But the AutoPilot in an aircraft and and in this case the Tesla do the same thing. They assist in control of the aircraft. AutoPilots do not replace the pilot or relegate his/her duties to that of a passenger, you still have to have a pilot or you aren't going anywhere. The name is appropriate.
The Tesla Autopilot is pretty good for how early in car automation we are. It would be a terrible inconvenience to require you to put your hands on the wheel when you are driving thru some stretches of the American south-west, like going between Phoenix and LA on i10. Just like it would be a terrible inconvenience to expect the auto-pilot of a passenger jet liner to require input every three seconds before it disengages between Heathrow and JFK. There is no reason for it. There is no need for a law.
Will accidents happen? Sure. Just like aircraft accidents still happen. The goal of the technology is to reduce the chance of an accident happening, not eliminate it altogether, while providing some amount of relief for the pilot / driver. It is pretty hard to keep at attention for many hours on end when the task is so mundane. As the technology gets better and better, and more wide-spread, we will see more and more benefits from this technology, like reduced energy consumption by drafting closely to the car infant of you, or reduced traffic congestion by synchronized acceleration, intersection control, etc.. etc..
Yeah, no thanks. I'll compete with anything any other programmer can muster. If they provide a better value proposition, then I should reconsider my competitive advantages and lower my requisite salary. I do not need the government dictating my wage to me. I didn't vote communist, ever.
Apple's highly innovative inventions, namely flat rectangle with a screen on it, and an arrangement of icons in a grid clearly constitute innovations of incalculable value. Where as Qualcomm's patents simply involve leading edge telecommunication developments that far surpass most of their rivals in performance. Obviously, nothing special. Surely not noteworthy enough for their extensive paten portfolio, one of the largest in the wireless world, to justify 5x the royalty rates.
Qualcomm's highly innovative inventions, namely minor improvements to original work by Tesla, Marconi, et al,...
Tesla and Marconi's highly original work? Surely you mean those simple expansions of work originally done by Thales of Miletus, Ben Franklyn, and Faraday.
Give me a break. Next think you know, they will be claiming Alexander Graham Bell did something innovative by connecting wires and coils with magnets in them. Losers
Sounds to me (with the limited info in the summary) that developer mode was constantly reloading page icons?
Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab
That would obviously chew up battery life downloading icons over and over again, chewing up CPU cycles to refresh the icon on the window, and chew up wifi power because its easy to see how a stuck loop re-downloading icons could cycle thousands or millions of times.
Good for Consumer Reports for sticking to their guns, seeing an issue, reporting the issue, and forcing Apple to fix it. It's obscure sure. But many developers probably use Safari Developer Mode to work on their projects, and this will help them.
This. I don't understand Democrats these days. This isn't a team sport. This is our lives. How can you be silent when you have learned what your party was up to? They were conspiring to undermine you, the Democrat voter. Where is the outrage?
When I read the stories about the NSA, the five-eyes, the affront to the 4th amendment. I was outraged. I think Edward Snowden is a hero for going against some very very powerful forces and revealing what was happening in our own country against us by the leviathan. Russia did that for the democratic party. You can't be against Russia's hacking, but for Edward Snowden. They play the same character in this one.
Explanation: one of our laws was wrong or not universal. As technology improves and our experiments push against those fundamental laws, we may begin to understand the way the universe works in for fundamental and subtle ways and have a better description of those laws.
It's this fallacy that free markets can't fix what regulation can that puts us in trouble. Of course the free market can fix this. In no place is it unregulated and free to operate. It is however better to have a relatively free "regulated" market, than only a black market.
Supply would meet demand once the price stabilizes.
Right. But no. I've thought about the economics and if you view this as a part of a bigger problem (overregulation), then you don't fall into the trap and see a sex market as any different than any other "free" market. It is a clear cut decision. Sex trafficking will stop because the costs to maintain a sex trafficking operation are too high to incur if your profit is restricted by the availability of the "legit" provider.
To put some numbers in:
Say a sex trafficker spends $50 recruiting, kidnapping, transporting, drugging, and providing for a girl (as measured per "service").
Then say he can offer her services out for $100. He makes $50.
But now that prostitution is legalized, he has to compete in a market. The price falls down to $80. But his customers don't get the comfort of a "legit, no worries" operation, he can not competitively advertise, he has no web presence, and so his customer acquisition costs are higher, also he has to reduce down to $60.
He now only makes $10, but he burdens enormous risk for that $10. He will be dissuaded from continuing to operate.
Supply would meet demand, and price would adjust up and down. If the price rises (because as you assert there is more demand than there would be supply), then you would have more entrants due to the supply/demand imbalance. This would cause a "provider's market", and the high rates would entice more women to provide. If the price falls, then the supply would fall. That will ebb and flow until the market reaches a supply/demand balance, and adjust accordingly from there.
If they really really REALLY wanted to stop human trafficking they would legalize prostitution. For product / demand you make illegal, there will form a black market for it illegally. Those black markets don't worry about prescription drug benefits, unionization, or any other form of worker safety and security. Legalized prostitution would stop the suffering of those who are at the bottom (pun intended) of the illegal sex traffic rings.
No moron. I'm saying without a problem, we shouldn't introduce legislation "just because we can". If there is a problem, and it is not fixed by the counts (wrongful death, gross negligence, found liable for...), then legislators should act to fix the problem. Just because you can make a law doesn't mean you have to or should. There are laws already in place and they protect us to a suffficnent degree.
If the autonomous vehicle follows all the rules already in place, then it shouldn't be prohibited. Why change the rules just because of how it works? The rules are the rules.
The government has set the rules already, and the rules state that the operator is the one responsible. We already know this. Its right there in the drivers handbook!
As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation.
I do. We're talking about unproven technology operating the vehicle in a location that could result in physical harm to others. I absolutely want the government breathing down their necks to ensure that they are taking appropriate precautions to ensure public safety. I don't give a shit if they have insurance and a pile of cash. That doesn't bring people back from the dead after a wreck.
If Uber (or others) want to play on public roads with experimental equipment then a little oversight is completely justified.
But people die anyway. If your requirement is that unless you can absolutely guarantee that no one will be hurt you can not operate, then people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars either. Fail.
Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't.
That is a bogus assertion that you cannot possibly back up. There is a very real chance that someone might get hurt by one of their vehicles.
No. No no. There is an absolute chance that someone will get hurt. Thats why there is financial compensation to make whole as best as possible those you are responsible for hurting. Same thing happens when you kill someone on the road. You are responsible. So Uber would be also. These cars will however be so much safer than humans in due time, that it will flip and become criminal to allow a person to drive, because of the difference in risk a human will be on the road compared to an autonomous vehicle with a decade of development, improvement, and infrastructure integration.
The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions.
Bullshit. Companies take risks that injure people all the time and the mere threat of liability is demonstrably not enough to stop them. Especially if the profit from their actions exceeds the likely cost of the liability. Ask GM about their ignitions and let me know how much the threat of liability helped the people who are now dead.
Stop being so sensationalist. GM would not have committed the engineering mistake if it could have avoided it, and the ignition defect didn't contribute to GM's profits as you are alleging. Oh, and the government DOES regulate the safety of vehicles and still missed GMs ignition flaw. But thats not the point. Mistakes will be made. Their CEO will have "Your holding it wrong" gaffs, and yes people will be hurt and killed. But over the arc of time, these cars will become safer. Companies that make and use them have an incentive beyond liability in making them safe. Reputation can kill in a capitalist free market. You can't possibly call bullshit on that one, or maybe you are just a member of the Teamsters?
Wouldn't have to. When you are in a car and you press "set" on the indicator stock, you are operating the vehicle and delegating a part of that operation to the car. This is a natural extension of that. Uber engineers have DLs and know the rules of the road. You don't license the car or the equipment, you license the operator and they delegate.
Not true. The government is not responsible, the operator of the vehicle is. Thats why drivers carry insurance and are mandated to prove they have the means to be financially liable. Uber clearly meets this criteria.
There are already mandatory financial liability minimums for traveling down the roadway. Also, the cars are designed to meet certain criteria in terms of bumper dimensions, impact ratings, passenger restraints, stopping distances, light indicators, etc.. etc...
As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation. Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't. The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions. Imagine a wrongful death suit against a company like Uber where its software can be analyzed and its mistake pointed out exactly by a lawyer in a court-room. The mountain of evidence, and the big fat bank account will make them prime targets, and so they have a high incentive already to build safe products.
Some people who are professionals or trying to appear that way for position in a future administration may talk that way. Maybe an autocorrect change "an legitimate email" to "a legitimate email". That being said, I'm still glad we had access to this information as voters. It led us to a more informed decision vs. just a "public position" to go off of.
No, it's far more socialist than it has ever been in its history. The Federal govornment has build vast networks of social programs: single payer education through high school, govornment regulated and mandatory health insurance, food safety nets, affordable housing, welfare, mandatory retirement programs (social security), etc etc.....
Don't be so daft. Socialism / Libertarianism isn't black and white, so don't paint it as so. It's many many shades of grey and now we are far darker than it should be (black being absolute communism), and adding more and more as each administration moves on.
Fucking fuck fuck. This waste of our money is why I hate HATE paying taxes. What a waste of money. How anyone in this day and age can support a socialist regime that lets people starve but condones this sort of behavior.... thank god Hillary lost. This is just more insider baseball that we have all come to know and hate. Too much cronyism and backroom deals squandering millions and millions.... ugh it makes me want to throw up. I've never been so fiscally conservative before, but clearly it's desperately needed.
Slashdot Mirror
But the AutoPilot in an aircraft and and in this case the Tesla do the same thing. They assist in control of the aircraft. AutoPilots do not replace the pilot or relegate his/her duties to that of a passenger, you still have to have a pilot or you aren't going anywhere. The name is appropriate.
The Tesla Autopilot is pretty good for how early in car automation we are. It would be a terrible inconvenience to require you to put your hands on the wheel when you are driving thru some stretches of the American south-west, like going between Phoenix and LA on i10. Just like it would be a terrible inconvenience to expect the auto-pilot of a passenger jet liner to require input every three seconds before it disengages between Heathrow and JFK. There is no reason for it. There is no need for a law.
Will accidents happen? Sure. Just like aircraft accidents still happen. The goal of the technology is to reduce the chance of an accident happening, not eliminate it altogether, while providing some amount of relief for the pilot / driver. It is pretty hard to keep at attention for many hours on end when the task is so mundane. As the technology gets better and better, and more wide-spread, we will see more and more benefits from this technology, like reduced energy consumption by drafting closely to the car infant of you, or reduced traffic congestion by synchronized acceleration, intersection control, etc.. etc..
Yeah, no thanks. I'll compete with anything any other programmer can muster. If they provide a better value proposition, then I should reconsider my competitive advantages and lower my requisite salary. I do not need the government dictating my wage to me. I didn't vote communist, ever.
I'm a US Citizen
Apple's highly innovative inventions, namely flat rectangle with a screen on it, and an arrangement of icons in a grid clearly constitute innovations of incalculable value. Where as Qualcomm's patents simply involve leading edge telecommunication developments that far surpass most of their rivals in performance. Obviously, nothing special. Surely not noteworthy enough for their extensive paten portfolio, one of the largest in the wireless world, to justify 5x the royalty rates.
Qualcomm's highly innovative inventions, namely minor improvements to original work by Tesla, Marconi, et al, ...
Tesla and Marconi's highly original work? Surely you mean those simple expansions of work originally done by Thales of Miletus, Ben Franklyn, and Faraday.
Give me a break. Next think you know, they will be claiming Alexander Graham Bell did something innovative by connecting wires and coils with magnets in them. Losers
Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab
That would obviously chew up battery life downloading icons over and over again, chewing up CPU cycles to refresh the icon on the window, and chew up wifi power because its easy to see how a stuck loop re-downloading icons could cycle thousands or millions of times.
Good for Consumer Reports for sticking to their guns, seeing an issue, reporting the issue, and forcing Apple to fix it. It's obscure sure. But many developers probably use Safari Developer Mode to work on their projects, and this will help them.
The time when we were your bosses has come and gone. We replaced you guys with shell scripts and automation ages ago.
The university's actions will ultimately lower their annual $5.83 billion budget by just 0.1%.
But the bonuses and profits of the outsourcing operation and the key stakeholders in the universities will enjoy their kickbacks and high end dinners.
This. I don't understand Democrats these days. This isn't a team sport. This is our lives. How can you be silent when you have learned what your party was up to? They were conspiring to undermine you, the Democrat voter. Where is the outrage?
When I read the stories about the NSA, the five-eyes, the affront to the 4th amendment. I was outraged. I think Edward Snowden is a hero for going against some very very powerful forces and revealing what was happening in our own country against us by the leviathan. Russia did that for the democratic party. You can't be against Russia's hacking, but for Edward Snowden. They play the same character in this one.
Clearly he is one, and one that has yet to adjust to the new MBP keyboard, judging by the typo.
Explanation: one of our laws was wrong or not universal. As technology improves and our experiments push against those fundamental laws, we may begin to understand the way the universe works in for fundamental and subtle ways and have a better description of those laws.
Sorry, it isn't.
It's this fallacy that free markets can't fix what regulation can that puts us in trouble. Of course the free market can fix this. In no place is it unregulated and free to operate. It is however better to have a relatively free "regulated" market, than only a black market.
Supply would meet demand once the price stabilizes.
Right. But no. I've thought about the economics and if you view this as a part of a bigger problem (overregulation), then you don't fall into the trap and see a sex market as any different than any other "free" market. It is a clear cut decision. Sex trafficking will stop because the costs to maintain a sex trafficking operation are too high to incur if your profit is restricted by the availability of the "legit" provider.
To put some numbers in:
Say a sex trafficker spends $50 recruiting, kidnapping, transporting, drugging, and providing for a girl (as measured per "service").
Then say he can offer her services out for $100. He makes $50.
But now that prostitution is legalized, he has to compete in a market. The price falls down to $80. But his customers don't get the comfort of a "legit, no worries" operation, he can not competitively advertise, he has no web presence, and so his customer acquisition costs are higher, also he has to reduce down to $60.
He now only makes $10, but he burdens enormous risk for that $10. He will be dissuaded from continuing to operate.
Supply would meet demand, and price would adjust up and down. If the price rises (because as you assert there is more demand than there would be supply), then you would have more entrants due to the supply/demand imbalance. This would cause a "provider's market", and the high rates would entice more women to provide. If the price falls, then the supply would fall. That will ebb and flow until the market reaches a supply/demand balance, and adjust accordingly from there.
If they really really REALLY wanted to stop human trafficking they would legalize prostitution. For product / demand you make illegal, there will form a black market for it illegally. Those black markets don't worry about prescription drug benefits, unionization, or any other form of worker safety and security. Legalized prostitution would stop the suffering of those who are at the bottom (pun intended) of the illegal sex traffic rings.
The cars need to be registered, the operators need an operators permit. I believe both already have them, and we don't need more.
No moron. I'm saying without a problem, we shouldn't introduce legislation "just because we can". If there is a problem, and it is not fixed by the counts (wrongful death, gross negligence, found liable for...), then legislators should act to fix the problem. Just because you can make a law doesn't mean you have to or should. There are laws already in place and they protect us to a suffficnent degree.
If the autonomous vehicle follows all the rules already in place, then it shouldn't be prohibited. Why change the rules just because of how it works? The rules are the rules.
The government has set the rules already, and the rules state that the operator is the one responsible. We already know this. Its right there in the drivers handbook!
As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation.
I do. We're talking about unproven technology operating the vehicle in a location that could result in physical harm to others. I absolutely want the government breathing down their necks to ensure that they are taking appropriate precautions to ensure public safety. I don't give a shit if they have insurance and a pile of cash. That doesn't bring people back from the dead after a wreck.
If Uber (or others) want to play on public roads with experimental equipment then a little oversight is completely justified.
But people die anyway. If your requirement is that unless you can absolutely guarantee that no one will be hurt you can not operate, then people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars either. Fail.
Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't.
That is a bogus assertion that you cannot possibly back up. There is a very real chance that someone might get hurt by one of their vehicles.
No. No no. There is an absolute chance that someone will get hurt. Thats why there is financial compensation to make whole as best as possible those you are responsible for hurting. Same thing happens when you kill someone on the road. You are responsible. So Uber would be also. These cars will however be so much safer than humans in due time, that it will flip and become criminal to allow a person to drive, because of the difference in risk a human will be on the road compared to an autonomous vehicle with a decade of development, improvement, and infrastructure integration.
The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions.
Bullshit. Companies take risks that injure people all the time and the mere threat of liability is demonstrably not enough to stop them. Especially if the profit from their actions exceeds the likely cost of the liability. Ask GM about their ignitions and let me know how much the threat of liability helped the people who are now dead.
Stop being so sensationalist. GM would not have committed the engineering mistake if it could have avoided it, and the ignition defect didn't contribute to GM's profits as you are alleging. Oh, and the government DOES regulate the safety of vehicles and still missed GMs ignition flaw. But thats not the point. Mistakes will be made. Their CEO will have "Your holding it wrong" gaffs, and yes people will be hurt and killed. But over the arc of time, these cars will become safer. Companies that make and use them have an incentive beyond liability in making them safe. Reputation can kill in a capitalist free market. You can't possibly call bullshit on that one, or maybe you are just a member of the Teamsters?
Wouldn't have to. When you are in a car and you press "set" on the indicator stock, you are operating the vehicle and delegating a part of that operation to the car. This is a natural extension of that. Uber engineers have DLs and know the rules of the road. You don't license the car or the equipment, you license the operator and they delegate.
The legislature, but that doesn't matter. They have mandated that you are responsible.
Not true. The government is not responsible, the operator of the vehicle is. Thats why drivers carry insurance and are mandated to prove they have the means to be financially liable. Uber clearly meets this criteria.
There are already mandatory financial liability minimums for traveling down the roadway. Also, the cars are designed to meet certain criteria in terms of bumper dimensions, impact ratings, passenger restraints, stopping distances, light indicators, etc.. etc...
As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation. Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't. The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions. Imagine a wrongful death suit against a company like Uber where its software can be analyzed and its mistake pointed out exactly by a lawyer in a court-room. The mountain of evidence, and the big fat bank account will make them prime targets, and so they have a high incentive already to build safe products.
Some people who are professionals or trying to appear that way for position in a future administration may talk that way. Maybe an autocorrect change "an legitimate email" to "a legitimate email". That being said, I'm still glad we had access to this information as voters. It led us to a more informed decision vs. just a "public position" to go off of.
No, it's far more socialist than it has ever been in its history. The Federal govornment has build vast networks of social programs: single payer education through high school, govornment regulated and mandatory health insurance, food safety nets, affordable housing, welfare, mandatory retirement programs (social security), etc etc .....
Don't be so daft. Socialism / Libertarianism isn't black and white, so don't paint it as so. It's many many shades of grey and now we are far darker than it should be (black being absolute communism), and adding more and more as each administration moves on.
Fucking fuck fuck. This waste of our money is why I hate HATE paying taxes. What a waste of money. How anyone in this day and age can support a socialist regime that lets people starve but condones this sort of behavior.... thank god Hillary lost. This is just more insider baseball that we have all come to know and hate. Too much cronyism and backroom deals squandering millions and millions.... ugh it makes me want to throw up. I've never been so fiscally conservative before, but clearly it's desperately needed.