I think that the only way Google could make those promises is if they operated as a livery service, where they remain the owners and maintainers of the vehicles and the people subscribe to the transportation service.
The manufacturer gets sued. The manufacturer would keep insurance and lawyers for these lawsuits.
This is not a given. The plaintiff has to right to sue all parties that the plaintiff believes contributed to the accident. It's up to the courts to dismiss the suit against the owner of the vehicle or the person determined to be in a position to take corrective action.
I don't believe the court will automatically dismiss the suit since the person in the vehicle still played a role in the accident by not taking corrective action such as hitting the big red stop button. The owner of the vehicle could still be held liable if the court decides that the owner allowed the use of his vehicle by someone unable to take corrective action, but this type of liability is usually dismissed unless the plaintiff can show that the owner knew that the person they allowed to use the car would be unable to take corrective action.
It would probably be more accurate to say that the manufacturer can assume the liability and court costs for the third parties but I think, if you look in the fine print, you'll see that they only assume liability for any defects or deficiencies in the AI software. I bet the owner will still be held liable if the owner didn't maintain the vehicle and its sensor in good working order.
A cable that locks the brakes is not an emergency brake as a matter of fact if you are moving and engage it you are likely to cause an emergency. Why does everyone insist on calling the parking brake an emergency brake.
People use the term "Emergency Brake" because it also serves as a purely mechanical backup to the hydraulic braking system.
Slowly applying the mechanical brake will not cause the rear wheels to lock and will bring the vehicle to a controlled stop.
Python - First appeared 1991; 25 years ago
That's Python 1.0 which is crude when compared to Python 2.0 which was released in Oct 2000.
If you are going to cite Python 1.0 which was limited and ran only on the Amoeba OS then you might as well compare it to Oak (Java's predecessor) which existed in 1991.
Using NRA's logic: If you don't have a gun to protect your family, you'd just use a knife or a baseball bat.
Everyone understands the concept of sale and ownership. However, you haven't explained how this "right" compels manufacturers to make their goods consumer serviceable or even to supply parts to the consumer.
I understand the concept quite well thank you.
You haven't explained how manufacturers are required to make their goods consumer serviceable or to supply parts for repairs.
Playing the devil's advocate... Where exactly is our "right to repair" granted? Is it in the constitution? Is it a bill signed into law?
Judging by the lobbying efforts that are taking place now, we actually don't have a right to repair. We would like one though.
driving their SUVs while never driving off-road or hauling cargo or carrying lots of passengers and complaining about the price of gas
Jealous? It's their money and they can spend it anyway they see fit.
You don't like it? Tough. Spend your own money how you see fit.
Do I think the world is full of assholes? Yea. Just don't become one yourself.
Actually you're wrong. You always had an option to use a different OS. You could even purchase a computer that didn't run Windows.
The courts decided that, since Microsoft had an overwhelming majority share of the desktop market, they should be considered a monopoly. They abused their monopoly by not only preinstalling internet explorer and making it an part of the OS but also by restricting the OEMs ability to preinstall a competing browser as a condition to receive heavily discounted licenses per machine sold.
Despite the actual motives behind Russia decision, the argument used against Google is very similar to the ones made against Microsoft. Google has a large share of the wireless handset market and it is alleged that they require manufacturers to make Google the default search engine. If this is actually the case then I can see why people liken this to the US vs Microsoft case.
Increasing the contact area of the bullet means more kinetic is passed on to the target instead of simply passing through.
Compare swinging a sword at a target versus swinging a baseball bat using the same force.
I use TSA locks to keep the zippers on my suitcase closed. TSA know how to unlock them during inspection and they lock the zippers back in place when they are done.
That doesn't prohibit modifying the device with such parameters, this prohibits having devices that are even able to be modified, and a device that is merely able to be modified, period, is able to be modified with such parameters.
That actual term is "properly authenticated software". That doesn't mean the firmware can't be modified. It means a method must exist that authenticate the firmware executed on the device. You are implying that it means no modification is allowed, but the FCC purposely waved their hands on the details of who or how the firmware can be authenticated with "the manufacturers may consider applying existing industry standards for strong security and authentication."
The bigger the theory the better.