Slashdot Mirror

Here's Adam Fenech, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and the director of the Climate Research Lab at the University of Prince Edward Island:"A lot of the most recent science is telling us it could rise as much as three metres during that time," says Fenech. "Probably in about 50 years, with a three-metre increase, we'd probably lose about half the island under water completely."

That's a claim being made TODAY, by a well credentialed leader of a climate research lab. I'm thinking that's not gonna pan out, the IPCC vehemently agrees.

The point is that a lot of the gloom and doom forecasts being used to push policy changes are CONTRARY to the IPCC projections, and are still coming from 'scientists'. Guys like Hansen aren't much better and get a lot of press.

Climate science is entirely falsifiable - it just hasn't been falsified despite all the fortunes spent on trying to do so. Nobody has yet managed to do a real experiment that showed CO2 NOT acting as a greenhouse gas (that would falsify it). Nobody has yet found a single shred of evidence that disproves the theory - while there are thousands of independent sources of evidence that all support it, and nobody has yet come up with a better explanation for the observations than that offered by climate change theory.
Any of these things would:
1) Falsify the theory
2) Win you a nobel prize
3) Guarantee you tenure and an endless supply of grant money for the rest of your life at any academic institution of your choosing.

Basically EVERY incentive is to disprove climate change.

The failure of those trying to actually falsify something does not imply it is not falsifiable. It implies the theory is almost certainly correct.

At this stage, the most single most tested scientific theory in the history of science is so unlikely to be false - that we will almost certainly never see it replaced, modified and gradually improved - yes, replaced probably not. At least not for the next several centuries. Because at this point the only thing that could do so is an observation that actually does not fit the theory. It took 500 years for technology to give us a measuring device that could pick up the things that didn't quite follow Newton, and I'd say it will take about twice that long before something fundamentally alters climate science.

If you set the bar at CO2 causing warming, humans raising CO2 levels and things getting warmer, you are right about those being well established. We aren't gonna upset or falsify that anytime soon.

News flash, policy and behaviour changes aren't really driven by any of those points. What's the severity of the future we face is the question. On that we have two examples below:
1.The IPCC worst case scenario, with 95% confidence levels cited sea level rise relative to today of no more than 3ft by 2100
2.Adam Fenech, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and the director of the Climate Research Lab at the University of Prince Edward Island:"A lot of the most recent science is telling us it could rise as much as three metres during that time," says Fenech. "Probably in about 50 years, with a three-metre increase, we'd probably lose about half the island under water completely."

So we have a Nobel winning committee declaring no more than 3 feet in 100 years, and a Nodel winning research director predicting 3 metres in 50 years. One of these are gonna be falsified, and the scope of difference in their predictions makes an outrageous difference to what our responses should be.

Letting Saudi Arabia take them is a bad idea - Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists. Their treatment of refugees would just radicalize them - they don't have to treat them any worse than most non-Saudi workers.

A wall between the US and Mexico won't work. As one border patrol agent said, the higher we build it, the bigger the ladder they bring. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to build an electronic wall to detect anyone crossing, and it would be cheaper.

Strict vetting works. Canada worked with UN agencies to vet people who had been in camps for years, and the 35,000 refugees that were admitted over a 6-month period seem to be working out well enough thatPrime Minister Trudeau is now working with the UN and George Soros to export Canada's refugee private sponsorship program to other countries.

The thing that caught my eye here was the mention of Reddit - is that a good forum to discuss techie things? Maybe I'll have to go and check it out - I always just dismissed it as yet another social media thing.

Oh, Clinton and Trump, yeah right, what's the fuss? Clinton is without doubt the most evil, criminal mastermind in history (based on hearsay on the gossip channels), and Trump is the spoiled son of a family that made it's fortune from brothels and gambling, apparently (if one can believe this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...). To be honest, I don't think it is only the political classes in the US that are sick - from the noises, it sounds like the whole nation is in the grip of severe, mental illness. I hope I'm wrong - I think any sane person would dismiss the more obviously stupid noises and look up fact for themselves, like what are the track records of the two candidates, what have they achieved that is relevant to the job they are applying for and so on. I mean, those things are in fact quite important, since the President holds real power, unlike some other heads of state. Has anybody of you guys with the loud voices even thought about what qualifications are desirable in a president? Or does it just boil down to "whatever seems to fit the description of our candidate"?

The world is going through a very difficult time, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Globalisation means that things like nations and capitalism are beginning to lose their relevance, and climate change means that we are going to see major conflics over mass migration, among other things. Terrorism is only a small symptom of what is likely to come, if we don't get some things sorted out rather urgently, so I would suggest that people take the issue of who governs the most powerful nation on the planet a little more seriously; this isn't a cheap "reality show".

Don't blame it on Techies...blame it on the lazy millennials. They cannot handle cereal, let alone attack the important issues!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trendin...

You're right, it's a poverty issue but that hits minorities much harder. The problem continues to get worse because we cannot address the disparity in schooling for wealthy districts vs poor districts.

And I don't have an answer, so I'm not trying to play this off as if it's an easy fix. My personal experience with being a mentor shows me the lack of emphasis poor families typically put on education, the parents pass along their negative attitudes to their kids.

We've been "fighting poverty" for nearly 90 years at this point. But you're right it's a harder problem, but there's a lot of simple fixes that can be found. Those are mainly as partially pointed out, education for one. The other is family structure. You can even plot the downward trend when blacks(in the US) started abandoning family structures and single parent welfare households became the norm. If there isn't a strong family structure, everything else simply causes a self-fulfilling problem. No one pushing for better education, poorer education. Support for gangs/criminality, generational and cyclical self-reinforcing negative culture. Canada sees the same thing with native culture and again you can plot out nearly to the year it started to happen. The two groups are fundamentally different, but the solution that government has applied has been the same: Take kids away from their families(in the past), or apply forced abortions/eugenics, break up families, then throw money at the problem for decades and hope it goes away. This has been followed by openly supporting "alternative" schooling that has no structure on focused learning and now you've got the start of a collapse of an entire segment of the population. That know next to nothing, feel they have nothing they can do, and look for what everyone else is doing to survive.

The same solution has been used for education, simply throw more money at it. Now we're seeing the same alternative types of schooling happen in the general population of people, funding in many cases has never been higher. And grades, basic skills are falling through the floor so hard that it's scary. Here in Ontario for instance, over 50% of children failed the basic math and literacy testing for grade 6(even in higher ed like high school). In the 1980's when I was in school that number was around 20%, and being held back a year for failing a single subject was the norm. You can read a couple of articles here on it if you want.

I'm sure some retard is going to go hur-dur-dur racism or something. But if you're unwilling to look at the actual problems and start crying "racist" every time someone points out what the actual problems are, they're never going to be fixed. And they're only going to get worse.

This is similar to what Ontario is looking at as well. Especially since things like disability and so on pay literally shit. If a person is unable to work, and is on disability they're capped to a maximum of $1,100/mo. You may get back some money via various programs like housing allowance(upto $350/mo) when you file income taxes. You may be able to apply for welfare(I say may) because I know people on disability who were unable to. And that's what you're expected to live on. Around here an appt in the poorer areas is still going to run you $770/mo. Income assisted housing? At least a 3 year wait at this point.

It's been guessed that the program would remove welfare, disability and roll it into a UBI program which would cap out at $23k/year(which is the poverty level). As you earn money, the amount is deducted from your UBI, until you pass the minimum $23k level at which point it fully falls off.

I know a few people who'd be able to actually survived on a UBI, because they're barely scraping by now on disability. And they've been fighting with workmans compensation for 16 years after being injured on the job. Just remember here in Ontario: Workers Comp is for the employer, not the worker. There was even a huge report showing that workers comp was turning down people who should be paid by the system because they're no longer able to work. So anyone working in Ontario who get's hurt? You're looking at a life in poverty, and that's if you're lucky. I've met more people on the streets during volunteer work then I can count who can't work and were either kicked off comp or simply refused. Most recent case was a guy who's leg had been crushed by heavy machinery and couldn't walk and required a PSW for day-to-day life. Who now basically lives at the local Lutheran church because that's the only one would help him.

Right, because it's not as if California is having enough drought to have a government site for it, or western canada. Or how about the oceans, where marine-life can be *very* temperature sensitive.

Or how about a change in parasites, which affects both humans and food-chain animals? The good news is that some parasites that like it cool may die out, but those that prefer warmer temperatures (the majority) will spread more readily.

Yo do realize that the TSA/DHS goonsquad has claimed sovereignty over all of North American airspace, whether the flight lands in the US or not, right?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

You cherry-picked your quotes to present it as an ironclad rule. Except there's this thing called the 'notwithstanding' clause. Full excerpt:

2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to: [...]
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;

That 'notwithstanding' clause means that the Parliament of Canada CAN pass laws that violate this article of the Canadian bill of rights, but the exception is limited to 5 years in length, though it is renewable.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/backgr...

they may ignore 2(d) in practice

And, in fact, it is completely legitimate, legally speaking, for them to do so.

that doesn't change the fact that you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not sure if your post betrays your own ignorance, or if you're willfully misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to make your argument seem stronger, but in either case, you are "not as wrong" as GP poster, but you're not exactly right, either.

That's not true. In cases of wrongful imprisonment there are plenty of cases of people suing and winning.

Ivan Henry won 8m in 2010: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Réjean Hinse won 13.1m in 1997: http://www.ctvnews.ca/feds-que...

Ron and Linda Sterling won 925k in 2004: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

I could go on, there are plenty of other cases where victims of wrongful imprisonment were compensated.

That's not true. In cases of wrongful imprisonment there are plenty of cases of people suing and winning.

Ivan Henry won 8m in 2010: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Réjean Hinse won 13.1m in 1997: http://www.ctvnews.ca/feds-que...

Ron and Linda Sterling won 925k in 2004: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

I could go on, there are plenty of other cases where victims of wrongful imprisonment were compensated.

This actually happens in real life.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Because Roi de Janero is a shithole? Even the people living right next to the Olympics are saying the same thing. And they're also saying that it's a total con job.

A shithole is a shithole is a shithole, doesn't matter who is saying it when it's the truth.

Even with the biggest sporting event in the world now in the starting blocks, the response to the Olympics from many in Rio de Janeiro is anger and frustration.

At an impoverished neighbourhood not far from the city's new Olympic Park, raw sewage floats down a stream behind dilapidated housing teeming with children playing by the water, oblivious to the health threat it represents.

"It's a total con job," said Mateus Braga, a local resident.

The Olympics, he said, "are so foreigners can come here and enjoy it all, while Brazilians bear the consequence of the government not spending on education, health care or sanitation."

Somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion has been spent on the Games in Brazil, but critics say that money should have been spent elsewhere.

Journalist and author Juliana Barbassa isn't surprised at the public fury.

She's written extensively about Brazil's poverty and corruption in the shadow of the Games. Games sold as 'a giant urban renewal tool'

"The Olympics were pitched to the people of Rio, sold to the people of Rio, as a giant urban renewal tool, a way to revamp the city," she said.

"And what we got was a mega world party that cost a whole lot more than just doing those changes on their own."

Barbassa noted the many thousands of Brazilians displaced by the Games, and two years earlier, by the World Cup of soccer.

Even in the days before the Games opened, demolition crews were knocking down more housing to clear ground near the Olympic Village. Many of the displaced people have been given new housing elsewhere, but few seem happy about it.

A series of new condominium-style buildings will house athletes from around the world this month, but instead of being offered afterward as much-needed housing for the poor, they're in line to be sold to Rio's wealthy.

Half the sewage isn't treated, and even that number goes down when it rains. The hospitals don't have money for sufficient gloves, syringes, antibiotics, so they've cut the number of operations they perform in half. The police and military are corrupt. So is the government, right to the very top. The president was thrown in jail, and awaits trial.

And it ranks worse than such notable shithole countries as Bangladesh when it comes to corruption.

For a good while, if you installed the LinkedIn app on your phone, it would harvest your contacts' email addresses and send them spam for LinkedIn on your behalf. "I want you to join my professional network" or some such garbage. The permissions requested by the app were typical of social networking apps (they all "require" access to your contacts) and there was no indication to the user that LinkedIn would be sending out emails. They stopped this practice after being sued, but the behavior turned a lot of people away and permanently associated the LinkedIn brand with spam and shady activity.

Not sure if BLM is a movement with leaders or something more like Anonymous. More than likely those BLM supporters who want to kill cops are the minority.

Seriously? There are founders, leaders and members of BLM that have been assaulting people and another, at least one for running a under-age prostitution ring and under-age sex trafficking, the one from Toronto has repeatedly said "they wanted to kill white people" and then at the protest in Toronto they brought out more anti-police, anti-white rhetoric.

Yeah really, these are self-professed members acting in violent, criminal and in general scum like ways. There's no real difference between them and the ye olde racists of yesteryear.

Really though, more whites are killed by police then blacks in the US by a huge number. But there's zip on the media about that. You heard about the last two blacks, how about the last two white guys who were gunned down that literally happened a few days/weeks before that.

Not only that, but Bell just lost their appeal over access to their last-mile fibre. A good day for everyone in Canada (exept Bell shareholders, perhaps).

Really

It's not an idiotic question. It is a situation that could come up.

However, it does need to be put into perspective.
As you say, the extreme cases rarely comes up.
As well, will the AI do as good or better than the average human.

Far too often when a new technology comes up, people spend their time worrying about every potential issue with it rather than asking how well does it stack against the current system.

Most people just don't react that well in extreme scenarios.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Here's a strange one I remember being in the news about a woman who stops on the highway to avoid some ducks... causes the death of two people.

Quite frankly, the big gains in safety from autonomous cars aren't going to come from these extreme cases, but from making regular day to day driving safe. Every single one of my close calls or actual accidents has been my stupidity (not paying attention, trying to drive too aggressively when I was younger...)

Whatever the AI chooses in these extreme cases; you can guarantee that a significant number of human drivers would make the same choices; probably even worse ones.

Heck, even leave it as a toggle if you really want to. Err on the side of the drivers safety vs err on the side of potential victims.

Tires can blow, parts can break down unexpectedly. If you live in Quebec, Canada then your vehicle might fall into a giant pothole. There's also incline weather, animals, falling trees, power poles, etc etc etc.

Basically, you're ruling out the driver, but ending up in a situation similar to home insurance covering sudden disasters to your property, or lawsuits from others injured on your property regardless of whether you were an active participant (i.e. in the above situations).

And sadly, the same shit (or maybe worse) happened to the owner of an RV park in Canada. In this case, a crooked tax collector supposedly offered to make the case "go away" (for a kickback), and when they didn't play ball the agency "lost" his receipts and thus declared all his deductions invalid before destroying his business and livelyhood.

Letting them vent gives them the learning opportunity of having a listener say, "Are you stupid, and/or angry?)

This is not about people venting. This is mostly about putting a stop to ISIS' recruitment campaign.

Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want;

I did not say otherwise. But you implied they were only banning content based on legal obligations. This is obviously false.

I did not mean to imply they were only banning due to legal obligations; merely that FB and other private companies can ban based on any criteria they chose since they are private companies.

even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.

Which is the stupid decision? Banning legal content to please some prudes or agreeing to ban terrorist recruitment campaigns? It seems to me people have a very twisted sense of priorities.

Again, I can agree or disagree with their decision but it is their choice to make.Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.

Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want;

I did not say otherwise. But you implied they were only banning content based on legal obligations. This is obviously false.

even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.

Which is the stupid decision? Banning legal content to please some prudes or agreeing to ban terrorist recruitment campaigns? It seems to me people have a very twisted sense of priorities.

I very strongly support terrorists posting on Twitter.

A long time ago, I was a licensed private investigator[...]

Your funny story is irrelevant in a situation where the terrorists post from Syria for recruitment purposes.

The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech

What? What speech was said that triggered the attacks? The attacks would have been done regardless of what anyone said.

This is not about speech triggering the attacks. This is about putting a stop to ISIS' Internet recruitment campaign so the recruitees don't come back to their countries with bombs and AK-47's:
Inside the Mind-Control Methods the Islamic State Uses to Recruit Teenagers
ISIS recruitment methods exposed after Jordanian woman flees secret compound

That's why embezzlers are never punished, because it takes years for anyone to notice anything is wrong, or they pay off the right people.

Note I also said in plain sight, embezzlers aren't acting in plain site they're trying to hide what they do because they know its illegal.

There's no indication that Clinton tried to hide the email address she was using from anyone.

Absolutely Clinton should go free despite breaking some of the clearest laws that exist.

Don't forcefully touch people without their consent, that's assault.

Of course to suggest Justin Trudeau should be charged with assault for his elbow is absurd.

The laws said she was supposed to keep records of her official communications, she did. She broke agency rules with her own server but I don't think that's criminal and I don't know if she thought that the specific email server mattered.

She was supposed to not communicate classified stuff over unsecured emails, she didn't. But I suspect that law is a bit like the speeding limit in that everything is classified and everybody at that level has at least some slip-ups.

My understanding is people only get charged for mishandling classified material when they're in the process of doing something else bad like sharing them with 3rd parties.

After all, she's just a dumb female, right?

I didn't claim your Clinton criticism was motivated by misogyny, don't try to pull that rhetorical crap on me.

And cats kill billions of birds a year.

If there were time, then I wonder if Olympic training grounds could be used for the Olympics, like these training grounds in the US and Canada. They would have to accommodate spectators - food, lodging, parking, emergency services, plus a place to watch the olympic games. It's too late to get that set up now.

Or if all else fails, they could hold the Olympics in a healthy place (including clean water) without thousands of visitors, and just televise the games. It would be sort of weird for there not to be any crowds cheering and applauding.

It would have been 20 years for any other tech, but self driving cars have one major thing going for them: sex. Anything that's driven by sex tends to happen quickly and regardless of law or regulation. So I would say 5 years at most.

British Columbia has one now that's been quite successful: "We've grown our economy at the same time we've had what the World Bank calls the most successful carbon taxes in the world." - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Since background checks are paid for at a flat-fee rate in most places, the entire thing is moot. Strange that neither company has problems with it up here in Canada, at least not yet. But the laws are changing, because they both want to be a taxi company and here taxi companies are required to have background checks including criminal background checks before you can get your full chauffeurs license.

Uber and Calgary couldn't get it together. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Here is a non-Uber related example of pretty much the same thing. The court ruled that the owner of the stopped car bore some of the responsibility.

Really? Well I suppose that's true, especially considering the number of solar companies that continue to fold up shop and quit these days.

But sorry, paying them $0.80kWh(for solar) isn't fair to everyone else, neither is paying them $0.50kWh for wind. Especially when it drives the price of electricity for everyone else up to $0.17kWh during peak hours. And those "green energy" pay-ins have driven up the price of electricity over 500% in the last 10 years.

Now that Netflix is actively blocking VPN users, I wonder how this will play out?

Look, I don't support Donald Trump, and I don't particularly like his policies. But the last thing I want to read when I come to Slashdot is some snide swipe at him.

Especially when it's not direct family. I mean, really, you can say the Trump family made their money running a brothel, which is being resurrected in Canada.

Yes, Frederick Trump (Donald's great-grandfather) made their fortune running brothels, hotels and restaurants.

So now you know where the Trump family fortune came about. Uncle? Nah. Direct family lineage is better.

Cats and collisions with buildings kill magnitudes more birds than windmills ever will. Just this weekend one walkway between two buildings in my city killed over 30 birds. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... But lets stop building windmills that kill many fewer birds.

Funny how Canadians always leave out the part out about refusing single males entry when trumpeting this noble act.

So they are being smart about it.

Funny how Canadians always leave out the part out about refusing single males entry when trumpeting this noble act.

It's not new.

The part that intrigues me, and I can't be too sure of it, is that today we supposedly rely on intellectualism/rational thinking.

Yet, that too has become a movement. Just look at the examples taken in the article. It is all anti-intellectualism from a particular political perspective. Climate change, cigarettes, Donald Trump.

Now, some might suggest... well duh... that's because that political perspective has science/rationality on its side!

Except it doesn't. You'd be hard pressed to see all these people harping about anti-intellectualism jump on science which harms their own political perspective.

For example. Let's take a common 'progressive' idea in the world right now. Healthcare cost issues can be solved by prevention.

Sounds nice. Has a nice intuitive sound to it.

Yet, It is generally false.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...

Healthy people actually cost more to treat over their lifetime. They live longer. Have more illnesses. Spend more time in old age. Smokers and obese people are actually cheaper to treat. They might get one big dose of cancer or a heart attack, but then they die.

To give a political spin on it. I'm in Toronto and recently our obese crack smoking Mayor passed away. Rob Ford. He died in his 40s. I'm sure his treatment was pricey, but it's done now.

Almost every health study confirms this. Most healthcare costs are in old age and in the last years of life.

About the main thing you can do to control healthcare spending in that respect is rationing or as they got labelled in the US 'death panels'.

Yet, we sit and watch as pretty much every progressive politician and group touts prevention as the cure for increasing healthcare costs.

Where is this example in our anti-intellectualism article? It's not there. How about science regarding gender differences? Anything to do with racial sensitives? Not there...

Basically intellectualism as a 'movement' suffers from the same crap that the most bible thumping anti-intellectual movement suffers. They just use science to further their own policies that they've already decided they want.

Now are there pure intellectuals who genuinely just use science to figure out what is best? Probably. But they're not the movement and rarely do they speak up.

I'm originally from Alberta, lots of relatives in Toronto, live in Quebec. "Scandals" in the other provinces are cute compared to what goes on here. But don't take my word for it, here's a CBC correspondent with middle east and Washington experience, who recently returned to Canada to live in Ottawa, who says the same thing. Bonus, there's a little video of one of our "potholes."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

Another interpretation (only slightly more extreme than yours) is that even prisoners and inmates of mental hospitals, being citizens, have a right to keep and bear arms - a right that is inalienable under any circumstances.

Comedians have already considered this possibility. Took me a while to realize it was satire.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thisis...

Yeah, and people are happily moving back that were evacuated from Fukushima now. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/f...

Wow, 7000 return and 100,000 still can't - gee you really got me there. For the people around Chernobyl though? Perhaps they don't deserve our empathy because, well, they were soviet's back then.

I don't have to explain shit.

Perhaps you don't know? So here is a explanation of the global danger that Fukushima reactor 4 still poses to all of us e.v.e.r.y.d.a.y. and the nature of a plutonium fire. It really shows the regard the Japanese government has for the residents of Fukushima.

Yeah, and people are happily moving back that were evacuated from Fukushima now. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/f...

I don't have to explain shit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

In Canada Via Rail increasing security after receiving threat
Sniffer dogs and RCMP being deployed at some stations
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

If you can be ordered to pay out $5 billion to compensate one family, none of whom died, because a drunk driver slammed into the back of their 14-year-old car, anything is possible.

When Apple sells a defective power cord that was made by someone else under license, it's Apple that is on the hook for the $$$, even though they didn't make it. Licensing deals will always get you dragged into a case - that's what lawyers, at least the competent ones, do.

Also, since a licensing deal for the visual design for use in producing a Batmobile necessitates the addition of an automobile chassis, if the licencor doesn't specify which chassis are approved for use, they can be held partially liable for licensing a defective product.

Here's someone that basically parked in the passing lane of a highway to help ducklings cross the road. They were charged with criminal negligence causing death when they were rear ended by a motorcycle that killed the riders

You still need a human on board to control the unruly drunks who puke on public transit, the druggie who takes over a bus with a knife or the schizophrenic who hacks off another passenger's head, or to drive the school bus to the police station when kids get out of control.