My making noise with my car in no way makes them behave other than they would normally behave. I've got rear view mirrors and see how they were already driving. If I were *encouraging* them then I'd be racing with them. It's not encouragement to actually not race at all.
I just did a quick Google and you might want to as well. You offered an "Actually..." So, I went and took a look with the query of "sex at olympic games."
If the four links, fairly randomly clicked, are to be considered truth then there's significantly more there than there are at other functions.
I guess it's down to this... Err... Where'd you come up with that response? I open every reply with a mental note to say, "Thanks, I learned something." Or, "You have a good point." (I find it helps. I literally consciously think about it each time.) 'Cause I'm speaking only about the athletes. I'm not sure how the spectators are important or salient. I may not have been clear enough.
So, I'm trying but I must be missing something. I opened the reply thinking that I'd be acknowledging my error and learning something new. If the reports are accurate then there's a whole bunch of fucking going on. I'm completely baffled that you then "actually" me and say that physical fitness hasn't anything to do with it when we're discussing a group for whom physical fitness is a very strong attractor/trait. At that point, you decided to go into the crowd and see what the spectators are doing.
I'd not normally dignify you with a response but, how cute. You did exactly what I expected you to do. I know, quite well, what Affirmative Action entails. Thanks.
The part that makes me curious if you're trolling or just stupid would be where you went with needs based. Frankly, if they don't need it then there's no reason to help them. Such is painfully obvious. So, obviously, needy people get a preference because they're needy and not because of the color of their skin.
In addition, I'm not sure that *you* know what Affirmative Action is. It's not to be mistaken with an EOE.
And no... We don't need to make sure they're not discriminating. Sorry but no. We can deal with reports rather than try to push preferential treatment - equal employment opportunity is already a law.
But yeah, tell the guy who's been subjected to overt racism for nearly 60 years how well he really understands the degree of systemic racism. You surely need to tell me how to feel, after all - I can't learn without extra help. I do, on the other hand, thank you for demonstrating my point. This is going to sound strange but maybe you can just worry about you and let me fight my own battle. I'll also add that I've had parts of this discussion with many real-life black people (not just the token friend that you're sure to have on hand) and, for the most part, we're fairly close to unanimous in our dislike for such.
Still, it's priceless how quickly someone proved my point. Thank you Mr. AC - you've done me a disservice from having to go back through logs and find a citation.
This is going to sound really, really crazy - but hear me out.
The employers can help (I know, I used to be one and I still do) by actually paying your employees to live comfortably and having the chance to build up security equity with myriad methods.
I know that paying your employees well is a crazy idea but I had pretty good results with it. Unadjusted, in 1998 or so, we paid anywhere from 90 to 120k to start programmers who could learn modeling and domain-specific topics and we paid engineers just about the same. If a 'traffic engineer' of any skill were available then we'd have paid more.
WTF would I care about it? 'Snot like it comes out of my pocket. Yes, yes I owned the business. However, I drew a check like everyone else - often lower than some employees. The business had its money, I had mine. Keeping the funds separated and being disciplined about it is one of the reasons that we did as well as we did. That and paying them enough to where they did not have to struggle.
As an aside: Today, a Senior Traffic Engineer (there's such a thing these days) might pull down between 80 and 110k. Err... It was pretty niche for a while. Then folks realized it was lucrative, courses were changed, and there's a slew of them and most of them are making much less than they should be.
At any rate, I'm not taking it out on you. I also had the benefit of not being a publicly traded corporation (it was/is incorporated but the now-parent company is publicly traded) so it's all good to me. It's not my money that I spent on them. It was the money the company got paid to do a job.
I'd also add that I dislike the word "employee" just a little. It has certain connotations that I do not prefer. I worked *with* mine and that's pretty different than saying that they worked *for* me. It might not seem it but, to me, it's a huge difference.:/
So, good luck. I like what you've done and that's a great idea. There were times when employees got to borrow money but it was never for any real crisis - it was just expediency. I crunched some numbers about 6 months ago and, IIRC, said Sr. Traffic Eng. should be pulling down 180 to 210 in today's dollars even if they got zero raises during that time frame. Some people don't like to hear this but the reality is that I wasn't paying the money - taxes (generally) were. Most of our business was, at that time, vehicular traffic modeling. So, why not pay what's there (even bonuses) to employees? The goal was to keep the business healthy and productive. The way to do that is to keep them challenged, happy, and paid well for quality work.
I'm a bit curious about why you think Google should be checking into a business model - and, really, what does that phrase actually mean?
The second makes me curious... What the hell is "dropboxes?" (I'm kind of fluent in criminal terminology (2 proficiency slots in Thieve's Cant.) What's that?
Also, why would they trust users or are you saying that you should flag them and they should review 'em?
I'm not actually sure why you'd expect Google (or really want, I guess) to do such things. Me? I just want them to give me search results.
I have no idea what you mean by pwning YouTube. I know what pwning is. Who's distributing malware by Google or hacking users through YouTube directly?
Are you talking about the links that people put in the description that take you off-site? I only see those when I'm hunting for copyrighted material.
The last one (I think) is "stealing your personal information." Err... They stole your information? How? They DO say they're slurping up your information and, in fact, make it part of their agreement to let you use their stuff. I'm not really sure where you're going with that one. I see them doing something I don't like (slurping up data) but they do make it pretty clear that that's what they're doing so I'm not sure that the word stealing applies. There might be something that I'm unaware of.
To the best of my knowledge, Google has no information about me that I didn't give to them. Well, there was the wireless router thing. I guess that'd count but I suspect that's not what you mean because that's long-since gone.
Then, I might be crazy, but didn't this:
My own motto these years is "Additional detailed suggestions available upon polite request, but I'm not holding my breath."
appear in another thread from earlier today? Again, I'm not sure what you're going for.
I should mention that I've been quite pissed with Google for a long time. So, I'm not asking these questions just to be obtuse. I'm actually the guy that gave up on Android and got a Windows Phone. So, I'm really not a fanboy or anything. I do use YouTube. I do have a GMail account that doesn't get used. I do, actually use their search.
A note on that last part. I use their search AND I have profile set up so that it returns personalized responses. They're pretty good and come at a price - privacy. So, I do two things... I only let Google get my information when I give it to them on that particular page. I block all Google stuff (including images and fonts) by default by means of uMatrix. So, I'm not actually being tracked with their other stuff like analytics or tag. In fact, I need to go out of my way in order to even see their CAPTCHA - it simply does not load. (That has led to some interesting periods of confusion and some frustration but I consider it worth it.)
So, yeah, I'm mostly just curious about the personal information theft. See, I know how the 'net works and I don't actually consider tracking (if that's what you're even going for) to be theft. In fact, I consider people having given consent to such when they visit some third party site that has chosen to use their analytics or whatnot. I really can't think of any data that Google might have that I didn't give away by direct actions on my part. Yes, they index comments I make. They index a site or two. I don't actually consider that theft - I consider that being them doing their job.
Oh, forgot this... It's tempting to mention that "information wants to be free." That's not really my point. My point is that you're putting stuff out there knowing that it's going to be indexed (or, something?) and that you expect them to do some vague things with words that you have a cryptic definition for. I can not actually parse what is wholesale pwning of YouTube and I'm kind of fluent in computer (even blackhat) terminology.
It's almost as if you're asking Google to exert more contr
Umm, yeah... You might just as well say "niggers." Yes, yes I am a "people of color." You dog-whistle more than Trump, FFS.
shut out of the same banking products that we take for granted
Anecdotes aren't good evidence but I'm still going to point out that I've had a bank account since I was about 5. When I am home, I even sit on the board at the FSFCU. (Credit Union.) In a Credit Union, I don't have a "savings account" but a share. By virtue of the number of shares, I was invited to and often participate in an after-hour Thursday night meeting at said CU.
Now, the question I pose is this: Do you *really* think it's because of the color of their skin or do you think there's an underlying reason that we're just not ready to discuss? 'Cause, I don't really know and I looked at all three of your links and I don't think they actually tried to do any real investigation there.
'Cause, as a "people of color" I can think of a few reasons why such might happen and they're not actually (technically) a matter of race. There's more to a credit score, and the decision to make a loan, than just a number or the color of their skin. Actually, come to think of it, I've checked my credit score before and I don't think I saw the words "People of Color" on that anywhere. I might have missed it.
I am not saying (really, I'm not) that this study is rather patently answering the question with the answer they wanted to get. Give me enough data and I can probably demonstrate that anyone with the word "Pope" in their online user accounts are x% more likely to be pedophiles.
I've got a whole slew of black relatives. (I kind of prefer 'black' over the 'colored' bit - colored was dog-whistle in the South when I was young - as was "boy.") They all, more or less, get the treatment from financial institutions that they deserve. (Mostly pretty good/normal access and I've helped a few out that had some financial issues and they're doing just fine but their financial issues were, to be honest, of their own doing and not because of the color of their skin.)
It might sound racist but there's probably a decent determination that says x-name at x-old-addresses is x% more likely to default. Data, being data, is relatively harmless if used properly. Basically, I'm rather skeptical that the numbers truly indicate anything systemic that's related to race. What it may well do is look at previous addresses (a component for issuing credit) and it's potentially true that those addresses were in a "ghetto" or the likes. That's almost certainly going to make the numbers make it look like banks hate "people of color" (I really, really dislike that term but I'm mostly used to it.) simply because the projects have more black people in them.
I'm also not saying that there is NOT some systemic racism. I'm basically doubting the validity of using those numbers to make a meaningful determination. Those numbers probably also indicate that the banks favor people who drank milk. So, yeah... I'm just not really buying it as something meaningful. Does racism still exist in the US? Of course. I know racist people off all skin tones. But, banks are not particularly keen on failing to maximize their revenue. If the totality (which is, again, more than a score) would make them the same then I'm inclined to think the banks would not be leaving money on the table. That's just not logical or very bank-like.
It's akin to the strange myth that women are paid less than men to do the same job. (Emphasis on the last two words.) If employers could get away with paying women less they'd have given them preferential treatment long ago. And, having been a salary payer, I can't imagine why I'd pay a man more than I'd pay a woman for the same job. (Again, note the last two words.) No, I'm going to pay them the absolute most I can pay them while still keeping the business afloat because happy employees do good work. If I could be chintzy and an ass, and pay less to
As a "person of color" I get pretty tired of it. Just 'cause I got a little black and Amerindian in me doesn't mean I need extra aid, thanks.
See, I know this might sound strange but I'm actually kind of offended by affirmative action. Affirmative action is the system saying, "Here, nigger. You can't do it on your own. So, we'll give you a head start because your merits are not good enough in this white man's world."
(I can say nigger, right? 'Cause I got some black in me... Fuck it, it's 2016, I'm ENTITLED to the word.)
So, yeah... I've never been a fan of Affirmative Action - and I lived in the *SOUTH* during the 50s and 60s. (Well, late 50s.) I do think that, at one point, there was some validity to it - as it was necessary to force folks to overcome that prejudice. That time is long-since past. No, I don't need extra help because I'm not white. No, I don't need a boost to help me out any more than anyone else. In fact, I did very well for myself AND I never once used any of the advantages for preferential treatment for minority or women owned businesses.
I'd not qualify for the latter. I am absolutely, definitely, a minority - I'm part cracker, part Indian (feather, not dot), and part black African. I'm mostly Micmac. Oddly, I look Asian and am quasi-fluent in Spanish. But, I can grow fro like a mo fo. Yeah, it confuses people and I don't really fit into form-filled boxes all that well - I usually select "Other" in the race (when asked) and fill it in with "David."
Where was I? Oh yes... I was lamenting the idea of Affirmative Action. I gotta tell you, I really don't like that much at all. Now, I don't go out and be outraged and demand that someone do something. I'm mostly just bemused and disappointed with humanity. I can think of few things that are more blatantly racist than Affirmative Action. (Strange, eh?) But, yeah... "No, you can't do it on your own. You're not smart enough and, because of your race, we've deemed you to be less adept and so we're going to give you preferential treatment and advantages other people don't have." Yes, yes that is EXACTLY what they're saying. (It's amusing when the white person then tells me that I'm wrong. We have some idiots here who have done so in the past.)
I made it on my own merits, taking no advantage anyone else did not have, and even paid for my education by enlisting not once but twice. Thanks for thinking I'm inept and need help because of my race, really guys... I appreciate that... I really do. Would you like to tell me what else I am unable to do? Maybe I should get a stipend for friend chicken, beer, and crack?/s
*sighs*
But, that reminds me of a joke - I've shared it before. It's time to mention it again as it's tangentially related. It's a bad joke - if you're easily offended, stop here. It's also a bit of truth. All good comedy is. Also, I heard it from another black man so I guess I'm allowed to say it. No, I'm ENTITLED to say it.
Q: When does a black man become a nigger? A: When he leaves the room.
On a more serious note, there was (really) a time when Affirmative Action was needed. That time is no more. Aid should be based on ability and merit. Aid should be colorblind. Martin Luther King Jr. did not say, "I have a dream that one day I would be hoisted up above the rest simply because of the color of my skin." No, no... He did not say that.
It's tempting to hit cancel and not send this but, fuck it... Some shit needs to be said aloud. Due to some personal/familial issues, my political aspirations are really close to dead in the water for actions I have no control over nor right to control. Well, that and the folks who'd have voted (will vote?) really don't mind me being honest. Maine's full of good people - most places are.
But, for some reason, it's not racism if you're trying to aid or protect. I'm not really sure who came up with that idea but the fact that they don't see it's racist as all fuck is baffling to me. It'd be
That kind of depends on the Libertarian. Fraud is, after all, never acceptable to those who truly tout the ideals of a free market.
However, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - though many have somehow managed to conflate the two. I, for example, would prefer the nomenclature "Classic Libertarian" but the most descriptive is "Socialist Libertarian." You might, if you're European, think of me as a Social Democrat but for very different reasons.
My ideal being, of course, the maximum opportunity to use one's freedoms to best enjoy one's liberties. And no, those two words are not synonymous.
I'd type more and, indeed, I started to. However, it's likely futility and I'm impatient today. If you've any questions or doubts then I'd refer you to the Wikipedia article. It is, oddly, actually fairly accurate and well done. I'm not exactly sure how the Randians (for wont of a better name) managed to overlook it. They've pretty much usurped the party and the rest of the world has been duped into believing some really odd things.
For example, once upon a time - we Libertarians were the kooky left. Yup... Now, somehow, we're the crazy right - but I've not really changed any of my beliefs except to refine them over these many years. I'm a Socialist Libertarian because it's the most logical position and that's different than the typical left. I used facts, reason, logic, and math to reach this position. (It's cheaper to feed you than it is to hire goons to keep you from stealing my stuff. I like my stuff, that's why I bought it. It's cheaper and easier to keep you healthy and educated than it is to clean up after your mess. It's not just my liberty that matters - your liberty is of as much importance to me as my own. That sort of thing.)
So, yeah, a Libertarian position would be that anyone defrauding needs to be punished and prevented from doing so. We're not (generally) Anarchists. We believe companies should provide the goods they say they'll provide BUT you should (I suppose) have the opportunity to make an informed choice and select a lesser product provided you harm no others with it. See, Liberty (caps on purpose) is really only valuable if we maximize if for everyone. It does us no good if just a few have access - that's how you get violence and have to clean up messes. A company can, I suppose, sell shit in a sack but they damned well better sell shit in a sack that is honestly marketed as such and contains the shit they said it will contain. A fairly free market (free markets don't exist and never will) doesn't work with fraud.
Yeah, I know, I wasted my time and folks will keep on believing what they want but, there you go. That's a Libertarian speaking to you. (I've been involved with the party since 1978 or so.) Yeah, we've got our share of idiots in the party or claiming to speak for the party but every party has those. To put it into perspective, I'd far prefer Sanders than any other candidate in the US race but he's certainly not ideal. He also isn't very honest and that's unfortunate.
Heh. You're an old bastard. Even older than I by about 4 years.
Remember when we were young and always wanted to be the oldest? *sighs*
"Man, I can't wait to turn 14 so I can get my permit!" "Man, I can't wait until I'm 18 and can drink!"
Aging, not all it's cracked up to be.
Having said that... I don't watch TV really so it's very unlikely that I'll watch the Olympics. I do actually, sort of, not really mind watching some of the Winter Games. I'd absolutely love to try bobsled or luge. Err... 30 years ago - that is. I'd bust a hip and be out of commission if I tried it today.
I'm also not really that fond of the newer events. I don't know if it's because I'm an old fuddy-duddy or if that's because they actually kind of suck. Synchronized swimming? Really? Did they ever put skateboarding in? I'd probably watch that. I was thrashing back before there was a Thrasher magazine. Again, not an activity for the old.
So, I am also unlikely to watch any of the events. If it's online then I might put a few of 'em on just for the novelty sake but I don't think that's likely. I'm also not worried overly much about this pandemic potential. I guess if they all turn into zombies and go on a brain eating rampage then I'd probably watch that. Barring that, I doubt I'll pay much attention. Meanwhile, I'll wait for Dubai to host the Winter Olympics.
Actually, I understand a whole lot of fucking goes on at the Games. It's a veritable fuck-fest, or so I'm told. I know about a dozen folks who have participated or been an alternate and gone to the games. Almost all of them have mentioned the sex and I do recall it being also mentioned either in a news program or a documentary but I'll be damned if I can tell you which one.
It would appear that physically fit people, in their prime, like to fuck. Go figure?
At any rate, it's a good idea to use a condom. I want to say the documentary talked about them handing out condoms and (maybe) running out? But, my memory is toast. (Buttered with cinnamon and sugar.)
Partially disagree - as mentioned above. No, it should not hit shit even if the driver's retarded. It's in an automated mode. It should not ram into stuff.
What it distinctly isn't is a reason to be outraged, grabbing pitchforks, or suing people. What it is, is a need to refine a few things and a kink that needs to be worked out.
It should not allow itself to hit shit if it is in automated operation mode. No.
And yes, full disclosure, I not only own shares in Tesla - I own quite a few. I'm still not outraged and I still don't think it's some horrible thing that we need to fret about. Just figure out how to make it not happen again and keep on keeping on.
For the lazy, there's a recent Nova episode about memory. I... Err... So, I forgot the title but there is one and it is, in fact, Nova. I think it even hit Slashdot. Anyhow, it's much easier than reading studies and it's quite interesting. If you set your YouTube to autoplay it takes you (well, it took me) to a couple of other documentaries on the subject.
Err... We don't do that here. In fact, we don't even like your kind of people around here.
Making informed, logical, well-reasoned, accurate, statements that are based on facts, observation, and are objective - is not something we're actually all that keen on. If you're one of those article readers, may I suggest Fark or Reddit?
Sheesh... Next thing you know, you're going to ask that we actually know about the subject before we offer (insist, really) adamant opinions. Never gonna happen.
LOL I own shares and am on the list to get a Tesla - I'm also very forgiving.
But, c'mon... IF the vehicle drove into something when it was summoned, that's a problem and not really the owner's responsibility. He should have a legitimate expectation of the vehicle arriving, after having been summoned, without it banging into random obstacles. C'mon now! It's not a "Smash into everything and get here quick" button. It's a, "Hey, come here and don't ram into shit" button.
Well, it should be the latter. It doesn't mean I'm not getting one. It doesn't mean I'm angry. It doesn't mean I have to be outraged and post angry letters on the 'net. No, it means they fucked up and will fix it, if it turns out they're responsible. It's much more simple than you folks seem to think.
When you push summon, it should summon the vehicle and the vehicle shouldn't smash into stuff while it's guiding itself to you. Otherwise, they might just as well have a "Do what ever the hell you wish" button. Which, while awesome, is probably not legal.
I have not yet taken delivery and am still on the waiting list but, if I understand correctly, they don't just decide to summon themselves. It's a bit like a Final Fantasy thing. You actually have to push a button in order to summon.
What I find odd is the remarks in parenthesis. That it's unlikely that he forgot and possible that it spazzed out. If I had to pick between those two, I gotta be realistic here, I'd be more inclined to suspect the human did it.
That it ran into something is a bit disconcerting. You folks trust these things to pilot you down the highway, at highway speeds, when it seems to have a blind spot at head height? I don't care, I'm still buying one and I still own shares BUT I think I might not let it drive, not just yet. I'm gonna make sure it kind of gets some lessons, so to speak, before letting it do that.
And no, no I am not buying one out of some desire to be green. Not even close. It'll be for the missus to drive. On the other hand, the 0 to 60 will be tested many, many times. I've not yet found out if I can disable stability and traction control. You can imagine why I'd want to do such a thing, right? Good...
It's a bit nifty but I can disable all that in my 6 series. I don't do it often but sometimes the inner five year old child has to be let out to play. It's also a great sleeper (the 6) and the kids all are easily amused by it. Sometimes they recognize the model for what it is and pull up beside me and indicate they want to race. I usually (it's a stick) rev a bit and it makes a low, throaty, growl that kind of shakes stuff. They stomp on the gas the minute the light turns green. I mosey along to the next light.
The street is never the appropriate place to race.
(I sent you a response, sort of. I indicated that I got your email.)
We gotta get you a grammar checker in English. I tried one called "After the Deadline" but it sucked. I thought about hosting my own server but I never got that far. For I am a lazy American.
But yes, I hit the button to say that I got the email. Also, it's MOOT! Like the 4chan dude. Not to be confused with 'mute' but, to be fair, your English is 100 times better than my German.
As for the rest of the readers - err... Ignore this. Alternatively, learn the word 'moot.' Is T near the D on a Germanic keyboard? I do not know this...
So... I'm driving around Atlanta (you know the route) and it's like 12 lanes of barren wasteland because it's 0700 on a Sunday. Four of the lanes turn and I know where I am so I'm happily over in the middle just minding my own business. I see some blues behind me but they're going like 80 MPH *over* the speed limit (it's like 65 there - they probably were really only going maybe 90 MPH but I need hyperbole for this, so bear with me) and they're coming on fast.
Now the merge is coming up at the same time and I'm so not going down to the in-town streets. I'll take the fucking fine. I once drove around Atlanta for a whole night until I finally went to sleep over at a Dollar General parking lot. I woke up and was two blocks from my damned destination. Bastards... Anyhow...
But no... They, what looked like a few cop cars, turned out to be a couple dozen of them (not hyperbole) and they just kind of fanned out and went on all sides of me (one side of which was no longer a lane but a breakdown lane) and I don't think they paid the least bit of attention to me.
Now this was a number of years ago and I'm about to tell you the rest of the story... Yes, yes I am. See, it isn't right that I was busy snorting coke when I first saw the lights but that's the way it is.
Which leads me to this...
If I had an automated automobile, it could have communicated with the cop cars and my car maybe pulled into the breakdown lane (bear in mind - there were still 4-6 lanes to my right and two, not one, still opted to drive in the breakdown lane to pass me) and they'd have not had to pass me on the right and jump the shit out of me. I swear, I thought I was gonna have a heart attack.
But, at what price? See, no... I shouldn't be snorting cocaine and driving through Atlanta after driving all day from way up in NY. I know this. But, do I really want my car to communicate with the cops? I mean, yeah, it'd probably have not given me a heart attack but it might rat me out for sniffing a little Bolivian Marching Powder to help me on my journey. Well, okay, a lot of it - but that's not the point...
Has anyone stopped to think about what you're giving up? Yeah, it sucks that people die. Yeah, shit happens. But, still... Do you really want that much more record of where you're going? Do you really want to give up that much more autonomy?
I'm 58 now so I don't think I'll have to worry about it. Besides, I usually reside in Maine and it's gonna be a while before they map my neck of the woods. (See GPS thread where I get a Canadian tour bus in my driveway every single year - without fail.) But, you're from Georgia... Do you think the autonomous vehicle is going to let you go out cruising a dirt road and then go mudding? How about when you do a drug run to Florida - and don't lie to me, I know what goes on in Atlanta. I have been to Atlanta many times. You're not fooling me.
I'll consider it when I want to make long trips. I'm a true aficionado and own a number of vehicles - so I'd certainly buy an autonomous vehicle - just like I'm now officially on the list for a Tesla. I like all vehicles - I'd buy (and might) a firetruck. I like 'em all. I'd not mind one if I could take over and drive - and I assume that will be an option for the rest of my life. (It won't be that much longer.) But, the rest of you? What of your kids? Where does this autonomy (and loss of it) lead?
By the way, I'll be coming back through Atlanta shortly but I'll be going north. I'll have the missus with me so I probably will not be snorting anything. She, alas, doesn't imbibe. Me? I get tired of coke after about three days. It's like the one drug I don't think I can get addicted to - besides meth. Alas, that's a topic for another day. But, you should be safe this time when I go through.
To be fair, I've driven both competitively and professionally. As you also probably know, I've worked in the industry. Sometimes, the better option is to speed up. Most humans don't think of this (or know it) and do stupid shit. A computer might be better at that.
That said, I've made my standing wager to all sorts of folks but no one seems willing to bet on it. I wonder if I should email this Ford guy. He might take my bet. (Autonomous cars, fully so, are quite a ways away for mass adoption - even in the Western countries.)
"Your Honor, the EULA clearly states that any maimed and dead children are the responsibility of the person nearest the operator's seat at the time of the accident. We have the click-through right here."
You probably are right. Though, it's an ideal time for a SCOTUS nominee joke - I'll skip it and you can pretend I made one (in favor of whatever platform you prefer) and laugh while you pretend I was witty and insightful.
You have no idea how tempting it is to hit the "Post Anonymously" box and dispel you of any such notions. But, you're probably right and I'm really not the ass people seem to think I am.
Hmm... No, still tempted... *sighs* You win this time, internet!
I have no idea but that's what the documentary said.:P I'm not sure why it's marked troll - it's not like I wrote the damned thing. It was the Ozzies that made it.
It might be that they'd mined *more* of it and now mine less of it but still are the ones that have sold the most? They were very clear on being the folks who were in the #1 position.
It's okay. I've got god-like Karma and it's no fun if I can't burn it once in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
My making noise with my car in no way makes them behave other than they would normally behave. I've got rear view mirrors and see how they were already driving. If I were *encouraging* them then I'd be racing with them. It's not encouragement to actually not race at all.
I just did a quick Google and you might want to as well. You offered an "Actually..." So, I went and took a look with the query of "sex at olympic games."
If the four links, fairly randomly clicked, are to be considered truth then there's significantly more there than there are at other functions.
I guess it's down to this... Err... Where'd you come up with that response? I open every reply with a mental note to say, "Thanks, I learned something." Or, "You have a good point." (I find it helps. I literally consciously think about it each time.) 'Cause I'm speaking only about the athletes. I'm not sure how the spectators are important or salient. I may not have been clear enough.
So, I'm trying but I must be missing something. I opened the reply thinking that I'd be acknowledging my error and learning something new. If the reports are accurate then there's a whole bunch of fucking going on. I'm completely baffled that you then "actually" me and say that physical fitness hasn't anything to do with it when we're discussing a group for whom physical fitness is a very strong attractor/trait. At that point, you decided to go into the crowd and see what the spectators are doing.
What am I missing? I must be missing something.
LOL I haven't kept up with the series. I played 2 and 3 IIRC. They've gotta be up to XV by now.
They had a RTS game (FF: Tactics?) and Fallout 2 followed suit. I've not really gamed since.
I'd not normally dignify you with a response but, how cute. You did exactly what I expected you to do. I know, quite well, what Affirmative Action entails. Thanks.
The part that makes me curious if you're trolling or just stupid would be where you went with needs based. Frankly, if they don't need it then there's no reason to help them. Such is painfully obvious. So, obviously, needy people get a preference because they're needy and not because of the color of their skin.
In addition, I'm not sure that *you* know what Affirmative Action is. It's not to be mistaken with an EOE.
And no... We don't need to make sure they're not discriminating. Sorry but no. We can deal with reports rather than try to push preferential treatment - equal employment opportunity is already a law.
But yeah, tell the guy who's been subjected to overt racism for nearly 60 years how well he really understands the degree of systemic racism. You surely need to tell me how to feel, after all - I can't learn without extra help. I do, on the other hand, thank you for demonstrating my point. This is going to sound strange but maybe you can just worry about you and let me fight my own battle. I'll also add that I've had parts of this discussion with many real-life black people (not just the token friend that you're sure to have on hand) and, for the most part, we're fairly close to unanimous in our dislike for such.
Still, it's priceless how quickly someone proved my point. Thank you Mr. AC - you've done me a disservice from having to go back through logs and find a citation.
This is going to sound really, really crazy - but hear me out.
The employers can help (I know, I used to be one and I still do) by actually paying your employees to live comfortably and having the chance to build up security equity with myriad methods.
I know that paying your employees well is a crazy idea but I had pretty good results with it. Unadjusted, in 1998 or so, we paid anywhere from 90 to 120k to start programmers who could learn modeling and domain-specific topics and we paid engineers just about the same. If a 'traffic engineer' of any skill were available then we'd have paid more.
WTF would I care about it? 'Snot like it comes out of my pocket. Yes, yes I owned the business. However, I drew a check like everyone else - often lower than some employees. The business had its money, I had mine. Keeping the funds separated and being disciplined about it is one of the reasons that we did as well as we did. That and paying them enough to where they did not have to struggle.
As an aside: Today, a Senior Traffic Engineer (there's such a thing these days) might pull down between 80 and 110k. Err... It was pretty niche for a while. Then folks realized it was lucrative, courses were changed, and there's a slew of them and most of them are making much less than they should be.
At any rate, I'm not taking it out on you. I also had the benefit of not being a publicly traded corporation (it was/is incorporated but the now-parent company is publicly traded) so it's all good to me. It's not my money that I spent on them. It was the money the company got paid to do a job.
I'd also add that I dislike the word "employee" just a little. It has certain connotations that I do not prefer. I worked *with* mine and that's pretty different than saying that they worked *for* me. It might not seem it but, to me, it's a huge difference. :/
So, good luck. I like what you've done and that's a great idea. There were times when employees got to borrow money but it was never for any real crisis - it was just expediency. I crunched some numbers about 6 months ago and, IIRC, said Sr. Traffic Eng. should be pulling down 180 to 210 in today's dollars even if they got zero raises during that time frame. Some people don't like to hear this but the reality is that I wasn't paying the money - taxes (generally) were. Most of our business was, at that time, vehicular traffic modeling. So, why not pay what's there (even bonuses) to employees? The goal was to keep the business healthy and productive. The way to do that is to keep them challenged, happy, and paid well for quality work.
Yes, I know that's just crazy talk.
I'm a bit curious about why you think Google should be checking into a business model - and, really, what does that phrase actually mean?
The second makes me curious... What the hell is "dropboxes?" (I'm kind of fluent in criminal terminology (2 proficiency slots in Thieve's Cant.) What's that?
Also, why would they trust users or are you saying that you should flag them and they should review 'em?
I'm not actually sure why you'd expect Google (or really want, I guess) to do such things. Me? I just want them to give me search results.
I have no idea what you mean by pwning YouTube. I know what pwning is. Who's distributing malware by Google or hacking users through YouTube directly?
Are you talking about the links that people put in the description that take you off-site? I only see those when I'm hunting for copyrighted material.
The last one (I think) is "stealing your personal information." Err... They stole your information? How? They DO say they're slurping up your information and, in fact, make it part of their agreement to let you use their stuff. I'm not really sure where you're going with that one. I see them doing something I don't like (slurping up data) but they do make it pretty clear that that's what they're doing so I'm not sure that the word stealing applies. There might be something that I'm unaware of.
To the best of my knowledge, Google has no information about me that I didn't give to them. Well, there was the wireless router thing. I guess that'd count but I suspect that's not what you mean because that's long-since gone.
Then, I might be crazy, but didn't this:
My own motto these years is "Additional detailed suggestions available upon polite request, but I'm not holding my breath."
appear in another thread from earlier today? Again, I'm not sure what you're going for.
I should mention that I've been quite pissed with Google for a long time. So, I'm not asking these questions just to be obtuse. I'm actually the guy that gave up on Android and got a Windows Phone. So, I'm really not a fanboy or anything. I do use YouTube. I do have a GMail account that doesn't get used. I do, actually use their search.
A note on that last part. I use their search AND I have profile set up so that it returns personalized responses. They're pretty good and come at a price - privacy. So, I do two things... I only let Google get my information when I give it to them on that particular page. I block all Google stuff (including images and fonts) by default by means of uMatrix. So, I'm not actually being tracked with their other stuff like analytics or tag. In fact, I need to go out of my way in order to even see their CAPTCHA - it simply does not load. (That has led to some interesting periods of confusion and some frustration but I consider it worth it.)
So, yeah, I'm mostly just curious about the personal information theft. See, I know how the 'net works and I don't actually consider tracking (if that's what you're even going for) to be theft. In fact, I consider people having given consent to such when they visit some third party site that has chosen to use their analytics or whatnot. I really can't think of any data that Google might have that I didn't give away by direct actions on my part. Yes, they index comments I make. They index a site or two. I don't actually consider that theft - I consider that being them doing their job.
Oh, forgot this... It's tempting to mention that "information wants to be free." That's not really my point. My point is that you're putting stuff out there knowing that it's going to be indexed (or, something?) and that you expect them to do some vague things with words that you have a cryptic definition for. I can not actually parse what is wholesale pwning of YouTube and I'm kind of fluent in computer (even blackhat) terminology.
It's almost as if you're asking Google to exert more contr
People of color
Umm, yeah... You might just as well say "niggers." Yes, yes I am a "people of color." You dog-whistle more than Trump, FFS.
shut out of the same banking products that we take for granted
Anecdotes aren't good evidence but I'm still going to point out that I've had a bank account since I was about 5. When I am home, I even sit on the board at the FSFCU. (Credit Union.) In a Credit Union, I don't have a "savings account" but a share. By virtue of the number of shares, I was invited to and often participate in an after-hour Thursday night meeting at said CU.
Now, the question I pose is this: Do you *really* think it's because of the color of their skin or do you think there's an underlying reason that we're just not ready to discuss? 'Cause, I don't really know and I looked at all three of your links and I don't think they actually tried to do any real investigation there.
'Cause, as a "people of color" I can think of a few reasons why such might happen and they're not actually (technically) a matter of race. There's more to a credit score, and the decision to make a loan, than just a number or the color of their skin. Actually, come to think of it, I've checked my credit score before and I don't think I saw the words "People of Color" on that anywhere. I might have missed it.
I am not saying (really, I'm not) that this study is rather patently answering the question with the answer they wanted to get. Give me enough data and I can probably demonstrate that anyone with the word "Pope" in their online user accounts are x% more likely to be pedophiles.
I've got a whole slew of black relatives. (I kind of prefer 'black' over the 'colored' bit - colored was dog-whistle in the South when I was young - as was "boy.") They all, more or less, get the treatment from financial institutions that they deserve. (Mostly pretty good/normal access and I've helped a few out that had some financial issues and they're doing just fine but their financial issues were, to be honest, of their own doing and not because of the color of their skin.)
It might sound racist but there's probably a decent determination that says x-name at x-old-addresses is x% more likely to default. Data, being data, is relatively harmless if used properly. Basically, I'm rather skeptical that the numbers truly indicate anything systemic that's related to race. What it may well do is look at previous addresses (a component for issuing credit) and it's potentially true that those addresses were in a "ghetto" or the likes. That's almost certainly going to make the numbers make it look like banks hate "people of color" (I really, really dislike that term but I'm mostly used to it.) simply because the projects have more black people in them.
I'm also not saying that there is NOT some systemic racism. I'm basically doubting the validity of using those numbers to make a meaningful determination. Those numbers probably also indicate that the banks favor people who drank milk. So, yeah... I'm just not really buying it as something meaningful. Does racism still exist in the US? Of course. I know racist people off all skin tones. But, banks are not particularly keen on failing to maximize their revenue. If the totality (which is, again, more than a score) would make them the same then I'm inclined to think the banks would not be leaving money on the table. That's just not logical or very bank-like.
It's akin to the strange myth that women are paid less than men to do the same job. (Emphasis on the last two words.) If employers could get away with paying women less they'd have given them preferential treatment long ago. And, having been a salary payer, I can't imagine why I'd pay a man more than I'd pay a woman for the same job. (Again, note the last two words.) No, I'm going to pay them the absolute most I can pay them while still keeping the business afloat because happy employees do good work. If I could be chintzy and an ass, and pay less to
Oh no... He meant what he said.
As a "person of color" I get pretty tired of it. Just 'cause I got a little black and Amerindian in me doesn't mean I need extra aid, thanks.
See, I know this might sound strange but I'm actually kind of offended by affirmative action. Affirmative action is the system saying, "Here, nigger. You can't do it on your own. So, we'll give you a head start because your merits are not good enough in this white man's world."
(I can say nigger, right? 'Cause I got some black in me... Fuck it, it's 2016, I'm ENTITLED to the word.)
So, yeah... I've never been a fan of Affirmative Action - and I lived in the *SOUTH* during the 50s and 60s. (Well, late 50s.) I do think that, at one point, there was some validity to it - as it was necessary to force folks to overcome that prejudice. That time is long-since past. No, I don't need extra help because I'm not white. No, I don't need a boost to help me out any more than anyone else. In fact, I did very well for myself AND I never once used any of the advantages for preferential treatment for minority or women owned businesses.
I'd not qualify for the latter. I am absolutely, definitely, a minority - I'm part cracker, part Indian (feather, not dot), and part black African. I'm mostly Micmac. Oddly, I look Asian and am quasi-fluent in Spanish. But, I can grow fro like a mo fo. Yeah, it confuses people and I don't really fit into form-filled boxes all that well - I usually select "Other" in the race (when asked) and fill it in with "David."
Where was I? Oh yes... I was lamenting the idea of Affirmative Action. I gotta tell you, I really don't like that much at all. Now, I don't go out and be outraged and demand that someone do something. I'm mostly just bemused and disappointed with humanity. I can think of few things that are more blatantly racist than Affirmative Action. (Strange, eh?) But, yeah... "No, you can't do it on your own. You're not smart enough and, because of your race, we've deemed you to be less adept and so we're going to give you preferential treatment and advantages other people don't have." Yes, yes that is EXACTLY what they're saying. (It's amusing when the white person then tells me that I'm wrong. We have some idiots here who have done so in the past.)
I made it on my own merits, taking no advantage anyone else did not have, and even paid for my education by enlisting not once but twice. Thanks for thinking I'm inept and need help because of my race, really guys... I appreciate that... I really do. Would you like to tell me what else I am unable to do? Maybe I should get a stipend for friend chicken, beer, and crack? /s
*sighs*
But, that reminds me of a joke - I've shared it before. It's time to mention it again as it's tangentially related. It's a bad joke - if you're easily offended, stop here. It's also a bit of truth. All good comedy is. Also, I heard it from another black man so I guess I'm allowed to say it. No, I'm ENTITLED to say it.
Q: When does a black man become a nigger?
A: When he leaves the room.
On a more serious note, there was (really) a time when Affirmative Action was needed. That time is no more. Aid should be based on ability and merit. Aid should be colorblind. Martin Luther King Jr. did not say, "I have a dream that one day I would be hoisted up above the rest simply because of the color of my skin." No, no... He did not say that.
It's tempting to hit cancel and not send this but, fuck it... Some shit needs to be said aloud. Due to some personal/familial issues, my political aspirations are really close to dead in the water for actions I have no control over nor right to control. Well, that and the folks who'd have voted (will vote?) really don't mind me being honest. Maine's full of good people - most places are.
But, for some reason, it's not racism if you're trying to aid or protect. I'm not really sure who came up with that idea but the fact that they don't see it's racist as all fuck is baffling to me. It'd be
Call. I've got a pair of Jacks, King high. You?
That kind of depends on the Libertarian. Fraud is, after all, never acceptable to those who truly tout the ideals of a free market.
However, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - though many have somehow managed to conflate the two. I, for example, would prefer the nomenclature "Classic Libertarian" but the most descriptive is "Socialist Libertarian." You might, if you're European, think of me as a Social Democrat but for very different reasons.
My ideal being, of course, the maximum opportunity to use one's freedoms to best enjoy one's liberties. And no, those two words are not synonymous.
I'd type more and, indeed, I started to. However, it's likely futility and I'm impatient today. If you've any questions or doubts then I'd refer you to the Wikipedia article. It is, oddly, actually fairly accurate and well done. I'm not exactly sure how the Randians (for wont of a better name) managed to overlook it. They've pretty much usurped the party and the rest of the world has been duped into believing some really odd things.
For example, once upon a time - we Libertarians were the kooky left. Yup... Now, somehow, we're the crazy right - but I've not really changed any of my beliefs except to refine them over these many years. I'm a Socialist Libertarian because it's the most logical position and that's different than the typical left. I used facts, reason, logic, and math to reach this position. (It's cheaper to feed you than it is to hire goons to keep you from stealing my stuff. I like my stuff, that's why I bought it. It's cheaper and easier to keep you healthy and educated than it is to clean up after your mess. It's not just my liberty that matters - your liberty is of as much importance to me as my own. That sort of thing.)
So, yeah, a Libertarian position would be that anyone defrauding needs to be punished and prevented from doing so. We're not (generally) Anarchists. We believe companies should provide the goods they say they'll provide BUT you should (I suppose) have the opportunity to make an informed choice and select a lesser product provided you harm no others with it. See, Liberty (caps on purpose) is really only valuable if we maximize if for everyone. It does us no good if just a few have access - that's how you get violence and have to clean up messes. A company can, I suppose, sell shit in a sack but they damned well better sell shit in a sack that is honestly marketed as such and contains the shit they said it will contain. A fairly free market (free markets don't exist and never will) doesn't work with fraud.
Yeah, I know, I wasted my time and folks will keep on believing what they want but, there you go. That's a Libertarian speaking to you. (I've been involved with the party since 1978 or so.) Yeah, we've got our share of idiots in the party or claiming to speak for the party but every party has those. To put it into perspective, I'd far prefer Sanders than any other candidate in the US race but he's certainly not ideal. He also isn't very honest and that's unfortunate.
Heh. You're an old bastard. Even older than I by about 4 years.
Remember when we were young and always wanted to be the oldest? *sighs*
"Man, I can't wait to turn 14 so I can get my permit!" "Man, I can't wait until I'm 18 and can drink!"
Aging, not all it's cracked up to be.
Having said that... I don't watch TV really so it's very unlikely that I'll watch the Olympics. I do actually, sort of, not really mind watching some of the Winter Games. I'd absolutely love to try bobsled or luge. Err... 30 years ago - that is. I'd bust a hip and be out of commission if I tried it today.
I'm also not really that fond of the newer events. I don't know if it's because I'm an old fuddy-duddy or if that's because they actually kind of suck. Synchronized swimming? Really? Did they ever put skateboarding in? I'd probably watch that. I was thrashing back before there was a Thrasher magazine. Again, not an activity for the old.
So, I am also unlikely to watch any of the events. If it's online then I might put a few of 'em on just for the novelty sake but I don't think that's likely. I'm also not worried overly much about this pandemic potential. I guess if they all turn into zombies and go on a brain eating rampage then I'd probably watch that. Barring that, I doubt I'll pay much attention. Meanwhile, I'll wait for Dubai to host the Winter Olympics.
Bullshit! Autism causes fluoride. Everyone knows that.
Actually, I understand a whole lot of fucking goes on at the Games. It's a veritable fuck-fest, or so I'm told. I know about a dozen folks who have participated or been an alternate and gone to the games. Almost all of them have mentioned the sex and I do recall it being also mentioned either in a news program or a documentary but I'll be damned if I can tell you which one.
It would appear that physically fit people, in their prime, like to fuck. Go figure?
At any rate, it's a good idea to use a condom. I want to say the documentary talked about them handing out condoms and (maybe) running out? But, my memory is toast. (Buttered with cinnamon and sugar.)
Partially disagree - as mentioned above. No, it should not hit shit even if the driver's retarded. It's in an automated mode. It should not ram into stuff.
What it distinctly isn't is a reason to be outraged, grabbing pitchforks, or suing people. What it is, is a need to refine a few things and a kink that needs to be worked out.
It should not allow itself to hit shit if it is in automated operation mode. No.
And yes, full disclosure, I not only own shares in Tesla - I own quite a few. I'm still not outraged and I still don't think it's some horrible thing that we need to fret about. Just figure out how to make it not happen again and keep on keeping on.
For the lazy, there's a recent Nova episode about memory. I... Err... So, I forgot the title but there is one and it is, in fact, Nova. I think it even hit Slashdot. Anyhow, it's much easier than reading studies and it's quite interesting. If you set your YouTube to autoplay it takes you (well, it took me) to a couple of other documentaries on the subject.
Err... We don't do that here. In fact, we don't even like your kind of people around here.
Making informed, logical, well-reasoned, accurate, statements that are based on facts, observation, and are objective - is not something we're actually all that keen on. If you're one of those article readers, may I suggest Fark or Reddit?
Sheesh... Next thing you know, you're going to ask that we actually know about the subject before we offer (insist, really) adamant opinions. Never gonna happen.
LOL I own shares and am on the list to get a Tesla - I'm also very forgiving.
But, c'mon... IF the vehicle drove into something when it was summoned, that's a problem and not really the owner's responsibility. He should have a legitimate expectation of the vehicle arriving, after having been summoned, without it banging into random obstacles. C'mon now! It's not a "Smash into everything and get here quick" button. It's a, "Hey, come here and don't ram into shit" button.
Well, it should be the latter. It doesn't mean I'm not getting one. It doesn't mean I'm angry. It doesn't mean I have to be outraged and post angry letters on the 'net. No, it means they fucked up and will fix it, if it turns out they're responsible. It's much more simple than you folks seem to think.
When you push summon, it should summon the vehicle and the vehicle shouldn't smash into stuff while it's guiding itself to you. Otherwise, they might just as well have a "Do what ever the hell you wish" button. Which, while awesome, is probably not legal.
I have not yet taken delivery and am still on the waiting list but, if I understand correctly, they don't just decide to summon themselves. It's a bit like a Final Fantasy thing. You actually have to push a button in order to summon.
What I find odd is the remarks in parenthesis. That it's unlikely that he forgot and possible that it spazzed out. If I had to pick between those two, I gotta be realistic here, I'd be more inclined to suspect the human did it.
That it ran into something is a bit disconcerting. You folks trust these things to pilot you down the highway, at highway speeds, when it seems to have a blind spot at head height? I don't care, I'm still buying one and I still own shares BUT I think I might not let it drive, not just yet. I'm gonna make sure it kind of gets some lessons, so to speak, before letting it do that.
And no, no I am not buying one out of some desire to be green. Not even close. It'll be for the missus to drive. On the other hand, the 0 to 60 will be tested many, many times. I've not yet found out if I can disable stability and traction control. You can imagine why I'd want to do such a thing, right? Good...
It's a bit nifty but I can disable all that in my 6 series. I don't do it often but sometimes the inner five year old child has to be let out to play. It's also a great sleeper (the 6) and the kids all are easily amused by it. Sometimes they recognize the model for what it is and pull up beside me and indicate they want to race. I usually (it's a stick) rev a bit and it makes a low, throaty, growl that kind of shakes stuff. They stomp on the gas the minute the light turns green. I mosey along to the next light.
The street is never the appropriate place to race.
Moot! Moot you crazy bastard! :-)
(I sent you a response, sort of. I indicated that I got your email.)
We gotta get you a grammar checker in English. I tried one called "After the Deadline" but it sucked. I thought about hosting my own server but I never got that far. For I am a lazy American.
But yes, I hit the button to say that I got the email. Also, it's MOOT! Like the 4chan dude. Not to be confused with 'mute' but, to be fair, your English is 100 times better than my German.
As for the rest of the readers - err... Ignore this. Alternatively, learn the word 'moot.' Is T near the D on a Germanic keyboard? I do not know this...
So... I'm driving around Atlanta (you know the route) and it's like 12 lanes of barren wasteland because it's 0700 on a Sunday. Four of the lanes turn and I know where I am so I'm happily over in the middle just minding my own business. I see some blues behind me but they're going like 80 MPH *over* the speed limit (it's like 65 there - they probably were really only going maybe 90 MPH but I need hyperbole for this, so bear with me) and they're coming on fast.
Now the merge is coming up at the same time and I'm so not going down to the in-town streets. I'll take the fucking fine. I once drove around Atlanta for a whole night until I finally went to sleep over at a Dollar General parking lot. I woke up and was two blocks from my damned destination. Bastards... Anyhow...
But no... They, what looked like a few cop cars, turned out to be a couple dozen of them (not hyperbole) and they just kind of fanned out and went on all sides of me (one side of which was no longer a lane but a breakdown lane) and I don't think they paid the least bit of attention to me.
Now this was a number of years ago and I'm about to tell you the rest of the story... Yes, yes I am. See, it isn't right that I was busy snorting coke when I first saw the lights but that's the way it is.
Which leads me to this...
If I had an automated automobile, it could have communicated with the cop cars and my car maybe pulled into the breakdown lane (bear in mind - there were still 4-6 lanes to my right and two, not one, still opted to drive in the breakdown lane to pass me) and they'd have not had to pass me on the right and jump the shit out of me. I swear, I thought I was gonna have a heart attack.
But, at what price? See, no... I shouldn't be snorting cocaine and driving through Atlanta after driving all day from way up in NY. I know this. But, do I really want my car to communicate with the cops? I mean, yeah, it'd probably have not given me a heart attack but it might rat me out for sniffing a little Bolivian Marching Powder to help me on my journey. Well, okay, a lot of it - but that's not the point...
Has anyone stopped to think about what you're giving up? Yeah, it sucks that people die. Yeah, shit happens. But, still... Do you really want that much more record of where you're going? Do you really want to give up that much more autonomy?
I'm 58 now so I don't think I'll have to worry about it. Besides, I usually reside in Maine and it's gonna be a while before they map my neck of the woods. (See GPS thread where I get a Canadian tour bus in my driveway every single year - without fail.) But, you're from Georgia... Do you think the autonomous vehicle is going to let you go out cruising a dirt road and then go mudding? How about when you do a drug run to Florida - and don't lie to me, I know what goes on in Atlanta. I have been to Atlanta many times. You're not fooling me.
I'll consider it when I want to make long trips. I'm a true aficionado and own a number of vehicles - so I'd certainly buy an autonomous vehicle - just like I'm now officially on the list for a Tesla. I like all vehicles - I'd buy (and might) a firetruck. I like 'em all. I'd not mind one if I could take over and drive - and I assume that will be an option for the rest of my life. (It won't be that much longer.) But, the rest of you? What of your kids? Where does this autonomy (and loss of it) lead?
By the way, I'll be coming back through Atlanta shortly but I'll be going north. I'll have the missus with me so I probably will not be snorting anything. She, alas, doesn't imbibe. Me? I get tired of coke after about three days. It's like the one drug I don't think I can get addicted to - besides meth. Alas, that's a topic for another day. But, you should be safe this time when I go through.
To be fair, I've driven both competitively and professionally. As you also probably know, I've worked in the industry. Sometimes, the better option is to speed up. Most humans don't think of this (or know it) and do stupid shit. A computer might be better at that.
That said, I've made my standing wager to all sorts of folks but no one seems willing to bet on it. I wonder if I should email this Ford guy. He might take my bet. (Autonomous cars, fully so, are quite a ways away for mass adoption - even in the Western countries.)
"Your Honor, the EULA clearly states that any maimed and dead children are the responsibility of the person nearest the operator's seat at the time of the accident. We have the click-through right here."
You probably are right. Though, it's an ideal time for a SCOTUS nominee joke - I'll skip it and you can pretend I made one (in favor of whatever platform you prefer) and laugh while you pretend I was witty and insightful.
You have no idea how tempting it is to hit the "Post Anonymously" box and dispel you of any such notions. But, you're probably right and I'm really not the ass people seem to think I am.
Hmm... No, still tempted... *sighs* You win this time, internet!
I'm tempted to make a joke but I've got some good friends in Texas and, besides, they scare me.
I have no idea but that's what the documentary said. :P I'm not sure why it's marked troll - it's not like I wrote the damned thing. It was the Ozzies that made it.
It might be that they'd mined *more* of it and now mine less of it but still are the ones that have sold the most? They were very clear on being the folks who were in the #1 position.
It's okay. I've got god-like Karma and it's no fun if I can't burn it once in a while.