Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Now what could go wrong? (Score 2) 376

by fractoid (#47701695) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

and that's what should require a strong burden of proof on the part of the copyright holder.

Not any more! That's kind of the point of these pushes to alter the way copyrights are enforced online: They want to shift the burden of proof from the copyright holder to the alleged infringer.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 406

by fractoid (#47627097) Attached to: Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

A machine that has actually failed in some way has proven that it is not "100x more reliable" than anything. It is broken. It is no longer a matter of probabilities.

No it hasn't. A machine that will perform a given task correctly 9999/10000 times is 100x more reliable than a human that will only perform that same task correctly 9900/10000 times. A rare combination of factors that make the machine fail don't make it absolutely broken, any more than the human is "broken and no longer a matter of probabilities" if they make a mistake sometimes.

Believing that machines can be "aware" is the failure here.

I'm not sure what metaphysical definition you're using for 'aware'. When a control system (biological or not) gathers information via a sensor and processes that information in a way that can affect the system's behaviour, then it's 'aware' of the thing that sensor measures.

As for the straw-man argument about the stroke victim, consider this alternate scenario: You've got a passenger in the back seat of your conventional, manual-controlled car and you're heading to the hospital. You have a seizure and lose vision in both eyes. You're "aware" that your video sensors have failed, and refuse to drive further. Would I, the passenger in the back seat, prefer to be perfectly safe with the car pulled over, or would I prefer that you kept going despite failed sensors (maybe with me shouting out "left a bit!" "right a bit!" to try and guide you)?

Comment: Re:Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend (Score 1) 353

by fractoid (#47620169) Attached to: Microsoft Tip Leads To Child Porn Arrest In Pennsylvania
Oh right, I re-read your post and I see where you were going with it now. I concur. As for 'evil', I'm not sure I believe in any moral absolutes but I definitely agree with the sentiment that broken people do exist who have no place (or a very limited place which must be tightly constrained) in human society.

Comment: Re:But... but nucular is bad! (Score 1) 143

by fractoid (#47619661) Attached to: Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science
Both of those were pressurised water vessel reactors. Read up on the design and it's literally insane, "hey let's make a nuclear reactor so that if it ever has a leak it is guaranteed to melt down and probably explode." That design was never not going to end badly. Discarding all nuclear power based on those examples is like declaring 4-wheeled vehicles to be permanently infeasible based on the Ford Pinto.

Comment: Re:How big is it? (Score 0) 184

by fractoid (#47619631) Attached to: Man-Made "Dead Zone" In Gulf of Mexico the Size of Connecticut

I wonder if population studies have been done, how does the ecosystem recover after the algae bloom?

I haven't checked either, but I'd guess that the water will gradually absorb oxygen from the air until it reaches a livable level, at which point the surrounding ocean ecosystem will recolonize it.

"Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android