The video glossed over it and the article said practically nothing. Some of you probably understand the issue, so here's your chance to earn some points!
Because people want their Lotto tickets. A recent survey showed that a majority of VW owners don't want the problem fixed; they want full refunds for the original prices of their vehicles. They're hoping to strike it big with a class action lawsuit and get a new car out of it despite them consciously experiencing harm.
That's my expectation as well. They need to officially and without question have the driver acknowledge in, big giant print, "I am liable for all actions of this automobile regardless of any settings I enable or disable."
Yes, but I was responding to someone who was asking about the risk of being sued for not providing a service (assuming they turn off the autopilot) for which the customers paid.
And if the pilots of a passenger airliner set the jet on auto and the jet immediately turned into a nose dive resulting in the death of everyone on board, they would investigate the autopilot software and instruments. If the autopilot was found to be at fault, the make would be sued out of existence. It doesn't matter how many times it works well or how many times it saves people, the law does not view harm "on balance". The law seeks out and penalizes fault.
Eventually, there is going to be a MASSIVE legal battle that everyone building autonomous vehicles will have to face. Are the manufacturers at fault for collisions that their autonomous vehicles cause or fail to avoid? Because even if their autonomous drive mode prevents 2/3 of would-be collisions in those vehicles, the other 1/3 of those collisions will technically be the result of software shortcomings and thus be the fault of the manufacturer.
With >30,000 traffic deaths per year in the US alone, can autonomous vehicle makers deal with the financial effect of being the direct cause of even 100 people?
Unfortunately, what didn't happen doesn't matter in law.
Let's say you're driving drunk one day. You hit a car and kill all 4 occupants. You will be thrown in jail and sued in civil court. And you will lose. No court has ever said, "Well, he was such a good driver before. He even actively prevented some collisions with a wise use of horn and blinkers!" Nope. You're still at fault for the collision you cause.
And this is going to be the MASSIVE legal battle that anyone building autonomous vehicles will have to face. Even if their autonomous drive mode prevents 2/3 of would-be collisions in those vehicles, their other 1/3 of those collisions will be the fault and liability of the manufacturer.
No, the goal posts are always there: You get praised when you successfully accomplish the goal you say you're going to accomplish.
SpaceX said they're going to do commercially viable space travel and cargo delivery. Still workin' on it.
Tesla said they're going to sell THE EV for the masses and fund that endeavor by first selling EV sports cars to the rich. Well, they've eaten up a massive amount of masses' tax money to sell EVs to the rich and there's still not EV for those masses.
SolarCity, funny enough, is being bought by Tesla because it has failed to be financially solvent.
And the Hyperloop is 100% pure science fiction. And bad science fiction at that.
All promises, no delivery, and still praised for "vision" and "innovation".
Yes. They are wasting cash by overpaying for labor. That's the benefit of being an approved contractor for a governmental (law enforcement) agency. You're welcomed to make a not-for-profit/subsistence business and undercut their fees, of course. The taxpayers would thank you.
Serious question... because I have a hard time believing that 7% of the world population uses Instagram at least once per month. Of course, I have no problem believing that a lot of unique people have multiple accounts and that there are a number of companies out there with 100s of thousands of bot accounts.
SpaceX? It's effectively a research group that does some real work on the side.
Tesla? Tesla is a an electric sports car company sucking at the teat of taxpayer subsidies and bailouts.
SolarCity? Another company skillfully navigating tax credit, rebates, and subsidies via public funding and extremely strict contracting.
Hyperloop? HA! HA HA HA! ha ha HA!
People need to stop seeing "rich" as equivalent to "genius".
Investigations are expensive. Forensic IT is even more expensive than regular investigations. If anything, they should make the companies allowing bots share the liability that way those companies will just outright bring an end to facilitating the bot purchases.
I pay for music and receive either non-DRM digital downloads or CDs that I rip myself. I play music on a non-networked pure music player with its own long-lasting battery (not a phone or iPod touch).
I don't pay for a streaming music service, but will use a free one every so often.
A group of top cancer researchers out of the University of Sydney pored over 29-years of data to come to that conclusion. They pulled their data from the Australian National Cancer Registry because all cancer diagnoses in Australia have to be legally registered. The team compared “age and gender-specific incidence rates of 19,858 male and 14,222 females diagnosed with brain cancer between 1982 and 2012, and mobile phone usage data from 1987 to 2012,” writes lead researcher Simon Chapman in the study, published by The International Journal of Cancer Epidemiology. The cell phone data begins in 1987 because that’s when they were first widely available in Australia.
After factoring in age-specific rates of cancer diagnoses, the immense increase of cell phone use, and a 10-year timeframe to develop a diagnosis, the researchers came to a very reassuring conclusion: “We found no increase in brain cancer incidence compatible with the steep increase in mobile phone use.”
There is no scandal here. Some amount of taste is shaped by demographics.
Men dislike Sex and the City more than women.
Black women and Latinas probably dislike Sex and the City more than White women.
White people probably didn't like Culture Clash as much as Latinos did.
I will not trust my child with a private computer, digital camera, or cell phone until high school. And even then, it will be for very low values of "trust". I was young. I know what we would have done with those tools had we had them. I'm not letting my child's life get screwed up by such indiscretions.
Want photos? Excellent. Here's a camera, film, and some batteries. Remember, these will have to be developed down the street.
Want to use the computer. Fine. It's my computer. My lock down. And it's in the dining room.
Want to use a phone to call someone? Cool. Here's the land line.
*Need* a cell phone? Alright, here's one with three buttons: Mom, Dad, and Police.
Oh, you bought one yourself? Neat! It's mine now.
You hate me? I'm so very sad. No child has ever hated a parent before.
It's not my intent to be callous to its effects on the people who put the effort in, but Wikipedia is without a question the most correct, current, and expansive singular source of knowledge that mankind has every seen. It's far from perfect, but it's literally the best that has ever been. It might just be that zealotry and incivility is the only known way to provide a rigid standard of quality control in an organization where there are no genuine laws, authoritarian oversight, or wage structure to hold over peoples' heads. So, if the ends justify the means, then keep it up!
But if it doesn't-- if the emotional effects on some is too great a cost for the benefits, then someone needs to find another way to facilitate the intellectual and emotional drive for people to volunteer their own time to put so many hours of work into building and maintaining such an important source of information.
Complaining about its imperfections is insufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
The video glossed over it and the article said practically nothing. Some of you probably understand the issue, so here's your chance to earn some points!
Because people want their Lotto tickets. A recent survey showed that a majority of VW owners don't want the problem fixed; they want full refunds for the original prices of their vehicles. They're hoping to strike it big with a class action lawsuit and get a new car out of it despite them consciously experiencing harm.
It's the American way.
That's my expectation as well. They need to officially and without question have the driver acknowledge in, big giant print, "I am liable for all actions of this automobile regardless of any settings I enable or disable."
Yes, but I was responding to someone who was asking about the risk of being sued for not providing a service (assuming they turn off the autopilot) for which the customers paid.
And if the pilots of a passenger airliner set the jet on auto and the jet immediately turned into a nose dive resulting in the death of everyone on board, they would investigate the autopilot software and instruments. If the autopilot was found to be at fault, the make would be sued out of existence. It doesn't matter how many times it works well or how many times it saves people, the law does not view harm "on balance". The law seeks out and penalizes fault.
Agreed.
Eventually, there is going to be a MASSIVE legal battle that everyone building autonomous vehicles will have to face. Are the manufacturers at fault for collisions that their autonomous vehicles cause or fail to avoid? Because even if their autonomous drive mode prevents 2/3 of would-be collisions in those vehicles, the other 1/3 of those collisions will technically be the result of software shortcomings and thus be the fault of the manufacturer.
With >30,000 traffic deaths per year in the US alone, can autonomous vehicle makers deal with the financial effect of being the direct cause of even 100 people?
Check the EULA. I'd be willing to bet that they don't guarantee that all features will be available at all times or in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, what didn't happen doesn't matter in law.
Let's say you're driving drunk one day. You hit a car and kill all 4 occupants. You will be thrown in jail and sued in civil court. And you will lose. No court has ever said, "Well, he was such a good driver before. He even actively prevented some collisions with a wise use of horn and blinkers!" Nope. You're still at fault for the collision you cause.
And this is going to be the MASSIVE legal battle that anyone building autonomous vehicles will have to face. Even if their autonomous drive mode prevents 2/3 of would-be collisions in those vehicles, their other 1/3 of those collisions will be the fault and liability of the manufacturer.
Fair point.
If they can carry the bomb on the thing, couldn't they just put a taser on it?
Step 1: Get in position
Step 2: Fire taser.
Step 3: Storm the position.
Step 4: If he resists, shock him again.
What's the actual cost of the machine and how many hours of uptime is its cost spread over to get "$7/hour".
You can also have a $200,000 Ferrari for only $4.60/hour so long as you commit to paying that price every hour for 5 years.
Hyperbole.
A full scale assault on personal liberties would be a genuine and permanent state of war with martial law enforced.
This is a bad sub-decision that will get steamrolled on appeal.
No, the goal posts are always there: You get praised when you successfully accomplish the goal you say you're going to accomplish.
SpaceX said they're going to do commercially viable space travel and cargo delivery. Still workin' on it.
Tesla said they're going to sell THE EV for the masses and fund that endeavor by first selling EV sports cars to the rich. Well, they've eaten up a massive amount of masses' tax money to sell EVs to the rich and there's still not EV for those masses.
SolarCity, funny enough, is being bought by Tesla because it has failed to be financially solvent.
And the Hyperloop is 100% pure science fiction. And bad science fiction at that.
All promises, no delivery, and still praised for "vision" and "innovation".
Yes. They are wasting cash by overpaying for labor. That's the benefit of being an approved contractor for a governmental (law enforcement) agency. You're welcomed to make a not-for-profit/subsistence business and undercut their fees, of course. The taxpayers would thank you.
Serious question... because I have a hard time believing that 7% of the world population uses Instagram at least once per month. Of course, I have no problem believing that a lot of unique people have multiple accounts and that there are a number of companies out there with 100s of thousands of bot accounts.
Agreed.
SpaceX? It's effectively a research group that does some real work on the side.
Tesla? Tesla is a an electric sports car company sucking at the teat of taxpayer subsidies and bailouts.
SolarCity? Another company skillfully navigating tax credit, rebates, and subsidies via public funding and extremely strict contracting.
Hyperloop? HA! HA HA HA! ha ha HA!
People need to stop seeing "rich" as equivalent to "genius".
Investigations are expensive. Forensic IT is even more expensive than regular investigations. If anything, they should make the companies allowing bots share the liability that way those companies will just outright bring an end to facilitating the bot purchases.
I pay for music and receive either non-DRM digital downloads or CDs that I rip myself. I play music on a non-networked pure music player with its own long-lasting battery (not a phone or iPod touch). I don't pay for a streaming music service, but will use a free one every so often.
Will any other as-of-yet unproven and theoretical technology make current technology obsolete? Let us pontificate.
I wish I could mod this funny.
Wow. Insightful but unpopular opinion gets troll tag. Funny how this "troll" post has so many people relating to it.
http://bigthink.com/laurie-vaz...
A group of top cancer researchers out of the University of Sydney pored over 29-years of data to come to that conclusion. They pulled their data from the Australian National Cancer Registry because all cancer diagnoses in Australia have to be legally registered. The team compared “age and gender-specific incidence rates of 19,858 male and 14,222 females diagnosed with brain cancer between 1982 and 2012, and mobile phone usage data from 1987 to 2012,” writes lead researcher Simon Chapman in the study, published by The International Journal of Cancer Epidemiology. The cell phone data begins in 1987 because that’s when they were first widely available in Australia.
After factoring in age-specific rates of cancer diagnoses, the immense increase of cell phone use, and a 10-year timeframe to develop a diagnosis, the researchers came to a very reassuring conclusion: “We found no increase in brain cancer incidence compatible with the steep increase in mobile phone use.”
There is no scandal here. Some amount of taste is shaped by demographics.
Men dislike Sex and the City more than women.
Black women and Latinas probably dislike Sex and the City more than White women.
White people probably didn't like Culture Clash as much as Latinos did.
There's no sabotage. It's just demographics.
I will not trust my child with a private computer, digital camera, or cell phone until high school. And even then, it will be for very low values of "trust". I was young. I know what we would have done with those tools had we had them. I'm not letting my child's life get screwed up by such indiscretions.
Want photos? Excellent. Here's a camera, film, and some batteries. Remember, these will have to be developed down the street.
Want to use the computer. Fine. It's my computer. My lock down. And it's in the dining room.
Want to use a phone to call someone? Cool. Here's the land line.
*Need* a cell phone? Alright, here's one with three buttons: Mom, Dad, and Police.
Oh, you bought one yourself? Neat! It's mine now.
You hate me? I'm so very sad. No child has ever hated a parent before.
And it's worth it.
It's not my intent to be callous to its effects on the people who put the effort in, but Wikipedia is without a question the most correct, current, and expansive singular source of knowledge that mankind has every seen. It's far from perfect, but it's literally the best that has ever been. It might just be that zealotry and incivility is the only known way to provide a rigid standard of quality control in an organization where there are no genuine laws, authoritarian oversight, or wage structure to hold over peoples' heads. So, if the ends justify the means, then keep it up!
But if it doesn't-- if the emotional effects on some is too great a cost for the benefits, then someone needs to find another way to facilitate the intellectual and emotional drive for people to volunteer their own time to put so many hours of work into building and maintaining such an important source of information.
Complaining about its imperfections is insufficient.