why wouldn't you want to drive around in a pre-programmed route if it's faster and safer? it's almost the same thing as driving around aimlessly because you aren't taking the most efficient route. i don't understand how you didn't make that connection.Jaekus wrote:
Oh yeah, it's a great idea! I can just see millions of cars being switched to computer programs and everyone being totally cool with it!HaiBai wrote:
uh.. you can use the 'benefit for society' argument for driving cars with programs too.. a nation with manual drivers would suffer more than a nation with programs as drivers.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...Displaying those amazing reading skills again, son?too bad. you shouldn't be on the road if you're not going somewhere. driving around for the sake of driving around is stupid. all you're doing is creating traffic and wasting gas.
Saying I do not want to drive in a pre-programmed route has nothing to do with driving around aimlessly. Learn to think, it'll (hopefully) make you appear more intelligent/less stupid.Meanwhile, back in the real world...you wouldn't buy a porsche since everyone would drive the exact same thing. everyone would drive the exact same way. there won't be any road ragers or tools with egos on the road.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... I think what you're after is to catch the train.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-01 09:14:04)
it obviously wont happen any time in the near future, because like you said, the real world doesn't want it, but it would be better for society.
Where are your studies showing how viable this is and how it would be better for society?
Where is your knowledge that this is feasible coming from?
It's a fairytale idea, and thinking that there wouldn't be any bugs or errors in the system is borderline retarded.
Where is your knowledge that this is feasible coming from?
It's a fairytale idea, and thinking that there wouldn't be any bugs or errors in the system is borderline retarded.
qftSturgeon wrote:
Where are your studies showing how viable this is and how it would be better for society?
Where is your knowledge that this is feasible coming from?
It's a fairytale idea, and thinking that there wouldn't be any bugs or errors in the system is borderline retarded.
its theoretical. and there would be bugs and glitches in the program. i already said thatSturgeon wrote:
Where are your studies showing how viable this is and how it would be better for society?
Where is your knowledge that this is feasible coming from?
It's a fairytale idea, and thinking that there wouldn't be any bugs or errors in the system is borderline retarded.
It's a fairytale.
The world has the clones of the exact same car, run by computers.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The world has the clones of the exact same car, run by computers.
And they all lived happily ever after.
HaiBai wrote:
i already mentioned that a program would have less error then natural human error.
HaiBai wrote:
i disagreeNic wrote:
But computers never crash or fail for any reason...
This magical program you're championing here would be incredibly complex, you might as well call it AI...HaiBai wrote:
but a program can be perfected until eventually there are no bugs. there is always human error because of bad judgement and etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
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.
That's before you even get to the fact that it would kill hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue from the economy directly attributed to the products made by car companies, because the wisdom of having the exact same car on the road everywhere means they all go bust. Great concept!Sturgeon wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
i already mentioned that a program would have less error then natural human error.HaiBai wrote:
i disagreeNic wrote:
But computers never crash or fail for any reason...This magical program you're championing here would be incredibly complex, you might as well call it AI...HaiBai wrote:
but a program can be perfected until eventually there are no bugs. there is always human error because of bad judgement and etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
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.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-01 09:47:38)
theoretically in infinite time a program will be fixed until there are no bugs. its just that thats not possible.Sturgeon wrote:
HaiBai wrote:
i already mentioned that a program would have less error then natural human error.HaiBai wrote:
i disagreeNic wrote:
But computers never crash or fail for any reason...This magical program you're championing here would be incredibly complex, you might as well call it AI...HaiBai wrote:
but a program can be perfected until eventually there are no bugs. there is always human error because of bad judgement and etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
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
when you get a license and car, you might understand the concept of driving around "aimlessly."
No, point A to point B only. Driving for business not fun. At one speed, in uniform cars of the same color.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
when you get a license and car, you might understand the concept of driving around "aimlessly."
Dirt bikes and other recreational vehicles shall be equipped with the same technology.
Last edited by Nic (2011-05-01 10:21:42)
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."
who gives a flying fuck? your arguing about these things on the internet isn't beneficial to society either, nor is playing video games beneficial.
so lets allow people to do whatever they want
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."
Just bow out of the argument already. You've cluttered up this thread enough with your pigheadedness.
"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
People are allowed to do whatever they want within reason.
I'm starting to think you have a syndrome now.
I'm starting to think you have a syndrome now.
Yes, fool, as long as you aren't negatively impacting other people, do whatever the fuck you want.HaiBai wrote:
so lets allow people to do whatever they want
"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
"well people driving for no reason annoys me aka it negatively impacts me so no they shouldnt be allowed to"Jay wrote:
Yes, fool, as long as you aren't negatively impacting other people, do whatever the fuck you want.HaiBai wrote:
so lets allow people to do whatever they want
But this line of argument is pointless anyway. He's a child that's been told what to do every day for the last sixteen years of his life. He has no concept of freedom so he doesn't appreciate it. It's like arguing with a blind person about the necessity of stop lights.
"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
my parents give me lots of freedom actually. they dont force me to do anything and i dont really get punished.
theyre letting me learn from my own mistakes
theyre letting me learn from my own mistakes
nice!
Tu Stultus Es
a better example would have been arguing the benfitsw of 3d glasses to a blind person. a blind person would recognize the n ecessity of stop lights since many blind people actually walk around the streetsJay wrote:
But this line of argument is pointless anyway. He's a child that's been told what to do every day for the last sixteen years of his life. He has no concept of freedom so he doesn't appreciate it. It's like arguing with a blind person about the necessity of stop lights.
Tu Stultus Es
Well, I want to ban you from the internet for life so you can go outside and actually learn something about the world.HaiBai wrote:
so lets allow people to do whatever they want
he might if he goes to college. unless he becomes another hurri
