The Laws of Carbotics

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie, commenting on the study
_The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in _Science_:

“It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
What would you rather it do?”

I would say that this situation is a failure of defensive driving. If the sight lines to the side
of the road are so restricted that people walking at 3-4 miles per hour can be in your path
before you can stop, you’re driving too fast for the circumstances. One of Asimov’s
positronic robots (robot chauffeurs were featured in _The Naked Sun_) would not
be caught out like that.

There has been a lot written recently about what self driving cars should be
programmed to do in various situations, regardless of whether present
technology could actually implement such behavior. It reminds me of the
early robot stories where Gregory Powell and Mike Donovan had to
figure out how a problem with a robot was caused by an unexpected
ramification of the laws of robotics. I can imagine a future version of
_Car Talk_ where, in addition to dealing with mechanical and electrical
malfunctions, they will also have to be familiar with “car psychology”.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Peter Trei]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie, commenting on the study
> _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in _Science_:
>
> “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> What would you rather it do?”

The standard term for this class of dilemmas is "Trolley Problems", and
are far, far from new.

> I would say that this situation is a failure of defensive driving. If the sight lines to the side
> of the road are so restricted that people walking at 3-4 miles per hour can be in your path
> before you can stop, you’re driving too fast for the circumstances. One of Asimov’s
> positronic robots (robot chauffeurs were featured in _The Naked Sun_) would not
> be caught out like that.

OK, explore the limits of this. Just how careful do you have to be? What if
the victim was committing suicide-by-car and throws himself under your
wheels from behind a parked van? How about a child running out between
cars?

A cross-over accident, or a wrong-way driver?

Driving cars entails creating, and accepting, a certain degree of risk. We,
socially, accept that, while trying to minimize it.

But to require *perfection* from a robot car before it can be used is
silly. But I want it to be as good, or better, as the best human drivers.

So the trolley problem returns; Yes, a car can get in a situation where
*someone* is going to be injured or killed, and the car can 'decide' who.
This isn't unique to cars, but may well be the first familiar place where
we have machines deciding.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:66768c1c-0076-4974...@googlegroups.com:

If it is physically possible, the car is driving too fast.

>
> A cross-over accident, or a wrong-way driver?
>
> Driving cars entails creating, and accepting, a certain degree
> of risk. We, socially, accept that, while trying to minimize it.

It isn't accepting risk that's the issue, it's who is liable. Would
the self-driving car maker rather be sued by the passenger the car
killed, or the families of the dozen children killed in the
crosswalk? It's simple arithmatic.

>
> But to require *perfection* from a robot car before it can be
> used is silly. But I want it to be as good, or better, as the
> best human drivers.

Who gets to define "better?" That is the fundamental shift with
self-driving cars. Currently, it is the driver of the car that
decides, based on their perceptions at the scene. With self-driving
cars, it is the programmers, months or years earlier, who will
never see the scene.

>
> So the trolley problem returns; Yes, a car can get in a
> situation where *someone* is going to be injured or killed, and
> the car can 'decide' who. This isn't unique to cars, but may
> well be the first familiar place where we have machines
> deciding.
>

What is the lone passenger is the CEO of a corporation that
manufacturs equipment critical to national security, and the
children in the cross walk are likely to grow up to be Democrats?
Who is more important then?

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Kevrob]

In early days, it may be wise to limit the operation of the carbots
to roads without a lot of blind corners or other impairments to
whatever sensors or cameras the car's brain is processing. Given some
of the overdeveloped deer tracks that pass for "roads" winding through
the hills near where I live, and the sometimes pin-brained pedestrians I encounter, not to mention bicyclists with the salmon-spawning fixation,
keeping to numbered state highways, which tend to be straighter, might
be a good idea.

Then again, considering some of the nuts behind the wheel on the back
roads, maybe the autobots* would drive safer than some of those loons
do!

Kevin R

* More than meets the eye? Meh!

*

[lal_truckee]

On 8/23/16 11:09 AM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> What would you rather it do?”

Car is driving too fast for conditions.

Another version.
Brake for the ball, not the trailing kid.

[Peter Trei]

I have a strong suspicion that the first place we'll see complete automation
won't be city streets, but on interstates. Human drivers will take 18-wheelers
to the on-ramp, then leave them to drive unmanned to the exit ramp, perhaps
on the other side of the country.

The economies are significant. You don't pay the driver, and big trucks get
their best mpg around 40 mph, far lower than human drivers (who are paid by
the mile) will accept. Since you can run the trucks without rest breaks
(only fuel stops), its about a wash for the total transit time, but much
cheaper.

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <npi8nj$1k7$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com says...

A human would have to make the same decision and likely would have less
chance of spotting the oncoming pedestrians early enough to take
action,.

However, "driving too fast for conditions" may not be accurate. It's a
clear day, the road is empty, there is one pedestrian walking down the
sidewalk, parallel to the road. When you are three feet away from him
he for whatever reason decides to step into the road in front of you.
Are you in fact driving too fast for the conditions?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3226a3c7a...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <npi8nj$1k7$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com
> says...
>>
>> On 8/23/16 11:09 AM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its
>> > passengers down a country road when, out of nowhere, a
>> > handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy
>> > way out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into
>> > a tree, killing those riding inside. What would you rather it
>> > do?”
>> Car is driving too fast for conditions.
>>
>> Another version.
>> Brake for the ball, not the trailing kid.
>
> A human would have to make the same decision and likely would
> have less chance of spotting the oncoming pedestrians early
> enough to take action,.
>
> However, "driving too fast for conditions" may not be accurate.
> It's a clear day, the road is empty,

If the road's empty, you (and the car) can see the kid coming.

> there is one pedestrian
> walking down the sidewalk, parallel to the road. When you are
> three feet away from him he for whatever reason decides to step
> into the road in front of you. Are you in fact driving too fast
> for the conditions?
>

Probably, yes, whether it's a human driver or an automated one.

And you're talking literal suicide, not a common issue.

Google cars driving too slow are *already* a problem. Most of the
accidents they've been involved in have been the result of them
driving slower than surrounding traffic, last I recall.

[Tom Kratman]

Had Samuel Taylor Coleridge been doing opium while on Usenet

In Usenet-land did Terry Twat
A state of assholery decree;
And whereupon the eunuchs ran,
To bury heads all in the sand,
Rather than face Terry.
So twice five years of bull were found
With idiocy, quite profound.
And most, not knowing Terry wasn’t bright,
Nor that control was to make up for his luck,
Where he had failed at everything he’d tried
And been bent over deskward and butt fucked.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

--
Terry Austin

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:

(snip)

> > In early days, it may be wise to limit the operation of the carbots
> > to roads without a lot of blind corners or other impairments to
> > whatever sensors or cameras the car's brain is processing. Given some
> > of the overdeveloped deer tracks that pass for "roads" winding through
> > the hills near where I live, and the sometimes pin-brained pedestrians I
> > encounter, not to mention bicyclists with the salmon-spawning fixation,
> > keeping to numbered state highways, which tend to be straighter, might
> > be a good idea.

I don't think sensors and processors are going to be that much of a limiting factor. We already have all the pieces to replace the relevant human-driver functions (in many cases exceeding them), putting them together for a reasonable budget is the trick.

> > Then again, considering some of the nuts behind the wheel on the back
> > roads, maybe the autobots* would drive safer than some of those loons
> > do!

Yup, almost certainly *given no interference*.

> I have a strong suspicion that the first place we'll see complete automation
> won't be city streets, but on interstates. Human drivers will take 18-wheelers
> to the on-ramp, then leave them to drive unmanned to the exit ramp, perhaps
> on the other side of the country.

https://www.wired.com/2015/05/worlds-first-self-driving-semi-truck-hits-road/

The idea is that the driver stays with the truck for the whole trip but doesn't actually drive most of it, only taking the wheel when the truck signals him to.

I'm not worried about how safe self-driving trucks are, like you I worry about the four-wheelers they have to share the road with.

Human car drivers tend to treat semis as if they can stop on a dime, which of course they can't. Semi drivers on busy freeways (interstates, turnpikes, whatever you want to call them) dread cars cutting in front of their trucks and stomping on the brakes. I don't know how much time you spend on such roads, but it happens a lot more than semi drivers like. Truckbots will like it even less. There's inevitably going to be a situation where the human can't take control fast enough to deal with whatever the truck decided it couldn't handle on its own. Thus, whatever the truck chooses to do leading up to the "oh shit" moment should be the focus, software and insurance-wise IMO. FTM what if the driver had a heart attack twenty miles ago and isn't available to take over?

Truckbots, just like human-driven trucks, will always have many times the stopping distance of cars. If it were me designing a driverless truckbot it would brake hard to avoid such a collision, but not so hard as to be rear-ended. There's another interesting choice; given a car behind not allowing enough following distance for a given speed plus a car cutting in front and braking hard, would the truck decide to hit the car ahead or let the one behind hit it? Should it try to balance the impact energies so as to make the damage "fair" to both the braker and the follower? Would that increase insurance payouts (and hence premiums) or lessen them?

Anyway, I'm sure a well-designed carbot would never cut in front of a semi the way humans tend to, but sooner or later a human-driven car is going to get clipped by or ram a semibot.

I'd like to see the algorithms that kick in when either kind of crash occurs.

> The economies are significant. You don't pay the driver, and big trucks get
> their best mpg around 40 mph, far lower than human drivers (who are paid by
> the mile) will accept. Since you can run the trucks without rest breaks
> (only fuel stops), its about a wash for the total transit time, but much
> cheaper.

As far as trucking companies are concerned the major difference will be that they won't be able to calculate trip distances using "short miles" any more (meaning as-the-crow-flies on a map). That's when hourly drivers get screwed- they have to e. g. drive through Louisiana on the way from Texas to Florida but the short mile route goes through the Gulf. Every trip will have to be actual physical road miles, on-ramp to off-ramp. That will make bookkeeping easier, actually.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Dimensional Traveler]

At least in California the rear vehicle is considered at fault by
default in a rear-end collision and it is very rare that is overturned.
So when you are in the situation of a likely chain collision like that
you are responsible for not hitting the vehicle in front of you and the
vehicle behind you is responsible for not hitting you. So I expect that
is how CA would require robotic vehicles to be programmed.


--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for Summer 2016

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 1:37:36 PM UTC-5, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie, commenting on the study
> > _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in _Science_:
> >
> > “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> > when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> > out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> > What would you rather it do?”
>
> The standard term for this class of dilemmas is "Trolley Problems", and
> are far, far from new.
>
> > I would say that this situation is a failure of defensive driving. If the sight lines to the side
> > of the road are so restricted that people walking at 3-4 miles per hour can be in your path
> > before you can stop, you’re driving too fast for the circumstances. One of Asimov’s
> > positronic robots (robot chauffeurs were featured in _The Naked Sun_) would not
> > be caught out like that.
>
> OK, explore the limits of this. Just how careful do you have to be? What if
> the victim was committing suicide-by-car and throws himself under your
> wheels from behind a parked van? How about a child running out between
> cars?

I didn't make myself clear. As you say, if a human appears abruptly enough
in the path of a moving car, at some point this will create a dilemma for the driver,
whether human or robot. An extreme example of this is shown in the movie
_The Good Son_ where Macaulay Culkin's character causes a multi-car pile up
by dropping a mannequin onto a busy highway from an overpass.

However, in setting up the dilemma Mr. Smillie writes "a group of pedestrians strolls
into its (the car's) path". Stroll meaning "to walk at a leisurely pace", this does not
imply a situation that requires a fast life-or-death decision. "Jumps into its path",
"is catapulted into its path", or "emerges from a hyperspatial tube into its path"
would have been more appropriate.

The example of a child running out from between parked cars that you mention
is specifically covered in American driver's education. Student drivers are taught
to be cautious where vision is obstructed by parked cars and in particular to stop
when they see a ball come out from between cars as this could very well be followed
by a child.

This seems to be at least partly cultural. When I was visiting England I was staying
once in a suburb of London where the houses did not have garages and the streets,
which were narrower than American ones, were always lined on both sides with
cars parked almost bumper-to-bumper. Despite this, traffic moved at 25-30 mph.
I remarked to my hosts that American drivers would go more slowly in this situation
for fear of children darting out from between the parked cars, but they said that
British children did not do that. From a practical point of view, since there was
nothing but parked cars for mile after mile, if drivers slowed to, say, 10-15 mph
when passing parked cars then that would be the speed of traffic in the
entire suburb.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

peterw...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:7996708e-b739-4e1c...@googlegroups.com:

> I didn't make myself clear.

Oh, but you did. Pete's an idiot who is mentally and emotionally
incapable of dealing with questions that have answers he doesn't
like.

> As you say, if a human appears
> abruptly enough in the path of a moving car, at some point this
> will create a dilemma for the driver, whether human or robot. An
> extreme example of this is shown in the movie _The Good Son_
> where Macaulay Culkin's character causes a multi-car pile up by
> dropping a mannequin onto a busy highway from an overpass.
>

The roleplaying game Top Secret has rules (not surprisingly) for
chase scenes, including a table for the likelyhood of the chase-er
swerving if an obstacle is thrown in their path. The only things
better than something that looks like a human body are things on
fire.

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 2016-08-25 00:54, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 1:37:36 PM UTC-5, Peter Trei wrote:

>> OK, explore the limits of this. Just how careful do you have to be? What if
>> the victim was committing suicide-by-car and throws himself under your
>> wheels from behind a parked van? How about a child running out between
>> cars?

> The example of a child running out from between parked cars that you mention
> is specifically covered in American driver's education. Student drivers are taught
> to be cautious where vision is obstructed by parked cars and in particular to stop
> when they see a ball come out from between cars as this could very well be followed
> by a child.

And, by way of anecdotal evidence, when I read "child running out
between cars", I:
a. Immediately flashed back to Drivers' Ed (1970)
b. Included "after a ball", even though it wasn't there (a fact that
I didn't notice until I started this post).

That's how thoroughly this was stressed when I took Drivers' Ed.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

[Peter Trei]

Driving on the interstate is generally a much simpler problem than driving on
other roads. For all that the speeds are higher, the *range* of speeds is lower,
and vehicles enter and leave the road in relatively simple ways.

Scenarios such as 'car pulls in front of truck and brakes' are predictable, and
easily recognized when they occur. Responses are scriptable: Brake, blow horn,
cut over to breakdown lane, etc. Robotrucks will not be distracted/sleepy
drivers, and will have better situational awareness (such as 'whats behind
me?'), and probably *better* able to avoid collision than a human.

If, as I suggest, robotrucks were generally going a lot slower than manned
vehicles, the odds of a car getting rear-ended by a truck drop significantly.

pt

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:54:44 -0700 (PDT), peterw...@hotmail.com
wrote:

>The example of a child running out from between parked cars that you mention
>is specifically covered in American driver's education. Student drivers are taught
>to be cautious where vision is obstructed by parked cars and in particular to stop
>when they see a ball come out from between cars as this could very well be followed
>by a child.
>
>This seems to be at least partly cultural. When I was visiting England I was staying
>once in a suburb of London where the houses did not have garages and the streets,
>which were narrower than American ones, were always lined on both sides with
>cars parked almost bumper-to-bumper. Despite this, traffic moved at 25-30 mph.
>I remarked to my hosts that American drivers would go more slowly in this situation
>for fear of children darting out from between the parked cars, but they said that
>British children did not do that.

Which is of course rubbish, British kids are just as dumb and unaware of
sudden death as anywhere else. And UK driver training very much includes
the same warnings, ice-cream vans include "mind that child!" signs on
the sides, and so on.

However, kids living on a street with bumper-to-bumper parked cars and
30mph traffic won't be playing with a ball in the street, so the
situation doesn't really arise.

We did run into the street a lot where I grew up (Cambridge) because it
was a more American-suburban level of traffic, one car every now and
then. That's the difference, not the nationality.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
- Steve Haflich

[William December Starr]

In article <51ed1c42-ff5a-4a22...@googlegroups.com>,

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> said:

> https://www.wired.com/2015/05/worlds-first-self-driving-semi-truck-hits-road/
>
> The idea is that the driver stays with the truck for the whole
> trip but doesn't actually drive most of it, only taking the wheel
> when the truck signals him to.

More precisely, some non-zero time interval after the truck signals
him.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA66EEDFB6E1...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:

> The roleplaying game Top Secret has rules (not surprisingly) for
> chase scenes, including a table for the likelyhood of the chase-er
> swerving if an obstacle is thrown in their path. The only things
> better than something that looks like a human body are things on
> fire.

"When you run down the street on fire, people get out of your way..."

-- wds

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
news:npqeuk$p07$1...@panix3.panix.com:

But when you run through the internet on fire, people pee on you to
put you out. Except for the ones who don't.

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-08-26, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in

>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>>> The roleplaying game Top Secret has rules (not surprisingly)
>>> for chase scenes, including a table for the likelyhood of the
>>> chase-er swerving if an obstacle is thrown in their path. The
>>> only things better than something that looks like a human body
>>> are things on fire.
>>
>> "When you run down the street on fire, people get out of your way..."
>>
> But when you run through the internet on fire, people pee on you to
> put you out. Except for the ones who don't.

And when you walk through Usenet on fire, people tell you you're not on fire,
insist that fire is good for you, and ask you WHY DO YOU HATE [political
figure]'S ANTI-FIRE RHETORIC??2?

Dave, and sometimes they draw ASCII art of you as you pass
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down, probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Tom Kratman]

If Paul Robeson had sung about Terry the Twat

There’s an old troll that’s called Terrie Austin;
That’s the old troll no one wants to be.
Isn’t it sad that he’s in a wheelchair,
Ugly and warped and with no pee pee?

Terrie Austin, po’ Terrie Austin.
He don’t know nothin’
Just keeps on bluffin’
He keeps on trollin’
Yes keeps on trollin’ along.

He’s bent and twisted
In mind and body.
He lives on USENET
His life is shoddy.
He keeps on trollin’
Yes keeps on trollin’ along.

He can’t get pussy
Because he is one.
The girls all vomit
When he gets near one.
So he’s just trollin’
To fill a life that’s gone wrong.

Troll that troll.
Flame that flame.
Searches til he finds someone else to blame.
Soul so warped
Mentally unsound.
Despair so deep that po’ Terrie drowns

[Michael F. Stemper]

As I recall, it worked pretty well for Gully Foyle.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

--
Terry Austin

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:IoadneeYbYXXe13K...@earthlink.com:

> On 2016-08-26, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> The roleplaying game Top Secret has rules (not surprisingly)
>>>> for chase scenes, including a table for the likelyhood of the
>>>> chase-er swerving if an obstacle is thrown in their path. The
>>>> only things better than something that looks like a human
>>>> body are things on fire.
>>>
>>> "When you run down the street on fire, people get out of your
>>> way..."
>>>
>> But when you run through the internet on fire, people pee on
>> you to put you out. Except for the ones who don't.
>
> And when you walk through Usenet on fire, people tell you you're
> not on fire, insist that fire is good for you, and ask you WHY
> DO YOU HATE [political figure]'S ANTI-FIRE RHETORIC??2?
>
> Dave, and sometimes they draw ASCII art of you as you pass

All very true. Isn't the 21st century fun?

--
Terry Austin

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 3:22:57 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
> news:npqeuk$p07$1...@panix3.panix.com:
>
> > In article <XnsA66EEDFB6E1...@69.16.179.42>,
> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >> The roleplaying game Top Secret has rules (not surprisingly)
> >> for chase scenes, including a table for the likelyhood of the
> >> chase-er swerving if an obstacle is thrown in their path. The
> >> only things better than something that looks like a human body
> >> are things on fire.
> >
> > "When you run down the street on fire, people get out of your
> > way..."
> >
> But when you run through the internet on fire, people pee on you to
> put you out.

I seldom see anyone post their ethical foundation so succinctly.

> Except for the ones who don't.

Uhh, who'd that be?


Mark L. Fergerson

[TB]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:09:48 AM UTC-7, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie, commenting on the study
> _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in _Science_:
>
> “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> What would you rather it do?”

Can I assume that the road is lined with lots of close together trees, which might explain how the hypothetical pedestrians were able to catch the car by surprise (by jumping out from behind a tree)?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a1a36390-c00d-417e...@googlegroups.com:

"If you were on fire, I wouldn't pee on you to put it out." Get it
now?

--
Terry Austin

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:02:09 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:a1a36390-c00d-417e...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 3:22:57 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
> > Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
> >> news:npqeuk$p07$1...@panix3.panix.com:
> >>
> >> > In article <XnsA66EEDFB6E1...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
> >> >
> >> >> The roleplaying game Top Secret has rules (not surprisingly)
> >> >> for chase scenes, including a table for the likelyhood of
> >> >> the chase-er swerving if an obstacle is thrown in their
> >> >> path. The only things better than something that looks like
> >> >> a human body are things on fire.
> >> >
> >> > "When you run down the street on fire, people get out of your
> >> > way..."
> >> >
> >> But when you run through the internet on fire, people pee on
> >> you to put you out.
> >
> > I seldom see anyone post their ethical foundation so
> > succinctly.
> >
> >> Except for the ones who don't.
> >
> > Uhh, who'd that be?
> >
> "If you were on fire, I wouldn't pee on you to put it out." Get it
> now?

Yes, yes I do. Thanks.

Mark L. Fergerson

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:968006ae-9609-4d82...@googlegroups.com:

I live to serve.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA6727ECB35E...@69.16.179.42>,

"Let's strike a flint and see!"

(_The Lion in Winter_)

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:oCMyC...@kithrup.com:

One of the best movies ever made.

[Greg Goss]

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

>However, kids living on a street with bumper-to-bumper parked cars and
>30mph traffic won't be playing with a ball in the street, so the
>situation doesn't really arise.
>
>We did run into the street a lot where I grew up (Cambridge) because it
>was a more American-suburban level of traffic, one car every now and
>then. That's the difference, not the nationality.

In the middle nineties I saw a checklist of "are you Canadian?"
phrases. You look at each one and smile and nod. A remarkable
collection of cultural shibboleths.

One of them was "CAR!"

Shouted, of course, to interrupt a suburban game of street hockey. I
assume that hockey-crazed US cities (Boston? Chicago? NY?) yell the
same thing. At the call, you pull the goal nets off the street and
let the car pass.

Perhaps the difference is that our suburbs try to avoid a grid pattern
on the rez streets. So the kids are playing on streets that only feed
a few blocks.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 21:38:21 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>However, kids living on a street with bumper-to-bumper parked cars and
>>30mph traffic won't be playing with a ball in the street, so the
>>situation doesn't really arise.
>>
>>We did run into the street a lot where I grew up (Cambridge) because it
>>was a more American-suburban level of traffic, one car every now and
>>then. That's the difference, not the nationality.
>
>In the middle nineties I saw a checklist of "are you Canadian?"
>phrases. You look at each one and smile and nod. A remarkable
>collection of cultural shibboleths.
>
>One of them was "CAR!"
>
>Shouted, of course, to interrupt a suburban game of street hockey. I
>assume that hockey-crazed US cities (Boston? Chicago? NY?) yell the
>same thing. At the call, you pull the goal nets off the street and
>let the car pass.

Kids certainly did that in the suburbs of Boston -- at least, on
streets that were flat, straight, and unused enough; I lived on a
steep main drag where there was far too much traffic and the puck
would have kept rolling off to the south. But my high school
girlfriend lived on a nice level cul de sac, and her three brothers
would regularly play three of the neighbors, so a couple of times it
was my car they were yelling about.





--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 29 August 2016 04:38:31 UTC+1, Greg Goss wrote:
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> >However, kids living on a street with bumper-to-bumper parked cars and
> >30mph traffic won't be playing with a ball in the street, so the
> >situation doesn't really arise.
> >
> >We did run into the street a lot where I grew up (Cambridge) because it
> >was a more American-suburban level of traffic, one car every now and
> >then. That's the difference, not the nationality.
>
> In the middle nineties I saw a checklist of "are you Canadian?"
> phrases. You look at each one and smile and nod. A remarkable
> collection of cultural shibboleths.
>
> One of them was "CAR!"
>
> Shouted, of course, to interrupt a suburban game of street hockey. I
> assume that hockey-crazed US cities (Boston? Chicago? NY?) yell the
> same thing. At the call, you pull the goal nets off the street and
> let the car pass.

That's politeness. They don't have it in the U.S.
They have guns.

Maybe it wasn't always quite like that.

[Peter Trei]

There's actually an episode of Family Guy (set in Rhode Island) where
street hockey is a plot element.

In NYC, its not hockey, but a variant baseball called stickball, which
uses manhole covers as bases. My Dad played it when he was a kid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stickball

pt

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

My dad grew up in Brooklyn and played stickball as a kid there, too,
though it wasn't a favorite of his.

I never encountered it in New England, but street hockey was common.
I virtually never played, due to where I lived, as described above; I
did get in one or possibly two games, a few blocks over near the
elementary school where the ground was more level and the streets
didn't go through, but I was never a regular -- for one thing, thanks
to lack of practice, I was lousy at it. No one ever had to yell
"car!" there, since the games only happened there in the summer when
the school was closed.

[David Harmon]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT) in rec.arts.sf.written, Peter
Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote,

>I have a strong suspicion that the first place we'll see complete automation
>won't be city streets, but on interstates.

Unless the Teamsters union has some influence over it.

[Kevrob]

We used the "CAR" chant when ever we played in the street, which wasn't
too often. On some occasions my neighbors and I would play baseball or
softball, or even kickball in the street. Living 60 miles from Times
Square, we could usually use someones back yard, an empty lot where builders
had yet to install a foundation for a new house, or even an actual baseball
diamond at one of the local schools or parks.

My parents grew up in Queens and Brooklyn, so they played in the street
much more than we did. I did learn this children's rhyme:

"Car! Car! C-A-R!
Put it in a jelly jar!"

Why anyone thought that clever, I don't know.

The film, "Wayne's World," has the excellent Wayne Campbell and
his sidekick, Garth Algar playing one-on-one street hockey, and they
go through the "CAR!" {move tne goal} ritual. They also hang out
at "Stan Mikita's Donuts," so Mike Myers is transplanting his
Toronto-area boyhood into Chicagoland, Mikita being a stand-in
for Tim Horton.

As for hockey, I only ever played it on ice. One of our local
town lakes had a little finger-like cove extending behind the
part of our neighbor's property that wrapped behind ours. It was
shallow enough, and protected enough from the river current that
flowed through the main part of the lake, that a few days of sub-
freezing weather and we could brave the ice. I could barely skate,
as we didn't get enough cold days on Long Island to assure safe
ice long enough for me to improve any. I settled for being the
World's Worst Pond Hockey Goalie on blades. (Kids who played in
their boots were ineligible for the title.)

I broke an arm learning how to skate. If I didn't love hockey,
I wouldn't have tried again after it healed.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

Having a live driver along "for emergencies" might be analogous to
railroad featherbedding: having "firemen" on the crew of diesel trains.
I don't know if unions have that much clout today.

Kevin R

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:29189c27-6c43-4c30...@googlegroups.com:

For the moment, there _has_ to be a live driver along "for
emergencies." The unions may well fall into that trap, thinking they
can raise a ruckus later when trucking companies want to start
eliminating drivers. Problem is, when that day arrives, the companies
will have 100% of the hardware and software in place in all their
trucks, and there will be zero incentive to phase drivers out slowly.
Let the unions strike, _all_ their members will be laid off at the
same time, with no need for scabs.

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[Robert Carnegie]

SF: _Coils_ (Zelazny, Saberhagen, or vice versa)
features cross-country freight trucks that self-drive,
but, to accommodate a union mandated driver, there's a
cab with a cot. The driver has to be there but doesn't
have to be awake or to do anything... latterly, the
driver doesn't have to be there. But the cab is there.

[Greg Goss]

The firemen were long gone when I joined a railroad in 1993. There
was a similar controversy when the railway went cabooseless - a lot of
personnel got an expensive buy-out.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:09:45 -0700 (PDT), peterw...@hotmail.com
wrote:

> “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> What would you rather it do?”

I was taught early on that if something CAPABLE OF DODGING jumps into
my path, I must on no account swerve, because I'm as likely as not to
swerve into the spot where it will be when I get there. In this case
you brake as hard as you can and pray that the pedestrians notice that
you are coming. (A robot, of course, can simultaneously sound the
horn. In short beeps, and in groups of three.)

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[Tom Kratman]

A Tale of Terry Austin:
Chapter One
Once upon a time, in a reform school where little punks had to take it up the ass from the big boys, there lived a little wheelchair bound sack of shit named Terry Austin.
Now Terry didn't have any friends. All the big boys had used his ass so badly that it got loose and they didn't want it anymore. Terry used to beg, but the big boys had better butts to fuck. Then Terry got bitter, because nobody wanted him for anything anymore. And, though he grew, a little, he stayed about 12 years old in his head.
And then Al Gore invented the internet, and Terry realized that it
didn't matter if his asshole was too big for the big boys. He could
go online and try to be the biggest asshole of all.
Sadly, he failed at that, too.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[Joe Bernstein]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 6:42:55 AM UTC-7, Tom Kratman wrote:

> Sadly, he failed at that, too.

Holy cow, now I've actually gone and read some of his fiction, even
though it's even worse than I thought it would be. Shame on me.

-- JLB

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in
news:bab87edd-1a3f-44a5...@googlegroups.com:

He never seems to get past Chapter One. I mean, even given how
horribly written it is, it might be amusing to read if there were an
actual story to it. But apparently, Little Tommy has trouble
finishing what he starts.

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie, commenting on the study
> > > > _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in _Science_:
> > > >

> > > > “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> > > > when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> > > > out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> > > > What would you rather it do?”
> > >

> > > The standard term for this class of dilemmas is "Trolley Problems", and
> > > are far, far from new.
> > >
> > > > I would say that this situation is a failure of defensive driving. If the sight lines to the side
> > > > of the road are so restricted that people walking at 3-4 miles per hour can be in your path
> > > > before you can stop, you’re driving too fast for the circumstances. One of Asimov’s
> > > > positronic robots (robot chauffeurs were featured in _The Naked Sun_) would not
> > > > be caught out like that.
> > >
> > > OK, explore the limits of this. Just how careful do you have to be? What if
> > > the victim was committing suicide-by-car and throws himself under your
> > > wheels from behind a parked van? How about a child running out between
> > > cars?
> > >
> > > A cross-over accident, or a wrong-way driver?
> > >
> > > Driving cars entails creating, and accepting, a certain degree of risk. We,
> > > socially, accept that, while trying to minimize it.
> > >
> > > But to require *perfection* from a robot car before it can be used is
> > > silly. But I want it to be as good, or better, as the best human drivers.
> > >
> > > So the trolley problem returns; Yes, a car can get in a situation where
> > > *someone* is going to be injured or killed, and the car can 'decide' who.
> > > This isn't unique to cars, but may well be the first familiar place where
> > > we have machines deciding.
> >
> >
> > In early days, it may be wise to limit the operation of the carbots
> > to roads without a lot of blind corners or other impairments to
> > whatever sensors or cameras the car's brain is processing. Given some
> > of the overdeveloped deer tracks that pass for "roads" winding through
> > the hills near where I live, and the sometimes pin-brained pedestrians I encounter, not to mention bicyclists with the salmon-spawning fixation,
> > keeping to numbered state highways, which tend to be straighter, might
> > be a good idea.
> >
> > Then again, considering some of the nuts behind the wheel on the back
> > roads, maybe the autobots* would drive safer than some of those loons
> > do!

>
> I have a strong suspicion that the first place we'll see complete automation

> won't be city streets, but on interstates. Human drivers will take 18-wheelers
> to the on-ramp, then leave them to drive unmanned to the exit ramp, perhaps
> on the other side of the country.
>
> The economies are significant. You don't pay the driver, and big trucks get
> their best mpg around 40 mph, far lower than human drivers (who are paid by
> the mile) will accept. Since you can run the trucks without rest breaks
> (only fuel stops), its about a wash for the total transit time, but much
> cheaper.

I just realized that your argument applies even better to freight trains than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous freight trains.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9bd9df4b-232b-4fdf...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-4, Peter Trei
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4,
>> > > peterw...@hotmail.co
> m wrote:
>> > > > The following paragraph is from an article by Eric
>> > > > Smillie, comment
> ing on the study
>> > > > _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in
>> > > > _Science_:
>> > > >

>> > > > “It’s the near future. A self-driving carÂ

Include the fact that train engineers are so strongly unionized
that they don't even have to participate in Social Security in your
formula. Show your work.

[Cryptoengineer]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9bd9df4b-232b-4fdf...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4,
>> > > peterw...@hotmail.co
> m wrote:
>> > > > The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie,
>> > > > comment
> ing on the study
>> > > > _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in
>> > > > _Science_:
>> > > >

>> > > > “It’s the near future. A self-driving carÂ

If train drivers - even freight train drivers - can now set their
own routes and timetables and decide what speed they run the train
at, or are paid by the mile, its all news to me.

pt

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:42:35 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:9bd9df4b-232b-4fdf...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei
> > wrote:

Terry, somehow your autoquote broke a bunch of the gozintas, and I don't feel like fixing them.

(robotized semis)

> > I just realized that your argument applies even better to
> > freight trains than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous
> > freight trains.
> >
> Include the fact that train engineers are so strongly unionized
> that they don't even have to participate in Social Security in your
> formula. Show your work.

Not my formula, his argument. BTW, ever heard of the Teamsters? Granted they don't enjoy near-total domination any more, but try killing them off completely. Go ahead, I'll watch.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Kevrob]

Too much trouble to bury them all. We don't need that many
new sports stadiums. :)

Kevin R

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-7, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:9bd9df4b-232b-4fdf...@googlegroups.com:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:

Okay, maybe it's not just Terry breaking the gozintas.

(autonomous vehicles)

> > > I have a strong suspicion that the first place we'll see complete

> > > automation won't be city streets, but on interstates. Human drivers
> > > will take 18-wheelers to the on-ramp, then leave them to drive unmanned
> > > to the exit ramp, perhaps on the other side of the country.

>
> > > The economies are significant. You don't pay the driver, and big trucks

> > > get their best mpg around 40 mph, far lower than human drivers (who are

> > > paid by the mile) will accept. Since you can run the trucks without rest
> > > breaks (only fuel stops), its about a wash for the total transit time,
> > > but much cheaper.

> > I just realized that your argument applies even better to freight
> > trains than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous freight trains.
>
> If train drivers - even freight train drivers - can now set their
> own routes and timetables and decide what speed they run the train
> at, or are paid by the mile, its all news to me.

What are you talking about? I pointed out that his arguments for *automating* long-haul semis (note the mention of interstate highways) apply better to freight trains.

Long-haul trucks have fewer route-setting options than do local haulers whether driven by a human or a robot, and trains are already there.

Both long-haul trucks and trains operate under time constraints whether driven by a human or a robot.

Both long-haul trucks and trains get the best fuel efficiency at a constant speed (dictated by the technologies) whether driven by a human or a robot.

I have no idea whether engineers are paid by the mile, by the hour, or some arcane formula, but if there's no engineer to *be* paid, it's moot.

Trains are subject to *less* traffic and thus less opportunities for accidents than semis, whether driven by a human or a robot. Trains *can't* run off the road due to a glitch (if they stay under the speed limit and the road doesn't fail out from under them). In the event of a complete system failure, trains slow to a top *on the rails*, where a truckbot that bluescreens will be a hazard to other traffic at the least.

An even better application would be seagoing cargo ships, and guess what:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ship-operators-explore-autonomous-sailing-1472635800


Mark L. Fergerson

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:694678e7-dfae-45f1...@googlegroups.com:

There are a lot more trucking companies than there are railroads.
Furthermore, those trucking companies can, if they plan things just
right, do things that allow them to get rid of all their drivers at
the same time, strike or no strike. This will happen fairly
naturally, in fact, because the trucks will initially have to have
live drivers in them to monitor the auto-driving system. The
difference between that and a completely automated driving system
is a software upgrade, and a legal change that can be voted on as a
rider at 3:00 AM when nobody is looking.

Plus, we're not talking about 100% change throughout the industry.
We're talking about where we will *first* see auto-drive vehicles.
There are *thousands* of trucking companies in the US, many of
which are non-union. If *one* of them goes fully auto first, the
prediction is correct.

You may now apologize for being a whiny little bitch.

--
Terry Austin

[Greg Goss]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just realized that your argument applies even better to freight trains than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous freight trains.

Vancouver has computerized transit trains, though they're not
autonomous. There is a lot of control being done from HQ.

And they're not "freight" trains.

[Tom Kratman]

It’s a mind that’s cramped; it’s a mind that’s small,
It’s a trollish mind; that’s no mind at all.
It’s a foaming mouthed hack, unacquainted with Jack.
Terry Austin, after all.

Terry Austin after all.
No control so Terry balls.
He’s got no sense, none at all.
Terry Austin after all.

He’s a man deficient in honesty.
He’s a man (well, only just technically).
He’s a dolt; he’s a fool; he’s a moron who drools.
Terry Austin after all.

Terry Austin after all.
No control so Terry balls.
Hopelessly ineffectual,
Terry Austin, after all.

He’s a slimy toad with a Nazi bent.
Of integrity he is quite bereft.
He’s the scum on the pond, the dog shit on the lawn.
Terry Austin after all.

[Peter Trei]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

Yes, I've heard of them. They had 2 million members in 1976, when the US
population was 218M. In 2014, they were down 1.2M, with a US population of
318M. That's a 60% decline, in proportion to population.

They are fading away.

In comparison, there are over 3M truck drivers in the US, so most are not
Teamsters, and the industry is claiming there are around 100k drivers jobs
going begging.

Robotrucks face many challenges, but the Teamsters isn't the major one.

pt


There's already

pt

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 03:17:02 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just realized that your argument applies even better to freight trains than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous freight trains.
>
>Vancouver has computerized transit trains, though they're not
>autonomous. There is a lot of control being done from HQ.
>
>And they're not "freight" trains.

The Washington DC Metro (subway) used to be computerized, though each
train still had a human driver as back-up.

In 2009 one train's location sender failed on a section of bad track
and another train ran into it, killing nine people. They don't let
the computers drive the trains much anymore.

(The human driver hit the brakes, but not in time. She was one of the
nine dead. If she hadn't hit the brakes, it would have been a lot
more than nine.)

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

7d1563c6

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 03:17:02 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just realized that your argument applies even better to freight trains
than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous freight trains.
>
>Vancouver has computerized transit trains, though they're not
>autonomous. There is a lot of control being done from HQ.
>
>And they're not "freight" trains.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 22:15:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
wrote:

>7d1563c6

What the fuck is going on? Why are my posts being reposted with a
phony address?

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

165f196f

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 22:15:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
wrote:

>7d1563c6

What the fuck is going on? Why are my posts being reposted with a
phony address?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

I dunno what's going on, but it's kinda funny that this got reposted,
too.

Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3 wrote in news:1450379851
@f280.n633.z3.fidonet.ftn:

[Don Bruder]

In article
<qvpgsblj29s3td2l7...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 22:15:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
> wrote:
>
> >7d1563c6
>
> What the fuck is going on? Why are my posts being reposted with a
> phony address?

Dunno about phony, but the headers on the "weird ones" grabbed my eye -
It looks like, for SOME reason I can't even guess at, you're posting
from a FIDONet BBS that's going through about 10-12 FIDONet nodes to
eventually get to a FIDO->Usenet gateway in New Zealand. I haven't seen
anything like that since about 1990 or so.

After a little bit closer looking, my best guess is somebody in NZ has
diddled his BBS' configuration is now echoing back usenet traffic.

--
Brought to you by the letter K and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:39:39 -0700, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>In article
><qvpgsblj29s3td2l7...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 22:15:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
>> wrote:
>>
>> >7d1563c6
>>
>> What the fuck is going on? Why are my posts being reposted with a
>> phony address?
>
>Dunno about phony, but the headers on the "weird ones" grabbed my eye -
>It looks like, for SOME reason I can't even guess at, you're posting
>from a FIDONet BBS that's going through about 10-12 FIDONet nodes to
>eventually get to a FIDO->Usenet gateway in New Zealand. I haven't seen
>anything like that since about 1990 or so.

FidoNet? Jeez, I haven't been on FidoNet since... well, about 1990, I
guess.

>After a little bit closer looking, my best guess is somebody in NZ has
>diddled his BBS' configuration is now echoing back usenet traffic.

Well, that's silly.

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

65a44b07

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:39:39 -0700, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>In article
><qvpgsblj29s3td2l7...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 22:15:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
>> wrote:
>>
>> >7d1563c6
>>
>> What the fuck is going on? Why are my posts being reposted with a
>> phony address?
>
>Dunno about phony, but the headers on the "weird ones" grabbed my eye -
>It looks like, for SOME reason I can't even guess at, you're posting
>from a FIDONet BBS that's going through about 10-12 FIDONet nodes to
>eventually get to a FIDO->Usenet gateway in New Zealand. I haven't seen
>anything like that since about 1990 or so.

FidoNet? Jeez, I haven't been on FidoNet since... well, about 1990, I
guess.

>After a little bit closer looking, my best guess is somebody in NZ has
>diddled his BBS' configuration is now echoing back usenet traffic.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:01:01 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:694678e7-dfae-45f1...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:42:35 PM UTC-7, Gutless
> > Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:9bd9df4b-232b-4fdf...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:56:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei
> >> > wrote:
> >
> > Terry, somehow your autoquote broke a bunch of the gozintas,
> > and I don't feel like fixing them.
> >
> > (robotized semis)
> >
> >> > I just realized that your argument applies even better to
> >> > freight trains than to semis, yet we don't have autonomous
> >> > freight trains.
> >> >
> >> Include the fact that train engineers are so strongly unionized
> >> that they don't even have to participate in Social Security in
> >> your formula. Show your work.
> >
> > Not my formula, his argument. BTW, ever heard of the
> > Teamsters? Granted they don't enjoy near-total domination any
> > more, but try killing them off completely. Go ahead, I'll
> > watch.
> >
> There are a lot more trucking companies than there are railroads.

So what? There are more railroad unions than trucking unions:

http://railroadworkersunited.org/

> Furthermore, those trucking companies can, if they plan things just
> right, do things that allow them to get rid of all their drivers at
> the same time, strike or no strike. This will happen fairly
> naturally, in fact, because the trucks will initially have to have
> live drivers in them to monitor the auto-driving system. The
> difference between that and a completely automated driving system
> is a software upgrade, and a legal change that can be voted on as a
> rider at 3:00 AM when nobody is looking.

Trains carry more than one and a third times as much cargo per year in the U.S. as trucks do:

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0362

(1/3 of the way down)

Hence more profit is available in the rail industry.

> Plus, we're not talking about 100% change throughout the industry.
> We're talking about where we will *first* see auto-drive vehicles.

Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
at one time, so the hypothetical:

> Plus, we're not talking about 100% change throughout the industry.
> We're talking about where we will *first* see auto-drive vehicles.

...has already happened.

> You may now apologize for being a whiny little bitch.

Wipe the spittle off your monitor, Terry.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Greg Goss]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>at one time, so the hypothetical:

Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:28:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>>at one time, so the hypothetical:
>
>Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
>grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.

So is Washington's. We're not THAT stupid.

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

567b3eec

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:28:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>>at one time, so the hypothetical:
>
>Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
>grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 23:23:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
wrote:

>567b3eec
>On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:28:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>>>at one time, so the hypothetical:
>>
>>Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
>>grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.
>
>So is Washington's. We're not THAT stupid.

Why is this idiot only reflecting ME? What have I done to deserve
this?

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

18c97b45

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 23:23:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
wrote:

>567b3eec
>On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:28:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>>>at one time, so the hypothetical:
>>
>>Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
>>grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.
>
>So is Washington's. We're not THAT stupid.

Why is this idiot only reflecting ME? What have I done to deserve
this?

[Michael F. Stemper]

Maybe it's their way of paying tribute to you.

Strangely, the kiwi's messed up their time-stamp somehow, so my
news-reader is showing your originals as followups to the reflections.
At least, I think that's what's happening.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Just a piece of info for you. I access Usenet thru Eternal September
and your @f3.n770.z3 munged posts are showing up for me exactly four
hours before your non-munged address posts. For whatever that may be worth.


--
Now taking submissions for the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for
Summer 2016

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:52:46 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2016-09-02 14:09, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 23:23:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
>> wrote:
>>> 567b3eec
>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:28:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>>>>> at one time, so the hypothetical:
>>>>
>>>> Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
>>>> grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.
>>>
>>> So is Washington's. We're not THAT stupid.
>>
>> Why is this idiot only reflecting ME? What have I done to deserve
>> this?
>
>Maybe it's their way of paying tribute to you.
>
>Strangely, the kiwi's messed up their time-stamp somehow, so my
>news-reader is showing your originals as followups to the reflections.
>At least, I think that's what's happening.

He/she is on the other side of the International Dateline; that may be
relevant.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Maybe he's using GMT, or whatever it's called now? (I'm on Eastern
Time.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:bkmjsblb5u0c5h3kk...@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

It's still misconfigured. The date/time headers including an offset
from GMT, and should thus sort correctly in all properly configured
software.

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

08486104

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:01:26 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

946c5998

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:52:46 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2016-09-02 14:09, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 23:23:00 +1000, Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3
>> wrote:
>>> 567b3eec
>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:28:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans reported that the D. C. Metro was autonomous
>>>>> at one time, so the hypothetical:
>>>>
>>>> Vancouver's system always has been. But it's completely
>>>> grade-separated from pedestrians and cars.
>>>
>>> So is Washington's. We're not THAT stupid.
>>
>> Why is this idiot only reflecting ME? What have I done to deserve
>> this?
>
>Maybe it's their way of paying tribute to you.
>
>Strangely, the kiwi's messed up their time-stamp somehow, so my
>news-reader is showing your originals as followups to the reflections.
>At least, I think that's what's happening.

He/she is on the other side of the International Dateline; that may be
relevant.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:52:46 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote

in<news:nqclan$1ep$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2016-09-02 14:09, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

[...]

>> Why is this idiot only reflecting ME? What have I done
>> to deserve this?

> Maybe it's their way of paying tribute to you.

> Strangely, the kiwi's messed up their time-stamp somehow,
> so my news-reader is showing your originals as followups
> to the reflections. At least, I think that's what's
> happening.

It appears that the duplicate is interpreting the EDT time
of the original post as UTC and then reporting UTC+1000
based on that misinterpretation; UTC+1000 is correct for
Queensland all year round and for New South Wales,
Tasmania, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory in
winter (hence now). That’s the entirety of eastern
Australia. New Zealand is on UTC+1200.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Other way around I think. This post that I'm responding to is time
stamped at 1:04 pm in my Pacific Coast (GMT-8) timezone, while the
munged showed up with a time stamp of 9:04 am, which I think would put
the source somewhere near Hawaii or maybe in Alaska. (And I was wrong,
the munged isn't showing up earlier, its just time stamped earlier.)

[Tom Kratman]

The Tale of Terry Austin, Chapter Three
So Terry got on the computer after one of the bigger, brighter boys turned it on for him and bitch-slapped him for old times' sake. But before Terry could make his first post one of the other boys said, "Let's make some use of this maggot's pussy lips, and pulled Terry's wheelchair away from the computer, slapped him some more, and fucked his mouth.
Now Terry Austin was really upset about this, since he wanted to get on the computer and prove that he was the biggest asshole in the world in more than just the stretched out diameter of his much abused sphincter. Still, Terry was afraid of the bigger boys (frankly, Terry Austin was afraid even of the small girls, let alone the big boys) and didn't complain, but just wiped his chin off, licked his fingers, and went back to the computer.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

--
Terry Austin

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:01:26 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Just a piece of info for you. I access Usenet thru Eternal September
>and your @f3.n770.z3 munged posts are showing up for me exactly four
>hours before your non-munged address posts. For whatever that may be worth.

I access USENET through Eternal September as well, and I am not
seeing the duplicates.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2016 22:22:02 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net>
wrote:

I, too, use Eternal September, and I see them a minute or so after I
see the originals posted. I haven't checked the time stamps.

[Lawrence_...@f3.n770.z3]

a9e32510

On Sat, 03 Sep 2016 22:22:02 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net>
wrote:

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in

news:spdnsb1ta8aq6m4bp...@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

I don't use Eternal September, and I do see the duplicates. Time
stamps are on the last message are:

Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 01:56:03 -0400 (Original)
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 11:56:00 +1000 (Duplicate)

[Robert Carnegie]

Google Groups has the duplicates.

Does the routing and other information included make
it possible to contact someone responsible and ask
them to fix it?

It is odd that it's only LWE (as seen by me) -
perhaps someone has tried to use their software
to "follow" him.

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 1:17:36 PM UTC-5, TB wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:09:48 AM UTC-7, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The following paragraph is from an article by Eric Smillie, commenting on the study
> > _The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles_ published in _Science_:
> >
> > “It’s the near future. A self-driving car is zipping its passengers down a country road
> > when, out of nowhere, a handful of pedestrians stroll into its way. There’s no easy way
> > out: Either the car plows through them or it swerves into a tree, killing those riding inside.
> > What would you rather it do?”
>
> Can I assume that the road is lined with lots of close together trees, which might explain how the hypothetical pedestrians were able to catch the car by surprise (by jumping out from behind a tree)?

Or perhaps hedgerows with occasional openings. On the opposite side, the
trees must be widely spaced enough for the car to hit one of them square in
the middle of the bumper. If they were too close together the car would
hit off-center and spin back into the road.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Robert Carnegie]

There could be a footpath at right angles that deposits
pedestrians into and across the highway. But they should
have looked.

I think the finding of the original inquiry was
"If I am a pedestrian on the road then I want
the pedestrians to be saved, and if I am a passenger
in the car then I want the passengers to be saved."

I wonder what Vulcans would say. Vulcans probably
don't have ridiculously unsafe traffic arrangements
in the first place.