PBS; Calif attitude to self-driving cars symptom of wider problem

[RichA]

So, because of irrational, pussified pansies, blind people, crippled people get shoved to the back of the bus, thanks to a far too cautious attitude of the STATE toward driverless cars which massive testing have PROVEN to be FAR safer drivers than people.
But it points to a wider problem whereby innovation is being harmed in the West by a nanny-state populated by the timid and the ignorant and the West may well fall far behind the East if this continues.

http://phys.org/news/2016-01-california-self-driving-cars.html

[BTR1701]

If you're worried about a nanny-state, intrusive government, you should be
dreading the implementation of driverless cars. The government would love
nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
away from you and force you to use robotic cars that will track every place
you go and when you go there, in order to collect mountains of data about
your personal life for everything from taxing to advertising purposes. Add
in a little facial recognition tech, and now the government can take
control of the car mid-journey, re-route it remotely, and have you
delivered wherever they like if they decide they want to detain you for
whatever reason.

The ability of the government to turn driverless cars into an Orwellian wet
dream are boundless, and here you are advocating for them.

[Wally Stanowski]

RichA wrote :

You have a lot to say for a cocksucking Canadian, addicted to socialist health
care, gay marriage, legal abortion, high gas prices, gun control and the
government controlled CBC. All while subsisting in a Province called
Ontario, rife with losers in life like you and dominated by a homosexual
leader.

Were you afraid to move to the USA during the Bush years? What part about
making your own luck do you disagree with? Maybe that opulent welfare system
up there kept you tied to your socialist homeland. Or perhaps you have a
ciminal record that prevents you from entering the greatest nation on earth.

[anim8rfsk]

In article
<230679804475771932.645263...@news.giganews.com>,

BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, because of irrational, pussified pansies, blind people, crippled
> > people get shoved to the back of the bus, thanks to a far too cautious
> > attitude of the STATE toward driverless cars which massive testing have
> > PROVEN to be FAR safer drivers than people.

except when you watch the videos of the Tesla, you know, routinely
failing

> > But it points to a wider problem whereby innovation is being harmed in
> > the West by a nanny-state populated by the timid and the ignorant and the
> > West may well fall far behind the East if this continues.
> >
> > http://phys.org/news/2016-01-california-self-driving-cars.html
>
> If you're worried about a nanny-state, intrusive government, you should be
> dreading the implementation of driverless cars. The government would love
> nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
> away from you and force you to use robotic cars that will track every place
> you go and when you go there, in order to collect mountains of data about
> your personal life for everything from taxing to advertising purposes. Add
> in a little facial recognition tech, and now the government can take
> control of the car mid-journey, re-route it remotely, and have you
> delivered wherever they like if they decide they want to detain you for
> whatever reason.

Yep. Miss jury duty? Got a trip to the courthouse waiting next time
you get in the car trying to take someone to the Emergency Room ...

>
> The ability of the government to turn driverless cars into an Orwellian wet
> dream are boundless, and here you are advocating for them.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[BTR1701]

And you won't be able to go anywhere the driver-less system doesn't extend.

[anim8rfsk]

In article
<1849557258475782907.329780...@news.giganews.com>
,

That's interesting. I have no idea what the tech is doing?

[A Mooose in Love]

In article <c513b5bf-7f6c-404f...@googlegroups.com>,

I personally love the rush to a technology that will be constantly
hacked and used as a weapon

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> If you're worried about a nanny-state, intrusive government, you should be
> dreading the implementation of driverless cars. The government would love
> nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
> away from you and force you to use robotic cars that will track every place
> you go and when you go there, in order to collect mountains of data about
> your personal life for everything from taxing to advertising purposes.

You have never dealt with how auto insurance companies track you and your family.

[BTR1701]

I don't see how. Unlike all these newer cars, with all their fancy
dashboard electronics, mine doesn't have GPS so it can't be tracked from
point to point.

And regardless, whatever tracking they're doing doesn't hold a candle to
what the government will be able to do with autonomous cars.

[FPP]

On 2016-01-29 15:04:33 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:

> The government would love
> nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
> away from you and force you to use robotic cars

Where does anything say that?

Where is the government forcing anybody to use robotic cars?

Where does it say that they would "love" to do that? Where?

Are you nuts?
--
"Life sucks… buy a fucking helmet." - Denis Leary

[FPP]

Yup... You're nuts.

[BTR1701]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-01-29 15:04:33 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> The government would love
>> nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
>> away from you and force you to use robotic cars
>
> Where does anything say that?
>
> Where is the government forcing anybody to use robotic cars?
>
> Where does it say that they would "love" to do that? Where?

Jerry Brown says it all the time. He dreams of the day when people will no
longer own their own cars and instead just call up little self-driving
Prius-like electric-powered pods to shuffle them around town.

A majority of the L.A. city council has also endorsed Governor
Cryptkeeper's horrid vision of the future.

[FPP]

You mean like they're doing with that smartphone in your pocket?
Or the stationary computer you use to connect to the internet?

What makes you think if they'd track you through your car that they're
not already tracking you through your phone?

And just WHO do you think is going to sit around all day and watch what
and where 300,000,000 people go and do every day?

Jeeze, but that's a level of paranoia even I can't contemplate...

[BTR1701]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2016-01-29 21:15:01 +0000, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>>> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>> If you're worried about a nanny-state, intrusive government, you should be
>>>> dreading the implementation of driverless cars. The government would love
>>>> nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
>>>> away from you and force you to use robotic cars that will track every place
>>>> you go and when you go there, in order to collect mountains of data about
>>>> your personal life for everything from taxing to advertising purposes.
>>>>> You have never dealt with how auto insurance companies track you and >> your family.
>>> I don't see how. Unlike all these newer cars, with all their fancy
>> dashboard electronics, mine doesn't have GPS so it can't be tracked from
>> point to point.
>>> And regardless, whatever tracking they're doing doesn't hold a candle to
>> what the government will be able to do with autonomous cars.
>
> You mean like they're doing with that smartphone in your pocket?
> Or the stationary computer you use to connect to the internet?
>
> What makes you think if they'd track you through your car that they're
> not already tracking you through your phone?

I can leave the phone at home if I decide I don't want there to be a record
of my movements. Just a teensy bit harder to do that with a car and still
go anywhere, either with your own, or some random driverless pod.

>
> And just WHO do you think is going to sit around all day and watch what
> and where 300,000,000 people go and do every day?

No one. But if the government decides to put you in its crosshairs, a
system like this will give them a ready-made dossier of your entire life,
ready to be called up at the touch of a keystroke.

[FPP]

At every stage of human evolution there have been drawbacks. Fire...
you can get burned. Boats... you can drown. Cars... you can get into
an accident at 50 mph. Planes... well, that one is obvious.

I think if we survived the development of nuclear weapons that can
extinguish all life on earth, we'll survive the driverless car, too.

It doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility for government abuse -
but that's always been with us, and always will be.

And nobody is going to take your car away, not in your lifetime, anyway...

[BTR1701]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2016-01-29 23:13:07 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> What makes you think if they'd track you through your car that they're
>>> not already tracking you through your phone?

>> I can leave the phone at home if I decide I don't want there to be a record
>> of my movements. Just a teensy bit harder to do that with a car and still
>> go anywhere, either with your own, or some random driverless pod.

>>> And just WHO do you think is going to sit around all day and watch what
>>> and where 300,000,000 people go and do every day?

>> No one. But if the government decides to put you in its crosshairs, a
>> system like this will give them a ready-made dossier of your entire life,
>> ready to be called up at the touch of a keystroke.
>
> At every stage of human evolution there have been drawbacks. Fire... you
> can get burned. Boats... you can drown. Cars... you can get into an
> accident at 50 mph. Planes... well, that one is obvious.
>
> I think if we survived the development of nuclear weapons that can
> extinguish all life on earth, we'll survive the driverless car, too.

I never claimed driverless cars will cause the extinction of humanity.

[Your Name]

In article
<1111335542475809696.179785...@news.giganews.com>,

Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and others have already given warning that
humans could be wiped out by artificial intelligence before we get to
the next millennium ... so if the electric smart car *needs* it's fix
of juice and you're standing in the way, it'll just run you over. ;-)

[RichA]

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, because of irrational, pussified pansies, blind people, crippled
> > people get shoved to the back of the bus, thanks to a far too cautious
> > attitude of the STATE toward driverless cars which massive testing have
> > PROVEN to be FAR safer drivers than people.
> > But it points to a wider problem whereby innovation is being harmed in
> > the West by a nanny-state populated by the timid and the ignorant and the
> > West may well fall far behind the East if this continues.
> >
> > http://phys.org/news/2016-01-california-self-driving-cars.html
>
> If you're worried about a nanny-state, intrusive government, you should be
> dreading the implementation of driverless cars. The government would love
> nothing more than to take your car (and the ability to drive it yourself)
> away from you and force you to use robotic cars that will track every place
> you go and when you go there, in order to collect mountains of data about
> your personal life for everything from taxing to advertising purposes.

Your phone, your iPad, the black boxes in most new cars and those odious insurance company speed monitoring devices (which will likely be mandatory at some point) all impinge.

[RichA]

The government and progressives don't want you in any car. They want you on public transit.

[BTR1701]

One can leave a phone or tablet at home. It can't track you if it's sitting
on your kitchen counter.

Those "smart" features are one reason I haven't bought a car since the 90s.
My "dumb" 4Runner still runs like a dream and has none of that Orwellian
shit in it.

[Your Name]

In article
<933943053475826378.537281...@news.giganews.com>,

You're constantly under surveillance from video cameras anyway. Almost
every shop, every bank, every traffic intersection, etc. If you really
believe you aren't being "tracked", then you're dumber than a stump.

You probably need to remove that tinfoil hat because the sun is baking
what's left of your brain.

[FPP]

Nor did I.

I said that if we can survive something like self-imposed nuclear
extinction, the least we ought not to be worried about is the scourge
of the driverless car.

Politicians and government isn't interested in watching you pick your
nose... they just want to maintain their stranglehold on the levers
power in the world.

When you're the Masters of the Universe, you aren't going to waste too
much of your time on the insects nipping at your shins.

[BTR1701]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2016-01-30 01:26:21 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I think if we survived the development of nuclear weapons that can
>>> extinguish all life on earth, we'll survive the driverless car, too.

>> I never claimed driverless cars will cause the extinction of humanity.
>
> Nor did I.

Actually, you did. When you start talking about how "we survived nuclear
bombs" which could render the globe sterile, and then say we'll survive
driverless cars also, that means you're equating driverless cars with
something that could render humans extinct.

>
> When you're the Masters of the Universe, you aren't going to waste too
> much of your time on the insects nipping at your shins.

So we should just surrender to an Orwellian panopticon and not concern
ourselves with it because we're too boring to matter to the watchers. That
about sum it up?

[BTR1701]

None of which is being routinely fed into a centralized database and stored
forever, the way it would be with a government program.

Most businesses have neither the desire nor the resources to archive cam
footage indefinitely. If it's saved at all, it's usually for no more than
48 hours. So no, the random flower shop camera isn't tracking people just
because they happen to pass through frame, but a government-mandated
vehicle monitoring program, like the one California is proposing to replace
the gas tax (who are we kidding? not replace; in addition to) would indeed
track people's every move, by time and location, and store that data
forever.

[trotsky]

Why not grow a pair and actually claim something then?

[FPP]

You're a fucking illiterate idiot. THAT about sums it up.
And a liar.

You quoted me as saying "we survived nuclear bombs", when I did not say that.

My fucking words are right there, four lines above your lie, for
anybody with eyesight to see.

I also talked about the invention of fire, boats, planes and cars...
but that part of my post didn't fit the lie you wanted to tell.

What I'm saying is that the development of driverless cars isn't about
wanting to see where you buy your coffee and donuts. Not everything
everybody does is about attacking your freedoms.

On 2016-01-29 15:04:33 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:

> The government would love nothing more than to take your car (and the
> ability to drive it yourself) away from you and force you to use
> robotic cars

The government isn't trying to take away your car and FORCE you to
drive a robotic car in order to control your life.
That attempt would last all of 15 seconds before it was laughed off the planet.

Thinking the way you do, it's only a matter of time before you end up
hiding under a tarp, out in the middle of the wilderness somewhere.

[trotsky]

On 1/30/16 5:02 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-01-30 08:03:48 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-01-30 01:26:21 +0000, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I think if we survived the development of nuclear weapons that can
>>>>> extinguish all life on earth, we'll survive the driverless car, too.
>>
>>>> I never claimed driverless cars will cause the extinction of humanity.
>>>
>>> Nor did I.
>>
>> Actually, you did. When you start talking about how "we survived nuclear
>> bombs" which could render the globe sterile, and then say we'll survive
>> driverless cars also, that means you're equating driverless cars with
>> something that could render humans extinct.
>>>
>>> When you're the Masters of the Universe, you aren't going to waste too
>>> much of your time on the insects nipping at your shins.
>>
>> So we should just surrender to an Orwellian panopticon and not concern
>> ourselves with it because we're too boring to matter to the watchers.
>> That
>> about sum it up?

>

> Thinking the way you do, it's only a matter of time before you end up
> hiding under a tarp, out in the middle of the wilderness somewhere.

Hopefully with the same result.

[FPP]

Guess tarps are the new tin foil...

[Adam H. Kerman]

But Kano can tap into the flower shop footage with just a few keystrokes on
the magic console at the Palace.

[BTR1701]

Well, that's because the Hawaii governor has procured unique tech for them
as part of their "means and methods" protocol. That's not generally
available to all law enforcement. The only LE agency that can out-slice
Kono is the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit; Penelope can literally storm
any firewall, to include the NSA and Pentagon, in less than 10 keystrokes.

[anim8rfsk]

In article
<1131271581475885707.196312...@news.giganews.com>
,

Yeah, but Abby (with McProbie also typing desperately on a second
keyboard) can hack the Pentagon.

[trotsky]

That's a big hat for such a small brain.