No, parent is asking a silly question, that ignores grandparent's point - cocaine is completely illegal in the US, and there are no legal sources of it, yet a lot of people still manage to get their hands on the substance, thus negating the assumption that gun crime rates in states that ban firearms is a direct result of being adjacent to states that do not.
As someone who's been involved in multiple MVAs, both at-fault and not, I can assure you that in the panic of the moment, saving your own ass is always the first priority. CYA is human nature.
Easy to argue ethics when you're not smack in the middle of an emergency situation.
Sure, but an automated car would have the luxury of not being able to panic and having plenty of time to evaluate the situation and make the best decision.
Which brings us back to the point of, nobody's going to pay good money for a vehicle that doesn't put occupant safety as the highest priority.
We overlook the behavior of drivers in accident situations that they did not cause because we understand their fallibility.
So, are you saying that a computer is infallible, or that society would be less likely to overlook mistakes made by it? If the former, that's insane; if the latter... yea, that's a pretty good summation of group-think.
Then pretty much every human would have no business driving.
Disagree on premise, but not principle - not nearly enough training is required, IMO, prior to handing over a license to pilot a ton-and-a-half of rolling steel death at high rates of speed. I don't agree that the natural instinct for self-preservation is a bad thing, nor that it should preclude people from engaging in certain activities.
The way to ensure this is to greatly honor whoever acts correctly and to ensure that there will be more of them.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Granted, sacrificing oneself to avoid potentially harming others is an honorable trait, but again, as self-preservation is an instinctual reaction, it's not necessarily dishonorable, unless the person in question chooses to put others at risk when obvious, non-harmful alternative responses are available, although that's seldom the case in a panic situation like what we're discussing here.
That is of course society's prerogative however and in a bad society where this is not rewarded the cost is paid in lives instead.
Thinking that the world would be a much better place if everyone adhered to our own, personal moral standard is another interesting, instinctual human behavior, IMO.
You don't. You precommit and most respectable people have precommitted to not running over pedestrians and motorcyclists almost from birtth.
Again, that's easy to say from the safety and comfort of your computer chair; not so easy when you're facing a semi barreling down your lane, and your only option other than being killed by it is to take your chances on the sidewalk.
FYI, pretty much every human, nay, living thing on the planet is 'precommitted' to self-preservation above all else, from a reactionary instinct standpoint. The ones that aren't don't last long.
You really have to keep an eye out for 'weasel words*' in those reports, as the US government has a habit of lying to the public 'for our own good,' especially in terms of tobacco-related propaganda; the "Truth" campaign of the early 21st century being a prime example.
* For example, "may cause" or "could contribute to" are used quite often in said reports, and people tend to assume that those terms actually mean "does cause/contribute to." The fact is, intentionally inhaling any smoke isn't necessarily healthy for you, as that's not a function our lungs were designed for; the issue is how tobacco smoke is considered worse than other kinds, even though it's not necessarily true - wood smoke, for example, is considered 12 times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. Blew my mind the first time I found that out.
Here's a link that shows another study which found no link between second-hand smoke and any particular malady, and another that, while obviously biased towards one side of the issue, contains some pretty good information dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about tobacco use (and definitions of public space, appropriately enough).
So, lower energy consumption, faster clock rates, flexible electronics, nanoscale engineering, and you go for '3-D video' as your go to feature? What the hell is wrong with people?
You mean, aside our penchant for making nearly every technological innovation about porn?
Those articles also indicate that pedestrian safety is a "new" consideration, largely brought about due to European and Asian legislation. Anyhow, it's good that these kinds of things are now being considered in car design - better late than never.
Right, and also take care to note when those articles were written; in the case of the one on edmunds, it was originally published 7 years ago. Remember, "new" is relative.
My words in no way implied malice. If I used words like "maim" or "murder" then you might have a point. There's a world of difference between lack of caring and malice.
Fair enough, I will allow it, and chalk it up to a difference of interpretation.
"(There are now innovations in the mashing process that can remove most of the gluten from a full barley grain bill, so it's no longer necessary to resort to sorghum!)"
As a professional brewer this is news to me. I would love to see this point expanded upon.
As the husband of a Celiac's sufferer who likes to have a drink now and again, I too am curious.
I don't see why I need to talk to automotive engineers just because you've failed to produce evidence that cars are typically built with pedestrian safety features.
Well, had you read beyond the first sentence you would have seen some information to that effect, although in fairness, I admit the Wiki page is a bit thin on details; here's a link to a better article, as well as this graphic that details some of the areas of vehicles that have been designed to improve pedestrian safety.
You are misconstruing my statement about car drivers. Malicious intent is when you actively go out to injure people, whereas the vast majority of collisions are "accidental" (i.e. someone may not have been following traffic rules, but did not intend someone getting hurt as the outcome).
Probably ought to work on your wording, then. Because the way you said it originally, it sure feels like you're attributing malice.
I see you chose to take offense to my comment, and cherry-pick the results that support your existing beliefs, rather than read the entire report from an objective standpoint.
Shame, that. I always prefer people educate themselves and get smarter, rather than use carefully-selected passages to reinforce preconceived notions.
Pretty much the same was said about the US when they refused to be part of the Kyoto agreement because of their high dependence on burning fossil fuel and the fossil fuel lobby being so strong. Just because someone else is a shit, doesn't mean you have to be as well.
Well tell you what, chief, the minute someone puts me in charge of a power generation facility, I'll hop right on making a difference. Until then, I'll just continue to live my life the way I feel is best, regardless of what snarky comments armchair character assassins make, Kay?
Hey, you're free to waste your life worrying about shit you have no power to change. I choose not to.
No reason to get all snippy about it. Besides, I don't see you forsaking modern technology for the good of the planet, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted the energy and conflict minerals needed to post your response on the internet.
Well, I would say that it's because most people don't want to legislate behavior based on bad science, but that's obviously not true...
Most people can't tell good science from pseudo-science.
Indeed - my experience is that if the results are confluent with a person's existing beliefs, they claim it to be "good science," but if they conflict, it's the other thing.
That wikipedia page starts off by declaring "Despite the magnitude of the problem, most attempts at reducing pedestrian deaths have focused solely on education and traffic regulation", so I still think that car design does not have a strong pedestrian safety aspect.
Well, it does, moreso than some Wikipedia page covers. Go talk to some automotive engineers.
Straw-man - I never attributed malicious intent to car drivers. Just lack of caring and thinking "I never crash into people, why would I need that?".
The straw-man was your claim that car drivers "aren't willing to invest... in protecting other people," as "protecting other people" isn't why we buy cars. Some may construe your claim that drivers have a "lack of caring" as attributing malicious intent.
Sure, the most important law of robotics is to protect human life... but if it's going to prioritize, it should probably start with its owner.
Unless the owner is a lawyer and/or politician. In which case, in the interest of protecting human life, it should aim for the nearest solid object as soon as it reaches highway speed.
As someone who's been involved in multiple MVAs, both at-fault and not, I can assure you that in the panic of the moment, saving your own ass is always the first priority. CYA is human nature.
Easy to argue ethics when you're not smack in the middle of an emergency situation.
I don't think it's a design problem to fit external airbags. It seems that Volvo is the only company that's actually got a real-life example of that, so it's most likely a cost issue rather than a design problem. Most people don't want to pay extra to protect other people.
Want to or not, they do. Pedestrian safety has been being engineered into cars for the last 20 years or so.
Pop-up bonnets are an easy to design protective measure, but again, no-one is making them due to the lack of demand. Face it - car drivers are not willing to invest in protecting other people from their own vehicle.
It's not that "car drivers are not willing," it's that when you're making a $45,000 decision, how it might possibly affect another person in the rarest of circumstances doesn't readily spring to mind. Trying to imply that people who own cars buy what they do out of malicious intent towards pedestrians is just plain stupid.
If you could stop a runaway train from going over a ravene, by pulling a lever, thus saving 300 people, but the lever sent the train down a different track on which 3 children were playing, what do you do?
Well, that depends on how many of the 300 happen to be Congresscritters and/or lawyers...
Slashdot Mirror
No, parent is asking a silly question, that ignores grandparent's point - cocaine is completely illegal in the US, and there are no legal sources of it, yet a lot of people still manage to get their hands on the substance, thus negating the assumption that gun crime rates in states that ban firearms is a direct result of being adjacent to states that do not.
How many legal sources of cocaine are there in the US?
Big ol' Whoosh.
As someone who's been involved in multiple MVAs, both at-fault and not, I can assure you that in the panic of the moment, saving your own ass is always the first priority. CYA is human nature.
Easy to argue ethics when you're not smack in the middle of an emergency situation.
Sure, but an automated car would have the luxury of not being able to panic and having plenty of time to evaluate the situation and make the best decision.
Which brings us back to the point of, nobody's going to pay good money for a vehicle that doesn't put occupant safety as the highest priority.
We overlook the behavior of drivers in accident situations that they did not cause because we understand their fallibility.
So, are you saying that a computer is infallible, or that society would be less likely to overlook mistakes made by it? If the former, that's insane; if the latter... yea, that's a pretty good summation of group-think.
Then pretty much every human would have no business driving.
Disagree on premise, but not principle - not nearly enough training is required, IMO, prior to handing over a license to pilot a ton-and-a-half of rolling steel death at high rates of speed. I don't agree that the natural instinct for self-preservation is a bad thing, nor that it should preclude people from engaging in certain activities.
The way to ensure this is to greatly honor whoever acts correctly and to ensure that there will be more of them.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Granted, sacrificing oneself to avoid potentially harming others is an honorable trait, but again, as self-preservation is an instinctual reaction, it's not necessarily dishonorable, unless the person in question chooses to put others at risk when obvious, non-harmful alternative responses are available, although that's seldom the case in a panic situation like what we're discussing here.
That is of course society's prerogative however and in a bad society where this is not rewarded the cost is paid in lives instead.
Thinking that the world would be a much better place if everyone adhered to our own, personal moral standard is another interesting, instinctual human behavior, IMO.
You don't. You precommit and most respectable people have precommitted to not running over pedestrians and motorcyclists almost from birtth.
Again, that's easy to say from the safety and comfort of your computer chair; not so easy when you're facing a semi barreling down your lane, and your only option other than being killed by it is to take your chances on the sidewalk.
FYI, pretty much every human, nay, living thing on the planet is 'precommitted' to self-preservation above all else, from a reactionary instinct standpoint. The ones that aren't don't last long.
Seriously, dude, you're taking this admittedly weak attempt at comedy far too seriously. That's the last thing I'm going to say about it.
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
What, they aren't all exceptionally hot tennis players?
Of course they aren't, don't be so naive!
Some of them are Milla Jovovich!
Wait.. the net says she is Ukranian born, so that makes her Russian now, right?
Well, since she was born in 1975, and Ukraine was part of the USSR in 1975...
You really have to keep an eye out for 'weasel words*' in those reports, as the US government has a habit of lying to the public 'for our own good,' especially in terms of tobacco-related propaganda; the "Truth" campaign of the early 21st century being a prime example.
* For example, "may cause" or "could contribute to" are used quite often in said reports, and people tend to assume that those terms actually mean "does cause/contribute to." The fact is, intentionally inhaling any smoke isn't necessarily healthy for you, as that's not a function our lungs were designed for; the issue is how tobacco smoke is considered worse than other kinds, even though it's not necessarily true - wood smoke, for example, is considered 12 times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. Blew my mind the first time I found that out.
Here's a link that shows another study which found no link between second-hand smoke and any particular malady, and another that, while obviously biased towards one side of the issue, contains some pretty good information dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about tobacco use (and definitions of public space, appropriately enough).
3 points:
1 - When she was born in 1975, Ukraine was still part of the USSR.
2 - Her parents immigrated to the US in 1980, and she is an American citizen.
3 - Lighten up, Francis.
So, lower energy consumption, faster clock rates, flexible electronics, nanoscale engineering, and you go for '3-D video' as your go to feature? What the hell is wrong with people?
You mean, aside our penchant for making nearly every technological innovation about porn?
Those articles also indicate that pedestrian safety is a "new" consideration, largely brought about due to European and Asian legislation. Anyhow, it's good that these kinds of things are now being considered in car design - better late than never.
Right, and also take care to note when those articles were written; in the case of the one on edmunds, it was originally published 7 years ago. Remember, "new" is relative.
My words in no way implied malice. If I used words like "maim" or "murder" then you might have a point. There's a world of difference between lack of caring and malice.
Fair enough, I will allow it, and chalk it up to a difference of interpretation.
"(There are now innovations in the mashing process that can remove most of the gluten from a full barley grain bill, so it's no longer necessary to resort to sorghum!)"
As a professional brewer this is news to me. I would love to see this point expanded upon.
As the husband of a Celiac's sufferer who likes to have a drink now and again, I too am curious.
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
What, they aren't all exceptionally hot tennis players?
Of course they aren't, don't be so naive!
Some of them are Milla Jovovich!
Funny how none of the Occupy members I actually know were subjected to this.
Probably because they weren't nearly as important to the movement as they managed to convince themselves.
I don't see why I need to talk to automotive engineers just because you've failed to produce evidence that cars are typically built with pedestrian safety features.
Well, had you read beyond the first sentence you would have seen some information to that effect, although in fairness, I admit the Wiki page is a bit thin on details; here's a link to a better article, as well as this graphic that details some of the areas of vehicles that have been designed to improve pedestrian safety.
You are misconstruing my statement about car drivers. Malicious intent is when you actively go out to injure people, whereas the vast majority of collisions are "accidental" (i.e. someone may not have been following traffic rules, but did not intend someone getting hurt as the outcome).
Probably ought to work on your wording, then. Because the way you said it originally, it sure feels like you're attributing malice.
I see you chose to take offense to my comment, and cherry-pick the results that support your existing beliefs, rather than read the entire report from an objective standpoint.
Shame, that. I always prefer people educate themselves and get smarter, rather than use carefully-selected passages to reinforce preconceived notions.
Pretty much the same was said about the US when they refused to be part of the Kyoto agreement because of their high dependence on burning fossil fuel and the fossil fuel lobby being so strong. Just because someone else is a shit, doesn't mean you have to be as well.
Well tell you what, chief, the minute someone puts me in charge of a power generation facility, I'll hop right on making a difference. Until then, I'll just continue to live my life the way I feel is best, regardless of what snarky comments armchair character assassins make, Kay?
Hey, you're free to waste your life worrying about shit you have no power to change. I choose not to.
No reason to get all snippy about it. Besides, I don't see you forsaking modern technology for the good of the planet, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted the energy and conflict minerals needed to post your response on the internet.
Well, I would say that it's because most people don't want to legislate behavior based on bad science, but that's obviously not true...
Most people can't tell good science from pseudo-science.
Indeed - my experience is that if the results are confluent with a person's existing beliefs, they claim it to be "good science," but if they conflict, it's the other thing.
That wikipedia page starts off by declaring "Despite the magnitude of the problem, most attempts at reducing pedestrian deaths have focused solely on education and traffic regulation", so I still think that car design does not have a strong pedestrian safety aspect.
Well, it does, moreso than some Wikipedia page covers. Go talk to some automotive engineers.
Straw-man - I never attributed malicious intent to car drivers. Just lack of caring and thinking "I never crash into people, why would I need that?".
The straw-man was your claim that car drivers "aren't willing to invest... in protecting other people," as "protecting other people" isn't why we buy cars. Some may construe your claim that drivers have a "lack of caring" as attributing malicious intent.
But the question is exactly what the best solution is.
Brake hard and don't swerve. It's the safest choice most of the time, both in terms of occupant safety and protection from litigation.
Unless the owner is a lawyer and/or politician. In which case, in the interest of protecting human life, it should aim for the nearest solid object as soon as it reaches highway speed.
Meh, same difference.
As someone who's been involved in multiple MVAs, both at-fault and not, I can assure you that in the panic of the moment, saving your own ass is always the first priority. CYA is human nature.
Easy to argue ethics when you're not smack in the middle of an emergency situation.
I don't think it's a design problem to fit external airbags. It seems that Volvo is the only company that's actually got a real-life example of that, so it's most likely a cost issue rather than a design problem. Most people don't want to pay extra to protect other people.
Want to or not, they do. Pedestrian safety has been being engineered into cars for the last 20 years or so.
Pop-up bonnets are an easy to design protective measure, but again, no-one is making them due to the lack of demand. Face it - car drivers are not willing to invest in protecting other people from their own vehicle.
It's not that "car drivers are not willing," it's that when you're making a $45,000 decision, how it might possibly affect another person in the rarest of circumstances doesn't readily spring to mind. Trying to imply that people who own cars buy what they do out of malicious intent towards pedestrians is just plain stupid.
If you could stop a runaway train from going over a ravene, by pulling a lever, thus saving 300 people, but the lever sent the train down a different track on which 3 children were playing, what do you do?
Well, that depends on how many of the 300 happen to be Congresscritters and/or lawyers...