Jesus, you remind me of those people who differentiate between tourists (drunk sheeple with bad tattoos) and travellers (educated, attractive, sophisticated appreciaters of native cultures and cuisine).
Traffic authorities? As autonomous vehicles increase, traffic cops will decrease.
Besides if we let the government collect all autonomous vehicle data, we are in for some serious trouble. If they use that power to enforce something as frivolous as traffic violations then we have really f***ed ourselves over.
Traffic violations are not frivolous, and if self-driving cars are not obeying them there is a serious problem.
For a fraction of that effort (although a lot more pain an initial expense) we could lay down rails through every suburb and have automated travel cars.
You don't have a clue how capitalism works, do you? If the market says it's more expensive to put in rail everywhere then there's a good bet that it's more effort. Capitalism has its flaws, but relatively efficient allocation of resources is not one of them.
There is no such thing as "the market" any more than "the Invisible Hand". Capitalism in no way offers a magical way of automatically selecting the optimal outcome.
With an owner-driven car, drive one place to buy clothes (put them in the car), several more miles to buy books (put them in the car), still more miles to buy a shovel and a hedge trimmer (put them in the car), then yet more to buy groceries (put them in the car and drive home). You going to do that on public transport?
If only there was a way of ordering things online and having them delivered to your house.
Such bravery. Let me guess, you're in a seven figure salary consulting job and since you can negotiate your own pay and conditions individually direct with the CEO, why can't everyone else?
I actually read the post, and this really doesn't read like a troll, but an actual point, albeit stated in the crudest possible language. (The whole TL;DR of which is that crude language is still free speech.)
You're welcome for the translation.
The real point is that he is free to use crude racist language, and the police don't come knocking on his door.
Being down-modded on an internet forum (which he inevitably will be since his rant is both off-topic and inflammatory) is not censorship. If you want to go somewhere with no moderation, there are plenty of alternatives. Some of us just get tired of too much stupidity.
The right to free speech is not a right to force people to read what you say.
She's an authoritarian pro-corporate (anti-capitalist) socialist democrat who aims to keep the rich rich and the poor begging for welfare
Well, her politics are certainly are a lot more complicated than I realised. Seldom have I seen such a mix of left and right wing buzzwords in one sentence.
So if I've not been convicted of a crime, I'm guilty, and if I have been convicted of a crime, I'm also guilty. So everyone's guilty. Of everything. Got it.
Am I the only one who's noticed that any post that says something like "We've had enough of both Clintons and Bushes" or "Both parties are corrupt" always gets modded up, often to +5? That's because the mods must be thinking, "Gee, he's pissed off but he's not biased. If he were biased, he'd only be attacking on side".
No, mods, because you are too lazy to come to grips with the fact that a post that simply says "both parties are corrupt" or "both Clintons and Bushes are bad" is a throwaway post, not insightful.
No, you're missing the point that the general slashdot worldview is a version of libertarianism, where both left and right are tired, outmoded and corrupt, and only letting tech entrepreneurs control the world can save us.
Haven't you noticed that you only need the word "Paul" in a post to be upvoted?
That statement doesn't mean what you probably think it means. The other GOP candidates have said "knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war," while Marco Rubio goes a step further and says, "and neither would GWB." That Jeb Bush is still vacillating on the issue means he's tone-deaf, stubborn, or simply not in the loop. Given his lack of ability to demonstrate foreign policy awareness, I suspect the later.
Interesting.
Here in Britain, Tony Blair still goes on as though the Iraq war was a combination of the Battle of Britain and the Second Coming.
I just hope that he is still alive to squirm when the Chilcott Inquiry reports sometime in the next couple of decades.
That is a meaningless term when referring to a politicians position.
Hitler was a progressive using the dictionary definition of the term....
It is a reasonable term to use in opposition to a conservative, who by definition wants things either to stay the same, or (more usually) go back to how things were fifty/hundred years ago.
Hitler was, of course, a combination of ultra-reactionary ideas, smart uniforms and exciting new ideologically motivated violence, which is what is usually knwn here in the UK as "extreme right wing".
Good luck winning an election if you have only owners and labor is against you. Will you argue this point?
In the US at least, 99 of those 100 workers apparently believe they will be the owner one day, so in the meantime they'll act as though they are even though it's not in their best interest.
Capitalism is a game of smoke and mirrors and it is very good at confusing people.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't a driver
Jesus, you remind me of those people who differentiate between tourists (drunk sheeple with bad tattoos) and travellers (educated, attractive, sophisticated appreciaters of native cultures and cuisine).
I'd say that was a split decision, with the young pretender not quite able to wear down the old champ.
The most plausible reason for the inventor to remain anonymous: it's a Ponzi scheme.
You can only get prosecuted for that if you can be identified.
It is quite literally illegal to say that on slashdot.
I used to love pounding out 18-24 hours straight driving to get somewhere
That sentence alone explains why self driving cars are a good idea.
People like you are as bad as drunk drivers.
Traffic authorities? As autonomous vehicles increase, traffic cops will decrease. Besides if we let the government collect all autonomous vehicle data, we are in for some serious trouble. If they use that power to enforce something as frivolous as traffic violations then we have really f***ed ourselves over.
Traffic violations are not frivolous, and if self-driving cars are not obeying them there is a serious problem.
For a fraction of that effort (although a lot more pain an initial expense) we could lay down rails through every suburb and have automated travel cars.
You don't have a clue how capitalism works, do you? If the market says it's more expensive to put in rail everywhere then there's a good bet that it's more effort. Capitalism has its flaws, but relatively efficient allocation of resources is not one of them.
There is no such thing as "the market" any more than "the Invisible Hand". Capitalism in no way offers a magical way of automatically selecting the optimal outcome.
Do you really think that Windows is the best OS?
With an owner-driven car, drive one place to buy clothes (put them in the car), several more miles to buy books (put them in the car), still more miles to buy a shovel and a hedge trimmer (put them in the car), then yet more to buy groceries (put them in the car and drive home). You going to do that on public transport?
If only there was a way of ordering things online and having them delivered to your house.
Your same question applies to ANY union.
(Yes, you could call me a union buster.)
Such bravery. Let me guess, you're in a seven figure salary consulting job and since you can negotiate your own pay and conditions individually direct with the CEO, why can't everyone else?
The train engineers union dont want that.
Stupid question...
Why do we care what the train engineers union wants or doesn't want?
Why do they get any say?
Because they represent the people who make the system actually work?
If I accidentally kill someone at work, I certainly don't expect to be sued personally, unless I deliberately murder them or something.
I actually read the post, and this really doesn't read like a troll, but an actual point, albeit stated in the crudest possible language. (The whole TL;DR of which is that crude language is still free speech.)
You're welcome for the translation.
The real point is that he is free to use crude racist language, and the police don't come knocking on his door.
Being down-modded on an internet forum (which he inevitably will be since his rant is both off-topic and inflammatory) is not censorship. If you want to go somewhere with no moderation, there are plenty of alternatives. Some of us just get tired of too much stupidity.
The right to free speech is not a right to force people to read what you say.
The alternative is not voting at all, which doesn't help either.
Yes, but it lets you feel smug, and you can mock both sides while not actually having to do anything yourself.
She's an authoritarian pro-corporate (anti-capitalist) socialist democrat who aims to keep the rich rich and the poor begging for welfare
Well, her politics are certainly are a lot more complicated than I realised. Seldom have I seen such a mix of left and right wing buzzwords in one sentence.
Besides, most "conspiracy theories" have been proven to be true:
No, they haven't, or they wouldn't still be called conspiracy theories, they'd be called historical fact.
Meanwhile, back here at slashdot...
lack of prosecution != innocence
So if I've not been convicted of a crime, I'm guilty, and if I have been convicted of a crime, I'm also guilty. So everyone's guilty. Of everything. Got it.
The real question will be is there a prosecution? The Clintons have enough friends and reach to likely derail that.
What, unlike the poor, powerless Republican Party?
Come off it.
The definition of right and left:
left-wing wants more government
right-wing wants less government
Those are the actual definitions.
No, they're not, the actual definitions are:
left-wing wants more freedom for the majority of people
right-wing wants more freedom for the minority of people in power
The US "left wing" media is about the same as the mainstream "right wing" media here in the UK. (Fox News would be very right wing).
Just because you're not a biblical literalist, Chuck Norris or a neo Nazi doesn't make you particularly liberal.
Am I the only one who's noticed that any post that says something like "We've had enough of both Clintons and Bushes" or "Both parties are corrupt" always gets modded up, often to +5? That's because the mods must be thinking, "Gee, he's pissed off but he's not biased. If he were biased, he'd only be attacking on side".
No, mods, because you are too lazy to come to grips with the fact that a post that simply says "both parties are corrupt" or "both Clintons and Bushes are bad" is a throwaway post, not insightful.
No, you're missing the point that the general slashdot worldview is a version of libertarianism, where both left and right are tired, outmoded and corrupt, and only letting tech entrepreneurs control the world can save us.
Haven't you noticed that you only need the word "Paul" in a post to be upvoted?
That statement doesn't mean what you probably think it means. The other GOP candidates have said "knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war," while Marco Rubio goes a step further and says, "and neither would GWB." That Jeb Bush is still vacillating on the issue means he's tone-deaf, stubborn, or simply not in the loop. Given his lack of ability to demonstrate foreign policy awareness, I suspect the later.
Interesting.
Here in Britain, Tony Blair still goes on as though the Iraq war was a combination of the Battle of Britain and the Second Coming.
I just hope that he is still alive to squirm when the Chilcott Inquiry reports sometime in the next couple of decades.
He's not fat, just big boned.
Yeah, whatever, but he still chose his stupid fucking surname.
That is a meaningless term when referring to a politicians position. Hitler was a progressive using the dictionary definition of the term....
It is a reasonable term to use in opposition to a conservative, who by definition wants things either to stay the same, or (more usually) go back to how things were fifty/hundred years ago.
Hitler was, of course, a combination of ultra-reactionary ideas, smart uniforms and exciting new ideologically motivated violence, which is what is usually knwn here in the UK as "extreme right wing".
I think the current Libertarian movement is very similar to the anarchist movement at the peak of the industrial revolution.
Why do people like you think you can just rewrite political philosophy and history to make yourselves sound better?
Current US Libertarianism is pretty much the antithesis of true anarchism, which relies on mutual co-operation, not economc dog-eat-dog viciousness.
Government may not succeed in controlling big business very well, but it's still a lot better than letting big business do it.
You need to learn to think like a politician.
Owner = 1 vote Labor = 100 votes
Good luck winning an election if you have only owners and labor is against you. Will you argue this point?
In the US at least, 99 of those 100 workers apparently believe they will be the owner one day, so in the meantime they'll act as though they are even though it's not in their best interest.
Capitalism is a game of smoke and mirrors and it is very good at confusing people.