The last time I did this, I did not have my virtualization server yet (and had to restart the new PC more frequently than I would like), so just keeping the old PC was better for me (I did not need to reuse the hardware immediately).
If I was moving from Windows 7 to Linux, I would definitely keep my current PC on real hardware, for those games that do not run on Linux.
I also used the old PC for playing some games until I finished them (for some reason Borderlands 2 runs better on 2x AMD Opteron 270 (2sockets, 2 cores each, 2GHz each), with 3.25GB RAM and WindowsXP 32bit than on 2xAMD Opteron 4238 (2sockets, 6 cores each, 3.3GHz each), with 32GB RAM and Windows 7 64bit), so I just used the old PC to finish this game - Borderlands TPS works great on the new PC).
Install the new PC and install the OS to it - quick. Install the needed large programs (Office, Firefox etc) and copy their settings over from the old PC - relatively fast (a couple of days). Mess with the large programs that initially refuse to work on the new OS (Delphi 7 on Win7 for example), find alternatives if the program cannot be made to run on the new OS - medium speed. Install the little programs that I use once a month or less often, make them work with the new OS - a long time, because I remember them only when I need them.
The process for me usually goes like this: 1. Assemble the new PC and install OS on it. 2. Set the OS to work like I want (UI settings etc). 2a. Still use the old PC as main. 3. Install frequently used software (Firefox, Office). 3a. Start using the new PC for some day-to-day stuff, frequently going back to the old one. 4. Install the less frequently used programs when I remember to and when I have the time. 4a. Use the old PC less and less. 5. If the old PC was not used in 2 weeks, turn it off. 5a. Still sometimes have to turn it back on. 6. If the old PC was kept off for a month, consider the process complete. 6a. Still keep the backups of the old PC, so I can get it to run in a day at most.
All in all, it takes me two-three months to reach step 5. Of course, I could dedicate more effort to the move and get it done faster, but then it would be even more inconvenient.
I have blocked the updates - by disabling the Windows Update service. I do not get GWX nags or anything similar.
Moving to a different OS is a very long process for me (took me maybe 6 months to go from XP to 7), so I do not want to do it more often than necessary. When a new game comes out that does not run on Windows 7 (or much better hardware than my current PC has, though with Win7 I should be able to replace the motherboard and not have to reinstall), but runs on Linux and I really want to play this game, then I will build a new PC for Linux and start the move process.
This was the same for me when going from XP to 7 - I really wanted to play Bioshock Infinite, so I saved some money and built my current PC with Win7 in 2013 November).
This is a good start. There are, of course, lots of older games that do not run on Linux, however, currently I can still use Windows 7 with no problems.
When new games stop supporting Windows 7 (like it was with XP before), most new games will probably run on Linux, with some older games being able to run in a VM (or I could use a separate Win7 PC to play them, like I do now with Windows 98 or XP). However, until that time I am quite happy with Windows 7.
The reason I focus on games is that regular software can run in a VM, but most games require real hardware.
If Iran guarded their air-gapped Windows based control systems for their centrifuges as well as we guard our nuclear weapons, we wouldn't have been able to get a USB drive or 3.5 inch floppy into their machines either.
I think that there is one difference though. USB drives are easier to hide and common, so the operators may decide to plug their own drive (or one they found on the ground in the parking lot) in their work computer.
While somebody could do the same with an 8" floppy, it is less likely for two reasons. One, a floppy disk in the parking lot is much more suspicious than a USB drive (since people usually do not carry floppies for personal use anymore). Two, the operators are less likely to have 8" floppy drives at home, so they cannot unknowingly bring an infected disk with them (with music or some Word document they wanted to edit on their work PC).
Getting people to upgrade from Windows XP was done on the grounds that updates are good, but will no longer be provided for XP.
However, if Microsoft makes people disable automatic updates for Windows 7 and 8 now, who is going to notice when these versions become no longer supported and updated? "It's 2020 and Windows 7 will no longer have updates? Oh, I have disabled them 4 years ago, so I don't care"
Don't go for a drive, save fuel. Don't play games or watch TV, save electricity. And so on.
While you can skip the "cruise" part and, say, drive or fly to the various destinations, it would not be the same, because now the "going to" the destinations part is less fun than it would be on a cruise ship.
No, I am just saying that the government of a country can write any laws it wants and they will be "legal" in that country. That is, there is no such thing as "government doing something illegally" - a member of a government can do something illegal, but not the government as a whole. The next government may declare actions of the previous government illegal and punish the members, but that would be the actions of the new government.
I did not say that I was OK with torture of random individuals. The suffering must match the crime. However, if the law in DPRK says that it is illegal to insult Dear Leader, then, if you live in that country, you better not insult him, unless you want to be punished for it.
Can laws be stupid? Yes, absolutely. Still, unless the people get together and change those laws either by democratic processes or force, the laws are still in force.
And there have to be (probably unpleasant) consequences for breaking a law, otherwise, the law is pretty much non-existent. If a homeless man rapes somebody, you probably should not put him in a nice room with a nice bed and three good meals a day, he may consider it a reward, not punishment.
That would be nice. After all, the purpose of patents is to allow the inventor to sell the invention without competition (for a while). If the inventor refuses to sell the product (for any price), someone else might as well do it.
What they're paying for is keeping the criminals locked up, but I suppose the same rationale would apply to thieves and jaywalkers, right?
A thief is expected to get out of jail someday (and is also expected to have learned his lesson and to stop stealing). A murderer will (should) not get out of jail ever.
The prospect of the punishment does make someone think twice about committing crimes.
Take a petty crime for example, speeding. Increasing the fine does help reduce the speed for some people. After all, the cop with a radar could be hiding anywhere.
Also, I read that in some country, petty crimes like theft were punished by flogging (a good punishment in my opinion - hurts the same whether you are rich or poor and does not fill up prisons with petty criminals), but it was later abolished in favor of a fine or prison sentence. The rate of that crime went up.
Or, let's say that rape or murder was punished only by a fine, there would be way more instances of it than there are now. After all if I hate someone enough, I may save up the money required for the fine and stab him.
Lithuania is part of the EU and has the "lock you up and throw away the key" punishment reserved for very heinous crimes.
I think this is good. I would not want someone who, for example, raped and murdered somebody to ever walk free (as I believe there is nothing you can do to "repent" for such a crime - if there is a god (not that I believe that), then he may forgive you, but I won't).
Here's a short list of recent crimes that I believe the perps should never walk free again:
A bunch of guys kidnapped a girl (she was waiting for a bus, they forced her into their car), raped her, then locked her in the trunk of their car and set the car on fire. The girl managed to call 112, but the cops could not locate her phone in time). They actually got sentenced to life in prison. Good. Their victim (what's left of her) rots underground, they rot in prison.
A girl arranged with someone on Facebook to give her a lift to some city. However, he raped her, then tied her up and left her naked outside to die from exposure. Then he tried to get rid of his car, but since the conversation was on Facebook, the cops quickly found him. He got 20 years, so I guess after 20 years he can rape and murder again.
There also were two girls who got a third girl (their classmate) to come to their flat, then murdered her, cut her body up into parts no more than a few kg and threw the parts away in multiple dumpsters (all parts were never found) - what gave them away was that they kept one part of the body (about 1.2kg) in their fridge for eating. They also got 20 years. The act was premeditated.
Now, I believe that these people should never be free again. I sure as hell will never trust them to not commit such crimes again.
Maybe a rapist (who did not kill the victim) in my opinion may be allowed back out after 20 years, but only without his "tools". Or he can keep his "tools" and stay safely away from potential victims, that is, behind bars.
I think that any country or government is doing some things right and some things (sometimes a lot) wrong.
The USSR did a lot of things wrong (not the least of which is incarcerating or killing people who did not deserve it). However, it did some things right, for example, making 11 year school education mandatory, allowing everyone (not just those of "noble" families) to get college/university education and the education was free.(depending on their grades and exam results), no need for student loans.
He who rapes a 5 year old, you should not get a work-free life in a nice hotel room (that he cannot leave for a while) with a TV and game console.
If your criminals live in better conditions than poor (but law abiding) people in other countries (or even your own country), I think there is a problem.
There was a bank robbery done by a homeless man - he asked for 1 euro or somesuch. Just so he could go to jail for bank robbery and live in a nice cell (and have three meals a day) instead of on the street.
I live in the EU, but dislike this law. Those who commit certain crimes have, in my opinion, crossed the moral event horizon (no matter what they do from now on, they should never be allowed back to society), you might as well shoot them and save some taxpayers money (and use normal bullets, not the ones that cost more than feeding someone for 50 years).
I don't really get how, say, a bullet can cost more than keeping someone in prison for 50 years or so.
WWII war trials were done by the victors. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany committed atrocities and killed millions of people (Stalin was not as picky about his victims though - anyone could be sent to the gulag, starved to death or just shot - it did not depend on being or not being a certain race or ethnicity), however, nobody put Stalin on trial. If the Nazis won the war, the communists would have been on trial.
Even today, what is "legal" is dependent on the government. Whatever Kim does in DPRK is legal in DPRK and if other countries do not like it, they can impose sanctions (which just means that they refuse to trade or reuse to allow entry for certain people) or try to come by force (having nuclear weapons helps to prevent that).
My belief is that criminals should suffer for their crimes and certain crimes (rape and murder for instance) should automatically mean that the perp will never be free again. I think that this is one of very few things the USSR had it right - when you got sent to jail it was not a hotel and you would not get such a nice cell as Breivik - you the conditions were bad and the ones with long prison sentences (or life in prison) were forced to work in dangerous environments (better that criminal dies than a hard working Party loving citizen).
a) 1. Deterrence. If even one person decides to not rape or murder because of the risk of getting slowly burned to death then it's good. 2. Not having the families of the victims (or victims themselves if they are still alive) paying for food and clothes of the criminal who will be let out of jail anyway. 3. As for the method - well, the guys who raped a girl then locked her in the trunk of their car and set the car on fire didn't care for "humane execution", why should I care for their well being (other than ensuring there is lack of it)?
Actually, there should be some mocking preceding the execution, something along the lines of giving the criminal an award for bravely sacrificing himself to protect us from the evil incarnate 5 year old girl who could only be defeated by raping her to death and the award is blowtorch to the dick.
b) 1. Usually whatever the government does, is legal (since it can make things legal or illegal). Also, unless the same drugs used can also be used for "entertainment" like cocaine there should be no problem. Though maybe there is some point in executing drug (cocaine etc) dealers by injecting them with their merchandise. 2. I am willing to amend my statement to make an exception for those who scam drug addicts by selling them actual poisons in place of the other drugs (thus making sure that the addict will never rob/kill somebody for drug money ever again and reducing the demand for drugs), to just get life in prison (killing people is still wrong, but you saved the State from having to perform more executions, so you get to not be slowly burned to death).
The government should pass a new law that says "companies that make $chamicals_suitable_for_execution pay 98% income tax by default, allowing to use said chemicals in execution lowers that tax rate to $normal".
And yet, some crimes (murder, rape, selling illegal drugs etc) should be punished by burning the perp to death, slowly enough that he breaks his vocal chords from screaming first.
I still use Nokia phones - a feature phone (1100) made in 2004 (with original battery) and a smart (-ish) phone (E90) made in 2009.
I sometimes drop my phones on the floor by accident - did not break the screen or anything else - usually the worst that happens is that the battery falls out and I have to put it back in.
Sharing a bus usually gives safety in numbers, since there probably are fewer criminals than normal people on the bus (though I hear groping women in trains is quite popular in Japan). There is also the driver who may help you if you and the criminal are the only passengers on the bus. OTOH, with a car and if you are alone (with the criminal) then you'll have a bad day.
Elevator travel is usually point-to-point. You get in (carrying your luggage), you get out (still carrying your luggage). Also, travel distances (and times) are quite short, if you need multiple trips to get all your luggage, you can, assuming you have a friend or someone else to guard your luggage
Car may be used for point-to-point travel (same as elevator), but can also be used for multidrop travel to pick up more luggage at each stop, drop off luggage at each stop or a combination of both. Also, travel distances and times are usually longer than with an elevator, so it may be inconvenient to convert your multidrop journey to star shaped journey.
For example, I want to visit 3 stores to buy some items and bring them all back home. The stores are closer to each other than to my home, so it is inefficient to go to store A, then home, then to store B etc.
I am using my own car instead of the bus or a taxi not not only because of cost (taxi) or time/destinations (bus), but also because I can customize my car and keep stuff in it.
Will I be able to play the music I like at high volume in the self-driving bus? Probably not. What if I do not like standing in a full bus and would rather sit in my own car? What if I have to carry some stuff between multiple destinations? Let's say, buy thing A at store X, thing B at store Y, then deliver thing A to my friend and take thing B home. I can just use the trunk of my car for this. With the bus, I may need a wheelbarrow (if the things are heavy enough) and store Y to allow me in with that wheelbarrow.
No private cars, only buses, "everyone beign the same" sounds like communism, except that even in the USSR people had private cars (not as many as in the West or currently though).
It still needs quite a lot of distance in case the car in front stops abruptly (tire exploded, hacks or something else) where it cannot warn the following cars ahead of time.
Hmm, sounds interesting, maybe there will be some kind of rider matching service? A car with a single woman would pick up a rapist, a car with a single child would pick up a child molester, anyone is in the lottery of picking up a robber or serial killer.
I never stop for hitchhikers, I would not appreciate the taxi driver and especially a self driving car (since there is no driver for "2 against 1") doing the same. If all cars did that and I would be forced by law to use them (instead of my regular car), I would most likely be the first in line for a gun permit.
Slashdot Mirror
The last time I did this, I did not have my virtualization server yet (and had to restart the new PC more frequently than I would like), so just keeping the old PC was better for me (I did not need to reuse the hardware immediately).
If I was moving from Windows 7 to Linux, I would definitely keep my current PC on real hardware, for those games that do not run on Linux.
I also used the old PC for playing some games until I finished them (for some reason Borderlands 2 runs better on 2x AMD Opteron 270 (2sockets, 2 cores each, 2GHz each), with 3.25GB RAM and WindowsXP 32bit than on 2xAMD Opteron 4238 (2sockets, 6 cores each, 3.3GHz each), with 32GB RAM and Windows 7 64bit), so I just used the old PC to finish this game - Borderlands TPS works great on the new PC).
Install the new PC and install the OS to it - quick.
Install the needed large programs (Office, Firefox etc) and copy their settings over from the old PC - relatively fast (a couple of days).
Mess with the large programs that initially refuse to work on the new OS (Delphi 7 on Win7 for example), find alternatives if the program cannot be made to run on the new OS - medium speed.
Install the little programs that I use once a month or less often, make them work with the new OS - a long time, because I remember them only when I need them.
The process for me usually goes like this:
1. Assemble the new PC and install OS on it.
2. Set the OS to work like I want (UI settings etc).
2a. Still use the old PC as main.
3. Install frequently used software (Firefox, Office).
3a. Start using the new PC for some day-to-day stuff, frequently going back to the old one.
4. Install the less frequently used programs when I remember to and when I have the time.
4a. Use the old PC less and less.
5. If the old PC was not used in 2 weeks, turn it off.
5a. Still sometimes have to turn it back on.
6. If the old PC was kept off for a month, consider the process complete.
6a. Still keep the backups of the old PC, so I can get it to run in a day at most.
All in all, it takes me two-three months to reach step 5. Of course, I could dedicate more effort to the move and get it done faster, but then it would be even more inconvenient.
I have blocked the updates - by disabling the Windows Update service. I do not get GWX nags or anything similar.
Moving to a different OS is a very long process for me (took me maybe 6 months to go from XP to 7), so I do not want to do it more often than necessary. When a new game comes out that does not run on Windows 7 (or much better hardware than my current PC has, though with Win7 I should be able to replace the motherboard and not have to reinstall), but runs on Linux and I really want to play this game, then I will build a new PC for Linux and start the move process.
This was the same for me when going from XP to 7 - I really wanted to play Bioshock Infinite, so I saved some money and built my current PC with Win7 in 2013 November).
This is a good start. There are, of course, lots of older games that do not run on Linux, however, currently I can still use Windows 7 with no problems.
When new games stop supporting Windows 7 (like it was with XP before), most new games will probably run on Linux, with some older games being able to run in a VM (or I could use a separate Win7 PC to play them, like I do now with Windows 98 or XP). However, until that time I am quite happy with Windows 7.
The reason I focus on games is that regular software can run in a VM, but most games require real hardware.
If Iran guarded their air-gapped Windows based control systems for their centrifuges as well as we guard our nuclear weapons, we wouldn't have been able to get a USB drive or 3.5 inch floppy into their machines either.
I think that there is one difference though. USB drives are easier to hide and common, so the operators may decide to plug their own drive (or one they found on the ground in the parking lot) in their work computer.
While somebody could do the same with an 8" floppy, it is less likely for two reasons. One, a floppy disk in the parking lot is much more suspicious than a USB drive (since people usually do not carry floppies for personal use anymore). Two, the operators are less likely to have 8" floppy drives at home, so they cannot unknowingly bring an infected disk with them (with music or some Word document they wanted to edit on their work PC).
Microsoft is digging a hole for itself.
Getting people to upgrade from Windows XP was done on the grounds that updates are good, but will no longer be provided for XP.
However, if Microsoft makes people disable automatic updates for Windows 7 and 8 now, who is going to notice when these versions become no longer supported and updated? "It's 2020 and Windows 7 will no longer have updates? Oh, I have disabled them 4 years ago, so I don't care"
Isn't it like this for any entertainment?
Don't go for a drive, save fuel. Don't play games or watch TV, save electricity. And so on.
While you can skip the "cruise" part and, say, drive or fly to the various destinations, it would not be the same, because now the "going to" the destinations part is less fun than it would be on a cruise ship.
No, I am just saying that the government of a country can write any laws it wants and they will be "legal" in that country. That is, there is no such thing as "government doing something illegally" - a member of a government can do something illegal, but not the government as a whole. The next government may declare actions of the previous government illegal and punish the members, but that would be the actions of the new government.
I did not say that I was OK with torture of random individuals. The suffering must match the crime. However, if the law in DPRK says that it is illegal to insult Dear Leader, then, if you live in that country, you better not insult him, unless you want to be punished for it.
Can laws be stupid? Yes, absolutely. Still, unless the people get together and change those laws either by democratic processes or force, the laws are still in force.
And there have to be (probably unpleasant) consequences for breaking a law, otherwise, the law is pretty much non-existent. If a homeless man rapes somebody, you probably should not put him in a nice room with a nice bed and three good meals a day, he may consider it a reward, not punishment.
That would be nice. After all, the purpose of patents is to allow the inventor to sell the invention without competition (for a while). If the inventor refuses to sell the product (for any price), someone else might as well do it.
What they're paying for is keeping the criminals locked up, but I suppose the same rationale would apply to thieves and jaywalkers, right?
A thief is expected to get out of jail someday (and is also expected to have learned his lesson and to stop stealing). A murderer will (should) not get out of jail ever.
The prospect of the punishment does make someone think twice about committing crimes.
Take a petty crime for example, speeding. Increasing the fine does help reduce the speed for some people. After all, the cop with a radar could be hiding anywhere.
Also, I read that in some country, petty crimes like theft were punished by flogging (a good punishment in my opinion - hurts the same whether you are rich or poor and does not fill up prisons with petty criminals), but it was later abolished in favor of a fine or prison sentence. The rate of that crime went up.
Or, let's say that rape or murder was punished only by a fine, there would be way more instances of it than there are now. After all if I hate someone enough, I may save up the money required for the fine and stab him.
Lithuania is part of the EU and has the "lock you up and throw away the key" punishment reserved for very heinous crimes.
I think this is good. I would not want someone who, for example, raped and murdered somebody to ever walk free (as I believe there is nothing you can do to "repent" for such a crime - if there is a god (not that I believe that), then he may forgive you, but I won't).
Here's a short list of recent crimes that I believe the perps should never walk free again:
A bunch of guys kidnapped a girl (she was waiting for a bus, they forced her into their car), raped her, then locked her in the trunk of their car and set the car on fire. The girl managed to call 112, but the cops could not locate her phone in time). They actually got sentenced to life in prison. Good. Their victim (what's left of her) rots underground, they rot in prison.
A girl arranged with someone on Facebook to give her a lift to some city. However, he raped her, then tied her up and left her naked outside to die from exposure. Then he tried to get rid of his car, but since the conversation was on Facebook, the cops quickly found him. He got 20 years, so I guess after 20 years he can rape and murder again.
There also were two girls who got a third girl (their classmate) to come to their flat, then murdered her, cut her body up into parts no more than a few kg and threw the parts away in multiple dumpsters (all parts were never found) - what gave them away was that they kept one part of the body (about 1.2kg) in their fridge for eating. They also got 20 years. The act was premeditated.
Now, I believe that these people should never be free again. I sure as hell will never trust them to not commit such crimes again.
Maybe a rapist (who did not kill the victim) in my opinion may be allowed back out after 20 years, but only without his "tools". Or he can keep his "tools" and stay safely away from potential victims, that is, behind bars.
I think that any country or government is doing some things right and some things (sometimes a lot) wrong.
The USSR did a lot of things wrong (not the least of which is incarcerating or killing people who did not deserve it). However, it did some things right, for example, making 11 year school education mandatory, allowing everyone (not just those of "noble" families) to get college/university education and the education was free.(depending on their grades and exam results), no need for student loans.
He who rapes a 5 year old, you should not get a work-free life in a nice hotel room (that he cannot leave for a while) with a TV and game console.
If your criminals live in better conditions than poor (but law abiding) people in other countries (or even your own country), I think there is a problem.
There was a bank robbery done by a homeless man - he asked for 1 euro or somesuch. Just so he could go to jail for bank robbery and live in a nice cell (and have three meals a day) instead of on the street.
I live in the EU, but dislike this law. Those who commit certain crimes have, in my opinion, crossed the moral event horizon (no matter what they do from now on, they should never be allowed back to society), you might as well shoot them and save some taxpayers money (and use normal bullets, not the ones that cost more than feeding someone for 50 years).
I don't really get how, say, a bullet can cost more than keeping someone in prison for 50 years or so.
WWII war trials were done by the victors. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany committed atrocities and killed millions of people (Stalin was not as picky about his victims though - anyone could be sent to the gulag, starved to death or just shot - it did not depend on being or not being a certain race or ethnicity), however, nobody put Stalin on trial. If the Nazis won the war, the communists would have been on trial.
Even today, what is "legal" is dependent on the government. Whatever Kim does in DPRK is legal in DPRK and if other countries do not like it, they can impose sanctions (which just means that they refuse to trade or reuse to allow entry for certain people) or try to come by force (having nuclear weapons helps to prevent that).
My belief is that criminals should suffer for their crimes and certain crimes (rape and murder for instance) should automatically mean that the perp will never be free again. I think that this is one of very few things the USSR had it right - when you got sent to jail it was not a hotel and you would not get such a nice cell as Breivik - you the conditions were bad and the ones with long prison sentences (or life in prison) were forced to work in dangerous environments (better that criminal dies than a hard working Party loving citizen).
a)
1. Deterrence. If even one person decides to not rape or murder because of the risk of getting slowly burned to death then it's good.
2. Not having the families of the victims (or victims themselves if they are still alive) paying for food and clothes of the criminal who will be let out of jail anyway.
3. As for the method - well, the guys who raped a girl then locked her in the trunk of their car and set the car on fire didn't care for "humane execution", why should I care for their well being (other than ensuring there is lack of it)?
Actually, there should be some mocking preceding the execution, something along the lines of giving the criminal an award for bravely sacrificing himself to protect us from the evil incarnate 5 year old girl who could only be defeated by raping her to death and the award is blowtorch to the dick.
b)
1. Usually whatever the government does, is legal (since it can make things legal or illegal). Also, unless the same drugs used can also be used for "entertainment" like cocaine there should be no problem. Though maybe there is some point in executing drug (cocaine etc) dealers by injecting them with their merchandise.
2. I am willing to amend my statement to make an exception for those who scam drug addicts by selling them actual poisons in place of the other drugs (thus making sure that the addict will never rob/kill somebody for drug money ever again and reducing the demand for drugs), to just get life in prison (killing people is still wrong, but you saved the State from having to perform more executions, so you get to not be slowly burned to death).
The government should pass a new law that says "companies that make $chamicals_suitable_for_execution pay 98% income tax by default, allowing to use said chemicals in execution lowers that tax rate to $normal".
And yet, some crimes (murder, rape, selling illegal drugs etc) should be punished by burning the perp to death, slowly enough that he breaks his vocal chords from screaming first.
I still use Nokia phones - a feature phone (1100) made in 2004 (with original battery) and a smart (-ish) phone (E90) made in 2009.
I sometimes drop my phones on the floor by accident - did not break the screen or anything else - usually the worst that happens is that the battery falls out and I have to put it back in.
Sharing a bus usually gives safety in numbers, since there probably are fewer criminals than normal people on the bus (though I hear groping women in trains is quite popular in Japan). There is also the driver who may help you if you and the criminal are the only passengers on the bus. OTOH, with a car and if you are alone (with the criminal) then you'll have a bad day.
Elevator travel is usually point-to-point. You get in (carrying your luggage), you get out (still carrying your luggage). Also, travel distances (and times) are quite short, if you need multiple trips to get all your luggage, you can, assuming you have a friend or someone else to guard your luggage
Car may be used for point-to-point travel (same as elevator), but can also be used for multidrop travel to pick up more luggage at each stop, drop off luggage at each stop or a combination of both. Also, travel distances and times are usually longer than with an elevator, so it may be inconvenient to convert your multidrop journey to star shaped journey.
For example, I want to visit 3 stores to buy some items and bring them all back home. The stores are closer to each other than to my home, so it is inefficient to go to store A, then home, then to store B etc.
There will be self-owned cars and a lot of them.
I am using my own car instead of the bus or a taxi not not only because of cost (taxi) or time/destinations (bus), but also because I can customize my car and keep stuff in it.
Will I be able to play the music I like at high volume in the self-driving bus? Probably not.
What if I do not like standing in a full bus and would rather sit in my own car?
What if I have to carry some stuff between multiple destinations? Let's say, buy thing A at store X, thing B at store Y, then deliver thing A to my friend and take thing B home. I can just use the trunk of my car for this. With the bus, I may need a wheelbarrow (if the things are heavy enough) and store Y to allow me in with that wheelbarrow.
No private cars, only buses, "everyone beign the same" sounds like communism, except that even in the USSR people had private cars (not as many as in the West or currently though).
It still needs quite a lot of distance in case the car in front stops abruptly (tire exploded, hacks or something else) where it cannot warn the following cars ahead of time.
picking up others who are along the way
Hmm, sounds interesting, maybe there will be some kind of rider matching service? A car with a single woman would pick up a rapist, a car with a single child would pick up a child molester, anyone is in the lottery of picking up a robber or serial killer.
I never stop for hitchhikers, I would not appreciate the taxi driver and especially a self driving car (since there is no driver for "2 against 1") doing the same. If all cars did that and I would be forced by law to use them (instead of my regular car), I would most likely be the first in line for a gun permit.