Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

wrote:
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?

Because they didn't teleport into the middle of a road. The speed limit
near a tunnel with trees close enough to allow this should be low enough to
allow detection of hazards and an automated car would not exceed speed
limits.

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?

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:02:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 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.

So what do you propose to do with newspaper proprietors who you think are too powerful?

Like investment bankers.

So what do you propose to do with investment bankers who you think are too powerful?

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Because they didn't teleport into the middle of a road. The speed limit
near a tunnel with trees close enough to allow this should be low enough to
allow detection of hazards... edit

That's quite ridiculous.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:19:17 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

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.

They will. But choosing between whether to kill the pedestrian or kill
the car occupants will not.

Word salad.


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.

Most people are as ignorant of what autonomous programming looks like
as you, so they are unable to competently answer the question.

They can competently answer the question, as can I.

But
when it comes to what most people consider ethical, why would you
think the car wouldn't consider that in its decision making process?

I think that the vehicle's occupant(s) should get to decide.


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?

I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:55:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:19:17 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:


I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

So, who made you king? You make it sound like helmeted vs unhelmeted is at the top of the decision-making list.

The unhelmeted rider is too stupid to reproduce and should be removed from the gene pool.. right?

On the other hand, the helmeted rider is more likely to survive the impact, in which case, maybe no one dies.

What if the helmeted driver just robbed a bank and is running from the authorities? What if the unhelmeted driver is a father of 5 and works 4 jobs to make ends meet, and can't afford either a helmet or a car?

You have not presented nearly enough information for anyone to make an intelligent decision. Perhaps one of the collisions is head-on, whereas maybe the other would be between vehicles traveling in more-or-less the same direction, a glancing blow. This alone could make a huge difference in the decision-making process, what with the large delta-V difference.

Without more data, this decision is impossible to resolve, and more data would never be possible to obtain in your very sketchy and incomplete scenario. You haven't given this enough thought, because you are in such a hurry to find fault with everyone else. Apparently critical thinking is not high on your own to-do list...

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:55:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They will. But choosing between whether to kill the pedestrian or kill
the car occupants will not.

Word salad.

Maybe it's Alzheimer's?

I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

I agree. But that would never happen. That's not how autonomous
programs work. But that concept appears to be far beyond your grasp of
computer science.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:55:06 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:19:17 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:


I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

So, who made you king? You make it sound like helmeted vs unhelmeted is at the top of the decision-making list.

At the time of the accident, it would be.

The unhelmeted rider is too stupid to reproduce and should be removed from the gene pool.. right?

The helmeted rider is obeying the law, minding his own business and, out of the blue, is singled out by an off-site "driver" and a board of so-called "ethicists" to be run over.

On the other hand, the helmeted rider is more likely to survive the impact, in which case, maybe no one dies.

That's not a good, valid, ethical, moral, fair reason to have the automated car run over him.

What if the helmeted driver just robbed a bank and is running from the authorities?

The automated car would KNOW that?

What if the unhelmeted driver is a father of 5 and works 4 jobs
to make ends meet, and can't afford either a helmet or a car?

Maybe he COULD afford a car if automation didn't make them so expensive!

You have not presented nearly enough information for anyone to make an intelligent decision.

Exactly enough information has been presented in the article. The only new data that the automated car has is that one of two potential "targets" is wearing a helmet and the other is not.


Without more data, this decision is impossible to resolve, and more data would never be possible to obtain in your very sketchy and incomplete scenario.

The automated car will still have to "choose" to hit one or the other. Or to put it more precisely, its programmers with have had to decide long before the incident.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:04:07 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:55:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They will. But choosing between whether to kill the pedestrian or kill
the car occupants will not.

Word salad.

Maybe it's Alzheimer's?

Have you been diagnosed with that, peterson? It would explain a lot.


I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

I agree. But that would never happen. That's not how autonomous
programs work. But that concept appears to be far beyond your grasp of
computer science.

The so-called "autonomous program" still requires "input" from designers, peterson, whether they be programmers, "ethicists" or government bureaucrats.

wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Because they didn't teleport into the middle of a road. The speed limit
near a tunnel with trees close enough to allow this should be low enough to
allow detection of hazards... edit

That's quite ridiculous.



Not at all! That's how a responsible driver should behave.
N wonder the USA has twice our accident rate. As I wrote earlier but you
deleted detection of hazards like this is part of our driving test. It's
also a major part of the compulsory retraining for driving offenders.

wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:02:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 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.

Limit their media ownership to avoid monopoly.

So what do you propose to do with newspaper proprietors who you think are too powerful?

Like investment bankers.

So what do you propose to do with investment bankers who you think are too powerful?

Tax then. Ensure worker participation on boards, effective non executive
directors and compulsory shareholder control of salaries and bonuses. All
recently proposed by our new conservative prime minister.
Also limitation of political contributions.