I didn't say how the questions were asked. With an electronic voting machine there is no reason they couldn't be presented via audio, or braille, and/or text in a range of languages.

I think mandatory voting should come with 2 or 3 simple multiple choice questions that test the voter's grasp of democracy, the state they live in and the USA as a whole. Nothing that could possibly disenfranchise anyone except morons. The vote is weighted by how many questions the person gets right. All right and you get 100%, none right and you get 30%.

1. Ah I see. So you have evidence that this is solved? You know like a paper demonstrating the capability of a car to read a sign, upload this to the web (never mind the bandwidth issues hey?), be told it's a diversion and magically follow all the other diversion signs.

2. So you have evidence that a self drive car can determine intent? Oops no.

3. Superior sensing? I get it now - You're a fucking idiot.

etc.

Utter nonsense. These are all examples of intractable problems that no self drive car would figure out without screwing up enough to annoy the driver, other road users or pedestrians.

Because there is nothing to say a human driven car can't contain collision avoidance software for such an eventuality. As some cars already do. It's not self drive car or nothing.

Assuming the car behind is using Google's self drive protocol and not Tesla's and assuming that the latency, bandwidth and compute power of this hypothetical cloud of cars is sufficient to avoid such a collision.

It'll blow even for every day use. Does the car know that the street is closed and there is a diversion is in place? Or that the car in front is reverse parking into a space and not nudge up his ass while he does so? Or that the street lights are faulty and how to navigate safely in such an event? Or how to obey a cop's hand signals (and not some crazy guy's)? Or see the temporary stop/go signs some roadworkers put up? Or to signal to the pedestrian that we'll wait for them to cross the junction? Or give priority to the oncoming driver in a narrow road? Or what a pothole is and how to avoid it? Or not to drive through dangerous parts of town? Or how to drive and navigate through a tunnel, carpark or other area where GPS or radio is down?

Even if the car were able to come to some reasonable solution 90% of the time it would still blow for the 10% of the time when it didn't. It also rules out any chance that we'll see cars where the driver can sleep (or be passed out), or there is no human passenger at all. Because cars will get stuck and will need extrication.

The most likely place I see self drive occurring is vehicles shuttling people around airport terminals or between hotels and conference centres on closed tracks. A predictable, relatively contained system where the number of variables is limited and manageable. Even then there is probably a guy in a booth whose job it is to extricate the car when its sensors are confused by a leaf or a piece of junk and refuse to move without a human to override the system.

The gotcha in this case is so blazingly obvious that I fail to see why anyone is arguing over it. Microsoft have stated time and again they want to move to a subscription model and they want to monetize Windows 10. Given those facts it is easy to think of ways they intend to do it and there is plenty of precedent around the web, and in service platforms to have a pretty good idea.

I never said it would. I'm quite certain it will be free for its lifetime and will work in a basic form whether you pay or not. But that doesn't mean it won't wall off certainly functionality, or nag you to upgrade, or throw banner / interstitial ads all over because that's probably what it will do.

No it isn't. They've already stated their intentions and constructing a straw man of my words doesn't change that.

Microsoft have stated their intention of monetizing the platform and it's quite clear they want it to become a subscription service. So no it's not FUD.

Windows 10 will be "free" the way some websites are free - basic functionality is free but there will be lots of annoying limitations and barriers throughout that encourage users to pay for a premium version or take out a subscription. You only have to look at previous Windows editions to see the sort of things they can gimp to encourage people to pay out more and I bet they go all out this time around.

Apple have a big sack of money. I doubt they'd so much wish to "partner" with Nintendo as gobble them up and transform them into a brand. If not them, then Disney which has been on an IP buying spree for a while now.

They intend to brick every Tesla. You won't be worrying about the range anymore because that car is never going anywhere ever again.

Google, Apple and Microsoft have the luxury of putting their own voice search directly into the UI of their respective operating system. If Microsoft produce a Cortana app then chances are they'll have to make do with wherever they can stick it in iOS / Android and whatever limitations it imposes on how it interacts with the rest of the system. e.g. setting reminders or whatever. I suppose Microsoft could write their own launcher for Android and integrate Cortana but they'd have to make their launcher pretty damned functional to attract people and at that point they're basically cannibalizing their own market.

Belief in Heaven and Hell is besides the point. There are certain people whom society must either to suffer to live in prison their entire life or execute them. They decide one or the other and needn't have anything to do with an afterlife or retribution therein.

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with executing people providing their crimes, guilt and standard of evidence merit the ultimate sanction. That doesn't mean I see the US system as a role model for this because it is clear to even a casual observer that it is not.