Mars with 3 different scopes - comparison

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:51 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:03:45 AM UTC-4, critter wrote:


Tolerance in all things. Those who would set arbitrary rules for others are usually transparent hypocrites or insanely jealous of other kid's toys. A little maturity would go a long way around here.

You ride bicycles and use a helmet, correct? If you happened to be riding alongside a stranger who wasn't wearing his helmet, then peterson supports the idea that an automated car should "decide" to run over you instead of the other guy, in order to "minimize the harm" as he would say. Do you go along with that?

Realistically, why would a car make any decision based on helmets or
lack of helmets?

Presumably, it would be programmed to hit as few of the motorcyclists as possible, and would need some basis on which to hit.

And if every other factor canceled out, such that the
helmet was the only factor left, wouldn't it make the most sense to
hit the rider with the helmet, since he's the one most likely to
survive?

No, he will be severely injured even with the helmet. If the accident began with a pedestrian running out into traffic, why should the innocent, helmeted motorcyclist suffer at all?

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:04:38 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:51:52 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:43:17 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:37:45 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:33:12 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Stardust just seems to be another person so lacking confidence that he
finds it necessary to define for others the right and wrong ways for
them to enjoy their hobbies. Reminds me of a couple of others around
here.

Such as you, LsD, da'void, palsing.

Not me. Not David. Not Palsing. But yes, LdB. And you.

Not me. You, LsD, da'void, palsing. Oh, and I left out "roland" the first time. You each presume to know what is best for others and/or hold yourselves up as "standards."

Not Roland, either. I've never told anybody that the way they were
practicing astronomy was wrong. Nor has David. Nor as Palsing. Nor has
Roland.

We're not talking about just astronomy. You and the others I mentioned believe that you know what is best for others in a wide area of issues and you support government policies that would make such decisions for others.

No. We have opinions about what would make the world better according
to our own worldviews. I've never told you that your beliefs about
matters of philosophical viewpoint were wrong or incorrect.

You constantly criticize both me and my statements. You even resort to uttering falsehoods about me.

You, on
the other hand, do that to others all the time.

No, actually I try to reason with you, but there seems to be no reasoning with you.

You are the one that
insists we must all live according to your limited view of how
societies should work.

No, you wish to give governments power to control all sorts of things. You wish to take decision-making out of the control of the individual.

StarDust:
Are we observing the heavens or just tinkering with gadgets?

Perhaps a bit of the latter in order to achieve the former? Of my time
in my little observatory I would estimate that 5% is spent tinkering
and 95% spent observing or photographing.

Like buying a car, that sits in the garage, not driven but fixing it all the time to run faster,
more efficient.

That is analogous to what antique automobile collectors do. Restore,
repair, rarely drive. Unless it's a show car, then they never drive it.

A better, if equally nonsensical, question would be, when driving to
the grocer store, "Are we driving a car or going to buy groceries?"

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:57:58 AM UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
StarDust:
Are we observing the heavens or just tinkering with gadgets?

Perhaps a bit of the latter in order to achieve the former? Of my time
in my little observatory I would estimate that 5% is spent tinkering
and 95% spent observing or photographing.

Like buying a car, that sits in the garage, not driven but fixing it all the time to run faster,
more efficient.

That is analogous to what antique automobile collectors do. Restore,
repair, rarely drive. Unless it's a show car, then they never drive it.

A better, if equally nonsensical, question would be, when driving to
the grocer store, "Are we driving a car or going to buy groceries?"

The question should be "Are we going to buy groceries or just driving a car?"

We tinker with gadgets to, perhaps, aid our observing.

We drive a car to, perhaps, aid in going to the store.

I can walk to the store, but perhaps you live too far away to do so? Certainly peterson does.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

No. We have opinions about what would make the world better according
to our own worldviews. I've never told you that your beliefs about
matters of philosophical viewpoint were wrong or incorrect.

You constantly criticize both me and my statements. You even resort to uttering falsehoods about me.

Do you think your views are above criticism? The point is, I don't
tell you that your views on matters of value are wrong. Only that I
disagree with them.


You, on
the other hand, do that to others all the time.

No, actually I try to reason with you, but there seems to be no reasoning with you.

You have no clue what reasoning is.

You are the one that
insists we must all live according to your limited view of how
societies should work.

No, you wish to give governments power to control all sorts of things. You wish to take decision-making out of the control of the individual.

That is not telling other people what to think, or telling them they
are right or wrong. And again, you are totally missing the point here.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:51 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:03:45 AM UTC-4, critter wrote:


Tolerance in all things. Those who would set arbitrary rules for others are usually transparent hypocrites or insanely jealous of other kid's toys. A little maturity would go a long way around here.

You ride bicycles and use a helmet, correct? If you happened to be riding alongside a stranger who wasn't wearing his helmet, then peterson supports the idea that an automated car should "decide" to run over you instead of the other guy, in order to "minimize the harm" as he would say. Do you go along with that?

Realistically, why would a car make any decision based on helmets or
lack of helmets?

Presumably, it would be programmed to hit as few of the motorcyclists as possible, and would need some basis on which to hit.

It would not be "programmed" to hit or miss anything. It is an
autonomous machine that makes a complex decision based on dozens of
physical inputs, thousands of physics calculations, and some kind of
cost/benefit algorithm. Most likely it would hit nothing. All experts
agree that automated cars will hugely reduce traffic fatalities. But
if every solution requires hitting something, a computer has the
resources to do things humans can't, such as recognizing that hitting
a larger group might lead to less harm because of the nature of the
actual collision.

And if every other factor canceled out, such that the
helmet was the only factor left, wouldn't it make the most sense to
hit the rider with the helmet, since he's the one most likely to
survive?

No, he will be severely injured even with the helmet. If the accident began with a pedestrian running out into traffic, why should the innocent, helmeted motorcyclist suffer at all?

"Innocent"? I don't even know what that means.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:29:39 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

No. We have opinions about what would make the world better according
to our own worldviews. I've never told you that your beliefs about
matters of philosophical viewpoint were wrong or incorrect.

You constantly criticize both me and my statements. You even resort to uttering falsehoods about me.

Do you think your views are above criticism?

Why do you ask?

The point is, I don't
tell you that your views on matters of value are wrong. Only that I
disagree with them.

Let's see if you can avoid criticizing me and my views. Let's see if you can avoid committing any more libel.

I'll go make popcorn.

You, on
the other hand, do that to others all the time.

No, actually I try to reason with you, but there seems to be no reasoning with you.

You have no clue what reasoning is.

We'll that didn't take long. You just criticized me, again.

You are the one that
insists we must all live according to your limited view of how
societies should work.

No, you wish to give governments power to control all sorts of things. You wish to take decision-making out of the control of the individual.

That is not telling other people what to think, or telling them they
are right or wrong.

A law against teaching religion to children would be, in effect, saying that it is wrong to do so according to those who made the law. And that law is something which you have proposed.

And again, you are totally missing the point here.

Your point is invalid, peterson.

Mike Collins:
...
You should be pleased that someone who could afford it is spending money on
expensive telescopes providing employment and paying the sales tax you like
so much.
Trickle down economics in action.

I like it! After all, the poor have always gotten ****ed on, haven't
they?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:51 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:03:45 AM UTC-4, critter wrote:


Tolerance in all things. Those who would set arbitrary rules for others are usually transparent hypocrites or insanely jealous of other kid's toys. A little maturity would go a long way around here.

You ride bicycles and use a helmet, correct? If you happened to be riding alongside a stranger who wasn't wearing his helmet, then peterson supports the idea that an automated car should "decide" to run over you instead of the other guy, in order to "minimize the harm" as he would say. Do you go along with that?

Realistically, why would a car make any decision based on helmets or
lack of helmets?

Presumably, it would be programmed to hit as few of the motorcyclists as possible, and would need some basis on which to hit.

It would not be "programmed" to hit or miss anything.

Then what good is it?

It is an
autonomous machine that makes a complex decision based on dozens of
physical inputs, thousands of physics calculations, and some kind of
cost/benefit algorithm. Most likely it would hit nothing.

All experts
agree that automated cars will hugely reduce traffic fatalities.

There are no "experts."

But
if every solution requires hitting something,

Who said that?


a computer has the
resources to do things humans can't, such as recognizing that hitting
a larger group might lead to less harm because of the nature of the
actual collision.

Ok, so once we have these crazy robots to deal with, where should we stand in order to avoid their unpredictable behavior?

And if every other factor canceled out, such that the
helmet was the only factor left, wouldn't it make the most sense to
hit the rider with the helmet, since he's the one most likely to
survive?

No, he will be severely injured even with the helmet. If the accident began with a pedestrian running out into traffic, why should the innocent, helmeted motorcyclist suffer at all?

"Innocent"? I don't even know what that means.

Try definition #2:

https://www.google.com/search?q=inno...utf-8&oe=utf-8

"not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences."

Again, stupid child runs out into street, automated car can't stop, swerves and hits which of two motorcyclists?

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 6:33:12 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:50:00 -0700 (PDT),
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:04:58 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:16:26 -0700 (PDT),

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:51:13 PM UTC-7, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:28:01 -0400, :

Exactly so. That's one less 1950's serial cable, though I still require
a Keyspan four-port USB-to-serial adapter attached to my MacBook Pro
because Robofocus connectivity is still in the 1950's and I have two
Robofocusers.

If you're interested in making everything wireless, you can get
serial-to-bluetooth adapters (they look like ordinary serial devices
on the computer end, and physical serial ports on the device end).
There are also serial-to-wifi converters that may work with your
setup. Of course, given your three clear nights each year, maybe
you're happy to just stick with what works. (On the other hand, given
many cloudy nights, maybe playing with instrumentation is just the
thing.)

Are we observing the heavens or just tinkering with gadgets?

Why not both?

Stardust seems to be asking the right questions and making insightful comments, unlike either you or da'void.

Stardust just seems to be another person so lacking confidence that he
finds it necessary to define for others the right and wrong ways for
them to enjoy their hobbies. Reminds me of a couple of others around
here.

Balancing the needs and the wants! Unless some one has too much money, don't know what to do with it.