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.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that vandals will find them attractive targets because they're new and different, and vulnerable to a wide variety of attacks. Privately owned vehicles may be parked during off-work hours, but taxis will spend a fair amount of time motoring around with no passengers, travelling from drop-off to pick-up points. Can you understand that the vulnerability is highest when they're operating and not when they're parked? This has nothing to do with hatred, but lots to do with a common mentality that enjoys screwing around with things just for the entertainment value. You need look no further than script kiddies to find examples of this sort of behavior.
I think you should be careful about comparing the introduction of commercial aircraft into mostly empty skies, with the introduction of self-driving cars into an environment already crowded with cars and pedestrians.
Although the Air Commerce Act wasn't passed until 1926, commercial air travel didn't become routine until after World War II, and wasn't truly accessible to the masses until the late 1950s or early 1960s.
One interesting footnote regarding the FAA: Both the general public and the airline industry agitated for government intervention following a collision between two passenger aircraft over the Grand Canyon in 1956, killing 126 people. There was a great deal of public outrage over the antiquated state of Air Traffic Control and the lack of official interest in upgrading and modernizing the system. The FAA was created in 1958 with the passage of the Federal Aviation Act.
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.
You have a self-driving car? No? So what the hell are you talking about again?
Just as we jail everyone who throws a brick off an overpass, we can jail everyone who maliciously interferes with the operation of an automated vehicle.
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.
Do you have any idea what the clearance rate is for property crimes? You can find out here.
Also, there's the little detail that while jail is great for punishing the offender, it does nothing to protect the victim of the crime, and little to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. It seems that jail is only effective in preventing law-abiding citizens from committing crimes.
What came first, the automobile or traffic laws? The airplane or the FAA?
Wrong question. The right questions are, "How long did commercial passenger flights operate before the government started creating aircraft safety regulations?", and "Whose idea was it to have the Federal government get into the business of creating aircraft safety regulations?" By the way, the FAA wasn't created until 1958. The Department of Commerce was the original regulating authority, and actually took over some functions from the Post Office Department.
The first scheduled commercial airline flight was in 1914. The Air Commerce Act of 1926, gave the Federal government the power to regulate civil aviation. This legislation was passed at the urging of the aviation industry, whose leaders believed the airplane could not reach its full commercial potential without federal action to improve and maintain safety standards.
So, if you want to draw parallels between airplanes and self-driving cars, you should be asking why Waymo and other developers of the technology aren't asking for government regulation, not maintaining that no regulation should be required.
And the car owner, and the manufacturer of the car and of the software. There may be many problems with self-driving cars, but finding lawsuit-targets ain't one.
Sure, you can sue all of them, but if the self-driving system made a bad decision and caused an accident, the maker of that system is the only place courts could reasonably pin the liability.
Wrong. The liability could also be pinned on the state government (in other words, you and me) for allowing these cars to operate on public roads without adequate testing.
That statement should apply to both self-driving and human cars
No, because they're not the same at all. Self-driving cars are in many respects attractive nuisances. 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.
I understand that Waymo and others have done a lot of testing and undoubtedly have their own sets of standards they think are sufficient to ensure a reasonable level of safety, but I don't have access to those standards or the test data, so I have no way of assessing the results. What I don't see are the automotive equivalent of FAA regulations (FARs) or airworthiness standards (e.g., MIL-STD 516).
You don't have to call people "managers" for that, in California at least. Here, if you're classified "salaried/exempt", the company is exempt from paying you for overtime even though you're not a manager in title or in fact. Interestingly, you still get paid by the hour if you put in fewer than 40 hours per week.
A million people earning a dollar a and one person earning a milliard still gets you an average income of 1001 dollar per person, but it's clearly bunk.
Damn, no wonder you're poverty-stricken. (1,000,000 * 1 + 1 * 1,000,000)/2 = 2, not 1001.
Too bad for your argument that the GP said a milliard, not a million (that's the same thing Americans call a billion, i.e. 1,000,000,000). And there are 1.000.001 people to take the average, not 2.
Yeah, I screwed up on the denominator, but the answer is still 2, if you'll pardon my ignorance of obscure British notation.
A million people earning a dollar a and one person earning a milliard still gets you an average income of 1001 dollar per person, but it's clearly bunk.
Damn, no wonder you're poverty-stricken. (1,000,000 * 1 + 1 * 1,000,000)/2 = 2, not 1001.
Now, Amazon is moving more and more towards a brick and mortar presence.
In my case, having an Amazon brick and mortar store nearby is a don't care. I'm close to a large Best Buy, and they are happy to price-match anything on Amazon that they have in stock. Latest example: a pair of noise-cancelling headphones carrying a Best Buy price tag of $199; they matched Amazon's $118 price without blinking an eye.
When I'm considering an Amazon purchase, I always look at the 1-star reviews. It's rare to find one that actually is a complaint about a defective product or one that doesn't perform as described. Most of them are of the "these headphones are uncomfortable when I wear them on my ass" variety.
If you read the article you linked, you'll see that the screwfly solution was based on work done on mosquitoes.
Wrong. Read the article again. The screwfly solution was inspired by a book by Nobel laureate H. J. Muller titled "Drosophila," which discussed use of radiation to alter the genetic material of insects. Drosphila, by the way, is not a mosquito; it is a genus of flies commonly referred to as "small fruit flies". The word "mosquito" appears nowhere in the article.
Oh, and the screwfly solution certainly DOES require the introduction of genetically engineered insects into the wild
Releasing overwhelming numbers of sterile males into the wild to out-compete the native, non-sterile males is certainly not remotely similar to designing a genetic modification that engineers mosquitos with a "gene drive," which rapidly transmitted a sterilizing mutation through other members of the mosquito's species.
There is no war against legal immigration; see the link above. There is certainly an effort being made to reduce the number of people entering the country illegally, which has been modestly effective.
From TFS: A gunman shot four people, none fatally, at his Middleton, Wisconsin workplace Wednesday morning before he was killed in a shootout with police, Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke said.
Puerto Rico is an insular area—a United States territory that is neither a part of one of the fifty states nor a part of the District of Columbia, the nation's federal district. Insular areas, including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, are not allowed to choose electors in U.S. presidential elections or elect voting members of the U.S. Congress. This grows out of Articles One and Two of the United States Constitution, which state that electors are to be chosen by "the People of the several States." In 1961, the 23rd amendment extended the right to choose electors to the District of Columbia; the insular areas, however, were not addressed in that Amendment.
Of course not. Of course, your comment is a blatant strawman, as the comment I was responding to said that car owners should have COMLETE CONTROL over their car's hardware and software. Affecting how much of the battery gets used is a far cry from complete control.
I can't think of a car with "parking brakes" that aren't 'brake by wire'. A simple wire attached to a handle that ratchets to hold the line under tension while the owner isn't in the car.
I hope you're not being serious. That's NOT what 'brake br wire' means; in fact it's pretty much the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
If only they'd been doing trials over the last 3 years. Then they'd have some idea if this was going to be a problem.
Let me fix that for you.
They'd been doing trials over the last 3 years. They should have known that this was going to be a problem.
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.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that vandals will find them attractive targets because they're new and different, and vulnerable to a wide variety of attacks. Privately owned vehicles may be parked during off-work hours, but taxis will spend a fair amount of time motoring around with no passengers, travelling from drop-off to pick-up points. Can you understand that the vulnerability is highest when they're operating and not when they're parked? This has nothing to do with hatred, but lots to do with a common mentality that enjoys screwing around with things just for the entertainment value. You need look no further than script kiddies to find examples of this sort of behavior.
I think you should be careful about comparing the introduction of commercial aircraft into mostly empty skies, with the introduction of self-driving cars into an environment already crowded with cars and pedestrians.
Although the Air Commerce Act wasn't passed until 1926, commercial air travel didn't become routine until after World War II, and wasn't truly accessible to the masses until the late 1950s or early 1960s.
One interesting footnote regarding the FAA: Both the general public and the airline industry agitated for government intervention following a collision between two passenger aircraft over the Grand Canyon in 1956, killing 126 people. There was a great deal of public outrage over the antiquated state of Air Traffic Control and the lack of official interest in upgrading and modernizing the system. The FAA was created in 1958 with the passage of the Federal Aviation Act.
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.
You have a self-driving car? No? So what the hell are you talking about again?
You seem to be confused about whom you should be replying to. Go back and read the post to which I was replying; then you'll understand.
Just as we jail everyone who throws a brick off an overpass, we can jail everyone who maliciously interferes with the operation of an automated vehicle.
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.
Do you have any idea what the clearance rate is for property crimes? You can find out here.
Also, there's the little detail that while jail is great for punishing the offender, it does nothing to protect the victim of the crime, and little to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. It seems that jail is only effective in preventing law-abiding citizens from committing crimes.
What came first, the automobile or traffic laws? The airplane or the FAA?
Wrong question. The right questions are, "How long did commercial passenger flights operate before the government started creating aircraft safety regulations?", and "Whose idea was it to have the Federal government get into the business of creating aircraft safety regulations?" By the way, the FAA wasn't created until 1958. The Department of Commerce was the original regulating authority, and actually took over some functions from the Post Office Department.
The first scheduled commercial airline flight was in 1914. The Air Commerce Act of 1926, gave the Federal government the power to regulate civil aviation. This legislation was passed at the urging of the aviation industry, whose leaders believed the airplane could not reach its full commercial potential without federal action to improve and maintain safety standards.
So, if you want to draw parallels between airplanes and self-driving cars, you should be asking why Waymo and other developers of the technology aren't asking for government regulation, not maintaining that no regulation should be required.
And the car owner, and the manufacturer of the car and of the software. There may be many problems with self-driving cars, but finding lawsuit-targets ain't one.
Sure, you can sue all of them, but if the self-driving system made a bad decision and caused an accident, the maker of that system is the only place courts could reasonably pin the liability.
Wrong. The liability could also be pinned on the state government (in other words, you and me) for allowing these cars to operate on public roads without adequate testing.
That statement should apply to both self-driving and human cars
No, because they're not the same at all. Self-driving cars are in many respects attractive nuisances. 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.
I understand that Waymo and others have done a lot of testing and undoubtedly have their own sets of standards they think are sufficient to ensure a reasonable level of safety, but I don't have access to those standards or the test data, so I have no way of assessing the results. What I don't see are the automotive equivalent of FAA regulations (FARs) or airworthiness standards (e.g., MIL-STD 516).
You don't have to call people "managers" for that, in California at least. Here, if you're classified "salaried/exempt", the company is exempt from paying you for overtime even though you're not a manager in title or in fact. Interestingly, you still get paid by the hour if you put in fewer than 40 hours per week.
A million people earning a dollar a and one person earning a milliard still gets you an average income of 1001 dollar per person, but it's clearly bunk.
Damn, no wonder you're poverty-stricken. (1,000,000 * 1 + 1 * 1,000,000)/2 = 2, not 1001.
Too bad for your argument that the GP said a milliard, not a million (that's the same thing Americans call a billion, i.e. 1,000,000,000). And there are 1.000.001 people to take the average, not 2.
Yeah, I screwed up on the denominator, but the answer is still 2, if you'll pardon my ignorance of obscure British notation.
Shanked that equation -- denominator should be 1,000,001. But the answer's still 2.
A million people earning a dollar a and one person earning a milliard still gets you an average income of 1001 dollar per person, but it's clearly bunk.
Damn, no wonder you're poverty-stricken. (1,000,000 * 1 + 1 * 1,000,000)/2 = 2, not 1001.
Now, Amazon is moving more and more towards a brick and mortar presence.
In my case, having an Amazon brick and mortar store nearby is a don't care. I'm close to a large Best Buy, and they are happy to price-match anything on Amazon that they have in stock. Latest example: a pair of noise-cancelling headphones carrying a Best Buy price tag of $199; they matched Amazon's $118 price without blinking an eye.
1 star: UPS driver didn't ring teh doorbell!
When I'm considering an Amazon purchase, I always look at the 1-star reviews. It's rare to find one that actually is a complaint about a defective product or one that doesn't perform as described. Most of them are of the "these headphones are uncomfortable when I wear them on my ass" variety.
If you read the article you linked, you'll see that the screwfly solution was based on work done on mosquitoes.
Wrong. Read the article again. The screwfly solution was inspired by a book by Nobel laureate H. J. Muller titled "Drosophila," which discussed use of radiation to alter the genetic material of insects. Drosphila, by the way, is not a mosquito; it is a genus of flies commonly referred to as "small fruit flies". The word "mosquito" appears nowhere in the article.
Oh, and the screwfly solution certainly DOES require the introduction of genetically engineered insects into the wild
Releasing overwhelming numbers of sterile males into the wild to out-compete the native, non-sterile males is certainly not remotely similar to designing a genetic modification that engineers mosquitos with a "gene drive," which rapidly transmitted a sterilizing mutation through other members of the mosquito's species.
The US requires around 750K immigrants per year to maintain zero growth
The US has been receiving about 1 million legal immigrants per year since 2000.
and yet we have a war against immigration.
There is no war against legal immigration; see the link above. There is certainly an effort being made to reduce the number of people entering the country illegally, which has been modestly effective.
The Screwfly Solution has been proven to be quite effective, and doesn't require the introduction of genetically engineered insects into the wild.
Really, you can't understand that "one", and "a few, but nothing close to all" are not the same?
They're reporting "at least" three dead.
From TFS: A gunman shot four people, none fatally, at his Middleton, Wisconsin workplace Wednesday morning before he was killed in a shootout with police, Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke said.
Nope.
Puerto Rico is an insular area—a United States territory that is neither a part of one of the fifty states nor a part of the District of Columbia, the nation's federal district. Insular areas, including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, are not allowed to choose electors in U.S. presidential elections or elect voting members of the U.S. Congress. This grows out of Articles One and Two of the United States Constitution, which state that electors are to be chosen by "the People of the several States." In 1961, the 23rd amendment extended the right to choose electors to the District of Columbia; the insular areas, however, were not addressed in that Amendment.
Cause women are always late, amiright?
You are a sexist pig.
He didn't say ALL women, he said his wife. You're an idiotic fabricator of stupid strawmen.
Of course not. Of course, your comment is a blatant strawman, as the comment I was responding to said that car owners should have COMLETE CONTROL over their car's hardware and software. Affecting how much of the battery gets used is a far cry from complete control.
I can't think of a car with "parking brakes" that aren't 'brake by wire'. A simple wire attached to a handle that ratchets to hold the line under tension while the owner isn't in the car.
I hope you're not being serious. That's NOT what 'brake br wire' means; in fact it's pretty much the opposite.
That's nice. Can you point to the FAR that requires compliance for certification?