|
What about driving drunk, myrkul?
|
|
|
|
what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs
We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah. folded himself into a sports bag. Seems legit.
What the fuck? Who 'locks' himself into a sports bag and doesn't give himself room to breathe? How? What? Claustrophiliacs (sic) |
|
|
|
No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.
Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief. Simply that each road should have both a speed minimum and a speed maximum, and violating either is cause for punishment. Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)
One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course. I got a great idea for a law: Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good? Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it: You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies? |
|
|
|
I <3 SatoshiDice.   Well, this hasn't yet ended in tears:  264 BTC from the top of the leaderboard. Will I make it?!?! I'm now up by 2000 BTC or so (the calculator on blockchain.info isn't showing for some reason). I think it's time to call it quits! It is definitely time to call it quits. Take your 26K USD and run. |
|
|
|
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you. The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time. I don't think you understand probability. By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident. Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart. Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the difference in speed that is a problem. Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction. Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture. Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered. People are always going to speed and break the law. But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer. Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons: - Human reaction time is fixed - Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed - As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r) Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical) No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums. |
|
|
|
Bet deadline: Jan. 30, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Isn't this a little stupid? not really bets are weight with time. the earlier you bet the more you can win. not sure exactly how that is calculated... Time weight is equal to (minutes before deadline)*(BTC bet). 45% of the losing bets are distributed based on (BTC bet) alone. 45% are distributed based on time weight. So to calculate how much you will get: .45*(total lost)*(amount you bet)/(total amount bet on winning statement)
+
.45*(total lost)*(minutes you bet before deadline)*(amount you bet)/(total time weight) Where (total time weight) is the sum of every winning bettor's (amount bet)*(minutes before deadline) |
|
|
|
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you. The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time. I don't think you understand probability. By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident. Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart. Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the difference in speed that is a problem. Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction. Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture. Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered. People are always going to speed and break the law. But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer. Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons: - Human reaction time is fixed - Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed - As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r) |
|
|
|
|
I'd advise you improve the search functionality. Right now, if I want a 64 GB flash drive, and I search for it, I get flash drives from 2gb on up. In fact, it seems to ignore numbers altogether, though the number is often the most important thing when searching for electronics.
|
|
|
|
The way I read it, the self in self-defense refers to any innocent human being, not just 'yourself', as much as the auto in autopsy doesn't refer to a medical examiner performing his/her own post-mortem examination after becoming a zombie or posessing someone else's body to figure out their own cause(s) of death. The 'auto' refers to examination of a human being, and a necropsy is of animals.
I like that explanation  |
|
|
|
|
Occasionally a website with beatable blackjack will pop up.
|
|
|
|
|
My laptop with NVIDIA GeForce 640M 2GB (devstring 1:0) gets 4 MKeys/s using oclvanityminer
And the i7 2.2 GHz gets 270 KKeys/s. They can run simultaneously, which is nice.
Surprised people mine for vanity addresses at these prices though. 0.000027 BTC/MkeyHr? Really?
oclvanityminer64 works for the graphics card, but the integrated graphics only works with oclvanityminer. Wonder why?
|
|
|
|
I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule. The only acceptable use of violence is self defense. Then it's not OK to use violence to defend your family. |
|
|
|
No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.
Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute. I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule. In general, the more general a rule, the more edge cases and gray areas there are. Killing is wrong Killing is wrong except in self defense Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide, or when there is no hope for the person to awaken from their coma Or you can start small and generalize Killing a single person in self defense when the danger they pose is grave and imminent is right add a defense of multiple other people clause, a cadaver clause, etc |
|
|
|
Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt? Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions? No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all. |
|
|
|
|
I am nimda and I approve this message
|
|
|
|
Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes  Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt? |
|
|
|
It's doable within the RFC; the problem would be getting users to join. Besides, IRC isn't SnapChat (which isn't secure either...), and it's even easier to write a bot which echoes the contents of one channel into another.
Your talking about doing an IRC server, which would take forever (I know from experience tried to write one for a project it took forever) but I think the dude just wants to see if it can be done for fun. No no, just a quick socket bot. People could join a lobby channel, receive an address from the bot (who happens to be opped in the pay-per-entrance channel), and once the bot receives payment, he lets the person in. Alternatively, the channel could be +v, and you have to pay for +v status. Also, it could be done in such a way that you pay per minute, rather than per entrance. Plenty of ways to do it. I personally like the +v idea; it sets a monetary incentive to not spam. |
|
|
|
|
I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?
Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?
If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?
|
|
|
|
|
It's doable within the RFC; the problem would be getting users to join. Besides, IRC isn't SnapChat (which isn't secure either...), and it's even easier to write a bot which echoes the contents of one channel into another.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
