Insurance regulations only apply to vehicles driven on public streets.
That said, one has to wonder if this concept could give rise to a cottage industry of "private road" providers, who charge build roads on their property for human-controlled vehicles and charge a premium for their use...
Also have to wonder if this will mean an end to toll roads. My guess is, not likely.
Police in small towns would lose a ton of money - much fewer speeding and traffic tickets.
This I see happening. I also see municipalities scrambling to find new ways to bilk residents out of their money, since speed traps will be defunct.
Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.
Not sure where you're coming from on this; how? Do you think the automated cars are going to be free/cheaper than existing taxi cabs and public transit? Or are you basing this claim on some rationale I have yet to consider?
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up. My hunch is that the our current nanny-state way of thinking will never allow this. We will be required to be sober and attentive even if not driving. You'd probably get a ticket for merely reading a book or sending a text message.
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up.
Too bad there's not some sort of existing service that has guys in cars waiting for drunk people to call, then the guys in the cars could go pick the drunks up and take them wherever...
Is that the same kind of years that are used by a lot of other technological advances? Because if it is, we won't have commercially available self-driving cars before 2040.
Not really. From a technical standpoint the problem is solved (for good weather).
Personally, I drive a larger vehicle than I would like. I do so because I feel that I need to ability to haul things around occasionally. If I could have a smaller vehicle without the double hit on liability insurance I would also have a small two seat vehicle (or maybe even one, or a motorcycle). The insurance company would win because statistically I could do less damage when I drove the smaller lighter vehicle, but they have their hooks into the lawmakers and they insist that they deserve the insurance payment on each vehicle even when there are more vehicles than drivers in a household.
Plus, as you already stated, they get to hit you twice, even though you can only drive one vehicle at a time.
I'm in a similar boat - I drive a pickup because I need one often enough to justify having it, but would really like to get an additional, smaller vehicle so I can get decent mileage when not hauling a load. Insurance cost is one of the prohibiting factors.
We must demand no-fault insurance... It is the only correct solution
Shitty driver?
You realize that "no-fault" really translates to "everyone pays," right? Why should I have to pay because some dumbass was texting and crunched my ride?
OK, so its better to what, elect Marco Rubio or some shitheel like that? I mean you got a choice amongst the people that ARE running, or Mickey Mouse if you so please.
IF Sanders is the ideologue you believe him to be, then he has about as much chance at getting elected as Ron Paul.
Remember, during the last election primary, Ron Paul was in 3rd place with the voters. He scared the establishment so badly, when announcing the placement of candidates on television I distinctly remember hearing them talk about the "First, second, and FOURTH place" Republican candidates, specifically so they wouldn't have to mention Ron Paul's name. You can say what you want about the man himself, but the media's obviously intentional campaign to hide him from the public is undeniable.
Same thing's gonna happen to Bernie if he's even half the man he seems to be. His only chance to be elected will be as a third party, and we all know how the ignorant masses feel about third party candidates.
What is needed is exactly what Sanders offers a REAL EXPRESSION of true Liberal philosophy and intent instead of bullshit handwaving.
Again, I will point out that a lot of Obama's supporters said the exact same thing about him during his first campaign.
Remember, per Obama's campaign speeches, we were supposed to have universal, single-payer healthcare, no more summary executions by drone, no more NSA surveillance machine, etc, etc.
When you add electronic elements to your detection scheme,
But in an urban environment, electronic emissions are going to be coming from more or less every direction.
That's like saying underground sonar won't work because of all the dirt in the way; how many of those signals are going to be drone sized, mobile, and operating on very specific frequencies?
Scientists are creative, and if there's no strong evidence about something they'll come up with all sorts of ideas that can't currently be verified. When they all agree, there's solid evidence and theory behind it.
You realize these two sentences are directly contradictory to one another, right?
"Scientists are creative and will come up with" == "When we don't know, we make shit up"
"ideas that can't currently be verified" == "shit that can't be proven because we we made it up"
"When they agree, there's solid evidence..." == "If we all agree to agree on the shit we made up, no one should ever question it"
So basically...
"When they can't show it scientifically, they make shit up. But if enough of them agree about the made-up shit, we should accept it as fact because they're scientists."
Not the point - the point is, Obama made a lot of promises during his campaign that weren't kept. Just like almost every single other person we've elected in my lifetime. Therefore, a reasonably logical person can conclude that campaign promises have about as much real value as shrinkwrap - something to be discarded immediately.
You realize that the US is the world's largest arms dealer, right? So even if we didn't buy any of those fancy toys for ourselves, it doesn't mean that we suddenly stop selling them to governments and warlords the world over.
There are no "default fees" on government student loans.
If you go into default and the loans are sold to a collection company, that company likely will charge collection fees.
But that's a different animal, and one you would deal with on any defaulted loan.
Bankruptcy is a terrible way out, because declaring it means you can't get a loan for SQUAT for at least 7 years. No housing, no cars, no education, nada.
Well theoretically, if people weren't paying for college out of their own pockets, costs would likely go down due to government regulation (since the government is the only body that can force institutions to accept a certain price-point), which would increase the number of people that could attend for the price of a single Predator drone...
But that's not really my point - point being, if our government didn't spend untold billions on things like Predator drones and unconstitutional surveillance datacenters, we could probably afford to send every college-age American to school with little to no out-of-pocket expense. and would likely have money left over.
What's your next trick, pawning a bunch of your stuff (since no one will ever give you another credit-based loan again), never paying the interest, then bitching online about how the people at the pawn shop are thieves because they sold "your" stuff?
Where do you live that gives free healthcare and housing to homeless people? Around these parts we do what most American cities do - shuffle them further and further away from the services they need access to, because the people who live in the area and aren't homeless don't want to be able to see them suffer.
You realize that no one gets to choose what "their tax dollars" are spent on, right? Otherwise I wouldn't spend a dime on things like drones and NSA data centers.
Given the option, I'd rather pay for a million people to go to college than a single Predator drone.
Don't get me wrong, I like Sanders ideologically... but to be fair, I remember people saying the EXACT SAME THING about Obama when he ran for President the first time, and we all know how poorly he kept his campaign promises.
You would think we Americans would, at some point, learn our lesson and stop buying into stump speeches.
Slashdot Mirror
who charge build roads
How about people who proofread their edits before hitting Submit? Sheesh...
Insurance regulations only apply to vehicles driven on public streets.
That said, one has to wonder if this concept could give rise to a cottage industry of "private road" providers, who charge build roads on their property for human-controlled vehicles and charge a premium for their use...
Also have to wonder if this will mean an end to toll roads. My guess is, not likely.
Bars would thrive.
Police in small towns would lose a ton of money - much fewer speeding and traffic tickets.
This I see happening. I also see municipalities scrambling to find new ways to bilk residents out of their money, since speed traps will be defunct.
Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.
Not sure where you're coming from on this; how? Do you think the automated cars are going to be free/cheaper than existing taxi cabs and public transit? Or are you basing this claim on some rationale I have yet to consider?
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up. My hunch is that the our current nanny-state way of thinking will never allow this. We will be required to be sober and attentive even if not driving. You'd probably get a ticket for merely reading a book or sending a text message.
We already have this. It's called taxi cabs
FTFY
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up.
Too bad there's not some sort of existing service that has guys in cars waiting for drunk people to call, then the guys in the cars could go pick the drunks up and take them wherever...
Is that the same kind of years that are used by a lot of other technological advances? Because if it is, we won't have commercially available self-driving cars before 2040.
Not really. From a technical standpoint the problem is solved (for good weather).
So then, not solved.
Personally, I drive a larger vehicle than I would like. I do so because I feel that I need to ability to haul things around occasionally. If I could have a smaller vehicle without the double hit on liability insurance I would also have a small two seat vehicle (or maybe even one, or a motorcycle). The insurance company would win because statistically I could do less damage when I drove the smaller lighter vehicle, but they have their hooks into the lawmakers and they insist that they deserve the insurance payment on each vehicle even when there are more vehicles than drivers in a household.
Plus, as you already stated, they get to hit you twice, even though you can only drive one vehicle at a time.
I'm in a similar boat - I drive a pickup because I need one often enough to justify having it, but would really like to get an additional, smaller vehicle so I can get decent mileage when not hauling a load. Insurance cost is one of the prohibiting factors.
We must demand no-fault insurance... It is the only correct solution
Shitty driver?
You realize that "no-fault" really translates to "everyone pays," right? Why should I have to pay because some dumbass was texting and crunched my ride?
It would take more social unity than most Americans can muster to level that playing field.
Hence the reason it's been sitting at such a sharp angle for so long.
OK, so its better to what, elect Marco Rubio or some shitheel like that? I mean you got a choice amongst the people that ARE running, or Mickey Mouse if you so please.
IF Sanders is the ideologue you believe him to be, then he has about as much chance at getting elected as Ron Paul.
Remember, during the last election primary, Ron Paul was in 3rd place with the voters. He scared the establishment so badly, when announcing the placement of candidates on television I distinctly remember hearing them talk about the "First, second, and FOURTH place" Republican candidates, specifically so they wouldn't have to mention Ron Paul's name. You can say what you want about the man himself, but the media's obviously intentional campaign to hide him from the public is undeniable.
Same thing's gonna happen to Bernie if he's even half the man he seems to be. His only chance to be elected will be as a third party, and we all know how the ignorant masses feel about third party candidates.
What is needed is exactly what Sanders offers a REAL EXPRESSION of true Liberal philosophy and intent instead of bullshit handwaving.
Again, I will point out that a lot of Obama's supporters said the exact same thing about him during his first campaign.
Remember, per Obama's campaign speeches, we were supposed to have universal, single-payer healthcare, no more summary executions by drone, no more NSA surveillance machine, etc, etc.
When you add electronic elements to your detection scheme,
But in an urban environment, electronic emissions are going to be coming from more or less every direction.
That's like saying underground sonar won't work because of all the dirt in the way; how many of those signals are going to be drone sized, mobile, and operating on very specific frequencies?
Scientists are creative, and if there's no strong evidence about something they'll come up with all sorts of ideas that can't currently be verified. When they all agree, there's solid evidence and theory behind it.
You realize these two sentences are directly contradictory to one another, right?
"Scientists are creative and will come up with" == "When we don't know, we make shit up"
"ideas that can't currently be verified" == "shit that can't be proven because we we made it up"
"When they agree, there's solid evidence..." == "If we all agree to agree on the shit we made up, no one should ever question it"
So basically...
"When they can't show it scientifically, they make shit up. But if enough of them agree about the made-up shit, we should accept it as fact because they're scientists."
Not the point - the point is, Obama made a lot of promises during his campaign that weren't kept. Just like almost every single other person we've elected in my lifetime. Therefore, a reasonably logical person can conclude that campaign promises have about as much real value as shrinkwrap - something to be discarded immediately.
You realize that the US is the world's largest arms dealer, right? So even if we didn't buy any of those fancy toys for ourselves, it doesn't mean that we suddenly stop selling them to governments and warlords the world over.
There are no "default fees" on government student loans.
If you go into default and the loans are sold to a collection company, that company likely will charge collection fees.
But that's a different animal, and one you would deal with on any defaulted loan.
Bankruptcy is a terrible way out, because declaring it means you can't get a loan for SQUAT for at least 7 years. No housing, no cars, no education, nada.
Seek alternatives if possible.
Obviously better than you did in Reading Comprehension.
You didn't really think I meant that as a literal comparison, did you?
Now try and figure up how many college degrees we lost when the government built those NSA datacenters.
Well theoretically, if people weren't paying for college out of their own pockets, costs would likely go down due to government regulation (since the government is the only body that can force institutions to accept a certain price-point), which would increase the number of people that could attend for the price of a single Predator drone...
But that's not really my point - point being, if our government didn't spend untold billions on things like Predator drones and unconstitutional surveillance datacenters, we could probably afford to send every college-age American to school with little to no out-of-pocket expense. and would likely have money left over.
What's your next trick, pawning a bunch of your stuff (since no one will ever give you another credit-based loan again), never paying the interest, then bitching online about how the people at the pawn shop are thieves because they sold "your" stuff?
One would think that a guy with a Master's in Philosophy would know pud-whack ideology as it came out of his own mouth.
Maybe he should sue his professors for doing a piss-poor job of teaching him, then use that money to pay back his loans.
Actually if he's transferring his student loan debt to the credit cards the advice is brilliant.
Indeed - you can wipe out credit card debt by declaring bankruptcy. Not possible with government loans.
So, really, "brilliant" only if your plan is to be unable to get any sort of credit for the next 7-10 years.
Where do you live that gives free healthcare and housing to homeless people? Around these parts we do what most American cities do - shuffle them further and further away from the services they need access to, because the people who live in the area and aren't homeless don't want to be able to see them suffer.
You realize that no one gets to choose what "their tax dollars" are spent on, right? Otherwise I wouldn't spend a dime on things like drones and NSA data centers.
Given the option, I'd rather pay for a million people to go to college than a single Predator drone.
Don't get me wrong, I like Sanders ideologically... but to be fair, I remember people saying the EXACT SAME THING about Obama when he ran for President the first time, and we all know how poorly he kept his campaign promises.
You would think we Americans would, at some point, learn our lesson and stop buying into stump speeches.