Move over, SawStop ...

[J. Clarke]

But when was the last time a ham sandwich was imprisoned?

[J. Clarke]

You are conflating Reaper and Globalhawk and totally missing the point.

[J. Clarke]

And of course that impoundment was ordered by a jury. You seem to not understand the difference between seizure of property and jail. And also totally miss the point.

Which programmer? This isn't some guy working alone in his basement. Is it the guy who wrote the code, the one who wrote the spec he implemented, the manager who approved it? And when has anyone ever been jailed because a device on which he was an engineer worked as designed and someone came to harm?

You might actually have something.

[Markem]

It transformed into a penicillin based mold and could no longer be held.

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Nov 24, 2017, J. Clarke wrote (in article):

Could you be more specific? Exactly what is wrong?

Joe Gwinn

[krw]

The software developer who signed off on the failing module.

[J. Clarke]

Reaper is a combat drone and is normally operated manually. We don't let robots decided to shoot people yet. Globalhawk is a recon drone and is normally autonomous. It has no weapons so shooting people is not an issue. It can be operated manually and normally is in high traffic areas for exactly the "what if it hits an airliner" reason, but for most of its mission profile it is autonomous.

The article mentions Globalhawk in passing but then goes on to spend the rest of its time discussing piloting Predator, which while still in the inventory is ancestral to Reaper.

[OFWW]

Is not a "who" a person? and yes, I realize the optimum goal is for a stand alone vehicle independent of owner operator. The robotic taxicab is already in test mode.

The case of the option for switching lanes. Your questioning as who can be at fault. I brought up the fact that experiment air craft have a lifetime indebtedness going back to the original maker and designer. It was to answer just who was culpable.

There are a lot of autonomous vehicles running around, it just depends are where you are, some have already been in real world accidents, Uber already were testing vehicles but required a person in the case just in case.

And yes, I knew globalhawks do not have an occupant resident in the vehicle, but they are all monitored. As to vehicles some have a safety driver and some do not. The globalhawks have built in sensory devices themselves for alarming, etc. and all the data from radar, satellites etc. The info for the full technology that they and the operators have is not disclosed. Plus it is a secret as to who all are operating the vehicles so the bottom line would be the government operating them.

But thank you for your comment on my knowledge and how to fix it. :)

Sorry, my Internet connection is down and I cannot google it.

Sorry, I am not privy to the list, so I'll just make this my last post on the subject, but I will read your reply.

[OFWW]

Yes, I know. They, some versions, can be refueled in air.

[Doug Miller]

DerbyDad03 wrote in news:1bb19287-aa33-4417-b009- [e-mail]:

&iv_load_policy=3&rel=0

Neither one. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy "false choice", the assumption that the choices presented are the only ones available.

I'd choose instead to yell "move your ass, there's a train coming!".

[J. Clarke]

Check your attributions. There are many people participating in this discussion. I did not bring up that case.

For certain rather small values of "lot".

Yes, mostly other vehicles hitting them. I believe that there has been one Google car collision that was attributed to decisionmaking by the software. I'm ignoring the Tesla incident because that is not supposed to be a completely autonomous system.

I believe it is the government requring the person.

What do you mean when you say "monitored"? A human has to detect that there is a danger, turn off the robot, and take control. If the robot does not know that there is a danger it is unlikely that the human will have any more information than the robot does.

So you're saying that the entire government would go to jail? Dream on.

And yet you can post here.

Hope springs eternal.

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Nov 24, 2017, J. Clarke wrote (in article):

So GlobalHawk is autonomous in the same sense as an airliner under autopilot during the long flight to and from the theater. It is the human pilot who is responsible for the whole flight.

.

Yep.

Joe Gwinn

[J. Clarke]

How is any of this relevant to criminal offenses regarding autonomous vehicles? .

[Markem]

Thread drift the whole thing changes and you still have not had your question answered, oh well.

[Leon]

;~) BUT that was not one of the options. You have 2, and only 2, options

[Puckdropper]

Leon wrote in news: [e-mail]:

There's always the third option... Probably the only good part of that movie: The only winning move is not to play.

Puckdropper

[DerbyDad03]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. "Freewill", Rush, 1980

Not playing is the same thing as Option 1, doing nothing. 5 workers die.