You seem to think the phrase means you ARE an autopilot, and thus are not paying attention
Whether it's meant metaphorically or not, if you're "on autopilot" you, or your unconscious mind, IS the autopilot. Therefore, YOU in fact ARE an autopilot and are also not paying attention.
But that's besides the point because, typically, this phrase is used to state that you should have been paying attention, because obviously, an autopilot system isn't as good as a fully aware human. Not to state that you don't have to be paying attention because you're on autopilot. For example, Instead of driving to school my brain was on autopilot, and I started driving to work!
Doesn't sound like a synonym for an 'autonomous system' to me.
This is NOT an "auto-pilot" in the way that nearly everyone would think it is
This definition that everyone uses for auto-pilot gave rise to the phase "on autopilot", as in "I'm running on autopilot". Which means to do a task without paying full attention. That's a far cry from fully autonomous. I'd be scared if someone was driving "on autopilot", so why should I expect an autopilot car to be any better?
I don't think "nearly everyone" feels the same way about the definition of "autopilot" as you do.
I don't think vaccines cause autism, I simply have the right to decide what I put into my body, regardless of what you think about it.
This only makes sense if what you are or aren't putting in your body has no impact on other people. But whether or not you vaccinate DOES have an impact on the people around you.
It's like, you have the right to do what you want in your own home, right? Not true if what you want to do disturbs your neighbours (ex. really loud music late at night).
Additionally it would be stupid for Tesla not to incorporate any stores in the states they are in because foreign corporations are at an disadvantage legally, it would be trivial for Tesla to draw up the legal agreements Michigan requires for franchised dealer, but Tesla doesn't want to be a franchised dealer, they only want to sell cars and the two aren't the same thing.
They tried this, and got denied. Now they're suing.
But then I saw a lot of companies arrive that were very successful at eliminating middlemen, but their products didn't get cheaper they just kept more of the profit. Not only that but they treat their 'workers' even worse then the middlemen did.
I fail to see how middlemen could prevent a company from increasing their profits or prevent a company from treating their workers badly.
...blocked them from competing with the local dealerships. That stinks
And what really stinks is that because the local dealerships don't sell Teslas, the competition they are blocking is really brand vs. brand, not manufacturer vs. dealer.
This case is an 18 year old. She is legally old enough to have had two kids by now, do service in the military and kill people on behalf of her govt; she can drink in pubs, and drive all by HGVs on the public roads. And yet you say they have no say. I wonder why. What do you get out of it?
Perhaps you're trolling, but whatever. I'm taking the bait.
I never said that the girl actually has no say in the matter (because I don't know this to be true), I was asking whether or not she has any say in the matter hoping that someone with more knowledge than I could answer. And what I get out of it is that I find law interesting, so the answer to this question intrigues me.
Also, yes, she's 18. But this case covers years of photos being posted, so I'm really only talking about the ones where she was not yet 18. Does she have a legal right to say "no" to the people who are making her legal decisions? Morally, the parents should respect her wishes, but I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about law - again because I find it interesting.
"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI