The point is, a microwave-oven is well understood, and has well-understood physics. It's not an extreme situation, like in a singularity of a black hole. And it's in those circumstances (the very large or the very small, or the very energy dense) that our current laws break down.
IF the resonance in a microwave oven really could break CoM and CoE, we would have seen the dramatic consequences of such a thing (and its underlying law) ages ago.
Also: our basic laws aren't wrong in the strict sense. (Though this comes into the domain of semantics, I guess). They're incomplete, yes, but in their own domain, they describe reality with an astonishing accuracy. If any *new* physics will be discovered or developed, it will incorporate ALL that our current physics have demonstrated and have been observed, it won't negate it.
There have been a few tests with lightsails, such as...well, the Lightsail (of the planetary society). I happen to have sponsored that on their kickstarter, since I deemed it worthwhile. They'll send an updated version with the heavy falcon.
Of course, most of these experiments were meant to use photons from our sun, not from laserbeams. And most were near-earth tests, nothing like a flight to Jupiter. I'm all for testing it out small-scale first, with an solar-system interplanetary StarChip (PlanetChip?;-) ).
But well, for arguments' sake, I think we can agree that, while unlikely, it *could* be possible we (depending on our age, and/or longevity progress) see a thing like the StarChip reach that starsystem. They've raised most of the problems themselves on their site, but all of them are technical and engineering problems, nothing that is a real showstopper, let alone that it would violate a law of nature. So I think we'll get there, at least in principle. And, well, in our lifetime... I deem it unlikely, but as said, it's *arguably* possible.
I agree with you on the beryllium copper shield (well, actually, they said coating); it doesn't seem very practical in resolving the issue, and depending on the thickness it would have a dramatic effect on the weight (and thus, thrust/weight ratio) - which seems weird, seen their focus on ultra-light apparatus. But I'm no expert (yes, an unheard-off confession on slashdot;-)) on shielding, so I wouldn't know the benefits of such a coating, and how thick it would need to be to be effective.
That said, I disagree with your stance.2c would be unattainable. At least, on the principle of the matter (talking outside the 'in our lifetime'-argument, thus). In fact, I remember reading that, at least theoretically, a lightsail with good (sail)surface/(useful)mass ratio powered by large amounts of powerful lasers, and - most importantly - which are *continuous* working for years or decades, could attain speeds of up to.6c. The latter being the most important, since the speed it gets from the photons is cumulative, and thus the longer it gets pushed forward, the more its relative speed will increase. Of course, the destructive power of interstellar dust-particles would augment too, so there are other considerations to be made as well. But I don't think there is anything prohibiting reaching.6c in principle, at least.
The same article also said the more mass it has, the more exponentially difficult, aka: more energy it would need (which is why the StarChip is so focussed on the ultra-small too), and anything that transports humans would be quite massive, and need gigantic lightsails and dito lasers pointing at it.
So, yeah, not going to happen any time soon.
Still, I'm all for NASA or whomever to at least test a system like StarChip out in our solarsystem. At least it wouldn't be wasted like on an EM-drive.
The laws of physics are not 'made' by men - at least not in the sense of 'made up', it's based on what nature tells us it is. If nature had shown us something else, our physical laws would be something else as well. If you want to argue that our knowledge is not perfect, I'll grant you that. In fact, this has been known to science for quite some while.
But what most lay people do not seem to understand, is that, while our current laws aren't perfect, they're astonishingly accurate nevertheless and *anything new* (aka, new physics) would NOT contradict what we already observed for the last 400 years. Any new physics, thus, would not go *against* our current physics, but would merely improve upon it, specifically in extreme situations (like in the singularity of a black hole), where our current laws break down.
It would NOT suddenly allow for CoM and CoE to be broken, like the EM device would. Because if a microwave-oven would be able to brake CoM, we would *ALREADY HAVE OBSERVED* the consequences of such a thing. A microwave hardly is an extreme situation where our laws break down, after all. And if that's all that it takes to break CoM and CoE, we would already have seen the consequences in the universe around us. This is because IF the CoM principle could be violated (and by mere resonance of microwaves, no less), it would mean that fundamental laws vary depending on localisation. This in turn would mean, the speed of light varies, the strong nuclear force would change, etc., and thus whole swats of matter would spontaneously disintegrate into atomic and subatomic particles and exotic matter, and flood the universe . This, however, we have not observed, not even once, for the last 400 years. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of such a claim.
As said, any new laws would still need to adhere to all previous predictions and observations. Since we never observed any of the consequences of such a thing, it is EXTREMELY unlikely to be true. About as unlikely as that we'll discover tooth-fairy magic holds the universe in check.
That's why I think people thinking a microwave-oven (which the EM device basically is) is going to get us to the stars, are, indeed, extremely funny.:-)
Well, sometimes they're pretty annoying too, granted. That's because they're fanatical in their ignorance, and are not prone to any arguments whatsoever. So after a while it gets tiring.
I would agree speed is an important parameter and indicator of being 'better' or 'higher performance'. It could also be argued, however, other things may be regarded as improvements too.
Efficiency is also such a possible indicator. "Who cares?" is not an argument in determining that.
Let's say you have airplanes that go equally fast, but one uses half as much fuel than the other (which also means less pollution, more potential carrying-capacity, etc.).. now which one is 'superior'?
If all things are equal for the rest, it clearly is the more efficient one.
Ego, more than one 'measure-stick' can be used, as the parent poster said. Speed is one of the more important ones though, as you indicated.
Hope, faith and dreams may be of importance to the mental state of an individual, but it has no place in science, though - at least, not in the actual implementation, methodology and results of it.
In fact; hope, faith and dreams are often in the way of reaching a scientific conclusion.
And it's not with hope and faith that we managed to save millions with modern medicines, but by the fruits of science. We saved more lives in the past 300 years with science, than in the 3000 years before that with 'faith'.
With the caveat that a difference must be made between saying something is impossible based on technological limits or difficulties, and saying the same about things that break the basic laws of nature (physical laws). The former is likely to be shown incorrect, the latter isn't.
After all; keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.
Being a nerd doesn't mean being pedantic. Though granted, on slashdot you may find pedantic nerds as well.;-) Let's face it here: you actually *knew* he was talking about 'heavier than air flight', right? As anyone with a bit of reading comprehension would understand. As any nerd with even a slither of knowledge would understand, because any nerd worth his salt knows fully well the Montgolfier brothers didn't fly for the first time in a balloon in 1916 (in the middle of WWI, thus). And since you seem pretty intelligent - seen your second paragraph - I'm sure you understood that as well. Those who didn't, aren't nerds, they're dumbasses, which you find plentiful on slashdot too these days, granted. But catering to the dumbasses makes little sense, so my guess is you were being a bit pedantic about it.
"I see a huge difference between the state of the art in aviation in 1916 vs 1903."
As do I. As does the parent poster, since that was part of his argument.
"Yes you actually can say something is impossible we have limits based on the physical universe."
Which is why I said: "It's a whole other story for things that go against the basic laws of physics, though, (such as the FTL, or 'devices' like the EM-drive, which is pure bullocks)." The parent poster didn't argument with things going against basic laws of physics, though. Let's, thus, give him the benefit of the doubt he was talking about technical difficulties.
I'll grant you that enough idiots are on slashdot that think the two are similar, and come up with things like 'the EM drive' (in fact, didn't I see such a post already?), and it's also true those same idiots quote things that people once (presumably) said were impossible, while talking about technical obstacles, instead of inherent (physical law) obstacles. And many make the faulty jump to say: "well, since that person said *that* (technological) was impossible, but he was shown wrong, it follows that *this* (physical law) which is said to be impossible, will turn out to be possible too!" (As, for instance, the first, original poster of this thread (anonymous coward), was implying, me thinks).
Those are idiots failing to see the difference, though. But I wouldn't call them nerds, since those lack even a passing knowledge of the subject at hand, nor, in fact, normal reasoning capacity.
"Tech reaches a level of maturity and then it slows."
This is largely true. But after some time of stagnation, new tech comes up which is better than the old, and replaces it. With the caveat that 'better' can also mean 'more economically' in our times, not merely technically better (though it often is, since at least on some fronts it must be superior for it to be also economically better).
If you're argumenting that normal chemical rockets are not going to reach any star soon, and certainly not in our lifetime; hey, I'm with you on that. But other things are feasible, even with current or near-term tech. You *did* look at the link I provided, I hope? The (unmanned) 'StarChip' they're proposing is technological feasible, and *could* get to the nearest star, arguably within our lifetime.
As said, I do agree with your last paragraph, that it's pretty damn unlikely we'll ever see a manned interstellar rocket land there, though. Well, unless longevity-research knows some major breakthroughs, mayhaps.;-)
Your first paragraph was a bit pedantic, since we all know he meant 'heavier than air' flight, and while it wasn't 100 years *exactly*, it should also have been clear the time was indicative, and not meant to be precise to the year. (The mere fact that a random event would have occurred *exactly* 100 years ago, is pretty slim.) I mean, you could still 'correct' him even if he was off by even a mere day, then, if one is going to be (even more) pedantic about it.
And while the first commercial *jet* airliner may have been in 1952, the first commercial airline was already opened in 1914, a mere 11 years after the first flight, thus.
Anyhow, the gist of his post was that technological development goes blistering fast, and you can't really say something is impossible. I think. Which I would agree with as long as its confined to technological problems/difficulties prohibiting it. I think humankind will *always* find a way (if they really want to) to overcome technical 'impossibilities'. It's a whole other story for things that go against the basic laws of physics, though, (such as the FTL, or 'devices' like the EM-drive, which is pure bullocks).
Of course, rest us the question of 'when', and I would agree with your last paragraph on that, which is that it is extremely unlikely that we or our descendants will see any landing by humans on a planet outside our solarsystem.*
We *might* see an interstellar probe going for it, in a form such as this: https://breakthroughinitiative... If it can really reach it in 20 years, we might even see reach its destiny.*
*caveat: aside from sudden enormous breakthroughs in technology and/or physics (which is unlikely), the argument whether we will be able to see it or not, is also largely dependent on our lifespan. Ergo, if progress on longevity is picking up, the above scenarios would dramatically increase, in as far as the likelihood we could see them is involved. Even if we had to drink blood of children, I mean, have plasma infusions, for it. (http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/peter-thiel-young-blood.html)
Ermm...yes, well... About half of all citizens of whatever country are ALWAYS going to be below the average. That's because IQ-ratings (in the assumption this measures intelligence) is approximated by a Gaussian, and thus follow the Bell curve.
This is irrespective of how intelligent in general a populace is. Meaning, if there were a country where the average IQ was 10 points higher than that of the citizens in the USA, there would *STILL* be half of them below the average of that country...
Of more interest, is not the relative percentages in terms of percentiles, averages and sigma, but of how high the IQ actually is, overall. The more intelligent your populace is, the better (well, maybe not for those in power;-)), even though the distribution pattern will remain the same.
I think the solar impulse 2 exactly proved how infeasible commercial airplanes would be, if they had to rely purely on solarpower/batteries.
The weight/power ratio was atrocious, with the solar impulse. Extrapolate this to a modern airplane which needs to carry 100 people, and you'd get something that wouldn't fit even the biggest airports, would weigh thousands of tons, and wingspans that would be mind-boggling long and thus made of impossible strong materials, rivalling carbyne. It would never be economically viable, even if you could manage it.
And this won't change until the batteries are a hundredfold more powerful and more lightweight.
Of course, it must be said that by now we also have an infrastructure to power those explosion-powered vehicles.
Contrary, say, to the claims of some that hydrogen would be the new way to go. And insisting the infrastructure is already there, so it would be cheap to implement. Alas, our infrastructure for gasoline is NOT suited for hydrogen, and all the pipelines and storages would need a complete overhaul, making it prohibitively expensive for little added benefit.
On the other hand, artificial gasoline or syngas *CAN* use exactly the same infrastructure we already have.
You're last sentence, thus, seems rather to come forth from personal ideological preferences, rather than objective reasons. When looking at it economically, it does not follow one should move on, provided the efficiency of the system is high enough. Looking at it environmentally, it is not clear one should move on, since with this system, it would be CO2 neutral. Looking at it technically, there is no reason to move on, since the infrastructure is already there and poses no technical problems.
Not to say electricity won't trump every other energy/system out there in the end - it did with streetlights that used to be all on gas - but it foremost will only transplant those systems, where the advantages are most clear. There were the alternative systems are not inferior (in certain situations), they won't (rapidly) get replaced. The main argument and reason to go for electric cars, for instance, is the environmental issue. But if that were to disappear (with syngas or artificial petrol that re-uses the CO2) an important reason in favour of electric cars would disappear as well. For airplanes, which need light weight, high-density energy, it's even more clear that gasoline won't go away for batteries for a long time... And even Musk agreed that rockets will never fly on battery-packs.;-)
There are whole industries needing, and revolving around petrol. This won't change any time soon. It would be a good thing if technologies like these would take care of the major disadvantages it has, in the meantime.
That said, being realistic: it all depends on the efficiency, and I don't see anywhere mentioned in the article what the de facto efficiency was of the system - which is always a bad sign.
Nevertheless, even in very sunny area's there is always a possibility of having a week where there is considerably less sun (and thus energy).
The parent poster was right, thus, that - if you're speaking of being completely self-sufficient - you would need batteries that can span a week or more. The best batteries for home-use gives you about 3 hours of electricity, for an average household. So you'd need 2-3 to cover one full night. That means it would take about 20 battery-packs to cover a week. At an average cost of 3500 dollar, this means 70000 dollar, just for the batteries.
And than you still need to hope one week is the maximum sunlight-poor period it will ever get.
In many countries, during the winter, it can be sunlight-poor for months.
Anyway, it may be that one (especially the rich) can become energy-independent from the state or big companies or whatever, but I doubt it will become economical beneficial any time soon. Ultimately, the state doesn't control it beyond taxing it. But what would keep them from doing the same (aka, taxing it) on, say, solar panels? It's perfectly possible. If they can tax swimming-pools in Greece, looking for them on satellite images, they can surely do the same for solar panels.
Ergo: if the state wants your money, they'll always find a way to do so. There is no such thing as guaranteed independence from the state.
That's not exactly true. Some ATM do, some don't. I've forgotten my card a few times, and it's almost always with ATM's that gave me the money first, but then you need to push (on the screen) that you want your card back, and only then do you get your card back.
It is, indeed, a very annoying way of doing things. In my life, I've got 'lost' my card 3-4 times to such an ATM, while with most others, which operate sensibly, I never experienced that problem.
To some extand, one could say it's my own fault, and this is partially true: if you remain focussed the whole time, it wouldn't ahppen. But humans aren't built that way, so I largely prefer ATM's who DO have a more sensible approach to it.
Since I said: "It would still mean you've got the ad-related overhead, since you fetched it all, but at least you wouldn't be visibly bothered by it.", it would be the former.
I don't know: maybe one can run that one in VM mode on your PC?
There might be other methods too, but the main point would be that the site in question could not tell whether you are running an adblocker or not.
I heard the Opera browser has native adblocking now, but I didn't try it out yet. Any good? That said, sites could just block Opera then, so there would need to be something like the ability to spoof as if one were IE/edge or firefox, etc. (They can't block every browser out there, after all).
When push comes to shove, it should be possible to have a 'normal' ad-allowing browser fetch everything that is on the site, but which is 'invisible' to the actual user of the computer, and which *then* get transferred to the 'visible' browser, while - locally, as it were - the ads get removed.
In that way, there is no way for the site to know, because everything looks (and is) just fine on their side/site.
It would still mean you've got the ad-related overhead, since you fetched it all, but at least you wouldn't be visibly bothered by it.
Point is, the enduser always has the last word. What ad-companies and others should do, is limit their ads and get rid of all the annoying ads (there have been created initiatives for that). I think most people do not mind small, unobtrusive ads when it keeps a site they value alive. Of course, sites with crappy content won't survive, and sites with crappy obtrusive ads won't survive neither (due to ad-blockers).
But if there were minimum standards for ads, and a easy mark for those that adher to it, I would certainly set my browser on that mark for the sites I value. I'm not against all ads per sé, but I am against ads that are annoying. I think most people feel the same.
I do, and I've done so for years, also in official competition. These last years I've took it back a little and mainly just give chess-lessons to kids. I could have said so to the former poster as well, but I don't like to argument from authority, since that's one of the weaker ways of argumenting.
Ihmo, though, discussions on slashdot have *very little* in common with chess.;-)
Which doesn't mean all comments are worthless, but... well, there can be awful 'debates' full of diatribe, trolling and flamefesting all over the place, and some reasonably pleasant and calm/polite debates (occasionally). I'm no saint nither in this respect: I'm usually always composed and use logic in my arguments, but if the other party gets personal and what not, I don't have the tendency to back down neither.
But even in a calm and logical debate, it's sometimes clear to point out a 'winner' in the sense one can do it in chess.
BTW, the way you play works, but only at a beginners level. For instance, if a piece of lesser worth takes your 'more worth' piece, even if you can take it back afterwards, you'd still have lost some 'points' (in value/worth). Loose a rook and gain a bishop for instance, and you've still lost about two points. Also, sometimes one makes a deliberate offer, where, indeed, you can take back the piece, but it's actually *meant* that way, and by moving your pawn or other piece for taking the others' piece, you open up a line of attack to create a position of checkmate, for instance.
Ah, well, we're diverging too much from the main topic.;-)
Point is, it's actually debatable whether humans can still 'play better chess'. They certainly almost can't *win* against the best computers/chessprograms anymore. The question whether those 'understand' chess or are 'smarter' in chess is a difficult one, and mostly depend on semantics. From a meta-view, it's clear computers don't really understand chess the way we do. But from and within the strict domain of chess itself, it's clear that they've become better than us.
Agreed, but you can look at that as a deficiency of humans, which computers don't have. Grandmasters do it too, but with less success, because they can't remember every game and every position. (Strictly speaking, neither can computers as of yet, because there are near infinite amount of moves and positions, in chess (contrary to, say, draughts).) but of course, not all moves and positions are good, so in reality, if you know a billion openings, midgames and endgames, you'll go a long way, especially if your human opponent has only a few thousand that he can use.
Now, is it smart to use such a 'mapping'. Well, that depends on your definition or the semantics of it. I would certainly claim it's smart to follow it, if you know it'll lead to victory.;-p
Is it smart in the sense that solely based on that, one can say one can play chess? I think I would have to agree that I don't think it does. Basically, when talking of playing chess, it amounts to knowing the rules itself and how/when to apply them - and calculating what is the best move. Note, however, that computers are getting pretty strong in this area too. The problem for knowing if humans are still stronger in that respect, would be that any player with some strength also knows a repertoire of games (aka, has a database), which he also uses when he can. And if you allow it with a human, you should allow it with a computer. So you'd need a grandmaster that doesn't know any prior games or positions.;-)
"That assumes that both players are mature and experienced enough to recognize the loss."
Which always happens, the moment players actually know how to play. The only times I ever experienced discussions as a tournament leader is with the -8, -10 and -12 years olds. Starkly decreasing with the respective age-groups. Once you get to the -14 years old, you never have a discussion anymore. I would claim, thus, that the people who didn't accept their loss, didn't know squat about it. I mean it's VERY unambiguous: if they're checkmate, they lost. It's also very clear *when* you're checkmate: if your king is under attack, but you can't move him out into safety or can't do anything else to go out of the line of attack. If one claims one isn't checkmate, one just has to prove one can put their king out of harms' way.
And, as said, if there REALLY is discussion, it's for a third party - who actually knows the game, of course - to decide who has won. In an official setting, that is the tournament leader, and his decision is final, and both parties have to agree to it, whether they want to or not. I can hardly see happening the same on slashdot.;-)
With a debate, it's far less clear. Yes, you can say 'standard debate rules' apply, but the first problem already arises that there is no true 'standard' concerning rules of debate. You have a lot standard *formats* of debate, where in a given setting, people agree to, but I can't find a generally accepted, official set of debate rules that allows you to actually decide on a winner. That's not to say one can't find rules, it's that they aren't standard. So it would start with agreeing what set of debate rules one is actually going to follow. Secondly, the rules are far more ambiguous than in chess, which means you'll have a lot more doubt and discussion about who 'won' the debate as well. This is inherently true, since those rules leave open much more leeway for interpretation. And finally, you don't have a third party which is officially in a position to decide the winner (at least, not on slashdot) , or where both parties will accept someone as the final arbitrator.
Look at this very same discussion. How is anyone going to decide who is right in the debate and on the question if the comparison of a slasdot-discussion and chess is similar? If I say I'm right that it has little resemblance, and you say it does, and we can't agree on it: what rules will we apply to decide who's right? And if we can't
"and releasing a driving system with such deficiencies is not it."
Apparently it is, since it's legal.
Haven't you defeated your own argument, now? It basically comes down to: the evaluation of comfort versus safety must be done by the people, and people make the laws.
Since it's legal to have cars with auto-pilot, the people have spoken. You seem to think all, or at least a majority of people think as you do. I would want to correct you in this thought. I do not. And I don't think I'm the only one. So, according to your own argument here, if a majority of people think it's fine to have auto-pilot, and one shouldn't blame a producer for the wilful negligence and abuse of the system by some of its drivers, then, ergo, it should be allowed.
Of course, I personally do not like this kind of ennobled 'rule of the mob'. I think decisions should be ruled by logic. And it's true not all laws or rules made by man are very logical (and some are downright illogical and unjust). That said, in this case, it is.
The evaluation should be done by the state, and as I said earlier, should be limited in scope. Safety, as you correctly surmised, is one of the area's in which a state (with its laws) has the prerogative to outlaw something, if it's deemed too dangerous. However, that evaluation must happen in a logical and consistent manner. For instance, if you already allow something which is more dangerous, it is hard to substantiate and defend an outlawing of something that is *more* safe, even when sill not perfect (after all, nothing can ever be perfectly safe).
In this case, it's easy to see that the Tesla, even with his autopilot on, is still much safer than a regular driver without this system. Tesla's have far less accidents in comparison to their mileage then most other cars. So one can hardly argue it's unsafe. Even for cruisecontrol: you seem to think it invariably is less safe, but is it? Have any scientific research that establishes that? After all, it could well be that, after some time, by the fact that a human without it has to constantly focus on the road, and since humans can not focus on something indefinitely with the same vigour, it becomes *more* of a hazard, then having the autopilot on. One can say: "oh, but they should take a rest every hour". Yes, they should. But since you have people not following the rule of keeping your hand on the wheel of the car, I'm sure you'll have those that don't take a rest when they need it. As said, you can't protect against idiots. No method is completely idiot-proof.
And, well, say it would turn out to be more dangerous after all: then still an evaluation has to be done if the extra comfort is worth the extra risk. After all: if we didn't have cars at all - they were outlawed, for instance - no doubt there would be A LOT of deaths less on the roads. Yet we do not see that happening. Which means, just like in your case of going more than 65 km/h, it's a matter of how much accidents or danger is one willing to accept for how much comfort. This has ALWAYS been the case. The fact that you're not allowed to go beyond the speedlimit is based on that evaluation too. Apparently, on average, people going beyond that speed limit on that road, cause too much accidents to still be allowed to do it. It has been deemed to dangerous for the little extra comfort it would give some people.
In the case of an autopilot, it is allowed, so the comfort was big enough, for enough people, to allow the real or perceived risk.
I mean, I get it you do not agree with it, but if you follow your own reasoning, and 'people' decide it's ok, then it IS ok, and you shouldn't have a complaint anymore. I do not think most people would follow your idea about it, or make your kind of evaluation of it, if you'd take a poll. After all, it's still a choice to use it, not an obligation. And most people still have a sense of taking responsibility for their own actions - hollowed out as it may have become in some countries. And the lawmakers seem to agree. So shouldn't you accept it, since it's abiding by your own argument?
"So people conveniently forget what it says in the manual"
And there we come to the crux of the matter.
But who is to blame, then: the people who 'conveniently forget', or the company which explicitly states it's to be used as an assistance, and nothing more?
You seem to imply the latter... I the former. Maybe it's an USA thing, since I know the tendency there is to shove of ALL responsibility to someone else, anyone else, so long as it's not themselves. And with a bit of luck one get rich of it as well, in the USA. That's why you see warnings on toothpicks in american airlines warning that it should not be used to prick in someone's eyes, and such. As if a normal person wouldn't know that. Is it to cover their ass they put that on it? I dunno. Is it because people otherwise really would do things with objects that they aren't supposed to? Maybe so. But then it's for THOSE PEOPLE to face the consequences of their own stupidity or bravado.
In reality, in most jurisdictions it will be a matter of what one 'reasonable' can assume a normal usage is, and anything above that, is the fault of the user. Clearly, what is considered 'normal' or 'reasonable' differs culturally, seen the obvious differences between, for instance, the USA and the EU in that matter. But it's the same principle.
Since it' clearly mentioned what the normal usage *IS*, for the autopilot, there is not a leg to stand on. Whether or not its statistically a certainty some people will abuse it and use it for other than 'normal' means, is irrelevant to that. The company has no obligation to cater for the stupid and the audacious who ignore their warnings.
In fact, looking at it purely from a Darwinian standpoint, it actually isn't all that counterproductive, since it weeds out the idiots in society.
From a libertarian view, it also quite simple: you have the freedom to use it or not, if you use it wrongly, than that's your own decision. I'm not much for a nany-state which always tries to protect people form themselves. That's only in a limited way necessary for the state, and it's not for a private company. It suffice that they are clear on things, give info about proper usage, give one the freedom to choose, and all the rest, I think is pretty much whining after the facts of not adhering to what has been said.
From the stance of self-interest, it's also highly debatable. Why would the comfort of 99% of the people be denied, because of the abuse of 1% that can't handle it properly? Unless you are arguing 99% use it improperly... but in that case, Tesla does an amazing job at protecting drivers from themselves, and thus they're nanny-ing enough as it is.;-)
"Did you beat me because the reference of past games that was handed to you was more complete than the one that was handed to me?"
The point I was making was exactly that humans do that as well, and one can doubt if using that knowledge shouldn't be considered smart (or not). ALL play is learned, and it's by further study and experience that one gets better. Experience being: also learning, but in the practicality of it. If I do a fork to you, it's a tactic I can use because I learned about it, and/or saw and experienced it before. If I learn EVERY move of a given situation (can only be done in a certain situation, since there are almost unlimited 'free' moves) I can apply every move in it. But it still means I learned it.
So I'm not seeing much of the difference between learning one tactic, or several tactics. As long as you know when to apply (and see that it *is* applicable), one can already consider that 'smart'.
One could also argue - as you do, I think - that knowing the rules is one thing, but it's knowing how to apply them to 'unforeseen' situation that makes you smart. However, then you're merely applying a given set of rules, only apply them to a novel situation. that, a computer can do too. The only times this falters, is where the rule isn't precise, or not precise enough, so it gets stuck in a situation where it doesn't know what else to do.
But the later isn't really indicative of computers alone. If one is a mediocre player, one will not know every nuance of a given situation neither, nor be able to calculate the best move, nor know what to to outside the rules one knows. This is the 'chess'-awareness I talked about, which is still a bit better with humans (at least, the top players), but not by much. Since computers/programs continue to improve at a faster rate than any single player can, I doubt this will last long, if it ain't already so. With every match, a horde of chess-players improve upon the program, noting little differentiations and fine-tuning it evermore, making the knowledge of all the rules immer better. Which is why I said a champion is, in a certain sense, playing against hordes of chessmasters from the past to the present.
Now, one can say the part of just 'comparing' against a database isn't 'smart' and shouldn't be considered part of the chessgame, but that would be faulty. Chessplayers, and certainly the top-players ALSO learn and know myriads of games that were played in the past, and also fall back on that when it can be applied. We didn't use to have any problems with that, and also considered it part of their prowess in chess, so I don't see why we should now deny that, because computers do it a millionfold better.
To be fair: if you don't allow it for computers (in regard to evaluate how 'smart' one is), one shouldn't allow it for humans neither. However, while computers would be affected by that more, it would also mean a drop in ELO for the better players among us. It would sort of mean you'd only allow a comparison between a database-less computer and those humans that know the rules, but never have studied and learned any prior openings, middlegame and endgames, for instance. I hardly think you'll find any master, let alone grandmaster, who knows NO openings and thus doesn't have any 'database'. You'd be back to the lower tier, meaning an average of, say, 1300 ELO. Well, let someone of 1300 ELO play against a computer (without database too), and the computer will still beat them. That's because even based on mere *calculation* (aka, only knowing the rules, not literally past games or situations), a computer will win against a human without *his* 'database'. You have chess programs that reach 2000+ ELO, yet have no database to fall back on. I don't think you have any human player of 2000+ who has *no* prior knowledge of past played games or openings. So if you comapre oranges to orangs, and not apples, I would still claim a computer is better these days. Does it really understand all the fine nuances of chess? Probably not. But does a 1300
Slashdot Mirror
Please keep reading.
The point is, a microwave-oven is well understood, and has well-understood physics. It's not an extreme situation, like in a singularity of a black hole. And it's in those circumstances (the very large or the very small, or the very energy dense) that our current laws break down.
IF the resonance in a microwave oven really could break CoM and CoE, we would have seen the dramatic consequences of such a thing (and its underlying law) ages ago.
Also: our basic laws aren't wrong in the strict sense. (Though this comes into the domain of semantics, I guess). They're incomplete, yes, but in their own domain, they describe reality with an astonishing accuracy. If any *new* physics will be discovered or developed, it will incorporate ALL that our current physics have demonstrated and have been observed, it won't negate it.
There have been a few tests with lightsails, such as...well, the Lightsail (of the planetary society). I happen to have sponsored that on their kickstarter, since I deemed it worthwhile. They'll send an updated version with the heavy falcon.
Of course, most of these experiments were meant to use photons from our sun, not from laserbeams. And most were near-earth tests, nothing like a flight to Jupiter. I'm all for testing it out small-scale first, with an solar-system interplanetary StarChip (PlanetChip? ;-) ).
But well, for arguments' sake, I think we can agree that, while unlikely, it *could* be possible we (depending on our age, and/or longevity progress) see a thing like the StarChip reach that starsystem. They've raised most of the problems themselves on their site, but all of them are technical and engineering problems, nothing that is a real showstopper, let alone that it would violate a law of nature. So I think we'll get there, at least in principle. And, well, in our lifetime... I deem it unlikely, but as said, it's *arguably* possible.
I agree with you on the beryllium copper shield (well, actually, they said coating); it doesn't seem very practical in resolving the issue, and depending on the thickness it would have a dramatic effect on the weight (and thus, thrust/weight ratio) - which seems weird, seen their focus on ultra-light apparatus. But I'm no expert (yes, an unheard-off confession on slashdot ;-)) on shielding, so I wouldn't know the benefits of such a coating, and how thick it would need to be to be effective.
That said, I disagree with your stance .2c would be unattainable. At least, on the principle of the matter (talking outside the 'in our lifetime'-argument, thus). In fact, I remember reading that, at least theoretically, a lightsail with good (sail)surface/(useful)mass ratio powered by large amounts of powerful lasers, and - most importantly - which are *continuous* working for years or decades, could attain speeds of up to .6c. The latter being the most important, since the speed it gets from the photons is cumulative, and thus the longer it gets pushed forward, the more its relative speed will increase. Of course, the destructive power of interstellar dust-particles would augment too, so there are other considerations to be made as well. But I don't think there is anything prohibiting reaching .6c in principle, at least.
The same article also said the more mass it has, the more exponentially difficult, aka: more energy it would need (which is why the StarChip is so focussed on the ultra-small too), and anything that transports humans would be quite massive, and need gigantic lightsails and dito lasers pointing at it.
So, yeah, not going to happen any time soon.
Still, I'm all for NASA or whomever to at least test a system like StarChip out in our solarsystem. At least it wouldn't be wasted like on an EM-drive.
I would refute this.
The laws of physics are not 'made' by men - at least not in the sense of 'made up', it's based on what nature tells us it is. If nature had shown us something else, our physical laws would be something else as well. If you want to argue that our knowledge is not perfect, I'll grant you that. In fact, this has been known to science for quite some while.
But what most lay people do not seem to understand, is that, while our current laws aren't perfect, they're astonishingly accurate nevertheless and *anything new* (aka, new physics) would NOT contradict what we already observed for the last 400 years. Any new physics, thus, would not go *against* our current physics, but would merely improve upon it, specifically in extreme situations (like in the singularity of a black hole), where our current laws break down.
It would NOT suddenly allow for CoM and CoE to be broken, like the EM device would. Because if a microwave-oven would be able to brake CoM, we would *ALREADY HAVE OBSERVED* the consequences of such a thing. A microwave hardly is an extreme situation where our laws break down, after all. And if that's all that it takes to break CoM and CoE, we would already have seen the consequences in the universe around us. This is because IF the CoM principle could be violated (and by mere resonance of microwaves, no less), it would mean that fundamental laws vary depending on localisation. This in turn would mean, the speed of light varies, the strong nuclear force would change, etc., and thus whole swats of matter would spontaneously disintegrate into atomic and subatomic particles and exotic matter, and flood the universe . This, however, we have not observed, not even once, for the last 400 years. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of such a claim.
As said, any new laws would still need to adhere to all previous predictions and observations. Since we never observed any of the consequences of such a thing, it is EXTREMELY unlikely to be true. About as unlikely as that we'll discover tooth-fairy magic holds the universe in check.
That's why I think people thinking a microwave-oven (which the EM device basically is) is going to get us to the stars, are, indeed, extremely funny. :-)
Well, sometimes they're pretty annoying too, granted. That's because they're fanatical in their ignorance, and are not prone to any arguments whatsoever. So after a while it gets tiring.
I would agree speed is an important parameter and indicator of being 'better' or 'higher performance'. It could also be argued, however, other things may be regarded as improvements too.
Efficiency is also such a possible indicator. "Who cares?" is not an argument in determining that.
Let's say you have airplanes that go equally fast, but one uses half as much fuel than the other (which also means less pollution, more potential carrying-capacity, etc.).. now which one is 'superior'?
If all things are equal for the rest, it clearly is the more efficient one.
Ego, more than one 'measure-stick' can be used, as the parent poster said. Speed is one of the more important ones though, as you indicated.
Hope, faith and dreams may be of importance to the mental state of an individual, but it has no place in science, though - at least, not in the actual implementation, methodology and results of it.
In fact; hope, faith and dreams are often in the way of reaching a scientific conclusion.
And it's not with hope and faith that we managed to save millions with modern medicines, but by the fruits of science. We saved more lives in the past 300 years with science, than in the 3000 years before that with 'faith'.
With the caveat that a difference must be made between saying something is impossible based on technological limits or difficulties, and saying the same about things that break the basic laws of nature (physical laws). The former is likely to be shown incorrect, the latter isn't.
After all; keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.
Being a nerd doesn't mean being pedantic. Though granted, on slashdot you may find pedantic nerds as well. ;-)
Let's face it here: you actually *knew* he was talking about 'heavier than air flight', right? As anyone with a bit of reading comprehension would understand. As any nerd with even a slither of knowledge would understand, because any nerd worth his salt knows fully well the Montgolfier brothers didn't fly for the first time in a balloon in 1916 (in the middle of WWI, thus). And since you seem pretty intelligent - seen your second paragraph - I'm sure you understood that as well. Those who didn't, aren't nerds, they're dumbasses, which you find plentiful on slashdot too these days, granted. But catering to the dumbasses makes little sense, so my guess is you were being a bit pedantic about it.
"I see a huge difference between the state of the art in aviation in 1916 vs 1903."
As do I. As does the parent poster, since that was part of his argument.
"Yes you actually can say something is impossible we have limits based on the physical universe."
Which is why I said: "It's a whole other story for things that go against the basic laws of physics, though, (such as the FTL, or 'devices' like the EM-drive, which is pure bullocks)." The parent poster didn't argument with things going against basic laws of physics, though. Let's, thus, give him the benefit of the doubt he was talking about technical difficulties.
I'll grant you that enough idiots are on slashdot that think the two are similar, and come up with things like 'the EM drive' (in fact, didn't I see such a post already?), and it's also true those same idiots quote things that people once (presumably) said were impossible, while talking about technical obstacles, instead of inherent (physical law) obstacles. And many make the faulty jump to say: "well, since that person said *that* (technological) was impossible, but he was shown wrong, it follows that *this* (physical law) which is said to be impossible, will turn out to be possible too!" (As, for instance, the first, original poster of this thread (anonymous coward), was implying, me thinks).
Those are idiots failing to see the difference, though. But I wouldn't call them nerds, since those lack even a passing knowledge of the subject at hand, nor, in fact, normal reasoning capacity.
"Tech reaches a level of maturity and then it slows."
This is largely true. But after some time of stagnation, new tech comes up which is better than the old, and replaces it. With the caveat that 'better' can also mean 'more economically' in our times, not merely technically better (though it often is, since at least on some fronts it must be superior for it to be also economically better).
If you're argumenting that normal chemical rockets are not going to reach any star soon, and certainly not in our lifetime; hey, I'm with you on that. But other things are feasible, even with current or near-term tech. You *did* look at the link I provided, I hope? The (unmanned) 'StarChip' they're proposing is technological feasible, and *could* get to the nearest star, arguably within our lifetime.
As said, I do agree with your last paragraph, that it's pretty damn unlikely we'll ever see a manned interstellar rocket land there, though. Well, unless longevity-research knows some major breakthroughs, mayhaps. ;-)
You can say that again. Red Dwarf rules! ;-)
That said, I don't know if it's *really* underrated; it was pretty popular in its day, and it has achieved cult status by now.
Your first paragraph was a bit pedantic, since we all know he meant 'heavier than air' flight, and while it wasn't 100 years *exactly*, it should also have been clear the time was indicative, and not meant to be precise to the year. (The mere fact that a random event would have occurred *exactly* 100 years ago, is pretty slim.) I mean, you could still 'correct' him even if he was off by even a mere day, then, if one is going to be (even more) pedantic about it.
And while the first commercial *jet* airliner may have been in 1952, the first commercial airline was already opened in 1914, a mere 11 years after the first flight, thus.
Anyhow, the gist of his post was that technological development goes blistering fast, and you can't really say something is impossible. I think. Which I would agree with as long as its confined to technological problems/difficulties prohibiting it. I think humankind will *always* find a way (if they really want to) to overcome technical 'impossibilities'. It's a whole other story for things that go against the basic laws of physics, though, (such as the FTL, or 'devices' like the EM-drive, which is pure bullocks).
Of course, rest us the question of 'when', and I would agree with your last paragraph on that, which is that it is extremely unlikely that we or our descendants will see any landing by humans on a planet outside our solarsystem.*
We *might* see an interstellar probe going for it, in a form such as this: https://breakthroughinitiative...
If it can really reach it in 20 years, we might even see reach its destiny.*
*caveat: aside from sudden enormous breakthroughs in technology and/or physics (which is unlikely), the argument whether we will be able to see it or not, is also largely dependent on our lifespan. Ergo, if progress on longevity is picking up, the above scenarios would dramatically increase, in as far as the likelihood we could see them is involved. Even if we had to drink blood of children, I mean, have plasma infusions, for it. (http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/peter-thiel-young-blood.html)
Ermm...yes, well... About half of all citizens of whatever country are ALWAYS going to be below the average. That's because IQ-ratings (in the assumption this measures intelligence) is approximated by a Gaussian, and thus follow the Bell curve.
This is irrespective of how intelligent in general a populace is. Meaning, if there were a country where the average IQ was 10 points higher than that of the citizens in the USA, there would *STILL* be half of them below the average of that country...
Of more interest, is not the relative percentages in terms of percentiles, averages and sigma, but of how high the IQ actually is, overall. The more intelligent your populace is, the better (well, maybe not for those in power ;-)), even though the distribution pattern will remain the same.
I think the solar impulse 2 exactly proved how infeasible commercial airplanes would be, if they had to rely purely on solarpower/batteries.
The weight/power ratio was atrocious, with the solar impulse. Extrapolate this to a modern airplane which needs to carry 100 people, and you'd get something that wouldn't fit even the biggest airports, would weigh thousands of tons, and wingspans that would be mind-boggling long and thus made of impossible strong materials, rivalling carbyne. It would never be economically viable, even if you could manage it.
And this won't change until the batteries are a hundredfold more powerful and more lightweight.
Of course, it must be said that by now we also have an infrastructure to power those explosion-powered vehicles.
Contrary, say, to the claims of some that hydrogen would be the new way to go. And insisting the infrastructure is already there, so it would be cheap to implement. Alas, our infrastructure for gasoline is NOT suited for hydrogen, and all the pipelines and storages would need a complete overhaul, making it prohibitively expensive for little added benefit.
On the other hand, artificial gasoline or syngas *CAN* use exactly the same infrastructure we already have.
You're last sentence, thus, seems rather to come forth from personal ideological preferences, rather than objective reasons. When looking at it economically, it does not follow one should move on, provided the efficiency of the system is high enough. Looking at it environmentally, it is not clear one should move on, since with this system, it would be CO2 neutral. Looking at it technically, there is no reason to move on, since the infrastructure is already there and poses no technical problems.
Not to say electricity won't trump every other energy/system out there in the end - it did with streetlights that used to be all on gas - but it foremost will only transplant those systems, where the advantages are most clear. There were the alternative systems are not inferior (in certain situations), they won't (rapidly) get replaced. The main argument and reason to go for electric cars, for instance, is the environmental issue. But if that were to disappear (with syngas or artificial petrol that re-uses the CO2) an important reason in favour of electric cars would disappear as well. For airplanes, which need light weight, high-density energy, it's even more clear that gasoline won't go away for batteries for a long time... And even Musk agreed that rockets will never fly on battery-packs. ;-)
There are whole industries needing, and revolving around petrol. This won't change any time soon. It would be a good thing if technologies like these would take care of the major disadvantages it has, in the meantime.
That said, being realistic: it all depends on the efficiency, and I don't see anywhere mentioned in the article what the de facto efficiency was of the system - which is always a bad sign.
They also have low specific energy, poor charge retention, and high cost of manufacture. And, indeed, are very heavy.
They might be worth considering for some specific solutions, but it's clear it won't do for most of them (e.g., car-batteries).
I'll search for my tinfoil-hat right now! Just wait a sec! I'm sure it must be in my drawer somewhere...
Nevertheless, even in very sunny area's there is always a possibility of having a week where there is considerably less sun (and thus energy).
The parent poster was right, thus, that - if you're speaking of being completely self-sufficient - you would need batteries that can span a week or more. The best batteries for home-use gives you about 3 hours of electricity, for an average household. So you'd need 2-3 to cover one full night. That means it would take about 20 battery-packs to cover a week. At an average cost of 3500 dollar, this means 70000 dollar, just for the batteries.
And than you still need to hope one week is the maximum sunlight-poor period it will ever get.
In many countries, during the winter, it can be sunlight-poor for months.
Anyway, it may be that one (especially the rich) can become energy-independent from the state or big companies or whatever, but I doubt it will become economical beneficial any time soon. Ultimately, the state doesn't control it beyond taxing it. But what would keep them from doing the same (aka, taxing it) on, say, solar panels? It's perfectly possible. If they can tax swimming-pools in Greece, looking for them on satellite images, they can surely do the same for solar panels.
Ergo: if the state wants your money, they'll always find a way to do so. There is no such thing as guaranteed independence from the state.
That's not exactly true. Some ATM do, some don't. I've forgotten my card a few times, and it's almost always with ATM's that gave me the money first, but then you need to push (on the screen) that you want your card back, and only then do you get your card back.
It is, indeed, a very annoying way of doing things. In my life, I've got 'lost' my card 3-4 times to such an ATM, while with most others, which operate sensibly, I never experienced that problem.
To some extand, one could say it's my own fault, and this is partially true: if you remain focussed the whole time, it wouldn't ahppen. But humans aren't built that way, so I largely prefer ATM's who DO have a more sensible approach to it.
Since I said: "It would still mean you've got the ad-related overhead, since you fetched it all, but at least you wouldn't be visibly bothered by it.", it would be the former.
I don't know: maybe one can run that one in VM mode on your PC?
There might be other methods too, but the main point would be that the site in question could not tell whether you are running an adblocker or not.
I heard the Opera browser has native adblocking now, but I didn't try it out yet. Any good? That said, sites could just block Opera then, so there would need to be something like the ability to spoof as if one were IE/edge or firefox, etc. (They can't block every browser out there, after all).
Ultimately, this is untenable.
When push comes to shove, it should be possible to have a 'normal' ad-allowing browser fetch everything that is on the site, but which is 'invisible' to the actual user of the computer, and which *then* get transferred to the 'visible' browser, while - locally, as it were - the ads get removed.
In that way, there is no way for the site to know, because everything looks (and is) just fine on their side/site.
It would still mean you've got the ad-related overhead, since you fetched it all, but at least you wouldn't be visibly bothered by it.
Point is, the enduser always has the last word. What ad-companies and others should do, is limit their ads and get rid of all the annoying ads (there have been created initiatives for that). I think most people do not mind small, unobtrusive ads when it keeps a site they value alive. Of course, sites with crappy content won't survive, and sites with crappy obtrusive ads won't survive neither (due to ad-blockers).
But if there were minimum standards for ads, and a easy mark for those that adher to it, I would certainly set my browser on that mark for the sites I value. I'm not against all ads per sé, but I am against ads that are annoying. I think most people feel the same.
Well, I don't mind too much. I mean, this *IS* a public forum after all, so we can hardly complain if others give comments, thus. ;-)
It's the same as with the original debate viewed on itself: as long as people remain civilised and comment with reason, I can appreciate it.
Anyway, was nice talking with you. Hope we can keep the same up if there's a topic we REALLY strongly disagree at. ;-p
I do, and I've done so for years, also in official competition. These last years I've took it back a little and mainly just give chess-lessons to kids. I could have said so to the former poster as well, but I don't like to argument from authority, since that's one of the weaker ways of argumenting.
Ihmo, though, discussions on slashdot have *very little* in common with chess. ;-)
Which doesn't mean all comments are worthless, but... well, there can be awful 'debates' full of diatribe, trolling and flamefesting all over the place, and some reasonably pleasant and calm/polite debates (occasionally). I'm no saint nither in this respect: I'm usually always composed and use logic in my arguments, but if the other party gets personal and what not, I don't have the tendency to back down neither.
But even in a calm and logical debate, it's sometimes clear to point out a 'winner' in the sense one can do it in chess.
BTW, the way you play works, but only at a beginners level. For instance, if a piece of lesser worth takes your 'more worth' piece, even if you can take it back afterwards, you'd still have lost some 'points' (in value/worth). Loose a rook and gain a bishop for instance, and you've still lost about two points. Also, sometimes one makes a deliberate offer, where, indeed, you can take back the piece, but it's actually *meant* that way, and by moving your pawn or other piece for taking the others' piece, you open up a line of attack to create a position of checkmate, for instance.
Ah, well, we're diverging too much from the main topic. ;-)
Point is, it's actually debatable whether humans can still 'play better chess'. They certainly almost can't *win* against the best computers/chessprograms anymore. The question whether those 'understand' chess or are 'smarter' in chess is a difficult one, and mostly depend on semantics. From a meta-view, it's clear computers don't really understand chess the way we do. But from and within the strict domain of chess itself, it's clear that they've become better than us.
"And no, no human can do that."
Agreed, but you can look at that as a deficiency of humans, which computers don't have. Grandmasters do it too, but with less success, because they can't remember every game and every position. (Strictly speaking, neither can computers as of yet, because there are near infinite amount of moves and positions, in chess (contrary to, say, draughts).) but of course, not all moves and positions are good, so in reality, if you know a billion openings, midgames and endgames, you'll go a long way, especially if your human opponent has only a few thousand that he can use.
Now, is it smart to use such a 'mapping'. Well, that depends on your definition or the semantics of it. I would certainly claim it's smart to follow it, if you know it'll lead to victory. ;-p
Is it smart in the sense that solely based on that, one can say one can play chess? I think I would have to agree that I don't think it does. Basically, when talking of playing chess, it amounts to knowing the rules itself and how/when to apply them - and calculating what is the best move. Note, however, that computers are getting pretty strong in this area too. The problem for knowing if humans are still stronger in that respect, would be that any player with some strength also knows a repertoire of games (aka, has a database), which he also uses when he can. And if you allow it with a human, you should allow it with a computer. So you'd need a grandmaster that doesn't know any prior games or positions. ;-)
"That assumes that both players are mature and experienced enough to recognize the loss."
Which always happens, the moment players actually know how to play. The only times I ever experienced discussions as a tournament leader is with the -8, -10 and -12 years olds. Starkly decreasing with the respective age-groups. Once you get to the -14 years old, you never have a discussion anymore. I would claim, thus, that the people who didn't accept their loss, didn't know squat about it. I mean it's VERY unambiguous: if they're checkmate, they lost. It's also very clear *when* you're checkmate: if your king is under attack, but you can't move him out into safety or can't do anything else to go out of the line of attack. If one claims one isn't checkmate, one just has to prove one can put their king out of harms' way.
And, as said, if there REALLY is discussion, it's for a third party - who actually knows the game, of course - to decide who has won. In an official setting, that is the tournament leader, and his decision is final, and both parties have to agree to it, whether they want to or not. I can hardly see happening the same on slashdot. ;-)
With a debate, it's far less clear. Yes, you can say 'standard debate rules' apply, but the first problem already arises that there is no true 'standard' concerning rules of debate. You have a lot standard *formats* of debate, where in a given setting, people agree to, but I can't find a generally accepted, official set of debate rules that allows you to actually decide on a winner. That's not to say one can't find rules, it's that they aren't standard. So it would start with agreeing what set of debate rules one is actually going to follow. Secondly, the rules are far more ambiguous than in chess, which means you'll have a lot more doubt and discussion about who 'won' the debate as well. This is inherently true, since those rules leave open much more leeway for interpretation. And finally, you don't have a third party which is officially in a position to decide the winner (at least, not on slashdot) , or where both parties will accept someone as the final arbitrator.
Look at this very same discussion. How is anyone going to decide who is right in the debate and on the question if the comparison of a slasdot-discussion and chess is similar? If I say I'm right that it has little resemblance, and you say it does, and we can't agree on it: what rules will we apply to decide who's right? And if we can't
"and releasing a driving system with such deficiencies is not it."
Apparently it is, since it's legal.
Haven't you defeated your own argument, now? It basically comes down to: the evaluation of comfort versus safety must be done by the people, and people make the laws.
Since it's legal to have cars with auto-pilot, the people have spoken. You seem to think all, or at least a majority of people think as you do. I would want to correct you in this thought. I do not. And I don't think I'm the only one. So, according to your own argument here, if a majority of people think it's fine to have auto-pilot, and one shouldn't blame a producer for the wilful negligence and abuse of the system by some of its drivers, then, ergo, it should be allowed.
Of course, I personally do not like this kind of ennobled 'rule of the mob'. I think decisions should be ruled by logic. And it's true not all laws or rules made by man are very logical (and some are downright illogical and unjust). That said, in this case, it is.
The evaluation should be done by the state, and as I said earlier, should be limited in scope. Safety, as you correctly surmised, is one of the area's in which a state (with its laws) has the prerogative to outlaw something, if it's deemed too dangerous. However, that evaluation must happen in a logical and consistent manner. For instance, if you already allow something which is more dangerous, it is hard to substantiate and defend an outlawing of something that is *more* safe, even when sill not perfect (after all, nothing can ever be perfectly safe).
In this case, it's easy to see that the Tesla, even with his autopilot on, is still much safer than a regular driver without this system. Tesla's have far less accidents in comparison to their mileage then most other cars. So one can hardly argue it's unsafe. Even for cruisecontrol: you seem to think it invariably is less safe, but is it? Have any scientific research that establishes that? After all, it could well be that, after some time, by the fact that a human without it has to constantly focus on the road, and since humans can not focus on something indefinitely with the same vigour, it becomes *more* of a hazard, then having the autopilot on. One can say: "oh, but they should take a rest every hour". Yes, they should. But since you have people not following the rule of keeping your hand on the wheel of the car, I'm sure you'll have those that don't take a rest when they need it. As said, you can't protect against idiots. No method is completely idiot-proof.
And, well, say it would turn out to be more dangerous after all: then still an evaluation has to be done if the extra comfort is worth the extra risk. After all: if we didn't have cars at all - they were outlawed, for instance - no doubt there would be A LOT of deaths less on the roads. Yet we do not see that happening. Which means, just like in your case of going more than 65 km/h, it's a matter of how much accidents or danger is one willing to accept for how much comfort. This has ALWAYS been the case. The fact that you're not allowed to go beyond the speedlimit is based on that evaluation too. Apparently, on average, people going beyond that speed limit on that road, cause too much accidents to still be allowed to do it. It has been deemed to dangerous for the little extra comfort it would give some people.
In the case of an autopilot, it is allowed, so the comfort was big enough, for enough people, to allow the real or perceived risk.
I mean, I get it you do not agree with it, but if you follow your own reasoning, and 'people' decide it's ok, then it IS ok, and you shouldn't have a complaint anymore. I do not think most people would follow your idea about it, or make your kind of evaluation of it, if you'd take a poll. After all, it's still a choice to use it, not an obligation. And most people still have a sense of taking responsibility for their own actions - hollowed out as it may have become in some countries. And the lawmakers seem to agree. So shouldn't you accept it, since it's abiding by your own argument?
"So people conveniently forget what it says in the manual"
And there we come to the crux of the matter.
But who is to blame, then: the people who 'conveniently forget', or the company which explicitly states it's to be used as an assistance, and nothing more?
You seem to imply the latter... I the former. Maybe it's an USA thing, since I know the tendency there is to shove of ALL responsibility to someone else, anyone else, so long as it's not themselves. And with a bit of luck one get rich of it as well, in the USA. That's why you see warnings on toothpicks in american airlines warning that it should not be used to prick in someone's eyes, and such. As if a normal person wouldn't know that. Is it to cover their ass they put that on it? I dunno. Is it because people otherwise really would do things with objects that they aren't supposed to? Maybe so. But then it's for THOSE PEOPLE to face the consequences of their own stupidity or bravado.
In reality, in most jurisdictions it will be a matter of what one 'reasonable' can assume a normal usage is, and anything above that, is the fault of the user. Clearly, what is considered 'normal' or 'reasonable' differs culturally, seen the obvious differences between, for instance, the USA and the EU in that matter. But it's the same principle.
Since it' clearly mentioned what the normal usage *IS*, for the autopilot, there is not a leg to stand on. Whether or not its statistically a certainty some people will abuse it and use it for other than 'normal' means, is irrelevant to that. The company has no obligation to cater for the stupid and the audacious who ignore their warnings.
In fact, looking at it purely from a Darwinian standpoint, it actually isn't all that counterproductive, since it weeds out the idiots in society.
From a libertarian view, it also quite simple: you have the freedom to use it or not, if you use it wrongly, than that's your own decision. I'm not much for a nany-state which always tries to protect people form themselves. That's only in a limited way necessary for the state, and it's not for a private company. It suffice that they are clear on things, give info about proper usage, give one the freedom to choose, and all the rest, I think is pretty much whining after the facts of not adhering to what has been said.
From the stance of self-interest, it's also highly debatable. Why would the comfort of 99% of the people be denied, because of the abuse of 1% that can't handle it properly? Unless you are arguing 99% use it improperly... but in that case, Tesla does an amazing job at protecting drivers from themselves, and thus they're nanny-ing enough as it is. ;-)
"Did you beat me because the reference of past games that was handed to you was more complete than the one that was handed to me?"
The point I was making was exactly that humans do that as well, and one can doubt if using that knowledge shouldn't be considered smart (or not). ALL play is learned, and it's by further study and experience that one gets better. Experience being: also learning, but in the practicality of it. If I do a fork to you, it's a tactic I can use because I learned about it, and/or saw and experienced it before. If I learn EVERY move of a given situation (can only be done in a certain situation, since there are almost unlimited 'free' moves) I can apply every move in it. But it still means I learned it.
So I'm not seeing much of the difference between learning one tactic, or several tactics. As long as you know when to apply (and see that it *is* applicable), one can already consider that 'smart'.
One could also argue - as you do, I think - that knowing the rules is one thing, but it's knowing how to apply them to 'unforeseen' situation that makes you smart. However, then you're merely applying a given set of rules, only apply them to a novel situation. that, a computer can do too. The only times this falters, is where the rule isn't precise, or not precise enough, so it gets stuck in a situation where it doesn't know what else to do.
But the later isn't really indicative of computers alone. If one is a mediocre player, one will not know every nuance of a given situation neither, nor be able to calculate the best move, nor know what to to outside the rules one knows. This is the 'chess'-awareness I talked about, which is still a bit better with humans (at least, the top players), but not by much. Since computers/programs continue to improve at a faster rate than any single player can, I doubt this will last long, if it ain't already so. With every match, a horde of chess-players improve upon the program, noting little differentiations and fine-tuning it evermore, making the knowledge of all the rules immer better. Which is why I said a champion is, in a certain sense, playing against hordes of chessmasters from the past to the present.
Now, one can say the part of just 'comparing' against a database isn't 'smart' and shouldn't be considered part of the chessgame, but that would be faulty. Chessplayers, and certainly the top-players ALSO learn and know myriads of games that were played in the past, and also fall back on that when it can be applied. We didn't use to have any problems with that, and also considered it part of their prowess in chess, so I don't see why we should now deny that, because computers do it a millionfold better.
To be fair: if you don't allow it for computers (in regard to evaluate how 'smart' one is), one shouldn't allow it for humans neither. However, while computers would be affected by that more, it would also mean a drop in ELO for the better players among us. It would sort of mean you'd only allow a comparison between a database-less computer and those humans that know the rules, but never have studied and learned any prior openings, middlegame and endgames, for instance. I hardly think you'll find any master, let alone grandmaster, who knows NO openings and thus doesn't have any 'database'. You'd be back to the lower tier, meaning an average of, say, 1300 ELO. Well, let someone of 1300 ELO play against a computer (without database too), and the computer will still beat them. That's because even based on mere *calculation* (aka, only knowing the rules, not literally past games or situations), a computer will win against a human without *his* 'database'. You have chess programs that reach 2000+ ELO, yet have no database to fall back on. I don't think you have any human player of 2000+ who has *no* prior knowledge of past played games or openings. So if you comapre oranges to orangs, and not apples, I would still claim a computer is better these days. Does it really understand all the fine nuances of chess? Probably not. But does a 1300