The car might be working just fine at hitting the brakes when an obstacle appears in front of it and still seriously screwed up when asked to do lane tracking and overtaking. Secondly, if the car allows a human to become inattentive then there is no one to override its behaviour when it does screw up. Human inattention is a completely forseeable consequence of a mode which claims to be "autopilot" and therefore attention should be compelled in some fashion to counteract this.
The only way self driving will be safe in the forseeable future is if a) the car behaves in a sane and predictable fashion, and b) the human is attentive and alert at all times. Only if those two conditions hold true is car at least as safe than a human by themselves.
Maybe knockoffs aren't big deal for clothes and fashion items. Things like counterfeit drugs or car parts could well kill you. Counterfeit makeup and other products could well be hazardous too.
Congratulations if you said e). Maybe prostitutes are by and large honest (despite operating outside the law). The potential for harm is still far worse. And the risk isn't even just blackmail or extortion. Maybe she's assaulted or gets raided by the cops and her client book or phone record gets taken in as evidence. Your little secret might come out just in the course of the investigation.
I'm sure there are men who couldn't give a damn who knows they pay for sex, the Charlie Sheens of this world. The majority would.
You're making the classic mistake of only considering averages.
You're making the classic mistake of ignoring reality. Cars already exist to serve this market. I specifically mentioned the Twizy but there are others and more in development.
Not a myth. These vehicles sell because they avoid congestion charges or other fees. Maybe this doesn't happen in sprawling America but it happens a lot in Europe and I daresay other places. And yes buses, bicycles, taxis and even Uber exist in such places. It doesn't mean that it suits every one.
It's also noteworthy how you snipped out where I said that most people would prefer a car that went further. I am not in any way denying that range is important to people. But neither is range (or speed for that matter) a big deal for certain people and it reflects in options that are commercially available.
Wow, a whole 50 miles. That's... damn near useless.
That depends on how much a person needs to drive doesn't it? Lots of people in urban settings might only drive 10 or 20 miles in a day and it would suit them fine for a vehicle which only does 50 miles. I'm not referring to this specific car but the sort of market that commercial vehicles like the Twizy already serve. Urban dwellers who want a car for short commutes, one that avoids the costs and whatever congestion charges, road taxes or other fees that another vehicle might attract. Obviously range anxiety means most people would prefer a car that goes further, but not everyone.
There are an infinite and arbitrary number of "emojis" that someone could think of. Unicode is not the place to put them.
It's fine to give out free data for an app which has no direct competition,
Even Pokemon Go has direct competition. It may masquerade as a game but its basically collecting monetizable data about your movements and habits. It also has in-app purchasing. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that T-Mobile has cut itself a deal for a share of the profits in return for free bandwidth?
Interchangeable parts won't.