So if the car is already stopped (on I-90, due to traffic, for example) and a semi is coming up from behind with a sleeping driver at the wheel, then what should the car do?
Well, if we apply Asimov's rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Then we start with rule #1:
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
So, the car is not allowed to drive into the pedestrian. Nor is the car not allowed to drive into the pedestrian (as that would be inaction that would get the occupant of the car killed by the semi.)
Therefore, based upon a classic Star Trek episode "Nomad! Execute your prime directive!" (or perphaps the M5 episode is a closer match?) I believe that the car when faced with this dilemma would self-destruct or shutdown.
If the choice is to run over a pedestrian or be run over by a semi, I wonder what the car driving software chooses to do... Would the user manual clearly spell out the answer? Is there a configuration menu somewhere where I can tell the car whether I would prefer to have the car take another life if it would save my life?
But oh, we can't do that, because it would put so many DEA agents and overpaid government contractors out of work!
Not to mention a large number of private companies that own and operate prisons for the government. For those companies, mo' "criminals" = mo' money.
The right hand seated pilot kept his stick hard back, which is against all of his training - he shouldn't have been trying to raise the nose that much at all, and yet he kept the stick hard back for minutes at a time. It wasn't until the senior pilot, being summoned from the cabin where he was resting, queried the action being taken that the pilot flying stopped his action, but by then they were seconds away from hitting the water.
There is no issue with the Airbus flight controls
The issue is that neither of the other 2 pilots in the cockpit visually observed what the junior pilot was doing with his stick. If it had been visually obvious to the other pilots that the junior pilot was pulling his stick hard back then they would have corrected his mistake and the plane would not have crashed.. They couldn't see what the junior pilot was doing with the stick. Lack of control input visibility would seem to be an issue.
That's what I read on the internet, anyway.
Well perhaps the OS should ask the user "I see you've just plugged in a USB device that claims to be both a keyboard and a network adapter. Do you want to give this device both keyboard I/O and network access to your PC?"...
Basically, the same way that when you install an app on a mobile phone, the system prompts you for what capabilities you want to grant the app, your PC OS could do something similar for USB devices.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." - John Kenneth Galbraith
The free market would charge market rates for the parking spot. The only way this App can make money is if a person has a financial incentive to hold onto a spot longer than they need it.
Put another way: If the city charged the market rate for every minute that someone was using a parking spot, then that user would have the proper incentive to vacate the spot as soon as they were done using it.
None of the top-100 off-contract smartphones on Amazon.com are more than $250. I'm sure there are off-contract phones that cost $650+, but not a lot of people are buying them on Amazon.
Agree completely, wish I had mod points.
”So many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Obey your father. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. What if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the innocent?” - Jaime Lannister
Games are about interactive gameplay, not hi-def graphics.
Good games challenge the player with interesting choices, and do not attempt to cover up a void of interesting choices with reams of meaningless dialog in very pretty non-interactive cutscenes and the like.
I don't think that same sex marriage requires that one or both spouses be homosexual. Two heterosexual people of the same gender can choose to get married.
The government does not force married couples to have sex with each other, nor does it require that they have offspring.
If you tax at 100% interest rate, you'll get no tax revenue, because people will have no incentive to work and/or people will move out of the country to avoid taxes.
I don't want to appear to be arguing in favor of 100% taxes, but I think your statement is not correct. Suppose you had a communal society in which the government confiscated (aka taxed) 100% of your income, but then spent all the money it took in providing you (and your fellow citizens) food, clothing, shelter, etc. In that case you would have an incentive to work even at 100% taxation, because if nobody did anything then everyone would starve and/or freeze to death. Of course something like this was tried by the USSR, it required walls to keep people in, and it eventually failed against better economic systems in place elsewhere in the world.
Anyway, with 100% taxation I think you would still get revenue if all the tax revenue was perceived to be being spent wisely on the taxed.
Any Canadian politician who wants to lose an election just has to propose piping precious Canadian water down to those Yanks.