"The person was dumb enough to walk right in front of a car in the dark, expecting it to stop. That's natural selection at work."
That might sound pretty harsh, but in all the talk about this incident there has been very little said about the fact that the car would've been just as visible to the pedestrian as the pedestrian supposedly should've been to the car. And on the road, the car wins. She deserves just as much blame as Uber does.
The difference in lighting is so dramatic it's very unlikely to have been a lighting failure. Even with no street lights at all the car's headlights should've provided far more range than the video showed. It's the video that's suspect here, not the lighting.
"The difference here is that it's not a single individual driver you can hold accountable when they screw up. In this case you have to try to hold the corporation behind the tech accountable..."
But what's the alternative? No individual is ever going to develop a self-driving car, so there will always be a corporation responsible. It's not that different to a conventional car with a design flaw that proves fatal. It's not an individual engineer that (maybe) gets held to account, it's the company with their name on the back.
Re: Re: PS: note also the plug for Waymo, GOOGLE subsidiary.
"AI will never be able to predict individual human behavior."
Humans will never be able to predict individual human behavior, so we can never expect AI to do so either.
"The tech will get better over time but I find it odd that we're doing live testing in crowded urban settings already."
Because you have to test in real world situations to know whether your isolated testing has actually simulated the real world effectively. And given how complex the real world is, it's never never going to be practical to perfect these systems without leaving the testing grounds. This case seems to be more about Uber's poor implementation and Arizona's overly permissive regulations than proof we're doing this too soon.
"Disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times."
Out of context this seems like a pretty terrible thing for a judge to say. What he should've said, and assume he meant, was that law enforcement actions that result in disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times.
However misapplied the label, it is kinda amusing that there are people who think it's an insult to accuse someone of fighting for social justice. It's like they never actually learnt what the words mean.
I'm not sure why you think it's a valid comparison. You made a judgement based on one comment, whereas an opinion on Trump can be made based on thousands of comments, tweets, videos' speeches, etc. And if you can't see and admit that he's racist from all that, you're clearly racist too.
Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
"2. One criminal kills another criminal over territory. Say two gangs are fighting for control. For this kind of killing, I really don't care."
That's because you've ignorant or dismissive of the significant cost this has to society, not to mention the obvious fact that the more of #2 you have, the more of #1 will follow. It's a very selfish viewpoint, like a lot of pro-gun arguments.
Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
You're "protecting" yourself from a statistically very unlikely scenario, so you need to balance that with other statistically possible outcomes.
Statistically you or one of your family are more likely to shoot one another or yourself, whether deliberately or accidentally; then's plenty of supporting data on this. More hypothetically, a gun by no means guarantees your protection, it just adds another significant variable to the outcome of the situation you're so fearful of. A gun only puts you at an advantage if you are the only one with a gun and you have plenty of warning something bad is going to happen. Other possible scenarios could dramatically increase the chances of you ending up dead.
Plus, you may think you're a sheepdog, but you might turn out to be a chicken under the wrong circumstances. Tough talkers don't often seem to want to discuss the possibility of a gun making things much worse. A heroically successful defence seems to be the only outcome considered.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: tl;dr
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt Big Tech bias
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re:
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re:
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re:
"The person was dumb enough to walk right in front of a car in the dark, expecting it to stop. That's natural selection at work."
That might sound pretty harsh, but in all the talk about this incident there has been very little said about the fact that the car would've been just as visible to the pedestrian as the pedestrian supposedly should've been to the car. And on the road, the car wins. She deserves just as much blame as Uber does.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The difference here is that it's not a single individual driver you can hold accountable when they screw up. In this case you have to try to hold the corporation behind the tech accountable..."
But what's the alternative? No individual is ever going to develop a self-driving car, so there will always be a corporation responsible. It's not that different to a conventional car with a design flaw that proves fatal. It's not an individual engineer that (maybe) gets held to account, it's the company with their name on the back.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: PS: note also the plug for Waymo, GOOGLE subsidiary.
"AI will never be able to predict individual human behavior."
Humans will never be able to predict individual human behavior, so we can never expect AI to do so either.
"The tech will get better over time but I find it odd that we're doing live testing in crowded urban settings already."
Because you have to test in real world situations to know whether your isolated testing has actually simulated the real world effectively. And given how complex the real world is, it's never never going to be practical to perfect these systems without leaving the testing grounds. This case seems to be more about Uber's poor implementation and Arizona's overly permissive regulations than proof we're doing this too soon.
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's Okay To Copyright An Entire Style Of Music
Re: Re: You worry too much. Millions of other songs clearly not similar.
"I'm not sure you understand."
That much is abundantly clear. This is not a person with any creative talents, especially related to music.
On the post: Federal Judges Says ATF Stash House Stings Are Useless And Ugly
"Disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times."
Out of context this seems like a pretty terrible thing for a judge to say. What he should've said, and assume he meant, was that law enforcement actions that result in disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times.
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
"...electoral fraud is a huge problem."
...said nobody who has independently researched the issue and published their findings.
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Protecting our borders doesn't make a person racist."
No, but repeatedly and demonstrably showing a hatred of other races does.
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: "SJW rhetoric"
However misapplied the label, it is kinda amusing that there are people who think it's an insult to accuse someone of fighting for social justice. It's like they never actually learnt what the words mean.
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Re: Re:
"See how easy that is to do?"
I'm not sure why you think it's a valid comparison. You made a judgement based on one comment, whereas an opinion on Trump can be made based on thousands of comments, tweets, videos' speeches, etc. And if you can't see and admit that he's racist from all that, you're clearly racist too.
On the post: YouTube Shows Dennis Prager's Claim Of Discrimination Against Conservatives Is Laughable
Re: Re: Re:
"As an independent I will confirm that the left hates facts more and have worse logic than the right but not by much."
If I could get through my days with such limited and simplistic thinking I probably wouldn't be so tired at the end of each one.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
"2. One criminal kills another criminal over territory. Say two gangs are fighting for control. For this kind of killing, I really don't care."
That's because you've ignorant or dismissive of the significant cost this has to society, not to mention the obvious fact that the more of #2 you have, the more of #1 will follow. It's a very selfish viewpoint, like a lot of pro-gun arguments.
On the post: Microsoft Helps Get A Computer Recycler Sentenced To 15 Months In Prison For Offering Unapproved Recovery Disks
Re: Re: Bring back the commercials!
"...a Mac is a PC..."
Did you maybe miss the joke/reference?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
You're "protecting" yourself from a statistically very unlikely scenario, so you need to balance that with other statistically possible outcomes.
Statistically you or one of your family are more likely to shoot one another or yourself, whether deliberately or accidentally; then's plenty of supporting data on this. More hypothetically, a gun by no means guarantees your protection, it just adds another significant variable to the outcome of the situation you're so fearful of. A gun only puts you at an advantage if you are the only one with a gun and you have plenty of warning something bad is going to happen. Other possible scenarios could dramatically increase the chances of you ending up dead.
Plus, you may think you're a sheepdog, but you might turn out to be a chicken under the wrong circumstances. Tough talkers don't often seem to want to discuss the possibility of a gun making things much worse. A heroically successful defence seems to be the only outcome considered.
On the post: Anti-NRA Censorship Efforts Echo Earlier Pro-NRA Censorship Efforts, And Learn No Lessons From Them
Re: Corporations are NOT for purpose of controlling the population, YOU FASCIST.
"Also, with the piracy that you and Techdirt advocate, you want to take away MY right to control copies of my work..."
I'm pretty sure nobody wants copies of your work.
"...another explicit Constitutional Right."
No it's not you ignorant moron.
Next >>