Jar jar is just misunderstood; he isn't a redundant and annoying racial stereotype. He's really a heart-wrenching commentary on contemporary sociatal angst, portrayed through counter-cultural metaphorical symbolism.
Messa agree. Messa represent moi moi post-modernist angst.
the last time Great Britain invaded a country is over 100 years ago.
Unless I've time-traveled past 2082, I'm pretty sure that's not true. Of course, they were also part of the Afghanistan invasion and many other modern coalition invasions as well.
Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.
But seriously, everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this. That's why I don't worry about them nuking Israel of any of that nonsense. They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.
Look at it from their perspective. George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" (and that speech one of the worst diplomatic blunders in the 21st century IMHO). Then he proceeds to invade one of the three members of said Axis, right next door. And this was just after the U.S. had invaded the country on the OTHER SIDE of them. It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election and really started ramping up their nuke program immediately following (or that North Korea followed suite). Let's face it, about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade you is to have nukes.
Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.
Yes, because the U.S. is so evil and corrupt--as opposed to all of Africa, South America, Asia, most of the Middle East, etc. And despite never having had an empire to speak of--like Britain, France, Mongolia, Italy, Iran, etc.--the U.S. is clearly responsible for all the problems in the world. And when it comes to invading other countries, well, clearly no one compares to the U.S.--certainly an enlightened country like Britain would never consider something as brutish as invading 90% of the countries in the world. Only the evil, uncouth U.S. does that!
Yes, the U.S. is the cause of all your problems. You bear absolutely no responsibility for any of your own goddamned messes. It's all those evil Americans' fault.
I wouldn't bet on that. The trial lawyers would almost certainly object, which (barring OVERWHELMING public support) means the Democratic Party is going to try to stop it.
I believe the Google cars actually have drivers behind the wheels when they're out on the road (hovering their hands over the steering wheels should they need to take over). I've only ever seen them running truly driverless on closed tracks.
If your driverless car is hit by someone else running a red light, guess what? You aren't.
And guess what, you're still going to get sued. Because the driver is going to blame your system and claim he wasn't in control at the time, and a slick lawyer is going to realize that he can sue the big, evil corporation for a shitload more than he could get from suing the putz behind the wheel. And even showing up in court and making your case is going to cost you thousands--even if you win.
Well, the solution to liability is legal - grant immunity as long as the car performs above some safety standard on the whole, and that standard can be raised as the industry progresses.
Yes, that's a possibility. Blanket government immunity in all liability cases would work. The only problem there is that you get into politics. And the first time some Senator's son, or daughter of a powerful political donor is killed in a driverless car, you can probably kiss that immunity goodbye.
So the likelihood an _automated_ car will be _at fault_ in an accident is probably a lot lower than the 25% you presume.
Great. Now all you have to do is prove your system wasn't at fault in a court of law--against the sweet old lady who's suing, with the driver testifying that it was your system and not him that caused the accident, and a jury that hates big corporations. And you have to do it over and over again, in a constant barrage of lawsuits--almost one for every accident one of your cars ever gets in.
Even if you won every single time, can you imagine the legal costs?
And those ethical decisions will come with even MORE legal liabilities. Even the idea would give any legal department nightmares. They get enough headaches from faulty accelerators. Can you imagine the legal problems they would get from programming hard ethical decisions into their computers? They would get sued out of existence the first time that feature had to be used.
I maintain that you CAN'T really program morality into a machine (it's hard enough to program it into a human). And I also doubt that engineers will ever really be able to overcome the numerous technical issues involved with driverless cars. But above these two problems, far and away above *all* problems with driverless cars is the real reason I think we'll never see anything more than driver *assisting* cars on the road: legal liability.
To put it bluntly, raise your hand if YOU want to be the first car manufacturer to make a car for which you are potentially liable in *every single accident that car ever gets into*, from the day it's sold until the day it's scrapped. Any takers? How much would you have to add onto the sticker price to cover the costs of going to court every single time that particular car was involved in an accident? Of defending the efficacy of your driverless system against other manufacturer's systems (and against defect, and against the word of the driver himself that he was using the system properly) in one liability case after another?
According to Forbes, the average driver is involved in an accident every 18 years. Let's suppose (and I'm sure the statisticians would object to this supposition) that that means that the average CAR is also involved in a wreck every 18 years as well. Since the average age of a car is about 11 years now, it's not unreasonable to assume that a little less than half of all cars on the road will be involved in at least one accident in their functional lifetimes. And even with the added safety of driverless systems, the first model available will still have to contend with a road mostly filled with regular, non-driverless-system cars. So let's say that a good 25% of those first models will probably end up in an accident at some point, which will make a very tempting target for lawyers going for the deep pockets of their manufacturers.
Again, what car company wouldn't take that into account when asking themselves if they want to be a pioneer in this field?
Between the increasing popularity of tablets and laptops, I suspect the days of building your own desktop PC have been numbered for a long time now.
Besides, how can you geeks be forced to upgrade your whole computer every few years if you keep stubbornly refusing to play ball by doing things one component at a time? Not to mention the fact that self-built PC's can't be locked down behind a software walled garden and saddled with god-knows-what mandatory crapware, spyware, advertisements, etc. Shit, I even hear some of you are installing other OS's besides Windows and OS X on some of those goddamn contraptions.
You geeks need to be taught to conform better, obviously.
Who the hell BUYS on ebay?!? Ebay is the place to SELL. They have a seemingly never-ending supply of crazy suckers willing to over-bid for items. Just look at how much people are paying for Wii U's over there right now.
Long back story, but I recently needed an ethernet card. BB does not sell those anymore.
Went in there recently, and the entire place is basically one big TV/home theater showroom now. About the only other things they have are laptops, cellphones, and videogames. Music and appliances basically gone, DVD section shrunk down. Almost no computer components. Just TV's, laptops, cellphones, and videogames.
Slashdot Mirror
Jar jar is just misunderstood; he isn't a redundant and annoying racial stereotype. He's really a heart-wrenching commentary on contemporary sociatal angst, portrayed through counter-cultural metaphorical symbolism.
Messa agree. Messa represent moi moi post-modernist angst.
Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.
the last time Great Britain invaded a country is over 100 years ago.
Unless I've time-traveled past 2082, I'm pretty sure that's not true. Of course, they were also part of the Afghanistan invasion and many other modern coalition invasions as well.
Re: Britain. Ancient history.
The Falkland Islands are on the phone and would like to have a word with you.
Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.
But seriously, everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this. That's why I don't worry about them nuking Israel of any of that nonsense. They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.
Look at it from their perspective. George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" (and that speech one of the worst diplomatic blunders in the 21st century IMHO). Then he proceeds to invade one of the three members of said Axis, right next door. And this was just after the U.S. had invaded the country on the OTHER SIDE of them. It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election and really started ramping up their nuke program immediately following (or that North Korea followed suite). Let's face it, about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade you is to have nukes.
Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.
You mean like how murder became legal when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder?
Except he hasn't done anything wrong under UK law. The police and music industry already tried that in the OiNK case and lost their case
One guy being found not guilty of a crime doesn't make the crime legal.
But they invited him to a party! Everyone loves a party.
Yes, because the U.S. is so evil and corrupt--as opposed to all of Africa, South America, Asia, most of the Middle East, etc. And despite never having had an empire to speak of--like Britain, France, Mongolia, Italy, Iran, etc.--the U.S. is clearly responsible for all the problems in the world. And when it comes to invading other countries, well, clearly no one compares to the U.S.--certainly an enlightened country like Britain would never consider something as brutish as invading 90% of the countries in the world. Only the evil, uncouth U.S. does that!
Yes, the U.S. is the cause of all your problems. You bear absolutely no responsibility for any of your own goddamned messes. It's all those evil Americans' fault.
That's an easy law to pass.
I wouldn't bet on that. The trial lawyers would almost certainly object, which (barring OVERWHELMING public support) means the Democratic Party is going to try to stop it.
I believe the Google cars actually have drivers behind the wheels when they're out on the road (hovering their hands over the steering wheels should they need to take over). I've only ever seen them running truly driverless on closed tracks.
If your driverless car is hit by someone else running a red light, guess what? You aren't.
And guess what, you're still going to get sued. Because the driver is going to blame your system and claim he wasn't in control at the time, and a slick lawyer is going to realize that he can sue the big, evil corporation for a shitload more than he could get from suing the putz behind the wheel. And even showing up in court and making your case is going to cost you thousands--even if you win.
If you can find a way to fix the legal system, I bow before you AC. ;-)
Well, the solution to liability is legal - grant immunity as long as the car performs above some safety standard on the whole, and that standard can be raised as the industry progresses.
Yes, that's a possibility. Blanket government immunity in all liability cases would work. The only problem there is that you get into politics. And the first time some Senator's son, or daughter of a powerful political donor is killed in a driverless car, you can probably kiss that immunity goodbye.
So the likelihood an _automated_ car will be _at fault_ in an accident is probably a lot lower than the 25% you presume.
Great. Now all you have to do is prove your system wasn't at fault in a court of law--against the sweet old lady who's suing, with the driver testifying that it was your system and not him that caused the accident, and a jury that hates big corporations. And you have to do it over and over again, in a constant barrage of lawsuits--almost one for every accident one of your cars ever gets in.
Even if you won every single time, can you imagine the legal costs?
And those ethical decisions will come with even MORE legal liabilities. Even the idea would give any legal department nightmares. They get enough headaches from faulty accelerators. Can you imagine the legal problems they would get from programming hard ethical decisions into their computers? They would get sued out of existence the first time that feature had to be used.
I maintain that you CAN'T really program morality into a machine (it's hard enough to program it into a human). And I also doubt that engineers will ever really be able to overcome the numerous technical issues involved with driverless cars. But above these two problems, far and away above *all* problems with driverless cars is the real reason I think we'll never see anything more than driver *assisting* cars on the road: legal liability.
To put it bluntly, raise your hand if YOU want to be the first car manufacturer to make a car for which you are potentially liable in *every single accident that car ever gets into*, from the day it's sold until the day it's scrapped. Any takers? How much would you have to add onto the sticker price to cover the costs of going to court every single time that particular car was involved in an accident? Of defending the efficacy of your driverless system against other manufacturer's systems (and against defect, and against the word of the driver himself that he was using the system properly) in one liability case after another?
According to Forbes, the average driver is involved in an accident every 18 years. Let's suppose (and I'm sure the statisticians would object to this supposition) that that means that the average CAR is also involved in a wreck every 18 years as well. Since the average age of a car is about 11 years now, it's not unreasonable to assume that a little less than half of all cars on the road will be involved in at least one accident in their functional lifetimes. And even with the added safety of driverless systems, the first model available will still have to contend with a road mostly filled with regular, non-driverless-system cars. So let's say that a good 25% of those first models will probably end up in an accident at some point, which will make a very tempting target for lawyers going for the deep pockets of their manufacturers.
Again, what car company wouldn't take that into account when asking themselves if they want to be a pioneer in this field?
"It puts a good rating in the bin or else it gets the hose again"
And a plotline from that shitty Patrick Duffy show from the 70's, and probably a few Aquaman retcons too.
Sorry, Sony. You know it's true.
When a cellphone is reported stolen in New York, the Police Department routinely subpoenas the phone's call records, from the day of the theft onward.
And I presume they then go and immediately arrest these cellphone thieves, no? I mean, that's ostensibly what this is ability is FOR, right?
Between the increasing popularity of tablets and laptops, I suspect the days of building your own desktop PC have been numbered for a long time now.
Besides, how can you geeks be forced to upgrade your whole computer every few years if you keep stubbornly refusing to play ball by doing things one component at a time? Not to mention the fact that self-built PC's can't be locked down behind a software walled garden and saddled with god-knows-what mandatory crapware, spyware, advertisements, etc. Shit, I even hear some of you are installing other OS's besides Windows and OS X on some of those goddamn contraptions.
You geeks need to be taught to conform better, obviously.
Yes, "triage teaching," which means the the over-achievers are basically wasting their money (especially at the undergrad level).
Who the hell BUYS on ebay?!? Ebay is the place to SELL. They have a seemingly never-ending supply of crazy suckers willing to over-bid for items. Just look at how much people are paying for Wii U's over there right now.
Long back story, but I recently needed an ethernet card. BB does not sell those anymore.
Went in there recently, and the entire place is basically one big TV/home theater showroom now. About the only other things they have are laptops, cellphones, and videogames. Music and appliances basically gone, DVD section shrunk down. Almost no computer components. Just TV's, laptops, cellphones, and videogames.