Sure, but the thinking in the IBM analogy is:
"Looking at the way things are today, I don't see how your proposed future makes any sense."
And that is always the wrong way to predict the future. None of the better prediction methods are accurate either, but at least they don't make the fallacy of looking at each invention in a silo, assume nothing else will change, and compare how the innovation would fit into the world of today.
...found a handsome man. I'm not clear on what that's supposed to prove.
This is priceless:
"And it's not like O'Reilly really wants entertainment mediums saddled with the responsibility for what evil people do."
Well done. Let's assess if there has been any violence bred from anger fomented by Fox News, assign a reasonable cost, and make Rupert pay the bill.
Funny how big "BEWARE: NUANCE AHEAD" signs can't stop the morons from driving off the cliff.
And massive stakes in the ground like "Apple was stupid not to pay" serve more as punji sticks for idiots than clarifiers.
Hey, is anybody going to do the Hitler's Last Words meme treatment to this decision yet? You know, the ones overlaid on the movie Downfall:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6262709/Hitler-Downfall-parodies-25-worth-watching.html
Seems needed.
Disqualified from serving, disinterested in applying.
Double diss.
To be clear, I'm talking about the "transition period" when both bot and human drivers coexist. I expect this period to be a long one, since we're going to be buying classic cars for at least a decade more, and then the fleet takes a decade or more to age off the road. Even culture is able to change as fast as the car fleet. (Think about how popular Hummers were in 2000.)
Long-term, once the transition is made and infrastructure is redesigned for Type 4 autonomous cars, it will be dangerous for humans to drive.
I agree with you up to here:
"It will soon become prohibitively expensive to insure the human-driven cars and drivers."
There will be little change in the risk factors, the risk premium, and the risk coverage for human operated vehicles. If anything, it might drop a bit because the robots can practice defensive driving around the humans.
Autonomous driving is an extremely ripe field for naysayers. It just seems so far-fetched.
But the arc of technology is easily tracked. The medium-term capabilities of autonomous vehicles are easily predictable. Complex ADAS systems are here already. Ray Kurzweil warns us that technology is exponential -- you can't predict the next 10 years by looking at the rate of change in the past 10 years without making vast underestimates.
I know many will disagree with us few, and it in 10 years, you will forget how wrong your forecasts were. But the naysaying is on par with IBM's chief predicting a market for 7 computers in the world. If you just look at your feet, and individual waves, you're never see the tide flow in.
WTF, Mike. Your comments system turned my T into an R.
This is censorship!!
DC officials are so immersed in their NewSpeak language courses from Orwell U, class of '84, that they can no longer understand English.
Patriot Act? A-OK.
Free Trade? A-OK.
USA Freedom Act? A-OK.
"Representatives" in the house? Sure.
Money is speech? Of course it is!
Corporations are people? Natch!
"Hands Off the Internet" means "Hands On the Internet"? Duh!
Stop Hillary? Nope, that may be confused with being pro-Hillary.
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
FTFY
Would you also agree that Germany should stop doing business with us, since we bugged the Chancellor?
I agree that it's not OK, but we haven't exactly got the moral high ground.
I don't know if you wrote dot as singular by mistake, or as wit. But I'll guess wit, and mark you "funny".
When my pool's ph level equilibrium is around 7.2, and the water is measured at 2.0 all the time, I will ALWAYS be anti-acid, and in favor more base.
It's not an extreme position, it's a desire to resolve a caustic, acidic environment that is corrosive to all components of the system.
PS, the Kennedy School (where he went) offers degrees in International Diplomacy, not MBAs.
Hey...I was going to comment on DK effect. But searched, found you had done so, and was one millisec away from clicking insightful...before seeing you diss me in the latter part of your comment.
So, in child-like response: FU. Your degree and education is stupid, too. Stupid was the core of your curriculum. And many other broad, sweeping, incorrect criticisms.
There, balance is achieved.
Huh, Wha? You just scored a point for Techdirt and against Putin.
Techdirt was consistent to point out propaganda of the US, and propaganda of Russia. That is not an error or an about-face.
Two Dmitri points...er..I mean demerit points. No borscht for you in cafetorium.
Correct. I started by doing my own trolling, then I outsourced it to Russia.
They'll troll twice has hard for half as much.
Re: Get the fuck off the road
Hah. Sure.
And that's exactly why you drive without a license, right? Driving on public roads is a god-given right in the USA. Not some privilege that requires a Permit from the state.
Or do you have that wrong?