> Clear some of those Vars the Car has to deal with.
We need to face that the real-world environment is just too complex for technology to ever cope with all the "vars" as you put it. They just need to kill the whole idea of self-driving cars..
That's great and all, until Trade Unions, just like any other person or group of people given representative power, inevitably transition out of acting on behalf of those who empowered them, and start acting on behalf of only themselves.
It seems clear that a large percentage of average Americans are simply not interested in facts, and and instead decide what news to trust only on whether something has "truthiness", how it makes them feel, and mostly whether it happens to support or at least not question their own already formulated world view. You can see exactly the same effect here on slashdot. Any post that demonstrates actual evidence for validity of thinking outside of the PeeCee mainstream agenda will nearly garner multiple -1 troll mods, even if it is politely written and factually correct, apparetly because its reporting a fact that someone simply doesn't like.
Its blindingly obvious that many mainstream news anchors are spinning and changing the truth to fit their paymasters agendas. They are therefore not only totally unprofessional and unstrustable, but corrupt. Just look at the giant difference between the way supposedly professional anchors like Rachel Maddow present the same news items compared to the way the rest of the world does, such as the BBC or Al Jazeera. That alone should be enough to tell you to never believe anything she or people like her say, much less base any actual opinions or actions on it.
> nothing in federal law allows them to exempt themselves from standard time
at least that I've found, nothing in federal law actually obliges them to follow it either. It seems both the Standard Time act of 1918 or the Uniform Time Act of 1966 just define timezone boundaries, neither oblige states to actually follow/use the time they define.
> But, actual experience on the road should suggest that the existing base of human drivers simply are not competent to drive
As a European now living in the US I wholeheartedly agree with your point as long as you mean just the USA.
Now, which of these 2 things would be a simpler solution that also addresses the root cause?
1) dont fix the actual problem, just throw technology at it, even though everyone with an actual clue knows the world is far too complex for computers to ever be able to understand (and therefore safely deal with) every situation.
I'm amazed she could even keep a straight face when she said that. She immediately followed up with: "One of the main economic benefits praised by proponents of driverless vehicles..." ah ha. NOW we're getting to why this legislation passed.
Personally I wouldn't choose to live the lifestyle that working for Google etc forces on you, no matter what they paid me.
Apart from anything else, being surrounded by the obligatory bunch of neckbearded hipster millennials who all think they're "alternative" yet all look, dress, speak, think and act exactly the same, and all march lock-step according to extreme peecee liberal brainwashing, would drive me nuts.
> What I can't stand about these surveys and studies is that they all seemed pre-ordained to get the results the researchers are looking for
Well said and I can't agree more. I took Psychology as a first year option in my CS degree course. It was mostly full of women that were doing liberal arts and social studies. These are the types of people doing all these kids of studies.
As someone doing a logic/math related subject (CS), it was blindingly obvious that Psychologists routinely perform a giant hand-waving masquerade with their experimental methodology to make their results appear "scientific" and rigorously obtained, and are totally OK with that.
In fact their method and analysis is so totally full of obvious arbitrary holes and logical contradictions, that any truly scientific discipline would simply consider both the approach and the results themselves completely meaningless/valueless.
The only thing that would noticeably change is an insufferable loud and long-term reaction from all the religious nutjobs claiming that it definitely proves the existence of God and that he made us, and that any/all evolution is necessarily false.
Censorship of free speech is not good.You not liking what someone else is saying is no excuse to shut them up by force. You're free to not listen, walk away, and avoid them in future. Or if you feel others need an alternate view, get on your own soapbox.... Something that the laws you want would prevent.
If you look at Hamilton 68 (http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/) which only tracks the known Russian twitter bots, the very top (i.e most frequent) hashtag is gunreformnow, and at #8 is guncontrol, and there's zero sign of any pro-gun hashtags. I'm not seeing anything that actually justifies the Wired article's obviously liberal-biassed claims.
Slashdot Mirror
> Clear some of those Vars the Car has to deal with.
We need to face that the real-world environment is just too complex for technology to ever cope with all the "vars" as you put it. They just need to kill the whole idea of self-driving cars..
>> The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said.
I love (not) how they kill someone then this idiot spokesman is apparently trying to make it sound even possibly like it was her fault.
That's great and all, until Trade Unions, just like any other person or group of people given representative power, inevitably transition out of acting on behalf of those who empowered them, and start acting on behalf of only themselves.
It seems clear that a large percentage of average Americans are simply not interested in facts, and and instead decide what news to trust only on whether something has "truthiness", how it makes them feel, and mostly whether it happens to support or at least not question their own already formulated world view.
You can see exactly the same effect here on slashdot.
Any post that demonstrates actual evidence for validity of thinking outside of the PeeCee mainstream agenda will nearly garner multiple -1 troll mods, even if it is politely written and factually correct, apparetly because its reporting a fact that someone simply doesn't like.
Its blindingly obvious that many mainstream news anchors are spinning and changing the truth to fit their paymasters agendas. They are therefore not only totally unprofessional and unstrustable, but corrupt.
Just look at the giant difference between the way supposedly professional anchors like Rachel Maddow present the same news items compared to the way the rest of the world does, such as the BBC or Al Jazeera. That alone should be enough to tell you to never believe anything she or people like her say, much less base any actual opinions or actions on it.
> nothing in federal law allows them to exempt themselves from standard time
at least that I've found, nothing in federal law actually obliges them to follow it either. It seems both the Standard Time act of 1918 or the Uniform Time Act of 1966 just define timezone boundaries, neither oblige states to actually follow/use the time they define.
ET can finally phone home.
> But, actual experience on the road should suggest that the existing base of human drivers simply are not competent to drive
As a European now living in the US I wholeheartedly agree with your point as long as you mean just the USA.
Now, which of these 2 things would be a simpler solution that also addresses the root cause?
1) dont fix the actual problem, just throw technology at it, even though everyone with an actual clue knows the world is far too complex for computers to ever be able to understand (and therefore safely deal with) every situation.
2) Only allow good drivers to drive.
>> getting good at coding doesn't make you good at anything else.
If that's all you believe that Software Engineers actually do, then you are part of the problem.
I'm amazed she could even keep a straight face when she said that.
She immediately followed up with:
"One of the main economic benefits praised by proponents of driverless vehicles..."
ah ha. NOW we're getting to why this legislation passed.
I look forward to your response when kids start telling you this.
Isn't that what Java was all about?
Apparently Mattel still thinks its OK to discriminate and only provide help and support based on gender.
> what you have done with the world
Don;t blame me. I didn't do anything with it.
Personally I wouldn't choose to live the lifestyle that working for Google etc forces on you, no matter what they paid me.
Apart from anything else, being surrounded by the obligatory bunch of neckbearded hipster millennials who all think they're "alternative" yet all look, dress, speak, think and act exactly the same, and all march lock-step according to extreme peecee liberal brainwashing, would drive me nuts.
Typical gutless passive-aggressive response from the left making such remarks while hiding behind AC.
> He comes with a little baggage, though, including his staunch support for President Donald Trump,
Since when is supporting the government "baggage"?
>> Such a thing would hardly prove the existence of God
True but good luck trying to use reasoning and logic-based argument with people that believe sky fairies are the answer to everything.
> but we don't have the option of not taking passengers somewhere.
Yes we do. Thats what pickup trucks are for.
> What I can't stand about these surveys and studies is that they all seemed pre-ordained to get the results the researchers are looking for
Well said and I can't agree more. I took Psychology as a first year option in my CS degree course. It was mostly full of women that were doing liberal arts and social studies. These are the types of people doing all these kids of studies.
As someone doing a logic/math related subject (CS), it was blindingly obvious that Psychologists routinely perform a giant hand-waving masquerade with their experimental methodology to make their results appear "scientific" and rigorously obtained, and are totally OK with that.
In fact their method and analysis is so totally full of obvious arbitrary holes and logical contradictions, that any truly scientific discipline would simply consider both the approach and the results themselves completely meaningless/valueless.
The only thing that would noticeably change is an insufferable loud and long-term reaction from all the religious nutjobs claiming that it definitely proves the existence of God and that he made us, and that any/all evolution is necessarily false.
Censorship of free speech is not good.You not liking what someone else is saying is no excuse to shut them up by force.
You're free to not listen, walk away, and avoid them in future. Or if you feel others need an alternate view, get on your own soapbox.... Something that the laws you want would prevent.
That'll be the brainwashing kicking in.
> We now need some reasonable, common-sense, media control laws.
Yeah that was also EXACTLY how the Nazis positioned the redical censorship they imposed on Germany in the 1930's.
My point is... who gets to define what "reasonable, common sense" actually means?
If you look at Hamilton 68 (http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/) which only tracks the known Russian twitter bots, the very top (i.e most frequent) hashtag is gunreformnow, and at #8 is guncontrol, and there's zero sign of any pro-gun hashtags.
I'm not seeing anything that actually justifies the Wired article's obviously liberal-biassed claims.