OK, but in most countries gas is more expensive than the US. That makes a big difference. Robert Llewellyn reckoned his Nissan Leaf had passed the point at which it was cheaper than a petrol equivalent in 3 years. Although he's also generating his own power with solar cells.
In the UK the vast majority of the traditional stations have already gone. They've been replaced by stations in the car parks of supermarkets. That's been due to price competition.
But as it happens that's a very good place for EV chargers. You can get a fair top up whilst doing your shopping. Or vice versa. And the charge may well be free so long as you spend enough in store.
There's no point listing the cons without listing the pros too. EVs are nicer to drive, cleaner (in all senses), often have a lower total cost of ownership, need far less servicing, and you can make it's fuel yourself at home.
I've heard similar. Likewise there won't be much to be made on EV charge points. But they will be more likely to sell food whilst an EV is being charged.
If you say "500 companies last year were fined for discrimination", that number could be a lot or a little.
You said it was impossible to enforce. The facts are that is is not impossible, because people do succeed in claiming compensation for such discrimination.
That doesn't make it common, which is what you implied.
This isn't about what you think I implied, it's about the wrong thing that you actually said.
It is impossible to police against anyone who remotely knows what they are doing. There are always stupid people who actually admit what they are doing, but if you use the right words, it isn't that hard.
Wrong again. There's a couple of obvious ways of finding evidence of this. One is that you make the same application under different names, only varying the one characteristic that you think is being discriminated against. That's strong evidence if the applications are treated differently.
The second, where the is a larger company that has a significant number of people in similar roles, is simply to loon at the demographics of who is employed, and compare with applications.
There may well be other ways, depending on the case.
Again, this established law (depending on jurisdiction) and has been successfully actioned on. The weak no-true scotsman argument makes no odds.
It's not an anecdote. I'm not telling you about something I experienced, but the fact of actual applicants claiming successfully against discriminatory employers. Now you're talking about percentage of times, and the fact that you don't know how often the law is broken. Yet that applies to all law.
I know you hate workers rights, and that's why you are arguing. But the fact is you are wrong about it being impossible to police.
So if you are going to bias, it should be for methodology or at least, true openness to work in the desired methodology.
Or indeed any other work related attribute of the individual. That's not discrimination, that's perfectly legitimate candidate selection.
Bigotry, and indeed illegal discrimination, are all about things that are accidents of birth, and wouldn't necessarily affect job performance. Gender, color, race, age.
And generally where those things do actually affect whether a person can do a job there are explicit exceptions in the law. e.g. It's perfectly legal and indeed normal to select actors by gender or race.
"Yes, we are aware that these do not apply for each individual. However when you need to hire somebody, you want the least risk. The experience we have is that it costs us less with men."
"Yes, we are aware that these do not apply for each individual. However when you need to hire somebody, you want the least risk. The experience we have is that it costs us less with white people."
Sorry, but no, your prejudiced ideas are both immoral, and depending on where you are, illegal.
Well in my country employers are found liable under this legislation reasonably often, so I don't know where you get the idea it's impossible to enforce.
Not only that it seems to be having an effect with older people often employed in jobs which used to go to young people.
However the issue we had with older people was that they were so much harder to train. And someti,es right impossible. Learning new things is much harder for older people as they are more often than not fixed in their ways.
Bullshit generalisations that are exactly the reason for age discrimination laws (where they exist). Some old people are hard to train, some young people are. Some old people are set in their ways, some young people are.
Go ask any college professor, they'll tell you that as often as not the mature students are the best learners.
Back to the age thing: due to the negative experience with older people, if there was a choice between a 20 something and a 50 something, we would go for the 20 something due to previous experience.
Again, the law exists to combat prejudice exactly like that.
It may be that certain personality types don't fit in at Google, and as people get older their personalities tend to develop into those types.
I'm afraid that's you also being ageist. You can't generalise, any more than you can generalise by gender or race. People have all sorts of personalities, and they develop in all sorts of different directions through their lives.
Dangerous. You keep using that word. I don't believe it means what you think it means.
That's another thing you're wrong about then. Dangerous means exactly what I think it does. Cars can and do kill people. Cars have design defects that can and do kill people. Autonomous cars are new technology that is very likely to have design defects.
Consider that EVERY new innovation has safety implications.
And to the level that new innovations have safety implications they should be and are regulated.
You have an irrational belief that companies will do the right thing in the absence of regulations. History shows you are wrong. Regulations came about, despite plenty of resistance, because businesses kept on killing people unnecessarily. For example the Bradford Poisoner case, where where due to padding out foodstuffs with cheap filler (in an analogous way to how drugs are cut) and bad working practice at a pharmacy, 21 people were killed by eating humbugs (a type of candy). It's because of such cases that businesses are regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Broadly applied, this mentality would seize the works entirely.
It is broadly applied, and the works are not seized. Therefore you are wrong.
Your libertarian beliefs are at the full on insane level. They have long since parted with any resemblance to reality.
Good governance on dangerous new technology is precautionary. You don't wait till people are killed to create regulations. You regulate first, then ease off the regulations as safety is demonstrated.
My grandfather was killed by a a drunken driver, that presumably liked to drive.. As soon as autonomous cars can fulfil the role, and are safer than human drivers, bring them on. Make manual driving a thing of the past. Leave it as a thing to be done on track days.
One can hope that it follows the same trend as the red flag laws - as the technology is validated the restrictions will drop one by one.
Exactly. The red flag was a perfectly reasonable precaution when cars were entirely experimental and unpredictable, and the public were unaware of them. When they were not needed the restriction was removed.
These rules are for test-drivers. They are not rules intended for use of production autonomous vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but in most countries gas is more expensive than the US. That makes a big difference. Robert Llewellyn reckoned his Nissan Leaf had passed the point at which it was cheaper than a petrol equivalent in 3 years. Although he's also generating his own power with solar cells.
In the UK the vast majority of the traditional stations have already gone. They've been replaced by stations in the car parks of supermarkets. That's been due to price competition.
But as it happens that's a very good place for EV chargers. You can get a fair top up whilst doing your shopping. Or vice versa. And the charge may well be free so long as you spend enough in store.
They can recharge when they load, when the driver stops for breaks, overnight at truck stops, and when the truck is being unloaded.
There's no point listing the cons without listing the pros too. EVs are nicer to drive, cleaner (in all senses), often have a lower total cost of ownership, need far less servicing, and you can make it's fuel yourself at home.
I've heard similar. Likewise there won't be much to be made on EV charge points. But they will be more likely to sell food whilst an EV is being charged.
Ha ha. I remember you arguing how Android was going to the platform for games because of Ouya.
So it really was a shit as I sad it would be.
Lord you are an idiot... people are idiots, juries are idiots, and idiots work at such companies.... You however, are a complete idiot
Quite amusing to see you blame everybody but yourself for your logic failure. You're a bigot, you don't think things through, we know that already.
It's neither anecdote nor data, it's a fact.
If you say "500 companies last year were fined for discrimination", that number could be a lot or a little.
You said it was impossible to enforce. The facts are that is is not impossible, because people do succeed in claiming compensation for such discrimination.
That doesn't make it common, which is what you implied.
This isn't about what you think I implied, it's about the wrong thing that you actually said.
It is impossible to police against anyone who remotely knows what they are doing. There are always stupid people who actually admit what they are doing, but if you use the right words, it isn't that hard.
Wrong again. There's a couple of obvious ways of finding evidence of this. One is that you make the same application under different names, only varying the one characteristic that you think is being discriminated against. That's strong evidence if the applications are treated differently.
The second, where the is a larger company that has a significant number of people in similar roles, is simply to loon at the demographics of who is employed, and compare with applications.
There may well be other ways, depending on the case.
Again, this established law (depending on jurisdiction) and has been successfully actioned on. The weak no-true scotsman argument makes no odds.
Conspiracy theory now? Idiot.
It's not an anecdote. I'm not telling you about something I experienced, but the fact of actual applicants claiming successfully against discriminatory employers. Now you're talking about percentage of times, and the fact that you don't know how often the law is broken. Yet that applies to all law.
I know you hate workers rights, and that's why you are arguing. But the fact is you are wrong about it being impossible to police.
You're asking why a flamebait answer got modded flamebait?
It often happens that more sensible moderation comes along later, as grown ups are often working, and not reading Slashdot right through the day.
So if you are going to bias, it should be for methodology or at least, true openness to work in the desired methodology.
Or indeed any other work related attribute of the individual. That's not discrimination, that's perfectly legitimate candidate selection.
Bigotry, and indeed illegal discrimination, are all about things that are accidents of birth, and wouldn't necessarily affect job performance. Gender, color, race, age.
And generally where those things do actually affect whether a person can do a job there are explicit exceptions in the law. e.g. It's perfectly legal and indeed normal to select actors by gender or race.
"Yes, we are aware that these do not apply for each individual. However when you need to hire somebody, you want the least risk. The experience we have is that it costs us less with men."
"Yes, we are aware that these do not apply for each individual. However when you need to hire somebody, you want the least risk. The experience we have is that it costs us less with white people."
Sorry, but no, your prejudiced ideas are both immoral, and depending on where you are, illegal.
Well in my country employers are found liable under this legislation reasonably often, so I don't know where you get the idea it's impossible to enforce.
Not only that it seems to be having an effect with older people often employed in jobs which used to go to young people.
However the issue we had with older people was that they were so much harder to train. And someti,es right impossible.
Learning new things is much harder for older people as they are more often than not fixed in their ways.
Bullshit generalisations that are exactly the reason for age discrimination laws (where they exist). Some old people are hard to train, some young people are. Some old people are set in their ways, some young people are.
Go ask any college professor, they'll tell you that as often as not the mature students are the best learners.
Back to the age thing: due to the negative experience with older people, if there was a choice between a 20 something and a 50 something, we would go for the 20 something due to previous experience.
Again, the law exists to combat prejudice exactly like that.
It may be that certain personality types don't fit in at Google, and as people get older their personalities tend to develop into those types.
I'm afraid that's you also being ageist. You can't generalise, any more than you can generalise by gender or race. People have all sorts of personalities, and they develop in all sorts of different directions through their lives.
He did. But nobody could every remember the name of the command.
Dangerous. You keep using that word. I don't believe it means what you think it means.
That's another thing you're wrong about then. Dangerous means exactly what I think it does. Cars can and do kill people. Cars have design defects that can and do kill people. Autonomous cars are new technology that is very likely to have design defects.
Consider that EVERY new innovation has safety implications.
And to the level that new innovations have safety implications they should be and are regulated.
You have an irrational belief that companies will do the right thing in the absence of regulations. History shows you are wrong. Regulations came about, despite plenty of resistance, because businesses kept on killing people unnecessarily. For example the Bradford Poisoner case, where where due to padding out foodstuffs with cheap filler (in an analogous way to how drugs are cut) and bad working practice at a pharmacy, 21 people were killed by eating humbugs (a type of candy). It's because of such cases that businesses are regulated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Broadly applied, this mentality would seize the works entirely.
It is broadly applied, and the works are not seized. Therefore you are wrong.
Right. You talking out of your ass is bound to be more reliable than actually testing the scenarios out.
Idiot.
That's an American solution, not a British one.
Your libertarian beliefs are at the full on insane level. They have long since parted with any resemblance to reality.
Good governance on dangerous new technology is precautionary. You don't wait till people are killed to create regulations. You regulate first, then ease off the regulations as safety is demonstrated.
but with a bomb now built into the steering column, people are picking up on that being a good way to have both of your arms broken or worse.
I think mythbusters busted that one. The expanding bag pushes your hands/arms harmlessly to the side, no matter what position on the wheel they are.
It's just the usual fear of the new. Future generations will have no fear of airbags.
doesn't this pretty much defeat the whole idea of having a self driving car?
These are rules for test-drivers whilst autonomous cars are under development. They are not rules for drivers of production cars.
My grandfather was killed by a a drunken driver, that presumably liked to drive.. As soon as autonomous cars can fulfil the role, and are safer than human drivers, bring them on. Make manual driving a thing of the past. Leave it as a thing to be done on track days.
One can hope that it follows the same trend as the red flag laws - as the technology is validated the restrictions will drop one by one.
Exactly. The red flag was a perfectly reasonable precaution when cars were entirely experimental and unpredictable, and the public were unaware of them. When they were not needed the restriction was removed.
These rules are for test-drivers. They are not rules intended for use of production autonomous vehicles.