The problem is that they're still looking at it as 'driving insurance'. It's not driving insurance any more, it is just property insurance. They should just tack on $50/year to house insurance to protect the additional property and call it done.
Until insurance agencies unilaterally say "Yes these cars are safe enough to do anything else while you are in them, and you will not be held responsible for doing so. We are comfortable that anyone in the vehicle is just a passenger and absolved of all rights and responsibilities of operating the vehicle" then yes, I guess self driving has arrived. To me that is the biggest obstacle to self-driving; absolving the people in the vehicle of any and all expense and responsibility related to driving. I just can't see it happening.
No it will be boring. There are already people complaining about being behind self driving cars that slow down to a crawl in such situations. Imaging a lineup of 50 manual cars behind a self driving car driving 25 mph because it experienced some wheel slip. That's that the future of self driving will be.
Doesn't really matter to me. I don't mind driving while listening to music. It's going to be longer then my lifetime before you can get real uninterrupted time to truly focus on anything in the vehicle.
I can't say that I drive far enough anywhere for self driving to make a difference to me. But say I did have to commute an hour to work every day; I would be depressed about being away from my family for that long, not about the fact that I had to drive.
Lol, you think the programming learned in public school is going to be enough to open up a vbs script and start working on it? There is going to be a huge gap there, schools probably won't even mention virtual basic or anything that can be used to automate things in an office.
So if I hire an automated Uber car, who is driving the vehicle? By that definition it is me! On the contrary if there was a taxi driver then it would be a taxi driver.
You start going down that road, and quickly you can point out that most laws are interference to the free market. Does this mean there should be no laws against any corporation ever? Just because you don't see the particular point of a given law, it doesn't make them less important to enforce.
Uber has more than enough money to pay out settlements for the deaths they cause so why wouldn't they release vastly imperfect and dangerous self driving onto the streets? If it were a problem there would be some sort of legal regulation around it!
I actually have business partners that built a company around my work. We're progressing quite well but we are still a work in progress. I'm not sure at what point a company name means something to these recruiters but we're not there yet.
What you say would work IF every group in an organization mandates to hire people that can code. But then they'll back themselves into a corner finding a coder for every department in the organization. There are never going to be enough that can do it where you are just going to 'find' people. You would think they would have a team of gifted coders somewhere in the organization that can help but there isn't. The corporation as a whole doesn't want to pay for people with skills to code this stuff.
I know someone who works for a mature large company and people have done all this kind of scripting all over the place, mostly in visual basic and excel macros. They'll get calls because script MashIncomingWithOutgoingAndPrint.vbs no longer works. The breakage of the script brings the work that the group does to a halt and the person that wrote it three years ago left. As a corporation, it is a very very bad idea to let people do coding here and there.
The stuff I have taught myself at home has long surpassed anything I will ever be offered in my day job, yet no one is interested in hearing about any of this stuff.
How many of these 14k people will have trouble finding a job again? Easily some could go on social security. Don't assume a person living on social security in an article has always been on social security. Don't assume they didn't make an effort. These days I don't really blame people for being on social security because it's easy to get on and very hard to get off.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're only saving money all your life, then you're not spending money on enriching your kids and your family. This is a bad thing.
If there is UBI for them then they are not totally worthless. Only if there is nothing for them are they worthless.
Agreed. For the first time in history this isn't a shift in workers, it is a replacement for workers.
The problem is that they're still looking at it as 'driving insurance'. It's not driving insurance any more, it is just property insurance. They should just tack on $50/year to house insurance to protect the additional property and call it done.
Until insurance agencies unilaterally say "Yes these cars are safe enough to do anything else while you are in them, and you will not be held responsible for doing so. We are comfortable that anyone in the vehicle is just a passenger and absolved of all rights and responsibilities of operating the vehicle" then yes, I guess self driving has arrived. To me that is the biggest obstacle to self-driving; absolving the people in the vehicle of any and all expense and responsibility related to driving. I just can't see it happening.
Also people not being able to afford food and shelter tends to lead to a rise in crime, not just having too much idle time.
No it will be boring. There are already people complaining about being behind self driving cars that slow down to a crawl in such situations. Imaging a lineup of 50 manual cars behind a self driving car driving 25 mph because it experienced some wheel slip. That's that the future of self driving will be.
Doesn't really matter to me. I don't mind driving while listening to music. It's going to be longer then my lifetime before you can get real uninterrupted time to truly focus on anything in the vehicle.
I can't say that I drive far enough anywhere for self driving to make a difference to me. But say I did have to commute an hour to work every day; I would be depressed about being away from my family for that long, not about the fact that I had to drive.
Advertising the most technologically advanced sex doll on Slashdot. Well played RealDoll, well played.
meant visual basic
I was kind of trying to make the point that no one seems to care about the people who will be injured or die except as a dollar value.
Lol, you think the programming learned in public school is going to be enough to open up a vbs script and start working on it? There is going to be a huge gap there, schools probably won't even mention virtual basic or anything that can be used to automate things in an office.
That's what I fear.. That they will automatically step down to such a low speed that they will create chaos everywhere.
So if I hire an automated Uber car, who is driving the vehicle? By that definition it is me! On the contrary if there was a taxi driver then it would be a taxi driver.
You start going down that road, and quickly you can point out that most laws are interference to the free market. Does this mean there should be no laws against any corporation ever? Just because you don't see the particular point of a given law, it doesn't make them less important to enforce.
If you like meeting totally random people that much, why not just walk up to someone on the street and introduce yourself?
Uber has more than enough money to pay out settlements for the deaths they cause so why wouldn't they release vastly imperfect and dangerous self driving onto the streets? If it were a problem there would be some sort of legal regulation around it!
I actually have business partners that built a company around my work. We're progressing quite well but we are still a work in progress. I'm not sure at what point a company name means something to these recruiters but we're not there yet.
What you say would work IF every group in an organization mandates to hire people that can code. But then they'll back themselves into a corner finding a coder for every department in the organization. There are never going to be enough that can do it where you are just going to 'find' people. You would think they would have a team of gifted coders somewhere in the organization that can help but there isn't. The corporation as a whole doesn't want to pay for people with skills to code this stuff.
It takes a lot of sociopaths to make a company work like that, but they're out there.
I know someone who works for a mature large company and people have done all this kind of scripting all over the place, mostly in visual basic and excel macros. They'll get calls because script MashIncomingWithOutgoingAndPrint.vbs no longer works. The breakage of the script brings the work that the group does to a halt and the person that wrote it three years ago left. As a corporation, it is a very very bad idea to let people do coding here and there.
The stuff I have taught myself at home has long surpassed anything I will ever be offered in my day job, yet no one is interested in hearing about any of this stuff.
How many of these 14k people will have trouble finding a job again? Easily some could go on social security. Don't assume a person living on social security in an article has always been on social security. Don't assume they didn't make an effort. These days I don't really blame people for being on social security because it's easy to get on and very hard to get off.
Companies expect morale to be high just because they gave people a job.