Mars with 3 different scopes - comparison

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:38:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.

Why would I avoid criticizing you. Man, you are dense!

You have no clue what reasoning is.

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

Not exactly a criticism, just a simple observation of fact.



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.

You are apparently not intelligent enough to understand what's
actually under discussion here.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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's pretty good for getting around safely.

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."

The educated world would disagree with that view.

But
if every solution requires hitting something,

Who said that?

You. You only focus on extreme and unlikely cases, while ignoring the
typical situation where the automated car totally avoids an accident
that a person couldn't. As usual, you refuse to look at the entire
picture.

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?

Some experts think this could be an issue, others not.

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

A swerve is a somewhat uncontrolled maneuver. The car will probably
avoid it completely and hit nothing. If it must hit something, it
calculates the equations of motion and figures out which hit is likely
to cause the least harm.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:18:04 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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

A swerve is a somewhat uncontrolled maneuver. The car will probably
avoid it completely and hit nothing. If it must hit something, it
calculates the equations of motion and figures out which hit is likely
to cause the least harm.

Snell is assuming that the motorcycle riders themselves will not take any evasive action! A motorcycle is much more maneuverable than almost any car, and skilled riders are much more aware of their surroundings than are auto drivers.

In any case, it is wrong to blame either a living driver or an autonomously driven vehicle which happens to collide with a person who darts into the road unexpectedly. This could undoubtedly happen to the Safest Driver in the World at any time.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:18:04 AM UTC-7, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

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

A swerve is a somewhat uncontrolled maneuver. The car will probably
avoid it completely and hit nothing. If it must hit something, it
calculates the equations of motion and figures out which hit is likely
to cause the least harm.

Snell is assuming that the motorcycle riders themselves will not take any evasive action!

They might be standing still at a light.

A motorcycle is much more maneuverable than almost any car, and skilled riders are much more aware of their surroundings than are auto drivers.

Not always.

In any case, it is wrong to blame either a living driver or an autonomously driven vehicle which happens to collide with a person who darts into the road unexpectedly.

The pedestrian would be causing the situation, but why should someone who did not cause the situation (the helmeted cyclist) be made to suffer as a result? A human will probably hit the brakes. In some situations the automated car will swerve. In some situations the human will swerve.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:14:30 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:38:49 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

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.

Why would I avoid criticizing you. Man, you are dense!

You would be a hypocrite otherwise?

You have no clue what reasoning is.

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

Not exactly a criticism, just a simple observation of fact.

No, just an opinion.

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.

You are apparently not intelligent enough to understand what's
actually under discussion here.

You have sidestepped "engaged discussion" and gone straight to the "empty insult" yet again, peterson.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:17:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:

Snell is assuming that the motorcycle riders themselves will not take any evasive action!

They might be standing still at a light.

'Might be'? so much for your 'exact' scenario. You are losing traction fast here.

A motorcycle is much more maneuverable than almost any car, and skilled riders are much more aware of their surroundings than are auto drivers.

Not always.

Yes, pretty much always.

In any case, it is wrong to blame either a living driver or an autonomously driven vehicle which happens to collide with a person who darts into the road unexpectedly.

The pedestrian would be causing the situation, but why should someone who did not cause the situation (the helmeted cyclist) be made to suffer as a result?

Why indeed? So, here you are basically saying that it is the pedestrian who should suffer. Why didn't you just come out and say this at the beginning? Of course, you were careful to specify that this pedestrian was a child, which somehow should change the ethics of the whole situation, implying that anyone who would choose to hit the kid would now be a child killer, you sick S.O.B.

A human will probably hit the brakes. In some situations the automated car will swerve. In some situations the human will swerve.

'Some situations'? More clear evidence that your so-called 'exactly enough information has been presented' scenario is completely full of holes.

What's your next lame zig-zag going to be?

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

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's pretty good for getting around safely.

It can't even pass a simple driving test!


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."

The educated world would disagree with that view.

You mean the pseudo-intellectual world would disagree.

But
if every solution requires hitting something,

Who said that?

You. You only focus on extreme and unlikely cases, while ignoring the
typical situation where the automated car totally avoids an accident
that a person couldn't. As usual, you refuse to look at the entire
picture.

Humans handle the routine stuff rather well, on the whole. It's the weird, freaky, uncommon things that a human will always handle better than a machine.

I have stated before that most auto fatalities are self-inflicted and avoided by most humans. Do you disagree with 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?

Some experts think this could be an issue, others not.

We won't really know why the machines will do what they do, or what they will actually do, therefore any "expert" who disagrees with me is no expert.

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

A swerve is a somewhat uncontrolled maneuver. The car will probably
avoid it completely and hit nothing.

That is NOT the scenario. There is no time to brake, there is time to swerve.

If it must hit something, it
calculates the equations of motion and figures out which hit is likely
to cause the least harm.

Again, you need to consider the question "The least harm to WHO?"

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:21:43 PM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:

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

peterson doesn't even know the difference between needs and wants.

Davoud wrote:
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?


Not my politics. I'm just amused a Snell supporting the privileges of
billionaires and at the same time jealous of those earning more than him.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:29:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.

Why would I avoid criticizing you. Man, you are dense!

You would be a hypocrite otherwise?

Thick as a brick!

You have no clue what reasoning is.

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

Not exactly a criticism, just a simple observation of fact.

No, just an opinion.

Some things are opinions. That you are largely incapable of reason,
however, is demonstrated by the fact that you don't reason. Well, to
be more precise, it's possible you are capable of reason but just
don't choose to demonstrate that on this forum.