Basically the same reason that Google knows the technology isn’t ready yet. If you are selling to humans then you have to consider the human factor.

If only a road with traffic, intersections, curves, etc was like flying a straight line through mostly empty sky. Planes also have collision detection.

I really do not think that Marissa Mayer should be casting stones (or aspersions).

In other words, frikken Millennials need to come up with their own stories and quit appropriating the stories of the prior generations.

Even legitimate engineer is a stretch. He didn’t create Paypal and he didn’t invent the technology for Tesla. His company merged with Paypal and the new company ended up using Paypal technology. He bought his way into Tesla. SpaceX maybe so...

Sure. Because it is an either or situation. Complete dichotomy. Of course we had far more airlines in business during the days of regulation, but go ahead with your ideas.

Because, due to hub-and-spoke organization and the wave of oligarchy inducing mergers that somehow passed anti-trust there is just not much competition and the airlines know it. Add to that we bailed them out with public money and their treatment of their unions. It start to paint a pretty evil picture. Charging fees…

I can tell you failed math class.

Maybe because he wanted to talk about Pokemon Go and how it feels to play the game as a black man. There are plenty of other articles on Gawker that covers the shootings in detail.

Ah, you bet! Don’t use Facebook then I suppose. Next go to Mother JOnes and complain about bias. Then hit up The Drudge and give them what-for.

I thought you Republicans were all about protecting private property for the owners? Now you want to tell them what they should do with it?

So, who gets to be the arbiter of what is allowed and what is not allowed and how is it not infringement of the 1st Amendment. No.. It is up to me to filter my own news. I cannot depend on some governmental or capitalistic organization to decide what I get to see and what I do not get to see “for my own protection”.

Killing him because he can harm others: yes.Killing him because he can harm others: yes.

Plus, I could not see in any of this material where you could hack a BMW through a browser. You can hack the owner’s account on the ConnectedDrive web site, but not their car as with the Jeep issue.

“5 dead cops and many more injured is more than enough justification.”

Threat isn’t binary. There are many levels of threat. I am fine with lethal force being used when an officer feels they or bystanders are in immediate threat of death or serious injury. Someone has to make that call, and right now, that is the cop.

So, if someone has just shot several cops and tried to kill many more is telling a cop if he comes closer he will kill him too, is that a threat he should take seriously? Because that what happened here. Did you think there need to be more “corroboration” or is the “context” unclear to you?

Not just this, but the people saying killing was unnecessary is viewing the situation in a static context. Sure, the guy was cornered and not a threat to anyone.... at that time. When the situation changes by moving in to arrest him, I think the shooter had demonstrated that he was very likely to use lethal force. The…

Probably because one of these robots took your job.

here ya go champ