ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cars

View Poll Results: Driverless cars will become mandatory by 2050
Yes they will 30 24.39%
No they won't 56 45.53%
It will take longer 20 16.26%
Your poll options suck 35 28.46%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 14th March 2017, 01:30 PM   #241
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,934
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Where does 10 million come from? Why not 10 billion? Now whilst Delvo has tried, unsuccessfully, to twist my words and make out I'm saying the exact opposite of what I wrote, my point is that people are happy to take risks to do the things they want to do. If they weren't, most have other options.
I was giving you "millions", even ten million, but pointing out that it doesn't come close to "most".

In other words, you're assertion that most current car trips in the US could be replaced by current public transit facilities or walking is without support or merit. And frankly laughable to most people who commute to work in the US.

Quote:
Cool. Your anecdote is nice.
Thank you.

Quote:
But it still doesn't cover your assertion.
What assertion? My assertion that it is uncommon for people to drive two doors down? I think you are a bit confused on who made a claim here.

But I won't push the issue because I've come to realize it is pointless. Being wrong is just unpossible for royalty.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 02:07 PM   #242
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I was giving you "millions", even ten million, but pointing out that it doesn't come close to "most".
Yes, I know you 'gave' me 10 million, my question was, why? Are you seriously suggesting that 99% of car journeys currently made are essential? I don't think so.

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

and

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ection_02.html

Quote:
A large portion of trips were taken for family and personal reasons such as shopping and running errands (45 percent) (figure 7, table A-11) (See glossary for definitions). Social and recreation trips, such as vacations and visiting friends, accounted for 27 percent of the trips. Despite the strong focus on work and commuting trips by researchers and urban planners, commute trips7 accounted for about 15 percent of all trips taken in the United States. Trips made for work, other than the commute to and from work, accounted for an additional 3 percent of trips. Trips to school and church accounted for about 10 percent of all trips.
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
In other words, you're assertion that most current car trips in the US could be replaced by current public transit facilities or walking is without support or merit. And frankly laughable to most people who commute to work in the US.
So that's what it boils down to? My use of the word 'most', not my point that people don't want their freedoms forcibly taken away to protect them from risk? OK, I guess scoring points is more fun than actually addressing the point.

Here, look

**** 1 INTERNET POINT ***

Bravo!

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
What assertion? My assertion that it is uncommon for people to drive two doors down?
Yes.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think you are a bit confused on who made a claim here.
Not confused, just bored. If you don't want to address the argument then don't, but maybe next time just say so.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 02:25 PM   #243
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,934
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Yes, I know you 'gave' me 10 million, my question was, why? Are you seriously suggesting that 99% of car journeys currently made are essential? I don't think so.

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

and

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ection_02.html





So that's what it boils down to? My use of the word 'most', not my point that people don't want their freedoms forcibly taken away to protect them from risk? OK, I guess scoring points is more fun than actually addressing the point.

Here, look

**** 1 INTERNET POINT ***

Bravo!
Now that is one way to admit you were wrong. But I wouldn't hold it up as an example for the kids, if you know what I mean.


Quote:
Yes.

Not confused, just bored. If you don't want to address the argument then don't, but maybe next time just say so.
I have addressed the argument with as much effort as you have put into it. Your bald assertion is used for comedic effect in one Steve Martin movie, but would otherwise be unheard of.

Now if you want to claim that you were just being hyperbolic again I can give you KellyAnne Conway's phone number so you don't have to do this all alone. (If you tell her you're Russian she may give you a discount.) Or maybe you could just write up some sort of disclaimer in your signature. The suggested language would be along the lines of "please take my posts seriously, but not literally."

Have a few more pints and head to bed. After a good night's sleep all will seem right as rain.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 02:36 PM   #244
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Now that is one way to admit you were wrong. But I wouldn't hold it up as an example for the kids, if you know what I mean.
I haven't admitted any such thing, but after reading the stats I am prepared to accept that it's not provable either way as there is no recorded information on what percentage of journeys are essential. What is certain is that you are wrong in asserting that this figure is 99%.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I have addressed the argument with as much effort as you have put into it. Your bald assertion is used for comedic effect in one Steve Martin movie, but would otherwise be unheard of.
Well, I did see a documentary not long ago where two sisters lived in the same house and both used their car to get the mail at the end of the 50 yard driveway. Steve Martin was nowhere to be seen and neither one was laughing.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Now if you want to claim that you were just being hyperbolic again I can give you KellyAnne Conway's phone number so you don't have to do this all alone. (If you tell her you're Russian she may give you a discount.) Or maybe you could just write up some sort of disclaimer in your signature. The suggested language would be along the lines of "please take my posts seriously, but not literally."

Have a few more pints and head to bed. After a good night's sleep all will seem right as rain.
Take my posts as you please, but next time maybe look at what I am actually arguing and address that rather than trying to swipe at any low-hanging assertions.

PS I don't drink, and everything is wonderful.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 02:48 PM   #245
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,934
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I haven't admitted any such thing, but after reading the stats I am prepared to accept that it's not provable either way as there is no recorded information on what percentage of journeys are essential.
Of course not. That is because the definition of essential is to fluid. What is essential today would not have been essential during the war. And if you are going to limit transportation policy to what is essential during wartime then good luck on having a functional economy.

Quote:
What is certain is that you are wrong in asserting that this figure is 99%.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find that I have asserted that 99% of all journeys is essential.



Quote:
Well, I did see a documentary not long ago where two sisters lived in the same house and both used their car to get the mail at the end of the 50 yard driveway. Steve Martin was nowhere to be seen and neither one was laughing.
So, was it about the mental health issues the women had? Or some other medical condition. Please, up with the cites if you are willing to stand behind this.


Quote:
Take my posts as you please, but next time maybe look at what I am actually arguing and address that rather than trying to swipe at any low-hanging assertions.
Be a bit more precise in your language and maybe your posts won't be so easy to take apart. All I see is "low-hanging assertions" tied together with opinion. Not everyone has to bring substance to an argument, but then not everyone has to claim that they do either.

Quote:
PS I don't drink, and everything is wonderful.
Good on you. Others here have compared the drinking issues in your part of the world with our gun issues in a compelling way and I applaud you for bucking that stereotype. Whatever your reason.

Still, have a good night.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 03:21 PM   #246
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Of course not. That is because the definition of essential is to fluid. What is essential today would not have been essential during the war. And if you are going to limit transportation policy to what is essential during wartime then good luck on having a functional economy.
See, that statement comes from jumping in and not reading my posts. I actually argued the exact opposite, that no restrictions whatsoever should be put on private transport.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think you'd be hard pressed to find that I have asserted that 99% of all journeys is essential.
Nope, easy. You stated you were prepared to concede up to 10 million journeys could be saved per day, from around one billion. That's 1%. 100 - 1 = 99.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
So, was it about the mental health issues the women had? Or some other medical condition. Please, up with the cites if you are willing to stand behind this.
They were both fat on account of using their cars to drive to fast food outlets. They were not too fat to walk, however, but they chose not to because they had a car so why should they?

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Be a bit more precise in your language and maybe your posts won't be so easy to take apart. All I see is "low-hanging assertions" tied together with opinion.
That's all you see because you omitted to read my actual argument and ended up arguing against the diametric opposite of what I was asserting. If you think that's productive then fine, but I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Not everyone has to bring substance to an argument, but then not everyone has to claim that they do either.
Evidently.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Good on you. Others here have compared the drinking issues in your part of the world with our gun issues in a compelling way and I applaud you for bucking that stereotype. Whatever your reason.

Still, have a good night.
Yep, not only do we only have 1700 annual road deaths as opposed to 30,000, we only have 140 gun deaths as opposed to 33,000. That's surely something to raise a glass to.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 03:34 PM   #247
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,934
Originally Posted by baron View Post
See, that statement comes from jumping in and not reading my posts. I actually argued the exact opposite, that no restrictions whatsoever should be put on private transport.
You were the one focusing on "essential" not me.

Quote:
Nope, easy. You stated you were prepared to concede up to 10 million journeys could be saved per day, from around one billion. That's 1%. 100 - 1 = 99.
I was illustrating how silly your asserted "millions" was in the grand scheme of things. Even ten times your claim is insubstantial. I never claimed it was accurate.


Quote:
They were both fat on account of using their cars to drive to fast food outlets. They were not too fat to walk, however, but they chose not to because they had a car so why should they?
Sad, but not so common. Should I take pictures of the people walking in my neighborhood tomorrow to counter this anecdote?



Quote:
Yep, not only do we only have 1700 annual road deaths as opposed to 30,000, we only have 140 gun deaths as opposed to 33,000. That's surely something to raise a glass to.
Agreed. In fact it is so stunning I did a bit of research. That leads me back to my recent entry into this thread: Check your Privilege.

The UK certainly have safer driving than the US but it isn't 20 times safer. Per vehicle distance traveled the US has about twice as many fatalities. Still a big gap and something we need to work on. But on a per capita basis the US has about five times as many fatalities. Clearly we need to reduce the amount we drive and increase our public transit usage.

Maybe we should mandate driverless vehicles? Think that would help us catch up?
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 07:14 PM   #248
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,168
Originally Posted by baron View Post
But you did mention hiking as an example which, for my argument, is a good example of the kind of situation where personal responsibility needs to come into play. If someone goes hiking and gets injured or dies then it is always their own responsibility (or that of their parents or guardians).
All this demonstrates is that you have a range of uninformed, poorly argued opinions.

Quote:
Of course the risks for driving are more complex but the onus still needs to be put more on the person taking the risk rather than some nebulous third party ('they'). Providing more options is fine, banning existing options is rarely the solution, or indeed acceptable in most cases.
The system of transportation today is sub-optimal, and likely to be replaced thanks to promising technology. Banning existing options is just part of the march of progress, all perfectly fine and decent. Nobody has a right to pilot an automobile.

Quote:
The difference being that the horse and buggy has not been banned. Certainly in the UK anybody can ride a horse practically anywhere, aside from multiple carriageway roads, and the same for a horse and carriage, horse-drawn caravan, Model T Ford, steam roller or unicycle. And I recall that the same is broadly true in the US, in that no historic road vehicle has received a blanket ban aside from a very few special cases in certain states (I showed this in another thread and despite protestations that this was not so, nobody came up with any evidence).
Weak. Since I am in favor of allowing people to drive cars on private tracks, then, if we want to be stupidly technical, I am not calling for a ban. Enjoy driving your car in areas that have been appropriately zoned.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 07:25 PM   #249
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,238
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Quote:
Quote:
We are also dead last in bicycling.
Unless chemically enhanced
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 05:51 AM   #250
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
All this demonstrates is that you have a range of uninformed, poorly argued opinions.
Says the person who called for hiking to be banned if it proves too dangerous. Let me remind you: "If hiking through a particular area proved dangerous, maybe people were consistently injured, then it might be reasonable to close off that particular area."

Banning people from harmless hobbies on public land. Quite an astonishing advocacy of the nanny state. Does this happen a lot in the US?

But still, since I am uninformed about this subject, despite having been hiking for 40 years and living smack in the middle of the largest area of rural tourism in the UK, maybe you can educate me.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
The system of transportation today is sub-optimal, and likely to be replaced thanks to promising technology. Banning existing options is just part of the march of progress, all perfectly fine and decent. Nobody has a right to pilot an automobile.
I see. So you'll be able to list the vehicles that have been banned in the hundreds of years of progress from foot travel to horse to horse and cart to steam powered vehicle to combustion engine to electric car. Please, go ahead.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Weak. Since I am in favor of allowing people to drive cars on private tracks, then, if we want to be stupidly technical, I am not calling for a ban.
You stated explicitly that if hikers were consistently getting injured in a certain area then you would be all for banning hiking in that area. Obviously that would be to protect them from themselves. Odd now that you seem to have forgotten your statement and you're all for allowing people to compete in far riskier passtimes without interference.

I don't recall you stating that you were in favour of mandatory automated vehicles to protect third parties. Maybe I missed it, so if you can quote this part I'll concede this was your argument all alone. If it wasn't, of course, then you've switched the goal posts from automated cars saving lives to automated cars saving third party lives (assuming that we can squeeze any coherence out of your argument as a whole, which is debatable).

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Enjoy driving your car in areas that have been appropriately zoned.
Happily, appropriate zoning for manual cars will comprise the vast majority of routes for now and into the foreseeable future.

Enjoy driving your automated car in areas that have been appropriately zoned (for risk averse advocates of the nanny state).
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.

Last edited by baron; 15th March 2017 at 05:53 AM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 04:27 PM   #251
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
No one is allowed to drive drunk because that's too much of a risk for other people. No one should be allowed to drive period because we have the technology to erase the risk. You can't be for the one and not the other, that would be the definition of stupidity. Even the most responsible driver has the ability to get stung on the clitoris by a confused bumblebee and cause an accident. The privacy issues and the freedom issues are not worth it. Anyone who has a pickle where it doesn't belong will use this issue to cry about how the old freedoms are dying out... *********** boring, mandatory driverless cars are going to happen
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 09:28 PM   #252
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 20,643
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
No one is allowed to drive drunk because that's too much of a risk for other people. No one should be allowed to drive period because we have the technology to erase the risk. You can't be for the one and not the other, that would be the definition of stupidity. Even the most responsible driver has the ability to get stung on the clitoris by a confused bumblebee and cause an accident. The privacy issues and the freedom issues are not worth it. Anyone who has a pickle where it doesn't belong will use this issue to cry about how the old freedoms are dying out... *********** boring, mandatory driverless cars are going to happen
We do? Where?
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 11:12 PM   #253
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,168
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Says the person who called for hiking to be banned if it proves too dangerous. Let me remind you: "If hiking through a particular area proved dangerous, maybe people were consistently injured, then it might be reasonable to close off that particular area."
You're <snip> if you think your characterization matches the tone and intent of my actual comment. I'm happy you quoted it. Banning is not the first response to someone who sustained an injury; it's one of the last responses.

Edited by jsfisher:  Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement. (Oh, and I fixed the quote-tag error, too.)


Quote:
Banning people from harmless hobbies on public land. Quite an astonishing advocacy of the nanny state. Does this happen a lot in the US?
The only thing that's astonishing is that you can't keep the example straight. The premise is that people are getting hurt, so it's not harmless. What you mean to say is that it is harmless to others (whereas driving is obviously not harmless to others). Anyway, people do not have a right to hike on every inch of public land anymore than they have a right to leap from public bridges. If they want to injure themselves dancing in their own bathtub, or hang themselves in their own closet, then I would not criminalize that type of behavior.

Quote:
I see. So you'll be able to list the vehicles that have been banned in the hundreds of years of progress from foot travel to horse to horse and cart to steam powered vehicle to combustion engine to electric car. Please, go ahead.
This is a little sad: you can't read for comprehension.

Quote:
You stated explicitly that if hikers were consistently getting injured in a certain area then you would be all for banning hiking in that area.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Why did you bother quoting it again?

Quote:
Obviously that would be to protect them from themselves. Odd now that you seem to have forgotten your statement and you're all for allowing people to compete in far riskier passtimes without interference.
No, it's only "odd" to someone vested in mischaracterizing my views rather than rebutting them.

Quote:
I don't recall you stating that you were in favour of mandatory automated vehicles to protect third parties. Maybe I missed it, so if you can quote this part I'll concede this was your argument all alone. If it wasn't, of course, then you've switched the goal posts from automated cars saving lives to automated cars saving third party lives (assuming that we can squeeze any coherence out of your argument as a whole, which is debatable).
This should have been obvious when I said the better comparison was firearms rather than hiking, and not because guns are used for self-harm, which is itself a problem, but because they injure and kill others. I have participated in threads on driverless cars for years (and even started some of them), and I've routinely stated general safety is the most compelling reason. As I recall, someone up-thread explicitly made this point about third parties, and you were reduced to muttering on about how fellow travelers freely "consent" to this state of affairs. No one should have to point out that human-driven cars also kill pedestrians and cyclists.

Quote:
Happily, appropriate zoning for manual cars will comprise the vast majority of routes for now and into the foreseeable future.
Uh huh.

Quote:
Enjoy driving your automated car in areas that have been appropriately zoned (for risk averse advocates of the nanny state).
You mean civilized society? Risk-averse nanny-staters also don't want you to use cellphones while driving, and they want to impose speed limits, and let's not even get started with cars that meet safety standards. The only pussies are the people terrified of this "nanny" state.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.

Last edited by jsfisher; 18th March 2017 at 09:27 AM.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 02:20 AM   #254
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
We do? Where?
Yes, I did didn't speak accurately... we can't demonstrate it now it's on the drawing board and in the minds of the proponents.... come on man let's not go down this rabbit hole again... Let's assume for the sake of argument that the consensus is correct and it will be possible.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo

Also an important point is that we don't have to entertain the rantings of people who have political gripes waving their computer engineering credentials around, that is also an old thing that needs to die with the internet bulletin board. A little week on the philosophy of science in those computer science degree colleges I guess.
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Last edited by Joey McGee; 18th March 2017 at 02:21 AM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 07:17 AM   #255
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You're surprisingly retarded if you think your characterization matches the tone and intent of my actual comment. I'm happy you quoted it. Banning is not the first response to someone who sustained an injury; it's one of the last responses.
It's an authoritarian response that you endorse. Here's my tip for the day: If you don't mean something, don't say it.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
The only thing that's astonishing is that you can't keep the example straight. The premise is that people are getting hurt, so it's not harmless.
So hiking, in your view, is not a harmless hobby. Got it. What would be a harmless hobby? Obviously nothing that requires physical action. Video gaming? Well no, many South Korean and Japanese gamers have died from prolonged inactivity whilst playing online. I'm stuck. Maybe give a few examples of harmless hobbies that you do not advocate banning for the self-protection of those involved.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
What you mean to say is that it is harmless to others (whereas driving is obviously not harmless to others). Anyway, people do not have a right to hike on every inch of public land anymore than they have a right to leap from public bridges.
Right, so we've progressed from banning hiking in certain areas (with the associated weasel words 'as a last resort') to equating walking on public land with leaping from a bridge. I really don't think I need to say anything further about that.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
If they want to injure themselves dancing in their own bathtub, or hang themselves in their own closet, then I would not criminalize that type of behavior.
You, sir, are a true liberal.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This is a little sad: you can't read for comprehension.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Why did you bother quoting it again?
Do you usually disagree with yourself in this way?

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
No, it's only "odd" to someone vested in mischaracterizing my views rather than rebutting them.
There's no question you said what I claimed. I quoted it, it's there on the screen.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This should have been obvious
You're right, it should have been obvious. Next time please state your arguments with some degree of clarity and if you don't mean something... you got it! Don't say it.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
when I said the better comparison was firearms rather than hiking
Yet you are the one who brought up hiking. You're now doing down your own example. How bizarre.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
, and not because guns are used for self-harm, which is itself a problem, but because they injure and kill others.
Yes, that is the purpose of guns. Cars, not so much.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I have participated in threads on driverless cars for years (and even started some of them), and I've routinely stated general safety is the most compelling reason. As I recall, someone up-thread explicitly made this point about third parties, and you were reduced to muttering on about how fellow travelers freely "consent" to this state of affairs. No one should have to point out that human-driven cars also kill pedestrians and cyclists.
That's right, I think that concept is pretty well understood. Difficult to work out why you even brought it up.


Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Uh huh.

You mean civilized society? Risk-averse nanny-staters also don't want you to use cellphones while driving, and they want to impose speed limits, and let's not even get started with cars that meet safety standards. The only pussies are the people terrified of this "nanny" state.
You don't understand the terminology you're using, do you?
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 09:00 AM   #256
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Oh BTW, how are you getting on with that list? "Banning existing options is just part of the march of progress" you stated, so I asked for a list of vehicles banned in the last... well, as far back as you want to go.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 09:55 PM   #257
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,168
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's an authoritarian response that you endorse. Here's my tip for the day: If you don't mean something, don't say it.
Again, you can't read for comprehension. I meant exactly what I said, and what I said doesn't quite match your characterization. People spend money to travel and hike all over the blue marble. If someone really wants to, they can ignore a sign and pay fine (assuming they get caught). I know, it's sooooo authoritarian.

Quote:
So hiking, in your view, is not a harmless hobby. Got it. What would be a harmless hobby? Obviously nothing that requires physical action. Video gaming? Well no, many South Korean and Japanese gamers have died from prolonged inactivity whilst playing online. I'm stuck. Maybe give a few examples of harmless hobbies that you do not advocate banning for the self-protection of those involved.
You're not very good at this, are you? In the first instance, I said that hiking was a poor comparison, and if we wanted to make it work we'd have to imagine rather obscure circumstances. Under those hypothetical, generally non-representative circumstances, yes, it could prove harmful. But hiking is not a public health problem the way guns and automobiles are. We should have people owning fewer firearms and driving less; we should also have people increase their time spent hiking.

Quote:
Right, so we've progressed from banning hiking in certain areas (with the associated weasel words 'as a last resort') to equating walking on public land with leaping from a bridge. I really don't think I need to say anything further about that.
This is rich. I'm sorry that I do not espouse the views that you would prefer to box me into. The only weaseling involves attempting to compare "walking on public land" with "leaping from a bridge." The appropriate comparison would be walking on notoriously dangerous terrain to leaping from a bridge.

Quote:
Do you usually disagree with yourself in this way?
Only after I've stopped beating my girlfriend.

Quote:
Yet you are the one who brought up hiking. You're now doing down your own example. How bizarre.
Ah, so now you're reduced to lying (or you have the memory of a forgetful fish). I am not the one who brought up hiking. Another poster mentioned hiking.

Quote:
Yes, that is the purpose of guns. Cars, not so much.
It doesn't matter what their purpose is, a public health problem is a public health problem. The main purpose of purchasing a gun is to protect loved ones, not kill a spouse because she drank the last beer.

Quote:
You don't understand the terminology you're using, do you?
I think any casual reader can easily discern who understands what (and it doesn't look good for you).

As for the "banning list," I'll repeat myself again: you didn't understand what I wrote. You haven't a clue.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 03:47 AM   #258
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
No one is allowed to drive drunk because that's too much of a risk for other people. No one should be allowed to drive period because we have the technology to erase the risk. You can't be for the one and not the other, that would be the definition of stupidity. Even the most responsible driver has the ability to get stung on the clitoris by a confused bumblebee and cause an accident. The privacy issues and the freedom issues are not worth it. Anyone who has a pickle where it doesn't belong will use this issue to cry about how the old freedoms are dying out... *********** boring, mandatory driverless cars are going to happen
Any sensor can get confused by something or produce (slightly) incorrect result,bug in software can cause things go wrong or analysis of situation can be ambiguous and hackers and other outside actors (and they don't have to be human either) are waiting to get piece of action too. Not to mention still persistent problems with maps, GPS and data connectivity. (Just watching people trying to use GPS to get to my house is sad fun -- assuming map even knows about house and house numbers)

And you don't get to skip privacy and data protection rules. At least not in EU.

And lastly, you don't get to ignore many cases were manual driving is the only option. I guess city dwellers are ignorant about outer world, but there are many things going on in mountains and forests and similar cases. Oh, and you don't need some uber mountains or Amazon rainforest. Just small mountains in Central Europe are more then sufficient...
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 06:21 AM   #259
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Again, you can't read for comprehension. I meant exactly what I said, and what I said doesn't quite match your characterization. People spend money to travel and hike all over the blue marble. If someone really wants to, they can ignore a sign and pay fine (assuming they get caught). I know, it's sooooo authoritarian.
Yes, a fine, that's normally how banning works. How do you imagine the concept of banning? That the transgressor be shot or sentenced to life in jail?

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You're not very good at this, are you? In the first instance, I said that hiking was a poor comparison, and if we wanted to make it work we'd have to imagine rather obscure circumstances.
I'm not interested in your assessment of the comparison, I'm interested in your statement, which you have since confirmed, that

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
If hiking through a particular area proved dangerous, maybe people were consistently injured, then it might be reasonable to close off that particular area.
This statement stands on its own as a clear advocacy of the nanny state.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Under those hypothetical, generally non-representative circumstances, yes, it could prove harmful. But hiking is not a public health problem the way guns and automobiles are.
We should have people owning fewer firearms and driving less; we should also have people increase their time spent hiking.
You say that like I may disagree. I don't see the relevance.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This is rich. I'm sorry that I do not espouse the views that you would prefer to box me into. The only weaseling involves attempting to compare "walking on public land" with "leaping from a bridge." The appropriate comparison would be walking on notoriously dangerous terrain to leaping from a bridge.
So what? Do you think it's a reasonable comparison? If so it explains why you're so risk averse and why you believe such risk aversion should be legally enforced on others.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Only after I've stopped beating my girlfriend.

Ah, so now you're reduced to lying (or you have the memory of a forgetful fish). I am not the one who brought up hiking. Another poster mentioned hiking.
Yes, and they mentioned it as part of a long list to illustrate a perfectly reasonable comparison of one hobby (cars and driving) with another (hiking). It's you who singled it out then ran with it and talked of banning.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It doesn't matter what their purpose is, a public health problem is a public health problem. The main purpose of purchasing a gun is to protect loved ones, not kill a spouse because she drank the last beer.
Dear oh dear. Let's slip a few words in and see if he notices. Yes, I did. The purpose of a gun, not the purpose of purchasing a gun (although you don't explain how a gun would 'protect your loved ones' if it was incapable of killing someone). Guns were created to kill people. Cars were not.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I think any casual reader can easily discern who understands what (and it doesn't look good for you).

As for the "banning list," I'll repeat myself again: you didn't understand what I wrote. You haven't a clue.
No, I understood it perfectly, you were very clear. The fact you stated that banning things was a natural result of progress, yet cannot illustrate that with one single example, shows just how weak your argument is.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 11:42 PM   #260
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,168
Sure, I'll take a reprieve from grading poorly written papers to addressing poorly conceived non-arguments.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
You say that like I may disagree. I don't see the relevance.
It's stated as a clarification. By either intent or incompetence, you continually misconstrue my words.

Quote:
So what? Do you think it's a reasonable comparison? If so it explains why you're so risk averse and why you believe such risk aversion should be legally enforced on others.
This is probably one of your hobby-horses, as we are straying off the topic of driverless cars. It's not a completely retarded move considering how you've fared in your opposition to robocars.

Quote:
Yes, and they mentioned it as part of a long list to illustrate a perfectly reasonable comparison of one hobby (cars and driving) with another (hiking). It's you who singled it out then ran with it and talked of banning.
Uh huh. I suggest you re-read the post, especially the part where the member imagined conveyor belts. As I said, I pointed out that it was a poor comparison, and moved on. If anyone has taken to running with it, it's you. You've done such a bang up job that you forgot who first mentioned, but, ya know, facts.

Quote:
Dear oh dear. Let's slip a few words in and see if he notices. Yes, I did. The purpose of a gun, not the purpose of purchasing a gun (although you don't explain how a gun would 'protect your loved ones' if it was incapable of killing someone). Guns were created to kill people. Cars were not.
I wonder if you proof-read these things, or if you're just completely lacking in imagination. You're also missing the main point, which is that you're committing a teleological error (the purpose of a certain drug was to treat male-pattern baldness, but it got re-purposed when it treated floppy cocks). Anyway, that you decide to compound this problem with the naive idea that guns are exclusively designed to kill people is, well, too silly for words.

Quote:
No, I understood it perfectly, you were very clear. The fact you stated that banning things was a natural result of progress, yet cannot illustrate that with one single example, shows just how weak your argument is.
I will claim some authority regarding my comment since I authored it, but thanks for the chuckle.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 03:43 AM   #261
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,368
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Sure, I'll take a reprieve from grading poorly written papers to addressing poorly conceived non-arguments.



It's stated as a clarification. By either intent or incompetence, you continually misconstrue my words.



This is probably one of your hobby-horses, as we are straying off the topic of driverless cars. It's not a completely retarded move considering how you've fared in your opposition to robocars.



Uh huh. I suggest you re-read the post, especially the part where the member imagined conveyor belts. As I said, I pointed out that it was a poor comparison, and moved on. If anyone has taken to running with it, it's you. You've done such a bang up job that you forgot who first mentioned, but, ya know, facts.



I wonder if you proof-read these things, or if you're just completely lacking in imagination. You're also missing the main point, which is that you're committing a teleological error (the purpose of a certain drug was to treat male-pattern baldness, but it got re-purposed when it treated floppy cocks). Anyway, that you decide to compound this problem with the naive idea that guns are exclusively designed to kill people is, well, too silly for words.



I will claim some authority regarding my comment since I authored it, but thanks for the chuckle.
So, a load of blather and ad homs and when it comes back to some evidence for the assertion you clearly made, you again can't give one single example.

I hope you grade papers better than you debate, because that was an absolute embarrassment.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 04:50 PM   #262
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Any sensor can get confused by something or produce (slightly) incorrect result,bug in software can cause things go wrong or analysis of situation can be ambiguous and hackers and other outside actors (and they don't have to be human either) are waiting to get piece of action too. Not to mention still persistent problems with maps, GPS and data connectivity. (Just watching people trying to use GPS to get to my house is sad fun -- assuming map even knows about house and house numbers)
These are all fair points and the emphasis in my camp should (more often) go back to the point where we are a) going to test these things for millions of hours on realistic testing grounds b) invite hackers from all corners of the earth to try and hack the things while we are doing it etc... The military and the government have consistently invited reputable hackers to try to get into driverless cars and all of the related technology. You act like the government-business-military community isn't actually taking this seriously and hasn't demonstrated through their actions that they are.

Quote:
And you don't get to skip privacy and data protection rules. At least not in EU.
Strike a balance, maybe quantum cryptography will save the day, but no one denied the reality of the threat so now it seems like you are simply saying anyone who is pro driverless cars simply hasn't considered the issues maybe if you focused on an area that you know for a fact that the community hasn't addressed you could get some traction.

Quote:
And lastly, you don't get to ignore many cases were manual driving is the only option.
In my first driverless car thread we discussed this ad nauseum, when you are on private property or inaccessible places for technology it's off, everyone knows it and it's back to the wild west although not running over a person auto braking tech should become mandatory again eventually too right, moore's law, you get it.
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 05:44 PM   #263
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
So we do all the testing, we extrapolate the numbers, we say look 1 million people die a year from vehicle accidents on roads and if we force the mandatory system we can expect this number of failures and deaths, you tell me at what number you would be comfortable with before we make mandatory in ratio to the cost. I want some answers. Should I do a new *********** poll?
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 05:48 PM   #264
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Say too what you think that ratio will be and why, do you know? Are we using thought experiments as arguments or are we actually trying to complete the act of argument?
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 05:52 PM   #265
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
How much money are you willing to spend to prevent car accidents forever?

"Motor vehicles crashes cost the USA $871 billion a year in economic loss and societal harm"

Quote:
Highway crashes create an enormous economic toll on the lives of Americans, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in a new study. The annual price tag for those crashes: $871 billion in economic loss and societal harm in 2010.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ashes/9715893/

Oh my freedom oh they're tracking me... get real, this is 2017 we have the technology to protect your privacy.... oh the technology doesn't work right yet.... Americans could spend 800 billion a year on implementing driverless cars and come out even.

Everyone who is against mandatory driverless cars is backpedalling... but I want you to tell me, at what point does the dollar value become important. If we proved that for every dollar every to the taxpayer we would save .00000001 lives would that be enough?
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Last edited by Joey McGee; 24th March 2017 at 06:00 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 05:59 PM   #266
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,470
"None of you know what you are talking about" lol

Love the "With all due respect" too.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:06 PM   #267
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
"None of you know what you are talking about" lol

Love the "With all due respect" too.
I did edit this post, but I accidentally copied and pasted something I'd meant to post in this earlier thread, (it was a copy and pasto so I had to edit it) where I quite convincingly argued, and I'm sure you'll agree by the post link, that they have no idea what they are talking about, so sorry about that, but enjoy http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11770637
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Last edited by Joey McGee; 24th March 2017 at 06:07 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:10 PM   #268
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,470
Good move editing it. I for one am excited by the idea of driverless cars and have a sense of living at the end of an era of self driven internal combustion cars.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:12 PM   #269
badnewsBH
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 231
I like the idea of autonomous vehicles, but I understand where people may be concerned about them.
badnewsBH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:17 PM   #270
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Good move editing it.
Well it was the only move it was an honest mistake. I would be offended if you were accussing me of a Spicerism.
Quote:
I for one am excited by the idea of driverless cars and have a sense of living at the end of an era of self driven internal combustion cars.
All I care about is ending drunk driving deaths and pedestrians getting run over every day in my city by inattentive idiots the economic benefits and coolness factors make me sick but whatever gets the wheels turning.
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:19 PM   #271
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Originally Posted by badnewsBH View Post
I like the idea of autonomous vehicles, but I understand where people may be concerned about them.
Fence sitter eh? Their concerns are selfish bull, same people who sit around worried Obama is tapping their phone. Name a real concern, then before you post it, go research if the community has addressed it to your liking before you post a reply! Good luck!
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:21 PM   #272
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,383
Bicycle Futures is where it's at
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:27 PM   #273
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,542
1. How much will the driverless car cost me? Can regular cars be converted to driverless, or do all regular cars have to be scrapped?

2. I enjoy driving. Can I still do that in this kind of proposed future?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:40 PM   #274
Joey McGee
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
 
Joey McGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,257
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
1. How much will the driverless car cost me?
With massively reduced insurance costs and fuel economy due to perfect acceleration rates and more efficient travel times due to lack of traffic jams... it is going to save money. Period.
Quote:
Can regular cars be converted to driverless, or do all regular cars have to be scrapped?
Of course all can be converted but the private market will have to get innovative to keep the cost down, that's something you should be happy with after all we don't accomodate horse-drawn wagons on the I-95

Quote:
2. I enjoy driving. Can I still do that in this kind of proposed future?
I do too. Here is my list of places you can be allowed to drive. Your property. Areas where constituents have voted that are free driving and auto drivers have to override their system to accept the risk of sharing the road with manual drivers, anywhere not on a public road or an establishment where public people need access too. In almost every place there will be a road system to go cruising in and put the pedal to the metal and go cruising, but the understanding will be that this is all out of the central areas. Hell some kid in my hood got her license and first drive almost drove into the local pond but hit a telephone poll in between, you want to have your fun driving we'll give you your mountain passes and everything but everyone has to agree they are non essential roads and everyone agrees that they are for having fun. BOOM business opportunity roads for leisure to drive on. 33 000 will die on american roads this year have a nice drive!
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say and it is occasionally true that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Last edited by Joey McGee; 24th March 2017 at 06:42 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:49 PM   #275
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,542
These cars won't prevent traffic jams.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 06:54 PM   #276
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,149
When I drive, I have some input into risk decisions. As I get better at it, my risk tolerance goes down and I drive better, more carefully.

Being able to make choices is about freedom. Your OP is an appeal to fear.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 07:05 PM   #277
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 54,904
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
When I drive, I have some input into risk decisions. As I get better at it, my risk tolerance goes down and I drive better, more carefully.

Being able to make choices is about freedom. Your OP is an appeal to fear.
You are much worse at perceiving and reacting to danger than a computer is. Much worse. All humans are.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 07:13 PM   #278
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,149
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You are much worse at perceiving and reacting to danger than a computer is. Much worse. All humans are.
You are very wrong about the perceiving, since "danger" is a complex topic. Reaction speed ... depends on what it is you are responding to, and preventing.

I am better at it than most drivers, but further that point the crash of AF 447 says you are wrong. That computer didn't keep them out of the water. In fact, that computer started the problem by kicking off the stabilization system. (On the other hand, there are some EGPWS/Escape maneuver incidents where the computer was handy, but those were in cases where the crew were behind the aircraft). If you keep your brain ahead of the car, ahead of the situation, your risks go way down.

I prefer the freedom to make choices and decisions.
If that freedom carries risk, so be it, and that's why there is education and training.
It's part of being something other than an ant in a colony. You are free to go and feed your queen, and then drone off onto your next assignment.
Part of the cost is how bloody expensive a car is, and the extortionary costs of car repair. Then go an bubble wrap your entire town.

If you drive smart, your risk goes down.
If you don't, your risk goes up.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by Darth Rotor; 24th March 2017 at 07:17 PM.
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 08:24 PM   #279
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 54,904
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
You are very wrong about the perceiving, since "danger" is a complex topic. Reaction speed ... depends on what it is you are responding to, and preventing.

I am better at it than most drivers, but further that point the crash of AF 447 says you are wrong. That computer didn't keep them out of the water. In fact, that computer started the problem by kicking off the stabilization system. (On the other hand, there are some EGPWS/Escape maneuver incidents where the computer was handy, but those were in cases where the crew were behind the aircraft). If you keep your brain ahead of the car, ahead of the situation, your risks go way down.

I prefer the freedom to make choices and decisions.
If that freedom carries risk, so be it, and that's why there is education and training.
It's part of being something other than an ant in a colony. You are free to go and feed your queen, and then drone off onto your next assignment.
Part of the cost is how bloody expensive a car is, and the extortionary costs of car repair. Then go an bubble wrap your entire town.

If you drive smart, your risk goes down.
If you don't, your risk goes up.
You're completely missing the point.

You, personally may be the best driver in the world. It's possible, and I have no evidence one way or another. But keep in mind that something like 80% of drivers rate themselves as above average. Your own skill in driving does little to prevent some idiot blindsiding into you with no warning because they aren't as good as you are. And while you're thinking of that, consider that your own personal amount of driving skill is completely irrelevant to the national road toll.

You may be a great driver. But it's not about you. It's about statistics. No-one cares about how good a driver you, personally, are. You may have a perfect driving record. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the question.

You prefer freedom and choices? That's nice. Tough. Suck it up. Sometimes you have to give up pointless and irrelevant "freedoms" for the greater good of society. And if those "freedoms" include your freedom to injure or kill other people, then they should be given up.

Robot cars will make the roads safer by reducing the annual road toll, currently in the tens of thousands, to the merest handful. Yeah, you don't get to drive except in low-risk situations. I don't care how good a driver you say you are.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 09:07 PM   #280
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
"Motor vehicles crashes cost the USA $871 billion a year in economic loss and societal harm"


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ashes/9715893/

Oh my freedom oh they're tracking me... get real, this is 2017 we have the technology to protect your privacy.... oh the technology doesn't work right yet.... Americans could spend 800 billion a year on implementing driverless cars and come out even.

Everyone who is against mandatory driverless cars is backpedalling... but I want you to tell me, at what point does the dollar value become important. If we proved that for every dollar every to the taxpayer we would save .00000001 lives would that be enough?
I'll spend a Buck 'O Five - because Freedom isn't Free!
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.