6 ms·

Kudos for the apology. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology It's a bit of a stretch

Kudos for the apology. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology It's a bit of a stretch to call this new technology. Aside from some clever trickery to get around remote firing laws, this is just a (maybe) novel assemblage of standard technology. The argument is obviously about its legality and its availability to consumers. Given that, surely you can't stand by your statement if it's modified as follows: I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable.

bmelton 14y ago
I think you're not giving nearly enough credit to an automated, laser-guided range-finding and compensation device. I agree that it isn't nuclear fusion, or in any way related to the Higgs Boson, but that doesn't make this in any way less noteworthy. Regarding ATF guidelines on remote firing, the wording of their rules seem geared towards actual remote firing, not aided or delayed firing, as this is. The difference is, I think, as large as the difference between a Google automated vehicle and a car with by-wire steering (or perhaps a better example is a drone to a traditional aircraft). In cars with by-wire technology, I still have to steer, brake, accelerate, etc., but there are technologies in place that mean I am still physically driving it. There are assistive mechanisms in place that help me brake faster, or alert me when I'm crossing lanes and what have you, but I'm still driving, and presumably, still free to wreck the car, at least in most cars. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable. Why? Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Ice Picks? By your argument, how are those things legal? Are you honestly suggesting that everything with dangerous potential should be legislated out of existence? Isn't that exactly what the DMCA and other digital legislation has tried to do with crypto?
- wwweston 14y ago
  > Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but which do you really think is more likely: * he's arguing that "potential for misuse" may well be a legitimate reason for regulating some things (inside a larger cost-benefit analysis about danger vs beneficial use, both observed and potential), perhaps up to and including banning * he's arguing that every single potentially dangerous thing should be banned (and also, believes in a flat equivalence between melee weapons, firearms, and motor vehicles) > Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Probably not ban outright. We do seem to have made some progress in automobile and air travel safety by enacting/tweaking requirements for manufacture, registration and insurance for ownership, training and licensing for operating various classes of vehicle, and regulations regarding operation.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Airplanes and automobiles are not fundamental rights enumerated by the Constitution. The president has balked at the notion of requiring licensure (or even having to present a license) to exercise the right to vote because it is sacrosanct in the bill of rights. So what is difference between the first amendment and the second? While I obviously understand the difference in utility between a gun, an airplane and a hammer, the gun is only lacking utility to people that do not believe in the value of a right to prevent against tyranny. Neither a hammer or a car is particularly effective in that regard, though our fundamental rights are more specifically geared for that objective, however ugly some might find them.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
It should not be assumed, for things that have valid, legal uses, that illegal uses will be the de facto use. That kind of thinking is a side-effect of the fear-driven society we are currently living in. Knee-jerk reactions are almost always wrong. Yes, this could make it easier to shoot a person (it makes it easier to shoot anything); but there is no evidence that it will make it more likely that a person will be shot. Even if this was used to facilitate a murder (unlikely, given the cost and the background checks for gun ownership), you have to prove that the murder would not have been committed if this technology didn't exist. I think that would be difficult to prove.

bmelton 14y ago

I think you're not giving nearly enough credit to an automated, laser-guided range-finding and compensation device. I agree that it isn't nuclear fusion, or in any way related to the Higgs Boson, but that doesn't make this in any way less noteworthy. Regarding ATF guidelines on remote firing, the wording of their rules seem geared towards actual remote firing, not aided or delayed firing, as this is. The difference is, I think, as large as the difference between a Google automated vehicle and a car with by-wire steering (or perhaps a better example is a drone to a traditional aircraft). In cars with by-wire technology, I still have to steer, brake, accelerate, etc., but there are technologies in place that mean I am still physically driving it. There are assistive mechanisms in place that help me brake faster, or alert me when I'm crossing lanes and what have you, but I'm still driving, and presumably, still free to wreck the car, at least in most cars. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable. Why? Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Ice Picks? By your argument, how are those things legal? Are you honestly suggesting that everything with dangerous potential should be legislated out of existence? Isn't that exactly what the DMCA and other digital legislation has tried to do with crypto?

wwweston 14y ago
> Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but which do you really think is more likely: * he's arguing that "potential for misuse" may well be a legitimate reason for regulating some things (inside a larger cost-benefit analysis about danger vs beneficial use, both observed and potential), perhaps up to and including banning * he's arguing that every single potentially dangerous thing should be banned (and also, believes in a flat equivalence between melee weapons, firearms, and motor vehicles) > Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Probably not ban outright. We do seem to have made some progress in automobile and air travel safety by enacting/tweaking requirements for manufacture, registration and insurance for ownership, training and licensing for operating various classes of vehicle, and regulations regarding operation.
- bmelton 14y ago
  Airplanes and automobiles are not fundamental rights enumerated by the Constitution. The president has balked at the notion of requiring licensure (or even having to present a license) to exercise the right to vote because it is sacrosanct in the bill of rights. So what is difference between the first amendment and the second? While I obviously understand the difference in utility between a gun, an airplane and a hammer, the gun is only lacking utility to people that do not believe in the value of a right to prevent against tyranny. Neither a hammer or a car is particularly effective in that regard, though our fundamental rights are more specifically geared for that objective, however ugly some might find them.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

It should not be assumed, for things that have valid, legal uses, that illegal uses will be the de facto use. That kind of thinking is a side-effect of the fear-driven society we are currently living in. Knee-jerk reactions are almost always wrong. Yes, this could make it easier to shoot a person (it makes it easier to shoot anything); but there is no evidence that it will make it more likely that a person will be shot. Even if this was used to facilitate a murder (unlikely, given the cost and the background checks for gun ownership), you have to prove that the murder would not have been committed if this technology didn't exist. I think that would be difficult to prove.