The final image sent by doomed Japanese Hitomi satellite

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:30:50 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:46:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:19:40 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:07:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

If a group of people uses the force of government to take money from others in order to fund special interests, that is stealing, by definition.

If a democratic society chooses to use their government to fund
anything at all, that demonstrates the people exercising their rights.

Word salad, peterson.

In other words, you can't understand the comment.

You aren't really saying anything, peterson, so there isn't anything to understand.


Show us an existing automated vehicle that works as well as a human driver. You haven't because you can't.

Nobody has suggested such a vehicle exists on the roads

Irrelevant.

The fact that you believe that shows just how clueless you are.

Oh, then you have evidence of an existing automated car that doesn't need a human driver? If so, present that evidence immediately.

(although they certainly exist in test environments).

Show us an -existing- automated car that you would get into and let handle all of your ground transport from here on out, WITHOUT you or anyone else monitoring it. Would you willingly ride in a vehicle that was programmed by someone else to kill you in order to save a child in the road or because it mistook a dog for a child?

I would happily get into a vehicle that reliably followed a reasonably
decided ethical code, consistently applied and openly described.

That is not an answer to the specific question that I asked, peterson.

Tough **** if you're too stupid to understand intelligent responses.

We still don't know if you would ride in an automated vehicle that was programmed to kill its occupants in order to save a wayward child in the road.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:34:17 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:09:23 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:40:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:20:10 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:09:09 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:41:52 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

peterson's libel edited out

You just made another libelous comment, peterson.

Well, since you won't say what you're responding to, there's no way of
knowing that.

Pointing out that you are making libelous comments is sufficient. You need to start working on your defense, such as it is.

The closest thing to libel I've seen around here is you editing out
comments by others, and even altering them.

Clearly, you do not understand the legal definition of libel, peterson.

When you say that someone is "under court-ordered this or mandated that" when such is NOT the case, then you are committing libel. Talk to your lawyer.

But when it's the truth, there is no libel.

What you wrote was NOT the truth, so it is libel.

Of course, I could have
you confused for someone else.

That is not a valid defense in court.

In which case it is an innocent
mistake,

That is not a valid defense either. You have made the same "mistake" over and over.

and in general it is not possible to libel a pseudonym.

My email address is known to people who know me or know of me.

But
if you want to provide your identity, I'll confirm if the county
records I found actually apply to you.

A better strategy for you would be to take what I say about this seriously, assume that -I- know the truth and that you do not, and refrain from any further defamatory language, period.

If not, I'll be happy to admit
that.

You have been told NUMEROUS times you are wrong. If you were smart you should admit fault, and apologize and behave yourself. But you are not man enough to do any of that, nor smart enough, are you?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:05:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:30:50 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:46:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:19:40 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:07:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

If a group of people uses the force of government to take money from others in order to fund special interests, that is stealing, by definition.

If a democratic society chooses to use their government to fund
anything at all, that demonstrates the people exercising their rights.

Word salad, peterson.

In other words, you can't understand the comment.

You aren't really saying anything, peterson, so there isn't anything to understand.


Show us an existing automated vehicle that works as well as a human driver. You haven't because you can't.

Nobody has suggested such a vehicle exists on the roads

Irrelevant.

The fact that you believe that shows just how clueless you are.

Oh, then you have evidence of an existing automated car that doesn't need a human driver? If so, present that evidence immediately.

(although they certainly exist in test environments).

Show us an -existing- automated car that you would get into and let handle all of your ground transport from here on out, WITHOUT you or anyone else monitoring it. Would you willingly ride in a vehicle that was programmed by someone else to kill you in order to save a child in the road or because it mistook a dog for a child?

I would happily get into a vehicle that reliably followed a reasonably
decided ethical code, consistently applied and openly described.

That is not an answer to the specific question that I asked, peterson.

Tough **** if you're too stupid to understand intelligent responses.

We still don't know if you would ride in an automated vehicle that was programmed to kill its occupants in order to save a wayward child in the road.

Since no vehicle would be "programmed" that way, the question is
invalid. The fact that you even use the word "program" here shows just
how ignorant you are about the nature of autonomous software.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:14:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

When you say that someone is "under court-ordered this or mandated that" when such is NOT the case, then you are committing libel. Talk to your lawyer.

But when it's the truth, there is no libel.

What you wrote was NOT the truth, so it is libel.

Of course, I could have
you confused for someone else.

That is not a valid defense in court.

In which case it is an innocent
mistake,

That is not a valid defense either. You have made the same "mistake" over and over.

and in general it is not possible to libel a pseudonym.

My email address is known to people who know me or know of me.

But
if you want to provide your identity, I'll confirm if the county
records I found actually apply to you.

A better strategy for you would be to take what I say about this seriously, assume that -I- know the truth and that you do not, and refrain from any further defamatory language, period.

If not, I'll be happy to admit
that.

You have been told NUMEROUS times you are wrong. If you were smart you should admit fault, and apologize and behave yourself. But you are not man enough to do any of that, nor smart enough, are you?

You don't know much about the law, do you? Truly, you may be the most
ignorant person I've ever encountered.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:08:41 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:14:58 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

When you say that someone is "under court-ordered this or mandated that" when such is NOT the case, then you are committing libel. Talk to your lawyer.

But when it's the truth, there is no libel.

What you wrote was NOT the truth, so it is libel.

Of course, I could have
you confused for someone else.

That is not a valid defense in court.

In which case it is an innocent
mistake,

That is not a valid defense either. You have made the same "mistake" over and over.

and in general it is not possible to libel a pseudonym.

My email address is known to people who know me or know of me.

But
if you want to provide your identity, I'll confirm if the county
records I found actually apply to you.

A better strategy for you would be to take what I say about this seriously, assume that -I- know the truth and that you do not, and refrain from any further defamatory language, period.

If not, I'll be happy to admit
that.

You have been told NUMEROUS times you are wrong. If you were smart you should admit fault, and apologize and behave yourself. But you are not man enough to do any of that, nor smart enough, are you?

You don't know much about the law, do you? Truly, you may be the most
ignorant person I've ever encountered.

You had better have the law explained to you, peterson. You need a lawyer.