The point is that Google has already made a car that drives itself, and the only accidents that have occurred while testing it on the road has been other people hitting it.
Sorta. But there is already a great deal of autonomy built into today's cars. You have ultrasonic sensors on your front and rear bumpers, automatic braking systems, ISA systems, adaptive cruise control; hell the FCC has already reserved frequencies for car to car communications. Google's way of localizing off already recorded maps probably isn't the most feasible way to address the problem, but without knowing the details I couldn't really say.
Unlike hovercraft, jetpacks, and the such, the benefits of autonomous cars are feasible in the near term. It won't be a revolution, but more of an evolution.
I remember in 1984 reading an article in the Weekly Reader about how flying cars would rule the skies by the far-flung year of 1995. Hovercraft, jet packs, you name it -- transportation is one of those future techs that just doesn't evolve that quickly. Oh, to be sure we are light-years ahead in terms of safety and computerization of vehicles, but autonomy is still something that's an incredible distance off. And even if we get our auto-cars, I predict the adoption rate will be zero, because people trust themselves behind the wheel more than they trust machines.
The point is that Google has already made a car that drives itself, and the only accidents that have occurred while testing it on the road has been other people hitting it.
That's great, but people don't trust machines. You can have the best product in the world, but without trust it won't be adopted. It's not about whether we'll eventually be able to do it... that's a given. It's about people wanting control over their own lives, especially when it comes to transportation. People want the illusion of control, even if the machine is safer. Look at the huge number of people who are scared shitless to fly, even though it's been proven time and again that flight is the safest form of travel. People aren't rational about these things.
That's great, but old people don't trust machines.
Look at the huge number of people who are scared shitless to fly, even though it's been proven time and again that flight is the safest form of travel.
And those people either man up and fly anyway (as they are often forced to) or become increasingly marginalized in an advancing society.
What CEO could get away with refusing to fly anywhere today? People who won't or can't fly effectively can't travel long distances efficiently, and it's telling that there are zero accommodations for these people. For the vast majority of people, flight is mundane, if expensive.
That whole thing about the DUIs is hilarious. You can bet that republicans and a lot of libertarians who hate the nanny state would be trying to get rid of all kinds of useful limitations if they thought they could. Ban on DDT? Why, that hurts all the DDT companies. Let's repeal that ban. How about the ban on asbestos? Same thing. People should be able to build asbestos-filled building if they want. If they don't know it's dangerous, then it kind of comes down to a "taking personal responsibility" thing, doesn't it? Ban on smoking in buildings and such? No way. That hurts the tobacco companies. Why do we even have those warnings on products like tobacco? People have the internet now, so if they take the personal responsibility, they should be able to research those risks themselves.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) has decided that in addition to cutting $300 million from local municipalities claiming state workers are 'overcompensated' and removing their bargaining rights, he somehow has $81,000 a year to spend on an unqualified, uneducated, drunkard of a campaign contributor as a reward in a significant position in the Department of Commerce. Hypocrisy, thy name is Walker.
The Koch brothers funded some research at the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature offices. The funny part is that the data they found apparently supports global warming, even though they were being paid by the Koch brothers to debunk it. Must be hard to debunk facts, eh? Here's my favorite bit though. When the data didn't support what the Koch's were paying for, they resorted to just making shit up. Here's a great quote from the article:
"There seems a bit of a rush here, as BEST hasn't completed all of their promised data techniques that would be able to remove the different kinds of data biases we've noted," Watts wrote on his blog yesterday. "That was the promise, that is why I signed on (to share my data and collaborate with them). Yet somehow, much of that has been thrown out the window, and they are presenting some results today without the full set of techniques applied."
When facts get in the way, just lie about everything. Also...Koch brothers. Meheheheheee.
The Koch brothers do some weird things. They are pro-business, ultra-libertarian, tea party folks. However, they also donate tons of cash to shows on PBS.
castration is not a guarantee a sex offender will not try to molest a child again, since it cannot suppress urges completely and because pedophilia can be caused by biological or mental factors.
Ineffective, revenge based punishment that only serves to make the rep look like a tough guy to his mouth breather constituent? Sounds like a GOP plan to me.
Ineffective, revenge based punishment that only serves to make the rep look like a tough guy to his mouth breather constituent? Sounds like a GOP plan to me.
This is the conversation we had here in the newsroom. We decided his plan is more about vengeance than justice. It's also somewhat about being allowed legally to exercise violence against someone. And it's certainly not going to be a deterrent, since pedophiles aren't already hobbled by consideration of risk factors.
And it's certainly not going to be a deterrent, since pedophiles aren't already hobbled by consideration of risk factors.
That's one of my biggest issues with aspects of our criminal justice system. We propose and maintain certain deterrent-minded punishments even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are ineffective. I think you're right that it's thinly-disguised revenge fantasy.
I think it's fairly forgiving to even use this modifier. There is one person in my office who is arguing that we should cause them pain and public humiliation, and that they find it ethically justified for the children. Whenever someone says we have to do it for the children, I shudder. That's where some of the darkest rationalizations begin.
The Tea Baggers want a government shutdown, because the Heritage Foundation said it won't hurt anything. Oh, wait, no, they don't. No, wait, yes they do. No, wait...
The Tea Baggers want a government shutdown, because the Heritage Foundation said it won't hurt anything. Oh, wait, no, they don't. No, wait, yes they do. No, wait...
When legislators fail to pass a budget, the government doesn't get any more money. So they shut the motherfucker down, because they can't fund most things. Essential services stay in place, but there aren't actually that many services deemed "essential" in such a situation. Most people would say that Social Security is an essential service - fuck, people campaign on it all the time - but that will be shut down.
Most people would say that Social Security is an essential service - fuck, people campaign on it all the time - but that will be shut down.
No it won't. They won't process NEW Social Security benefit applications during the shutdown, but the old people will still get checks. Otherwise, they might get angry.
No it won't. They won't process NEW Social Security benefit applications during the shutdown, but the old people will still get checks. Otherwise, they might get angry.
Hm, I think you might be right. Seems that benefit funds still pay out during that time.
Of course, countless employees would be furloughed, and it's illegal to work during a furlough. I see slowdowns and such becoming problematic.
Yeah, hurting the U.S. economy is a great way to help the U.S. economy.
Wait, are you telling me that the Republican party might not have been earnest in its desire to improve the economy, and instead is hypocritically doing whatever it can to gain power?!?!?!
Comments
Unlike hovercraft, jetpacks, and the such, the benefits of autonomous cars are feasible in the near term. It won't be a revolution, but more of an evolution.
What CEO could get away with refusing to fly anywhere today? People who won't or can't fly effectively can't travel long distances efficiently, and it's telling that there are zero accommodations for these people. For the vast majority of people, flight is mundane, if expensive.
This reasoning can go on and on.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Walker.
Here's my favorite bit though. When the data didn't support what the Koch's were paying for, they resorted to just making shit up. Here's a great quote from the article: When facts get in the way, just lie about everything.
Also...Koch brothers. Meheheheheee.
It's the height of retarded childish bullshit.
Of course, countless employees would be furloughed, and it's illegal to work during a furlough. I see slowdowns and such becoming problematic.