The word "all" was indeed incorrect, but sports that do not have an enforced male/female ratio are segregated for good reason.

Why not hold people not claiming to be scientists to a higher standard? It's not like their science-but-don't-call-it-science experiments are any less potentially damaging than the same behavior done by a 'true scientist'.

I fail to see how it's that different than the manipulation that mass media does, who also do not get informed consent. There is the facet of it being more targeted, but the internet is already about targeted material (hopefully done with the best interest of the audience in mind, practically speaking with the best interests of the advertiser). They just stop short of calling it an 'experiment' (in practice, they are continually experimenting on their audience) and somehow by not trying to apply scientific rigor they get off the hook.

I'm not saying that Facebook is undeserving of outrage, I'm saying that a great deal of the media behavior is similarly deserving and somehow we are complacent with that situation.

My question is why is there particular outrage when they do it as part of a science experiment whereas it is widely acceptable to do the exact same thing in mass media to get revenue.

National and local news programs basically live and breath this sort of thing constantly. They schedule their reporting and editorialize in ways to boost viewership: stirring up anger, soothing with feelgood stories, teasing with ominous advertisements, all according to presumptions about the right way to maximize viewer attention and dedication. 'What everyday item in your house could be killing you right now, find out at 11'.

I don't have a Facebook account precisely because I don't like this sort of thing, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge this dubious manipulative behavior is ubiquitous in our media, not just as science experiments in Facebook.

The real trick would be to put your unix-like box behind your gateway, routing all traffic through it. This has the massive advantage of not requiring you to go around, reconfiguring all suspect devices to use a proxy server (if they even can).

I assume this is possible with a mac, its certainly relatively easy to do with linux.

I haven't been on line. I'm still connected only with my phone. https://plus.google.com/111463...

The point is that it's clearly not the driver (because there isn't one), which means it's between the maker of the vehicle and whoever else is involved when the judge and jury allocates liability. Not to mention the fact that if Google says "we'll pay" it will never get to court because everyone else involved will say "Okay". It only goes to court when the parties are all arguing they're NOT liable. Google has said up front that if the facts say the self-driving car caused the accident, then Google will pay rather than fight.

I have a couple and they're only really good if your final product is digital in original intent. If not, they're far less responsive than the physical processes. Your key phrase is "given up physical to go digital". That's an up front choice which then empowers the tablet. Otherwise, the tablet is anything but ad hoc.

More fun, reading AC comments claiming to be authorities.

It's actually not about most contraception, just the "morning after" pill, which arguably closer to abortion than to contraception.

Well, for one, search was such a massive improvement over Yahoo (hand-curated bookmark lists) and other search engines like Lycos and Altavista that it immediately and totally buried all of its competition.

Rather than addressing the others on a point by point basis, let me just ask if you can name another company that went from nothing to hundreds of millions of daily users in little more than a decade. Hundreds of millions of daily users in multiple product spaces. You don't do that through small, incremental improvements over what came before.

Well, all of the cars tooling around Mountain View without anyone driving are pretty good evidence.

A few years of close-up observation as an employee of Google.

No, it's different. At least it's different from any place I've seen in 25+ years in the industry, which included lots of consulting, during which I saw a lot more corporate cultures than most who don't take the consulting route.

Indeed. Which doesn't mean the progress-seeking attitude is common.

Who said I thought it was terrible? I think it's fantastic.

I have a feeling you seriously misunderstood my post. That may have been my fault.

I don't think that's accurate, since Google has said they believe the maker of an automated vehicle control system should be liable for any damages caused by its malfunctions. I think they do have quite a bit of confidence in their technology, though, and in the ability of the data stream it generates to clarify fault and liability.

I'm sure it edges safely away and slows, just what any cautious driver would do. Actually a human driver may overreact, but the computer won't, since it has vastly higher reaction speeds and more precise measurements, so it will respond faster, but in control. Also, it always knows exactly what is on the other side of it, so it knows how far it can safely move aside.

At present the LIDAR units are expensive. Not because there's anything about them inherently expensive, though, but because they're low-volume items normally only sold to militaries. When production is scaled up, they won't be particularly expensive. Plus, the most expensive parts are the electronics which are inside the car, not the spinning emitter on top.

Google is not planning to have a non-autonomous mode, and has committed to assuming liability for damages caused should the car malfunction.