privacy boils down to two simple choices: I can guess which providers and trackers might honestly respect my opt-out wishes and not track every step I take (and I also have to guess what that means regarding their anonymised statistics gathering); or I can simply never send any of them any of my data, and know for sure.
The last version I want is V28. After that, their password sync system was changed in ways I no longer trust. NoScript, AdBlockPlus, Ghostery help keep me safe, and browsing fast; and there's no Google spyware. So it's still the best option.
I think South Korea's regulatory framework requires a shitload of money be paid to the government to sell your devices. This extortion is clad in the veil of "regulations".
Notice how you are guilty if it is an "unregistered" device, not a "non-compliant" device. That's the trademark of government corruption.
Clicking "buy now with 1-click" is rarely fatal.
Or did you mean that you didn't participate in the brick and mortar competitive fracas, which has nothing to do with the response times of web pages, which is what TFA is actually about? Even reading enough of the article title to post what you wrote indicates the story is about web pages, which you can't "die for".
I have not heard of a good way to authorize recurring payments, or to enable payments on behalf of others. There is a way to use crypto to authenticate web transactions without a card reader, if they get off their butts and enable it. They really need to make these things more widely understood so people won't be so hesitant to change.
There is a fix coming, but it requires coercing millions of merchants to change over their systems from mag stripes to chip and PIN. For operators of parking systems, which have readers built in to their gate-paying systems, this may not be a small expense. And for banks, who have to issue expensive chip cards, and install complex key management systems to secure the accounts of thousands of customers, the expense is even higher, so they've been fighting the change. As late as last year, Visa was about to delay Chip and PIN in the U.S. once again.
But that all changed after Target got hacked, and other big retailers began to fall. The retailers said "enough with this bullshit insecure system. Fix it now, not later." The deferment was canceled, and Chip and PIN is still on for deployment by next October.
Chip and PIN is different. Instead of some easily copied fixed data representing both your identity and your authorization to pay for something, your identity (account number) no longer has to be kept secret. The secrets are instead baked into the chips by the banks, and can't easily be copied or replayed. The merchant terminal will no longer need to be a trusted partner in providing authentication. Your chip is an extension of the bank's security system.
It just takes a long time to get tens of thousands of banks and millions of retailers to coordinate this shift. Once it's done and mag stripes are sunsetted, the security will be vastly improved.
You don't have to lower the math standards any, you just have to fail to raise them for the next 20 years. Even then it won't matter, because so many people are so bad at statistics and estimating, even when they know better.
Gerrymandering has a long, proud tradition in U.S. politics. I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in advantage to one side about half the time.
It seems that political power is self-limiting. One side will occupy Congress for a while, until the other side gets fed up and makes a switch. As long as one party doesn't control the whole Congress plus the presidency, gridlock keeps us safe from most of the excesses of either side. It's only when one side runs the whole show that it's time to worry.
The radio generally isn't on the same CAN bus as the ECM. The ECM is on the high speed bus which usually is reserved for engine and safety systems, like airbags and ABS. But as you noted, there are places where messages have to cross over: airbags need to be able to tell the entertainment system to have the connected cell phone dial 911. There are commercial CAN bus bridges available that provide this function, and they can be configured like a firewall to isolate all messages except those identified as needing to pass through.
Whether or not these bridges are actual security appliances is a different question. Who has the authority to alter those routing tables? Where is the password kept? How are they secured? CAN is a low level protocol that was never designed to be secured.
The military is good at physical security. That's their mandate, after all. It seems logical to put them together.
However, they seem to suck at this aspect of it. There is no reason that an American vehicle (or weapons system) left in the hands of an Iraqi army battalion should ever be able to be commandeered by troops who switched allegiance to ISIL. There should be an American satellite link required for occasional checking-in, and the vehicle should be disabling itself if it's failing to check in, or if it's been added to the "captured vehicle list", or whatever. High-risk auto leasing operations are already doing something like this today, with a kind of inverted Lo-jack system.
And from a maintenance standpoint, this shouldn't be an issue. The machines already require sophisticated computer control to turn on and run. All it has to do is wipe out its program when the "blacklist" threshold is hit, whatever that may be. It's not like ISIL would be able to order a replacement aftermarket electronic control system for these from Alibaba. For that matter, the engines could include embedded charges (think exploding bolts) that would physically disable the machine on receipt of a suitably authenticated "hostile takeover" signal. Or they could simply continuously report their ID and coordinates, and a J-DAM could sort them out right quick.
Yes, I'd raise holy hell if my car's computer shut me down because the manufacturer added me to their blacklist. But this is like a commercial operation, where the assets don't belong to the drivers, they belong to the Army. And they never, ever belong to ISIL.
Until they get this right, why do we think they are going to get consumer car security right?
Infrastructure has to be built one sale at a time. Tesla is demonstrating one way to do it with their supercharger network, with trickle chargers in the home, and supercharging stations scattered around the country, trying to bridge gaps in coverage.
A hydrogen infrastructure will look different, because pressurized hydrogen isn't as ubiquitous as electricity. They might have better luck with a regional approach, selling commuter cars in one city, and building up an infrastructure there just to prove it can be done. This could go hand-in-glove with a partnership with a rental car company, where your car price comes with discounted rentals for cross country trips. They might even be able to start with some fleet approaches: delivery vans, local taxi services, city government inspectors, etc. Get a few vehicles out there first, then expand into the consumer market. Once the hydrogen delivery trucks start making rounds to carry fuel to the fleet terminals, it's not a stretch to get them delivering to consumer facing refueling stations.
Or maybe hydrogen delivery service stations could be provided in a novel format, like a standard shipping container. Build a tank and pump system into a steel box, and make arrangements with a company like BP to drop one in the parking lot of an existing refueling station whenever you sell a car that's not within 10 miles of an existing station. BP may like drilling for oil, but their primary business is selling vehicle fuel. This is an opportunity that doesn't bypass them, like home charging stations do.
The one thing that would be likely to fail would be to take billions of dollars of investment, and build a national network of thousands hydrogen refueling stations before the arrival of millions of hydrogen consumers.
In suburban-heavy US metropolitan regions, Zipcars haven't made inroads yet because the sources and destinations of people are not close to each other. Suburbs are all houses (sources of people) but have no shops, factories, or businesses (no destinations). If my neighborhood was to have a successful zipcar garage that served everyone, it would have to contain as many cars as there are nearby residents, and it would still be emptied quite early in the mornings. The urban centers have few residents who would commute away from the city to work, and would not provide a demand for the tens of thousands of cars that would arrive every morning.
If the cars were self-driving, they'd be able to return to the suburbs to provide many trips per day. More trips per car means fewer cars are needed.
"Hey, Joe, now that we've finished surrounding the Capitol building lawns with mines, we've still got a bunch of extra mines. What should we do with them?"
"They're not extra. They said ring the building, so the plans are to mine the walks and driveways, too. Maybe if they wrote the policy better, they'd have thought to add an access route."
This is the same thing that every company big enough to do public relations at all does, except it's being described using inflammatory terminology.
That's what I was thinking. If they are getting real people to agree with their position and sign up with their on-line site, how would that make their individual choices illegitimate? How could that be painted as "astroturf" when it's clearly legitimate support?
Look at the other side. If I worked for a railroad that operated thousands of tanker cars that ship oil across the country, I might go to the stop-the-oil-pipeline.org site and pledge my support. As a railroad, I burn thousands of gallons of oil to ship millions of gallons of crude. I have no interest in protecting the environment, yet here I am, signing up. It's not because I'm an environmentalist, it's because I don't want the competition to take away my business. Where is the story claiming this makes the environmentalists an astroturf organization? There isn't one, because it's not.
Why isn't this story looking into the CRM software in use by the environmentalists? Perhaps their bias is a bit too evident.
Isn't an atomic bomb just a very, very simple robot?
while (altitude() > TARGET_ALTITUDE)
sleep(1);
explode();
And yes, it is impossible to determine if that algorithm will ever terminate.
A "good" compiler should throw an error and refuse to compile it, because the function's return can never be reached. An "evil" compiler will spit out an ignorable warning, but let you build your bomb. That implies we need to use evil compilers to program the Kill-O-Bots.
So how many humans have to die before recognizing the AED is faulty? If it's a subtle fault, it might be delivering a barely ineffective treatment, and confused with an unsaveable patient. The THERAC 25 failure was a bit more dramatic, but it still killed many patients.
Would we accept the same levels of failure from the Kill-O-Bot 2000? We already fire missiles into crowds of people or convoys in order to take out a single high value target. If the Kill-O-Bot was more specific than a missile, but less than perfect, isn't it still a better choice?
Well on the plus side, it will kill off 90% of Redditors.
Depends on how it identifies 'neckbeards'.
It's an anti-TARDIS card -- it's smaller on the inside.