Comment Re:Biggest issue is still liability (Score 1) 177
Welcome to a world with lawyers and liability laws.Someone is always to blame.
And, as I said, you can bet your ass Google et al are going to try to make sure it's you and not them.
Welcome to a world with lawyers and liability laws.Someone is always to blame.
And, as I said, you can bet your ass Google et al are going to try to make sure it's you and not them.
Well, playing spot the fed can still be fun, as would setting up fake hotspots and phishing people.
It's a security conference, which means tons of targets with no clue about security.
I fully expect that insurance for completely autonomous cars will be less expensive, once self-driving cars are proven.
Again, why would I pay liability insurance to cover the actions taken by a computer?
The only viable business model for fully autonomous cars I can see is essentially as taxis.
The notion that we're all going to trade in our cars and let the computer do all the driving is laughable -- too many people like driving, and there's decades worth of cars out there. The notion that we'd buy a self driving car and then pay to insure it is silly.
As with most things said by futurists, I find myself wondering if this "inevitable future" is anywhere near as inevitable as the people selling it to us want us to believe, or if it's just more marketing of stuff someone wants to sell us.
My take on this is the people making these things claim how awesome and revolutionary they'll be. But I bet the vast majority of people simply don't care.
Except they're not the same.
If you have a human driving, you usually know who to blame.
If you have a computer driving, the people who made the computer sure as hell aren't going to take liability.
But you can bet your ass some sleazy lawyer will put it into the EULA that by driving in a Google car you assume all liability.
If they're going to make autonomous cars, they pretty much need to be 100% autonomous, with the humans effectively in the back seat with no controls.
At present, there simply ARE no liability rulings about self-driving cars.
So, disregarding how the self-driving car decided who it is best to kill in any given situation, for me the biggest problem with self-driving cars is legal liability.
If Google wants to sell autonomous cars, Google should be liable for anything the damned thing does.
And none of this cop out where if the computer doesn't know what to do it just hands back to the human -- because that's pretty much guaranteed to fail since the human won't be able to make the context switch in time (if at all).
As far as I'm concerned, the autonomous car has to be 100% hands off by the user at all times, and the company who makes the damned thing is 100% responsible for what it does.
Why the hell would someone have to pay for insurance for something they don't have control of what it does?
Did you have another one in mind?
Of course the congress full of people on the payroll of everybody except the voting public.
That's what it's for.
Objective in as much as I and many people I know have had bad experiences with American made cars and don't like them.
To get a truly objective position, you find someone who has never seen a car and ask them what they think of both. But they they won't know what the hell they're talking about.
I'm not un-objective because I dislike American cars. I dislike American cars because, objectively, I don't find them to be as well made or designed as their Japanese and Korean competition. Not by a long shot.
Maybe you choose to like American cars out of a sense of patriotism. That makes you even less objective than me.
He is Boorish and bigoted against American vehicles.
Well, to be objective here (though you might disagree)
From the ergonomics of the seating position, to the layout of the controls, to the steering and suspension I find myself thinking "why can't these people buy a Toyota or a Honda and find out how to do this properly".
I had a Dodge Avenger as a rental a few years back, and it was a terrible car; I hated everything about it. It kept finding ways to annoy me. I recently had a Camry as a rental, and it was exactly what I'd expected it to be.
I grew up in and live in North America. My father owned nothing but Chevys until he died.
But I sure as hell wouldn't own one. Because they often seem like they've been designed by a committee of chimps coming off a bender.
Maybe he's biased against American vehicles because many of them are rubbish.
I know many many North Americans who won't buy American cars.
I can guarantee you that any media which starts hosting their stuff in Facebook will be immediately deemed a useless source of information and blocked.
I have most of my browsers set to block anything from Facebook, because I'm tired of the sheer number of web pages which have their crap embedded.
Screw off and die, Zuckerfuck. I trust you and Facebook not at all.
How he's managed to convince actual news companies to let him in the door I have no idea. That just sounds like idiots being hoodwinked by assholes.
In fact, you are quite free to discriminate in your shopping habits based solely on the religious beliefs of the shopkeepers you choose not to visit.
No, you're an idiot.
It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.
It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".
That's a bit lopsided, don't you think? The Christians can discriminate legally, the rest of us can choose not to patronize your business?
There is no other scenario in which a shopkeeper is allowed to say "we don't serve your kind". None. Period. Nada.
But people who subscribe to religion want a special exemption to do exactly that. Which means the religious people feel they deserve a special place in the law, above and beyond that enjoyed by everybody, and in which they hold extra rights
The Taliban say the exact same crap.
So, I submit to you: either we pass a universal law saying we can all be assholes, up to an including the right of someone to refuse to serve religious people or hire them because they believe in god. Or we tell religious people to shut the fuck up, and stop acting like their fucking beliefs make them special in the eyes of the law.
You know, that whole fucking separation of church and state. You can believe whatever the fuck you want. That doesn't change your standing with regards to the law.
And it doesn't exempt you from the law. And there isn't a damned religious person who is going to accept themselves being discriminated against.
Which is just hypocrisy and bullshit from people who think the world revolved around them.
Fuck that. Either your laws are based on principle, or whatever asshole claims his god gives him permission to do as he pleases.
If religion wants an exemption to discriminate, there is absolutely no defensible position for not discriminating against religion.
But don't act like not going to the business of someone who wants the legal right to refuse to serve you is even remotely the same fucking thing unless you could legally refuse to serve them.
Anything else is just self entitled crap.
I don't think religion should be a part of this conversation.
How can it not be? This is about someone trying to pass a bill which enshrines in law the ability of religious people to exercise a form of discrimination which would be illegal if applied to them. In effect, giving religious people more rights than everyone else.
This whole fucking thing is about the religious people saying they should have an extra special class of being able to discriminate, while enjoying the legal protection of being discriminated against.
So, if you can convince the rest of society we should go to a system where anybody can discriminate against anybody else
But you simply cannot rationally claim that you agree with most forms of preventing discrimination, while claiming there is a special case in which you're allowed to discriminate.
TFA only exists in the context of religion asking for a special set of rules to be applied to them. Without religion, there is nothing to be said here.
I'm saying either those people should accept the potential of being kicked of a business for their beliefs, or they should shut the hell up about being able to have the right to do the same thing.
Are you laboring under the delusion we're somehow talking about a law to allow everyone to be an asshole to the extent that it makes them happy?
The reality is this is trying to give religious people, and ONLY religious people, a special exemption to discriminate as they see fit.
I've had American cheddar. It's tasty stuff. That's not what I'm talking about.
But that "process cheese food" made from long-chain polymers which isn't legally cheese and comes in individual plastic is what I'm talking about. It's NOT actual cheese.
And the package on this stuff indicated it was an "immitation" version of the stuff which isn't legally cheese.
Basically it was a yellow goo made of soy oil and other crap.
I think your stance is one primarily of laziness
Bullshit. I think your stance is one primarily of stupid.
If religions, who are legally protected from discrimination, want to use their religion to discriminate against other people an bear no consequences, then I believe religion should lose the legal protection from discrimination.
If you think your religion should allow you to discriminate against someone else
I will loudly say "fuck religion" if religion wants to enjoy a special class of protection while denying it to someone else.
So, either these religious people would support repealing religion as a protected status (thereby allowing people to say "sorry, we don't serve YOUR kind")
That is a completely fucking irrational argument which claims special treatment -- fuck that.
Either you make it so it's illegal to discriminate against anybody, or you make it so it's legal to discriminate against anybody. We have already decided on this issue for pretty much everything else.
What religious people are asking for is a double-extra special standard, whereby the people they seek to be able to legally discriminate against are not legally allowed to respond in kind. Effectively, religious people get more fucking rights than the rest of us.
Again, fuck that.
That particular bit of bullshit is purely in the domain of people who think that logic and the law should bend over backwards to accommodate their moronic beliefs.
So, put up or shut up
There is no scenario in which it makes any sense to give them a right they would deny another.
Your god doesn't define MY rights.
I don't need to convince anybody of a thing, other than it is a foundation of law that we ALL are subject to the SAME laws.
But not this bullshit notion that what you believe gives you a special place in law the rest of us don't have.
Isn't it amazing how people who enjoy protection from being discriminated against want to use that same protection to allow them to discriminate against others?
Sorry, but if you think your religion should allow you to discriminate, you should be subject to the same thing.
Oh, what's that, your religion is a magic double standard which exempts you from logic and you are special? Go piss up a rope.
You're just as stupid as the people who want to force Sharia law on the rest of us. Stop pretending otherwise.
Your religion doesn't make you some special little flower who operates under a special set of rules.
"Asshole" is universal, no matter what you believe in.
Great, then you'd have an artificial version of hemophilia, wouldn't you? The slightest nick and you'd bleed out?
Reminds me of some diet product from years ago that got pulled due to excessive rectal seepage.
"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA
