Police too may find it much easier to gain the cooperation of the device's manufacturer to listen on you, than to get a warrant and then wire your house without you noticing.
After all, the mainstream news said they already did it with OnStar, a few years back, using it to bug the cars of some suspected crooks with the assistance of the company. (They got in legal trouble for it - not because of the bugging, but because it interfered with the emergency service coverage that OnStar was selling.)
At least with THAT product the benefit side of the equation was getting help dispatched immediately in an auto accident, rather than listening to RIAA music-like product in medium-FI.
Do you have a cellphone? If so, then worrying about Alexa monitoring you is silly. A cellphone has far greater capability to track and eavesdrop.
This is like telling the victim of a drive by shooting not to worry about a second car because they only have small caliber pistols.
Actually it's more like the first car might take a potshot but the second car is full of guys with machineguns ALREADY FIRING as they accelerate to pass.
Even back in the day of the mini- and first micro-computers there already were "Three Little Endians".
The third was DEC Endian, on the PDP-11 (at least initially - I don't recall if it propagated to other things like the VAX).
Due to the 16-bit word size and a byetwise addressing mode that treated the lower byte as zero LSB address (for byte-wise iteration of bignum arithmetic), peripheral I/O operations loaded the record with the even and odd bytes swapped. (ABCDEFGH -> BADCFEHG)
But now they've broken it. Why? To make tracking more accurate.
When you follow the link, the web server gets the tracking data. When you send a copy to someone else and they follow it, the tracking info pointing to you is gone so the web server doesn't think you clicked again.
In America, people against gun control say "Don't take our guns, we might have to hurt someone!"
In America people sometimes DO "have to hurt someone". And (details vary by state) they generally DO have a legal right to do so.
(In your country they do, to, don't they? At least SOME of them. If they didn't, why do your army and police have guns?)
Typical situation is someone is attacking or threatening them in a way that "would put a reasonable person in fear of life or limb". Then they may use "deadly force" to stop the attack. "Deadly force" is force that risks killing the attacker. With-gun defence USUALLY stops the attack without a shot being fired, but if the defender shoots the attacker, it's about one-in-five he dies.
Defenders in th US who DO end up shooting are over five times less likely to shoot someone they don't have a right to shoot than police are. (CCW holders are also more law-abiding than police by a similar factor. Wait for one of them to commit some with-gun crime and on the average you'll be waiting over seven thousand years.)
With 350 million people, sure we get the occasional nut attacking others. But it seems that:
* This is VERY rare. (Which is why the media plays it up for weeks when it DOES happen.)
* It almost always happens in a "gun-free zone". (They may be crazy, but they're usually not stupid.)
* It's FAR less rare in other countries that heavily restrict guns. (Consider Mxico, for example.)
* We seem to have a lot fewer wars and genocides than other countries, too. Those stack up a LOT of bodies.
* Research indicates that guns are used to stop crimes something like eight times more often than they are used to commit crimes.
So it looks like having the population armed is a net gain in the "reducing violent death, injury, and victimization" department.)
I don't see a problem with allowing guns, but I don't see the reason to allow assault weapons. If I want a tank, can I have one? An RPG? Cannon?
The guys who fought the revolution that led to their leaders writing and approving the Bill of Rights used personally-owned cannon and personally-owned warships in the war - which was the peak military technology of the time. Many of the foot-soldiers' long guns were rifled, and higher-tech than the muskets of their opponents.
They'd just fought a revolution against the "legitimate government", and were doing their best to make it possible to repeat this exercise if their new roll-your-own government also got out of hand. So why SHOULDN'T the citizens have AT LEAST the firepower of the government forces? And why SHOULDN'T the government be banned from preventing this? (And why SHOULDN'T the citizens be expeected to take moves by the government to disarm them as the key evidence that it HAD gotten out of hand?)
Meanwhile, do you know what an "assault weapon" is? How about an "assault rifle"?
An "assault rifle" is a military term for a small (easy to carry and get get through small openings with it), select-fire (switch between single-shot and burst and/or continuous fire), low caliber weapon, designed to wound. (Kill an opposing soldier and you take one out of the fight. Wound one and you take out him, his buddy, a medic,... And you have fewer relatives that hate your country once peace is achieved.) In some states the single-action "plowshared" versioins are illegal for hunting - because they're too underpowered and lead to the animal suffering a long time rather than dying quickly.
An "assault weapon" is a term of legal art in anti-gun laws. It varies by state. But generally it means "ugly military-looking one-shot-per-trigger-pull gun with some arbitrary collection of features that sound scary, and we'll call it something that people will confuse with a low-power infantry rifle that can burst-fire."
Even though "precise" (measures intervals well) is more correct than "accurate" (closeness to the standard, i.e. both precise and properly set), when you're getting technical, it's in more common use and gets the meaning across a lot better than "powerful".)
When I hear "powerful" I get "this thing uses a lot of power". NOT what you want in an instrument on a spacecraft.
(Reminds me of a satire of golden age science fiction, where the aliens have been monitoring our radio transmissions from afar with "crystal sets of enormous power".)
Names of old pantheon gods got used up. Decent and decently-short acronyms got used up. Recursive acronyms got used up. Puns got used up. We're now stuck with arbitrary word-thing pairing.
We've been there since about the large-scale adoption of linux. Or haven't you noticed the arbitrary naming of major open source applications?
So how does this identify adults with physical disabilities? Same question for people who have recovered from a stroke?
If it systematically identifies such as children and restricts their access there could be a big ADA action if it's ever deployed.
Meanwhile: 16% error rate for a single swipe? With, say, three hundred million users that's 48 million people misidentified. Even with the eight-swipe error rate of 3% you're still talking nine million people.
That's if it's consistent, though. If it's per-trial noise you get to annoy a lot more people, while the kids can get through just by trying over and over.
What platforms even still allow down votes? Every relatively large site I have ever been on that had down voting ended up removing it.
How about Slashdot?
I currently have mod points and the menu still includes offtopic, flamebait, troll, redundant, and overrated.
Does Slashdot no longer qualify as a "relatively large site"?
I note that, at least, trolls and SJWs have a track record of using such moderation, in ways other than its stated purpose, to down-moderate posting of opinions with which they disagree. (This is not to say that people of other leanings don't misuse it in such a way. Just that these are the ones with which I have personal experience.)
Want to test it? Try posting anything questioning a politically-correct paradigm, such as gun control or global warming, in an (on-topic) article near the top of the front page. Then check your score every few minutes for a couple hours.
These down-mods do let some people try to turn Slashdot into an echo-chamber for their ideologies. But so far such efforts have not been totally successful. B-)
"Don't worry, they won't abuse it, even though human history has no examples where it isn't abused by those in power against their political opponents to remain in power."
While this may be true, it is something of an overstatement - because you can't show it to be true for recent stuff. It take a while for info to leak out.
Make it something like:
Don't worry, they won't abuse it, even though human history has no examples (more than 30 years old) where it wasn't shown, within 30 years after the event, that it had been abused by those in power against their political opponents to remain in power.
It's time we start ending school sponsored football programs. There are plenty of other sports that don't involve brain damage.
Soccer, too. That involves hitting the ball with your head, hard, repeatedly, and was shown to be causing brain damage even before (pigskin-style) football.
Of course they'll do whatever they can do put their prey at ease.;-)
Or bait them to their doom. (Of course the skill is handy for having fun with the handlrs, too.)
Walruses do this, too. And they regularly eat people if they can get hold of them one-on-one, (to the point that the walrus is the symbol of death for some Inuits).
(I hear that, a couple decades back, there was one in New York City's Central Park Zoo that started talking like a drunk, with lines like "Hiya, Buddy" in a very slurred form. Apparently a drunk had been hanging out near the walrus display after-hours and talking to it, and it had started mimicing the commoner phrases. No evidence that it had lured the drunk in for a late snack, though.)
Their intentions aren't so honorable. They're just trying to break up the demand for real universal health care.
What's dishonorable about opposing "real universal health care" - which seems to be newspeak for socialized/nationalized medicine (with all the failures endemic to attempts to nationalize any industry)?
Obama's foray into that quadrupled the price of health insurance for my wife, and has me busting my butt at a startup when we should have been retired for the last half-decade..
I've talked to so many people that have already disabled emergency alerts simply because they were awoken in the middle of the night with a amber or silver alert.
Emergency alerts to phones need to be ONLY for things that require immediate action by the phone's owner regardless if awake or asleep.
Also: During the recent Santa Rosa wildfire, the powers-that-be decided NOT to use the system to alert people at risk, for fear of "starting a panic" and clogging the roads with with people "not at risk" - thus apparently causing substantial loss of property and possibly loss of life. (This reminds me of the mass deaths at the Krakatoa island explosion, due to the island's powers-that-be deciding to keep the population on the island despite the volcanic rumbles, to avoid swaying an imminent election if the well-to-do disproportionally decided to take a short vacation.)
There are alerts I'd want to see if I were awake but wouldn't want to be awakened for.
(Also, I'm not on a day-people schedule. {This morning I got four landline and one cellphone unsolicted advertisements about two hours before my wife and I would normally be awake. I decided that ONE MORE landline call and I'd leave it off the hook, and look into disconnecting it entirely.})
Seems to me they need a feature like this:
- Alerts would be labelled with a position in a two-dimensional matrix: Type of alert, and severity. (They might also be labelled with location and/or area of significance.)
- Users could define THEIR OWN SCHEDULE and disable various classes/severities/distances of alert, not just totally, but optionally in time periods of their own choice.
Don't allow access to IP addresses, machines, etc. until you know who that user is and whether they're authorized,'" says Charlie Gero,...
How about: "Treat your internal wiring like it's the wild-and-wooly Internet. Have both the the boxes and the applications/services - encrypt everything and authenticate each other before exchanging information."? (Apps authenticate both the other app and the box it runs on because a corrupted box can get into the app.)
Then you don't have to trust all the other boxes or the wiring between them.
It also means that it's not such a big deal if somebody manages to hang an extra box on your net or inserts it in a cable. The most it can do is use your bandwidth to talk to the outside rather than use its own radio, listen to its surroundings with its own sensors, or DoS what ever is going through the cable into which it's inserted. That means you can let your employees bring in their own equipment without compromising your firewall (or compromise your operation more than a tape recorder, camera, or box with sensors would do without the netk access).
I realize you are joking, but it's interesting that Linus is using Fedora, which was one of the first distros to switch to systemd, meaning he was one of the early systemd adopters.
Linus needs to use something with a lot of the popular bells and whistles, at least part of the time, so he can see what's fouled up. B-)
That means he needs to run some really baroque stuff - the better to keep it from being totally broke(n).
Silicon-germainum is an alloy of silicon and germanium. (Actually, a range of alloys, with differing ratios of silicon and germainum but totalling to 100% - less doping impurities.)
Silicon-germanium has many of the speed advantages of gallium arsenide, but can be fabbed more like pure silicon (using the same equipment and similar processing steps) and achieve similar costs for a given amount of circuitry. (You can, for instance, grow a silicon-germanium layer on a silicon chip, or do silicon-germanium-on-insulator, as you would silicon-on-saphire.)
In addition to FETs, with a silicon-germanium alloy it's easy to make heterojunction bipolar transistors, with speeds into the hundreds of GHz. These are good for logic, analog signal processing, and mixed-signal designs.
But there will be cars that can drive unattended in some conditions and locations, but not everywhere, and I'm curious how it will be treated.
They'd be treated as the laws and courts decide. Laws and courts can be arbitrary, but they often are reasonable.
I'd expect that:
* If the self-driving algorithms are recognized as smart enough to pull over, safely park, and insist a driver take over if things are getting to hairy for them, letting the auto-pilot run the car while you're impaired would be fine (provided you don't try to take over if the autopilot doesn't trust itself, or launch it into a situation where you should have known that the algorithms might fail.)
* Riding impaired when a "reasonable and prudent" (and non-impaired) person would trust the autopilot would be OK.
* Letting the auto-pilot take you to a medical facility when you're too out-of-it to drive yourself, as well, would not just be OK but in some cases would let your case win on the "necessity defence" even if the law prohibits it.
If America was run by pure Libertarianism we could drive as drunk as we want and launder money all the way home!
If it was run by pure Libertarianism you wouldn't NEED to launder your money. (Unless the money got physically dirty and you wanted to clean it up rather than trade it in.)
As for driving drunk: The choice would be yours. But heaven help you if you caused an accident that killed or injured a person or damaged someone else's property. ("Libertarian" doesn't mean "no responsibility for wrongdoing".) You'd still need to "make it right". The property (and incidental damages and inconvenience) you could fix with money. But "making right" a wrongful death or injury is more problematic.
Slashdot Mirror
Police too may find it much easier to gain the cooperation of the device's manufacturer to listen on you, than to get a warrant and then wire your house without you noticing.
After all, the mainstream news said they already did it with OnStar, a few years back, using it to bug the cars of some suspected crooks with the assistance of the company. (They got in legal trouble for it - not because of the bugging, but because it interfered with the emergency service coverage that OnStar was selling.)
At least with THAT product the benefit side of the equation was getting help dispatched immediately in an auto accident, rather than listening to RIAA music-like product in medium-FI.
Actually it's more like the first car might take a potshot but the second car is full of guys with machineguns ALREADY FIRING as they accelerate to pass.
Even back in the day of the mini- and first micro-computers there already were "Three Little Endians".
The third was DEC Endian, on the PDP-11 (at least initially - I don't recall if it propagated to other things like the VAX).
Due to the 16-bit word size and a byetwise addressing mode that treated the lower byte as zero LSB address (for byte-wise iteration of bignum arithmetic), peripheral I/O operations loaded the record with the even and odd bytes swapped. (ABCDEFGH -> BADCFEHG)
But now they've broken it. Why? To make tracking more accurate.
When you follow the link, the web server gets the tracking data. When you send a copy to someone else and they follow it, the tracking info pointing to you is gone so the web server doesn't think you clicked again.
... single-action "plowshared" versions ...
Oops. Braino.
Make that "semi-automatic" - autoloading, one shot per trigger pull.
"single-action" is "you gotta cock it every time, too."
It's important to note that this doesn't apply to newer devices.
Yet.
Wait long enough and they'll abandon them, too. "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."
In America, people against gun control say "Don't take our guns, we might have to hurt someone!"
In America people sometimes DO "have to hurt someone". And (details vary by state) they generally DO have a legal right to do so.
(In your country they do, to, don't they? At least SOME of them. If they didn't, why do your army and police have guns?)
Typical situation is someone is attacking or threatening them in a way that "would put a reasonable person in fear of life or limb". Then they may use "deadly force" to stop the attack. "Deadly force" is force that risks killing the attacker. With-gun defence USUALLY stops the attack without a shot being fired, but if the defender shoots the attacker, it's about one-in-five he dies.
Defenders in th US who DO end up shooting are over five times less likely to shoot someone they don't have a right to shoot than police are. (CCW holders are also more law-abiding than police by a similar factor. Wait for one of them to commit some with-gun crime and on the average you'll be waiting over seven thousand years.)
With 350 million people, sure we get the occasional nut attacking others. But it seems that:
* This is VERY rare. (Which is why the media plays it up for weeks when it DOES happen.)
* It almost always happens in a "gun-free zone". (They may be crazy, but they're usually not stupid.)
* It's FAR less rare in other countries that heavily restrict guns. (Consider Mxico, for example.)
* We seem to have a lot fewer wars and genocides than other countries, too. Those stack up a LOT of bodies.
* Research indicates that guns are used to stop crimes something like eight times more often than they are used to commit crimes.
So it looks like having the population armed is a net gain in the "reducing violent death, injury, and victimization" department.)
I don't see a problem with allowing guns, but I don't see the reason to allow assault weapons. If I want a tank, can I have one? An RPG? Cannon?
The guys who fought the revolution that led to their leaders writing and approving the Bill of Rights used personally-owned cannon and personally-owned warships in the war - which was the peak military technology of the time. Many of the foot-soldiers' long guns were rifled, and higher-tech than the muskets of their opponents.
They'd just fought a revolution against the "legitimate government", and were doing their best to make it possible to repeat this exercise if their new roll-your-own government also got out of hand. So why SHOULDN'T the citizens have AT LEAST the firepower of the government forces? And why SHOULDN'T the government be banned from preventing this? (And why SHOULDN'T the citizens be expeected to take moves by the government to disarm them as the key evidence that it HAD gotten out of hand?)
Meanwhile, do you know what an "assault weapon" is? How about an "assault rifle"?
An "assault rifle" is a military term for a small (easy to carry and get get through small openings with it), select-fire (switch between single-shot and burst and/or continuous fire), low caliber weapon, designed to wound. (Kill an opposing soldier and you take one out of the fight. Wound one and you take out him, his buddy, a medic, ... And you have fewer relatives that hate your country once peace is achieved.) In some states the single-action "plowshared" versioins are illegal for hunting - because they're too underpowered and lead to the animal suffering a long time rather than dying quickly.
An "assault weapon" is a term of legal art in anti-gun laws. It varies by state. But generally it means "ugly military-looking one-shot-per-trigger-pull gun with some arbitrary collection of features that sound scary, and we'll call it something that people will confuse with a low-power infantry rifle that can burst-fire."
[powerful?!]
They should have gone with precise and robust.
Or "accurate".
Even though "precise" (measures intervals well) is more correct than "accurate" (closeness to the standard, i.e. both precise and properly set), when you're getting technical, it's in more common use and gets the meaning across a lot better than "powerful".)
When I hear "powerful" I get "this thing uses a lot of power". NOT what you want in an instrument on a spacecraft.
(Reminds me of a satire of golden age science fiction, where the aliens have been monitoring our radio transmissions from afar with "crystal sets of enormous power".)
Names of old pantheon gods got used up.
Decent and decently-short acronyms got used up.
Recursive acronyms got used up.
Puns got used up.
We're now stuck with arbitrary word-thing pairing.
We've been there since about the large-scale adoption of linux. Or haven't you noticed the arbitrary naming of major open source applications?
Er... [crypto-currency coins are] already are tantamount to gambling in the eyes of the Average Joe
So are the stocks, bonds, and (other) commodities. So is insurance. So what?
Yes (and sympathy for your Mum). I used "recovered from a stroke" to refer to just such residual partial impairments.
So how does this identify adults with physical disabilities? Same question for people who have recovered from a stroke?
If it systematically identifies such as children and restricts their access there could be a big ADA action if it's ever deployed.
Meanwhile: 16% error rate for a single swipe? With, say, three hundred million users that's 48 million people misidentified. Even with the eight-swipe error rate of 3% you're still talking nine million people.
That's if it's consistent, though. If it's per-trial noise you get to annoy a lot more people, while the kids can get through just by trying over and over.
What platforms even still allow down votes? Every relatively large site I have ever been on that had down voting ended up removing it.
How about Slashdot?
I currently have mod points and the menu still includes offtopic, flamebait, troll, redundant, and overrated.
Does Slashdot no longer qualify as a "relatively large site"?
I note that, at least, trolls and SJWs have a track record of using such moderation, in ways other than its stated purpose, to down-moderate posting of opinions with which they disagree. (This is not to say that people of other leanings don't misuse it in such a way. Just that these are the ones with which I have personal experience.)
Want to test it? Try posting anything questioning a politically-correct paradigm, such as gun control or global warming, in an (on-topic) article near the top of the front page. Then check your score every few minutes for a couple hours.
These down-mods do let some people try to turn Slashdot into an echo-chamber for their ideologies. But so far such efforts have not been totally successful. B-)
"Don't worry, they won't abuse it, even though human history has no examples where it isn't abused by those in power against their political opponents to remain in power."
While this may be true, it is something of an overstatement - because you can't show it to be true for recent stuff. It take a while for info to leak out.
Make it something like:
Don't worry, they won't abuse it, even though human history has no examples (more than 30 years old) where it wasn't shown, within 30 years after the event, that it had been abused by those in power against their political opponents to remain in power.
and it might work.
It's time we start ending school sponsored football programs. There are plenty of other sports that don't involve brain damage.
Soccer, too. That involves hitting the ball with your head, hard, repeatedly, and was shown to be causing brain damage even before (pigskin-style) football.
Of course they'll do whatever they can do put their prey at ease. ;-)
Or bait them to their doom. (Of course the skill is handy for having fun with the handlrs, too.)
Walruses do this, too. And they regularly eat people if they can get hold of them one-on-one, (to the point that the walrus is the symbol of death for some Inuits).
(I hear that, a couple decades back, there was one in New York City's Central Park Zoo that started talking like a drunk, with lines like "Hiya, Buddy" in a very slurred form. Apparently a drunk had been hanging out near the walrus display after-hours and talking to it, and it had started mimicing the commoner phrases. No evidence that it had lured the drunk in for a late snack, though.)
Their intentions aren't so honorable. They're just trying to break up the demand for real universal health care.
What's dishonorable about opposing "real universal health care" - which seems to be newspeak for socialized/nationalized medicine (with all the failures endemic to attempts to nationalize any industry)?
Obama's foray into that quadrupled the price of health insurance for my wife, and has me busting my butt at a startup when we should have been retired for the last half-decade..
I've talked to so many people that have already disabled emergency alerts simply because they were awoken in the middle of the night with a amber or silver alert.
Emergency alerts to phones need to be ONLY for things that require immediate action by the phone's owner regardless if awake or asleep.
Also: During the recent Santa Rosa wildfire, the powers-that-be decided NOT to use the system to alert people at risk, for fear of "starting a panic" and clogging the roads with with people "not at risk" - thus apparently causing substantial loss of property and possibly loss of life. (This reminds me of the mass deaths at the Krakatoa island explosion, due to the island's powers-that-be deciding to keep the population on the island despite the volcanic rumbles, to avoid swaying an imminent election if the well-to-do disproportionally decided to take a short vacation.)
There are alerts I'd want to see if I were awake but wouldn't want to be awakened for.
(Also, I'm not on a day-people schedule. {This morning I got four landline and one cellphone unsolicted advertisements about two hours before my wife and I would normally be awake. I decided that ONE MORE landline call and I'd leave it off the hook, and look into disconnecting it entirely.})
Seems to me they need a feature like this:
- Alerts would be labelled with a position in a two-dimensional matrix: Type of alert, and severity. (They might also be labelled with location and/or area of significance.)
- Users could define THEIR OWN SCHEDULE and disable various classes/severities/distances of alert, not just totally, but optionally in time periods of their own choice.
Why don't we have ANYTHING like this already?
In other words, treat the net like electrical wiring and just deal with what's plugged into it.
Don't allow access to IP addresses, machines, etc. until you know who that user is and whether they're authorized,'" says Charlie Gero, ...
How about: "Treat your internal wiring like it's the wild-and-wooly Internet. Have both the the boxes and the applications/services - encrypt everything and authenticate each other before exchanging information."? (Apps authenticate both the other app and the box it runs on because a corrupted box can get into the app.)
Then you don't have to trust all the other boxes or the wiring between them.
It also means that it's not such a big deal if somebody manages to hang an extra box on your net or inserts it in a cable. The most it can do is use your bandwidth to talk to the outside rather than use its own radio, listen to its surroundings with its own sensors, or DoS what ever is going through the cable into which it's inserted. That means you can let your employees bring in their own equipment without compromising your firewall (or compromise your operation more than a tape recorder, camera, or box with sensors would do without the netk access).
I realize you are joking, but it's interesting that Linus is using Fedora, which was one of the first distros to switch to systemd, meaning he was one of the early systemd adopters.
Linus needs to use something with a lot of the popular bells and whistles, at least part of the time, so he can see what's fouled up. B-)
That means he needs to run some really baroque stuff - the better to keep it from being totally broke(n).
You may as well say "made from unobtainium."
Hardly.
Silicon-germainum is an alloy of silicon and germanium. (Actually, a range of alloys, with differing ratios of silicon and germainum but totalling to 100% - less doping impurities.)
There's a nice Wikipedia article on it.
Silicon-germanium has many of the speed advantages of gallium arsenide, but can be fabbed more like pure silicon (using the same equipment and similar processing steps) and achieve similar costs for a given amount of circuitry. (You can, for instance, grow a silicon-germanium layer on a silicon chip, or do silicon-germanium-on-insulator, as you would silicon-on-saphire.)
In addition to FETs, with a silicon-germanium alloy it's easy to make heterojunction bipolar transistors, with speeds into the hundreds of GHz. These are good for logic, analog signal processing, and mixed-signal designs.
But there will be cars that can drive unattended in some conditions and locations, but not everywhere, and I'm curious how it will be treated.
They'd be treated as the laws and courts decide. Laws and courts can be arbitrary, but they often are reasonable.
I'd expect that:
* If the self-driving algorithms are recognized as smart enough to pull over, safely park, and insist a driver take over if things are getting to hairy for them, letting the auto-pilot run the car while you're impaired would be fine (provided you don't try to take over if the autopilot doesn't trust itself, or launch it into a situation where you should have known that the algorithms might fail.)
* Riding impaired when a "reasonable and prudent" (and non-impaired) person would trust the autopilot would be OK.
* Letting the auto-pilot take you to a medical facility when you're too out-of-it to drive yourself, as well, would not just be OK but in some cases would let your case win on the "necessity defence" even if the law prohibits it.
If America was run by pure Libertarianism we could drive as drunk as we want and launder money all the way home!
If it was run by pure Libertarianism you wouldn't NEED to launder your money. (Unless the money got physically dirty and you wanted to clean it up rather than trade it in.)
As for driving drunk: The choice would be yours. But heaven help you if you caused an accident that killed or injured a person or damaged someone else's property. ("Libertarian" doesn't mean "no responsibility for wrongdoing".) You'd still need to "make it right". The property (and incidental damages and inconvenience) you could fix with money. But "making right" a wrongful death or injury is more problematic.