Yes, you can do all those things. A computer will be quicker at doing all of them, and from the evidence collected so far, will be more likely to avoid situations requiring such action to begin with. If everyone was as good a driver as you are, you'd make a lot of sense. As it is, people's safety using the roads should not be put in jeopardy because some other people like jeopardizing it simply to enjoy their hobby.
You really are arguing from emotion, and the contrast between the quality of your arguments in this thread and threads on other subjects is stark.
There is also a case that strong encryption saves lives, so this is clearly not a comparable discussion. Humans are terrible drivers, and that some people enjoy a necessary inefficiency of the past shouldn't condemn tens of thousands of people to their deaths each year.
Seriously - you are arguing from emotion. Just admit it. The thought of you not being able to drive scares you so much you are resorting to pathetic arguments and nebulous justifications to make the bad thoughts go away, something far below your usual, insightful arguments.
You are assuming that having the car drive for you is taking away your liberty, when that has yet to be illustrated. You still get to go to your chosen destination, only safer. You are arguing like the car will refuse to drive, or only drive to a re-education camp or something.
How about the liberty of others to not be killed by some terribly-driving lunatic? It's not about being scared, but taking sensible steps to reduce avoidable death and destruction.
While I don't always agree with you, usually you make reasoned arguments. This time it's just crude emotion - you might want to figure out if you are arguing with your heart or your brain.
They are not all saying that. You stomping your feet and demanding this be true does not make it so.
Yes, the public at large will have their fears, but as we've seen from Tesla's autopilot features, many people love this stuff. With every major advance in vehicle technology (trains, metal ships, aeroplanes) people have made the same scared, vague claims you have, and every time they have been proven wrong. The fact that you admit the vast majority of the public hasn't chimed in on this subject, but you know how they would chime in, demonstrates you are not being logical. You are confusing your opinion with fact, and seem to believe that you somehow represent the average person on the street.
I don't know how anyone can take someone as illogical as you seriously. You keep repeating your opinions as if they are fact, make internally-contradictory statements, and use them as evidence to condemn a budding industry which is showing great promise and gaining support from the very people you claim are condemning it.
Yes, but the cost of the energy (both financially and environmentally) used by the electric cars is not comparable to that of an ICE... The increase in EV adoption would offset this massively, and that's assuming that non-EVs will get full autopilot features.
1000 miles a month is still well within the range of a Leaf, provided you charge during the day. For your occasional trips you are right - you might need a bigger battery. For your camping you can just rent, as people have been doing for decades when their daily driver is not up to tasks performed a vast minority of the time.
You pointed out why a Leaf wouldn't work well for your circumstances, and then extrapolated that to all electric cars. That is not a particularly rational leap to make, and doesn't help you look particularly logical.
Because moving from CRTs to LCDs only helped our desks, not everyone in society. If you can't see the difference between a better screen and far less pollution in right where people live, you might want to do some reading...
Because they are exposed to sexual preferences every single day (their parents, family members, etc.), and that can lead a child to think that is the entirety of the spectrum of human sexual preferences. As it is, people can get screwed over by other people's perceptions of their sexuality, especially by those who are under the impression it is deviant or abnormal, which one would be more likely to be should they not be exposed to the big picture during their formative years.
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
Seeing as you still don't know the difference between ice on land and on the sea, I take everything you write with a grain of salt. You posting these trite Google links isn't exactly giving you the air of someone who is in control of their argument...
As long as that process still costs thousands upon thousands per application (regardless of whether it is successful or not) illegal immigration will continue.
Can you quantify that amount, or is it just "PROFOUND"? If you can't quantify it, you can't use it in the argument. You're going to have to create some other scary sound-bite to use...
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - you are pretty close, but the conclusions you've drawn are lacking substantiation and seem to gloss over an incredible number of factors as if they don't exist. If you are trying to demolish AGW, you have to not only show why the evidence we have is wrong, but show the world how you re-worked basic physics to make it so. You also need to show how prehistoric humanity barely living in inhospitable environments means modern humanity (with its cities and infrastructure) can relocate without costing anyone a single penny. The list goes on and on and on. You started well, then ignored logic to reach your desired conclusions. You are not very good at this whole "science" thing, it appears.
The US is very easy to paint as the bad guy simply on its own merits. Its lack of respect for democracy in other countries is disgustingly hypocritical, and the countless innocent civilians killed by its military misadventures and puppet governments are a stark testament to that.
So many logical mistakes... Amazing. It's staggering you don't choke to death when getting dressed every morning. I think the real problem you have is making massive generalisations about disparate groups of people - of course you will end up confused and bitter. Being able to understand the world around you relieves so much of that garbage, and you won't end up on Slashdot proudly proclaiming how scared and confused you are like it's something to be proud of.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can do all those things. A computer will be quicker at doing all of them, and from the evidence collected so far, will be more likely to avoid situations requiring such action to begin with. If everyone was as good a driver as you are, you'd make a lot of sense. As it is, people's safety using the roads should not be put in jeopardy because some other people like jeopardizing it simply to enjoy their hobby.
You really are arguing from emotion, and the contrast between the quality of your arguments in this thread and threads on other subjects is stark.
True - it's reaction time and attentiveness to the road, two things computers are a lot better at than people.
There is also a case that strong encryption saves lives, so this is clearly not a comparable discussion. Humans are terrible drivers, and that some people enjoy a necessary inefficiency of the past shouldn't condemn tens of thousands of people to their deaths each year.
Seriously - you are arguing from emotion. Just admit it. The thought of you not being able to drive scares you so much you are resorting to pathetic arguments and nebulous justifications to make the bad thoughts go away, something far below your usual, insightful arguments.
You are assuming that having the car drive for you is taking away your liberty, when that has yet to be illustrated. You still get to go to your chosen destination, only safer. You are arguing like the car will refuse to drive, or only drive to a re-education camp or something.
How about the liberty of others to not be killed by some terribly-driving lunatic? It's not about being scared, but taking sensible steps to reduce avoidable death and destruction.
While I don't always agree with you, usually you make reasoned arguments. This time it's just crude emotion - you might want to figure out if you are arguing with your heart or your brain.
And has nothing to do with the discussion, but I agree it will make people feel all warm and fuzzy and awesome for being freedom warriors.
They are not all saying that. You stomping your feet and demanding this be true does not make it so.
Yes, the public at large will have their fears, but as we've seen from Tesla's autopilot features, many people love this stuff. With every major advance in vehicle technology (trains, metal ships, aeroplanes) people have made the same scared, vague claims you have, and every time they have been proven wrong. The fact that you admit the vast majority of the public hasn't chimed in on this subject, but you know how they would chime in, demonstrates you are not being logical. You are confusing your opinion with fact, and seem to believe that you somehow represent the average person on the street.
I don't know how anyone can take someone as illogical as you seriously. You keep repeating your opinions as if they are fact, make internally-contradictory statements, and use them as evidence to condemn a budding industry which is showing great promise and gaining support from the very people you claim are condemning it.
Yes, but the cost of the energy (both financially and environmentally) used by the electric cars is not comparable to that of an ICE... The increase in EV adoption would offset this massively, and that's assuming that non-EVs will get full autopilot features.
1. Most people stop for food or a rest when travelling hundreds of miles in a single go, plenty of time to recharge a car or swap a battery
2. A Leaf is not all electric vehicles. Conflating the two makes you look confused. It's like if I used the Model T to show why ICE cars are terrible.
1000 miles a month is still well within the range of a Leaf, provided you charge during the day. For your occasional trips you are right - you might need a bigger battery. For your camping you can just rent, as people have been doing for decades when their daily driver is not up to tasks performed a vast minority of the time.
You pointed out why a Leaf wouldn't work well for your circumstances, and then extrapolated that to all electric cars. That is not a particularly rational leap to make, and doesn't help you look particularly logical.
Because moving from CRTs to LCDs only helped our desks, not everyone in society. If you can't see the difference between a better screen and far less pollution in right where people live, you might want to do some reading...
Aaah so you didn't do very well at school. Got it. Thanks for letting us know.
That is nonsense and I think you know it. At least, I hope you know it, as the alternative makes you look much worse...
In case no-one gets it, that is a quote from Socrates, showing the GP's lamentations on this matter to be desperately unoriginal.
Because they are exposed to sexual preferences every single day (their parents, family members, etc.), and that can lead a child to think that is the entirety of the spectrum of human sexual preferences. As it is, people can get screwed over by other people's perceptions of their sexuality, especially by those who are under the impression it is deviant or abnormal, which one would be more likely to be should they not be exposed to the big picture during their formative years.
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
In the time it took you to write your questions, you could have found the answers...
Well played, sir. :)
Seeing as you still don't know the difference between ice on land and on the sea, I take everything you write with a grain of salt. You posting these trite Google links isn't exactly giving you the air of someone who is in control of their argument...
As long as that process still costs thousands upon thousands per application (regardless of whether it is successful or not) illegal immigration will continue.
Can you quantify that amount, or is it just "PROFOUND"? If you can't quantify it, you can't use it in the argument. You're going to have to create some other scary sound-bite to use...
It's really easy - you can take a look at the many countries with saner, functioning internet providers.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - you are pretty close, but the conclusions you've drawn are lacking substantiation and seem to gloss over an incredible number of factors as if they don't exist. If you are trying to demolish AGW, you have to not only show why the evidence we have is wrong, but show the world how you re-worked basic physics to make it so. You also need to show how prehistoric humanity barely living in inhospitable environments means modern humanity (with its cities and infrastructure) can relocate without costing anyone a single penny. The list goes on and on and on. You started well, then ignored logic to reach your desired conclusions. You are not very good at this whole "science" thing, it appears.
They are still being produced - any 1p coin is a penny.
You are ignoring the corporate espionage that happens in the west. That kind of defeats your strange, rambling argument.
The US is very easy to paint as the bad guy simply on its own merits. Its lack of respect for democracy in other countries is disgustingly hypocritical, and the countless innocent civilians killed by its military misadventures and puppet governments are a stark testament to that.
So many logical mistakes... Amazing. It's staggering you don't choke to death when getting dressed every morning. I think the real problem you have is making massive generalisations about disparate groups of people - of course you will end up confused and bitter. Being able to understand the world around you relieves so much of that garbage, and you won't end up on Slashdot proudly proclaiming how scared and confused you are like it's something to be proud of.