... says the guy who can't capitalise "Indians" correctly, and who wrote "boots" while castigating someone for poor spelling... I guess people prone to making generalisations of over a billion people have a rather tenuous relationship with logic...
Yes, defense spending has yielded some very impressive technological results. That does not, however, mean that a reasonable return will be had on any specific investment. Some people have made a lot of money playing professional poker - does that mean playing poker is a great investment? Only if you ignore the losers...
The few chemical and biological weapons found were old and unusable, with many having been lost or misplaced by the Iraqi government over the decades since they bought many of them from the US.
These people are not being "bashed", they are being condemned for the actions of a few. No-one is claiming all Christians are savage terrorists because the IRA was made up of Christians, yet Muslims have to put up with this endlessly.
I understand why you think "Oh this bashing of one religion is not accepted, but the bashing of another one is - what gives?", but to ignore the precise nature of the "bashing" going on, and the context in which this "bashing" is happening will only lead you to the wrong conclusion.
Mindless attacks are never appropriate, regardless of the target (Christianity, Islam, etc.).
Or just do what they currently do, and have security services aboard the ships in dangerous waters. It may shock you to discover, but the shipping companies have already thought about this a lot more than you have.
Seeing as the ships have to travel internationally and dock in different countries, that is a terrible idea, as it will instantly limit the ports said ship can sail to.
My cousins work protection on cargo ships - they are delivered to the ship (with weapons), and stay with it when at sea. When they approach territorial waters, they leave the ship. This is the only sensible, non-knee-jerky way to deal with the security of cargo vessels. Just sticking guns to everything might seem like quite a sensible solution, but it's far more complicated than that...
You are (approximately) correct in your first paragraph. Without the invasion those guys would have been spinning their wheels trying to not get killed or imprisoned by Saddam. As it was, after the invasion and dissolution of the Iraqi army, their ranks (and the ranks of every single militia in Iraq) swelled with well-trained, desperate professional soldiers. The turmoil that caused and the following inter-clan/inter-faith/inter-community struggles led directly to the instantiation of ISIS as we know them today, gave them a great head start, and ensured they would have no end of recruits and resources for a good few years. Quite the gift.
Of course he has not. He's being his usual opinionated self, missing most of the facts, but so sure in his awesomeness that he's judging and condemning away regardless.
You condemn "fallacious generalizations", yet mention H1B immigrants being poor coders. You claim that autonomous cars are only slightly smarter than a rock, which is strange considering they are already better drivers than people, albeit in rather favourable circumstances, meaning you think people should be somewhere between a rock and a self-driving car in favourable conditions.
Your argument isn't logically consistent, yet you keep proudly making it again and again.
You do realise you are arguing your opinion and not facts, right? Automated cars can drive across town in aggressive traffic (and with more autonomous cars, the traffic will become less aggressive) as has been demonstrated time and time again, and AI does not "go slow". And yes, "we" can program algorithms to predict poor behavior and compensate for it. You seem to have a very high opinion of humanity (and yourself) and a staggering disregard for the large body of evidence underpinning the current state of autonomous vehicles.
Bleating out "millennials" is not "critical thinking", even if it's in support of your argument. You'd know that if you were employing critical thinking.
Drug use and abuse is a health issue, driven by the innate human quality that seeks to minimise discomfort felt through uncomfortable living. Driving a car is nothing of the sort - it is a chore undertaken by many people to get where they want to be, though thoroughly enjoyed by some people. If people take pleasure in a chore, does that chore now need protection from the same forces which got us this far in the first place? Or should technology keep marching on where it demonstrates it can, and instead of holding back progress for your hobby, you find a way to enjoy your hobby without endangering the lives of those who see it as a chore?
If you are independent because you have a car, you are dependent on your car, and by definition not independent. If your car gives you self-reliance, you are reliant on your car, and by definition therefore not self-reliant.
This kind of proves my point. I was being civil, attempting to point out that your are undoing yourself very publicly, and you resort to thrashing around like a disgruntled toddler who has been threatened with their toys being taken away.
You are arguing from emotion, not logic. This is why you are making no sense, using terrible arguments, being unusually rude, and arguing for an illogical position. It's OK - you are human - but it would help you massively to simply admit it. We can then get on to having an actual discussion like adults.
According to you. Automated cars, by their very definition, remove the need to turn a steering wheel, pedals, etc. That's it. Your arguments about government control over your transport apply now to non-automated cars, as the government can stop your car going wherever it wants by physically stopping you, or with newer cars and not-too-distant phone-home technology it could conceivably have your car shut off should you be nearing the "forbidden zone".
You seem to be leaping to conclusions, and missing the point at the same time. Quite the feat.
It will probably do better than humans, as due to its feedback from the car's handling and performance, it will be able to detect small changes with far more accuracy than a human can, identifying possible problems before they become insurmountable. Humans are terrible at this. Absolutely terrible.
I think it's a condemnation of their anti-automated-cars position to begin with if they only apply this logic to cars and not - as you pointed out - the many cases which fly in the face of the argument.
Slashdot Mirror
... says the guy who can't capitalise "Indians" correctly, and who wrote "boots" while castigating someone for poor spelling... I guess people prone to making generalisations of over a billion people have a rather tenuous relationship with logic...
Yes, defense spending has yielded some very impressive technological results. That does not, however, mean that a reasonable return will be had on any specific investment. Some people have made a lot of money playing professional poker - does that mean playing poker is a great investment? Only if you ignore the losers...
The few chemical and biological weapons found were old and unusable, with many having been lost or misplaced by the Iraqi government over the decades since they bought many of them from the US.
The property can be bought - it doesn't have to be seized. If it was paid for by the country in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue.
These people are not being "bashed", they are being condemned for the actions of a few. No-one is claiming all Christians are savage terrorists because the IRA was made up of Christians, yet Muslims have to put up with this endlessly.
I understand why you think "Oh this bashing of one religion is not accepted, but the bashing of another one is - what gives?", but to ignore the precise nature of the "bashing" going on, and the context in which this "bashing" is happening will only lead you to the wrong conclusion.
Mindless attacks are never appropriate, regardless of the target (Christianity, Islam, etc.).
Or just do what they currently do, and have security services aboard the ships in dangerous waters. It may shock you to discover, but the shipping companies have already thought about this a lot more than you have.
Seeing as the ships have to travel internationally and dock in different countries, that is a terrible idea, as it will instantly limit the ports said ship can sail to.
My cousins work protection on cargo ships - they are delivered to the ship (with weapons), and stay with it when at sea. When they approach territorial waters, they leave the ship. This is the only sensible, non-knee-jerky way to deal with the security of cargo vessels. Just sticking guns to everything might seem like quite a sensible solution, but it's far more complicated than that...
You are (approximately) correct in your first paragraph. Without the invasion those guys would have been spinning their wheels trying to not get killed or imprisoned by Saddam. As it was, after the invasion and dissolution of the Iraqi army, their ranks (and the ranks of every single militia in Iraq) swelled with well-trained, desperate professional soldiers. The turmoil that caused and the following inter-clan/inter-faith/inter-community struggles led directly to the instantiation of ISIS as we know them today, gave them a great head start, and ensured they would have no end of recruits and resources for a good few years. Quite the gift.
But the Iraq war led directly to the "other group" being created.
Of course he has not. He's being his usual opinionated self, missing most of the facts, but so sure in his awesomeness that he's judging and condemning away regardless.
Light doesn't have "0 latency", so I have no idea what you are complaining about. I suspect you don't, either.
You condemn "fallacious generalizations", yet mention H1B immigrants being poor coders. You claim that autonomous cars are only slightly smarter than a rock, which is strange considering they are already better drivers than people, albeit in rather favourable circumstances, meaning you think people should be somewhere between a rock and a self-driving car in favourable conditions.
Your argument isn't logically consistent, yet you keep proudly making it again and again.
What does "immigrant" have to do with this discussion? Are suddenly all non-Americans terrible drivers or something?
You do realise you are arguing your opinion and not facts, right? Automated cars can drive across town in aggressive traffic (and with more autonomous cars, the traffic will become less aggressive) as has been demonstrated time and time again, and AI does not "go slow". And yes, "we" can program algorithms to predict poor behavior and compensate for it. You seem to have a very high opinion of humanity (and yourself) and a staggering disregard for the large body of evidence underpinning the current state of autonomous vehicles.
Bleating out "millennials" is not "critical thinking", even if it's in support of your argument. You'd know that if you were employing critical thinking.
Drug use and abuse is a health issue, driven by the innate human quality that seeks to minimise discomfort felt through uncomfortable living. Driving a car is nothing of the sort - it is a chore undertaken by many people to get where they want to be, though thoroughly enjoyed by some people. If people take pleasure in a chore, does that chore now need protection from the same forces which got us this far in the first place? Or should technology keep marching on where it demonstrates it can, and instead of holding back progress for your hobby, you find a way to enjoy your hobby without endangering the lives of those who see it as a chore?
If you are independent because you have a car, you are dependent on your car, and by definition not independent. If your car gives you self-reliance, you are reliant on your car, and by definition therefore not self-reliant.
This kind of proves my point. I was being civil, attempting to point out that your are undoing yourself very publicly, and you resort to thrashing around like a disgruntled toddler who has been threatened with their toys being taken away.
You are arguing from emotion, not logic. This is why you are making no sense, using terrible arguments, being unusually rude, and arguing for an illogical position. It's OK - you are human - but it would help you massively to simply admit it. We can then get on to having an actual discussion like adults.
Nearly - once you have your license, you are licensed to drive. The clue is in the name.
According to you. Automated cars, by their very definition, remove the need to turn a steering wheel, pedals, etc. That's it. Your arguments about government control over your transport apply now to non-automated cars, as the government can stop your car going wherever it wants by physically stopping you, or with newer cars and not-too-distant phone-home technology it could conceivably have your car shut off should you be nearing the "forbidden zone".
You seem to be leaping to conclusions, and missing the point at the same time. Quite the feat.
It runs great on the PS4...
It will probably do better than humans, as due to its feedback from the car's handling and performance, it will be able to detect small changes with far more accuracy than a human can, identifying possible problems before they become insurmountable. Humans are terrible at this. Absolutely terrible.
And the number one tool for making everyone's lives worse. We abhor war, but apparently this is juuust fine.
It speaks volumes about how you view the world if driving your car amounts to "control". How utterly sad.
OK, if they think something demonstrably incorrect is correct, they are delusional or ignorant, not automatically a Luddite.
I think it's a condemnation of their anti-automated-cars position to begin with if they only apply this logic to cars and not - as you pointed out - the many cases which fly in the face of the argument.