Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Fighting Piracy is Good for Open Source (Score 0, Flamebait) 286

by o5770 (#41512149) Attached to: Illegal Downloading Now a Crime In Japan With Increased Penalties
I'm a struggling open source artist trying to make some cash, but as long as pirates are allowed to download what they want.. well, they will download the popular songs and not mine. By fighting against piracy, we open source artists win as people have to listen to our music instead.

This is not only true for music, but also software development and everything else FOSS. If anti-piracy would win, then so would open source software.

Comment: Re:Oh, thank goodness! (Score 5, Informative) 149

by o5770 (#41474259) Attached to: .xxx Registrar To Launch Pr0n Search Engine
The entire premise is stupid. There is no such as "too much porn" because people have different interests. While you can pretty much find anything - and if you can't, there's people who do clips when you order from them - some niches can still be quite small. And let me tell you, people love their niches. For example I like japanese massage porn. If that's what turns me on, then hairy grandmas 58 isn't going to help much.

Comment: Must past this test (Score 3, Interesting) 508

by o5770 (#41465415) Attached to: California Legalizes Self Driving Cars
Here is a scenario where if a self-driving car can pass 100% of the time, then I would deem it safe to get into.

Driving on a mountain road around a sharp corner where there is a steep cliff on the right side. Auto-car is passed on the left by some *sshole "manual" driver, but then the *sshat driver cuts in short because of oncoming traffic at the last second. Robo-driver identifies there is suddenly a car intruding into its safe-T-zone (TM) and does what its programming tells it to do, avoid hitting other vehicles. So the self-driving wonder swerves right to avoid the other car and zooms off the cliff.

A human driver would recognize that hitting the other car in this instance is the safer solution then to go careening off the steep cliff.

I agree that a self-driving car can work, and 99% of the time will perform adequately to protect its occupants from disaster. But since we have not mastered true AI yet, all self-driven cars will be built with flaws in their logic that will fail catastrophically. "Avoid hitting all cars", for instance, is not a good enough directive to ensure the safety of the occupants in 100% of all situations.

Someone mentioned that the deaths caused by self-driven cars would be far less then manual drivers, but then I would disagree that any technology introduced on the highways would be adequate to allow any fatality, especially in scenarios where a human driver may have been able to avoid death.

Basically what I am waiting for is the inevitable 100 car pile up with massive fatalities that WILL occur at some point in time where investigation will identify that a self-driven car, or cars, was the cause of it. Any company involved in programming or manufacturing that self-driven car will be sued out of existence and the "love affair" everyone seems to have about auto-driving cars will end quickly.

I am amazed at how delusional governments are into so quickly allowing this technology on the roads, sounds to me like there is some massive lobbying going on to short-cut the necessary amount of time to test auto-driven cars under all senarios, not just ones in controlled and predictable setups like we have seen. 5 years ago robo-cars could not drive around a dirt track, now they are quickly being allowed on our highways. That just is irresponsible.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw

Working...