Comment Re:Hi speed chase, hum? (Score 1) 443
This time only the bad guy died, but even him did not deserve capital punishment for a car jack
...
Nature -- specifically evolution -- disagrees. You don't get a vote.
This time only the bad guy died, but even him did not deserve capital punishment for a car jack
...
Nature -- specifically evolution -- disagrees. You don't get a vote.
So Tesla's anti-theft system is 100% lethal?
No, but evolution's anti-massive-stupidity system is pretty lethal. Less so nowadays, but... still.
"Hey, think I'll drive triple digits in a randomly active urban environment in a vehicle I'm not familiar with, while (justifiably) paranoid!"
A) Police can't initiate a high speed chase without someone that's already fleeing at high speed.
B) The police stopped chasing him.
C) He kept fleeing!
"Approaching" 100MPH is what many people do on the way to work every day where the speed limits are 75, and Tesla's should easily be able to handle that speed. Definitely operator error all the way in this case.
What is this, life -- or 2nd grade?
It seems outright condescending to try to make it all happy news. People die. Things break. Teams lose. Wars happen. DEAL WITH IT! Don't hide it!
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, congress does pretty much whatever it wants of late. Interstate commerce? nah... Intrastate commerce is so much more fun to regulate. Warrants to search? nah... so much more fun to just search as is convenient. Property rights? nah... they'll take your land for commercial reuse, it's potentially much more profitable. Ex post facto law? nah... sometimes, that's just the thing. Shall make no law? Oh HELL no. Rights that shall not be infringed? Oh, ho ho ho, isn't that quaint.
"Jurisdiction"
...but it should also be pointed out that when you bring said mined assets back into the USA, congress does have jurisdiction, and that's what this law primarily addresses, although it may also have direct implications for how US government crewed spacecraft will treat US citizen or corporation owned spacecraft carrying cargo.
So, you believe if I can take it from you by force, it's mine?
You should really read more carefully. Overzeetop said "get it and defend it."
"All things come to those who wait" -- however, they're the set of all things left around by those who got there first.
The only space law we really need: If you see a lawyer, SHOOT TO KILL.
There is no enforcement mechanism in the event of a dispute with another country, however.
Sure there is. Radar-guided missiles. Etc.
To be fair, it's much harder to see the difference on a monochrome o'scope. Once you get a color scope, you can clearly see that one signal is yellow and the other is red.
In that case:
Bad News! Google to stop showing bad news!
In a terrible decision that requires a call-to-arms, Google has decided to censor anything bad. Stop everything you are doing and take to the streets while coordinating through social media, and let your voices and/or rioting be heard! Only when Google mentions the protests in their news feed will can claim success!
The more shocking part of this article isn't that the patient wasn't cured of a disease for which we have no cure, but that anyone thought she was in the first place.
I think you're mischaracterizing both philosophy and science. If we accept the definition of philosophy as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" then most sciences are a subset of philosophy. And simply because there is a hierarchal structure to their categorization or origins does not give one authority over the other, any more than the first mammal has authority over lions. Neither do we say that lions have "far exceeded" the limits of mammals. Arguments that pit philosophy against science are just as nonsensical.
To be fair to the GP, the output of any human is predictable and explainable if we accept determinism. The only way the Lovelace Test can be valid is if we accept that people have souls (or some other attribute not subject to physical law) that in some way affect natural brain function, and find a way to reproduce that artificially.
Indeed, the whole idea of "unpredictable, unexplainable output" seems contradictory. When people do not behave somewhat predictably, when we cannot explain their actions, we typically label them as crazy. Intelligent actions are not inexplicable after analysis, even if they appear to be in the moment. The only way to satisfy that condition is to generate random output, which is the opposite of intelligence.
Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.