It is morally repugnant to an honorable person (a 'warrior') to have machines fighting wars for you.
There is very little honorable about fighting wars in general. And there is very little more honorable than saving a life - or preventing the loss of one.
As for your other comments, economics is the answer. If nations are willing to fight a war for economic incentives, nations should be just as willing to view the loss of million-dollar-robots as a disincentive.
I'm not sure how you can claim that city population densities are unnatural. The progression of civilization over the past few thousand years has meant that no "natural" lifestyle has lasted more than a couple hundred years before being replaced (tribes to villages to towns to cities and beyond).
Yes, higher population densities imply higher impacts from disease (duh?), but that certainly doesn't mean that we can't overcome it. Remember, New York and other major cities were beds of disease around the start of the 20th century - and now life goes on normally with much larger populations due to increased hygiene and medical care.
While I don't think these devices should be put in every car, your argument is only valid once you include "loss of human life" as part of your damage.
How much is a ten year-old passenger's life worth? The young married couple a drunk driver hits? The driver's own life?
Slashdot Mirror
There is very little honorable about fighting wars in general. And there is very little more honorable than saving a life - or preventing the loss of one.
As for your other comments, economics is the answer. If nations are willing to fight a war for economic incentives, nations should be just as willing to view the loss of million-dollar-robots as a disincentive.
The robots in Buffy have two legs. ;)
The 21 million figure is the number of total iPods, not iPod nanos.
Your spelling is "appalling."
Was the "affect"/"effect" mistake supposed to be humorous?
I'm not sure how you can claim that city population densities are unnatural. The progression of civilization over the past few thousand years has meant that no "natural" lifestyle has lasted more than a couple hundred years before being replaced (tribes to villages to towns to cities and beyond). Yes, higher population densities imply higher impacts from disease (duh?), but that certainly doesn't mean that we can't overcome it. Remember, New York and other major cities were beds of disease around the start of the 20th century - and now life goes on normally with much larger populations due to increased hygiene and medical care.
While I don't think these devices should be put in every car, your argument is only valid once you include "loss of human life" as part of your damage.
How much is a ten year-old passenger's life worth? The young married couple a drunk driver hits? The driver's own life?
Make it part of the fine when you get a DUI - you can get your license back after you spend 600 bucks to put this in your car.