I meant the random assortment of ideas as flexibility; hopefully, in any situation where it'd be plausible for Robogecko to have its legs blown off, get brain damage, and also fall a great distance there wouldn't be humans along.:) Say, for instance, that there was a cave-in in a cavern being explored or mined that disabled most humans along or started to suffocate people. Then crushed legs would be useful, as well as maybe jumping or falling and catching itself. Different safety mechanisms and different redundancies for different situations. The more the merrier-- and the more versatile the tool.
How would this be even as secure as wireless phones? (And we've all got some idea of how secure those can be.) At least with fiber or wire you need proximity...
Redundant systems are abhored by most engineers and programmers, but they're one of the fundamentals in biological design. Especially if this robot is being considered for use in situations too hazardous for humans, redundancy is key. Back up "brain" functions in the AI as well as the ability to move on fewer than all of its legs and catch itself like a cat when it falls... maybe to accompany people in semi-hazardous but delicate situation and be a failsafe in case something goes wrong...
In your FAQ you claim to stand for "unfettered individual freedom" and I absolutely applaud that. In your acceptable use policy, you forbid practices that are illegal in the jurisdiction of the originating server. Sealand, of course, can have any laws the one or few people in charge want for it. Having said this, how do you guarantee that a principality that can change its laws on a whim and with no notice will maintain the spirit of "unfettered individual freedom?" I ask this especially in light of the fact that you also have an open-ended policy: "Unacceptable publications include, but are not limited to...". This means that your storage facility (which reserves the right to "police or monitor" network use but claims it "will not necessarily") can decide that it doesn't like what someone is doing with their server hosted at HavenCo, monitor their traffic for a while, deem it illegal, and then shut them down- and all of this without notice. What guarantees do you plan to give your clients that their data will be safe, that they will be ensured anonymity, that they will not be discriminated against because of content, and that their contracts are valid in a "principality" with a whimsical at best legal system? I really like this idea and I want it to work. At the moment, however, your facility seems less secure and less free of the threat of content discrimination than it would be under the jurisdiction of many other countries. Other countries have more than one person deciding what's "acceptable;" a redundant system where what is "unacceptable" can be argued among many of the people it affects. I know that the idea is that you will restrict very little, but can you ensure that this idea will not change?
Slashdot Mirror
I meant the random assortment of ideas as flexibility; hopefully, in any situation where it'd be plausible for Robogecko to have its legs blown off, get brain damage, and also fall a great distance there wouldn't be humans along. :) Say, for instance, that there was a cave-in in a cavern being explored or mined that disabled most humans along or started to suffocate people. Then crushed legs would be useful, as well as maybe jumping or falling and catching itself. Different safety mechanisms and different redundancies for different situations. The more the merrier-- and the more versatile the tool.
How would this be even as secure as wireless phones? (And we've all got some idea of how secure those can be.) At least with fiber or wire you need proximity...
Redundant systems are abhored by most engineers and programmers, but they're one of the fundamentals in biological design. Especially if this robot is being considered for use in situations too hazardous for humans, redundancy is key. Back up "brain" functions in the AI as well as the ability to move on fewer than all of its legs and catch itself like a cat when it falls... maybe to accompany people in semi-hazardous but delicate situation and be a failsafe in case something goes wrong...
In your FAQ you claim to stand for "unfettered individual freedom" and I absolutely applaud that. In your acceptable use policy, you forbid practices that are illegal in the jurisdiction of the originating server. Sealand, of course, can have any laws the one or few people in charge want for it. Having said this, how do you guarantee that a principality that can change its laws on a whim and with no notice will maintain the spirit of "unfettered individual freedom?" I ask this especially in light of the fact that you also have an open-ended policy: "Unacceptable publications include, but are not limited to...". This means that your storage facility (which reserves the right to "police or monitor" network use but claims it "will not necessarily") can decide that it doesn't like what someone is doing with their server hosted at HavenCo, monitor their traffic for a while, deem it illegal, and then shut them down- and all of this without notice. What guarantees do you plan to give your clients that their data will be safe, that they will be ensured anonymity, that they will not be discriminated against because of content, and that their contracts are valid in a "principality" with a whimsical at best legal system?
I really like this idea and I want it to work. At the moment, however, your facility seems less secure and less free of the threat of content discrimination than it would be under the jurisdiction of many other countries. Other countries have more than one person deciding what's "acceptable;" a redundant system where what is "unacceptable" can be argued among many of the people it affects. I know that the idea is that you will restrict very little, but can you ensure that this idea will not change?