eBay Now was a service being piloted in the bay area and NYC where you could order merchandise from local merchants like Best Buy, Macys and Home Depot and it would be delivered within an hour.
It would have lowered the acceleration of the Google car, but it would have increased the (negative) acceleration of the car that failed to stop resulting in greater neck and back pain.
Interestingly you don't mention how much harder bad weather conditions make driving for human drivers, as well. There is a reason that many more than usual accidents happen when the weather is bad, when it's snowing, late at night (sleepy drivers - never heard about a robot getting sleepy), or when the roads are bad and human drivers think they know it all and can continue at top speeds.
Actually, it always seems like many more than usual accidents happy the first two weeks of the snowy road season, and then people adjust to it.
I suspect that driverless cars would adjust quicker and you'd get better results than human drivers.
Nonetheless, the point that driverless cars need to be tested and verified in these conditions before being approved for general use is valid, though probably obvious.
While perhaps true in some cases, it is rather clear from the linked video that it is entirely the human's fault in this case. Unless you have different 'rules of the road' than we do here and the driverless car was expected to do something else (what exactly are you expecting the driverless car to do? It isn't clear that there were lots of options from the video - perhaps move ahead a foot but it seems like that would at best delay the crash). There were two cars stopped at the light, the Google car was behind it, and there were about four or five car lengths between the Google car and the car that rear ended it. The two cars ahead and the Google car stopped well ahead of the at fault vehicle and the at fault vehicle did not slow down.
Well, perhaps fault is the wrong word. Obviously drivers are ultimately responsible for their own vehicles.
That being said, distracting things are distracting and I wonder if the same driver would have been distracted if there were no obvious markings that it was a self driving car.
I think it is perhaps *partly* the Google car's fault. Not because of the way that the Google car drives.
I wonder if the Google car itself serves as a distraction to other drives. Perhaps other drivers find themselves driving behind a Google car, reach over to get their phones to take a picture or video or something, and the distraction causes them to make an error while driving.
Society is built these days on people buying things they can't afford.
Yes, that was the narrative at the time - 'they are taking away our freedom'. In hindsight, even though I probably would have heavily criticized Apple for the move, and would have pointed to it as a reason to choose Android, the reality of the situation was, at least in my experience, that Flash on Android was a rather shitty experience that never really worked that well. And while it seemed arrogant and annoying that Steve Jobs tried to use his sway to annihilate Flash as a platform, I now believe that it was for the best. Flash has a heavy impact on battery life, is generally a lot slower, and is generally less secure than native alternatives.
So, yes, Apple made a seemingly arrogant move and exiled Flash from the iOS platform, but in the long run this drove development toward alternatives and pushed web developers to use technologies that were more mobile friendly (like using HTML for your content instead of some flash application) and I think the overall net effect for the web community has been positive.
That's up to five minutes wasted. Time is money, man. Time is money.
Sure, your point stands. But your point demonstrates a lack of understanding of what people mean when they say 'the cost will be passed on to the customer'.
Well sure. I guess I generally assume that when people say 'the cost will be passed on to customers' I read: 'the extra expense will result in an immediate increase in price for services'.
I mean, obviously people realize that the money ultimately comes from customers. If you presume that statement to say otherwise then you clearly misunderstand what is being said.
As poster above stated, there are a few alternatives:
1. Customer pays
2. Shareholders pay (in the form of less profit)
3. Employees pay in the form of not getting a raise or no increase in compensation
4. The company spends less money on other things to make up the cost
You generally don't change the customer cost too frequently - TWC most likely would not increase costs because they lost a single court case - with a market cap of 50 billion dollars 230k isn't really that much as a one off cost.
In all likelihood this particular cost would be eaten by shareholders in the form of less profit. You can't jerk employees around too much at the lower levels, and executives at the higher levels will probably just be allowed to keep playing. It isn't a significant enough amount of money to really worry about spending less elsewhere as the administrative cost to flip budgets around for such a small amount of money is probably not worth it.
In reality though, I would be rather surprised if an organization as big as TWC didn't have a budget line item at the beginning of the year for things like legal fees, penalties, court costs, etc etc. So in all likelihood, they had already planned to spend some amount of money, and this may or may not have had a big impact on that, and it may or may not cause them to go over budget on legal expenses.
If, over time, the trend of higher legal expenses continues, and overall expenses continue to increase, that would obviously factor into consumer prices. But I wouldn't expect cable/internet prices to rise because of one loss in court.
You should see this One Weird Trick for getting rid of weird trick spam.
I mostly agree, though it generally feels safer to hand your CC details over to a reputable vendor like amazon than some anonymous author selling a book on the internet using who knows what means to store your personal information. And who knows if Joe Author is storing your payment details securely or not. Or whether it is just some author's nephew who knows how to install some web script on shared hosting.
Sure you can call the CC company and get the payment reversed, but it is more hassle than not having to do it.