Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I only pay to see a film in the theater if it's 3D (Score 1) 261

by AdrianZ (#40649963) Attached to: Has the 3-D Hype Bubble Finally Popped?

I really have a hard time understanding all the hate around 3D. Sure there are some films that do it poorly, but that's true for any new approach that enjoys some popularity (SFX, musical scores, camera motion, film/digital medium, plots, etc). I can only assume it's some physical differences between viewers, making it mostly just unfortunate that it doesn't degrade gracefully for users that can't/don't enjoy it.

Personally the only reason I even go to the movie theater any more is to see a film in 3D. Otherwise, it'll wait until I can watch it from home. The friends I go to 3D films with generally feel the same way. The theater just doesn't have enough value add for its price without it. When you include dinner, drinks, and a quality theater with reserved seating, the 3D surcharge is too minor to worry about... the biggest issue really is that it sort of dulls the films if you ever want to watch them at home.

Comment: I love driving too, but completely disagree (Score 1) 510

by AdrianZ (#35694558) Attached to: Google's Driverless Car and the Logic of Safety

I love driving too, but I'd jump into an automated car without hesitation. I'd even pay _more_ to NOT have a wheel or driver fallback in the car, with the front two seats facing back like a small limo. I'd much rather have a fully automated car than one that includes a built-in backseat driver.

I don't agree about them having to work without failure or handle every single possible situation possible. If the car can't handle it or if something happens, then a secondary system would surely be in place for the car to pull over, while I use an OnStar style service to talk to somebody about it while they diagnose the problem and if needed wait for a replacement loaner car from my insurance company to drive up on its own to get me. I'd also enjoy paying those lower premiums because they essentially just cover roadside assistance and car replacement/repair, instead of liability (would resent still having to insure against uninsured human drivers though!).

And on top of all that, no more worries about my kids (or their friends) getting into accidents from joy riding, being too cocky, getting distracted (from passengers, phones, etc), or worse. Not to mention, once in college I'd know they always had a dedicated "driver" when out. I can't imagine many parents would buy (or allow their dependents to buy) human-driver cars anymore. Goes the opposite direction too, suddenly the grandparents have complete freedom to go anywhere whenever they want, safely and without the fear of all the aggressive drivers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but right there you have the two most dangerous driving age groups no longer driving, so even if I was driving manually, I'd be safer too.

Comment: Immunity, insurance, and early adopters are key (Score 1) 510

by AdrianZ (#35694422) Attached to: Google's Driverless Car and the Logic of Safety

I imagine the government would have to set up a strict requirements and tests, and then once licensed the vendor would be immune from suits unless gross incompetence or malice could be proven and that they would also then benefit from an insurance pool to compensate/benefit those injured due to the system with some sort of cap or limit to the payouts.

After that was in place, I'd think government and businesses would jump on it to avoid being sued for their employee's driving errors or for simply having their logo on the vehicle, not to mention long term cost savings of not having a human driver (no more wage, insurance, or tax costs) and therefor not needing a cabin and add 24/7 driving and better fuel economy (from no a/c and fuel saving driving patterns). Heck, UPS, FedEx, and the USPS could all redesign their vehicles to carry more while making it easier and even faster for the employee to deliver the mail or packages.

I'd also think those that can't or shouldn't be driving would also be quick to jump on it. For instance, once you had a system like this in place, I'm sure you'd see laws sprout up prohibiting anybody ever guilty of DUI from using a human-driven vehicle. Seniors that can't drive or would rather not will love these cars as they would give them freedom to go anywhere any time, and the people will love that they aren't driving, perhaps leading to lower maximum driving ages. I'd imagine minivans that had no "front seats", designed more like a limo, would be extremely popular with families. Make a sedan designed like that, with rear facing front seats with a built in table and power outlet, and I'm sure most commuters would jump on it. New drivers would simply be used to it by the time they could even apply for a license, so the number of people against the concept would naturally lower every year.

So those that wouldn't want to give up the control could hold out, at least until you end up with such a huge portion of cars driving themselves, that the population starts limiting human driving (more expensive and difficult to obtain licenses, automated-only rules for freeways, tolls, etc) or driving around them becomes too annoying (I enjoy driving, but if every car was going the posted speed limit, and I imagine those limits would only go down, it would get old very fast!).

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...