News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by afarrell on Friday November 13, 2015 @02:41AM (#10558483)
Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, was operating the car, no?
Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by amatus on Friday November 13, 2015 @12:41PM (#10561117)
Is BMW operating my car when I turn on cruise control?
Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by tehstone8 on Friday November 13, 2015 @12:55PM (#10561217)
Cruise Control only regulates speed so no.

This car was engineered by people representing Google with the intent to allow it to operate completely autonomously.

Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by WildUtah on Friday November 13, 2015 @02:57AM (#10558518)
Alphabet's Google, as we say, was operating the car. And corporations are people, my friend.
Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by bryanrasmussen on Friday November 13, 2015 @03:06AM (#10558559)
You know Alphabet has binder full of corporations so they can always send another one over to drive the car if the police take the current driver into custody.
Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by cbd1984 on Friday November 13, 2015 @05:48AM (#10559104)
> And corporations are people

Can we have at least one discussion forum where the notion of corporate personhood isn't abused into idiocy like this? Maybe here on a discussion board run by Y Combinator, a company with the mission of helping to create new corporations?

Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by afarrell on Friday November 13, 2015 @03:24PM (#10562185)
I agree that in general, this quote gets brought into the discussion rather blindly. But in this specific case, I assert (without an actual legal background) that the word "person" in this law would refer to Google and that this loophole wouldn't work.
Re:Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly by cbd1984 on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:29PM (#10566873)
> I assert (without an actual legal background) that the word "person" in this law would refer to Google

Of course it wouldn't.