They do ONLY what is in their own interest... financially!

I don't think Obama broke any laws. He simply did his best to get an important and necessary job done, in the face of opposition from the reality-challenged knuckle-draggers who think that shouting bullshit loud enough and long enough turns it into truth. In this case, that meant getting creative with the legislative framework. I'm sure he would like to have put his initiative on a more solid footing; but his opposition cared more about tearing him down than about exercising actual leadership, so he had little choice.

Ummm, that would be a follower you just described. POTUS is supposed to be a leader; you know, the person who sees what others don't yet see, and makes decisions, (even unpopular ones), based on logic, evidence, and science, for the long-term good of all concerned.

As usual, those who are unable to refute the facts, stoop to attacking the messenger.

Had you not kept going on about ads, perhaps your message would have been more clear?

Do Americans really deserve this? More voted for Hillary than for Trump. The Commanderp in Tweet only won because their idiotic electoral college system gave him enough advantage to win by a hair.

In my state, the two laws aren't in contradiction, as the "real" law is: drive at a safe speed considering the conditions. When the weather is bad, you can get a speeding ticket without exceeding the posted limit, too.

Around here, when someone gets a ticket for driving too slowly, it seems that it's always because they're driving in a way that is causing a lot of disruption because of cars passing them. The ticket is not actually written for "driving too slow", it's for obstructing traffic or driving in reckless manner, depending.

I am not a lawyer or otherwise expert on this subject, by the way, so I am likely to be in error about some specifics. I'm just friends with a cop who likes to talk about his work.

They answered the easy part about how they moved the bricks horizontally. So how did these cavemen move them vertically to build something that tall?

Close enough. A supporter would at bare minimum be actively engaged with the campaign there was/has been no suggestion that the adds swayed anyone with a real commitment to either candidate.

Before you can regulate you need standards and those standards should actually cover the specifications of automated vehicles and their real world capabilities and how they are promoted. First up detection capabilities should be fully publicised and 3D image maps of what they can detect and how far they can detect it, what the detection cycles are and the standards it has been tested under and the validity and completeness of those test ie what the vehicle can see and how it sees it and what independent tests have been carried out to confirm the truth of the claims.

Then you have vehicle action processing capability, how it can react to what it sees, how it processes it, what some important decision trees are, will it purposefully run down a person in order to preserve value in the vehicle and the safety of the occupant ie an imminent collision with another vehicle, the only evasive action is through a bunch of pedestrians but it is much safer to run them down for the vehicles passenger, than to take the impact with the other vehicle (so a vehicle might be designated as a zero evasive action, breaking only and always adhering to road traffic rules regardless of consequence for the passenger).

A lot of automated vehicle rules should not be a matter of convenience for profit first corporations but standards and regulations approved by the public and their representatives ie to illegally evade a collision or to take the impact and stay within the law and that coding should be audited to ensure it complies no bloody secrets with vehicle automation.

The other big thing is remote control vs localised control, whether or not the vehicle owned by the individual can be remotely controlled by the corporation, keep in mind servicing laws for automated vehicles will end up being compulsary and extremely highly priced and profitable, don't pay and the remote control vehicle wont go, price to change oil $1,000, change computer 50% of vehicle price, the sky is the limit. All automated vehicles will only be able to be serviced or repaired by the original manufacturer with massively inflated profit margins, else lose the warranty on automation, instantly and as a bonus the car simply stops where it is and requires towing to an manufacturer authorised location.

Watch, they will want to ban bicycles because they are not remotely controlled and they cause problems for automated vehicles, and why have them, a child can climb into an automated vehicle and be taken where the corporation wants to take them. More than public safety, this is an issue of total control over your movements. The corporations don't want you to go somewhere and you will be walking and likely get run down by an automated vehicle.

all the USA has spent on foreign elections? Are the media outlets making that completely transparent to Joe Sixpack? I am no fan of any foreign influence in any election - ever. But for f--- sake, can we understand the realities of the problem in a "Fair and Balanced" way?

But I will never pay for Hulu.

Netflix isn't perfect and the price increase is mildly annoying I guess. One more dollar a month? I can deal with it. Hulu with no commercials is still more expensive and I still haven't finished watching everything I want to watch on Netflix.

And compared to what I was paying for cable before I cut the cord it's completely insignificant.

But why is Netflix raising their prices by a whole dollar considered news anyway?

Is it news when Comcast raises the price of their service by more than that or when they drop a bunch of channels from the basic plan?

One thing that's great about Netflix is I know how much it will cost from month to month and if there's ever a price increase Slashdot or some other internet news will warn me about it - lord knows Netflix never talks to me. I don't even know if they have a current email address.

But with cable TV you never know what your monthly bill will be and if they tell you one price you know they're neglecting a bunch of add-on fees and it will go up or channels will be removed.

With Netflix, I guess I'll lose Disney movies but I haven't even mustered up the patience to watch that Star Wars movie that's on Netflix because there's other stuff I'd rather watch.

Then the followers will throw the telescope's designer in!

Though Internet access is a necessity among job seekers in the 2010s, Internet access at home is arguably a luxury, as one can use the Internet at a local public library or restaurant.

You're too late, this is already well underway, although not exactly as you'd guessed. Power companies are all following the same playbook, where they make selling power back to the grid, or using very small amounts of power from the grid, hugely unprofitable (with shitty energy resale rates and minimum fees). Going off the grid completely is the only potentially profitable option, which has such a high barrier for entry (when maintaining typical home power) that it dissuades most.

We'll see the next stage when that barrier to entry falls with lower tech costs. I'll expect them to go the "small scale generation isn't safe!" route.

We're not going back to being ruled by mega-cities anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the plan is to let them die out, so the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Trump is a great way to accomplish that =)

It is designed to tolerate these changes.

Worst case scenario: It doesn't recognize you, and you enter your passcode instead.

This isn't about who won or lost, it's about another country interfering with our nation. The goal of Russia has been to destabilize other nations for their own gain. You are either being disingenuous or just ignorant if you refuse to or do not realize these were highly targeted advertisements.

This is about information warfare.

Stop doing it to other countries, then we'll talk, you little bitch.

I happen to agree with you by the way.

They need it. They beat their UI ober the head with an ugly stick and decided to get rid of any kind of usability at the same time. People are threatening to cancel right and left. My own subscription expires at midnight tonight.

Goofball? Is that the kind of sportsball Lebron James plays?

A Hilary Supporter means you support her without any reservation, meaning she could do illegal things, say stupid things and be incompetent and you would still vote for her.

A person that was making a decision about whether to vote for Hilary or Trump would not fall into this category. They are making a decision.

Hilary supporters can't be turned, much like Trump supporters cannot be turned. Otherwise you wouldn't be a 'supporter'.

I know it's insane, but I'm pretty sure that's what he means.

The article this was quoted from, without credit, is at http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/... . The last edit of that page was in 2013.

Yeppers, I remember traffic school many many years ago and a guy was there because he was not exceeding the speed limit and slowing down traffic. He asked the instructor and basically the instructor said it was no win. There is one law that says you should keep up with the flow of traffic and another that says don't exceed the speed limit.

Why not? Even if it's empirically shown that self-driving cars are safer than human cars (and this is going to happen soon), people are still not going to trust AI cars, just because. Maybe they saw a scary sci-fi movie as a kid, maybe they have a false sense of control behind the wheel, who knows.

If the rational case is already made but isn't getting through, it makes sense to advertise against peoples' in-born prejudice against self-driving cars.

Or, since it is an optional feature, you could just not set it up on your device.

Because once cars are completely autonomous, there is no user decision. Some company will either forbid it to break the law or not. Company in question needs to answer for their cars when speeding.

...I can't take you to that destination. The government told me not to.

Every other country on the planet would like to thank the USA for giving us such a generous head start in the renewable energy sector. It surely isn't cheap to hang back and use ancient ultra-polluting forms of energy that will soon be legislated out of existence, and we appreciate it!

There's nothing to prove. People readily accept the risk in human driven cars the way it is. The $100m is unnecessary.

Intel has already put a backdoor into every computer using their processors and is heavily involved in anti-competitive practices. Nobody should trust anything made or said by Intel.

That's also an interesting point.

One thing is certain: that these systems will not be as adaptable to the environment as people. (Of course, in the conditions you describe, even people are usually officially discouraged from driving).

So self-driving cars cannot used in all circumstances. I'm guessing that the car itself will often know when it's hit those circumstances. White-outs and the like are easy error conditions to detect.

The real issue will be that your car will just stop working if conditions were to change, potentially stranding you somewhere.