And we need to compare apples to apples. A human pulls out of their driveway and parks in a dense parking lot. A human drives in all weather. Either you have to take those accidents out of the stats for humans and only apply stats for humans in the conditions where AI can drive, or you need to wait until AI does all these things and see how safe it is.
Ah yes you saw someone change lanes recklessly one day so now all humans suck at driving. You have probably seen ten thousand people driving properly since then but you people never notice that.
If Autopilot was tested, it wouldn't have run into the trailer. If Google cars were tested, they wouldn't have been confused by a sandbag in the road. What other brands are there? Or yeah Uber and their car going the wrong way, untested. Yes, when you're putting a heavy machine on a public road your should have tested well enough to flush these things out first.
Slashdot tells me that all people are happy allow self driving cars on the road and that the insurance companies are happy to pick up the tab. Why should he be given preferential treatment to big corporations? Our roads are now self driving testing grounds.
Facebook themselves are going to do far more with the information than border officials will. At the border they're looking for criminals. So if you are involved with criminals, I suggest you stop doing whatever you are doing so you can bring your phone across the border.
I don't understand why people put secure things on their phone. Use a laptop instead and leave that at home, then there's no problem. You can even access it remotely if you want.
No, no, I have been told it will be $3 a ride. The cheapest way to travel, take one every day to work. Everyone will be locked into such fierce competition that no one will make money on it.
Yeah well your problem is with the government failing to stimulate the economy then, not your government failing to allow Uber. Seems to be a common case in many countries.
You know people are becoming Uber drivers just so they can get women alone in their cars right? Surely there is something Uber could do to increase the barrier of entry for a driver and vet them a little bit. All they have to do is make it as hard or harder to become the operator of any other kind of private vehicle.
Entitled or not, it sucks when someone desperate holds you up, or breaks into your house and/or vehicle and walks off with your stuff. I guess you feel like you aren't really entitled to the things you purchase either and welcome a society where more people will help themselves, but I don't want to live in such a society. I prefer living in a society where these more primal behaviors are controlled. You may call it entitled, but I just call it reducing crime and poverty.
If people come into this country from a place where prices are 50% less because of a weak economy, and this causes me to make 50% less, I just want *my* prices in my economy to be 50% less so that my buying power balances as an agent in the market. How is this racist?
Having a system of multiple charities is just going to be rife with corruption. I disagree with calling a government program 'charity', but misguided labels aside at least when you do this through government taxation you know it is a system that is applied somewhat evenly and fairly across the board. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you dodge taxes and don't contribute to it anyway.
Why is that silly? If you don't feel the government should at least offer my family a barest sustenance, and I don't have access to a "charity" then what else is there but employment or starvation? More people sitting on the side of the street begging for money than there are already? If you don't have a system of giving a little to the people who are desperate then many of them will just start to take. You really need to take a look at what the quality of live is for people in places in the world that operate this way. Almost always it is for lack of money to do better.
Yes you're one of those down with human driver people. You likely have a much lower bar for "safety" than I do. If AI is as good as an average driver then it won't save any lives because it will just get in as many accidents on average, and half the people that use it will actually be *less* safe than they would be without. No, it has to be pretty perfect in all circumstances.
To move from a place with a support structure takes a huge leap of faith, and it really helps if you trust that the company that you are moving for will keep you around for long enough to get your feet into the new place. There isn't that much trust or support out there any more.
Slashdot Mirror
And we need to compare apples to apples. A human pulls out of their driveway and parks in a dense parking lot. A human drives in all weather. Either you have to take those accidents out of the stats for humans and only apply stats for humans in the conditions where AI can drive, or you need to wait until AI does all these things and see how safe it is.
Ah yes you saw someone change lanes recklessly one day so now all humans suck at driving. You have probably seen ten thousand people driving properly since then but you people never notice that.
Wha? You don't even have to be insured in many us states.
If Autopilot was tested, it wouldn't have run into the trailer. If Google cars were tested, they wouldn't have been confused by a sandbag in the road. What other brands are there? Or yeah Uber and their car going the wrong way, untested. Yes, when you're putting a heavy machine on a public road your should have tested well enough to flush these things out first.
Wow. The 'you husband might be dead but you'll get money' argument. I'm guessing you're American?
Slashdot tells me that all people are happy allow self driving cars on the road and that the insurance companies are happy to pick up the tab. Why should he be given preferential treatment to big corporations? Our roads are now self driving testing grounds.
If the man on the street tells me I don't have to pay federal taxes and I believe them, damn rights I would have to pay it back with interest.
Facebook themselves are going to do far more with the information than border officials will. At the border they're looking for criminals. So if you are involved with criminals, I suggest you stop doing whatever you are doing so you can bring your phone across the border.
I'm in tne same boat as you. I think the OP just isn't doing any real work.
I don't understand why people put secure things on their phone. Use a laptop instead and leave that at home, then there's no problem. You can even access it remotely if you want.
People who are coming home drunk can't help themselves. They will at least be puked in over and over again.
No, no, I have been told it will be $3 a ride. The cheapest way to travel, take one every day to work. Everyone will be locked into such fierce competition that no one will make money on it.
Does "software issues" include AI?
Yeah well your problem is with the government failing to stimulate the economy then, not your government failing to allow Uber. Seems to be a common case in many countries.
You know people are becoming Uber drivers just so they can get women alone in their cars right? Surely there is something Uber could do to increase the barrier of entry for a driver and vet them a little bit. All they have to do is make it as hard or harder to become the operator of any other kind of private vehicle.
Canadians don't get pussy-grabbed.
Entitled or not, it sucks when someone desperate holds you up, or breaks into your house and/or vehicle and walks off with your stuff. I guess you feel like you aren't really entitled to the things you purchase either and welcome a society where more people will help themselves, but I don't want to live in such a society. I prefer living in a society where these more primal behaviors are controlled. You may call it entitled, but I just call it reducing crime and poverty.
If people come into this country from a place where prices are 50% less because of a weak economy, and this causes me to make 50% less, I just want *my* prices in my economy to be 50% less so that my buying power balances as an agent in the market. How is this racist?
Yes, the moral hazard of feeding children when their parents aren't able to put food on the table.
Having a system of multiple charities is just going to be rife with corruption. I disagree with calling a government program 'charity', but misguided labels aside at least when you do this through government taxation you know it is a system that is applied somewhat evenly and fairly across the board. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you dodge taxes and don't contribute to it anyway.
Why is that silly? If you don't feel the government should at least offer my family a barest sustenance, and I don't have access to a "charity" then what else is there but employment or starvation? More people sitting on the side of the street begging for money than there are already? If you don't have a system of giving a little to the people who are desperate then many of them will just start to take. You really need to take a look at what the quality of live is for people in places in the world that operate this way. Almost always it is for lack of money to do better.
Yes you're one of those down with human driver people. You likely have a much lower bar for "safety" than I do. If AI is as good as an average driver then it won't save any lives because it will just get in as many accidents on average, and half the people that use it will actually be *less* safe than they would be without. No, it has to be pretty perfect in all circumstances.
To move from a place with a support structure takes a huge leap of faith, and it really helps if you trust that the company that you are moving for will keep you around for long enough to get your feet into the new place. There isn't that much trust or support out there any more.
Why would I want more?
Because you want to get laid?
The cure for cancer seems achievable too. It doesn't mean it's time to light up our smokes and celebrate.