Yup, the asymmetrical nature of all these transfer speeds is indicative of how they view Internet connectivity as a consumption platform. Forcing consumers to consume more is beneficial to them in two additional ways, they can continue to claim that it is an Information Service (not Telecommunication) to avoid regulation, and they can charge for the asymmetric peering which occurs because of their captive consumer base.
There's no such thing as unlimited data. The physical limitations of the specification and the duration paid for comprise a hard limit on the amount of data that can be provided.
I'm fine with "unlimited" plans going away because they never provided them and they never intended to. What they should sell are unmetered plans which provide access to X bit-rate for Y time-period. It's the customers' decision whether they make use of the connection or allow it to idle.
Trump administration making it very clear the goal is to defang and defund the FCC, Google Fiber's path could get even more complicated in the form of fewer regulatory allies in the fight against incumbents.
With fewer rules and regulations we will see TONS of new competitors pop up in the completely free market! Right? Unless, maybe there's some fundamental preexisting barrier to entry in this market, keeping incumbents up and innovation down...
It's a spectrum. There are classifications vehicles fall into relating to how much human control or oversight they require. There's also an argument that cars become more dangerous when they require less human oversight without offering full autonomy, because the operator will inevitably lose focus.
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.
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.
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.