That's what bugs me about this. Corporations are on their way to determining who lives and who dies based on how much one can pay. Not passively like having a better airbag, but actively.
Someone else who sees one bad driver out of a thousand and lets them ruin their whole day. Suddenly human drivers can't do anything right. The fact is that I have been on the road with many human drivers that drive just fine.
Yeah but that is only limited by the number of FOREIGN DOCTORATES that make it and want an H-1B. There are probably a lot of them, but honestly enough to make a dent in the allotment? It says the random raffle is gone, how is it gone? Will they ONLY be giving these for foreign doctorates? Are they going to weight the average towards the genius that H-!Bs are supposed to be for? They will probably know ahead of time how many spots are remaining so it will still be a fine business. I feel we are being played for fools here.
But it doesn't say they will HAVE to have a degree, only that people with degrees will get preferential treatment. Nothing else has changed. This looks like it makes the situation worse, not better. What about this precisely stops TaTa from staffing up with H1-Bs and replacing an entire IT department?
The H-!B program prohibited the replacement of American workers before, but ways were found to get around it. This bill is really saying the same thing with the addition of foreign students getting preference for them? Maybe I'm being a negative nellie here but it seems that this bill doesn't do anything extra than the original bill did except give domestic STEM workers more competition to get into good schools due to an influx of students looking for the H-1B ride.
Buy you car and pay for it, and all maintenance, accept all risk, and give us 5%. There are a lot of rubes out there but I suspect also a lot of people who didn't exactly feel the amazing economy we are now all supposed to be benefiting from.
Yet you're willing to support AI so that it can help people who can't stop driving after drinking or need to text. The smart ones already had great driving records. It is the stupid ones you are protecting with this technology.
If you are already a safe driver this doesn't make you any more safe. Not until 90% of the other drivers out there have it. It's human nature that people get distracted from events they have no mental investment in. You can't hold people responsible for human nature. Tesla should be doing more work to fix their technology which is clearly not working well with humans.
So the lesson is, if you are already a safe driver don't buy autopilot. If you buy autopilot you will be lulled into a sense of false security and possibly die. I guess people who are drunks and like to text while driving can't buy autopilot either. This is a technology for the worst drivers.
The fact that cars are something that people can own and use provides way more benefit to humans and the risk is worth it obviously, because otherwise people wouldn't drive. Even if the 40% figure were true for autopilot, which it isn't, it is a small benefit by comparison considering it is only 40% of people who can afford and want a Tesla.
It is still wrong that people are dying that didn't need to. Great on the 40% but if you have human compassion you feel bad for the family of the guy that died because he 'became complacent' in a car that does the driving for him.
in fact that's the entire point of an organization.. it's an 'organization', power floats to the top. And, yes, some unions are greedy and need to understand the prevailing market. But why can not workers also organize themselves.
They could run over someone and that makes them dangerous enough. They should be tested in a demo town somewhere without subjecting the unwilling public to them. It doesn't matter that people get into accidents. Until someone knows how 80% of the population will ever get these things we are only adding to the problem.
An automatic car will pretty much need to understand the world to be as safe as a human. For example, when a human sees a child's toy suddenly cast out into the road, they slow down and look for the child that might run after it. So now you're saying automated cars today are as safe as anything else on public roads? I doubt it. If found liable, the question is whether they knew their car had that weakness or not. If they knew there was a blind spot and it turns out to kill someone then it's manslaughter at the very least, I expect people to be prosecuted for it. I mean, why do we do phases of drug testing for drugs that might save people some day? Why not just test them on the human population? These cars could and should be tested in a controlled environment.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what bugs me about this. Corporations are on their way to determining who lives and who dies based on how much one can pay. Not passively like having a better airbag, but actively.
But people drive in way more dangerous circumstances with autopilot off. That isn't seriously how they measured it, is it?
Someone else who sees one bad driver out of a thousand and lets them ruin their whole day. Suddenly human drivers can't do anything right. The fact is that I have been on the road with many human drivers that drive just fine.
Yeah but that is only limited by the number of FOREIGN DOCTORATES that make it and want an H-1B. There are probably a lot of them, but honestly enough to make a dent in the allotment? It says the random raffle is gone, how is it gone? Will they ONLY be giving these for foreign doctorates? Are they going to weight the average towards the genius that H-!Bs are supposed to be for? They will probably know ahead of time how many spots are remaining so it will still be a fine business. I feel we are being played for fools here.
I'm laughing that you would quote a Trump speech and think it hold any weight by the time you hit the second double-quote.
If it does move to another country, then there wasn't anything you could do about it being done by a foreigner anyway.
How is this preventing Infosys from underpaying? That is what I am asking.
But it doesn't say they will HAVE to have a degree, only that people with degrees will get preferential treatment. Nothing else has changed. This looks like it makes the situation worse, not better. What about this precisely stops TaTa from staffing up with H1-Bs and replacing an entire IT department?
The H-!B program prohibited the replacement of American workers before, but ways were found to get around it. This bill is really saying the same thing with the addition of foreign students getting preference for them? Maybe I'm being a negative nellie here but it seems that this bill doesn't do anything extra than the original bill did except give domestic STEM workers more competition to get into good schools due to an influx of students looking for the H-1B ride.
Buy you car and pay for it, and all maintenance, accept all risk, and give us 5%. There are a lot of rubes out there but I suspect also a lot of people who didn't exactly feel the amazing economy we are now all supposed to be benefiting from.
That's why sociopaths make the best leaders, because their point of view is always the appropriate point of view.
Yet you're willing to support AI so that it can help people who can't stop driving after drinking or need to text. The smart ones already had great driving records. It is the stupid ones you are protecting with this technology.
It's funny, I was recently in a conversation with someone who was insisting that technology was bringing prices down. This would have been good info.
Look at smart TVs. How easy is it to get a stupid TV?
If you are already a safe driver this doesn't make you any more safe. Not until 90% of the other drivers out there have it. It's human nature that people get distracted from events they have no mental investment in. You can't hold people responsible for human nature. Tesla should be doing more work to fix their technology which is clearly not working well with humans.
So the lesson is, if you are already a safe driver don't buy autopilot. If you buy autopilot you will be lulled into a sense of false security and possibly die. I guess people who are drunks and like to text while driving can't buy autopilot either. This is a technology for the worst drivers.
The fact that cars are something that people can own and use provides way more benefit to humans and the risk is worth it obviously, because otherwise people wouldn't drive. Even if the 40% figure were true for autopilot, which it isn't, it is a small benefit by comparison considering it is only 40% of people who can afford and want a Tesla.
It is still wrong that people are dying that didn't need to. Great on the 40% but if you have human compassion you feel bad for the family of the guy that died because he 'became complacent' in a car that does the driving for him.
But but.. there's a page in the manual!
You people see one person out of ten thousand driving erratically and all of a sudden everyone sucks at driving.
It's not a win if someone dies that wouldn't have in the absence of the technology.
in fact that's the entire point of an organization.. it's an 'organization', power floats to the top. And, yes, some unions are greedy and need to understand the prevailing market. But why can not workers also organize themselves.
They could run over someone and that makes them dangerous enough. They should be tested in a demo town somewhere without subjecting the unwilling public to them. It doesn't matter that people get into accidents. Until someone knows how 80% of the population will ever get these things we are only adding to the problem.
You're basically giving these companies a pass because you believe their mantra that they will save lives. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
An automatic car will pretty much need to understand the world to be as safe as a human. For example, when a human sees a child's toy suddenly cast out into the road, they slow down and look for the child that might run after it. So now you're saying automated cars today are as safe as anything else on public roads? I doubt it. If found liable, the question is whether they knew their car had that weakness or not. If they knew there was a blind spot and it turns out to kill someone then it's manslaughter at the very least, I expect people to be prosecuted for it. I mean, why do we do phases of drug testing for drugs that might save people some day? Why not just test them on the human population? These cars could and should be tested in a controlled environment.