We never know anything for sure, but the evidence seems to be utterly non-existent unless you're really desperate to get punked again by the same people who lied to you about Iraq
FTFY
Because our worry isn't that Trump gets caught for conspiring with a foreign power to win an election, our worry is he gets away with it and then he pulls the same thing again in 2020.
Russiagate plothole #2,567: why would Russia try to swing the election to either the Democrats or the Republicans when both parties have been virulently anti-Russian for over a century.
Russiagate plothole #3,789: why is it that Putin was so diabolically clever that he knew years in advance that a bankrupt professional wresting character could be president, yet at the same time be so stupid as to not predict any blowback.
The US's status as a democracy is in way more danger than you realize.
Too bad the focus is on the Russian boogyman instead of voter disenfranchisement, easily hackable electronic voting machines, bogus voter ID laws, the corporate media giving Donald $6 billion in free coverage, gerrymandering, the Electoral College...shit that actually impacts actual elections.
Russia has a long history of telegraphing their intentions.
Except the long history here is of that particular chemical weapon being out of the bag. Anyone could have done it, and no one has presented any evidence that Russia was responsible. Given how many times the same sorts of people have told blatant lies (Iraqi WMD's) or had to retract Russiagate claims that have fallen apart, waiting for evidence is only justifiable response here.
Because to Trumps' supporters anything he does is great.
No change from his predecessor's sycophants. Obama was a particularly brazen liar, but it really took the cake when he said Venezuela was a threat to the United States to justify sanctioning the country. As for Yemen, Trump is just continuing where Obama left off.
Translation: you were happy to sacrifice your time so the company could make more money, without you being appropriately compensated in return. How very Calvinist of you.
Even if this isn't just more propaganda from the usual pathological liars, the U.S. is hardly in a position to complain here after deliberately sabotaging Iran's civilian centrifuges.
If Iran had done that to the United States, we would have invaded their asses a long time ago.
Russia hacked the DNC, and our election systems. citation provided
Citation is bogus.
1) Get past the hyperbole and the ergmagerd hacking is actually....port scanning. Something that happens to every IP address on the planet.
2) Even if the FSB was trying to hack into election systems, they wouldn't be so stupid as to do it from Russian IP addresses. Which is plot hole #2,462 of Russiagate: Putin was so diabolically strategic and prescient as to know years in advance that a sexist, racist failed businessman could be POTUS, and yet be so incompetent as to collude with someone as incompetent as Trump, or do all his hacking from Russian universities and not have an agent do it from a laptop on another continent.
They also haven't hacked our election systems, unlike Russia.
Neither has Russia. Plot hole #3,459 of Russiagate is the fact that both parties in the United States have been virulently anti-Russian for over a century. It's like accusing Malcolm X of interfering in an election between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace - both people hated his guts so why would he bother??
What are you talking about? I've been perfectly clear what the problem is with the term whataboutery: it is propaganda thrown out whenever someone points out western hypocrisy on the subject of human rights.
And yes, fuck your noise about that being a fallacy - that's an argument only made by people trying to excuse an indefensible position.
The point is the mindblowing hypocrisy of Western Exceptionalists when throwing stones from within their glass houses, at other countries for "human rights". Which means it's all western propaganda.
What you just said is nothing but empty hyperbole. If I was you, I would be embarrassed that I wasted my time to put that into a comment and post it only to push my agenda and beliefs.
Your capitalist butthurt is noted.
"deep state spying" is inherently left.
Uh, no. Not when its coming from a capitalist company that works hand-in-glove with agencies that overthrows democracies around the world if they even glance at Cuba.
Still less than a tree, which does not move. Actually depending on the animal, your best option is often to accelerate so the body of the animal rolls up the hood and windshield and over the car. Doesn't always work.
Yeah, depending on the size I'd still take the tree because there's a crumple zone and an airbag between the tree and my face, as opposed to a large animal only being slowed down somewhat by the windshield. If it's Bambi though he's gonna take one for the team.
That does not work with meese or horses (Yes I know I misspelled the Plural of moose).
I hate meeses to pieces, on roads anyway. A moose once ran out from behind a tree right into a highway I was driving on in an SUV. Fortunately I had enough time to slow down, as the fucker was tall enough to flip straight onto the hood and through the windshield - probably wouldn't have even dented the bumper but I would have been worm food.
My experience would be the driver is putting on makeup while talking on the cellphone with one hand and eating a taco in the other hand. You don't even want to know how they are also putting on makeup at the same time.
But not that unreal. The fact is drivers are constantly distracted. On their phones talking (even hands free is still cogniantly distracted)
The other side to this is: say you had a hundred human drivers on the same road with the same conditions and the same pedestrian. Maybe one of them would have been so distracted or drunk as to also hit and kill this woman, but most would have seen her in time to at least slow down. As opposed to taking a hundred Uber self-driving cars under the same condition - they all would have hit the pedestrian at full speed if they had the same setup. Sounds like Uber needs to go back to the drawing board and pay a hefty settlement. I don't blame the human minder as it's impossible to stay attentive for hours and hours at a time.
Not just a little bit better, but by leaps and bounds? A human has a limited field of vision - no such limit applies to a car with multiple cameras and sensors.
Yes they should and will ultimately do much better. But they are still in testing. And the standard to meet at this time is still to match humans. If a Human driver actively driving the car could not have avoided it and would not be liable, then the car should not.
Human driver would probably be facing prosecution for negligence - not paying attention and poorly configured headlights. Maybe not full vehicular manslaughter charges as the pedestrian was also at fault, but would still see some consequences coming.
Now you're just being willfully obtuse. I'll copy and paste since you skipped it the first time: you should be able to deal with the occasional car accident, stalled engine, dog running across the highway, or a deer having the deer-in-the-headlights affect. Being able to deal with road hazards is a basic part of driving - a test Uber basically failed.
where this situation is picture perfect for NOT expecting someone to jump out in the middle of the road.
Now who's trolling - no one jumped in the road. A pedestrian was crossing in an area well-lit enough that an even moderately attentive driver would have seen her in time to slow down and drive around her inattentive ass.
When you live in rural North Georgia or rural New Hampshire for as many years as I have, there's one rule you learn - don't swerve to avoid obstacles in the road (namely deer).
Except: this was at half of highway speeds, so it would be difficult to roll your vehicle even if you're driving a large SUV. No cliffs or trees to worry about, so the worst thing that would happen is if you hit the cement wall on the side of the road.
Clearly you haven't thought about your front bumper wrapped around a tree vs a 500 pound animal coming at your face with thousands of pounds of force behind it.
it's unlikely that an alert driver would have seen her and reacted fast enough to not hit her
Would have made a huge difference if she was hit at 10 mph instead of the whole 38 mph (because human slammed on the breaks). Or if she had been clipped (because the driver swerved) as opposed to struck head-on.
By the time the jaywalker was visible no one would be able to stop.
1) It's a shitty video, human eyes may have seen a better picture
2) A second and a half of breaking from 38 mph may not have been enough to stop the vehicle, but it would have been enough time to slow down and swerve. The pedestrian may have been hit regardless, but they also may have survived.
What situation is it when late at night on a mostly empty road do YOU usually expect an unpredictable human just walking across the road without looking?
One on planet earth, where you should be able to deal with the occasional car accident, stalled engine, dog running across the highway, or a deer having the deer-in-the-headlights affect. Being able to deal with road hazards is a basic part of driving - a test Uber basically failed. No, it doesn't matter that an Uber-less driver could have hit the same pedestrian with the same result, as self-driving cars can maintain perfect 360 degree observation at all times, and have senses that humans don't (infrared or radar).
I do love how everyone is expecting the self driving car to outperform humans and using this incident as an example of their inferiority despite a continuous stream of similar accidents where humans shat the bed even worse.
Uh, because they should be better? Not just a little bit better, but by leaps and bounds? A human has a limited field of vision - no such limit applies to a car with multiple cameras and sensors.
My experience would be the driver is putting on makeup while talking on the cellphone with one hand and eating a taco in the other hand. You don't even want to know how they are also putting on makeup at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY
Russiagate plothole #2,567: why would Russia try to swing the election to either the Democrats or the Republicans when both parties have been virulently anti-Russian for over a century.
Russiagate plothole #3,789: why is it that Putin was so diabolically clever that he knew years in advance that a bankrupt professional wresting character could be president, yet at the same time be so stupid as to not predict any blowback.
Too bad the focus is on the Russian boogyman instead of voter disenfranchisement, easily hackable electronic voting machines, bogus voter ID laws, the corporate media giving Donald $6 billion in free coverage, gerrymandering, the Electoral College...shit that actually impacts actual elections.
Uh, the evidence was mentioned in the very next sentence. Reading comprehension, it's not just for kids anymore.
Except the long history here is of that particular chemical weapon being out of the bag. Anyone could have done it, and no one has presented any evidence that Russia was responsible. Given how many times the same sorts of people have told blatant lies (Iraqi WMD's) or had to retract Russiagate claims that have fallen apart, waiting for evidence is only justifiable response here.
No change from his predecessor's sycophants. Obama was a particularly brazen liar, but it really took the cake when he said Venezuela was a threat to the United States to justify sanctioning the country. As for Yemen, Trump is just continuing where Obama left off.
Translation: you were happy to sacrifice your time so the company could make more money, without you being appropriately compensated in return. How very Calvinist of you.
Don't tell me you're like the gaslighting Obamabots, still going off of what the man said vs what he did.
So what about the millions of people who don't buy cars from Honda, or vehicles at all? Does that mean Honda has a failed business model?
Even if this isn't just more propaganda from the usual pathological liars, the U.S. is hardly in a position to complain here after deliberately sabotaging Iran's civilian centrifuges.
If Iran had done that to the United States, we would have invaded their asses a long time ago.
Citation is bogus.
1) Get past the hyperbole and the ergmagerd hacking is actually....port scanning. Something that happens to every IP address on the planet.
2) Even if the FSB was trying to hack into election systems, they wouldn't be so stupid as to do it from Russian IP addresses. Which is plot hole #2,462 of Russiagate: Putin was so diabolically strategic and prescient as to know years in advance that a sexist, racist failed businessman could be POTUS, and yet be so incompetent as to collude with someone as incompetent as Trump, or do all his hacking from Russian universities and not have an agent do it from a laptop on another continent.
Neither has Russia. Plot hole #3,459 of Russiagate is the fact that both parties in the United States have been virulently anti-Russian for over a century. It's like accusing Malcolm X of interfering in an election between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace - both people hated his guts so why would he bother??
What are you talking about? I've been perfectly clear what the problem is with the term whataboutery: it is propaganda thrown out whenever someone points out western hypocrisy on the subject of human rights.
And yes, fuck your noise about that being a fallacy - that's an argument only made by people trying to excuse an indefensible position.
----> the analogy
----> your head
The point is the mindblowing hypocrisy of Western Exceptionalists when throwing stones from within their glass houses, at other countries for "human rights". Which means it's all western propaganda.
Your denialism is noted. Unless you're saying that a completely socialist organization wasn't inherently left-wing, of course.
Your capitalist butthurt is noted.
Uh, no. Not when its coming from a capitalist company that works hand-in-glove with agencies that overthrows democracies around the world if they even glance at Cuba.
Yeah, depending on the size I'd still take the tree because there's a crumple zone and an airbag between the tree and my face, as opposed to a large animal only being slowed down somewhat by the windshield. If it's Bambi though he's gonna take one for the team.
I hate meeses to pieces, on roads anyway. A moose once ran out from behind a tree right into a highway I was driving on in an SUV. Fortunately I had enough time to slow down, as the fucker was tall enough to flip straight onto the hood and through the windshield - probably wouldn't have even dented the bumper but I would have been worm food.
The other side to this is: say you had a hundred human drivers on the same road with the same conditions and the same pedestrian. Maybe one of them would have been so distracted or drunk as to also hit and kill this woman, but most would have seen her in time to at least slow down. As opposed to taking a hundred Uber self-driving cars under the same condition - they all would have hit the pedestrian at full speed if they had the same setup. Sounds like Uber needs to go back to the drawing board and pay a hefty settlement. I don't blame the human minder as it's impossible to stay attentive for hours and hours at a time.
Human driver would probably be facing prosecution for negligence - not paying attention and poorly configured headlights. Maybe not full vehicular manslaughter charges as the pedestrian was also at fault, but would still see some consequences coming.
Your smarmy avoidance is noted.
He volunteered to be an imperial occupier, which is much worse than being a mere contractor.
Now you're just being willfully obtuse. I'll copy and paste since you skipped it the first time: you should be able to deal with the occasional car accident, stalled engine, dog running across the highway, or a deer having the deer-in-the-headlights affect. Being able to deal with road hazards is a basic part of driving - a test Uber basically failed.
Now who's trolling - no one jumped in the road. A pedestrian was crossing in an area well-lit enough that an even moderately attentive driver would have seen her in time to slow down and drive around her inattentive ass.
Except: this was at half of highway speeds, so it would be difficult to roll your vehicle even if you're driving a large SUV. No cliffs or trees to worry about, so the worst thing that would happen is if you hit the cement wall on the side of the road.
Clearly you haven't thought about your front bumper wrapped around a tree vs a 500 pound animal coming at your face with thousands of pounds of force behind it.
Would have made a huge difference if she was hit at 10 mph instead of the whole 38 mph (because human slammed on the breaks). Or if she had been clipped (because the driver swerved) as opposed to struck head-on.
1) It's a shitty video, human eyes may have seen a better picture
2) A second and a half of breaking from 38 mph may not have been enough to stop the vehicle, but it would have been enough time to slow down and swerve. The pedestrian may have been hit regardless, but they also may have survived.
One on planet earth, where you should be able to deal with the occasional car accident, stalled engine, dog running across the highway, or a deer having the deer-in-the-headlights affect. Being able to deal with road hazards is a basic part of driving - a test Uber basically failed. No, it doesn't matter that an Uber-less driver could have hit the same pedestrian with the same result, as self-driving cars can maintain perfect 360 degree observation at all times, and have senses that humans don't (infrared or radar).
Uh, because they should be better? Not just a little bit better, but by leaps and bounds? A human has a limited field of vision - no such limit applies to a car with multiple cameras and sensors.
Argumentum ad absurdum.
You wouldn't know left if every dead communist came back to life as a zombie and bit you on the ass.