Let's be clear that healthcare and health insurance are two very different things. I think you were conflating the two (as does the OP).
The OP is all hyped up about the insanity of having to pay tax on something that he doesn't use, and you echo that sentiment. First off, as part of society we pay taxes for things that we don't use all the time, whether it's national parks, schools, fire department,
But he goes further (and again you seem to agree) to talk about paying for not using something. Do you see the difference between paying for something you don't use and paying for not using it? That's a critical difference. For example, everyone pays a little in tax (indirectly) to subsidize beef production, but nobody is paying for not eating at McDonald's. There is no special vegan tax, but if you're vegan you still pay to support something you don't use. Whether you agree with individual policies or not, this is the only practical method of taxation.
However, for the narrow view of the grid and healthcare that you mention they are equivalent, but that doesn't demonstrate the OPs point (or yours, I think) - just the opposite. You would never pay tax for not using the grid or for not using healthcare. What you pay tax for (now for healthcare and in the future for the grid) is insurance, access to those services when you need it. You may not be using the services now, but as you say everyone will eventually so it is fair to ask them to chip in.
As another poster said, if you were willing to sign an opt out form saying that you will never ask for public healthcare (or have access to the grid) then it's quite fair to let you do so. Otherwise you're just a free rider.
You do realize that stopping a few inches behind the line is also okay, don't you? You don't have to know the 'exact amount', but if you can't stop before a clearly marked line (or pedestrian or wall or whatever) and often go a few inches past that line (or pedestrian or wall) then you shouldn't be driving. Are you really that out of control with your vehicle?
You yourself admitted the jaywalking laws are stupid at times, so how do you get off criticizing me for it? So yes, we both agree the law, as written, is not useful. The law is certainly not for my convenience because I know how to walk around traffic and while driving how to avoid any pedestrian who doesn't have a death wish. So the law should be that pedestrians can't cross where and when they impede traffic.. Likewise, if it were so hard to stop before a fixed line then the law should be that you have to stop before X inches past the line.
There's a reason most of the speeding cameras don't trigger until you've done some percentage above the speed limit.
Yes, the reason is that a cars speedometer is not a finely calibrated device and the average driver doesn't really know if they're going 44 or 53 when their speedometer says 50.
How many judges do you think would throw out a speeding ticket if you were doing 50.5 km/h in a 50 km/h zone? Would you even be able to tell if you were going 1% over the speed limit? Shall we also have police start handing out fines for jaywalking on empty streets?
See, you answered your own question, so you know your analogy is absurd. Drivers CAN tell that their car is in the intersection and they CAN tell whether their car has a speed of zero (i.e. come to a complete stop). If the law is not going to be enforced then it shouldn't be a law.
Shall we also have police start handing out fines for jaywalking on empty streets?
Yes they should. Then maybe those poorly written jaywalking laws would be repealed rather than be an opportunity for the police to hassle whoever they sort of feel like shaking down that day. If YOU don't think the law is useful then your solution is to just violate it when it suits you? Why not advocate for a clearer, more useful law instead?
Reread the original article. While not associated with Uber, you will find insight as to the reason for the NDAs and whether or not I know what I am talking about or not. For record, I know more about self-driving cars and taxi services than you could possibly imagine.
I grant that you may indeed have some insight or special knowledge, but it's really a shame because the only thing that you might possibly have an informed opinion on is the one thing you can't talk about. Darn the luck.
Too much said already. Go wait for consumer grade self driving cars or whatever. That's not where the money is and Google knows it, at least not yet.
Once again you flaunt your victory over your strawman. Good job proving us all wrong that consumer ready self-driving cars are not coming out in the next model year. But apparently YOU still think that the reason for this is that Google can't figure out how to enter an address into a computer and that they will have to wait for perfect speech recognition and a universal translator. You're right, but I hope this kind of lucky guess is not the secret to your VC business.
Nothing you say in your post contains any insight nor is it relevant to what I've posted or anything else any reasonable person has stated in this thread. If you think Google is smart because they are not claiming their cars will be uncrashable then you have an extremely low bar for smart.
BTW, today I can have a car pick me up after just keying something in my phone and I can even have it drop me off where I want to go without ever saying anything to the driver. So your definition of "any time soon" is also way off.
so don't assume by my re-voicing concerns already raised by other VCs that this somehow means I am anti technology
That's not why I think that that and that's probably not why many of your posts have been modded down. It's that your comments are either ill-informed or poorly thought out. In the few cases they have been accurate they have been obvious. You keep trying to sound like a reasonable knowledgeable person, but the only person you're successfully debating is the strawman you've constructed to make yourself sound impressive.
Are you going to tell us one more time that rushing designs is not a good thing? You preach the obvious as if it were insightful and/or relevant. It's neither, so unless you are going to create a compelling argument that these cars are being rushed to market too soon you might consider dropping this redundant argument. Hint: presuming that nobody will solve the problem of how to input an address into a computer within the next 20 years is probably not going to help your position.
by Google's estimate, it will take 20 years before there are enough of such vehicles on the road to effectively mitigate the risk from drivers not driving these cars. Don't like the 20 year number, go talk to Google.
Do you have a reference for that? I'm guessing that you are totally misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they've said, as you have in just about every post you've made here.
And if, as you believe, that 1/2 the posters to slashdot could solve the remaining problems Google is facing before going live, well, maybe Google should hang out here more often and pick their brains. One would think, though, that their engineers are better equipped to deal with the issues than the average slashdotter. But who knows, maybe you are right. If so, it's time to unload some Google shares.
Yes, the Google engineers working on the project are much, much smarter than the average slashdotter, but once again you have completely misunderstood what's been said to you. This happens so often it seems like it must be willful ignorance on your part. But to be even more abundantly clear, those Google engineers are indeed going to be hard at work solving the problems that you haven't even considered. NOT the ridiculous problems you've pulled out of your butt that hardly deserve mentioning other than indicating that (despite the mysterious inside info you have which requires multiple NDAs) you have zero technical knowledge on self-driving cars work, taxi services, or car sharing services work.
So I'm not shorting Google, I'm shorting your company. Although I will have to consider the possibility that your business model is just to pretend to be incredibly dumb on slashdot so that other slashdotters will give you all their clever ideas for free.
According to the poster you are replying to there are no such things as small accidents - every accident results in a total loss of the vehicle and the maximum liability damage. But let's ignore that for now.
It's a valid question regarding the different spreads of the amount of damage, but nobody worth listening to will just say that car X is safer than car Y simply because it has fewer accidents per mile. But the 1 in 300,000 stat for Google cars is pure speculation. The current driving record is simply a promising indication of how safe the car currently is (better than people think) and how much better it can be in 5, 10 or 20 years.
It's also speculation that accidents in a self-driving car would be more serious. Certainly some minor accidents like you mentioned will be avoided a self-driving car, but there will certainly be some (at least in the short term) that a human driver would have avoided that a Google car does not. But even more important is that it's quite reasonable to surmise that many accidents that would be considered serious would be far more catastrophic with a human driver at the wheel. A self-driving car will often be able to minimize an accident even when it can't outright avoid it (e.g. it might prevent the car from getting pushed into an intersection in a rear end collision or it might drive into a sign post rather than get t-boned by a previously undetected car).