You'd fail law school. 10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.
I have a JD and a Texas bar card that say otherwise.
You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.
No, you're thinking of some government that you just made up. Go read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. The states wanted to make it very clear that they were giving the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. Then FDR told the court where it could stick its Constitution (as the GP said) and told them that if they didn't back down, he would stack the court with yes-men who would give him his way. The court backed down, and the result was 75 years of the federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head without Uncle Sam's permission, and people like you who don't even realize anymore that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.
Those mistakes will lead to lawsuits. You were injured when a vehicle manufactured by "Artificially Intelligent Motors, inc (AIM, inc)" hit you by "choice". That "choice" was programmed into that vehicle at the demand of "AIM, inc" management. So no. No company would take that risk. And anyone stupid enough to try would not write perfect code and would be sued out of existence after their first patch.
What will happen is that the manufacturers will lobby for a statutory "safe harbor." The legislature will make the ethical decisions in advance, or provide a menu of "safe" ethical options. And the manufacturer will be statutorily immune from lawsuits as long as they have followed those safe harbor guidelines. This is a good thing in theory, as it permits the technology to progress, where lawsuits would otherwise eliminate it. So don't worry about the manufacturers. What you should worry about is that those clowns in Washington, D.C.* will be selling off their "ethics" decisions under the table in exchange for cushy corner-office jobs with AIM, Inc. after they retire from public office.
*Yes, it will inevitably be a federal law, though just as inevitably, California will have some granola-munching variant that requires autonomous cars operating in California to place a super-premium on the lives of endangered salamanders or something.
Apple users are not the kind of people who drive to a different supermarket because the tomatoes are 5 cents cheaper there.
Exactly. They're the type of people who always shop at the same supermarket, where the tomatoes cost twice as much as anywhere else and have a glossy wax coating, are all the same, approved size, and are utterly free of any flavor. In fact, they don't even know how to cook, and don't know why they're buying tomatoes in the first place, except that the reanimated corpse of Steve Jobs told them to. They buy their precious, shiny iTomatoes and dutifully display them in the crispers of their iRefrigerators. Then a week later, they toss them out and go back to the iGroceryStore and buy the new, upgraded iTomato 5S, with even more shiny and even less flavor.
You consider a world where nobody has to work as a utopia. My observation is just the opposite. If you take effort away from people, they tend to become entitled, lazy, selfish, and (ironically, with more leisure time) miserable.
Where are you getting this from? I detect a very basic failure to either apply critical thinking or reading comprehension.
From your constant insistence, over multiple comments, that under your proposed system nobody would "have" to work. I consider it a privilege to be able to work to provide for myself and my family, not a burden to be cast off at the first opportunity. My ideal world is one where everybody has the ability and opportunity to work for a living wage, not one where everybody gets free stuff.
As a matter of strict values, I share your vision of a world where nobody goes hungry or cold. But I strongly disagree with your path to getting there. You consider a world where nobody has to work as a utopia. My observation is just the opposite. If you take effort away from people, they tend to become entitled, lazy, selfish, and (ironically, with more leisure time) miserable. They may have enough to eat, but they lose so much of their humanity that they become less excellent as people. There is intrinsic value to hard work. In my experience, people who work hard (up to a certain limit) are happier. A society of bored people is one where crime is rampant and people are full of envy and strife (because nothing begets envy like a sense of entitlement). And that's not even to mention practical issues, like the inflation that dogs basic income economies.
My "utopia" is one where everybody works hard when they're working. When they're not working, ideally, they're building strong nuclear and extended families, raising children with a strong work ethic, and teaching them that when they are able, they should help those whose efforts have been less fruitful than their own. That help involves, for example, helping people through tough times, or giving them a lift while they do something to improve themselves like get an education or start a business. The end goal is always for everybody to get to a point where they can support themselves by their own efforts, so that nobody is dependent on government largess (as opposed to everybody). In fact, government hardly enters into it, except for providing some basic infrastructure and emergency services.
Perhaps that society is not possible in our present human condition, but it is an ideal I would sooner seek after than one where an over-powerful central government deals with poverty by subsidizing laziness.
I think the more eminent threat is that automated cars are going to result in lots of sex happening on the road.
Sex is a lot more comfortable on a soft, roomy bed. And I don't want my car to smell like bodily fluids. I'm going to spend the time reading.
Essentially the judge points out that a different case requires a different trial. This also means more arguments to study for appealing the Aereo ruling. If Dish's lawyers poke holes in Fox's arguments that led to the Aereo ruling, those arguments are fair game for Aereo's lawyers to use if they're applicable.
I think you misunderstand the "Supreme" part of the "Supreme Court," and the legal doctrine of res judicata.
This is the other kneejerk response to any suggestion of reduced government spending that needs to die forever.
1 - How about we cut government spending in some are other than the tiny percentage spent on protecting people against corporate abuse?
2 - We have a system in place for this. The problem with it is not that it's underfunded, but that it's been corrupted by the very corporations it tries to regulate! Arguably, stuff like the DMCA shows that more harm than good is done in some areas, thanks to this. This is perhaps the most serious problem in internal politics in America today but it's not in any way a funding problem.
And you just disproved your thesis. The end result of a body that regulates a business sector is always that the regulators get in bed with the people they're supposedly regulating and work together to erect barriers to entry into their cozy little oligopoly. Throwing more money at them will not fix the problem.