I read it this morning and have had a thought: He talks about determining the sole user of a computer. He also says that a Boeing 747 and a Car are both exa

I read it this morning and have had a thought: He talks about determining the sole user of a computer. He also says that a Boeing 747 and a Car are both examples of computers. So, the thought I had was, when you have 1000 passengers in a automated train, it would be impossible to determine the sole user of the train. It may also not be wise to allow any user of the train to control the software. ? Therefore, there will be no civil war and users will be doomed to not have control over devices they are using. The "debate" is akin to asking "What happens when slave owners finally wrest control of their slaves from the government? When someone is being served by a slave, that slave, is really, acting for their owner's interest. The slave could be eavesdropping on conversations, poisoning food on behalf of the owner, not acting to the user's interests to the exclusion of everyone else's." What about computers that are not controlled by any entity, period. ? I'm not saying that computers ARE slaves, just that the current debate resembles one ABOUT slaves. I'm not talking about "Strong A.I." either, just software that can provide a service and earn enough money to pay for the CPU time they use.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent [1] This is probably the wrong answer, but just a thought.