That would be illegal. If you happened to somehow magically have that software, the Librarian of Congress just made it legal for you to use it. Writing ("manufacturing") the software remains illegal, as does trafficking in it, marketing it or offering it to the public.
The problem isn't fixed until DMCA is repealed. LoC can't undo the injustice.
Everyone please remember to vote more Republicrats into Congress next week, in order to prevent freedom from breaking out. Evil depends on you. (just kidding, I know there are very few ballots containing any other choices. We have all been working to preserve evil for two years; it's not something we merely do next week.)
I'd like to see what the next release does with an unlit cyclist wearing black in central London at 10pm on a wet November night.
I'd like to see what humans do! The possibility of a situation this dangerous, is why this "car" invention is never going to be allowed. Mark my words: by 1917 this fad is going to be history.
Everyone, before you judge me, please think back to when you made a bad call, and had a joke go a little too far.
Trump says the election is rigged, but he is too nice to tell you who did it. If Clinton gets subpoenaed, though, it's going to come out anyway. I don't want everyone to go off half-cocked, so I have decided to come forward now.
I made a bet with my brother. It started out as innocent fun. I said, "I bet I can make the Republicans lose the presidential election, by tricking them into nominating the very worst loser they possibly can." He said, "oh yeah? I can make the Democrats lose the election. Same strategy, different tactics." At stake, a single six-pack of IPA. It was a joke! At the time, we didn't intend it to get out-of-hand. But then, you know, you see little ways you can get your little virtual avatar a step foward, and not thinking it would really result in any real-world consequences, you go ahead. Or you're confident that you've got it, and next thing you know, he's taking Bernie off the board! (That was amazing; I didn't know my brother was smart enough to figure out how to do that.) Next thing I know, we're having heated arguments. "Nuh uh! You'll never get yours nominated! People aren't that stupid. They don't want their party to lose." "Yeah, huh!" We have played so many war games and simulations and such, they're all just abstractions to us. It was so easy to forget this one was more real, than say, Clash of Clans.
Needless to say, once the nominations happened, we realized the horror of it all, and the bet was off! We aren't pushing the players around anymore. We have already split the cost of the sixpack and drank it together. It's over. Well, over except the election itself. But we're not pulling the strings anymore, and if my old account (running on autopilot, I guess) wins, I can't legitimately lord that over my brother, or vice-versa.
Look, people, I know it looks ugly, but it actually isn't really all that bad. You don't have to vote for our people. Just vote against them. There are plenty of people running for president, and at least one of them is probably actually pretty close to your own politics. (Even with good candidates, you wouldn't expect those two parties to have matched very many people anyway; peoples' opinions have way more diversity than that!) You'll do fine. Just curse us for our little prank and vote against our avatars. We will bear the shame. You need not.
The universe may never achieve natural intelligence, but don't count us out yet! Humans are already the best anyone has ever seen (or found evidence of, if you discount the Pabodie expedition) at faking intelligence.
But.. achieve intelligence? Maybe we all have different ideas of where the bar is. To you, perhaps it's an ideal for which one can only strive.
Neverthess, as a dam is part of the beaver's phenotype, a web is part of the spider's, etc, so digital computers are part of ours. And with our new extensions, we may become even better at faking intelligence, smashing the old benchmarks. We call our journeys into these new dimensions of performance, "AI." 110010001000, you say these are just more shadows on the wall of the cave, but I say the results speak for themselves.
"It takes four hundred thirty people to man a starship. With this, you don't need anyone. One machine can do all those things they send men out to do now. Men no longer need die in space, or on some alien world. Men can live, and go on to achieve greater things than fact-finding and dying for galactic space, which is neither ours to give or to take. You can't understand. We don't want to destroy life, we want to save it!" -- Dr. Richard Daystrom (right before he totally lost it... what did you people do to the poor guy?!)
Let's do something nice on Slashdot for a change: a Colorado breweries love-in!
I'll start: GREAT DIVIDE. Probably my favorite from that state, right now. (Maybe because it's not distributed in my state, so I treasure it like I treasure other hard-to-gets.)
Avery and Oskar Blues are other near-favorites. Steamwork (though I'm not sure they package). Ska can be good.
What's yours? I wanna go on another CO shopping trip in a few weeks. Help me out.
A decade or two ago (I'm not really sure when he wrote it)) Brad Templeton suggested something like this as a fix for various problems, especially trademark. My take is that the basic idea is that TLDs are already meaningless, so diversifying them into increased meaninglessness does no damage while offering some benefits. (e.g. makes monopolizing certain words harder, makes it easier to try out new registration policies, etc)
how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?
Go to the rack and unplug the ethernet cable whose other end is in Assange's room. Change the wifi password and only tell people the new one along with the instructions "don't share your password, especially with that Assange guy."
The "state actor" was Ecuador, or else it didn't happen. That's the only government capable of doing it.
Who is responsable in the case your AI-autonomous car decides to kill some pedestrians ?
I don't know. Tell me more about what happened right before that.
Was the pedestrian running out into traffic for laughs, to see all the cars crash into each other as some other threads here suggest? Was the occupant aiming it toward crowds to impress his friend with how it suddenly swerves away from the crowd when he takes his hands off the wheel? Did it just suddenly "randomly" turn off the street into a crowd as a result of a bug?
By the time someone or something decides "hit this or hit that" you already have a huge failure. That is way more important and common than the hit-this-or-that question itself.
What stops you from shooting your rifle at a target within, but nevertheless distinct from, a crowd right now? Might there already be reasons to abstain from this behavior, in spite of the lack of technical restraints?
If you're worried to the point of stupidity/paralysis ("be prepared to be sued out of existence") then you've already chosen to never drive even a manually-operated car, because you were overwhelmed by your fears. Most people don't have that attitude going on, so they already drive cars anyway, where they face constant daily risk of injuring or even killing pedestrians.
And some of them end up occasionally doing it, to many peoples' grief. For whatever reason, society didn't give up and decide the existence of cars was just too dangerous to allow. It's over a hundred years too late for to advocate against cars. By the time your grandparents were born, this argument (that we're having today) had already been settled.
How the vehicle got to be out of control is what everyone trying to establish liability will be asking. That it killed a pedestrian or driver is merely the motivation for asking.
Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive for a web browser to be rewriting the contents on a web page?
Speaking as someone who goes to extra trouble to add various extensions (e.g. ublock origin, privacy badger, tampermonkey, etc) to fix web pages because the browser still doesn't do enough, and who used proxies (squid-with-sleezeball, privoxy) before we had good browser extensions: no, it doesn't seem even slightly counter-intuitive. Why would it be counter-intuitive? I totally don't get it.
Shouldn't it be rendering it exactly as the developers intended it?
It should be rendering it however the user intends to see it.
Isn't this the browser equivalent of a compiler that inserts malicious code in programs that it compiles?
Yes, it is, if you look at it loosely enough. But then, it's also the browser equivalent of a program loader than removes malicious code from the programs it loads, or a linker that binds symbolic references to addresses, or a program that compresses data, or an image resizer, or good ol' awk and sed, or... it's the browser equivalent of the web browser itself (rendering pages instead of showing HTML tags)! Gee, filtering data is like a lot of things!
Sorry you've had so many bad experiences that the first analogy that came to your mind was something unpleasant. Do you use a lot of malware? Maybe cut back on that.
You might as well say "power is evil." It's not. The problem is that your adversaries have more than you.
If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be in favor of people having the ability to do more things easier. And then you'd be saying "Maybe Conan was right. Crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women is best in life!"
The problem isn't really even how much they're charging; it's that you can't shop around and use whatever data that you want to (or cheap out with openstreetmap or build your own data as your drive around, or whatever). If they had to compete, I doubt anyone would be complaining about the prices.
I think it's great if the car has GPS, because it has exterior antenna(s) which are going to be way more reliable than my Galaxy S4's crappy GPS, which I have to hold up or near a window to keep a "lock." But it should make the GPS results available to other systems. Then a device driver in the phone can say "fuck my local equipment, use this GPS computer over here..." That'd be awesome to the max.
(Or I could just get a new phone with a better antenna, but that just seems wrong somehow...)
Anyway, car computers suck because the manufacturers want 'em to be another videogame console cash cow walled-garden, which means the software is never going to be any good. It's the IBM mainframe of 1960s-1970s, the videogame consoles, the iPhone, etc all over again. Seems like every damn form factor needs its own "Personal Computer revolution" because customers are simply unable to exert enough pressure early in the life cycle.
We all need to get a lot more militant about preventing this sort of crap. It's my computer so stop telling me what I have to do with it. It ought to be punch-you-in-the-face fighting words from the get-go, whenever they even hint about getting in your way.
As long as you get what you want for a price you are willing to pay, what difference does it make if you also get something else?
Because we're being forced to pay for crap we don't want.
I think you might be missing the point of the post that you replied to: you are not being forced to pay for crap you don't want. You decided that you would prefer to pay for crap that you don't want. If you had decided you would rather not pay for crap you don't want, then you wouldn't be paying.
You shouted "YES, I ACCEPT YOUR OFFER! OMG OMG PLEASE PLEASE, TAKE MY MONEY! YES, YES, HERE'S MY MONEY!!!!" to them while telling us that you're unhappy. (People who aren't as understanding as I am, are probably getting the mistaken impression that you're a two-faced whiny lying bitch.)
I have a suggestion that might help your situation. Maybe you should stop petting the poorly-behaving dog and sweetly and lovingly saying, "oh, what a horrible bad dog, I fucking hate you," and then making smooching noises and scratching under its collar, followed by "You are the worst dog ever" and then giving it a piece of bacon.
Say no. Stop paying them. See that money coming out of your account every month? Keep that money. Don't give them money. Terminate the business relationship. (I'm not sure how else to explain this. Anyone?) The shitty bundle is how things are going to be, until you learn how to say no. If you keep saying "yes," they'll keep hearing "yes."
Five minutes ago, I could have told anyone the name of the guy who invented bittorrent protocol.
Now I am laughing and having to look it up. Worse, I know I won't remember it! I'll just remember "Bram Stoker" because you just permanently damaged my brain. For the rest of my fucking life, I am going to have to look up the name of the bittorrent guy.
AC, sometimes you're a genius. And sometimes you're a total bastard. And then there's times like this, when you're both. Fuck you, but also, fuck yeah!
Article keeps using the word "app," like this is software from Facebook that you execute and then it.. does something. Would this "app" be a UI to the internet, or does it create a new interface that other software can use, or what?
It's not that you're wrong; it's that there's no reason to think you might be right. Any sufficiently-creative person can make up a plausible unfalsifiable hypothesis. What's so special about yours?
Hmm...
Here's my idea for dealing with this stuff, since it looks like it might never go away. One of the properties of my idea is that we're going to stop hating L Ron, and start using him for inspiration. I know that's going to be a turnoff to some people, but bear with me.
We should give an assignment for all children in school, where they're required to make up a grand unfalsifiable hypothesis. Such things shouldn't just be something you blindly consume; you should make them, too. The world is just as much your ideosphere as anyone else's. And to make it more fun, after the assignment, have a group activity where the kids talk about everyone's entry, and vote on whose idea best optimizes some particular commercial or social goal. (e.g. How to make the most money, how to kill the most people, how to best retard academic progress, how to divert the most economic resources to building a cool monument, etc.)
Would this be legal in taxpayer-funded public schools? I think so (since it doesn't adovcate or disparage any particular religion), but I'm not sure (because, yes, it is pretty transparently intended to overall subvert mysticism).
Nobody is suggesting drivers should respect arbitrary laws. But drivers getting caught violating laws will be penalized. Staying within the law (or at least whenever observed) is a good optimization, if you want your team to win.
If the database was in error, that could have easily been a human error during the process of creating the database.
Now, now. It sounds like you're trying to frame this as a Team Human screwup rather than a Team Robot one. If robots rely on humans for their data, because they can't acquire it by themselves yet then that's part of their strategy and will be reflected in the performance by which they're judged.
Knowing not to drive the wrong way on a one-way street does not require perfection and is well within reasonable expectations, IMO.
Sure, knowing you shouldn't drive the wrong way is a reasonable expectation, but never-really-doing-it isn't a reasonable expectation.
(We know it's not a reasonable expectation, because any reasonable person would look at the data and their reason would lead them to reluctantly conclude that they expect cars (whether piloted by humans or robots) to sometimes go the wrong way sometimes, occasionally gruesomely killing or maiming innocent people and destroying bystanders property while everyone looks on in total horror. It sucks, but reason tells you that from everything you've ever seen so far, this is what you expect to happen. Reason sometimes brings bad news: the universe isn't a safe place to be, especially if you're anywhere near apes or their creations.)
The auto advocates' position would be that it merely needs to do the stupid thing less often than humans do it -- just exceed the current leading (even if pathetic) benchmark. If you can do that, then the smart move is to have robots occasionally killing innocent people, instead of humans more often killing innocent people. If you can reduce the frequency of situations where people get smashed up by cars (while still retaining the utility of cars, as opposed to everyone having to go back to horses), people are going to like your invention.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what other bonehead mistakes these cars will make before they "machine learn" their way to reliable, basic competence.
It looks like everyone is in agreement. The race is on! Who will get there first: humans or robots? This might be just the thing we all need, to improve our standards, and make words like "basic competence" finally actually mean something.
BTW, as a fellow human team-mate, I'm a bit troubled by your "wait and see" attitude. You know the robots aren't waiting, don't you? We need to stop waiting too, if we want to beat the robots to the title of "safe drivers." Wouldn't you like to rub the robots' noses in the fact that we humans don't ever fuck up? That's going to be awesome!
Slashdot Mirror
That would be illegal. If you happened to somehow magically have that software, the Librarian of Congress just made it legal for you to use it. Writing ("manufacturing") the software remains illegal, as does trafficking in it, marketing it or offering it to the public.
The problem isn't fixed until DMCA is repealed. LoC can't undo the injustice.
Everyone please remember to vote more Republicrats into Congress next week, in order to prevent freedom from breaking out. Evil depends on you. (just kidding, I know there are very few ballots containing any other choices. We have all been working to preserve evil for two years; it's not something we merely do next week.)
I'd like to see what humans do! The possibility of a situation this dangerous, is why this "car" invention is never going to be allowed. Mark my words: by 1917 this fad is going to be history.
Everyone, before you judge me, please think back to when you made a bad call, and had a joke go a little too far.
Trump says the election is rigged, but he is too nice to tell you who did it. If Clinton gets subpoenaed, though, it's going to come out anyway. I don't want everyone to go off half-cocked, so I have decided to come forward now.
I made a bet with my brother. It started out as innocent fun. I said, "I bet I can make the Republicans lose the presidential election, by tricking them into nominating the very worst loser they possibly can." He said, "oh yeah? I can make the Democrats lose the election. Same strategy, different tactics." At stake, a single six-pack of IPA. It was a joke! At the time, we didn't intend it to get out-of-hand. But then, you know, you see little ways you can get your little virtual avatar a step foward, and not thinking it would really result in any real-world consequences, you go ahead. Or you're confident that you've got it, and next thing you know, he's taking Bernie off the board! (That was amazing; I didn't know my brother was smart enough to figure out how to do that.) Next thing I know, we're having heated arguments. "Nuh uh! You'll never get yours nominated! People aren't that stupid. They don't want their party to lose." "Yeah, huh!" We have played so many war games and simulations and such, they're all just abstractions to us. It was so easy to forget this one was more real, than say, Clash of Clans.
Needless to say, once the nominations happened, we realized the horror of it all, and the bet was off! We aren't pushing the players around anymore. We have already split the cost of the sixpack and drank it together. It's over. Well, over except the election itself. But we're not pulling the strings anymore, and if my old account (running on autopilot, I guess) wins, I can't legitimately lord that over my brother, or vice-versa.
Look, people, I know it looks ugly, but it actually isn't really all that bad. You don't have to vote for our people. Just vote against them. There are plenty of people running for president, and at least one of them is probably actually pretty close to your own politics. (Even with good candidates, you wouldn't expect those two parties to have matched very many people anyway; peoples' opinions have way more diversity than that!) You'll do fine. Just curse us for our little prank and vote against our avatars. We will bear the shame. You need not.
And yes, I'm sorry! I won't do it again. Promise.
I, too, once wondered what a simulated song could possibly be .. until I played Dwarf Fortress 0.42.
The universe may never achieve natural intelligence, but don't count us out yet! Humans are already the best anyone has ever seen (or found evidence of, if you discount the Pabodie expedition) at faking intelligence.
But.. achieve intelligence? Maybe we all have different ideas of where the bar is. To you, perhaps it's an ideal for which one can only strive.
Neverthess, as a dam is part of the beaver's phenotype, a web is part of the spider's, etc, so digital computers are part of ours. And with our new extensions, we may become even better at faking intelligence, smashing the old benchmarks. We call our journeys into these new dimensions of performance, "AI." 110010001000, you say these are just more shadows on the wall of the cave, but I say the results speak for themselves.
"It takes four hundred thirty people to man a starship. With this, you don't need anyone. One machine can do all those things they send men out to do now. Men no longer need die in space, or on some alien world. Men can live, and go on to achieve greater things than fact-finding and dying for galactic space, which is neither ours to give or to take. You can't understand. We don't want to destroy life, we want to save it!" -- Dr. Richard Daystrom (right before he totally lost it... what did you people do to the poor guy?!)
Let's do something nice on Slashdot for a change: a Colorado breweries love-in!
I'll start: GREAT DIVIDE. Probably my favorite from that state, right now. (Maybe because it's not distributed in my state, so I treasure it like I treasure other hard-to-gets.)
Avery and Oskar Blues are other near-favorites. Steamwork (though I'm not sure they package). Ska can be good.
What's yours? I wanna go on another CO shopping trip in a few weeks. Help me out.
A decade or two ago (I'm not really sure when he wrote it)) Brad Templeton suggested something like this as a fix for various problems, especially trademark. My take is that the basic idea is that TLDs are already meaningless, so diversifying them into increased meaninglessness does no damage while offering some benefits. (e.g. makes monopolizing certain words harder, makes it easier to try out new registration policies, etc)
Go to the rack and unplug the ethernet cable whose other end is in Assange's room. Change the wifi password and only tell people the new one along with the instructions "don't share your password, especially with that Assange guy."
The "state actor" was Ecuador, or else it didn't happen. That's the only government capable of doing it.
Where is the bigger, more interesting, and more newsworthy story that the entire Ecuador embassy has been cut off? I still haven't seen it.
Therefore, if the story is true, then everyone can easily infer which "stare actor" cut him off: Ecuador.
I don't know. Tell me more about what happened right before that.
Was the pedestrian running out into traffic for laughs, to see all the cars crash into each other as some other threads here suggest? Was the occupant aiming it toward crowds to impress his friend with how it suddenly swerves away from the crowd when he takes his hands off the wheel? Did it just suddenly "randomly" turn off the street into a crowd as a result of a bug?
By the time someone or something decides "hit this or hit that" you already have a huge failure. That is way more important and common than the hit-this-or-that question itself.
What stops you from shooting your rifle at a target within, but nevertheless distinct from, a crowd right now? Might there already be reasons to abstain from this behavior, in spite of the lack of technical restraints?
If you're worried to the point of stupidity/paralysis ("be prepared to be sued out of existence") then you've already chosen to never drive even a manually-operated car, because you were overwhelmed by your fears. Most people don't have that attitude going on, so they already drive cars anyway, where they face constant daily risk of injuring or even killing pedestrians.
And some of them end up occasionally doing it, to many peoples' grief. For whatever reason, society didn't give up and decide the existence of cars was just too dangerous to allow. It's over a hundred years too late for to advocate against cars. By the time your grandparents were born, this argument (that we're having today) had already been settled.
How the vehicle got to be out of control is what everyone trying to establish liability will be asking. That it killed a pedestrian or driver is merely the motivation for asking.
And it's funny, too.
Speaking as someone who goes to extra trouble to add various extensions (e.g. ublock origin, privacy badger, tampermonkey, etc) to fix web pages because the browser still doesn't do enough, and who used proxies (squid-with-sleezeball, privoxy) before we had good browser extensions: no, it doesn't seem even slightly counter-intuitive. Why would it be counter-intuitive? I totally don't get it.
It should be rendering it however the user intends to see it.
Yes, it is, if you look at it loosely enough. But then, it's also the browser equivalent of a program loader than removes malicious code from the programs it loads, or a linker that binds symbolic references to addresses, or a program that compresses data, or an image resizer, or good ol' awk and sed, or ... it's the browser equivalent of the web browser itself (rendering pages instead of showing HTML tags)! Gee, filtering data is like a lot of things!
Sorry you've had so many bad experiences that the first analogy that came to your mind was something unpleasant. Do you use a lot of malware? Maybe cut back on that.
You might as well say "power is evil." It's not. The problem is that your adversaries have more than you.
If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be in favor of people having the ability to do more things easier. And then you'd be saying "Maybe Conan was right. Crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women is best in life!"
I think he means this.
The problem isn't really even how much they're charging; it's that you can't shop around and use whatever data that you want to (or cheap out with openstreetmap or build your own data as your drive around, or whatever). If they had to compete, I doubt anyone would be complaining about the prices.
I think it's great if the car has GPS, because it has exterior antenna(s) which are going to be way more reliable than my Galaxy S4's crappy GPS, which I have to hold up or near a window to keep a "lock." But it should make the GPS results available to other systems. Then a device driver in the phone can say "fuck my local equipment, use this GPS computer over here..." That'd be awesome to the max.
(Or I could just get a new phone with a better antenna, but that just seems wrong somehow...)
Anyway, car computers suck because the manufacturers want 'em to be another videogame console cash cow walled-garden, which means the software is never going to be any good. It's the IBM mainframe of 1960s-1970s, the videogame consoles, the iPhone, etc all over again. Seems like every damn form factor needs its own "Personal Computer revolution" because customers are simply unable to exert enough pressure early in the life cycle.
We all need to get a lot more militant about preventing this sort of crap. It's my computer so stop telling me what I have to do with it. It ought to be punch-you-in-the-face fighting words from the get-go, whenever they even hint about getting in your way.
I think you might be missing the point of the post that you replied to: you are not being forced to pay for crap you don't want. You decided that you would prefer to pay for crap that you don't want. If you had decided you would rather not pay for crap you don't want, then you wouldn't be paying.
You shouted "YES, I ACCEPT YOUR OFFER! OMG OMG PLEASE PLEASE, TAKE MY MONEY! YES, YES, HERE'S MY MONEY!!!!" to them while telling us that you're unhappy. (People who aren't as understanding as I am, are probably getting the mistaken impression that you're a two-faced whiny lying bitch.)
I have a suggestion that might help your situation. Maybe you should stop petting the poorly-behaving dog and sweetly and lovingly saying, "oh, what a horrible bad dog, I fucking hate you," and then making smooching noises and scratching under its collar, followed by "You are the worst dog ever" and then giving it a piece of bacon.
Say no. Stop paying them. See that money coming out of your account every month? Keep that money. Don't give them money. Terminate the business relationship. (I'm not sure how else to explain this. Anyone?) The shitty bundle is how things are going to be, until you learn how to say no. If you keep saying "yes," they'll keep hearing "yes."
Five minutes ago, I could have told anyone the name of the guy who invented bittorrent protocol.
Now I am laughing and having to look it up. Worse, I know I won't remember it! I'll just remember "Bram Stoker" because you just permanently damaged my brain. For the rest of my fucking life, I am going to have to look up the name of the bittorrent guy.
AC, sometimes you're a genius. And sometimes you're a total bastard. And then there's times like this, when you're both. Fuck you, but also, fuck yeah!
Article keeps using the word "app," like this is software from Facebook that you execute and then it .. does something. Would this "app" be a UI to the internet, or does it create a new interface that other software can use, or what?
It sounds like it might be AOL. Is this AOL?
It's not that you're wrong; it's that there's no reason to think you might be right. Any sufficiently-creative person can make up a plausible unfalsifiable hypothesis. What's so special about yours?
Hmm...
Here's my idea for dealing with this stuff, since it looks like it might never go away. One of the properties of my idea is that we're going to stop hating L Ron, and start using him for inspiration. I know that's going to be a turnoff to some people, but bear with me.
We should give an assignment for all children in school, where they're required to make up a grand unfalsifiable hypothesis. Such things shouldn't just be something you blindly consume; you should make them, too. The world is just as much your ideosphere as anyone else's. And to make it more fun, after the assignment, have a group activity where the kids talk about everyone's entry, and vote on whose idea best optimizes some particular commercial or social goal. (e.g. How to make the most money, how to kill the most people, how to best retard academic progress, how to divert the most economic resources to building a cool monument, etc.)
Would this be legal in taxpayer-funded public schools? I think so (since it doesn't adovcate or disparage any particular religion), but I'm not sure (because, yes, it is pretty transparently intended to overall subvert mysticism).
Nobody is suggesting drivers should respect arbitrary laws. But drivers getting caught violating laws will be penalized. Staying within the law (or at least whenever observed) is a good optimization, if you want your team to win.
Now, now. It sounds like you're trying to frame this as a Team Human screwup rather than a Team Robot one. If robots rely on humans for their data, because they can't acquire it by themselves yet then that's part of their strategy and will be reflected in the performance by which they're judged.
Sure, knowing you shouldn't drive the wrong way is a reasonable expectation, but never-really-doing-it isn't a reasonable expectation.
(We know it's not a reasonable expectation, because any reasonable person would look at the data and their reason would lead them to reluctantly conclude that they expect cars (whether piloted by humans or robots) to sometimes go the wrong way sometimes, occasionally gruesomely killing or maiming innocent people and destroying bystanders property while everyone looks on in total horror. It sucks, but reason tells you that from everything you've ever seen so far, this is what you expect to happen. Reason sometimes brings bad news: the universe isn't a safe place to be, especially if you're anywhere near apes or their creations.)
The auto advocates' position would be that it merely needs to do the stupid thing less often than humans do it -- just exceed the current leading (even if pathetic) benchmark. If you can do that, then the smart move is to have robots occasionally killing innocent people, instead of humans more often killing innocent people. If you can reduce the frequency of situations where people get smashed up by cars (while still retaining the utility of cars, as opposed to everyone having to go back to horses), people are going to like your invention.
It looks like everyone is in agreement. The race is on! Who will get there first: humans or robots? This might be just the thing we all need, to improve our standards, and make words like "basic competence" finally actually mean something.
BTW, as a fellow human team-mate, I'm a bit troubled by your "wait and see" attitude. You know the robots aren't waiting, don't you? We need to stop waiting too, if we want to beat the robots to the title of "safe drivers." Wouldn't you like to rub the robots' noses in the fact that we humans don't ever fuck up? That's going to be awesome!