At one point humans demonstrated that driving would benefit them. SDCs haven't demonstrated anything yet, and they shouldn't be demonstrating it on public roads where they can injure people.
I said I have a better driving record, not that I get into less accidents. They run red lights frequently and have gone the wrong way down a one way road.
I agree. If they open borders for everyone then there is no issue. The problem is that H-!B is only available for certain industries. No corporate executive would think of H-1Bing other corporate executives, therefore it is an artificial adjustment to the market.
Can't say I've screwed up that badly at any time in the last 15 years. Since I have been driving more cautiously with time, that isn't really a feature that I feel I will use.
That's if you take more Tylenol than the bottle recommends. Dental operations don't count because we're talking about purchased products. You're maintaining that driving a bus into someone's living room is using the bus as directed?
I'm not arguing the legal side of this, if the human driver was at fault they were at fault. This does not necessarily mean the accident shouldn't be avoided by the person NOT at fault.
The problem is, sometimes following the rules of the road isn't the right thing to do. For example, in the winter if the lane goes one way but the ice ruts go another you take the ice ruts.
If there was no profit, companies wouldn't feel a need to push this out before human capability and technology is ready. They would be willing to put money into making test sites where they can be tested safely. They would be embracing a set of government regulations that make this work between all vendors. As it turns out, Uber is just doing this so they don't have to pay drivers $3/hour.
Well we can rule out medications because I was talking about using them as documented, which would be the prescription in the case of medications. So yeah, if you take a whole bottle you will die, I"m not sure how this furthers your point. I'd need you to cite evidence on number of chainsaws that injure people despite being used by the directions and being maintained as per the directions.
This is part of my point. Insurance companies will be coming after SOMEONE. If it is an automated car, it had better not be the passenger of said car since they cannot control the car. How many fender benders and scrapes are these automated car companies prepared to pay insurance companies for?
What I am saying has nothing to do with how many mistakes humans make over all. Here is what I am trying to say, if automated cars are only as good as the average human, then how do you prevent them from being more risky for half the humans out there who are safer drivers? Furthermore, how will they be compensated when the automated car gets into an accident, knowing that they probably wouldn't have gotten into an accident without automation?
Slashdot Mirror
0 fatal accidents in the highly controlled conditions that they drive in. It means nothing.
You can't compare SDCs, they can't even drive above 35MPH so they are not doing the things that humans do.
At one point humans demonstrated that driving would benefit them. SDCs haven't demonstrated anything yet, and they shouldn't be demonstrating it on public roads where they can injure people.
Accelerated it by what, a week?
I said I have a better driving record, not that I get into less accidents. They run red lights frequently and have gone the wrong way down a one way road.
I'd me more interested if you actually had a delicious doughnut.
Ok well I'm fine with automated driving so long as it is as reliable as a chainsaw.
I don't have a crystal ball obviously, but I have a far, far better driving record than Uber automated cars do.
It's not so much the fact that he lies. It's the fact that he thinks America is so stupid that he doesn't have to bother trying to hide it.
Wake me up when he isn't.
I agree. If they open borders for everyone then there is no issue. The problem is that H-!B is only available for certain industries. No corporate executive would think of H-1Bing other corporate executives, therefore it is an artificial adjustment to the market.
Can't say I've screwed up that badly at any time in the last 15 years. Since I have been driving more cautiously with time, that isn't really a feature that I feel I will use.
That's if you take more Tylenol than the bottle recommends. Dental operations don't count because we're talking about purchased products. You're maintaining that driving a bus into someone's living room is using the bus as directed?
I'm not arguing the legal side of this, if the human driver was at fault they were at fault. This does not necessarily mean the accident shouldn't be avoided by the person NOT at fault.
If there is room for improvement, then there is a flaw.
The problem is, sometimes following the rules of the road isn't the right thing to do. For example, in the winter if the lane goes one way but the ice ruts go another you take the ice ruts.
Wake me up when automated cars can drive everywhere a human can and be safer than a human.
If there was no profit, companies wouldn't feel a need to push this out before human capability and technology is ready. They would be willing to put money into making test sites where they can be tested safely. They would be embracing a set of government regulations that make this work between all vendors. As it turns out, Uber is just doing this so they don't have to pay drivers $3/hour.
Well we can rule out medications because I was talking about using them as documented, which would be the prescription in the case of medications. So yeah, if you take a whole bottle you will die, I"m not sure how this furthers your point. I'd need you to cite evidence on number of chainsaws that injure people despite being used by the directions and being maintained as per the directions.
This is part of my point. Insurance companies will be coming after SOMEONE. If it is an automated car, it had better not be the passenger of said car since they cannot control the car. How many fender benders and scrapes are these automated car companies prepared to pay insurance companies for?
What I am saying has nothing to do with how many mistakes humans make over all. Here is what I am trying to say, if automated cars are only as good as the average human, then how do you prevent them from being more risky for half the humans out there who are safer drivers? Furthermore, how will they be compensated when the automated car gets into an accident, knowing that they probably wouldn't have gotten into an accident without automation?
But humans are allowed to drive so the point is moot.
Ok so those drivers on the road that you were driving with that didn't hit you is who I am talking about.
Just because the human was at fault, it doesn't mean there needs to be an accident.
Key word being "when".