Good point, but remember the cars actually won't be breaking the law very often, and there will be heaps of concrete data recorded about each incident. So subjective or false assessments like "you were speeding" or "you were weaving" can and will easily be disproven by the companies responsible for the code.
I think they're about to discover that while the cost of sensor packages is going down, autonomous driving is still really hard. They're being put in a position of "we have to do it too" because there's no reason a successful fully autonomous vehicle manufacturer won't just eat their lunch. Hopefully no one gets hurt as a result.
Re: Just because they can't drive themselves safely
Exactly, from what I've read these cars are using more than adaptive cruise and lane assist. They're supposed to stop for red lights and presumably go on green. Just because they don't work well and need more testing and oversight isn't a loophole. I think Uber's interpretation of the rules would mean only companies who have already developed successful autonomous systems need permits. That's not the way any other company proceeded, and obviously not the way the DMV will allow it.
1) I believe Uber sees the writing on Tesla's wall about owning their own autonomous fleet. They're terrified of getting completely boxed out, or at best ceding a portion of their profits to whoever actually makes their cars. Time will tell if they're reaching too far beyond their capability.
2) I think we'll see a paradigm shift from ticketing drivers to filing bug reports. First you'd need to confirm the vehicle was running factory software (user mods could open the owner up to operating infractions) and then send the precise details of the situation to the responsible company. Certain thresholds of errors should trigger corporate fines and other penalties.
3) Because it's normal and faster and cheaper. Much like the transition away from horses to these automobile death traps was seen as a crazy fad, people will be come more accepting of self-driving cars as they become more mainstream and proven.
4) There are already different kinds of cars for hire: taxi, limo, van, min-bus, tour bus. You'd hire the car and/or driver that suits your needs.
Because it's easy to design a system to meet a set of known metrics. The driving test is meant to identify whether a human knows the rules and possesses adequate skills. Not whether they are a thinking, functioning, adaptable being able to perceive the world and cope with unexpected circumstances.
Sure, we could devise an autonomous driver testing metric, but it should be very different from the human one.
Hey, I'm no expert but I think that the specialized physical theorists and advanced number dreamers of this great nation could focus on the problem in a more solid and densified manner.
If only there was a more succinct way to describe it...
Yes, unlike the other cases for encryption where the attacker wants your data, most times the camera attacker just doesn't want you to have your data. Taking or breaking the device is as good as seeing the data. We really need instant worldwide backups and prominent notices, so attackers know that disabling the device will accomplish nothing.
"rights guaranteed in the Constitution to those who, with the genius of their mind, form the cultural identity of our great nation."
Careful, that's dangerously close to spilling the beans about copyright's actual goal of populating the Public Domain!
When you guys want to have a serious conversation about rolling back the length of copyrights and how to actually get some works to enter the Public Domain, I'll agree to start talking about how to ensure your farce of a "culture producing" monopoly is actually respected. Hint: they're related.
Yes, it's a subtlety that analytical thinkers (who weren't the target) didn't overlook. But I think that's giving the campaign too much credit to have an semantically valid "out". They're obviously not above outright lies; I think the vague slogan was intended to simultaneously harness the support of conflicting groups. May as well been "Whatever you want me to say".
Maybe we need to move towards a Miranda-like reading of a specific phrase to initiate a consented search. "Do you wave your right to require me to obtain a search warrant in order to conduct a search of your vehicle based on {insert clearly articulable suspicion that would secure a warrant} ?" Did you read the victim his Rodriguez rights before the search?
Copyright is a brilliant system designed to incentivize the creation of new works by boxing up and destroying everything that happened in the past. Otherwise people might start questioning why they need to remake a movie that's already been remade 3 times in the last 20 years. /s
I don't think it's that infringement is good for competition, but rather patents are bad for competition. By design. Period.
So all the analogies approaching the issue backwards are ill-fitting. Bank robbers aren't good for competition, just as banks aren't bad for competition. If the banking system was so screwed up as to make robbery the most prevalent method for getting money, it wouldn't legitimize robbery, but we sure better figure out a way to fix the system that normalizes it.
I agree local loop unbundling is a better solution than running duplicate infrastructure to everyone's home. I'm not really sure how we get there from where we are now, aside from letting all the companies merge and trust-busting them in 50 years.
The FTC is still a Federal body. I'm asking if there's a viable way to address this from within a state government more attuned to the actual needs of its constituents. I'm thinking along the lines of other utilities like water, gas, electric, sewer. Can we locally regulate ISPs under similar provinces or does the FCC's mandate preempt state control?
On the post: Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: Re: Re: Connundrums
Good point, but remember the cars actually won't be breaking the law very often, and there will be heaps of concrete data recorded about each incident. So subjective or false assessments like "you were speeding" or "you were weaving" can and will easily be disproven by the companies responsible for the code.
On the post: Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars
Re:
On the post: Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: Just because they can't drive themselves safely
On the post: Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: Connundrums
2) I think we'll see a paradigm shift from ticketing drivers to filing bug reports. First you'd need to confirm the vehicle was running factory software (user mods could open the owner up to operating infractions) and then send the precise details of the situation to the responsible company. Certain thresholds of errors should trigger corporate fines and other penalties.
3) Because it's normal and faster and cheaper. Much like the transition away from horses to these automobile death traps was seen as a crazy fad, people will be come more accepting of self-driving cars as they become more mainstream and proven.
4) There are already different kinds of cars for hire: taxi, limo, van, min-bus, tour bus. You'd hire the car and/or driver that suits your needs.
On the post: Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: Why not just...
Sure, we could devise an autonomous driver testing metric, but it should be very different from the human one.
On the post: Photographers And Filmmakers Call For Encryption To Be Built Into Cameras As Standard
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If only there was a more succinct way to describe it...
On the post: Photographers And Filmmakers Call For Encryption To Be Built Into Cameras As Standard
Re: Re:
On the post: Photographers And Filmmakers Call For Encryption To Be Built Into Cameras As Standard
Re: Mr Camera, meet Mr Axe
Yes, unlike the other cases for encryption where the attacker wants your data, most times the camera attacker just doesn't want you to have your data. Taking or breaking the device is as good as seeing the data. We really need instant worldwide backups and prominent notices, so attackers know that disabling the device will accomplish nothing.
On the post: Legacy Recording Industry To Trump: Please Tell Tech Companies To Nerd Harder To Censor The Internet
The First Rule of Copyright Club
Careful, that's dangerously close to spilling the beans about copyright's actual goal of populating the Public Domain!
When you guys want to have a serious conversation about rolling back the length of copyrights and how to actually get some works to enter the Public Domain, I'll agree to start talking about how to ensure your farce of a "culture producing" monopoly is actually respected. Hint: they're related.
On the post: A Nasty New Twist In Ransomware: To Decrypt Your Files Without Paying, Spread The Infection To Others
Oh sure, this is over the line. But everyone was totally cool with the fraking "ice bucket challenge." Make up your minds!
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Says Net Neutrality's 'Days Are Numbered' Under Trump
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Says Net Neutrality's 'Days Are Numbered' Under Trump
Re: Abolish FCC
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Says Net Neutrality's 'Days Are Numbered' Under Trump
Re:
On the post: State Court Tells Cops Obtaining Consent Not Enough To Fix Suspicionless Vehicle Search
Informed consent.
Maybe we need to move towards a Miranda-like reading of a specific phrase to initiate a consented search. "Do you wave your right to require me to obtain a search warrant in order to conduct a search of your vehicle based on {insert clearly articulable suspicion that would secure a warrant} ?" Did you read the victim his Rodriguez rights before the search?
On the post: FBI Investigates Journalist For An Obvious Joke Tweet, Because What The Hell Is Wrong With The FBI?
That's your investigation?
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re:
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reminds Everyone: Patent Infringement Is Good For Competition
Confusion
I don't think it's that infringement is good for competition, but rather patents are bad for competition. By design. Period.
So all the analogies approaching the issue backwards are ill-fitting. Bank robbers aren't good for competition, just as banks aren't bad for competition. If the banking system was so screwed up as to make robbery the most prevalent method for getting money, it wouldn't legitimize robbery, but we sure better figure out a way to fix the system that normalizes it.
On the post: Comcast Loses Just $5.50 Per Month When You Cut The Cord Thanks To Its Growing Broadband Monopoly
Re: Re: No FCC No More
On the post: Comcast Loses Just $5.50 Per Month When You Cut The Cord Thanks To Its Growing Broadband Monopoly
Re: Re: No FCC No More
Next >>