It's not that smart people don't want the job, smart people aren't electable. During an election they'll inevitably make a comment that hurts a special interest group and get whisked out of the public spot light before the next sun rise.
And, of course, we can construct the scenario in which the co-pilot and one of the cabin crew conspires so that when the pilot has to take a leak it's the two of them in the cockpit, and then they can do the same damned thing.
There's really no way you can 100% prevent this kind of thing.
Either you embrace protectionism or risk losing all that makes you unique.
And nothing of value was lost. Sorry, but I don't see what's so cool about being unique. It's a lot harder to justify going to war with a people who are just like you.
I would not mind at all paying a reasonable tax in order to support the art, so we see stuff on TV, movies, and the Internet that isn't pre-digested, optimized crap done by market-droids in order to sell us more junk.
I hate it how everything I create, enjoy doing, or enjoy consuming isn't considered culture, and policies need to be put in place to defend so call culture. Just let the free market decide what we want self sustaining art to be.
I would prefer it if it was illegal to have service providers also provide the hardware. Because since they provide 'free' hardware, the cost of that hardware is in your bill. So even though you aren't using the 'free' hardware, you're still subsidizing it in some way.
So what do those people do who don't want to live under an ISIS government, but ISIS has rolled into their neighborhoods and are subjecting them? They should just suck it up and not fight back?
DST is not a bad idea. Who the hell is going to wake up at 4:00 a.m. in June?
Given I currently wake up at 5:00 am standard time in June, that's the same as waking up at 4:00 am daylight 'savings' time. But instead of being forced into doing it in one big shock, I could work my wake up time slowly earlier, as the sun starts coming up earlier.
If two self-driving cars are involved in a collision, who is responsible for the damages?
If the cars are owned by individuals and not a taxi service, it'll probably be related to if they've kept the software up to date. If one person's car is up to date with the latest patches, and the other person hasn't updated in the last three years, and their car has had an update which would have avoided the accident, the person who didn't maintain their vehicles software will be liable.
The cost for the array of sensors is far from minimal at the moment. Maintenance on them will add up too, you have new complicated pricey parts. The majority of people are probably driving cars worth $5K or less. Cheap low maintenance human-driven vehicles will be the norm for the foreseeable future, outside of wealthy suburbs.
Driverless cars will probably be introduced as a taxi like service. That way the cost will be spread out over a large customer base. At some point most young couples will decide not to get a second car because the autonomous service will take one of the spouses to work and back. Then with a generation or two of families having only one vehicle, new young couples will start by passing owning a car in the first place. Or at that point, they will have become economical enough, the one car the family does own will be autonomous.
But if the car comes across something it can't handle, the car owner would be in no condition to take over control.
At that point the car says "Sir, would you mind if I hand control over to a licensed remote driver? An inebriated silence will be allowed as acceptance". Then the car will do the equivalent of todays On-Star system, and have a professional take over.
How many will risk being stranded if automated systems begin shutting down because they are confused and overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances?
Probably the same number who are willing to try horseless carriages that might get overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances.
They should take the free publicity and do something cool with a brand they aren't doing much with.
Are you sure they're not doing much with it? I haven't kept track, but it seems like there's a new Power Rangers series every year. I'm pretty sure they're still milking it.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll do better to cut it up and cook the breasts for less time than the legs.
That's not nearly as photogenic though.
Because smart people don't seem to want the job.
It's not that smart people don't want the job, smart people aren't electable. During an election they'll inevitably make a comment that hurts a special interest group and get whisked out of the public spot light before the next sun rise.
And, of course, we can construct the scenario in which the co-pilot and one of the cabin crew conspires so that when the pilot has to take a leak it's the two of them in the cockpit, and then they can do the same damned thing.
There's really no way you can 100% prevent this kind of thing.
You could make the aircraft autonomous.
Either you embrace protectionism or risk losing all that makes you unique.
And nothing of value was lost. Sorry, but I don't see what's so cool about being unique. It's a lot harder to justify going to war with a people who are just like you.
I would not mind at all paying a reasonable tax in order to support the art, so we see stuff on TV, movies, and the Internet that isn't pre-digested, optimized crap done by market-droids in order to sell us more junk.
One mans trash is another mans treasure.
That post you just made! That, and all the other comments here, are splendid examples of 21st century culture.
I know that, but the people trying to defend culture see it as the enemy to real culture.
Not all of the arts are or ever have been self-sustaining. Historically, what you see is sponsorship by the state, the church, or the merchant prince.
I consider sponsorship from the church or merchant prince as being self sustaining. The artist found someone willing to pay for their services.
I hate it how everything I create, enjoy doing, or enjoy consuming isn't considered culture, and policies need to be put in place to defend so call culture. Just let the free market decide what we want self sustaining art to be.
Yeah, but you wouldn't download a car...would you?
With the proper 3D printer, why wouldn't I?
How exactly do they differ from a bank? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....
It's different because everything they do is appended with "... but on a computer".
I think the real question is how often do we have scenes with two robots in them, talking about something other than humans.
No, not really.
This.
As long as there is demand, it will be supplied, "laws" be damned.
What about the law of Supply and Demand?
I would prefer it if it was illegal to have service providers also provide the hardware. Because since they provide 'free' hardware, the cost of that hardware is in your bill. So even though you aren't using the 'free' hardware, you're still subsidizing it in some way.
Trying to fight ISIS is a terribly bloody idea.
So what do those people do who don't want to live under an ISIS government, but ISIS has rolled into their neighborhoods and are subjecting them? They should just suck it up and not fight back?
DST is not a bad idea. Who the hell is going to wake up at 4:00 a.m. in June?
Given I currently wake up at 5:00 am standard time in June, that's the same as waking up at 4:00 am daylight 'savings' time. But instead of being forced into doing it in one big shock, I could work my wake up time slowly earlier, as the sun starts coming up earlier.
I thought the problem was that half of all people still think that it's doing them some good.
Volunteers, anyone. Do you feel safer?
Given how dangerous humans are, yes.
I'd like to see one of those self-driving cars find its way around Boston this winter....
How well are the humans doing at it?
I am sure - as the other 3 major browser makers are driven specifically by desire to mine information and sell your clicks to advertisers
If that were true IE wouldn't have Tracking Protection built in. It's not even an extension, it's built in.
If two self-driving cars are involved in a collision, who is responsible for the damages?
If the cars are owned by individuals and not a taxi service, it'll probably be related to if they've kept the software up to date. If one person's car is up to date with the latest patches, and the other person hasn't updated in the last three years, and their car has had an update which would have avoided the accident, the person who didn't maintain their vehicles software will be liable.
The cost for the array of sensors is far from minimal at the moment. Maintenance on them will add up too, you have new complicated pricey parts. The majority of people are probably driving cars worth $5K or less. Cheap low maintenance human-driven vehicles will be the norm for the foreseeable future, outside of wealthy suburbs.
Driverless cars will probably be introduced as a taxi like service. That way the cost will be spread out over a large customer base. At some point most young couples will decide not to get a second car because the autonomous service will take one of the spouses to work and back. Then with a generation or two of families having only one vehicle, new young couples will start by passing owning a car in the first place. Or at that point, they will have become economical enough, the one car the family does own will be autonomous.
But if the car comes across something it can't handle, the car owner would be in no condition to take over control.
At that point the car says "Sir, would you mind if I hand control over to a licensed remote driver? An inebriated silence will be allowed as acceptance". Then the car will do the equivalent of todays On-Star system, and have a professional take over.
How many will risk being stranded if automated systems begin shutting down because they are confused and overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances?
Probably the same number who are willing to try horseless carriages that might get overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances.
You would need a 'driver' for a driver-less car as much as you need a horse for a horse-less carriage.
They should take the free publicity and do something cool with a brand they aren't doing much with.
Are you sure they're not doing much with it? I haven't kept track, but it seems like there's a new Power Rangers series every year. I'm pretty sure they're still milking it.