The problem is that you're comparing the current self-driving car to a *perfect* human.
No, I'm not. I'm comparing the best self driving car to the average human driver the overwhelming majority of the time.
A car that can't be used in rain, snow, or other weather, or near a construction zone, or on a street with an unmapped pothole, or on over 99% of the roads and streets that haven't been mapped and likely never will is of zero value to the anybody other than the people developing them.
So you'd be OK with all cars being worse drives than most human drivers are now, so long as they're better than the worst now? That seems rather . . . foolish, to me.
I have literally never seen a comment section that did so in any substantive way. Certainly nobody in this comment section has done so. We are far enough away from automated cars being able to drive in real world conditions that we cannot even estimate when it will happen.
The real world is a chaotic system. You cannot have a 100% accurate map of it at all times. No self driving car being developed today is even trying to deal with unexpected conditions. Add an unmapped stop sign on a road, and Google's car freaks out (which means it slows to a crawl, and so does everyone behind it). Snow? Forget it. Rain? Same. Road construction, with a guy with a flag? Laughable.
We might live to see cars smart enough to drive in the real world, but there's really no reason to be optimistic.
That's true only if your normal driving condition is impaired. In which case, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. The real test is are the autonomous cars better on average than human drivers, and most people are not impaired most of the time (no matter how stupid they seem).
That's the point: Will anyone alive today live long enough to see autonomous vehicles that are better drivers than people? The technology is nowhere near existing yet.
What Volvo says in their press release and what the law says are often completely unrelated to on another. (And they're talking about a very limited liability.)
Similarly, I would be fine with a fully autonomous bus and taxi system, depending on my travel needs at that time.
You're still assuming it will actually work in the real world. We're nowhere near that technology yet. And there really isn't much reason to think we will be any time soon.
The unspoken assumption, that folks like Google wish to remain unspoken and unexamined, is that "better then (sic) a human" part. That they are so committed to glossing over that suggests that they are also doubtful about how soon automated cars will, in fact, driver better than humans. Certainly, we're nowherenearthatnow.
It's called a "rental car," and it's not a new concept.
And like rental cars today, you'll have the exact same responsibilities as you do with your own car. If car owners are responsible for making sure their own cars operate safely, you'll be responsible for making certain the rental does.
Perhaps what you really want is a "taxi," which as a trained, professional driver, who knowingly accepts that responsibility (and control) for himself. Or maybe an Uber driver who may or may not know his ass from the glove compartment, but who is still responsible.
I gave up on B&N when they became actively hostile to their own users. Removing download links for epubs, playing games to keep you from getting it any other way, changing from their "social encryption" to randomly generated keys, all for the specific purpose of making it impossible to keep an archive of your purchases, so that you have to rely on B&N to reload stuff if you replace a device (and you can only do so on their devices, or using their reader). All while losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and looking like their were going out of business any day now. Fuck 'em.
I hate Amazon's business model on ebooks, but it's still better than B&N shitting all over me.
Their other revenue stream is from all the phone numbers they're collecting - you can't create a profile of someone else to review without giving up their phone number. Illegal as hell, but that doesn't seem to worry these bimbos.
My thought exactly. The FCC takes complaints here. They don't respond to (or care much about) individual complaints, but when they get a lot, or can score PR points going after especially egregious violations (like this), they drop the hammer.
Retailers are remarkably resistant to chip & PIN in the US, out of a (probably misguided) perception that consumers will be resistant. Merchant services are very, very practical, and are not going to shut down their bread and butter over the issue.
US banks have extremely sophisticated algorithms to spot fraudulent transactions (which is why we're a decade behind Europe on this), and those won't be going away. Fraud rates are about 1/10th of 1 percent overall, which isn't exactly the end of the world to begin with.
No more a disaster than the last few years have been. Very few POS software vendors are actually ready, and at least some have delayed releasing EMV packages because of it. They'd be fools to release software that isn't ready just as the holiday shopping season starts, and the retailers would be fools to accept it.
So things continue the way they have, with the liability for that 1/10th of 1% of transactions that are fraudulent (or, more likely, half that, unless you sell consumer electronics) shifting, in some cases, to the merchant instead of the banks.
You've clearly never worked in retail. There are rules. If the merchant follows the rules, they are protected, and either the merchant service or the issuing bank eats the loss.
(Online companies, mail order companies, and other "card no present" merchants cannot follow the rules, so, yeah, they're hosed.)
EMV means the rules are changing, and they're more complicated, but if the car has no chip, the old rules still apply, and the merchant is protected if they follow the rules.
The specs not only allow but require that merchants still be able to process mag strip only cards. If your card doesn't have a chip, they'll still accept it.
Only 70% of credit cards (and 25% of debit cards) in the US will be chip cards by the end of this year. Banks do not like losing money. It'll be a decade or more before mag strips are no longer usable.
In a lot of places, you can record that phone conversation (or personal conversation) without bothering to tell the other guy. When you're being ordered to commit a felony and threatened with firing if you don't, you can get away with it even in all party states.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you're comparing the current self-driving car to a *perfect* human.
No, I'm not. I'm comparing the best self driving car to the average human driver the overwhelming majority of the time.
A car that can't be used in rain, snow, or other weather, or near a construction zone, or on a street with an unmapped pothole, or on over 99% of the roads and streets that haven't been mapped and likely never will is of zero value to the anybody other than the people developing them.
So you'd be OK with all cars being worse drives than most human drivers are now, so long as they're better than the worst now? That seems rather . . . foolish, to me.
I have literally never seen a comment section that did so in any substantive way. Certainly nobody in this comment section has done so. We are far enough away from automated cars being able to drive in real world conditions that we cannot even estimate when it will happen.
The real world is a chaotic system. You cannot have a 100% accurate map of it at all times. No self driving car being developed today is even trying to deal with unexpected conditions. Add an unmapped stop sign on a road, and Google's car freaks out (which means it slows to a crawl, and so does everyone behind it). Snow? Forget it. Rain? Same. Road construction, with a guy with a flag? Laughable.
We might live to see cars smart enough to drive in the real world, but there's really no reason to be optimistic.
That's true only if your normal driving condition is impaired. In which case, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. The real test is are the autonomous cars better on average than human drivers, and most people are not impaired most of the time (no matter how stupid they seem).
That's the point: Will anyone alive today live long enough to see autonomous vehicles that are better drivers than people? The technology is nowhere near existing yet.
What Volvo says in their press release and what the law says are often completely unrelated to on another. (And they're talking about a very limited liability.)
Similarly, I would be fine with a fully autonomous bus and taxi system, depending on my travel needs at that time.
You're still assuming it will actually work in the real world. We're nowhere near that technology yet. And there really isn't much reason to think we will be any time soon.
The unspoken assumption, that folks like Google wish to remain unspoken and unexamined, is that "better then (sic) a human" part. That they are so committed to glossing over that suggests that they are also doubtful about how soon automated cars will, in fact, driver better than humans. Certainly, we're nowhere near that now.
It's called a "rental car," and it's not a new concept.
And like rental cars today, you'll have the exact same responsibilities as you do with your own car. If car owners are responsible for making sure their own cars operate safely, you'll be responsible for making certain the rental does.
Perhaps what you really want is a "taxi," which as a trained, professional driver, who knowingly accepts that responsibility (and control) for himself. Or maybe an Uber driver who may or may not know his ass from the glove compartment, but who is still responsible.
I gave up on B&N when they became actively hostile to their own users. Removing download links for epubs, playing games to keep you from getting it any other way, changing from their "social encryption" to randomly generated keys, all for the specific purpose of making it impossible to keep an archive of your purchases, so that you have to rely on B&N to reload stuff if you replace a device (and you can only do so on their devices, or using their reader). All while losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and looking like their were going out of business any day now. Fuck 'em.
I hate Amazon's business model on ebooks, but it's still better than B&N shitting all over me.
Rule #1: Cops are allowed to lie, unless they are under oath (and they'll still often lie, then, too).
Rule #2: Asking for an attorney does not mean they have to stop asking you questions.
Rule #3: Invoking your right to remain silent does mean they have to stop asking you questions.
Or a stopped clock is right twice a day.
That's why you need someone's phone number to review them.
Their other revenue stream is from all the phone numbers they're collecting - you can't create a profile of someone else to review without giving up their phone number. Illegal as hell, but that doesn't seem to worry these bimbos.
My thought exactly. The FCC takes complaints here. They don't respond to (or care much about) individual complaints, but when they get a lot, or can score PR points going after especially egregious violations (like this), they drop the hammer.
I only hope the dog wasn't underage as well. Tsk, tsk.
The kiddie porn involves baby goats (which are called kids).
But hey, everything's funnier when there's a goat involved, so it's OK.
Retailers are remarkably resistant to chip & PIN in the US, out of a (probably misguided) perception that consumers will be resistant. Merchant services are very, very practical, and are not going to shut down their bread and butter over the issue.
US banks have extremely sophisticated algorithms to spot fraudulent transactions (which is why we're a decade behind Europe on this), and those won't be going away. Fraud rates are about 1/10th of 1 percent overall, which isn't exactly the end of the world to begin with.
Actually, cardholder rights aren't changing, and aren't technical, they're legal. No changes there at all.
If everybody follows the rules, either the merchant service or the issuing bank eat the loss. Same as it's always been.
Now adjust your tin foil hat. It's slipping down over your eyes.
No more a disaster than the last few years have been. Very few POS software vendors are actually ready, and at least some have delayed releasing EMV packages because of it. They'd be fools to release software that isn't ready just as the holiday shopping season starts, and the retailers would be fools to accept it.
So things continue the way they have, with the liability for that 1/10th of 1% of transactions that are fraudulent (or, more likely, half that, unless you sell consumer electronics) shifting, in some cases, to the merchant instead of the banks.
You've clearly never worked in retail. There are rules. If the merchant follows the rules, they are protected, and either the merchant service or the issuing bank eats the loss.
(Online companies, mail order companies, and other "card no present" merchants cannot follow the rules, so, yeah, they're hosed.)
EMV means the rules are changing, and they're more complicated, but if the car has no chip, the old rules still apply, and the merchant is protected if they follow the rules.
The specs not only allow but require that merchants still be able to process mag strip only cards. If your card doesn't have a chip, they'll still accept it.
Only 70% of credit cards (and 25% of debit cards) in the US will be chip cards by the end of this year. Banks do not like losing money. It'll be a decade or more before mag strips are no longer usable.
Range by itself isn't enough. If it takes several hours to recharge, versus give minutes to gas up, it will have a very limited market.
Only if you can recharge it for another 300 miles in five minutes or less, like you can gas up a regular car.
In a lot of places, you can record that phone conversation (or personal conversation) without bothering to tell the other guy. When you're being ordered to commit a felony and threatened with firing if you don't, you can get away with it even in all party states.
And the press would have a field day with it, no matter how credible the fired employee is or isn't.