Self Rate Appeal Form Ny: Fill & Download for Free

In my opinion, prostitution in the U.S. should be legal.*Let me first start by issuing the following disclaimer:I have never been with a prostitute. If legalized, I would not visit a prostitute. I gain nothing by writing this. I am not affiliated with any organization or group that advocates for prostitution.I understand that many women can be offended by this so I ask you to please proceed with an open mind before you kill me with comments below regarding the ills of human trafficking or the morality of it all. First, four background points:A short history of prostitution[1] in ancient Greece and the U.S.The Federal government has left the legality of prostitution to the individual states to decide if it should be legal or not within their individual borders.The state government of Nevada is the only state in the U.S. that has legal prostitution and has left the decision of legalization to each individual county (In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, it is illegal) rather than a state decision of where and where it is not legal.A review of any Nevada county law or ordinance regarding prostitution will show strict statutes that must be followed. It is a regulated industry. One such statute is that street prostitution is illegal and that prostitution must only take place in a controlled environment called a brothel and not in a residential neighborhood, and not near a school.All workers in a brothel must be registered with the county.All brothels must be licensed.All workers must get tested for STDs and HIV once a week.Legalization significantly reduces human trafficking and street walkers.Legalization significantly reduces underage prostitutionLegalization significantly reduces forced prostitution.Legalization may make it easier for police to find underage and human trafficking (#7–9 above). The legalized brothels are controlled and works to help get women off the street and in a safe environment. Many more streetwalkers will be off the street resulting in fewer ad’s for a “date.” Police may have an easier time and more success in finding human trafficking, underage, and forced prostitution.Police man power for sex crimes and task forces can be reduced due to fewer street walkers, pimps, and John’s to arrest, allowing the police to redirect more availability to more serious crimes .The courts will have fewer prostitution cases to process resulting in other cases being heard and resolved more quickly.Public defenders will have a lighter case load allowing them to spend more time on other, more serious defendants.Legalization significantly reduces men having to be concerned about arrest and having their lives and reputations destroyed.Men (customers) will be safer. No more driving to the “bad” part of town, risking getting robbed, assaulted, or ripped off by a worker.Studies that compare indoor prostitutes (as opposed to street walkers) with non-prostitutes find that they have similar levels of self-esteem, physical health, and mental health. Many indoor prostitutes even report a rise in self-esteem after they begin their indoor work (Weitzer, 2012).Kingley Davis, theorized that prostitution lowers the divorce rate. He reasoned that many married men are unhappy with their sex life with their wives. If they do not think this situation can improve, some men start an affair with another woman and may fall in love with that woman, threatening these men’s marriages. (Kingsley Davis was was an internationally recognized American sociologist identified by the American Philosophical Society as one of the most outstanding social scientists of the twentieth century.)Legalization significantly reduces the acts occurring in seedy motels and the activity that is seen around those neighborhoods.Legalization significantly reduces drug use. A brothel is a controlled environment where no such activity is tolerated.Legalization significantly reduces any guilt or embarrassment by either of the two parties involved.It creates a safe environment for the workers.All brothels are regulated and most follow strict code adherenceAll prostitutes must be tested for STD, HIV, etc once a week (Nevada has not recorded a single case of HIV in a brothel since legalizing Prostitution.)Condoms must be used. There is no option.The women can always choose to not participate with a customer if she does not want to do what the customer wants to do. The customer can choose another partner.All prices of all sex acts are clearly posted and/or menu’s are provided. No negotiations.Brothels provide a clean & safe environment for all parties involved.Creates a new source of tax revenue.“Let’s assume that 50 million acts of prostitution occur annually in the United States (it is closer to 70 million), and that each of these acts costs an average $30. Putting these numbers together, prostitutes receive $1.5 billion annually in income. If they paid about one-third of this amount (admittedly a rough estimate) in payroll taxes, the revenue of state and federal governments would increase by $500 million.” (resource)Removes “Red Light Districts” and moves everything into a controlled environment.Prostitution was legal in the U.S. up until 100 years ago (1920) when it became illegal due to the religious moral reasons. Are we still making laws based on religious reasons?Prostitution has long been illegal due to moral reasons. To that point consider this:Who is to say what is and is not moral in this day and age? Homosexuality, black/white relationships, and sodomy were all once illegal.Sodomy laws in the United States, were inherited from British criminal laws with roots in the Christian religion. Christian religion no longer dictates U.S. law and is a violation of separation of church and state.If we follow British rule of law (which is what U.S laws are based upon), prostitution is legal. Therefore, American law should follow, right? (I personally do not agree on this point.) There are certain restrictions however.In the case, Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the U.S. Supreme court, in a 6–3 decision, struck down Texas State law (and therefore 13 other states) that made Sodomy illegal between consenting adults. This is significant because Lawrence v Texas overruled a previous Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 that found a Georgia statute banning sodomy, was valid because the Constitution did not apply to constitutional protection of sexual privacy. By reversing the 1986 decision, the Court ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.Legalizing Prostitution would give the workers a right to unionize and be entitled to certain protections.The spread of STD’s and HIV could be significantly reduced (condom use).Worker injury (whatever that might be) would be covered under OSHA.Workers could possible be entitled to benefits such as sick time, paid time off, and even vacation and retirement planning.Workers would receive health benefits.Strip Clubs are legal and the activity in these clubs comes very close to a brothel. Why is it permissible to watch a woman (of her own free will) remove all her clothing in public and dance naked for money but she cannot, of her own free will, have human contact of her own free will.Two (or more) consenting adults, agree to have sex with each other, and get paid to have sex with each other. That’s prostitution, right? No, there is a loophole. XXX rated movies. These actors get paid to have sex but because they are being filmed for commercial purposes and claim it as an art form, then that’s ok, They are not breaking the law. Hmmm…Roe v. Wade. This might be a stretch but Roe v Wade gives a woman the right to choose what happens to her body and focuses on reproductive rights. It mentions personal autonomy. Personal autonomy is a key provision here. Can such an argument be referenced for what a woman decides to do with her body, such as participating in prostitution? (For more on personal autonomy, see Part IV of this John Marshall Law Review article. See also this Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository article.)“Corruption would be rampant.” This is a baseless statement. Lets be realistic. There is corruption with every single job on the planet including, Police, Politicians, Priests (and other religions), Judges, teachers, social workers, Stock Market (money managers), etc. Are all priests, police, or teachers bad? Of course not. The majority of all workers and professionals are good, honest, hardworking people. Just because a woman is a prostitute does not make her a bad person. I cannot say why a woman would want or need to do this sort of work, but the reason is not for any of us to judgeA U.N. report found "very low" rates of sexually transmitted infections among the sex workers of New Zealand, a country whose total decriminalization of prostitution many advocates consider to be the gold standard in sex work policy. NZ - it's a great place to be a prostituteFormer US Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders thinks it makes no sense to ban prostitution simply because it objectifies women: “Why are we so upset about sex workers selling sexual acts to consenting adults?” she asks. “We say that they are selling their bodies, but how different is that from what athletes do? They’re selling their bodies. Models? They’re selling their bodies. Actors? They’re selling their bodies.”Recently, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeals judge asked, why it should be “illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away?” Other judges have said the 14th amendment and Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to Prostitution because that is not what those who wrote the 14th amendment nor the Supreme Court Justices had in mind. Really? How is that known? The ruling references Personal Autonomy.Prostitution can be a controlled and regulated industry. Without regulations, we get what we have today….street walkers, drug addicts, abused women etc. This profession is known as the worlds oldest profession. It’s not, nor will it ever, go away. It was completely legal in all the U.S. until only 1920.We can waste tax payer money by continuing sting operations, arresting offenders who will only turn around and go right back to the street after posting bond or, we can provide a safe and regulated place for all involved and redirect police resources to truly hurtful and dangerous crimes.I cannot imagine anyone who would rather drive to a seedy part of town, risk arrest, getting robbed, contracting an STD, and embarrassment by arrest, versus going to a place that does not hide the truth and provides safety for all parties.I’m not an attorney or an advocate, but in my eyes, the only reasons prostitution is illegal is because nobody is willing to write the rules and because of those who define morality. Bt who defines morality? Does your morality have to be my morality? It is not the same thing to all people. I guess that falls to the court system…the same court that once outlawed sodomy, sex between two males, and black/white sex.In my opinion, the decision to have sex between two consenting adults, whether it be for money, food, or Winnie the Pooh stickers, is and should be, between the adults involved. There needs to be, like all other legal matters, rules and restrictions put into place to protect everyone. And no need to reinvent the wheel. We can use New Zealand, Amsterdam, and Nevada as the blueprint for policy. All objections such as STD’s, HIV, corruption, exploitation, etc, are really just from people who object to the activity and have no desire to make it legal and they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, but I don’t care for alcohol and there are some religions that forbid drinking it, but that does not mean we should outlaw alcohol due to moral and religious beliefs? We already tried that in the U.S. and it failed miserably, in part because all kinds of mobs and corruption materialized. Al Capone made his living from running illegal moonshine and secret “speakeasy’s.” Those speakeasy’s and running moonshine (all the illegal activity) vanished right after alcohol was legalized again.Human nature is such that if we want something bad enough, we will find a way to get it. That is why there is and has always been prostitution. We’ve legalized marijuana, alcohol, same sex marriage, abortions, segregation, sodomy, and so many other “once illegal” activities. The illegal fixation on prostitution pales in comparison to the benefits for all parties involved including the workers, the customers, the tax payers, the government, and the public at large.(Reed Saxon/AP)EDIT: The word. “Eliminates” used in my opinion are too definitive as Sean Patrick points out in his comment below. I agree. I am changing the word to “reduces.” Also, I added a TON more points to and links. My apologies to the first 18K readers who did not read this revised version that has more clarity.Edit #2:Human Trafficking has become a very hot topic lately which has created many non-profit organizations to help those who are involuntarily forced into being a “sex slave” with little hope of escape. I fully support & agree with such organizations to the point that modern day slavery of any type should not and can not be tolerated anywhere, in any country. While these organizations are doing a terrific service by building awareness of a problem that needs addressing, I do not agree with everything they advocate, specifically their attempt to keep prostitution illegal and that it is bad for everyone everywhere. There is research, commissioned by Human Trafficking groups, that show even legalized prostitution in Nevada is detrimental and is known to have forced labor and so I want to address that concern, that legalizing will not put an end to human trafficking and actually increases human trafficking (this is what some research reporting has concluded).First, everyone should always be wary of any research commissioned by groups that want to prove their point as valid. It almost goes without saying that these groups would bury the report if the research showed the opposite of what they theorize and want others to read.Second, brothels are regulated in Nevada and should be heavily regulated. Las Vegas does a pretty good job of regulating anyone working in a gaming environment by requiring every worker to obtain and carry a “Sheriff’s card” (also called a Work Card.)This card can only be obtained by a person who is sponsored by an employer who has agreed to hire them. You cannot obtain a card before being employed, only after being offered a job by an employer. This does not completely stop problems but certainly makes things more difficult for the illegal activity to occur. In fact, Las Vegas already requires that those working in brothels have such a card even though prostitution is illegal in Clark County (where Las Vegas is located.)As you can see from the following sample, the questions are specific and more detailed questions can be added including a private, in-person interview with a deputy or agent who can ask the worker specific questions such as “Are you being forced into this work?” “Do you need help with an addiction?” “Why have you chosen to do this work?” “Has anyone threatened your safety if you do not obtain this card or work in the profession?” The workers can be required to renew the cards annually with an interview.Here is a sample application for a Sheriff’s card.https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/SampleWorkCardApplication.pdfWith proper regulations, many concerns are addressed and for those who continue to participate in trafficking, pimping and smuggling of humans, the penalties should be made more severe and as severe as possible.————————————————————————-Footnotes and Further Reading that might apply to this opinion:Federal MaterialSearch U.S. Supreme Court DecisionsSearch U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals DecisionsSearch LII Preview/ Analyses of Supreme Court Cases1st Amendment to U.S. Constitution4th and 5th Amendments to U.S. Constitution14th Amendment to U.S. ConstitutionSearch the Annotated Constitution of the United StatesU.S. Supreme Court: Historic Right of Privacy-Personal Autonomy DecisionsGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)Lawrence v. Texas(2003)State Judicial DecisionsN.Y. Court of Appeals:Commentary from liibulletin-nySearch N.Y. Court of Appeals DecisionsAppellate Decisions from Other StatesOther ReferencesGood Starting Point, including a short history of Prostitution and the following references:Turkington & Allen-Castellitto Privacy Law: Cases & Materials, West Group (2002)Barry, K. (1996). The prostitution of sexuality. New York, NY: New York University Press.Brewer, D. D., Potterat, J. J., Garrett, S. B., Muth, S. Q., John M. Roberts, J., Kasprzyk, D., et al. (2000). Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 12385–12388.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1977). Sin, sickness, and sanity: A history of sexual attitudes. New York, NY: New American Library.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1987). Women and prostitution: A social history. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2011). Sociology of deviant behavior (14th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Davis, K. (1937). The sociology of prostitution. American Sociological Review, 2, 744–755.Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.McCaslin, J. (1999, October 13). Vaginal politics. Washington Times, p. A8.Meier, R. F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminal justice and moral issues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Ordway, R. (1995, May 26). Relaxation spas perplex officials. The Bangor Daily News, p. 1.Ringdal, N. J. (2004). Love for sale: A world history of prostitution (R. Daly, Trans.). New York, NY: Grove Press.Rosen, R. (1983). The lost sisterhood: Prostitution in America, 1900–1918. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Stanford, S. (1966). The lady of the house. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam.Weitzer, R. (2009). Sociology of sex work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(0360-0572, 0360-0572), 213–234.Weitzer, R. (2011). Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business. New York, NY: New York University Press.Weitzer, R. (2012). Prostitution: Facts and fictions. In D. Hartmann & C. Uggen (Eds.), The Contexts reader (pp. 223–230). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Footnotes[1] Social Problems: Continuity and Change

The Republicans have been on the downslide nationally for some time now, well before Obama took office. With our current President, though, things have just gotten worse.Let's go back to the 90's, when Bill Clinton was elected. The Republicans were well into their Southern Strategy, courting the South, and the Fundamentalist Christian conservatives, now known as the Religious Right. Doing this forced Republican candidates to run on socially conservative platforms, including Pro Life, Religious Freedom, Defense of Marriage, and a few others that meant to reverse decades of liberal trends.In other words, Republicans were using religious based and very emotionally charged issues to whip up their base, rather than the more fiscally conservative platforms of less spending and less taxes. Remember Bush 1 and his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" fiasco. Because he couldn't keep that promise, it cost him reelection. By focusing on the dog whistle issues instead, Republicans could get elected, then go about dealing with the things they wanted to all along, like deregulate industries, cut social programs and damn near eliminate taxes for the rich.When Republicans want to get elected, they claim the country is a shadow of its former self, losing status in the world and losing its moral compass, all because of Democrats and liberals. Using more insubstantial issues with fuzzy metrics, they've gotten their base to froth at the mouth, proclaiming liberals and progressives to be traitors, terrorists, and fervently anti religious. Just look at the list of Ann Coulter books, and you'll see what I mean.(Treason was published in 2004, during President Bush "Dubya"'s administration, Demonic was published 2012, during Obama's reelection year. Note that both are NY Times Bestsellers).With rhetoric like this, is anyone surprised that the state of conservative politics has devolved into what it is now?Republican voters won't look at a candidate whose "conservative credentials" aren't so far to the right that they don't stand a chance of winning on the national stage. Recent polling of those same voters revealed that they overwhelmingly rated a candidate's conservatism as most important, and electablility as the least important. Because the personalities those voters often listen to, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Ann Coulter and all the whack job "She Rapes Easy" and "God Hates Fags" type politicians all tell them the same thing, they think "God" is on their side, and that the "silent majority" will come out and finally save the day for them. Basically, they're being told that the country is more conservative than it is, by a wide margin.Often, Republicans will show a map where the majority of the country shows as red, with only tiny bits of blue, claiming that as proof of how Republican the country really is. What they don't say is that all that red is in very sparsely populated rural areas, and that those tiny dots of blue are highly populous. More misdirection.A map of the 2012 Presidential election results, county by county. Those red areas are mostly rural, with only small populations.A map of the 2012 election results, distorted to show results more accurately by population, not area.Because of all the demonizing, finger pointing, name calling, and playing with the facts, conservative voters have come to expect that the rest of the country is with them, and that liberals are a small minority that have cheated them out of their birthright.When someone like Ted Cruz is elected to congress, it is simply a local based election. As long as his constituency is as extreme as he is, he gets into Congress. He's become the poster child for the conservatives' lack of willingness to compromise, demonstrating that they think it's ok to act like a spoiled brat whenever they don't get everything they want. His constituency votes for him specifically for this reason.Fellow Senators Have Had It With Ted Cruz and His Government ShutdownWATCH: Ted Cruz Reads 'Green Eggs And Ham' On The Senate FloorBut the Presidency is different. It requires the entire nation to make a choice, which means any candidate, to be anywhere near electable, needs to more moderate if they want to have a chance of winning. But extreme conservatives have come to dominate the Republican party, forcing the candidates to move so far to the right, that come General Election time, they have a hard time moving back towards the center, having said and done things that make more moderate voters take notice. This is what happened to Mitt Romney (his 47 percent comment), and John McCain (specifically with his choice of the Tea Party Sarah Palin). Because these candidates have to chill the conservative rhetoric and water down their primary campaign promises to even be considered, the fervently extreme base feels they've been betrayed.After years of this perceived betrayal, the Republicans are losing their Religious Right, while Tea Party and ultra conservatives are tearing each other apart over who is more conservative. They think their candidates have failed because they weren't sufficiently conservative enough, not the other way around.President Obama has certainly aggravated this whole process, partly due to a racist tendency in a faction of the Republican party. The Republican party elite have been happy to foment dissatisfaction with the various claims about the President over the last 8 years, such as him being a Muslim radical, a Black Christian radical, not eligible to be President by birth, etc... etc... . When asked if they believed Obama was a natural born citizen, nearly every Republican refused to give a clear answer. Declaring him to be a one term President during his first term further set the stage for another disappointment.Along comes "The Donald", who promises to build walls to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. and make Mexico pay for them, creating a Muslim Database, and even preventing Muslims from coming into our country, including American citizens, until we can "figure this out". Supporters claim he's a savvy businessman who's made his own fortune who can run the country like his companies (scary thought in light of 4 bankruptcies and multiple failed ventures). He doesn't back down when he's attacked, but attacks back with doubled ferocity, which appeals to the Ted Nugent crowd. Trump has been very straightforward, telling them what they want to hear, and making it sound like he won't go back on his promises.Yeah, those disappointed conservatives have been listening to Trump, and ignoring the Republican elites who are flailing around trying to get some control over the situation.The Republicans have been setting themselves up for this for a long time, not just the last 8 years. Using Obama as the excuse for their current troubles ignores the fact that they've been misbehaving for a long time now.Edit: There have been some comments specifically trying to make the point that liberals are doing the same thing, if not worse. While I'm not averse to pointing out what's wrong on the Democrats' side of the aisle, the question specifically asked about the Republican party. If you haven't figured out that's why my answer is framed the way it is, you either haven't read the question or answer, or are just too rabidly anti-liberal to understand the nuances of what's being asked and said. Please, if you're going to try to make this about liberals, simply ask a question elsewhere, and I might answer it.However, in the sense of fairness, the Democrats are not tearing themselves apart over any particularly unsavory candidate, as most of us like what both Bernie and Hillary are saying, but putting our hopes on one or the other based on who we think can actually get more accomplished.As for Senator Franken's pre-Congressional publications, such as "Lies, And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", well, calling Fox News liars, along with specific politicians isn't exactly saying anything overly provocative, and certainly not shocking. But, when you create liberal targets with gun sights on them (remember Sarah Palin's little graphic?), or title your books with words like "Traitor" or "Demonic", you're trying to say something about your opponent that goes well beyond normal, civil discourse.So, if you're writing comments that completely miss the context of the answer, or are simply the kind of conservative that likes to say things like "well, you guys do it worse, nyah!", then I'll point out your errors. If you continue on, don't mistake my silence for acquiescence, I'm just ignoring you.

Perhaps.On one hand, Stan Hanks, Michael Barnard, and Paul Reiber all explain why the market for self-driving vehicles is still a ways away. It's hard to "lose" a market that doesn't yet exist.However, this isn't just a question about self-driving cars. It's also a question about starting a car company. For that reason, I'd argue Apple is very much up against the wall.First of all, automotive manufacturing is hard. Building iPhones and iPads is one thing - building a vehicle that's expected to be essentially flawless despite potholes, torrential rainstorms, freezing cold and desert heat, and complex engineering challenges is quite another.I'd posit that manufacturing a car is actually much more difficult than manufacturing a smartphone, and that it takes years of effort for an automaker to make vehicles of decent quality and reliability. Tesla, for example, has built a very nice product in the Model S, but they've also had well-documented reliability issues...and they've been building cars since 2007(?) or so.If Apple wants to sell reliable autonomous cars in 2025, they need to manufacturing cars ASAP so they can gain some experience. I'd say they'll need 3-5 years of manufacturing experience (at a minimum) to "learn" enough to build a good quality car. That's far less time than companies like Toyota and Hyundai needed to reach an acceptable quality level, which means this could be very ambitious.Second, engineering and manufacturing takes years to spool up. If Apple decided to built their own car 18 months ago, they're at least 18 months away from having a vehicle that's ready for production. That's because designing, prototyping, and testing a new vehicle platform takes years.Not to mention, even if Apple had a car to show off at the NY Auto Show in 2017, they'd need 12-18 months to get a manufacturing plant up and running. Combine the 2-3 year time to market with the 3-5 years of experience they need to learn to build good cars, and we're looking at 2025 or so before they're ready to build a great car people would want to buy.Third, Apple may have peaked. Call me a hater, but what reason is there to assume Apple's reputation is going to stay where it is? The watch was a flop, and their only consistent source of success is the iPhone, as the market for Macs and iPads is drying up (as it is for all computer hardware companies).While the iPhone is a powerhouse, it seems like a difficult product to build a company around. The phone market moves fast, the public is fickle, and Apple has dodged a number of bullets already (anger over manufacturing conditions, anger over avoiding taxes, anger over privacy and security policies, anger over a terrible maps product, bending issues, etc.).To be clear, I'm not saying Apple is doomed to fail. I'm merely pointing out that Apple seems to be riding about as high as a company can possibly ride. The only way is down. If/when Apple brings a car to market, the public might not want them.Summing UpBuilding cars is hard - it takes time to become good at itDesigning and building a car from scratch takes yearsApple's appeal as an automaker is very much steeped in their success as a computer hardware manufacturer. If something happens to sully their reputation, their entry into the crowded automotive market could be their WaterlooPersonally, I do not understand why Apple would want to bother with building cars. Most automakers lose money about as often as they make it (at least recently), the regulatory environment and incredible liability sucks, and the competition is stiff. Apple would be better off focusing on developing personal devices, like a smartwatch that someone might actually want to wear, VR headsets, "wearable" batteries and devices, etc. etc.But regardless of "why" Apple wants to build cars, they need to get moving. If they don't have something to show the world soon, they're going to be far behind the auto industry when it comes to autonomous vehicles (at least in terms of offering a product that's highly rated and known to be reliable).