This is why we Americans now have the Fourth Amendment, requiring due process (with various levels of proof) before interfering with someone's life.

Well, but that was a while ago. Now the legal system is using rationales like "hey, your MONEY doesn't have any rights, so we don't need due process to seize it, just suspicion" and also "terrorism", "you are on this list", and the big winner, "I think I'll just shoot you" (and often your dog, even, every once in a while, your cat), plus "we like searching your finances and communications without a warrant, so we do (IRS, NSA, DEA, other TLAs)", etc.

You gotta keep up a little better.

Also, the 4th constrains the federal government. With significant optimism poured on the 14th amendment, plus a judge who hasn't received his most recent bribes, the 4th also constrains state governments. It does not, however, constrain corporations or individuals. That is, of course, if anyone was still paying it serious notice, which is clearly not the case anyway.

This stuff actually depends upon civil law, and there, the rules are *completely* different and not at all what you expect. Or will enjoy. Civil law exists specifically so the system can hammer you in the event that criminal law is not up to the job. Any other usefulness is wholly coincidental.

In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen). You are proving that something is not possible or could not have happened.


Possible or not possible are easy by comparison. Proving a negative means, "take this thing that really could have possibly happened, and prove that it didn't happen". A shape cannot both be a triangle and a square. A pure color at a single wavelength cannot both be red and blue. You are drastically underestimating the scope of how difficult it is to prove a negative. "This couldn't have happened because it is impossible" is actually a positive claim and as such, can be proven.

Hey, thanks for that, Mr AC. I didn't know about I2P.

https://thetinhat.com/tutorial...

It's what's for dinner.

Yup, all the while current cars that won't even qualify as "A.I." but simply as auto-brake / collision-avoidance functions already have the ability to slow down, sound an alarm, and in worst situation slam the brakes to avoid colliding with big object (i.e.: avoid killing people without even being able to recognize people or even have the concept of "people" in their code).

We haven't already started bringing automated vehicles out of google labs, and we already have technology to avoid killing people, by using much simpler technology.

These etchics/philosophy discussion indeed look a bit pointless.

It's scary because cars are already deadly and already everywhere. If you give them inadequate security (got) and an internet connection (some have, some are getting) and oh, also make them self-driving (on the way) then their very ubiquity makes the threat realistic. There's not that many people out there with a nice quadcopter capable of long-range flight who also have possession of explosives or even skill to credibly make same without blowing themselves up and you can bet that most of them are being monitored. But self-driving cars will soon be absolutely everywhere...

It's taken us a long time and a lot of energy to fuck up the biosphere this badly. We won't reverse the trend that quickly even if we try. There are other concerns, though. For example, secondary effects from attempts to fix the problem...

A not even that much intelligent car would have notice a long time ago that there two object on the street (no need to identify them. There are just 2 big masses on the road), and the if car is kept on the same trajectory it is set for a collision course.

the would already have started pre-braking, sounding some imminent collision alarm, blinking lights on the dashboard

By the time you reach the situation where a human would need to steer some way or another, a car with anti-collision system would have slowed down and stop at rest (unless the driver has overridden the system by voluntarily smashing down the accelerator against all car's alarms).

No need for complex recognition and identification of pedestrian. Just plain simple recognition that there are 2 masses of significat size.
No need for complex ethics engine evaluation, just being able to notice that said masses currently occupy a place that is intersected by the current trajectory of the car.
No need to aim for one while sparing the other, just slow down and brake well enough in advance (and cars electronics are much faster at noticing and reacting as human's slow reflexes and limited attention (or lack of) ).

I'm not speaking about some potential futuristic technology. I'm speaking about car that are street legal and currently circulating on a road near you. They're not even self driving, but they are already able to efficiently avoid collisions.

We haven't already started producing self-driving car beyond a few prototypes at google's lab, and we already have the necessary technology to avoid both deaths.

All these "ethics in robotic cars" are nice though experiments for a highschool's philosophy classes, but they are completely out of touch with technology. For any of these though experiment, the technology will reach a development level where casualities can be avoided a long time before a car's A.I begin to be able to have an ethics discussion with the philosophy teacher about the value of life.

That might be true, but if so, that reasoning applies whether or not the charges are true.

What's funny about that? The request to appear was made, then withdrawn, then made again after he had already left the country, having already volunteered to appear and having been declined. Now having let him go, they want him again?

Wait, didn't I hear something similar back in the seventies? Hope this works out better.

Yes, the anti-nuclear movement told you that would happen, but you ignored them. That was a failure, but it was largely yours.

Riiiiiight. Blaming the victim, real nice. It's not the environmentalists' fault that these old plants are dangerous. That's your fault. You put yourself in the pro-nuclear camp; you want to be there, you can take your share of the responsibility for making this situation possible. Instead, of course, of blaming the people who warned you. Fuck you for that.

Citation needed.

UCLA already proved otherwise. It's obvious why you didn't log in. You only have lies to tell.

Wow, you put all the hypocrisy on one line. That was convenient of you.

No moms, please.

http://youtu.be/KzelrlH_pjQ