Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?
So instead of the candidate who made an already-made-several-times-by-other-people joke, you prefer the candidate who looks you in the eye and knowingly, deliberately, repeatedly lies to you about her handling of matters related to espionage and national security? Why?
The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/29XQXxu ) reports that under the proposal, acceptable levels of toxins will be increased for more than two dozen known carcinogens and decreased for 13 currently regulated chemicals.
I don't know the reason for relaxing the standards for the >24, but the fact that they are being tightened for 13 and many more are being added is important. It sounds like some knowledgable people might be doing their best to balance economics and public health. We hope there is a scientific basis. They could also be giving a corporate handout-- I don't know. Maybe some progressives would be interested in finding out instead of screaming "baby killers" (see the article) when they find out DHMO levels are going up.
Traditional cruise control allows you to pick a constant speed, so I would expect it at least can do that. I would also expect the car has no way to know the posted speed limit of the road, thus the driver controls the speed of the car (that said, we have most of the pieces needed to make that work, and in fact I bet self-driving cars in testing do this, but for "semi-autonomous" I expect it's not worth the trouble to implement since any way you do it you need a bunch of extra equipment on the car to figure out what the speed limit is, which makes the feature more expensive... or the user can just set the proper speed himself for free.)
In the end it's the driver who is responsible for the actions of his car, as far as he can control them. The only things I can see wrong with autopilot with everything I've heard so far is the name, which may tempt a driver to assume it does more than it actually does, and the fact that giving a driver less things to concentrate on while driving can be dangerous in some cases if they still need to be able to react.
I assume people who live in the forest know how to run a chain saw.
You assume a lot of things. That doesn't make "let them burn" a realistic method of dealing with human lives.
BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.