Finding road edge boundaries in snow, at least, is actually a place where existing self-driving car systems do better than humans already. Keep in mind that they're not limited to the visual end of the EM spectrum.
For the rest, I'll defer to empirical studies on effectiveness under varying conditions. It's easy to think of corner cases -- but the real question, corner cases or no, is whether the average amount of liability incurred per hour of driving is greater or less than a human at the wheel.
I guess, if you like the state or insurance companies telling you when and where you may travel.
The power of the state is one thing. On the other hand, doing harm to others without means to provide recompense is legitimately immoral even under reasonable Libertarian frameworks.
Motor vehicle insurance allows the externalities which would otherwise be created by individuals defaulting rather than being able to pay off debts they incurred to be priced by the market -- quite transparently, given as the profit margins are known and available to customers as well as shareholders. If you can't pay for the harm you're doing to others by an action, even as aggregated and normalized by the insurance industry, can you truly morally justify that act?
It's OK if some people like different things than you.
French people liking to discuss politics online doesn't make them snobs. It just makes them people who like discussing politics online. And I know some very smart and politically involved Americans who are suckers for a cute dog video. Perhaps they'd be up for more poliltical discussion if every two years they were deluged with sly, dishonest, soul-suckingly stupid political advertisements. In France, with a population oif 63 million, presidential candidate spending is limited to 30 million dollars. My state has 1/10 the population of france, and the two leading candidates inthe last Senatorial election spent 85 billion -- and that's in an off year. So we Americans get exposed to a lot more unsolicited political communication than the French do.
But let's suppose that all things being equal, the French enjoy a good political argument online more than Americans do. So what?
I think resentment -- or even excessive concern -- over people who like different things than you is a sign of insecurity. When someone gets to the point where they insiste everyone join their side or be branded a fool or a snob, that's defeinitely someone who's seeking the safety of the herd.
Too bad Galileo had antenna problems. It could have taken far more snapshots from far more angles with less image compression. Overall it was a successful mission because it had other powerful instruments, but was light on the imaging side.
looks like a mammogram
"The purpose of product placement/product integration/branded entertainment," explains Disney in a job posting, "is to give a brand exposure outside of their traditional media buy."
Everyone who works in ad-tech has some justification for why it's ok.
No, because the same would be true if they developed on top of stock OS X or Red Hat Linux.
Using someone else's platform as your base saves development time and money. It doesn't mean it's a smart move, but time and cost considerations seem to be all anyone cares about these days.
I really don't understand why people run sensitive and critical stuff on Microsoft Windows.
Because doing so saves them both time and money - and those two factors trump everything else in their decision-making tree.
So, back to Cabrini Green? I'd also like to know where you get your numbers from.
How about a fact-check of a statement by theHUD secretary?
I had to look up Cabrini Green, and have to say 'not really'. The individual housing areas would be much smaller in number. The housing project you mentioned was originally aimed at low-income people, not the outright homeless.
Half the sentence? Okay. Less likely to come back? You can't guarantee something like that.
Put unstated 'on average' in there and you most certainly can. We've long passed the point of efficiency. Heck, compare our success rate with nordic countries and it shows that despite longer sentences we have worse outcomes, and that's after you control for crimes committed and everything else. Long prison sentences for stupid shit(like drug use) don't work, especially when the expense of the long sentence means that you end up not treating, rehabilitating, and training the prisoner.
If anything, I was being conservative about the benefits. Nordic countries manage to have 1/3rd the recidivism with 1/3rd the prison sentence(on average). Given how much we pay to incarcerate somebody for a year, how could this NOT be cheaper?
As for 'dumping recidivist offenders back on the street' - that's the POINT of making prison about reform - so they AREN'T nearly as likely to re-offend the moment they get back on the street. A 20% recidivism rate after 5 years of prison means LESS CRIME on the street than a 60% recidivism rate after 15.
Or did you NOT notice that the country's multi-TRILLION dollar debt load.
Ahem, original post: "help with the federal deficit". Besides that, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was ignoring our debt load when proposing 3 major policy changes all centered around saving money. Fortunately our deficit is down below $500B this year, which means that with only a minimum of extra belt tightening(see my proposals) to actually balance the thing. Then we can start paying off the debt.
Of course, attacking me as opposed to a strawman wouldn't let you do a good rant, now would it?
Oh. That's cute. Expecting the state governments to kick in money out of the goodness of their hearts.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I'll restate: The federal and state governments combined already spend more than enough on healthcare to cover everybody in the USA under a system that reduces healthcare costs in the USA to the median of developed nations. Indeed, since the Federal government alone could cover 90% of the bill with CURRENT spending, on average individual states would experience SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS.
Sorry, unless someone's pockets are being lined at every step of the way, don't expect it to EVER get done.
That's an excuse to do nothing about anything and you know it. We're not going to fix the problems we face doing nothing.
You're also expecting 100% participation, no recidivism, and nobody abusing the system.
...Boy, you don't know me at all.
100% participation - Why do I need this? 100% participation in what?
No recidivism - 'less likely to come back(to prison)' is certainly not 'No recidivism'. In the case of the reforms I'm looking at, it's more like reducing the current 60% return rate down to 20%.
Nobody abusing the system - Not writing a book, but I always figure on a certain level of abuse. That's what auditors and such are for, to keep that to a minimum.
I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate.
Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that. You are no different than most people in that you don't like to lose your own argument.
In the case of climate change, people and politicians are happy to help the environment. You will rarely see a politician who says he wants to hurt the environment.
It's only when you get down to specific propositions that people object. How much are you willing to help the environment? Are you willing to double the price of gas (to decrease demand)? Are you willing to significantly increase your electric bill? The answer to these for most people is no, they aren't.
But if it's just 'doing something', sure, I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.
I blame ethics in game journalism. Because bitches, man....
lately, US news and politics are more vapid and transparent than grumpy cat's take on things. the reality is that our political system is really because voters are gullible enough to thing they have a choice about what happens when it's really a one party system. the news spews lies about everything like it's DEFCON 1 everyday when they are speaking of meaninal bullshit. meanwhile there are serious matters that has caused a massive schism in the middle class and shit is hitting the fan. if you protest you are either cordoned off and ignored and/or abused by the police which are not help accountable for their actions. can you blame us for wanting an escape? (psst, the answer is here)
That's because you never discovered the one weird trick, discovered by a single mom, to reading Buzzfeed!
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne