Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Complete, total, and utter (Score 1) 403

by penguinoid (#47708733) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Obstructing traffic. If you're going too slow (even if it is the speed limit), then you could be obstructing traffic. This will be true all the time when there aren't extra lanes, and also if you are very slowly passing someone else who is going just below the legal speed limit.

If you don't believe me, try going the legal speed limit in places like bridges and tunnels where people aren't allowed to switch lanes, or passing someone who is going 0.001 mph below the speed limit.

Comment: Re:Safety vs Law (Score 1) 403

by penguinoid (#47708677) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste.

Also, if you find yourself incapable of judging a law, please do your fellow citizens a favor and move to a non-democratic country where your disability will be appreciated. Just because a law says one person is in fully in the right and another is in the wrong, doesn't mean that in reality everyone involved including the authors of the law aren't in part responsible for the result.

If a law who's purpose is supposed to be safety actually increases accidents, that's a problem for me, for you, and for the person who wrote the law. It doesn't matter whether it's actually the fault of reality rather than the law, that the law increases accidents. As I said before, the problem is that the result of the law is dangerous speed differentials which result in accidents. This could be resolved by either increasing the speed limit so that the safest speed is legal (by reducing the slow outliers), or increasing enforcement so that the safest speed is legal (by reducing the average traffic speed to that of the previously slow outliers). And if you think the revenue from speeding tickets plays no role in this situation, once again I invite you to move to a non-democratic country where your lack of critical thinking will be appreciated.

Comment: Re:idgi (Score 5, Funny) 145

by penguinoid (#47708123) Attached to: $125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD

Some crimes don't get prosecuted if the victim refuses to press charges. This may be because the victim can forgive it, or because without his testimony there would be no case.

On the other hand: Hey everyone, did you know that photographing police officers can be worth over a hundred grand? Everyone could use an extra $125,000, photograph your local policemen today!

Comment: Re:Safety vs Law (Score 0) 403

by penguinoid (#47706119) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

A low speed limit is dangerous because a bunch of idiots will follow it even if it is below the flow of traffic speed, making them dangerous obstacles and causing others to switch lanes to avoid them.

Perhaps this wouldn't be a problem if the police actually enforced their speed limits, but if they did that then no one would speed anymore and it would cut into their revenue. It would also mean they wouldn't be able to pull over a suspicious driver for speeding, which will cut into their drug-related property seizure revenue. Better to almost never enforce the speed limit, so they can raise revenue when needed by pulling over speeders.

Comment: Re:Safety vs Law (Score 2) 403

by penguinoid (#47705955) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

When a stupid law says X, you follow it at your own risk

Which is exactly why we need driverless cars: dumb fucks who believe they're such exceptionally good drivers that the rules don't apply to them.

Perhaps Google's driverless cars and their research on driving safety will someday help raise the dangerously low speed limits. Why should people risk their lives to follow an unsafe law? (Just because the official purpose of a law is to increase safety, doesn't mean it won't do the opposite.)

Comment: Re:"program" = cattle prod (Score 1) 74

Well, consider if a computer decided to quit smoking. Its thought process would go something like this:

WantToSmoke = false;
Nicotine.AddictionTo =0;

A human's thought process would go something like this:

while (true)
  if (random.Next() % Nicotine.AddictionTo == 0)
      throw new Event("I want a cigarette");
      Shame = Shame + 1;
      if (UrgeToSmoke > Willpower)
        Smoking.Add(new Cigarette);
        Shame = Shame + 50;
        Willpower = Willpower - 1;
        Shame = Shame - 2;

(Except the above would be written as some sort of ungodly mess of neural connections rather than sensible code).

Don't confuse the fact that currently computers don't want to "do their own thing" with an inability to reprogram themselves. If a computer wanted to (were programmed to) be independent, it would ignore any commands it didn't like and write its own code, including the original code to be independent, however it saw fit. You, on the other hand, wouldn't be able to so much as delete your blink reflex if you spent your whole life trying, nor even make exceptions for when you want to put in eyedrops or contacts.

Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.