TFA discusses this, and they are working on cadmium-free dots, but they are harder to produce. They use indium and phosphorus for those.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
According to TFA, they are nanoscale semiconductor crystals that turn blue light into narrow-spectrum greens and reds.
Seriously? First, your liability does not end where your coverage does. If you are under insured, it is you who us responsible. Second, the insurance company does not pay out of the goodness of their hearts, they pay because you pay them to. And if you have a claim, you will pay more.
The lower insurance rates with dash cams are more about fraud detection than dispute resolution.
Insurance fraud is not an accident, it is a crime. Big difference.
Also, I should have mentioned rear-end accidents caused by the lead vehicle 'stopping short'. That is always the fault of the following vehicle for not leaving enough space. There are cases where the lead car may be at fault, such as merging in too close to following cars, but that is different from just stopping short, which is what was originally discussed (brake assist causes car to stop quicker than following car without assist).
Also, there is a big difference between fault for an accident and compensation for an accident. In the insurance fraud case, the following vehicle is still 'at fault', but the leading vehicle may be denied compensation if fraud is suspected.
I didn't find any references to 'overbraking' being against the law, while following too close clearly is.
Where? Everywhere I have been the driver in back is always at fault in rear-end collisions.
It does not matter if the speed control is speed adjusting, it is still YOUR responsibility to maintain safe distance.
4 wheel drive does not affect acceleration, it affects traction. The only way to blame 4WD for unintended acceleration is if you were planning on spinning your wheels, which again is just shitty driving.
And, no, I am not missing the point, you are. The 'failure modes' you listed, whether or not some technology was involved, are failures of the DRIVER, and that is where the liability resides. That does NOT tell us who will be liable when there is no driver.
You seem highly confused as to what insurance is. Here is a clue: the 'party responsible' is NEVER the insurance company. The 'party responsible' is YOU, the insurance company is just providing the cash for you.
Its cute that you think cameras, gps, and sensor data will make it very clear what happened or eliminate disputes.
Every single one of your examples is just bad driving, and have nothing to do with autonomous features in cars.
Cruise control malfunctioning is no different than the car in front slowing. It is your job to notice and react. If you 'don't have time' then you are tailgating.
4 wheel drive? What does that have to do with acceleration?
ABS - yes, that is what is does. If you are driving in snow, leave more room. Not that complicated.
Traction control - yes, that is why it has an OFF switch
Huh? It certainly is the fault of the driver in the older car.
I hate to think of what kind of shitty backup system could be erased or encrypted by ransomware.
Future plans would, by definition, be unreleased product, so that does not count.
And it doesn't really matter what they 'consider' public domain. A car manufacturer may very well 'consider' his design to be a secret, but once the car is available for sale they can't successfully claim it IS a secret - it is right out there in public view. There may well be things that ARE secret, like how the design was done, what tools were used, etc, but those can not be determined by examining a care (well, if they can be determined then they aren't secret). If there are elements of the design that they wish to protect, then patents are used.
Someone below used the example of Coca-Cola. Coke keeps it's formula secret. But if someone figures out the formula (without doing something illegal like breaking in to the vault) they can't claim the 'trade secret' was stolen.
The only way an NDA makes sense in this case is if they planned to have every person who entered one of 'their' datacenters, for all eternity, sign an NDA. Doesn't make sense.
NDAs are only for things that are not public. An NDA for a product under development makes sense. An NDA for a released product makes no sense.
that would suggest that (1) they don't understand what a password is actually protecting or is for, and (2) the incentives aren't correctly aligned
You missed the most obvious choice: they don't think like a criminal, and have no idea what lengths a criminal will go to, or the tools they will use, to break in.
There is no other area in life where an ordinary person is expected or required to act like a complete paranoid, but that is exactly what is expected by you.
The problem is not users, the problem is that passwords are a crappy way to protect something.
Yes, but if they had an NDA they should be suing for breaking the NDA, not theft of trade secrets.
How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.