UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-22-2016, 01:36 AM   #1
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,294
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Self-driving "smart" cars

...are a dumb idea.

Discuss.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 01:45 AM   #2
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,330
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
And why do you think they're a dumb idea?
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 02:02 AM   #3
Zelphon
Frigid Memer
 
Zelphon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Broken Mind
Posts: 2,149
Send a message via Skype™ to Zelphon
Computers when programmed correctly have a lesser chance of failure than humans so they add safety, plus in a theoretical situation where all cars are self driving it seems logical to assume the lack of personalized driving styles would cut down on traffic.

You can argue it cuts down on what you as a human are allowed to have control over or that it's anti-fun but that matters not in the slightest in the face of public safety and potential increase in the work force efficiency and the consequential economic benefit
__________________
Life, but a series of paths and flows
Down many one can go
May yours run smoothly and be soft to your feet

Zelphon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 02:13 AM   #4
Shuckle
Mage of Mind
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Land of Thought and Melody
Posts: 3,117
Self-driving cars aren't a new idea. However, the real challenge was allowing them to avoid obstacles and react to situations, which is the whole thing about why adolescent and adult humans are the only ones who are allowed to drive cars.

The thing is that until self-driving cars outperform humans, there is no reason to even consider them as real options. If I can drive a car better than an AI, I will vehemently oppose the possibility of an AI taxi to drive my drunk ass home from the bar because I'd obviously be concerned about the ability of the self-driving car to protect me from danger.

I'd love a self-driving car. It would be incredible and amazing...IF AI research and development wasn't so ass. It's one thing to analyze and play a game of Go, but quite another for an AI to recognize, identify, and act upon obstacles in real time, with the punishment for not doing so being death or grievous injury to everyone inside it.

Google is doing a good job. Soon enough drunk driving will be over, permanently, with not much difference in the way the rest of society works (although hopefully soon we can install computerized traffic controllers to prevent further accidents).
__________________

Spoiler: show
[The Sorcerer's Ambition]A handy link, to be sure.
Level Acquisitions, sorted by level instead of name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Shuckle's awesomeness level continues to rise.
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 03:03 AM   #5
Emi
>tfw life and wife goals
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,174
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
One of the good things about self-driving cars is the potential for added infrastructure. Self-driving cards obviously do better among themselves than against other, manned vehicles. A human is unpredictable and prone to error, and that can cause serious injury. It might be a safer idea to have self-driving only roads. This would also cut down on the amount of time needed to get a working model in.

Unless we make self-driving cards mandatory and don't allow for any optional manual overrides, this won't end drunk driving. But it would, in theory, help to eliminate most cases of DUI.
__________________




Fuck these crabs
Emi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 06:05 AM   #6
Chiko
Chiko Chiko Chi
 
Chiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: to the world, to the world, to the world, to the world where you live
Posts: 1,794
Self-driving cars are a thing which I detest severely as UPN's self-proclaimed (as of now on UPN) revhead. Why do I detest them? Well, that is due to the fact that the idea in and of itself is quite a ridiculous one. Most people will be well aware that driving while being one of the best ways of getting around is actually more about the experience of driving and not just getting from A-B. Now, while some may argue that driving is 'tedious' there is a solution to that and that solution being that you should stop thinking of it that way. I mean, sure, maybe driving can be occasionally boring but as a person who is currently on their L's and has had several people be complete dicks on the road to me, I still thoroughly enjoy the sensation of the steering wheel between my hands and the feeling of using the brake, accelerator and clutch.

So, maybe that isn't good enough reasoning and the majority of that is complete and utter biased opinion. I'll admit that but there are still several reasons as to why this idea is beyond ridiculous and I'll start with the first and most important point.

Some Drivers Are Unpredictable:

As most who drive will know, you can never predict what people on the road are going to do due to difference in ability and concentration levels which are altered mainly by people deciding to talk on their mobile phone. Now, this is where a self-driving car would be a bad choice. Yes, the 'experts' and I use that term generously will tell us that the computer inside of these cars will be able to brake by themselves. Sure, okay, we might be saved from idiots but remember these are computers and what happens when computers become overloaded? They either lag or crash. What I'm saying is that the computer controlling the braking may become unresponsive and therefore make an accident potentially unavoidable.

Now, I do have plenty more points to bring up but I'll just leave my mark as that for now.
__________________
PASBL
TL4/B Ref
WF Updater
Amethyst/Chieri
FB - Chiko
Chiko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 06:59 AM   #7
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,330
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
It's worth noting that we consider computers more than good enough to basically fly airplanes almost completely by themselves.

Computers have faster reaction times than humans. Period. If other human drivers are "unpredictable", then the clear solution is to ban human driving. Since that is clearly not feasible, then the best way to react to unpredictable situations is to react fast and react well: something best done by computers.

Computers do not "lag or crash" when they are overloaded. The operating systems that you are familiar with might. But the computers that will drive cars will not be written in Windows. Secondly, computers do not get overloaded in this kind of a scenario. They will always be receiving the same amount of information. And anyway, it is beyond simple to have a backup solution which simply stops the car if the computer becomes unresponsive.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 08:28 AM   #8
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,969
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Currently the biggest issue with driverless cars is that they don't act like humans - they actually obey the law and drive in a way that people only ever do on their test. Accident rates for driverless cars are at present higher than that of normal cars, but that comes with two big caveats; one, exclusively minor accidents (generally being hit at low speeds from behind) and two, almost exclusively the human driving the other cars fault. Driverless cars struggle right now to deal with our bad driving habits (the fact that everyone speeds on the motorway, etc).

Iirc California requires that a human operator always been in a position to take over if necessary, which I feel is a good compromise whilst we phase in computer-driven cars.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 09:21 AM   #9
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,470
>Chiko

I'll disagree with you. I drive because it's a convenient means of transportation from Point A to Point B. That's pretty much it. To me the experience of driving is really tedious. I guess it's a cool feeling to pick up friends and drive somewhere but it'd be nice if I didn't have to concentrate on the road and let my car drive for me so I could just talk to people, listen to music, read a book, or anything really. Trust me, I get where you're coming from because immediately after l got my driver's license I was like "Yeah so cool driving is awesome!" but now it's really become something that I do because it's convenient, not because it's cool or fun.

>Concept

Yeah I agree with you on California's law. It's a good policy to have while phasing in new tech
__________________
phoopes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 10:23 AM   #10
deoxys
こばやし だいすき~
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 私の尾を食べてください OwO
Posts: 6,487
They aren't a dumb idea, and I'm not sure why you'd say they are, let alone lead the discussion with that. In fact of all of the millions of miles tested on self-driving cars so far, of all of the accidents that have occurred, only one was the fault of the self-driving car, and it happened when it sideswiped a bus because it incorrectly predicted the behavioral pattern it was expecting when locked in a somewhat difficult choice to make on a turn.

Incredibly minor. Literally every other self-driving car accident was the fault of the human involved. It's essentially already proven that self-driving cars are far safer than humans driving them, hell, 50 years from now we could potentially see self-driving cars being the only legal way to drive on the open road.

Of course, it will take some time to get there, as they need to perfect the art of driving in the snow first.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 11:53 AM   #11
Zelphon
Frigid Memer
 
Zelphon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Broken Mind
Posts: 2,149
Send a message via Skype™ to Zelphon
@chiko

Your fun < public safety and efficiency
__________________
Life, but a series of paths and flows
Down many one can go
May yours run smoothly and be soft to your feet

Zelphon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 05:11 PM   #12
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,203
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
I worry that, in a world of computer-controlled cars, the network becomes a juicy target for cyber terrorism. My tech friends have all blown this off as easily solved, but the smartest friend I have had a rather chilling dismissal to share: "The number of deaths in the single largest terrorism event to date do not compare to the number of people who die in motor vehicular accidents in this country alone every year. Therefore, it's worth it [to switch to computer-controlled cars, even with Talon's fears about terrorists hijacking the cars to kill millions]." That may be how a purely logical being sees it, but I'm sorry: I just can't accept that we should embrace the possibility of a hacking that costs millions of people their lives with open arms.

Aside from that, I'm not disturbed by automated cars at all. I enjoy driving too, and I suffer pretty bad motion sickness unless I am the one in control of the steering wheel. (I can't be the passenger, which is what I'd have to be 100% of the time in a driverless world.) But despite these things, I think automated cars are neat and I am okay with a world in which they are the norm.

Friends have suggested that recreational driving might be grandfather claused in for anyone born before the 21st century. (Arbitrary cutoff date.) And that what will happen is, you pay for it on your insurance. "Oh, sure, we'll let you drive yourself, Mr. Johnson. But your car insurance is going to cost you $600/mo instead of the $25/mo it costs everyone else who's signed up for automated driving." While this renders driving a rich man's luxury, and that's a shame for all who love to drive but won't be a part of the 21st century's aristocracy, it's still something I can easily see becoming our reality within 50 years. "If you want to selfishly put yours and others' lives at risk, sir, then we're going to have to ask you to pay for the privilege up front." Give it enough time and even this sort of grandfather clause will rub the new generation the wrong way. ("WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO PAY HIS WAY TOWARDS MURDERING ME AND MY FRIENDS ON THE ROAD!? ") But at least for the next 30 to 50 years, people will be able to pay for the right to drive if they wish to.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 06:09 PM   #13
Shuckle
Mage of Mind
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Land of Thought and Melody
Posts: 3,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Currently the biggest issue with driverless cars is that they don't act like humans - they actually obey the law and drive in a way that people only ever do on their test. Accident rates for driverless cars are at present higher than that of normal cars, but that comes with two big caveats; one, exclusively minor accidents (generally being hit at low speeds from behind) and two, almost exclusively the human driving the other cars fault. Driverless cars struggle right now to deal with our bad driving habits (the fact that everyone speeds on the motorway, etc).

Iirc California requires that a human operator always been in a position to take over if necessary, which I feel is a good compromise whilst we phase in computer-driven cars.
There are other issues, but when it comes to specific kinds of driving they're perfectly fine. On highways, they're amazing. In neighborhoods, they're impressive. In the back woods winding around a treacherous mountain slope in West Virginia? Hmm.

The thing I like the most about self-driving cars is that they aren't blinded by headlights. I always worry I'm going to crash on dark nights without streetlights where every asshole on the road has their new BMW Hi-Beemz (tm) aimed directly at my eyes. Not only am I completely blind for the one second that that car drives past me, I'm functionally blind for a few more while my eyes rapidly adjust back to normal. I can't close my eyes for those damn beams (that would be even worse) and I can't focus on the road to make sure there's no wildlife or errant child crossing the road. AI won't have that problem.
__________________

Spoiler: show
[The Sorcerer's Ambition]A handy link, to be sure.
Level Acquisitions, sorted by level instead of name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Shuckle's awesomeness level continues to rise.
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 06:15 PM   #14
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
They're kind of inevitable, like wearable technology or us running out of Scotch. It will definitely happen. No questions asked.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 06:29 PM   #15
empoleon dynamite
Volcano Badge
 
empoleon dynamite's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,772
We're doing a project around "the future of driving" for one of my automotive clients at work, and one very distinct possibility is that in a driverless car world, people will eventually stop owning cars, and most/all cars on the road will be driverless taxis running on a subscription service.
__________________


FB PASBL TL 4
26-4-0 KO74 TP208
B Ref SP 2

empoleon dynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 07:08 PM   #16
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,969
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
There are other issues, but when it comes to specific kinds of driving they're perfectly fine. On highways, they're amazing. In neighborhoods, they're impressive. In the back woods winding around a treacherous mountain slope in West Virginia? Hmm..
Quite the opposite actually; they don't really show problems with winding back roads etc . Why would they? The problem there for us is human judgement of how far edges are away, anticipating the forces on our cars when we turn sharply, things like that - things that computers are inherently better than us at. They struggle much more on highways because they're obeying the speed limit and everyone else is doing 10-20 mph more than they are. The main "to be solved" issue with driverless cars is they struggle to compensate for the poor human driving around them.

A road network of exclusively driverless cars would likely perform better than one of exclusively manual cars, but a hybrid of the two would (with present technology) be worse than either - therein lies the hump to be overcome.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 03-22-2016 at 07:18 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 12:03 AM   #17
Chiko
Chiko Chiko Chi
 
Chiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: to the world, to the world, to the world, to the world where you live
Posts: 1,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelphon View Post
@chiko

Your fun < public safety and efficiency
Zelphon please, I already said that point was obsolete (At least, I meant to put it in there).

Anyway, I agree with your point wholeheartedly that the fun of one is incredibly unimportant compared to the lives of many. Especially when the Aus road toll is as bad as it currently is, though it has decreased a decent amount throughout the years.

One of my biggest quips with this though is 'how will they deal with emergency vehicles which require traveling through a red light at high speeds, possibly 100kmh/62mph+'?

Do not misunderstand me, I would welcome these but I'm just incredibly curious at how they would deal with situations such as the one above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
[B And anyway, it is beyond simple to have a backup solution which simply stops the car if the computer becomes unresponsive.[/B]
Now, this is a good idea but what if they stopped whilst traveling on a highway, freeway or motorway? Would that not make them more of a potential danger?
__________________
PASBL
TL4/B Ref
WF Updater
Amethyst/Chieri
FB - Chiko
Chiko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 12:30 AM   #18
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,330
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeroicRein View Post
One of my biggest quips with this though is 'how will they deal with emergency vehicles which require traveling through a red light at high speeds, possibly 100kmh/62mph+'?
PriorityVehicle = True
RedLights.Ignore = True
SpeedLimit.Ignore = True
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 12:41 AM   #19
Chiko
Chiko Chiko Chi
 
Chiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: to the world, to the world, to the world, to the world where you live
Posts: 1,794
Well, thanks for that in all honesty.

As from Skype chat with editing: "I'm scared of accidents which are very unlikely to happen involving driverless-cars."

If someone can prove to me (preferably by PM) that these worries are very unlikely to happen, I will rest my case.
__________________
PASBL
TL4/B Ref
WF Updater
Amethyst/Chieri
FB - Chiko
Chiko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 02:26 AM   #20
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,309
One interesting thought I've had with smart cars is that if they did become the standard, you could likely raise the speed limit on highways considerably. You couldn't do it in residential areas because of pedestrian issues, but you could potentially cut a lot of time off of lone interstate road trips.

Beyond that, I can't wait for driverless cars, mostly because I'm the driver of the family and I'd love to be able to do... anything other than driving while I'm in the car.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 02:31 AM   #21
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,330
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Honestly, you could already raise the speed limits on US highways considerably - just look at stuff like the Autobahn.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 09:59 AM   #22
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,294
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
They're kind of inevitable, like wearable technology or us running out of Scotch. It will definitely happen. No questions asked.
Inevitable only in the sense that technophiles who want to embrace more integrated technology into society (because technology = progress = THE FUTURE!), although it's a rotten idea to the core.

...

I'm disappointed you lot, for the most part, only focused on the safety. This is un-surprisingly the least controversial issue when it comes to self-driving cars. Computers following algorithms, on the whole, are going to be more accurate, precise about motions than humans. They're less adaptable and can't improvise as well, but once the subroutines become complex enough, self-driving cars can adapt to real-life conditions better than people.

The bigger issue as I see of it, is that (1) we're not really going to be decreasing fatalities, relative to other options. Current cars with computers in them only have a limited ability to troubleshoot mechanical failures, and they can't do anything to prevent mechanical failures. So when something happens - the ignition won't stop, tires pop, the engine overheats during a crowded day on the Autoban - I'd argue computers would be little better than people.

Additionally, the other major reason cars have such high collision rates is (2) there's more cars on the road than any other vehicle. One bus that holds 30 people is going to have a lower chance of getting in an accident than eight cars holding an average of 4 people.

Trains have an even lower rate of collision, with most train collisions involving cars at train tracks, and trains are the closest analog to driver-less cars: such cars are basically cars on rails.

So, you shouldn't be advocating for making every car self-driving. The more people on the road, the higher the chance of mechanical failures, the higher the chance of collisions. Invest in public transportation and design cities so commuting is no longer economically viable. That's better for the environment, and better for everyone all-around.

Finally, on the economic side, (3) a lot of parties have invested in fleecing the driver. You pay car insurance companies for an event that might not happen. State governments, like California, actually need red light and other police-observed violations to fund state programs, because taxes aren't enough to pay for them all. Highway stores built along routes become destitute if GPS map routes change and divert traffic away from them, so business becomes rare.

The financial impact of detonating the auto insurance industry - which is one of the most stable and consistent over the past 70 years - are unpredictable. Many, many big businesses rely on this stability for income. Warren Buffet, for example, gets most of the money he uses to buy companies from Geico's profits. 2008 saw the near destruction of several domestic American car companies (actually, only GM and Ford). It was sudden, but those companies are arguably less integral to the "automotive industrial complex" than insurance is.

So your benefit for self-driving cars is, reduce human-error assisted collisions by some unknown amount and bomb several revenue streams for government and business. You *may* reduce those collisions by a significant amount, but I would argue encouraging public transport and cutting down on the need to drive will be more impactful, for less financial cost.

This even ignores Talon's cyberterrorism argument, which is another kettle of fish. Which is the big thing with why I dislike the millennial technophilia - being plugged in all the time is bad.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 10:08 AM   #23
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,203
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
If America were to build public train lines on par with Japan's in terms of hours, route density (per unit area of land), safety, and cost ...
  1. it would be amazing
  2. it would be the greatest public works project mankind has ever known
  3. it would be the costliest public works project in American history
It flat out isn't feasible, but man oh man would it be something else if I could hop on the train from Lafayette to Chicago for $10 round trip. Be there in half an hour to an hour (instead of the 2.5 hours it takes me by car), get on Chicago trams to get around the city, have fun, go back to the train station before dark and head home.

Just think about what it would do for all those pesky national tournaments (in any fandom, not just Pokémon) you can't attend because you weren't lucky enough to be born in the New York or Washington metro areas. Hop on the train for $40 round trip max, maybe even cheaper, and enjoy the train ride.

... But we return to the terrorism argument. It's difficult for terrorists to take out hundreds of lives via the current US highway system. It'd be very, very easy for them to wreak havoc if they targeted the train tracks. Hell, I'd argue the only reason we haven't seen more of it is because we are such a car-heavy, train-light society right now. If we were to invert it, we'd have to deal with the dangers of travel by train. You can inspect an airplane before every takeoff. You can't inspect thousands of miles of train tracks before every departure.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 10:09 AM   #24
Ironthunder
The Uncultured One
 
Ironthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Getting train rekt
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via Skype™ to Ironthunder
See, smartcars are the sort of thing I could see working, but only if there was one giant conversion. Having a mix of computer-driven and human-driven cars on the road would probably be catastrophically bad, and with computer-driven cars there's less of an issue of 'the car came out of nowhere', because there'll probably be tech built in so that the cars can identify where the cars around it are, which direction they're going and how fast they're travelling.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Squad summary here.
TL3, 129.5 TP, 37 KOs, 3 SP
C grade ref.

WF quest log here.

FB stuff here.
Ironthunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 10:36 AM   #25
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,330
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Inevitable only in the sense that technophiles who want to embrace more integrated technology into society (because technology = progress = THE FUTURE!), although it's a rotten idea to the core.

Which is the big thing with why I dislike the millennial technophilia - being plugged in all the time is bad.
You're gonna have to expand on that, mate. What are your concerns, precisely? Because if it's "privacy", that ship sailed a long time ago.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.