I guess you've never seen a heads up display in cars. But hey, you just keep on advocating more state power and interference in the daily lives of its citizens. We don't have enough laws, prisons, fines and penalties to keep the citizenry in its proper place. It's for their own good.
My series 7 has a heads up display. But I would not try and argue that it is a computer screen or monitor which is what the law is about. Why? Because, my BMW is not a computer. OTOH, Google Glass, according to Google itself, is a computer and the eyepiece is the screen. Leave emotion out and look at it from a point of law. Is the driver driving the car? Do they have a functioning computer screen in front of them? If the answer is yes to both questions, they are guilty of violating the law.
If people don't like the law, then they should lobby to get it changed, but this isn't about the state or the police putting people in their place. It's about an antiquated law not being updated for current technology. Nobody would be complaining if she were ticketed while having a 17" CRT sitting on the dash or even a 15" LCD monitor. That's what the law was meant to prevent. The fact that technology has advanced but the law hasn't isn't the fault of the officer who is left to enforce it.
So, instead of whining about state abuse of power, exercise your own power and lobby to change the law. The state only has whatever power the people give it.
There are plenty that will accept flash media (USB or card, depending on the model) and play video from it......even if the primary video source is expected to be back-up cam video.
Alternately.....my backup cam (self-install) is just a really long RCA cable....I have a non-powered video switch that I could easily hide and use it to play video from another source (such as a tuner or DVD player).....and switch to back-up cam as needed.
That may be true, and if you are playing a video on your in-dash display, you can get a ticket for it, too.
"by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it"
As a Glass Explorer who wears Glass everyday especially when driving, let me tell you about Glass's nature. 99% of the time the display is off. One of the main principles of Glass is to distract the user as little as possible. The display only illuminates when it's time for a GPS direction "turn left" and then turns off a few seconds later. This makes it easy to argue that they weren't viewing it. Also the Explorer Edition does not have the battery life to illuminate the display very long, if you were to override the displays timeout.
This is the description from wikipedia for Google Glass Explorer Edition:
The Explorer Edition receives data through Wi-Fi, or it can tether via Bluetooth to an Android device or iPhone, and use its 3G or 4G data; the Glass also has a GPS chip.[40] Users issue voice commands by first saying "ok glass", followed by the command, or they can scroll through the options using a finger along the side of the device. The Explorer Edition also features an interchangeable sunglasses accessory that twists on or off. Monthly updates to the Glass are planned after the program starts.[41]
I don't see anywhere in it where the functionality is limited to just a couple of seconds of gps display then it shuts off. Here is what I can surmise after wading through all of the opinions and rants. In California (and most states) it is illegal to drive a vehicle with a computer screen in front of a driver. Google Glass is a computer that uses a special eyepiece to project the screen in front of the wearer's eyeball. Ergo, the driver, while wearing Google Glass was found guilty of driving with a computer screen in front of them.
The law specifically mentions computer screens, not gps screens or cell phone screens or in dash console screens and Google says Glass is a computer in the real sense of the word. So, regardless of whether or not the gps function only blips on for two seconds or not, doesn't really matter. Under the law, was she driving? Yes. Under the law, did she have a computer screen in front of her? Yes. If you don't like the results, change the law.
Too much incorrect to tackle all of it, but the last thing you said is the most incorrect. You cannot consent to give away any right.
Actually, that is the only way to lawfully lose a right, is by consent. Anything else is an invasion - doesn't mean it's illegal. But, if an individual has a right to something or to do something. They have to willingiy give up that right, or consent, to lose it.
For instance, you have the right to drink alcohol in the US. However, you agree to not drink alcohol if you want to operate a vehicle, boat or plane. You have the right to alcohol, but you consent to giving up that right. If you are caught drinking and driving, then you lose the privelidge of driving. You do, however, still have the right to drink.
Google Glass is no more a "TV receiver" or "video monitor" than the other bitmapped LCD screens that you find all around modern cars.
The official description of Google Glass is:
Google Glass is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project, with a mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer.
It would seem that is quite a bit differnt than the bitmapped lcd screen in modern cars.
"so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here."
So why are they not ticketing everyone with a GPS, or other screen in the dashboard? All Prius owners should be ticketed over this right now as they have screens facing them, Also everyone with a double DIN car stereo with touchscreen are also flagrant violators of this law.
If you can't see the difference between a Prius (and similar cars with on board displays) and Google Glass, you shouldn't be allowed to use either.
Can you watch Netflix on Google Glass? As for backup cameras, those in dash screens specifically do not broadcast video, other than the cameras precisely because of the law. California is not alone in this type of legislation.
Just wearing Google Glass does not mean you are texting or checking wikipedia. Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?
Was the Google Glass powered on or off? If on, by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it.
OF course, it ALSO means they are prevented from developing a modern economy and advancing the their production structure to no longer BEING a poor, underdeveloped nation. That doesn't seem to be a consideration.
No matter, we'll just keep using them for manually recycling electronic refuse, dumping toxins, etc. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. ..
Shhhh! I think that's the plan, but it won't work if you let the secret out. As long as 3rd world countries have to depend on 1st world countries for basic needs, it benefits the economies of the 1st world countries. Why would the US want to change that?
It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick fromevery policy ever.
They are contributing least to global emissions, lets keep it that way.
Yes, let's keep the poor nations in their proper place and deny them the advantages that cheap electricity will bring them. After all, the climate change that the 1st world countries won't have any impact on the 3rd world.
Maybe a better approach would be for those countries who can afford something other than coal to shutdown their coal plants and for each one shutdown, the 3rd world countries can build one. That way there is no net increase in coal plants and the wealthy nations who can afford green energy can pay for it.
Since the 90s most of the deregulation that has occurred has not benefited the public interest or the consumer, but instead benefited the shareholder by decreasing competition through mergers and acquisitions. Even in the recent financial collapse, we found out that there were certain businesses that were too big to fail and had to be bailed out by the government. By definition, any business that is so big that it's failure would be catastrophic to the economy and needs bailed out by the government means that there also isn't enough competition in that market.
So, sure, high speed internet costs more in the US than anywhere else, but so do most other things. After all, capitalism is for the benefit of the capitalist, not the public. That's why, previously, there were all of those regulations -- to protect the public. People forget that all of those regulations were put in place to protect against the robber barons. Well, they haven't gone away.
Upstars solves some problems with sysv, but includes a whole array of new ones. Systemd solves almost all problems with few new ones, except for all the parts that is not implemented yet. Systemd is a mess for novices to use and understand, the helper tools are not as good as they should be.
That last part, about being a mess for novices, sounds like an opportunity for somebody looking to do tool development that would be well received, even by non-novices.
Upstart isnt bad, but Systemd is better. Upstart has a cooler name and is easier to support because packages don't have to be patched
Upstart needs to be patched if one intends to run Gnome 3 which, in later versions, has hooks into Systemd. Those hooks have to be added to Upstart to replicate the functionality. Now, that might not be an issue for Canonical which favors Unity (and patches the Gnome 3 libs to work with Unity), but Debian developers might take a different view on that.
Thanks for proving why I changed my views. People like you, who hide behind the cloak of A/C comments. I didn't say I changed my views because people call me names. I said it doesn't help your cause. Which you seem to have completely missed. And if that is the best retort the the "elite" has to offer, it isn't much of one. Thanks for proving my case for me.
Actually, given your sentence structure, you did say you changed your views because of people on slashdot calling you an idiot for your previous views. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that is actually what you communicated. Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt that English is not your primary language, what were you trying to say?
I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy. Yeah, liberal elitism has turned me completely away from anything "socialism". Rarely have the people in ivory towers ever figured the world as it really is, only as it should be.
Okay, I'll bite. You used to believe that we are all in this together (socialism), but now profess every man/person for themself because people on slashdot, who you don't know and more importantly don't know their background have disagreed with you?
As for ivory towers, wouldn't you first have to figure out how the world actually is, before you can figure out how it should be? If you want to change your moral compass, that's fine, do so, but don't blame slashdot or anybody else. That choice is ultimately and only yours.
Facebook makes me personally more engaged and thoughtful of all events, both news and personal.
It's amazing how I can see someone that I connected with on Facebook in real life and have a vague notion of what they are up to. It makes me feel connected. The same goes for news; my friends all read the new several times a day and therefore gives me a hand on the pulse of current events, even though that's not my intent.
That might be good if what was displayed on FB was actually news, but usually it is opinion pieces put their based on what FB's analytics think you would find agreeable and from what they can then monetize. As such, you really aren't getting the pulse of current events, but instead, filtered information that is tailored towards your own points of view.
News, should be objective. FB's versions is not. Plain and simple. (although that doesn't mean FB is the one manipulating it, like certain national media outlets).
I think it is the other way around. Due to the huge amount of funding needed to get elected it is those who donate the most to political campaigns who ultimately are in charge, that is the corporations. Politicians simply do what their corporate backers tell them unless they know it will cause them too many problems with their electorate to get re-elected.
The only reason it takes a large amount of money to get elected is because the government has created a system that requires it. There are other alternatives. If you outlaw the corporate donations and limit campaign spending then it won't take a huge amount of funding.
Of course, the SCOTUS has declared that corporations are people and can make campaign contributions. I wonder then, how come they aren't limited to $2,500 like human people and don't have to pay individual income taxes like other people? If the government can tell churches if they get too involved in politics they lose their tax exempt status and become taxable, maybe they should tell corporations that if they want to be involved in politics like an individual, they need to give up their corporate status, too. Just saying.
So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.
I'm not sure private business would put the common good in their business model for funding research. Besides, politicians don't fund science. The special interest groups pulling the strings of politicians fund science with taxpayer's money. Which really means that somebody with lots of money, somewhere, doesn't like what the research is pointing to because it will impact what they want to do or their bottom line or both and they pay politicians to vote a certain way on spending bills (obviously not directly paying them but through the campaign process).
If you want to get the politics out of scientific research, you first have to get the big money out of politics.
Why should this be different than any other medical research. The US medical system is built on companies, hospitals, etc., profiting on people being sick. Why would research and research publications be any different?
If you want this to change, you need to change the system. It is possible for healthcare to serve the common good instead of the shareholder and still return a yield on investment. It did exactly that until the 1980s.
No, that's not it at all. Dropping the speed limit from "stupidly low" to "Even MORE stupidly low" won't change a thing. Most modern cars can cruise at 80+ all day long on an interstate highway perfectly safely. The problem is the idiot texting, or insisting he has the right to be in the left lane because "he's going the speed limit!"
I'm too lazy to search it out now, but there are NUMEROUS studies showing that increasing speed limits has either no effect or a net POSITIVE effect on safety. (It's only negative for police revenue generation).
Has nothing to do with how fast a modern car can cruise and everything to do with how fast the average person can react. There is a reason why most military pilots don't fly fighter jets. It is all about reaction times and physics dictates that the faster the vehicle goes, the less time the driver has to react. Cars in the 60s and 70s could go 80+, too, and they didn't have the problem with texting, but when speed limits were lowered, accidents went down. It doesn't matter if one is distracted because of texting or because they sneezed, it takes a finite amount of time for a human being to recover, re-assess and react.
There may be numerous studies showing that increasing speed limits has either no effect or a net positive effect on safety, however, they would be outweighed 100 to 1 by scientifically valid studies showing just the opposite. It has zero to do with police revenue and everything to do with physics.
Of course Google's cars are safer, that is until you need to take over -- as evidenced by the new display they are talking about to tell drivers that they need to take over. Of course, that is assuming that the drivers are allert and not doing something else because they haven't had to be paying attention. If the country was interested in highway safety, it has already been proven that lowering the speed limits (and enforcing them) will also produce dramatic results in the reduction of accidents. The main reason being that human drivers will have more time to react.
Simply put, we can already reduce accidents, but the price to pay is safer driving habits. If people aren't willing to exhibit safer driving habits, then they shouldn't be permitted to drive in the first place. In development the old adage is low cost, fast or feature rich, pick any two. The same goes with highway safety. New cars are already out of the price range of the average American, how much will a robotic car cost? Face it, we could have better fuel economy, less highway accidents/injuries/fatalities and lower infrastructure maintenance if all we would do is drop the speed limit from 70 to 60 and enforce it.
But in the future, when the wealthy have their autonomous cars, we will build new prisons to lock up the poor who must be the cause of accidents by driving their antiquated vehicles, or we will just outlaw them all together. Like it or not, at the anticipated price points, autonomous cars are not about highway safety, but maintaining separation of the classes.
That is way to general a view point. It does not take into account passengers, or the need to contact emergency services. Can you imagine a kidnapped child finds her cell phone but can't call because the vehicle is in motion? Or you drive a toyota and the gas pedal sticks? Or that the vehicle you are in gets into an accident on a lonely road and the chip is damaged and still thinks it is moving so shuts phone and text down.
Well, if your concern is kidnapped children, then we better not have autonomous cars, because the kidnapper can be in one place and the car driving someplace totally different. If your accelerator sticks while driving down the highway, what will using the cell phone accomplish? Wouldn't a better, more logical choice be to turn off the car instead of trying to call for help? If your vehicle gets stuck in an accident, then by definition, you aren't moving 10mph for one and the chip, if it is damaged, is highly unlikely to be in a position to jam the signal in the first place.
All of those scenarios are nothing more than red herrings. The only legitimate obstacle and one you didn't mention is that a passenger in the vehicle would also be prohibited from using their phone. But, that would be a small price to pay for increased safety for relatively low cost. Besides, every time we are a passenger on a plane, we agree to not use our phone.
All these years, the government has been telling us that smoking special joints will stunt our growth. Now we find out that special joints led to the dinosaurs growing to extraordinary sizes!
It isn't about benefiting people that can't put their phones down. it is about benefiting the people they run into.
Since most accidents are single vehicle accidents, the number of people that are run into that would benefit would be quite small. Most likely, the benefit is going to be to the occupants of the car with the technology and in reducing property damage.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you've never seen a heads up display in cars. But hey, you just keep on advocating more state power and interference in the daily lives of its citizens. We don't have enough laws, prisons, fines and penalties to keep the citizenry in its proper place. It's for their own good.
My series 7 has a heads up display. But I would not try and argue that it is a computer screen or monitor which is what the law is about. Why? Because, my BMW is not a computer. OTOH, Google Glass, according to Google itself, is a computer and the eyepiece is the screen. Leave emotion out and look at it from a point of law. Is the driver driving the car? Do they have a functioning computer screen in front of them? If the answer is yes to both questions, they are guilty of violating the law.
If people don't like the law, then they should lobby to get it changed, but this isn't about the state or the police putting people in their place. It's about an antiquated law not being updated for current technology. Nobody would be complaining if she were ticketed while having a 17" CRT sitting on the dash or even a 15" LCD monitor. That's what the law was meant to prevent. The fact that technology has advanced but the law hasn't isn't the fault of the officer who is left to enforce it.
So, instead of whining about state abuse of power, exercise your own power and lobby to change the law. The state only has whatever power the people give it.
There are plenty that will accept flash media (USB or card, depending on the model) and play video from it......even if the primary video source is expected to be back-up cam video.
Alternately.....my backup cam (self-install) is just a really long RCA cable....I have a non-powered video switch that I could easily hide and use it to play video from another source (such as a tuner or DVD player).....and switch to back-up cam as needed.
That may be true, and if you are playing a video on your in-dash display, you can get a ticket for it, too.
"by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it"
As a Glass Explorer who wears Glass everyday especially when driving, let me tell you about Glass's nature. 99% of the time the display is off. One of the main principles of Glass is to distract the user as little as possible. The display only illuminates when it's time for a GPS direction "turn left" and then turns off a few seconds later. This makes it easy to argue that they weren't viewing it. Also the Explorer Edition does not have the battery life to illuminate the display very long, if you were to override the displays timeout.
This is the description from wikipedia for Google Glass Explorer Edition:
The Explorer Edition receives data through Wi-Fi, or it can tether via Bluetooth to an Android device or iPhone, and use its 3G or 4G data; the Glass also has a GPS chip.[40] Users issue voice commands by first saying "ok glass", followed by the command, or they can scroll through the options using a finger along the side of the device. The Explorer Edition also features an interchangeable sunglasses accessory that twists on or off. Monthly updates to the Glass are planned after the program starts.[41]
I don't see anywhere in it where the functionality is limited to just a couple of seconds of gps display then it shuts off. Here is what I can surmise after wading through all of the opinions and rants. In California (and most states) it is illegal to drive a vehicle with a computer screen in front of a driver. Google Glass is a computer that uses a special eyepiece to project the screen in front of the wearer's eyeball. Ergo, the driver, while wearing Google Glass was found guilty of driving with a computer screen in front of them.
The law specifically mentions computer screens, not gps screens or cell phone screens or in dash console screens and Google says Glass is a computer in the real sense of the word. So, regardless of whether or not the gps function only blips on for two seconds or not, doesn't really matter. Under the law, was she driving? Yes. Under the law, did she have a computer screen in front of her? Yes. If you don't like the results, change the law.
Too much incorrect to tackle all of it, but the last thing you said is the most incorrect. You cannot consent to give away any right.
Actually, that is the only way to lawfully lose a right, is by consent. Anything else is an invasion - doesn't mean it's illegal. But, if an individual has a right to something or to do something. They have to willingiy give up that right, or consent, to lose it.
For instance, you have the right to drink alcohol in the US. However, you agree to not drink alcohol if you want to operate a vehicle, boat or plane. You have the right to alcohol, but you consent to giving up that right. If you are caught drinking and driving, then you lose the privelidge of driving. You do, however, still have the right to drink.
Google Glass is no more a "TV receiver" or "video monitor" than the other bitmapped LCD screens that you find all around modern cars.
The official description of Google Glass is:
Google Glass is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project, with a mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer.
It would seem that is quite a bit differnt than the bitmapped lcd screen in modern cars.
"so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here."
So why are they not ticketing everyone with a GPS, or other screen in the dashboard? All Prius owners should be ticketed over this right now as they have screens facing them, Also everyone with a double DIN car stereo with touchscreen are also flagrant violators of this law.
If you can't see the difference between a Prius (and similar cars with on board displays) and Google Glass, you shouldn't be allowed to use either.
Agreed, it doesn't fit any of the description of the banned displays.
Back up cameras / displays do fit.
Seems california legislatures are for killing kids. http://autos.aol.com/article/back-up-cameras-law/
Can you watch Netflix on Google Glass? As for backup cameras, those in dash screens specifically do not broadcast video, other than the cameras precisely because of the law. California is not alone in this type of legislation.
Just wearing Google Glass does not mean you are texting or checking wikipedia. Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?
Was the Google Glass powered on or off? If on, by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it.
OF course, it ALSO means they are prevented from developing a modern economy and advancing the their production structure to no longer BEING a poor, underdeveloped nation. That doesn't seem to be a consideration.
No matter, we'll just keep using them for manually recycling electronic refuse, dumping toxins, etc. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. . .
Shhhh! I think that's the plan, but it won't work if you let the secret out. As long as 3rd world countries have to depend on 1st world countries for basic needs, it benefits the economies of the 1st world countries. Why would the US want to change that?
It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from every policy ever.
They are contributing least to global emissions, lets keep it that way.
Yes, let's keep the poor nations in their proper place and deny them the advantages that cheap electricity will bring them. After all, the climate change that the 1st world countries won't have any impact on the 3rd world.
Maybe a better approach would be for those countries who can afford something other than coal to shutdown their coal plants and for each one shutdown, the 3rd world countries can build one. That way there is no net increase in coal plants and the wealthy nations who can afford green energy can pay for it.
Since the 90s most of the deregulation that has occurred has not benefited the public interest or the consumer, but instead benefited the shareholder by decreasing competition through mergers and acquisitions. Even in the recent financial collapse, we found out that there were certain businesses that were too big to fail and had to be bailed out by the government. By definition, any business that is so big that it's failure would be catastrophic to the economy and needs bailed out by the government means that there also isn't enough competition in that market.
So, sure, high speed internet costs more in the US than anywhere else, but so do most other things. After all, capitalism is for the benefit of the capitalist, not the public. That's why, previously, there were all of those regulations -- to protect the public. People forget that all of those regulations were put in place to protect against the robber barons. Well, they haven't gone away.
Upstars solves some problems with sysv, but includes a whole array of new ones. Systemd solves almost all problems with few new ones, except for all the parts that is not implemented yet. Systemd is a mess for novices to use and understand, the helper tools are not as good as they should be.
That last part, about being a mess for novices, sounds like an opportunity for somebody looking to do tool development that would be well received, even by non-novices.
Upstart isnt bad, but Systemd is better. Upstart has a cooler name and is easier to support because packages don't have to be patched
Upstart needs to be patched if one intends to run Gnome 3 which, in later versions, has hooks into Systemd. Those hooks have to be added to Upstart to replicate the functionality. Now, that might not be an issue for Canonical which favors Unity (and patches the Gnome 3 libs to work with Unity), but Debian developers might take a different view on that.
Thanks for proving why I changed my views. People like you, who hide behind the cloak of A/C comments. I didn't say I changed my views because people call me names. I said it doesn't help your cause. Which you seem to have completely missed. And if that is the best retort the the "elite" has to offer, it isn't much of one. Thanks for proving my case for me.
Actually, given your sentence structure, you did say you changed your views because of people on slashdot calling you an idiot for your previous views. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that is actually what you communicated. Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt that English is not your primary language, what were you trying to say?
I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy. Yeah, liberal elitism has turned me completely away from anything "socialism". Rarely have the people in ivory towers ever figured the world as it really is, only as it should be.
Okay, I'll bite. You used to believe that we are all in this together (socialism), but now profess every man/person for themself because people on slashdot, who you don't know and more importantly don't know their background have disagreed with you?
As for ivory towers, wouldn't you first have to figure out how the world actually is, before you can figure out how it should be? If you want to change your moral compass, that's fine, do so, but don't blame slashdot or anybody else. That choice is ultimately and only yours.
Facebook makes me personally more engaged and thoughtful of all events, both news and personal.
It's amazing how I can see someone that I connected with on Facebook in real life and have a vague notion of what they are up to. It makes me feel connected. The same goes for news; my friends all read the new several times a day and therefore gives me a hand on the pulse of current events, even though that's not my intent.
That might be good if what was displayed on FB was actually news, but usually it is opinion pieces put their based on what FB's analytics think you would find agreeable and from what they can then monetize. As such, you really aren't getting the pulse of current events, but instead, filtered information that is tailored towards your own points of view.
News, should be objective. FB's versions is not. Plain and simple. (although that doesn't mean FB is the one manipulating it, like certain national media outlets).
I think it is the other way around. Due to the huge amount of funding needed to get elected it is those who donate the most to political campaigns who ultimately are in charge, that is the corporations. Politicians simply do what their corporate backers tell them unless they know it will cause them too many problems with their electorate to get re-elected.
The only reason it takes a large amount of money to get elected is because the government has created a system that requires it. There are other alternatives. If you outlaw the corporate donations and limit campaign spending then it won't take a huge amount of funding.
Of course, the SCOTUS has declared that corporations are people and can make campaign contributions. I wonder then, how come they aren't limited to $2,500 like human people and don't have to pay individual income taxes like other people? If the government can tell churches if they get too involved in politics they lose their tax exempt status and become taxable, maybe they should tell corporations that if they want to be involved in politics like an individual, they need to give up their corporate status, too. Just saying.
Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.
I disagree. Look into the funding of elections.
Well, in a plutocracy, those funding the elections are the government.
By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.
So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.
I'm not sure private business would put the common good in their business model for funding research. Besides, politicians don't fund science. The special interest groups pulling the strings of politicians fund science with taxpayer's money. Which really means that somebody with lots of money, somewhere, doesn't like what the research is pointing to because it will impact what they want to do or their bottom line or both and they pay politicians to vote a certain way on spending bills (obviously not directly paying them but through the campaign process).
If you want to get the politics out of scientific research, you first have to get the big money out of politics.
Why should this be different than any other medical research. The US medical system is built on companies, hospitals, etc., profiting on people being sick. Why would research and research publications be any different?
If you want this to change, you need to change the system. It is possible for healthcare to serve the common good instead of the shareholder and still return a yield on investment. It did exactly that until the 1980s.
No, that's not it at all. Dropping the speed limit from "stupidly low" to "Even MORE stupidly low" won't change a thing. Most modern cars can cruise at 80+ all day long on an interstate highway perfectly safely. The problem is the idiot texting, or insisting he has the right to be in the left lane because "he's going the speed limit!"
I'm too lazy to search it out now, but there are NUMEROUS studies showing that increasing speed limits has either no effect or a net POSITIVE effect on safety. (It's only negative for police revenue generation).
Has nothing to do with how fast a modern car can cruise and everything to do with how fast the average person can react. There is a reason why most military pilots don't fly fighter jets. It is all about reaction times and physics dictates that the faster the vehicle goes, the less time the driver has to react. Cars in the 60s and 70s could go 80+, too, and they didn't have the problem with texting, but when speed limits were lowered, accidents went down. It doesn't matter if one is distracted because of texting or because they sneezed, it takes a finite amount of time for a human being to recover, re-assess and react.
There may be numerous studies showing that increasing speed limits has either no effect or a net positive effect on safety, however, they would be outweighed 100 to 1 by scientifically valid studies showing just the opposite. It has zero to do with police revenue and everything to do with physics.
Garbage in, Garbage Out
Of course Google's cars are safer, that is until you need to take over -- as evidenced by the new display they are talking about to tell drivers that they need to take over. Of course, that is assuming that the drivers are allert and not doing something else because they haven't had to be paying attention. If the country was interested in highway safety, it has already been proven that lowering the speed limits (and enforcing them) will also produce dramatic results in the reduction of accidents. The main reason being that human drivers will have more time to react.
Simply put, we can already reduce accidents, but the price to pay is safer driving habits. If people aren't willing to exhibit safer driving habits, then they shouldn't be permitted to drive in the first place. In development the old adage is low cost, fast or feature rich, pick any two. The same goes with highway safety. New cars are already out of the price range of the average American, how much will a robotic car cost? Face it, we could have better fuel economy, less highway accidents/injuries/fatalities and lower infrastructure maintenance if all we would do is drop the speed limit from 70 to 60 and enforce it.
But in the future, when the wealthy have their autonomous cars, we will build new prisons to lock up the poor who must be the cause of accidents by driving their antiquated vehicles, or we will just outlaw them all together. Like it or not, at the anticipated price points, autonomous cars are not about highway safety, but maintaining separation of the classes.
That is way to general a view point. It does not take into account passengers, or the need to contact emergency services. Can you imagine a kidnapped child finds her cell phone but can't call because the vehicle is in motion? Or you drive a toyota and the gas pedal sticks? Or that the vehicle you are in gets into an accident on a lonely road and the chip is damaged and still thinks it is moving so shuts phone and text down.
Well, if your concern is kidnapped children, then we better not have autonomous cars, because the kidnapper can be in one place and the car driving someplace totally different. If your accelerator sticks while driving down the highway, what will using the cell phone accomplish? Wouldn't a better, more logical choice be to turn off the car instead of trying to call for help? If your vehicle gets stuck in an accident, then by definition, you aren't moving 10mph for one and the chip, if it is damaged, is highly unlikely to be in a position to jam the signal in the first place.
All of those scenarios are nothing more than red herrings. The only legitimate obstacle and one you didn't mention is that a passenger in the vehicle would also be prohibited from using their phone. But, that would be a small price to pay for increased safety for relatively low cost. Besides, every time we are a passenger on a plane, we agree to not use our phone.
All these years, the government has been telling us that smoking special joints will stunt our growth. Now we find out that special joints led to the dinosaurs growing to extraordinary sizes!
It isn't about benefiting people that can't put their phones down. it is about benefiting the people they run into.
Since most accidents are single vehicle accidents, the number of people that are run into that would benefit would be quite small. Most likely, the benefit is going to be to the occupants of the car with the technology and in reducing property damage.