It all sounds great to have; but; you got to think more global. Something which works for a phone, might work for a wallet, keys or anything (more important) which needs to be protected against pickpockets.. my 2 cents..
I the future your phone will be your wallet and keys.
Your "driver's license" will simply be a token in a computer database, that your biometrics unlock.
If an officer needs your ID, they will simply scan your face and take your thumbprint, no need to carry around a 20th century style physical token.
Banking apps and near-field communication will allow you to use your phone as a credit card.
Money is too easily counterfeited; digital currency will replace it, and a phone app will be used to effect person-to-person transfers using short range wireless.
To unlock your car you place your phone on the door sensor, push the unlock button your car
powers on and unlocks, you get in, stick your phone in the "ignition" slot in your car, tap your
PIN on the touch screen, your car starts.
When you get within range of your home, a 'open door' button is displayed on your cell phone,
you push that, and your apartment or house unlocks for you.
So your phone is phone, wallet, and keys.
And one robust security mechanism protects them all
I would suggest having two methods: (1) Tap the power button 3 times or power off, to engage full lock manually.
(2) an RFID or bluetooth "leash" concealed somewhere about your body; if the phone is within range and then suddenly taken more than a certain distance from your RFID transponder, the new distance will be calculated by
the units, and when the threshold is exceeded, the "hard lock" engages automatically.
This way if you drop your phone, or someone steals it, the hard lock will engage.
The bluetooth leash could also have a remote lock button on it, and be designed to automatically
signal a lock if the leash is removed from your body, or if a sufficient "sudden jolt motion" or downward
motion is detected by an accelerometer on the leash (indicating that someone grabbed it real fast),
or you were forced to drop it.
Anyone with kids who ever get their hands on their phone will likely prefer that.
After 3 failed attempts, the phone starts imposing a waiting period before you can attempt the passcode again.
By the time you get to 6 failed attempts, you have to wait ~1 hour before trying again.
Your kid could do 10 attempts to wipe your phone, but only if you are so careless to leave the phone
with them for an extended period. Besides, your phone gets backed up every time you sync it.
Just what parts do you think you're going to save on? The touch screen will be more expensive. The lack of keyboard isn't going to save a lot. You'll still need cpu, graphics driver, RAM, and a hard drive.
Well, an iPad for example does not have a hard drive; it contains a tiny amount of low-cost NAND flash; between 16 and 32gb. A typical laptop contains a 300gb hard drive.
The power requirements, and therefore the requirements of the power supply circuits are much less.
One of the huge things is a tablet does not contain a full blown desktop OS such as Windows, a tablet contains a much simpler OS, with so limited capabilities, that a Windows $200 software license fee is not reasonable. A tablet does not contain bundled Office software like a laptop does.
Laptops contain a multitude of ports PHYs and controllers that don't exist on a tablet computer.
For example, a tablet does not have a NIC, therefore no Gigabit Ethernet controller, and no Ethernet PHY.
A tablet does not have multiple USB ports, therefore, no need for onboard USB hubs.
There is no VGA either, no LPT, no PS/2, no DVI, no IrDa, no touch pad, no Mini-PCI.
The CPUs and graphics chips are simpler designs with much lower specs than those used in laptops; they are less expensive designs -- the chipsets are much simpler on these embedded PCBs, there is no need for a PCI-x bus, for example. The battery in a tablet is much smaller in terms of mAH capacity and output power than that of a laptop.
The iPad 2 has 512mb of RAM versus the 4GB in a typical laptop.
A 10" touch screen is not significantly more expensive than a typical laptop's 15" LCD.
There is a lot of hardware and software of substantial cost that a Tablet does not have, but that a laptop does.
The weight isn't really any different, the reason it's so uncomfortable to hold for long periods is the same as any other iPad, there's simply no good way to hold it without blocking or touching the screen.
Sounds like you need a case to put the iPad in or a work surface to place the unit on.
The case could also contain some cushioning/some small amount of protection against accidental drops
Refurbished products usually come with a 30 to 90 day warranty.
This is similar to the warranty you can easily get for items purchased on eBay if you purchase from the right seller.
And generally you can purchase a 3rd party warranty for a percentage of the purchase price.
The vast majority of the time, the warranty won't be worth it. The warranty is often a low risk for the manufacturer, because often people won't even recognize they have that option or will fail to utilize the warranty if the product does experience a non-critical issue, or if it fails, they may just purchase a replacement.
The old iPad is competitive now, mainly because the Android units are way overpriced.
A portable tablet is NOT a laptop, the point of a tablet is its a fairly stripped down
mobile device for high portability, and should not cost as much as a full blown laptop.
In the same way that a Laptop is a stripped down computer for mobility and should not be
priced at the $3000 or so that a full desktop gaming rig costs.
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here... Why shouldn't you hire such people? People can change, and such people often have insights that lifetime partisans lack. For example, an ex-satanist who finds religion might make a good pope, in that he'd have an intimate understanding of what could drive people to devil worship and what could bring them back.
CEOs are not just people with insight, they are also leaders. Leaders are figureheads as well, models, people to set an example for others. People can make major changes of their point of view, but it's not a sign of the stability and consistency an organization would expect from a leader.
Leaders are expected to draw upon their own vision and insight from those they lead.
Someone may have the perfect technical characteristics to be leader, but still not be suitable because of their public image or past history. Because their image, their past, and how the people they lead view them have a major influence on their ability to do your job. Good leadership is basically impossible if those you lead see an inconsistency in what you do or what you have done versus what you exclaim.
Just because a criminal has reformed and because of their history has a deep understanding of the ways of criminals does not mean they belong as Chief executive over the FBI; that's not to say they necessarily may never work for the FBI, and not to say they might never be allowed to share their insight with a Chief executive, but their past is incompatible with being that executive.
Just because a tax cheat has reformed and has detailed insight into how to better catch tax cheats, does not mean they belong in charge of the IRS.
When you hire someone, you don't magically become a shill of that person's past employer.
While true. You don't appoint the former CEO of a national beef conglomerate to be head of PETA.
You don't appoint a former devil worshipper as pope. You don't appoint a former member of the pirate party as an executive of the RIAA.
The fact that you were a chief executive of an organization such as the MPAA says something about you.
And what it says is largely inconsistent with the values of the internet society.
You choose executives whose personal views are consistent with the values of the organization,
or who at least are not widely known as having opposite views; such as the scope and capabilities of the internet should be heavily restricted in order to protect media companies.
For those that think ISOC doesn't matter, ISOC *funds* the IETF, and the IETF is one of the most important engineering bodies behind the Internet (and the least problematic of them all).
If need be, the IETF could seek other funding sources through the community.
Warning: Misleading broadcasts have been linked to stupid legislation.
This program may contain misleading statements and false claims.
Please conduct careful research before assuming the content shown/heard is accurate.
I notice that "adjusted cost basis" does not appear to account for inflation....
Indeed it does not. You also still pay taxes on interest earned in a savings account, even if inflation
during the year was higher than the interest earned -- so that in fact, your purchasing power was eroded
during the year by more real dollars than the actual increase.
It's a fundamental flaw and unfairness in the way that income taxes are devised -- they tax numerical change in number of dollars, instead of taxing numerical change in the usefulness of the money you have for purchasing products.
In a fair system, during times of deflation, you would have a 'synthetic income' based on the increase of value of your money, and during times of inflation, you would have a 'synthetic loss' based on the change of value to your money; and the rate of taxation should also be adjusted properly.
Capital gains tax is applicale to the selling of shares.
Let me explain how that's different: Capital gains tax is (PROCEEDS OF SALE) MINUS (COST BASIS)
Currently you don't pay any taxes on a stock split and don't necessarily pay taxes on capital distributions either (your cost basis is decreased). What happens with a stock split is the number of outstanding shares are doubled in a 2:1 split, so you wind up with twice as many shares, each worth half their original share price.
In a normal 2:1 stock split, you don't get any cash, only additional shares of stock that are distributed to you, but all shares (including the ones you already hold) are now only worth half as much a share in the company, so your total share in the company remains the same after the split.
VAT.
Let me explain how VAT is different.
VAT is a tax you pay on the purchase. Currently you don't pay an additional tax on the actual you money you borrow on the credit card. Currently debt you take out is not treated as income.
Also subject to capital gains tax if it's not your main home. Regardless of stamp duty.
Currently you only pay capital gains tax if you sold the home for more than your Adjusted cost basis, (Purchase Price) Plus (Property Improvement Costs) Minus (Depreciation)
Stock split taxation.... What, you owe stock, and, the number of shares you have is doubled? Now you will have to pay a 30% share price tax on your increase in shares.
Credit card taxation.... spend $$$ on a credit card, sounds like free money, you will have to pay 30% of your
credit card spendings to the government.
Auto purchase taxation... what, free money from the bank? OK, but you will owe 30% of your auto purchase in taxes.
Mortgage taxation.... what, more free money? OK, but you will have to pay 30% of the money you get from your mortgage back to the government.
Sold your home for less than you bought it for? Oh, it still looks like you got lots of money from selling it.
We will have to charge a 30% tax on this windfall income.
Society's perception could change — with laws to follow. For example, a person declaring a bankruptcy may be expected to (try to) sell their kidney (or an eye) to pay off his creditors. Bankruptcy-judges may even begin ordering such operations.
I don't think so. Mutilating living people such as by removing their kidney is a human rights violation. And should be highly illegal.
With narrowly carved exceptions; medical purposes.
Even voluntary donation of a living person's kidney for no compensation to the person is highly questionable.
This is all very different from someone making organs available upon death
Re:I have an organ donor card...
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
From the summary, it says each person is worth 2 million dollars in a 20 billion per year industry.
If a person is worth so much, then why is "gifting organs upon death" required to be a donation?
It seems the dead person's estate should require a cut of this 2 million that their organs are being sold for;
to help their kin with the loss, any debts, etc.
I see a fundamental problem with gaining massive profit from someone else's donation.
There may always be the occasional error in anything. Is it acceptable to let ten thousand people die from lack of organ transplants in order to avoid each one case where someone not quite brain dead is accidentally killed? How about a million? Where do we draw that line?
Makes sense. The person mistakenly believed to be braindead might die even if their organs won't be donated -- e.g. because treatment could no longer be justified.
What's important is that the method of determining brain death is reliable enough, and those making the determination are applying criteria objectively, not biased, and no motivation is provided to falsify their determination.
The Lytro takes still pictures, and can take 350 pictures in the 8 GB model, and 750 pictures in the 16 GB model.
Yes. It's kind of ridiculous. Most consumer cameras on the market allow a user-supplied CF or SD card, and the differentiating factor between cameras is normally photographic capabilities/image quality, storage is cheap, and 8gb of flash memory is not $100; the "amount of storage is built into the camera" being fixed is highly irregular; it also means I can't use a card reader to easily transfer data -- hooking up USB cables and trying to figure out any driver requirements is quite inconvenient.
The minimum I use these days are 32 gigabyte cards; with only 16gb, it would actually be necessary
to frequently delete pictures to make room for more, instead of just swapping flash cards.
Also, flash cards have limited program-erase cycles... which means the camera has a limited lifetime if used heavily. I suppose warranty will cover for some time storage failure due to heavy picture taking activity wearing out the flash?
Low res? No worries, just use the ENHANCE button. Problem solved.
I'm assuming the Enhance button actually replaces the original 1024x1024 image with a 4096x4096 goatse pic.
Which would be a good reason for people to call the Lytro a toy camera.
Are actually rules... that autonomous cars can't be driverless
2 passengers required; the human operator has to be able and ready to override the car;
which means the human has to have a license, can't be drunk, etc.
And the human operator (rather than the manufacturer) is responsible if there is an accident
and the vehicle has fault because of improper decisions/failure.
I guess the restrictions "sound good", but they eliminate some of the selling points
for the concept of an autonomous vehicle.
Probably without making it safer.
You can't be relaxing, chatting on your cell phone, watching TV, or eating while the car drives you.
Makes more sense to require that driverless cars be safe enough and have enough
failsafes and instrumentation that a human operator will not ever be required to override; e.g. by ensuring that the safest reasonable response is always what the autonomous car will execute,
and facilitated by multiple redundant highly robust systems.
Such that the greatest remaining danger would be that the human erroneously overrides the computer
and makes bad choices.
Slashdot Mirror
It all sounds great to have; but; you got to think more global. Something which works for a phone, might work for a wallet, keys or anything (more important) which needs to be protected against pickpockets .. my 2 cents ..
I the future your phone will be your wallet and keys.
Your "driver's license" will simply be a token in a computer database, that your biometrics unlock. If an officer needs your ID, they will simply scan your face and take your thumbprint, no need to carry around a 20th century style physical token.
Banking apps and near-field communication will allow you to use your phone as a credit card. Money is too easily counterfeited; digital currency will replace it, and a phone app will be used to effect person-to-person transfers using short range wireless.
To unlock your car you place your phone on the door sensor, push the unlock button your car powers on and unlocks, you get in, stick your phone in the "ignition" slot in your car, tap your PIN on the touch screen, your car starts.
When you get within range of your home, a 'open door' button is displayed on your cell phone, you push that, and your apartment or house unlocks for you.
So your phone is phone, wallet, and keys.
And one robust security mechanism protects them all
I would suggest having two methods: (1) Tap the power button 3 times or power off, to engage full lock manually. (2) an RFID or bluetooth "leash" concealed somewhere about your body; if the phone is within range and then suddenly taken more than a certain distance from your RFID transponder, the new distance will be calculated by the units, and when the threshold is exceeded, the "hard lock" engages automatically.
This way if you drop your phone, or someone steals it, the hard lock will engage.
The bluetooth leash could also have a remote lock button on it, and be designed to automatically signal a lock if the leash is removed from your body, or if a sufficient "sudden jolt motion" or downward motion is detected by an accelerometer on the leash (indicating that someone grabbed it real fast), or you were forced to drop it.
Anyone with kids who ever get their hands on their phone will likely prefer that.
After 3 failed attempts, the phone starts imposing a waiting period before you can attempt the passcode again.
By the time you get to 6 failed attempts, you have to wait ~1 hour before trying again.
Your kid could do 10 attempts to wipe your phone, but only if you are so careless to leave the phone with them for an extended period. Besides, your phone gets backed up every time you sync it.
In reality, a laptop is always more expensive than a desktop with equivalent spec, so I'm not sure your argument works.
You don't normally get laptops specced as high as your desktop.
The specs of a tablet are a tiny fraction of the specs, orders of magnitude less than the specs of an entry level laptop.
Just what parts do you think you're going to save on? The touch screen will be more expensive. The lack of keyboard isn't going to save a lot. You'll still need cpu, graphics driver, RAM, and a hard drive.
Well, an iPad for example does not have a hard drive; it contains a tiny amount of low-cost NAND flash; between 16 and 32gb. A typical laptop contains a 300gb hard drive. The power requirements, and therefore the requirements of the power supply circuits are much less.
One of the huge things is a tablet does not contain a full blown desktop OS such as Windows, a tablet contains a much simpler OS, with so limited capabilities, that a Windows $200 software license fee is not reasonable. A tablet does not contain bundled Office software like a laptop does.
Laptops contain a multitude of ports PHYs and controllers that don't exist on a tablet computer. For example, a tablet does not have a NIC, therefore no Gigabit Ethernet controller, and no Ethernet PHY. A tablet does not have multiple USB ports, therefore, no need for onboard USB hubs. There is no VGA either, no LPT, no PS/2, no DVI, no IrDa, no touch pad, no Mini-PCI.
The CPUs and graphics chips are simpler designs with much lower specs than those used in laptops; they are less expensive designs -- the chipsets are much simpler on these embedded PCBs, there is no need for a PCI-x bus, for example. The battery in a tablet is much smaller in terms of mAH capacity and output power than that of a laptop.
The iPad 2 has 512mb of RAM versus the 4GB in a typical laptop.
A 10" touch screen is not significantly more expensive than a typical laptop's 15" LCD.
There is a lot of hardware and software of substantial cost that a Tablet does not have, but that a laptop does.
We drive 10 to 2 because that's what Drivers Ed taught us. Its your responsibility to make sure the safety systems are designed properly.
Not our responsibility to adopt unusual or uncomfortable driving positions, because you can't be assed to find good designs for safety systems.
Air Bags suck, ban them, and mandate something safer.
Make the common way of driving safe.
The weight isn't really any different, the reason it's so uncomfortable to hold for long periods is the same as any other iPad, there's simply no good way to hold it without blocking or touching the screen.
Sounds like you need a case to put the iPad in or a work surface to place the unit on.
The case could also contain some cushioning/some small amount of protection against accidental drops
Refurbished products usually come with a 30 to 90 day warranty. This is similar to the warranty you can easily get for items purchased on eBay if you purchase from the right seller.
And generally you can purchase a 3rd party warranty for a percentage of the purchase price.
The vast majority of the time, the warranty won't be worth it. The warranty is often a low risk for the manufacturer, because often people won't even recognize they have that option or will fail to utilize the warranty if the product does experience a non-critical issue, or if it fails, they may just purchase a replacement.
I'm a Linux user and DISAGREE with him.
The old iPad is competitive now, mainly because the Android units are way overpriced.
A portable tablet is NOT a laptop, the point of a tablet is its a fairly stripped down mobile device for high portability, and should not cost as much as a full blown laptop.
In the same way that a Laptop is a stripped down computer for mobility and should not be priced at the $3000 or so that a full desktop gaming rig costs.
Also note that after a while the squirrels stopped being annoyed by the water gun and would just sit there while getting sprayed.
I bet it would be a different story if he started loading his SuperSoaker with pepper spray.
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here... Why shouldn't you hire such people? People can change, and such people often have insights that lifetime partisans lack. For example, an ex-satanist who finds religion might make a good pope, in that he'd have an intimate understanding of what could drive people to devil worship and what could bring them back.
CEOs are not just people with insight, they are also leaders. Leaders are figureheads as well, models, people to set an example for others. People can make major changes of their point of view, but it's not a sign of the stability and consistency an organization would expect from a leader. Leaders are expected to draw upon their own vision and insight from those they lead.
Someone may have the perfect technical characteristics to be leader, but still not be suitable because of their public image or past history. Because their image, their past, and how the people they lead view them have a major influence on their ability to do your job. Good leadership is basically impossible if those you lead see an inconsistency in what you do or what you have done versus what you exclaim.
Just because a criminal has reformed and because of their history has a deep understanding of the ways of criminals does not mean they belong as Chief executive over the FBI; that's not to say they necessarily may never work for the FBI, and not to say they might never be allowed to share their insight with a Chief executive, but their past is incompatible with being that executive.
Just because a tax cheat has reformed and has detailed insight into how to better catch tax cheats, does not mean they belong in charge of the IRS.
When you hire someone, you don't magically become a shill of that person's past employer.
While true. You don't appoint the former CEO of a national beef conglomerate to be head of PETA. You don't appoint a former devil worshipper as pope. You don't appoint a former member of the pirate party as an executive of the RIAA.
The fact that you were a chief executive of an organization such as the MPAA says something about you. And what it says is largely inconsistent with the values of the internet society.
You choose executives whose personal views are consistent with the values of the organization, or who at least are not widely known as having opposite views; such as the scope and capabilities of the internet should be heavily restricted in order to protect media companies.
No.... an international hen house franchise owner just appointed the Fox as chief landlord over all the henhouses in North America.
The hen houses have some autonomy, and there is a remote possibility they could band together and reject the Fox as their landlord
For those that think ISOC doesn't matter, ISOC *funds* the IETF, and the IETF is one of the most important engineering bodies behind the Internet (and the least problematic of them all).
If need be, the IETF could seek other funding sources through the community.
Warning: Misleading broadcasts have been linked to stupid legislation. This program may contain misleading statements and false claims. Please conduct careful research before assuming the content shown/heard is accurate.
I notice that "adjusted cost basis" does not appear to account for inflation....
Indeed it does not. You also still pay taxes on interest earned in a savings account, even if inflation during the year was higher than the interest earned -- so that in fact, your purchasing power was eroded during the year by more real dollars than the actual increase.
It's a fundamental flaw and unfairness in the way that income taxes are devised -- they tax numerical change in number of dollars, instead of taxing numerical change in the usefulness of the money you have for purchasing products.
In a fair system, during times of deflation, you would have a 'synthetic income' based on the increase of value of your money, and during times of inflation, you would have a 'synthetic loss' based on the change of value to your money; and the rate of taxation should also be adjusted properly.
Capital gains tax is applicale to the selling of shares.
Let me explain how that's different: Capital gains tax is (PROCEEDS OF SALE) MINUS (COST BASIS)
Currently you don't pay any taxes on a stock split and don't necessarily pay taxes on capital distributions either (your cost basis is decreased). What happens with a stock split is the number of outstanding shares are doubled in a 2:1 split, so you wind up with twice as many shares, each worth half their original share price.
In a normal 2:1 stock split, you don't get any cash, only additional shares of stock that are distributed to you, but all shares (including the ones you already hold) are now only worth half as much a share in the company, so your total share in the company remains the same after the split.
VAT.
Let me explain how VAT is different. VAT is a tax you pay on the purchase. Currently you don't pay an additional tax on the actual you money you borrow on the credit card. Currently debt you take out is not treated as income.
Also subject to capital gains tax if it's not your main home. Regardless of stamp duty.
Currently you only pay capital gains tax if you sold the home for more than your Adjusted cost basis, (Purchase Price) Plus (Property Improvement Costs) Minus (Depreciation)
Stock split taxation.... What, you owe stock, and, the number of shares you have is doubled? Now you will have to pay a 30% share price tax on your increase in shares.
Credit card taxation.... spend $$$ on a credit card, sounds like free money, you will have to pay 30% of your credit card spendings to the government.
Auto purchase taxation... what, free money from the bank? OK, but you will owe 30% of your auto purchase in taxes.
Mortgage taxation.... what, more free money? OK, but you will have to pay 30% of the money you get from your mortgage back to the government.
Sold your home for less than you bought it for? Oh, it still looks like you got lots of money from selling it. We will have to charge a 30% tax on this windfall income.
Society's perception could change — with laws to follow. For example, a person declaring a bankruptcy may be expected to (try to) sell their kidney (or an eye) to pay off his creditors. Bankruptcy-judges may even begin ordering such operations.
I don't think so. Mutilating living people such as by removing their kidney is a human rights violation. And should be highly illegal.
With narrowly carved exceptions; medical purposes. Even voluntary donation of a living person's kidney for no compensation to the person is highly questionable.
This is all very different from someone making organs available upon death
From the summary, it says each person is worth 2 million dollars in a 20 billion per year industry.
If a person is worth so much, then why is "gifting organs upon death" required to be a donation?
It seems the dead person's estate should require a cut of this 2 million that their organs are being sold for; to help their kin with the loss, any debts, etc.
I see a fundamental problem with gaining massive profit from someone else's donation.
There may always be the occasional error in anything. Is it acceptable to let ten thousand people die from lack of organ transplants in order to avoid each one case where someone not quite brain dead is accidentally killed? How about a million? Where do we draw that line?
Makes sense. The person mistakenly believed to be braindead might die even if their organs won't be donated -- e.g. because treatment could no longer be justified.
What's important is that the method of determining brain death is reliable enough, and those making the determination are applying criteria objectively, not biased, and no motivation is provided to falsify their determination.
The Lytro takes still pictures, and can take 350 pictures in the 8 GB model, and 750 pictures in the 16 GB model.
Yes. It's kind of ridiculous. Most consumer cameras on the market allow a user-supplied CF or SD card, and the differentiating factor between cameras is normally photographic capabilities/image quality, storage is cheap, and 8gb of flash memory is not $100; the "amount of storage is built into the camera" being fixed is highly irregular; it also means I can't use a card reader to easily transfer data -- hooking up USB cables and trying to figure out any driver requirements is quite inconvenient.
The minimum I use these days are 32 gigabyte cards; with only 16gb, it would actually be necessary to frequently delete pictures to make room for more, instead of just swapping flash cards.
Also, flash cards have limited program-erase cycles... which means the camera has a limited lifetime if used heavily. I suppose warranty will cover for some time storage failure due to heavy picture taking activity wearing out the flash?
Low res? No worries, just use the ENHANCE button. Problem solved.
I'm assuming the Enhance button actually replaces the original 1024x1024 image with a 4096x4096 goatse pic. Which would be a good reason for people to call the Lytro a toy camera.
The absence of a SD card slot is a huge drawback. Who's gonna fit a light field video stream of decent quality on 8gb of memory?
Are actually rules... that autonomous cars can't be driverless
2 passengers required; the human operator has to be able and ready to override the car; which means the human has to have a license, can't be drunk, etc. And the human operator (rather than the manufacturer) is responsible if there is an accident and the vehicle has fault because of improper decisions/failure.
I guess the restrictions "sound good", but they eliminate some of the selling points for the concept of an autonomous vehicle. Probably without making it safer.
You can't be relaxing, chatting on your cell phone, watching TV, or eating while the car drives you.
Makes more sense to require that driverless cars be safe enough and have enough failsafes and instrumentation that a human operator will not ever be required to override; e.g. by ensuring that the safest reasonable response is always what the autonomous car will execute, and facilitated by multiple redundant highly robust systems.
Such that the greatest remaining danger would be that the human erroneously overrides the computer and makes bad choices.