Being arrested for resisting arrest is one of the things I really can't understand. This seems to keep happening and I don't get how it hasn't been fixed.
Any officer bringing someone into a station where the only charge they have is "They resisted arrest" should be fired on the spot. If they were being arrested for something else and then resisted, then fine. If you can't think of a real reason why they were being arrested though....
"The brilliance of the car over the horse is the car doesn't have have a mind of it's own...now we want to give it a mind of it's own? WTF?"
I really wonder where your getting that from. I guess maybe someone thought that somewhere. Cars at first were just novelties for the rich. As they became more common people realized especially in a city a car is more practical. You don't have to feed it all the time, just get gas for when you use it. Cars also are faster than horses, they don't need to rest either. So really don't think the lack of a brain was the main reason for adoption of cars over horses.
I will never get this. Your argument is that we shouldn't make robots and other things to be more efficient because that would take some guys job. So instead we should just keep on paying people to do simple mindless jobs not because of any other reason than just to pay them?
As we move forward jobs don't really just vanish. They change and people need to change with them. As factories get more efficient their is more of everything for everyone. Sure, you no longer have an assembly line of 1000 people building a car, instead you have robots and 10 people. Now though you suddenly have more cars that are more affordable.
I really don't think kneecapping technology is the solution to take care of our lower classes. Assuming these people are too stupid to do anything other than jobs easily replaced by a robot is just insulting. Yes, they will have to learn new skills but so what? Teach them and lift them up, don't baby them with pointless jobs. That just drags down the entire economy for no reason.
I think your missing the point that this is just a stepping stone. Currently yes, I do think the person in the driver seat is legally considered the driver.
This is done because no city/state in their right mind would let a fleet of totally autonomous cars loose on their streets picking up and carrying passengers. The liability for that at this stage is just too large.
This doesn't mean that the car isn't driving itself. It means that we have a human sitting in the car as a safety measure. This is being done as a trail. If they go a year or two where the humans never touch the controls and their have been zero accidents.... Then suddenly the humans will likely be removed.
I think what you saying is bit extreme. I have for a long time though suggested our roadways could easily have slight modifications to help self driving cars.
You could easily add things like bar or QR codes to help the computers but would simply be ignored by human drivers. I strongly suspect as time goes on we will see this happen to.
By slowly adding things to assist computer driven cars we could help make the cars less reliant on things like GPS. It would also add redundancy to systems and that is never a bad thing. If your car can read the special "road sign" and know where it is on a map then it makes it much harder to crash it by fooling just the GPS. We are at the very early stages, but I think in time we will see our roads change drastically as these cars become more common.
Having worked in IT for 25 years I am kind of shocked you don't see the jobs these cars are creating. After all, we are talking about very complex computer systems driving cars. In your time working IT, how many computers have you seen run for years with zero help from IT?
I really think a bunch of the athletes should very publicly protest during the games.
If I was at that level I think I would keep my mouth shut till after the event I was in. Then if I won I would toss their metal back at them and very publicly tell them where to shove it. At that point what does it matter? They can take the metal and say your disqualified, but the world will still know your the best.
Yeah, sadly there is also the whole ego thing. I would love to see us move away from all this stupid fighting and direct that energy elsewhere, but idiots will be idiots.
I mean come on, what are these wars even over these days? Lot of times it seems to be stupid religious fighting. You don't follow same god as me so I must kill you junk. How about we all just drop the stupid fighting and instead focus on more fun things like going into space.
Imagine the things we could do if all the military budgets world wide were taken away and directed at space programs. I bet we would have already colonized a few planets by now.
Re: Hacking email vs. hacking infrastructure vs. war apparatus
You really think they aren't hacking the "war machine"? It is one thing to hack an email server and then brag/showoff. It is quite different when you hack into a system to steal plans for weapons.
You don't want anyone to know their classified weapons system is leaking valuable data, they might plug the leak. Their email though? That is rather useless and boring and not such a big deal if you loose access for a bit.
Real irony though is strength doesn't necessarily win wars. A small poorly armed group could take on the largest of armies and still win. Strategy plays a huge part in a war, as does moral of your troops.
Really just look around the world today. I don't think anyone would call the US military weak, yet they are sure having a lot of trouble with these little terror groups.
Yeah, I can't think of any way that kind of system would make sense though. I guess you could argue that it cuts down on damage to infrastructure, but if I am going to die from a war I would prefer to actually fight in it.
Now having a virtual reality war, that I can see making sense considering if we get the technology good enough we could fight an entirely virtual war and prevent any real death or damage.
Sadly though I think we are more likely to just keep going with the "lets build robots that can kill" idea. So in the end we can all die a horrible death at the hands of our own robots.
I don't really think it is fare to try and throw Tesla under the bus like that. For one thing, Tesla is open about autopilot being just what you said "beta". It also is clear that autopilot is not fully "automated driving".
Blaming autopilot for crashes is a lot like blaming your cruse control for speeding. They are both there to make things easier for you, but if you set your cruse control for 55 on the highway and don't adjust when you reach a town, that is on you.
When a car is built that you don't control and instead a computer fully drives it for you. That is when you can then point fingers at the computer. If your told before hand that your beta testing a driving system and you die, that is on you.
You know, I think we are actually getting very close to the perfect kind of war. We just need the countries to come together and agree to a neutral third party to regulate things
Then both countries will send in their best solders who will fight it out in the ultimate game of team fortress. Whatever side wins has won the war. Suddenly "Cyberwar" becomes a lot less deadly and much more fun way to handle wars.
Of course depending on the conflict the countries could choose different games, but same idea still would apply.
Really sad part is you can actually show proof from the last time we had this debate. I can't remember all the details but there was a vulnerability in browsers that was found recently but was a holdover from last time we had this debate.
The issue is that you can show these guys actual hard proof of the damage they are trying to cause and they will just wave it off. They are messing with systems they don't understand and they choose intentionally to not understand.
Is it just me that really questions the idea of pimping your car out to random people?
Sure you car can go drive people around while your at work and then come to pick you up at the end of the day. So long as you don't mind the lovely mix of vomit and other bodily fluids all over your car. That is if your car even makes it back.
That would sure make things easier for the chop shops wouldn't it. Just hail a car, disable it, load it up and go. Really cuts down on the risk when someones car will come to you in a nice empty parking lot for you to steal it.
Well, from what I understand, anything you share with Microsoft you give up privacy rights to. So anything your computer sends to them the Government can ask for without needing a warrant.
So.... When you use their full disk encryption and Microsoft "backs up" your key on their servers..... Yeah, after all that has come out about the NSA just try and argue that they aren't making copies of all those keys. If you can do that with a straight face then you have a bright future in politics.
Also lets not forget that the FBI can "neither confirm nor deny" listening in on amazon echos. So yeah, sure they are not listening in on Cortana.