Monthly Archives: March 2016

Bush PAC Post-Mortem

Worth a read. Also includes this local-interest gem from operative Mike Murphy:

He cites the old Eric Hoffer maxim: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.

Take, for instance, he says, the Tea Party — “a racket, though it’s supposed to be a nonracket,” full of faux four-star generals who say, ” ‘You’ve got to pay me because … I represent the Nebraska sub-Army 14 of the Tea Party,’ and there’d be like four or five guys arguing over who’s in charge of it.” It reminds Murphy of when he used to do referendum campaigns in Dade County. “There’d always be these charming old Cubans who’d come in and say, ‘Colonel Escobar is willing to endorse on his radio show, but he requires certain considerations. One million dollars.’ “

“And we’d be like, ‘Thirty-five hundred dollars cash and lunch today.'”

“‘We agree!'”

Debriefing Mike Murphy | The Weekly Standard.

Posted in 2016 Election | Leave a comment

DSC Plays Its Trump Card

Link if you can’t see above

Posted in 2016 Election | 4 Comments

Great Interview at Brink

Robot Law: Preventing Serious—and Subtle—Threats, featuring yours truly.

Posted in Robots, The Media | Leave a comment

If Only…

MIAMI—In what political observers characterized as the organization’s highest-level staff shakeup to date, the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio announced Monday it would be bringing on a new candidate for the remainder of the 2016 election.

via The Onion por supuesto.

Posted in 2016 Election, Completely Different | Leave a comment

Robot Cars Don’t Need 100% Safety

Nice write-up by Nicholas Deleon in Why Google’s Self-Driving Car Crash Doesn’t Change Anything.

As I told him, I think it’s wrong to expect robot cars to be 100% safe; so having a Google self-driving car in a fender-bender is of no real significance. There are a lot of issues with self-driving cars, but their failure to be perfect is not in my opinion one of them. Indeed, until all cars on the road are controlled by compatible (note I said compatible, not centrally controlled!) systems, the interaction between, excuse the term, legacy cars and robotic cars — not to mention pedestrians, stray animals, and debris on the road — means accidents will happen.

As I told Delon, one issue is whether the robot car is (provably) safer than the average human. Another issue is who should pay when the robot car is at fault, wholly or partly, for the accidents. The law has not determined how to allocate responsibility between the passenger, the owner, the programmer, and the manufacturer. We could treat this as a straight-forward problem of product liability law, or we could be more creative. I’m thinking on it.

Posted in Robots, The Media | 1 Comment