A few weeks ago, one of my Facebook contacts, whom I’ll call “Jane”, complained on her wall that Facebook had blocked one of her posts. Facebook and free speech myths ensued.
According to many people, a huge, if not THE main long-term problem with self-driving cars is how to write software that concretely “helps those cars make split-second decisions that raise real ethical questions”. The most common example is the self-driving car variant of the Trolley Problem: “your self-driving car realizes that it can either divert itself in a way that will kill you and save, say, a busload of children; or it can plow on and save you, but the kids all die. What should it be programmed to do?”
In my opinion, this way to look at the problem is greatly misleading. First of all…
Please have a look at this scary title, just appeared on the Web:
Somebody says that it is “Time to buckle up: Why the possibilities of connected cars are endless”, because:
The “Open Source Day” by Red Hat Italia is a yearly event in which the italian branch of that corporate Open Source champion:
Is there a connection between male dominance in ICT, and high-tech in general, and evolution of marriage? I don’t know for sure, but these two pieces make me wonder.
They did “The Ultimate (3D printing) Bridge Test”. They had no idea of what may happen next.
(this is a translated excerpt of “Uno che si chiama Gucci” by Alessandro Gilioli)
(this is a guest post by Layne Hartsell and Emanuel Pastreich, who are research fellow and, respectively, director of The Asia Institute. The post, originally published at Foreign Policy In Focus, in September 2013, is now reposted here on invitation of the author, to whom I am grateful, because I consider it a useful complement to my previous work on Open Data).
Yesterday, I presented what I consider a perfect confirmation of my views on “Twitter replacements”. Today, I “defend” that position from “accusations” of individualism. (I’m joking, of course, when I say “defend” and “accusations”).