...If it is much safer overall than a human driver, it would be wrong to not release the software, even if it has obvious limitations that will eventually result in a accident.
Of course. And being much safer than a human driver, manufacturers should not have a problem with being liable for when errors do occur, right?
People unemployed by technical innovations don't suddenly remain unemployed for life, we have this thing called supply and demand that says their labor is reallocated towards the next-best end.
Just because it worked this way before, it doesn't mean it will work that way forever.
It can be argued that technological innovations that luddites feared and denounced used to take decades to be implemented, giving enough time for worker populations to adapt and "reallocate". A generation in their formative years could assess the situation and make sure they don't learn an obsolete set of skills.
Nowadays innovation seems to take place at a much faster pace. It's possible that by the time you finish learning something, it becomes obsolete, and you remain unemployable. I'm not saying this is the situation NOW, but it could happen, especially with so many advances in AI, robotics and automatization.
Nobody who is trying to do things right, is going to use anything like that.
Oh, you're such a nerd. Not that's anything wrong with that! But the world doesn't work like that. Most of the people don't make app usage decisions based whether or not they're based on open standards / protocols, but on what kind of User Experience they get from the apps. In that sense, Whatsapp was FAR FAR better than the SMS they were competing with they started, back in 2009-10. The rest is history.
Yes and no. It's not like we air-dropped 4 trillion dollar bills over Iraq and Afghanistan; that money got spend on the salaries of Americans and contracting companies. Sure, there was a lot wasted, but a lot of that money was recycled back into the economy.
...I myself was always FOR net neutrality, but I'm aware this kind of initiatives (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) would suffer if N.N. is fully enforced.
It should read:
"...I'm aware this kind of initiatives would suffer if N.N. (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) is fully enforced..."
Is "data against cap" the same as net neutrality? I don't see the relationship.
I live in one of the two countries where a pilot program from Internet.org was tested, namely, that traffic to and from Facebook (later also extended to WhatsApp) doesn't add to your data cap. The way it works is that the mobile operator inspects the traffic (nothing too deep, just checks whether the connected endpoint IPs belong to a whitelist) and if the traffic comes from FB or WhatsApp, it's "free" (as it does not use your quota). This is of course discrimination by origin, and it goes against net neutrality. I myself was always FOR net neutrality, but I'm aware this kind of initiatives (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) would suffer if N.N. is fully enforced.
THIS is a streaming service.
I see what dun deere.
There is ZERO evidence that a trial would not be fair. Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results. If anything, our system favors the accused and we let a lot more people walk who did it than punish those who didn't. Snowden would be fairly tried.
There cannot be "evidence" of something that hasn't happened yet.
There are hints though, and opinions from knowledgeable people, that he wouldn't have a fair trial, for he'd be tried using a law intended to deal with spies, not whistlebowers.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken