Is lying about downloading infringing copyrighted content moral? I'll agree that it's probably not morally justified for companies to not make it reasonably available in the first place, but in what way does that justify having to lie about it if they ever confront a person about the matter just to avoid having their ISP disconnect them for violating their TOS, which probably prohibits such activity?
... Bearing in mind that saying that it does somehow justify it also suggests that one has a sense of entitlement to the content they would want to pirate in the first place.
Of course, if you want to argue about entitlement to public domain works, or even works that *should* be in public domain, you'd have a fair point... and one that I'd agree with, but virtually all pirated works are generally very recently published, and the only reasons they would have to already be public domain are in the minds of copyright abolitionists.
Just what percentage of pirated content do you think is actually *FROM* that era?
If you're going to argue about entitlement to material that is supposed to be going in public domain, a matter on which I would most strongly agree with you, then the only material that is relevant to that entitlement is content that was actually first published back then. Why should the retaining of copyright of old content entitle anyone to content that was published much more recently, and would not have been anywhere near public domain?
If there's any moral high ground on entitlement to be taken, it should be *only* on material that was supposed to be public domain and the copyright is being unduly retained for excessively long periods.
We ARE entitled access to works after a limited time
I'd dare say that the amount of material that is supposed to be public domain by now because of copyright expiry, had it not been extended to the admittedly absurd lengths that it is does not comprise a majority of pirated works.
Your point about entitlement after a certain time would have been a lot stronger if people were mainly pirating older works that should have been in public domain, but the most commonly pirated content is very new.
Nobody is forcing anyone to pirate the content... the only thing that drives anyone to pirate content merely because it isn't being delivered to them under their preferred terms is a sense of entitlement to that content.
And what if your provider decides to cut off your internet access for violating their TOS?
Of course, you'll probably start lying about it then... like that's a particularly morally high ground.
And if you never cared about morality in the first place, why did you ever bother subscribing to Netflix instead of just torrenting the content the whole time?
My point is that if the law had a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and driving, then at the very least, the matter of people trying to subjectively decide if they have had too much to drink before driving would never come up. It wouldn't stop people from breaking the law intent upon doing so and hoping they can get away with it without incident, but it *WOULD* stop at least some people who may sincerely believe they should be okay to drive after having some number of drinks, only to discover too late that they weren't. And since most people who might have had too much to drink do not generally deliberately get into a car intent upon driving in full awareness that they may not be capable of driving safely, a zero-tolerance policy would, at the very least, leave such people without any excuse for driving in the first place, because regardless of how safe *THEY* might think they are okay to drive, they would still know that the law had a zero tolerance policy, and that should hopefully be enough to dissuade them from engaging in the practice. If it isn't enough for any one person, then it isn't... but at that point, they would be actively intent upon breaking the law, and hoping they will get away with it anyways. Some people might do that, but probably not all.
And while it might seem that people who do not drink irresponsibly before driving (and I don't refute that they exist and even that most people who do drink probably fit into that category) would be unfairly discriminated against by such a law, consider first of all that driving itself is not a right, but a privilege, and that different amounts of alcohol can affect people differently, and a person who has had *ANY* alcohol before driving, even if they were below the legal limit, can still be charged with impaired driving if they were seen to be driving unsafely, or if they were involved in an accident. In accidents where the issue of fault is slightly ambiguous, the issue of alcohol, even if below the legal limit, can tip the scales of determining fault in an accident enough that a person can still be considered legally impaired.
In that context, therefore, I sincerely think that having a zero tolerance policy on alcohol for drivers would still be a good thing.
I might suggest that what imaginary is to our reality would be what our reality Is to such a transcendental being. The notion of us being merely imaginary is necessarily used as a metaphor, since there is no agreed-upon standard for articulating what reality itself is compared to something else that may exist beyond that... Soething that is not part of reality as we could ever know it, but something so far above it as to make our reality be like a work of fiction in comparison. Suggesting that the being were actually part of reality just because we might want the term to include everything that exists is like a fictional character in book suggesting that the author of the story must necessarily be fully obtained in the pages of the book as well, just because that is all that character can comprehend about existence.
My poiing is, and has always been, that a computer being able to beat an excellent human player at chess is nothing more than mathematical stage magic, and cannot be shown to emulate human thought unless or until human thought itself can be shown to be equally illusory.
Still doesn't explain why Adam and Eve could hide from an "omniscient" God, who has to ask where they are. Not to mention why this God was unable to foresee what would happen in the Garden. And before you say it's metaphorical or that of course he knew, but for whatever reason wanted the story told this way, reflect on what the text actually says
It is ironic that you suggest I should consider what the passage actually says and then you fail to do the exact same thing.... it says that God *ASKED* where they where, not that God did not know where they were.
It says nothing to the effect that God could not *actually* find them, only that Adam and Eve tried to hide, and that God called out to them. In what way does calling out to them "where are you?" suggest that God could not find them? Because there would not be any reason to do so otherwise? Incorrect. Consider that man responded to the question, and did not continue to hide, suggesting that perhaps the question only served to remind man of the futility of even *trying* to hide from an omniscient God. After all, just because God might be omniscient, does not preclude a naive man and woman from briefly believing they might be able to hide something from God. It's irrational, obviously, but whoever said that people always behave rationally?
In fact, how God is described as speaking to Adam and Eve in this passage is very reminiscent of how a loving parent might speak to a small child who has done something wrong, and might have initially tried to conceal it, when the parent might know *exactly* what has actually happened, but might want the child to confess their actions anyways, speaking to the child on the child's level, and giving the child a fair chance to not make the consequences of their actions even worse by trying to cover it up with any further lies.
Rather than God storming into the garden in wrath over their transgression, in fact, the dialogue which takes place in this passage only suggests that God may have actually giving man an opportunity to seek whatever mercy that God might afford them Not so that there would not be consequences for their actions, but so that despite their actions, something that was as good as things might get could still come it, which, when taking the bible as a whole, would have been an opportunity for future forgiveness and redemption, even if not all of the future descendants of man would necessarily take that path.
Consider that Moses, who is alleged to have written Genesis, and assuming that the other events he recounts in later books were true, would have had ample opportunity to be witness to aspects of God's nature that would have made the notion that God were ever a physical being absurd. There would be no reason, considering what else Moses had allegedly experienced by the time he would have written Genesis, to think that he ever thought that God could somehow literally walk through a garden in the same way a man does, and any such attributions to God would invariably have to be metaphor, because no human being, including Moses, would have been able to actually understand God's true nature anyways. This notion of God is expounded upon in later books of the bible, and it's interesting that passages even such as what you have pointed out here do not preclude that possiblity.
Of course, I could be completely out there in this interpretation, but I only present it to indicate that even passages such as these do not necessarily suggest that God, if he exists, was ever any less transcendental than how I described such a being.
Although the brain can be likened to a massively parallel computer, humans cannot perform calculations as fast as a digital computer, so there is no basis to presume that humans are considering considerably more than the few dozen or so positions that grandmasters are typically assumed to analyze before making a move
And this point cannot be emphasized enough... even though the grandmaster considers such a small set of positions, the grandmaster plays at an *EXCELLENT* level, while any computer that were to consider such a small number of board positions could probably be beaten by anyone with even a very modest amount of chess skill.
If you could program a computer with every chess game ever made, and then have it make generalizations from those games so that it was capable of recognizing patterns that occur in other games, being able to recognize potential winning strategies from a given board position, only analyzing a few dozen or so moves in advance during any actual game, just as a chess grandmaster does, and *STILL* be able to beat any human player.... then you'll have something.
Even in the old testament, however, the bible's god is described as being spirit, and invisible. The incomprehensible nature of the God it proclaims is described in several places including Isiah, Job, Psalms, and others. I don't think we are in any position today to speculate that the ancient Hebrews were less capable than we are today of imagining a transcendent God.
. If God does one day decide to show himself, it just provides a new avenue of investigation to determine where His power comes from and how science can come to understand that power itself and how it works within the frameworks of science.
If "God" were actually transcendental, as I endeavored to describe such a being, I would suggest that such avenues of investigation about such a being could not actually exist in reality.
I suppose you mean by using the term 'figment of some higher being's imagination', you imply that we exist in the already-nebulous concept of consciousness of a brain in a physical universe that doesn't bare any relation to our physical universe.
Not necessarily... if God existed, he or she might not have any physicality to them at all... such a God would be a being that sustains his or her own existence by choice of their own will, a being composed neither of energy or matter, but existing nonetheless. In human vernacular, such a being might be described as being spirit... but ultimately, the reality in which we live does not contain any kind of framework for comprehending the actual nature of such a being.
If the author of a fictional story writes himself in as one of the characters in that story, the characters in the story will still only understand the author to the extent that the framework of the fictional work can permit.
And of course, none of this suggests that such a god actually exists... only that if one does, then that god would be hopelessly beyond any ability for humanity to conduct any kind of experimentation that might try to scientifically verify its existence, or try to encapsulate all of that beings nature into a framework of comprehensible ideas that we could ever articulate.
They do often create an explicit search tree and consider a few dozen positions.
You are aware, I assume, that a few dozen can easily exceed a hundred. The several hundred I mentioned may be admittedly have been very generous, but my point was that grandmasters don't ever have to evaluate every board combination the way computers do. In fact, a modern computer can sometimes consider more board variations in even a single move during a single game than a chess player may have seen in their entire lifetime.... and still, even then, a grandmaster can frequently hold his own against a machine, only the very best computer chess engines created frequently having any chance at beating them. A grandmaster, as you yourself stated, only explicitly considers a few dozen positions in any single move, and they can play *extremely* well. And yet, the best we can do with computers to challenge this is to evaluate orders of magnitude more board combinations than the human opponent is likely to have ever experienced... and in my view, it is no more surprising that we can make a chess program that can beat a human grandmaster by using such techniques than the fact that you can always find a particular card in a shuffled and complete deck by flipping over every single one.
All that we've ever done to solve chess is nothing more than a parlor trick....it's no more intelligence than the fact that it can always find the n'th digit of pi for any arbitrary large n.
And of course, the notion that such physical attributions for a being that is repeatedly otherwise described as omnipotent, omniscient, and a being of pure spirit, might just be metaphor never crossed your mind? We're talking about a being who, allegedly, simply spoke things into being... everything would have come to exist simply by virtue of him having commanded it to be so, and what we call "reality" would thus have literally been shaped solely by his very will. Interestingly enough, God would not, therefore, ever need to be "real" in this notion, but could still be surreal, or hyperreal, having an existence that transcends the very notion of reality as we can ever hope to understand or comprehend it. Such a being, if such were to exist, would probably only be even remotely knowable to us if that being made a deliberate attempt to make himself known, but even then, could still only be known as an approximation to that being's true character, to the extent that is representable in the framework of reality in which we live, of which even our imaginations are also a part.
Human players generalize from their experience, they do not explicitly recount every game they have ever played in order to exercise their knowledge from that experience. A grandmaster may only explicitly consider a few hundred actual board combinations, on any given turn.
The God in the bible is repeatedly ascribed characteristics that would make him transcendent, so I would argue that the notion of God that I described above is entirely compatible with Abrahamic ones. The biggest problem with it bring not the notion it presents of God, but the notion that we, in comparison, are like the maginary, which might tend to be an affront to the notion that everything that exists should be real
As the bible rather repeatedly makes the notion that any other so called gods are false, that god is both omnipotent and omniscient, and that god is decidedly *not* physical, but is spirit, I'm not sure you know what you are even talking about.
If you, along with everyone else, in addition to everything that can or ever could be knowable by mankind, were figments of some higher being's imagination, and you had determined a framework that existed in this imaginary realm that described its behavior and appeared to offer some predictive power within that framework, which you decide to call "the laws of physics", but in actuality is nothing more than a description of how the being happened to decide to imagine everything, how, exactly, would you begin to extrapolate from your so-called laws to explain the nature of the being that actually imagined that enter framework in the first place?
Obviously human players don't forget the games they have played in the past, but they don't need to recount every detail of every game in order to exercise that experience in game, as a chess program would.
... that can challenge a human grandmaster just by using heuristics and considering perhaps at most only a few hundred board combinations instead of millions.
Because really, the fact that a computer can beat the best human players at chess just by analyzing millions upon millions of board combinations is no more surprising than the fact that even a small child can figure out how to never lose when playing tic tac toe.
It may not have been the "kicker"... If the car had not been overcrowded, my niece probably would have had a seatbelt on that would have probably saved her life too (she had been sitting on someone's lap in the front passenger seat)... certainly there were multiple factors at play that contributed to her untimely death. In the end, it was still determined that alcohol contributed to the accident, however.
So I would strongly advocate a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol for all drivers, and then, to at the very least, the matter of ever having to subjectively decide whether or not someone is going to be safe to drive wouldn't be an issue... since that incident only served to enforce in my mind that there is no really "safe" level.
My argument is that if they had zero tolerance in the first place, then trying to subjectively decide if one was safe to drive or not would not be an issue. This aspect probably wouldn't have saved my niece's life, since the driver, who was still within his first 5 years of driving experience, was not supposed to have had any alcohol at all before driving in the first place, but it still could save lives in the future.
The incident with my niece did not involve any other vehicle. He had simply been driving too fast for that road, which was dirt and gravel, and when he tried to negotiate a bend in the road, he flipped the car. My niece, who had not been wearing a seatbelt, was thrown right out of the car. Everyone else in the car was wearing a seatbelt, and was sore afterwards, but otherwise unhurt. Indeed, if the car had not been overcrowded in the first place, and she had been wearing a seatbelt, she would almost certainly have not been killed. So I'll admit that there were laws being broken that had nothing to do with impaired driving here, and contributed heavily to the way things turned out. Even with those extenuating circumstances, however, it was nonetheless determined that alcohol had been a factor in the accident as well, affecting both the driver's judgement and reaction time sufficiently to have caused the accident in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Piracy fails on no less than half of the fallacies on this page. Do numbers 5 and 12 would look particularly familiar to you?
Is lying about downloading infringing copyrighted content moral? I'll agree that it's probably not morally justified for companies to not make it reasonably available in the first place, but in what way does that justify having to lie about it if they ever confront a person about the matter just to avoid having their ISP disconnect them for violating their TOS, which probably prohibits such activity?
Of course, if you want to argue about entitlement to public domain works, or even works that *should* be in public domain, you'd have a fair point... and one that I'd agree with, but virtually all pirated works are generally very recently published, and the only reasons they would have to already be public domain are in the minds of copyright abolitionists.
Just what percentage of pirated content do you think is actually *FROM* that era?
If you're going to argue about entitlement to material that is supposed to be going in public domain, a matter on which I would most strongly agree with you, then the only material that is relevant to that entitlement is content that was actually first published back then. Why should the retaining of copyright of old content entitle anyone to content that was published much more recently, and would not have been anywhere near public domain?
If there's any moral high ground on entitlement to be taken, it should be *only* on material that was supposed to be public domain and the copyright is being unduly retained for excessively long periods.
I'd dare say that the amount of material that is supposed to be public domain by now because of copyright expiry, had it not been extended to the admittedly absurd lengths that it is does not comprise a majority of pirated works.
Your point about entitlement after a certain time would have been a lot stronger if people were mainly pirating older works that should have been in public domain, but the most commonly pirated content is very new.
Nobody is forcing anyone to pirate the content... the only thing that drives anyone to pirate content merely because it isn't being delivered to them under their preferred terms is a sense of entitlement to that content.
And what if your provider decides to cut off your internet access for violating their TOS?
Of course, you'll probably start lying about it then... like that's a particularly morally high ground.
And if you never cared about morality in the first place, why did you ever bother subscribing to Netflix instead of just torrenting the content the whole time?
My point is that if the law had a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and driving, then at the very least, the matter of people trying to subjectively decide if they have had too much to drink before driving would never come up. It wouldn't stop people from breaking the law intent upon doing so and hoping they can get away with it without incident, but it *WOULD* stop at least some people who may sincerely believe they should be okay to drive after having some number of drinks, only to discover too late that they weren't. And since most people who might have had too much to drink do not generally deliberately get into a car intent upon driving in full awareness that they may not be capable of driving safely, a zero-tolerance policy would, at the very least, leave such people without any excuse for driving in the first place, because regardless of how safe *THEY* might think they are okay to drive, they would still know that the law had a zero tolerance policy, and that should hopefully be enough to dissuade them from engaging in the practice. If it isn't enough for any one person, then it isn't... but at that point, they would be actively intent upon breaking the law, and hoping they will get away with it anyways. Some people might do that, but probably not all.
And while it might seem that people who do not drink irresponsibly before driving (and I don't refute that they exist and even that most people who do drink probably fit into that category) would be unfairly discriminated against by such a law, consider first of all that driving itself is not a right, but a privilege, and that different amounts of alcohol can affect people differently, and a person who has had *ANY* alcohol before driving, even if they were below the legal limit, can still be charged with impaired driving if they were seen to be driving unsafely, or if they were involved in an accident. In accidents where the issue of fault is slightly ambiguous, the issue of alcohol, even if below the legal limit, can tip the scales of determining fault in an accident enough that a person can still be considered legally impaired.
In that context, therefore, I sincerely think that having a zero tolerance policy on alcohol for drivers would still be a good thing.
I might suggest that what imaginary is to our reality would be what our reality Is to such a transcendental being. The notion of us being merely imaginary is necessarily used as a metaphor, since there is no agreed-upon standard for articulating what reality itself is compared to something else that may exist beyond that... Soething that is not part of reality as we could ever know it, but something so far above it as to make our reality be like a work of fiction in comparison. Suggesting that the being were actually part of reality just because we might want the term to include everything that exists is like a fictional character in book suggesting that the author of the story must necessarily be fully obtained in the pages of the book as well, just because that is all that character can comprehend about existence.
My poiing is, and has always been, that a computer being able to beat an excellent human player at chess is nothing more than mathematical stage magic, and cannot be shown to emulate human thought unless or until human thought itself can be shown to be equally illusory.
It is ironic that you suggest I should consider what the passage actually says and then you fail to do the exact same thing.... it says that God *ASKED* where they where, not that God did not know where they were.
It says nothing to the effect that God could not *actually* find them, only that Adam and Eve tried to hide, and that God called out to them. In what way does calling out to them "where are you?" suggest that God could not find them? Because there would not be any reason to do so otherwise? Incorrect. Consider that man responded to the question, and did not continue to hide, suggesting that perhaps the question only served to remind man of the futility of even *trying* to hide from an omniscient God. After all, just because God might be omniscient, does not preclude a naive man and woman from briefly believing they might be able to hide something from God. It's irrational, obviously, but whoever said that people always behave rationally?
In fact, how God is described as speaking to Adam and Eve in this passage is very reminiscent of how a loving parent might speak to a small child who has done something wrong, and might have initially tried to conceal it, when the parent might know *exactly* what has actually happened, but might want the child to confess their actions anyways, speaking to the child on the child's level, and giving the child a fair chance to not make the consequences of their actions even worse by trying to cover it up with any further lies.
Rather than God storming into the garden in wrath over their transgression, in fact, the dialogue which takes place in this passage only suggests that God may have actually giving man an opportunity to seek whatever mercy that God might afford them Not so that there would not be consequences for their actions, but so that despite their actions, something that was as good as things might get could still come it, which, when taking the bible as a whole, would have been an opportunity for future forgiveness and redemption, even if not all of the future descendants of man would necessarily take that path.
Consider that Moses, who is alleged to have written Genesis, and assuming that the other events he recounts in later books were true, would have had ample opportunity to be witness to aspects of God's nature that would have made the notion that God were ever a physical being absurd. There would be no reason, considering what else Moses had allegedly experienced by the time he would have written Genesis, to think that he ever thought that God could somehow literally walk through a garden in the same way a man does, and any such attributions to God would invariably have to be metaphor, because no human being, including Moses, would have been able to actually understand God's true nature anyways. This notion of God is expounded upon in later books of the bible, and it's interesting that passages even such as what you have pointed out here do not preclude that possiblity.
Of course, I could be completely out there in this interpretation, but I only present it to indicate that even passages such as these do not necessarily suggest that God, if he exists, was ever any less transcendental than how I described such a being.
Although the brain can be likened to a massively parallel computer, humans cannot perform calculations as fast as a digital computer, so there is no basis to presume that humans are considering considerably more than the few dozen or so positions that grandmasters are typically assumed to analyze before making a move
And this point cannot be emphasized enough... even though the grandmaster considers such a small set of positions, the grandmaster plays at an *EXCELLENT* level, while any computer that were to consider such a small number of board positions could probably be beaten by anyone with even a very modest amount of chess skill.
If you could program a computer with every chess game ever made, and then have it make generalizations from those games so that it was capable of recognizing patterns that occur in other games, being able to recognize potential winning strategies from a given board position, only analyzing a few dozen or so moves in advance during any actual game, just as a chess grandmaster does, and *STILL* be able to beat any human player.... then you'll have something.
Even in the old testament, however, the bible's god is described as being spirit, and invisible. The incomprehensible nature of the God it proclaims is described in several places including Isiah, Job, Psalms, and others. I don't think we are in any position today to speculate that the ancient Hebrews were less capable than we are today of imagining a transcendent God.
If "God" were actually transcendental, as I endeavored to describe such a being, I would suggest that such avenues of investigation about such a being could not actually exist in reality.
Not necessarily... if God existed, he or she might not have any physicality to them at all... such a God would be a being that sustains his or her own existence by choice of their own will, a being composed neither of energy or matter, but existing nonetheless. In human vernacular, such a being might be described as being spirit... but ultimately, the reality in which we live does not contain any kind of framework for comprehending the actual nature of such a being.
If the author of a fictional story writes himself in as one of the characters in that story, the characters in the story will still only understand the author to the extent that the framework of the fictional work can permit.
And of course, none of this suggests that such a god actually exists... only that if one does, then that god would be hopelessly beyond any ability for humanity to conduct any kind of experimentation that might try to scientifically verify its existence, or try to encapsulate all of that beings nature into a framework of comprehensible ideas that we could ever articulate.
You are aware, I assume, that a few dozen can easily exceed a hundred. The several hundred I mentioned may be admittedly have been very generous, but my point was that grandmasters don't ever have to evaluate every board combination the way computers do. In fact, a modern computer can sometimes consider more board variations in even a single move during a single game than a chess player may have seen in their entire lifetime.... and still, even then, a grandmaster can frequently hold his own against a machine, only the very best computer chess engines created frequently having any chance at beating them. A grandmaster, as you yourself stated, only explicitly considers a few dozen positions in any single move, and they can play *extremely* well. And yet, the best we can do with computers to challenge this is to evaluate orders of magnitude more board combinations than the human opponent is likely to have ever experienced... and in my view, it is no more surprising that we can make a chess program that can beat a human grandmaster by using such techniques than the fact that you can always find a particular card in a shuffled and complete deck by flipping over every single one.
All that we've ever done to solve chess is nothing more than a parlor trick....it's no more intelligence than the fact that it can always find the n'th digit of pi for any arbitrary large n.
And of course, the notion that such physical attributions for a being that is repeatedly otherwise described as omnipotent, omniscient, and a being of pure spirit, might just be metaphor never crossed your mind? We're talking about a being who, allegedly, simply spoke things into being... everything would have come to exist simply by virtue of him having commanded it to be so, and what we call "reality" would thus have literally been shaped solely by his very will. Interestingly enough, God would not, therefore, ever need to be "real" in this notion, but could still be surreal, or hyperreal, having an existence that transcends the very notion of reality as we can ever hope to understand or comprehend it. Such a being, if such were to exist, would probably only be even remotely knowable to us if that being made a deliberate attempt to make himself known, but even then, could still only be known as an approximation to that being's true character, to the extent that is representable in the framework of reality in which we live, of which even our imaginations are also a part.
Human players generalize from their experience, they do not explicitly recount every game they have ever played in order to exercise their knowledge from that experience. A grandmaster may only explicitly consider a few hundred actual board combinations, on any given turn.
The God in the bible is repeatedly ascribed characteristics that would make him transcendent, so I would argue that the notion of God that I described above is entirely compatible with Abrahamic ones. The biggest problem with it bring not the notion it presents of God, but the notion that we, in comparison, are like the maginary, which might tend to be an affront to the notion that everything that exists should be real
As the bible rather repeatedly makes the notion that any other so called gods are false, that god is both omnipotent and omniscient, and that god is decidedly *not* physical, but is spirit, I'm not sure you know what you are even talking about.
How is it so completely different, exactly?
If you, along with everyone else, in addition to everything that can or ever could be knowable by mankind, were figments of some higher being's imagination, and you had determined a framework that existed in this imaginary realm that described its behavior and appeared to offer some predictive power within that framework, which you decide to call "the laws of physics", but in actuality is nothing more than a description of how the being happened to decide to imagine everything, how, exactly, would you begin to extrapolate from your so-called laws to explain the nature of the being that actually imagined that enter framework in the first place?
Obviously human players don't forget the games they have played in the past, but they don't need to recount every detail of every game in order to exercise that experience in game, as a chess program would.
Because really, the fact that a computer can beat the best human players at chess just by analyzing millions upon millions of board combinations is no more surprising than the fact that even a small child can figure out how to never lose when playing tic tac toe.
It may not have been the "kicker"... If the car had not been overcrowded, my niece probably would have had a seatbelt on that would have probably saved her life too (she had been sitting on someone's lap in the front passenger seat)... certainly there were multiple factors at play that contributed to her untimely death. In the end, it was still determined that alcohol contributed to the accident, however.
So I would strongly advocate a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol for all drivers, and then, to at the very least, the matter of ever having to subjectively decide whether or not someone is going to be safe to drive wouldn't be an issue... since that incident only served to enforce in my mind that there is no really "safe" level.
My argument is that if they had zero tolerance in the first place, then trying to subjectively decide if one was safe to drive or not would not be an issue. This aspect probably wouldn't have saved my niece's life, since the driver, who was still within his first 5 years of driving experience, was not supposed to have had any alcohol at all before driving in the first place, but it still could save lives in the future.
The incident with my niece did not involve any other vehicle. He had simply been driving too fast for that road, which was dirt and gravel, and when he tried to negotiate a bend in the road, he flipped the car. My niece, who had not been wearing a seatbelt, was thrown right out of the car. Everyone else in the car was wearing a seatbelt, and was sore afterwards, but otherwise unhurt. Indeed, if the car had not been overcrowded in the first place, and she had been wearing a seatbelt, she would almost certainly have not been killed. So I'll admit that there were laws being broken that had nothing to do with impaired driving here, and contributed heavily to the way things turned out. Even with those extenuating circumstances, however, it was nonetheless determined that alcohol had been a factor in the accident as well, affecting both the driver's judgement and reaction time sufficiently to have caused the accident in the first place.