say that to my face fucker not online and see what happens.jpgRTHKI wrote:
he might if he goes to college. unless he becomes another hurri
lol
a war of attrition it shall beRTHKI wrote:
ill probably get cancer from secondhand smoke
Meanwhile, who's going to let a perhaps critically flawed program make decisions for them for personal navigation? And hard-limiting speeds? What if you have to accelerate to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle or a sudden traffic jam/wreck?HaiBai wrote:
theoretically in infinite time a program will be fixed until there are no bugs. its just that thats not possible.Sturgeon wrote:
This magical program you're championing here would be incredibly complex, you might as well call it AI...
There is no way a program to drive cars could be implemented easily, think of how many millions of factors you have to account for to even navigate a road, the infrastructure required etc.
it is fairytale, but we could take steps at a time. for example we could broadcast the speed limit and not allow drivers to go above this speed limit. speeding would be eliminated
So yeah........................
NO.
Oh, but he's a teenager who's had his licence for a few months and wants to learn his degree online, he must be right in this.
I said something similar a few months back and FM jumped all over me. Why do we have speed limits at all if they aren't meant to be enforced? Why do we have selective enforcement when we have the means to hand people a ticket every time they cross the speeding threshold? Why create a scofflaw in the first place?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Meanwhile, who's going to let a perhaps critically flawed program make decisions for them for personal navigation? And hard-limiting speeds? What if you have to accelerate to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle or a sudden traffic jam/wreck?HaiBai wrote:
theoretically in infinite time a program will be fixed until there are no bugs. its just that thats not possible.Sturgeon wrote:
This magical program you're championing here would be incredibly complex, you might as well call it AI...
There is no way a program to drive cars could be implemented easily, think of how many millions of factors you have to account for to even navigate a road, the infrastructure required etc.
it is fairytale, but we could take steps at a time. for example we could broadcast the speed limit and not allow drivers to go above this speed limit. speeding would be eliminated
So yeah........................
NO.
In my opinion, laws should be universally enforced at all costs. It's the only way you get to a point where the only laws on the books are the ones that make sense instead of the extraneous bullshit that gets tacked on with every new legislative session.
P.S. - I can't think of a single occasion where I've had to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an accident or an emergency vehicle. Silly example.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
laws are not there to be enforced - laws are the to be followed. but that's something you'd probably never get your mind around.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Just as setting fire to buildings is good because it gives firefighters something to do, insurance agents paperwork to process and builders contracts to work on?Jay wrote:
How is it not beneficial? If it makes the person happy it makes them more productive. The gas they burn puts food on the gas station owners table. The worn tires employ the line worker that manufactures tires etc. So yes, society does benefit from the aimless wandering you describe.HaiBai wrote:
i have both. driving around aimlessly is not beneficial for societyHurricane2k9 wrote:
when you get a license and car, you might understand the concept of driving around "aimlessly."
You should rejig your argument bearing in mind petrol is imported from abroad.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-02 01:15:26)
Fuck Israel
I don't think it's silly at all, and in fact have had to accelerate suddenly or even past the speed limit on numerous occasions for a variety of reasons, some of which I'll list below:Jay wrote:
P.S. - I can't think of a single occasion where I've had to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an accident or an emergency vehicle. Silly example.
1) Legally passing slow traffic in a designated area on a two-lane highway. Don't you love how the guy you're passing realizes he's being passed and speeds up, forcing you to stay left longer than you should have to?
2) Speeding up so the merging vehicle who's stupidly hanging onto my bumper doesn't get squashed between me and the guard rail.
3) Getting past another car pacing himself on my right side to open a lane for an ambulance.
4) Accelerating to make it through a recently-yellowed light if I've not the stopping distance to comply with their ridiculously short durations.
5) Accelerating into a turn faster than recommended to make a left turn out of a driveway onto one of those roads where the traffic pattern causes sparse gaps in traffic in which to do so.
6) Pulling into a free lane to the side to avoid getting rear-ended by a driver chewing out her kids in the back seat.
I don't think it's silly at all, and in fact have had to accelerate suddenly or even past the speed limit on numerous occasions for a variety of reasons, some of which I'll list below:Jay wrote:
P.S. - I can't think of a single occasion where I've had to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an accident or an emergency vehicle. Silly example.
1) Legally passing slow traffic in a designated area on a two-lane highway. Don't you love how the guy you're passing realizes he's being passed and speeds up, forcing you to stay left longer than you should have to?
2) Speeding up so the merging vehicle who's stupidly hanging onto my bumper doesn't get squashed between me and the guard rail.
3) Getting past another car pacing himself on my right side to open a lane for an ambulance.
4) Accelerating to make it through a recently-yellowed light if I've not the stopping distance to comply with their ridiculously short durations.
5) Accelerating into a turn faster than recommended to make a left turn out of a driveway onto one of those roads where the traffic pattern causes sparse gaps in traffic in which to do so.
6) Pulling into a free lane to the side to avoid getting rear-ended by a driver chewing out her kids in the back seat.
I agree with JG on this, but for another reason than that. The vast distances between destinations for the American consumer pretty much guarantees that they're going to be driving around a lot, even if they don't have to for work. Unless, of course, they buy more stuff at the evil superstores like Walmart.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just as setting fire to buildings is good because it gives firefighters something to do, insurance agents paperwork to process and builders contracts to work on?Jay wrote:
How is it not beneficial? If it makes the person happy it makes them more productive. The gas they burn puts food on the gas station owners table. The worn tires employ the line worker that manufactures tires etc. So yes, society does benefit from the aimless wandering you describe.HaiBai wrote:
i have both. driving around aimlessly is not beneficial for society
You should rejig your argument bearing in mind petrol is imported from abroad.
Also, who wants a computer automatically driving them the shortest distance...through an abandoned forest road or crime-ridden neighborhood?
I wouldn't trust a self driving car if Descartes himself worked up the mathematical logic.
But you trust self flying planes?
Well, there's a bit of a difference, one of the biggest being the lack of things to hit in the air.DrunkFace wrote:
But you trust self flying planes?