Cars driven by puny humans don't tailgate self driving cars. If they did we should expect many accidents involving puny humans rear-ending self driving cars. Since this is not happening, you can infer that puny humans maintain safe distances from self driving cars. /sarc
If your car could go find a different sparking pot, then maybe you didn't need a metered spot so close to your destination in the first place?
Maybe city planners will no longer need to build expensive parking structures within short walking distance of downtown businesses. (But that would lead the the destruction of business! gasp!)
Maybe your car could drop you off and then go park at a spot many blocks away. When you're in the checkout lane, you could whip out your smartphone and tell your car to come get you?
Or maybe you wouldn't even need to drive your own car? What if you could just summon a car (like Uber) to come to your house and take you downtown to shop? Then you could just page another car to take you to another store. (OMG, nobody might go to overpriced malls anymore!)
Just as the noisy, smelly, unreliable and difficult to start automobile eventually displaced the beautiful horse and buggy, these self driving cars threaten to replace human drivers.
The automobile which could sometimes break your arm when you try to start it, led to the destruction of businesses such as blacksmiths and buggy whip manufacturers. Similarly self driving car will cause the downfall and complete destruction of our society by destroying business and leaving people unemployed, just as the first automobiles did.
Too much technology is what made the automobile finicky, requiring drivers to need to know about the technology in order to keep their autos working, and keep the chain drive oiled. We should be concerned about how much technology people will be required to understand to use self driving cars which are bristling with high technology.
The solution to green house gasses and the destruction of society caused by self driving cars is to go back to the horse and buggy. You can do it. It served other people well. You'll be glad you did.
Only if you believe there is some vague, unproven, remote possibility that they might have infringed your copyright because they share the same global internet that you use.
Your right to call Rightscorp at all hours of the night must end when either (1) they pay you, or (2) you decide to take them to court in a lawsuit and are prepared to prove your case. As long as you are not prepared to prove anything, and they don't pay, then you can keep calling.
Let's be fair. The infringing activities of a few people can get an entire site, or worse, an entire domain name affecting many innocent sites to disappear.
It only seems fair that the abuse of copyright by a few bad actors should similarly be able to get Copyright to completely disappear in a flaming puff of greasy black smoke. (a truncated devilish scream is briefly heard as the flames vanish.)
I want my tv and Internet from DIFFERENT companies
TV content and ISPs should be two different companies. That way each content provider works with all ISPs and your ISP works with all content. Stop the abuses we have already seen with fast lanes those who pay twice; and slow lanes for competing tv content providers.
No ISP should favor a particular content provider. And vice versa.
It keeps competition healthy. Content providers should compete to provide the best content at the best price.
ISPs should compete to deliver the best internet service at the best price -- regardless of what you use your internet for (which is none of their business).
The backdooring of encryption is privitizing value (eg, government snoops and voyeurs) and socializing costs (eg, easier for hacker or foreign agent to break into bank account, stock exchange, airline systems, utility systems).
Maybe the judge (or the Florida legislature) should focus on shutting down these criminal shops that sell cameras and other criminal paraphernalia such as lenses and camera bags.
If you don't believe these things can be used for crimes, I will point you to the simple fact that a large expensive heavy camera lens can be used to club someone over the head, and a camera bag could hide terrorist things, like film or (gasp!) SD cards.
Photography (and the intarwebtubes) represent a threat to the state that is at least as bad as the printing press. Therefore new regulations must be required. (Don't get me started about the dangers of 3D printing and how the sky is falling.)