Condom breaks and the woman ... Too bad asshole, ... lied about being on pills.

Okay. It seems that you have some other issues than the subject at hand. You might want to take them off-line.

And what stops her from seeing the regular doc then getting the script filled at a clinic?

Doesn't that sort of depend upon the location of the free clinic? And what hours it is available? And whether she has to go through any protesters to get inside?

And whether this ruling can be interpreted to allow a company to refuse coverage for the doctor visit to prescribe the pills?

My insurance company isn't giving me free condoms, and I don't have any get out of jail free cards made available to me if my birth control fails.

I think that your side issues are becoming a problem with your ability to discuss the main issue.

The insurance companies charge different rates for different demographics because the insurance companies have the statistics to back up their pricing.

Insurance is heavily regulated at the federal and state level. If the insurance companies are charging demographic X more than demographic Y they had to provide evidence based upon statistics that showed X is involved in more accidents or more costly accidents than Y.

Getting hormonal birth control from a doctor other than your regular doctor means that those two doctors have to both have access to your medical records or both consult on any issues you might have.

Different pills have different effects (and side effects) on different women.

The only time it makes sense for a woman to get hormonal birth control from a free clinic is when that is her only source of non-emergency medical care.

Because it was through Amazonâ(TM)s Mechanical Turk, I'd take any "findings" with a grain of salt.

Are they "true believers" who really managed to convince themselves this is all for some kind of nebulous greater good?

Pretty much.

There's a degree of self-serving included. They work for the government so any attempt to reveal what they do and how they do it is an attack on them.

And if you're attacking them, that makes you the "bad guy". And they have to stop the "bad guys".

So in effect you want to nationalize the internet backbone and put all backbone providers out of business.

I think you are a little bit confused on what the "backbone" is. It is not the same as the "last mile" which is what I am discussing.

In my suggestion, each of the ISP's that were leasing space would also need a connection to an "upstream" provider. Whether that was one of the backbones or an intermediary would be up to each company.

All the government does is provide access to the pipes from the government site to the houses.

The core issue is whether a government should be providing a service. But that should not be an issue.

The government should provide the pipes (fibre or copper or whatever) to the houses that it covers. Paid for by taxes.

The pipes terminate at a government facility that the government leases space at to ANY AND ALL companies that want to provide ISP services over those pipes. As cheap as possible but without allowing one company to lease ALL the space.

Then switching between ISP's should be as simple as moving a patch cord.

Your taxes pay for the pipes and their maintenance and the facility and its maintenance (minus the lease revenue).

If you don't like a article, skip it.

Or you can present counter-points to explain WHY you did not like the article. Such as these:

1. Bennett Haselton is focusing on NetFlix. Whether his idea matches the business model that NetFlix has chosen OR NOT.

2. Bennett Haselton is focusing on the media players that he owns. Combine that with #1 and you have a very narrow complaint about a very niche service not being offered by a specific company that may not want that as their business model.

3. Bennett Haselton ignores the LEGAL ISSUES with his fantasy of a specific company offering a specific service for his specific devices.

4. Bennett Haselton is continuing on this tirade despite having been answered in his previous tirades.

Too often im forced to fill out forms and am directed to the forums instead of a CS rep.

Even that would not be so bad IF THEY ORGANIZED THEIR FORUMS AND FIXED THE SEARCH FUNCTION.

If I have version X of product Y then I should be able to search on product Y with a sub-search on version X.

I should NOT be getting results that apply to product A, B or C. UNLESS the company tech support people have specifically gone through and WRITTEN an answer and specifically labelled it as applying to A, B, C and X (version 1, 2, 3 and 4).

It cannot be that difficult to build a flow chart for the most common searches / problems that are appearing in your forums.

You said that the car doesn't need to know the difference between a bridge and a ditch and I'm saying that it definitely does.

No, retard. You said "bridge" and "child". Now you're trying to change it to "ditch". Go back and read what you posted, retard.

You said that the car should only stay on course
with it's only recourse being to stop and I'm not sure that's enough.

That's because you are retarded.

I'm not saying the computer needs to do something it's not programmed to do.

Yes you did. You said it had to break with the program. Fuck you, retard.

I'm saying the computer needs to be programmed to do stuff that violates standard road rules when that is the safest option.

No, retard. Because that means that the robot-car needs to be programmed to recognize "child" and "bridge" and to have different decision paths for those.

And that at least one of those decision paths results in the car driving off a bridge.

Fuck you, retard.

It can't stay on a predefined path ignoring
everything on the side of the road with it's only recourse being to stop.

Who said it was ignoring anything, retard? You are retarded. It scans the side of the road for approaching obstacles.

But it treats every obstacle the same. There is no "child" decision path.

And when there is an obstacle that it is not programmed to avoid, it stops and turns control over to the person in it.

There is NEVER a "drive off a bridge" option. Never. You are retarded for suggesting it.

So are you saying that it's never ok to take the ditch?

Is that your best troll? Fuck, you are retarded.

You were talking about driving off a "bridge" if a "child" ran in front of the car.

Now you're going on about a "ditch".

They aren't even spelled the same.

Try again but try to focus on using the words that are spelled the same, okay?

... but a self driving car still needs the ability to be able to break with the program ...

Hey, retard. This is the real world, not TV. If it does not run its programming then it is "broken". Like you are.

This is where ethics comes in.

No. The car should treat any and all obstacles the same. And the reaction should be the same. Stop.

If you happen to be on a bridge you have to choose between plowing into the child in front of you or driving
off the bridge.

Bullshit. You've just introduced the requirement that the car be programmed to understand "bridge" and "child" AND to have separate decision routines for those.

AND that at least one of those decision routines results in the vehicle driving YOU off of a bridge.

Fuck you.

For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?

If this ever comes up as a question than the person asking the question is obviously NOT an engineer.

Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid

Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?

The cars should be programmed to stop and revert to human control whenever there is a problem that the car is not programmed to handle.

And the car should only be programmed to handle DRIVING.

That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life, ...

No. The car should not even be able to detect other occupants. Adding more complexity means more avenues for failure.

The car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE.

911 vehicles on the other hand ...

No. Again, the car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE. Emergency vehicles should ALWAYS be human controlled.

From TFA:

With the exception of roboticists, everything we assume we know is based on science fiction, ...

As is that entire article.

The entirety of the car's programming should be summed up as:
a. Is the way clear? If yes then go.
b. If not, are the obstacles ones that I am programmed for? If yes then go.
c. Stop.

Think about living in a city. If I could "rent" a robot-car as easily or easier than a taxi then it might be worth it.

And I think it WOULD be easier with robot-cars and smart phones. I need a car with X capacity at this location at 7:30.

With good analysis it should be possible to get cars carrying people at least 80% of the time. So you only pay for the time you use it.

And with enough robot-cars on the road and reporting back to HQ about road conditions, congestion and such they should be the fastest means of inner-city travel.

Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.

Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?

Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.