that spent several seconds trying to figure out how a deep space probe could possibly have found clues to the origin of a piece of bush administration war propaganda?

This is actually one of the classic decisions that's alot easier with robots than with humans, if the soldiers getting shot at are humans there really is no good course of action accept maybe try to surrender, but for a robot it's easy, just sit back and get slaughtered, all that'll be lost is some easily replaceable machinery.

Robots have a significant advantage when decisions involving their own safety. For them, self defense is optional.

Take the following scenario for example, an individual within a combat zone is seen entering a building in front of a convoy, they're carrying something which may or may not be an rpg. Human soldiers couldn't take the chance and would probably just blow the building apart, whereas if a robot were available, it could be sent in to clear the building, possibly avoiding the killing of an innocent civilian.

They should really just start linking straight to the uTube page for vids. I've yet to see them get /.'d.

I'm not suggesting any solution is silver bullet, but if combined with a pollution tax, our forests could provide a huge, reasonably profitable source of fuel, perhaps not as spectacularly profitable as fossil fuels, but profitable none the less.

I'm suggesting wood as a substitute for fossil fuels, not compensation. No one expects the stored wood to be carbon negative enough to counteract the rate at which we're burning other fuels.

I'm not arguing that no ones though of this (or something better) before. The real problem is that the ones making the decisions are making them for their own political benefit. Lets say for example nuclear power is assumed to be cost effective and produce almost no pollution, but maintained its current stigma. Do you honestly think our politicians would advocate it anyway, in lieu of the public backlash?

They're biodegraded by various organisms which release the co2 via their respiration.

It's late so I'll cut you some slack, but fire up a search engine before you get all sarcastic next time.

Here's a simple solution I haven't heard anyone propose. Extensive renewable thinning of the forests.

Forests only absorb co2 as they grow, once they reach maximum density they become carbon neutral. When a forest reaches maximum density all carbon absorbed by new trees is offset by the trees that died and provided the room. But by continually thinning out our forests and allowing them to regrow we'd gain a infinitely renewable supply of zero net carbon fuel in the form of the harvested wood.

The wood produced could be used to generate electricity, or could be even chemically converted directly to combustible fuel. In addition, the wood could be used for cheap carbon negative building material.

The infrastructure for this would be cheap, the technologies available, and most importantly, it would be immediately profitable. I'm not surprised this hasn't been seriously considered though, both sides in this controversy seam more interested in using it for political leverage than approaching the problem with any sense of logic.

/. should start keeping track of times to server-meltdown for these linked stories.

Improving /.'s uptime would be good, but I guess knocking down other sights until the bar is lowered to our level works too

If only this could be modded higher than 5

http://badphoenixcops.blogspot.com/

Obviously the AZ police didn't like what this guy was publishing. I figure the more exposure it gets, the better.

Your probably right, but the problem could easily be solved by adding illegal photos to the mix. If the examiner correctly classifies all the test cases, then their classification of the image being tested is probably accurate, if not, then their interpretation differs from legal precedent and their conclusion can be disregarded.

This seams like the way to go IMO.

As much as I agree, I'm confident that developers don't just give their AI's Omniscient features because they think players will prefer them that way. Mirroring how a human controls their character is usually just too computationally expensive to be viable. It's orders of magnitude simpler to just start with an AI that knows everything, then add enough human like defects to make it beatable. With that said, if these defects are added tactfully and aren't too buggy, the resulting AI's can be nearly as realistic as AI's that only have access to information a player would have, while not requiring all the computation.

For instance, say a player ambushes an AI from behind. It's alot simpler to just make an AI occasionally shoot wildly instead of turning straight to the player then it is to have them approximate their enemy's location via sound and turn in the direction the AI deemes most likely to result in their fov crossing the threat, before shooting for its last few seconds of life at whatever its reflexive observation decides is most likely to be the threat.

Of course I didn't read TFA, but it doesn't sound like this exploit has shown up in any malware yet. At this point the potential for attack has just been demonstrated.

A cording to some other commenters, the exploit code must run in ring 0, so you already have to be rooted for it to work. In a nutshell, this vulnerability can't be used to infect your OS in the first place, but it can potentially make detection and removal near impossible.

Where do you think that money comes from? Without insurance, individuals run the risk of incurring damages that exceed what they can afford, but insured individuals still have to pay significantly more on average, since the money for all the "flesh-and-blood rig" repair still comes from the insured, just not directly, and with a large dividend taken off for the insurer.

If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you up.

This seams so obvious, at very least fine money should be pooled nationally and distributed according to safety statistics or something like that.

The only result of giving fine money to cities is pressure to give out as many tickets as possible, even safety has become a secondary to this.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. All insurance does is provide you with an extended payment plan (with terrific overhead) to pay for the accident's you may, or may not have. This makes some sense for liability insurance, since drivers don't really have a choice of who they get hit by. But statistically, most drivers would be better off skipping any extra insurance and using some of the money to keep an emergency fund from which to pay for unforeseen repairs.