I don't blame him for wanting to leave earth -- you could legitimately say it's been flattened as a metaphor by environmentally-unfriendly companies and all the political BS, but 3/8 of a mile is not enough to escape.
Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology"
Research reports like this one are usually prepared for marketing purposes -- or with an intended audience of investors. Marketing and Staying power are among the information potential investors looking into these companies would ask for.
Why is it unacceptable to view the aforementioned YouTube channels in standard definition?
At the very least standard definition represents a degraded/low-quality viewing experience.
Often videos will contain text intended for the viewer to read that does not resolve at 480p also; you need HD to see what is going on the video properly.
What is unacceptable is throttling network users to artificially suppress the demand for data, which in turn artificially raises the fees per Gigabyte that customers will accept, and alsso then going on to claim 99% of users use less than X Gigabytes, etc.
The non-donating majority exploit the generosity of donors, and ads placed by creators themselves can be just as annoying, and actually compromise creators' independence
That's the case in general that the few pay the way for the many.... even with Ads, many users will utilize Ad blocking software. Often there will also be some content or some perks that are donor-exclusive; or can be distributed to donors similar to a subscription, so they're not entirely being exploited, and optional to others by buying the video (Youtube has a mechanism where you can have some for-pay videos ---- so donors can be sent a private link for free, and others can buy the video).
People already manufacture their own drugs at home, these homes are generally referred to as "meth labs"...
Yeah.... when this becomes feasible; the manufacturers of these systems are going to have to tread very lightly and implement strong security measures in the software to prevent synthesizing prohibited chemicals Or controlled medications without a prescription or in excess of prescribed QTY or face government regulation; i'm sure.
it's more important than ever that these creators can still be supported by subscription revenue. Otherwise we're allowing advertising to restrict us to anodyne content, like what happened with the broadcast/cable divide.
It's become fairly common for small but informative, interesting, or useful channels to solicit support from their viewers through services such as Patreon; the major alternative is sponsorships, product placements, or advertising embedded in the video file itself that may be supplemented using annotations.
If you recorded shows last night on your DVR, you can transfer them to your phone over your local area network
DVRs are obsolete.... all the things on OTA TV are basically crap, and all the GOOD stuff is exclusive to services like Youtube; most of the interesting and informative content is made by small creators, not ratings-chasing networks that wind up rehashing sitcom and reality show formulas.
You've found not just one but four successful workarounds for a cellular ISP's throttling of streaming video. Use them.
Lest you be confused into thinking ANY of that that's actually an effective workaround... It's not. The stuff available on bluray is less than a drop compared to the internet.
This workaround doesn't actually work --- there's a BUNCH of important educational stuff and other entertainment on Coursera videos, Youtube, Veoh, Twitch, Etc. that is not available on DVD/Bluray, OTA broadcasts, satellite, TV, etc.
There's no Bluray of Netflix Original series', no April Wilkerson, no Jaku, TED-Ed, K6UDA, Stefan Molyneux, David Casler, Steve McRae, Dan Ariely, MindYourDecisions, 3DGameman, Technicality, The 8-bit guy, bosnianbill, Louis Rossmann, Mathologer, Photonicinduction, Reponut, L2Inc, Today I found out, Tom Scott, Objectivity, Wendover Productions, Minutephysics, Thunderf00t, Bigclivedotcom, AvE, CGPGrey, Dorkly, CollegeHumor Smartereveryday, , Sixtysymbols, Computerphile, The Game Theorists, Colin Hardy, Computing Forever,
And therein lies the chicken and egg problem. Unless you have the data about download rates and latency you can't even begin to find out WHY your speeds are slower
Because of the way the app works; consider it an investigative tool. If the App's test shows throttling is occurring, then it is basically definitive proof that the service is being throttled by your ISP or an intermediary. On the other hand, if the app's test doesn't show throttling, but you experience different speeds to those services, then it could be either throttling or something else, since you can't give a definitive answer that there is no throttling for sure (If your observed rates of throughput are different -- and not in a manner consistent with the network distance and hopXhop latency).
Cellular providers will sometimes throttle video, not to be jerks and violate net neutrality, but to save your data plan.
In other words: to coerce you to accept excessively a high per-Gigabyte cost and avoid what they view as "wasteful fidelity" they will tamper with your traffic to reduce your consumption. "Save your overly restrictive data plan" is really REALLY not a good reason for throttling.
This isn't really of much benefit on a small mobile screen, so you're tearing through your data plan for no real reason.
You can very well be mirroring that mobile screen to something larger where you will feel that it matters.
Does anyone know whether video creators earn shares of YouTube Red subscription revenue
Only if you already qualify to monetize your videos via advertising.
Youtube shares a portion of the revenue from Red memberships with Youtube partners based on the amount of Watch-Time on the partners' videos by Red members.
Last I check; you always needed 1000 subscribers, before you get access to make monetized videos. The new requirement is the 4000 view-hours, which seems insane.... It seems Google is trying to shut small creators out of the platform; no longer can you monetize a small YT channel because of the 4000 hours a month requirement.
Bitcoin's transaction fees were higher than paypal unless you wanted to wait days
Yes, both Bitcoin AND Ethereum had major congestion issues many times during the year there were long waits or high fees to clear a transaction. Not what you want for something which is supposed to be a better way technologically to send instant payments --- the end user experience SHOULD be better in every way to truly provide the full benefits the tech claims.
So far the only Alt that was getting significant volume that held up at its current scale was Litecoin. It wil lbe interesting to see how Bitcoin Cash does... the price decrease of BCH vs Bitcoin is a lower percentage and almost flat -- BTC price had a major decrease: Could it be that another crypto will overtake BTC now?
Not really..... Also, any of those could probably be successful today among the 80% non-technical users who now own iPhones and Laptops, if they just included Facebook, Youtube, and a few others in their service. those services were walled gardens that tried to be the entire online experience - It is very difficult to be everything for everybody using a dozen or so paid editors + internet navigation software + lots of extra for-pay content, they were expensive for end users ---- the providers did not invest in continuing to maintain and expand their platforms beyond the small ecosystem they started with, they had their place, but they were ultimately superceded by the internet's exponential growth -- all those services provided internet access, and the internet did 1000x the things those services were doing and all the same things 10x better.
My suggestion is not a revisiting of such concepts as AOL/Genie/Prodigy were, BUT the right content deals could leverage demand FOR THAT SPECIFIC content that would induce a momentum for people to reconsider their choice of providers.
Exclusive content on different ISPs is exactly the type of thing that NN proponents seek to avoid. Google would look a tad hypocritical if they did that.
No.... NN is not about non-exclusivity of content. NN is about THE NETWORK not degrading, blocking, subsidizing, or prioritizing access to some content over others. Content providers are still free to restrict services they sell to users of a specific network, location, or ISP. USUALLY it's not in the content providers' interests to do so, but for the sake of working with a service provider together to create a bundle to try and break an existing monopoly's hold over a particular service, and in exchange for a spotlight placement and maybe other financial considerations, seems reasonable.
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
That's not true if the "anyone else" is the FCC. The state AG's are able to sue on behalf of a state, though, which is why the AGs can take this action.
The possibility of court challenges AND/OR actions by congress are the checks and balances on the regulatory agencies, and in this case at the very least the FCC should have some explaining to do if their action is not inline with what the law says the FCC should be doing, or the actions aren't in character with the rulemaking processes of regulatory agencies, OR if the process seem'd to have been tampered with, or the proper public comments not given the correct consideration: for example, if the process was tainted by boatloads of fraudulent / fake comments.
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Google could compete if they were willing to --- by creating exclusive content available only to customers who choose Google fiber, and marketing the hell out of it. For example.... what if they created a new Youtube Live TV service of some sort, and a portfolio of other services that required you get fiber from them.
How about if Google negotiated an exclusivity deal with ESPN and some sports networks for that network which would prevent Comcast users from accessing the content.
Then Google Fiber might have a chance of providing a differentiated service people would buy against Comcast shenanigans.
It is not impossible -- there are various theories that could made about the price, but the study does not offer any evidence or lend any valid credibility supporting that theory, and this article is listed as a News / Study, not an editorial, therefore an objective reporter should not be suggesting this....
because he had incited them with a lurid report of violence and mayhem.
It is not unusual for people calling in police for help to panic and overstate situations, and possibly relay some incorrect information --- the call to the police emergency line is not the formal police report, and their job is to respond to the situation objectively -- and not "incited".
In 99% of SWAT'ing attempts nobody died, and the effect was an annoying prank --- the phony caller Ought to have but MIGHT NOT have considered the risk. Certainly we cannot infer intent to cause physical harm, AND it's a little bit unreasonable to call it reckless as well.
The reason the SWATer should go to jail for 20 years is for tampering with law enforcement that can cause lives to be lost at other places while they're busy responding to a fake incident, AND not to mention the inconvenience and damages to innocent people -- which I believe the SWAT'er ought to pay a financial penalty to provide reparations for.
Yes, the policeman was way too trigger-happy and shot way too early, which is "malpractice" at the least. The swatter deserves death by slow torture.
He shot and killed someone who was not remotely a threat, and you think the LEO might be guilty of ONLY malpractice, what??
This is more evidence that Slashdot editors are non-neutral reporters pushing an anti-Cryptocurrency agenda and happy to include fake news in order to further it. I am not asserting the study was biased, but the bias is being shown in the SELECTION OF ARTICLES that Slashdot chooses to post on this topic, AND the biased wording of the summaries. This makes me sad.
I mentioned previously the copy+pasting of articles misrepresenting the South Korean position on virtual currencies.
The study this article is talking about is not news, and it's sure not news for nerds.... we know about price manipulation in 2013; and we know about the reports on it, AND everyone with a few brain cells who knows about the markets back then should have a story or two to tell about the rampant manipulation they saw.
The fake news bit is the article implying without saying that the LAEST / Current rise could be related to manipulation. That implication the only thing possible that could make the study pertinent to "news"....
I'm beginning to wonder if the Slashdot editors may be shorting BTC or otherwise hold a strong anti-Cryptocurrency/pro-Banking/pro-Authoritarian agenda or bias. This is the second time in a week that a Slashdot article has copy+pasted the fake news tidbids directly misrepresenting what the South Korean government is saying their actions and positions on virtual currencies are.
I understand when some local media outlets are confused for a bit, but Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds --- honestly, the editors here ought to know better.
The government is not stating the plan is to ban cryptocurrencies or exchanges in South Korea.
There is an impending crackdown against some of the exchanges that were too flagrantly ignoring the country's existing regulations, whereas those that are compliant are fine, and the issue is with some exchanges allowing anonymous accounts which had become associated with some criminal activities.
The move comes as South Korea is scrambling to rein in the virtual currency frenzy in Asia's fourth-largest economy, including preparations for a bill to ban cryptocurrency exchanges at home.
On January 15, in a public press conference, South Korea President Moon Jae-in’s executive office Blue House spokesperson Jeong Ki-joon, emphasized that there will be no cryptocurrency trading ban in the near future.
In an official announcement, spokesperson Jeong noted that the cryptocurrency regulation task force created by the government will improve and alter the original proposal by the Justice Ministry to ban cryptocurrency trading and introduce practical regulations to foster the cryptocurrency market.
immune to small arms fire, able to target accurately out to 100 yards, and able to negotiate stairs and open doors, what do you do, wait for the military to respond?
You need a swarm of remote-controllable drones able to get within sufficient range of the offender and deploy an artificial EMP.
The real problem is how much more quickly an autonomous attacker can kill/hurt a lot of people with precision BEFORE a credible response could be launched, and the fact the terrorist might have the advantage of targetting the very location, people, or things they need to target in order to snuff out or delay response efforts.
So I say you need a partially autonomous automatic response with no single or centralized point subject to attack..... this suggests surrounding the public with fleets of surveillance drones whose purpose is to identify and alert on potential autonomous (or other) threats And upon a risky enough situation begin the response process on their own.
I think we have well and truly crossed the cost line now. trained soldiers are expensive.
I think the greatest concern with autonomous weapons is they can entirely change the rules of the game re. asymmetric warfare. Autonomous large-scale-deployable indiscriminate weapons can be just a less-efficient form of other WMDs such as Chemical Weapons, which are also banned. Imagine a country deploys 10000 killer drones over a small county to spread panic and fear. If the assailant has autonomous weapons in sufficient number that can effectively target and kill any human before they can so as much get a shot: traditional ground troops cannot counteract these kinds of attackers, and 10000 drones with say 1000 bullets each and a perfect shot every time = 10 Million dead humans, and no risk of loss of life in those conflicts to the attacker.
Yes.... Autonomous Weapons are going to happen: what needs to be banned internationally is the use of Indiscriminate Autonomous Weapons, especially Mobile indiscriminate weapons that can move a long distance on their own power or be deployed to a remote target, and the deployment of Autonomous Weapons designed to target humans even if unarmed in general or carry or release explosives.
Indiscriminate: Autonomous devices that you drop at a location that will immediately activate a targeted attack against any human or any animal that moves: regardless of whether the person is a threat or not.
We should be trying to actively develop Autonomous defenses against other weapons systems, and Autonomous devices that Monitor, Identify, share information about, and Destroy potential autonomous threats.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't blame him for wanting to leave earth -- you could legitimately say it's been flattened as a metaphor by environmentally-unfriendly companies and all the political BS, but 3/8 of a mile is not enough to escape.
Fool, it is a District in the Great City of San Francisco. This is like not knowing what The Bronks is.
The name of some random district in San Francisco is NOT notable. And what is the Bronks?
Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology"
Research reports like this one are usually prepared for marketing purposes -- or with an intended audience of investors.
Marketing and Staying power are among the information potential investors looking into these companies would ask for.
Why is it unacceptable to view the aforementioned YouTube channels in standard definition?
At the very least standard definition represents a degraded/low-quality viewing experience.
Often videos will contain text intended for the viewer to read that does not resolve at 480p also; you need HD to see what is going on the video properly.
What is unacceptable is throttling network users to artificially suppress the demand for data, which in turn artificially raises the fees per Gigabyte that customers will accept, and alsso then going on to claim 99% of users use less than X Gigabytes, etc.
The non-donating majority exploit the generosity of donors, and ads placed by creators themselves can be just as annoying, and actually compromise creators' independence
That's the case in general that the few pay the way for the many.... even with Ads, many users will utilize Ad blocking software. Often there will also be some content or some perks that are donor-exclusive; or can be distributed to donors similar to a subscription, so they're not entirely being exploited, and optional to others by buying the video (Youtube has a mechanism where you can have some for-pay videos ---- so donors can be sent a private link for free, and others can buy the video).
People already manufacture their own drugs at home, these homes are generally referred to as "meth labs"...
Yeah.... when this becomes feasible; the manufacturers of these systems are going to have to tread very lightly and implement strong security measures in the software to prevent synthesizing prohibited chemicals Or controlled medications without a prescription or in excess of prescribed QTY or face government regulation; i'm sure.
it's more important than ever that these creators can still be supported by subscription revenue. Otherwise we're allowing advertising to restrict us to anodyne content, like what happened with the broadcast/cable divide.
It's become fairly common for small but informative, interesting, or useful channels to solicit support from their viewers through services such as Patreon; the major alternative is sponsorships, product placements, or advertising embedded in the video file itself that may be supplemented using annotations.
If you recorded shows last night on your DVR, you can transfer them to your phone over your local area network
DVRs are obsolete.... all the things on OTA TV are basically crap, and all the GOOD stuff is exclusive to services like Youtube; most of the interesting and informative content is made by small creators, not ratings-chasing networks that wind up rehashing sitcom and reality show formulas.
You've found not just one but four successful workarounds for a cellular ISP's throttling of streaming video. Use them.
Lest you be confused into thinking ANY of that that's actually an effective workaround... It's not. The stuff available on bluray is less than a drop compared to the internet.
This workaround doesn't actually work --- there's a BUNCH of important educational stuff and other entertainment on Coursera videos, Youtube, Veoh, Twitch, Etc. that is not available on DVD/Bluray, OTA broadcasts, satellite, TV, etc.
There's no Bluray of Netflix Original series', no April Wilkerson, no Jaku, TED-Ed, K6UDA, Stefan Molyneux, David Casler, Steve McRae, Dan Ariely, MindYourDecisions, 3DGameman, Technicality, The 8-bit guy, bosnianbill, Louis Rossmann, Mathologer, Photonicinduction, Reponut, L2Inc, Today I found out, Tom Scott, Objectivity, Wendover Productions, Minutephysics, Thunderf00t, Bigclivedotcom, AvE, CGPGrey, Dorkly, CollegeHumor Smartereveryday, , Sixtysymbols, Computerphile, The Game Theorists, Colin Hardy, Computing Forever,
I believe the answer to that one is NO.
Your revenue share (with both YouTube and Fullscreen) is exactly the same for YouTube Red income as it is for AdSense
(If you turn off Ads, then your share of AdSense will be zero, so I expect your share of Red would be identical, in other words, zero.)
* Update: If a YouTube Red user views one of your videos during his/her free trial period, you will not earn income from that video view.
And therein lies the chicken and egg problem. Unless you have the data about download rates and latency you can't even begin to find out WHY your speeds are slower
Because of the way the app works; consider it an investigative tool.
If the App's test shows throttling is occurring, then it is basically definitive proof that the service is being throttled by your ISP or an intermediary. On the other hand, if the app's test doesn't show throttling, but you experience different speeds to those services,
then it could be either throttling or something else, since you can't give a definitive answer that there is no throttling for sure (If your observed rates of throughput are different -- and not in a manner consistent with the network distance and hopXhop latency).
Cellular providers will sometimes throttle video, not to be jerks and violate net neutrality, but to save your data plan.
In other words: to coerce you to accept excessively a high per-Gigabyte cost and avoid what they view as "wasteful fidelity" they will tamper with your traffic to reduce your consumption.
"Save your overly restrictive data plan" is really REALLY not a good reason for throttling.
This isn't really of much benefit on a small mobile screen, so you're tearing through your data plan for no real reason.
You can very well be mirroring that mobile screen to something larger where you will feel that it matters.
Does anyone know whether video creators earn shares of YouTube Red subscription revenue
Only if you already qualify to monetize your videos via advertising.
Youtube shares a portion of the revenue from Red memberships with Youtube partners based on the amount of Watch-Time on the partners' videos by Red members.
Last I check; you always needed 1000 subscribers, before you get access to make monetized videos. The new requirement is the 4000 view-hours, which seems insane.... It seems Google is trying to shut small creators out of the platform; no longer can you monetize a small YT channel because of the 4000 hours a month requirement.
Bitcoin's transaction fees were higher than paypal unless you wanted to wait days
Yes, both Bitcoin AND Ethereum had major congestion issues many times during the year there were long waits or high fees to clear a transaction. Not what you want for something which is supposed to be a better way technologically to send instant payments --- the end user experience SHOULD be better in every way to truly provide the full benefits the tech claims.
So far the only Alt that was getting significant volume that held up at its current scale was Litecoin. It wil lbe interesting to see how Bitcoin Cash does... the price decrease of BCH vs Bitcoin is a lower percentage and almost flat -- BTC price had a major decrease: Could it be that another crypto will overtake BTC now?
What you're proposing is 1990s AOL/Genie/Prodigy.
Not really..... Also, any of those could probably be successful today among the 80% non-technical users who now own iPhones and Laptops, if they just included Facebook, Youtube, and a few others in their service. those services were walled gardens that tried to be the entire online experience - It is very difficult to be everything for everybody using a dozen or so paid editors + internet navigation software + lots of extra for-pay content, they were expensive for end users ---- the providers did not invest in continuing to maintain and expand their platforms beyond the small ecosystem they started with, they had their place, but they were ultimately superceded by the internet's exponential growth -- all those services provided internet access, and the internet did 1000x the things those services were doing and all the same things 10x better.
My suggestion is not a revisiting of such concepts as AOL/Genie/Prodigy were, BUT the right content deals could leverage demand FOR THAT SPECIFIC content that would induce a momentum for people to reconsider their choice of providers.
Exclusive content on different ISPs is exactly the type of thing that NN proponents seek to avoid. Google would look a tad hypocritical if they did that.
No.... NN is not about non-exclusivity of content. NN is about THE NETWORK not degrading, blocking, subsidizing, or prioritizing access to some content over others. Content providers are still free to restrict services they sell to users of a specific network, location, or ISP. USUALLY it's not in the content providers' interests to do so, but for the sake of working with a service provider together to create a bundle to try and break an existing monopoly's hold over a particular service, and in exchange for a spotlight placement and maybe other financial considerations, seems reasonable.
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
That's not true if the "anyone else" is the FCC. The state AG's are able to sue on behalf of a state, though, which is why the AGs can take this action.
The possibility of court challenges AND/OR actions by congress are the checks and balances on the regulatory agencies, and in this case at the very least the FCC should have some explaining to do if their action is not inline with what the law says the FCC should be doing, or the actions aren't in character with the rulemaking processes of regulatory agencies, OR if the process seem'd to have been tampered with, or the proper public comments not given the correct consideration: for example, if the process was tainted by boatloads of fraudulent / fake comments.
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Google could compete if they were willing to --- by creating exclusive content available only to customers who choose Google fiber, and marketing the hell out of it. For example.... what if they created a new Youtube Live TV service of some sort, and a portfolio of other services that required you get fiber from them.
How about if Google negotiated an exclusivity deal with ESPN and some sports networks for that network which would prevent Comcast users from accessing the content.
Then Google Fiber might have a chance of providing a differentiated service people would buy against Comcast shenanigans.
Also..... the Phone/VOICE function is not used that often these days. Perhaps they should just start calling them "Pocket tablets"
Couldn't it?
It is not impossible -- there are various theories that could made about the price,
but the study does not offer any evidence or lend any valid credibility supporting that theory,
and this article is listed as a News / Study, not an editorial, therefore an objective reporter should not be suggesting this....
because he had incited them with a lurid report of violence and mayhem.
It is not unusual for people calling in police for help to panic and overstate situations, and possibly relay some incorrect information --- the call to the police emergency line is not the formal police report, and their job is to respond to the situation objectively -- and not "incited".
In 99% of SWAT'ing attempts nobody died, and the effect was an annoying prank --- the phony caller Ought to have but MIGHT NOT have considered the risk. Certainly we cannot infer intent to cause physical harm, AND it's a little bit unreasonable to call it reckless as well.
The reason the SWATer should go to jail for 20 years is for tampering with law enforcement that can cause lives to be lost at other places while they're busy responding to a fake incident, AND not to mention the inconvenience and damages to innocent people -- which I believe the SWAT'er ought to pay a financial penalty to provide reparations for.
Yes, the policeman was way too trigger-happy and shot way too early, which is "malpractice" at the least. The swatter deserves death by slow torture.
He shot and killed someone who was not remotely a threat, and you think the LEO might be guilty of ONLY malpractice, what??
This is more evidence that Slashdot editors are non-neutral reporters pushing an anti-Cryptocurrency agenda and
happy to include fake news in order to further it. I am not asserting the study was biased, but the bias is being shown in the SELECTION OF ARTICLES that
Slashdot chooses to post on this topic, AND the biased wording of the summaries.
This makes me sad.
I mentioned previously the copy+pasting of articles misrepresenting the South Korean position on virtual currencies.
The study this article is talking about is not news, and it's sure not news for nerds.... we know about price manipulation in 2013;
and we know about the reports on it, AND everyone with a few brain cells who knows about the markets back then should have a story or two to
tell about the rampant manipulation they saw.
The fake news bit is the article implying without saying that the LAEST / Current rise could be related to manipulation.
That implication the only thing possible that could make the study pertinent to "news"....
I'm beginning to wonder if the Slashdot editors may be shorting BTC or otherwise hold a strong anti-Cryptocurrency/pro-Banking/pro-Authoritarian agenda or bias. This is the second time in a week that a Slashdot article has copy+pasted the fake news tidbids directly misrepresenting what the South Korean government is saying their actions and positions on virtual currencies are.
I understand when some local media outlets are confused for a bit, but Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds --- honestly, the editors here ought to know better.
The government is not stating the plan is to ban cryptocurrencies or exchanges in South Korea.
There is an impending crackdown against some of the exchanges that were too flagrantly ignoring the country's existing regulations, whereas those that are compliant are fine, and the issue is with some exchanges allowing anonymous accounts which had become associated with some criminal activities.
That bit is pure speculation, as government officials have spoken to the direct opposite and asserted no attempt to ban is planned.
immune to small arms fire, able to target accurately out to 100 yards, and able to negotiate stairs and open doors, what do you do, wait for the military to respond?
You need a swarm of remote-controllable drones able to get within sufficient range of the offender and deploy an artificial EMP.
The real problem is how much more quickly an autonomous attacker can kill/hurt a lot of people with precision BEFORE a credible response could be launched, and the fact the terrorist might have the advantage of targetting the very location, people, or things they need to target in order to snuff out or delay response efforts.
So I say you need a partially autonomous automatic response with no single or centralized point subject to attack..... this suggests surrounding the public with fleets of surveillance drones whose purpose is to identify and alert on potential autonomous (or other) threats And upon a risky enough situation begin the response process on their own.
I think we have well and truly crossed the cost line now. trained soldiers are expensive.
I think the greatest concern with autonomous weapons is they can entirely change the rules of the game re. asymmetric warfare.
Autonomous large-scale-deployable indiscriminate weapons can be just a less-efficient form of other WMDs such as Chemical Weapons, which are also banned.
Imagine a country deploys 10000 killer drones over a small county to spread panic and fear.
If the assailant has autonomous weapons in sufficient number that can effectively target and kill any human before they can so as much get a shot:
traditional ground troops cannot counteract these kinds of attackers, and 10000 drones with say 1000 bullets each and a perfect shot every time = 10 Million dead humans, and no risk of loss of life in those conflicts to the attacker.
Yes.... Autonomous Weapons are going to happen: what needs to be banned internationally is the use of Indiscriminate Autonomous Weapons, especially Mobile indiscriminate weapons that can move a long distance on their own power or be deployed to a remote target, and the deployment of Autonomous Weapons designed to target humans even if unarmed in general or carry or release explosives.
Indiscriminate: Autonomous devices that you drop at a location that will immediately activate a targeted attack against any human or any animal that moves: regardless of whether the person is a threat or not.
We should be trying to actively develop Autonomous defenses against other weapons systems, and Autonomous devices that Monitor, Identify, share information about, and Destroy potential autonomous threats.