|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#611
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
|
#612
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:16:51 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: You know that, do you? How much of that technology spilled out into other areas? How many private companies were involved (there were private companies in soviet Russia)? How many people got rich and had money to spend on luxury products? The average Soviet did not benefit, but did have to work to support their space program. Maybe a few people who didn't create any wealth did manage to acquire some anyway. What does the "average Soviet" have to do with anything. We're talking about wealth creation, not wealth distribution. Wealth redistribution is what socialism is all about, peterson. Wealth creation... not so much. Again, only because you confuse economic socialism with social systems. The only way that governments can spread wealth around is if someone else creates some first. Wealth is created in many ways. By individuals. By companies. So far, so good. By organizations. Be more specific. By governments. BZZZZZT! Wrong answer! The issue of creating wealth, and the issue of spreading it around are very different. You seem confused. It is not clear which you are actually talking about. I'm not confused. Capitalism creates wealth, socialism does nothing but spread it around. Why do you lump NASA and social programs, the first specific and the latter broad and undefined? NASA never really made the average person wealthier. Again with the "average person"? You're confusing yourself. No, I have a clear concept of "average person." That said, I think that most people have had their personal wealth increased because of the investments made by NASA. That is an agency that has created a great deal more wealth than it has expended. It certainly has been interesting following some of their missions and seeing some of the scientific results. But the private sector would have ditched the space shuttle early on and replaced it with a better manned vehicle ASAP. NASA, a government agency not needing to show a profit, stumbled on with it for decades. It seems extremely unlikely that the country would be wealthier without NASA. It has generated vast amounts of the technology that drives much of our economy today. Actually, most of that technology came FROM the private sector, since NASA paid private contractors to build things. And where did NASA get the money? From public funds. IE, confiscated money. What do you think it means for the government to build wealth? I've not seen examples of it having done that. Do you have any? The government always spends most of its money in the civilian sector. Even the military does that. Had the civilian sector been able to just keep its money (wealth) it would probably have found more productive uses for it, generating more wealth. |
#613
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:09:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote: On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote: On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:18:02 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote: Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there? You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer. Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do you still beat your wife? Yes or no... Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes presumptions and does not reflect reality. You don't think your question is also a loaded question? A complex question? Of course it is! The tunnel problem is a plausible scenario. The car can't brake in time but it can easily divert itself a few degrees over the remaining distance, hitting the wall and killing its passenger(s). Now YOU have to answer the question of whether you would ride in a car that was pre-programmed to do so. Would you? That's a simple question. My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were made, or not made, prior to the incident. I'm pretty sure that 'programming' is the wrong word here... If a robot isn't programmed, it won't operate. Let us know if there are any words in there that you do not understand, palsing. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions... I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions... (See, I can say that too, only I'm right.) It's not a plausible scenario. How does the child get into the tunnel. The child isn't in the tunnel. He is in the middle of the road leading into the tunnel. The sensors on the cars should detect the movement towards the tunnel and slow down. That's just hand-waving. All these theoretical problems ignore the details. A vague state ment is not enough. The laws of physics dictate that it will take time for the car to stop, and in this case there is not enough time. More details for your scenario. The car can't stop in time. The car can't swerve without hitting the walls adjoining the tunnel entrance. The child was hidden behind a tree before suddenly entering the road. The problem is: Who should decide what the car does in this scenario? |
#614
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:11:14 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: In most cases, the car will be able to stop, because it will be aware of the situation much earlier than a human driver. That is not the scenario, the car is subject to the laws of physics and no, the car will not be "aware" of anything. That may not be the scenario you've tried to concoct, but it's a far more realistic one. This doesn't concern a scenario where the car can come to a stop, or a scenario where the car can safely swerve without hitting the the child. It has to do with a scenario where those two outcomes are not possible, and who should get to decide who gets killed in the resulting accident. Constructing an unrealistic scenario doesn't help anyone understand the actual issues that automated cars will have to deal with. This IS an issue that automated cars will have to deal with. Pedestrians DO step out in front of cars, peterson. So the driver/passenger doesn't get to decide? Thankfully, no. Then you wouldn't have any problem with riding in a car programmed to kill you in an emergency that you didn't cause. I would not have any problem riding in a car where one possible outcome of an emergency situation is my death, any more than I do riding in a car that someone else is driving, or an airplane that someone else if flying. A survey showed that fully two-thirds of people would prefer that the car be programmed to hit the child. Even if only a small percentage preferred that, they should still get to make that decision for themselves. It's called freedom and individuality, peterson. Here's another scenario, from http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._quandary.html Which motorcyclist will the automated car "decide" to hit, the one wearing a helmet or the one NOT wearing a helmet? |
#615
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:46:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Try these questions for size. This is what democracy is about. https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.c...314-083623.jpg Questions to ask the powerful. From Tony Benn If asked of a President of the US: WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT? See the Constitution. WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM? The Constitution. IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT? I am sworn to defend the Constitution. TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE? The Senate and the Chief Justice. HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU? Impeachment, or wait for my first re-election bid. |
#616
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:09:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote: On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:18:02 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote: On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote: Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there? You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer. Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do you still beat your wife? Yes or no... Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes presumptions and does not reflect reality. You don't think your question is also a loaded question? A complex question? Of course it is! The tunnel problem is a plausible scenario. The car can't brake in time but it can easily divert itself a few degrees over the remaining distance, hitting the wall and killing its passenger(s). Now YOU have to answer the question of whether you would ride in a car that was pre-programmed to do so. Would you? That's a simple question. My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were made, or not made, prior to the incident. I'm pretty sure that 'programming' is the wrong word here... If a robot isn't programmed, it won't operate. Let us know if there are any words in there that you do not understand, palsing. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions... I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions... (See, I can say that too, only I'm right.) It's not a plausible scenario. How does the child get into the tunnel. The child isn't in the tunnel. He is in the middle of the road leading into the tunnel. Children to not teleport into the centres of roads. The child should be detectable from a safe distance. The sensors on the cars should detect the movement towards the tunnel and slow down. That's just hand-waving. No! See above. All these theoretical problems ignore the details. A vague state ment is not enough. The laws of physics dictate that it will take time for the car to stop, and in this case there is not enough time. No! See above. More details for your scenario. The car can't stop in time. The car can't swerve without hitting the walls adjoining the tunnel entrance. The child was hidden behind a tree before suddenly entering the road. No! See above. Also the highway authorities should not allow such hazards. Tunnels need correct sight lines. I can't recall driving through any tunnel which didn't have a clear approach. If there's a toll the traffic will also be moving slowly. The problem is: Who should decide what the car does in this scenario? See above. It's part of the driving test here that you have to be able to detect such potential hazards. An auto drive car would have to be better than thus to be accredited. |
#617
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:46:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote: Try these questions for size. This is what democracy is about. https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.c...314-083623.jpg Questions to ask the powerful. From Tony Benn If asked of a President of the US: WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT? See the Constitution. WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM? The Constitution. IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT? I am sworn to defend the Constitution. TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE? The Senate and the Chief Justice. HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU? Impeachment, or wait for my first re-election bid. That's his point. Lots of persons with power are not elected or publicly appointed. Like newspaper proprietors. Like investment bankers. |
#619
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
|
#620
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote: On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:09:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote: It's not a plausible scenario. How does the child get into the tunnel. The child isn't in the tunnel. He is in the middle of the road leading into the tunnel. Children to not teleport into the centres of roads. Who said they did? The child should be detectable from a safe distance. How so? Also the highway authorities should not allow such hazards. Tunnels need correct sight lines. I can't recall driving through any tunnel which didn't have a clear approach. Well then, we'll be spending a huge fortune reworking roads, tunnels, bridges, blind curves, hills, sidewalks, historic neighborhoods, scenic areas, residential streets, city streets, etc., just to accommodate automated cars. Maybe some razor-wire along that parkway? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
climate change | Lord Vath | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | November 22nd 14 03:49 PM |
Climate change will change thing, not for the better | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 89 | May 8th 14 03:04 PM |
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | August 8th 12 10:43 PM |
Climate change | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 126 | July 23rd 09 10:38 PM |
Astronaut Mass Exodus coming | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 14 | June 23rd 08 05:30 PM |