I live in Montreal, Quebec. If I take "Communauto" (it's the most popular car sharing service here), their price with the 40$/year subscription is 2.70$/hour or 27$/day, plus 0.40$/km (gas and insurance are included). With the 30$/month subscription, the price is 2.10$/hour or 21$/day, plus 0.23$/km.
I live in Quebec, where there is a "no-fault" policy. So your first point won't apply to us. As for your second point, it will probably be dealt with a mandatory safety device which will monitor car maintenance, not with an insurance policy. Driverless cars will cause massive changes in the insurance industry.
As for winters, I really don't see why this would be a problem for driverless cars. And again, I live in Quebec, so I know what winter is.
Computers can fly it better and they can handle emergencies better than humans, but for psychological reasons people think it's more acceptable to die because of a pilot error or a suicide (pilot or hijacker) than because of a computer malfunction.
starting on a steep hill WITHOUT rolling back and also parallel parking on that hill
Unless the driving instructor is a sadist who forbids using the handbrake, only idiots will fail this.
Why can't you store them in your house and take them with you when you need them?
I also do like the idea of not having to waste my time driving anymore, but the problem of being unable to drive is a "first world problem". If you are unable to drive and live in a place where there is no public transportation, then you should sell your nice cozy house, leave your nice cozy town and move to a city where there is adequate public transportation. Becoming dependent upon your family is nothing but a choice you (and sometimes your family) make.
I'd take a 200 cycles more powerful battery over a 2000 cycles less powerful battery any time. I'm not sure why you view changing a battery once or twice a year as such a big deal.
So I guess the idea is to make the job comfortable to people who need lots of social interaction in order to be able to work? Generally like women?
It's great that you assume being a pussy who do not want to "offend" anyone, but I'm not. From time to time, I have to offend people. I have to offend Muslims and other religious people. I have to offend black or Asian people. I have to offend feminists. I have to offend parents. From time to time, I even have to offend white atheist males who do not have kids (although those do not count, since everyone think it's okay to offend them). In fact, I don't know a single group I won't offend at one time of another. You know why? Because I'm not a fucked up pussy who's stupid enough to believe we can all spend our lives riding ponies under a nice perpetual rainbow.
If you're easily offended, fuck you. The more politically correct assholes like you or Google will force me to be like them, the less I'll be.
Actually, Isaac Newton was a giant on the shoulder of many, many dwarves, as well as a few other giants here and there.
Pink was never a boy's color. As for horses, whether they interest boys or girls depends a lot on how society view horses. It's not horses per se which interest boys or girls, I'm pretty sure most children will be afraid of horses the first time they see one, it's what ideas are associated with horses. Boys and girls value different ideas.
The difference between men and women goes much deeper than just physical strength and having babies. There are differences in brain structure too and it would be surprising to me if that was just a product of education.
Even the transmission of genetic material is not always 50-50 like we used to think. For example, a study published recently shown that copies of DNA from the male mouse were 1.5 times more active for brain, liver, kidneys and lung than the copies of DNA from the female mouse. We can't extrapolate this to say that the intelligence of a child will depend more from the father than from the mother, but this still means we can't assume equality for something as basic as gene expression.
There is now a clear political will to reduce as much as possible gender differences in society. I won't say if it's a good thing or a bad thing socially, but because of that, there is now a clear political will to negate anything, including scientific research, which shows differences between boys and girls.
In the 60s, I would say gender differences were amplified by culture. Men and women were probably not as different as what culture was showing. Today, I think gender differences are minimized. Men and women are probably more different than what we think because of our culture. (Of course, that depends on the society. I'm obviously not talking about Afghanistan here.)
Stereotypes exists because they reflect natural gender differences. Yes, boys and girls are different. All research show this.
What's the difference between posting as AC or using a random nickname?
A caress without consent is legally sexual assault. The fact that it's different from penetration is irrelevant for what I'm saying.
I don't claim anything about Assange. From what I heard, this guy is a douche, so I won't try do defend him. I just fight the notion that everything a man do during a sexual relation must be explicitly consented by a woman. This notion is completely unrealistic.
I particularly fight the notion that women don't have to say "no" as I believe women should be responsible for themselves.
You have sex with a woman. She gives implicit consent. After sex, you fall asleep together. When you wake up in the morning, you decide to caress her while she's still sleeping. Do you seriously believe this is sexual assault?
If a woman thinks the implicit consent she gives is automatically revoked once she falls asleep, she must either leave to go home (or asked the man to leave if it is her place) or at the very least explicitly say something like "now you don't touch me anymore" BEFORE she falls asleep. If she doesn't, it's natural to believe the consent is still valid.
As for your insult, I came from the cave of men who still have a bit of common sense.