Yes, I agree with what you're saying. But, for a laugh, you should listen to an old comedy bit by a guy named David Gunson. I remember laughing at this when I was kid.

I think it was joke vis-a-vis Apple making "phablet" phones after spending years insisting that people wouldn't like them because they can't use them with only one hand. Add to the fact that the iPhone 6 Plus looks kind of like a Galaxy S5 with less-rounded corners and there you go.

Or, to put it another way, "woosh."

The imperial senate decided that there was no need for OSHA.

Well, if you can afford an iPhone, you may have diamonds in your pocket at times...

Conventionally roasted. That said, I'd love to try deep-fried.

I go out for Thanksgiving dinner--the relatives are too far away to visit for an extra long weekend and I'm seeing them at Christmas anyway. This year, though, I ran across a place that was doing smoked turkey. We'll see how I like it...

I would say the number for whom driving is a passion is a significantly smaller number than those who drive because they have to.

That said, the quote I thought was interesting, from the summary:

This is an intriguing point. What you might end up seeing is the death of economy car.

I have a fast and sexy car in my garage (okay, it's not THAT fast but it is kind of sexy, or so I've been told). One reason I bought it is that I liked how it looked, it had decent performance, was comfortable, and still got good gas mileage. But I'll be the first to agree that, at least out here in Southern California, what kind of car you drive generates a certain image about you. And I'm not sure that renting a self-driving "pod" for a date would give the same message as showing in a gorgeous Mercedes, Bentley, or Maserati.

Those who buy a Toyota or Honda because they're solid, dependable, economical cars would be the first people to trade in their cars for a rental pods. But the people who buy "aspirational" brands--Lexus, Cadillac, Mercedes, etc.--wouldn't be so quick to trade these in because they'd be giving themselves a poorer image. Arguably, if I pull up in front of a club in a self-driving rental "pod" versus pulling up in front of a club in self-driving Mercedes or a non-self-driving Lamborghini, I'm getting a heck of a lot less attention from potential sexual partners.

The mistake, of course, is to think that it must be one or the other. The reality is that, here in America, there is room for all of them. Like I said, I could see people who live in dense urban areas renting a nondescript pod for a trip to the grocery store where it would be inconvenient to carry all the groceries home in your arms. I could also see people owning their own slightly nicer pods because it's more convenient to go out to the garage and hop in every morning and be able to leave stuff in your pod. Heck, you might even defer some of the cost by renting out your slightly nicer pod when you're not using it. You might see luxury pods with bars and hot tubs.

You might even see non-self-driving cars! Like you said, I think there will continue to be demand from those who like to drive and those who don't feel comfortable entrusting someone/something else to transport them. What I think will be interesting is what form those cars will take? I mean, a self-driving sports car would be like a Harley with training-wheels. But sports cars can be expensive. Would it be worth it to produce inexpensive sports cars--like Kias? Are there enough people who would buy these to drive? Or will it become only the province of the wealthy to be able to drive themselves?

Or, conversely, the politicians that ban guns in all federal buildings yet believe wholeheartedly that anyone should be able to carry semi-automatic assault rifles into their local Walmart.

Good point. And if you have all those cyclists breathing hard, they'll produce more CO2 which is a greenhouse gas.

Just in case you're not up on this, I believe he's talking about a Camelbak. It's basically a backpack with a bladder for holding water and a hose that you can drink from. They're handy for bicyclists and runners who want to keep moving and not fiddle with bottles.

I assume (RTFA? Pfft!) that the idea was that I was offered the choice of zapping someone else or zapping myself and getting money (ie, if I chose to zap someone else, I merely got the satisfaction/revulsion of zapping them but if I zapped myself, cha-ching!)

So it now becomes a question of how much money does it take for me to not inflict pain on another person. Did they actually know who the other person was? I don't necessarily mean names, but could they see the other person and see them getting shocked? Because that introduces a bunch of biases and how much money would it take to overcome them? That might be a neat study...

It'd also be interesting to see what happens over time. Would the amount of money change? "I didn't zap that person for $5, but after zapping a few people, you're gonna have to pay me more to stop..."

I'd also add that it's easier if the city runs them to shut them down in the event that it becomes necessary "for public safety."

Maybe if you pointed the laser into some sort of optical cable...

Yeah, it's not like there aren't any Toyota dealerships in America where they could put in some kind of fueling station...

I suppose this is an advantage to having a dealership network...

Personally, all else being fairly equal, I would prefer a train.

Why would people rather travel by airplane? Because it's faster. And I don't blame them one bit. I'd rather fly across the country in five hours than take a train for five days. Who wouldn't?

But trains have a number of advantages. There isn't necessarily the case for "let's see how many people we can jam into a given space." Cars can be added or removed based on demand. Luggage is another example--want to travel with a bicycle, wheelchair, or something kind of large? You're going to paying a heck of a lot more and it's going to be really inconvenient.

Consider California's High-Speed Rail project--or at least the concept (we can argue over the implementation, but that's not the point I'm making). This would have trains that would go between LA and San Francisco in three hours. It takes about an hour to fly between LA and San Francisco--where I'm jammed into a tiny seat and have to pay extra just to bring along more than an overnight bag. Compare that to a three hour train ride where I have actual leg-room and could bring along clothes for a week stay without paying extra. Heck, I might even be able to bring a bicycle without packing it up!

I know which I'd prefer.

Now, I could sort-of take a regular train from LA to San Francisco (it actually ends up in Oakland). It takes about 12--count 'em--12 hours! Yeah, given a choice between an hour of misery or 12 hours of comfort, I think I'd put up with the hour.

While I'm not sure how many football fans are here on Slashdot, there are always plenty of Monday morning quarterbacks.