The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
This jist is that you don't just pick one person, you rank all the candidates. If no one wins by majority (50%, or whatever) you calculate in the second choice votes, and the third until someone has a majority.
This has the most interesting side effect of bringing candidates to the center. It encourages candidates to reach out to the other side in hopes of getting some 2nd choice votes. It discourages polarization because polarizing candidates are apt to have fewer 2nd choice votes (you either love them or hate them).
And the Democrats are more than willing to go this way, because they both crave power and believe they are unassailable in their pursuit of that power.
Here you go.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Those of us greater than 5 years old don't have to wonder how we'd feel. Garland's case is arguable more heinous, because Rs simple refused to discuss his nomination for no reason other than partisan politics.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
You have a self-driving car? No? So what the hell are you talking about again?
No, but I have a regular car and it doesn't get vandalized. It gets parked on a dark street at night the same way as will a self driving car.
Apparently you are suggesting that people will just hate self driving cars and wander the streets at night looking to attack them... because... some reason. Interesting theory. Let's see if that plays out before we just through out self driving cars though.
But if you naively think that there will be no machine-caused deaths then you fail to live in reality.
Nobody said that anywhere is this thread. They said, accurately, the *expectation* is that overall accidents and deaths will be lowered with self driving cars. If it doesn't lower them, people aren't morons. We won't have self driving cars on the road.
Companies don't care.
Companies do care about profits. If Waymo cars slaughter millions of pedestrians, that's not good for business.
It is a fundamental change in the way we think about human life to LET machines kill people.
No it isn't. It's about saving lives. Do you think you'd take solace in the fact that your son was killed by a drunk, distracted teenager? I mean, thank goodness, at least we don't have self driving cars getting into fender benders!
Your problem is you think everyone in the world is an idiot (but you apparently). We are smart enough to evaluate the success or failure of self driving car trials. Well at least I am. Are you?
It is inevitable that they pass laws allowing machines to kill x number of people. It can be no other way. And that will be a major devaluing of human life.
Oh please.
We all know that self driving cars will go nowhere if they can't offer a significant reduction in accidents and deaths. I'll be happy to hear your cries in 10 years when and if the roads are filled with bloodstained Waymo cars. Until then, relax.
each of those disengament incidents would translate into an accident.
Sigh. A disengagement is not an accident. It's when the car can't figure out what to do and pulls over / stops / hands control to the human. Waymo cars have been in exactly one accident,
based on preliminary evidence and a video released by Waymo (above), the police say the robo-car was not at fault. “The vehicle was at the wrong place at the wrong time,” says Seth Tyler, a spokesperson for the Chandler Police Department. “Waymo and the driver of the vehicle won’t get cited for anything because she didn't do anything wrong.”
Just as we jail everyone who is caught in the act of throwing a brick off an overpass, we can jail everyone who is caught in the act of maliciously interfering with the operation of an automated vehicle. There, fixed that for you.
Go ahead and link to all the cases where people throw bricks off an overpass and don't get caught. You hear about it happening every 5 years or so. Maybe there's some terrible epidemic of unreported, unsolved brick throwing off overpass crimes but you're going to have to prove that it you want anyone to take you seriously.
If you don't think they will be tempting targets for malicious interference (e.g., spray-paint cameras or laser pointers aimed at cameras), then you haven't thought about it enough.
In the same way I get my break line cut and windshields spray painted and tires punctured every day. Oh wait. That doesn't happen.
I like you you emphasized the last part. Really drove home your point.
The point you whooshed on is that humans aren't safe either (not even close). A system that results in fewer deaths overall is a plus for society. If you are maimed in a traffic accident, will take solace in the fact that it was a drunk teenager? I mean, better to be maimed by a human than have the chance (see that emphasis?) of being maimed by a machine, right?
I wouldn't trust those cars one bit until they have been shown to be able to handle freak situations in a reasonable way.
I'm sure they've never tested them in those type of situations. Just sunshine and empty parking lots for Waymo cars. Now they are turning those death machines loose on the public. I even hear they have chainsaws mounted on the bumpers.
1) It's friggin' hot in the South 6 months out of the year...
You'd be amazed how cool you stay when you have a steady breeze on you. It's why you can see not dead motorcyclists in full protection garb in the heat of summer.
So a couple of people get run over or are killed when a self-driving car gets T-boned in an intersection. What's the price of a life these days? $2M? $5M? Waymo can pay for that out of their coffee fund.
So a couple of people get run over or are killed when your car T-bones someone. What's the price of a life these days? $2M? $5M? Your insurance company can pay for that out of their coffee fund.
See what I did there?
Self driving cars will kill people. But overall they are going to be save lives. A lot of lives.
Comrade, if you lived in the US, you'd know that most of us have one choice of ISP. Where there's >1, prices are fixed. You'd know that we aren't able to purchase just internet without the 500 channel and VOIP phone bundles.
You'd also know the US is #21 in the world in broadband speed.
There's no free market here.
The absence of NN is a *barrier* to a free market. It prevents smaller ISPs from getting in the game because they can't demand payouts from the Googles and Facebooks of the internet. It prevents Google and Facebook competitors because they can't afford the payouts to the big ISPs.
Let's annoy our customers by taking away the lyrics feature! -- Good one! What else?
I'm sure that saved them MILLIONS.
Let's start requiring home addresses so we can sell their info to marketers. -- Great! This is going to make people love us. We'll tell them we are going all Draconians on all family members have to have the same addresses. Screw their parents in the military and kids in college.
Won't someone think of the children and our honored veterans?
We all know this isn't about taking away little Suzy's music while she's off at university in the next state over. It's about some people that are sharing their account with tens of their friends. If you like Pandora, you'd agree they need some way to fight this. If you don't like or use Pandora, then why are you here crying?
Because sure, Spotify, every family always all lives in the same domicile. Kids never leave for college. What a fucking farce. If you don't want people sharing it with their FAMILY, don't call it a fucking family plan and then expect them to all live in the same domicile.
Regardless of your statements about the dictionary definition of a family, they are allowed to have a reasonable business model and a way to prevent people from cheating them.
If you don't like it, subscribe to one of the other streaming plans that let's you share your account with any number of random people. If you are one of the people that is targeted by this crackdown they are happy if you leave since you are costing them money.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
This is very true.
I listened to a podcast about something called ranked choice voting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This jist is that you don't just pick one person, you rank all the candidates. If no one wins by majority (50%, or whatever) you calculate in the second choice votes, and the third until someone has a majority.
This has the most interesting side effect of bringing candidates to the center. It encourages candidates to reach out to the other side in hopes of getting some 2nd choice votes. It discourages polarization because polarizing candidates are apt to have fewer 2nd choice votes (you either love them or hate them).
12 for Bill Clinton. Are you consistent?
You know Clinton isn't president, right? Also, he's not up for SCOTUS appointment. Christ, find a new bogeyman. This is just getting sad.
And the Democrats are more than willing to go this way, because they both crave power and believe they are unassailable in their pursuit of that power.
Here you go.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Abortion might become illegal again in the US because the majority of Supreme Court judges don't believe in it.
How do you think it became legal in the first place. Because a majority of judges voted that way. The right to abortion isn't in our constitution.
If RvW was overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal. It just means the FEDERAL government decided not to decide, which leaves it up to the states.
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Those of us greater than 5 years old don't have to wonder how we'd feel. Garland's case is arguable more heinous, because Rs simple refused to discuss his nomination for no reason other than partisan politics.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You have a self-driving car? No? So what the hell are you talking about again?
No, but I have a regular car and it doesn't get vandalized. It gets parked on a dark street at night the same way as will a self driving car.
Apparently you are suggesting that people will just hate self driving cars and wander the streets at night looking to attack them... because... some reason. Interesting theory. Let's see if that plays out before we just through out self driving cars though.
But if you naively think that there will be no machine-caused deaths then you fail to live in reality.
Nobody said that anywhere is this thread. They said, accurately, the *expectation* is that overall accidents and deaths will be lowered with self driving cars. If it doesn't lower them, people aren't morons. We won't have self driving cars on the road.
Companies don't care.
Companies do care about profits. If Waymo cars slaughter millions of pedestrians, that's not good for business.
It is a fundamental change in the way we think about human life to LET machines kill people.
No it isn't. It's about saving lives. Do you think you'd take solace in the fact that your son was killed by a drunk, distracted teenager? I mean, thank goodness, at least we don't have self driving cars getting into fender benders!
Your problem is you think everyone in the world is an idiot (but you apparently). We are smart enough to evaluate the success or failure of self driving car trials. Well at least I am. Are you?
It is inevitable that they pass laws allowing machines to kill x number of people. It can be no other way. And that will be a major devaluing of human life.
Oh please.
We all know that self driving cars will go nowhere if they can't offer a significant reduction in accidents and deaths. I'll be happy to hear your cries in 10 years when and if the roads are filled with bloodstained Waymo cars. Until then, relax.
each of those disengament incidents would translate into an accident.
Sigh. A disengagement is not an accident. It's when the car can't figure out what to do and pulls over / stops / hands control to the human. Waymo cars have been in exactly one accident,
based on preliminary evidence and a video released by Waymo (above), the police say the robo-car was not at fault. “The vehicle was at the wrong place at the wrong time,” says Seth Tyler, a spokesperson for the Chandler Police Department. “Waymo and the driver of the vehicle won’t get cited for anything because she didn't do anything wrong.”
https://www.wired.com/story/wa...
Really unbelievable amount of FUD here.
Just as we jail everyone who is caught in the act of throwing a brick off an overpass, we can jail everyone who is caught in the act of maliciously interfering with the operation of an automated vehicle. There, fixed that for you.
Go ahead and link to all the cases where people throw bricks off an overpass and don't get caught. You hear about it happening every 5 years or so. Maybe there's some terrible epidemic of unreported, unsolved brick throwing off overpass crimes but you're going to have to prove that it you want anyone to take you seriously.
If you don't think they will be tempting targets for malicious interference (e.g., spray-paint cameras or laser pointers aimed at cameras), then you haven't thought about it enough.
In the same way I get my break line cut and windshields spray painted and tires punctured every day. Oh wait. That doesn't happen.
Emotions are exactly what prevent humans from entering into dangerous situations in the first place.
HAHAHA.
HA.
HAH.
Eh hem. Okay. You don't drive much do you?
I like you you emphasized the last part. Really drove home your point.
The point you whooshed on is that humans aren't safe either (not even close). A system that results in fewer deaths overall is a plus for society. If you are maimed in a traffic accident, will take solace in the fact that it was a drunk teenager? I mean, better to be maimed by a human than have the chance (see that emphasis?) of being maimed by a machine, right?
I wouldn't trust those cars one bit until they have been shown to be able to handle freak situations in a reasonable way.
I'm sure they've never tested them in those type of situations. Just sunshine and empty parking lots for Waymo cars. Now they are turning those death machines loose on the public. I even hear they have chainsaws mounted on the bumpers.
1) It's friggin' hot in the South 6 months out of the year...
You'd be amazed how cool you stay when you have a steady breeze on you. It's why you can see not dead motorcyclists in full protection garb in the heat of summer.
So a couple of people get run over or are killed when a self-driving car gets T-boned in an intersection. What's the price of a life these days? $2M? $5M? Waymo can pay for that out of their coffee fund.
So a couple of people get run over or are killed when your car T-bones someone. What's the price of a life these days? $2M? $5M? Your insurance company can pay for that out of their coffee fund.
See what I did there?
Self driving cars will kill people. But overall they are going to be save lives. A lot of lives.
If Waymo are being premature with this and any harm comes to anyone; you can bet they will get their socks sued off them.
Of course harm will come to someone. Software always has bugs. You gotta think they've planned for that.
Germany has 7 fighter jets.
And Russia has a GDP smaller than Italy alone.
destroy the free market
Comrade, if you lived in the US, you'd know that most of us have one choice of ISP. Where there's >1, prices are fixed. You'd know that we aren't able to purchase just internet without the 500 channel and VOIP phone bundles.
You'd also know the US is #21 in the world in broadband speed.
There's no free market here.
The absence of NN is a *barrier* to a free market. It prevents smaller ISPs from getting in the game because they can't demand payouts from the Googles and Facebooks of the internet. It prevents Google and Facebook competitors because they can't afford the payouts to the big ISPs.
he was put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
I think it was a "damned if you lose your temper and start spouting partisan rhetoric" situation.
IKR? Who would have thought that "family" didn't mean the 673 people you met in a Chinese piracy forum?
Because we don't want Spotify to change our plan? ;)
Okay, let's try this again.
If you like Spotify, you'd agree they need some way to fight this, also.
Especially when you slept upstairs with mom instead of in the basement with them.
Well to be fair most of the time I'm in your mom's bedroom. She still has some life in her believe it or not.
Let's annoy our customers by taking away the lyrics feature!
-- Good one! What else?
I'm sure that saved them MILLIONS.
Let's start requiring home addresses so we can sell their info to marketers.
-- Great! This is going to make people love us. We'll tell them we are going all Draconians on all family members have to have the same addresses. Screw their parents in the military and kids in college.
Won't someone think of the children and our honored veterans?
We all know this isn't about taking away little Suzy's music while she's off at university in the next state over. It's about some people that are sharing their account with tens of their friends. If you like Pandora, you'd agree they need some way to fight this. If you don't like or use Pandora, then why are you here crying?
Because sure, Spotify, every family always all lives in the same domicile. Kids never leave for college. What a fucking farce. If you don't want people sharing it with their FAMILY, don't call it a fucking family plan and then expect them to all live in the same domicile.
Regardless of your statements about the dictionary definition of a family, they are allowed to have a reasonable business model and a way to prevent people from cheating them.
If you don't like it, subscribe to one of the other streaming plans that let's you share your account with any number of random people. If you are one of the people that is targeted by this crackdown they are happy if you leave since you are costing them money.