Then you don't really believe in Democracy, you believe in warlords and raping women and pillaging and all that. You would be happy in many poor third world nations around the world.
Even if there is a $10K poor boy package, how well will it protect my family? Will the four sensor package be as safe as the fifty sensor package? How will they tap dance when it becomes evident that they sent all the experienced pilots to fly around wealthy people while the poor economy seats are all manned by bush pilots with 100 hours in the air? The software may be the same but will all packages budget and not *actually* be able to see everything happening around the car with no gaps?
Why should I have to go running around looking for charity for my family? I don't want charity I want something that is part of a government sponsored social net that applies to all people equally. Not all people are in a position to have an 'exit plan'.
Software updates can only be pushed out if these cars are all connected 100% of the time which is a huge security concern in itself. Furthermore, automation doesn't pay attention in all directions 100% of the time. The sensors only have a certain view radius and they seem to want to limit the number of them used. If sensors saw everything then Autopilot wouldn't be able to run into a trailer which has happened at least two times now. Sure they increased the radar after the the accident and they say there are no longer any gaps, but how are we to believe them? What about heavy snow or fog? What about protecting anything right on the ground up to the top of the car roof?
Except until such a day "force humans off roads" means something different than "force people who can't afford automation off roads", forcing humans off roads is discriminatory and would be proven such. They day where every person can afford their own automation is long off, if it ever happens and not much worth talking about.
Convenience never comes for free. A self driving car service is a convenience service and will be priced appropriately once taxi's are obsolete. Right now they are still trying to make taxis obsolete.
I don't understand your first sentence. How is there a big gain? Very few people will be able to afford to purchase an automated car for themselves. If they only use driving services they sacrifice their personal freedom and get tracked everywhere they go. Either way there is a huge loss. Your second sentence I will grant you on the day that automated driving becomes that save for 90% of the population and insurance companies actually become altruistic and lower insurance premiums.
Uber is also losing millions of dollars a year. They are purposely trying to undercut the taxi market to make them obsolete. Once taxis are obsolete they jack the prices up. That's how capitalism works. Also, uber's cost cutting is allowing criminals to pose as Uber drivers to lure in women. Skipping the good things that regulation brings... vetting people to ensure they really want to drive people around all day and not rape women, is a serious concern. Unless you think Uber will be happy to lose millions of dollars per month forever.
And you know what will happen if that person is found out? He/she will be fired and sued for everything they cannot definitively prove was their own work and have no leg to stand on. Also it will be difficult to cover this up for future employment. That's a pretty big risk.
If it means either my family starves or not, then I want a hand out. I would hate to be on UBI and so probably never will be, because I want more from my life then UBI has to offer. But if it keeps my family from starving then I will accept it with arms open.
The problem is that the consumer market and the employment market have to be in balance for a level playing field. Yet we see the free market meaning lower costs on the employment side but not lower costs on the consumer side. If we bring in low employment costs from india then let us also lower the cost of common goods to equal their economy as well.
The problem is without regulation the assholes win out. The closer you push into immoral behavior and walk the line of illegal the better your company does. Markets become dominated by corporate warlords. Yes I know there is unscrupulous behavior with regulation as well but at least there is a lid on it. This is the dirty truth of capitalism that has never quite had a correct balance on it.
The question is, will they profit more by holding the providers of AI responsible for their technical issues and weaknesses, or will the clients of said insurance company be all contributing to clean up after these flaws? I think there must be a wave of court cases just under the radar that are minor things, where Autopilot ran over someone's pet or clipped a kid on a bike or didn't quite drive around another car. The money that the insurance company uses to 'fix' these things has to come from somewhere, and it shouldn't be the clients since they didn't make the AI.
This is just a problem in itself. We all know costs filter down to the clients, and other insurance holders should not be asked to bear the burden of failed AI. Did the insurance agencies at least have the self reason to call these accidents 0% responsibility to the driver? Because otherwise someone's premiums are going up for something that is beyond their control.
Perl is the only language that comes usually out of the box with every linux and unix. You write a script in bash, it won't work some places. Java, you need to install the JVM and probably some sort of framework before you're really up and running, which often feels bloated. Python is personally my favorite language, and while it comes on most linux distributions you won't find it on most enterprise unix. Yet perl is there. Write a script in perl and you're good. Not even hard to make work on windows.
Because we're not talking about a flaw in a human, we're talking about a flaw in a piece of technology that is supposed to be designed to be safe. Insurance companies cover human error, not technical error. If a car's accelerator pedal fails and sticks on and someone dies, insurance companies don't pay for that the car company does for faulty design and issues a huge recall. The same will be for automated driving, it is just a far more complicated technical error.
So there was just an article about UPS saving all kinds of money by omitting left turns. Are you trying to say that UPS immediately lowered all their delivery costs for everyone because of this savings? No of course not, they went up if anything.
Because when someone's family member dies because they were riding a bicycle and the automated car didn't see them because of a gap in the sensors or what not, the insurance companies won't accept covering the payment to the family. They will sue the car company.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you don't really believe in Democracy, you believe in warlords and raping women and pillaging and all that. You would be happy in many poor third world nations around the world.
Even if there is a $10K poor boy package, how well will it protect my family? Will the four sensor package be as safe as the fifty sensor package? How will they tap dance when it becomes evident that they sent all the experienced pilots to fly around wealthy people while the poor economy seats are all manned by bush pilots with 100 hours in the air? The software may be the same but will all packages budget and not *actually* be able to see everything happening around the car with no gaps?
The world owes me nothing, but if the government isn't interested in keeping it's citizens alive within then what do we even bother fighting wars?
Why should I have to go running around looking for charity for my family? I don't want charity I want something that is part of a government sponsored social net that applies to all people equally. Not all people are in a position to have an 'exit plan'.
Software updates can only be pushed out if these cars are all connected 100% of the time which is a huge security concern in itself. Furthermore, automation doesn't pay attention in all directions 100% of the time. The sensors only have a certain view radius and they seem to want to limit the number of them used. If sensors saw everything then Autopilot wouldn't be able to run into a trailer which has happened at least two times now. Sure they increased the radar after the the accident and they say there are no longer any gaps, but how are we to believe them? What about heavy snow or fog? What about protecting anything right on the ground up to the top of the car roof?
Except until such a day "force humans off roads" means something different than "force people who can't afford automation off roads", forcing humans off roads is discriminatory and would be proven such. They day where every person can afford their own automation is long off, if it ever happens and not much worth talking about.
Convenience never comes for free. A self driving car service is a convenience service and will be priced appropriately once taxi's are obsolete. Right now they are still trying to make taxis obsolete.
I don't understand your first sentence. How is there a big gain? Very few people will be able to afford to purchase an automated car for themselves. If they only use driving services they sacrifice their personal freedom and get tracked everywhere they go. Either way there is a huge loss. Your second sentence I will grant you on the day that automated driving becomes that save for 90% of the population and insurance companies actually become altruistic and lower insurance premiums.
Uber is also losing millions of dollars a year. They are purposely trying to undercut the taxi market to make them obsolete. Once taxis are obsolete they jack the prices up. That's how capitalism works. Also, uber's cost cutting is allowing criminals to pose as Uber drivers to lure in women. Skipping the good things that regulation brings... vetting people to ensure they really want to drive people around all day and not rape women, is a serious concern. Unless you think Uber will be happy to lose millions of dollars per month forever.
And you know what will happen if that person is found out? He/she will be fired and sued for everything they cannot definitively prove was their own work and have no leg to stand on. Also it will be difficult to cover this up for future employment. That's a pretty big risk.
If it means either my family starves or not, then I want a hand out. I would hate to be on UBI and so probably never will be, because I want more from my life then UBI has to offer. But if it keeps my family from starving then I will accept it with arms open.
The problem is that the consumer market and the employment market have to be in balance for a level playing field. Yet we see the free market meaning lower costs on the employment side but not lower costs on the consumer side. If we bring in low employment costs from india then let us also lower the cost of common goods to equal their economy as well.
No matter how you look at it, if you love him for any reason then you're excusing him for the things he does that you hate him for.
The problem is without regulation the assholes win out. The closer you push into immoral behavior and walk the line of illegal the better your company does. Markets become dominated by corporate warlords. Yes I know there is unscrupulous behavior with regulation as well but at least there is a lid on it. This is the dirty truth of capitalism that has never quite had a correct balance on it.
The question is, will they profit more by holding the providers of AI responsible for their technical issues and weaknesses, or will the clients of said insurance company be all contributing to clean up after these flaws? I think there must be a wave of court cases just under the radar that are minor things, where Autopilot ran over someone's pet or clipped a kid on a bike or didn't quite drive around another car. The money that the insurance company uses to 'fix' these things has to come from somewhere, and it shouldn't be the clients since they didn't make the AI.
This is just a problem in itself. We all know costs filter down to the clients, and other insurance holders should not be asked to bear the burden of failed AI. Did the insurance agencies at least have the self reason to call these accidents 0% responsibility to the driver? Because otherwise someone's premiums are going up for something that is beyond their control.
Perl is the only language that comes usually out of the box with every linux and unix. You write a script in bash, it won't work some places. Java, you need to install the JVM and probably some sort of framework before you're really up and running, which often feels bloated. Python is personally my favorite language, and while it comes on most linux distributions you won't find it on most enterprise unix. Yet perl is there. Write a script in perl and you're good. Not even hard to make work on windows.
This doesn't mean the average cost per package is coming down with increases in efficiency.
Then why are there vehicle recalls? Why don't the insurance companies just cover it?
Delivery rates have gone up over my lifetime, while efficiency in the logistics chain has been vastly improved. Prices simply don't go down.
Because we're not talking about a flaw in a human, we're talking about a flaw in a piece of technology that is supposed to be designed to be safe. Insurance companies cover human error, not technical error. If a car's accelerator pedal fails and sticks on and someone dies, insurance companies don't pay for that the car company does for faulty design and issues a huge recall. The same will be for automated driving, it is just a far more complicated technical error.
So there was just an article about UPS saving all kinds of money by omitting left turns. Are you trying to say that UPS immediately lowered all their delivery costs for everyone because of this savings? No of course not, they went up if anything.
Price is related to cost for taxis because they are heavily regulated. Remove the regulation and the cost skyrockets.
Because when someone's family member dies because they were riding a bicycle and the automated car didn't see them because of a gap in the sensors or what not, the insurance companies won't accept covering the payment to the family. They will sue the car company.
There's no real competition. If a company is charging $1 per mile another one might charge $0.99 but they all arrive at close to the same price point.