"even though an automotive wheel is proven technology that does pretty much the same thing as an aircraft wheel."
Well, if you mean they are both round and made of rubber, then yes. An aircraft wheel has to go from 0 to whatever the landing speed of the aircraft is in just a second or so. They also need to handle fairly extreme temperature ranges, ie: 150 deg F tarmac on a hot day to freezing or sub-zero temps at altitude, and back again. And they need to be able to do both of those, and more, repeatedly and with as low weight as practical and safe. I doubt most automotive tires would hold up well under same conditions.
See, that's my point exactly. A wheel is a wheel as long as you just want someone to roll smoothly across pavement, but when you start looking at application constraints, not every wheel is suitable.
If Dropbox just wants to store any old data, they can use Backblaze's design because data is data. But if they want it to work optimally with their application, then it's worth coming up with a custom design.
So they basically re-did everything that backblaze did for it's storage pods.
When you're big enough, reinventing the wheel is worth it because then the wheel is customized for your use case. Spending a million dollars to engineer a custom solution is worth it to eek out a few percent better performance when you're deploying $25M+ worth of hardware.
There's a reason why Boeing doesn't just use off the shelf automobile wheels on their aircraft even though it would save them ten's or hundreds of thousands of dollars per aircraft, even though an automotive wheel is proven technology that does pretty much the same thing as an aircraft wheel.
Because your own cloud server requires maintenance, and when your cloud server goes down you're SOL until you, personally, have the time to troubleshoot and fix it.
How do I know this? My server developed a tic in it's network card, corrupting about 1 bit in every 5,000,000,000 or so. Took me a year to find that I actually had a problem with the server, and then two weeks to narrow down what the problem actually was. As a side effect I also found that I had a dodgy drive cable (one of 6 in the system) which showed no outward sign of problems because CRCs were correcting those bit problems.
Could this happen to a cloud service? Sure. Are they likely to catch it? Faster than I am, in all likelihood. Will it take them less time to correct it? You're damn sure it will. And for the cost of the time I spent troubleshooting my server, I could have paid for a decade of service from two cloud services so that I had 100% redundancy, and still had money to go buy a kegerator so I could drink beer instead of chasing bit problems.
Don't count on it being any easier to troubleshoot rare network glitches with a cloud provider. Admittedly most of the time you can just launch a new instance and the problem goes away, but not always.
The first thing they'll do is close your ticket with "can not reproduce", so it'll be up to you to provide a test case to reproduce the problem. Which may not be trivial since you have limited visibility into their systems. And you have to convince them that it's not a security group problem, and not a local configuration problem (like iptables). And even then they may dismiss your ticket because you're not running their officially supported kernel version, so you'll have to fight with them to accept that it is a real problem, or capitulate and try to repro on their supported software version.
It took me 6 months to convince AWS support that there was a rare bug in network setup (not all subnets were reachable) that only hit once ever 500 - 1000 instance launches. They finally admitted that it was some sort of rare convergence problem in their network stack and that they are not monitoring for such problems so it won't recur.
At least when you own the hardware, you have full visibility into the entire stack, and while you can sitll have different teams pointing the finger at each other, they all work for the same company so management can step in and tell them to stop pointing fingers and work together to find the solution.
Yes, but given that if Apple's source code was to be placed into the hands of the US government, the value of that code would plummet -- and therefore the "fair market value" (which would be determined *by* the government) would likely be far less than it is now.
I don't think valuations work that way, or every house taken to build a freeway would be valued at $0 since once the government takes over the house and bulldozes it to build the freeway, the house would be worthless. The valuation has to be based on the market value at the time of the seizure of the property.
If they bought their house for $10k 40 years ago and its with $100million now but they can't afford those taxes, so they have to take their $100 million and go live in a mansion in the second-best part of town, yes I'm okay with that.
The fallacy is that they'll be able to sell their million dollar house and actually buy a comparable house in the "second best part of town". In all actuality, they are going to have to leave town completely.
In the markets that have huge appreciation where a $10K house can turn into a million dollar house, there's not much supply, so the elderly couple that wants to sell their house and downsize to a smaller place can't actually do so due to the timing - they can't find a house they want to purchase, tell the seller "I totally want to buy this house just as soon as I sell my old house", then put their own house on the market and wait for it to close -- the seller of the house they want to buy is not going to sit around and wait for 6 weeks while competing offers keep stacking up. They sell their house and move into an apartment and hope that they can find a home to buy before the 1031 exchange time limit expires, but that's risky in a market like SF, they may not be able to find that house.
And unless they do leave the town for cheaper real estate, it's not like they are walking away with a huge profit, since even in the "second best part of town",by the time they pay selling costs plus closing costs on the new house, they are lucky to break even. And they are still burdened by high taxes.
California's Prop 13 has its faults (it should only apply to primary homes), but I think it's completely fair to prevent homeowners from being priced out of their houses by taxes.
If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.
The bank can't do that, but the police said who investigate robberies can get the list for of blue Fords and compare the owner's names to known criminals. And to be a proper car analogy, they would be after a blue Ford with the license plate ABC123. If it turned out that the car was stolen for the bank job then that would be the same as a botnet that was using that IP address.
But it's not the police that's trying to get the name of Comcast subscribers, it's Microsoft.
Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.
..and you wont know until its identified. Thats how evidence collection works.
If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.
IP addresses are about as good as a car's paint color in identifying a malicious user.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
If you can cram enough information into a watch to help you with the test, then that sounds more like a problem with the test -- students should be allowed to bring any materials they want with them into the exam.
If an exam question relies on rote memorization of some fact, formula, or theorem, that question doesn't belong on the test since in the real world the student will have access to Google for those trivia questions.
The exam should test how well students can apply these facts to solve problems, not on the memorization of trivla.
I always loved open-book exams, even when the instructor warned "My open book tests are much harder". I liked those even better than exams where you're allowed to bring in a single sheet of note paper, which was always an exercise in how small I could write.
There is the issue about someone being in the bathroom. A small kid that the IR sensor doesn't detect, someone accidentally tapping the "door closed sensor twice", or other items... UV lights come on, and now the airline has a big fat lawsuit on their hands.
Look at toilet sensors and how relatively inaccurate they are. Yes, they tend to be OK to not spray water on you in general, but cataract-causing UV light isn't something to be considered "good enough".
If you didn't have those cataracts, you'd have been able to read the (short) article:
The lavatory uses Far UV light that would be activated only when the lavatory is unoccupied. Far UV is different from the UVA or UVB light in tanning beds, and is not harmful to people
He could have asked technical support "Hey guys, everything is cool, but can you take a look if you can make the quick charge work again? It's just a nice feature to have and the phone happens to still be under warranty. Thanks!"
Instead, he got frustrated and returned the phone and plan.
First world problems...
Samsung has drop-in support centers where you can talk to a technician and ask them to look at a phone while you wait?
Court rules that broadcasting your position is not broadcasting your position. Remember, judges are people who couldn't make a living as lawyers.
Court rules that broadcasting your position to your phone company is not equivalent to broadcasting your position to the police.
The police should not be legally allowed to operate Stingrays, since everything they collect from a Stringray is also available through a subpoena to the phone company, with more controls to ensure that they are only monitoring those who they are legally allowed to monitor.
Why does everyone think Apple has to create anything new? They already have the ability to do what the FBI wants. It's not a backdoor, it's not something they have to use on every phone...it's a simple code adjustment to turn off the poison pill and can easily be pushed to this one single phone. In fact, it can be built specifically for this one phone and it will only work on the one phone. Due to the way Apple already does their updates, they do this already as it is. They don't do mass updates to apps and iOS to all phones. each phone is unique and has it's own nonce. that's all Apple needs to match this code up to.
This isn't a technical issue. It's about people's opinion's on whether these douchebags have rights still and whether this actually violates them. ***Spoiler Alert*** They don't.
You don't seem to understand how slippery slopes work.
It's not "just one phone", and never was, it started at one and only one phone, because you know, terrorism, we need to read the phone of just this one terrorist and Apple won't help us! Then "Well there may be a dozen others that we'd like to break into". Then "Law enforcement agencies possess hundreds, or even thousands of phones they'd like to break into". And somewhere between "dozens" and "thousands", it becomes too unwieldy for the government to wait for Apple to unlock each one, so they'll require the tools to do it on their own.
And once they've proven that they can force Apple to create software at their bidding, they'll easily be able to force Apple to hand over the tools they need to decrypt phones at will. And really, there's no end to what they can force Apple to hack into their phones.
But the tool wouldn't work on newer iPhones. I think maybe what the guy is trying to say is that it would make a better test case if Apple truly had no way into the phone.
how would that be a case at all?
FBI: Apple, we need you to unlock this phone.
Apple: We can't.
FBI: No really, do it. Babies might die and stuff.
Apple: No, really, we can't, here's why.
FBI: Oh ok. Well you shouldn't have built a baby killing phone.
Quit sniveling, coward. Seriously. I can't possibly respect you enough to give you any further consideration. There is nothing you can do to earn anything more than disdain at this point. I've seen old ladies with more courage than you. "I want to take your rights 'cause I'm scared!"
If you don't have a counterpoint, you don't need to resort to a personal attack. I'm not seeking your respect, and am quite willing to accept your disdain.
The ability to travel free, and without monitoring, is a rather essential liberty.
Why do you think you have the ability to travel free and without monitoring? Nearly every one of us carries a tracking device (i.e. cell phone), Sprint alone has received over 8 million requests over a 13 month period for tracking data. And even if you turn off your cell phone, electronic toll tags can silently track you, and license plate reading cameras are becoming more and more ubiquitous both in fixed locations and on police cars and even transit vehicles and other government vehicles.
Whatever privacy you think you're maintaining by turning your own steering wheel is illusory.
AVs will, no doubt, require monitoring and will limit where you can go. No, no I'm not okay with that being forced on people because you're unable to control your bladder. You get off the road and leave everyone else's rights alone.
AV's don't *require* monitoring, if society feels that every citizen has the right to travel anonymously, AV's could easily be programmed to scrub identifying information from any data it sends back to the company. But don't think that just because the car isn't telling people where you are that you're not already being tracked.
You're dismissed.
Is this that freedom of speech works in your "free world"? You don't like my opinion so I'm "dismissed"?
But you have to consider the source An organization that would mostly become obsolete with self-driving cars
Now you are saying a complex robot car will never break down or need roadside assistance. Or are Google doing that too now?
Well, maybe not Google, but the car manufacturer... just as most manufacturers provide complementary roadside service under warranty. They'll probably know before you do that the car is in trouble, so they may even have a replacement car in-route.
And if you buy into the whole shared-car mentality, all you need is that replacement car, you can just leave the broken down car on the side of the road and someone can pick it up later.Even if it breaks down in a traffic lane, no one will run into it because every car will automatically receive traffic updates that warn it about traffic hazards like that.
running by people unloading luggage at a train station or airport out of the trunk of a self-driving car, and yelling really load, "DRIVE HOME"
or poking the "drive home" button with a stick, i don't know.
oh yeah, the complaint about self driving cruise missiles.
You could have lots of fun now by reaching into their windows and slipping the car into "Drive".
Though I suspect that when the self driving car gets more than 30 feet from the electronic key I keep in my pocket, it'll pull over and stop until I use the key to tell it what to do.
You can have your right to freedom removed for committing infractions in society. One could argue you still have the right to drive but they remove the privilege and ability. Actually I'd say in this case right and privilege are the same thing. At the end of the day driving is the privilege of using a specific tool (vehicle) to exercise your right of free movement. But whatever, what was the original point again?
Is it still a right if you can't exercise it? What good is the right to free speech if you can only speak freely in private?
Your individual freedom ends just before my bumper, so if self-driving cars result in a significant decrease in accidents, I have little sympathy for your desire to be able to T-bone my car in an intersection and kill my family when you missed the stop sign because you sneezed.
Do you take the same approach with your neighbors? Do they use gas powered lawn mowers or trimmers? The emission from those is a significant health hazard. How about barbecue grills or burning trash? House fires are much more prevalent in neighborhoods that allow open burning. Let's not forget that the neighbor that has trees in his yard is also a hazard to you because in a storm or high wind, that tree can come crashing through your roof.
Now, if you are really concerned about protecting your family, don't live in a major city, where accident rates are significantly higher. Of course, that is your personal choice, but then that isn't about the other person's liberty or choice having a negative impact on your life, but instead it is directly related to your choice.
If they are running their gas powered leaf blower in my living room, or driving their lawn tractor through the side of my house, yeah, I'd take the same approach - use it if you want to, but keep it out of my property and don't put my life at risk.
Open burn is not allowed where I live, and any burning at all is restricted across the state based on weather conditions. Yet people keep moving here faster than housing can be built to accomodate them.
don't live in a major city, where accident rates are significantly higher
I don't believe that's true, auto fatalities are split pretty evenly between rural/urban, but more people live in urban areas, so the rate is actually lower in urban areas.
“urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people... For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. http://www.citylab.com/housing... [citylab.com]
But you're missing the entire point of self driving cars -- to reduce the accident rate *everywhere*
No one is disputing that America has a lot of cars, but I don't see how that relates to people moving to self-driving cars?
TFA says most people don't want them. I understand this is a nerd forum, and nerds love technology even when it makes no sense, but you have to accept that a lot of people probably don't care for automated cars*.
But you have to consider the source An organization that would mostly become obsolete with self-driving cars, and which has an aging membership base (median age of 54) said that only 25% of its members would trust a self driving car.
Here's a different survey:
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/29... According to a new study by comparison-shopping website Insurance.com, three-quarters of licensed U.S. motorists would be very likely to consider, if not buy, self-driving vehicles. If they were offered lower insurance rates, that figure jumps to 86 percent.
Note: I do some some value in a robot car for some people (old, young, drunk etc), but there's a whole lot more where people actually want to drive themselves.
So you want to make every driver blow a breathalyzer test every time they get into the car so the car knows if they are drunk?
Slashdot Mirror
"even though an automotive wheel is proven technology that does pretty much the same thing as an aircraft wheel."
Well, if you mean they are both round and made of rubber, then yes. An aircraft wheel has to go from 0 to whatever the landing speed of the aircraft is in just a second or so. They also need to handle fairly extreme temperature ranges, ie: 150 deg F tarmac on a hot day to freezing or sub-zero temps at altitude, and back again. And they need to be able to do both of those, and more, repeatedly and with as low weight as practical and safe. I doubt most automotive tires would hold up well under same conditions.
See, that's my point exactly. A wheel is a wheel as long as you just want someone to roll smoothly across pavement, but when you start looking at application constraints, not every wheel is suitable.
If Dropbox just wants to store any old data, they can use Backblaze's design because data is data. But if they want it to work optimally with their application, then it's worth coming up with a custom design.
So they basically re-did everything that backblaze did for it's storage pods.
When you're big enough, reinventing the wheel is worth it because then the wheel is customized for your use case. Spending a million dollars to engineer a custom solution is worth it to eek out a few percent better performance when you're deploying $25M+ worth of hardware.
There's a reason why Boeing doesn't just use off the shelf automobile wheels on their aircraft even though it would save them ten's or hundreds of thousands of dollars per aircraft, even though an automotive wheel is proven technology that does pretty much the same thing as an aircraft wheel.
Because your own cloud server requires maintenance, and when your cloud server goes down you're SOL until you, personally, have the time to troubleshoot and fix it.
How do I know this? My server developed a tic in it's network card, corrupting about 1 bit in every 5,000,000,000 or so. Took me a year to find that I actually had a problem with the server, and then two weeks to narrow down what the problem actually was. As a side effect I also found that I had a dodgy drive cable (one of 6 in the system) which showed no outward sign of problems because CRCs were correcting those bit problems.
Could this happen to a cloud service? Sure. Are they likely to catch it? Faster than I am, in all likelihood. Will it take them less time to correct it? You're damn sure it will. And for the cost of the time I spent troubleshooting my server, I could have paid for a decade of service from two cloud services so that I had 100% redundancy, and still had money to go buy a kegerator so I could drink beer instead of chasing bit problems.
Don't count on it being any easier to troubleshoot rare network glitches with a cloud provider. Admittedly most of the time you can just launch a new instance and the problem goes away, but not always.
The first thing they'll do is close your ticket with "can not reproduce", so it'll be up to you to provide a test case to reproduce the problem. Which may not be trivial since you have limited visibility into their systems. And you have to convince them that it's not a security group problem, and not a local configuration problem (like iptables). And even then they may dismiss your ticket because you're not running their officially supported kernel version, so you'll have to fight with them to accept that it is a real problem, or capitulate and try to repro on their supported software version.
It took me 6 months to convince AWS support that there was a rare bug in network setup (not all subnets were reachable) that only hit once ever 500 - 1000 instance launches. They finally admitted that it was some sort of rare convergence problem in their network stack and that they are not monitoring for such problems so it won't recur.
At least when you own the hardware, you have full visibility into the entire stack, and while you can sitll have different teams pointing the finger at each other, they all work for the same company so management can step in and tell them to stop pointing fingers and work together to find the solution.
No law against it, however you'll be charged with a dozen different terrorism related crimes until you break.
I assumed that the people with something to hide just ask the homeless guy in the alley to go in and buy the phone in return for a few bucks.
Yes, but given that if Apple's source code was to be placed into the hands of the US government, the value of that code would plummet -- and therefore the "fair market value" (which would be determined *by* the government) would likely be far less than it is now.
I don't think valuations work that way, or every house taken to build a freeway would be valued at $0 since once the government takes over the house and bulldozes it to build the freeway, the house would be worthless. The valuation has to be based on the market value at the time of the seizure of the property.
It's this pretty much seizing the source "for the public good", so they'd need to pay fair market value under Eminent Domain laws?
If they bought their house for $10k 40 years ago and its with $100million now but they can't afford those taxes, so they have to take their $100 million and go live in a mansion in the second-best part of town, yes I'm okay with that.
The fallacy is that they'll be able to sell their million dollar house and actually buy a comparable house in the "second best part of town". In all actuality, they are going to have to leave town completely.
In the markets that have huge appreciation where a $10K house can turn into a million dollar house, there's not much supply, so the elderly couple that wants to sell their house and downsize to a smaller place can't actually do so due to the timing - they can't find a house they want to purchase, tell the seller "I totally want to buy this house just as soon as I sell my old house", then put their own house on the market and wait for it to close -- the seller of the house they want to buy is not going to sit around and wait for 6 weeks while competing offers keep stacking up. They sell their house and move into an apartment and hope that they can find a home to buy before the 1031 exchange time limit expires, but that's risky in a market like SF, they may not be able to find that house.
And unless they do leave the town for cheaper real estate, it's not like they are walking away with a huge profit, since even in the "second best part of town",by the time they pay selling costs plus closing costs on the new house, they are lucky to break even. And they are still burdened by high taxes.
California's Prop 13 has its faults (it should only apply to primary homes), but I think it's completely fair to prevent homeowners from being priced out of their houses by taxes.
If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.
The bank can't do that, but the police said who investigate robberies can get the list for of blue Fords and compare the owner's names to known criminals. And to be a proper car analogy, they would be after a blue Ford with the license plate ABC123. If it turned out that the car was stolen for the bank job then that would be the same as a botnet that was using that IP address.
But it's not the police that's trying to get the name of Comcast subscribers, it's Microsoft.
Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.
If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.
IP addresses are about as good as a car's paint color in identifying a malicious user.
Teflon is incredibly toxic. Teflon is worse than shit.
Do you have a reference for that? I'd much rather cook in a teflon coated pan than a shit coated pan. Though admittedly I haven't done any testing.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
If you can cram enough information into a watch to help you with the test, then that sounds more like a problem with the test -- students should be allowed to bring any materials they want with them into the exam.
If an exam question relies on rote memorization of some fact, formula, or theorem, that question doesn't belong on the test since in the real world the student will have access to Google for those trivia questions.
The exam should test how well students can apply these facts to solve problems, not on the memorization of trivla.
I always loved open-book exams, even when the instructor warned "My open book tests are much harder". I liked those even better than exams where you're allowed to bring in a single sheet of note paper, which was always an exercise in how small I could write.
There is the issue about someone being in the bathroom. A small kid that the IR sensor doesn't detect, someone accidentally tapping the "door closed sensor twice", or other items... UV lights come on, and now the airline has a big fat lawsuit on their hands.
Look at toilet sensors and how relatively inaccurate they are. Yes, they tend to be OK to not spray water on you in general, but cataract-causing UV light isn't something to be considered "good enough".
If you didn't have those cataracts, you'd have been able to read the (short) article:
The lavatory uses Far UV light that would be activated only when the lavatory is unoccupied. Far UV is different from the UVA or UVB light in tanning beds, and is not harmful to people
Indeed.
He could have asked technical support "Hey guys, everything is cool, but can you take a look if you can make the quick charge work again? It's just a nice feature to have and the phone happens to still be under warranty. Thanks!"
Instead, he got frustrated and returned the phone and plan.
First world problems...
Samsung has drop-in support centers where you can talk to a technician and ask them to look at a phone while you wait?
Court rules that broadcasting your position is not broadcasting your position. Remember, judges are people who couldn't make a living as lawyers.
Court rules that broadcasting your position to your phone company is not equivalent to broadcasting your position to the police.
The police should not be legally allowed to operate Stingrays, since everything they collect from a Stringray is also available through a subpoena to the phone company, with more controls to ensure that they are only monitoring those who they are legally allowed to monitor.
Why does everyone think Apple has to create anything new? They already have the ability to do what the FBI wants. It's not a backdoor, it's not something they have to use on every phone...it's a simple code adjustment to turn off the poison pill and can easily be pushed to this one single phone. In fact, it can be built specifically for this one phone and it will only work on the one phone. Due to the way Apple already does their updates, they do this already as it is. They don't do mass updates to apps and iOS to all phones. each phone is unique and has it's own nonce. that's all Apple needs to match this code up to.
This isn't a technical issue. It's about people's opinion's on whether these douchebags have rights still and whether this actually violates them.
***Spoiler Alert*** They don't.
You don't seem to understand how slippery slopes work.
It's not "just one phone", and never was, it started at one and only one phone, because you know, terrorism, we need to read the phone of just this one terrorist and Apple won't help us! Then "Well there may be a dozen others that we'd like to break into". Then "Law enforcement agencies possess hundreds, or even thousands of phones they'd like to break into". And somewhere between "dozens" and "thousands", it becomes too unwieldy for the government to wait for Apple to unlock each one, so they'll require the tools to do it on their own.
And once they've proven that they can force Apple to create software at their bidding, they'll easily be able to force Apple to hand over the tools they need to decrypt phones at will. And really, there's no end to what they can force Apple to hack into their phones.
But the tool wouldn't work on newer iPhones. I think maybe what the guy is trying to say is that it would make a better test case if Apple truly had no way into the phone.
how would that be a case at all?
FBI: Apple, we need you to unlock this phone.
Apple: We can't.
FBI: No really, do it. Babies might die and stuff.
Apple: No, really, we can't, here's why.
FBI: Oh ok. Well you shouldn't have built a baby killing phone.
Quit sniveling, coward. Seriously. I can't possibly respect you enough to give you any further consideration. There is nothing you can do to earn anything more than disdain at this point. I've seen old ladies with more courage than you. "I want to take your rights 'cause I'm scared!"
If you don't have a counterpoint, you don't need to resort to a personal attack. I'm not seeking your respect, and am quite willing to accept your disdain.
The ability to travel free, and without monitoring, is a rather essential liberty.
Why do you think you have the ability to travel free and without monitoring? Nearly every one of us carries a tracking device (i.e. cell phone), Sprint alone has received over 8 million requests over a 13 month period for tracking data. And even if you turn off your cell phone, electronic toll tags can silently track you, and license plate reading cameras are becoming more and more ubiquitous both in fixed locations and on police cars and even transit vehicles and other government vehicles.
Whatever privacy you think you're maintaining by turning your own steering wheel is illusory.
AVs will, no doubt, require monitoring and will limit where you can go. No, no I'm not okay with that being forced on people because you're unable to control your bladder. You get off the road and leave everyone else's rights alone.
AV's don't *require* monitoring, if society feels that every citizen has the right to travel anonymously, AV's could easily be programmed to scrub identifying information from any data it sends back to the company. But don't think that just because the car isn't telling people where you are that you're not already being tracked.
You're dismissed.
Is this that freedom of speech works in your "free world"? You don't like my opinion so I'm "dismissed"?
But you have to consider the source An organization that would mostly become obsolete with self-driving cars
Now you are saying a complex robot car will never break down or need roadside assistance. Or are Google doing that too now?
Well, maybe not Google, but the car manufacturer... just as most manufacturers provide complementary roadside service under warranty. They'll probably know before you do that the car is in trouble, so they may even have a replacement car in-route.
And if you buy into the whole shared-car mentality, all you need is that replacement car, you can just leave the broken down car on the side of the road and someone can pick it up later.Even if it breaks down in a traffic lane, no one will run into it because every car will automatically receive traffic updates that warn it about traffic hazards like that.
oh god, i just imagined a new pastime.
running by people unloading luggage at a train station or airport out of the trunk of a self-driving car, and yelling really load, "DRIVE HOME"
or poking the "drive home" button with a stick, i don't know.
oh yeah, the complaint about self driving cruise missiles.
You could have lots of fun now by reaching into their windows and slipping the car into "Drive".
Though I suspect that when the self driving car gets more than 30 feet from the electronic key I keep in my pocket, it'll pull over and stop until I use the key to tell it what to do.
You can have your right to freedom removed for committing infractions in society. One could argue you still have the right to drive but they remove the privilege and ability. Actually I'd say in this case right and privilege are the same thing. At the end of the day driving is the privilege of using a specific tool (vehicle) to exercise your right of free movement. But whatever, what was the original point again?
Is it still a right if you can't exercise it? What good is the right to free speech if you can only speak freely in private?
Your individual freedom ends just before my bumper, so if self-driving cars result in a significant decrease in accidents, I have little sympathy for your desire to be able to T-bone my car in an intersection and kill my family when you missed the stop sign because you sneezed.
Do you take the same approach with your neighbors? Do they use gas powered lawn mowers or trimmers? The emission from those is a significant health hazard. How about barbecue grills or burning trash? House fires are much more prevalent in neighborhoods that allow open burning. Let's not forget that the neighbor that has trees in his yard is also a hazard to you because in a storm or high wind, that tree can come crashing through your roof.
Now, if you are really concerned about protecting your family, don't live in a major city, where accident rates are significantly higher. Of course, that is your personal choice, but then that isn't about the other person's liberty or choice having a negative impact on your life, but instead it is directly related to your choice.
If they are running their gas powered leaf blower in my living room, or driving their lawn tractor through the side of my house, yeah, I'd take the same approach - use it if you want to, but keep it out of my property and don't put my life at risk.
Open burn is not allowed where I live, and any burning at all is restricted across the state based on weather conditions. Yet people keep moving here faster than housing can be built to accomodate them.
don't live in a major city, where accident rates are significantly higher
I don't believe that's true, auto fatalities are split pretty evenly between rural/urban, but more people live in urban areas, so the rate is actually lower in urban areas.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...
“urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people ... For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population.
http://www.citylab.com/housing... [citylab.com]
But you're missing the entire point of self driving cars -- to reduce the accident rate *everywhere*
No one is disputing that America has a lot of cars, but I don't see how that relates to people moving to self-driving cars?
TFA says most people don't want them. I understand this is a nerd forum, and nerds love technology even when it makes no sense, but you have to accept that a lot of people probably don't care for automated cars*.
But you have to consider the source An organization that would mostly become obsolete with self-driving cars, and which has an aging membership base (median age of 54) said that only 25% of its members would trust a self driving car.
Here's a different survey:
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/29...
According to a new study by comparison-shopping website Insurance.com, three-quarters of licensed U.S. motorists would be very likely to consider, if not buy, self-driving vehicles. If they were offered lower insurance rates, that figure jumps to 86 percent.
Note: I do some some value in a robot car for some people (old, young, drunk etc), but there's a whole lot more where people actually want to drive themselves.
So you want to make every driver blow a breathalyzer test every time they get into the car so the car knows if they are drunk?
Not in the overwhelming majority of the US.....we pretty much ALL own 1 if not 2 or more cars.
And we like having them.
No one wants to take your car away, you can still have two self-driving cars.
Pull a trailer and get back to me.
You mean like this?
http://www.gizmag.com/daimlers...