"Patrick Lin writes about a recent FBI report that warns of the use of robot cars as terrorist and criminal threats, calling the use of weaponized robot cars "game changing." "

Only if the potential terrorist have never learned to drive. Because otherwise :
1) for criminal you will be far better off with a car which do not respect speed limit/red lights/stops if you want to run away
2) a terrorist can simply drive the bomb somewhere then set it to explode one minute later and go away. What is the difference if he drove it himself or not ?

Terrorism is the least worry with robot car.


As for point 1 , laws and insurance will be setting your car "ethics" and not you personally.

but that would be callous because , unfortunately potentially the looter might contaminate other innocent people and worsen the epidemic. And also they are making it worst by destroying the (already strapped) existing infrastructure to treat epidemic. Unfortunately with some people thinking the doctor spread Ebola, and the funerary practice and belief winning over simple science and hygiene, my expectation of the locals are low. Fortunately due to our own procedure ebola is unlikely to become an epidemic in our region.

At least in UK orwell book will not be removed from public library anytime soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...

The black market for radioactive material is crushingly predominately for military or civilian usage of country which have difficulty of getting the material by normal means for a variety of reason. Not terror. In fact let us count the incidents :
1) two incidents with the Chechen burying something in Russia in both case it was source which were orphaned.

2) 2 counts of some intelligence source pretending al quaeda or similar wanting to do radiological bomb (among them Jose padilla which was not even charged for that ! It tells you how much evidence or even capacity the guy had for that).
3) Russia Killing somebody using polonium. Oh wait that's not terror that's assassination by a major country

That's it. NONE of those involved scientist smuggling radioactive material. So why the heck such story come up on regular basis , when it is quite certain that the black market for radioactive material is NOT for terror.

A person which was arrested (even if it does not appear in their judicial case) or involved in a local scandal would in the past still find a job since no firm for a normal job would go as far as to send somebody to search their private life (your average job). But now a days , if you smoked pot and it is noted somewhere even if you have no judicial file, you get double whammy punished because people at job interview will avoid you. And that count for all sort of controversial shit. You get gay marrier ? published the ban ? Google do not forget. A job interviewer or neighbors googling could find out, even after you moved to anotehr town. In the past not so.

In all case, because now at job itnerview people can google your name, any transgression against the "middle way" can and will be reacted negatively by part of the society. But before google and search engine, it was relatively easy to correct (moving to the otther side of the country). Nowasayd not so much. This is the aprt about not forgiving. Because your transgression can be found out once documented *EVEN* much later , and still punished by society. And since society as an average middle way is nearly always either much more liberal to some of the "edge" (imagine finding out you are in a neo nazi party) or more conservative than the other edge (imagine people finding out your borderline sexual behavior) then you get fucked for your "trangression". Or even if you did something idiotic like that PR wioman and her twitter idiotic action ? You think anybody will hire her in a PR job now ? She is radioactive material because google *never* forget. But without google, she could maybe wait it out a year or two, then try somewhere else. With google ? not so much.

Hire older programmer which learned a lot and do less buggy code in average, rather than every few year a generation of youngling which suffer from NIH and must relearn everything the older knew, just because you can underpay them for long hours (or even instead of outsourcing). Yeah I know, controversial shit.

People apparently forget, that before google we all enjoyed a right to be forgotten. The *original* article were and are still available. They are simply not made conveniently extremly easy to get. And this was as it was before google. This is not censorship, as the original article are still available. Now with google you cannot ever be forgotten. A society which cannot forget , is a society which cannot forgive, is one where freedom are reduced. Understand this : freddom is not at what society willingly accept. Freedom is to be found at the edges what society may not like, like gay mariage, like smoking pot, or whatever legal or borderline legal variety of things. If you get caught and society never forget you have a much harder time, and people will simply forgoe their freedom rather than get fucked for life.
paradoxically if you remove the right to be forgotten you reduce the freedom of people because they know if they get caught in the gray zone, then society will never forget and they get fucked

Google is an asshat for reporting intentionally and I hope the european regulator whoop their ass for that. And most people do not understand that with their cry of censorship they are actually removing freedom to us all.

"It has been empirically shown that boys who had a history of high physical aggression, from age 6 to 12, were found to have lower testosterone levels at age 13 compared with boys with no history of high physical aggression. The former were also failing in school and were unpopular with their peers. Both concurrent and longitudinal analyses indicate that testosterone levels were positively associated with social success rather than with physical aggression"

Which put a crimp in "testosterone is baaaad".

The initial judgment was clear. The person which had debt but repaid them (the initial reason there was that judgement) did not have a right to change the news article because it was a fact, but they had a right to have the search engine not report them as a result. In fact this was how it worked before there was a search engine : if you wanted something forgotten you either moved out, or waited for some time. At that point if nobody checked the primary source directly (old journal article) then you were forgotten, as there was not a service/persons standing beside you permanently always telling everybody what you did wrong in the past. With google it is the case of having that person standing beside you telling everything you did so far as google can link it.

It was clear from the judgement and the right to be forgotten that further reporting it wide of the removal would go against the very basis of it. After all there is no difference between "mister ABC has fone stuff XYZ" and "mister ABC has asked google to remove link to article where he did stuff XYZ". Even if it was an error the first time it was clear after the first reported removal went that way , that google by continuing to do that went against the spirit and the basis of the right to eb forgotten. In fact i would argue that google did it intentionally, knowingly and contemptuously, respecting the letter of the law but hoping with a two pronged way this would undermine the right to be forgotten : 1) they intentionally continued reporting the link removal when they are not forced by law to do so, and it was obviously counter productive to the spirit of the law to tell that to news agency and 2) they intentionally agreed to remove link which were not covered by the right to be forgotten, for example from politician and prominent person doing illegal stuff.


Both actions shows this was not an accident and they did it to undermine the request. "doing no evil" is long gone. google now are clearly asshole.

The loss happened at the heigth of industrial revolution where there was a lot of other job openning, compeltely new job market for uneducated and untrained people.

Nowadays the job market for untrained and potentially uneducated job is *shrinking*. This is not the same as back when horse cariage were gone and automobile came in.

There is a high chance that untrained and uneducated job lost today, are definitively lost thru job market shrinkage. Think about that. Think about what that means for the economy as a whole when 100.000 jobs are lost. Nothing good for the economy or for the social stability.

If you can see how it was done, see what the flaw is, and improve on the flaw. A worthless system is a system which was tried and which you can learn from without trying yourself. That means million dollar of R&D spared. Plus not all part of the system will be worthless.

The treatment "true" cost in no way whatsoever the 7000$ price tag. Simply hospital and insurance are in a feedback loop leading to an increase of the price way over the production cost. That's why by the way governmental social insurance is better than private one, the private one and the hospital have all itnerrest into increasing treatment cost and premium cost, so there might be a few dispute , but in the end it is about who get which slice of the pie, NOT about making price lower. I am not saying it is a conspiracy , I do not think hospital and insurance are accomplice, but the environment and the fact they both profit from increased medical cost, lead to the situtation and pie splitting. A government social insurance does have all interrest into making sure price is lower. In this specific example rabbies emergency cost my neighbor 15 euro total, and rabbies vaccine and anti serum are actually massively produced by governmental institute.

Firstly not all animals in experimentation are killed or suffer. But even for those who do : one of the goal of ethical guideline is to avoid animal pain as much as possible. In fact in some case we go more out of our way to avoid unnecessary pain to animals in labs, than we do for human at end of life in hospital.

You simply have a warped view on lab experimentation which is not found in medical labs. Now you may have a point with *cosmetic* experimentation , but you won't find me defending those.

We do not "torment" and kill mice gratuitiously, a choice of word which certainly show quite inherent bias here. Usually you have to go thru an ethical comitee for animal experimentation (although the barrier is lower for lab mouse). Furthermore most of those animal experimentation have a clear goal to help develop cure or model for the human health. If you can't differentiate that from people misusing the computer of others, then I can't help you.

I bet you could not tell the difference between a civilian plane and a military plane flying at 30,000 feet over a war zone either.

I could. The civilian plane would have a radar transponder that said "Hi, I am Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17".

And an IFF on mode 3. And flying much higher than the military plane.