I've heard many solutions to these problems from many people, but they all seem to make very wild assumptions about how the future will be. It's fun to come up with solutions. Hey, maybe there will be flying drones that can carry people and run on water. But if you're not realistic about how things are, then it's not much of a solution.
?? So you are basically proving my point.. The manufacturers will need to cover the cost if they get sued, since having bugs in the code that is driving people around is a case of gross negligence.
Exactly, which would result in it driving to a much cheaper lot further away, every time. Of course, one can hope that parking spaces down town start to charge less because proximity to businesses isn't as valuable any more but it is doubtful that they will.
I'm not really sure why you think people will be happy to pay for accidents that aren't their fault. Factory defects affecting safety have always been the responsibility of the dealer. You can't put a car on the road if you know there is a chance that the wheels will fall off. That's why there are recalls. If my automated car clips another car then it has a factory defect, end of story. What you are talking about is a dangerous road to go down, because if a manufacturer isn't held liable for automation, then how can they be held liable for any other kind of defect? Soon we have cars that are 99% mechanically safe and there is no recourse when they fail.
Why would the owner get an insurance policy? The owner doesn't have any more to do with the operation of the vehicle than the 10 year old child that might be riding it, should they have an insurance policy? There might only be a box in the car, should the box have an insurance policy? As an owner I can see having an insurance policy to protect you against pure property damage like house insurance. If someone damages your vehicle whether it be through vandalism or an uninsured driver or a tree falling then you would want your property fixed, but that is vastly less expensive insurance. Most of vehicle insurance covers you for liability from the accident you might make. If the car is self driving, you can't have an accident so can never be held liable for one.
Still, this does nothing to save on burning fuel because the automated car is doing what a manual car would do anyway, going to a near available spot. Perhaps the car will find one half a block closer on average but no significant fuel savings. In fact, since parking lots outside of dense areas are always cheaper than the ones in the middle of dense areas it is more likely that the car will be driven to another part of the city to be parked.
Insurance companies don't, policy holders do. Companies don't pay for anything, customers of companies do. Besides, it is one thing to pay for human drivers to pay for the faults of human drivers and quite another for passengers to pay for the faults of their automated driver which they have no control over. It's like getting insurance to ride a train.
The only solution I can think of is to take personal ownership of vehicles away from people, which is obviously not going to happen. Besides, if people wanted that kind of service they would be using taxis already.
I recently read an article about his (every) weekend trip to West Palm Beach. He flies on Air Force One, after criticizing Obama for his use of it. Also he is costing taxpayers millions of dollars for makeshift security because of the crowds that gather, and the airport needs to close down for the entire weekend. He has cost something like 30 million dollars in additional police already.
How will the car know where to go? Is every parking spot in the area going to be reporting whether it is empty or not? The restaurant might have a parking lot somewhere that is big enough for, and reserved for, all its patrons but most businesses don't, so cars will have to troll for parking spots. By frivolous trips, I mean why would people pay $20 for parking downtown when sending their car home and back takes roughly the right amount of time and only costs them $10 in gas?
So he's going to send his car driving around the city looking for a parking spot. How many people will be happy to just simply make their automated cars go around the block, or make more frivolous trips, so they don't have to go out or pay for parking? Electric will make a difference to the environment, but not automation. If automated cars are still ICEs then it will get far worse.
There are fools out there that think drivers or insurance agencies will be happy to pay for it all. It's a ridiculous idea but it's also the only way I can see it being financially viable unless self driving cars are absolutely perfect and infallible. It's going to be at least fifty years at current rate until that happens.
Ok I was under the impression that the point of using strange characters in your password were because of rainbow table lookups. What exactly, is forcing numbers and punctuation accomplishing then? Brute force checking? How often does that happen successfully?
I await the day when every password is in a rainbow table anyway, no matter what rules you use. It can't be far off so passwords aren't sustainable. A lot of people have my fingerprints so that is not useful for authentication either. What do we do next? Some sort of mandatory certificate based authentication for everything?
I want the OS on my computer to be clean, slick and cohesive, not a mess of ugly ads that scream "crippleware", "trialware", "adware" or "not full version".
Then clearly, the only option will be to get a pirated version.
I'm no historian but I think the way the soviets did it was a lot more witch-hunty then aiming to prosecute a corporation that clearly feels they are above the law and has demonstrated that they are willing to actively evade law enforcement in order to keep doing it. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In a business climate where corporate espionage can be so damaging, I can't understand the decision to use hangouts and give your proprietary knowledge to Google. Imagine what they could know about the internal workings of corporations just by scanning meetings.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard many solutions to these problems from many people, but they all seem to make very wild assumptions about how the future will be. It's fun to come up with solutions. Hey, maybe there will be flying drones that can carry people and run on water. But if you're not realistic about how things are, then it's not much of a solution.
?? So you are basically proving my point.. The manufacturers will need to cover the cost if they get sued, since having bugs in the code that is driving people around is a case of gross negligence.
Exactly, which would result in it driving to a much cheaper lot further away, every time. Of course, one can hope that parking spaces down town start to charge less because proximity to businesses isn't as valuable any more but it is doubtful that they will.
I'm not really sure why you think people will be happy to pay for accidents that aren't their fault. Factory defects affecting safety have always been the responsibility of the dealer. You can't put a car on the road if you know there is a chance that the wheels will fall off. That's why there are recalls. If my automated car clips another car then it has a factory defect, end of story. What you are talking about is a dangerous road to go down, because if a manufacturer isn't held liable for automation, then how can they be held liable for any other kind of defect? Soon we have cars that are 99% mechanically safe and there is no recourse when they fail.
Why would the owner get an insurance policy? The owner doesn't have any more to do with the operation of the vehicle than the 10 year old child that might be riding it, should they have an insurance policy? There might only be a box in the car, should the box have an insurance policy? As an owner I can see having an insurance policy to protect you against pure property damage like house insurance. If someone damages your vehicle whether it be through vandalism or an uninsured driver or a tree falling then you would want your property fixed, but that is vastly less expensive insurance. Most of vehicle insurance covers you for liability from the accident you might make. If the car is self driving, you can't have an accident so can never be held liable for one.
Still, this does nothing to save on burning fuel because the automated car is doing what a manual car would do anyway, going to a near available spot. Perhaps the car will find one half a block closer on average but no significant fuel savings. In fact, since parking lots outside of dense areas are always cheaper than the ones in the middle of dense areas it is more likely that the car will be driven to another part of the city to be parked.
Heh, good answer. Very compelling retort.
Insurance companies don't, policy holders do. Companies don't pay for anything, customers of companies do. Besides, it is one thing to pay for human drivers to pay for the faults of human drivers and quite another for passengers to pay for the faults of their automated driver which they have no control over. It's like getting insurance to ride a train.
The only solution I can think of is to take personal ownership of vehicles away from people, which is obviously not going to happen. Besides, if people wanted that kind of service they would be using taxis already.
I recently read an article about his (every) weekend trip to West Palm Beach. He flies on Air Force One, after criticizing Obama for his use of it. Also he is costing taxpayers millions of dollars for makeshift security because of the crowds that gather, and the airport needs to close down for the entire weekend. He has cost something like 30 million dollars in additional police already.
How will the car know where to go? Is every parking spot in the area going to be reporting whether it is empty or not? The restaurant might have a parking lot somewhere that is big enough for, and reserved for, all its patrons but most businesses don't, so cars will have to troll for parking spots. By frivolous trips, I mean why would people pay $20 for parking downtown when sending their car home and back takes roughly the right amount of time and only costs them $10 in gas?
So he's going to send his car driving around the city looking for a parking spot. How many people will be happy to just simply make their automated cars go around the block, or make more frivolous trips, so they don't have to go out or pay for parking? Electric will make a difference to the environment, but not automation. If automated cars are still ICEs then it will get far worse.
There are fools out there that think drivers or insurance agencies will be happy to pay for it all. It's a ridiculous idea but it's also the only way I can see it being financially viable unless self driving cars are absolutely perfect and infallible. It's going to be at least fifty years at current rate until that happens.
No, he's being lazy.
But then you'll get people stealing them.
People with bicycles do the same damage as a loaded delivery truck??
So if a vehicle carrying packages runs over a pedestrian that's ok?
There is an easy solution for that. Allow 5 tries and lock out for a non significant amount of time. I wonder why no websites do it.
Ok I was under the impression that the point of using strange characters in your password were because of rainbow table lookups. What exactly, is forcing numbers and punctuation accomplishing then? Brute force checking? How often does that happen successfully?
Ah Stellar 7, that game I really really wanted to get into, but ended up getting bored after the first couple levels.
I await the day when every password is in a rainbow table anyway, no matter what rules you use. It can't be far off so passwords aren't sustainable. A lot of people have my fingerprints so that is not useful for authentication either. What do we do next? Some sort of mandatory certificate based authentication for everything?
I want the OS on my computer to be clean, slick and cohesive, not a mess of ugly ads that scream "crippleware", "trialware", "adware" or "not full version".
Then clearly, the only option will be to get a pirated version.
I'm no historian but I think the way the soviets did it was a lot more witch-hunty then aiming to prosecute a corporation that clearly feels they are above the law and has demonstrated that they are willing to actively evade law enforcement in order to keep doing it. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In a business climate where corporate espionage can be so damaging, I can't understand the decision to use hangouts and give your proprietary knowledge to Google. Imagine what they could know about the internal workings of corporations just by scanning meetings.
Perhaps helping a self driving car recognize the difference between an animal and a brick, and thus drive more carefully if it is close to the road?