Slashdot Mirror


The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

An anonymous reader writes: Last week we learned that self-driving big-rig trucks were finally being deployed on public roads in Nevada for testing purposes. Experts consider trucking to be ripe for replacement with AI because of the sheer volume of trucks on the road, and the relative simplicity of their routes. But the eventual replacement of truck drivers with autonomous driving systems will have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers, and millions more are employed to support and coordinate them. Yet more people rely on truckers to stay in business — gas stations, motels, and restaurants along trucking routes, to name a few.

Now, that's not to say moving forward with autonomous driving is a bad idea — in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important. But we need to start thinking about how to handle the 10 million people looking for work when the (human) trucking industry falls off a cliff. It's likely we'll see another wave of ghost towns spread across the poor parts of the country, as happened when the interstate highway system changed how long-range transportation worked in the U.S.

615 comments

  1. Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As the republicans would say: let the markets sort themselves out.

    Some of those unemployed will just kill themselves (some of these will jump in front of an automated truck and hope the AI is as good as a person in not avoiding them). Others will sabotage the trucks, then go to prison (the social system that the republicans approve of). A bunch might start businesses around those trucks. Another bunch will spill into other low-paying markets, like plumbing, cleaning, babysitting, which are already oversubscribed. Some will go on killing sprees targeted towards the managers and owners of those companies that laid them off. The less aggressive and less suicidal bunch will probably go onto some social program (that is not prison) that the republicans disapprove of on grounds of "socialism".

    tl;dr; Only a small amount will actually go into business for themselves. The rest will flood other markets (which are already overflowing), and the end result will be socialism and/or violence.

    1. Re:Markets, not people by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, God knows we don't need any of that advanced technology crap!

      Next thing you know, they might develop big machines to replace covered wagons and plows. Then where will we be, when all those teamsters and farmers are put out of work?

      And what's with these "computer" things? Everyone knows a computer is a (usually) young woman who calculates (by hand) the numbers required by Real Scientists (tm). Replace them with machines? I say no!

      I say we just destroy all that automation and go back to the tried and true ways we've always known! Ned Ludd Lives!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Markets, not people by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      let the markets sort themselves out.

      No worries, millions can move into the "big rig hijacking" business! A semi-trailer full of something easy to sell on the street, or a tanker full of a chemical useful in making meth, or of gasoline (gasoline smuggling was the mafia's most profitable business for years) - all very valuable targets. Today that theft is kept somewhat in check by the real risk of getting shot in the process, or of wrecking the rig if your try a scene out of a Fast and Furious movie. But an AI truck with safety reflexes on a lonely stretch of road? Well, the markets will sort themselves out.

      As for the legal trade, driving is a crappy job unless you own your truck, and I rather suspect the owner/operators of today will become the owners of tomorrow. Truckstops may go the way of the buggy whip, but I can't see that happening fast - like all infrastructure changes, the capital outlay is so high this will be a 20-50 year transition.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This time around I think the services sector, which is kind of the only thing absorbing overflow, might just be unable to grow further. If anything, it might implode and add to the bulk of socialism/violence, as the truckers who use the services can't do that anymore. Call centres can only call so many people, and they need those people to have some sort of revenue they want to give to the call centre people. But when it gets to "my call centre people call your call centre people" for the purpose of profit generation, it kind of ends up with both call centres firing their people and shutting down.

      Oh, I know, all those truckers could learn PHP and take the jobs of the H1-B Indians :) Code quality-wise, and wage-wise, nobody would be able to tell the difference.

    4. Re:Markets, not people by knightghost · · Score: 2

      The majority of jobs today aren't needed (I.E, Sales). Service will continue to grow as productivity increases.

      Today's problem is uneven trade. The USA median hourly wage has been stagnant for 50 years while Asia's has increased 400% - we gave them our jobs. That needs to be reversed.

    5. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unclear from your post which you feel is worst, socialism or violence. Can't have ordinary people working together for the common good, now can we? But violence is bad, too, because it takes people's minds off consuming stuff. Probably a bit of both, mixed together. We could have people work together towards more violence!

    6. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 0

      As ever, socialists don't understand economics. At least the bi is a libertarian idea, and as a result is less destructive to society than the current welfare system. Fact is, prices reflect the amount of human labor in a product and all of its components. Transportation is probably the largest single component of practically all goods. As a result, you will see prices for such goods start to fall dramatically. We aleady see this in the economy of plemty that is the internet. You pay a nominal fee for access, then almost everything else is free, and those few things that aren't are plenty cheap.

    7. Re:Markets, not people by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the transition will take at most 2 to 5 years once the tech is commercially available, because the cost of a driver is $40k minimum per year. If you can outfit a truck with an auto-driver for $40k it starts to pay off really quickly.

      It also lets you operate the trucks 24 hours per day (minus maintenance and refueling).

    8. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I rather suspect the owner/operators of today will become the owners of tomorrow.

      Wishful thinking. Someone owning a thousand self-driving trucks can offer lower prices and more reliable service than someone with one or two trucks. All those millions of truck drivers will join the ever-growing ranks of the permanently unemployed, while a few dozen lucky souls will become rich. Strict capitalism doesn't work when there are fewer jobs than people.

    9. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how much it costs if it isn't free and there's no money to buy it with. That human labour in prices brings the money to buy the products with. If it's $15/month but I have 0$, it doesn't matter that it used to cost $10/(gallon|mile|square foot) when people worked there. If I used to afford the $10/unit but my job vaporised, all I can do is beg or die - which, let's face it, aren't excluded from the "market will take care of itself" list of processes.

      Apparently this doomsday scenario won't happen just yet, but this time the corder it hides behind is closer than when wooden shoes were all the rage.

    10. Re:Markets, not people by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      Next thing you know, they might develop big machines to replace covered wagons and plows. Then where will we be, when all those teamsters and farmers are put out of work?

      It actually is pretty tough to make a living as a small farmer these days.

      A functioning society requires jobs that pay a livable wage to people who, for whatever reason, aren't cut out for collage. These are the jobs that are rapidly vanishing, due to automation.

      The industrial revolution brought high atmospheric CO2 levels, the likes of which haven't been seen on this planet in over 20 million years. There's no avoiding it, "progress" always comes at a cost.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    11. Re: Markets, not people by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      It's unclear from your post which you feel is worst, socialism or violence. Can't have ordinary people working together for the common good, now can we?

      They are not mutually exclusive, and in most cases Socialism and violence go hand-in-hand. Socialism has never worked except in relatively small, homogenous cultures. In larger and more diverse cultures Socialism has always devolved into some form of communism or fascism with corruption, violence, and death aplenty, typically with extreme poverty for all but the 'connected' and powerful.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re: Markets, not people by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand economics. Prices are whatever the market can bear. If the costs can be lowered, it does not mean that the prices go down because they are already at whatever the market can bear. Prices will stay the same, corporate profits will raise.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    13. Re: Markets, not people by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Goodness.

      So that stuff that goes on as part of everyday politics in northern Europe, eg London, is "communism or fascism with corruption, violence, and death aplenty" is it?

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    14. Re:Markets, not people by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      It would have to be big rig hacking or physical cracking, not hijacking.

      You can't exactly hold a gun to the driver's head and kick him out of the driver's seat if it's AI- (or even remote-)driven.

      It would probably be very easy to get the trucks to stop, simply by creating an obstacle. Even then, for a hijacking, you need to gain access to the cabin (if there even is one), override (or prevent) the 'exception: vehicle stopped due to obstacle'-alarm from being sent, prevent all communication of position of the truck, make sure you and your material are unrecognizable for the shitload of live feed cameras on the thing and then perform some control override to get it to actually start moving towards wherever you're planning on stashing it.

      Hell, for a successful hijack, it'd be far easier to just hack into the network of the transporter or do some 'social engineering' on an insider and direct the truck to wherever. Obviously not a job for ex-truckers.

      Of course, the far easier alternative is just to get the trucks to stop in a fairly quiet place (traffic wise), break them open and transfer the contents to another truck. It would still have to happen fast and visually anonymously, of course.

    15. Re:Markets, not people by pellik · · Score: 1

      $40k to outfit a truck for self driving would be really cheap. The safety requirements for a computer really handle a vehicle like that will probably require a much greater investment. Drivers need to be able to do things like hear breaks screeching, feel the thump when they lose a retread from their tire, feel a flat tire pulling them, etc. To do away with the driver sensors need to be integrated into almost every point of failure. This would suggest that a retrofit is far less likely then simply building new trucks, which I'd guess to be more in the range of $400k.

      I'm guessing we'll see self driving trucks phase out human drivers gradually by replacing trucks which are due to be replaced anyway. Even if self driving trucks save you the cost of a salary it's still profitable to drive your existing trucks into the ground with human drivers.

    16. Re:Markets, not people by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, we can kick that can a lot farther down the road than you may suspect. When self driving trucks first become a reality, they are going to be used as 'autopilot' where they do the over-the-highway driving, and human drivers do the 'last mile' because the last mile can be a tricky bastard for a human, let alone a computer. Many deliveries take place where the truck must jack knife the truck in the middle of a street, back into an ally and around a corner in reverse, and center up on a loading dock, or some variant thereof. As the initial action (blocking all lanes of traffic) requires something that by most standards would be a traffic violation, it becomes extremely hard to program a computer to make the final approach to the dock, while still following all its 'road safety' rules. It could be decades before we get our software/AI advanced enough for that, and until then, self driving trucks are going to require skilled drivers in the seat, waiting their turn.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    17. Re:Markets, not people by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *pfft* And you're telling me the Democrats give a flying fuck about your jobs either? Who is pushing the H1-B visas so fucking hard? Oh that's right, Democrats.

      The politicians are shitty but a lot of the reason they're so shitty is because of tribalistic asshats like you that slavishly associate with a faction. This permits which ever faction you associate with to get away with ANYTHING and you'll forgive them. And the opposing faction could be fucking Jesus Christ walking around giving sight to the blind and you'd still hate them.

      You're a fucking cancer on the political system.

      Do not vote political parties. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are actually on the ballots. It is just people. PEOPLE. Individuals. Vote for them. Fuck parties. Just look at the people. Evaluate them on a personal level.

      That's as good as you'll be able to do in this political system. But really you're not helping anyone by saying "oh its all this political party's fault"...

      What if the republicans didn't exist at all? And lets say we a choice between the democrats and some other leftish party. I don't know... the Greens or something. Who wants to bet that someone would be saying in no time "If only the greens weren't there everything would be better".

      Its bullshit. This is the sort of crap dictators tell their starving people to explain why their country is shitty. They say "it is because of those evil foreigners!"...

      Look at Baltimore, chump. You know the city that recently rioted. Riddle me this, when was the last time that city was run by Republicans? Exactly. The whole country could be run lock stock and barrel by the democrats and most of the shit you're upset about would either not change or might even get worse.

      You're mad about markets and capitalism? Tough shit. Not even the Soviets could kill capitalism INSIDE the soviet union during the cold war. The market is forever. You can't kill it. It is a dynamic inevitability, No stable society can exist that does not account for the market in a substantive way.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    18. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a limited planet growth cannot last forever.
      Money growth means money has less value.
      More people means less for the individual.
      If one wins other loses.
        In the end it all stays the same.

    19. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, they'll just have their union kill any attempt every time.

    20. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell a 250 million dollar opening weekend.

    21. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drivers need to be able to do things like hear breaks screeching, feel the thump when they lose a retread from their tire, feel a flat tire pulling them, etc. To do away with the driver sensors need to be integrated into almost every point of failure.

      I'd be very surprised if sensors that can do all of the above better than a driver would cost much more than air pressure sensors already present. Heck, just monitoring tire pressure is enough to detect most of those and that's already done. Brake temperature and angular velocity of each wheel should be enough to detect problems much better than a human driver.

    22. Re:Markets, not people by Shoten · · Score: 2

      let the markets sort themselves out.

      No worries, millions can move into the "big rig hijacking" business! A semi-trailer full of something easy to sell on the street, or a tanker full of a chemical useful in making meth, or of gasoline (gasoline smuggling was the mafia's most profitable business for years) - all very valuable targets. Today that theft is kept somewhat in check by the real risk of getting shot in the process, or of wrecking the rig if your try a scene out of a Fast and Furious movie. But an AI truck with safety reflexes on a lonely stretch of road? Well, the markets will sort themselves out.

      As for the legal trade, driving is a crappy job unless you own your truck, and I rather suspect the owner/operators of today will become the owners of tomorrow. Truckstops may go the way of the buggy whip, but I can't see that happening fast - like all infrastructure changes, the capital outlay is so high this will be a 20-50 year transition.

      How are these not targets already? To me, it seems like it'd be a lot simpler to hijack a truck driven by a human who can accept alternate programmed instructions (also known as "threats," in this context) given in natural human language, than a computer-driven truck. You can't just mess with GPS to hijack a truck; telling a truck that he's not where he thinks he is won't work as well as some people might think, and there's the dual-threat of counter-spoofing technologies (easy to build in if you want to..and if GPS spoofing gets used for hijacking they'll want to) and GPS-interference monitoring (which is happening today as we speak). And even then, the "getting shot in the process" risk runs both ways...at least with theft of an automated truck you don't have the safety of the driver to worry about.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    23. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't cut out for collage? Just wonderful!

    24. Re:Markets, not people by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you describe sounds analogous to harbour-pilots that are used to navigate big ships in and out of port. They belong with the port, not the ship.

      You could imagine that long distance truck journeys could happen without any driver on board, then they pick up a driver just on the edge of a city to take them to their final delivery.

    25. Re:Markets, not people by udippel · · Score: 1

      I wish you were right, but you are not.
      The problem that you describe is known in quite another field as 'last mile'. The trucks will be driven by AI, solely by AI, and the human driver will come on board for that fictitious 'last mile'. Like the pilots that enter a ship to steer it through difficult waters. So may take some hundred thousands off the list of fully unemployed, and count them as employed for hourly work on demand.
      The difference between the OP and your assumption will be minor, effectively. Consider driving a loaded truck off the warehouse as 'easy', and the need for a human driver is still reduced to one last mile before the destination.

       

    26. Re: Markets, not people by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth. Monopolistic abuses, and anti-competitive actions were the norm. How many times do we need to try it before it works the way the neo-liberals (the non-US term for the us term "conservative") say it will?

    27. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reversing into loading docks and stuff like that is almost comically easy for a computer. I'd actually think one of the first bits where we let automation go to town is within the yards of warehouses. Firstly its not public road so may not be subject to the usual regulations. Secondly a couple of automated tractors would be fantastic to integrate into an automated warehouse, doing essentially all yard moves. That really could happen right now.

    28. Re: Markets, not people by John_Sauter · · Score: 2

      Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand economics. Prices are whatever the market can bear. If the costs can be lowered, it does not mean that the prices go down because they are already at whatever the market can bear. Prices will stay the same, corporate profits will raise.

      You have over-simplified the economic situation. When costs fall, if there are enough sellers, one of them will reduce his profit margin to try to gain market share. The others must follow, until prices reach a new equilibrium. An example of this is the computer industry. Prices for a unit of computing capability have been falling steadily for 60 years.

    29. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goodness.

      So that stuff that goes on as part of everyday politics in northern Europe, eg London, is "communism or fascism with corruption, violence, and death aplenty" is it?

      Ask the NHS patient who had to resort to drinking the water from a potted plant to survive while in hospital.

    30. Re:Markets, not people by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You missed the Wii revolution. Everyone said the Wii controller couldn't work. Too expensive to have so many accurate sensors in a small, cheap device. Then, when "proven" wrong, people realized sensors are cheap and accurate. Back in the '90s, wireless tire pressure sensors were in the cars with run-flats (because they could "go flat" without a driver noticing). And sensors are 1/10th the size and 1/100th the cost now. We could have a sensor per tire to sense all the things you mention. Sound is a vibration, as is the thud from a retred re-separating.

      When a human hears/feels detonation, they can back off the throttle to protect the engine. When a computer does it, it does it faster, better, and more reliably than a human. The new driverless cars will be the same. They will be better in every way.

      Like ABS. The first 3-channel ABS systems were easily beat by a human in split mu situations. The best 4-channel systems were tough to beat, but were repeatedly beatable by a human. But today's systems are much better. The best ABS can't be beat by a human anymore. The first ABS was aimed to beat the average person, and did so by a wide margin. They just underestimated the gap between the average human and the good ones. That's better understood now, and won't be a problem, unless they go all "tech-startup" and think they should only hire under-25s.

    31. Re:Markets, not people by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You are talking about the second or third generation of driverless vehicles. The first generation will just be cheaper. (The ones on the road now are a part of the zeroth generation, i.e., before any major adoption.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    32. Re:Markets, not people by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      The majority of jobs today aren't needed (I.E, Sales).

      You're dead wrong. You know a job is needed when somebody is willing to pay you to do it. When I was doing my PC repair business in college, I would love to have had a sales person who could track down leads and find me customers. It would have made my work much more profitable, because people are looking for that all the time, however I don't have the skills to find them. Salespeople do.

    33. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      So there is literally nothing you can do other than what you are doing right now to make even a little bit of money? Are you some kind of brain in a bottle or something?

    34. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No, they are what the market can bear when there is little competition. And if everyone is unemployed, then the market won't bear much anyways.

      Out of curiosity, how much are you paying to post on Slashdot? What will the market bear here?

    35. Re:Markets, not people by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      If we put these doomsayers back about 40 years, they'd say the sky is falling for the telecom industry when switchboard operators were being replaced with automated circuit switching systems.

      Some of medium.com's articles are really good, especially the ones about physics. But some of them (like this one) are either based on hearsay or make some really dumb assumptions.

      Take for example the map they show that indicates that most of the states have trucking as their top income sector. If we rolled back the clock about 150 years, that entire map would show farming. 90% of the US population were farmers at that time. However as the industrial revolution progressed, those people moved away from farming and towards other sectors.

      Right now what we're seeing is basically another industrial revolution, which began somewhere around 1995, something I myself want to refer to as the information revolution. Information technology (IT) is advancing at such a high rate that its encroaching into other sectors that previously had nothing to do with computers.

      Where medium (and these other doomsayers) are going wrong is they just assume that overnight suddenly 10 million people will be out of a job. That isn't at all accurate. The trucking industry will probably continue to grow for about 5 more years, and after that it will see a slow but steady decline until it has very few members remaining, and those few members will retain their jobs. There will probably be far fewer people driving trucks, but more people managing them (be that route planning, load planning, maintenance, etc) because the number of trucks on the road is likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future.

      This has all happened before, and it will all happen again. Meanwhile Luddites will continue to be Luddites.

    36. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except ai trucks could have much more complex steering. Every wheel could have steering as a computer would have the ability to control that many wheels. A humAn can only steer one set.

    37. Re: Markets, not people by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it is basically one of the very few examples where prices actually went down over time. The other example would be air fares but I can't really think of anything else that actually became cheaper.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    38. Re:Markets, not people by lgw · · Score: 1

      think the transition will take at most 2 to 5 years

      That's because you're applying internet logic to real-world infrastructure. Logistics is everything. (Plus, there aren't any real self-driving cars yet - you still need a driver in the seat and will for many years to come.)

      Think about over-the-road trucking- remember that owner-operators are a big slice of OTR hauling, and there's little incentive at first to spend even $40k for an auto-driver. Who's going to refuel the truck? Who's going to answer questions about the manifest at a weigh station? Who's going to know how to deal with the cop who pulls you over for a "safety violation", and know whether cops here are honest or this is a shakedown? Who's going to oversee the loading and unloading of cargo, and sign off on any damages?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re: Markets, not people by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      Past performance is not indicative of future results.

    40. Re:Markets, not people by lgw · · Score: 1

      How are these not targets already?

      They are, of course. Which is why drivers tend to be armed anywhere that's legal, and don't like to stop anywhere they won't be surrounded by other trucks and truckers. It's not exactly easy to rob one until it stops, movie plots aside (though I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened once or twice in history, especially with moonshiner trucks).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    41. Re:Markets, not people by lgw · · Score: 1

      People seem to be missing the fact that the main way you make money in hauling is by owning the expensive truck, while driving it is secondary. It's a capital-intensive business with steep costs, both upfront and ongoing.

      I would bet this will play out more like airliner autopilots - the driver will still be in the cab for my lifetime, even though he's not usually needed, simply because there's enough other stuff that you need a human to do.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    42. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's as good as you'll be able to do in this political system.

      You're on the edge of a better solution here. Changing the system is the key. SMD,WTA,FPTP, they are part of a broken and flawed mechanism.

    43. Re:Markets, not people by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No worries, millions can move into the "big rig hijacking" business! A semi-trailer full of something easy to sell on the street, or a tanker full of a chemical useful in making meth, or of gasoline (gasoline smuggling was the mafia's most profitable business for years) - all very valuable targets. Today that theft is kept somewhat in check by the real risk of getting shot in the process, or of wrecking the rig if your try a scene out of a Fast and Furious movie. But an AI truck with safety reflexes on a lonely stretch of road? Well, the markets will sort themselves out.

      Uh, good luck with that.

      Sure, you surround the rig with cars and hit the brakes, it will stop to avoid hitting you. Now you have a big truck stopped on the road. The truck has of course already phoned home to tell everybody what is going on, and if you manage to jam communications that will probably only draw more attention. Your faces are being streamed live to whoever owns the truck.

      Since the company that runs the truck probably owns 50,000 of them, they probably have a full time person or two designed just to handle these kinds of situations. They'll have the local police/etc on the phone and if you really did do this on a "lonely stretch of road" they'll be busy setting up roadblocks miles ahead/behind you while you're standing there figuring out how to get all the stuff off the truck. There will of course not be any way to manually drive the truck. Why would you waste money on a cab for a truck that drives itself?

    44. Re:Markets, not people by lgw · · Score: 2

      You're not trying to steal the truck, you're trying to steal the cargo. You either hook up and haul the trailer off, or just unload what you can and scatter. If it's in a county where the sheriff is the brother of the guy doing the robbery, and the nephew of the guy in charge of the local organized crime, well, the police will get there just in time to not quite catch anyone.

      Why would you waste money on a cab for a truck that drives itself?

      Why do airliners still have pilots?

      Most likely, the driver will still be in the cab for the next 20 years, with fewer husband-wife driver pairs, and more owner-robot driver pairs.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re:Markets, not people by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know, they might develop big machines to replace covered wagons and plows. Then where will we be, when all those teamsters and farmers are put out of work?

      Don't forgot saddle, harness, and whip makers! Then there are horse breeders, feed sellers, horse traders, farriers, blacksmiths, livery stables, and even the horse thieves that would feel the impact.
      I wonder what percentage of the pre automotive economy had to find new ways to earn an income as "horseless carriages" took over the landscape...
      Do you think they had a saying back then? Maybe a tag line something like:
      If you've got it, a horse brought it!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    46. Re: Markets, not people by Kohath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Other things that are cheaper: food, fuel, clothing, entertainment. If you measure the price by "how many hours would the average person have to work to buy it", then almost everything is cheaper.

    47. Re: Markets, not people by murpup · · Score: 1

      The price of gas operates this way. For a given locality, if there is no other gas station around, the prices tend to be 5-10 cents higher per gallon than areas that have lots of gas stations nearby. In the areas with high competition, the profit margins tend to be razor thin and prices tend to fluctuate in accordance with the underlying cost of oil. If the price of oil drops, the price of gas drops because once one station lowers their price, all the others in the same area have to as well or risk losing their customers.

      I think the price of music has also dropped for the most part as the technology has changed from CD's to mp3's. Before iTunes distribution took over, it used to be that you couldn't go to Sam Goody or FYE or Tower Records and purchase a new release of a popular band on CD for less than about $16, and less relevant bands or older releases from the popular bands for about $12. Now I can get all the songs on a current album from iTunes for about $10-12, and older releases for popular bands in the range of $7-10. Some are admittedly more than that because the album price is now determined on a per song basis, but from my perspective, I am spending less overall than I was before. (and arguably receiving less, mind you, so this is not a perfect example).

      Ultimately, it just depends on how cut throat the competition is and what the barriers to entry are in that particular market. More competition will drive prices down if the current margins can be squeezed while still turning an acceptable profit.

    48. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's glad he's not in one of Rick Scott's private hospitals.

    49. Re: Markets, not people by localman · · Score: 1

      Do you base all your understanding of the world off of anomalous events that give no indication of what to normally expect?

    50. Re:Markets, not people by blue9steel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.

      When the resource sector automated everyone moved to manufacturing, when manufacturing automated everyone moved to service, now that service is automating where exactly do you expect them to go?

    51. Re: Markets, not people by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      Perhaps 14cents an hour destroyed our jobs. Lack of regulation such as tariffs and protective laws. Please don't say over regulation broke anything. 14cents an hour and 0 care about cancer and environment in communist countries. Take your pick. I'd preffer LACK of regulations, all these changes were put in place for the benefit of a very few. Walton inheritors have the same wealth as 42% of America i'm told.

    52. Re:Markets, not people by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Maybe bored drivers could log in via the internet and supervise other auto-drive rigs while they're passengers in their own truck.

    53. Re:Markets, not people by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If we put these doomsayers back about 40 years,

      Because although the march of progress does eliminate jobs, it doesn't decrease the quality of life, necessarily.

      I'm pretty much expecting most jobs to be eliminated in the next 100 years, and consider there to be two groups of Luddites. Group one is the traditional stop progress group. Second is the group that thinks new jobs are always created to replace old ones lost.

      I believe that we are approaching the time when working is completely optional.

      We are already seeing the beginnings of this today. There are many places in the US, where local industry has closed down for one reason or another. There are people who used to work at industries in those towns who will never ever work again. They are out of options. There is no point in retraining them, in their 50's, they will be near retirement when their training is completed, and packing up and moving to another town is pointless, as whatever skill they have doesn't prepare them for present day work, and they are still older than anyone wants to hire, and what sense dose it make to uproot yourself across th country, to apply for a job at McDonalds, along with 500 other older people. It then becomes a choice of where you want to starve to death at.

      Now obviously, they end up on SSI disability, or the like, because you can't have massive starvation going on - its kind of messy you know, and starving people tend ot revolt.

      But that scenario is going to continue, and work its way up the food chain.

      Lest you think that I'm being pessemistic, I actually think this is chance for humans to enter the next phase of civilization, not unlike when we started to settle down and become agrarian. That, if you remember was a time of upheaval that gave rise to people being alloed to do more than just survive. When a surplus of food was available, people didn't all have to be scroungeing for themselves.

      This might be the beginning of th enew upheaval, and that will be a good thing. Imagine doing what you want in life. And if that's work? Fine, then work. If that's fishing? have at it.

      It takes a leap of imagination that some might not have, but it's gonna happen.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    54. Re: Markets, not people by gnupun · · Score: 1

      When costs fall, if there are enough sellers, one of them will reduce his profit margin to try to gain market share.

      I don't agree with this at all. Businesses want maximum profit and there are plenty of examples: Amazon has been around for a couple of decades and during that period, prices of books have been the same as that before internet bookstores. Amazon does not have to rent/buy expensive retail stores to sell their books, instead it buys cheap land in the middle of nowhere. It does not have to pay salesman's salary because its website plays the part of the (automated) salesman. It does incur cost to ship the book from a remote warehouse to the customer, but usually the customer pays for the shipping.

      So when exactly are consumers going to see a drop in book prices after the money Amazon saved in selling books cheaply?

      Another example is cars. They are supposed to be cheaper now because of the use of computers/CAD to design cars and robots to assemble them. But car prices are still rising with inflation. TLDR; selling prices usually have little relationship to production cost.

      Prices for a unit of computing capability have been falling steadily for 60 years.

      Only because computing power grows every year due to Moore's law. Once that stops, don't expect cheap computers.

    55. Re: Markets, not people by clovis · · Score: 1

      In larger and more diverse cultures Socialism has always devolved into some form of communism or fascism with corruption, violence, and death aplenty, typically with extreme poverty for all but the 'connected' and powerful.

      That sounds good, but I'm drawing a blank when trying to think of a socialist society that devolved into communism.
      I'm also having a hard time recalling the names of any socialist societies that devolved into fascism.

      Can you give us some examples of socialist societies that so devolved?

    56. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, at my work we have the hardware and equipment to automate our camera movements, but we don't. We have a VT operator when it is all tied into our automatically VT-rolling switching desk. Sound levels are about the only thing we don't have automation for...

    57. Re:Markets, not people by geoskd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A functioning society requires jobs that pay a livable wage

      No, Capitalism requires that. There is nothing fundamental to society that requires capitalism.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    58. Re:Markets, not people by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Because although the march of progress does eliminate jobs, it doesn't decrease the quality of life, necessarily. ...

      Lest you think that I'm being pessemistic, I actually think this is chance for humans to enter the next phase of civilization, not unlike when we started to settle down and become agrarian.

      Exactly. The only way it will be possible to run out of jobs is if there truly was nothing left for anybody to do. If that day ever came, (will it? who knows) then we'd be living in the universe imagined by Gene Roddenberry where there's no more need for money.

    59. Re: Markets, not people by geoskd · · Score: 1

      You have over-simplified the economic situation. When costs fall, if there are enough sellers, one of them will reduce his profit margin to try to gain market share. The others must follow, until prices reach a new equilibrium. An example of this is the computer industry. Prices for a unit of computing capability have been falling steadily for 60 years.

      That only happens if one of the players in a given industry does not understand economics. No company with even remotely competent leadership is going to lower their prices unless very specific criteria are met:

      1: A competitor lowers their prices, and the company still has enough margin to lower their prices to match. This is a reaction to stimulus, and not a first strike move. This reaction will be automatic, and all competitors know it.

      2: The company can cut their prices within their margin, but know that their competitors can't match the price. This is an anticompetitive move, and is designed to drive competitors out of business. This requires insider information about the state of competitors that can only be obtained illegally, and as a consequence is typically prohibited by law.

      3: The company cuts their prices to below their cost as an attempt to drive their competitors out of business, relying on saved up money to hold them through until their competitors are destroyed. This is also anticompetitive and prohibited by law.

      No company will ever willingly lower their prices except under conditions 2 or 3. The reason for this is condition 1. They know if they cut their prices, the competition will do so also. They will likely not be able to gain significant market share, but they will loose money by lowering their margins. Established players don't lower prices unless they think they can get away with driving competitors out of business. The only players that effectively reduce prices are new companies in a given market. Usually a start-up leveraging new technologies will cause a drop in prices due to a more efficient manufacturing process, but if an existing company comes up with a new way to make a product cheaper, they will simply pocket the higher margin.

      There is no need for price fixing, It requires only enlightened self interest, and leaders at that level really are enlightened enough to know how they need to behave for everyone to keep bringing home the high margins. The single dumbest thing any executive anywhere can do is get into a price war. That's why you really don't see it happen anywhere.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    60. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be decades before we get our software/AI advanced enough for that.

      Doesn't need to be particularly advanced, just geographically localized with GPS and programmed beforehand. The special truck movements are just another subroutine. Plus loading bays will be reconfigured to suit. Possibly with their own sensors.

    61. Re:Markets, not people by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You're not trying to steal the truck, you're trying to steal the cargo. You either hook up and haul the trailer off, or just unload what you can and scatter. If it's in a county where the sheriff is the brother of the guy doing the robbery, and the nephew of the guy in charge of the local organized crime, well, the police will get there just in time to not quite catch anyone.

      I just don't see that working in the modern world. Stick a GPS on the trailer, and now you can't just run off with it without getting caught.

      Either hijacking is so rare as to not really be a problem, or it is enough to cause a dent in earnings. If the latter happens, somebody will talk to the appropriate guy in power and it will get dealt with. If the local cops are in on it, they'll get caught in a sting of some kind.

      Why would you waste money on a cab for a truck that drives itself?

      Why do airliners still have pilots?

      Most likely, the driver will still be in the cab for the next 20 years, with fewer husband-wife driver pairs, and more owner-robot driver pairs.

      Well, if there is a driver in the cab it will be the libertarian paradise you dream of and they'll just outgun the hijackers.

      There is a reason that bank robberies and such don't happen they way they used to. With the interconnectedness of today's world, it is just too hard to manage an illicit supply chain.

    62. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let Johnny cab drive it

    63. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 2

      "Amazon has been around for a couple of decades and during that period, prices of books have been the same as that before internet bookstores."

      Stop lying. I can get books that used to cost $20-30 for $5-15 on Amazon, brand new.

      And real prices for cars have fallen dramatically--it's just that our real wages have also fallen dramatically, because we have redistributed purchasing power away from capital and to asset prices, which has killed the funding pool for jobs. Get rid of the Fed, and nominal prices will start falling and real prices will plummet.

      Moore's law exists because there is reletively little regulation in computer space. If the government got involved, regulation would quickly be subverted to prevent increases in efficiency, allowing those who subverted the process to cut R&D funding and give that money to the CEO's. The free market is like Moore's Law, only for EVERYTHING. When we had a free market, so-called monopolies like Standard Oil increased the quality of kerosene dramatically even while cutting both the real and nominal prices by 90%.

    64. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth"

      No, it didn't. In fact, the economic growth seen under such policies was extreme. So extreme, that it had never been seen before, and has only been duplicated in less free countries due to access to existing capital bases.

      You cite "monopolies" and I suspect that you refer to the Standard Oil monopoly (where SO gained 90% of the market share in the kerosene market). What you fail to understand is that under SO's monopoly, the price of kerosene fell by 90% while the quality improved enough to allow it to be used as the source of motive power for machinery, rather than just being used for heat and light. "Anti-competative" is fine, when your competitors produce a crappy product at a high price. SO bought them out, and upgraded their facilities, often hiring the former workers back AT HIGHER WAGES. They were able to do this because they could increase their productivity with their superior knowledge and vertical integration. Further, that same monopoly CREATED the very concept of research and development, something the government has sadly co-opted and has thus ruined.

      But those facts hurt your feelings, so I guess you can just ignore them. But you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring them.

    65. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Not at all. American workers were hundreds of times more effective than those 14 cent an hour workers. What happened is that hidden costs in the form of ever increasing regulatory compliance costs crept in until op0erations simply became unsustainable. "American made" did and still does mean "quality", but it is now at such a price that no-one will pay it. Instead, they buy Chinese crap, that is steadily increasing in quality, as they are building up a strong capital base (and paying their workers more and more as a result). It's still far behind where we were at our height, and we could recapture our crown as the kings of world manufacturing, if we would but return to the regulatory regime that we had in the years leading up to that golden age.

      Being jealous of rich people isn't going to make you any richer, either, you fucking looter.

    66. Re:Markets, not people by spikesahead · · Score: 1

      I kind of think we're going to see a lifestyle emerge of people having no residence other than their truck cab. Think about it; get to hang out in a car all day every day, stop whenever you want anywhere you can find cargo to run, and more or less screw around or work a programming job. Someone stops a rig like that to rob it they're going to get an ass full of buckshot from someone who doesn't have to worry about keeping on the road.

      You know, it'll all be on camera, any hijacking attempt would be immediately filmed and broadcast to the police, even in an unmanned vehicle. A single guard could cover a whole convoy of automatics, but frankly I think the whole hijacking thing is probably going to happen as much as high-stakes train robberies happen these days.

    67. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious. Wonder if he gets it?

    68. Re: Markets, not people by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Huh? My friend who works/owns a sawmill that the workers bought produces something and that is as socialist as you can get, with the workers owning the means of production. Then there is the credit union that I own a share of which produces the same kind of stuff that private banks do. Also the co-op that I also own a share of which produces much the same stuff as any other store.
      Even when the government is involved, the community owned damns do a good job of producing the electricity that enables posting this.
      Meanwhile the capitalists keep saving up their capital or gamble it on the stock market. If capital and lack of regulation created jobs the unemployment rate here would be dropping instead of increasing as my government has been hell bent on deregulating and the rich have been getting richer very fast.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    69. Re:Markets, not people by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Sadly too often it ends up with the sales person getting most all the profits as you're just a technician.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    70. Re: Markets, not people by Bruha · · Score: 1

      Standard oil also bought up every trolley system in the U.S. and had them burned and put out of business. Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition. It was never the church that banned alcohol, it was a monopolist.

      We have two paths before us. We can use robots to turn the earth into a cruise ship or we can let capitalists use robots to keep us in concentration camps once were no longer needed.

    71. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of medium.com's articles are really good, especially the ones about physics.

      Ah, no. FartsWithABang is the worst of Medium.com

    72. Re: Markets, not people by wheeda · · Score: 1

      US wages have been stagnant while the rest of the world catches up. The U.S. will likely maintain a wage premium due to worker productivity and IP enforcement, but regulation and taxes will eventually put downward pressure on US wages relative to the rest of the world.

      Please quote useful statistics. What is Asia's median wage / US median wage now vs in the past. An imbalance is being fixed by market forces. Get used to it.

    73. Re: Markets, not people by wheeda · · Score: 1

      Some people will still show up for work because it is interesting, or because they like eating above average food. Ultimately, there will still need to be some highly skilled, and paid, workers to keep the automated society running.

      I believe we wil transition from 40 hour work weeks gradually to work optional, but here is the below average housing, food, and clothes that you get. Want better stuff? Get a job looking pretty or something like figuring out how to use limited resources more efficiently.

    74. Re: Markets, not people by wheeda · · Score: 1

      The rule of thumb I've seen in business is if you can replace a worker for $100k, it is worth it.

      As an aside, I would pay an extra $50k for a car that would drive itself.

    75. Re: Markets, not people by wheeda · · Score: 1

      Those people should buy stock. Problem solved...

    76. Re: Markets, not people by wheeda · · Score: 1

      You've never seen a talented person with a etch-e-scetch.

    77. Re: Markets, not people by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      Your argument is very rational, and almost persuades me. I say "almost" because computer prices have been coming down steadily for 60 years, even though none of your three criteria apply. I think the problem with your argument is that you assume all the established players in a market are rational. In fact, some are greedy and short-sighted. They will reduce their margin to gain market share, and not care that their competitors will eventually (next quarter) match their price reduction.

    78. Re:Markets, not people by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      In 1980 I was working for a computer manufacture. I was selling hard drives for a thousand dollars a megabyte. Those hard drives are worthless today, even if they worked. I think that even hard drives of today will be worthless for the average person since we will replace them with ssd and the cloud. The point is what people value today will become trash in just a short time even if they still work perfectly. Self driving automobiles will make ownership of automobile outdated. Robots will probably build houses underground. The houses will be cheap to make and will last through even the most severe weather since they will be underground. I see people living in mostly free housing and transportation. The problems will not be poverty but will be that a lot of people will not know what to do most of their time. People with a lot of spare time usually just get in trouble.

    79. Re: Markets, not people by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Exactly.. except the top end has laws to allow them to sell products in asia for 10 cents and here for five dollars and it's illegal to simply buy the product for 10 cents and ship it back here.

      So it's more than just wages evening out-- it's like a leech actively pumping blood out of the wealthier economies into the pockets of under 1% of the population.

      And at the same time, automation is replacing workers even in low wage countries at an increasing pace.

      And at the same time, boomers can't retire and free up jobs because of depressed wages so it's really hard for the 30 year olds to get started.

      In 30 years it won't be worth hiring chinese... in 40 years, it won't be worth hiring indians.

      But before that- perhaps as soon as 2035, you'll see lots of jobs eliminated by automation. and the automation does higher quality work, for more hours, without benefits- without paying retirement taxes, and at a lower cost to begin with (even ignoring other factors).

      Meanwhile the people at the top are doing everything they can to keep inflation going when everything is screaming deflation.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    80. Re: Markets, not people by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition. It was never the church that banned alcohol, it was a monopolist.

      Really?

      Is that why Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 and Prohibition started in 1920?

      Try again...

    81. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth."
      Dumbest, most ill-informed comment of the century goes to...

    82. Re:Markets, not people by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      There's currently no system to handle distribution in such an economy. It doesn't matter if there are resources a-plenty if many people can't access them. Robot farms may be able to make food at almost no cost, but there's still a cost - and if most of the population is unemployed, they can't pay even that.

    83. Re:Markets, not people by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The lack of an alternative. Socialism works for some niches quite well, but all attempts at a fully socialist economy so far have ended in disaster. A free market system with a reasonable amount of regulation, for all its flaws, works.

    84. Re: Markets, not people by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      "American made" did mean quality, right up until Japanese cars and electronics redefined the term.

    85. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What idiot thoughts. No capitalism? Look around you. Everything you see is there because somebody was in the business of making it. Many parts are in your computer \ phone? Each part made by a company interested in staying in business...oh they "C" word! Capitalism is what you can thank at night when you go to sleep with the pillow that was made by a company that *OH NO* made....money....

      Retarded people - go build yourself a tribal drum from the forest using your bare hands (No tools - they might have been made by a capitalist). When you are done - go beat it. Just like they did 5,000 years ago when there were no capitalist.

    86. Re:Markets, not people by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      There is a reason that bank robberies and such don't happen they way they used to. With the interconnectedness of today's world, it is just too hard to manage an illicit supply chain.

      Yeah that explains why there's no more drugs anymore yeah?
      Bank robberies don't happen as much because bank security is a lot tighter, and available cash is a lot less. There are more cameras, alarms, armed guards, protective screens, ink packs etc and less money in unsecured drawers so the risk for reward is much, much lower. Banks also tend to be in populated areas with other humans, witnesses and security. A unsecured, unmanned cargo in the middle of a rural freeway on the other hand, is an easy target.

    87. Re:Markets, not people by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      You brushed on an interest fact which I haven't seen in the robot vehicle discussions. Surely a ship is a lot easier to robotify than a truck? Why isn't anyone talking robot ships? For security reasons, I can't see how trucks can secure their cargo without a human on-board (whether it be driver/safety observer, or security guard)

    88. Re:Markets, not people by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Smash those looms!

    89. Re: Markets, not people by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I've seen this nonsense crop up more often lately. Yes, the price is whatever the market will bear. But assuming the government keeps a lid on cartel behavior the price the market ends up bearing will be lower as costs are reduced. If you don't think that will happen you should invest all your savings in trucking companies as soon as automated trucks clear the last regulatory hurdles.

    90. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect his definition of liveable includes several cars, a big screen TV in every room, fancy dinners out several times a week plus other entertainment, free weekend of fun times, several holidays a year and safety nets in case he should screw any of that up..

      Therein lies the problem.
      That won't compete with counties where liveable involves feeding your family (who also work) and not freezing in winter.

      The only solution is to damn well accept that liveable in the end will be some where in between.. And that the american dream was created on the backs of the poor.. At one hell of a cost.

    91. Re:Markets, not people by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      If your society does not provide jobs that pay a living wage, you get revolution. The Arab Spring comes into mind as a recent example.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    92. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that happened via the same process I mentioned. Japan was just further along the curve. Sadly, they then fell into the Keynesian trap, and are now destroying their capital base in the name of false growth.

    93. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My friend who works/owns a sawmill that the workers bought produces something and that is as socialist as you can get,

      There is no faction arguing against workers owning the means of production as long as they pay for it.

    94. Re: Markets, not people by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Most people, though, can't afford that. Things that are affordable only by the affluent aren't going to save significant numbers of lives.

      A more likely road to self-driving cars is trucks and cabs first. Once autonomous cabs are ubiquitous, the cost of a cab ride goes down by the cost of employing a driver. Cabs become a more often chosen transportation means. It will be autonomous buses for heavy-traffic routes (very cheap), autonomous cabs for most trips (still cheap) and cars (manual and autonomous) for wealthier people.

    95. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopolistic abuses, and anti-competitive actions were the norm.

      Give an example.

    96. Re: Markets, not people by mcoletti · · Score: 1

      Takes a while to get enough states to ratify a Constitutional amendment.

      --

      MAC | A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

    97. Re: Markets, not people by geoskd · · Score: 1

      The computer industry has seen a continual influx of new players. IBM was not the company driving pricers down, it was the new players.

      It should aalso bne noted that the new computers are not drop in replacements for the old. Each new generation of computer could do things the old generation couldn't, making them effectively new products. Early in the industry, the upstarts established the pattern that each new generation would be more powerfull than the old, and a stead influx of new players kept coming along to add fuel to the fire. Even as recently as 2005, there have been new brand name entries entries into the PC market such as alienware. There is a continual introduction of new asian no-name brands.

      When the computer industry reaches maturity (The end of moores law), and each successive computer is not significantly different from the last, then there will be a culling of computer companies, and after that the prices will remain stable, even in the face of occasional reductions in manufacturing cost.

      A better place to look would be consumer electronics like DVD players and the like. A typical DVD player costs about $20 to make. They still sell for $100ish, a healthy margin. These could come down a lot, but none of the incumbent companies have any interest in dropping the prices for greater market share because it would be a race to the bottom. Every so often you see walmart causing some price reductions by introducing off brand asian devices at significantly reduced prices, but Walmart is in a unique monopoly position that almost no other company in history has enjoyed. Walmart has produced the price reductions that we would otherwise expect from a free market economy, but they have to abuse their monopoly position to do it (brow beating suppliers by refusing to carry their products otherwise). If Walmart had instead chose to maintain slightly higher prices, they could have pocketed a large portion of that profit for themselves (oh wait, they did...).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    98. Re: Markets, not people by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Laissez faire has really never been actually tried. It is rather like capitalism which also has never been tried. If you think about it a bit some terms are absolute. It is like my sister being pregnant. She either is or is not. There is no in between. Free markets have never, ever existed. All kinds of taxes, rules, regulations and controls always exist to some degree. Even primitive tribes have taboos that restrict freedom of trade. The simple reason is that no group or nation has ever been dumb enough to allow a free market or trade. In the US we have a mixed economy and always have. We have social and religious customs regulating business or trade. We have taxation and we have laws designed to protect the public in place as well. Many of these controls are socialist in nature. We have no way to judge whether pushing more towards socialism or capitalism would be better for us. But due to technology beginning to eliminate human employment we have no choice but to shift towards socialism. But the worst of it is that society and government are not adjusting for what will soon be upon us. Rising seas in America will cause more social disruption in the next ten years than we ever saw in WW2. Your taxes are already being altered by planning for rising sea resistance.

    99. Re:Markets, not people by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

      +1 - it isn't the party, stupid. When you have institutionalized a 2-party system, what are the odds that they're just different shades of the same?

    100. Re:Markets, not people by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Sales people usually do not have to track down customers. Normally we have people who specialize in lead generation. Most tiny businesses either do not have time nor the money to hire lead generators. A simple example is that you go into a Pizza joint and pay a few bucks to the owner to put a prize box on the table offering free vacations. customers waiting for their meal to cook casually fill out the win a vacation form. A week later they get a phone call congratulating them for filling out the form. They are then told that the motel is free except for the taxes. The cruise ship is free except for tax and port charges and that the hotel in the Bahamas is free except for the taxes. It usually stacks up to about $350. which is a bargain and some people actually enjoy the vacation. They are required to attend a two hour presentation of a time share in the Bahamas. The cruise ships have casinos. the hotel in the Bahamas has some gaming as well. Both the cruise ships and the hotel pay the marketing firm and the sales person is the one on the phone that completes the deal. The sales person usually gets about $10. per hour and $100 per person sold. As these schemes are always on the edge of being illegal the sales room is not in the same state as the confirmation room which takes the charge card and finalizes and records the conversation. using two states confuses jurisdiction and creates a legal barrier to investigation. You could easily go out and put up a prize box with your cell number making a special offer for PC repairs. You'll need boxes and slips printed and you'll need to bribe a pizza joint a bit to display your box on every table. You could also go to hotels and motels and leave cards with front desk workers such that when a resident has an issue with hooking up from their room you can quickly come out and set up a better connection to the net for them. Offer the desk clerks $10 for each job you get from them.

    101. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's go back to horse-drawn wagons, I say.

      Using horse-drawn wagons would create millions of new jobs.

    102. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many deliveries take place where the truck must jack knife the truck in the middle of a street, back into an ally and around a corner in reverse, and center up on a loading dock.

      That sounds like the sort of thing a computer would be perfect at doing.

      As the initial action (blocking all lanes of traffic) requires something that by most standards would be a traffic violation

      How do human drivers do it?

      Do they:
      a) Get out of the truck and set up cones, go knocking on car windows to tell the drivers they need some space, or
      b) Stop in the middle of the street, engage reverse so the truck starts beeping and flashing lights then wait for the other drivers to figure it out?

    103. Re: Markets, not people by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Honda of China makes and sells a nice 125cc motorcycle there for $900. Here that bike would probably cost $3,000 but Honda won't even ship that bike to the US as it would screw up sales of other models. We have tons of riders in the US shelling out $25,000 or even more for a motorcycle. Oddly the creepy little 50cc bikes are the smartest deal of all right now. The weed eater like motors cost $100. so one need not worry much about a motor breaking. The transmission is the type with pulleys that swell and shrink and are super easy and cheap to replace. A new carb costs about $15. These engines have even been used to power a highly collectible mini car in decades past and at this time actually produce as much as 7.5 horsepower and that is more than twice what a Vespa 125 produced in 1960. Plus it is such a lite motor and transmission the bike needs less power than ever before. And we are talking greater than 100 mpg..

    104. Re: Markets, not people by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      The computer industry has seen a continual influx of new players. IBM was not the company driving prices down, it was the new players.

      It should also be noted that the new computers are not drop in replacements for the old. Each new generation of computer could do things the old generation couldn't, making them effectively new products.

      But IBM did bring prices down. In the 700/7000 series, each new model was more powerful, and more affordable, than the machine it replaced. Also, each was a "drop-in" replacement for the last. Even when IBM switched instruction sets for System/360, they had emulators that let you run your old software, so they continued to produce drop-in replacements. As late as the 1960s, Shell Oil was running software written for the IBM 704 using a 704 emulator for the IBM 709, itself running in emulation mode on a System/360 model 65. They had re-written the application for the new computer, but the new version gave different answers than the old, and people trusted the old program even though the new one gave arguably better answers.

      Early in the industry, the upstarts established the pattern that each new generation would be more powerful than the old, and a steady influx of new players kept coming along to add fuel to the fire. Even as recently as 2005, there have been new brand name entries entries into the PC market such as alienware. There is a continual introduction of new asian no-name brands.

      To be sure, IBM had competition from the "bunch": Burroughs, Univac, NCR, Control Data and Honeywell. Later there were other competitors, such as DEC and Prime. However, your three-point economic theory of prices doesn't take them into account, assuming that the new entrants would maintain the same prices as the established players. That is a reasonable assumption, but it turns out not to be correct. At the time that the million-dollar IBM 7090 was the standard of the industry, DEC introduced the PDP-1 for $100,000. The PDP-1 could have sold for twice the price, so why did DEC forego the additional profit? I am guessing it was because they estimated the size of the market at each price point, and decided that $100,000 gave them the greatest total profit.

      When the computer industry reaches maturity (The end of moores law), and each successive computer is not significantly different from the last, then there will be a culling of computer companies, and after that the prices will remain stable, even in the face of occasional reductions in manufacturing cost.

      You are speculating about a time that is very far in the future.

      A better place to look would be consumer electronics like DVD players and the like. A typical DVD player costs about $20 to make. They still sell for $100ish, a healthy margin. These could come down a lot, but none of the incumbent companies have any interest in dropping the prices for greater market share because it would be a race to the bottom. Every so often you see walmart causing some price reductions by introducing off brand asian devices at significantly reduced prices, but Walmart is in a unique monopoly position that almost no other company in history has enjoyed. Walmart has produced the price reductions that we would otherwise expect from a free market economy, but they have to abuse their monopoly position to do it (brow beating suppliers by refusing to carry their products otherwise). If Walmart had instead chose to maintain slightly higher prices, they could have pocketed a large portion of that profit for themselves (oh wait, they did...).

      DVD players are unusual because they are heavily regulated by patents. If you tried to sell a DVD player that you build in your garage you would get sued into oblivion unless you paid the DVD rights holders for every unit you sell. That wasn't, and isn't, true of computers, though not for lack of trying. When DEC introduced the PDP-6, they got a letter from IBM t

    105. Re:Markets, not people by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There is a reason that bank robberies and such don't happen they way they used to. With the interconnectedness of today's world, it is just too hard to manage an illicit supply chain.

      Yeah that explains why there's no more drugs anymore yeah?

      Ok, I'll clarify my statement - it is hard to manage an illicit supply chain in competition with a legitimate supply chain for the same commodity.

      If I want to sell TVs stolen from trucks, I have to compete with every Walmart and Best Buy in the country.

      If I want to sell cocaine, I only have to compete with somebody else who had to go through the same difficulties in getting their product onto the streets as I did.

      Manufacturers are a lot more connected to their customers these days. If I buy a stolen iPhone and try to activate it, either it won't work, or I end up providing data to the manufacturer which makes it easier for them to figure out who stole it in the first place. If I buy a stolen Blu Ray player then the next time it phones home for its online features the manufacturer gets data that they can use to figure out who stole it. If I buy an expensive widget, there is a decent chance I'll end up registering it on some website for one reason or another.

      I'm not saying that it is impossible to fence stolen goods - it just is a lot harder than it probably used to be. I only see that trend continuing.

    106. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cut out for collage.

      Mom, Susie ruined my magazines again!!!

    107. Re:Markets, not people by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      A well regulated capitalist economy works very well. Unfortunately capitalism percieves regulation as damage and routes around it.

    108. Re:Markets, not people by rbrander · · Score: 1

      > A free market system with a reasonable amount of regulation, for all its flaws, works.\\\\\\ ...has worked in the technological environment since mechanization, the way feudalism worked in the agricultural one...for all its flaws.

      (fixed that for you).

      It wasn't much of a free market for 99.9% of actors during feudalism, because the feudal lord could interfere with it any time he felt like waving a sword around.

      And the "flaws" of the current system may one day be seen as only a little less bad than the "flaws" of feudalism, which worked for 10,000 years. But fell apart rapidly with Gutenberg and literacy and satanic mills and the need for capital to build them. No inherent right-to-exist will protect our current culture and economic system from obsolescence should it fail to match new realities.

    109. Re:Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Though societies without capitalism are generally godless, genocidal, and tyrannical dictatorships.

    110. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "American made" did mean quality, right up until Japanese cars and electronics redefined the term.

      When I was growing up "made in Japan" meant poor quality. But the American stuff was really not much better. Things broke all the time and there were always a few items "in the shop". The knob was always falling off our American-made TV, the refrigerator made this terrible sound, and our car was squeaking and rattling within months.

    111. Re:Markets, not people by DedTV · · Score: 1

      Farmers have had automated trucks operating on farms for several years now. A farm just down the road from me went fully automated last year. In spring I can sit out on my porch and watch the cultivators and plows tilling soil without a person anywhere nearby. In summer I watch the automated watering arms crawl back and forth across the fields. And in the fall I watch the driverless combines, harvesters, balers and trailers harvesting the crops.

    112. Re:Markets, not people by Bureaucromancer · · Score: 2

      This is one I've been wondering for a while... Of course it helps a lot that ships tend to get their crews from the developing world at very low wages, but reducing ship crews to one or two people would seem to be possible with 1980s technology.

    113. Re:Markets, not people by Bureaucromancer · · Score: 1

      Consider the degree to which railroads have moved to remote control engines in major yards. The harbour pilot like truck driver doesn't even really need a cab, the sort of driving s/he's needed for is if anything easier done from outside the vehicle, especially since the "driving" can quite easily be much more instructing the computer on where to put the truck than physically handling the controls.

    114. Re: Markets, not people by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The go-to example was Standard Oil, but there were others.

    115. Re: Markets, not people by wallsg · · Score: 1

      There is a HUGE but subtle difference between what you're describing and Socialism.

      Your friend bought into a sawmill. He also happens to work there. I don't think that you would label as "socialist" the degenerative case of a sole proprietorship where one person is the worker and owns the means of production, or if he brought in three partners who also all work there.

      In Credit Unions/Co-ops and your sawmill example the workers (and members) are the people who own the means of production. In Socialism, The People own the means of production. See the difference? In socialism, ALL of The People are the supposedly the owners of everything (which means, of course, that nobody really owns anything). EVERYONE would own the sawmill that only those workers BOUGHT and own. EVERYONE (not just the members) would own the Credit Union. EVERYONE (not just the members) would own the Co-op.

      Co-ops and worker-owned business are 100% compatible with capitalism. In capitalism a business exists to make a profit. That profit is usually but not necessarily measured in dollars. In terms of Credit Unions profit also includes the lowered costs of services to its members compared to a bank. In terms of your sawmill they probably also included the substantial non-tangible benefit of not being laid off in a down turn, which likely would hurt "traditional" profits in those times.

    116. Re: Markets, not people by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not really. The issue is more complicated than that. First Past the Post is fine so long as applied properly.

      The good thing about FPtP is that it marginalizes crackpots and it forces various communities to ACTUALLY make a fucking choice.

      Without it you have everyone voting for their own niche candidate. I mean, we could all just vote for ourselves no? Then each of us goes to office representing our one vote.

      I would argue that the real problem with most of these systems is that they over centralize powers that should be decentralized. Your own community should be making most of these choices for themselves without external interference.

      Lets say your community wants to go full blown communist. I don't see why the rest of the country should have any say in that. The only thing I'd require is that they continue to obey the US constitution while they did it. So long as they aren't violating people's rights while imposing communism... Go for it. but ONLY in the communities that actually voted for it. The community next door might not have voted for it and if they didn't... then they're not to be forced into it any more than the communist community would be forced out of it.

      When you over centralize things you're inevitably going to undermine the rights of most people.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    117. Re:Markets, not people by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't even the fucking parties period. Forget the little letter after people's names. That shit is pointless.

      Look at the MAN/or woman. The person. A reasonable democrat is going to be as good for a community as a reasonable republican as a reasonable green party as a reasonable whatever.

      If you're reasonable. If people can sit down with the guy and talk to him. If he listens. If he understands that while he has opinions other people have rights. If his highest goal is to see that the people in his community get what THEY want... Then he'll be fine.

      I really don't care which party they come from so long as they do that.

      Take Obama an example of someone that isn't reasonable

      He doesn't listen to anyone.
      He sits down with people to talk AT them not with them.
      He believes that his opinions are more important than your rights.
      His highest goal is to see HIS vision applied. He doesn't care if you want it or not.

      And that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's a democrat. I'm perfectly happy with a democrat in office. They just can't be fucking assholes. And that goes for republicans or whatever other party. We've had asshole republicans and asshole democrats.

      We occasionally get someone that is considerate of everyone. But it is damned rare.

      And that is what we need.

      The office of the president especially needs to operate this way because the country is too big to shove any one vision down the whole country's throat. This make sense to people that live in one part of the country, think the idea makes sense in their part of the country and know NOTHING about the rest of the country.

      The more you learn, the more you understand that you can't just govern the whole country that way. You have to respect each regions nature. Many of the large states are even too big to govern this way much less the whole fucking country.

      Take california. There are HUGE differences between northern and southern california. Big differences between east and western california. You can't apply the same rules to San Diego that you'd apply to San Francisco. They have very different politics. Suggesting that anyone in Washington is going to have ONE plan that is going to work for the whole country is moronic. And that is what needs to stop.

      I would sooner vote for a communist in power that respected my rights and didn't try to impose his view on people that didn't want it, then someone that held more of my views but lacked respect for opposing opinions.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    118. Re:Markets, not people by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      You bring up a good point regarding refueling. If nothing else, these automated trucks may spawn a resurgence of full serve gas stations.

    119. Re: Markets, not people by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You are talking about one of many forms of socialism, I'm talking about a different form, one that predates Libertarian Capitalism and is the original form of Libertarianism. You're probably American where the brainwashing against socialism was/is very strong and even includes the corruption of Libertarianism into a weird capitalist form where power is concentrated in the wealthy instead of everyone being closer in economic and social status and therefore being able to share equally in liberty.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    120. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      And yet it takes no time at all to make up slander against the dead.

    121. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "Standard oil also bought up every trolley system in the U.S. and had them burned and put out of business."

      Really? That is pretty amazing, since there are lots of famous, long time trolly systems all over the country.

      "Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition"

      Standard Oil never sold gasoline. They sold kerosene. And methanol has never been banned as a fuel. It was never considered a drug, because it just kills you if you ingest it.

      Stop making shit up to support your argument. All that does is kill people, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on whether or not they believe your bullshit.

    122. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My perfect form of socialism has never been tried."

      You really should kill yourself for the betterment of humanity.

    123. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      But SO was empirically good for the people, improving quality and decreasing price by 90% over the life of the "monopoly" (they never reached more than about 90% market share, with the other 10% improving to keep pace with them, and keeping them honest).

      But why cite reality when we can make decisions based on our feelings? That's how science works, after all! FEELINGS!

    124. Re: Markets, not people by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Freedom works because the closer you get to it, the better the outcome. Centralization (ie slavery where everyone and everything is owned by the state) DOESN'T work, because the closer you get to a perfect implementation of THAT, the more people die.

      Reductio ad absurdum suggests that free markets actually do work, even for the harder problems of governance. IE it really is better to just not have arbitrary authority in everyone's business.

    125. Re: Markets, not people by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In such a scenario, I imagine that people who don't do anything at all will still feel entitled to have it all, kind of like occupy wall street.

    126. Re: Markets, not people by wallsg · · Score: 1

      "You are talking about one of many forms of socialism, I'm talking about a different form, one that predates Libertarian Capitalism and is the original form of Libertarianism. You're probably American where the brainwashing"

      No reason to read further. No chance of rational discussion.

    127. Re:Markets, not people by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Booze, Cigarettes, Clothes, Furniture... all the stuff the Mafia used to do before drugs got so valuable. A truck load of ciggys is well over $100k on the black market.

    128. Re:Markets, not people by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Supercarriers tend to have crews of about 20 people. The actual travel is the easy part, its the ongoing day-to-day that is important. For example, a containership can have around 15,000 containers. Some contain hazardous material, some contain frozen or temperature sensitive goods. A single hazardous or refrigerated container (reefer) can take out a whole ship if not controlled or monitored, so some of these guys are tasked with a job called 'reefer monitoring' where you check temps regularly. These reefers are plugged in or run on something called 'gensets' which run on fuel, so power/fuel has to be monitored. The engines in these ships exeed a combined 100,000 horsepower, so there is constant monitoring and maintenance of those behemoths. Then you have the supervisor and a few other odd jobs.

      To summarize, having a few people available to handle routine maintenance and emergency response far outweigh the cost of a single accident or emergency and are able to fix problems quickly rather than causing days of downtime. They get paid pretty well too, there are schools that train people specifically for that type of job.

      I honestly don't think we'll see full transportation automation until 2060ish, with highway automation becoming mainstream in 20 years. The job loss wont be as quick as the summary expects.

    129. Re: Markets, not people by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      First you say capitalism is an either or not, like being pregnant. Then later you talk about pushing more towards capitalism. So you can now push more towards pregnancy? It seems you have a flaw in your logic.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    130. Re:Markets, not people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ships are big, and as far as I can tell are not normally in a great state of repair. They operate in a hostile environment, and do need to respect natural conditions. There is automation aboard ships, but I'm not aware of attempts to replace the crew for ships of significant size.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    131. Re:Markets, not people by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Drivers need to be able to do things like hear breaks screeching, feel the thump when they lose a retread from their tire, feel a flat tire pulling them, etc.

      The sensors for these problems are already pretty well available and many of them are even common. Every modern consumer car has TPMS on it (Tire Pressure Monitoring System) that tells you if your tire is low. If the retread flies off of a tire, it will get low right away because inward pressure on the inner tube will fall. Measuring engine temperature, oil pressure, oil level, coolant level, fuel level, etc. are also things that are already done by consumer vehicles. The auto-drive will already be gathering the data necessary to determine if there is an alignment problem or something else causing the vehicle to pull, and this can be identified by computing the trend of any adjustments it makes to its course. Transmission temperature is a no-brainer, using the same general tech as used to measure engine temperature. Brake and bearing temeratures are the only thing left that I can think of, and you just need to look to the railroads for a solution to that one, involving inexpensive infrared thermometers (though in this case, they would likely be traveling with the vehicle rather than stationary on the road).

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    132. Re: Markets, not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile the capitalists keep saving up their capital or gamble it on the stock market. If capital and lack of regulation created jobs the unemployment rate here would be dropping instead of increasing as my government has been hell bent on deregulating and the rich have been getting richer very fast.

      One of the reasons generally given by economists for the success of the Asian Tigers is a high rate of saving by people within these countries. This allows the general business community within these countries to make good loans to finance improved infrastructure, greatly reducing the dependence on foreign capital (which is hard to get when one is poor). This shows that there is nothing wrong with having a high rate of savings: it is a part of capitalism that is a good thing, not a bad one.

      Similarly, there is nothing wrong with investing in the stock market. Note that investing is not the same as gambling. Investing involves long term holding of stock, which gives companies the opportunity to purchase improved equipment and hire better people. It's a way of loaning money to a company. It's only gambling when it's done over the short term, which is why micro-trading should be outlawed. In general, the return on such investments more than makes up for inflation levels found in a reasonably stable economy.

      The rich getting richer is a normal part of capitalism. It's unavoidable. If one switches over to full fledged socialism (in which case we simply replace one rich group with another, and also end up with even worse problems over the long term, something that has been seen over and over again in the countries that have tried this).

      However, while there will always be an imbalance, it is possible to somewhat reduce the magnitude of the imbalance between rich and poor with appropriate tax policies, which can then be used to create safety nets for people. This is the policy followed by a number of the most successful and thriving capitalist nations in Europe, such as the Scandinavian nations. No successful nations are socialist nations, despite all the propaganda of the socialists.

      Some regulation is always needed in a capitalism system. This point is centuries old: you'll find it discussed at length in Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations" from the 1700's. Excessive regulation is usually associated with highly corrupt governments, where the regulations become a tool used to ensure the bribes keep coming in. For example, having lots of regulations associated with starting or running a business creates an opening for the officials overseeing these regulations to accept bribes to "smooth out" the process. De-regulation can not work in such a setting, because the culture of excessive corruption prevents it. This is likely why you see the rich getting richer where you are, or at least one contribution.

      While there is corruption in the Asian Tiger nations, it isn't at the same level and type as that so routinely found in South America and Africa. For example, in the Asian Tigers there are powerful extended clans or families whose members look out for the success of both the clan and the nation, which limits the harmful potential effects of corruption in important ways. Corruption is only allowed to the extent that it does not harm the shared long term goal. This is why these nations were able to have spectacular growth despite moderate levels of corruption, a very different situation from the norm in other places where corruption is much more individual, or associated with small wealthy families looking out for their own interests at the expense of everybody else.

      Poorly thought out social policies can also cause the rich to get richer. Many policies, in practice, work like reverse progressive income taxes, affecting the poor more than the wealthy, exactly the opposite of what society should be trying to achieve. Depending upon the implementation, sales taxes, gas taxes, and price fixing schemes such as minimum wage can all have this e

  2. Obama/Hillary solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Import millions more unskilled people who will work for low wages. Unemployed citizens and legal residents: "let them eat cake!"

    1. Re:Obama/Hillary solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's the Right-wing solution, they're the ones running the businesses that actually employ the numbers of illegal immigants.

      People who want immigration reform realize that the way to deal with that problem is to take away the power of the employers by removing the captivity of the workers.

      Besides, nobody on the right-wing side wants to pay for the deportations.

  3. Eh, I'm sure it'll all work out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody has anything to worry about.

    Except those who try to eat a 16 lb steak. Only three people have succeeded in that. Tony Randall, Red Barclay, and Daenerys Targaryen.

  4. Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.

    1. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.

      Your brother is correct. Professional drivers can drive hundreds of thousands of miles per year, while Joe Blow in his Honda may do 15,000. Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car. So automating trucking won't help.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      ... the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck...

      We're sorry to have offended your "brother", but the problem you cite is easy to deal with in this context. Just make the cars autonomous too.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    3. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the fault of those car induced crashes won't be blamed on truck drivers. Instead they will be blamed on the truck's computers and sensors. Now that's a step forward!

    4. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.

      What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

      Have you seen what autonomous cars can do? I've seen video of a driverless car parallel parking in a space just barely able to accept the car; by speeding up to the parking space and doing a handbrake turn so that the car slides sideways into the parking space. It can do this perfectly every time without scratching the paint.

      Theres no reason to believe that autonomous trucks won't be far far safer than human driven trucks.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sensors and computers will provide evidence it was the texting fucker in the car that caused accident.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    6. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by alen · · Score: 1

      yes, the famous drive in the middle lane and cut off someone in the right lane to make the exit

    7. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence, yes. But that won't change the fact an idiot driver got him/herself killed.

    8. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

      If a truck's stopping distance is 2/3 of a mile, and a car comes to a complete stop in 1/4 of a mile directly in front of the truck, it does not matter how fast the truck's reaction time is. That car is going to have a bad day.

    9. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by MetricT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To give a counterexample, I was driving down a long hill that I have driven daily for 20+ years. At the bottom of the hill, right before it went around a curve, I saw cars hitting their brakes, and knew there was probably a traffic jam around the corner, so I started slowing down.

      There was a truck driver pretty far behind me, and he didn't bother slowing down until he came around the curve, saw the traffic jam, locked his brakes, and ran off the road, and blamed me for the accident.

      I'm a physics major, so I measured the location of where he locked his brakes, and the point he came to a stop. A little high school algebra showed he was moving 80-85 MPH in a 70 MPH zone when he hit his brakes.

      For that reason, I subsequently installed a dashcam in my car. It pays for itself the first time some idiot lies and tries to pin the blame on you.

    10. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I agree: automating truck driving will not decrease truck-car crashes very much since most of those are caused by the car driver.

      I don't see much of a future for drone trucks, though. Instead I think the role of the truck driver will change, with less emphasis on managing the controls and more on the strategies involved. Such as selecting between alternate routes when road conditions up ahead have changed, supervising loading and unloading, monitoring the truck's performance and intervening when something-- tire pressure, fuel consumption, exhaust quality, etc-- are approaching nominal limits. The automation will function more like an airplane's autopilot, but the driver will still be needed for the executive functions.

      For instance, it will be a long time before a fully automated truck will be smart enough to slow down to conserve fuel a hundred miles from a congested urban area, so that it will avoid rush hour traffic and still make delivery on time.

      Drivers may be able to spend time relaxing with their feet up on the dash, but they won't become superfluous. It is more likely that their employers will assign them additional duties to fill any slack time on the roads. Like perhaps a long distance trucker able to earn bonuses for any cold-calling marketing successes he might have, or for participating in his company's astroturfing campaigns on Slashdot... :-)

      --
      Will
    11. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

      Hmm... looks like somebody failed at learning Amdahl's Law.

      Let's say a truck is driving at 60 MPH (88 feet per second) when somebody jumps in front of it, 88 feet away. The driver will take 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to react, then the truck's air-brakes will take another 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to engage. By that time, the truck will have hit the person. Then the truck will take another 355 feet to come to a stop.

      Let's replace the human-driven truck with an automated one, and assume that the computer is unrealistically perfect and manages to reduce the reaction time to zero (seconds or feet). In that case, it still takes 0.5 seconds (44 feet) for the air brakes to engage, so the truck has "only" 311 feet of braking distance left to travel when it hits the person.

      In other words, reaction time accounts for only about 10% of the total stopping distance, so the maximum improvement gained by switching to an autonomous truck would be about 10%. That's not zero, but it's also not "thousands of times" better, as you claimed.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously not from Northern California.
      Here they drive in the LEFT lane, and cross the middle
      and right lanes to make an exit!

    13. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by swb · · Score: 2

      The plural of anecdote is not data. While your brother may actually be honest and not biasing himself in favor of himself, it's not clear that truck drivers are always in the right or even mostly in the right.

      I've seen a lot of bad truck driving behavior -- abrupt lane changes, following too close, failure to yield, speeding, etc. When in Arizona last winter it was fairly appalling how badly trucks drove on I-10 between Tuscon and Benson. In fact there was a semi that crashed and burned on the westbound side while we drove past. They would weave, drive just fast enough to pass the slower rigs but stay in the left lane below the speed limit, change lanes abruptly with no signal. It was scary.

      I'd almost argue truck drivers have gotten worse, not better which if true could be caused by lower wages, less unionization, greater demand to meet tight schedules -- basically all the usual market forces that make management more money but lower the quality of the workforce.

      The real problem is most likely just the conflict between 80,000 pound trucks and 3,000 pound passenger cars. If you mix those together and shake well, you'll end up with horrific accidents just based on physics. Add in bad passenger car driving and perhaps over-aggressive trucks and it's not hard to see how it could get worse.

    14. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

      That won't help. The problem with trucks isn't human reaction speed, it's the sheer amount of kinetic energy that needs to be dissipated for one to stop. A 60-ton truck going at 50 mph has 29 MJ of kinetic energy. For it to stop, every single joule needs to go somewhere, and with current technology that means they'll turn to heat. And that means it's going to take a while as that heat dissipates - the brakes will literally melt if you try to brute-force a shorter braking distance, for example by increasing braking system pressure.

      Alternatively, just consider how much damage is caused by a truck crash. Physics don't care if it's another car's rear or the truck's own brakes it's pushing against; any object that tries to stop its motion in a hurry is going to be hit by those same forces.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by jsm300 · · Score: 1

      But perhaps some of those accidents caused by the car drivers are indirectly caused by the truck drivers. Truck drivers used to be the knights of the road. Now they drive like they drive their car. A lot of times when there is a backup of traffic on a highway it is due to a truck trying to pass another truck. They start to pass, get to a hill can't complete the pass, start to pass on the downhill, then hit another hill, etc. Sometimes it takes more than 5 minutes for a truck to get ahead of another truck and then they proceed to travel a 1-2 mph faster than the truck they passed. Meanwhile, as soon as the pass is complete, a lot of car drivers speed up to pass the trucks before another truck gets the idea that they have to pass another truck. Or they try to pass on the right of the truck that is still trying to overtake the "slow" truck in the right lane. I've seen lots of crazy maneuvers made by car drivers in this situation, induced by the incessant need for truck drivers to pass other trucks, which didn't seem to happen anywhere near as often 20-30 years ago as it does now. So yes, the car drivers may be ultimately respsonsible, but some of it is brought on by the behavior of truck drivers. With AI trucks we'll probably see a lot more truck caravans all following each other at the same speed in the far right lane, without the need to keep passing each other.

    16. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It will help SOME. Automatic drivers will not suffer degradations of reaction time due to distractions or getting sleepy. But that might just prompt drivers to be even more risky around trucks because they assume it will always be able to react to whatever stupid shit they pull. (Physics be damned!)

    17. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained. If you get rid of the reaction time and finally fix brake lag, then the truck may well have an advantage in stopping, especially at lower speeds. In a realistic braking situation, where the driver in front doesn't just slam on the brakes full as soon as he pulls in front, the automated trucks will probably have a huge advantage. Plus they don't get tired and inattentive.

    18. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The economics aren't the same. Paying several $10k's to replace a driver is economical. Paying one $10k to have an automatic driver in my car isn't within reach for most people.

    19. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be more realistic.

      Maybe the autonomous truck is going 60, but the human driven one is going 85.

    20. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

      It may be able to react much faster, but due to inertia, the stopping distance for something as heavy as a loaded truck is considerably longer than that of a car. And when a car suddenly swerves in front of the truck and immediately brakes, a slightly improved reaction time is only going to help so much. A train is an even more extreme case. Those can take miles to come to a stop do to all of the inertia.

    21. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by kmahan · · Score: 1

      Automated trucking might have prevented that. Rather than the driver being an isolated unit (or in a perfect world listening to some radio station with local traffic) the automated truck can be in communication with other automated trucks and regional traffic control systems. With some subsystem paying 100% attention to it.

      --
      Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
    22. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm a physics major, so I measured the location of where he locked his brakes, and the point he came to a stop. A little high school algebra showed he was moving 80-85 MPH in a 70 MPH zone when he hit his brakes.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you need to know rather more than where he locked his brakes and where he stopped? Mass of the truck? Coefficient of friction between tires and road, which will depend on tire pressure, road conditions, temperature...?

      Your point that plenty of drivers are woefully inattentive is valid, of course. I've seen the same situation as you describe occur on countless occasions on the windy* roads where I live (where it often helps to look out for reflections of cars on the sides of other cars), though never to the point of there being an accident. Yet.

      *Curvy. Not blowy.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    23. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      > Instead I think the role of the truck driver will change, with less emphasis on managing the controls and more on the strategies involved.

      Sure. That job can be done from behind a desk tough, managing not just one single truck but dozens of them, at the same time. With the added benefit of being home for dinner (or breakfast, if you get the night shift).

      Trucks have the advantage to planes, that in case of a malfunction, it is much easier to pull over and stop. A service car could then be dispatched, i.e. a technician who comes out and fixes the problem, or a tow / replacement tractor if it can't be fixed.

      But overall, much fewer people are needed.

    24. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant! Then your tax dollars can subsidize everybody that can't afford a vehicle!!

    25. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Correct, but for people or cars between 311 and 355 feet they will be alive instead of dead.

      This is not a binary solution. Just incrementally better than the current (human drivers) solution.

    26. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence, yes. But that won't change the fact an idiot driver got him/herself killed.

      But it will guarantee he won't do it again!

    27. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by sl149q · · Score: 1

      There are numerous different scenarios. Long haul trucking (for example) may end up being totally autonomous, just having a human driver picked up when close to leaving the freeway system.

      Local delivery (Fed Ex, UPS etc) will still have an operator (or perhaps two or more) that can jump out with the package while the delivery truck drives around the block (or drops the second operator at a second location.) While going between locations the operators sort packages. When empty the operators may get dropped off for coffee while the truck heads back to the depot and a second full truck heads out to pick them up.

      Its all about effectively managing resources and reducing costs. People will continue to have a place just a different one.

    28. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the jury will simply ignore this evidence and award a multi million dollar award due to the error in the AI.

    29. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by pellik · · Score: 2

      There are many accidents that would be prevented if truck drivers did what they were supposed to. A friend of mine died when a traffic jam on the freeway backed up almost to the top of a hill. She was stopped in traffic and then a semi behind her crests the hill at 70mph with maybe 100ft to stop.

      When I got my CDL I remember being told you should always have your foot on the break when you go over a hill, but I never remember doing it. There are so many situations where caution is ignored, such as stopping at every railroad crossing, because drivers weigh the risk vs the time investment and decide it's not worth it. An autonomous driving computer however would not value it's time in the same way and should always slow down when extra caution is needed. There is a huge potential to prevent accidents.

    30. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There could be degradations in reaction time. The garbage collector has to run at some point.

    31. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Informative

      If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained.

      No, the fact a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop is physics. See this chart.. The car weighs around 3000 lbs, and the truck is 40,000-80,000 lbs. The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster. And no matter which driver caused it, when a 40 ton truck hits a 1 to 2 ton car, the car loses. It is the same problem with many motorcycles being able to stop faster than a car.

    32. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by NoZart · · Score: 1

      couldnt an autonomous Truck just calculate that it won't be able to brake without collission and instead decide to change lanes? If need be, the AI would just crash itself into a tree on the side to save the human asshole... That opens up a whole new can of worms for malice, i know, but braking isn't the only option, no?

    33. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Evidence, yes. But that won't change the fact an idiot driver got him/herself killed.

      Think of it as evolution in action

    34. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't live in southern California.
      Here, they just drive down the HOV lane and try to cut across 5 lanes of traffic just to make an exit.
      Or, lanes be damned - they drive on the divider line!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    35. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. at least, it's very unusual to see a 60-ton truck on the highway - most are limited to 40 tons, with special permitting needed for heavier loads. Australia's a whole different story, but their road trains have many more brakes to distribute the energy across.

      And that means it's going to take a while as that heat dissipates - the brakes will literally melt if you try to brute-force a shorter braking distance, for example by increasing braking system pressure.

      Increasing the pressure will lock the wheels up (not taking ABS into account), at which point the rotors/drums aren't absorbing any more heat and stopping distance is determined by the friction of the sliding tires. That said, truck brakes are *big*, and are quite capable of handling a 50 mph panic stop without damage to the brakes.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    36. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      So at least its not going to be any worse.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    37. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by John+Bodin · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that just by putting computes into the cabs of trucks they also were going to be able to totally redo basic physics and stopping distance of such heavy machines. Can you please give links to where this is going to be possible?

      If anywhere Trains should be the first freight carrying items that should be automated, fixed paths of travel, predetermined speed changes where this is 99% of the time no other traffic right in front of you doing its own thing.

      --
      John
    38. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by scottbomb · · Score: 1

      Because it still takes more time to stop an 80,000 lb truck, regardless of your slightly faster reaction time.

    39. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a realistic braking situation, where the driver in front doesn't just slam on the brakes full as soon as he pulls in front

      Clearly you are an inexperienced driver.

    40. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen what autonomous cars can do?

      I have. I worked on a number of autonomous vehicle projects in grad school and have seen many crashes. you can find these on youtube I'd bet.

    41. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do truck tires have lower coefficients of static friction or are their brakes undersized? Other than that (and dynamic forces like wheel hop starting a skid) there should be no difference in stopping distance. Forward kinetic energy is proportional to mass at the same velocity, and both the car and truck have to support the total mass of the vehicle on the tires so the static friction in both cases will be proportional to the mass of the vehicle, assuming the brakes and tires can sustain the braking force.

    42. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct however it assumes that the item in front of the truck is going 0. Also add in driver fatigue or poor human visibility then add to your distances.

      10% is the worst 'better'. It will probably be more like 20-30%.

      The biggest issue with most truck drivers is lack of sleep. Which is why you can find a good amount of tweekers amongst them.

      It will happen. Safety is what will *sell* it to the general public (which is marginal as you point out). But it will be non stop roll for trucks that will sell it for companies like walmart. They have 6000-7000 trucks. Of those 1/3rd to 1/2 are usually idle in some way, usually because of driver timeout. Do you think for a second a company the size of walmart will not trim its truck count in half?

      Long haul is the most boring of driving. You are basically babysitting the truck and keeping it between the lines with the occasional transmission shift or fuel fill-up.

      The day cabs and short haul guys have nothing to worry about. They are also the loaders/unloaders. There is no automation to do that at the 20 stops they do per day.

      I know this because I used to work in this industry every day. Glad I am out...

      The choices are 'do something else' or get on the gov dole. There is no 'we need to figure something else out'. There are no other ideas.

    43. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh... Don't program it in Java?

    44. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not inertia that matters, it's kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is proportional to mass at the same velocity, which is why a light motorcycle or car can't stop faster than a heavy car or truck if all of them are equipped with big enough brakes and tires with the same coefficient of static friction and the ability to handle the corresponding forces.

    45. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      So do truck tires have lower coefficients of static friction or are their brakes undersized? Other than that (and dynamic forces like wheel hop starting a skid) there should be no difference in stopping distance.

      A third option, as I explained in my post: "The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster"

      both the car and truck have to support the total mass of the vehicle on the tires

      The tire support ability is based on the thickness of the rubber, and thereby inflation, so truck tires can support more weight with the same surface contact area than car tires. This helps by reducing rolling friction and saves money in fuel efficiency, tire costs, etc. The consequence is trucks' have less static/dynamic friction to aid in stopping. I guess you could make a truck with a ton of tires to increase the total friction like I have seen in Europe, but then you could do that with cars too.

    46. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, it will be a long time before a fully automated truck will be smart enough to slow down to conserve fuel a hundred miles from a congested urban area, so that it will avoid rush hour traffic and still make delivery on time.

      No, it won't. That is simply a route optimization problem with time based constraints. The truck will likely have a pre-planned route that optimizes both fuel economy and on time delivery. It will likely use lookup tables for routing metrics such as when rush hour traffic occurs. The entire route will be preplanned by some OR planning algorithm. I should know, I worked on such solutions for trains.

    47. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check loads needs to be done from time as well

    48. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car.

      And because statistics say so, and statistics are a reflection of the bias in the data gatherers, the statistics will show it true, even when wrong.

      I was driving 35 in a 35. A truck pulled out from a turn in front of me. He swung wide, and blocked 2 lanes. I moved to the empty lane. He cut me off, and I hit him. It was my fault for not predicting that he'd block all 3 lanes twice, after having pulled out in front of me when not safe to do so in the first place. So says the report. Short of stopping the moment I saw him and waiting for him to make his complicated maneuver (which there is no signal for "left, then right, then left again"), there's nothing I could have done, and stopping on a busy street is not a good idea. The police who write the reports know that the crashes are the fault of the car, so they write them that way without looking a the circumstances. Also, the police know that an at-fault crash on the driver's record can get them fired, but will have no lasting effect on a car driver.

      So yes, the statistics say things, but they have biases in them. Statistics say that 80% of drivers are above average (based on survey responses, which is the same collection method used for gauging truck fault), but reality proves that wrong. Yet, people don't question similarly dubious "the car is always at fault" survey responses.

    49. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > always have your foot on the break when you go over a hill,

      But what if nothing is broken? What do you put your foot on then? I'm not a Republican so I take care of my cars and other property. I have to make them last because I'm not wealthy like their kind. There is nothing broken in my car.

    50. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      the brakes will literally melt if you try to brute-force a shorter braking distance, for example by increasing braking system pressure.

      No, you'll slide on the tires before you'll melt the brakes. And if melting is the issue, use ceramics with higher heat tolerance. But heat isn't the issue. The biggest issue is imbalanced brakes, and stability of stopping a back-heavy vehicle with imbalanced brakes.

      If the brakes were computer-controlled, the stopping distances would match cars. But there's a perception that such computer control would reduce reliability.

      Why do trucks tend to jackknife? Because they are back-heavy and the braking happens in the front. That's inherently unstable.

    51. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Stopping distance is limited by tire friction. As such, the theoretical stopping distance of a truck is similar to that of a car. In practice not, as trucks are poorly maintained from a performance perspective (yes, I know their requirements are higher than a car, but with the added forces, they are still lower than they should be). Like the taxes on trucks, they are higher, but not high enough to compensate for their size and scale.

      A train is an even more extreme case. Those can take miles to come to a stop do to all of the inertia.

      Trains are specifically run on low-friction conditions. Then, when these low-friction conditions result in low-friction for stopping, it's now about the weight? Someone doesn't know how friction works.

    52. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Context. This is about some dumbass zipping ahead, swerving into the front and then slowing down radically. We've all seen it. When was the last time *you* saw some dumbass do that by outdistancing the truck by a friggin' football field's worth?

      So no, won't do diddly.

    53. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      basic physics and stopping distance of such heavy machines.

      The best cars and the best motorbikes stop in about the same distance, despite the 10x or so difference in weight. So why do you assert that there's a difference because of weight? Friction is "weightless" because the friction force to stop is increased with weight linearly with the Normal force, as inertia is increased linearly with weight as well. They cancel, and weight doesn't affect stopping distance (unless the vehicles are poorly designed or maintained, as is the case with cargo trucks).

    54. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Too bad all of these incidents are in one dimensional space. If only there were a way to go a 3 meters to one side, many of these crashes could be avoided.

    55. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Mass of the truck?

      Not for friction. Friction is massless. If you knew physics, you'd know that. And the mu for sliding tires is well known (google will give you hits on it), so a range of speeds would be easy to determine. If the crash was fatal, they'd get reference samples of the tire and test on the actual road to determine the mu, but you don't need all that, and the test only determines boundaries anyway, as the test doesn't test sliding at high speed with high pressure that liquefies the rubber. Ablative friction isn't pure "friction" any more. When you get to that, like when the tires fail and the metal is gouging out sections of road while stopping, then yes, you must take weight into account. But for a simple slide, if you assume .7, you won't be off by much.

      The problem with estimation of a truck is how many identifiable tracks were there? Often, you'll see the 8 from the load-bearing part under the 5th wheel. that means that you are stopping with 8/18 wheels. The front two and back 8 aren't doing as much stopping, so the calculations will be off. If you see 18 identifiable trails, then .7 would be very accurate.

      windy* roads *Curvy. Not blowy.

      Perhaps "winding" would then be the best word. No confusion, and same meaning.

      But I find that I can gain information about my side of the road from the other side's traffic. Cars naturally clump, and if the cars are evenly spaced, it usually indicates a recently-ended bottle-neck. That could mean a problem on my or the other side of the road, and the bottle neck is rubber-neckers. Would that make it a rubber-bottle-neck, or a bottle-rubber-neck? Because rubber-neck-bottle-neck is just silly.

    56. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I agree: automating truck driving will not decrease truck-car crashes very much since most of those are caused by the car driver.

      And I disagree. I've seen a number of crashes where the car was at a dead-stop and the truck hit it, and the fault was assigned to the car. Those would be avoided with computers. The only reason the wide-right-turn crashes happen is that the driver can't be looking where he's going, where he's crossing, and what's behind him at the same time. A computer can, and would take a photo of the illegal car, email it to the police, but stop the truck so the car doesn't get crushed. Just because you think the cars are mostly at fault doesn't mean the trucks couldn't have avoided the crash.

    57. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sensors and computers will provide evidence it was the texting fucker in the car that caused accident.

      That won't make any difference, at least in the western US. Many States have laws that decree in any accident the TRUCK DRIVER is automatically at fault because he is supposed to be a PROFESSIONAL driver. It doesn't matter what contrary evidence there is (witnesses, confessions by the passenger driver, dash cams etc.) that the car driver is at fault, the truck driver AUTOMATICALLY BY LAW gets the blame.

    58. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I expect the AI will be programmed to start braking as soon as it notices the car merging a bit too close. The question is how hard should it brake. Hard enough to avoid this kind of accident will probably cause the guy behind to drive into the back of the truck. Could also cause some serious traffic problems as the truck gets slower and slower and more and more people merge in front of it.

      It's a no win situation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    59. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      In practice, particularly with anti-lock brakes, the situation is a bit more complicated, but it shouldn't be as bad as double. I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.

      Note that US federal regulations require large trucks to stop in considerably less than twice the distance of passenger cars (or even motor bikes), and that tested trucks average quite a bit better than that maximum: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA....

      So if a truck does take twice the distance of a car, it may literally be criminally poorly maintained.

    60. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I agree. You will save what, 2 maybe 3 of those 4,000. Good job!

    61. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truck drivers are usually hopped up on amphetamines, their reactions should be superior to computer control...

    62. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      Let's say a truck is driving at 60 MPH (88 feet per second) when somebody jumps in front of it, 88 feet away.

      If the speed limit on this road is 60 MPH, it most likely means that it is clear of stores, schools, etc., IOW this is not a standard city street. Braking is not the only option here, especially with a self driving truck. The truck could be programmed to safely sacrifice itself (running off the road into a field, river, etc.) to protect the humans around it.

      It remains to be seen if this type of behavior from the automation will be mandated.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    63. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Mass of the truck?

      Not for friction. Friction is massless.

      Not sure what you mean by "not for friction." As I understand it the coefficient of friction for two materials doesn't depend on mass, but doesn't the "friction force" depend on the amount of force pressing the materials together? I.e. the weight of the truck? Okay, I said "mass," but I'm pretty sure the incident recounted occurred on Earth.

      Anyway, so does that increase in "friction force" then balance the additional intertia of a heavier truck? My tests with empty and fully-laden cereal boxes and a carpeted floor are inconclusive but suggest that this may well be the case, so I am enlightened.

      If you knew physics, you'd know that.

      Never said I did. That's why I asking questions, and why I started my post with "correct me if I'm wrong," so I'm not sure why you've included that remark, which comes across as a bit condescending.

      Perhaps "winding" would then be the best word. No confusion, and same meaning.

      But then I wouldn't have been able to make it into an oblique reference to a Family Guy joke.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    64. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Local delivery (Fed Ex, UPS etc) will still have an operator (or perhaps two or more) that can jump out with the package while the delivery truck drives around the block

      That's what the Amazon drones are for. The truck just has to cruise through the neighborhood. Meanwhile, small drone aircraft that it carries will work to carry packages out of the truck and to front doors. A human will still be needed for heavy or bulky packages, or for deliveries that have to be brought inside or where there's no convenient place for the drone to land to deposit them, but those packages and destinations can be separated from the others at the local depot, and all put on a smaller number of trucks, therefore needing a smaller number of humans. You won't need a human for every truck if you work out the routes each day based on the nature of the packages you've got and where you're taking them.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    65. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, 'hundreds of thousands' is a bit much, that'd be 60 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, averaging 65 mph. which just don't happen, between daily and weekly hour limits, fuel stops, tire checks, weigh-ins, pickups and deliveries, idle/wait time, time off, etc. maybe 100,000 to 150,000 miles, max, a year for the most active of drivers.

      but this isn't about 'saving lives' anyway, it's about saving money and making even more. the tech industries can sell the hardware and software to make the automated trucks, so they're gonna push this hard, very hard... the freight haulers, they'll push for it too, because they can cut their costs (even while paying a fortune to those tech companies) without lowering their prices (why would they?) for long haul freight, then cherry-pick from the now-displaced truck drivers, those willing to work for less than peanuts for local LTL pickup and delivery routes. it's a win-win-win scenario for everybody, except the truck drivers and service industry that rely upon those truck drivers for their very existence.

    66. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      No, but paying $100 a month to subscribe to a car service that provides automated cars on demand is.

    67. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because nothing says safety like 80000 lbs moving at upwards of 65mph design, built, and controlled by corporations answerable to only their shareholders? Not to mention I bet the mob loves the idea of being able to hijack shipments simply by hacking the vehicles and putting the public in yet more danger.

      The only safe and reliable safe-guided vehicle is an elevator.

    68. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting study you've done there.

      Of course, the non-random selection of respondents that reflected the bias of the researcher, and the exceedingly small sample size of 1 both conspire to render any conclusions drawn from your study questionable, but I look forward to seeing this peer-reviewed and published.

    69. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.

      That is why I didn't say what you claim. I said "a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop". Notice the word "can"? It means I was defining a common upper bound, not claiming it as the norm as your post implies I did. And yes, trucks do often ride around with hot brakes, such as when approaching the bottom of grades, so it is not unreasonable to expect it, nor proof the truck is poorly maintained or the driver is driving poorly. The car driver your should plan for the worst, not the best.

      Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":

      Regarding the issue of weight/downward force (normal force) versus total friction, the problem with tires is the road surrface and the tire surface are not uniform causing the tires to natually see more and less surface contact as they travel, some due to bounce, so the force at times decreases. When it does, if the tires begin skidding, the static friction changes to kinetic friction and the game changes. Trucks by the nature of their length and design are much more prone to this, especially bouncing, and therefore skidding. It is why dragsters use big tires on their power axle instead of small ones like your theory would suggest they could (if true it would save weight and therefore the mass the dragster would need to accelerate).

    70. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't make any difference, at least in the western US. Many States have laws that decree in any accident the TRUCK DRIVER is automatically at fault because he is supposed to be a PROFESSIONAL driver. It doesn't matter what contrary evidence there is (witnesses, confessions by the passenger driver, dash cams etc.) that the car driver is at fault, the truck driver AUTOMATICALLY BY LAW gets the blame.

      Citation please. This doesn't pass the smell test. In situations of equal responsibility laying it on the truck driver, maybe, but when there is clear proof the car driver caused an accident putting the blame on the truck driver anyway, bullshit!

    71. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car.

      And because statistics say so, and statistics are a reflection of the bias in the data gatherers, the statistics will show it true, even when wrong.

      I was driving 35 in a 35. A truck pulled out from a turn in front of me. He swung wide, and blocked 2 lanes. I moved to the empty lane. He cut me off, and I hit him. It was my fault for not predicting that he'd block all 3 lanes twice, after having pulled out in front of me when not safe to do so in the first place. So says the report. Short of stopping the moment I saw him and waiting for him to make his complicated maneuver (which there is no signal for "left, then right, then left again"), there's nothing I could have done, and stopping on a busy street is not a good idea. The police who write the reports know that the crashes are the fault of the car, so they write them that way without looking a the circumstances. Also, the police know that an at-fault crash on the driver's record can get them fired, but will have no lasting effect on a car driver.

      So yes, the statistics say things, but they have biases in them. Statistics say that 80% of drivers are above average (based on survey responses, which is the same collection method used for gauging truck fault), but reality proves that wrong. Yet, people don't question similarly dubious "the car is always at fault" survey responses.

      So fucking what?
      You gave an anecdote of a single incident.
      I really don't care if the trucker was ghost-riding on the roof while trying to shit onto a convertible before crashing.
      It just one anecdote that happened to one person.

      And if you think the police have sympathy for truckers, you know nothing about the business.

    72. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something similar happened to me a year or so back, but I managed to avoid a collision.

      The road was two lanes in each direction, and the truck driver was coming from a side road at a T-intersection. He couldn't be bothered waiting, so he rolled out and forced a lot of emergency braking in the first two lanes, then slowed but still carried on into the other two lanes, forcing at least a dozen vehicles to skid to a halt, and one vehicle to dodge around in front of him just before he stopped. He then parked the vehicle and got out for a moment, leaving his vehicle illegally parked. By the time he cleared the road, about FIFTY fucking cars were stopped, and he just didn't give a shit.

      In my country, heavy vehicles are limited to 90% of the speed the limit. One didn't like me driving at 100% of the speed limit so overtook me in a no-passing area, doing closer to 150% of the speed limit. I caught up with him on the hill, where he couldn't do 60% of the speed limit. He overtook me in a no passing zone, coming down the other side, doing a lot more than me.

      In my country, many trucks tailgate at high speeds, even though they can't possibly stop in the same distance as the car in front of them. Recently, trucks were caught regularly (daily) driving the wrong way down a one way street, because they didn't want to drive around the block (in an area with turning signals on every corner so they weren't going to be stuck, unable to turn). The police knew (I work for a local news outfit and so get to hear all sorts of things that don't make the news) and didn't care until one of the truck drivers nearly killed a cyclist, and a car was almost forced into some parked vehicles.

      Interesting to note that I worked with one of the reporters who was a reporter involved in a very high profile murder case about 21 years ago, and the alleged murderer was recently let off because apparently the police case wasn't sound. The reporter and the rest of his team, the court appointed artist, and everyone else involved in the case are convinced that the guy did it, because he only bothered showing how upset he was about the deaths of his family when he thought people were looking. Otherwise, he just sat around, staring, not giving a crap. Amazing what you see when you're not looking directly at the person...

    73. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      No, but paying $100 a month to subscribe to a car service that provides automated cars on demand is.

      $100 per month? That's not going to happen. Maybe $300/mo.

    74. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Jersey went one better. Fault in accidents is based on "fact of involvement". It means everyone involved is at fault for the purposes of raising rates and premiums. This is how GEICO returned to the state in 2008 after being the first to leave in 1976.

    75. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you mean by "not for friction." As I understand it the coefficient of friction for two materials doesn't depend on mass, but doesn't the "friction force" depend on the amount of force pressing the materials together?

      The friction is essentially mu*N. The inertia is the mass. So as mass increases, the normal force increases at the same rate the inertia increases. So a motorbike on good tires will stop in about the same distance as a much heavier sports car. The main reason the trucks can't match that is that they are poorly designed (for performance), poorly maintained (for performance), and have additional factors (like shifting loads). An 80,000 lb truck with good quality brakes perfectly balanced on all 18 wheels should stop in the same distance as the motorcycle. But for a truck, cost and reliability are much more important than performance, so the performance suffers.

      But then I wouldn't have been able to make it into an oblique reference to a Family Guy joke.

      Eh, I didn't get the joke. Must have missed it.

    76. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You gave an anecdote of a single incident.

      Yes, and the plural of anecdote is data. All the statistics that make up the "the car usually caused it" stat is a sum of anecdotes, assebmled by police. The police are trained that all crashes are speed and alcohol related, and that a car-truck crash is the fault of the car. The bias is there.

      And if you think the police have sympathy for truckers, you know nothing about the business.

      I know more than you do. Yes, the police target them for inspections because the drivers so often miss something on the piles of paperwork. Easy fines to meet their quota. They don't actually have it out for truckers, they have quotas, even after quotas have been made explicitly illegal in most places.

    77. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will help if the cars are automated too, along with every vehicle on the road.

      It is inevitable that the roads will be automated, while driving oneself will be illegal. As population increases, efficiencies will need to increase. In additional to the lost lives, review how much money is lost by inefficient use of fuel and all the damage from accidents.

      This being said, it will roll out very slowly over time due to our litigious society. Who owns the trucks now-a-days? One person LLCs. Why? To avoid our litigious society. Laws will need to change.

    78. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are comparing the trucks on the road to the best cars and motorcycles that exist? A bit of a stretch do not you think? The best I doubt are driven 350+ days a year 8 to 12 hours a day if not more depending on number of drivers and distance traveled. I am not saying that most of the trucks are operationally deficient I know too many long haul drivers to know they take care of the rigs but still not the use most cars, the best or not get put through day after day.

    79. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      To give a counterexample, I was driving down a long hill that I have driven daily for 20+ years. At the bottom of the hill, right before it went around a curve, I saw cars hitting their brakes, and knew there was probably a traffic jam around the corner, so I started slowing down.

      There was a truck driver pretty far behind me, and he didn't bother slowing down until he came around the curve, saw the traffic jam, locked his brakes, and ran off the road, and blamed me for the accident.

      I don't know why it would be necessary for you to defend yourself in this to begin with. It's his responsibility to maintain a safe following distance. If he can't come to an emergency stop behind you without running off the road, it's his fault for either following too closely or driving too fast. It doesn't sound like he hit you, so I wonder how you got ensnared in this at all. I would have driven away (I'm not involved in the accident so I don't have an obligation to stay there and have someone try to blame their mistakes on me).

    80. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Your brother is correct. Professional drivers can drive hundreds of thousands of miles per year, while Joe Blow in his Honda may do 15,000. Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car. So automating trucking won't help.

      More importantly, the autonomous vehicles will keep a multisensory log of everything that happens, so an accident inolving one of these trucks will not be a he-said, she-said situation. The perfect log of data will spell out very clearly what happened, allowing the owner of the autonomous vehicles significant liability protection from idiot drivers that they do not enjoy today.

      Autonomous vehicles will also advance the way all technology advances. Each failure will allow engineers to find ways to improve the outcomes of similar events in the future, meaning that as the technology gets more mature, it will get safer.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    81. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Ostrich25 · · Score: 1

      At the speeds and distances they are talking about, there is no time to check to see if the space 3 meters to one side is empty or not.

    82. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plural of anecdote is not data.

      For a sufficiently large quantity of anecdotes, yes it damn well is.

    83. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, I'd rather get hit by the slower truck than the faster one.

    84. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      I saw a prototype device on a TV show that dropped a sheet of something infront of and under the tires. Though I assume the loss of control would cause worse problems, you could stop in a shorter distance.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    85. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the automated truck should be seeking to place enough distance between it and the car ahead of it to come to a complete stop without hitting the car should the car stop in the shortest distance it can.

    86. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rubber in contact with the road should not matter. The tires should not be sliding with respect to the road. The energy should instead be dissipated in the braking system. If the tires are sliding, this will increase the stopping distance. The should be rolling without sliding, even while braking. This is part of the reason why cars, at least, have anti-lock braking systems. The relevant friction is the discs or whatever air brakes use, not tire rubber.

    87. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the truck should should be no closer than 355 + 88 = 443 feet to the rear bumper of the car ahead of it. Might be a pain for a human driver, but the computer won't mind trying to maintain this distance, even if cut off.

    88. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure, a truck going the same speed as a car can have the brakes fail completely, or the driver have a heart attack too, then it can take twice, three times, or arbitrarily longer to stop than a car. Or vice versa. Sorry, I assumed you were trying to say something relevant.

      I quite pointedly said that things are somewhat more complicated with real vehicles than the simple physics analysis of locked wheels. It's not my theory, it's basic physics (which you claimed did not support my original post), and also the formula that most police forces use to estimate (note, estimate) the speed of vehicles involved in collisions.

      You are completely ignoring the fact that, as I posted, US regulations require trucks be able to stop in much less than twice the distance cars can, and test results that indicate most (well maintained) trucks can stop quite a bit better than required. In real life, as is demonstrated in transport safety statistics, large trucks are quite frequently poorly maintained and so their stopping distances may well be longer.

    89. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      True, but eventually your car is going to be old and rusty. When you buy your replacement, it may well come with an auto-drive capability in all but the cheapest models.

    90. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force."

      No, that's the simplified version you get taught in school. It's a model good enough for many situations, but it's far from accurate in all - it's just easy to calculate.

    91. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Breaking doesn't mean jamming the wheels stationary and skidding to a stop - doing so means losing all control of the vehicle and wouldn't actually work very well as the rubber would almost instantly become so hot that the coefficient of friction decreases. Breaking means applying a lot of resistance to the rotation of the wheels, which isn't dependant on the mass of the vehicle.

    92. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Mass cancels:
      F = cf*M*g
      A = F / M
      A= cf * M * g / M.

      Mathematically, it looks like mass doesn't matter. It's an easy mistake, but wrong: Firstly because the friction important for breaking is in the break discs and pads, not where the rubber meets the road. Secondly because the coefficient of friction model isn't entirely accurate - it's a simplified model only. In the case of a truck skidding it isn't accurate because the tyres will abrade and overheat long before the skid is complete.

    93. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Yes it will. Because there's a lot of truckies out there with extremely poor road manners (ie trying to pass another truck on a two lane road and blocking traffic for many kilometres, tailgating slow drivers because they're impatient etc. Should robot trucks ever see the light of day, they'll be programmed to never tailgate, and they'll have no need to risk passing because a few extra minutes won't matter to the computer.

    94. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to like the chart, and I agree with your statements, but what stupid high school work experience intern kid did they have make the fucking diagram!!!

      Look closely at the car stopping distance of 193 feet. Now look where the bar chart ends. Look where the nose of the car ends. My only interpretation is that the cute graphic has been included as part of the bar chart.

      Misleading at worst, and damn stupid at best.

    95. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Implementing autonomous vehicles AVs on the roadways will reduce the cost of transportation - not increase it. Computer technology is already cheap enough to tackle the routines needed by an autonomous vehicle, and the sensors, even the lidar systems, are rapidly coming down in price.

      Many modern new cars, particularly the high-end ones, already have many of the necessary systems: Vehicle tracking; adaptive braking; self-parking. Mass production will make these available and affordable on every new car or truck.

      But it doesn't matter much what your opinion is on this issue. It has already been decided by economics and technological evolution. Autonomous vehicles are coming to your town soon.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    96. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      You are making the false assumption that the car is not also an automated vehicle. Within the next 10 years, all highway travel is likely to be automated. There is no reason a human needs to be sitting behind the wheel of a car for hours up9n hours in any circumstance.

    97. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that the unmanned autonomous vehicle has options which a human driver would be very reluctant to take, running the truck into the concrete barrier or off the road in preference to hitting the car is reasonable when running with self preservation as a rather lower weighting then most humans give it.

      Nothing absorbs kinetic energy like crumpling the whole tractor unit into a bridge support.....

      Also increased situational awareness increases the ability to take evasive action right now (Even to the point of potentially causing a much lower energy contact with a third party to avoid the 20MJ event, the lawyers would love that one).

      Of course programming the weightings for the ethics of such things is going to be interesting, especially when the lawyers get involved.

      73 Dan.

    98. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The rubber in contact with the road should not matter.

      What kind of nonsense is that?

      Of course it does, each square inch of rubber has only so much traction, only so much friction, before it breaks loose.

      The energy should instead be dissipated in the braking system.

      You can easily apply enough brake force to lock up the wheels.

      The tires are the only thing actually slowing down the truck.

      The bigger the tires are, the more of them you have, the quicker you can stop.

    99. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought all 50 states had a law something like "assured clear distance". That makes ANYONE behind you that hits you 100% at fault. ??

      I've been driving 40 years in Michigan and my understanding is that I must deal with whatever the person in front of me does (apart from them putting it in reverse/straying from their lane). Of course I understand that I might suffer vehicle damage and injuries so there might be good reasons not to rely on this, but still the person behind gets the ticket.

    100. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A truck designed and tuned for performance should be quite similar to a car in stopping distance. That they aren't is a separate discussion.

    101. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Braking can never exceed the friction force, or you go into a sliding condition. That's the upper bound. You are pointing out that my definition of the upper bound is correct, but doing so in a disagreeable manner.

    102. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      You are making the false assumption that the car is not also an automated vehicle. Within the next 10 years, all highway travel is likely to be automated..

      While it is an assumption it is not false. The article is about a proposal to automate trucks today and what that would mean. In 10 years there may also be some automated passenger vehicles, but it will not be "all highway travel", unless you believe the government is going to pay everyone who needs to use a highway to throw away their perfectly good car. All 253 million of them. Not going to happen. For quite a long time automated vehicles and manned vehicles are going to have to coexist on the roads.

      There is no reason a human needs to be sitting behind the wheel of a car for hours up9n hours in any circumstance.

      Other than cost and a lot more technology so automated cars can handle the other 99% of the roads in the US, no.

    103. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means everyone involved is at fault for the purposes of [insurance].

      That is called a "no-fault" state, where for the purpose of insurance they do not try to determine blame. Each person's insurance pays his own damage. It is supposed to lower insurance rates overall since the cost of investigating and litigating go way down. In reality, it probably means bad drivers get away with being bad longer than they would otherwise, and good drivers who get hit by the bad drivers get to pay more just beause.

    104. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      friction is worked out by multiplying the coeffcient of friction by the mass, nothing about surface area is invovled unless its activly sticking to the road (glue).

    105. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately having been hit by a full size Semi-Trailer, the driver of which was later charged with "driving without due care and attention" there are accidents that are the truck drivers fault.

    106. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not arguing with you, but this video shows the effectiveness of truck braking when done by a computer. You're still right though, the stopping distance of a truck is longer than a car. Not sure by how much, though.

    107. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's like saying a 10 story apartment building and a 100 story skyscraper require the same engineering. They dont, and the reason we dont have 500 story skyscrapers runs up against physical limitations of materials.

      Truck stopping distance has to do with brake and tire technology. A 10% reduction in stopping distance can mean a 50-100% increase in cost and maintenance. Cold hard economics is making the decisions until tech improves more.

    108. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      It's easier to dodge an accident than stop in front of one. That's what I learned from racing. Always leave yourself an out.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    109. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by rioki · · Score: 1

      Then again the car will not be able to stop on the spot. it needs to actually slow down with it's breaks. Event the situation where something falls of the back of a pickup truck; whatever falls needs to slow down by friction. The only situation that GP has anything useful is the kid that runs onto the street a short distance away. This situation physics dictates that there is not solution, if you consider stopping distance only. But an autonomous system, as a driver can also swerve to avoid the obstacle. The reduction in response time, may actually save the life of the person running in front of the truck. Then again this exact situation is one of the hardest to handle, since an obstacle coming perpendicularly towards the vehicle may still stop before the paths intersect.

    110. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Yes it is a shame... that small cars hover around the sides of trucks and prevent them from having that 3 meters of space to the left or right.

    111. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Pros vs Amateurs

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    112. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The tech is there to get a 80000 lb truck to perform like a car. The issue is cost. Dead people are acceptable, so long as we save 1/10th of a cent on our Wal-Mart purchase.

    113. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the experiment yourself. Get yourself 4 iphones and a slight ramp then see what slides down faster, the iphones stacked ontop of eachother, or next to eachother (hint they will both be the same speed). Are you trying to justify the 28inch rims you bought for your car or something? Wider tires help better distribute the weight and handle leaning into corners better; unless of course you have got them so hot they melt into the road and stick to it (then surface area will matter).

    114. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha oh look another person that dosn't understand friction. Surface area isn't part of the equation unless it is actully sticking to the other surface.

    115. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gave an anecdote of a single incident.

      Yes, and the plural of anecdote is data. All the statistics that make up the "the car usually caused it" stat is a sum of anecdotes, assebmled by police. The police are trained that all crashes are speed and alcohol related, and that a car-truck crash is the fault of the car. The bias is there.

      And if you think the police have sympathy for truckers, you know nothing about the business.

      I know more than you do. Yes, the police target them for inspections because the drivers so often miss something on the piles of paperwork. Easy fines to meet their quota. They don't actually have it out for truckers, they have quotas, even after quotas have been made explicitly illegal in most places.

      Know more than me?
      My family (both parents, then brothers) was in the trucking business for about 25 years until they sold the business.
      True, I never drove, but I worked on the business side while on college break and helped out in evenings/weekends.
      I do, in fact, know a lot, and while I am sure that some cop somewhere gave a break to a trucker because I can think of an incident or two, I assure you that cops generally do not like truckers, and they generally do not lie on accident reports to give some trucker a break.

      You made that up and that is all there is to it.

      For one thing, when a truck gets into an accident that's anything more than a dented fender, there are many people investigating it. It would take a cop far dumber than most to lie on an accident report because he knows that the incident is not going to end with his report.

      But mainly the point is this.
      You're asking us to extrapolate from a single data point, and that is sloppy thinking.

    116. Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha oh look another person that dosn't understand friction. Surface area isn't part of the equation unless it is actully sticking to the other surface.

      The coefficient of friction for tires is not a constant. It decreases with the loading for typical auto and truck weights.

      Tire friction is nothing like what we were taught in physics class.
      https://www.tut.fi/ms/muo/tyre...
      http://bsesrv214.bse.vt.edu/Ho...

    117. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      In practice, particularly with anti-lock brakes, the situation is a bit more complicated, but it shouldn't be as bad as double. I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.

      Note that US federal regulations require large trucks to stop in considerably less than twice the distance of passenger cars (or even motor bikes), and that tested trucks average quite a bit better than that maximum: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA....

      So if a truck does take twice the distance of a car, it may literally be criminally poorly maintained.

      What he said^^^^^^
      Here is the relevant regulation quoted from the linked pdf.

      "Current FMVSS No. 121 regulations allow longer stopping distances for pneumatically
      braked heavy vehicles than for passenger cars or motorcycles. NHTSA believes that
      improving the discrepancy in stopping distances is very important in reducing heavy
      truck related fatalities in North America. Currently, pneumatically braked truck tractors
      are required to stop from 96.6 kph (60 mph) in 108 m (355 ft.) at GVWR, whereas the
      FMVSS No. 135 requirement for passenger cars is 65 m (216 ft.) Actual stopping
      distances seen in the field vary significantly for both groups."

      Also, another thing is that on wet pavement, truck and auto stopping distances are about the same.

    118. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      I never said I know more than you. I gave an incident. You disagreed because you didn't like the conclusion. Not because any facts were wrong.

      For one thing, when a truck gets into an accident that's anything more than a dented fender, there are many people investigating it. It would take a cop far dumber than most to lie on an accident report because he knows that the incident is not going to end with his report.

      The cop isn't lying. You aren't even reading what I write, so why should I bother to correct you, other than insulting your stupidity and ignoring you?

    119. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Toshito · · Score: 1

      Then clearly the trucks should either:

      a) have a lower speed limit than cars
      b) have a much smaller cargo weigh limit

      But no, I'm sure that as we speak trucking companies are lobying for increased length and weight limits for their trucks (because money!!!) Fuck safety!

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    120. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      If we're talking about a computer driven truck there certainly could be enough time. It depends on how powerful of a system it has and whether or not it is continuously monitoring all of its surroundings to begin with.

    121. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said I know more than you. I gave an incident. You disagreed because you didn't like the conclusion. Not because any facts were wrong.

      For one thing, when a truck gets into an accident that's anything more than a dented fender, there are many people investigating it. It would take a cop far dumber than most to lie on an accident report because he knows that the incident is not going to end with his report.

      The cop isn't lying. You aren't even reading what I write, so why should I bother to correct you, other than insulting your stupidity and ignoring you?

      Oh yes you did say "I know more than you do."
      Read your own post:
      by AK Marc (707885) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 16, 2015 @08:12PM (#49708059)

      I remind you of what you said:

      I know more than you do. Yes, the police target them for inspections because the drivers so often miss something on the piles of paperwork. Easy fines to meet their quota. They don't actually have it out for truckers, they have quotas, even after quotas have been made explicitly illegal in most places.

      See those first six words? They are "I know more than you do." You said that.

      Also you said:
      "The police who write the reports know that the crashes are the fault of the car, so they write them that way without looking a the circumstances."

      If the cop writes up a report without looking at the circumstances, then the cop's report is a lie.
      You said cops write up reports without looking at the circumstances.
      There is no other way to interpret what you said but that you are accusing the cop of lying.

    122. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police are trained that ... a car-truck crash is the fault of the car. The bias is there.

      And I'm sure you have a way to back this up, right?

    123. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. When you take classes from the same institution that teaches highway patrolmen how to determine fault, you pick some things up. But you don't keep every piece of information catelogued with the source, so you can quote it back to some jackass on the Internet. Why, is your unsubstantiated opinion more important than everyone else's?

    124. Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think you estimated the coefficient of friction within about 15%??. Same for the distance.
        I think you should be applying for craps every time it speaks award.

  5. New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In NJ, you aren't allowed to pump your own gas so that you will keep the guy who pumps it employed. They *could* have employed him dong something useful--thing TVA-type programs where he's doing a job to improve the environment, for example--but this is what they picked. There will be pushback against automated trucks in a similar fashion, although of course they're so much more proficient that they will prevail in the end.

    There are a lot of trucks where liability or small tasks that still require human judgment will keep with human drivers for a good long while yet. Fuel Trucks delivering to local gas stations, septic trucks and heating oil trucks that have to find a port in every person's yard, etc...

    I do wonder whether the amount of stuff that falls off the back of the truck will go up or down. Less oversight of the stuff, but less chance for a driver to be in collusion with the people who fall things off the back of trucks.

    1. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Nowadays this law sticks around because people who are unable to pump their own gas (i.e. would need to seek full service pumps) and people afraid to get out of their cars raise a huge stink whenever repeal is considered.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the initial model for long-distance trucks will be trucks that runs 24 hours per day, while an attendant rides the truck for the few remaining manual task. Heck, you could have an outsourced programmer working 2 jobs at the same time: programming and baby-sitting the truck!. Increasing the number of hours per day that the truck runs is a significant increase in productivity.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      It is actually big oil who keeps lobbying to prevent the repeal. Not quite sure what they gain from the law but it is unenforced anyway. Sometimes the attendant will make a stink if you try to pump yourself but mostly they are happy to let you.

    4. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      citation needed.

    5. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget on the fly maintenance. Anyone who thinks that it should just "work" is probably the regular mechanic. Important guys to be sure but sometimes things need to happen on the road to get things done on time.

    6. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are no such people. I mean, if there were, then WTF would they do when they go on a trip to a different state? Stand next to the gas pump and act helpless, like a drooling moron?

      I went to visit in-laws in Oregon a while back, and was amazed at how much of a pain in the ass getting gas there was. In normal states, you can just get out, pump the gas, pay, and leave. But in Oregon? In Oregon you have to wait in line for fucking ever because they have one guy running around handling all the pumps and there's a line of cars waiting because he can't keep up. People from Oregon say "oh, isn't it great how we don't have to pump our own gas?" No, it really fucking isn't! It's worse!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by sl149q · · Score: 1

      It is also a more efficient use of capital. Trucking companies invest a large amount of money in their fleet. A 20% more efficient fleet means a corresponding reduction in the amount of money you need to invest in your fleet. If there are other cost reductions as well this becomes compelling.

    8. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Don't forget on the fly maintenance. Anyone who thinks that it should just "work" is probably the regular mechanic. Important guys to be sure but sometimes things need to happen on the road to get things done on time.

      Think of this as a function of time. Probably a lot cheaper to have a network of people able to service big rigs available throughout the country on short notice than to pay them to sit in the truck all day, except where the cost of a delay exceeds a certain threshold--i.e. the cost of paying to have a mechanic sit in the self-driving truck adjusted by the probability of it breaking down.

    9. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      There are no such people. I mean, if there were, then WTF would they do when they go on a trip to a different state? Stand next to the gas pump and act helpless, like a drooling moron?

      Are you serious? Have you never seen or heard of "full service" gas pumps? I have an elderly relative who is precisely a person like this -- I don't think she's ever pumped her own gas in her life. Granted, most of the time she lives in the city and doesn't drive, but when she does, she never pumps her own gas. One day when I was visiting her, she found it absolutely astonishing that I said we didn't have to take a big detour to some other gas station -- I'd pump her gas for her at the "self-service" pump.

      These people are increasingly rare, given that more gas stations lack "full-service" pumps. But there are usually still plenty such gas stations around in a decent sized town, if you look for them. (Heck, even in the past few years I've had a guy not only pump my gas but actually clean my windshield and offer to check my oil level when I stopped at a random gas station during a trip.)

      I went to visit in-laws in Oregon a while back, and was amazed at how much of a pain in the ass getting gas there was. In normal states, you can just get out, pump the gas, pay, and leave. But in Oregon? In Oregon you have to wait in line for fucking ever because they have one guy running around handling all the pumps and there's a line of cars waiting because he can't keep up.

      Uh... go to another gas station, maybe?

      I never lived in New Jersey, but I've spent a lot of time going through it, and I've only rarely seen the situation you describe at most gas stations -- and there it was usually a really busy time of day, and it wasn't significantly slowed down by the attendants: you'd probably have to wait in line anyway.

      I'll tell you one thing -- I'd MUCH rather have some stupid state law requiring attendants to pump gas for me and be able to go from car to car, than the situation in many states where they outlaw the "catch" on self-service pumps, forcing you to stand there holding the damn trigger the whole time, even when it's below zero and you don't have your gloves on because you don't want them smelling like gasoline.

      Yes, yes -- I've read all of the news stories about static discharge supposedly causing fires when people get back in their cars during refueling. First off, while it seems possible for such a situation to occur, there's little documented evidence that this is the cause of a significant number of fires at gas stations. And even so -- well, I never get back in my car -- I just want to be able to put my damn hand in my pocket rather than getting frostbite.

      But the stupid government decides that I can't have the little "clicky thing" to pump the gas for me while I stand there... in that case, yeah, I'd rather require some other idiot to stand out in the cold and pump the gas for me. (Ironically, despite these requirements -- it should be noted that gas prices in New Jersey are generally some of the lowest in the U.S.)

    10. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are no such people.

      Yes there are. Perhaps it's not actually IMPOSSIBLE for them to pump their own gas, but it may be significantly more difficult than it is for you or me. Consider an elderly person who needs a walker. Now consider that they can't maneuver the nozzle and hold their walker with both hands at the same time. It's not impossible, but it sure would be significantly easier for them if someone else pumps their gas.

    11. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      First of all, let's be honest: if someone is frail enough to require a walker, in many cases they're probably not healthy enough to be operating a vehicle in the first place. In an emergency, how are they going to press the brake pedal hard enough to actually stop effectively (i.e., hard enough that the ABS would kick in)?

      Second, in the entire Metro Atlanta area I've only ever noticed one gas station that advertized full service. So how do disabled people around here get gas? Simple! Every staffed gas station, including self-service ones, is required by law to have the attendant pump gas for disabled people, rendering the whole thing a non-issue. (By the way, that's a Federal law -- the Americans with Disabilities Act -- so don't pretend as if it wouldn't apply in New Jersey and Oregon too!)

      The bottom line is this: Why should able-bodied people be treated like drooling morons -- and have to pay more -- just so that some minimum-wage worker can pretend that he's useful? The answer is, no goddamn reason at all!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course they're so much more proficient that they will prevail in the end

      Based on what evidence, exactly? The huge fleets of automated trucks roaming the continent without any problems today? Oh, right--based on the fact that the apps on your phone work pretty well and therefore automating anything must be easy and will work perfectly. Typical logic of the kind that makes me ashamed to be a geek.

      The other thing, of course, is the notion that we should automate everything because.....reasons. It never occurs to anybody that some people might not exactly want a society with millions of unemployed people just so a bunch of techno nerds can show off.

      Our entire industry has transformed from one where we used technology to help people to where we use technology to track, harass, and economically destroy people. No sense of ethics whatsoever.

    13. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      These people are increasingly rare, given that more gas stations lack "full-service" pumps.

      Well, chalk one up for electrics, I guess.

      Tesla's working on automated full-service battery swapping stations. And apparently also on charging cords that can plug themselves in:

      http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

      Robots of that sort already exist, so you can see the sort of thing he's probably referring to:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    14. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      In NJ, you aren't allowed to pump your own gas so that you will keep the guy who pumps it employed.

      An interesting side-effect of this might be that more full-serve gas-pumping jobs are created (outside of NJ of course). All those self-driving trucks aren't going to be able to pump their own gas...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    15. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So in other words, there ARE such people but they can already get help if needed.

      The original claim was that there were no such people. Say what you mean!

      As for frailty, there are a lot of ways a person can end up more than strong enough to operate the brakes but need a walker. For example, perhaps one leg is severely limited and other issues make crutches a problem.

    16. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take super-advanced technology to make a robot that can shove a small pipe into a larger opening with a tracking pattern painted around it. If the self-driving truck takes off, it wouldn't be long before the fully-automated gas pump follows.

    17. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Ehh, your "pay more" comment doesn't really make sense for NJ. The gas there is the cheapest in the northeast. The difference between NJ and NY can easily be 40 cents / gallon.

      In the wintertime, full serve is a godsend. I'd gladly pay an extra 10 cents / gallon to not get out of my car.

    18. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Most gas stations in Oregon don't have canopies. If you want to stand out in the rain to pump your gas, you can always go over the state line into Washington.

      --
      That is all.
  6. God save the covered wagon drivers! by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    And taxi drivers. Stop uber!

    1. Re:God save the covered wagon drivers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not about saving an industry when it becomes pointless. It is about helping 4M people who have built their lives around this industry which has existed for generations. Yeah, shame on them for believing pop culture that predicted even though future cars would fly, George Jetson would steer it.

      When you're 50 with a mortgage that you pay from your small business you own (fuel station) living in a soon to be ghost town with plummeting property values what do you do?

    2. Re:God save the covered wagon drivers! by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Fuel-free trucks is not the topic. Automation of truck driving is. Your fuel station will adapt; you'll probably need to add staff to go out and pump fuel into the automated trucks, maybe add some services once the specifics of these systems are known (cleaning sensors?) and should be able to offer key advantages by doing so. You may become the preferred station in the area for that reason. And you're going to be creating some jobs, so it just gets better and better.

      Shatter resistant glass would hurt the window repair industry, so that should be stopped in its development tracks too. Think of the multigenerational family glass businesses who depend on broken window vandalism, they planned their lives around broken glass. We could break some windows while we're at it, just to boost their industry.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    3. Re:God save the covered wagon drivers! by innerweb · · Score: 1

      If history is to be believed, you riot.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  7. Address errors, hacking by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

    I've already encountered address errors where due to the GPS having erroneous data the driver was unwilling to accept he was not at the right place. How do you handle a robot that KNOWS it is droppng its load on you and it is wrong? A human can have the sign on the bulding and the street sign pointed out to them to prove they are wrong. How do you reason with the software?

    How many loads redirected by hackers before they need men to "ride shotgun" on the load?

    1. Re:Address errors, hacking by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      More than likely, such trucks won't be used to local addresses, but to those huge distribution points along the freeway and possibly shipping ports if they are not in the middle of an urban area.

      Having a limited number of well known spots and routes will likely be the first step, buy a company like Walmart that has the infrastructure and the need to move that much stuff.

      And they will get robot guards, what could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Address errors, hacking by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      And they will get robot guards, what could possibly go wrong?

      "Okay, turn left at the light and pull into the staging yard's second driveway on the left. Don't worry about the "deadly force authorized" signs - the ED-209 shouldn't bother you."

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  8. Not sure what to worry about here by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't imagine that even with trucks driving themselves, that we wouldn't want or need someone being with the truck. For interactions with people for delivery, to handle mechanical problems or unexpected issues that would arise.

    I just don't think it'll be the employment collapse everyone is imagining, I just think we'll move from truck driver to truck manager.

    1. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you want one person per one truck, when you can have a customer service team with one person per hundred trucks?

    2. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by ghjm · · Score: 3, Informative

      We won't have a truck manager on every truck. We'll have truck managers responsible for a region of maybe a couple hours' drive. When a truck gets sick, the local truck manager drives out to where it is and fixes it. So we're replacing a couple million jobs with a couple thousand.

    3. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by joss · · Score: 1

      this guy explained the problem better than i can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    4. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes some trucks carry nuclear material and you want someone there just in case, especially where I live (New Mexico), semi trucks have been stolen here

    5. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Once upon a time a railway train _typically_ needed four or more staff, some of whom understood a fair amount about how the train worked. Today the trains I often take have one member of staff, the driver, and the instruction he has if it breaks down is very simple, reach to one side and "Phone a Friend" (yes it's a Who Wants To Be A Millionaire reference, railways aren't exactly cutting edge) with the digital radio phone built into his train.

      The same for signallers. Once upon a time each junction would have a signaller. Then a box would control two or three different junctions, and then more, until today a handful of guys sat in an air conditioned office from which you can't even see any trains are controlling all the signals in a 50km radius.

      Automation doesn't necessarily eradicate a job entirely, it can just amplify talent and thereby make 99% of the work force unemployable. The job the signallers do in their air-conditioned office isn't much different from the job they did in the signal boxes, except some of the manual labour was removed, and all of the slack hours, doing almost nothing for minutes at a time, were replaced with a constant hum of activity.

    6. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      For some jobs you can eliminate the person that goes along with the truck. For example when the truck is making deliveries to warehouses or stores and there are people there that can load or offload what is needed. When you have lots of small deliveries or need a task done at each spot then you still need someone or people to go along with the truck. Say a furniture delivery business or a moving company. But they can find people easier since they wouldn't need to have someone with a special license anymore.

    7. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by Gold__Plated · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think the idea of the tuck manager is just as much an idea based on having a "law" that all trucks still need to be maned. The law for per truck "truck manager" would be to ensure no loss / theft as well as extra safety etc as well as job protection, sure there could be an argument for a lower wage since they dont have to do as much and can even sleep at certain times during travel on the truck but I think it still makes good argument to have truck a manager per truck. I think you other posters are a bit narrow minded to think so simply about the OPs idea.

    8. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You don't understand. The issue is deliberately confused by those who don't like it. Take Wal-Mart. Say everything delivered to a Wal-Mart comes on a Wal-Mart truck. These trucks take the same goods over the same routes thousands of times. No change. No need to get out, except to fuel up. Set start and destination points. Why would you need people for "delivery"? They are already there.

      This has nothing to do with a UPS or FedEx truck. Nor even most supermarkets. Most places aren't as optimized as Wal-Mart, so your produce truck will look at daily orders for the local supermarkets and adjust the route, based on demand. These would be later.

      But much of the truck traffic in the US is train on wheels. Depot to depot, not "deliveries" as most people think of them.

    9. Re:Not sure what to worry about here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want one person per one truck, when you can have a customer service team with one person per hundred trucks?

      So that the other 99 people don't get bored while unemployed, and burn down my house at night -- with me in it.

      When decisions are made solely on the basis of economics, don't be surprised when the non-economic effects come back to bite you, and your civilization, in the ass.

  9. Ban Tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If we allow tractors and other labor-saving farm equipment, at least 65 percent of the population will become unemployable!"

    - The 1870's

    1. Re:Ban Tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, looks like they were mostly correct. It just took awhile to play out.

  10. 3.5 million truckers by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

    But the eventual replacement of truck drivers with autonomous driving systems will have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers, and millions more are employed to support and coordinate them.

    Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:3.5 million truckers by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      "autonomous driving systems" makes me think of trains.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:3.5 million truckers by glenebob · · Score: 2

      Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.

      If a plane could simply pull over on the outskirts of town to meet its harbor pilot, long haul freight plane pilots would be on the block, too.

    3. Re:3.5 million truckers by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.

      Which is why it's an absurd notion. Human beings can't "take over" in a fraction of a second, especially since they're out of practice from not driving the car and daydreaming (at best). An automated car has to handle every situation it encounters on its own, otherwise it's worse than useless.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:3.5 million truckers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't say it's worse than useless. But it may not be the panacea that we expect.

      First, I have my doubts about the whole "A.I. Can Handle Anything" theory. Weather, accidents, and construction can create very creative roadways where you will want a driver behind the wheel who'll be able to figure out and work with human beings on the scene (for example, a cop doing traffic control around an accident).

      So you'll still want drivers. The question is, how many drivers will you need?

      Consider long-haul trucks, which are the ones that are really ripe for automation. They usually have two drivers so that they can run 24 hours at a stretch. I believe--and I may be off--that the rules for these people require that they drive no more than 12 hours. It might be 10 hours, I don't remember. But in any event, the reason you have two drivers is so that you don't have a truck spending 12-14 hours sitting by the side of the road while the single driver sleeps.

      You could get rid of one driver right there. A long haul truck with one driver who can sleep for 12 hours and will only be woken up if something weird is going on that the truck can't handle so it pulled off to the side of the road. That's still saving money versus having two drivers and is certainly not "worse than useless."

    5. Re:3.5 million truckers by guises · · Score: 1

      There is no question that this is coming. Honestly, I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen first - automated planes are much easier than automated road vehicles since the skies are less congested, road conditions are more consistent, there are relatively few take-off and landing areas and all are well known with well established flight paths between them.

      Also, who says a plane can't pull over on the outskirts of town to meet its harbor pilot? Military drones are remote controlled, why couldn't you have a few remote pilots in a control tower at any given airport, ready to guide the plane in on its final descent?

    6. Re:3.5 million truckers by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps more accurately, the A.I. MUST be able to either handle the situation or decide it can't and bring the vehicle to a safe stop to allow a driver to take over. What it must not do is suddenly buzz and expect the human to instantly take over to avoid a crash. Rule number one, the AI is responsible for the vehicle until the human voluntarily indicates he has taken over, no matter what.

    7. Re:3.5 million truckers by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The only people proposing that are people who are arguing against it by making up strawmen. No system does a handover of that nature, nor is there reason to suspect any will.

    8. Re:3.5 million truckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're still not getting it.

      They don't have to be able to handle everything. They just have to be better than the alternative. Saving $10k/year by having one fewer driver? Done!

      Come across a situation you can't deal with, such as road maintenance? The local controller will provide information to the onboard computer on how to deal with the situation.

      Not perfect, just better.

    9. Re:3.5 million truckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it is 10 hours now. (unless there is some kind of emergency)
      There is an Android app that is pretty good, called "Big Road Trucker". I was playing around with it, since I was thinking about delivering RVs from the factory, which required a chauffeur's license but had to follow CDL rules.

    10. Re:3.5 million truckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting rid of the drivers is the whole point of developing autonomous driving systems at all.

    11. Re:3.5 million truckers by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, the benefit of autonomous truck driving is not eliminating the drivers, it's fuel economy. By having a convoy of trucks spaced optimally apart, the trailing trucks can benefit from the aerodynamic "draft" created by the first truck. Humans simply aren't capable of maintaining those gaps safely.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    12. Re:3.5 million truckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're missing is that the human isn't there 'to take over in an emergency situation'. He's there to make give our Luddite populous warm and fuzzies just long enough to demonstrate that the computer actually *is* safer; then he's out on his ass.

  11. I, for one... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new autonomous overlords. I'm not kidding. The problem with the transportation system is drivers.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
    1. Re:I, for one... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I think more of the problem is so much stuff gets sent by truck when rail would be cheaper and faster. Unfortunately the U.S. doesn't have anywhere near the rail infrastructure that Europe does. I live about a mile from the Florida East Coast railway tracks. The next closest set of tracks belongs to CSX, and is about 100 miles away.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:I, for one... by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > I think more of the problem is so much stuff gets sent by truck when rail would be cheaper and faster.

      Er.... I assume you've seen THESE, which seem to address your concerns quite thoroughly:

      http://www.railpictures.net/im...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:I, for one... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      ...the problem is so much stuff gets sent by truck when rail would be cheaper and faster. ...

      What makes you say that? Have you done any comparisons? What type of cargo are you referring to?

      It would seem that using a steel wheel on a steel rail would be the most friction-less means of transportation and thus the cheapest, but the realities of shipping make the air-filled tire on the asphalt road to be preferable.

      There are exceptions, though. I would suppose shipping by rail is most efficient when the cargo is comparatively heavy and the tracks go directly to the destination. Coal shipped from a mine to a power plant is my best example.

      But for discrete manufactured items that need to go to a particular address, rail isn't efficient because tracks don't go to most places. This necessitates the cargo needing to be transferred from one transportation means to another for "the final mile".

      Thus, because the cargo item needs to go through expensive transfers before it reaches its destination, rail comes out to be more expensive than truck.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    4. Re:I, for one... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see those every day, and often have to wait for the same train twice on my way to work. FEC has five terminals over about 650 miles, which means there's still a lot of the coast that has to be served by truck.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  12. Who manages the loading and unloading? by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, refueling? En route maintenance. Stuff like that?

    There is more to being a truck driver than just driving.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Also, refueling? En route maintenance. Stuff like that?

      1) Truck signals for fuel.
      2) Dispatch arranges for fuel delivery.
      3) Truck pulls over when/where instructed.
      4) Fuel truck pulls up, driver transfers fuel.
      5) Profit!

      Also, existing truck stops could simply employ drivers to bring autonomous trucks in for fueling and then send them on their way.

      Same basic idea for maintenance.

    2. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truck deploys a drone manned by dispatch to oversee the delivery/loading/unloading.

    3. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexicans on H1B could handle all of this!

    4. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have ANY idea what a truck driver does at a fuel stop? It's a lot more than just put fuel in it.

      A lot of you idiots just dont have a clue whats really involved.

    5. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Simpler that that, truck stops would switch from self-serve to full serve. Even truck stops used to be full serve. It's not hard to go back to that.

    6. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have ANY idea what a truck driver does at a fuel stop? It's a lot more than just put fuel in it.

      A lot of you idiots just dont have a clue whats really involved.

      Then just put a guy in the fuel stops to do all that. With automated trucks, exactly when a truck would be arriving at the stop would be known in advance, so that guy can be working on something else the rest of the time.

    7. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Truckers do a lot of shit at truck stops that are not relevant to autonomous trucks. They buy greasy food, take a piss, get a blowjob from a hooker who just ate greasy food, carve the bugs off the windshield, replace the air freshener, take a nap, call the wife and tell her he misses her while avoiding talking about hooker blowjobs...

      The shit that is relevant, such as checking tire pressure, oil level, carving the bugs off the camera lenses, whatever, can easily be done by the attendant. Not rocket science!

    8. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they would not do that, too inefficient with the information they have.

      They would have fueling stations near the dispatch area that would fill them up before they leave and they know already what kind of range they have with their load within margin to take into account traffic, detours and all.They also have full access to the maps with the locations of the full-service fueling stations and other such stops.

      They would also have full-service gas stations setup either independently or by the same companies with the trucks programmed to pull up to them when they burn through more than 60% of their tank or so to get topped off and then again be refueled at their destination. Could also program them to go to one on the route automatically if they should have a tire blow out or other such hazard.

      Short of a break down, no one would need to be dispatched to go to the truck as the truck can be programmed to go to set destinations to refuel and do basic stuff long before it needs help from others to get there.

    9. Re:Who manages the loading and unloading? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      1) Truck does calculations before the journey, determines that it will need fueling and that it's database of fueling pumps shows there is a suitable station en route, plus a second one a little further along in case the first becomes inoperative en route.
      2). Truck pulls up to the fueling station.
      3) Truck crypto-auths with pump to validate that it is operated by a customer authorised to use the robo-pump and specifies the required volume of fuel.
      4) Robo-pump inserts pipe into the fuel port, with the aid of the tracking pattern painted around it.
      5) Fuel is pumped. Pipe is removed.
      6) Truck drives away.

  13. Handle it through economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be handled through economics. Trucking companies will look at AI trucks and the total cost of maintaining them (it won't be a single use buy, there will be maintenance, regular monitoring, and errors from the AI to account for) versus the salary of a truck driver. If the AI is expensive it won't be adopted, if it's comparable truck driver salaries will go down to accommodate. Plus even the summary makes a valid point; in order for this to take off, refueling stations have to alter their system and processes to accommodate full service refueling, because an AI truck isn't going to grab the pump and put it into the gas tank on it's own.

    AI does not replace humans, it adds a new variable to the labor cost equation by creating a capital expenditure vs. labor cost component and the pricing (salaries and capex) adjust accordingly. As it adjusts, some will be out of work and some won't, but it won't be 10 million and it won't happen overnight that's for certain.

  14. Trucking by tquasar · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right.This will never happen. There's a lot going on in the cab of a big rig and every car on the road tries to pass you. Accidents caused by driver error? Prove it. Any problem drivers would be a liability and fired.

  15. Technocracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll keep saying it, but this is just one more step towards the collapse predicted by Technocracy. We have a system of artificial scarcity while at the same time we are able to do the same work with fewer people with automation and robotics. The natural trend would be one person watches the machines while the rest of us are without a job, how do you make money without a job, you can't. That's because we don't need money, and the longer we cling to the idea that the measure of a man is his wealth we will continue to have poverty, suffering, and strife and in increasing amounts despite our capacity to produce more with less.

  16. The real driver error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important."

    I've been hired on in the past to give a hand to truckers to unload their rigs, most of the time it involved traveling to a different location. A few times there ended up being a fender bender...and driver error was involved.

    The problem is, it wasn't the trucker's error, but some idiot in some small compact, darting in front of the trucker, because the trucker has to leave room to well stop his rig, in case of an emergency stop...so he doesn't crush someone. Yet so many folks are like moths to a flame when it comes to big rigs...and place themselves in harms way just so they might get a few car lengths ahead.

    I can see this automated 18-wheeler biz being a huge problem, in big cities...because you'll still have the yahoo's being moths and darting in front of big rigs...hell probably even more so once a lot of drivers become aware of this...and the automated rigs well become big blockades on highways...making gridlock even worse. I mean with a human there is a chance he could be distracted or tired...or what have you...so some folks who wouldn't dare...but if you got an AI, that is always aware and programed to slow down...they will cut in...and the truck will slow...and slow...and slow...till it's more or less just stopped in traffic.

    The only real way for automated big rigs to work...is if all the little rigs are automated as well. Otherwise things will just be made worse.

  17. It's My rant by JimSadler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have been hammering this point for at least a year and daily on Slashdot. Taxi drivers are also about to be eliminated. Fast food workers will rapidly almost vanish. School teachers are even more prone to no longer being employable. After all one Algebra 1 teacher can serve the entire nation. The challenge is not unemployment . Massive unemployment is a given. But as jobs vanish businesses will fold quickly. The REAL CHALLENGE is a complete change in social and economic policies so that people are well payed, not to work. Sales taxes will have to support the system as income taxes will be quite restrained except from the investment sector. If we do not do this quickly we are a dead nation. If we believe in survival of the fit over the weak then what we are seeing is that socialism is fit to survive under conditions that capitalism can not.

    1. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong. The solution is, and has always been, the complete elimination of the now useless people. There will be paradise on earth, one day, but only for the One Percenters. The world is being remade by, and for, the Ruling Elite. If you're not part of it now you will never be and neither will any of your descendants. You're part of the surplus populace scheduled for eradication. Sorry.

    2. Re:It's My rant by gweihir · · Score: 1

      While I do not agree on the teachers (that idea has now failed many, many times), I agree on the rest. Capitalism cannot work in a post-production society. Distribute the wealth some other way or society dies.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:It's My rant by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      History disagrees with most of the things you said. As menial, unskilled and repetitive jobs get eliminated, the service industry grows. Fast food servers have been useless for a long time, but they're very rarely replaced by automation. The enormous service industries that are hallmarks of successful western economies are make work programs because we have this antiquated idea that everyone needs a 40+ hour a week job. Plus, most people like having others serve them.

    4. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do have this lovely B arc heading off to colonize Mars though. Better get on quick.

    5. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the 'One Percenters' will live rich and happy lives until they are all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

    6. Re:It's My rant by ultranova · · Score: 2

      If we believe in survival of the fit over the weak then what we are seeing is that socialism is fit to survive under conditions that capitalism can not.

      We've already seen it. The age of crisis lasting from the start of first to the end of second world war basically brought an end to laissez-faire capitalism. Things we have now - from social security to 40-hour workweek - were all reforms demanded by the labour movement. And attempts to return to the good old Gilded Age are backfiring quite spectacularly upon the economy right now. As they deserve to, since even in the best case they would make most people glorified indentured servants.

      All of these problems could be solved quite easily by unconditional citizen pay, since that would guarantee a certain demand and stop the economic downward spiral, as well as kill industries that can't survive without de facto slave labour, but ideology prevents it. I suspect reforms will be impossible until the situation deteriorates to another wave of revolutions. But who knows, maybe our leaders will surprise me and acknowledge reality before it drags them to the guillotine. But, probably not.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just hasn't been done right. Now, there might be a group of teachers helping the one famous teacher. But, I could see a Mythbusters, Frontline, VICE News type of on-line class that people would really want to watch and learn from.

    8. Re:It's My rant by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      With respect, I have never understood this static economic argument. It feels like more venting at the wealthy without a basis in rational economics. That is your right, it would just be nice to have such as that labelled as, "I just hate people who have saved a lot more than I have; I want to vent."

      Those evil rich bastards are going to keep getting richer off of what? If there is no one capable of sustaining a free market, from where do the 1% make their ever-flowing profits? Or how do they even keep their wealth intact without a free market? Selling each other 1% brand soap?

      This is more static analysis (unless it is just venting, again, you're perfectly free to do that). What is more likely is that people will continue to adapt to automation, as they do and have done during any such period of economic change. Some may begin focusing on equity - owning a stake in their economy, some may begin to more highly value useful education to escape the automated drone work, maybe there will be a resurgence in careers that are not automation friendly, or a thousand million other adaptations. But people will not sit around and starve, and the 1% will not thrive on some mythical market limited to catering to each other while the 99% are displaced, unemployed and homeless.

      Each farm tractor sold replaced dozens or even hundreds of jobs-- good, blue collar, back breaking jobs. It drove down expenses and made food so affordable that starvation reached historical lows. All those unemployed field workers, all that ultra-cheap food... but where is the resulting collapse of free market? A bunch of farm tractor 1%ers did not rule over a dead market. It just makes no sense.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    9. Re:It's My rant by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The point, which you seems so desperately try to avoid seeing is that none of the historic labor-changes is comparable to what we are beginning to get now: Human beings are getting redundant for most work and there is no replacement work anymore. Unless you want to fit every 1%er with 98 servants, there really is no traditional solution to this situation left.

      And while you have no way of knowing that, I am closer to an 1%er in some respects than to the average. This is not at all inspired by envy on my part, it is by seeing a severe crisis coming.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:It's My rant by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      After all one Algebra 1 teacher can serve the entire nation.

      We've had the technology for a single teacher's actions to be broadcast to the entire nation worth of schoolkids and replayed on demad for over 50 years. In fact many, many, many attempts have been made to replace teachers with recordings.

      It hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will for the forseeable future.

      By way of example at university level. In the UK, Oxford and Cambridge are generally considered to be the best two universities. One of the things of particular note they do is have is tutorials (called supervisions for some reason in Tab land) where you have one to three students getting an hour of an academics time per week per subject, in addition to the lectures.

      Emperically this seems to work very well, despite the fact that with modern tech, one lecturer could lecture the entire world in one go.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re: It's My rant by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2
      Okay, as long as we're in conspiracy theory land, I'll bite.

      What route do you expect the 1% to take to eliminating the surplus population? Will they do it Adolph HItler style, with purpose built facilities where the 99% will be rounded up and exterminated? Will they do it Joseph Stalin style and simply deprive the vast population of food and other needed necessities?

      It seems more probable that in a future dystopia, they might claim the best resources for themselves, set up their own communities with heavily armed guards, and live the good life while the masses eat one another to survive.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    12. Re: It's My rant by sjames · · Score: 1

      The 99% have guns and any idiot can make a Molotov cocktail. The 1% better be prepared to hole up in their gated communities with no outside resources.

    13. Re:It's My rant by sjames · · Score: 1

      You can't keep doing that any more than you can zip a zip file 4 more times for extra compression.

      Fast food workers haven't been replaced YET, but they have been marginalized to the point they can no longer afford to live.

    14. Re:It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Glorified indentured servants"? The people in charge of our society don't even want them to be that. They want them to be gone. Unemployed and unemployable.

      There are also plenty of Ayn Rand reading basement dwelling libertarian idiots around here who seem to think they have no responsibility for the tech they invent or advocate either--or that people in society should actually have some kind of say in how that society works.

      Face it--we work for an industry without morals. Tech gave up on helping people a while ago now. Instead we spy on them, harass them, market at them 24/7, and try to automate every single last thing they do in order to compel a race to the bottom of epic proportions unseen in human history. There is quite simply nothing to replace the jobs being lost. That has never happened before in the history of the world, and all the sunlight deprived morons who trot out horse and carriage analogies are being willfully ignorant of that, or perhaps they're just plain stupid.

      I'm afraid what you say about guillotines is exactly what's going to happen, except that I think you understate the situation. It's going to be much worse than that, and, basement dwellers take note, it's primarily your fault.

    15. Re:It's My rant by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. Right up until 100% of us work in service. The majority of us already do, mostly selling each other stuff.

      Personally I hope it really does get to the point where people realize how ridiculous it is and we all cut back on how much we work.

      The issue of wealth distribution is an entirely different matter, and it's much more of a problem in the US than in any other modern economy. It's not a hard problem to solve technically, although prevailing attitudes in the US seem to make it quite difficult. Technology and automation make economies more efficient and the countries who own them richer. Replacing truck drivers will reduce the price of virtually everything, for everybody. It's a political decision whether you want that increased wealth to go to a few people who don't need it, leaving everyone else poor, or to be spread more equitably.

    16. Re:It's My rant by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that currently service industry jobs tend not to pay well enough to afford the services.With no customers to speak of, the industry collapses.

    17. Re:It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fast food servers have been useless for a long time, but they're very rarely replaced by automation.

      That's coming. My local McDonald's still has a human cashier, but there are four computerized kiosks next to him that are just as willing (and able!) to take your order. The food is still prepared by humans, but taking an order and a payment is not something you need people for. The cashier will be gone in a year or two.

      because we have this antiquated idea that everyone needs a 40+ hour a week job

      ... or a job at all. In developed countries there is more than enough wealth to go around, it just needs to be distributed.

    18. Re:It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see automated fast food stories.

    19. Re:It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start by phasing in Basic Income for the Non-union Non-college-educated Able Bodied Straight White Christian Males born before 1970. These are the ones most ill-affected by the "New Economy"

    20. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First you must identify and dox every person involved in the security industry. Wives and children as well. These are quickly becoming the replacement for the middle class. I call these the security thug class. This and copious use of jury nullification until jury trials are eliminated. Once that happens, go full tilt.

    21. Re:It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like the above will certainly put the media's broadacst and utility licenses in jeopardy.

      You must remember that "virtue" is for the One Percenters, law/gunbarrel is for the rest (of us).

    22. Re:It's My rant by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      I did not even think of avoiding anything. I simply disagree with the static modeling of economics. No adjustments, no adaptation, never-before-seen circumstances (I also disagree with that, the industrial revolution is a great analog worthy of your study).

      It does seem like you want to avoid the obvious -- if things really are dire as you predict, the 1% would have no wealth, as there would be virtually no functioning economy and thus all their holdings would be worthless. What is a stock portfolio or any other asset worth if there is no economy? What do the 1% own that has any value in a dead economy?

      I guess I just don't care what they do with their own money, what they do with their legal earnings, and I don't care what they do with their lives. I don't want anyone arbitrarily deciding you or I have "too much." If you want some of my earnings, produce something I want and you can earn it -- I will hand it to you in exchange. Create a smart business and I will invest in you and provide growth for you and your associates. Mutually beneficial, no force involved.

      Imagine the positive world coming where the average -- no, every -- person has access to ultra-affordable necessities and a happy standard of living. That is possible with greater efficiency leaps through technical advances. That is a brighter future, my friend. It requires work, adaptation involves effort. But it is positive.

      Automation will create more wealthy people, who cares? Freedom includes the potential to serve millions or billions and earn money from the ones your serve, voluntarily. Great. We can't let that deter us from the overall improvement of the world that's possible.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    23. Re:It's My rant by gweihir · · Score: 1

      First, the only one seeing "static modeling of economy" is you.
      And second, you sound confused and very much so.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:It's My rant by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      At 3.5 million U.S. truck operators, it appears that the 1% are actually long haul drivers. Who knew?

      Anyway.., your analysis would hold water if, and only if, you remove the banks and the pyramid scheme of geometrically growing interest on their funny money.

      All that cheap food is rapidly becoming unaffordable for millions.

      Free Marketeers and fans thereof have all forgotten that the Market is here to serve us, not the other way around. When a perfectly logical free market "adjustment" means vast global suffering, it means we're doing something stupid. Just because the math lines up nicely when people die doesn't mean it's the right and only answer to a logistics problem.

    25. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a conspiracy, it's socialy hygiene. There's a population surplus and that is a fact. The number of people unable to support themselves is only going to grow. Then we have the fact that the planet will not support this population for long. However the resources would be more than enough if the whole of the human population were to be reduced to 1% of its actualy size. That can be arranged without too much bloodshed: mass sterilization for instance, coupled with bonuses for those who undergo the treatment. Later on it should become compulsory. End-of-life procedures offered freely to those who understand that a quick and painless death is preferable to a lifetime of misery and futile strife. This will be applied in civilized countries, while in less civilized places where people still insist on breeding while knowing full too well they can't affort it... Other "measures" will be necessary. The goal is initially population containment, then reduction over about two generations. This by peaceful means. Should the rabble take the ill-advised decision to revolt, the reduction will undoubtably be much quicker. Make no mistake: there is no other option. This world will belong to the 1%, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The takeover has been complete for some time now. There is no war being waged anymore: only the mop-up operation.

    26. Re:It's My rant by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      See my third paragraph. You're implicitly buying into the myth that people losing their jobs to automation makes the economy poorer. The opposite happens: there's more wealth. Even if a significant number of people lose their jobs and don't get new jobs (or get crappy ones), that loss is more than made up by someone (or everyone) else having more money. There are always customers. The decision whether it's a few super rich people being waited on hand and foot and some people working as gladiators in the entertainment arenas (reality television) or a more equitable distribution, such as in Switzerland where everyone is guaranteed a minimum income, is a political problem that will be solved one way or another. The free market is quite capable of sorting it out by itself, but that way is almost sure to be a lot nastier, probably involving food riots and rich people lined up against walls.

    27. Re:It's My rant by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Teachers don't just teach. I work at a school (Secondary - that's ages 11-16 for you yanks), and I can assure you that the academic grasp of a subject is only a very small part of what they do. The difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher is in their understanding of students and classroom control ability. A good teacher has what it takes to keep thirty students focused on their studies throughout a lesson that can last more than an hour, instead of getting distracted talking to their friends and playing games on their phones. A good teacher can tell when a student is struggling to grasp a concept and single them out for personal attention, rephasing it for them in a manner they can more easily understand. A good teacher can keep a student focused even when they find the subject entirely uninteresting and have no desire to study it.

      A bad teacher just stands in front of the class all lesson and lectures. If it were that easy, we'd have replaced them with video recordings long ago.

    28. Re:It's My rant by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The industrial revolution is somewhat comparable. It's an imperfect comparison, but it's the closest we have. We can learn a few lessons from it:
      - The loss of certain skilled jobs forced people to turn to much lower-skilled jobs in their place, which heavily depressed wages to the point that many workers were effectively living in poverty - many families to a single room accomodation, constructed by the owner of the nearby factory specifically to provide minimal-cost living.
      - While those on the bottom did suffer, the reduction in manufacturing cost was so great that many products that had formerly been luxury goods turned into not just everyday affordables, but even expendable items. This in turn increased demand, which to a large extent compensated for the increase in per-labourer prouctivity.

      The big question today is on the second point: Would lower prices increase demand enough? Even if that happens, it would also be an environmental disaster.

    29. Re:It's My rant by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      McDonalds is already working on automated ordering systems, and has prototypes in place at some trial restraunts.

      They don't replace all the kitchen staff, but they augment them so fewer staff are needed total. You don't need someone standing at the till to take your order - you enter it onto a screen and pay via card. They still need one attended till for the occasional special case (Technophobes and the visually impaired), but it lowers the staff count significently.

    30. Re:It's My rant by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, I was buying into the current political ans social reality that leans strongly towards gladiators and food riots rather than to prosperity for all. Given the current reality, when you say "they'll just get service jobs", that's what you're suggesting (even if it isn't what you intend).

      We don't get to just kick that can down the road unless that's where we want to end up. Now is the time to acknowledge that the current plan is unworkable.

    31. Re: It's My rant by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Okay, as long as we're in conspiracy theory land, I'll bite.

      What route do you expect the 1% to take to eliminating the surplus population? Will they do it Adolph HItler style, with purpose built facilities where the 99% will be rounded up and exterminated? Will they do it Joseph Stalin style and simply deprive the vast population of food and other needed necessities?

      It seems more probable that in a future dystopia, they might claim the best resources for themselves, set up their own communities with heavily armed guards, and live the good life while the masses eat one another to survive.

      Woah woah woah. We are already talking about automated semi trailers why not go to the next logical step and assume a self replicating robot drone army? Why starve or kill the old fashion way when you can live on paradise island while the rest of the world burns terminator style in preparation for the construction robots to turn it into paradise? At the very least you could force them to do whatever you wanted. At no point in history could the 1% actually do away with the rest of the humans. Now with tech not only is this possible it may become preferable as they see it.

    32. Re: It's My rant by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
      Continuing on, there a guy named James Huntington who wrote a book titled "Work's New Age" where he ponders the future of humanity where not everyone can have a "job" as we know it.

      He suggested a number of different futures (none resembling the future you seem to have in mind). In one of these futures, the 99% revert to subsistence agriculture. It's an interesting idea to contemplate. I suppose that if such were to happen, the new farmers would eventually produce something valuable that the 1% want, and we'd be back to square 1.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    33. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The One Percenters have access to heavy weaponry, drones and WMDs. The 99% is already dead if they so much as look funny at the Ruling Elite.

    34. Re: It's My rant by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The 1% won't have to do anything. The current system in place will simply starve people out. Welfare will be unaffordable, and therefore continue only as a sham but really helping no one, and people will simply starve. The system in place has nothing to prevent this from happening.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    35. Re: It's My rant by sjames · · Score: 1

      The 99% has the numbers and in a situation like that, nothing to lose. How many 1%ers do you suppose can operate and maintain that heavy weaponry under fire?

    36. Re: It's My rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read 'A Tale of Two Cities'. Poverty is actually all one needs to kill people. There's always the danger of revolution, but it's way easier to flee the country these days, so I wouldn't worry too much. You know, if I were a rich man. :/

    37. Re: It's My rant by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Check out the murals at the Denver airport.

      I'm not saying it's an illurminaty cunspeericy, but it is fucking weird.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  18. You mean navitron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Navitron_Autodrive_system

  19. Move those drivers into services around the trucks by Theovon · · Score: 1

    There's still lots for people to do with those trucks. People have to load them, drive them between loading/unloading and staging areas, maintain them, fuel them, etc. Sure, a computer can back up a semi to a loading dock, but the logistics are more complicated than that, so humans will be involved. So basically, the effect of having self-driving trucks is that the same people that drive them all around the country can now just live at end and way points, and we can deploy more trucks for them to handle at delivery ends and way points.

  20. I'ts simpple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the 4000 ppl die and save problems for 10m

    1. Re:I'ts simpple by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Or maybe go back to a fully manual agricultural society? About as sane.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  21. Who owns the trucks by kid_wonder · · Score: 1

    Don't (at least some) truck drivers own their truck?

    Buy an autonomous truck, sit back and rake in the dough.

    A good model would be to train some drivers in maintenance and repair. It's like the old automated plane joke - there will be a pilot and a dog, the pilot to make sure nothing goes wrong and the dog to bite the pilot if he touches anything

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
    1. Re:Who owns the trucks by koan · · Score: 1

      Would a dog have stopped Andreas Lubitz?

      There are so many things wrong with your premise, including "sit back and rake in the dough", there will be no independent truckers, the "Walmart" of automated trucking will make sure of that.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:Who owns the trucks by kid_wonder · · Score: 1

      >> Would a dog have stopped Andreas Lubitz?

      Depends. Which one?

      >> There are so many things wrong with your premise

      OK. Please point the many other things wrong out to me.

      >> there will be no independent truckers, the "Walmart" of automated trucking will make sure of that

      Ah, now I get it. Fear is nothing to be ashamed of - just don't pretend it defines a reality the rest of us live in

      --

      "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  22. Just a thought by koan · · Score: 1

    Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important.

    Not to sound cruel, but is it?

    What's worse, 4000 injuries/deaths a year or a fully automated manufacturing and shipping network.
    What has the most negative impact over the long term?

    How long until it's American refugees on rafts in the water (metaphoric)

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Just a thought by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      For the 4000 dead and their thousands of friends and families, the answer is pretty obvious. If your economic model is only viable through killing off random citizens by accident to maintain inefficient employment, then it does not deserve to survive.

      Static analysis of economics is as useful as static analysis of weather. It's not that one day we will wake up to 3.5 million newly unemployed truckers. It is that we will gradually have a reduction in their numbers as autonomous systems ease into the market -- and the displaced drivers will begin working elsewhere within the industry or otherwise. They are demonstrably willing to work, and willing to work long hours on their own recognizance, so right there are key qualities that make them highly employable in another blue collar position if they so choose.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    2. Re:Just a thought by koan · · Score: 1

      There aren't enough jobs, and any created will likely be designed from the get go to be automated.
      I also can't buy we will live in some "automated utopia" as some have suggested, people aren't like that, there is always a hierarchy.

      But the choice I gave wasn't answered by you, you only gave a moral argument.

      You can pick an automated World with its unknowns, or one with human jobs and a known type of suffering, leave the moral judgements to something other than humans, they are never good at that sort of thing anyways.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Just a thought by koan · · Score: 1

      Additionally if hard/true AI comes online, well everything you and I have said is irrelevant.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    4. Re:Just a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worse, 4000 injuries/deaths a year or a fully automated manufacturing and shipping network.

      WTF are you smoking? The fact that you think a fully automated manufacturing and shipping operation as a bad thing just blows my mind.

      Assuming you aren't just blowing smoke, you are equating people dying with technological progress and i think that's just fucked up.

  23. Prtofits will have to be distributed in other ways by gweihir · · Score: 0

    This is a challenge that obviously every country will face where there is not enough work for everybody (and ultimately for almost nobody). There are several models that are obvious. One choice is to have the majority of the population sink into poverty and then keep it somehow alive by giving them money for doing nothing. This is obviously stupid and highly unethical, but what capitalists usually want. A variant that may work better is giving them enough money to life reasonably for much less or no work, with the money supplied via taxes. That has the advantage that it avoids the most severe problems associated with widespread poverty, like crime, health issues, social unrest, collapse of the economy, etc. It is a hard sell, because of greed, stupidity and this somehow being "socialism". Historically, another valid alternative is to have a war that gets rid of many of the unemployed by killing them or to just let them starve.

    What will not work is "let the market decide". The market will just make thing worse until there is no market left.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. The luddites always lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  25. It will happen in stages by berchca · · Score: 1

    It seems like the first and most obvious step for the trucking industry is to replace trucks on the long haul only. For example, one driver might drive the truck to the highway onramp and send it on its way, then the truck drives itself for hours and hours to where it is at an offramp by another driver who takes it to its final destination.

    Self-driving will certainly reduce the work available for truckers, but it will be a really long time before it eliminates them. Tractor trailers are not only difficult to maneuver, but often require very difficult maneuvers to park where they can be unloaded or unhitched. One way to look at it is that, in the near future, the computers will just be handling the boring part of the drive.

    And automation does promise to reduce accidents significantly, and it can seriously reduce fuel use (and pollution) by allowing lines of trucks to coordinate their movements tightly, staying close to each other's slip streams. And self-driving trucks will certainly be more patient with each other--as in less likely to block traffic with a +2mph pass of another truck while going uphill--because they won't require such stringent timelines, which will make the roads a better place for everyone.

    1. Re:It will happen in stages by itzly · · Score: 1

      Tractor trailers are not only difficult to maneuver, but often require very difficult maneuvers to park where they can be unloaded or unhitched.

      Sounds like a perfect job for a computer to solve.

  26. no point in discussing whether to adopt it by desperados · · Score: 1

    there is no point in discussing whether we should implement this new technologies or not. this is like war escalation i guess. even if you don't, your neighbour will. so you are somehow forced to keep going just to stay on top.

  27. Save the buggy whip makers! by blindseer · · Score: 1

    I see this every time a new technology that comes along that could replace human laborers, technology means millions will lose their jobs. What always happens is that these people all seem to be capable of finding other work. The work I do in computers did not exist before computers existed. Before the electronic computers existed there was a job description called "computer". Had I lived in an earlier age I'd probably be employed as one of those computers.

    Another reason that truck drivers won't find themselves out of a job tomorrow is that I've seen what a truck driver does. Working at UPS I saw that a truck driver will drive the truck and then have to load or unload the truck. They are also responsible for common maintenance, like fill the truck with fuel, check tire pressure, make sure lights are clear of mud and snow, clear the air lines of moisture, and more. When I was growing up on the farm the truck drivers were expected to back a truck up to a sorting gate and then chase steers onto the truck. They'd then drive to the auction house, chase them off. After the auction they'd chase another load of steers onto the truck, then haul them to a packing plant. Let's find a robot that can navigate all of that, chase steers, and not run over stupid farm kids that should not have been running around the parking lot in the first place

    Then there are truck drivers that deliver frozen foods and other items to homes, that takes a skill set that robots have not yet reached. I'll hear an ice cream truck drive through the neighborhood occasionally, those people are still "truck drivers", no? Then there's all the other occupations that required skilled drivers, school buses, city transit buses, taxi and limo drivers, charter buses. We might put a robot in charge of moving cargo but I don't see anyone putting school children on a bus without someone to watch them, that person doesn't have to drive necessarily but they will be there.

    That may even be true for cargo trucking. A person may not drive but they will ride along with the cargo to maintain the truck, load/unload cargo, handle paperwork, and put out fires. I mean real fires, ever seen a truck pulled off the road that's been blackened from brakes that over heated and started the tires on fire? Who's going to put out a fire on an driverless truck?

    I can see this technology being adopted slowly. It will make the number of truck drivers shrink. If it means a truck driver can get a truck on the road, set the "autopilot" and then take a nap, then it could mean a reduction of as many as two out of three long haul drivers but those don't count for all professional drivers. People still need to drive buses, ice cream trucks, doorstep delivery, etc.

    In other words, move along, nothing to see here.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by itzly · · Score: 2

      What always happens is that these people all seem to be capable of finding other work

      So far.

      When there are no more unskilled jobs left, the people who can't get skills will not get a replacement job.

    2. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already happening. IT's part of what explains the difference between U3 and U6 unemployment numbers . . . you know, the people who have given up on employment, or those "underemployed" in 1-2 part-time jobs that don't make ends meet.

    3. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      We've had two millennia of technological advancement which have made much of the labor that people do obsolete. Even though at one time a large portion of the population was employed rowing boats we don't seem to have an unemployment problem on the scale of jobs lost to the internal combustion engine.

      What will these former truck drivers do? I don't know but we've found work to make up for all kinds of jobs lost in the past. What did the buggy whip makers do? What of the people that spun ropes by hand? What of the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers? Do we still send people to get bled so that leeches aren't put out of work?

      I don't know what these people are going to do but it appears we always find something for them. I'm not going to hold up technology just because the people that make buggy whips and shovel up horse shit might have to find a different job.

      If unemployment gets real bad then perhaps we can legalize prostitution. That should keep people employed. If these people are so ugly and unskilled that they can't find work fucking then maybe they can find work in politics.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What always happens is that these people all seem to be capable of finding other work.

      Read about the history of the industrial revolution. Pretty much the majority of farm labourers were put out of work, many of them nearly starved and the rest moved to the cities in awful conditions due to no money. It was alright for their grandchildren, but things certainly did not go well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If unemployment gets real bad then perhaps we can legalize prostitution

      and fuck you too!

    6. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      In the past, we weren't so much replacing jobs with automation, as making a given worker more efficient. Instead of twenty or thirty people hand-carving a widget, we would have one person operating a machine. The reason this didn't result in long term job loss is because eventually those other 19 people could find employment operating widget-making machines, and the main difference was more output. There was some churn in the short term, but there was still a place for those workers.

      Today though, we're not just making a given worker more efficient, we're eliminating them entirely. If all it takes is the one guy in the control center in Nebraska managing and coordinating the fleet of automated trucks, that won't make any room for the truckers. The guy in the control room is there already, he's just talking to various human drivers at the moment. The machines we're replacing workers with now do not need any additional supervision that human workers didn't before - and that's the big difference.

    7. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will these former truck drivers do? I don't know but we've found work to make up for all kinds of jobs lost in the past.

      Yes. The technical term is bullshit jobs.

    8. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Truck driving isn't an "unskilled" job. They need licensing, and training. Hopefully this indicates they are re-trainable. Every job ends. You just train for the next one. That's how it should work. It doesn't because the 1% sees the 99% as fungible slaves that should be replaced by robots. So improving the work force isseenas a waste of resources, not the benefit to society that it actually is.

    9. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the old buggy makers and horse whips.

      Tell me, do you think that if they could have, the horses would have sat around saying "We'll just find another job?" It won't happen.

      How many horses do you see around these days, acting as transport? I've never seen a horse used as commercial transport, or even primary private transport. I've seen it on TV, but never in person.

    10. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I plan to maintain the woodchippers (now called "people processors") in the death camps. Lots of job security there!

      Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps.

    11. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      but that re-trainable school is now a 2-4 year one that can cost 10-40K a year and they may not may not take transfer credits and even if you go back to the same school after a few year they may make retake stuff you took in the past as well.

      Some college even have forced dorms with room mates at a high cost then renting on your own + high cost meal plans.

    12. Re:Save the buggy whip makers! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      People are not horses. Horses cannot own property, they are property. Saying that horses haven't found a new purpose in the days of the automobile is like saying we have not found new uses for a sextant in the days of GPS. A horse is a tool. People might be considered a tool but they are also the customer.

      People like to deal with people, not machines. Unless there is some legal change that allows for machines to have authorities like that of arrest we will need people. This might mean an economy where a large portion of the population is employed to watch machines work all day but then how it that fundamentally different from now? A co-worker once told me that 90% of IT is watching a progress bar.

      People are not going to obsolete themselves.

      Also along with that thought of people wanting to deal with people is that I believe we are a very long way away from people allowing machines to watch their children. We will need teachers, nurses, nannies, and so forth. In the future we'll probably see class sizes shrink from 30 to 50 that we see now to where it's more like 3 to 5. I did customer support for a while and people will go out of their way to avoid talking to a machine. I can offer an automated system to process their payments but I can't make them. No company in their right mind is going to do away with the people that process money because that means potentially alienating a large number of customers.

      Horses don't buy stuff. Robots don't buy stuff. People buy stuff.

      So long as people can buy stuff there will be people willing to work so that they can buy stuff. The few unwilling to work to buy stuff will be arrested and detained by those that do.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  28. Unconditional basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The solution for the "problem" of not having enough (badly paid, exploitative, inhumane) jobs for everybody is simply to get rid of the notion that everybody has to have a job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

    1. Re:Unconditional basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engineered plague wiping out the non-elites will come before any serious talk of UBI, therefore eliminating the need for UBI. Remember Georgia Guidestones. In that case, anyone having the appearance of "too much money" will be assigned responsibility. There are matters too grave for due process.

      This message is brought to yo by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

    2. Re:Unconditional basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New A.C. to the conversation here.

      Who is Karl Martell?

      Anyway, I think a negative income tax would be useful. But as for a UBI...
      22+, $500/month (or social security, whichever is greater)
      22+ and married, $750/month/couple
      21 and younger, $250/month
      If we eliminate SNAP, add $200/month/person to the above figures
      Assuming 150 million 22+ and 75 million 21 and younger (figures probably off), it'd probably cost around $1.125 trillion/year.

      Now, this would only be for citizens and probably legal residents of 7+ years.

      As for a negative income tax, I'd go with...
      (Poverty Level - Federal AGI) / 2 = credit for those who are 22+ years old.

      How to pay for the above... increase the tax brackets some, and perhaps increase the Social Security tax (FICA) by some for UBI.

    3. Re:Unconditional basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Original AC here.

      it'd probably cost around $1.125 trillion/year

      That's just a small fraction of the USA's $17.4 trillion GDP (according to Wikipedia). So this model should be pretty cheap, and think of the savings it would allow: You could get rid of all the bureaucrats who are currently tasked with testing eligibility for food stamps and whatever other kinds of handouts.

    4. Re:Unconditional basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AC you replied to. The $1.125 trillion/year figure is scary, but for the poor, it's a bonus. For the middle income group, it's probably more of a replacement. For the rich (or higher "middle"-income group), it's a loss. It is a redistribution of wealth. But it's so sad our country even has homeless people when we're supposedly so "rich".

      Anyway, for my negative income tax idea.
      Poverty level for an individual is about $11.5k/year. And for more people, it doesn't scale linearly. Actually, it gets less per person as you get higher. A family of six is like $30k/year.

      Assuming 20% in poverty of roughly 300 million legal residents/citizens, that's 60 million individuals. Not all of them individual when filing for tax, but assuming they are, we can assume a cap-out of $5.75k/year in my (Poverty Level - Federal AGI) / 2 idea.

      $345 billion max cost for this. However, as I said, not all of them will be individual. Some will be families, couples, etc. So, it shouldn't cost more than $345 billion. But that ignores non-negative income, which will reduce that even more.

      As I said, 22+ years old would be the requirement for this for taxpayer status.
      To go even further, with this negative income tax, under no situation would welfare-type programs be allowed to factor this credit in for purpose of state and federal government assistance. Whether it's TANF, SNAP, etc.

  29. unexpected positives? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    If I was living in some remote rural town, say in southeast Utah that was 100 miles from the nearest Walmart and suddenly they start offering free delivery via self driving car on everything in the store, I think that would be kind of cool.

    What about having a self driving camper with satellite wifi? You could sit in the back and do your digital nomad thing while the self driving car figured everything else and drove you all sorts of cool places.

  30. It can't be done by Echo_Hotel · · Score: 1

    All these people who know nothing about trucking logistics spouting off about free markets and whatnot when nobody is even asking the bigger question, can it be done?
    Leaving out the basics of piloting a high profile high weight vehicle during various weather conditions and in a defensive manner, anybody who has used a GPS knows automated trip planning is lacking even basic information on roads, much less current overpass heights and road weight limits which are often not recorded anywhere but on the local signage, add to that the complexities of call ahead loads, loads that can't unload at the exact time of arrival but won't let you park on premises, multiple stop loads where you have to supervise unloaders, terrible dock conditions and a myriad of other things this just becomes an impossible task for a computer.

    IF autonomous trucks become common they will likely fill a train like roll moving over much simpler highways to depots for local delivery but then you've just INCREASED the facilities and manpower needed to deliver goods so no replacing the national logistics chain with computers and autonomous trucks is just not going to happen any time soon or even possibly at all.

    1. Re:It can't be done by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      anybody who has used a GPS knows automated trip planning is lacking even basic information on roads, much less current overpass heights and road weight limits which are often not recorded anywhere but on the local signage, add to that the complexities of call ahead loads, loads that can't unload at the exact time of arrival but won't let you park on premises, multiple stop loads where you have to supervise unloaders, terrible dock conditions and a myriad of other things this just becomes an impossible task for a computer.

      Because you are an idiot, the problem is hard?

      The example I use elsewhere is a Wal-Mart distribution truck. Picture a truck going a set route that's been done 10,000 times before by a human between a central distribution warehouse and a regional one. The road, route, and all that are well known. The loading and unloading of the truck isn't done by the driver today. The timing is handled well, so there'd be little waste of parking waiting for a spot on either side. The computer just needs to follow a set path that's 100% known, and do so safely, and park at the end. That's a very finite problem, and quite easy.

      That you assert it's hard indicates you don't understand the problem, or don't like the solution.

  31. Motels? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    That's an odd choice to add to the list. Truck drivers usually live in their cabs.

  32. Prostitution industry will get hit too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All those truck drivers are feeding the roadside prostitution industry too. Once they're gone, the prostitutes will also be in trouble. And their pimps. It will cascade into chaos.

    1. Re:Prostitution industry will get hit too by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Think of the drop off in work for the morticians & detectives, fewer dead hookers at truck stops. But then think of the new jobs in designing hookerbots for the automated trucks...

      "Hey sailing unit...um, driving unit..."

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  33. Strange profession by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    If you step back a bit and think about it, truck driving is kind of a strange profession. The long distance truck driver is actually, really essential for in-city driving and for unexpected events (like breakdowns). But the vast majority of their time is spent on the highway, and staying in a lane on a highway, likely convoying with other trucks, requires no human skill whatsoever.

    The first phase will be for the AI to take over for this time, requiring the driver to be in the cab "on call" on a few minute notice. This is similar to the situation where trucks go onto trains, and the driver have nothing to do until it's time to unload. However, among truck drivers, even this is met with massive resistance. Perhaps they genuinely enjoy sitting behind the wheel for hours at a time? Or is it just that they see the writing on the wall, because the second phase will be to eliminate their jobs?

    But truck driving - on the highway - is a low skill job. Free people to do something else. Seems like a great concept, but what about those people who currently have no other skills? Buggy whip makers all over again...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Strange profession by PPH · · Score: 1

      The long distance truck driver is actually, really essential for in-city driving and for unexpected events

      This.

      The first iteration will require a driver to be 'at the wheel' and ready to respond. But as the AI progresss, the driver can relax, take a nap, watch TV, whatever while the rig is on the highway. And this will result in drivers being rested and ready to take over when they reach the city. It's possible that trucks could operate coast to coast with no stops (other than for fuel) and not have truckers half asleep when they take the wheel. Or popping uppers along the way.

      The economics of this are interesting even if a driver must ride along for the highway portion of the route. Some drivers try to push regulatory limits and fake log book entries just to stay on the road for a few more hours a day. This technology will allow them to do so without endangering public safety. The idea that trucks will drive themselves unattended, park in a lot and wait for a local driver to show up and take them over is a market that probably could be served today by rail freight.

      Imagine working toward a college degree by enrolling in a MOOC from your truck cab while driving long haul routes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  34. former trucker here... by pointbeing · · Score: 2

    ...I was a trucker long before I was a geek.

    Autonomous trucks will still need fuel, most truckers don't sleep in hotels and I can't speak for anybody else but when I was a driver I ate one sit-down meal a day when I stopped for fuel.

    Will be interested to see how AI deals with a mountain pass or city traffic; I think autonomous trucks will need human assistance for at least the foreseeable future.

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
    1. Re:former trucker here... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will be interested to see how AI deals with a mountain pass or city traffic;

      I'd be interested as to how they will deal with 6" of snow, and no real lane lines.

    2. Re:former trucker here... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Exactly right, and there will not be a sudden 3.5 million man unemployment surge. This will develop slowly over time.

      Prediction: I think it is Australia that already has the truck-train rigs, some ungodly number of trailers connected to one super truck -- this AI will build virtual truck trains working in unison, miles long like a real train (especially the cross continent runs) and laws will follow that provide stiff penalties for dumb car drivers who get in the mix. The "AI convoy system" will be far safer, as the cars will be excluded.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    3. Re:former trucker here... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Improved GPS and other refined sensors, plus inter-vehicle convoying communications, all will outperform a human who is limited to visual data in a super narrow spectrum.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    4. Re:former trucker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple answer, they won't. Look up limitations of any of the current self driving cars. No RR crossings, no parking lots, no roads that haven't been fully mapped out for their routes, and on and on.

      We still have accountants and that would be a far easier job to fully automate with far less danger and much bigger payoff. People are blowing it out of proportion.

      What "might" happen is the truck drives itself on well mapped interstate routes that don't have construction going on and we allow the driver to drive for more hours per day since he wasn't "driving" at those times. So instead of the 10 hours or so a day a driver is allowed to do now, they would extend it to 14 or something like that.

    5. Re:former trucker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rather, how will the AI decide if it's safe to continue in the blizzard, or if it should pull over?

      Despite all the automation in modern airplanes, two pilots are still considered necessary not for their skills, but for their wisdom. Wisdom and sound judgement are qualities that AI will not have for a long time yet.

    6. Re:former trucker here... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Fuel is the easy one -- the truck pulls into a fuel station, and the attendant fills it up. The truck company has a contract with the fuel station franchise.

      Lots of journeys probably don't involve any complicated roads. Port or rail freight yard to supermarket distribution centre, from there to the out-of-town supermarket, etc.

    7. Re:former trucker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not. Just because they can't do it now, doesn't mean they won't be able to do it in the future, you short-sighted asshole.

      Imagine you were back in 1902. You'd be claiming "I'd like to see people fly, because people are heavier than air and birds so it will never happen!"

    8. Re:former trucker here... by khchung · · Score: 1

      Will be interested to see how AI deals with a mountain pass or city traffic; I think autonomous trucks will need human assistance for at least the foreseeable future.

      The same way how AI or computer currently deals with other things that are beyond their ability... either avoid it, or signal for operator intervention.

      Wouldn't be hard to imagine a team of drivers sitting in a control centers around the world to remotely handle any call-for-help from the auto-trucks. They would be able to see and hear what's around the truck, plus any information they needed, from the cameras/mics/sensors on the truck. The truck can have loudspeakers so the operator can talk to anyone (e.g. cops and other drivers) near the truck. They can remotely drive the truck if needed. In the worst case, they can park the truck at the side of the road and send a truck with a real driver to pick up the cargo, then send the empty truck back.

      Or, for particularly tricky pass and roads, auto-trucks just completely avoid them, leaving them for real drivers. For non-urgent deliveries, it would be cheaper for the AI to take an AI-manageable roundabout route than to use a more-expensive human driver through the shorter route. For AI with infinite patience, they could be limited to use roads that are safe for trucks. Even if that just works for 70% of all trucking, that would make economic sense. Human drivers can work on the remaining 30%, until the AI slowly improves and eventually take over more and more of it.

      Just like how drones are being piloted. Humans can take over when needed, while the AI can operate the remaining 99% of the boring times. Doesn't mean fighter pilots are all fired, but there won't be as many needed.

      So, as a former trucker, would YOU like to drive a truck inside the truck, with all the hardships on the road, plus the risk of injury and death from accidents. OR would you like to drive it from an safe, air-conditioned control center near your home, where you can easily take breaks and go home everyday after an 8-hour shift?

      --
      Oliver.
    9. Re:former trucker here... by khchung · · Score: 1

      Or rather, how will the AI decide if it's safe to continue in the blizzard, or if it should pull over?

      For an AI with non-urgent cargo, there is no real reason to continue in a blizzard. Only human drivers worrying about being trapped have a reason to keep moving.

      When a blizzard is forecasted to approach, all the AI trucks will just go some predesignated waiting spot and sit it out.

      --
      Oliver.
    10. Re:former trucker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested in how they deal with anything other than perfect weather, given the majority of systems are reliant on laser scanners.

    11. Re:former trucker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like humans can really deal with that. If anything I expect those scenarios to be some of the first cases where automated driving surpasses humans.

    12. Re:former trucker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably better than a human ever could.

      GPS, Sonar, Radar and 360 degree vision in the FULL light spectrum could give an autonomous vehicle better vision in a blizzard than a human has on a clear day. It all depends on what is profitable and what is possible. When those 2 coincide it doesn't really matter what your opinion holds.

  35. You don't save jobs by holding back progress by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    This fool wants to keep makework jobs where people pretend they're useful just so they can have a bullshit job.

    That isn't going to give you a healthy economy.

    Do we need to worry about how people are going to get work? Yep.

    But you do that by getting them competitive jobs that robots don't do better than them.

    Did holding back automation save the manufacturing jobs in the rust belt? Nope. All the work went to china instead. So good work. Instead of losing 50 percent of the jobs in the factory you lost 100 percent. Genius.

    This is a tech site... embrace the technology or I don't even want to hear your stupid whining Luddite ass.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:You don't save jobs by holding back progress by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      All my mods points are gone too soon. +1

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    2. Re:You don't save jobs by holding back progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem comes from how you define "progress". The notion that humanity can have long lasting effects at a global scale didn't even exist during the industrial revolution. The awakening came from the nuclear bomb, when it finally dawned on us that we had the potential to destroy ourselves. The philosopher Hans Jonas addressed these issues in "Technology and Responsibility: Reflections on the New Tasks of Ethics"

    3. Re:You don't save jobs by holding back progress by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No. You can't get out of this by playing word games. If the automation is cheaper, faster, more efficient, then we are not advancing progress by creating a bunch of make work jobs, holding back the automation, etc.

      Sorry. The rustbelt tried that and instead of losing a portion of the factory's labor force to automation and getting a more modern skill set, and retaining american manufacturing... they caused the company to shut it down, move the whole thing to asia, the factory workers lost 100 percent of their jobs, the US lost out on the opportunity to get modern training on modern machines, etc.

      We are going through a technological revolution. Whenever this happens workers get fucked.

      It happened in the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago. It happened in the industrial revolution. And it is going to happen now.

      You can't stop it. Your might as well yell at the Sun. It is unstoppable.

      The best thing you can do is tack into the tidal wave and try to ride it. What you're trying to do is ignore it. That's death.

      And the rust belt proved quite clearly what happens.

      Do NOT try to stop it. You can't. It is coming and it WILL happen. You can either make the process as smooth and civilized as possible... getting your communities as much of the jobs and industry as possible.

      Or you can get fucked raw.

      I choose option 1. Getting fucked raw means our people are without jobs by the millions and the unemployment is structural meaning we can't get them more jobs EVER because that entire generation is burned. It means our industrial competitors get all our business.

      This is a situation where you either choose option 1 or I have nothing but insults for you. Because option 2 is fucking stupid.

        And let me be clear, option 2 nearly anything that isn't option 1. The way out of this is to embrace the automation. You do that and Asia loses its advantage in a flash. The old days of American industrial supremacy can come again. Your factory towns can hum with life again.

      But this has a price... and that price is for once not fucking with industry when it needs to go through an upgrade cycle. Just fucking stop it. Or industry go through its upgrade cycle anyway... just somewhere else with NONE of your labor force.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  36. It simply won't work by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Sooner or later trucks have to leave the interstates and major highways. Ever watch an 18-wheeler going through a small city? Ever notice how much skill is involved making those tight turns? Sometimes the trucks have to move over into the left lane just to get turned to the right. Will a computer-controlled rig do that? And sometimes even the most skilled driver gets his rig into a spot where he has to back up several times and try again and again. Can a computer even come close to that kind of skill? Can a computer back a truck into the dock behind your local supermarket when space is barely available to maneuver? Even some truck drivers wince at doing that.

    No, I'm not a truck driver, but I do have over 2 million miles of driving experience. I've just about seen it all. I get the notion that whoever comes up with these hair-brained ideas hasn't.

    1. Re:It simply won't work by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Ever notice how much skill is involved making those tight turns?

      The funny thing is, so much of that skill is necessarily because a mere human has very limited awareness of the space and obstacles around such a large vehicle. It requires a lot of intuition and practice for a human to be able to do that reliably... but not so much for a vehicle with a couple of LIDAR units and stereo cameras that knows exactly where everything around it is to within a few centimeters and can use a pathfinding algorithm to figure out the most efficient way to maneuver into a given position.

      Sometimes the trucks have to move over into the left lane just to get turned to the right. Will a computer-controlled rig do that?

      Yes, why wouldn't they be able to? Lane detection and predicting how wide an arc you need to turn are easy.

      And sometimes even the most skilled driver gets his rig into a spot where he has to back up several times and try again and again. Can a computer even come close to that kind of skill?

      Yes, and because they can calculate the exact angle they need to turn at and how far they need to move, they'll be able to do it much more efficiently than a skilled human driver.

      Can a computer back a truck into the dock behind your local supermarket when space is barely available to maneuver? Even some truck drivers wince at doing that.

      Yep. Again, the reason it's hard for a human driver is only because they don't have persistent knowledge of the world around their vehicle and the ability to predict exactly how the vehicle will respond to any given input.

      I get the notion that whoever comes up with these hair-brained ideas hasn't.

      I get the notion that the people who spend five minutes thinking about things they think will be hard for autonomous vehicles to do and then post it on Slashdot don't realize that there are teams of people who have been working on these problems for well over a decade now.

      The hard things for vehicles to deal with are poor terrain (like an old dirt road overgrown with tall grass, or a road completely covered in snow) and unpredictable human drivers. The logistics of "how do I maneuver efficiently through a tight space" are the easy part. Maneuvering through a city is tough, but it's because of all of the human drivers that zip unsafely back and forth between lanes without signaling, don't leave enough space for other vehicles, blow through stop lights, and so on.

      Still, keep in mind that the vast majority of time spent driving a freight truck is on the interstate. Even if it's a while before trucks can operate autonomously within city limits, it'll be easy to have an unmanned truck drive between cities and then just send a driver out to get in the truck at the city limits and drive it the rest of the way. That will still be enough to shred the truck driving industry.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  37. It's not 'all or nothing' by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    There won't be an "on/off switch" 5 years from now, when all current OTR drivers are suddenly out of work. This will be phased in slowly.
    Maybe they can hire on at Amazon as drone pilots. (That's a joke!)

  38. There's no money in the future by Dukenukemx · · Score: 1

    Like in Star Trek, the future will be without money. Three things that will be the downfall of money. One being all jobs will be replaced with autonomous systems. You don't need a person to drive a truck or do your taxes or repair roads. Secondly is the cure for aging. It'll happen, and much sooner than you think. Imagine a person who looks 20 but is 100. Do we let those people stay retired or force them to work? Finally you have the future of abundance. At some point energy and food will be plentiful to the point there's no reason to work. The machines are doing all the work and they run off renewable energy.

    Definitely will be the biggest and last class war the world will ever see in the future. I don't about flying around in space ships but we'll definitely be like a Star Trek economy in the future. Don't know about a food synthesizer though.

  39. Oh for fucks sake by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    stop repeating this nonsense about technology not disrupting peoples lives. Yes, over the course of several decades the economy replaced those jobs. In the meantime millions were without work. There's a reason why the Luddites existed. That word has meaning beyond an insult. There was nearly 60 years of joblessness following the industrial revolution before other tech caught up. Google it. Read some history. Jeez.

    I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_, not communism. And not a fascist dictatorship that occasionally publishes a pamphlet with something written by Karl Marx either...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 0

      The problem with Socialism for someone who actually works for a living is that it doesn't seem like it promises me anything positive. I get to pay for things demanded by non-workers, but I get essentially nothing in return. Not even gratitude. Nor will there be any reason to believe the money is spent efficiently. Why would someone who works, earns a paycheck, and expects to be able to continue doing so want Socialism? Please explain.

    2. Re: Oh for fucks sake by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      Because when they have their bread and circuses, they won't be beating your fucking head open with an iron pipe.

    3. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For awhile now I've become convinced that the wealthy should get behind a more socialistic society to protect their own asses. I'm not rich but I have a high income and so I do pretty well. The idea of a mob of scared, desperate people terrifies me. I would much rather invest the resources to improve our safety net now and hopefully avoid that situation.

      Is that a shakedown? Maybe. But I look at it like this: I can either have some of my wealth taken now to improve the safety net or I can have it all taken by force and maybe even be killed when the mob rises up.

    4. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The Romans disagree with that outlook. Problem is, when it's free, there's no cap on the demand.

    5. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The wealthy ARE behind a more socialistic society. Of course the reason they are is because they recognize that socialism will make it easier to enslave others to do their will.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 0

      I'm not seeing this as a positive. I can protect myself for a modest outlay. Guns and ammo and walls and fences cost a lot less than I pay in taxes for non-worker benefits already.

      Got anything besides "pay up or we'll kill you"?

    7. Re: Oh for fucks sake by localman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've never actually had to live in such an environment, have you?

      I'm posting from behind a two meter spiked fence at the moment. Outside the fence are people living in shit conditions, suffering, and generally making the world an uglier place for me. And we still get robbed. All the money I have can't fix the side effects of living in an impoverished city. Having actually spent significant time in both situations, I've come to realize that the people who don't see the advantages of a reasonable degree of socialism are the people whose worlds have benefitted from it so thoroughly they take it for granted.

    8. Re: Oh for fucks sake by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did we read the same article? The point is there is going to be less and less work to do. Yes, there will still be high level thinkers like Hawkins and Einstein. Yes there will still be surgeons. The rest of us get replaced with robots, automation and expert systems. Maybe you're a genius brain surgeon ( if you are what the hell are you doing on /., but I degrees), but what about the other 6 billion who aren't gifted geniuses and don't have a silver spoon up their ass. What about them?

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    9. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Why would you believe that paying off would-be violent robbers would work? If someone will threaten and rob you if you don't pay them one amount (say $1000), why would you believe they wouldn't take the $1000 today and threaten you for $5000 tomorrow?

      Why don't you go out and try making that deal with those guys? Report back to us how it works out.

      Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an argument better than "pay us off or we'll kill you".

    10. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You're avoiding the question. Socialism doesn't solve 80% unemployment scenarios. Nothing does. Fortunately, those scenarios are fictional.

      I'm not a truck driver. I'm not a brain surgeon either. But I'm confident I will be able to continue to find work. Why should someone who expects to be able to work for a living (like the majority of everyone who has ever lived does) support socialism?

    11. Re: Oh for fucks sake by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      That's an argument for increased internal security spending. Of course, given the size of the upcoming problem I don't think the traditional answer is going to scale well.

    12. Re:Oh for fucks sake by L4m3rthanyou · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that the transition can't happen all at once, and it certainly isn't fair to only expect some people to work.

      The ideal solution, as I see it, is that as automation lowers the cost of living, less labor is expected from the average person. That would mean a shorter work week, or earlier retirement. That presents two issues though. First, I don't see a way to get there. The preference for both employees and employers would be to have fewer employees who work more hours, rather than many who work fewer hours. Second, the reduction of the labor force isn't going to happen evenly. Job markets that are already short on labor won't be seeing that decrease.

      But even then, a reduction in work for (almost) everyone would be a less bumpy transition than just eliminating it for some and going whole-hog into socialism, even if socialism is seen as an inevitable endgame.

      --
      One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
    13. Re: Oh for fucks sake by MechaStreisand · · Score: 2

      If you can't think of one yourself, then you deserve to get murdered by the disenfranchised poor.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    14. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You apparently can't think of one either. If you could, you'd tell us. Perhaps we deserve the same fate?

      But I've harmed no one. I threaten no one. My only offense is being confident in my abilities and responsible enough to produce more than I consume.

      Are threats really your only argument? Isn't there someone who can make any other argument why a confidently employed person would support Socialism?

    15. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_,

      Before you espouse socialism, understand what it is first. Socialism means that the government takes over the means of production, which is destructive on the economy for the same reason that monopolies are destructive (socialism effectively is the same thing as a monopoly.)

      What you're describing is welfare, not socialism.

      That said, I really don't think you're fit to give economic advisement to anybody.

    16. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should someone who expects to be able to work for a living (like the majority of everyone who has ever lived does) support [handouts, which are NOT socialism]?

      (a) Because they are not assholes.
      (b) To protect their own jobs. If you have a society with 80% of the people living off handouts, and you suddenly remove the handouts and let them all starve, you will have killed off 80% of the demand for food, shelter, basic goods and services. So next 80% of your farmers, 80% of your textile workers, 80% of your construction workers lose their jobs due to lack of demand for their work. This effect will propagate "upwards": You'll need 80% fewer brain surgeons, and even 80% fewer software developers who used to develop stuff that was (ultimately) financed through demand from the masses. You won't have solved anything, only scaled down your economy by a factor of 5, getting pretty much the same unemployment rate in the end.

    17. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism.

      The usual variants of socialism are all grounded in terms of "labor" and "workers". As such, they are completely inapplicable in a world where there isn't enough "labor" to perform for all the potential "workers". Marx and his predecessors never envisioned mass unemployment.

    18. Re: Oh for fucks sake by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      Um... Yes it does. When we can have a society where we only need to work 8 hours a week and everyone's OK I say why the hell not?

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    19. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 0

      a. Tell that to the the people who have already tried to answer this question but can't come up with anything better than "pay us or we'll kill you". If that's a real factor for a majority of the population, then a guy would be very foolish not to be an asshole for sheer self-preservation reasons.

      b. Shorter version: Person B gets handouts taken from Person A. Person B uses the money to buy something from the same Person A the money was originally taken from. Person A is better off somehow because ... magic?

      Fortunately for everyone, the people like Person A are a large majority. Because the magic doesn't seem to work too well.

    20. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "My only offense is being confident in my abilities and responsible enough to produce more than I consume."

      Aren't you a wonder of the laws of physics, Producing more than you consume. Even assuming such is true, here's the question: for how long? How about when you're 80? 90? What if you get injured or get a debilitating disease like ALS? Social programs are about choosing the standard of living all humans deserve and ensuring they get it regardless of personal circumstance.

    21. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Because utopian cartoon worlds aren't real. But I agree that Socialism is a great idea for utopian cartoon worlds. I'm glad we were able to find common ground and reach a genuine understanding.

    22. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Aren't you a wonder of the laws of physics? Producing more than you consume.

      Not really. The majority of people produce more than they consume. Where would government handouts come from if they didn't?

      How about when you're 80? 90? What if you get injured or get a debilitating disease like ALS?

      I produce more than I consume and save the after-tax excess for when I'm 80 or 90. I buy insurance for if I get injured or if I get ALS. That's what the word "responsible" means.

      Social programs are about choosing the standard of living all humans deserve and ensuring they get it regardless of personal circumstance.

      But that doesn't answer the original question. Why should someone who works and is responsible support Socialism when it only costs him and never benefits him?

      Do the other members of society owe a moral debt to the guy who pays for their "standard of living"? Should they? In what way should this moral debt be paid?

    23. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, socialism implies communism. Here's why. First you tell people not to worry when they are out of a job. The government has you covered, here are $3500 a month. So anybody unable to get work above this salary level already has an incentive not to work. This means everybody else have to pay higher taxes. This puts a limit on consumption, so companies have to lower cost, essentially laying off people and replacing them by cheaper labour elsewhere or by automation. So more people are out of jobs, more payouts each month, more incentive not to work. Higher taxes. Cycle starts over until the point were enough people are out of a job and accustumed to gov payed life. Unfortunately by now, due to extreme money printing, inflation will skyrocket and make the $3500 a month worth less in purchasing power. Then a political leader figure will emerge who claims that gov pay is not enough and needs to be raised. Come the next elections the guy will be put in power. He will raise taxes on the 'wealthy' (anyone with a job, at that point) and nationalise entire industries 'to guarantee fair distribution'. Once that happens, the guarantees for private property are basically void, which will stiffle the private businesses. Since the state by now also has huge dept with international lenders, and the currency has fallen to previously thought impossible lows, the state has to cap free capital movement, essentialy shutting down the private business sector. Now there is not enough food being produced at affordable prices anymore, so the state has to step in and build and operate farms. Also it is impossible to import any foreign goods like TV sets etc. Again state steps in and builds factories. None of that generates any actual money (value), and nobody really wants to work for jobs that pay so little. So the state will legislate laws that require (force) people to work on assigned jobs for the 'greater common good'. Soon enough people will be shot dead or deported to work camps to demonstrate to all citizens that 'unsocial' behavior cannot be tolerated, the greater common good, you know. By now the people will demand more political power but of course the bureaucracy cannot give it to them because that would disrupt public order. So instead, to keep people happy, they will proclaim a Democratic Social Republic of sorts that transfers all wealth, by the power of the constitution, to the people. Voila, communism. In other words, socialism is a really good idea until you actually think it through. Don't believe me, but do checkout Venezuela and Bolivia as two recent examples that moved towards socialism and now slowly but surely turn into communist regimes.

    24. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 1

      I believe the appropriate hashtag is #checkyourprivelege.

      --
      I'm gonna need a spec.
    25. Re:Oh for fucks sake by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      The problem with Socialism for someone who actually works for a living is that it doesn't seem like it promises me anything positive. I get to pay for things demanded by non-workers, but I get essentially nothing in return.

      We do not get anything in return? How about this? We don't get our heads on a pitchfork. Put millions of people out of work and bad violent shit is bound to happen. Fucking history is right there to tell you this. How stupid can we be that do not see the self-preservation benefit of not putting millions of people out of work?

    26. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      That's an even less interesting argument than "pay us or we'll kill you". What's the point supposed to be?

      Apparently working and earning a paycheck so that non-workers can take your earnings and offer you nothing but threats in return is supposed to be considered a privilege. Why would anyone who works and earns a paycheck agree that it is?

    27. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      This argument was already covered above. I can protect myself for a modest outlay that's a lot less than I'm already paying in taxes.

      And even if I couldn't, I don't know why I should think that paying off violent extortionists would result in anything but more violent extortion. Why do you think it might?

      History tells me that bad things eventually happen to every society. There's not one single example of any system that endured permanently in peace. So what's the lesson? (Personally, the lesson I learned is not to use "look at history..." as an argument for anything.)

    28. Re:Oh for fucks sake by geoskd · · Score: 1

      I said _socialism_, not communism.

      Neither pure socialism, nor communism can work in the real world. In a perfect world, they could exist, but in the real world, they can exist only in a power vacuum. As soon as a real one existed, that power vacuum would be filled, and your communist government would be transformed into something else (usually either a dictatorship, or a cleptocracy). Democracy / Capitalism cant really work either, as democracy requires the populace be capable of enlightened self interest which requires the enlightened part. Capitalism is doomed to failure because the free market economy requires scarcity. When Demand of labor far outweighs the supply, Capitalism works fine. Even when the demand is close to the supply, it can work, but once the demand falls significantly below the supply, the value of labor falls and people starve. Every time we have a new technological advance, old unskilled jobs are eliminated, and new skilled jobs are replacing them, but each of these events renders another slice of the population unemployable. 200 Years ago, there were plenty of manual labor jobs that a person with an IQ below 50 could perform that would earn them enough to survive. Today, these people occupy make-work jobs for companies like New Horizons, or NYS ARC. They are still just a small percentage of the population, but every advance in technology renders another larger slice of the population unemployable. What happens when people with an IQ below 100 are not smart enough to handle any of the available jobs? What about 80? What about 90? The world only needs so many waiters. What happens when even that job is done by an autonomous robot? Those that make the robots, and those that employ them would make money. Those that used to have those jobs will starve.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    29. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but I get essentially nothing in return. Not even gratitude. "

      See, you're the reason why the world sucks. Everybody's concerned about what the other guy is getting, and what they're getting. "Why should i have to work and that guy gets stuff for free?" Who cares what the other guy is getting. If he's getting free welfare stuff you can be sure it's crap compared to what you can buy. Those guys aren't living the good life, they're eating dog food and living in shit apartments. But you work so you can have a nice car, a nice house, good food, vacations in the Caribbean, etc... What good is not working if you don't have the money to do anything enjoyable? I like my job and don't care if people get welfare. I'm happy with what I have and don't mind working for it.

    30. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you never depended on medicine, roads, food etc from birth? Everyone depends on a society to survive.

    31. Re:Oh for fucks sake by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This argument was already covered above. I can protect myself for a modest outlay that's a lot less than I'm already paying in taxes.

      And even if I couldn't, I don't know why I should think that paying off violent extortionists would result in anything but more violent extortion. Why do you think it might?

      History tells me that bad things eventually happen to every society. There's not one single example of any system that endured permanently in peace. So what's the lesson? (Personally, the lesson I learned is not to use "look at history..." as an argument for anything.)

      People that revolt from a position of abject poverty and unemployment are extortionists?

    32. Re: Oh for fucks sake by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The Romans disagree with that outlook. Problem is, when it's free, there's no cap on the demand.

      The Romans didn't have ED-209. Technology may have created the problem, but technology can also provide the solution.

    33. Re: Oh for fucks sake by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The point is there is going to be less and less work to do.

      ... and the reason is that automation and AI will make goods and services so cheap and so plentiful that it will no longer be worthwhile for people to make them. If the proportion of our GDP spent on transfer payments remains constant, even the poorest will likely be much better off than they are today.

    34. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 1

      Lucky you weren't born into abject poverty, or with a physical trait that leads you subject to constant prejudice.

      --
      I'm gonna need a spec.
    35. Re: Oh for fucks sake by AnotherSeattlePrgmr · · Score: 0

      How about your cousins who live on the bad side of town? Too bad for the kid whose dad wasn't as smart as you? It's screw them because that is not me?

    36. Re: Oh for fucks sake by AnotherSeattlePrgmr · · Score: 0

      How about your cousins who live on the bad side of town? Or too bad for the kid whose dad wasn't as smart as you and had a car wreck on the way home from his second min. wage job? It's screw them because that is not me?

    37. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      All industrialized nations have implemented elements of socialism, the question is what minimum standard of living does a state guarantee its citizens and at what costs. The U.S has among the lowest safety nets among industrialized nations but the people living in relative poverty in the U.S enjoy a standard of living that the 1.5 Billion living in absolute poverty can only dream of. Scandinavian nations have among the highest level of socialist elements in place but society there demands a great amount of social cohesion at the expense of individual freedom.

    38. Re:Oh for fucks sake by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      There actually is a value in poor people not being so damn poor. People who are able to live healthy, comfortable lives are more capable of being highly productive members of society. That added productivity means that we can have more and work less, and thus, all live happier lives. Socialism is one means of dealing with the problem of poverty, but it's not the only one. So, the appropriate question is, what is the best treatment for the disease of poverty? There's room for serious debate on that topic, but I don't believe "Fuck it, I'll just buy a gun" is a strong contender.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    39. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 0

      I don't mind working either. But I would like to keep the money I earn. The question is, why should I want Socialism when it seems designed to only make life worse for me?

      "Solutions" where non-workers benefit at the paycheck earner's expense, with zero benefit to the paycheck earner, are hard to sell to the paycheck earner. Why would he agree?

      "Because the paycheck earner still has more than the non-working benefit recipient" is a new argument with no threats or magic. So that's something. But the worker is still considerably poorer than he was before his paycheck was raided. So I'm not sure why he would want to agree to it unless there were some really good reason. That's why I'm asking: what's supposed to convince him?

      I wish someone could tell me why I should be happy my paycheck gets raided to pay for benefits for people who seem to have zero regard for me or other paycheck earners.

    40. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'm not "screwing them". I'm minding my own business working and earning a paycheck. They are the ones who want to take from me. Without asking, and without a thank you. Why should I agree? Why should anyone who earns a paycheck agree?

    41. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Because utopian cartoon worlds aren't real. But I agree that Socialism is a great idea for utopian cartoon worlds. I'm glad we were able to find common ground and reach a genuine understanding.

      Democracy doesn't come easy or intuitively either, the Arab Spring is a testament to that. The great European empires and even many of our founding fathers thought our great experiment in Democracy was doomed to failure but after some 200 years of practice we have a pretty decent one.

    42. Re: Oh for fucks sake by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is making a living off of 8 hours of work only achievable in a utopia? This could be accomplished with only a fivefold increase in productivity. Higher standards of living result in lower birth rates, which means that there can be an increase in the ratio of resources to people, and there would be considerable gains due to the Flynn effect and a more well rested workforce. Cut out the fat from the military-industrial and the prison-industrial complex, as well as their effects on our policy, and we've got a good head start already.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    43. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      People who threaten violence to extort money are extortionists.

      The point was, once you pay an extortionist once, what's to keep him from threatening you the next time (especially since you just taught him that it works)?

    44. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You don't know me.

    45. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to adopt that kid. He would probably be grateful.

      But I'm not sure why I should agree to have my paycheck raided by people who have zero regard for me.

    46. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 0

      This is the very first genuine answer offered. Thank you.

      Everyone pay attention! This is how we actually create a society based on mutual benefit: by proposing answers that are actually intended to benefit all. I'm not sure it why we'd expect it to work, but it's at least an attempt at something besides the "gimme what I want because ... fuck you" from the rest of the people on here. I hope everyone can note the difference.

      I actually think you are correct. If the programs were built by people who genuinely wanted to help, who valued the money as if it were their family's money, and who tested their progress based on rigorous metrics for success, life would be a lot better for the poor and for people who earn a paycheck.

    47. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Draknor · · Score: 1

      My only offense is being confident in my abilities and responsible enough to produce more than I consume.

      Do you mean to say "I make more money than I spend?" Because that's a lot easier to prove than "I produce more than I consume" - because of the commons. I assume you:
      - live in a relatively safe neighborhood / city
      - with the infrastructure to support your transportation to & from your place of employment
      - where you contribute to the production of some kind of good or service
      - that is provided or distributed to your customers
      - who pay your company in some form of relatively stable currency
      - that you save / accumulate in a banking system that insures your deposits and provides access to your currency on-demand
      - so you can pay your creditors, some of whom provided you goods or services in advance of payment
      - etc etc etc

      The point is - you didn't personally build all of this infrastructure. Yet you benefit greatly from having access to it. You contribute to it (through your taxes and fees to both public & private institutions), and you may argue that your contributions are in excess of your usage (and so therefore you are effectively subsidizing others who 'consume' more then they contribute), but that can be difficult to determine since many of the benefits are indirect.

      For example, I've never called the police department to investigate a crime against me. Yet I've paid both municipal taxes and the occasional traffic violation or parking ticket. Does that mean I'm subsidizing the police for others? Not really - because I benefit from having an effective police department that keeps me, my family, and my property safe and secure. If my local PD were not effective, there's always private security -- but I couldn't afford the security it would take to make me feel as secure as I am now, and whatever I *could* afford would certainly prevent me from purchasing other goods & services that I currently enjoy.

      Isn't there someone who can make any other argument why a confidently employed person would support Socialism?

      I would support Socialism because of the philosophy of "a rising tide lifts all boats".
      - I'd rather have those who are poor or destitute have enough subsidized income & stability to not turn to violence or thievery.
      - I'd rather those who have mental health issues get the support and treatment they need from robust institutions, instead of being turned out on the street because they can't afford insurance and can't hold down a job (and become poor & destitute)
      - I'd rather that everyone get free access to basic preventative health care & acute treatment, instead of waiting until health concerns become urgent or emergent & clog ER waiting rooms
      - I'd rather all children get effective and well-rounded educations so they love learning, and become productive, creative adults instead of factory automatons
      - etc etc

      Now, do I think it is possible to do these things effectively in America's current political climate? Absolutely not. But I hope we can start down the path.

    48. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Draknor · · Score: 1

      I guess my terminology is wrong - I don't know enough about the theory of actual Socialism to know if i support that.

      I do support the concepts that current American politics *calls* 'socialsm', which is really more about social welfare (adequate health care, education, housing, and sustenance for everyone in society).

    49. Re:Oh for fucks sake by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Before you espouse socialism, understand what it is first. Socialism means that the government takes over the means of production, which is destructive on the economy for the same reason that monopolies are destructive (socialism effectively is the same thing as a monopoly.)

      No. Not even close. If it were, Robert Owens wouldn't be considered the father of socialism. Neither would Trade Unions wouldn't be considered socialist movements. Anarchism and socialism wouldn't be considered by practitioners of either sister movements. My advice is that before starting a sentence with "Before you espouse socialism, understand what it is first", take some time to find out what it is first.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    50. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you were born: In a western country Male White, or near enough If any of these guesses are wrong, must tell me. Then we can discuss the other areas where you've probably avoided discrimination, like being: Straight Intelligent (which is not due to your force of will) Able to access some form of social security. Someone dies of starvation at least once every minute. So check your fucking privilege.

      --
      I'm gonna need a spec.
    51. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      One thing about police protection is that everyone who pays taxes receives the benefit of the protection bought with those taxes. Benefit checks, on the other hand, are just taken from person A and given to person B without any regard for person A at all.

      Your answer starts toward the idea that a payer might somehow benefit himself from transfer payments and from services he won't receive himself. See below where I've thanked the guy who actually got there.

    52. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You obviously have nothing to offer the conversation, so fuck off.

      To everyone else, the question was: Why should a guy earning a paycheck agree to Socialism?

      It was actually answered below by someone not being a complete douchebag like this guy. If you earn a paycheck or if you want a better society that benefits all, see the post below where I thank the guy for finally coming up with a genuine answer to the question.

    53. Re: Oh for fucks sake by wheeda · · Score: 2

      Allow workers to opt for 4 day workweeks. Not everyone will take that, but enough will to reduce to amount of people with nothing to do.

      I'd be willing to work 4 days now instead of 5, but most employers frown on that.

    54. Re: Oh for fucks sake by wheeda · · Score: 1

      Lower minimum wage so that anyone can get a job. Then learn enough to qualify for a better job.

      Fresh out of school I didnt know shit. I felt smart, but I wasnt. Having a real job fixed both problems.

    55. Re: Oh for fucks sake by wheeda · · Score: 1

      How about stop having sex with dumb people. They won't be able to earn enough to feed children.

    56. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm sorry. I've heard lots of conversations from absolutist libertarians that I assumed your questions weren't asked in a way where you were looking for real answers. Personally, I'm not a socialist in the sense in which it's feared in the United States, but I do believe social programmes should exist to equalise opportunity, and to just ameliorate the effects of a cold, uncaring universe. I think that privilege that appears self-earned is usually just that people don't look deeper into how their life has ended up the way it has. They attribute anything positive to themselves and their struggles and less to slave labour making their shoes. So I jumped the gun in assuming you weren't honestly asking.

      --
      I'm gonna need a spec.
    57. Re:Oh for fucks sake by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When the mill down the road was going to shut down, the workers got together and bought it. Now they're all still working, perhaps not for as high of wages as previous but on the other hand they have a bigger stake in being successful and an understanding of what limits their wages. That is a form of socialism, the workers owning the means of production and government involvement was minimal. (I believe some property taxes were deferred and the amount owing reduced, much the same kind of deal that other companies get)

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    58. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Lagmo · · Score: 1

      How about your cousins who live on the bad side of town? Or too bad for the kid whose dad wasn't as smart as you and had a car wreck on the way home from his second min. wage job? It's screw them because that is not me?

      Indeed

      Or the kids living in the shitpile next door infecting your children with 'preventable disease of the week' because they can't afford any healthcare?

      Their drunken father who tries to rob your place cause he has no access to a job, drug dependency treatment or proper education to improve his prospects.

      The wife who's constantly abused and has kid after kid just to fill her empty miserable life with meaning, eventually hoping that at least one of them might end up being lucky/successful enough to support her after 50 years of abuse and neglect has taken their toll?

      It's not just on a personal level, what about the people who needs loans and mortgages for their houses/businesses but can't get them without government incentives?

      Environmental conscientiousness? NP we'll just export all our toxic crap to the 3rd world, after all, they're used to living in shitpiles anyway.

      Oh and a big FU to all public rec. areas, national parks and heritage sites, art exhibitions, museums, libraries, transport systems, sanitation, emergency services, and anything else that these freeloaders mooch off the system.
      Everyone knows if you have to share anything you're obviously a mental deviant and a menace to society, so should be shot on principle to improve the gene-pool.

      Socialism really isn't that bad once you get used to it, at least I can look my neighbors(all of them) in the eye without cringing and that goes for neighboring nations as well. Society needs to work FOR EVERYBODY, nor just the privileged few.
      Best would, of course, be massive privileges for everyone, but reality has to set in somewhere.. at least until we reach a post-scarecity society some day, even if that means AIs and drones running the world in some kind of Banksian utopia.

    59. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      My limited success is largely my own. But that's not really the point.

      The point is that we can't really have a society where we make decisions based on arguments like "give me what I want because ... fuck you". You can talk to people and get them to agree when you actually want something beneficial to all instead something that benefits person A at the expense of, and with zero regard or concern for, person B. That's what we've been missing for a long time. Where did it go?

      When can we go back to "mutual benefit" instead of "us versus them"?

    60. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet they are still living better than 90% of the rest of the world. Unevenness will always exist, what you need to look at is real living conditions, not can I afford another big screen TV and can I get a 4th obama phone.

    61. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived in socialism ( USSR ) so i have no illusions about it's efficiency.
      But actually if you do not work in ussr you got no money. even more you could be put in prison for not working ( tuneyadatvo ).

    62. Re:Oh for fucks sake by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Funny how socialism always devolves into that, isn't it? It's because it concentrates power in the government, and then the government does the obvious thing and abuses that power. And then socialists have to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy in order to even make any kind of point on discussion boards. "Nay, tha's na REAL communism, laddie! A real communist would never have murdered millions of people!" Meanwhile people with actual doctorates in Marxism don't get what all the fuss is about. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, after all.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    63. Re:Oh for fucks sake by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      A monopoly is destructive because the monopoly holder's incentive is to maximise their profit by restricting supply and maintaining an excessively high price. While socialism can certainly be destructive, it is for entirely different reasons - the government (in theory, anyway) isn't driven by the goal of maximising profits.

    64. Re: Oh for fucks sake by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Fortunately, those scenarios are fictional."

      For now.

      New technology is coming along. The situation is almost unprecidented - the closest comparison would be the industrial revolution, but even that is just a poor analogy. This means that history cannot serve as our guide - and those fictional scenarios may well be what lies ahead.

    65. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      stop repeating this nonsense about technology not disrupting peoples lives. Yes, over the course of several decades the economy replaced those jobs. In the meantime millions were without work.

      We have less unemployment now than the 30's yet far more technology. Correlation does not imply causation.

    66. Re: Oh for fucks sake by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      By person A also benefits due to a lower crime rate and access to the same social fund should they lose their job and have trouble finding another.

    67. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism.

      Socialism is not a solution, but yet another problem. It is an unfair system that is very inefficient in practice.

    68. Re:Oh for fucks sake by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      So, people who revolt from a position of poverty are extortionists. You can rephrase any way you want to avoid the question.

    69. Re: Oh for fucks sake by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

      +1
      The gut reaction to the term "socialism" and its association to the iron curtain communist meanies, without an understanding of what a social democracy truly represents, is exactly why the 1% neo-cons are now dictating the political and economic policies of North America - to the detriment of the majority of its citizens.

    70. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Do you not know how insurance works? It's all about taking everyone else's money to pay for you. i.e. socialism.

    71. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      That's communism, not socialism. They are often confused, but are not the same.

    72. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd prefer any surgery - especially brain surgery - to be done by a robot. At the dentist the other day I started thinking to myself how much more precise and efficient an autonomous mechanized dental surgery robot would be compared to the human that was drilling into my teeth - undoubtedly with lack of any sub-millimeter precision and thus scraping away at perfectly healthy tooth-material in the process,

    73. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that doesn't answer the original question. Why should someone who works and is responsible support Socialism when it only costs him and never benefits him?

      Because society isn't just a ledger to be balanced.

      ObIrony: captcha 'charity'

    74. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing about police protection is that everyone who pays taxes receives the benefit of the protection bought with those taxes. Benefit checks, on the other hand, are just taken from person A and given to person B without any regard for person A at all.

      Your answer starts toward the idea that a payer might somehow benefit himself from transfer payments and from services he won't receive himself. See below where I've thanked the guy who actually got there.

      We all know the bolded isn't true.

    75. Re: Oh for fucks sake by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Control (wether by government or corporate) requires the ability to take from others. You can't take from people who have nothing, therefore you can't control them. The purpose of welfare programs is to ensure you can control them.

    76. Re:Oh for fucks sake by rbrander · · Score: 1

      Hate to disagree with another FORTH fan (saw your sig) but dictionary says he's right. Haters called a social safety net "socialism" as a pejorative, conflating any government activity at all with state ownership of factories in Russia. They started off saying it was "socialistic" and then graduated to just calling it socialism. But the dictionary definition remains. You're talking about a "mixed market economy"...which is of course what they ALL are. There is zero pure socialism or entirely free markets anywhere. Demagogues hate shades of grey and love to call you black or white. Ayn Rand embraced that criticism, saying that once you have admitted there's evil, how can you consent to even the smallest admixture of it. Of course, there's no totally free markets anywhere because they, too, would create great evil, so it's all about the balancing act.

    77. Re:Oh for fucks sake by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      stop repeating this nonsense about technology not disrupting peoples lives. Yes, over the course of several decades the economy replaced those jobs. In the meantime millions were without work. There's a reason why the Luddites existed. That word has meaning beyond an insult. There was nearly 60 years of joblessness following the industrial revolution before other tech caught up. Google it. Read some history. Jeez.

      I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_, not communism. And not a fascist dictatorship that occasionally publishes a pamphlet with something written by Karl Marx either...

      YES! YES! YES! social-democratic style of government. Eventually we will have a 2 day work week, with 7 days revenue money to support living and entertainment. I for one would think that we all would become professional students or education givers.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    78. Re: Oh for fucks sake by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I enjoy white privilege for the same reason my children will enjoy it, white parents. Not the White part but what our culture does to maintain perceived privilege. Most black neighborhoods have many Korean and Indian owned business. Is there Asian privilege?

      King James version quote, " ...for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children." I guess Jews are privileged also.

    79. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Bureaucromancer · · Score: 1

      Except you aren't describing Socialism. Socialism is about the collectivization of the economy, functionally amounting to nationalizing virtually every sector. It's a welfare state you're talking about, and this is a distinction that we really need to make a lot more clear. A welfare state is perfectly compatible with a capitalist economy and free enterprise, socialism is an alternative to this. As much as the word welfare has itself become something of an epithet, the whole thing is still a hell of a lot more palatable to most people than true socialism.

    80. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Not really. Insurance was created to pay for unlikely expenses such as your house burning down. Socialism pays for guaranteed expenses such as food and shelter. They're not that much alike.

    81. Re: Oh for fucks sake by catprog · · Score: 1

      So making people currently on minimum wage poorer.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    82. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      "Might someday be real if a lot of very fortunate things happen" is another way of saying "not real".

    83. Re: Oh for fucks sake by catprog · · Score: 1

      While with capitalism. The business want to reduce wages , which reduced demand , leading to less people needing to be employed. Less people employed means wages are driven down further. Eventually you end up with not enough work for people to do.

      And I think you are talking communism.

      For a real example of socialism vs capitalism compare the health system of Australia vs USA.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    84. Re:Oh for fucks sake by peterpolle78 · · Score: 1

      Scandinavian nations have among the highest level of socialist elements in place but society there demands a great amount of social cohesion at the expense of individual freedom.

      Im not sure why you believe that. Looking at various papers about personal freedom the Scandinavian countries have always ranked at the very top amongst nations and far higher than the US. I really dont see how we are giving up our freedom, by having a social democratic system. Quite the contrary infact. If you mean a high tax means a lower individual freedom i guess you need to be american to believe that nonsense.

    85. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's not a gut reaction. Look how long it took for anyone in this thread to come up with any benefit from Socialism for the paycheck earner. People see their money being taken from them and they don't see their society getting better and they think they'd probably be able to spend their own money better than politicians do.

      People look at Detroit and Baltimore and see the results of long term one party rule by politicians who offer lots of social programs, and they think maybe they don't want conditions in their town to be more like conditions in Detroit or Baltimore. People hear the defense that the leaders in Baltimore can't be blamed because they only had 60 years to improve things and they think they'd like their government to be more accountable than that. People ask socialists how they would improve Detroit and Baltimore and they don't hear any satisfactory answers, and they conclude that if nothing useful can be done, they'd prefer not to pay as much for futile programs.

      Then they get slurred as racists or whatever when they know they're not and it seals the deal -- they mostly stop listening.

    86. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They're only extortionists if they threaten violence to extort money. If they don't, they aren't. I'm not sure what's unclear about that.

      I wasn't the one who came up with the argument that paycheck earners should pay up to avoid violence. If you think that argument portrays poor people unfairly, then you should direct your complaints to the guys who made the argument.

      I think it's a poor argument because I'd rather fight than pay people who would threaten me. And even if I chose not to fight every time, I'd still always view those threatening me as enemies and I'd look for opportunities to strike against them. It's not a great way to organize a society.

    87. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the rest of the world isn't a sociopathic cunt like you. Other people not suffering makes them feel better.

      In language you might understand: Because eveything is selfish, even alturism.

    88. Re: Oh for fucks sake by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      And currently, neither is 80% unemployment. When machines can do 80% of our current jobs, production costs are going to be very different. It would also mean that there is a very different dynamic in manufacturing. These would all be changes greater than a shift to an 8 hour work week would be.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    89. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Maybe everyone should get the same base cost of living allotment from the government. Even if you make 10 million a year, you get it. Of course if you want the fancy cars and electronic gadgets you will need to get a job or make money with a business. Then you can pay the taxes on the extra money you make. Of course this means the rich people pay more taxes than the ones who are eeking by on their allotments. And since they control the politicians it will never happen.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    90. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Actually, guaranteed minimum income plans aren't a terrible idea compared to what we have now. The cost of means-tested benefits right now averages about $60000 per recipient per year in the US.

    91. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read Bernard Stiegler's "économie de la contribution" ideas, he's probably one of the most interesting thinkers about this whole situation.

    92. Re: Oh for fucks sake by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      You ask a good question about your motivation to pay more taxes to support a more socialistic system, with no perceived benefit.

      I would propose that you, and I as tax payers, would benefit. Society is constantly changing, and if you hadn't noticed in the US we seem to be incarcerating more and more people on a daily basis. The money for those prisons doesn't just fall from heaven like the mana of old. Poverty breeds crime like almost nothing else, and the future trend appears to be continued growth of poverty while the middle class dwindles. One way or another we are going to be paying more taxes to deal with the problems that poverty breeds, and prisons and crime is just part of that.

      So the question really becomes, can we reduce the ill affects of poverty on society by adopting a more socialistic system for the same or cheaper cost than simply treating the symptoms? And that's strictly the money side of things, what would be the dollar value of lowering the chance of becoming the victim of crime? Or knowing that you can take a risk on starting your own business, or chasing some other dream, without exposing your family to being destitute should you fail?

    93. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      A monopoly is destructive because the monopoly holder's incentive is to maximise their profit by restricting supply and maintaining an excessively high price. While socialism can certainly be destructive, it is for entirely different reasons - the government (in theory, anyway) isn't driven by the goal of maximising profits.

      In a word? LOL.

      When a government "nationalizes" (read: takes control of) the means of production, then that industry loses any incentive to improve itself because it has no competitors, and what ends up happening is that entire country sees that particular industry gradually fall behind its neighbor states. This, by the way, is the same effect that monopolies tend to have in capitalist countries, which is why most capitalist countries forbid their existence. Recall what happened to IE during its monopoly days, and it fell behind so bad in comparison to other browsers that it became a running joke among those in tech circles.

      But even if it isn't a profit motive for the government, it's almost always because some corrupt politician wants to make himself look good while sacrificing the country's long term economic well being in the process.

      USSR (which was communist for all of about 5 years, which failed miserably, and only stayed communist in name only) was about as pure socialist as you can get. They also had a saying there: They pretend to pay you if you pretend to work. Likewise, their GDP was in a constant slide into unsustainability the minute they lost the ability to conquer other states (off of the backs of whom they derived what little growth they had until those states converted into full socialism themselves.) In fact what few technologies they had were mostly stolen from conquered states and western governments (their first bomber was an exact copy of US bombers that Americans left behind in China after Japanese bombing runs in WWII; they even copied articles found inside, such as one of the crew member's personal camera.)

      I recall hearing about how some USSR fighter pilot decided to defect to the US in the 70s, and when the engineers were given his aircraft (which was state of the art Russian technology,) they were surprised to see that it was still using vacuum tubes, where US aircraft had started using integrated circuits a decade earlier.

    94. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      When the mill down the road was going to shut down, the workers got together and bought it. Now they're all still working, perhaps not for as high of wages as previous but on the other hand they have a bigger stake in being successful and an understanding of what limits their wages. That is a form of socialism, the workers owning the means of production and government involvement was minimal. (I believe some property taxes were deferred and the amount owing reduced, much the same kind of deal that other companies get)

      That isn't socialism. Again, socialism means state controlled means of production. Socialism also means an end to the forces of supply and demand because the government just sets whatever price it wants.

      Free market by definition means that prices are governed by the forces of supply and demand. That's really all there is to it. Contrary to common slashdot belief, a monopoly typically isn't a free market because then prices typically aren't subject to supply and demand, or at least the forces of supply and demand are severely diminished.

      As for your mill, so long as its product is traded on the free market, and the government doesn't own it, then by definition it is capitalism. Doesn't matter who owns it.

      Communism would mean that nobody owns it, not even the workers (theoretically, as there's no government either,) and they give away its product free of charge to just anybody who asks, in exchange for nothing at all. It doesn't take a genius to see that this wouldn't last long, and in all cases it hasn't. Every time somebody has built a commune, it collapses quickly. When I tell people this, they often point to communist China, USSR, etc. But if you look at how those countries work, they weren't communist at all. The USSR was one of the few cases of pure socialism, see my post below.

    95. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      There is zero pure socialism or entirely free markets anywhere.

      Actually Cuba is pretty close to that. There are very few jobs that the government there will permit you to have where you don't work for them, and even in that case, you have to work for just yourself, and competing with somebody else isn't permitted (because competition is immoral; you should all be working together towards the common good under that system.) I don't remember the exact number of jobs it was, but you can probably count them with one hand.

      USSR was that way until the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1991, after which they've gradually moved towards free market capitalism (free market meaning the prices are subject to supply and demand.)

    96. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Oh, also the USA is, by practical definition, purely free market.

      I say practical because there aren't any industries where the government owns the means of production unless you count interplanetary space probes, or military operations.

      I also want to say manned space flight, but the private sector has recently entered that industry (though you may include it as the private sector doesn't technically do it on a commercial basis yet.) The private industry manufactures military equipment though (e.g. fighter jets are made by Boeing and others and purchased by the government.)

      Most western countries have some kind of socialized medicine (i.e. in Canada, all medical personnel work for the government and are forbidden from running a private practice, whereas in the UK private practice is permitted but it's mostly only for rich people who can afford people who they believe do a better job than the NHS workers.)

      However the US does not. In the US, "government paid" medicine comes in the form of an HMO type insurance that just pays all of your medical expenses to private companies, and then charges you almost nothing for it; but the private sector still owns the means of production. It only truly fits the definition of welfare and not socialism.

      Side note:

      When the ultra conservatives say the US has the best medicine though, I'm inclined to agree. If you look at countries with socialized medicine, virtually all of them have contracts arranged with private hospitals in the US where they send their people if their country doesn't have the facilities available.

      Usually this is something super specialized. For example, their worst cancer patients that have a chance of recovery are sent to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas. Other fields such as Neurosurgery, Pulmonology, Cardiology, and other specialties for vital organs are often sent to Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins centers. Countries I know of who have sent their patients here for these include Canda, UK, Germany, and Sweden.

      Where the US tends to look bad in the rankings are individual hospitals that mainly just serve ER patients who don't bother shopping around, so their service can suck but they can still bill stupidly high amounts. Because there are so many of these hospitals, it makes the average US hospital look less than stellar.

      That said, knowing what I know about how socialism impacts other industries, I think it would be a mistake for the US to switch to socialized medicine. We do spend too much on medicine however. I think one way to fix that might be to add a bit of regulation stipulating that doctors and hospitals be required to show their rates for the most common services that they provide up front, and before you are provided any services, you as a patient are given the right to know what your bill will be BEFORE the service is performed if you just ask.

      This would end hospital/ER sticker shock and billing errors (which are at something like 90%) and at the same time force medical staff to be more competitive on price. Even if you're insured, it would be preferable to shop around since most people have a deductible to deal with.

      Also, in my opinion, the Affordable Care Act is only going to raise prices, and they're already high enough, because all it does is raise the demand for medical services without doing anything to address how much is paid out to those services.

    97. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, in my opinion, the Affordable Care Act is only going to raise prices, and they're already high enough, because all it does is raise the demand for medical services without doing anything to address how much is paid out to those services.

      Your opinion seems flawed then, since apparently you've not heard that the ACA contains provisions like re-admittance penalties, accountable care, and the IPAB. That last one is often called a "death panel" but its very purpose is addressing how much is paid for medical services. There are also numerous mechanisms like screenings and even the birth control offerings that lower costs by preventing expensive needs before they happen.

    98. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I didn't say ACA didn't try to reduce costs. But as you know, trying and doing are two very different things. And so far, health care costs have indeed increased since ACA passed.

    99. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say ACA didn't try to reduce costs.

      Your words:

      because all it does is raise the demand for medical services without doing anything to address how much is paid out to those services.

      Seems pretty clearly you were saying that the ACA wasn't doing anything to address how much is paid out to those services.

      If you wanted to say something like the ACA hasn't done enough to reduce the costs of medical services, I think you chose a rather phrasing. You may want to consider how you express yourself a bit better.

      And so far, health care costs have indeed increased since ACA passed.

      You expect the ACA to stop inflation? But no, overall, across the spectrum of medical care, some have gone up, some stayed the same, some have even gone down for various reasons, and on average, the rate of increase has been lower than before the ACA.

      http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2013/03/bring-down-costs.html

      http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/is-the-aca-keeping-a-lid-on-growth-in-healthcare-spending.html

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-health-care-driving-down-deficit/

      http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/12/3610507/obamacare-helping-health-costs/

      Sorry, but while you can say a true thing, it can also be a misleading one, and in this case, it seems to be the case.

      Of course, if you wanted Obama to radically cut costs, I think we'd have had to nationalize the health care system, which could have been done, mind you, but it'd have very politically unpopular.

    100. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Your words:

      Are accurate.

      'Nuff said.

    101. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you ignore how your words aren't at all accurate, as the ACA does contain measures to address how much is paid out to those services.

      You can debate the effectiveness, but no, you can't honestly claim that it doesn't contain any.

    102. Re:Oh for fucks sake by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      as the ACA does contain measures to address how much is paid out to those services.

      True, however they don't actually work. Does that make sense to you? I get it that you're biased and you really want it to work for idealistic reasons, but I'm afraid reality has to piss in your Cheerios. Haven't you noticed how a lot of investors are taking their money out of other stocks and throwing it into health care stocks? Here's a hint: While the rest of the market is expected to see a correction VERY soon, health care providers aren't expected to see their margins decline. Why? ACA basically guarantees that they're going to do better than the rest of the economy.

      If that doesn't make sense to you, then sorry, but I can't help you.

      Bye.

      [/discussion]

    103. Re:Oh for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, however they don't actually work.

      Even if true, that's something entirely different, and unfortunately, that contention isn't exactly proven on your part, as the actual analysis shows that health care costs were managed and went up less than before the ACA, less than expected, and even less than inflation.

      Unless you wanted massive deflation or a nationalized system, that's exactly what was expected and intended.

      So no, I'm afraid you've got a lot further to go to show that they have worked.

      Haven't you noticed how a lot of investors are taking their money out of other stocks and throwing it into health care stocks? Here's a hint: While the rest of the market is expected to see a correction VERY soon, health care providers aren't expected to see their margins decline. Why? ACA basically guarantees that they're going to do better than the rest of the economy.

      Hate to spill your Fruit Loops, but there's nothing to this contention either. At most, you've just disproved all the people who said the ACA was going to destroy the healthcare industry.

      Apparently all those investors disagree.

      I guess that hurts all the ACA critics who made the claim that it would, but as the ACA wasn't intended to destroy the industry, you've offered nothing. If anything, the claims were that it would help, so yay, again, working as expected?

      Or did you think that Obama should have tried to destroy the healthcare industry? If so, sorry, but that goal was not part of the plan.

      And no, there's nothing surprising about millions of paying customers being a good thing for the industry.

      If that doesn't make sense to you, then sorry, but I can't help you.

      So far, what you've offered has only helped convince me that your opinion regarding the ACA was even more deeply flawed than I thought.

  40. You assume the "professionals" really are.... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    The trucking industry USED to be pretty well regarded for having top notch drivers. I don't think this is the case today. Some of the trucking schools were caught red-handed passing students who had "stand ins" taking the exams for them, for example. And all too often, long-haul drivers are pressed to drive so many hours at a time that they're really not that safe and alert at the wheel some of the time.

    The drivers I saw hired at a manufacturing place I used to work for were not exactly pillars of society either. Many had previous criminal records and we had to place GPS tracking systems on the trucks and keep constant watch on where the went, since people tended to use the trucks for non work-related activities otherwise and bill the company for the fuel. That doesn't mean they lacked driving skills ... but it does mean I wouldn't trust them not to misrepresent the truth if they were involved in an accident.

    I don't doubt that the majority of accidents involving large truck are still the fault of passenger vehicle drivers -- but I suspect the "big rig" drivers aren't really all that superior of drivers themselves, as often as not. (I've seen some of the guys around here who can barely get the trucks around traffic circles without tearing things up, and who knock down traffic signals going around corners.)

    1. Re:You assume the "professionals" really are.... by swb · · Score: 1

      I think the decline in truck driver "craftsmanship" is also a consequence of the general decline in pay for less skilled jobs and the increased scheduling demands from the just-in-time, GPS-enabled inventory practices of today.

      That's not a combination that attracts the best and brightest, and I'm sure that corporatization and a decline in owner-operators adds something to do it as well.

      I also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a psychological factor -- a kind of pathology to being behind the wheel a lot and subject to moronic drivers, crushing traffic and idiotic road designs coupled with maybe a little blue collar rage -- that didn't make truck drivers prone to aggressive driving.

    2. Re:You assume the "professionals" really are.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it's the consumers fault for demanding the lowest priced goods?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:You assume the "professionals" really are.... by swb · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying it's management's fault for shifting the externalities of poor road safety onto the public.

    4. Re:You assume the "professionals" really are.... by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Cars tend to be the 'ass' in assume with regards to truck. I say that because cars tend to expect trucks to accelerate, decelerate, and react at the same speed all the time. Well, there's one big problem, and that big problem is mass. If you see a 53' truck on the road or a 40' truck on the road, it could have 5-10,000 lbs cargo (empty container) or 60,000 pounds of cargo. Most of the time when that dragass truck is accelerating slowly at a light, its not because they're milking their working hours, its because the petal is on the floor and the thing is having a hard time moving. This, unfortunately, applies when stopping as well.

      There's no easy way to tell where on the weight gradient a truck falls from an onlooker's point of view. I think this is why we have so many accidents around them. If there were more advanced turn/brake signals, like varying light intensity for brake pressure or something, maybe it'd help, but the critical mass required for such a change is almost impossible to acheive.

      Disclaimer: I am not a professional driver, but I work in the transportation industry, so I've seen their struggles.

    5. Re:You assume the "professionals" really are.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      And why were they required to do this??? If people were just willing to pay a reasonable price for goods then everyone could get paid a decent wage. We wouldn't have to worry about cutting every corner possible.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  41. Suponea their data recorder by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    Any vehicle with airbags in it has a data recorder so that the manufacturer can determine under what conditions the air bag did or didn't go off.

    So even if you don't have a dash cam, if you're in an accident, get the data from the other vehicle. Depending on the make & model, you might need to make sure that the vehicle doesn't get driven before the data's been read out.

    I was once driving home on Thanksgiving day a few years ago -- taking I66 to the DC Beltway. It wasn't rush hour, so I waited until the sign came up that marked that it was now an exit lane (the shoulder is an extra lane during rush hour). It seems that there was some guy *flying* down the lane ... and so he must've considered me to have cut him off.

    Once we got to the exit (which had two lanes), he shot around me, then pulled into my lane and slammed on his brakes. When I stopped without hitting him, he gunned his engine, we both got back up to speed ... then he stopped again. I had to stand on my brakes this time.

    I kinda wished that I *had* hit him, as I could've proved that it was his fault for wreckless driving. (although a dash cam would've have hurt -- show that he had no reason for braking, as the road was clear, and that he had intentionally gotten in front of me to try to cause an accident).

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  42. Transitional work as "co-pilots"... by patniemeyer · · Score: 1

    What if we solve two problems at the same time by legislating that for some number of years self driving rigs have to have human co-pilots aboard (bear with me)... We'd still get most of the benefits of improved safety and 24 hour schedules and the humans could even do other work while on-board but they'd ostensibly be there to monitor the rig and take over in crazy situations (e.g. flat tire, fire, unexpected weather).

    The flip side is that the public gets a (somewhat irrational but real) feeling of safety knowing that humans are on board... in the same way that I feel better about flying in a mostly auto-piloted aircraft because I know two people fully trained in the systems are trusting their lives to it.

    So truck drivers turn into truck co-pilots for a few years, get an easier / safer job, and some of them retire during that time while we all get used to self-driving trucks on the road.
     

  43. Why aren't they doing this now? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    There's lots of unemployed, especially in Mexico. How do the big rigs carrying cars make it up here. Could it be that that if you highjack a few of these you wind up dead, fast? Don't screw with the rich. You can do whatever you want to the poor and middle class, but if you steal from the wealthy you will die. If all else fails the American military will step in and carpet bomb you with drones.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Why aren't they doing this now? by lgw · · Score: 1

      How do the big rigs carrying cars make it up here.

      Well, there are definitely problems. The most entertaining of which recently were the guys who hijacked a load of radioactive cargo, but either didn't know what they were doing, or screwed it up badly, as they all ended up in the hospital with radiation sickness, making that the rare hijacking that actually got solved by the police.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  44. Elizabeth Warren by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Bernie Sanders. Alan Greyson. Al Franken. We might not have a lot of 'em, but we've got a few. Hell, Bernie openly admits to being a socialist. In America that's like saying your a Nazi Pedophile Hipster who drinks lite beer.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Elizabeth Warren by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      if that's what you're into...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  45. Who says the humans go away? by satch89450 · · Score: 1

    If you've ever been around trucks in the retail and wholesale delivery to retail markets, you know that the drivers also do double duty as payload handlers. Think of the gas truck pulling into a station to fill the station tanks; there is a human making the hook-ups and monitoring the transfer. Furniture delivery trucks, even when self-driving, will still need handlers to take the furniture in. (Or, for Salvation Army trucks, to take the furniture out to the truck.) Also, how are self-driving trucks going to handle some of the really wild truck docks? There will be a reduction with long-haul drivers, granted, but trailer-trains have been taking some of that market already.

    1. Re:Who says the humans go away? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes, no one is saying that all 3.5 million truckers job, plus that many again support, are just going to disappear from the market. They will just be replaced by a few filthy rich CEOs and half a million minimum wage unskilled [illigal alien] employees

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  46. What really matters: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making sure gay couples can use the government to bully religious business owners. The good of the other 98+% or the population is irrelevant as long as these religious people remain free to choose who they will or won't bake wedding cakes for.

    1. Re:What really matters: by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      This is not a fully formed argument. Can you please clarify your position?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  47. A step forward by Livius · · Score: 1

    While not ideologically opposed to automation displacing workers, I'm not usually really enthused about it, especially when it seems to be over fairly modest economic gains.

    And I am very impressed with the driving skill of some truck drivers who can negotiate spaces I probably couldn't safely drive a compact car through.

    However, I don't see truck driving, or the related services, as being fulfilling careers that people need to get worked up over, and a lot of truck drivers have significant challenges in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

    I think it would be helpful to think more in terms of compromises that would result. Self-driving trucks might have a lot of advantages but then taken completely off the roads in for example poor weather. (Of course that happens now if the weather is severe enough, so it's a difference of degree.)

  48. The real problem by Nephrite · · Score: 0

    The real problem is not that driverless trucks will destroy jobs. It's capitalistic system where man has to get a job to get money. We now have robots everywhere. In factories, in home and on the road. Is it paradise, where man at last doesn't have to work? No, it's a hell where man can't get a job. What nonsense.

  49. Motorcycles need more Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Motorcycles DO NOT stop faster than cars. Two wheeled vehicles take longer to stop. Weight isn't the only factor in stopping a vehicle.

  50. Yeah its not like we are counting the unemployed 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah its not like we are counting the 90 million who have left the workforce over the last couple years and the turning to H1B visas. ...

  51. Paperwork and liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big problem I see for autonomous trucks is responsibility. A truck driver picking up a load must sign a bill or lading testifying to the effect that everything was loaded in good condition as stated on the manifest. Without an actual driver to witness the goods being loaded all the AI could testify to is "this amount of weight was placed in the truck and it took that weight from point A to point B". This would make things really easy for smugglers transporting contraband as there would be plenty of reasonable doubt for the jury as what the load really was. All it would take would be a police EMP weapon to fry the AI, stop the truck, and jack the load. So was that load of expensive plasma TV's really stolen, or were they never loaded in the first place and something else was?

  52. What about self driving cars? by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 2

    Taxis, buses, professional drivers, insurance claims, body shops, traffic cops...

    Those individuals will be just as affected. And this technology will advance regardless of whether people like it or not. Either we're prepared to accept a future where labor is no longer as important as it once was and we move to allow all people to pursue other interests (work week reductions as well), we're just going to have larger and larger prisons or social as people won't just accept not eating, or the less fortunate will revolt and there will be blood in the streets.

    I think there's more peaceful ways to do make the transition but I doubt the elite will necessarily approve. For some reason, re-training will continue to be a fantasy solution in their eyes.

  53. Not only truck drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of speed dealers will go bankrupt as well.

  54. Doctors by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    'saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." So now you want to put all the doctors out of a job as well?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  55. Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >But the eventual replacement of truck drivers with autonomous driving systems

    Yeah, not going to happen. There has been nothing stopping us from making trains/subways completely autonomous (a much easier task) for nearly 20 years but we still have human operators.

  56. So when does it stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got free trade and they said that our higher technology would mean less menial work and better pay jobs here at home. Then they shipped the technology overseas and most of manufacturing with it and they touted the great new service economy. Now with drones and self drive trucks, online shopping, automated fast food restaurants and an app for everything, we are losing the service jobs too. So, when does it stop? What do we do for work when the service jobs are all gone too? Shouldn't business be about employing people just as much as it is about bring profit to the invest class?

  57. Simpsons showed it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Homer was riding on the hood. The black box does all the work already geesh
    They're just trying to keep it secret

  58. Republican Congress already taking care of this-- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But we need to start thinking about how to handle the 10 million people looking for work when the (human) trucking industry falls off a cliff."
    It's the driver's fault. If they had had the foresight to get into hedge fund management or IT security 20 years ago, they wouldn't be out of a job now.

    damn lazy poor people.
    (that's sarcasm, in anyone can't tell)

  59. Won't save 4000 lives, but will save dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Semi-autonomous trucks will be able to drive in close formation, saving gasoline.

  60. Working for a living will be obsolete by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Eventually we're just going to have to get away from societies that depend on "working for a living" as there is less and less actual work to be done. We're already starting to see that with all the layoffs in manufacturing over the years, the reductions in workforce at many companies, and the elimination of all but the lowest paying jobs as till operators and stock clerks.

    Of course that means the few people who *do* have to actually "work" will end up living lives of luxury compared to the general public. With the majority of people living on a stipend instead of an income, who is going to want to go to the effort of training and education for employment as a doctor or nurse, for example?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  61. Working On The Railroad by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    "I've been working on the railroad,
    All the live long day.

    I've been working on the railroad,
    Since they took my truck away."

    I sing this song to myself sometimes when trying to navigate through the trucks on the Interstate on the way to and from work.

  62. selfdriving by Jookey · · Score: 1

    Don't we already have a self driving truck, AKA a train. It seems like autonomus technology is only reliable for highway driving. The last mile has to be driven by people anyhow. How is that different than intermodal freight?

  63. 1973 season of "The Superfriends" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember GEEC?

  64. So...why do trains still have engineers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't they be totally automated by now?

  65. Looking at demographics, this may be a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as a Canadian, this may solve a problem for our problem with the aging demographic of truckers. Quoting this study, autonomous trucks may happen just in time to balance a coming cliff in trucker availability. Take a look at the graphs in the following - perhaps the same is true for some other countries?
    http://www.drivershortage.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Understanding-the-Truck-Driver-Supply-and-Demand-Gap1.pdf
    * While the overall labour force in Canada is aging, the truck driver population has aged more rapidly. The average age of the truck driver has increased from 40 years in 1996 to over 44 years in 2006.
    * There are also relatively few truck drivers under the age of 30. While a quarter of courier and delivery drivers, who are not included as truck drivers, are under the age of 30, only 12 per cent of truck drivers are under 30. The difficulty in attracting younger drivers poses a problem for the industry, especially as older drivers retire. ...
    * Industry leaders have observed an increasing difficulty in recruiting drivers over the past several years and see this trend continuing in the future. Long-haul trucking is generally more difficult to recruit for, particularly when the routes are unscheduled.

  66. Re:Move those drivers into services around the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There won't be that many jobs coming available, because most of those jobs are already taken.

  67. stupid false dichotomy by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Yeah, God knows we don't need any of that advanced technology crap!

    Next thing you know, they might develop big machines to replace covered wagons and plows. Then where will we be, when all those teamsters and farmers are put out of work?

    And what's with these "computer" things? Everyone knows a computer is a (usually) young woman who calculates (by hand) the numbers required by Real Scientists (tm). Replace them with machines? I say no!

    I say we just destroy all that automation and go back to the tried and true ways we've always known! Ned Ludd Lives!

    This is the stupidest false dichotomy bullshit I've seen in a long time. No one is saying no to automation. What the concern is, how do we plan to introduce automation in the trucking industry while simultaneously handle the 10 +/- million people that will be affected? Do we just introduce automation and let markets self-heal (which is pretty much dog-eat-dog), or do we put in place transition job and training programs to ameliorate the impact of unemployment until the bulk of people is able to transition into other job sectors.

    That you miss the gist of the problem shows that you are not as smart as you think you are, or you simply do not care. Don't know which is scarier.

    1. Re: stupid false dichotomy by wheeda · · Score: 1

      There is no simultaneously. It will happen gradually. Wages for drivers will decrease. Any time you expect something to suddenly happen and need to simultaneously do stuff, you are misunderstanding how markets work.

    2. Re: stupid false dichotomy by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      There is no simultaneously. It will happen gradually. Wages for drivers will decrease. Any time you expect something to suddenly happen and need to simultaneously do stuff, you are misunderstanding how markets work.

      And anyone who things the negative impact of change is negligible simply because change is gradual also misunderstand how markets work. These damages take decades to get undone. And here we are talking beyond the mere concepts of markets. We are talking about national policies. We have been taking purely market-driven ideological points up our asses for the last 2-3 decades without any national policy to handle the aftermaths, and see where it has taken us.

    3. Re: stupid false dichotomy by wheeda · · Score: 1

      Doing something more cost effectively and safely isnt a harm that needs to be mitigated.

    4. Re: stupid false dichotomy by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Doing something more cost effectively and safely isnt a harm that needs to be mitigated.

      It is if it causes mass unemployment. The industrial revolution did show us how to do things in more economical (and at times safer) ways. With that said, for the first 30-40 years of this period, by several estimates, about 1/3 of the working class was employed, 1/3 permanently in a state of half-employment, and the remaining 1/3 in a permanent state of unemployment, with nothing but scrapping by.

      Let those numbers sink in. Poverty increased among the lowest sectors of society, in large numbers. It took decades for markets to "heal themselves".

      We can give economies and societies of the time to not give a shit, or not even understanding the implications because, well, people act according to the times.

      But what is our excuse now. I am not against modernization or globalization, but by God, private entities need to do a better job at looking at the consequences (which, if you play it right, can actually become profitable opportunities in creating new markets in which the unemployed transfer to work.)

      And if private entities cannot or do not want, the it is up to the State. Because someone has to. This isn't the late 1700's, early 1800's. If we ever fall for the last option, we have only ourselves to blame.

  68. should use trains anyway for long haul freight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just pick the trailer off, and put it on a railroad flatcar. At the destination city, pick the trailer off the flatcar, attach it to the truck, and do the last mile. Far, far more efficient economically and energy-wise.

  69. 3.5m truck drivers is a massive overstatement by SpreadsheetGamer · · Score: 1

    Really? 1% of all Americans including children are truck drivers? There are about 150m Americans in the workforce at the moment so that would be 4.6% of all workers as truck drivers. The article is just another infotainment website and it sources a trucking enthusiast's website for this outrageous figure. Let's get some more reliable figures.

    http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_tabl...

    Right, so 4.4 million workers in the 'Transportation and Warehousing' sector. That sector includes taxi drivers, stevedores, pilots, travel agents, train drivers, conductors, couriers, the postal service... Does anybody believe there are 3 truckers for every other one of these jobs?

    http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag...

    So the actual figure is 823,130 + 54,990 = 879 000 truck drivers.

    It took longer to type this post than actually find that information.

    1. Re:3.5m truck drivers is a massive overstatement by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Your post was better than what I had in mind, which was going to be something like... "What? So THAT'S what the 1% are doing these days? Times are tough all over, I guess."

  70. Three words... by Berkyjay · · Score: 2

    ...Guaranteed minimum income. It's the most humane way to integrate full automation into an economy without forcing tens of millions into abject poverty. We're going to have to provide them with welfare one way or another. So why not just provide everyone with the basics for living in this world and allow people to work for what they want beyond that? The key is to move beyond the societal stigma of joblessness.

    1. Re:Three words... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Because you have to work to eat! Anybody who works less than 40 hours a week is a freeloader who doesn't deserve a dime. I'm not paying taxes to the government so that it can feed and clothe people who are too lazy to get full-time jobs! They can starve to death in the streets if they're not willing to work hard enough to get a college education after we've automated away all of the unskilled labor.

      * Note: I personally do not agree with that line of thought, but that is how a lot of people, including politicians, feel.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  71. The impending arrival of the Leisure Society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I truly believe we are getting closer to a society where, if everyone want employment, then everyone will have to work fewer hours so as to share the available jobs.

    The things stopping this arrival are probably myriad, but one of the key delays may be caused by the earnings difference between the top income brackets enabling political empowerment (money talks!) and the middle/lower income brackets with the consequential non-effective involvment.

    Could we limit the income bandwidth?
    For instance, a facter of 10 between the top remuneration package (shares/salary/options/retirement benefits etc.) and the lowest (usually just an hourly rate). Perhaps we could encourage directed technological improvement by increasing the mandated differential (carbon/heat neutral energy sources, effective product life and proper recycling -- and all the other things that will make our short evolution/demise on this planet less short).

    If the 'Leisure Society' arrives, will this avert the impending crises caused by a share-holder/stakeholder demand for year on year growth, governmental desire for 2~5% inflation, etc.? Would this bring 'zero-growth' economics closer?

    How does this affect a global population?
    We already have a third world that eyes the riches/priviledges of first and second world populaces. If the playing field were levelled where everyone could enjoy free time, not have to compete for the right to buy food and the other necessities to 'exist', would this spread globally and bring less strife and conflict?

  72. Re:LEOs by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    I bet there will still be a human sitting in the cab for emergencies, it not as if its on rails.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  73. Who moved your cheese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The money pot moves. You move to where it goes. (Maybe read the book "Who Moved my Cheese")? It's called adjustment and change. It's scary at first, but this is the world we live in. Learn more than one skill - save some money for the rough periods and never get fat and lazy doing what you've already been doing. Somebody is going to want your job and will do it for less money, or technology is going to make your current job redundant. Natural selection will cull the dumb ones that can't adjust and we can evolve with life and new realities.

  74. Get ready for the 2016 remake of "Duel" by bensch128 · · Score: 1

    In the new version, you don't see the driver because there is no driver!

  75. Lots of stuff is cheaper by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    The reason why China has been a major success in industrialising is that it has provided the world with cheaper industrial goods. Everything from clothing and footwear through to furniture.

  76. "An anonymous reader writes.." by kheldan · · Score: 1

    That's all you needed to read, you can stop right there.

    I do not believe there will ever be 'driverless' trucks, any more than there will be 'driverless' cars. The safety risk is too great, especially when you're talking about a vehicle with a combined mass of over 40 tons hurtling down the road at high speeds. The potential for dozens or even hundreds dying because hardware or software went haywire is just too great to ignore. There needs to be someone there to at least hit the brakes.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  77. Planet Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see someone has been listening to NPR's Planet Money recently...

  78. Nice strawman... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Also, you're arguing a metaphor.

    Thus, probably unwittingly, cause if your comments on the topic lack anything clearly it is having wits behind them, you go off to hide in your corner from the straw bogeymen coming for your "stuff", clutching at your gun to defend you.
    Because, clearly, poor people are getting ready to take everything from you. $1000 today and other nonsense.

    Here's the thing boyo...
    Can you shoot viruses with them guns of yours? How bout bacteria?
    Can you shoot 'lectricity into your wires and oil and water into your pipes?
    How about simply shoot some bread on your table?

    You know... stuff that will appear suddenly as what amounts to entire nations (there are countries with fewer people than 3.5 million truckers alone) suddenly end up without food or medicine or pot to piss in, and in the long run, without the ground to bury their dead.
    Following your "Fuck them I got mine" economic policy.

    How many bullets does it take to stop that guy who's off his meds and out of a job but perfectly able to steal a truck, get drunk on stolen booze and go ramming it into other people's cars?
    Or simply take HIS gun (You think you're the only one with a peashooter?) and gun you down for no reason cause he's off his meds? You some gun-ninja, with a six sense for danger?
    No... not fear. We know you got that covered. DANGER-sense. Like what Spiderman has. No?
    Well... no wonder you're shaking in your boots then... you'd have to be shooting at everyone you don't know.
    And that's a lot of boo-lets...

    How about that other guy who decides to steal the copper out of them power lines and gets both himself electrocuted AND takes out half the local grid in the process?
    Are YOU gonna guard all the power lines everywhere by your own lonesome, clutching your pathetic little Saturday night special?
    What's that? You're gonna PAY someone to guard them? Will that be $1000, $5000 or more? Lotsa them power lines...

    BTW... did you know that you can use transformer oil (from power transformers) to run engines?
    Yeah... And they like have these pathetic locks on them. You just kick them a little. Then you drill a hole in the transformer, drain the oil into a can and leave it to rot or catch fire. Someone will come along and strip it of the wiring later.
    You're gonna pay that? Oh right... guns... Your gonna shoot the transformer into working. No... wait... you're gonna pay more guards and police...

    But fuck that... right... You know what that oil does best? It works GREAT in chainsaws.
    Heatin don't come free, you know. But LANDSLIDES do!
    You're gonna love those... they take out houses, roads, tear up underground pipes...
    You'll be paying that shit too, I know. Right after you shoot that landslide.

    But hold on... Them poor people don't have medical or any kind of insurance.
    You won't mind them going around all sick and stuff... urinating in your yard... taking shit where ever they can... and eventually dying all around your place.
    Right-right... you're gonna shoot that too. Shoot the sick right out of them.
    Then shoot the medicine and doctors INTO hospitals to treat YOU when you need them instead of all them poor people swamping the system.
    Then you're gonna pay someone to bury/burn the corpses, sanitize everything, give you daily checkups to make sure you didn't catch anything... must be great to be able to afford all that on your private tropical island.

    And that's all before your next door neighbor, your huntin/fishin/masturbatin buddy, comes to your door with a plan to shoot himself some stuff.
    See... his trucking business went belly up on account of all them self-driving trucks not needing his local services in your neighborhood cause nobody's buying shit there anymore. So... nothing to transport.
    You and your ex-billionaire buddy are the only ones there - and you got yourself all the shit you need behind your guns and walls and moats and crocodiles and drawbridges and all that other shit you built around your personal "one-person prison".

    Come on... He's your buddy. He's just gonna shoot you a little. And take your crocodiles.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Nice strawman... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      That's a really long stream of nonsense.

      I'll still opt to fight rather than pay if people want to threaten me. So it's not really a persuasive argument.

      Threatening people isn't a good way to get their help. It's a good way to confirm for people that you're an enemy and you have evil intentions.

  79. GEE, that's never happened before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody applied for a job lately at the Lima Locomotive works, or Baldwin. (Maybe ALCO is still hiring)

    And think about the people who maintained the water tanks for steam locomotives, jobs gone forever.

  80. not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, this is not going to happen. States are not going to allow driverless trucks operating without a commercial licensed driver at the wheel, whether he is driving or not. Think of the self-driving vehicles like cruise control that can also, in the best of conditions, keep you in the lane and away from other vehicles. Like with cruise control, the vehicle operation will be under control of the human in all but "the best conditions." The legal liability issues alone are overwhelming, even if a totally autonomous vehicle, i.e., no human driver at all, was conceivably on the horizon, which it is not. Get real.

    dpa

  81. Department of Irony, table for none. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How ironic that Google and Firefox conspired to display a "truck drivers wanted" ad next to this story. ("Owner Operator Truck Jobs, Better pay, benefits & schedules Increase Time @ Home. Apply Now")

  82. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  83. the path forward by paul+mafinga · · Score: 0

    Maybe a few of the drivers will be smart enough to adapt and learn to maintain the fleet or become one of the regional people who work the local offloading of fuel and material.

    The idea that society exists to create a large middle class is more about supporting stable, political incumbency than "social justice". We might be far better off accepting a pyramid shape and innovating comfortable, low cost primate habitats for the unemployed.

    It's similar to the "wealth inequality" issue. Wealth inequality starts with tax inequality -- the modern IRS was founded circa 1913 with a simple three level formula. Today the agency has over 4,000,000 words of lobbyist purchased, Legislated giveaways, roughly corresponding to the Rise of the Democrats. The agency itself states that the code is unmanageable and has repeatedly issued pleas to We the People for reform.

    The Democrats refuse to touch it, the Republicans pledge to but likely won't. An apolitical task force needs to be created -- perhaps something like a "Reverse BRAC" -- to run through all the executive cabinets to remove fraud, waste, abuse, redundancy, and insure that every tax dollar is collected and spent in a reasonable and effective way -- every cabinet should have a list of goals, and validated milestones to accomplish them.

    Just ending the fiscal and social nightmare of red ink would likely create a resurgence of innovation and "job creation", the likes of which we haven't seen for decades.

  84. Liability insurance for self-drivers by tresho · · Score: 1

    No one has mentioned this. Surely a hefty amount of insurance will be mandatory for all such vehicles, under existing rules that apply to existing freight trucks. I suspect the risk premium ( being unknown at the start of this innovation) will prove to be extremely expensive, maybe as high was $40,000 per year per 125,000 miles of truck travel. Of course the corporations owning the trucks can probably pressure / bribe our esteemed legislators to exempt them from all liability, similar to what the ownership of for-profit nuclear reactors did many years ago. The first mass casualty incident in which a robotic semitruck kills a few dozen people will upset everyone.

  85. Truck Accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a truck driver, we dont not cause all those accidents, more often than not we are not at fault. Its people in cars that fail to respect us, our size, our weight, our speed, and our responsibility when they drive around us. I've seen cars cut me off dive right in front of me when I'm braking, tailgating us, or worse get into our safety buffer in front of us just to hit the brakes to get to an off ramp. I've also seen my safety systems in my truck like my Collision Avoidance System suddenly decide the sign over the crest of a hill is in fact stopped traffic and apply full braking power, I dont believe for a second that these systems will be able to fully handle the gravity of driving 80000 lbs of steel, because if it messed up and kill a bus load of orphans, do you see the programmer going to jail because he goofed up?

  86. This is a good thing because ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average age of a truck driver in the US is on the rise. Young people aren't interested in becoming drivers because it's a difficult and unpleasant life, with long hours and constantly needing to be driving as efficiently and quickly as possible to earn your pay check.

    Those who do decide to become a driver have a hard time getting started. A bad driver is a liability, so most people want 2 years experience, before they'll hire. So it's not easy for new people to get into.

    What happens when the current generation of truck drivers passes away? We're not trying to replace current drivers, we're replacing the one's that don't exist.

  87. Re:LEOs by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the driver is only needed during emergencies, they won't be awake enough to do much when the emergency hits. The same is true for cars as well, after sitting in the car for hours doing nothing you'll zone out. Even a short trip you take every day will get ignored.

    Besides, in an emergency the two choices are to brake or to try to turn. In a big rig trying to make a fast turn is probably just going to make the situation worse. A computer can hit the brakes just as well as an unprepared human.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  88. Re: LEOs by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

    Breakdowns, flattires, hitchings or straps come loose. There's more than just "normal driving" and " turn now or die." Sure, we could detect a lot of these problems and dispatch a service vehicle, but why suffer the down time when we can have a guy right there to handle all the myrid little tasks that crop up. Hell, somebody has to pump the gas!

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  89. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loading, unloading, fueling, maintenance, parking, pulling into the tight spaces. Even with mostly automated trucks driers will still be very much needed, their jobs will just be a lot easier to do and they will be able to go for longer stretches, getting freight to location faster thanks to being able to sleep on the highway.

  90. Tracy Morgan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would still be doing standup. Poor tracy.

  91. 40 tons gvw by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    What could go wrong? I drive every day where if the drivers aren't up on their game, it's an accident. Traffic stops on a dime. They cut trucks off and normal drivers seem to understand this. If that truck doesn't understand this, they'll roll right on over them.

    OTOH, maybe this is a good way to rid ourselves of some idiots. I mean, since they did away with the Duel we have so many now.

  92. If Engineers... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    "If Engineers built buildings the way Programmers write programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization!"

    If you think computers would be better than truck drivers, you not only don't know driving, you don't know computers. Computers -can- make mistakes and it does not always cause a crash. Sometimes, it leaves the computer running with corrupted data. Quite aside from bugs in the programs.

    This sounds like salesmen and college professors looking for grants.

    But it is true that technological changes can cause disruptions in the economy...

  93. Re: LEOs by andymadigan · · Score: 1

    We can have attendants at the service stations to pump the gas. If something breaks, the AI can pull over to the side of the road and call for help.

    But let's be serious. It doesn't matter whether there's any need for a "driver" in the truck, the Teamsters would demand that a dues paying member be present in each truck.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  94. Some thoughts on jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet more people rely on truckers to stay in business — gas stations, motels, and restaurants along trucking routes, to name a few.

    This is mostly scare-mongering. In order:

    Gas stations: unless these self-driving trucks are built by Stark Technologies, someone's gonna have to gas them up. And unless someone's going to outfit the country in specialized gas stations, they're probably going to be at the usual spots. (Worst case, your loss in gas station jobs will be balanced by new "refuel the self-driving truck" stations).

    Motels: I'm sure the occasional trucker stops in a motel, but there's a reason those big trucks have sleeper berths in the back - margins aren't good enough in long-haul trucking to afford hotel rooms every night.

    Restaurants on Trucking Routes: Yeah, they're hooped. But that's just life. Used to be good to be the saloon next to the train station, now it's not.

  95. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions...t by arvindsg · · Score: 1

    I never quite got the idea of pumping your own gas, From what i have seen in my country(Call me FES) it just seems more efficient for cars queuing up and one guy quickly pumping and dispatching cars asap.

  96. Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions...t by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    If there is one pump and one line, that would be true. Usually there are 8-12 pumps and one or two guys manning them all.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.