Ha ha - well played :)

However, I was actually typing that from a computer at work - so it was on Comcast cable for data. I can't fault them, though, as it was just me failing to proof-read before submitting.

As an aside, I hate commenting on Slashdot and many other forums from a mobile browser. Some are worse than others, but there are often oddities like pressing the "Return" button on your mobile on-screen keyboard resulting in a comment posting rather than starting a new line. I still stand by the philosophy that mobile devices and browsers (phones, tablets) are great for consumption - but not very good for content creation, even just writing. A full size keyboard and full OS / browser / real applications simply don't work well on low horsepower devices with small screens and limited storage.

Dang it, I misspelled "Data" in the subject line. Sorry! I wish there was an edit feature...

My family and I have been with Sprint for many years now, and ever since we got our first smart phones we've had unlimited data through them. It has actually gotten *cheaper* over time as well, with five people on the plan now for under $200 a month after taxes (down from a high a year or two ago of a little over $300 a month). We have a run rate of about 50GB per month on average, between the five of us, with two heavy users, one moderate user, and two light users. I don't think there is a less-expensive option out there for us, at least not without us changing our data usage. *Maybe* T-Mobile, but last I checked at least one of the phones we have now wouldn't work on their network.

Customer service has been a mixed bag. Online and over the phone it has been okay, in stores has usually been poor (but with a couple of good interactions as well). For the most part, I simply try to avoid contacting them. I do my own phone upgrades, activations, etc. Just be aware that they have many SIM card models, so it isn't always easy to get the right one for a new phone (if you aren't buying / leasing directly from Sprint).

'Bullshit' - that is exactly what I thought, with my inner voice! But you transcribed it, so you must be able to read my mind... so this invention must really work! Even when I wasn't wearing it... ;)

Once conception has taken place, the newly formed human *is* a person. It has its own DNA, different from (but a combination of) its parents. If not killed in the womb, he or she will go on to live their own life - with their own thoughts, opinions, experiences, etc.

Is that new human life dependent on its mother for several months during development (before birth)? Yes - but it will still be dependent on other, older humans for many years after birth as well. We don't (and shouldn't) allow people to kill their young children just because they no longer want them, and neither should we allow that in the womb.

Many people say that "its a woman's body, let her decide" - but it isn't. As I pointed out, it is a unique human from the moment the egg and sperm join and combine their DNA. It is *attached* to the mother's body (via the umbilical cord), and resides inside her until birth, but it is not *part* of her body.

Also, no, I am not a Catholic... though I am a Christian. I have no problem (as Catholics do, I think) with any efforts to prevent conception / fertilization of the egg - condoms, spermicides, etc - so long as they would not interfere with normal development of a human after conception. If you don't want to potentially make a baby when having sex, there are numerous options available with varying degrees of reliability. Failure to use such a method, or the low chance of failure associated with the selected method, does not (in my opinion) give people the right to kill another human - regardless of how far along their physical development is.

Maybe it is just because I am used to 4-way stops, and not roundabouts, but the few that have been put in around my town in recent years mess me up *far* more than the way a 4-way stop works. Yes, 4-way stops may be a bit slower... but they just feel more natural to me, especially when you get into multi-lane roundabouts (shudder).

With that said, I do agree with you 100% regarding people walking in the street. That doesn't happen a lot in my part of the US, but when it does I always shake my head. I am under the impression that pedestrians only have the right-of-way at marked crossings and intersections (whether marked or not)... but sometimes people just wander all over, or try to sprint across a multi-lane road, or even just saunter out in front of traffic 50 or 100 feet from a legit crossing / intersection. I don't understand it :(

You are quite correct - the pedestrian should have been on the lookout, for their own safety at least even if the law might be on their side (though I am not sure of the state and local laws there). Moreover they could have been wearing a reflective vest or helmet, had reflective strips on the bike, not been wearing a black shirt, had a headlight on the bike, etc... things that may not have made a difference here, but are generally good ideas (and in some places legally required) when using a bicycle at night.

Given the lack of precautions on the part of the pedestrian, the choice of crossing location and time, and the lack of attentiveness for oncoming cars... I think she should get a Darwin award and Uber should be let off with a warning to improve sensor technology outside of normal color vision. It might not have changed anything, but the backup driver should probably be reprimanded and maybe reassigned for spending so much time looking away from the road. In the end, I know that is the goal of self-driving cars - that people can move about without needing to actively drive - but while testing them, drivers should be paying more attention rather than less.

Moreover, she (the bike-walker) could have seen the car coming *way* before it (driver or computer) could see her. Why would she continue walking across when she should have seen the headlights coming many seconds away? And why *walking* a bike? Wouldn't *riding* it across have been faster? Or, you know, just riding with the traffic like I presume laws say she should have? (at least in my state, bikes on the road are supposed to follow most of the same rules as cars in terms of lanes, turning, etc)

Yeah, honestly, crossing a street with 35-40mph traffic at night in dark clothes and not at a crosswalk or intersection?

This isn't a self driving car problem, this is a Darwin award winner.

And this is *only* national news because it was a self-driving car. Had it been a normal motorist, it wouldn't have gone past the local scene.

With that said, I would expect that a self-driving car would have sensors beyond RGB. Any of IR / thermal, radar, or lidar should have been able to pick her and the bike up, even in the dark. So there are lessons to learn here, but I don't think either Uber or the backup driver should be at fault.

You are correct that some people decide to take their own lives, but there is a difference between that and making the decision for them (taking someone's life without their consent).

As for the argument itself, the idea is not that avoiding conception is a problem. If they can screen people for whatever genes contribute to Downs, and inform those people, and they choose not to have kids because of that (to abstain from sex, take birth control, get a vasectomy, etc) then that is fine! The trouble I see is conceiving a child - a new human life, with its own unique DNA, identity, etc - and then choosing to kill it because it has a condition that someone else (society, the parents, or whomever) thinks makes the life not worth living. That choice shouldn't be anyone else's to make.

I suspect I am just feeding a troll here, but where in my post (or the OP before it) did inbreeding come up? Also, I don't have a sister.

You are quite correct! I am opposed to abortion in all forms, save perhaps for when carrying the child is a direct threat to the life of the mother.

Have you asked folks with Down's syndrome if they'd prefer to be dead? Or to have never been born? Who are you to judge whether they should be given the chance to live, once conceived?

Now mind you, I don't think Facebook should have banned you for discussing this. Freedom of speech, the ability to discuss ideas (good or bad), and open dialog about even the hardest subjects is critical to having a free society. I may oppose your view, and I might after a while choose not to listen, but you absolutely should be able to voice it!

In Soviet California, pedestrian runs into you!

Throwing a shoe into machinery actually stops the machinery (unless the gears and engines are strong enough to just chew through the shoe and keep functioning - unlikely in that early period of industrialization). What was described in the article doesn't sound like it was enough to stop either of these cars from what they were doing immediately. Cutting a tire, for example, would have been more effective... if that is what their goal was.

It sounds more like just people venting frustration, but I still don't understand the specific actions as a way to do that reasonably. Maybe they were trying to make it look (to sensors and cameras in the vehicles) like they were pedestrians being struck by the car? I dunno, but it just seems... pathetic.