If you see how the police released a video of the killing of 12 year old Amir Rice thinking it would show up the cops in the car as innocent, then it's systemic.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
At face value your example is stupid because it's a single case , but indeed there is a very valid argument that if one species can be infected by a virus while the other is completely immune , it means that viruses are very much adapted to us as well and that makes it likely that a newcomer is immune rather than vulnerable.
The most embarrassing Invasion ever - do you think they still have assets in space or were they dumb enough to commit everything?
It was probably some kind of private enterprise with more ambition than competence. Martians are mostly harmless really.
That aliens would be vulnerable to our viruses and diseases?
Maybe our viruses wouldn't be able to interact with them at all. Which way does it go?
The way we have most experience with, a population exposed to and being decimated by a disease from elsewere ?
What about the alternative, a disease not being able to lock on to a population that is too alien? Is that possible?
- the US has accelerated the development of malware and lifted it to a new level.
- the US has lots of advanced technology that's vulnerable to malware.
So if there's a cyberwar between backward North Korea and the US , who you'll think will lose?
Sensible comment. There's a marketing story about how a toothpaste increased their sales by 15% just by increasing the size of the opening of the tube. Since then, they've all done that. And with they I don't mean toothpaste brands. Think about it the next time you squirt some detergent in the sink
But as small as the stakes might appear, highly specialized bots like this one, which can only do one thing (in this case, bring up to 10 pounds of stuff from the lobby to someone's door) are a better glimpse of our future than any talk of hyper-competent humanoids or similarly versatile machines.
Rule 34 has no minimal requirements for robot capabilities.
I agree. The moment everyone has a car with the autopilot option there will be pressure to enforce autopilot in some conditions. But that would be a later evolution. First everyone switches voluntarily to the option, then afterwards the use of the option becomes less voluntary.
It's easy to see that self driving cars will come if you look at it as a feature. Take a normal car with a self driving button that you can switch on and off at your own judgement. You don't have to use it, but slowly you start to detect situations where the self driving button comes in really handy, such as traffic jams. And then some slow city traffic. And as confidence grows you switch it on on a long highway journey.
So you end up with all the cars having the option but some never use it, others sometime, some as much as possible.
Clarkson has not announced new job yet.
Conceptually, I understand that everything is on the internet. It's nice to actually see it from time to time. Especially when it's not porn.
yeah, I wonder how parent post found the link. Probably browsing for something..
Yeah right. Now put it differently, suppose a number indicates your desiring to die at any given moment. The number fluctuates all the time. Then you can distinguish between a function with a few dangerous peaks and one with a dangerous level for the baseline. Making access harder for those who are just having a difficult period is bound to have results.
What you then get is a tradeoff. To what extent are you willing to restrict someone's freedom by just making some things harder, to build in delays here and there, just to get them past the dangerous period. I think compromises can be made there. The two groups i don't like here at both sides of the spectrum, those who never interfere and those who want to decide for you what's best for you and don't even realize they're compromizing other values.
No. We've been lucky. And yes, there have been successful attempts to get them better under control. The first 20 years were pretty reckless and afterwards there also have been unintended close calls.
Yeah, using nuclear bombs as an example of restraint isn't very enlightened. We made bombs for one purpose, and when that purpose went away we instantly found another use for them as soon as we had the first bombs ready, and then proceeded by furiously making as many of them as possible. The main reason we haven't blown up the planet a few times is luck.
Overripe Camembert Mortars? Munster grenades?