Post: #51

(03-21-2018 02:27 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Just saw that others have the same idea, but the truth of the matter is that the vaccine damage fund is hard to tap into even if both your daughters get brain damage 2-3 weeks after a vaccine, they will still try to plead coincidence. This will not be a normal lawsuit, but more a modern university rape kangaroo court.

The link between vaccines and brain cancer is a little harder to prove than say, the link between my broken leg and that video of me being run over by an autonomous truck.
The payouts won't be a big issue, these things are really safe (Far safer than a human driver, especially given their massive array of sensors that give them far better visibility than a human has) and Uber, et. al. can easily afford to pay what amounts to insurance.

Post: #52

(03-21-2018 12:33 AM)kamoz Wrote:  An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

(03-21-2018 01:04 AM)kamoz Wrote:  As for personal aircraft being fancy tech, they absolutely were then and even now. General aviation started to boom in the 1950s on the heels of WWII - upper middle class and even middle class people had access to airplanes that were essentially mini versions of modern fighter planes (without the guns of course). It would be the equivalent today of someone making $75,000 salary being able to afford a 6-seat single engine jet. But that sort of freedom has no place in the deep state's plans.

Wait, what?
Airplanes were affordable to your average middle class guy in the past?
I've never heard about that before.
Are we talking about buying, maintaining and regularly using one?

Post: #53

The arguments for shared public cars remind me communist arguments about shared flats or so called communal flats. They were Soviet experiment where multiple families lived in the same flat. Each family had one, maybe two separate rooms where both parents and children shared the same room and all 3 -5 families or unrelated individuals living in the flat shared common kitchen and bathroom.

The arguments were similar - it's not rational and cost-effective to have a car/kitchen/bathroom stand idle for a long time, why not let people hare it? Some communal flats were the big flats of rich people spent to gulag divided to several families, while others were specifically constructed like that.

The ones constructed like that had thin walls so neighbors could overhear each other and snitch on the neighbors who said something bad about the party or state or comrade Stalin. These thin walls were the best alternative in times when video and audio spying technology was only in its infancy.

Communal flat inhabitants faced many problems unimaginable to western people - imagine sharing your kitchen with an alcoholic who vomits there or is sitting in a corner ogling your wife's ass and hitting on her. Imagine waiting in long lines to have a shower or take a piss. Imagine some alcoholic neighbor fed up with waiting and taking a shit at the common corridor that unites the rooms. Imagine children being repressed and shouted down for playing loud because some other guy with a night shift wants to sleep. Imagine everyone knowing about your sex life. Imagine having to deal with the smell of cats some cat lady feeds in he room next to you or with an angry dog some neighbor keeps that tries to take a bite off your children. Imagine some neighbor constantly stealing your food, claiming he just borrowed it but never actually giving it back. Imagine someone very concerned about your shared bill for utilities and shouting on you for not turning off lighting in the common areas or showering too often. Depending on the people you get to live with it was always a lesser or greater hell. And typically you always got at least one alcoholic and at least one grumpy and slow old person and at least one family with loud and obnoxious children living with you, statistically it was inevitable.

I remember in my childhood some of my relatives still lived in a flat like that as they were all over the Soviet Union and when we went visiting them I was being told by my parents to greet those other scary looking alcoholics who lived there but to not engage them further.

https://understandrussia.com/communal-flats/

Shared cars may not be as bad, because we still spend less time in our cars as we spend in our homes, but it is still a very communist thing to force people to share cars and may be a first step for more drastic urbanization attempts like a return to shared flats that in case of a western world would be more diverse then anything under the majority white Soviet Union. Imagine a living space shared by let's say a devout Muslim family, some junkies, some old people at retirement age, a white family with two children and some feminist cat lady. As immigration grows and urbanization intensifies I don't rule out such a possibility. Is it not already implied in countries like Sweden to be a good thing to give some of your living space to migrants? It might pretty easily turn into a forced thing once there become too many of them and the natives cannot keep up the construction of new residential buildings.

Same thing with these public autonomous cars - imagine you calling a car assigning your route in the phone - you get in the car, but some seats are still left free, when all the sudden in the middle of your trip the car stops to take some more passengers who have assigned the same route - you now share a tiny space with a total stranger who might be drunk, might be a rapist, might be a smelly hobo. At least in a metro or in a bus you have other people acting as witnesses and possible protectors, but in a small car with 4-8 seats a diverse occupancy is a trouble in the making.

Post: #54

(03-21-2018 05:25 AM)Belgrano Wrote:  ...

Wait, what?
Airplanes were affordable to your average middle class guy in the past?
I've never heard about that before.
Are we talking about buying, maintaining and regularly using one?

A simple airplane is in many way less complicated than a car.

The important difference to consider is obviously that if you buy a cheap car you end up stuck on the side of the road. If you buy a cheap aeroplane...

Ergo, no more cheap aeroplanes.

Post: #55

(03-21-2018 05:25 AM)Belgrano Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 12:33 AM)kamoz Wrote:  An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

(03-21-2018 01:04 AM)kamoz Wrote:  As for personal aircraft being fancy tech, they absolutely were then and even now. General aviation started to boom in the 1950s on the heels of WWII - upper middle class and even middle class people had access to airplanes that were essentially mini versions of modern fighter planes (without the guns of course). It would be the equivalent today of someone making $75,000 salary being able to afford a 6-seat single engine jet. But that sort of freedom has no place in the deep state's plans.

Wait, what?
Airplanes were affordable to your average middle class guy in the past?
I've never heard about that before.
Are we talking about buying, maintaining and regularly using one?

He said upper middle class or even middle class. Obviously middle class is a range, and he's not talking about the bottom rung.

My boss owns a plane, and since our work is somewhat related, he likes to hire other pilots when he can. I have one other coworker that owns a plane as well. You could own a used plane, and pay for maintenance, storage and insurance for about $20,000 a year. Plenty of middle class people have hobbies in this price range, such as drag racing cars, highly customized rock crawlers or mud boggers, base jumping around the world, or boats. I know people who do all these things.

A lot of people on this site spend that kind of money traveling as often as possible. Hobbies like this, including flying, are expensive, but if a person is motivated, they can work hard to get the money, and make it happen.

Post: #56

You can get ultralight planes for 10.000$ used and 20.000$ new.



Small planes can be had really on the cheap.

Post: #57

It’s amazing how urban centric all the reporting is on this.

You can see the typical typist who makes articles like this tapping away thinking ‘oh in a few years I’ll be able to call an Uber on my smartphone and the car will come and it will be self driving and I’ll be able to drink my soy latte on the way to the office while getting some work done’

Not everyone lives in a city, I’d like to see how the AI would deal with winter here, when you can’t see the edges or markings on the road for snow, someone like me who needs to rock up with 3 pairs of skis, poles and gates and drills. Not to mention black ice and snowdrifts.

Hold on to your cars and trucks gents, learn how to fix them because as sure as shit, the city focussed crowd don’t think you should have them and will take steps to ensure you can’t have them any more.

Post: #58

One of my favourite things in the world is to be driving down the highway, open road, my tunes playing on the radio, smoking a cigarette, and drinking a coffee I bought at the drive through. Trunk full of tools, spare clothing, weapons, first aid, and anything else I think I might need.

Will I be allowed to do that with these wonderful, autonomous vehicles?

Post: #59

I, personally, do not get the knee-jerk fearmongering over "them" taking away personal car ownership.

That being said, driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. And a great many drivers on the road should have their licenses revoked because they are texting, drunk, sleepy, or are so old that their reaction-time is shot.

Autonomous cars may freak some people out but they are not subject to these human frailties. They don't drink, don't get tired and doze off at 3AM, and don't accelerate when they meant to slow down.

I should not have to fill this thread of stories of old folks plowing into crowded streetcorners full of pedestrians because they jammed the gas instead of the brake pedal, for instance. That's another goodie that happened in my area not that long ago.

Those who are treating car ownership as equivalent to the 2nd amendment are really off-base.

Post: #60

(03-21-2018 12:15 PM)questor70 Wrote:  That being said, driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. And a great many drivers on the road should have their licenses revoked because they are texting, drunk, sleepy, or are so old that their reaction-time is shot.

By recognizing something as a privilege you also recognize a power of other people to give or revoke that privilege to you as they see fit. It's a passive and subordinate position you are willingly taking.

Sure some regulations are necessary, just like with guns, to filter out those unfit to drive a car. And for most part these regulations already exist for both cars and guns.

If you see trough leftist rhetoric and agree that mass shootings are caused primarily by single-parent homes and drugs and sexual frustration not guns then you must also see that car accidents are not caused as much by cars but by other factors and you must try to remove those other factors first. Add periodic reaction time exams for drivers, that become more often the for old people. Reduce drug and alcohol consumption. Stand against the phone culture and texting. But you the problem is weak individuals love their phones more then their cars and their guns. How about you address that issue first?


Why not ban alcohol and phones instead of guns and cars? What do you love more? The answer to this question shows your true self and it shows the nature of our society who would rather keep their sweep escapism technologies rather then the technologies that empower individuals.

I am not really suggesting banning alcohol and phones, but you must think what do you love more in life? What person would you rather be - a car person, a gun person, a phone person, an alcohol person? What our society values most and what do the proposed technological advances tell about our society?

The argument that you will have more time to text safely in your autonomous car seems so petty and miserable to me. Look modern people are glued to their phones already and they want to sacrifice one of the few things that put them in control over something real for more virtual reality time? You can''t get more pathetic than that.

I can tell one thin about me - I NEVER drink because I just love driving so much. Some people hate being the designated driver but I love it. It make me always useful and in control of all the group of drunken party. My car, my driving my rules. I am always ready and prepared to drive be it an emergency situation or late night booty call or anything in between. I am always in control in my life and of my location. Should I abandon that for ruined health and fuzzy consciousness? Would I abandon that freedom for some more time in social media or texting? Of course not. I will always pity people who love these things more then freedom and having control over yourself and your surroundings. And I will be doing what I can to no t surrender the future to people with value and pleasure system that is opposite to mine, to people whom I consider to be pitiful.

What if someone told you that drinking alcohol is not a right but a privilege? Alcohol related deaths are extremely common too - domestic violence, liver problems, people losing homes, freezing on streets, falling over bridges, drunken fights - why not sell alcohol only to people who pass a psychiatric test and prove they can drink responsibly?

What if someone told you that using phone is not a right but a privilege? So many people die trying to take dangerous selfies. So many photos of naked people, child porn and revenge porn is being circulated trough phones. Why not ban phones? Or make regulations to test people's psychological health before they can get a phone?

There is a single reason why or society considers banning or reducing guns and cars, but not alcohol or phones. Because our society is weak and sick and loves their sins and their escapism more then virtues and freedom. Because most people love slavery and despise freedom. Now you think on which side of these things you are and what do you love more and what kind of a person that makes you?

Post: #61

We've had "driving is a privilege not a right" for as long as we've had cars, and it's worked out pretty fine so far. You have to do a lot to lose your right to drive.

Post: #62

Video of the collision. It's unlikely that any driver, computer or human, could have avoided this. Although the driver does seem to be distracted by something.

Post: #63

(03-21-2018 02:06 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  We've had "driving is a privilege not a right" for as long as we've had cars, and it's worked out pretty fine so far. You have to do a lot to lose your right to drive.

Maybe it's time to revisit that.

Having a gun is a right - but if I walk around cocking it all the time because it makes me feel like a bad ass, I'll be arrested for brandishing and that right will be revoked.

The right to own a car is really the right of travel. You cannot walk between towns; nor can you ride a horse. Free movement requires a vehicle, and the convenience of a centrally-controlled autonomous rent-a-ride offers a way to undermine this freedom indirectly.

This wouldn't be the first time the Bugmen have restricted movement. During the Cold War, you had to have an Internal Visa with you to travel anywhere outside of your jurisdiction. The autonomous car could be used in a similar manner: prove that it's 'safer' through rigged statistics, then put a Carbon Tax on real vehicles because of bad science, and soon enough you have even more docile soyboys who jump onto the transit, pre-screen themselves at airports, and grow nervous whenever you discussion of rights starts to sound like lack of party loyalty.

And don't tell me this is the Slippery Slope fallacy: the past fifty years have been nothing but Slippery Slope reality!

Post: #64

(03-21-2018 08:09 PM)Lampwick Wrote:  Video of the collision. It's unlikely that any driver, computer or human, could have avoided this. Although the driver does seem to be distracted by something.

Looks like a moron crossing a huge street in pitch back darkness (but could be the limitations of the camera).

Post: #65

Ok I'm putting my pitchfork down after watching the video. That pedestrian was a complete idiot.

The "driver" looks. . . . as expected.

Post: #66

I would've run her dumb ass over too.

Post: #67

Saw that video. If I were the driver, there was no way I could have avoided that collision. Even if I braked immediately the millisecond I saw the pedestrian, the braking distance would have been too long to stop in time.

I might have swerved, though. But that presents a whole new set of problems. Would I have hit oncoming traffic head-on or got myself into a ditch had I swerved?

In this case, the pedestrian was 100% at fault. And I say this as someone who is not sold on self-driving vehicles.

Post: #68

Yes the pedestrian was foolish to be casually walking across the street like that.

But the car had ample time to hit the breaks, even if we assume that its software could only see the exact same imagery that we see in the video, subject to limitations of the camera's visible light sensor. Not enough time to actually avoid hitting the pedestrian but maybe enough to slow down enough to make the collision non-fatal.

In reality the car's sensors should have been able to sense a person even in the dark, without being limited to the visible light spectrum. Check out an example of LIDAR footage here: http://archive.is/rfeDk

Post: #69

(03-22-2018 12:13 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  Yes the pedestrian was foolish to be casually walking across the street like that.

But the car had ample time to hit the breaks, even if we assume that its software could only see the exact same imagery that we see in the video, subject to limitations of the camera's visible light sensor. Not enough time to actually avoid hitting the pedestrian but maybe enough to slow down enough to make the collision non-fatal.

In reality the car's sensors should have been able to sense a person even in the dark, without being limited to the visible light spectrum. Check out an example of LIDAR footage here: http://archive.is/rfeDk

It's hard to say what she was doing before then, though. Without access to the exact imagery we can't really tell.
Either way I hope Uber sues her estate for the cleaning costs of the front bumper.

Post: #70

If an automated car can barely 'see' any better than the average person; even less reason to have them.
You'd ordinarily expect an automated cars sensors to be able to handle a bit of darkness.

Post: #71

An interesting fact about the proliferation of uber etc is that such services have increased traffic and vehicles and pollution in cities.

One of the big claims of these "ridesharing" companies was that it would reduce vehicle congestion and pollution. Well that has been found to be not only bullshit, in fact they have increased the problem.

Studies* found that the people who use these service most are people who were previously taking the bus, train, walking, or riding a bike. Uber, Lyft etc have pulled millions of people off of public transport and non-motorized transport and put them each in (usually) their own vehicle. Turns out that given a choice between a piss smelling bus and quiet ride in a Prius, people go with the car. What a surprise!

They also found that not only are there millions more people now riding in cars who weren't before, those cars are sitting empty idling for long stretches waiting for the next passenger. So you have a multiple times effect on emissions than you would with someone driving their own car and parking it, let alone the effect of pulling millions off public transport and add those car trips to the "carbon footprint".

So, increased pollution, loss of riders on efficient public transport, increased traffic in cities.

The eco-terrorists are quiet on these facts. The question is, why?

Clearly the true purpose of "ride-sharing", and by extension the pushing of autonomous cars, is not to reduce traffic or pollution, since it has made both worse. So what is it?

*Sources:
https://nypost.com/2018/02/25/uber-lyft-...dies-find/
http://kdvr.com/2018/02/25/studies-sugge...ongestion/
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2...es/548798/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyreg...g-nyc.html

Post: #72

(03-22-2018 12:29 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  Clearly the true purpose of "ride-sharing", and by extension autonomous cars, is not to reduce traffic or pollution, since it has made both worse. So what is it?

To make a bunch of money, of course.

Post: #73

(03-22-2018 12:32 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 12:29 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  Clearly the true purpose of "ride-sharing", and by extension autonomous cars, is not to reduce traffic or pollution, since it has made both worse. So what is it?

To make a bunch of money, of course.

Indeed it is.

But I'm talking about enviro-mental cases and the "muh climate change" groups, not the companies themselves. These groups never give companies a pass on pollution issues like they have with Uber and Lyft, so clearly there is a broader agenda which others have touched upon.

Post: #74

(03-22-2018 12:38 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  But I'm talking about enviro-mental cases and the "muh climate change" groups, not the companies themselves. These groups never give companies a pass on pollution issues like they have with Uber and Lyft, so clearly there is a broader agenda which others have touched upon.

They aren't. Sierra Club's been bitching about it for a while now, right?

Post: #75

Am I the only one who noticed that the tranny was distracted for much of the time? This is the real problem with automated cars. Operator complacency. How does the operator stay engaged with what’s going on, while sitting and twiddling his thumbs?