Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more convincing. Facts would make it more convincing, but I'm guessing you're not interested in those. Do you repeat "Benghazi" over and over again while masturbating?
It's going to be a gold rush. Companies are going to put as many autonomous cars on the road as fast as they can to get the first mover advantage. Whoever has the bigger fleet will get to customers quicker.
We already have public transportation and taxi services available and those haven't impacted car ownership hardly at all outside of some of the highest population density cities.
We don't have any public transportation outside of the highest density cities, now. A car is a necessity all of the US except for a very few large cities (NYC, Chicago, etc.)
How is communal ownership going to work with rush hour?
I would assume it'd be trivial for software to put people going to the same place in the same vehicle. The rest of the time, there's no point.
I don't have to wait for my ride to arrive.
The roads will be full of these cars. You won't have to wait.
I'm sure that people will own individual cars for the rest of our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it's a good economic idea.
Permitting ensures that these things are relatively safe before they get on the road. At the very least, it lets the local government know so that they can deal with the repercussions from these things driving around.
Individual car ownership is going to go away in all of the populated parts of the country as soon as automated cars work well. There's simply no reason for most people who don't live in bumfuck to own a car. There'll be fleets of automated cars on the roads all the time, and you'll just order one from the fleet of your choice on your phone. Uber will own a fleet of cars, as will the major car manufacturers, and other new players.
Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Here's a little bit of Civics 101 for you, kid:
A business exists to make money. A government doesn't. Uber has a financial incentive to put these cars on the road as fast as possible. Our government's job is to make sure that entities of all kinds (individual and now, corporate) don't unnecessarily injure others. That's the responsibility of government in our society. So, based on the financial incentive alone, it's a smart idea for the government to regulate these kinds of things.
That doesn't help small companies. What if the person leaving on maternity or paternity is 1/10 of the workforce? What if they're 1/8? What if they're 1/4? It's devastating to have to hold a position open for somebody for smaller companies.
I see some of that on the sales ends, too. The salespeople we've spoken with have been young, 20-something guys who try to sell advertising like they're talking to some Silicon Valley angel-investor bullshit startup, because in their minds, that's what the whole world is. Very strange. I do wonder if they have grown-ups there who do the regular jobs to keep a company together.
If you can't do without sombody in a planned absence (parenthood has some pretty predictable dates), then you're even more SOL if they change jobs, get hit by a car, etc etc.
Absolutely not. If somebody leaves, you replace them. If somebody has a kid, you have to find somebody to do their job temporarily while they're away. Completely different situations, and the latter is significantly more difficult for a company to deal with.
We use an external provider. Never seen a single instance of calendar spam. And, in terms of email spam, our provider does a super good job of it. We see very, very little actual spam. But, since we're paying, that's what I'd expect.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more convincing. Facts would make it more convincing, but I'm guessing you're not interested in those. Do you repeat "Benghazi" over and over again while masturbating?
while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.
Another bald-faced lie.
Again, complete and total bullshit. Saying something doesn't make it true.
What propaganda? Calling something "propaganda" with no basis for fact, is itself, the propaganda.
Not to mention that both snopes.com and politifact.com have suffered considerable blows to their reputations in this election cycle,
Only among idiots.
Most good things in the world are run by liberals. What's your point?
Snopes is too biased and not to be trusted.
That's a lie.
... or would it be some anonymous person, lying about Politifact lying?
just the fake news (and not so fake news) that Politifact and Snopes do not like.
That's a good start. I'm not aware of any "not so fake news" that Politifact and Snopes "do not like".
They'll make more money from reputable customers. I'm sure that Fortune 500 companies can afford to pay more than conspiracy web sites.
Civics 101:
The US government has a duty to allow for free speech.
Private and public businesses don't.
It's going to be a gold rush. Companies are going to put as many autonomous cars on the road as fast as they can to get the first mover advantage. Whoever has the bigger fleet will get to customers quicker.
We already have public transportation and taxi services available and those haven't impacted car ownership hardly at all outside of some of the highest population density cities.
We don't have any public transportation outside of the highest density cities, now. A car is a necessity all of the US except for a very few large cities (NYC, Chicago, etc.)
How is communal ownership going to work with rush hour?
I would assume it'd be trivial for software to put people going to the same place in the same vehicle. The rest of the time, there's no point.
I don't have to wait for my ride to arrive.
The roads will be full of these cars. You won't have to wait.
I'm sure that people will own individual cars for the rest of our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it's a good economic idea.
Oh, just fuck off.
Permitting ensures that these things are relatively safe before they get on the road. At the very least, it lets the local government know so that they can deal with the repercussions from these things driving around.
Individual car ownership is going to go away in all of the populated parts of the country as soon as automated cars work well. There's simply no reason for most people who don't live in bumfuck to own a car. There'll be fleets of automated cars on the roads all the time, and you'll just order one from the fleet of your choice on your phone. Uber will own a fleet of cars, as will the major car manufacturers, and other new players.
Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Here's a little bit of Civics 101 for you, kid:
A business exists to make money. A government doesn't. Uber has a financial incentive to put these cars on the road as fast as possible. Our government's job is to make sure that entities of all kinds (individual and now, corporate) don't unnecessarily injure others. That's the responsibility of government in our society. So, based on the financial incentive alone, it's a smart idea for the government to regulate these kinds of things.
He really is. He said so!
Making an enemy of the President can have serious consequences.
Oh, does it, mein fuhrer?
Elimination of cash means that VISA and MASTERCARD know everything you're doing, and take 2% off the top of every transaction.
Your uncharitable interpretation and exaggerations are not shared by a large portion of electorate.
"A large portion of the electorate" also eats at McDonald's and shops at Wal-Mart. What's your point?
That doesn't help small companies. What if the person leaving on maternity or paternity is 1/10 of the workforce? What if they're 1/8? What if they're 1/4? It's devastating to have to hold a position open for somebody for smaller companies.
I see some of that on the sales ends, too. The salespeople we've spoken with have been young, 20-something guys who try to sell advertising like they're talking to some Silicon Valley angel-investor bullshit startup, because in their minds, that's what the whole world is. Very strange. I do wonder if they have grown-ups there who do the regular jobs to keep a company together.
If you can't do without sombody in a planned absence (parenthood has some pretty predictable dates), then you're even more SOL if they change jobs, get hit by a car, etc etc.
Absolutely not. If somebody leaves, you replace them. If somebody has a kid, you have to find somebody to do their job temporarily while they're away. Completely different situations, and the latter is significantly more difficult for a company to deal with.
We use an external provider. Never seen a single instance of calendar spam. And, in terms of email spam, our provider does a super good job of it. We see very, very little actual spam. But, since we're paying, that's what I'd expect.