I'd check your sources. My wife has had cancer twice in a much smaller place than Toronto and surgery was the next week. Possibly there is a lot of preparation required for brain cancer.
Thats not for all the new advances in medical care.
No, but it's all the new advantages that make a difference to recovery. There is a lot that they don't buy because it's a new more expensive way to do an old thing and it doesn't make recovery better. If it is a truly rare condition that is only treated in the US, they send people to the US. It happens all the time. As for a budget.. who cares. Budgeting is good and I always get my meds.
SDC drivers should simply not be held responsible when an accident is caused due to them doing something 'non-human'. Like the truck in Las Vegas that backed into a car because the truck was backing up and the automated car stopped right behind it and didn't really understand what the truck was doing. They also slam on their brakes for no reason all the time. I feel for anyone that expects cars to drive like humans and get into an accident because it really drives like a robot. There are many unwritten laws on the road that humans comply with because that's what makes driving safe. AI cars don't understand those unwritten rules.
If you really want to do what is good for the environment, take a bus. EVs aren't really helping that much and it's just annoying to hear people tell me how they can work for me when they can't. If you live that close to home that an EV works for you, you can also take a bus.
The statistic that matters is how many NEVER DRIVE their vehicles more than a charge away? That's the real market for EVs. These people have to be willing to either drive to where an EV station is or fly. Don't even get me started on dealing with cold weather trips.
I have an Explorer. I have to tell you I really don't care how it does on gas. It's important for me to have a vehicle that can hold my entire family plus luggage, or a spontaneous trip to Costco if I need. Small vehicles just don't work for that, so why would I care what efficiency my Explorer has? Besides, I really don't think it is that bad. Recently I did a 1500 mile trip with a carrier on the back hitch and we were traveling with a Lexus sedan. We only used one more tank of gas than the Lexus.
Fair enough you mentioned a model 3, but they are still incredibly expensive given the utility you get out of them. And also the use of them is subsidized right now. Eventually EV owners will need to chip in for the same tax that there is on gas.
How can a $120K vehicle that needs to be charged 300km away from home EVER be the best chioce? Seems like every ICE in the market blows that away. Charging at home (if you are able to install a charger) is not enough convenience to make up for it.
Currently Lyft/Uber is paying you to use them technically. The price has to go way up if they are to make money, driver or not. Believe me their plan is to put taxis out of business and then charge as much.
Why would anyone pay for insurance if they don't have controls for the car? Sure I'll protect it from property damage in case I leave it somewhere where it gets vandalized but if I don't have controls for the car, I'm not responsible for an accident.
Furthermore, Uber/Lyft are losing money hand over fist now. Once they put taxis out of business they will charge as much as a taxi. That's how it works. The lack of a driver will just become a profit that the driving company takes.
They did 11000 miles ONCE. And it was on a pre-set course in good weather. Also, humans drive over 400K miles without an accident. They drive 3.22 trillion milles per year and get into around 19 million accidents (including non-reported ones)
Provided the deer doesn't dart onto the road beyond the range of the sensors. Does anyone know what the sensor range is on the front of a tesla? Hopefully they encompass the entire front half of the car and not just an angle off the front of the car.
There is no reason to believe tax payers will be able to improve the roads and all work that happens on them for the sake of making self driving cars work.
Surely they need to prove they won't kill more humans, animals, or cause more destruction than a human driver. That seems to be a glaring omission in your post.
What kind of damage did the car cause when it crashed? Did it not see a firetruck and plow into it thus causing thousands of dollars of damage or did it stop safely with no damage? Just because there are no humans involved doesn't mean it is 'safe'.
You're wrong. Companies cannot kill people with their silly experiments, it doesn't matter if they are on their way to making safer cars. This is a main belief held by society. They don't just get a 'pass' on killing people because they have some plan that may work one day. They have to be a company that doesn't kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they be uncomfortable with the way the car acted if there was no imminent accident?
I'd check your sources. My wife has had cancer twice in a much smaller place than Toronto and surgery was the next week. Possibly there is a lot of preparation required for brain cancer.
Thats not for all the new advances in medical care.
No, but it's all the new advantages that make a difference to recovery. There is a lot that they don't buy because it's a new more expensive way to do an old thing and it doesn't make recovery better. If it is a truly rare condition that is only treated in the US, they send people to the US. It happens all the time. As for a budget.. who cares. Budgeting is good and I always get my meds.
SDC drivers should simply not be held responsible when an accident is caused due to them doing something 'non-human'. Like the truck in Las Vegas that backed into a car because the truck was backing up and the automated car stopped right behind it and didn't really understand what the truck was doing. They also slam on their brakes for no reason all the time. I feel for anyone that expects cars to drive like humans and get into an accident because it really drives like a robot. There are many unwritten laws on the road that humans comply with because that's what makes driving safe. AI cars don't understand those unwritten rules.
If you really want to do what is good for the environment, take a bus. EVs aren't really helping that much and it's just annoying to hear people tell me how they can work for me when they can't. If you live that close to home that an EV works for you, you can also take a bus.
It's pretty easy to get to a point where 99% of cars on roads are self-driving
Wow! How much kool-aid did you drink?? 99% of all people are not going to be able to afford a self driving car.
The statistic that matters is how many NEVER DRIVE their vehicles more than a charge away? That's the real market for EVs. These people have to be willing to either drive to where an EV station is or fly. Don't even get me started on dealing with cold weather trips.
I have an Explorer. I have to tell you I really don't care how it does on gas. It's important for me to have a vehicle that can hold my entire family plus luggage, or a spontaneous trip to Costco if I need. Small vehicles just don't work for that, so why would I care what efficiency my Explorer has? Besides, I really don't think it is that bad. Recently I did a 1500 mile trip with a carrier on the back hitch and we were traveling with a Lexus sedan. We only used one more tank of gas than the Lexus.
Not just cheap shoes. I bought Sketchers once and they exploded on my within a year. The leather was fine but the seams literally came apart.
Fair enough you mentioned a model 3, but they are still incredibly expensive given the utility you get out of them. And also the use of them is subsidized right now. Eventually EV owners will need to chip in for the same tax that there is on gas.
How can a $120K vehicle that needs to be charged 300km away from home EVER be the best chioce? Seems like every ICE in the market blows that away. Charging at home (if you are able to install a charger) is not enough convenience to make up for it.
I think some people must clean out all their stuff completely every time they use their vehicle? That idea seems totally bizarre for me.
Currently Lyft/Uber is paying you to use them technically. The price has to go way up if they are to make money, driver or not. Believe me their plan is to put taxis out of business and then charge as much.
Why would anyone pay for insurance if they don't have controls for the car? Sure I'll protect it from property damage in case I leave it somewhere where it gets vandalized but if I don't have controls for the car, I'm not responsible for an accident.
Furthermore, Uber/Lyft are losing money hand over fist now. Once they put taxis out of business they will charge as much as a taxi. That's how it works. The lack of a driver will just become a profit that the driving company takes.
They did 11000 miles ONCE. And it was on a pre-set course in good weather. Also, humans drive over 400K miles without an accident. They drive 3.22 trillion milles per year and get into around 19 million accidents (including non-reported ones)
Provided the deer doesn't dart onto the road beyond the range of the sensors. Does anyone know what the sensor range is on the front of a tesla? Hopefully they encompass the entire front half of the car and not just an angle off the front of the car.
There is no reason to believe tax payers will be able to improve the roads and all work that happens on them for the sake of making self driving cars work.
Surely they need to prove they won't kill more humans, animals, or cause more destruction than a human driver. That seems to be a glaring omission in your post.
Also, how many animals running across the road is it going to run over?
What kind of damage did the car cause when it crashed? Did it not see a firetruck and plow into it thus causing thousands of dollars of damage or did it stop safely with no damage? Just because there are no humans involved doesn't mean it is 'safe'.
No, everyone realizes this. You're too stupid to realize that people already find manual driving VERY SAFE.
Most deaths on the road occur because of people stupidity like sleeping, eating, looking away, emotional state etc.
I think you need to cite some evidence for that statement.
so you want an AI to be able to get impatient, angry, tird and distracted? Why on earth do you want that?
Because that would instantly make them 20% better drivers.
You're wrong. Companies cannot kill people with their silly experiments, it doesn't matter if they are on their way to making safer cars. This is a main belief held by society. They don't just get a 'pass' on killing people because they have some plan that may work one day. They have to be a company that doesn't kill people.