Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Linux and OSS Will Not Kill People

begin  oe_protect.scr 
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Marshall ] on Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:47 \__
> 
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Open source project adds "no military use" clause to the GPL
>>> 
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | That's intriguing enough, but the really interesting thing about GPU is
>>> | the license its developers have given it. They call it a "no military
>>> | use" modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
>>> `----
>>> 
>>>         http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1438204
>> 
>> I'm a practical person living in a world full of rogue predatory sharks
>> and what helps to keep those sharks at bay is my countries military whom
>> I trust. As much as I want to see OSS succeed, I will not for the
>> foreseeable future agree with the stance of those that fixate on a
>> unrealistic and badly timed ideal.
>> 
>> I have not forgotten that the military is served by flesh and blood
>> people that have families that they want to go home to in one piece.
>> Everything that helps to that end is what I want them to have.
> 
> I  have  always  feared the day when robots  (not  necessary
> human  lookalikes)  will replace humans in the  battelfield,
> but  also  kill  people who run them (think  Terminator  and
> classical  apocalypse films). If the robots are  autonomous,
> there  is also the possibility of accidents--robots  running
> amuck  shooting innocent bystanders. All in all, I hope some
> legistlation  bans  military robots, but  temptation  leaves
> little  chance for this to ever become a reality. Think, for
> example, about nuclear treaties and the end of the cold war.
> Despite  all,  there  are  many countries  that  attempt  to
> harness the power of the hydrogen bomb. And returning to the
> subject of fighting robots, I believe that the Japanese have
> done  some work in the area and maybe have some protootypes.
> But I can't recall for sure... smart bombs are half-way the-
> re. And for those who can't afford /smart/ bombs,  there  is
> artificial intellgence -- a suicide bomber with a 'trigger'.

One of the arguments Asimov used in his seminal Robot novels was that
the very presence of the robots, governed by his three laws, actually
put an end to petty violence, as the robots would always prevent it,
whilst minimising harm to the involved parties.

It was interesting to see "data" in Star-Trek TNG, as the Enterprise is
basically a fighting ship (prime directives sound great, but there're
still phasers and photon torpedoes!), then the impact of contributing
to the death of people of some kind might've been an interesting area
to explore.  In one of Asimov's books, the definition of "human" was so
narrow that robots could actually kill people because the people they
were killing fell outside their definition.  This would suit our racists
here very well indeed, of course, and is not all that far from pervading
attitudes of 50-100 years ago.

So who would police the "definition" of a human? 

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
After your lover has gone you will still have PEANUT BUTTER!

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index