381–390 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another great "Gotcha!" from gdy. You have made no points worth addressing and contributed nothing to the conversation.
Quoted post unavailable.
Edit in reply to your edit: it shouldn't be hard for you to point to a lie, please do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same culture exists in Poland. Drove on a normal road and an unsecured bar of metal fell on your car from a construction site? Should have watched where you were going. The default stance is always that if something happens to you it's your own fault, should have been more careful. I'd lean towards this being a common thing either in Slavic culture or at least in ex-communist countries for some reason.
On the other end you have California where people will sue the state for thousands if they trip on the sidewalk, scraping their knee a bit. I suppose the USA and ex-USSR still remain polar opposites in some respects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s challenging to achieve if you also want the robot to play well under time pressure. Even if you manage to build an actuator that can grab a piece quickly but can’t break anything, the required rapid movement of the arm still can break things.
How about a magnetic base on each piece and a table built on top of a pair of xyz movements holding two magnets. That way the brain can at any time grab its piece and make a move while nudging any obstructions out of the way temporarily. It could probably made to filp the polarity on the lower magnet causing the opponent piece to topple gently when appropriate. Seems very human proof and also exciting to watch in act…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the law and courts that let them get away with it, not EULA.
Well, as a company you can choose to do the right thing, or you can choose to weasel your way out of uncomfortable situations using lawyers and the fact that the law is always lagging behind technological development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The poster has not stated that robots would be inherently unsafe. (And if they were judged so, it would also be in consideration that humans also are.) Anyway: the difference is in explicit projectual intention. Some systems are created with a dimension (contextually, safety) as a key performance indicator, some other as just a factor to be sensibly taken into consideration. If you are drawing the project for a plane…
> The poster has not stated that robots would be inherently unsafe. (And if they were judged so, it would also be in consideration that humans also are.) But he has. The statements > This is appalling. There is no world in which an industrial robot like that should be operating next to a child. > I assume you are referring to driverless cars. Those aren't inherently unsafe. Neither are six axis robots. As I mentioned…
Perhaps it would help if you applied your argument to good old regular cars and see where it fails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s keep this generalisation to specific countries as this is not true for Baltic countries at all.
Well I heard conflicting info on this one from Baltic states citizens. On one side they are clearly working much more efficiently, as long term economy shows and align more with western approach to things and values. On the other side, every single person from there I've asked this specifically agreed their country is utterly corrupt mess, government after government, with tight coupling to big brother russia and maf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same culture exists in Poland. Drove on a normal road and an unsecured bar of metal fell on your car from a construction site? Should have watched where you were going. The default stance is always that if something happens to you it's your own fault, should have been more careful. I'd lean towards this being a common thing either in Slavic culture or at least in ex-communist countries for some reason.
Can't confirm as a Pole. Don't want to ask you to dox yourself through an argument, but I'd like to say that it's a lot better nowadays, with the only exception being the Catholic Church's wrongdoings in the countryside.
Like yeah, maybe it's getting better. But I keep running into these situations where if something goes wrong, you are always at fault by default. I don't mean to say anyone else's opinion about it is not valid though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are in fact times when we need to think about children. If we don't, humanity won't have much of a future.
Quite the contrary, I think. Society has become "soft", for lack of better words. If we had been so risk-averse centuries ago, the industrial revolution would have never happened.
Technological progress is not necessarily good for the species, although it can be (c.f. the advent of new agriculture methods creating more food post WW2).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s challenging to achieve if you also want the robot to play well under time pressure. Even if you manage to build an actuator that can grab a piece quickly but can’t break anything, the required rapid movement of the arm still can break things.
How about a magnetic base on each piece and a table built on top of a pair of xyz movements holding two magnets. That way the brain can at any time grab its piece and make a move while nudging any obstructions out of the way temporarily. It could probably made to filp the polarity on the lower magnet causing the opponent piece to topple gently when appropriate. Seems very human proof and also exciting to watch in act…
Cheap chess playing devices like this have been available on the consumer market at least since the 80s.
My parents got me one from Toys R Us about 40 years ago.
The problem is that such devices are not as much of a spectacle as a big robot arm that moves by itself.