Self driven cars to eliminate countless jobs.

www.activistpost.com Or Google it. Amazon Drones too, if your Amazon goodie doesn't weigh over five pounds.

replying to JR , passerby wrote:



Self driven cars to eliminate countless jobs, * save countless lives *

--

On 12/6/2013 9:18 AM, passerby wrote:
> replying to JR , passerby wrote:
>
>
>
> Self driven cars to eliminate countless jobs, * save countless lives *
>

I don't mind if it means I can take naps when traveling. It'll be like a
time machine. You take a nap and then when you wake up you're there.

My guess is that you'd save at least 20,000 people a year. It could cut
down pedestrian deaths by a huge amount too.

On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
> My guess is that you'd save at least 20,000 people a year. It could cut
> down pedestrian deaths by a huge amount too.

My guess is that these tings will be huge product liability lawsuits
waiting to happen. Who will be responsible when your self-driving car
crashes and injures or kills someone? Remember what happened to poor
Aster Boyton?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

The NSA by its actions has shredded the 4th Amendment of the Constitution
and has essentially declared war on the American people. Put the NSA leaders
on trial for treason, and upon being found guilty, publicly execute them to
send a strong message. God bless Ed Snowden! Death to NSA thugs!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 12/7/2013 4:55 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>> My guess is that you'd save at least 20,000 people a year. It could cut
>> down pedestrian deaths by a huge amount too.
>
> My guess is that these tings will be huge product liability lawsuits
> waiting to happen. Who will be responsible when your self-driving car
> crashes and injures or kills someone? Remember what happened to poor
> Aster Boyton?
>


My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
themselves but who cares if it saves lives?

dsi1 > wrote:
>On 12/7/2013 4:55 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>>> My guess is that you'd save at least 20,000 people a year. It could cut
>>> down pedestrian deaths by a huge amount too.
>>
>> My guess is that these tings will be huge product liability lawsuits
>> waiting to happen. Who will be responsible when your self-driving car
>> crashes and injures or kills someone? Remember what happened to poor
>> Aster Boyton?
>
>My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
>of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
>themselves but who cares if it saves lives?

Sadly, it doesn't matter if it saves lives in the aggregate, if it manages
to injure one person due to an equipment failure, it's doomed.

Remember this is America, a land where a man can take off in a light plane
flying the controls from the back seat by means of ropes tied to the yoke
and pedals and his surviving relatives can sue Piper and win in court.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 12/7/2013 5:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote:
>> On 12/7/2013 4:55 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>>>> My guess is that you'd save at least 20,000 people a year. It could cut
>>>> down pedestrian deaths by a huge amount too.
>>>
>>> My guess is that these tings will be huge product liability lawsuits
>>> waiting to happen. Who will be responsible when your self-driving car
>>> crashes and injures or kills someone? Remember what happened to poor
>>> Aster Boyton?
>>
>> My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
>> of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
>> themselves but who cares if it saves lives?
>
> Sadly, it doesn't matter if it saves lives in the aggregate, if it manages
> to injure one person due to an equipment failure, it's doomed.

The idea of people driving themselves around in motorized vehicles at
ungodly speeds must have been seen to be a very scarey idea a hundred
years ago. The idea took off despite killing and maiming thousands of
people a year. Mostly, we're not afraid of the most dangerous things if
people find it to be valuable to them.

>
> Remember this is America, a land where a man can take off in a light plane
> flying the controls from the back seat by means of ropes tied to the yoke
> and pedals and his surviving relatives can sue Piper and win in court.
> --scott
>

On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
> My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
> of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
> themselves but who cares if it saves lives?

You know how the old saying goes about ASSumptions.

Why not get rid of cars altogether? Some might object, but who cares if
it saves lives? Or if that's too radical, let's make a speed limit of
20 miles per hour universal. Sure, it will take longer to get to one's
destination, but who cares if it saves lives?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

The NSA by its actions has shredded the 4th Amendment of the Constitution
and has essentially declared war on the American people. Put the NSA leaders
on trial for treason, and upon being found guilty, publicly execute them to
send a strong message. God bless Ed Snowden! Death to NSA thugs!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Saturday, December 7, 2013 11:10:59 PM UTC-6, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> > My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
>
> > of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
>
> > themselves but who cares if it saves lives?
>
>
>
> You know how the old saying goes about ASSumptions.
>
>
>
> Why not get rid of cars altogether? Some might object, but who cares if
>
> it saves lives? Or if that's too radical, let's make a speed limit of
>
> 20 miles per hour universal. Sure, it will take longer to get to one's
>
> destination, but who cares if it saves lives?
>
>
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
>
>
>
> The NSA by its actions has shredded the 4th Amendment of the Constitution
>
> and has essentially declared war on the American people. Put the NSA leaders
>
> on trial for treason, and upon being found guilty, publicly execute them to
>
> send a strong message. God bless Ed Snowden! Death to NSA thugs!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will those self driving cars slow down for potholes, will they steer around small things that can puncture tires?

On 12/7/2013 7:10 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>> My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
>> of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
>> themselves but who cares if it saves lives?
>
> You know how the old saying goes about ASSumptions.
>
> Why not get rid of cars altogether? Some might object, but who cares if
> it saves lives? Or if that's too radical, let's make a speed limit of
> 20 miles per hour universal. Sure, it will take longer to get to one's
> destination, but who cares if it saves lives?
>

What's your point? People will give up control of their cars because it
will make life easier for them - the same reason they use cars in the
first place. It will also save a ****load of lives.