California DMV Changes Rules To Allow Testing and Use of Fully Autonomous Vehicles (techcrunch.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California DMV Changes Rules To Allow Testing and Use of Fully Autonomous Vehicles (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @04:50AM from the it's-happening dept.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles is changing its rules to allow companies to test autonomous vehicles without a driver behind the wheel -- and to let the public use autonomous vehicles. From a report: The DMV released a revised version of its regulations and has started a 15-day public comment period, ending October 25, 2017. California law requires the DMV to work on regulations to cover testing and public use of autonomous vehicles, and the regulator said that this is the first step. "We are excited to take the next step in furthering the development of this potentially life-saving technology in California," the state's Transportation Secretary, Brian Kelly, said in a statement. California's DMV took pains in its announcement to highlight that it wasn't trying to overstep the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has the final say on developing and enforcing compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Rather, the California regulations, are going to require manufacturers to certify that they've met federal safety standards before their cars become (driverlessly) street legal. And manufacturers still have to obey the state traffic laws written for California.

120 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by IApeFatCashews · 2017-10-11 05:00 · Score: 3, Funny

I would love to see autonomous vehicles navigate a California parking lot during the holiday shopping season.
1. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  I can already imagine the ebook you'll write about it. The horrid, generic cover artwork, the misspelled title in bold font, the 500 words of poorly-edited "content", the handful of irate suckers that will be tricked into buying that fetid little horror you'll unleash on the world.
2. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  This is totally stupid! How can an autonomous car even signal other drivers with the appropriate fist wave and middle finger?
3. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by losfromla · 2017-10-11 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly neither your nor the other morons commenting here live in CA. It isn't like that here. People are generally calm and not irate. It probably has to do with the weather and the avocados.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
4. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yet another claim of Californian exceptionalism from someone who's only been outside the state of California twice in his life.
  Thanks for chiming in with your provincial, egocentric view of the world, creimer. We're all a bit dumber for it, but at least we're not as dumb as you.
5. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, this fascist is so stupid, he didn't even reply to the right comment.
6. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by i286NiNJA · 2017-10-11 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he should cash in some of his stock or build a portfolio with dividends so that he doesn't have to shitpost in the stupidest conversation thread of a dying forum in order to put blini on the table.
  I wonder if looking like a dipshit gets him a bad quarterly evaluation at ShillCo. He's going to get transferred back to the elderly telephone scam department. :(
7. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yet another claim of Californian exceptionalism from someone who's only been outside the state of California twice in his life.
  Thanks for chiming in with your provincial, egocentric view of the world, creimer. We're all a bit dumber for it, but at least we're not as dumb as you.
  CORRECTION: Creimer has been out of state four times: twice to Idaho and twice to the South (Los Angeles and Pasadena).
8. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by HiThere · 2017-10-11 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'd actually rate California drivers about average, though it varies a lot from place to place. They are certainly better than the drivers I remember from Japan about 40 years ago. But they aren't as courteous as the drivers I remember from Madera, CA about 45 years ago.
  My guess is that the denser the traffic, the less courteous the drivers are...with idiotic exceptions. For example, while I was living in Madera I was waiting for the school bus in a fog so dense you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. After a couple of hours we (my sister and I) got notice that the bus wasn't coming because two pickup trucks had rear ended it (and each other) at about 60 MPH. Both pickup truck drivers were quite thoroughly dead, and the bus needed extensive repairs. In a fog you couldn't see through. The bus was stopped at a stop sign to pick up someone. Still, the average driver was more courteous.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
9. Re:Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by antdude · 2017-10-11 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they better test that in 2017!
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Do it while you can! by Dripdry · 2017-10-11 05:07 · Score: 1

Of all the places I've driven, Los Angeles was the most fun. Hills, twisty highway ramps, and long stretches of road to gun it and relax on. Once driverless takes hold it'll be sad to see that excitement fade away, but great helping the traffic problem.

--
-
1. Re: Do it while you can! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Traffic prevents that anyhow.
2. Re:Do it while you can! by gnick · 2017-10-11 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Once driverless takes hold it'll be sad to see that excitement fade away...
  When I'm being driven around, I prefer as little excitement as possible. Let's see what these deliver.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Liability by XXongo · 2017-10-11 05:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I'm more interested in here is, has California codified who has liability for accidents involving self-driving cars?
1. Re:Liability by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Per the norm for Commifornia: the population are guinea pigs for corporate oppression tactics, so the drivers will be at fault. Can't have driverless car companies getting sued for every car accident involving a driverless car, but there will certainly be a circus of how each individual case wasn't actually the fault of the car to keep adoption up. The end goal is to replace the ~1.3 million auto fatalities with 10% of targeted fatalities. That 1.3 million is random, it doesn't suite the state, however if you cut down the number to 130,000 per year (instead of the theoretical 0 per year driverless cars would allow) then you can both be a hero AND kill off political dissenters without taking any blame for it. Though being Commifornia-based the companies will likely be a bit greedier than that and just cut the fatalities down by whatever percentage is required for good PR while maximizing the number of conservatives they can slaughter.
2. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  " Though being Commifornia-based the companies will likely be a bit greedier than that and just cut the fatalities down by whatever percentage is required for good PR while maximizing the number of conservatives they can slaughter"
  God what a wonderful dream. I can just see it now. Fleet after fleet of pre programmed car just hunting down and mowing over any rednecks they can find. What a wonderful idea! Thank you for making my day. Now if only Google and Apple could untie behind this plan the world would be sooo lucky.
3. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · 2017-10-11 08:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As long as the insurance company can't raise a car owner's premiums when the car makes a mistake. The same software in every car means every car owner is equally as skilled. The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
4. Re:Liability by losfromla · 2017-10-11 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes! To equalize brown and black deaths at the hands of racist cops, the cars will preferentially veer towards blonde blue eyed whites.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
5. Re:Liability by SeaFox · 2017-10-11 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.
  How do you figure that? The insurance company can simply track the accident stats for the specific software, and version of it, over all vehicles running it -- i.e. "Tesla Firmware 17.36.1b27c6d" = one "driver". Then set rates accordingly. That would give far more driving historical data than tracking a single human that would mainly be limited to a specific geographic area.
  An interesting side effect is people might see a change in their insurance rates if they update their car's software.
6. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · 2017-10-11 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine, as long as Sally Smith doesn't personally have to pay more because her automated car didn't see a cyclist one day when the sun was shining a certain way. Everyone should pay equally. The only way to accomplish that is to make it part of the cost of the car, which means no personal insurance anyway. Otherwise you get a situation where ten thousand people have fluctuating insurance rates depending on what bugs were found that month in terms of accidents.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
7. Re:Liability by fedos · 2017-10-11 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  That would be a great incentive to get people to update from old firmware.
8. Re:Liability by HiThere · 2017-10-11 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know ... the new update wouldn't have any track record.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
9. Re:Liability by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  I bet you're the same kind of shitbag who liked the Vegas shooting.
10. Re:Liability by losfromla · 2017-10-11 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Lol. I didn't realize there was such a group of people. Are you in the group? Did they form a Reddit?
  Are you mad because there isn't a fully automated forklift mentioned in the write-ups to get your cheetos eating fat-ass into the car?
  I'll bet you're the kind of racist piece of shit that thinks cops are heroes.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
11. Re:Liability by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  I take that back, you might just be retarded.
12. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · 2017-10-11 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Is anyone really going to know if the new update fixes old bugs without introducing new ones?
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
13. Re:Liability by SeaFox · 2017-10-11 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know ... the new update wouldn't have any track record.
  True, but it could start at the same insurance rating as the previous version and be adjusted as the data is collected and a more unique risk profile is developed.
14. Re:Liability by SeaFox · 2017-10-11 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine, as long as Sally Smith doesn't personally have to pay more because her automated car didn't see a cyclist one day when the sun was shining a certain way. Everyone should pay equally.
  Everyone running the specific version of the software would pay equally is my thinking. That also means that accidents for other vehicles running the same software might impact your rates -- which would only be correct, because the same "person" is operating all these vehicles. The behavior of those other cars would give insights into the abilities of the autodrive software that were not observable in your car because you had not been in the same exact situation (yet).
  They might take the car the software is on into account, too. Firmware 1 might do a better job driving vehicle model A than vehicle model B due to different performance and handling characteristics of the hardware (vehicle), causing different rates there.
  This is actually how our current insurance works already, btw. Your insurance rates are not based solely on your own personal behavior, but take into account things like your age and the behaviors of other drivers in your age range and with similar vehicles as you drive.
  
  The only way to accomplish that is to make it part of the cost of the car, which means no personal insurance anyway.
  LOL. Keep dreamn', bud. There will never be insurance that is part of the cost of the car. First of all, because the car is a one-time purchase, and the length of ownership can vary widely, how would they know how long you would need coverage for when you bought it? Secondly, if it was a monthly/bi-annually/yearly charge, you're just going to see the same thing -- there would be adjustments made to the price to account for inflation at least, if not other things.
  
  Otherwise you get a situation where ten thousand people have fluctuating insurance rates depending on what bugs were found that month in terms of accidents.
  Again, that is no different than the insurance system we have now. Insurance rates are adjusted constantly in relation to new information about the way people drive individually and as an average across a larger group. The difference is most people don't buy their insurance a month at a time. Even if they are paying for it in installments, the policy term is six months to a year long. So it's only going to get a adjusted when you buy a new term.
  Do you even have insurance? You sound like someone who's never looked at insurance bills over a period of time. Following through a period of 20 years and three insurance companies, my bill has been slightly different every time I get my renewal paperwork. It's generally gone down (as I'm no longer a 17 year old punk and grew up into a lower risk bracket), but sometimes it went up even if I made no claims, had no accidents, and didn't change cars -- because the risk assessment for my group at that time has been revised due to data from other people.
15. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · 2017-10-12 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sure insurance prices go up, but in a controlled way. Drivers shouldn't be expected to pay for bungs in software. One year you are paying $1000, and then a trailer crossing the road event happens and the next year you are paying $2500? How can anyone budget that way? It's Tesla's bug and their burden to bear and should not affect immediate insurance rates.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
16. Re:Liability by losfromla · 2017-10-12 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  What's the matter snowflake? Can't generate an actual argument so right away you resort to name-calling?
  I can do that too: *Pee-Wee Herman voice* I know you are but what am I?
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
17. Re:Liability by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-12 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry if you thought that was name calling, but stating a fact is no such thing.
18. Re:Liability by losfromla · 2017-10-12 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Snowflake, dRumptist, victim, pussy, all pretty well describe you, you bootlicker.
  Also, you're right you're sorry, you're a sorry excuse for a human. But you do make a great sheep.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
19. Re:Liability by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-12 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  WAKE UP SHEEPLE. Moron.
20. Re: Liability by losfromla · 2017-10-12 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  That was original /sarcasm
  I'm pretty tired, but your definitely out of gas cause that was lame even for a fat dotard like you.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
21. Re:Liability by SeaFox · 2017-10-12 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure insurance prices go up, but in a controlled way. Drivers shouldn't be expected to pay for bungs in software. One year you are paying $1000, and then a trailer crossing the road event happens and the next year you are paying $2500? How can anyone budget that way
  The driver is the owner of the car. Tesla is not going to agree to any insurance setup where they are on the hook in perpetuity for a vehicle they only get to profit from once. So ether the owner pays for the insurance, or the owner only gets to lease their vehicle, and you'll see that lease rate adjust with the insurance rating -- either way, the driver will be paying something on an ongoing basis because of the insurance.
  The driver decided to buy the car, and had control over the make and model choice. Just like right now, people use the potential insurance costs of a vehicle in their purchasing decisions (at least the smart ones do). As far as "budgeting for insurance" people have the same lack of control right now on that front. If you get in an accident in your Toyota Camry your insurance rates will increase if it's your fault. There is nothing you can do to avoid that risk -- it's called an accident for a reason. So I really don't see how you think the car being self-driving is some new change to that paradigm.
  I don't see anyone putting a gun to your head and making you buy a self-driving car. If you think they are so buggy -- don't buy one.
  Also: LOL -- Insurance increasing from $1000 to $2500 from one accident? Hyperbole much?
22. Re: Liability by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-12 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Done with this, feel free to get the last word in.
23. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  > The same software in every car means every car owner is equally as skilled. The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.
  Every discussion I've heard so far indicates that car manufacturers aren't exactly collaborating with each other; rather, they're all conducting their own research and unless things change, I suspect the software in a car from Manufacturer A could be superior to the software in a car from Manufacturer B either in some very specific scenarios or across the board. And if that's the case, then past history, as you put it, *will* come into play if it can be demonstrated that Manufacturer A or B's software simply makes bad decisions in some given situation.
  Competition is good, but in this case I think I'd rather see resources being pooled together and see all manufacturers working towards the same goal.
24. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · 2017-10-13 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  But no one can possibly make an educated choice on what bugs will lurk in the AI brain. That's the problem. A person can make a conscientious choice to drive safer, thus it makes sense to charge more for insurance if they don't. They don't have any control over how safe an automated car is. And yes insurance increases could be large. If there is a significant flaw found that makes 1 million cars possibly unsafe overnight.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
25. Re: Liability by losfromla · 2017-10-13 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I won bigly!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:13 · Score: 0

Way too dangerous. The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel hurtling mere feet away from people on sidewalks while a robot is at the controls is insanity!!
1. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Guybrush_T · 2017-10-11 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel driven by an unpredictable person near people on sidewalks is even more insanity. The person could be drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy.
  Very soon people will realize that having a robot drive is much safer and predictable. Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...
2. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by argumentsockpuppet · 2017-10-11 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel hurtling mere feet away from people on sidewalks while a human is at the controls is insanity!!
  FTFY.
  At least computers are predictable. Software is guaranteed to have bugs. Humans are too. At least with computers, you can fix the bugs when you find them.
3. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Way too dangerous. The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel hurtling mere feet away from people on sidewalks while a robot is at the controls is insanity!!
  Not in itself, but when you consider the fact those robots will be programmed by liberals in a state governed by liberal extremists and have indemnity from the harm caused it gets quite scary.
  As Trump's election has clearly shown them, simply removing conservatives from their jobs and destroying their livelihoods isn't enough to bend the world to their whims. Members of major Silicon Valley corporations and professors in Commifornia universities are supporting Antifa, who's agenda is basically to terrorize the population and use violence against people they disagree with while screeching "shut up" at dissenting opinions, killer robotic cars are their next step.
4. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by 0100010001010011 · 2017-10-11 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not just that but the bug fixes are cumulative. Find a bug with someones' winter driving and they can take a winter driving course to fix it. It doesn't magically update the firmware in all the other humans.
5. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  At least computers are predictable.
  I see you've never used a malfunctioning computer.
6. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Infiniti2000 · 2017-10-11 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  This. Exactly why I love the idea of testing all this crap out in California instead of where I live.
7. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  persecution complex
  pull yourself up by your bootstraps, sweet pea
8. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Type44Q · 2017-10-11 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  So you're not a programmer.
9. Re: Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Man. Has it really gotten this bad? Anything wrong with the world, blame the liberals. I don't get it. As if every single liberal is the cause of your problems. NO you are the cause of your problems. Same applies to the conservatives.
10. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  No. Not on a regular basis. Once I realize it is malfunctioning, I fix it. I have worked with plenty of malfunctioning humans on a regular basis though. They are not fixable.
11. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Kjella · 2017-10-11 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...
  Which we generally keep far out of harm's way from the people that are
  
  drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy
  Well maybe not the heart attack guy. But people walk by on the sidewalk literally centimeters from cars. Most of our threat assessment is not whether they physically could jump out into the street, but whether they seem drunk, high, distracted, mentally impaired, a child or otherwise likely to do something silly. Like the difference between a dog on a leash and a street dog, they may be equally physically capable but I assume an owner will generally restrain a dog trying to run into the road. A computer can land a rocket from space on a tiny barge in the ocean, but without a deeper understanding of people and animals it'll be a nervous Nellie because the slightest gesture must be interpreted in the worst possible way. It's easier the further you're away from human-controlled anything.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
12. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by fluffernutter · 2017-10-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  People like you see one human making a mistake out of ten thousand and then go on about humans can't drive. I see humans making a true mistake in traffic, maybe once a month. In that time I must have seen 5000 drivers doing exactly the right thing. It's going to be a long time before you see 4999 autonomous cars not making a mistake ever and one that does.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
13. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
14. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-11 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  I think New Mexico already ok'd it and I'd have a hard time believing Texas isn't already on board or will be soon. Texas doesn't give a shit about humans, it cares about corporations, it proves that by being a "Right to Work" state. This generally means a right-to-abuse-workers state.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
15. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-11 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  snowflake.
  Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
16. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism
  Spoken like a true simpleton. Everything is not black and white.
17. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-11 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism,
  So if I call myself AntiPoor, that makes me rich?
  Neat.
  or bullshit, whichever seems more logical (hint: the second thing).
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
18. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-11 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point, I'll correct that for you:
  If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
  You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
19. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  No, FUCK YOU, none of this technology is even remotely ready for real world conditions, not if it has to call a remote human operator when it gets stuck because it's not real AI and doesn't 'think'. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you dumb shits who claim every goddamned human being on the planet is just an accident waiting to happen. Just because YOU suck at driving and wet your pants every time you get in the car doesn't mean that *I* or anyone else sucks at driving or should have that taken away from us, and be relegated to strapping into some death machine so we can die in terror when (not IF, but WHEN!) it fucks up and gets us killed -- and have NO WAY TO SAVE OURSELVES. Fuck you and your self-driving nightmare machines sideways with a rusty chainsaw.
20. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by just+another+AC · 2017-10-11 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am, I know I my software is fallible - but that is because I am. So the bar for AI is quite low.
  Plus humans don't come with unit tests!
  (their programming just adapts however the hell it wants with no set goal in mind)
21. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by HiThere · 2017-10-11 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know whether it's more dangerous than human drivers or not. The news coverage is extremely biased, and doesn't provide much way to judge. I'm certainly not going to take the word of a manager at GM when talking about his competition.
  It would really be nice if this could be done on a county by county basis, so that people could make decisions based on real evidence rather than gut feelings.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
22. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-11 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  If automation and rockets were this good, we would have already sent ALL of the spent Plutonium out to space. Not gonna happen!! Rockets have historically crashed and exploded in flights. They still do.
23. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Right...so they are being anti-fascist, by beating and killing innocent people they disagree with. Doublethink of the left, everyone.
24. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Because all things are one of two things which are polar opposites of eachother. Leftist extremists, everyone.
25. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-11 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, as I recall it is you racist white terrorists who have been killing people concerned about social justice.
  The violence might come and you just have to choose, will you do violence to increase racism and inequality or will you contribute your violence to promoting social justice. The ends sometimes/often/usually do justify the means. This, btw is the logic that is used by the US Empire to invade countries, depose their leaders, and kill millions of non-'muricans, because brown people!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
26. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-11 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so you're not only a liberal extremist, but also a traitor and/or a worthless foreigner.
27. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  you have to shorten it to AntiPoo
28. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by fisted · 2017-10-11 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously he's a pirate.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
29. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by fisted · 2017-10-11 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  That is less of a problem with safety but with energy expense. It's hard enough to get the super-heavy super-dense spent fuel into orbit, but even then what? You cut the invisible leash attached to it so it falls right into the sun? If you think it works like that, I happento own a nice bridge you might want to consider purchasing.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
30. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by fisted · 2017-10-11 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  At least computers are predictable. [...] At least with computers, you can fix the bugs when you find them.
  That holds true for classical software, but not for things like neural nets, or anything approaching A.I.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
31. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by tsqr · 2017-10-12 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  snowflake. Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
  Being a member of Antifa and calling yourself anti-fascist, is like being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and calling yourself a socialist.
32. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-12 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed it is heavy! You would do it in small amounts at a time.. if rockets could be made reliable and powerful enough.. Having something dangerous near you, that has a half life of roughly 24,000 years is not cool. The other option would be to figure out a way to accelerate the half lives of plutonium. Then we would have a bunch of lead around. -- Decay chains: They all end up as lead. http://metadata.berkeley.edu/n...
33. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by fisted · 2017-10-12 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still not sure you understand your own proposal.
  Assuming you get the stuff into orbit, how do you get it from there to the sun?
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
34. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-12 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a bit confused here. As far as I recall. The first trip to the moon did not require an earth orbit. They just timed it to reach the moon in it's orbit. THEN the orbiting around the moon began as they neared it.. Now that I researched it. It did require 1/2 an orbit around the earth because of lack of escape velocity. So you get half-off on this discussion. https://www.space.com/26572-ho... 2nd picture down.
35. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by fisted · 2017-10-12 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  There's usually at least two reasons to get into Earth orbit first:
  - maintaining an abort window, having some time to verify everything is as it's supposed to be.
  - because it doesn't matter much, delta-v vise. The energy it takes to reach the moon is pretty much the same, regardless of whether you directly go for earth escape velocity, or suspend your acceleration for a while at orbital velocity. The image in your link that says "falling to the moon" I find misleading, because while in orbit, you're exactly still falling to the earth (keeping to miss because your horizontal velocity is big enough). The amount of energy to invest to go from falling around earth to traveling to the moon is not insignificant, and at this distance the moon doesn't noticably "pull" either, so it's anything but "falling". It's "burning another stage of your rocket" and called the trans-lunar injection.
  Anyway, the comparison between going to the moon and going to the sun is pretty flawed. What you might be forgetting is that the whole system, Earth, Moon, you, me, and your superheavy (or supermany, again it doesn't really matter, energy-wise) uranium-laden rockets, are orbiting *sun*. We *are* already falling "towards" it (again we're just fast enough to be continuously missing it). If your rockets are to fall "into" the sun, then they need to shed their velocity that keeps them orbiting sun -- and that's a healthy 30 km/sec. I don't know how much fuel it takes for a delta-v of 30 km/sec, but it's probably a lot. So it requires even more fuel to lift that fuel into earth orbit in the first place, and then some more for that, and so on (the usual rocket equation).
  tl;dr: it sucks...
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
36. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-12 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like a true dRumptist/white supremacist/xenophobe.
  You on the other hand are a worthless being and a traitor by licking the boots of the orange tyrant currently desecrating the White House by his very presence. It boggles the mind that anyone with even a slightly working brain would support that orangutan.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
37. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-12 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  How do you figure tsqr? I myself disagree with the comparison.
  Antifa means exactly that and is what it stands for, you might not agree with a violent approach (to each his own), nonetheless, their goals are clear and well aligned with their name. Violence against fascism does not equate to fascism, violence against equality and social justice is fascism.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
38. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-12 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, horizontal velocity both from the turning of the earth, causing a curve when it DOES leave earth's gravity. and the natural curving flight of an object as it descends upon the sun or a black hole. But I try to look upon the bright side because of the amassing of more knowledge as we go along. Take this site for instance. - Laser powered rockets and solar powered guidance https://www.sciencealert.com/n... Except we would be aiming for the sun.
39. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by tsqr · 2017-10-12 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  This is how I figure:
  Applying the label Fascist to a group you don't like, then using violence and suppression of ideas and speech to fight the agenda of that group doesn't make you anti-fascist; it makes you a violent suppressor of ideas and speech. It boils down to embracing the moral framework of your enemy in the name of fighting them; aka, the end justifies the means. People who view Antifa in a negative light aren't generally fans of Fascist principles, they just have problems with the behavior they observe.
40. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-12 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  I hear you, I disagree.
  I approve of their goals. I don't necessarily condone the violence but I feel that the left needs to bring some violence, because I don't fall in line with the peaceful protest approach. If the kkk and the other white supremacists are bringing bats, and riot masks and shields to a protest, then the left also needs to have some folks there, to equalize things. This is more important when local authorities align with the racists. I also have not problem with violently suppressing racist ideas, I'll leave better people to take the high road, some of us have to take the low road. I'm not fully committed and haven't really brought violence yet but I think I know myself enough that I would find myself gleefully participating in a melee if the shit went down.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
41. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-12 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck off barbarian slime.
42. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-12 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot believe the level of complement you have just paid me. I'm picturing you just called me this:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Danke!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
43. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-12 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Learn your Roman history, filth.
44. Re: Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-12 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  The decline and fall off the Roman empire? Read it, what's your point?
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
45. Re: Hopefully the public votes this down by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-12 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Moron, done with this conversation.
46. Re: Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · 2017-10-13 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I won bigly! Again! I'm winning so much I'm getting tired of winning!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
47. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-23 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point:
  ... Says the person who stated their belief that if a group names themselves something, they are that thing regardless of their actions.
  
  If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
  So, then, by your own "logic," if Antifa is Anti-Fascist, then they're pro-something? Communist, maybe? National Socialist (the 1936 Germany kind)? Help me out here, O One Who Believes Themselves Wise.
  
  You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
  Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess that's par for the course at this point.
  Keep on digging, I'll keep tossing you fresh shovels.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
NHTSA has final say? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:20 · Score: 1, Funny

Well that'd be a first for California. They've been doing their own thing for years especially with automotive regulations.
And why bother? Just call the car "Undocumented" and then none of the rules apply.
Re:As Usual by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:22 · Score: 0

In which state do you live?
The corporation operating the cars has liability by rsilvergun · 2017-10-11 05:40 · Score: 2

meaning it'll fold at the first sign of trouble leaving you high and dry. That would probably be fine if we had a proper healthcare system (most folks could survive losing a car) but well, their governor just vetoed a single payer bill...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I demand... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:44 · Score: 0

I demand that CA DMV legalize driving tanks on the roads, so I can protect myself from the self-driving cars.
1. Re:I demand... by losfromla · 2017-10-11 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  They're working on your demand now as I type this. There will of course be a "Tank Tax" which will start at $1,000,000 per mile driven. Your right to a safe driving experience will be respected and you will be assigned a road crew to assess and repair roads as you destroy them. Insurance might be a bit difficult but, hey, its a lightly regulated market, just the way you like.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
2. Re:I demand... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Tanks will make your roads will look like ours in Michigan.
3. Re:I demand... by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-11 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Your right to a safe driving experience
  Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that? Or is that a California thing? I can imagine the state might have passed a law, after the LAPD mistook a white kid and two asian ladies for Chris Dorner, and opened fire on their vehicles.
  Personally, I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery. YMMV.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:I demand... by losfromla · 2017-10-11 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy. LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
  In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery. Yay! We're #1! We're # 1! We're #1!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
5. Re:I demand... by tsqr · 2017-10-12 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
  Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
6. Re:I demand... by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-23 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
  Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
  Or, maybe try the 10th Amendment, which provides that any power not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution is a power given to the state, and if the state doesn't take it, the people.
  So, if your state has a law that guarantees a "right to a safe driving experience," then it's legit. Otherwise, it's a power granted to the people, i.e. it is only a "right" when we all agree to accept it as such.
  And as such, there is no right to perfectly safe anything; much to the contrary, liberty itself is quite the dangerous proposition.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:I demand... by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-23 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy.
  Ah, well, good show then!
  
  LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
  Now, now, they're just as apt to unload on Caucasians as well - remember the Chris Dorner scandal? You know, how the LAPD "mistook" a short, scrawny, white surfer dude for a 6' 4", 260 lb black man?
  
  In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery.
  I think that's the saddest truth I'll read this year :(
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A history of bad decisions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:45 · Score: 0

This is the same state which gives drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
Sure, this is all safe AND sensible!
Re:As Usual by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 05:51 · Score: 0

some red shithole, probably Kansas or Alabama
random thoughts by swell · 2017-10-11 05:52 · Score: 1

So, presumably a human will not need a driver license for such a vehicle. Thus we can expect children, drunks, and senile seniors to travel freely. Somehow that seems worrisome for reasons other than traffic safety.
But, again, the first buyers will likely be 'ride hail' companies, and rent-a-car businesses. Children without an approved account will be stuck at home. Legislation is likely to manage their use as well.
The security of the rented vehicle will be a concern. Cameras will be on to record (and charge the customer for) drunks vomiting, drinks spilling and children using crayons. The Johnny Cab could become a disgusting travel choice, but far more affordable than today's options.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
1. Re:random thoughts by wonkey_monkey · 2017-10-11 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thus we can expect children, drunks, and senile seniors to travel freely.
  If they have the permission of the vehicle's owner, why not?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:random thoughts by losfromla · 2017-10-11 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you say you lived again?
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
3. Re:random thoughts by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-11 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  In the case of children, it's already illegal in many places to leave them at home unattended, let alone traveling in a vehicle.
  Nanny-state hypocrisy, lmao
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In other words by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 07:34 · Score: 0

They suddenly saw the profit in it. Sigh. I weep for my country.
Awesume! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 09:04 · Score: 0

I cannot wait to see one of these cars on the road....I will follow it around until it is just the right moment and then I will crash into it....claim the car went crazy......sue and retire.
1. Re:Awesume! by HiThere · 2017-10-11 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
  You make find the case a bit difficult to make.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
2. Re:Awesume! by Obfuscant · 2017-10-11 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
  Will the camera be able to detect the radar jammer I have that tells the car it is about to hit a brick wall?
  With all the ads for "brake assist" cars where they stop all by themselves when about to hit something or someone, I'm truly surprised I haven't see DIY projects for such a jammer. Imagine the fun on a superhighway when someone ahead of you points it back towards your car and it decides to stop right now in the middle of the highway. Or stands on the street corner on a busy city street with one of these.
  Back in the day when the AI in the car was human, and radar detectors were ubiquitous, it was a real hoot to have a simple 9V battery, switch, and old microwave door sensor. You could see someone zip past you doing 20 over, push the button, and watch his taillights come on. You'd pass him, then ten minutes later the process would repeat.
  Surely there are people who have reverse engineered the signals that are being used to control the brake assist systems and come up with a modern "brake light tester".
You obviously haven't owned stock long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 09:15 · Score: 0

The dow has been on the same trajectory since this time last year and actually it looks like 06-07 right before the recession in an adult was running the country they'd be making policy to tap the brakes a little bit..
I can tell you don't regularly invest or if you do you're not much for looking at graphs.
Re:As Usual by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 09:54 · Score: 0

Sorry to hear about your terminal case of stupidity.
Oh wait by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 10:18 · Score: 0

Now I feel dumb for responding to a paid trump shrill.
Dude at least post in response to something that makes sense and not creimer.
Re:The corporation operating the cars has liabilit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 16:38 · Score: 0

meaning it'll fold at the first sign of trouble leaving you high and dry.
What about the cars owned by the corporation? Couldn't you have those seized, impounded and sold to recover the money owed to you with a court order?
I think I have the solution by rsilvergun · 2017-10-11 16:41 · Score: 1

A drunk mad man texting his heart doctor for advise on chest pain. By my calculations that cancels it all out. I might have forgot to carry a one...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/