Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If the people controlling the drone--the software engineer, the CEO, whomever--intentionally or recklessly caused the person to be hit, those people would be criminally charged by the state.
So...the programmer that wrote the code, or the QA guy who signed off on it, or the software engineer who designed it, or the platform guy who deployed it, or the product manager who owned it, or the CEO who ordered it, or the hardware engineer who designed the drone, or the factory worker who assembled it, or...all of them? Criminal liability in an autonomous system is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. Now, this isn't new - some percentage of cars fail catastrophically and kill people (not because of driver error) and some of those may be because of errors of people at $car_company - but that isn't to say that we have it totally under control.
Unless you read page 9374 of the TOS and EULA for the game at download time, you would not know that someone was about to sock your account for anything. The game does not have to tell you that it is going to charge your account. It simply asks for a password.
This is pretty much patently false for Apple in-app purchases. Unless you have any examples of apps that don't explicitly say "$0.99 for 30 coins" or whatever, because I have *never* seen such a thing.
the police did apply for a warrant, but knowing it would take 24 hours or something to get, they went ahead and tapped the line anyway because they were fearful something might happen to the family
One solution to this problem is to let the police wiretap without warrants. The better solution is to have a system where a judge can be woken up in the middle of the night with a warrant to sign - if it's truly urgent enough and valid, he can sign it. If it isn't, he can give the cops an earful and tell them to stuff it.
As for the borrowing stuff - how is that supposed to work? So Ellison borrows against his shares (fair enough) and buys something with it. So now he has to pay back the loan. That payment needs to come from income, and for that he pays tax. Seems fair.
Nah, you're not being nearly creative enough. Ellison has no income, you see, so he can't pay back his loan, so the bank collects on the collateral, cancels the loan, and now Ellison has $1 billion and the bank has $ 1.05 billion in stock (or whatever). Easy peasy.