The insurance will be split, for 100% autonomous cars it makes sense for the manufacturer to handle the public liability insurance

Not really..... only, for liability resulting from the manufacturer's negligence. Your autonomous car can still cause an accident and you be responsible for not ensuring that it is properly maintained and inspected, OR you chose to travel under somewhat hazardous conditions such as severe weather under which it is to be understood by you the owner, that are conditions where any driver is less capable and more likely to cause damage, And there is always a certain amount of risk involved which you accept responsibility for by taking that risk.

Also, people tend to keep their vehicles beyond their manufacturer's warranty, after which time, it is no longer promised to be fit for the purpose and free from defects, anyways. It is ultimately the buyer's responsibility to understand what they are putting on the road and to make sure that it is safe to their satisfaction, Because they have to take responsibility for it, OTHERWISE they would have no incentive not to run Autonomous vehicle Version 1.0 that has known defects, without upgrading, and without participating in a manufacturer software module recall on a timely basis.

That is the devil's bargain they make for being the provider of a product required by law.

Only the liability insurance is required by law. The other types of insurance are optional, AND autonomous cars will still be subject to the other risks, such as the windshield shattering after being hit by debris, or being broken into, or being hit by another motorist.

My wife and sister, in contrast, are now uncomfortable about things like getting a late train home and then walking back from the station in pitch black conditions

This could explain part of their result: In regions of reduced lighting, they found, there was no increase in burglary, auto theft, robbery, violence, or sexual assault

Switching the lights off in places reduced nighttime traffic in those areas, because people are now avoiding those areas when lights are off: such things did not increase so much.

The team found that brighter streets had no noticeable impact on crime, but they did make people feel better.

Should the gov't be saving money by making people feel unsafe?

Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. This is a case where Texas is wrong and the rest of the country is right.

Not really.....

An otherwise law abiding person who shoots an intruder/invader that is definitely a criminal thief/vandal who was wrecking their life or making it not possible for them to enjoy their property/life for fear of everything being taken away definitely doesn't belong in jail.

To say otherwise is valuing the criminal's living state above their victims' lives.

A huge percentage of the people who would be willing to confront you and you need to defend property against are people who are also likely to take somebody's life.

It's much better for the criminal's life to be in danger and victims in their own home to have all possible self-help options legal and available, as this provides a stronger deterrent against committing crimes in the first place.

I can use non-lethal force. There are lots of options available.

If you use non-lethal force, then the criminal can respond with lethal force, OR force that would require you to use lethal force in order to defend your life.

A claim of Self-Defense does not protect you from criminal prosecution in that case ---- if you instigated the threat against yourself by attempting non-lethal force, Then the option of claiming self-defense is no longer available, So this is even worse.... you would be putting yourself in danger with no lawful option to use lethal force if the criminal changes his mind and decides to kill.

If someone throws a ball onto (or over) your property, is that person tresspassing?

If they intentionally threw it over, then it is an infringement. If they threw it over and they broke something, then they are responsible to pay for damages.

If they threw a ball onto your property then ran onto your property to attempt to go retrieve it, THEN they are trespassing, especially if they went over a fence or other obstructions at your perimeter to walk onto your property.

That is too high.

Say instead: up to the level of commercial aircraft UNLESS the operator is a licensed airplane or helicopter pilot, or explicit permission is obtained from property owner in advance.

Also, the manufacturers should be required to adopt a standard that allows a property owner to place beacons at corners of their property and automatically deny entry to all automatic drones.

I wonder how they handle all those cases with respect to activities such as: ....

The first two of those activities are forbidden when there are low-flying aircraft operating, are rarely seen, and the 3rd one isn't really a concern at all...

Slashdot sold to EvilTroll for $10 million, whose vision for the site is to replace every page on the entire website with a GoatSe picture.

Or some popup ads and possibly some Adware/Spyware and fakeAV popups/links.

Why don't publishers put the ads in a section of the page that can allow the rest of the page to load and render before the ad loads and renders?

E.g. Embed the ad in a sized Iframe.

Ah, sorry, you sent it to the wrong person. You must want the Nigerian prince sitting in the back row of the cafeteria over there.

I don't do ID theft or other crimes, but if you want to e-mail me the private keys for a Bitcoin wallet with a few hundred BTC in it.......

the supervisor was shown the door rather quickly, that tech had friends in high places.

Very effective.... use a sacrificial supervisor/lower-level-employee to break the law and fire folks over Section 7 rights exercise / unionization attempts.. Supervisor fired, and plausible deniability regained.

In theory they could still be sued, but it's probably exceedingly unlikely.

That's why... if you want to do a unionization effort, then you better make sure it succeeds, and ideally involve observers outside the company with legal assistance.

Initially... some verbal discussions of pay information in safe place off work premises is probably harder for management to combat.

Ideally, there would be legal papers written up, letters already crafted, and backup plans established to address retaliation attempts, before management becomes aware... if an organizer gets canned, then management should be served with legal papers the same day.

No.... it's a 3rd party messaging service using HTML E-mail and a custom browser extension. To enforce the "self-destruct" rule, the e-mail is hosted on the Dmail provider's mail servers instead of the content being sent in the e-mail message.

Nothing to see here..... I'm not going to be accepting any e-mail sent using such a service. I will tell the sender "No, send me a normal e-mail message; I can't read that one."

if google fired a significant number of those people, they'd have an unwinnable class action suit on their hands

There will be enough plausible deniability to go around when they batch those dismissals with their next mass layoff that includes people not on the list as well.

And they don't have to fire them all at once..... just make sure that over time the people putting themselves on the list don't do well on the company, and those that are promoted are always the people that maintain the expected confidentiality.

They can start an informal informal internal investigation to figure out who was responsible for setting this whole thing up.

Then have a discussion with their respective managers and make sure their next performance review will reflect abysmal performance.

And promote the people not on that list offer benefits and bonuses conjoined with a confidentiality requirement on those bonus deals....

Pattern is the evidence of discrimination

No... Pattern warrants investigation.

I'm just going to say that the case says nothing about this issue; discrimination is a totally different bit of legal code, it's also a taboo in society with different status in the courtroom. Find a case where an employee was laid off or fired, and the employer was fined a big sum, since it was found to be retaliation for divulging salary, even though the employer said they had a very different reason.

they don't put that they fired them because they were pregnant.

The employee had a conversation with their boss where they were urged to quit or told their performance would be bad because they were pregnant.

They didn't have a credible reason for the firing, And their management created witnesses to a scheme for creating a bogus reason to fire.

A manager creating a scheme to frame someone for a firing offense seems pretty convincing that there is not a legal reason for the firing, otherwise they would not feel a need to do something in order to falsify a reason, since a manager can just fire them.