Internet speeds in the US are not slower, they're some of the best in the world. The problem is that to get those higher bandwidth speeds you have to pay an arm and a leg.
They are not intended for in close dog fighting. Two aircraft fighting at range is still dog fighting. That said, they perform on the same level as all the other aircraft when in close range fights. The F-22 is built around the notion of, you can't see me and I will reach out and touch you.
That or more, but I'm uncertain why the question, I don't remember there being an software glitches that caused problems that resulted in failure of mission or, more importantly, the inability of the astronauts to make it back.
I can agree with you for the most part. But I don't think there's a trend there that would cut wireless. Just look at OnStar and its ability to cut off your engine. The trend in technology right now seems to be, make everything wireless and connected. From TVs to fridges, I don't quite expect cars to be any different. In fact, wasn't it a few years back that Ford (or some other make) was offering cars that had the ability to be mobile hot spots?
I'm unsure how you're attempt to paint me as a hypocrite would ever be successful. Economic pressures essentially force me to buy new cars that have computerized control systems. For instance I don't pay as much for car insurance because the newer cars are (in general) deemed safer. That's not to say I try to cut back on certain features where possible. Such as not getting the remote key-less entry and ignition systems installed on my car.
If you read the second linked article you'll notice mentions of interrupts that can be done by the human to prevent improper function or restore proper function of the vehicle. In this case (Toyoto), the human interrupts were sent to single points of failure or were inadequate to prevent catastrophe.
Or we could present this as the new Therac-25 and learn from it.:)
If there's no human fall back, I'll never trust it
on
Toyota's Killer Firmware
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If there's no human fall back or ability to overthrow the computer's control of the car I'll never drive it.
I don't think this will change anything except maybe give the people that are rushing for self-driving cars some pause. Every developer knows the risks of self-driving computer controlled cars (if they don't, well they're naive). Between human error in programming and human maliciousness, there are two camps. People who think they can overcome the possibilities of putting a semicolon in the wrong place and prevent hackers from comprising the software's integrity. And people who realize the first people are fooling themselves.
Birds are like this as well. Chickens are a good example. Each cell in a chicken has a particular sex, what makes the chicken male or female is that there are more cells of one than the other. This can lead to some odd chickens that are half female, half male.
PVP != MMO
To trash the game as not being an MMO simply because it's not PVP enough for you is inot an argument. I'll tell you what isn't an MMO, as much as I like the game. Planetside. It's just a scaled up Battlefield game using laser guns. There is literally no PvE in Planetside. I'm not being hypocritical because you're right for a game to be a true MMO it needs PvP.
I'll tell you what I'm surprised was not mentioned, is Defiance. Say what you want about it being a tie in with a TV show and having some rough edges due to Trion's budget and staff issues. It's probably the closest thing I've seen to any shooter MMO in a while. It is mostly PvE, but one of the PvP modes involves domination style game play on the game map using the max amount of people on the server. More capture points appear as more people join the mode. Non-joined players and joined players can' interact with each other, but both can interact simultaneously with the game world
First, as others pointed out, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. That holds spiritual and contextual meaning for our laws, but it is not a legal document.
Second, so far the US government hasn't been tyrannical, at least not to its own citizens. I see no reason to overthrow my government because you, a person from another country, is afraid of my country spying on you.
I think we basically agree here. But I want to note, I draw a distinction between moral and legal. Legal is practicality, moral is spirituality (to put it simply). A good example, it's not illegal to overcharge someone for an item (as long as you didn't deceive them). But it's morally wrong to charge someone more than what is needed. Overcharging someone is subjective, as the amount even required for subsistance is debatable.
I think you're stuck in a rut and don't want to accept the truth here. It's not an abuse of the government because the witness is there to testify the truth. They're not being coerced to testify against the witness. They're being coerced to testify the truth, so long as it is in keeping with the 5th Amendment, ie their testimony does not incriminate themselves to a crime.
The question is asked what are the moral and legal justifications for forcing the testimony of a witness. The moral justifications are simple. It's not moral for a person to ignore a crime. It's not moral to allow a criminal to be free of punishment. It's not moral to allow an innocent man to be jailed. A witness' testimony only illuminates the facts of a case. Allowing a guilty person to be punished and an innocent person to be free. There's no moral argument for a witness to allow a crime to be committed without punishment. If you witness a murder, do you think it's morally and legally right to allow the murderer go free because you think the murdered person deserved it? The legal justifications extend from the moral, as all laws do. But from the "first principles" that you speak of, the law was meant to protect the accused of unlawful incarceration. How does forcing a witness to testify cause their incarceration to be unlawful. If they committed a crime and witness attested to their crime, it can only serve justice and does not allow for abuse by the state. There's no moral or legal argument for restricting the truth from being expressed in this matter.
If you murder Susie and I witness it; am I not an accomplice to the murder if I refuse reveal who the murderer was. Morally, by not testifying to the truth, I am guilty of your crime. I allowed you to murder another person with no repercussions. I think the law here has been quite courteous to extenuating circumstances. As in, by refusing to testify, I'm only held in contempt and jailed briefly. Instead of being charged as an accomplice to the crime or worse.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of those Cathedrals, I'd assume it's the mark of their guild. Wasn't the guild system popular around that time period for such work?
Internet speeds in the US are not slower, they're some of the best in the world. The problem is that to get those higher bandwidth speeds you have to pay an arm and a leg.
They are not intended for in close dog fighting. Two aircraft fighting at range is still dog fighting. That said, they perform on the same level as all the other aircraft when in close range fights. The F-22 is built around the notion of, you can't see me and I will reach out and touch you.
There are various pros and cons to drone controlled and human controlled aircraft. The human can't be hacked is one of pros for human flight.
The helmets are see through, they have green overlays of target information etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display Kind of imagine the HUDs from any flight simulator like Ace Combat.
I don't believe I made an exclusionary statement there. But hey feel free to quote me on things I didn't say more too. :P
That or more, but I'm uncertain why the question, I don't remember there being an software glitches that caused problems that resulted in failure of mission or, more importantly, the inability of the astronauts to make it back.
I can agree with you for the most part. But I don't think there's a trend there that would cut wireless. Just look at OnStar and its ability to cut off your engine. The trend in technology right now seems to be, make everything wireless and connected. From TVs to fridges, I don't quite expect cars to be any different. In fact, wasn't it a few years back that Ford (or some other make) was offering cars that had the ability to be mobile hot spots?
I think it's because I merely mentioned Ada, lol. That language doesn't get the respect it deserves sometimes.
Merely mentioning Ada I think is what got that put there. The language doesn't get the respect it deserves sometimes lol.
Lol, you're right. I guess drive should change to ride.
I'm unsure how you're attempt to paint me as a hypocrite would ever be successful. Economic pressures essentially force me to buy new cars that have computerized control systems. For instance I don't pay as much for car insurance because the newer cars are (in general) deemed safer. That's not to say I try to cut back on certain features where possible. Such as not getting the remote key-less entry and ignition systems installed on my car. If you read the second linked article you'll notice mentions of interrupts that can be done by the human to prevent improper function or restore proper function of the vehicle. In this case (Toyoto), the human interrupts were sent to single points of failure or were inadequate to prevent catastrophe.
Or we could present this as the new Therac-25 and learn from it. :)
If there's no human fall back or ability to overthrow the computer's control of the car I'll never drive it. I don't think this will change anything except maybe give the people that are rushing for self-driving cars some pause. Every developer knows the risks of self-driving computer controlled cars (if they don't, well they're naive). Between human error in programming and human maliciousness, there are two camps. People who think they can overcome the possibilities of putting a semicolon in the wrong place and prevent hackers from comprising the software's integrity. And people who realize the first people are fooling themselves.
It might change the programming language they decide to use though. Pick a language that's more stable at run-time like Ada (missile programming) etc.
Birds are like this as well. Chickens are a good example. Each cell in a chicken has a particular sex, what makes the chicken male or female is that there are more cells of one than the other. This can lead to some odd chickens that are half female, half male.
Same kind of people said the same exact things when the Industrial Revolution was underway. History and progress marches on.
Sounds like a protection racket to me.
PVP != MMO To trash the game as not being an MMO simply because it's not PVP enough for you is inot an argument. I'll tell you what isn't an MMO, as much as I like the game. Planetside. It's just a scaled up Battlefield game using laser guns. There is literally no PvE in Planetside. I'm not being hypocritical because you're right for a game to be a true MMO it needs PvP. I'll tell you what I'm surprised was not mentioned, is Defiance. Say what you want about it being a tie in with a TV show and having some rough edges due to Trion's budget and staff issues. It's probably the closest thing I've seen to any shooter MMO in a while. It is mostly PvE, but one of the PvP modes involves domination style game play on the game map using the max amount of people on the server. More capture points appear as more people join the mode. Non-joined players and joined players can' interact with each other, but both can interact simultaneously with the game world
First, as others pointed out, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. That holds spiritual and contextual meaning for our laws, but it is not a legal document. Second, so far the US government hasn't been tyrannical, at least not to its own citizens. I see no reason to overthrow my government because you, a person from another country, is afraid of my country spying on you.
I think we basically agree here. But I want to note, I draw a distinction between moral and legal. Legal is practicality, moral is spirituality (to put it simply). A good example, it's not illegal to overcharge someone for an item (as long as you didn't deceive them). But it's morally wrong to charge someone more than what is needed. Overcharging someone is subjective, as the amount even required for subsistance is debatable.
I think you're stuck in a rut and don't want to accept the truth here. It's not an abuse of the government because the witness is there to testify the truth. They're not being coerced to testify against the witness. They're being coerced to testify the truth, so long as it is in keeping with the 5th Amendment, ie their testimony does not incriminate themselves to a crime. The question is asked what are the moral and legal justifications for forcing the testimony of a witness. The moral justifications are simple. It's not moral for a person to ignore a crime. It's not moral to allow a criminal to be free of punishment. It's not moral to allow an innocent man to be jailed. A witness' testimony only illuminates the facts of a case. Allowing a guilty person to be punished and an innocent person to be free. There's no moral argument for a witness to allow a crime to be committed without punishment. If you witness a murder, do you think it's morally and legally right to allow the murderer go free because you think the murdered person deserved it? The legal justifications extend from the moral, as all laws do. But from the "first principles" that you speak of, the law was meant to protect the accused of unlawful incarceration. How does forcing a witness to testify cause their incarceration to be unlawful. If they committed a crime and witness attested to their crime, it can only serve justice and does not allow for abuse by the state. There's no moral or legal argument for restricting the truth from being expressed in this matter.
If you murder Susie and I witness it; am I not an accomplice to the murder if I refuse reveal who the murderer was. Morally, by not testifying to the truth, I am guilty of your crime. I allowed you to murder another person with no repercussions. I think the law here has been quite courteous to extenuating circumstances. As in, by refusing to testify, I'm only held in contempt and jailed briefly. Instead of being charged as an accomplice to the crime or worse.