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).
People usually point to the "expected value" as an argument that it's a bad bargain.
But it seems to me that the expected value is meaningless unless the experiment is performed often enough for the Law of Large Numbers to even out the results.
So, if a person plans to buy daily a ticket at 1/100 odds, you can make an expected-value argument. But if they plan to buy daily a ticket at 1/175000000 odds
- 1. Not fair that some offenders get shamed and some don't (on top of paying the normal penalty), depending on the whims of the police; in the U.S. this would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause;
- 2. Illegal that the police are effectively adding their own punishment, without any legal basis, on top of the punishment put into law by elected lawmakers --- if lawmakers had wanted public shaming to be part of the punishment, they could have made it so;
- 3. Unconstitutional that the punishment will apparently be put on accused rather than convicted people.
There was a Doctor Who novel, I think this one, The Murder Game by Steve Lyons, where there was an "Assassination program"... a sophisticated malware package that just required to be configured with the victim's name, and it would search out means to physically kill them via computer-controlled objects.
I'm no expert, but even today it sounds almost possible. You need: (1) a way of tying victims to physical objects and locations (DMV records, toy purchases, planning permission applications,
If that sounds like an implausible engineering effort, remember that malware packages are incrementally improved on and made more powerful over time... it would start out with some simple and unlikely-to-succeed algorithms, and evolve into something with a huge array of killing options.
(Maybe at that point people would start taking privacy seriously.)
Am I the only reader who feared this? I enjoy holding my reader casually, carelessly, not having to worry about accidentally triggering a page turn, highlight, or dictionary lookup by just "holding it wrong". With a touchscreen, the necessity of holding it carefully is a distraction.
Wouldn't it make sense to include a software option to disable the touchscreen when it's not wanted?"
"Pseudo-autonomy" is where the driver is expected to be alert and ready to take over. Therefore,
Autonomous car is to Chauffeur
Pseudo-autonomous car is to Student Driver
Ever chaperoned a student driver? Nerve-wracking, and harder than just driving the car yourself. Forget it.
Link to Original Source
Yeah the Second Amendment sucks. But the Bill of Rights is too important. PLEASE DON'T MESS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Do you really want to open up a discussion on whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion needs a little "fixing"? For every enumerated right that you care about, there are huge numbers of people who'd be glad to see it deleted.