Truth is an affirmative defense to slander or libel,
Slander and libel are separate actions than the employment actions allowed for interfering with someone's employment (or aspirations thereof).
So now a number is magically an "asset" ???
Anything with "value" is magically an asset. That's what assets are.
. Forensic accounting and accountants have been around a long time, and they've seen everything you describe.
And they've admitted that they can't track online gambling sites and such (not my method).
The reason most laundering fails to protect the source is that they don't like paying 3-4 sets of income taxes on it. You have to move it to hide it, and if you move it, it's "income" to the person receiving it, and if you don't declare it and pay on it, then you broke the law, even if they can't prove that $ came from the undesirable source.
tl;dr Laundering is easy, but criminals are dumb.
So why do all the media call the SU-25 a fighter?
Because all combat planes are "fighters"? (at least to anyone who isn't a military geek)
For who? Do you want random people getting in your car without any supervision and doing who knows what in there?
No, said "use it like a taxi" not "hire it out as a taxi". A taxi picks you up where you want and drops you off where you want whenever you want (in an ideal world). Now imagine that, with a car that you own.
I didn't say 99% did live in big cities. I said that, of those in big cities, the majority there could not make use of this.
I'm quite certain that parking is free for employees at the vast majority of employment sites.
Parking isn't "free" for anyone but CEOs in NYC. Parking is rare in NYC. The employers expect you to find your own way to work. I was at "30 Rock" and was headed home, and I couldn't find a single person who could drive me home. There were a few that paid for their own parking, but were headed the wrong way. Almost nobody in there drove. Those who are high enough to get a free space are high enough to not drive themselves (they have people to do that).
So do you want to optimize them for NYC? Or those outside NYC?
You seem to pick the worst case for every case and generalize that in a lying attempt to make the most practical solution seem impractical.
there's a higher likelyhood of tolls exceeding the cost of gas
Again, NYC only. And if you are anywhere but NYC, then there would be a toll-free option, even if it took longer.
Again, it looks like you are stretching to lie about how impractical they are, rather than objectively looking at them.
Most accidents do not result in an unconscious driver,
And most people have a garage at home, but you are ignoring "most" to lie about edge cases to make up insane lies to justify you irrational hatred of self-driving cars.
If a driver is there, even if unconscious, you have immediate access to their ID and, likely, their contacts (via their phone). Driverless car - it's just going to sit there and clog up the road way until the tow truck comes.
It's a shame the police have no way to identify a car if the driver isn't here. Oh, more lies by you?
Quit lying. Just tell us why you hate them so, and move on. Lying about them to make them look worse just makes you look like a lying asshole, and makes self-driving cars look better by comparison.
Personally, I'm willing to bet that automated cars will suffer from similar accident statistics, they will just be shifted to things like software bugs, automated network down (solar flares, weather, etc.), failed sensors, hacking, etc.
I think that the statistics will show them to be much better, but that people will hate them because people like breaking the law. 75 in a 65 is "safe enough", and I know people who deliberately fail to signal because they don't want to "warn" other drivers because they expect to get blocked.
The self-driving cars will be too polite. They will yield when a human would have floored it to cut someone off. Those lost 2 seconds will piss off any watching passenger, and they'll hate self-driving cars. People will have the (mistaken) belief that they can get there faster driving themselves. That will be the downfall of self-driving cars. That and pricks who want "control" but don't know what to do with it when it's given to them.
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home?
99% of the population doesn't live in Manhattan. LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and many others have people drive in from Long Island (or Jersey), where people do have houses on land with driveways and (often) garages.
Using my car like a Taxi would be great. And the fuel to get it home is less than the cost of parking.
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it?
Depends on the "break down". Most people would take that to mean the engine lost power. The car would coast onto the shoulder and wait for assistance.
What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc)
The answer to all of those is the same as any other accident where the driver is incapacitated. We managed to solve it for an unconscious driver. But you are too stupid to solve it for a missing (benevolant) driver? We've even solved it for driverless cars now (hit and runs with the car left behind).
Why do people get stupid when something new happens?
what's the point of having it?
To get places faster, safer, and more efficiently, while freeing up time for other activities. You are just looking for down sides when there are none.
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie
