The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
steveninaster1 said:
Who said they will be restricted to point to point?
I said I expected them to initially be restricted to prescribed areas.

But even in a point to point scenario Autonomous buses etc have a huge commercial advantage over buses with a driver in that you no longer pay for a driver. Over the life of the vehicle it will more than offset the tech cost.
There will always be business travel, most of my meetings are conference calls these days I see no change in that. If anything they have had to relax it because customers respond better to face to face contact ( and staff tbh).

That you assume a primary navigation system is where we differ. It already is multiple systems working to make best guesses based on a knowledge built over many scenarios. Your question is more related to driving style than a genuine technological concern imo. If a machine is taught to be too cautious it never pulls away, if it is too ambitious then it risks accident.
If there is a fault detected then obviously you would expect it to stop ( and hopefully call for help).
Click to expand...

After approximately 12hrs, we are no further ahead with this debate and will probably fail to agree if we carried on for another 12hrs. So I will bid you a good night.
If this site is still in existence in 2021 and the autonomous vehicle is a common sight on the streets of the U.K, I will happily come on and eat humble pie :emoticon-0148-yes:
 
Stan said:
I'd love to have a driverless car. I have no interest in cars at all. I find driving boring.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the name of the film, but it starred Wesley Snipes and Stallone. It was set in the future, and the vehicles were semi automonous. That would suit me, as like you, I find the majority of driving boring.
 
DMD said:
The Court sentences do in deed prove plenty. Unfortunately for you, they, and the associated legal system support what I said in the reply in question.

You're making a tedious arse of yourself over a none issue you're trying to build into something else again. :emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...


Do you live in a parallel universe or something? The whole ****ing world has just witnessed you getting schooled on here, yet you claim it's others making arses of themselves.

I suppose that's how it is when you live in a post-truth world; reality is whatever you decide it is, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes and Stan
Archers Road said:
Do you live in a parallel universe or something? The whole ****ing world has just witnessed you getting schooled on here, yet you claim it's others making arses of themselves.

I suppose that's how it is when you live in a post-truth world; reality is whatever you decide it is, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
:emoticon-0102-bigsm Schooled my arse. [sic]

They've witnessed a couple of tedious ****wits trying to rejig a point, and a couple of other ****wits falling for it.

Someone implied that values have got progressively more liberal, but in reality, they were comparing today against a short period in history. I offered a few examples of liberal attitudes to things such as drugs and sexual preference in Victorian Britain as it was straddled by the period they referred to. I could also have mentioned Romans and Greeks from 2,000 years ago.

One of the usual dullards tried to latch onto the homosexual element, presumably because there is no doubt that there was a very liberal attitude to drugs, and that alone makes my point, but there was also a fair degree of tolerance to homosexuality for much of Victorias reign. Some, like Wilde, fell foul when new laws came in, but other less prominent people just got on with it.

Here's some that did fall foul, but the attitudes to much of their lifestyle choices can only be described as liberal.

Frederick Park and Ernest Boulton weren’t necessarily transgender, though of course it’s impossible to know how they’d identify today. They did dress in women’s clothing, though. They had a drag act, calling themselves Fanny and Stella, respectively. They were known to alternate men’s and women’s clothing in public even when they weren’t performing.

For the most part, they were permitted to do so without much harassment in London’s West End. They were theater people, and their scene was markedly more freewheeling than the nation at large. London at that time was “in the grip of a new theatrical craze for burlesques and burlettas,” writes Neil McKenna in Fanny and Stella: The Young Men Who Shocked Victorian England,“and pantomimes where women dressed as men and men dressed as women.” In the West End, it didn’t strike people as particularly inconceivable that playful drag might slip off the stage and onto the streets.

“Their lives were basically illegal,” London playwright Glenn Chandler, who wrote a play about the duo, told The Observer. “But also much was tolerated; people could get away with it as long as they didn’t frighten the horses too much, as it were.”

The state forbade gay sexual activity, not acting gay or consorting with other gay men. So while it was obvious to all that Park and Boulton were generally engaged in sexual relationships with men, there was no legal justification for locking them up. The jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting them.

Now, with the drugs and rampant prostitution, would you say that suggests a liberal or authoritarian attitude?

The article goes on to talk of arrests in later years, but the bulk of those were not in Victorian times, and as I said, coincidentally occurred during the birth and growth of the labour party.
 
Trying to even argue that views were more liberal in the UK, in the past is beyond ******ed.
It reaches into a new realm of spastication as of yet unnamed.
In a world where you can literally watch 2 actors simulate gay sex on TV.
Where same sex couples can get married, where couples of different ethnicity can get married and procreate with relative little backlash, where a person can decide he wants to change his ****ing gender and live as the opposite sex, where a woman can decide she wants to get an abortion.
Where people can have multiple, casual sexual partners, have children out of wedlock, again with little to no negative reaction from others, in fact it is nearly the norm these days.
Where complete and total ****tards can view their backward, archaic views in a public forum with impunity, anonymously.

<laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: luvgonzo and Tobes
Bodinki said:
Trying to even argue that views were more liberal in the UK, in the past is beyond ******ed.
It reaches into a new realm of spastication as of yet unnamed.
In a world where you can literally watch 2 actors simulate gay sex on TV.
Where same sex couples can get married, where couples of different ethnicity can get married and procreate with relative little backlash, where a person can decide he wants to change his ****ing gender and live as the opposite sex, where a woman can decide she wants to get an abortion.
Where people can have multiple, casual sexual partners, have children out of wedlock, again with little to no negative reaction from others, in fact it is nearly the norm these days.
Where complete and total ****tards can view their backward, archaic views in a public forum with impunity, anonymously.

<laugh>
Click to expand...

Who said it was more liberal? You mention things that are more visible, but even after the law making homosexuality illegal was changed in the 1960's, there were still plenty of convictions for acts associated with it, right up to fairly recent times, most of which were not illegal for the bulk of Victoria's reign, and today's world would have been puritan to the Romans and Spartans. Illegitimacy wasn't that unusual in Victorian times either. The casting out tended to be by the wealthy few if they pupped the maid, but she would tend to find no real problems back in her community, where marriage wasn't always 'official'.
 
DMD said:
Who said it was more liberal? You mention things that are more visible, but even after the law making homosexuality illegal was changed in the 1960's, there were still plenty of convictions for acts associated with it, right up to fairly recent times, most of which were not illegal for the bulk of Victoria's reign, and today's world would have been puritan to the Romans and Spartans. Illegitimacy wasn't that unusual in Victorian times either. The casting out tended to be by the wealthy few if they pupped the maid, but she would tend to find no real problems back in her community, where marriage wasn't always 'official'.
Click to expand...
So what are you saying then, that it was less liberal?
So you agree then? That's the point I was making......
 
Bodinki said:
So what are you saying then, that it was less liberal?
So you agree then? That's the point I was making......
Click to expand...

He'll say what will drag out the conversation longest while googling to find whatever source has one line backing up his point, ignoring the 50 lines telling him his point was idiotic.
 
God knows why he does it! He's fooling nobody. But he just has to have the last word and will never, ever admit that he's ****ed things up and got it totally wrong.

Every poster here with more than a modicum of intelligence sussed him and his game out months ago. But still he carries on, convincing no one but himself, that he's right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back