Either is actually a potential moral monster in the making. The one might allow you to all die in a fire because it cannot predict with certainty what would happen if it walked on weakened floor boards, which might cause it to accidentally cause the taking of a life. Indeed, a robot truly programmed to never take any action which could possibly lead to the loss of life would probably never be able to take any action at all. I can't predict what the long-reaching consequences of my taking a shower in the morning might be. Maybe if I didn't create the additional demand for water the water company wouldn't hire a new employee, which means they'd be stuck at home unemployed instead of getting in the car and driving to work and getting into a fatal accident.

Sure, it is a ridiculous example. My point is just that we all make millions of unconscious risk evaluations every day and any AI would have to do the same. It requires some kind of set of principles beyond hard-coded rules like "don't kill somebody." AIs are all about emergent behavior, just as is the case with people. You can't approach programming them the way you'd design a spreadsheet.

And that would be the reason I said "some" Nazi activities and not "all" Nazi activities. I certainly find them abhorent, but if you take a strictly utilitarian view then things like involuntary experimentation on people could be justified.

Both situations present quandaries, actually. Is it ethical to allow a person to cause permanent harm to themselves voluntarily if it will achieve a greater good? If so, is there a limit to this?

How about when it is involuntary? If I can save 1000 people by killing one person, is that ethical, even if they explicitly tell me they do not wish to take part? You could actually make an argument for either position. You'll find many people who would agree with either position.

As I said elsewhere, I have no doubt that you can give an answer to these questions. The problem is that you can't get everybody else to give the same answer to these questions. That creates a dilemma for anybody creating an AI where moral behavior is desirable. Even with a defined moral code it would be difficult to implement, and the fact that we can't even agree on a defined moral code makes it all the more difficult.

It doesn't have to be this way and it has little to do with standards. Netflix streaming today still works fine on devices that are first generation from many years ago. This is despite all of the new functions and features they have come out with since then - heck they even changed their whole DRM scheme for many players.

The main difference is YouTube has little incentive to keep supporting these old devices since they don't generate much, of any, ad revenue (heck they might not even support ads), whereas Netflix needs to support their subscribers as long as possible.

Standards don't do anything to help with this problem it has more to do with an advertising driven business model.

"Call your doctor immediately if you experience a coding session lasting more than four hours, as this may indicate a serious side effect."

It is through the Dew of Mountains that thoughts acquire speed.

They could maintain a list of third party library versions and identify versions of apps that link with them. But then what? As a user, I might not want Apple to shut off some random app I depend on -- just because they think it might be hackable doesn't mean my device is actually being hacked; and I might really need that app today for some important client presentation.

They could contact impacted developers and request they repair the damage, but what can they do if nobody responds?

Apple focuses on end user experience first. They won't want to inconvenience their users that much.

1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)

Changes to the definition and protocols for diagnosing it account for the rate changes just fine.

I wrote why I don't (as in "present tense") use an AMD GPU. The new and improved driver isn't out in the wild yet, and certainly not integrated into distros.

Sure, but using some utilitarian models for morality some Nazi activities actually come out fine (well, their implementations were poor, but you can justify some things that most of us would consider horrific). Suppose human experimentation were reasonably likely to yield a medical advance? Would it be ethical? If you treated 1000 people like lab rats (vivsections and all), and it helped advance medicine to the benefit of millions of others, would that be wrong?

I'm not saying it is right. I'm saying that it is actually hard to come up with models of morality that cover situations like this in a way most would accept.

You'll want to factor in a bit more time for everybody to reverse their chairs or whatever so that they're not thrown out of the seat when you switch to deceleration. :) But yes, it has been a while since I ran the numbers bit it is somewhere around 30min, which is pretty impressive. It wouldn't even require all that much energy to make the trip.

Sure, but this is a thought problem. The question is if inflicting pain on some people can bring benefit to many more, is it ethical to inflict pain? Maybe torture is a bad example. Or maybe not. Suppose you need a recording of somebody's voice in order to play it over a phone and deceive their partners in a terrorist action. Would it be ethical to torture somebody to obtain their cooperation, given that in this situation you can actually know whether they've cooperated or not (you're just asking them to read a script).

I have no doubts that you can answer the question. The problem is that many will disagree with your answer, whatever it might be.

It would certainly need to be a pressure vessel. If there were a leak you could use supplemental oxygen or you could just repressurize the tunnel. Agree that the stations would need locks.

Agree that it would only make sense over large distances. I could see it for a NYC-LAX maglev, maybe with a stop in the midwest somewhere. Maybe have the stops at airports for easy connection.

Accellerating at 1G you could probably make the NYC-LAX trip in 30-60 minutes.

Networks are allocated as /64 chunks because it makes autoconfiguration easy. It is often argued by newcomers that this is a huge waste, but really, 128 bits gives you so many addresses that you can stand to do a bit of wasting in order to make things simple. Generally the "what a waste" crowd severely underestimate just how big 128 bits is.

Yes and no. You _can_ allocate networks smaller than a /64, but you can't use SLAAC on such networks. That means you're stuck manually configuring devices or using DHCPv6. I believe Android has no support for DHCPv6, so you're probably very restricted if you choose to use a nonstandard network size.

Oddly enough, yes - ISPs really shouldn't be restricting your internal infrastructure. If your ISP is being a dick about this then the answer is pretty obvious - switch to another ISP, it isn't as if ISPs are thin on the ground.

Well, for somebody who is part of a wholly-dishonorable species to do something honorable would require them to be the exception in the first place. So, anybody capable of doing what you ask, wouldn't have to. :)