Posted on 09/16/2019 8:23:01 PM PDT by lasereye
re: “The Attack on Saudi Oil Shows Why Driverless Cars Will Never Become Legal”
And in one fell swoop we see our hero literally ‘jump the shark’ ...
Anton is a fraud.
Settled with investors who followed his fraudulent advice.
Under his theory we wouldn’t have self driving drones or planes.
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep."
I disagree.
I believe that the push is to get AI / driverless cars as first normal, then as prefered from a cost or efficiency basis, and then make self driving a priviledge, then an expensive priviledge and then not allowed at all.
Why? It is a liberal’s utopian dream to know and control where the citizens travel to and from. Taxes can be assesed on a per mile travelled basis - for the environment.
Illegality does not prevent actuality.
Exhibit # 1: Murder is illegal.
Ummm, terrorists might ignore the law - they've been known to do that before...
Ummm, terrorists might ignore the law - they've been known to do that before...
You’ve been reading my prior post!
Okay, it bears repeating.
Author Anton Wahlman is way off base here. You don’t need fully autonomous driverless cars to pilot a truck full of explosives to a target. You can do it with simple radio remote control and video cameras. Converting a truck to remote control is far easier than developing a fully autonomous vehicle.
Even that is unnecessary because all you need to do is recruit suicide bombers. There were 19 Saudis willing to fly those airplanes on their kamikaze missions on 9/11. I’m sure there are many more where those 19 came from.
Fuel taxes do that now. It is usually calculated on a per gallon basis, but with some calculations could be restated on a per mile basis.
When the government wants more money, they can just increase fuel taxes.
Just think. The trucking industry is working to develop the driverless semi truck.
The argument that driverless cars can be used for terrorist attacks is an argument against all cars including driver operated cars.
Society is better off with the cars, and trying to prevent attacks, than we are without the cars.
What you said.
40k people a year killed in cars in the U.S.
Somewhere north of 2 million injured.
And he’s worried about terrorists?
A 9/11 style attack EVERY MONTH for a year wouldn’t equal the carnage we already have on the roads.
[Telefon]
Some day I must watch that.
[Illegality does not prevent actuality.]
That’s what I was thinking. Terrorist will not be deterred by law.
By the time they realize what happened, it will all be over. Or at least the damage will be done.
Let’s also recall Timothy McVeigh. I don’t recall all details, but didn’t he park a truck full of explosives at that federal building in Oklahoma City? I think he drove it in and parked it at the target?
And as you note, a suicide bomber driving a truck on a suicide mission is an ongoing danger.
Good memory. McVeigh parked the truck and walked away.
This article is a silly scare piece.
We don’t have either one. Someone is always flying these devices, they just aren’t onboard the aircraft. We also do not have any such thing as a self driving car. Someone is always driving, it’s just not you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.