In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Hey Danglars, why are you so attached to this? Less than 0.1% of the protesters were arrested. That's not a very significant portion. Also, as far as I've found, no one was even sent to the hospital for injuries. You know what else is comparable? The infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rate in the United States, at around 0.6% and 0.25%, respectively. Why aren't you interested in talking about those constantly? Are you like Donald Trump in that you need easily digested visuals to hold your attention?
I'm genuinely curious if they think the oppression of Nazis is worse than the systemic and habitual abuse of PoC? I know which one they spend more time being critical of.
I often find myself thinking that surely they must just not believe in it. That the only way they could be okay with it is if they don't think it's a real thing. Otherwise they couldn't possibly simultaneously hold the beliefs they claim to and fight to defend that oppression.
There isn't equal and universal access to the ballot box for all Americans. That's such a basic and obvious starting point in terms of rights that it's truly baffling that they get so bogged down in who threw urine and why.
On August 21 2017 03:32 Uldridge wrote: What could go wrong!?
Suicide bombers are bad because you can only use them once. What if we developed software and a sensor package that could remove the human from the equation? And then we started a bidding war to see who could make it the cheapest. How could this go wrong?
On August 21 2017 03:32 Uldridge wrote: What could go wrong!?
On August 21 2017 03:32 warding wrote: Uranium and nuclear weapons are hard to get. Electronics is cheap and software is free to transfer. It isn't a stretch to imagine an enemy/rogue state or a criminal organization in a failed state developing autonomous weapons and feeding them to terrorist organizations to mess with israel or the U.S.
I doubt you understand what goes into making an AI. You don't just implement AI by pressing install and fuse some electronics together and put it in a husk. You need mechanical, software and electrical engineers to fix that stuff. It's pretty difficult to make de novo able autonomous killing machines.
My grandfather used to run a company that did military R&D for optics(sights for guns on boats or para-scopes). They made those things to be used by people with a 6th grade reading level. If this is developed for the military, there is a good chance it will be brain dead easy to use. And they will make it to be mass produced in some way.
Couldn't you already just strap a triggered bomb onto a drone from someplace like Best Buy and pilot into position?
You can actually turn drones into cruise missiles, they are now sophisticated enough that you can just set a course and they will go there using GPS as guidance all you need is a few https://www.parrot.com/us/drones.
The US army already has some kamikaze drones
Yeah, but I'm talking about normal drones like this.
On August 21 2017 03:32 Uldridge wrote: What could go wrong!?
Suicide bombers are bad because you can only use them once. What if we developed software and a sensor package that could remove the human from the equation? And then we started a bidding war to see who could make it the cheapest. How could this go wrong?
On August 21 2017 03:32 Uldridge wrote: What could go wrong!?
On August 21 2017 03:32 warding wrote: Uranium and nuclear weapons are hard to get. Electronics is cheap and software is free to transfer. It isn't a stretch to imagine an enemy/rogue state or a criminal organization in a failed state developing autonomous weapons and feeding them to terrorist organizations to mess with israel or the U.S.
I doubt you understand what goes into making an AI. You don't just implement AI by pressing install and fuse some electronics together and put it in a husk. You need mechanical, software and electrical engineers to fix that stuff. It's pretty difficult to make de novo able autonomous killing machines.
My grandfather used to run a company that did military R&D for optics(sights for guns on boats or para-scopes). They made those things to be used by people with a 6th grade reading level. If this is developed for the military, there is a good chance it will be brain dead easy to use. And they will make it to be mass produced in some way.
Couldn't you already just strap a triggered bomb onto a drone from someplace like Best Buy and pilot into position?
You can actually turn drones into cruise missiles, they are now sophisticated enough that you can just set a course and they will go there using GPS as guidance all you need is a few https://www.parrot.com/us/drones.
The US army already has some kamikaze drones
Yeah, but I'm talking about normal drones like this.
I think the inability to carry a large payload limits the destructive potential of something like this. The drone you linked weighs 1.64lbs total, and even if you stripped it down I think you'd have maybe .5-.75lb's of payload, for $1000.
Quadcopters in particular are a pretty poor choice for payload vs. cost, despite the ease of use compared to a more conventional RC plane if you want to hit something in particular.
On August 21 2017 03:32 Uldridge wrote: What could go wrong!?
Suicide bombers are bad because you can only use them once. What if we developed software and a sensor package that could remove the human from the equation? And then we started a bidding war to see who could make it the cheapest. How could this go wrong?
On August 21 2017 03:32 Uldridge wrote: What could go wrong!?
On August 21 2017 03:32 warding wrote: Uranium and nuclear weapons are hard to get. Electronics is cheap and software is free to transfer. It isn't a stretch to imagine an enemy/rogue state or a criminal organization in a failed state developing autonomous weapons and feeding them to terrorist organizations to mess with israel or the U.S.
I doubt you understand what goes into making an AI. You don't just implement AI by pressing install and fuse some electronics together and put it in a husk. You need mechanical, software and electrical engineers to fix that stuff. It's pretty difficult to make de novo able autonomous killing machines.
My grandfather used to run a company that did military R&D for optics(sights for guns on boats or para-scopes). They made those things to be used by people with a 6th grade reading level. If this is developed for the military, there is a good chance it will be brain dead easy to use. And they will make it to be mass produced in some way.
Couldn't you already just strap a triggered bomb onto a drone from someplace like Best Buy and pilot into position?
You can actually turn drones into cruise missiles, they are now sophisticated enough that you can just set a course and they will go there using GPS as guidance all you need is a few https://www.parrot.com/us/drones.
The US army already has some kamikaze drones
Yeah, but I'm talking about normal drones like this.
On August 21 2017 09:41 semantics wrote: What is it again we blowing up 200 bucks worth of equipment with 100 grand worth of equipment.
This is looking at it wrong. Those 200 bucks worth of equipment were going to kill/wound/maims a few people. Those kill/wound/maims could easily be millions of damage. If this drone gets the kill cost down to 10,000, that is a huge savings over sending a fast mover on a 100k$ mission.
Do ship collisions happen all the time and mostly not get reported? From a position of ignorance you'd assume that all modern vessels, and military vessels even more so, would have a good idea of every ship around them and the relative trajectories. It ought to be pretty hard for a collision to happen.
EU Member States have continued to increase the reporting of casualties and incidents in EMCIP. Comparison of the notifications in EMCIP against commercial sources that record accidents, suggested that approximately 3 500 occurrences (ranging from marine incidents at the lower end of the scale through to very serious accidents) could be expected to be notified annually. However, only some 3 025 occurrences were in fact reported to EMCIP for the year 2014. It should be borne in mind that there can be a time-lag between the incident and it being reported in EMCIP, and a number of incidents that took place in 2014 were still to be notified when the data for the Annual Overview was extracted. The implementation of the reporting of marine casualties and incidents into EMCIP has been a gradual process. While the data can be used to shed light on certain aspects of maritime safety, it should not be used as an indication of the full picture. Over the period 2011-2014 under consideration, more than 390 persons lost their lives and 3 250 were injured. Around two thirds of the total occurrences directly involved damage to a ship while one third was about accidents to persons on board.
While the majority of ships that sank were fishing vessels, cargo ships represented 44% of all ships involved. 67% of accidents were related to human erroneous actions. Although EMCIP contains a substantial body of data, the population of the database has been gradual and progressive and it is too soon for this publication to provide a full picture or indicate trends over recent years. However, if used with caution, the data provides a picture of some aspects of maritime safety within the scope of the Directive. In total, the accident investigation bodies of the EU Member States opened investigations into more than 530 accidents and incidents that occurred from 2011 to 2014. Some 410 investigation reports were published. 55% of the safety recommendations issued by the accident investigation bodies have been positively considered by the addressees.
On August 21 2017 10:59 KwarK wrote: Do ship collisions happen all the time and mostly not get reported? From a position of ignorance you'd assume that all modern vessels, and military vessels even more so, would have a good idea of every ship around them and the relative trajectories. It ought to be pretty hard for a collision to happen.
It happened in the South China Sea, collisions occur almost on a daily basis there. It's the busiest container ship route world wide, with lots of small islands. There's also a big presence of military vessels in that region, because of China's "island expansion".
Ummmm what. I'm just going to assume he didn't know.
He's not too big on the name John McCain.
I just went through a brief series of
that can't be a factor, that'd be ridiculous like it's an American ship, it's one of his ships, no matter what it's called and it's not like McCain named it, it's not McCain's ship, the ship isn't any worse for the name but this is Trump we're talking about now I think about it I would bet that the name of the ship would actually impact his response
Ok, so I just went through and read 4 National Review articles and I think I'm good for another like 5 months. Seriously, that place is like Huffington Post levels of terrible writing. Why are conservative publications so badly written?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/images/switchblade%20dod%20unmanned%20arial%20drone.jpg)
