The whole point of Bitcoin was to form an alternative to banks so that they don’t become all powerful. If banks become better actors as a result, that’s good for Bitcoin.
No one has figured out how automation can save a flight in the air if the automation fails. Remote control and communication can also fail. Ground based trains or vehicles can just stop on the ground.
I thought this as well, and was about to comment to the paper about updating their terminology. Then I saw this is an article from 2014. I think using the word “accident” would be less likely today. There has been a real effort to change terminology. NYT even had an article about this in May of 2016.
I encounter human drivers exceding the speed limit on a daily basis as well. Is that not also failing to follow the rules? At least the robots won't do that.
The next thing we need to do is change the language of the road to "incidents" instead of "accidents". An accident implies that there is no way to avoid the outcome of an incident. An incident implies that a traffic collision has occurred. Once we rule out human error or any other cause for the incident, then it becomes an accident. We will find that many of the traffic collisions that we are currently referring to as accidents could have been prevented in many ways:
- remove vast amounts of human error by automating driving and being much more strict for driving infractions (Inattention, reckless driving, DUI)
- infrastructure that encourages speeding / leaves no options for pedestrians or cyclists causing incident hotspots.
This will allow us to focus on the safety issues that really are accidents, and usually caused by poor maintenance on vehicles and infrastructure.
And tell 5 friends and family to do the same. Figure out what's important to them. Do they have children? Tell them without encryption it will be possible for bad people to know their whereabouts and general day to day movements for the purpose of exploitation and abduction. Tell them to call or write the politicians to protect their children.
Maybe your friends think they have nothing to hide, but when they consider they may want to shield their children from harm, that might make them start to think about what is actually at stake.
You know, I think this is the first opportunity for "think of the children!" to be a rally in cry for something meaningful, that actually can affect a large swath of our children.
An excellent point.
However, its power is limited by all the times "think of the children!" has been used as the rallying cry for anti-citizen legislation. So it has to be strengthened. You're on the right track. The cliche turns into a platform when you have concrete examples that are identifiable to the Android/iPhone toting parents. I am willing to guarantee that the "most frequently visited locations" available on both platforms would illuminate a parent's employer, home, maybe the favorite lunch place, and the school(s) of their young children. Possibly even that their kids have medical issues (pediatrician is a frequent stop) or are on the autism spectrum or have some other developmental delays (speech pathologist or occupational therapist or developmental pediatrician is a frequent stop). Or that they're new homeowners (lots of trips to Home Depot and "big box" stores) Possibly (gasp) where they take their lover when they're supposed to be with their spouse.
> You know, I think this is the first opportunity for "think of the children!" to be a rally in cry for something meaningful
No it's not, because that's going to blow up in your face. This law is going to be put in place to protect the children. Bad people can't hide child porn. Bad people can't hide their plans to hurt your children. Bad people can't ... etc. Hand in hand goes 'good people' can track your children if they're kidnapped.
Think of the children always works in the favour of those trying to consolidate power.
There are already whole fleets of autonomous planes in the air. They have autopilot. The only difference is that when something goes wrong in the air, you can't just pull over and get a tech to the plane. You need someone already in the cockpit who knows what they are doing.
In theory they would be going the speed limit, which means overtaking them would require breaking the speed limit and therefore the law. Yes it will be annoying for those that want to drive faster than the speed limit.
Erm, no, no it isn't... I can't find anything official saying that it isn't, but I can find lots of discussion forum posts of people saying that it isn't legal. The only references to it being at all permitted which I can find are (a) that a long time ago it was taught that the fast lane on a motorway allowed speeding (which it doesn't), or (b) that a speeding fine can only be issued if your average speed is measured over 2/3 mile (therefore more than an overtaking distance) however the prevalence of speed cameras in the UK would seem to disprove this.
In summary: no, you're not allowed to speed in the UK when overtaking.
