Only in the legal sense that they won't be tried for murder.
In every moral sense, they had an obligation to deescalate the situation. She was not a threat to anybody but the cops, and the video proves it.
Just...no. You don't win a moral argument by trolling morality.
Certainly, they had a moral obligation to act. But morals aren't absolute. They shift based on context. The minute she leveled that shotgun, the context changed.
The video proves that the cops grokked the situation rightly. You can't deescalate a situation that is already escalated. You did notice that part, right? Maybe in your ivory tower, you can, but here in reality, you don't negotiate with somebody who is saying they are going to kill you while simultaneously bringing a weapon to bear on you.
The new context obligated the cops to preserve their own lives and the lives of bystanders (you did notice the five-year-old bystander, right?)
She was a threat to the cops, to the bystander, and a case could be made to society at large (pulling a weapon on a cop with the stated intention to kill him is, by any definition you care to invoke, sociopathic behavior.) Leaving aside the threat to society (and the host of morals that would, according to you, obligate all sorts of action) the cops acted morally by acting to preserve their lives and the life of the bystander.
Since you opened this with a troll, I'm going to close it with an ad hom. What would you have done differently in that context? I strongly suspect you have neither the training nor the temperament to react rationally (let alone morally) when threatened with deadly force. I think you would have just crapped your pants and froze.
To what end? It can't be enforced, and it could lead to serious legal problems if somebody did try to enforce it.
How would you compel an operator intent on criminal activity to comply with this regulation? One of the problems with well-meaning regulations like this is not their lack of common sense. It is, rather, their lack of enforceability.
By definition, an operator intent on criminal conduct is not going to be deterred by any regulation prohibiting or interfering with that conduct, right? He wouldn't be a criminal if he was.
And what happens to enforceability when some dolt weaponizes his legal quad copter with the firing mechanism from his legal AR-15? Interfering with the operation of that drone now becomes a 2nd Amendment issue, and that trumps any well-meaning "common sense" regulation. Just look at all the common sense pouring out of the gun lobby, if you are skeptical. The gun lobby successfully defeated common sense regulations (supported by a majority of gun owners in this country, btw) that would have prevented the sale of guns to people on the FBI's "no-fly" list by simply invoking the 2nd Amendment.
...because the goal is to be the first to produce an AI capable of replacing a human driver. Autonomous ground vehicles are a potentially lucrative space. The demand is already there; first to get a product into the space is going to clean up. Elon Musk knows this, and Eric Schmidt at Alphabet (Google's parent company) knows it as well.
The handoff problem is the number one challenge facing autonomous vehicle developers. Schmidt and Musk are trying to solve it, and it is only the approach to solving it that differentiates them.
Schmidt is lobbying hard to get the laws in the US changed to allow him to take the driver out of the loop, because the engineer running Schmidt's autonomous vehicle R&D, Chis Urmson, believes the handoff problem is unsolvable.
Musk, otoh, doesn't see any problem as unsolvable. He is willing to continue pushing for a solution, and that means continuing to use data from the real world use of the Tesla AI. Musk knows that this is a risky strategy.
Consumer Reports seems to agree with Schmidt's engineer. The last several paragraphs are a discussion of exactly why the handoff problem is, well, a problem. CR is advocating a very conservative approach to developing and marketing autonomous vehicles, because the handoff problem is too much for an AI to handle, and keeping humans safe is a big part of what CR is about.
Musk knows he's going to face litigation every time a Tesla is involved in a crash. He's prepared for that, because the payoff is enormous.
Sadly, most players will never make the switch because they rightly assume that it's too much of a headache. I can tell you with some authority, it is.
FWIW, the article was also accompanied by teases for articles with titles like "Do you really need a dedicated graphics card to play your favorite games?" and "Watch malware turn this PC into a digital hellscape."
So, in a bucket, consoles are better than hard to acquire, dangerous to build (ow, my bloody finger!), pricey PCs.
General relativity is very different than particle physics. That's why Einstein chose to ignore it.
OK, you are a troll or just ignorant. Einstein is one of the great contributors to quantum mechanics and received a Nobel prize for it.
I vote troll. I object in principle to feeding trolls, but I'm going to pile on here. Einstein had issues with certain implications of quantum theory, as did nearly all of his colleagues. "Spooky action at a distance" sums up Einstein's objections to the non-locality of the physical reality of quantum physics quite nicely, and Erwin Schrodinger's thought experiment involving a certain famous cat sums up everybody elses' philosophical objections to the kind of reality quantum theory implies.
It took a generation or two for mathematicians, philosophers, and physicists to overcome these early objections. Bell's theorem (as confirmed by Alain Aspect in the early Eighties) shows that we can have locality, or we can have GR, but we can't have both, though its reliance on no-hidden-variables is a weakness that has been exposed recently by the repudiation of von Neuman's no-hidden-variables proof, and by the resurgence of David Bohm's guiding wave theory (see: Wholeness and the Implicate Order by Bohm and check into DeBroglie-Bohm theory.) Everett's many worlds hypothesis solves all the philosophical problems that Bohr's empirically adequate but philosophically-challenged Cophenhagen interpretation introduced. (NB: Einstein objected to the Copenhagen interpretation because he felt it was incomplete, not philosophically wrong.)
Einstein was convinced that the tychistic reality implied by the probabilistic nature of quantum interactions in nature was somehow wrong ("God does not play dice with the Universe," as Einstein himself put it at one point) and that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement was absurd, which led to him proposing the famous reductio ad absurdum argument he and his collegues Podalsky and Rosen made against it. He fought (unsuccessfully) against these two specific aspects of quantum theory all his life, which is probably what our troll was alluding to. Our troll doesn't seem to understand that just because a scientist is famous and well respected, it doesn't mean that he can't be wrong.
What possible incentive is there for them to make it backwards compatible.
Selling cards to the owners of the millions of devices that already exist. Providing an upgrade path will keep people using your standard. By not making it backwards compatible there is a strong risk it will fail to be adopted.
true enough. But what if people *aren't using* the storage they already have, which I would argue is exactly the case with the vast majority of people with cell phones. Your argument loses most of its strength. phones are for entertainment, and entertainment devices don't need hundreds of gigabytes of fast local storage. I suspect the average user not only doesn't know the storage capacity of their phone, they don't care, as long as they can continue to do what they are doing, which is stream music and movies, and play Angry Birds. My friend just bought his daughter a refurbished 2013 Motorola that streams all her music and movies and only cost him $15. Why does she need a storage upgrade path? What does fast local storage give her that cloud storage doesn't?
They want to sell and obsolete as many devices as fast possible, one way to do that is with constantly changing and evolving the standards ensuring enough improvements to make a replacement desirable
If they want to sell more cards and hardware, keeping it compatible is the fastest way to do that. Even if I want this technology it is going to be years most likely before I have a device that can use it. So they are pushing any possible sale to me out by a long time. On the other hand if the card is compatible with what I have already, even with reduced performance, there is some chance I buy one immediately.
they don't want to sell more hardware, they want to keep selling hardware. a subtle but important distinction that I think you are losing track of. and by selling, I mean renting. Much better (read: more profitable) to sell the same hardware over and over and over again, than trying to convince a consumer to buy something new. Look how Cisco had to take extreme measures to remain competitive with their own damn products because people saw no need to upgrade to Cisco's latest and greatest. You couldn't buy a new Cisco router 15 years ago unless you agreed to destroy your current one. being on the cutting edge of technology is a fun, wild ride, but it is not a good business strategy for either the technology companies or their customers. you and I may be motivated to have cutting edge tech (you should see my gaming rig!) but most people are not going to buy a product just for bragging rights.
I don't agree with this strategy but it makes good business sense. Hell they don't even provide OS upgrades for most smartphones.
I don't think it is good business at all. It think it is a very short sighted strategy that has been tried before and usually fails.
And the lack of OS upgrades is one of the big reasons why I tend to shy away from most Android devices (with some notable exceptions). While there is a lot I like about Android better than iPhones, Apple at least continues to support their products after you buy them which matters to me at least. (Given what Apple charges they damn well should support them too...)
The holy grail for hardware companies is hardware lock-in, which is the hardware analog for the subscription model that software companies have managed to force onto the software market. As long as consumers can say they own the hardware, technology companies are going to have to compete with each other to get their hardware into consumers' hands. And they don't want to have to compete -- that cuts into profits. Better to carve up the market with an agreement (tacit or otherwise) among all the players. It took Microsoft thirty years to finally adopt the closed garden approach that Jobs (marketing guy) advocated for from the beginning and which drove Gates and Wozniak (tech guys) to go their own way. The phone hardware business is almost there, with Samsung leading the push, ably assisted by Android's explicit rejection of the GPL (see also: Tivoization) It is not a coincidence that profitability in their phone division went up when they locked down their boot loader.
Whatever overwatch tyrant is doing, it is merely exploiting design weaknesses in the published interface for third party devs. It is not an MMO Gider; Blizz can't leverage the DCMA, but Blizz could and did claim tortious interference against MDY (the company the created and sold MMO Glider to hundreds of thousands of WoW players.) Blizz extracted $6M in damages after its claims of tortious interference against MDY were upheld, and I won't be surprised if Blizz makes the same claim against the makers of overwatch tyrant.
And that is why Blizz is on the wrong side of this. Knowing where enemies and friends are in a game where combat is a significant part of the experience would be a decided advantage, so Blizz probably should have considered that and shut down (read: made private) that part of the published interface that exposed location information. If you are going to open up the interface to encourage third party devs (yay Blizz!) don't complain when the more unscrupulous segments of the dev community decide to try to exploit your generosity for their own gain.
Overwatch tyrant is not doing anything that Blizz's game developers didn't let it do, and now that it is commercially successful, Blizz wants a piece of it and is trying to get by law what it couldn't get through good design.
Musk may have a problem here. I wonder in all this analysis if anybody considered the possibility that the driver saw the truck and assumed the car's autopilot would deal with it, and went back to watching his DVD? Even if the Tesla's autopilot recognized that the situation was beyond its scope, would giving control back to the driver have averted the fatality? The answer is quite probably no.
In any wrongful death suit that the driver's family brings against Tesla Motors, what is going to be on trial is not the autopilot technology, but whether or not its capabilities were accurately represented to the public. The fact that a DVD player with content actively queued up was found in the wreckage would support the idea that the driver -- at a minimum -- believed that the autopilot could handle whatever came along. Even if they successfully argue that Tesla Motors created no such expectation with their marketing materials, Musk's lawyers are still going to have to show that the autopilot could successfully transition control back to the driver in time to prevent the fatality. That is where I think Elon is in big trouble, because that particular problem, called the handoff problem, has not been solved, and probably can't be solved, according to anybody involved with autonomous vehicles (just google "driverless car handoff problem.")
If I were on Musk's defense team, I'd be pushing for an out-of-court settlement at this point. The handoff problem is exactly why Google will not go into the business of autonomous vehicles until federal regulations are rewritten so that Google can deploy vehicles on public roads with no human in the loop, period.
You'd be hard-pressed to reliably make the sorts of shots that that crew was making without optics and HUDs. I expect that the sensors and displays have gotten significantly better in the intervening decades.
So an aerial dog fight is like ground combat as long as one of the units is airborne? Where the relative velocities in one encounter are measured in Mach numbers, but are a couple dozen meters per second in the other? Something is definitely hard-pressed here, but it isn't the target acquisition ability of an air-to-air missile.
Just...no. There is a fixed amount of energy available to airborne objects in a dogfight, and most of it comes from the initial velocities of the objects at the start of the encounter. Think of it like a mana pool for your caster class -- missiles just sip it while fighters gulp it down. Each new vector acquired by an aircraft or missile bleeds off available energy, so encounters are necessarily brief. And missiles have another big advantage that is energy related: You can always fire another missile, which starts with a refreshed mana pool. The fighter's mana pool never gets refreshed.
So...the push to make fighters more maneuverable was to evade missile threats from the ground and air. Forward canards, vectored thrust, and variable geometry wings were developed to decrease the amount of energy required for a given change in vector required to defend against missiles, whose significantly smaller mass moment arms (four orders of magnitude smaller) made them inherently more maneuverable. And while it is (read: was) true that defeating the first several generations of missiles was possible by knowing and evading their ever-increasing sensor cone, that is most emphatically no longer the case, and hasn't been for a decade. During my time at the rocket ranch in the late nineties-early 2000s, I saw videos of Russian air-to-air weapons systems that made the fighter types in the briefings gulp in dismay. Passive (stealth) and active ECM are the only ways we have of defeating these current threats if we insist on having big, energy gulping objects that need to defend against smaller, more maneuverable objects that only sip at the available energy pool.
And don't discount the notion of disposability -- missiles, after all, are by definition disposable. But a kinetic kill doesn't necessarily mean that *both* objects have to be destroyed in a given encounter. A hypersonic missile equipped with a chaff ejector stuffed with depleted uranium ball bearings instead of magnesium can deliver enough energy against the cockpit of a fighter (structurally the weakest point because of human pilots' need to see with their own eyes) to guarantee a kill (literally, in this case.) And it probably still has enough energy to find and attack another target or three, effectively nullifying your kamikaze-aircraft-is-too-expensive disposability argument.
You make very valid points, but there is an issue that I think you are missing. All of what you say is basically true, except the part where you say voters don't have much of a say in NASA funding. they actually do, even if it is indirect. They elect the politicians that control policy, and theoretically this is a good thing. But our democracy is corrupted by special interests, so the voters don't don't always get what they voted for, while special interest groups get often get exactly what they paid for. And the fossil fuel industry definitely got what they paid for in the case of the guy voters in the 21st Congressional district elected to represent them in Congress, Lamarr Smith. Smith is an anti-science, religious nutbar from Texas, a card-carrying climate change denier firmly in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, who incidentally believes the age of the Earth is "10,000 years or so."
The Republican leadership in Congress put Smith in charge of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over programs at NASA, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This one guy basically controls the $39B US government R&D budget. So, what did the fossil fuel industry's money buy them? Check out this brilliant piece of legislation sponsored by Smith. In a bucket, he is trying to get a law that prevents the EPA from getting data from real scientists, and at the same time, forces the EPA to use "data" from oil and gas industry "experts."
I mentioned all this so that you can understand why it is going to take more than balls and a desire to explore to rescue NASA, and why even if voters did care about science policy (remember I agreed with you when you said they didn't) the damage is already done. NASA is now in Smith's sights because they had the temerity to defy Smith by providing independent confirmation of climate change when Smith accused the EPA of using "secret science" to confuse Congress during hearings on the "myth of climate change" as Smith repeatedly characterizes it. Smith is going to strangle funding to NASA if they don't stick to a fossil fuel industry approved script of research activities (read: stop doing research on climate change and stick to patriotic buck rogers stuff, or else.)
RAM wasn't built in a day.