Export thread
Family Sues Apple for NOT Implementing Drive Detect Feature
#1
Eriol
Eriol
This one is interesting: Apple Had Tech To Prevent Fatal Crash On FaceTime: Lawsuit
The background of it is that somebody else in another vehicle was using FaceTime and crashed into this family's car, resulting in the death of their 5-year-old. They're saying that Apple holds responsibility for not stopping the other driver from using their phone while distracted. What's interesting here is that Apple was granted a Patent on such, so it's not just "well they should have figured out how to do it" but they have done it, on their own products no less. And as an added aspect, if they have a patent, it also means they are preventing other companies from implementing the same feature, due to patent protection.
I'm usually more for "close-in" responsibility (thus it's the person who hit them's fault, solely), but there's been SO MUCH chaos from people using their phones while driving, that actually I'm 100% OK with them throwing the book at Apple on this one. It will inspire everybody in the game to get their shit together and get phone-disabling software on EVERYTHING when in motion. And you have to do something REALLY complicated to claim you're a passenger. Every 2 minutes (or less). For at least 10 minutes worth. It's THAT bad (just watch Canada's Worst Driver for examples), and we all need to suffer for the idiots now IMO.
The background of it is that somebody else in another vehicle was using FaceTime and crashed into this family's car, resulting in the death of their 5-year-old. They're saying that Apple holds responsibility for not stopping the other driver from using their phone while distracted. What's interesting here is that Apple was granted a Patent on such, so it's not just "well they should have figured out how to do it" but they have done it, on their own products no less. And as an added aspect, if they have a patent, it also means they are preventing other companies from implementing the same feature, due to patent protection.
I'm usually more for "close-in" responsibility (thus it's the person who hit them's fault, solely), but there's been SO MUCH chaos from people using their phones while driving, that actually I'm 100% OK with them throwing the book at Apple on this one. It will inspire everybody in the game to get their shit together and get phone-disabling software on EVERYTHING when in motion. And you have to do something REALLY complicated to claim you're a passenger. Every 2 minutes (or less). For at least 10 minutes worth. It's THAT bad (just watch Canada's Worst Driver for examples), and we all need to suffer for the idiots now IMO.
#2
Mathias
Mathias
Isn't Apple notorious for patient trolling?
Personally, I think cellphone use by drivers in cars should have pretty steep fines associated with it. First offense really heavy fine. Second offense heavy fine and 2 week suspension of license. Third heavy fine and 1 year suspension. I really don't think it's harder to enforce than seatbelt laws.
That or using tech like mentioned in the article. GPS in phone detects speeds greater than 25 mph. Locked out unless it detects youre not in the drivers seat somehow.
As a motorcyclist, this is a hot button issue for me. Motorcyclists are way more alert than car drivers, and I can tell you off hand that it's an epidemic. I notice at least 1 in 10 car drivers using their cell phones with their head down on any given ride. I get so fucking angry seeing people using their phones while driving.
Personally, I think cellphone use by drivers in cars should have pretty steep fines associated with it. First offense really heavy fine. Second offense heavy fine and 2 week suspension of license. Third heavy fine and 1 year suspension. I really don't think it's harder to enforce than seatbelt laws.
That or using tech like mentioned in the article. GPS in phone detects speeds greater than 25 mph. Locked out unless it detects youre not in the drivers seat somehow.
As a motorcyclist, this is a hot button issue for me. Motorcyclists are way more alert than car drivers, and I can tell you off hand that it's an epidemic. I notice at least 1 in 10 car drivers using their cell phones with their head down on any given ride. I get so fucking angry seeing people using their phones while driving.
#3
Tress
Tress
I don't care what patents Apple has. It is the driver's responsibility to be aware and safe at all times. I don't support suing liquor companies when a drunk driver kills someone, and I don't support this.
#4
Mathias
Mathias
If it curbs patent trolling on useful tech, then it's not a bad lawsuit.I don't care what patents Apple has. It is the driver's responsibility to be aware and safe at all times. I don't support suing liquor companies when a drunk driver kills someone, and I don't support this.
#5
Denbrought
Denbrought
Making patent-holders liable for the consequences of their patent's lack of implementation or market penetration sounds like a fantastic way to ensure patents remain in the hands of shell company trolls and other liability-shielding wizards. Meanwhile, smaller orgs and individuals would be discouraged from patenting, and big corps might rely more on trade secrets (or overreach further into super-generic patent territory, where it should necessarily harder to draw liability fire).If it curbs patent trolling on useful tech, then it's not a bad lawsuit.
#6
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I don't feel like it's Apple's responsibility to make people not act dangerously. If the person was drunk, you wouldn't sue Budweiser.
#7
mikerc
mikerc
What's your source on Apple having this tech? Just because they have a patent on it does NOT mean they've actually built a working version. And even if they do have a working prototype it does not follow that it is ready for consumer release.What's interesting here is that Apple was granted a Patent on such, so it's not just "well they should have figured out how to do it" but they have done it, on their own products no less.
#8
GasBandit
GasBandit
This is no different than suing the manufacturer of a gun for something somebody did with the gun. I'm no apple fan, but there are other ways to deal with the rash of distracted driving cases, and the first and easiest is stiffening up the fines. My town just passed a law that makes it illegal to use a phone for anything while driving, except in a mount as a GPS. If a cop even finds it laying in the seat next to you, they can write you a ticket, much less texting/talking/facetiming.
#9
Eriol
In all seriousness, if Pokemon Go can get this feature out in a matter of months/weeks, Apple (and everybody else) have had YEARS to do it. It's really not hard. Here's pseudocode:
Boom, done.
Bonus for coders: there's a way to make that "kph" velocity thing legal C++ See: msdn or cppreference[DOUBLEPOST=1483460786,1483460621][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm reluctant to be advocating for this (I am definitely on the side of high personal freedom and responsibility on this board), but too many examples are coming up in this one realm. People CAN'T restrain themselves, or at least far too few can, which means that unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer because of the HIGH number of idiots.
Eriol
I'll admit I'm not certain on that, but one would HOPE that if they have a patent they have something that actually works.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I almost got that out with a straight face. The patent system only working on ACTUAL PRODUCTS? What was I thinking???What's your source on Apple having this tech? Just because they have a patent on it does NOT mean they've actually built a working version. And even if they do have a working prototype it does not follow that it is ready for consumer release.
In all seriousness, if Pokemon Go can get this feature out in a matter of months/weeks, Apple (and everybody else) have had YEARS to do it. It's really not hard. Here's pseudocode:
Code:
while(AppRunning()) {
if(GetVelocity() > 20kph){
DisableUI();
DisplayPassengerConfirmationWarning();
EnableUI(); // They pressed the button that they're actually there, so bring the User Interface back
}
Sleep(20000); // Check every 20 seconds
}Bonus for coders: there's a way to make that "kph" velocity thing legal C++ See: msdn or cppreference[DOUBLEPOST=1483460786,1483460621][/DOUBLEPOST]
Gas, I agree with your case, and the alcohol examples here, but I think it's sliding into the "this is now a hazardous product without this feature" rather than that people are merely mis-using it. Like a Gun that just "goes off" randomly at any time. It's just about reaching that level of hazard.This is no different than suing the manufacturer of a gun for something somebody did with the gun. I'm no apple fan, but there are other ways to deal with the rash of distracted driving cases, and the first and easiest is stiffening up the fines. My town just passed a law that makes it illegal to use a phone for anything while driving, except in a mount as a GPS. If a cop even finds it laying in the seat next to you, they can write you a ticket, much less texting/talking/facetiming.
I'm reluctant to be advocating for this (I am definitely on the side of high personal freedom and responsibility on this board), but too many examples are coming up in this one realm. People CAN'T restrain themselves, or at least far too few can, which means that unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer because of the HIGH number of idiots.
#10
GasBandit
Even better, make it also worth "points" on the license (for places that do that, like Texas and Colorado) same as reckless driving, so that you could potentially lose your license over it.
GasBandit
I bet they'll learn to restrain themselves pretty damn fast when the fine becomes $2000+ and writing the ticket means immediate confiscation of the device, to be returned upon payment of the fine.Gas, I agree with your case, and the alcohol examples here, but I think it's sliding into the "this is now a hazardous product without this feature" rather than that people are merely mis-using it. Like a Gun that just "goes off" randomly at any time. It's just about reaching that level of hazard.
I'm reluctant to be advocating for this (I am definitely on the side of high personal freedom and responsibility on this board), but too many examples are coming up in this one realm. People CAN'T restrain themselves, or at least far too few can, which means that unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer because of the HIGH number of idiots.
Even better, make it also worth "points" on the license (for places that do that, like Texas and Colorado) same as reckless driving, so that you could potentially lose your license over it.
#11
Eriol
But I still don't think it's enough. If 10% (or more) of people are driving recklessly, other measures are needed.
Eriol
That gets into heavy abuse though IMO. I'm against just about ANY power of law enforcement to confiscate "on the spot" just about anything without conviction. Heavy fine yes, but confiscation gets messy FAST.I bet they'll learn to restrain themselves pretty damn fast when the fine becomes $2000+ and writing the ticket means immediate confiscation of the device, to be returned upon payment of the fine.
Even better, make it also worth "points" on the license (for places that do that, like Texas and Colorado) same as reckless driving, so that you could potentially lose your license over it.
But I still don't think it's enough. If 10% (or more) of people are driving recklessly, other measures are needed.
#12
GasBandit
GasBandit
I guarantee you they confiscate firearms and liquor and such just fine, despite constitutional amendments and whatnot. It may be easier to justify if there's an arrest, and I'm also in favor of making it an arresting offense instead of ticketing.That gets into heavy abuse though IMO. I'm against just about ANY power of law enforcement to confiscate "on the spot" just about anything without conviction. Heavy fine yes, but confiscation gets messy FAST.
But I still don't think it's enough. If 10% (or more) of people are driving recklessly, other measures are needed.
#13
blotsfan
blotsfan
That's ok for an app but if that's always running on your phone 100% of the time, that will be a massive battery drain.In all seriousness, if Pokemon Go can get this feature out in a matter of months/weeks, Apple (and everybody else) have had YEARS to do it. It's really not hard. Here's pseudocode:
Boom, done.Code:while(AppRunning()) { if(GetVelocity() > 20kph){ DisableUI(); DisplayPassengerConfirmationWarning(); EnableUI(); // They pressed the button that they're actually there, so bring the User Interface back } Sleep(20000); // Check every 20 seconds }
#14
Eriol
Eriol
Because of the Sleep() call, I don't think it'll be THAT bad on battery (it's not continually spinning), but it may be "cost of no more bullshit on the roads" type of thing. And it's pseudocode man, that kind of a criticism is for production!That's ok for an app but if that's always running on your phone 100% of the time, that will be a massive battery drain.
#15
Dave
Dave
Grieving families do stupid shit if prompted by a lawyer. This is one of those cases. I completely disagree with the lawsuit, regardless of patents pending.
#16
Bubble181
Bubble181
Also, there's plenty of ways to avoid it. heck, my gps is usually off anyway.
I don't see why hundreds of thousands of people on trains or passenger seats should be punished because other people are idiots. Fiddling with your car radio, gps, eating, it's all dangerous behind the wheel. People do all of them. Fines and awareness campaigns.
I don't see why hundreds of thousands of people on trains or passenger seats should be punished because other people are idiots. Fiddling with your car radio, gps, eating, it's all dangerous behind the wheel. People do all of them. Fines and awareness campaigns.
#17
GasBandit
GasBandit
I remember back in the 80s there was this PSA on TV where a guy was fiddling with the radio and ran over a child crossing the street. It literally ended with a fade to black behind text that said "Joel didn't like the song on the radio. SO HE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL."
#18
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Yeah, but, have you heard the crap they play on the radio these days?I remember back in the 80s there was this PSA on TV where a guy was fiddling with the radio and ran over a child crossing the street. It literally ended with a fade to black behind text that said "Joel didn't like the song on the radio. SO HE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL."
#19
Dave
Dave
That's what they get for making fun of Daves.
#20
GasBandit
GasBandit
That's a really Dave move, Dave.That's what they get for making fun of Daves.
#21
PatrThom
We have technology now that could completely eliminate speeding, too. Betcha all the auto companies are competing to see which one of them can implement it last, since it'll negatively impact sales.
Anyone with more than one patent is trying to sue someone else for infringing on their patents, either to defend their patents or as a source of income. It has become the way of the corporate IP world.
In any case, I sincerely hope that Canada would stop looking for ways to become more like Britain's "nanny state" stereotype, otherwise we will be suing clocks for making us late, soft drink mfrs for giving us diabetes, and fast food restaurants for making us fat OH WAIT THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED and what was the result? "A lifetime of free food?" Are we sure that was the intended result? I'm sure with access to a literal UNLIMITED supply of McDonalds fare, that he eats much more responsibly now.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Kris just made a comic about this (sorta).I'm 100% OK with them throwing the book at Apple on this one.
We have technology now that could completely eliminate speeding, too. Betcha all the auto companies are competing to see which one of them can implement it last, since it'll negatively impact sales.
Anyone with more than one patent is trying to sue someone else for infringing on their patents, either to defend their patents or as a source of income. It has become the way of the corporate IP world.
In any case, I sincerely hope that Canada would stop looking for ways to become more like Britain's "nanny state" stereotype, otherwise we will be suing clocks for making us late, soft drink mfrs for giving us diabetes, and fast food restaurants for making us fat OH WAIT THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED and what was the result? "A lifetime of free food?" Are we sure that was the intended result? I'm sure with access to a literal UNLIMITED supply of McDonalds fare, that he eats much more responsibly now.
--Patrick
#22
GasBandit
GasBandit
"Okay Google"
Bliddabonk.
"Navigate to 7213 san marino drive el paso texas."
"Ok, navigating..."
No button presses needed.
Bliddabonk.
"Navigate to 7213 san marino drive el paso texas."
"Ok, navigating..."
No button presses needed.
#23
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
A far better solution would be to just require all cars to be manual transmission again. The biggest problem is that we have too many passengers behind the wheel rather than actual drivers. 
Seriously, suing a company because the technology they're developing isn't ready for market yet? WTF? Various auto manufacturers have patents on self-driving technology. So shouldn't they sue the manufacturer of the car the guy was driving for not being self-driving? Or for not implementing collision-avoidance systems that are already on the market (in premium/luxury models) into all their models?
Seriously, suing a company because the technology they're developing isn't ready for market yet? WTF? Various auto manufacturers have patents on self-driving technology. So shouldn't they sue the manufacturer of the car the guy was driving for not being self-driving? Or for not implementing collision-avoidance systems that are already on the market (in premium/luxury models) into all their models?
#24
Dave
Dave
I hear one of the things that autonomous cars will have an effect on is organ donation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ing_cars_will_exacerbate_organ_shortages.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ing_cars_will_exacerbate_organ_shortages.html
#25
PatrThom
I'm sure the only reason Apple is being sued is because the plaintiff('s lawyers) know that Apple has a) a lot of money and b) a history of settling cases if that would cost less than dragging it through the court system, and they know that Apple would not miss a few million as much as you or I.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I am 100% behind this idea. I miss manuals so much.A far better solution would be to just require all cars to be manual transmission again.
I'm sure the only reason Apple is being sued is because the plaintiff('s lawyers) know that Apple has a) a lot of money and b) a history of settling cases if that would cost less than dragging it through the court system, and they know that Apple would not miss a few million as much as you or I.
--Patrick
#26
Dave
Dave
I currently drive a manual shift.I am 100% behind this idea. I miss manuals so much.
I'm sure the only reason Apple is being sued is because the plaintiff('s lawyers) know that Apple has a) a lot of money and b) a history of settling cases if that would cost less than dragging it through the court system, and they know that Apple would not miss a few million as much as you or I.
--Patrick
#27
Eriol
But it's worth your life.
Eriol
See, to me, that comic says PULL THE FUCK OVER!!! I have done so in that kind of situation. I know when to STOP and pull over. Initiating any non-voice navigation is one such case. People DON'T do that, but they SHOULD. Too many people think they're losing SOOOO much time by doing so. You're losing... 30 seconds? A minute maybe? Unless you're already on the freeway, then maybe it's a bit more, but otherwise, it's trivial.Kris just made a comic about this (sorta).
But it's worth your life.
#28
PatrThom
PatrThom
By bringing up the comic, I was merely commenting on how it seems to be a thing a lot of people want to talk about right now.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#29
sixpackshaker
riders err... organ donors will hopefully fill that gap.
sixpackshaker
Thank god motorcycles are gaining in popularity. And theI hear one of the things that autonomous cars will have an effect on is organ donation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ing_cars_will_exacerbate_organ_shortages.html
#30
Dave
Dave
That does bring up an interesting point. When autonomous cars become a thing I can see it being illegal to have a human drive as it's too dangerous. So what about motorcycles?Thank god motorcycles are gaining in popularity. And theriderserr... organ donors will hopefully fill that gap.
#31
Eriol
And sorry for my rather "extreme" tone on this one, but I've seen too many HORRIFIC people who insist they can do anything and drive. And if they were only killing themselves then I wouldn't care as much, but they're killing everybody else and often not even themselves. That's what gets me. And anybody who's seen Canada's Worst Driver (especially THIS season and the winner/loser who is an UNREPENTANT texter... try YouTube, or something for you 'mericans) probably agrees to at least some extent.
Eriol
Fair enough.By bringing up the comic, I was merely commenting on how it seems to be a thing a lot of people want to talk about right now.
And sorry for my rather "extreme" tone on this one, but I've seen too many HORRIFIC people who insist they can do anything and drive. And if they were only killing themselves then I wouldn't care as much, but they're killing everybody else and often not even themselves. That's what gets me. And anybody who's seen Canada's Worst Driver (especially THIS season and the winner/loser who is an UNREPENTANT texter... try YouTube, or something for you 'mericans) probably agrees to at least some extent.
#32
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I just wonder what logic will be used by self driving cars on who they will KILL when there is and unavoidable accident.
#33
blotsfan
blotsfan
They'll kill the guy working the trolley track switch.I just wonder what logic will be used by self driving cars on who they will KILL when there is and unavoidable accident.
#34
Denbrought
Denbrought
What about them? They are no different than any other non-automated vehicle. Additional licensing, lessened road access, separate insurance pooling, and cheaper self-driving options all should gradually phase out non-enthusiast use of non-automated motor vehicles.That does bring up an interesting point. When autonomous cars become a thing I can see it being illegal to have a human drive as it's too dangerous. So what about motorcycles?
#35
Denbrought
Denbrought
I'm fond of this very short story.I just wonder what logic will be used by self driving cars on who they will KILL when there is and unavoidable accident.
Killer cars from outer space
1. It has been decades since a human has driven a car, outside of a special interests club or sporting event. They’re no longer designed for us, except as passengers. There’s no front seat, no steering wheel, and no brake pedal (though there is an emergency brake lever, secured behind a heavy pane of glass). Seat-belts are obsolete. The roads have never been safer, though they, too, have transformed: more compact, sharper turns, all the luxuries compensating for poor human reaction time removed. No ugly road signs blotting out the sky — these vehicles coordinate perfectly.
2. Accidents are infrequent, usually occurring at low speeds and by the fault of careless pedestrians. Fatalities are rare. Vehicles register their number of passengers, and are equipped with face and silhouette detecting cameras. In the case of a high speed collision, they are programmed to save as many humans as possible. Thus, a car bearing two passengers will drive off a cliff rather than barrel through a pack of schoolchildren.
3. It is really remarkable this system goes unexploited for so long. Historians will claim that an unprecedented lull in conflict is what allows it to flourish, a golden age of cooperation and political stability. This era will become known as “the eye of the storm”. It begins to end one day in summer, when environmental activists, protesting the construction of a dam, find that they can halt its progress by throwing themselves in front of trucks delivering supplies. The technique isn’t new, exactly, (people have been chaining themselves in the paths of tractors for ages) but their guerrilla tactics are refreshing. They launch themselves in front of the oncoming vehicles, trusting the machines’ perfect reflexes, then scamper away before they can be arrested. Hoards of them lurk in the ditches, daring each other to run into traffic.
4. This continues for two years. The trucks are fully automated, so there are no deaths. Suppliers encrypt their routes, become secretive about the locations of their fleets. Debate is still raging about how best to deal with the environmentalists when the assassinations begin.
5. Controversial politician Juan ████-█████ is being chauffeured across a bridge when throngs of protesters, marching against his regime, appear in front of the automobile. They far outnumber the passengers: Juan plunges to his death. The protesters, recorded on the vehicle’s recovered cam, are tracked down and interrogated. They all claim to have been following the crowd, and the scheme’s mastermind, if there was one, is never found.
6. The story is viral, globally infectious. Copycat crimes spawn across the world, with varying degrees of success. Often enough, the results are lethal. After another high profile death, some publications necro the antiquated term “terrorism”. The mobs are never organised, just collections of dissatisfied citizens hijacked by a few malicious individuals. Police try to limit public gatherings, and negotiate predetermined routes for protests, but these regulations are met with significant resistance. Soon, it becomes apparent that a change in programming is necessary, and with much forewarning and fanfare, they roll out cars that prioritise the lives of their passengers, exclusively for politicians. This is described as “disgusting classism”, and there is talk of leading a group of children into their path, to prove the folly of the new orders.
7. It takes only a month for someone to figure out how to force a cement truck to ram into one of these invulnerable automobiles. Another dead orator. Chaos is escalating. Overnight, an executive decision is made: the network of vehicles becomes definite and unforgiving. Ignore human barriers. Continue driving until you reach your destination. The next day, in what comes to be known as the ███████ incident, hundreds die in traffic on the ███████ freeway, ignoring the broadcasts, not yet believing their protests have been rendered impotent. The following weeks are a bloodbath.
8. The theory is, by giving in to blackmail, we only make future blackmail inevitable. Occasionally, a child darts in front of an empty delivery van and dies, and we accept this death with sadness but conviction: the world is now a safer place, protected against the whims of those that would hold us hostage.
#36
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
And posting here! For shame!I currently drive a manual shift.
#37
MindDetective
MindDetective
Autonomous motorcycles are already in the works. A totally driverless one was entered in the 2004, and I think also the 2005, DARPA grand challenge.That does bring up an interesting point. When autonomous cars become a thing I can see it being illegal to have a human drive as it's too dangerous. So what about motorcycles?
#38
PatrThom
http://www.2112.net/xanadu/articles/a_nice_morning_drive.htm
...and maybe the Rush song it inspired, too.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I expect we'll hear a lot of this story, too.I'm fond of this very short story.
http://www.2112.net/xanadu/articles/a_nice_morning_drive.htm
...and maybe the Rush song it inspired, too.
You have a reputation for holding as strongly to an opinion as myself, Gas, stienman, etc. It's not out of character.sorry for my rather "extreme" tone
--Patrick
#39
Dei
Also, I know HOW to drive a manual, because I learned for the hell of it when I was dating my husband because he had one, but I used to get completely panicked when I had to stop on a hill, because people always pulled right up to my back bumper and I could never get it going right away. (My husband would pull the ebrake for me and let it go when I got everything engaged.
Dei
I feel like that completely defeats the purpose though.Autonomous motorcycles are already in the works. A totally driverless one was entered in the 2004, and I think also the 2005, DARPA grand challenge.
Also, I know HOW to drive a manual, because I learned for the hell of it when I was dating my husband because he had one, but I used to get completely panicked when I had to stop on a hill, because people always pulled right up to my back bumper and I could never get it going right away. (My husband would pull the ebrake for me and let it go when I got everything engaged.
#40
MindDetective
MindDetective
Driverless motorcycles I get. Autonomous ones with a passenger I get a lot less.I feel like that completely defeats the purpose though.
Also, I know HOW to drive a manual, because I learned for the hell of it when I was dating my husband because he had one, but I used to get completely panicked when I had to stop on a hill, because people always pulled right up to my back bumper and I could never get it going right away. (My husband would pull the ebrake for me and let it go when I got everything engaged.
#41
GasBandit
GasBandit
I just want walk-through wormholes already.
#42
Gruebeard
. . . Annd dammit this
really fails when the URL has 2 Rush songs in it.
Gruebeard
Huh, I thought that song was inspired by a Coleridge poem. Or am I thinking of Ayn Rand?I expect we'll hear a lot of this story, too.
http://www.2112.net/xanadu/articles/a_nice_morning_drive.htm
...and maybe the Rush song it inspired, too.
. . . Annd dammit this
#43
@Li3n
@Li3n
That's a nice story, but Demolition Man had that sorted long ago!I'm fond of this very short story.
#44
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
And Niven had it sorted even earlier than that.That's a nice story, but Demolition Man had that sorted long ago!
--Patrick
#45
@Li3n
@Li3n
Pop culture >>>>> actual culture, 10x.
#46
Mathias
If they leave bikes alone, it'll be a utopia of not having to worry about some dipshit slamming into you at an intersection.
Mathias
That does bring up an interesting point. When autonomous cars become a thing I can see it being illegal to have a human drive as it's too dangerous. So what about motorcycles?
If they leave bikes alone, it'll be a utopia of not having to worry about some dipshit slamming into you at an intersection.
#47
Dave
Dave
Yes, but for every good rider there's 10 showboating crotch-rocket morons who are a danger to themselves and everyone else. I have a feeling that autonomous cars will lead to it being illegal for a person to drive their own vehicles. In fact, I have a feeling that most people in urban environments won't even OWN a car any more and will instead call for something like an auto-uber kind of deal.If they leave bikes alone, it'll be a utopia of not having to worry about some dipshit slamming into you at an intersection.
#48
Bubble181
Bubble181
I know Americans can't understand it, but that's already happening over here quite quickly. For people in the big cities, PT and car sharing companies are more useful than a car of their own. Families in the suburbs and smaller cities still have your standard 1.8-or-something cars per household, but in the inner cities it's rapidly falling. Zipcar, Cambio, Carshare, Rent-a-car, what-have-you. There's car share systems for short-term "I'm going shopping" trips, there's different systems more aimed towards "I'm going away for the weekend", you always get the choice of size/type of car (up to a point), and while you're paying per kilometer and/or time, you're still far cheaper off than paying taxes, maintenance, gas, etc.
#49
Tress
Tress
I think the ratio is the other way around. For every showboating crotch-rocket moron, there are at least 5 good riders. But guess which one you notice and remember while you drive?Yes, but for every good rider there's 10 showboating crotch-rocket morons who are a danger to themselves and everyone else.
#50
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
And don't forget the newer "pay up if you want to drive a car downtown" rules.I know Americans can't understand it, but that's already happening over here quite quickly. For people in the big cities, PT and car sharing companies are more useful than a car of their own. Families in the suburbs and smaller cities still have your standard 1.8-or-something cars per household, but in the inner cities it's rapidly falling. Zipcar, Cambio, Carshare, Rent-a-car, what-have-you. There's car share systems for short-term "I'm going shopping" trips, there's different systems more aimed towards "I'm going away for the weekend", you always get the choice of size/type of car (up to a point), and while you're paying per kilometer and/or time, you're still far cheaper off than paying taxes, maintenance, gas, etc.
--Patrick
#51
Bubble181
Bubble181
Also, older cars being barred from city centers no matter what because of their exhaust.And don't forget the newer "pay up if you want to drive a car downtown" rules.
--Patrick
#52
Dave
Dave
I think it kind of depends on where you are at. I see more douchebags than normal riders around here.I think the ratio is the other way around. For every showboating crotch-rocket moron, there are at least 5 good riders. But guess which one you notice and remember while you drive?
#53
Dei
Dei
Colorado doesn't have a helmet law, so it's really easy to tell who the idiots are.
#54
PatrThom
Checkmate, Creationists!
--Patrick
PatrThom
Neither does MI.Colorado doesn't have a helmet law, so it's really easy to tell who the idiots are.
Checkmate, Creationists!
--Patrick
#55
Eriol
Eriol
Considering the number of idiots that don't use them that keep popping up, AND the widespread proliferation of stupid people, I'd say it argues the opposite in that it's NOT working well enough, but I'm cynical that way.Neither does MI.
Checkmate, Creationists!
#56
PatrThom
PatrThom
The discussion continues!
--Patrick
--Patrick
#57
Eriol
Eriol
I think that should be fixed to "I'm going to have to hack and mod my car to drive it" rather than anything related to the speed limit.
#58
Mathias
Omaha has a Squid problem?
http://www.bikebandit.com/blog/post/how-not-to-be-a-squid-on-your-motorcycle
I tend to agree with Tress. Most biker dudes really frown upon riding like an idiot (at least the guys I ride with - anecdote!). Crotch rockets are notorious for being the breeding ground for Squidies - they're fast and dirt cheap. I'd say the other class of douchebag are *some* Harley guys. These are your typical biker stereotype assholes - ride in packs and feel they own the road.
Honestly, I don't think I've hit more than 80mph on my Duc more than once or twice. I like being alive and tend to ride like everyone's out to kill me.
Mathias
I think the ratio is the other way around. For every showboating crotch-rocket moron, there are at least 5 good riders. But guess which one you notice and remember while you drive?
I think it kind of depends on where you are at. I see more douchebags than normal riders around here.
Omaha has a Squid problem?
http://www.bikebandit.com/blog/post/how-not-to-be-a-squid-on-your-motorcycle
I tend to agree with Tress. Most biker dudes really frown upon riding like an idiot (at least the guys I ride with - anecdote!). Crotch rockets are notorious for being the breeding ground for Squidies - they're fast and dirt cheap. I'd say the other class of douchebag are *some* Harley guys. These are your typical biker stereotype assholes - ride in packs and feel they own the road.
Honestly, I don't think I've hit more than 80mph on my Duc more than once or twice. I like being alive and tend to ride like everyone's out to kill me.
#59
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I used to tell my students to drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot....I like being alive and tend to ride like everyone's out to kill me.
#60
Mathias
Going around bends and turns is another area that freaks out drivers. You WANT to throttle up mid turn on a motorcycle. It plants the rear tire down and gives the bike more stability and handling on the turn. This often leads to a car driver thinking the biker is tailgating them because they're going too slow and leads to things like brake checking etc... A dude screamed at me once and called me reckless because I would get on his ass while following him around turns. I'd then back off on the straights. Believe me, I was fucking tempted to just pass on the double yellow and smoke his ass. But that's where having a cool head prevails and saves your life. I just endured it because in the end me and my bike are 600 lbs while he's stacked at over 3000. I lose.
To be honest, riding has opened my eyes to just how many horrible car drivers there are. Dave says for every 1 good rider there are 10 bad ones. I'd say those 10 bad ones are still more competent than most car drivers in regards to understanding road laws, basic mechanics, and the basic physics at play while riding/driving. It's very mentally taxing to ride. After 2 hours, I'm actually tired because you're brain is going 100%. That's why I refuse to commute on my bike (among other reasons) and why I'd never ride when I'm tired.
Mathias
Defensive riding on a bike is a tricky thing to master. Sometimes it does require some aggressive maneuvering, as slamming on your brakes could lead to worse scenarios. My general rule of thumb (and is recommended by the MSF) is to look 20 seconds ahead down the road and predict situations before they happen. If I see an intersection with a stop sign far down the road, for example, and a car is sitting there while I'm on the main road with no stop. I'll keep my eye on that car waaaaay before I'm right on the intersection. That way if I see him inching or pulling out, I can react in time to either slow down to stop if he's gong left, OR throttle the fuck up and swerve around him if he's jumping out right - depending on the situation. I'd say about 60-70% of the time swerving saves your ass way more than slamming brakes, and that's something that a lot of car drivers don't get. Bikes are REALLY REALLY nimble compared to cars and more stable when they're on throttle, so there's more control dodging and weaving around traffic which presents the false narrative that bikers are being reckless.I used to tell my students to drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot.
Going around bends and turns is another area that freaks out drivers. You WANT to throttle up mid turn on a motorcycle. It plants the rear tire down and gives the bike more stability and handling on the turn. This often leads to a car driver thinking the biker is tailgating them because they're going too slow and leads to things like brake checking etc... A dude screamed at me once and called me reckless because I would get on his ass while following him around turns. I'd then back off on the straights. Believe me, I was fucking tempted to just pass on the double yellow and smoke his ass. But that's where having a cool head prevails and saves your life. I just endured it because in the end me and my bike are 600 lbs while he's stacked at over 3000. I lose.
To be honest, riding has opened my eyes to just how many horrible car drivers there are. Dave says for every 1 good rider there are 10 bad ones. I'd say those 10 bad ones are still more competent than most car drivers in regards to understanding road laws, basic mechanics, and the basic physics at play while riding/driving. It's very mentally taxing to ride. After 2 hours, I'm actually tired because you're brain is going 100%. That's why I refuse to commute on my bike (among other reasons) and why I'd never ride when I'm tired.
#61
Eriol
Eriol
I remember being taught that for basic driving for a CAR, so that's not unique to bikes. People just drive like idiots. Slow down into the curve, accelerate OUT of the curve. It works! DO NOT reverse that order or you'll likely flip/spin your vehicle.Going around bends and turns is another area that freaks out drivers. You WANT to throttle up mid turn on a motorcycle. It plants the rear tire down and gives the bike more stability and handling on the turn.
#62
Mathias
Mathias
I see people slamming their brakes mid-turn all the freaking time. The worst is when it snows. Slamming brakes in the snow is a recipe for a bad time. Downshift! Engine braking gives you far more control!I remember being taught that for basic driving for a CAR, so that's not unique to bikes. People just drive like idiots. Slow down into the curve, accelerate OUT of the curve. It works! DO NOT reverse that order or you'll likely flip/spin your vehicle.
#63
Eriol
Eriol
I didn't see a self-driving cars thread, so this is going here: House passes bill to speed deployment of self-driving cars
In general, this may be a good thing (uniformity of regulation) or just another power-grab federally. I'm guessing its the latter, but it still may have the benefits of the former. We'll see.
Only? I would have guessed higher.Self-driving cars are forecast to dramatically lower traffic fatalities once they are on roads in significant numbers, among other benefits. Early estimates indicate there were more than 40,000 traffic fatalities last year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 94 percent of crashes involve human error.
In general, this may be a good thing (uniformity of regulation) or just another power-grab federally. I'm guessing its the latter, but it still may have the benefits of the former. We'll see.
#64
PatrThom
PatrThom
Oh, and I meant to post this here earlier. Remember the case that started this whole thread? Well surprise, surprise...it looks like Apple won't be held liable when other people make bad choices. This is a good thing, since the precedent it would set would be disastrous.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#65
PatrThom
PatrThom
The iPhone X proves the Unabomber was right
That's...quite a leap.
--Patrick
*Yes, I know that's not his point.
That's...quite a leap.
Dude, if you don't like it, just get a Galaxy or wait for the Pixel to come out. Nobody is making you get a X*....the individual has little power to resist. Technological innovation is a one-way street. Once you enter it, you are obligated to proceed, even if it leads someplace you would not have chosen to go. Once the latest iPhone is in stores, some consumers will decide they simply can’t live without it. The rest of us may eventually find that whatever our preferences, neither can we.
--Patrick
*Yes, I know that's not his point.
#66
PatrThom
PatrThom
To sorta clarify my comment in the above post*, the person writing the article is talking about the Unabomber's manifesto which described how once humanity creates a technology, we then become dependent on that technology, to the point where we could supposedly no longer function without it ("chained to it," I think are his words). This has happened plenty over the years...indoor plumbing, agriculture, the automobile, radio/television, the Internet, public transportation, computers, electrification, the gas light/light bulb, the post office, weather (and other) satellites, and on and on, but no what is it that finally proves the Unabomber was right? THE IPHONE X OH MY GOD.
(Soo...basically the author has a chip on his boner for Apple and is attempting to make people think of the Unabomber when they think of the iPhone X? I guess?)
--Patrick
*Because this is a thing I seem to have to do frequently
(Soo...basically the author has a chip on his boner for Apple and is attempting to make people think of the Unabomber when they think of the iPhone X? I guess?)
--Patrick
*Because this is a thing I seem to have to do frequently
#67
strawman
strawman
More to the point of this thread, iOS 11 implements a driving distraction feature, and during the setup process it's on by default and tells you to go to settings if you want to disable it.
It prevents you from receiving any app, text, or phone alerts when the phone is traveling faster than a set (unknown) speed, though you can click the button and press "I'm not driving" if you like.
So while the lawsuit ultimately failed, Apple did implement the feature that makes it harder for people to drive distracted, and they essentially have to tell the device they aren't driving or disable the feature altogether if they want to use the phone while driving.
Further pushing the liability away from Apple and onto the user.
It prevents you from receiving any app, text, or phone alerts when the phone is traveling faster than a set (unknown) speed, though you can click the button and press "I'm not driving" if you like.
So while the lawsuit ultimately failed, Apple did implement the feature that makes it harder for people to drive distracted, and they essentially have to tell the device they aren't driving or disable the feature altogether if they want to use the phone while driving.
Further pushing the liability away from Apple and onto the user.
#68
Bubble181
Sure, liability-wise, it's useful, but otherwise, such a button does nothing.
Might as well replace the electronic key with a slot to insert your smartphone - and the smartphone being used as a key cannot be otherwise used while driving. Probably more effective.
Bubble181
Of course, if there's one thing we've learned from Pokémon Go, it's that a "I'm a passenger" button is completely impossible to press from behind the wheel.More to the point of this thread, iOS 11 implements a driving distraction feature, and during the setup process it's on by default and tells you to go to settings if you want to disable it.
It prevents you from receiving any app, text, or phone alerts when the phone is traveling faster than a set (unknown) speed, though you can click the button and press "I'm not driving" if you like.
So while the lawsuit ultimately failed, Apple did implement the feature that makes it harder for people to drive distracted, and they essentially have to tell the device they aren't driving or disable the feature altogether if they want to use the phone while driving.
Further pushing the liability away from Apple and onto the user.
Sure, liability-wise, it's useful, but otherwise, such a button does nothing.
Might as well replace the electronic key with a slot to insert your smartphone - and the smartphone being used as a key cannot be otherwise used while driving. Probably more effective.
#69
strawman
strawman
Deterrence and a forced reminder is useful for some. I don't think forcing people to comply is the right way to go for this sort of thing anyway.
However, if we force car manufacturers to include hands free text, phone, and mapping usage in the vehicle, connected wirelessly and automatically to the phone, then we may be able to eliminate most of the reasons to pick up the phone.
I'd rather go the route of making it pointless to pick up the phone than making it impossible.
However, if we force car manufacturers to include hands free text, phone, and mapping usage in the vehicle, connected wirelessly and automatically to the phone, then we may be able to eliminate most of the reasons to pick up the phone.
I'd rather go the route of making it pointless to pick up the phone than making it impossible.
#70
Eriol
Eriol
Self-Driving Shuttle Debuts in Vegas, crashes 2 hours later: Human blamed in self-driving shuttle bus crash
Even if human's fault, still kinda funny.
Even if human's fault, still kinda funny.
#71
strawman
Turns out the shuttles are built just a few miles from me, and the company uses the University of Michigan's autonomous village for testing. Navaya for those that are interested - french company - released this in a big show two days ago.
I think Uber's on the right track with automated vehicles - this area is ripe for automation, so even with this crash I expect we're only years from seeing autonomous vehicles daily, and probably cheaper to use in big cities than personal vehicles.
strawman
Yeah, a truck was exiting an alley and ran right into the shuttle.Self-Driving Shuttle Debuts in Vegas, crashes 2 hours later: Human blamed in self-driving shuttle bus crash
Even if human's fault, still kinda funny.
Turns out the shuttles are built just a few miles from me, and the company uses the University of Michigan's autonomous village for testing. Navaya for those that are interested - french company - released this in a big show two days ago.
I think Uber's on the right track with automated vehicles - this area is ripe for automation, so even with this crash I expect we're only years from seeing autonomous vehicles daily, and probably cheaper to use in big cities than personal vehicles.
#72
sixpackshaker
I really can't believe that self driving cars are being allowed on the roads already.
sixpackshaker
Why din't the bus detect the truck and back out of its way? I mean, my sensors would have detected the moving truck and moved my vehicle out of the way.Self-Driving Shuttle Debuts in Vegas, crashes 2 hours later: Human blamed in self-driving shuttle bus crash
Even if human's fault, still kinda funny.
I really can't believe that self driving cars are being allowed on the roads already.
#73
Eriol
Eriol
From the article:Why din't the bus detect the truck and back out of its way? I mean, my sensors would have detected the moving truck and moved my vehicle out of the way.
I really can't believe that self driving cars are being allowed on the roads already.
So you want TCAS for the ground? Not only "don't hit others" but also "get out of the way if somebody's going to hit you?" I have no doubt some of that is already there, but there are limits. Most humans can't do that effectively IMO."The shuttle did what it was supposed to do, in that it's (sic) sensors registered the truck and the shuttle stopped to avoid the accident," the city said in a statement. "Unfortunately the delivery truck did not stop and grazed the front fender of the shuttle. Had the truck had the same sensing equipment that the shuttle has the accident would have been avoided."
#74
strawman
You might have done so as a courtesy to the truck driver, but the truck driver did not have the right of way, and was subsequently cited for causing an accident.
It may be that the program will be altered to provide more human allowances and courtesies, but I don't think that's the right way to approach AI driving because it introduces too much undefined behavior and variability, leading to confusion, inefficiencies, and accidents.
The programmers have probably chosen, for now, to only practice passive accident avoidance. Swerving and braking, for instance. Actively backing out of the way is a whole 'nother can of worms.
You will not see a presidential limo driven by an AI anytime soon, except perhaps as a publicity stunt. Those drivers can do amazing things with their vehicles when they detect a dangerous situation.
strawman
The bus was proceeding forward on a road at under 30mph, and had the right of way. A truck was exiting an alley onto the road, and did not have the right of way. The bus had the right of way, and had no obligation to reverse.Why din't the bus detect the truck and back out of its way? I mean, my sensors would have detected the moving truck and moved my vehicle out of the way.
I really can't believe that self driving cars are being allowed on the roads already.
You might have done so as a courtesy to the truck driver, but the truck driver did not have the right of way, and was subsequently cited for causing an accident.
It may be that the program will be altered to provide more human allowances and courtesies, but I don't think that's the right way to approach AI driving because it introduces too much undefined behavior and variability, leading to confusion, inefficiencies, and accidents.
The programmers have probably chosen, for now, to only practice passive accident avoidance. Swerving and braking, for instance. Actively backing out of the way is a whole 'nother can of worms.
You will not see a presidential limo driven by an AI anytime soon, except perhaps as a publicity stunt. Those drivers can do amazing things with their vehicles when they detect a dangerous situation.
#75
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Like I told my teenaged students, you can be right and be dead right too. Big trucks in city limits rely heavily on the courtesy of cars that have the right of way.
#76
GasBandit
GasBandit
In all likelihood, they'll probably be made driverless PDQ, and we'll all be better for it. Except the truck drivers who are out of jobs, I suppose.Like I told my teenaged students, you can be right and be dead right too. Big trucks in city limits rely heavily on the courtesy of cars that have the right of way.
#77
strawman
So they won't be out of a job, they'll just be paid a lot less to essentially press buttons and perform the few actions the AI can't do yet.
strawman
It'll be a long time before we see operator-less vehicles. All the current plans companies have to introduce driverless trucks include someone who sits there observing the situation.In all likelihood, they'll probably be made driverless PDQ, and we'll all be better for it. Except the truck drivers who are out of jobs, I suppose.
So they won't be out of a job, they'll just be paid a lot less to essentially press buttons and perform the few actions the AI can't do yet.
#78
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
100% behind you on this. There are rules (right-of-way, etc) and the whole purpose of programming ANYTHING is to get it to follow rules. If you start programming exceptions, then you introduce additional complications which must be compensated for, and the whole thing just snowballs.It may be that the program will be altered to provide more human allowances and courtesies, but I don't think that's the right way to approach AI driving because it introduces too much undefined behavior and variability, leading to confusion, inefficiencies, and accidents.
--Patrick
#79
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I know this idea was batted around here before... but self driving cars have to be programmed to kill.
https://gizmodo.com/your-self-driving-car-will-be-programmed-to-kill-you-de-1782499265
https://gizmodo.com/your-self-driving-car-will-be-programmed-to-kill-you-de-1782499265
#80
strawman
So I think the ethicists and philosophers are going to extremes, trying to apply the trolley problem to real life, when the reality is much more mundane.
strawman
I don't buy into the clickbait at all. The car isn't "programmed to kill", and the reality is that with modern safety system in vehicle you can survive a head on impact at 70MPH with a concrete barrier. You won't be happy, but you'll live. The car will be programmed to reduce casualties, but the reality is that it has far more information about the occupants on the interior than the exterior. As long as the cars follow the rules of the road, and the pedestrians follow the rules of the road, accidents will be vanishingly rare, save for those who choose to actively disobey the rules.I know this idea was batted around here before... but self driving cars have to be programmed to kill.
https://gizmodo.com/your-self-driving-car-will-be-programmed-to-kill-you-de-1782499265
So I think the ethicists and philosophers are going to extremes, trying to apply the trolley problem to real life, when the reality is much more mundane.
#81
Covar
Oversimplifying technology that they have only a broadest understanding of (if any) then coming up with crazily complex problems and situations that would be generous to call an edge case, all based around the faulty simplification seems to be the new hotness.
See every “AI will take over the world if we’re don’t take action now!” techno panic article.
Covar
Have to justify those student loans for a worthless college degree somehow.So I think the ethicists and philosophers are going to extremes, trying to apply the trolley problem to real life, when the reality is much more mundane.
Oversimplifying technology that they have only a broadest understanding of (if any) then coming up with crazily complex problems and situations that would be generous to call an edge case, all based around the faulty simplification seems to be the new hotness.
See every “AI will take over the world if we’re don’t take action now!” techno panic article.
#82
PatrThom
PatrThom
Appeals verdict is in:
Apple FaceTime car crash lawsuit dismissed
--Patrick
Apple FaceTime car crash lawsuit dismissed
Good. Product liability lawsuits are already outta control. A "guilty" verdict would've meant the first steps towards a world where even our warning labels would have warning labels ("Please keep warning label away from nose and mouth, or serious bodily harm or death could result.").The [family of the girl killed in the accident] alleged Apple was responsible for the accident as it had considered utilising technology to detect motion on its phones and disable certain functions when driving. Apple had patented this technology but it was not included on the iPhone 6. The lawsuit states Apple's iPhone 6 was "defective" and shouldn't have been shipped without the lock-out feature.
[...]
In May, a court had dismissed the case, leading to the appeal.
The appeals court [has now] agreed with the earlier decision, concluding Apple "did not owe the [girl's family] a duty of care."
[The court affirmed] it was not up to the tech giant to take responsibility for actions of individuals using its applications.
--Patrick
#83
PatrThom
PatrThom
(We don't have a patent troll thread, so this "let's sue Apple" thread seemed the next best place for it)
Apparently Apple has had it up to here with those people described as "patent trolls" filing lawsuits in the famously popular Eastern District of Texas, so it is just going ahead and shutting down all (both) of the stores located in that district and opening up one big one a day later just outside the EDT border in Dallas. According to the article, all of the employees from the two stores were given the choice of relocating, transitioning to work-from-home, or severance packages, so at least they aren't being thrown out into the streets.
Apple, lawyers, patent trolls, Eastern District of Texas...no matter what your stance on any of this, I think what blows my mind the most is the idea that patent trolls are enough of a problem now that companies are now considering amputation as a viable solution. Like 'em or not, there's already a history of Apple doing a "courageous" thing (deleting floppy/optical drives/headphone jacks, adding a screen notch, whatever) followed by other industries watching to gauge the reaction...and then frequently following the example. Does this mean that big retailers' answer to lawsuits is going to change from the usual "settle" to "settle and evac?" Because if so, we're going to have a flight situation much like the one @GasBandit describes about taxes, where "number of tort-happy lawyers" becomes as much of a barrier to choosing a location for a commercial presence as tax rates, real estate prices, etc., and we're going to have more of that "What happens when Wal-Mart leaves?" kind of thing.
--Patrick
Apparently Apple has had it up to here with those people described as "patent trolls" filing lawsuits in the famously popular Eastern District of Texas, so it is just going ahead and shutting down all (both) of the stores located in that district and opening up one big one a day later just outside the EDT border in Dallas. According to the article, all of the employees from the two stores were given the choice of relocating, transitioning to work-from-home, or severance packages, so at least they aren't being thrown out into the streets.
Apple, lawyers, patent trolls, Eastern District of Texas...no matter what your stance on any of this, I think what blows my mind the most is the idea that patent trolls are enough of a problem now that companies are now considering amputation as a viable solution. Like 'em or not, there's already a history of Apple doing a "courageous" thing (deleting floppy/optical drives/headphone jacks, adding a screen notch, whatever) followed by other industries watching to gauge the reaction...and then frequently following the example. Does this mean that big retailers' answer to lawsuits is going to change from the usual "settle" to "settle and evac?" Because if so, we're going to have a flight situation much like the one @GasBandit describes about taxes, where "number of tort-happy lawyers" becomes as much of a barrier to choosing a location for a commercial presence as tax rates, real estate prices, etc., and we're going to have more of that "What happens when Wal-Mart leaves?" kind of thing.
--Patrick
#84
jwhouk
jwhouk
I honestly think the "amputate" option will become more and more viable the more insane things become politically.
#85
PatrThom
-xl.jpg)
appleinsider.com
--Patrick
PatrThom
Amber Alert on AirPods damaged teenager's hearing, lawsuit claims | AppleInsider
The parents of a teenage boy in Texas claim in a new lawsuit that Apple's AirPods ruptured his eardrums when a loud Amber Alert was issued.
appleinsider.com
Eardrums torn apart? By AirPods? This sounds more to me like the kid had his ears boxed while wearing a set of AirPods.According to the complaint, the sound "tore apart" the boy's eardrums, damaged his cochlea, and caused permanent hearing loss in one ear.
--Patrick
#86
Krisken
Krisken
That seems a stretch.