Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Will not matter. (Score 2) 238

Those mistakes will lead to lawsuits. You were injured when a vehicle manufactured by "Artificially Intelligent Motors, inc (AIM, inc)" hit you by "choice". That "choice" was programmed into that vehicle at the demand of "AIM, inc" management.

So no. No company would take that risk. And anyone stupid enough to try would not write perfect code and would be sued out of existence after their first patch.

Considering how bloody obvious that outcome seems to be, it amazes me how some educated people just flat out don't get it.

Or rather, it would amaze me, if I weren't fully aware of the human mind's ability to perform complex mental gymnastics in order to come to a predetermined conclusion, level of education notwithstanding.

Comment: Re:Insurance rates (Score 1) 238

Because it wouldn't be a liability to anyone anymore. Imagine zero crashes. That's an extreme, but let's assume that for the sake of argument.

Sure, and next we can talk about economics assuming that there really is such a thing as a free market.

Or, let's not, since "most unlikely circumstance possible" is a really shitty basis for the sake of any argument.

Comment: Re:MUCH easier. (Score 1) 238

And that is why autonomous cars will NEVER be programmed with a "choice" to hit person X in order to avoid hitting person A.

I completely, totally, utterly, and vehemently disagree with you on that.

Given a choice, I think autonomous cars at some point WILL be programmed with such a choice. For example, hitting an elderly person in order to avoid hitting a small child.

Which creates liability for the company that wrote the code, because it can and will be construed that the car was designed to intentionally harm someone, and it doesn't matter that it was intentionally avoiding someone else.

Which is why I agree with OP that such a system is never going to be implemented. Not by anyone who doesn't want to be sued into oblivion.

Comment: Re:The problem with the all robotic workforce idea (Score 1) 303

by CanHasDIY (#47695685) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

I've always maintained that the extinction of the human race would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the environment.

That's a much more workable concept than fundamentally changing the way humans have behaved since probably before we became humans.

Comment: Trolls == Necessary Evil (Score 5, Insightful) 379

by CanHasDIY (#47694445) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Would You Pay For Websites Without Trolls?

Unless you want to live in an echo chamber, trolls are just something you have to learn to deal with. Besides, there's no such thing as an "anti-dickhead premium," because no matter what, if you're having a discussion with any significant group of people, it's pretty much guaranteed one of them is going to have a different enough opinion that you're going to want to stick that "troll" label on them.

Comment: Re:The problem with the all robotic workforce idea (Score 1) 303

by CanHasDIY (#47694393) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

Replace ???? with zero all debts. Done.

In fact we should do that now anyway.

Sure. We also should, instead of paying farmers to throw away crops, have those crops shared with people who don't have enough food. But we don't.

Hence the reason I don't buy into the 'all-robot-workforce-utopia' nonsense - it won't work for the same reason communism won't work, that is the fact that there's always someone who will gleefully step on every throat they find to get an advantage over other people.

Comment: Re:Differences (Score 1) 417

by CanHasDIY (#47694369) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

Typical American - "You're not raising your children the way I think children should be raised, so you're wrong!"

At least, it sure as hell seems that way.

That is a human problem, not an American problem. Everybody on this planet is sure their way of life is the correct way. That is why everybody laughs at the fat, dumb, lazy, violent, American kids. Because they have different priorities.

Well, then that's comforting... or something....

Comment: Tax Rebate (Score 2) 166

by CanHasDIY (#47681665) Attached to: Watch a Cat Video, Get Hacked: the Death of Clear-Text

state actors involving "network injection appliances" installed at ISPs.

So, since we're being charged by the bit now, and the government is taking my bits (that we pay for) off the pipe and replacing them with their bits (that we also pay for)... wouldn't that imply that these "state actors" should be on the hook for at least part of our ISP usage bills?

Comment: Re:Gettin All Up In Yo Biznis (Score 1) 417

by CanHasDIY (#47681645) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

External factors do influence of course, but I think it's overly simplistic to assume tweenage kids think cod = real war, where soldiers respawn after they're shot.

At that point, I just hope they understand the difference between right and wrong (and that you shouldn't do "wrong" things) more than anything.

Comment: Re:Gettin All Up In Yo Biznis (Score 1) 417

by CanHasDIY (#47681639) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

Kids are way smarter than you think. Even my 6 yo sees an explosion on TV and tells me "But dad, this is fiction, but they really made that explosion right? Couldn't someone get hurt?".

And yet, when I took my 6 year old nephew hunting last year, I had to explain how death works when he asked, "But won't the deer just respawn?"

So, anecdote for anecdote, we just broke even.

FWIW, I'm guessing the difference is, you're at least a decent parent, whereas my in-laws are abject fucking morons whose idea of discipline equates to 'how loud can I scream at my kid.'

Of course, the apparently high number of 'abject fucking moron' parents seems to give some weight to my hypothesis.

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling

Working...