Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:31:40 AM UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:51:17 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens

>
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >

>
> >> >> > Your statistics are faulty. If they go on driving for long enough

>
> >> >> > _every_ driver will have an accident.

>
> >> >>

>
> >> >> While others say there's no such thing as an accident.

>
> >> >

>
> >> >a true accident is rare. it's almost always driver error.

>
> >>

>
> >> An error, yes. It's not what the driver intended. That's what makes it

>
> >> an accident.

>
> >

>
> >no, that makes it driver error.

>
> >

>
> >had the drivers involved been paying more attention, the crash could

>
> >likely have been avoided. that makes it *not* an accident. they made a

>
> >bad decision and crashed.

>
>
>
> How then do _you_ define an accident?


I'd describe it as something that couldn't have been forseen and avioded .
That tree that hit your car while reversing while it was unintentional was not an accident as paying attention the incident wouldn't have happened.

We constantly hear of accidents waiting to happen, that's what H&S trieds to aviod 'accidents' which are basically things which are predictable abd can be stopped provided enough effort is put into it.
After all no kids die accidentally while sweeping Chimnies anymore.


>
> >

>
> >driverless cars will remove the human element and the number of crashes

>
> >will be *significantly* less. it can't happen soon enough.


Didn't google cars travel 300,000 mile without an accident then an employee got in to park it and it crashed it.




When two cars hit each other there's usually someone at fault can;t think of an incidetn where this isn;t true, perhaps better maintaince of brake pads or nto driving faster than you're stopping distance.

It'll probbalty be decided by laywers or solicitors as to the exact meaning which no doubt will be linked to not paying out in order to maintain profit margins ....



>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
| > An error, yes. It's not what the driver intended. That's what makes it
| > an accident.
|
| no, that makes it driver error.
|
| had the drivers involved been paying more attention, the crash could
| likely have been avoided. that makes it *not* an accident. they made a
| bad decision and crashed.
|
| driverless cars will remove the human element and the number of crashes
| will be *significantly* less. it can't happen soon enough.

In my experience most real accidents happen in a
sort of "conjunction of events" moment. If someone
backs out of a blind driveway while I'm driving by I
can avoid that by steering around them. But if they
do it while someone from the other direction is driving
by -- so that I don't have time to stop but also can't
steer around -- then a collision may be unavoidable.
And it may be no one's fault.

I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google
cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the
three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to
sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest
anti-lock-brake technology.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > >driverless cars will remove the human element and the number of crashes
> > >will be *significantly* less. it can't happen soon enough.

>
> Didn't google cars travel 300,000 mile without an accident then an employee
> got in to park it and it crashed it.


yep. the only accident that the google driverless cars have had was
when one of them was driven by a human.

> When two cars hit each other there's usually someone at fault can;t think of
> an incidetn where this isn;t true, perhaps better maintaince of brake pads or
> nto driving faster than you're stopping distance.


it's very rare that it isn't.

> It'll probbalty be decided by laywers or solicitors as to the exact meaning
> which no doubt will be linked to not paying out in order to maintain profit margins ....


driverless cars opens up a whole new can of worms.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >> > Your statistics are faulty. If they go on driving for long enough
> >> >> > _every_ driver will have an accident.
> >> >>
> >> >> While others say there's no such thing as an accident.
> >> >
> >> >a true accident is rare. it's almost always driver error.
> >>
> >> An error, yes. It's not what the driver intended. That's what makes it
> >> an accident.

> >
> >no, that makes it driver error.
> >
> >had the drivers involved been paying more attention, the crash could
> >likely have been avoided. that makes it *not* an accident. they made a
> >bad decision and crashed.

>
> How then do _you_ define an accident?


when there's no driver error, which is rare.

remove the human error factor and there will be fewer collisions,
especially from those who are drunk, too tired, fumbling with the radio
or cd player or whatever, etc., i.e., not paying attention to driving.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
In article <k92hc7$632$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> | > An error, yes. It's not what the driver intended. That's what makes it
> | > an accident.
> |
> | no, that makes it driver error.
> |
> | had the drivers involved been paying more attention, the crash could
> | likely have been avoided. that makes it *not* an accident. they made a
> | bad decision and crashed.
> |
> | driverless cars will remove the human element and the number of crashes
> | will be *significantly* less. it can't happen soon enough.
>
> In my experience most real accidents happen in a
> sort of "conjunction of events" moment. If someone
> backs out of a blind driveway while I'm driving by I
> can avoid that by steering around them. But if they
> do it while someone from the other direction is driving
> by -- so that I don't have time to stop but also can't
> steer around -- then a collision may be unavoidable.
> And it may be no one's fault.


the person backing out was at fault for not looking and making sure it
was clear to back out. it wasn't clear. you and another car were
approaching.

also, you and/or the other driver could have been driving too fast for
conditions to be able to stop should an obstacle appear, which it did.

figuring out what really happened without flight recorders is not that
easy since everyone has their own version of the story.

> I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google
> cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the
> three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to
> sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest
> anti-lock-brake technology.


they won't collide at all.

the driverless cars will know of each other's location long before a
human could ever know, which makes it very easy to not collide.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:47:00 PM UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >driverless cars will remove the human element and the number of crashes

>
> > > >will be *significantly* less. it can't happen soon enough.

>
> >

>
> > Didn't google cars travel 300,000 mile without an accident then an employee

>
> > got in to park it and it crashed it.

>
>
>
> yep. the only accident that the google driverless cars have had was
>
> when one of them was driven by a human.
>
>
>
> > When two cars hit each other there's usually someone at fault can;t think of

>
> > an incidetn where this isn;t true, perhaps better maintaince of brake pads or

>
> > nto driving faster than you're stopping distance.

>
>
>
> it's very rare that it isn't.


I don;t think so.
As virtually every 'accident' a cause can be found eliminating that cause is the key.
Did you here about the high performance cars drivng to a rally in Japen

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/...japan/2it539mk
driving too fast at 93mph and then changing lanes, so is this an accident ?
i.e something that couldn't be avioded ?


>
>
>
> > It'll probbalty be decided by laywers or solicitors as to the exact meaning

>
> > which no doubt will be linked to not paying out in order to maintain profit margins ....

>
>
>
> driverless cars opens up a whole new can of worms.


I doubt the insurence compoines will suffer ...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:47:03 PM UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <k92hc7$632$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > | > An error, yes. It's not what the driver intended. That's what makes it

>
> > | > an accident.

>
> > |

>
> > | no, that makes it driver error.

>
> > |

>
> > | had the drivers involved been paying more attention, the crash could

>
> > | likely have been avoided. that makes it *not* an accident. they made a

>
> > | bad decision and crashed.

>
> > |

>
> > | driverless cars will remove the human element and the number of crashes

>
> > | will be *significantly* less. it can't happen soon enough.

>
> >

>
> > In my experience most real accidents happen in a

>
> > sort of "conjunction of events" moment. If someone

>
> > backs out of a blind driveway while I'm driving by I

>
> > can avoid that by steering around them. But if they

>
> > do it while someone from the other direction is driving

>
> > by -- so that I don't have time to stop but also can't

>
> > steer around -- then a collision may be unavoidable.

>
> > And it may be no one's fault.

>
>
>
> the person backing out was at fault for not looking and making sure it
>
> was clear to back out. it wasn't clear. you and another car were
>
> approaching.
>
>
>
> also, you and/or the other driver could have been driving too fast for
>
> conditions to be able to stop should an obstacle appear, which it did.
>
>
>
> figuring out what really happened without flight recorders is not that
>
> easy since everyone has their own version of the story.
>
>
>
> > I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google

>
> > cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the

>
> > three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to

>
> > sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest

>
> > anti-lock-brake technology.

>
>
>
> they won't collide at all.
>
>
>
> the driverless cars will know of each other's location long before a
>
> human could ever know, which makes it very easy to not collide.


yep, did you hear about Volvos research where they observed and recorded the brain patterns of locusts watching a star wars movie ?

http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomen...-wars-locusts/





 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
| > I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google
| > cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the
| > three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to
| > sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest
| > anti-lock-brake technology.
|
| they won't collide at all.
|

You know that? Then apparently Google technology
can already predict the future, too. Perhaps in your
technophile future Google will also be able to have
sex, work and eat for you. Then you'll be able to *really*
relax, with lots of free time to ...uh... not do whatever
you want.


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2012
In article <k92sm5$gnl$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> | > I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google
> | > cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the
> | > three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to
> | > sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest
> | > anti-lock-brake technology.
> |
> | they won't collide at all.
> |
>
> You know that? Then apparently Google technology
> can already predict the future, too. Perhaps in your
> technophile future Google will also be able to have
> sex, work and eat for you. Then you'll be able to *really*
> relax, with lots of free time to ...uh... not do whatever
> you want.


If all three of them are Google cars then they should each know where
the other is and what it is doing and the one in the driveway shouldn't
back out.

The problem comes with two Google cars on the street and a non-Google on
the driveway.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:39:54 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-27 09:39:39 -0800, "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
> > In article <k92sm5$gnl$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

>
> >>

>
> >> | > I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google

>
> >> | > cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the

>
> >> | > three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to

>
> >> | > sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest

>
> >> | > anti-lock-brake technology.

>
> >> |

>
> >> | they won't collide at all.

>
> >> |

>
> >>

>
> >> You know that? Then apparently Google technology

>
> >> can already predict the future, too. Perhaps in your

>
> >> technophile future Google will also be able to have

>
> >> sex, work and eat for you. Then you'll be able to *really*

>
> >> relax, with lots of free time to ...uh... not do whatever

>
> >> you want.

>
> >

>
> > If all three of them are Google cars then they should each know where

>
> > the other is and what it is doing and the one in the driveway shouldn't

>
> > back out.

>
> >

>
> > The problem comes with two Google cars on the street and a non-Google on

>
> > the driveway.

>
>
>
> Then the responsibility lies with the Google Car collision avoidance
>
> system which should take Google Cars and non-Google cars into account.
>
> Their system should also take the non-system car into account, just as
>
> it should take a pedestrian stepping off a sidewalk, or a dog crossing
>
> the road into account.


would that depend on the law, in the UK pedastirans have right or way but I thought in the states the car had the right of way that's where the J walking comes from.
As a pedestrian I don;t think walking across a road with green traffic lights is a crime I was under the imnpression that in the US it was.



>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Why Getting 'A Potentially Dangerous Request...' Error? Anil Kripalani ASP .Net 2 02-25-2004 06:39 PM
A potentially dangerous Request.Form Alex Munk ASP .Net 2 12-17-2003 09:11 AM
Re: a serious question for a non-serious cause... henry DVD Video 1 11-08-2003 04:38 PM
Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?= MCSE 14 08-26-2003 02:12 AM



Advertisments