A single person making small talk on their phone annoys everyone.
Then have the stones to politely ask that single annoying person to lower their voice. Or go sit in one of the designated "quiet cars." Or, as others have pointed out, whip out your noise isolating headphones. Being annoyed is absolutely zero justification for the kind of passive-aggressive, illegal, and dangerous tactics you're advocating.
And that's precisely why I've been arguing here for years that AI cars a lot far off than many people think.
Agreed -- likely infinitely so. It's an interesting network effect problem, where roads mostly or completely filled with autonomous cars likely would be much safer on balance, but where there are only a handful it's unclear that net safety goes up, and it may even go down (witness Google's recent conundrum over their AI being "too law-abiding").
It's not clear to me that people will have the collective appetite to push through that first phase to try to reach the second, if that's even possible to reach without the government effectively mandating autonomous cars, which in turn would require an improbable amount of political will.
Another inherent assumption in all this is that pricing would eventually get down to a "reasonable" level. First, "reasonable" is going to be perceived a lot differently by people at various points on the income spectrum. Second, if the human driver truly has no responsibility for what the car does, it seems like most liability would ultimately end up flowing upward to the manufacturers/mechanics and be internalized in the purchase/maintenance price, putting it that much further out of reach/further down on the priority list of many people.
Now imagine some rich guy who buys a BMW to drive him to work every day. He'll bit sitting there drinking coffee and reading a newspaper, and you somehow expect him to suddenly "take the wheel" when the AI can't cope? Forget about seats turned sideways or whatever -- you're talking a couple seconds minimum before (1) he realizes there is a problem, (2) manages to get rid of his newspaper, coffee, and breakfast sandwich before he can, (3) hit the button to take control, and (4) actually adjust his body to the controls. And with that amount of delay and breakfast bits flying around the car, there's no guarantee that a human driver would even be able to respond well and make safe maneuvers for a few seconds even after he takes control.
I think you've perfectly articulated why this kind of design -- allowing the "driver" to essentially lay back, pop open a newspaper and ignore the road -- is a Really Bad Idea.
Cars already have bits and pieces of autonomous capability today -- radar cruise control, lane control, etc. But in all of those cases, the driver has not only the the ability to instantaneously take over when the driver sees that the technology is making a poor choice, but the expectation to do so. Airplanes are even more autonomous -- the vast majority of any commercial flight you take these days is controlled by autopilot, yet there are humans -- plural -- sitting at attention for the inevitable moment when something goes wrong. And that's up in the big, largely empty sky. Why in the world would we want it to be any different for millions of cars tearing around in close proximity?
But the fallacy is saying the little fish "certainly did nothing wrong." In a nation of lawbreakers, by definition there's no way to say that with confidence about anyone. The only realistic way to give you any comfort is to say, "hey, whether or not you did anything wrong, we're not going to come along later and say you did." Whether there should be such a blizzard of broad/vague/obscure laws is another issue, but for better or for worse that's where we are.
Where do you see that? Page 36 sure sounds like they did:
On a disconnected network segment, our team demonstrated an authentication bypass attack to gain access to the patient monitor in question, and instructed it to perform a variety of disruptive tasks, such as sounding false alarms, displaying incorrect patient vitals, and disabling the alarm.
Your Wikipedia article says in so many words that the ex post facto prohibition only applies to criminal cases:
Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters.
This is indeed the bottom line, isn't it? It's a free country, mate -- carry on, and hopefully any bad consequences only happen to you and not the people around you that you put at risk by driving as fast as you want. But man up and own that reckless, selfish choice, and quit it with the vague and unsupported appeals to science.
Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.
Finally, something on which we can agree. But I'll even go one step further and paste my simple request again, for all to see: "please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on [the 85% rule]."
You've provided nothing. Because there is nothing. Just as I suspected from the beginning.
And with that, I'm done putting the rattle back on the highchair.
Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash.
Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.
This is called a claim.
Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe. If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.
Nothing you have posted backs this up [blah blah it's not my fault shut up blah blah]
If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion. Feel free to change that if you can. I'll not hold my breath.
* That's the most charitable explanation I can muster for your (1) playing dumb that speeding cars hurting/killing pedestrians are a significant problem, and (2) presenting a generic Wikipedia cite as "peer-reviewed literature." But on the other hand, after reading one of your other comments in this thread -- "I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding." -- the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.
No, but the fact they they aren't crashing does though.
Crashing isn't the point in a residential neighborhood. In that kind of a situation, things change rapidly -- one moment you're gunning down the street seeing nothing in front of you, the next moment a pet or a kid has run out in the street. As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting. The faster you're going, the longer it takes you to stop and the more damage you do when you can't stop, and that doesn't change simply because everyone else around you is being just as short-sighted and selfish as you are.
This is why science was invented.
Ah, the "because science -- shut up" meme has reached the reckless driving community. Since you went there, please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Thanks.
You never said your house qualified as a residential area.
Irrelevant distraction. Your original comment I responded to wasn't, of course, directed to the speed limit going by my house -- it was directed to the speed limit going by the professor's house, described as: "the neighborhood's 25mph limit" "on his residential neighborhood street." Strike two.
1. You said your state has a law. What you provided was (sort of -- see #2 below) a booklet by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you live in Michigan and didn't just paste in the first Google hit you found, this isn't a Michigan law. 2. The text you put in quotation marks before the web link isn't in the linked document. You seem to have stitched the two together. Back to my Google hit theory. 3. Right out of the chute on page 3, the booklet (first written back in the 70s, mind you) discusses the increasingly blurred distinction between rural and urban areas and thus the need to establish "modified speed limits in these transitions between rural and urban areas." This would be your first clue that this booklet might not be about setting speed limits in residential neighborhoods. 4. Removing all doubt, on page 7 the booklet discusses the difference between statutory speed limits (i.e., those actually set by the legislature) and modified speed limits (those set by administrative agencies). It explains that modified speed limits are "utilized in areas requiring speed limits between the statutory maximum speed limits on state and county roadways and the 25 mph prima facie speed limits in business and residential areas." Then at the bottom of the page, it says: "The remainder of this booklet describes how modified speed limits are established..."
So, in sum, even ignoring the fact that the quote and citation you provided don't match, you, in the midst of a discussion about speed limits in residential neighborhoods, provided as support of your contention that residential speed limits should be determined by some kind of a prevailing speed rule, a booklet that says in so many words that it doesn't apply to residential speed limits, which are universally set (by Michigan statute) at 25 mph. Your source actually contradicts your position rather than supporting it.
I highly doubt that law says what you think it says. The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so.
Whenever I see a Forbes link redirect to forbes.com/forbes/welcome, I click back (page doesn't even need to fully load) and click the link again. The second time it goes straight to the target. Works with both Firefox and Chrome w/ ABP.
If there's a software function that seems to the EPA to be cheating on emissions tests, well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Or, perhaps, now that the EPA is carrying around a hammer, everything looks like a nail? Perhaps coupled with the embarrassment of having been hoodwinked by VW for several years, leading to overcompensation/overreaction/presumptive labeling of anything they observe that they don't immediately understand? That seems pretty par for the course for a governmental bureaucracy.
That's just plain wrong -- EDTX continues to be the forum for over 40% of all newly-filed patent cases. Yes, Judge Davis recently retired, just like Judge Ward and Judge Folsom before him. But he was one of many, and Judge Gilstrap, Judge Schneider, Judge Clark, and others are still hearing plenty of cases.
Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.
About 15 years ago, I was one of the first to sign up for Comcast high-speed internet in my neighborhood. I basically had the whole pipe. It was awesome.
Then others in the neighborhood signed up. It sucked.
Then Comcast added more capacity and it sucked less. But it was never the same as the early days.
I'll be curious to see how you're faring in a year or two.
As usual, this kind of ham-handed policy will simply inconvenience (or even imperil) tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent, law-abiding people while the criminals will simply switch (if they haven't already) to a different means of remote activation.
I'd love to say it's unbelievable, but it's becoming sadly predictable.
some crimes go unpunished . . . since with a plea bargain you're punishing some other crime, not the one that really happened.
Um, no. If the evidence is airtight that a crime really happened, it's not nearly as likely to get plea-bargained in the first place. Otherwise, there is no "really happened."
Yeah, the law says that you shouldn't smoke marijuana.
Many, many crimes are plea bargained other than the drug possession crimes everyone in this thread is harping on. It's a convenient scapegoat, but even if all drug possession were legalized tomorrow we would still need plea bargaining as the triage/resource management tool I originally mentioned.
Sure -- if you're going to eliminate existing crimes, you'll have less plea bargains. But unless all plea bargains are for what you're referring to as prohibition crimes (and they aren't), you're still going to have more people in the system than you have resources to take to trial. The numbers I mentioned above may change (though not as much as you may think), but you're still going to have to make a call on how to deal with the layer of people the justice system, as currently funded and staffed, can't try in a reasonable timeframe.
That's EXACTLY what we want and what you should want -- unless you're a fucking totalitarian sociopathic boot-licker
You know, I'm having a hard time deciding whether your overly charming tone or your illuminating choice of moniker is the top reason why I won't be losing any sleep over not seeing eye to eye with you on what constitutes a "civilized country."
Damn right we need to only pursue the "egregious criminals," because in every civilized country on the planet, what you call the "egregious criminals" are the only criminals!
Since I didn't draw any kind of a box around a set of "egregious criminals," the only way this statement can remotely make sense is if you're really convinced that nobody who takes a plea bargain actually committed a crime worthy of punishment. If so, you're welcome (and in fact I would strongly encourage you) to go live in one of the countries you consider "civilized." It's hard to imagine more of a win-win.
Slashdot Mirror
A single person making small talk on their phone annoys everyone.
Then have the stones to politely ask that single annoying person to lower their voice. Or go sit in one of the designated "quiet cars." Or, as others have pointed out, whip out your noise isolating headphones. Being annoyed is absolutely zero justification for the kind of passive-aggressive, illegal, and dangerous tactics you're advocating.
And that's precisely why I've been arguing here for years that AI cars a lot far off than many people think.
Agreed -- likely infinitely so. It's an interesting network effect problem, where roads mostly or completely filled with autonomous cars likely would be much safer on balance, but where there are only a handful it's unclear that net safety goes up, and it may even go down (witness Google's recent conundrum over their AI being "too law-abiding").
It's not clear to me that people will have the collective appetite to push through that first phase to try to reach the second, if that's even possible to reach without the government effectively mandating autonomous cars, which in turn would require an improbable amount of political will.
Another inherent assumption in all this is that pricing would eventually get down to a "reasonable" level. First, "reasonable" is going to be perceived a lot differently by people at various points on the income spectrum. Second, if the human driver truly has no responsibility for what the car does, it seems like most liability would ultimately end up flowing upward to the manufacturers/mechanics and be internalized in the purchase/maintenance price, putting it that much further out of reach/further down on the priority list of many people.
Now imagine some rich guy who buys a BMW to drive him to work every day. He'll bit sitting there drinking coffee and reading a newspaper, and you somehow expect him to suddenly "take the wheel" when the AI can't cope? Forget about seats turned sideways or whatever -- you're talking a couple seconds minimum before (1) he realizes there is a problem, (2) manages to get rid of his newspaper, coffee, and breakfast sandwich before he can, (3) hit the button to take control, and (4) actually adjust his body to the controls. And with that amount of delay and breakfast bits flying around the car, there's no guarantee that a human driver would even be able to respond well and make safe maneuvers for a few seconds even after he takes control.
I think you've perfectly articulated why this kind of design -- allowing the "driver" to essentially lay back, pop open a newspaper and ignore the road -- is a Really Bad Idea.
Cars already have bits and pieces of autonomous capability today -- radar cruise control, lane control, etc. But in all of those cases, the driver has not only the the ability to instantaneously take over when the driver sees that the technology is making a poor choice, but the expectation to do so. Airplanes are even more autonomous -- the vast majority of any commercial flight you take these days is controlled by autopilot, yet there are humans -- plural -- sitting at attention for the inevitable moment when something goes wrong. And that's up in the big, largely empty sky. Why in the world would we want it to be any different for millions of cars tearing around in close proximity?
But the fallacy is saying the little fish "certainly did nothing wrong." In a nation of lawbreakers, by definition there's no way to say that with confidence about anyone. The only realistic way to give you any comfort is to say, "hey, whether or not you did anything wrong, we're not going to come along later and say you did." Whether there should be such a blizzard of broad/vague/obscure laws is another issue, but for better or for worse that's where we are.
Where do you see that? Page 36 sure sounds like they did:
On a disconnected network segment, our team demonstrated an authentication bypass attack to gain access to the patient monitor in question, and instructed it to perform a variety of disruptive tasks , such as sounding false alarms, displaying incorrect patient vitals, and disabling the alarm.
How about, this place is CLEANER than New York City. How many folks swim in the Hudson or the East River?
Thousands, actually.
Your Wikipedia article says in so many words that the ex post facto prohibition only applies to criminal cases:
Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters.
I said I drive as fast as I want
This is indeed the bottom line, isn't it? It's a free country, mate -- carry on, and hopefully any bad consequences only happen to you and not the people around you that you put at risk by driving as fast as you want. But man up and own that reckless, selfish choice, and quit it with the vague and unsupported appeals to science.
Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.
Finally, something on which we can agree. But I'll even go one step further and paste my simple request again, for all to see: "please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on [the 85% rule]."
You've provided nothing. Because there is nothing. Just as I suspected from the beginning.
And with that, I'm done putting the rattle back on the highchair.
Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash.
Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.
This is called a claim.
Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe. If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.
Nothing you have posted backs this up [blah blah it's not my fault shut up blah blah]
If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion. Feel free to change that if you can. I'll not hold my breath.
And if that were the case, there would be documented accidents.
Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes: There are. Thousands of them. Educate yourself.
* That's the most charitable explanation I can muster for your (1) playing dumb that speeding cars hurting/killing pedestrians are a significant problem, and (2) presenting a generic Wikipedia cite as "peer-reviewed literature." But on the other hand, after reading one of your other comments in this thread -- "I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding." -- the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.
No, but the fact they they aren't crashing does though.
Crashing isn't the point in a residential neighborhood. In that kind of a situation, things change rapidly -- one moment you're gunning down the street seeing nothing in front of you, the next moment a pet or a kid has run out in the street. As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting. The faster you're going, the longer it takes you to stop and the more damage you do when you can't stop, and that doesn't change simply because everyone else around you is being just as short-sighted and selfish as you are.
This is why science was invented.
Ah, the "because science -- shut up" meme has reached the reckless driving community. Since you went there, please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Thanks.
You never said your house qualified as a residential area.
Irrelevant distraction. Your original comment I responded to wasn't, of course, directed to the speed limit going by my house -- it was directed to the speed limit going by the professor's house, described as: "the neighborhood's 25mph limit" "on his residential neighborhood street." Strike two.
Good grief. Where to begin?
1. You said your state has a law. What you provided was (sort of -- see #2 below) a booklet by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you live in Michigan and didn't just paste in the first Google hit you found, this isn't a Michigan law.
2. The text you put in quotation marks before the web link isn't in the linked document. You seem to have stitched the two together. Back to my Google hit theory.
3. Right out of the chute on page 3, the booklet (first written back in the 70s, mind you) discusses the increasingly blurred distinction between rural and urban areas and thus the need to establish "modified speed limits in these transitions between rural and urban areas." This would be your first clue that this booklet might not be about setting speed limits in residential neighborhoods.
4. Removing all doubt, on page 7 the booklet discusses the difference between statutory speed limits (i.e., those actually set by the legislature) and modified speed limits (those set by administrative agencies). It explains that modified speed limits are "utilized in areas requiring speed limits between the statutory maximum speed limits on state and county roadways and the 25 mph prima facie speed limits in business and residential areas." Then at the bottom of the page, it says: "The remainder of this booklet describes how modified speed limits are established..."
So, in sum, even ignoring the fact that the quote and citation you provided don't match, you, in the midst of a discussion about speed limits in residential neighborhoods, provided as support of your contention that residential speed limits should be determined by some kind of a prevailing speed rule, a booklet that says in so many words that it doesn't apply to residential speed limits, which are universally set (by Michigan statute) at 25 mph. Your source actually contradicts your position rather than supporting it.
I highly doubt that law says what you think it says. The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so.
Insightful? Clearly the next sensible choice when "+1 Hilariously Sarcastic" isn't an option....
Whenever I see a Forbes link redirect to forbes.com/forbes/welcome, I click back (page doesn't even need to fully load) and click the link again. The second time it goes straight to the target. Works with both Firefox and Chrome w/ ABP.
If there's a software function that seems to the EPA to be cheating on emissions tests, well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Or, perhaps, now that the EPA is carrying around a hammer, everything looks like a nail? Perhaps coupled with the embarrassment of having been hoodwinked by VW for several years, leading to overcompensation/overreaction/presumptive labeling of anything they observe that they don't immediately understand? That seems pretty par for the course for a governmental bureaucracy.
That's just plain wrong -- EDTX continues to be the forum for over 40% of all newly-filed patent cases. Yes, Judge Davis recently retired, just like Judge Ward and Judge Folsom before him. But he was one of many, and Judge Gilstrap, Judge Schneider, Judge Clark, and others are still hearing plenty of cases.
because even with a mill or two stashed away, these days you can still find yourself easily fucked and depending on social safety nets.
Wow. Just wow.
Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.
About 15 years ago, I was one of the first to sign up for Comcast high-speed internet in my neighborhood. I basically had the whole pipe. It was awesome.
Then others in the neighborhood signed up. It sucked.
Then Comcast added more capacity and it sucked less. But it was never the same as the early days.
I'll be curious to see how you're faring in a year or two.
Exactly -- TFP says it claims priority to an application filed in 2003.
As usual, this kind of ham-handed policy will simply inconvenience (or even imperil) tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent, law-abiding people while the criminals will simply switch (if they haven't already) to a different means of remote activation.
I'd love to say it's unbelievable, but it's becoming sadly predictable.
some crimes go unpunished . . . since with a plea bargain you're punishing some other crime, not the one that really happened.
Um, no. If the evidence is airtight that a crime really happened, it's not nearly as likely to get plea-bargained in the first place. Otherwise, there is no "really happened."
Yeah, the law says that you shouldn't smoke marijuana.
Many, many crimes are plea bargained other than the drug possession crimes everyone in this thread is harping on. It's a convenient scapegoat, but even if all drug possession were legalized tomorrow we would still need plea bargaining as the triage/resource management tool I originally mentioned.
Sure -- if you're going to eliminate existing crimes, you'll have less plea bargains. But unless all plea bargains are for what you're referring to as prohibition crimes (and they aren't), you're still going to have more people in the system than you have resources to take to trial. The numbers I mentioned above may change (though not as much as you may think), but you're still going to have to make a call on how to deal with the layer of people the justice system, as currently funded and staffed, can't try in a reasonable timeframe.
That's EXACTLY what we want and what you should want -- unless you're a fucking totalitarian sociopathic boot-licker
You know, I'm having a hard time deciding whether your overly charming tone or your illuminating choice of moniker is the top reason why I won't be losing any sleep over not seeing eye to eye with you on what constitutes a "civilized country."
Damn right we need to only pursue the "egregious criminals," because in every civilized country on the planet, what you call the "egregious criminals" are the only criminals!
Since I didn't draw any kind of a box around a set of "egregious criminals," the only way this statement can remotely make sense is if you're really convinced that nobody who takes a plea bargain actually committed a crime worthy of punishment. If so, you're welcome (and in fact I would strongly encourage you) to go live in one of the countries you consider "civilized." It's hard to imagine more of a win-win.