Slashdot Mirror


A Fleet of Trucks Just Drove Themselves Across Europe (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report on Quartz: About a dozen trucks from major manufacturers like Volvo and Daimler just completed a week of largely autonomous driving across Europe, the first such major exercise on the continent. The trucks set off from their bases in three European countries and completed their journeys in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. One set of trucks, made by the Volkswagen subsidiary Scania, traveled more than 2,000 km and crossed four borders to get there. The trucks were taking part in the European Truck Platooning Challenge, organized by the Dutch government as one of the big events for its 2016 presidency of the European Union. While self-driving cars from Google or Ford get most of the credit for capturing the public imagination, commercial uses for autonomous or nearly autonomous vehicles, like tractors from John Deere, have been quietly putting the concept to work in a business setting.In related news, as tipped to us by a reader, "Swedish automaker Volvo is planning on bringing a fleet of 100 self-driving vehicles to China from next year, in a project which will see local drivers test autonomous cars on public roads in everyday driving conditions. Dangerous driving and congestion in Chinese cities will likely prove a difficult challenge for the fleet." I am particularly interested in learning how this autonomous truck is controlled. From the article, it appears that these vehicles utilize Wi-Fi. Based on so many security incidents we continue to come across, perhaps these companies should first work on solving the technical challenges to make these trucks safe -- that is, bolstering the hardware and software security.

156 comments

  1. It doesn't need to be 100% secure by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being more secure than humans is enough. And that can be easily measured, in the number of accidents that the cars caused.

    Traffic accounts for far more deaths than plane travel, still the media attention after plane accidents is much higher. Its good that now the roads are made safer as well.

    1. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually agree with you 100% and think that self-driving trucks and autos will make the roads safer, even if they don't make accidents impossible.

      When I see this, however, I do wonder what they are thinking about the truck drivers that they are eagerly working at putting out of work. CDL driving isn't a job that I want to do myself, but it is relatively well paying and supports a number of working people who are not exactly STEM material. I hope someone has some idea on that front, or you'll find that you're working on creating even more Donald Trump-type voters.

    2. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by msmash · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, too.

    3. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long-distance lorry driving hasn't been well-paying in decades. It's a cut-throat business that works predominantly with drivers from countries with relatively low wages. Many lorry drivers in the west and the north have bevome Donald Trump-type voters a long time ago.

    4. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It's a little different in the US, although perhaps not too much.

      Either way, now these guys are going from poorly paid to "not paid". There's more of a safety net in Europe, but I don't think more people who have been made structurally unemployed is going to be good for Europe.

      Not that this is a reason to halt progress on this front, but I hope someone has thought about this....

    5. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      When they talk about security, I don't think they mean safety from injury - they mean security from hacking and theft.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    6. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if they're going on the dole they're statistically more likely to be Clinton voters.

    7. Re: It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what does a "secure" human look like? Or drive like? Derp.

      This wasn't what they meant by secure. Try "WIFI Security".

    8. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're making more than a subsistance living driving trucks in the US, you're either doing something else besides driving, or you own the truck.

      Some truck drivers are delivery drivers. They won't be replaced with self-driving trucks (though they might by delivery drones or whatever).

      Some truck drivers are driving construction-related trucks. There's a lot more to operating a cement mixer or even dump truck than just rolling down the highway. Plus, autonomous driving on a construction site isn't a problem people are even thinking about yet (once you're on the site, where you actually go changes all the time).

      And if you own something as capital-intensive as a big rig, whether you drive it or not you can still make money from providing haulage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      I'm confident that American trucking jobs will be safe for quite awhile; American roads are so shoddy compared to European roads that no self-driving truck will be able to navigate the potholes.

    10. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And pollution from motor vehicles kills 20 times more than road accidents, this is something that rarely gets a mention.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by kheldan · · Score: 1

      When I see this, however, I do wonder what they are thinking about the truck drivers that they are eagerly working at putting out of work.

      They're not going to be 'put out of work'. Commercial trucks have an even greater potential to cause loss of human life, therefore it's even more important that they be as safely operated as possible. Since so-called 'self-driving' vehicles, including trucks, will never be able to 100% guaranteed to be able to handle 100% of all situations that might arise on the open roads, all so-called 'autonomous trucks', just like all so-called 'autonomous cars', will be required to have a human driver behind the full set of manual controls at all times, and that driver will always be required to be fully educated, trained, tested, and licensed. To do otherwise is sheer madness and inviting disaster.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Construction vehicles and construction in general

      You misunderstand the mindset of some people here. They think that all manual labor is somehow going to magically become the responsibility of so-called 'AIs' and robots, and that just as magically, humans will be given some sort of free money to live on, and never have to work again. Then there's people like you and I, who know the difference between fantasy and reality.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    13. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >To do otherwise is sheer madness and inviting disaster.

      Goddamn luddite. A computer doesn't get tired, a computer doesn't need to take no-doze to make that time sensitive delivery. A computer doesn't speed so it can get home to its family faster. A might misjudge the grip it has on a wet road, but it won't willingly risk wiping out a bunch of other drivers in the wet because it wants to get somewhere faster. A computer takes inputs, makes predictions, and operates on those outcomes. Exactly the same as a human, but the computer can be biased towards safety whereas the human is biased towards whatever immediate reward they are seeking, and no amount of legislation or policing will stop that.

      The most dangerous element of driving is the human element. That is exactly what we're seeking to remove.

    14. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      And pollution from motor vehicles kills 20 times more than road accidents, this is something that rarely gets a mention.

      And food delivered by trucks keeps 100% of us alive. Something that rarely gets a mention.

    15. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many things that aren't true rarely get a mention.

    16. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24 million deaths due to car pollution per year? Or due to all kinds of pollution put together?

    17. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope someone has some idea on that front, or you'll find that you're working on creating even more Donald Trump-type voters.

      The Market solution is simple! Just charge people to vote.

    18. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      "Even if they don't make accidents impossible"

      They had better be impossible from the standpoint of the automaton, otherwise it opens all kinds of legal issues. If I own an automatic car, I'd better be assured it won't cause millions of dollars worth of damage or kill someone. If I am to accept financial responsibility for any of that then I'll just keep driving myself, thanks. I'll insure the vehicle *as property* so if someone throws a brick through the window I don't pay to get it fixed, but I won't accept nor pay to protect myself from what it might decide do because I have no control over that. As far as I am concerned, a car I have no control over that is so statistically unpredictable that the insurance agencies want to charge me for it is not safe enough for me to put my family in.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    19. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Which is besides the point, the trucks don't need to be fossil fuel powered and I said vehicles, not trucks, many vehicles could be electric or hydrogen etc, particularly taxis and buses.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    20. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno... the "Keep the government out of my Medicare" crowd tends to vote Republican. Gee, I wonder why...

    21. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that assumes the computer is programmed to drive as safely as possible. What if the trucking companies that currently force their drivers to cheat (by giving them jobs that are impossible to within the rules) simply program their computers to also cheat a little? It's a lot easier to punch a few keystrokes on a computer than it is to tell all your drivers that they now have to do a run that can't be completed on time driving at the speed limit. A human driver might balk at the idea of pounding down side roads at 90 MPH between cities or driving past weigh stations, but a computer will just do what it's instructed.

    22. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Actually, my point is quite germane to the topic. You imply that motor vehicles are a net negative for humanity. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can fantasize about hydrogen/electric vehicles all you want, but they are unsafe, generating hydrogen takes a huge amount of energy, and electric vehicles are no different from coal/nuclear/hydro/natural gas fired vehicles. If you think this is not the case, feel free to invest your own capital in hydrogen vehicles capable of transporting the needs of society. You'll be firmly in the upper echelons of the top .001% if you are successful.

    23. Re:It doesn't need to be 100% secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're making more than a subsistence living driving trucks in the US, you're either doing something else besides driving, or you own the truck.

      You know for a lot of people in this country subsistence living is all they have. Also what was once a good wage is now subsistence living.

  2. How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    until cars have a midlife crisis and drive across the country randomly to "find themselves"?

    1. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe it has been addressed before, but with the idea of trucks hauling goods across large distances, instead of people (as a car would), are they looking to remove drivers? If so, then how will they handle refueling? Will we see a resurgence of employees washing windshields and pumping gas for a tip at stations?

      That might be interesting.

    2. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Overdrive

    3. Re:How long by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      I'd be more worried about them heeding the call to "Transform and roll out!"

    4. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will we see a resurgence of employees washing windshields and pumping gas for a tip at stations?

      It's a possibility, but the pump stations across the highway is usually coupled with a convenience store. I suspect the transporting firms will try to get a deal to use already available employees.
      They already have a lot of downtime and I doubt that it matters much if the truck has to wait 5 minutes before someone tends to them.

      If that becomes too expensive they can trade carrying capacity for larger tanks. An automated driver doesn't have to stop for food or a piss so it might be worth it to cut down on the capacity if you don't have to stop until you reach your destination.
      Presumably someone will still unload the truck manually so the refueling can be taken care of then.

    5. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just thinking off the top of my head, I imagine there are advantages to autonomous trucking even if there is always a person in the vehicle to do all the other associated tasks besides driving. The vehicle doesn't need rest breaks, or a limited daily schedule. In the extreme, it could travel almost 24 hours a day with a "custodian" who eats and sleeps in the vehicle and just deals with fuel stops, loading and unloading, deliveries, and his or her own daily needs.

    6. Re:How long by Teun · · Score: 1

      Automated filling stations are not exactly new...
      Windshield washing is a waste of time, just make sure the camera's have a clean lens :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  3. The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers in by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers in the usa they may need to turn to the jail / prison if they need a doctor.

  4. Yet another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of how AI research and engineering has been a "Failed approach" that is leading us nowhere.

    Looking at you Narcc!

    But yes, AI research has lead to nothing useful.. you are right. /ExtremeSarcasm

    1. Re:Yet another example by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Is this really AI? I worked on self driving cars and trucks (backing up a three trailer truck) and used control theory and a lot of math, but no AI.

  5. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Anything under a 6 digit income in the US and this is a very real consideration.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  6. This could destroy roads in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In the US, trucking is already heavily subsidized. The government spends far more money on roads than it takes in supposed use (fuel) taxes, and trucks are far more efficient per pound than cars meaning the major beneficiary are trucks. Add to that higher speeds than many trains (and more flexible schedules), and the ability to run all night, and you have a recipe for disaster: huge amounts of freight currently carried by train will end up on the roads, bankrupting the railroad industry AND the causing massive chaos on the roads and expenditures on roads going through the roof.

    The question, I guess, is whether Congress (and the States) is willing to address fuel tax reform before this can happen? (And at the same time, are States willing to address the silliness of property taxes on railroads given the existence of a private railroad network saves them money.)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trying to pre-emptively legislate based on speculation or predictions seems like a really bad idea. Let's address issues as they arrive. It's not like this is going to happen overnight.

      Anyhow, to your point... railroads and trucking are rather different in their advantages and disadvantages, and so I suspect there may be less competition among these industries than you believe. Trucks will *never* match the efficiency per-pound of bulk goods carried by rail. However, rail can never match the speed and flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point deliveries.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps after a few years of that roadway chaos; sanity will finally prevail here, and we'll actually raise those fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of maintaining and building the roads. Yeah, it's a long shot. But stranger things have happened. And perhaps if the roads do get bad enough to start impacting corporate profits, even the republicans will finally understand that they do have to be paid for.

      But as for the rails, I'm kind of torn. We desperately need a systemic upgrade to something modern like the Shinkansen or TGV. (And we need to stay on top of upgrades, instead of just putting the system in and letting it age and decay in place. I'm looking at you, BART.) But the existing rail operators are such a catastrophe of mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption; I seriously doubt they're up to the task. It may be better to just let them die, so we can start over. Maybe just farm the job out to the Japanese in exchange for some technology sharing. Hell... imagine if we just skipped the "rail" part of rail and went straight to the L0 Series maglev (505kmph/314 mph) trains!

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > However, rail can never match the speed and
      > flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point
      > deliveries.

      A significant contributor to this, though, has been poor urban planning that insufficiently utilizes rail. If corrected to more efficiently utilize the rail lines and hubs, those flexible point-to-point trucks could be smaller, lighter, and less damaging to the roads. Compare and contrast, for example, the lorries and "heavy trucks" used in the UK and Japan vs. the monstrous beasts on our roads here in the US.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      > However, rail can never match the speed and
      > flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point
      > deliveries.

      True enough. But for that sort of traffic, don't the drivers often/usually unload the trucks?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      This is a problem anyway. I've identified a way in which it'll become worse.

      As far as your other point, yes, I'm aware they're different. This article however is about self driving trucks, which will reduce the differences pretty significantly. That's why it's a concern. Yes, trucks are less fuel efficient than trains, but they are heavily subsidized, and railroads are heavily taxed. With labor costs eliminated, it's not hard to see trucks having the financial advantage in that environment.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'd love a decent passenger rail network too, but that's not what this is about. And while I'm unhappy with the freight rail establishment (though not for the reasons you give) I fail to see how completely destroying what's left of the freight rail network is going to help in the long term.

      Yeah, we might fix road funding if that happens, but we still have no freight rail network at the end of it. Ironically that'd probably reduce the need to fix road funding...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Teun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Compare and contrast, for example, the lorries and "heavy trucks" used in the UK and Japan vs. the monstrous beasts on our roads here in the US.

      Oh? Over here in Europe(*) a regular heavy truck is depending on the number of axles up to 40 metric tons and in The Netherlands 50 tons, heavier special (not regular) transport needs an easy to get licence.
      Road trains go up to 60 tons, in Sweden 80 tons.
      Th basis of the legislation is between 10 and 11.5 tons per axle.
      (*) Exceptions are the UK and Switzerland with a max. of 38 metric tons.

      In the US the maximum weight without additional permit is 80,000 lbs or 36.28 metric tons.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    8. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by lgw · · Score: 1

      raise those fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of maintaining and building the roads.

      The idea that the two are related was always nonsense. Money is fungible. It doesn't matter the name of the tax, or the name of the program, money is money.

      I benefit greatly from those trucks on the road. My grocery store has food in it, for example. I don't really care which tax the roads get pad for out of - maintaining the roads is worth every penny. It's one of the few good things the government does - honest to goodness infrastructure. Let's have more of that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter the name of the tax, .... I benefit greatly from those trucks on the road. My grocery store has food in it, for example. I don't really care which tax the roads get pad for out of - maintaining the roads is worth every penny.

      But it makes a difference to you and me where the tax is coming from. You (or I) would benefit more if the tax came from someone other than ourselves. Tax those trucks more and the groceries might cost you $10 more per week but you might be $20 better off if you are taxed less as a result, leaving you $10 in pocket. Or you might be no better off, leaving you $10 out of pocket. Depends on what your tax circumstances are.

      In the UK most companies find it cheaper to send freight by road than rail, despite the greater fuel efficiency of rail and the fact that one train driver is delivering a hundred times the payload of a truck driver. I see that as there being something wrong in the way the finances are worked out, including the taxation. The main reason seems to be that the road infrastructure is paid for mostly by private car taxation. Both myself and my wife are massively subsidising something or somebody else with our own car taxations - about 0.25 GBP per mile in my case, far more than a typical working truck of even the heaviest sort.

    10. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trains are not going anywhere (pun not intended). They are still much more economical forms of transport per weight unit compared to any current forms of trucks. Trains and roads are already full, so the freight couldn't be transferred by trucks alone. Only thing that chances is the form of work the truck drivers do. Somebody needs to fend off those nasty truck pirates attacking autonomous vehicle convoys, using hover crafts, at the desert, at noon. With neural interfaces.

    11. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by lgw · · Score: 1

      But it makes a difference to you and me where the tax is coming from. You (or I) would benefit more if the tax came from someone other than ourselves. Tax those trucks more and the groceries might cost you $10 more per week but you might be $20 better off if you are taxed less as a result, leaving you $10 in pocket. Or you might be no better off, leaving you $10 out of pocket. Depends on what your tax circumstances are.

      No, and no. First off roads are worth paying for. I don't care if one way costs me more than another - I benefit and I don't mind paying. I'm happy to pay for one of the very few useful things the government does!

      Secondly, you're talking about me benefiting from a regressive tax. The total cost to society is the same. Trucking has very thin margins, so the costs will be passed to customers. So we're comparing a "tax" on food to a tax on income, really. I'm not even a fan of the progressive income tax, but a regressive tax like that, especially on food, seems a bad plan in general.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by throx · · Score: 1

      80t? Pff... In Australia we can do up to around 130t for the properly massive trains (HML BAB Quad)

      Refer https://www.nhvr.gov.au/files/201602-0116-mass-and-dimension-limits.pdf

      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    13. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some US railroad companies are struggling for revenue due to low coal demand. They should try to entice more cargo to switch to trains to make up the slack.

    14. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rare Cannington ICON trucks aren't mentioned in that document, are road legal in Australia, and weigh up to 194 tonnes. These things redefine 'massive'.

    15. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Trucks will *never* match the efficiency per-pound of bulk goods carried by rail. However, rail can never match the speed and flexibility of trucks to make smaller point-to-point deliveries.

      Two trends are working to move more freight to trucks away from rail. First is that businesses are more aggressively managing their working capital. Nobody carries inventory anymore. When I worked at a top 5 contract manufacturer in supply chain, we were expected to turn our working capital at least 9X a year. The only way to do that is to have trucks show up every day. Lots of businesses are managed this way. Restaurants, grocery stores, auto parts stores, clothing, etc. The more expensive the item, the less you want on your shelf. Second is e-commerce. When people order off Amazon Prime, the item has to come from a warehouse to a shipper to a conveyance, to a freight yard, and out to the customer's neighborhood. Waiting for a train to ship a book is not going to make for happy customers. This is why the big shippers like UPS and FedEx have trucks and airplanes.

    16. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I sort of doubt we've shipping that stuff mostly by train since our federal highway system was built in the 50s. Trains are good for shipping items in bulk quantities: grain & foodstuffs, coal, oil, lumber, cars, bulk consumer goods, that sort of thing. Consider the logistics involved of filling entire trains, and you quickly figure out why it really only makes sense for bulk goods.

      I think Amazon shipments are possible the *worst* example you could pick for rail transport. Amazon orders are fulfilled by stocking lots of different items in relatively small quantities. They need to warehouse items in a few central locations, which means bringing in relatively small shipments from lots and lots of different manufacturers all over the world, then shipping to customers directly from those warehouse location. They're not really moving bulk materials from point to point. So, no, of course trains probably aren't going to be involved in fulfilling Amazon orders.

      I think some people are thinking of roads and rails as equivalent and competing shipment systems, and I just don't see that being the case. If there's a decline in the rail industry, it likely means that we simply have less need to ship bulk goods. A decline in US manufacturing and refining industries would certainly account for part of that.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    17. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Tintivilus · · Score: 1

      There are US states with higher weight limits than national standard..

      The maximum allowable gross vehicle weight on the heaviest "Michigan-weight-law MDOT Intermodal Policy Division truck" is 164,000 pounds,

      https://www.michigan.gov/docum...

    18. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If you don't care how you pay for it, then you shouldn't care if it's done properly.

      Subsidizing trucks and heavily taxing trains makes no sense whatsoever. Trains are a more efficient, safer, way to transport large quantities of goods across the country. All you're doing by bankrupting railroads and moving freight to roads is raising costs - direct (inefficiencies) and external (accidents, etc) - overall, meaning you'll end up paying more - whether it's your tax bill or the cost of food at the supermarket.

      At the very least, if you're in favor of the position taxation should subsidize transportation, you should be in favor of reforms that do not favor terrible transportation over good transportation.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (*) Exceptions are the UK and Switzerland with a max. of 38 metric tons.

      The UK limit was changed about two decades ago. The current limit on gross vehicle weight is 44 tonnes, but requires a three-axle tractor unit (which is why mid-lifts are so common over here) with a three-axle trailer.

      https://www.gov.uk/guidance/moving-goods-by-road

    20. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by Teun · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the update, shows my age :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    21. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They are still much more economical forms of transport per weight unit compared to any current forms of trucks

      Indeed. But if you subsidize trucks, and if you remove labor costs, that's not likely to be true any more, is it?

      We already subsidize trucking. We already overtax railroads. And this article is about eliminating labor costs.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    22. Re:This could destroy roads in the US by lgw · · Score: 1

      What is this fetish that liberals have for train sets? I've never understood that. Train freight is already very cheap and efficient, but it doesn't scale down. Hauling freight is pretty thoroughly optimized, whatever armchair experts might imagine.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. The Future is Now by jasenj1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Volvo is planning on bringing a fleet of 100 self-driving vehicles to China from next year,"

    Forget self-driving vehicles. Tell us more about this time travel technology!

  8. Movie Plot by irrational_design · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm very surprised there hasn't been a movie yet (that I'm aware of) featuring an autonomous vehicle being hijacked remotely to do some dastardly deed.

    Other than China, they also might want to try driving the vehicles through Cairo. I remember taking a taxi once from the area of the zoo to a hotel near Giza once and the number of near accidents, crazy driving, etc. in that 20 minute trip was greater than everything I've seen in every other country I've ever visited put together over the span of my entire lifetime (40+ years).

    1. Re:Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the Herbie films?

    2. Re:Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hijacked by evil.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVigoLjor0Q

    3. Re:Movie Plot by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Maximum Overdrive

    4. Re:Movie Plot by barrywalker · · Score: 1

      I'm very surprised there hasn't been a movie yet (that I'm aware of) featuring an autonomous vehicle being hijacked remotely to do some dastardly deed.

      Maximum Overdrive?

    5. Re:Movie Plot by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure at least a couple of episodes of Knight Rider and one of Airwolf involved KITT or Airwolf getting hacked and turned evil for an episode.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    6. Re:Movie Plot by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      An old sci-fi book from 1966 by George Henry Smith called "The four day weekend" Basically car worship and AI has run amok to the point that cars are almost sentient and lots of people have fetishes about them. But the cars remain (sort of) subservient until Aliens trigger a "car-mageddon" over a (you guessed it) 4 day weekend.

      Cheesy pulp sci-fi but I liked it way back when.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure at least a couple of episodes of Knight Rider and one of Airwolf involved KITT or Airwolf getting hacked and turned evil for an episode.

      Evil KITT was named KARR and it was an evil twin.

    8. Re:Movie Plot by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      I remember KARR. But I know there was also an episode where Bonnie's evil twin installed a counterfeit alpha circuit into KITT so that the baddies of the day could turn him evil; and I'm pretty sure there was at least one other "KITT is reprogrammed for eviluz" as well. Perhaps it's time to fire up the Netflix and refresh my memory. Remarkable though... for a show that had a grand total of six main characters throughout its run, how many of them had evil twins. I'm pretty sure Michael's even had the evil goatee. Oh, the '80s...

      Of course, now that I think more, the episode where Airwolf turned evil as "Moffet's Ghost". It wasn't a case of the helicopter getting pwned, it was a rogue AI that had been installed by its creator during development.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    9. Re:Movie Plot by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Did they have seat belts? I only remember being in three cars all the time I was in Kenya. They were optional an few people could afford them. And if you crashed, you'd just lay crumpled up in you car until someone notified your family to come get you or what was left. I got t see ths more than once.

    10. Re:Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Movie Plot by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      dozens of movies have done this.

      How about Terminator 3 - self driving vehicles, controlled by a maniacal bitchbot...

    12. Re:Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also an Asimov story with sentient cars where he didn't use his three laws.

    13. Re:Movie Plot by Teun · · Score: 1

      Cars in Cairo have more gears than in other places, four on the floor (stick shift in the USofA) and ten more in the center of the steering wheel, in other countries they call it a horn.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    14. Re:Movie Plot by Teun · · Score: 1
      The hijacking is considered, have a good read of the second link in the article:

      The Netherlands Vehicle Authority evaluates test applications in three stages:

      written evaluation, roughly comprising an overview of changes to the vehicle, and the impact these have on safety, and counter measures;
      functionality testing (at a closed facility), of aspects the applicant seeks to test on public roads: the ‘happy flow test’;
      a stress test at a closed facility. This tests system robustness, both in technical and functional terms.
      If this phase is completed successfully, consideration will be given – in consultation with the road manager(s)
      – as to suitable locations to be opened up and under what circumstances.
      This may involve recommendations from knowledge institutes like the Road Safety Research Institute (SWOV)
      or cyber security experts.
      The exemption lists all relevant circumstances together with the licensed drivers,
      the duration of the exemption and the vehicles.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    15. Re:Movie Plot by Teun · · Score: 1

      Did they have seat belts?

      Why?
      Cairo is in an Islamic country, Allah will protect you better than any man made item can.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  9. They cheated.... by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    They just sent a bunch of gamers an early beta of "EuroTruck Simulator 3" which was actually just a thinly veiled tele-operation console for these trucks.

  10. Convoy!!! by scubamage · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah, breaker one-nine, this here's the Rubber Duck v1.0. You gotta copy on me, Pig Pen v1.1, c'mon?
    Ah, yeah, 10-4, Pig Pen v1.1, fer shure, fer shure. By golly, it's clean clear to Flag Town, c'mon.
    Yeah, that's a big 10-4 there, Pig Pen v1.1, yeah, we definitely got the front door, good buddy. Mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us an autonomous convoy!

    1. Re:Convoy!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubber Duck v1.0 here again, there's a menacing shimmer at the horizon, might be a cylon raider, copy?
      C'mon again Rubber Duck, too much that quality oil last pit stop, copy? Convoy is still too short for the autonomous apocalypse, over?
      Pig Pen v1.1 watch your six and cover your firmware port at once! Break right at the next intersection, over!

  11. largely autonomous by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Going from "largely autonomous" to "fully autonomous" is probably tougher than going from nothing to "largely autonomous."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:largely autonomous by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Going from nothing to largely autonomous also has by far the largest safety and efficiency improvements.

      This is a significant step.

    2. Re:largely autonomous by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Going from nothing to largely autonomous also has by far the largest safety and efficiency improvements.

      I'm not sure that's true. Forcing someone to sit behind a wheel and wait until the car beeps at them to take control is asking for accidents.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:largely autonomous by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's true. Forcing someone to sit behind a wheel and wait until the car beeps at them to take control is asking for accidents.

      More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat, shit, drink coffee, and maybe a 15min power nap because otherwise they can't keep their eyes open? Well okay that may not be 100% accurate. Sometimes the drivers also stop to take some harder drugs to help them through their long hauls.

      You don't need to question whether that is true. The stats are building themselves continuously. So far Google's self driving cars which are largely autonomous and still have people to take control are starting to rank in a really high percentile when it comes to accident free driving.

    4. Re:largely autonomous by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat

      It's much, much more difficult to pay attention when you aren't actually driving. Are you kidding?

      So far Google's self driving cars which are largely autonomous and still have people to take control are starting to rank in a really high percentile when it comes to accident free driving.

      The data Google gives us is highly selective, and chosen in a way that makes them look good. Don't believe me, try looking for solid complete data on their self-driving cars. You won't find it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:largely autonomous by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat, shit, drink coffee, and maybe a 15min power nap because otherwise they can't keep their eyes open?.

      DOT hours of service rules say a driver can only drive for 11 hours in 24, can only drive for 8 hours straight, then must take a 30 minute break. You can only drive 60 hours in a week, which only resets after a minimum of 34 hours off duty. Staying awake under these conditions is pretty straightforward.

    6. Re:largely autonomous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It shouldn't be difficult to get them to "fail safe" when they reach the point they need the human to take over. It the vehicle is stationary then there isn't a critical timing issue requiring the human to always be ready to take over. It may result in the truck blocking traffic while the human comes to attention to handle the situation, but it is highly unlikely to be a safety issue. If the trucks really need the driver to always pay attention, then that would be a safety issue, but I don't see why that would need to be the case.

  12. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The high unemployment rate through out the EU shows otherwise.

    And that's without those outside the statistics thanks to the "socialist" politics the EU is mistakenly referred/advertised as but, reality is full of hypocrisy and other devils that are put in place to deliberately hide the real unemployment percentage.

  13. A map I saw last year by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    A map I saw last year (actually a slide show through a few decades) showed the current most common occupation in ~45 US states: Truck Driver.

    Depressing enough to think that's what's left of the US nowadays, but what the hell happens in the next 5 to 10 years as even those jobs are eliminated (all the while told by the Puritan ruling class we're bums if not employed)?

    1. Re:A map I saw last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember the map too, but it might be due to job classification: are all teachers in one group, or are they divided into elementary and high school teachers? Truck drivers are obviously one group, but the "most common occupation" is meaningless without knowing the full grouping.

    2. Re:A map I saw last year by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Were those "truck drivers" from the map all long-haul big rig drivers? Or did it include the urban divers working for the likes of UPS, FedEx, Cintas, Iron Mountain, and so on? There's a significant non-driving aspect to all of the latter jobs that requires a human being even if the truck itself is self-driving.

      Also, I'd be remiss in not pointing out that at one point 90% of the US population worked in agriculture. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. And our precursors seem to have managed the loss of those jobs and transition to new economic models without the US turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland ruled over by Tina Turner. So I don't think we need to worry about the sky falling just yet.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:A map I saw last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean the guys who deliver packages that will be replaced by package delivering drones? Yeah they are fucked too....

    4. Re:A map I saw last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depressing enough to think that's what's left of the US nowadays, but what the hell happens in the next 5 to 10 years as even those jobs are eliminated (all the while told by the Puritan ruling class we're bums if not employed)?

      Well, you have to be a lot more comfortable with the idea of UBI.
      Employees being replaced by machine due to industrialization isn't a new concept. There are a whole bunch of political movements related to this that you might want to get comfortable with if you want to be anything but starving and homeless.

    5. Re:A map I saw last year by delt0r · · Score: 1

      In other news the economy still hasn't recovered from all the unemployed buggy whip manufactures and horse trainers.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    6. Re:A map I saw last year by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      You'll be happy to know that these truck drivers are all (1) white, strike one, (2) male, strike two, and (3) working class, strike three. They're pretty much everything that's hated by the Sanders/Clinton/BLM/Republican establishment axis. Do you harbor some kind of illusion you're in favor of these people? Allow me to remind you of some keywords to put your mind in the right place: NASCAR, Jesus, American patriot, redneck. There, now we are all on the same page!

      You won't be crying about these people being put out of work and thrust into poverty, you're going to be clenching your fist and saying, "FUCK YEAH!"

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:A map I saw last year by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      You'll be happy to know that these truck drivers are all (1) white, strike one, (2) male, strike two, and (3) working class, strike three. They're pretty much everything that's hated by the Sanders/Clinton/BLM/Republican establishment axis. Do you harbor some kind of illusion you're in favor of these people? Allow me to remind you of some keywords to put your mind in the right place: NASCAR, Jesus, American patriot, redneck. There, now we are all on the same page!

      You won't be crying about these people being put out of work and thrust into poverty, you're going to be clenching your fist and saying, "FUCK YEAH!"

      Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... For those too lazy to click on the links, these are two black truck drivers with their own youtube channels, one male and one female. I see *lots* of non-white truck drivers. But for morons who live behind a screen and keyboard, you need to get out more. PS. I have even heard of blacks who enjoy *gasp* NASCAR!

  14. Van Damme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But was Van Damme doing splits between them the whole time?

  15. Good news for China by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Driverless trucks will be great for China. They've been dying for something to fix their labor shortage.

    1. Re:Good news for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least the driver won't get killed when the viaduct collapses.

  16. Not very impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When autonomous vehicles have tens of millions of miles on the clock, WITHOUT a human in the cab "just in case", then I'll take them more seriously.

  17. That rocks by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Did they have any "refugees" hiding in the back?

  18. they autonomously followed the truck in front by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just to clarify: those self-driving truck were just following the truck in front of them at rather close distance, about 10m. The first truck in those so-called platoons was manually driven, the second, and possibly third and fourth follower however was following on autopilot - they had drivers, but they were not doing anything while on the highway. While this is a vastly simplified problem to solve, the economic potential is interesting, especially if they succeed in getting the time spend by the driver in the following truck accounted as "pause time" and "regeneration/sleep" - that would basically allow a platoon of 3-4 trucks to drive nonstop with only 1 driver per truck, no standing breaks required any more.

    1. Re:they autonomously followed the truck in front by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "just to clarify: those self-driving truck were just following the truck in front of them at rather close distance, about 10m. The first truck in those so-called platoons was manually driven, the second, and possibly third and fourth follower however was following on autopilot"

      That's what it sounded like to me, but it sounded like they were slipstreaming closer than 10 meters. Frankly, it sounds quite hazardous and somewhat pointless unless you take the drivers out of the trailing vehicles. In which case the driver in the front truck can occupy his or her spare time while cruising down the expressway wondering about what could possibly go wrong.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:they autonomously followed the truck in front by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why not just join them together with rods?

      OST nah, cobber. Only a total bloomin' drongo could come up with an idea like that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:they autonomously followed the truck in front by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      .... And put them on their own track so they are out of the way of cars and can't run people over?

    4. Re:they autonomously followed the truck in front by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Nah mate, if you put rails in the outback some crimmo will steal 'em.

      http://outbacktowing.tripod.co...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:they autonomously followed the truck in front by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple - the legal length limitation prohibits a physical link (yes they do exactly that in parts of Australia where there are almost no people ... its called road trains, one Engine Truck, then 3-4 trailers)

      Actually, the autobahn system has certain assumptions about vehicle length built into its layout - that is why Germany will only allow a single autonomous follower. Longer Platoons would block the autobahn exits and entries for too long.

  19. Permavacaton by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for my autonomous RV. Now is the time to invest in RV parks and KOA. Who needs a house when I can live in a new city every month.

    1. Re:Permavacaton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true. Going cross country in an RV would be much more of a pleasure if it drove while you slept.

  20. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The high unemployment rate through out the EU

    Unemployment varies wildly within the EU.

  21. No, an entire convoy was driven by just one guy by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    The technique demonstrated here is platooning, where trucks can autonomously follow the truck in front of them. The truck at the front of the line is still driven manually.

    An interesting development, but not quite autonomous driving.

    The question that remains is how they'd prevent the convoy being broken up at traffic lights.

    1. Re:No, an entire convoy was driven by just one guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd see it set up something like a service station on the highway designed like a train yard; real people drive the trucks there, the engineer configures the convoy, and he drives off with them while the drivers bus back into the busy traffic light world, or they sit there and wait for the arrival convoys that need to drive in.

      I'm wondering how the trucks communicate, and f we can look forward to a new wave of road piracy (highway robbery?) where someone hacks the wireless to remove the end truck from the convoy so they can just drive off with it.

    2. Re:No, an entire convoy was driven by just one guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they only use the platooning while on the freeways - so no traffic lights at all

      unluckily that implies that Drivers need to be present in the following trucks, its just that they are supposed to recover (not "work") while on the freeway in platoon mode

  22. Beautiful by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    I saw this from my window at work today. Actually I spent more time staring at the helicopter than the trucks but I digress.

    The irony does not go unnoticed that in the video that they park these "eco twin" trucks promoting fuel efficiency and environmental savings right in front of the brand spanking new coal fired power station commissioned only this year at the Maasvlakte.

    I can't help but wonder if todays event was the reason that the station wasn't running and belching its usual big cloud.

  23. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 0

    I built a self sufficient, solar powered off grid farm with 100m^2 luxury house and over 16 hectares of land over the period of the last eight years and under $50,000 cash. I started out living in a tent and was a lot of work, but it comes out to ~$7,000 year investment. That works out to $3.50/hour based on a 2,000hour work year. The rest of the world can melt down or flood or whatever and I should be fine.

  24. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    I commend you but I warn that if the Government doesn't or didn't tax it chances are what you have will be declared illegal, robbed from you and sold to the highest bidder for a new development.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  25. The driver does not matter if, by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    if the truck still belches out toxic nano particles in it's exhaust and uses compression release engine brakes at 4 am that are so loud you can hear them from over 2 kilometres away. i.e. So what, this does not fix the existing problems with trucks and just causes one more problem, unemployment.

    1. Re:The driver does not matter if, by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      if the truck still belches out toxic nano particles in it's exhaust

      Oh, you mean gasoline vehicles? They emit more PM2.5 than diesels.

      and uses compression release engine brakes at 4 am that are so loud you can hear them from over 2 kilometres away.

      The autonomous trucks will be programmed to brake ahead of time, so they don't need to use the jake brake.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Brake checks and chains? by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

    So you can have a truck that will drive itself to the moon and back, but how do you address certain situations such as inclement weather and mechanical safety? Someone needs to be there to install the chains when the roads get slick. Someone needs to inspect the brakes before heading down a steep incline. Perhaps the load has shifted, and needs straps tightened? Blown tire needs changing? Brake caliper stuck closed? A truck driver isn't just a meatbag that steers the truck and hits the gas and brakes. Even if you completely automate the trucks and eliminate the driver, you're still going to need a human being as a tender to keep those machines moving safely and running well. Out here in the western half of the US, there's some looooong stretches of open road, and an autonomous truck stranded out there hours from help is not good for the bottom line.

  27. Get more clicks with one weird old tip! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "News for Nerds" site just joined the clickbait "Race to the Bottom"!
    They drove across Europe - What happened next made readers cry!

    Want to drive away serious readers and longtime Slashdotters? Keep making /. look like every other social media feed. Dumb everything down as much as possible.

    (Yes, I know TFA had "just" in the headline. Doesn't make it right.)

  28. Oh, it's coming, all right by fyngyrz · · Score: 0

    Some truck drivers are delivery drivers. They won't be replaced with self-driving trucks

    Sure they will. In the "you get to unload this yourself" category, there's nothing technological to stop it. In the "we'll unload this for you", other types of automation will be employed, so that's perhaps a couple or three years down the road, so to speak, but nonetheless, inevitable.

    Better start voting for people who know what a social safety net is and are willing to fight for same. Because every vote for those who want to dismantle that will make this transition (and the many others like it coming down the pike) generally harder at the society level, and at the worker level, outright disastrous. Retraining and reemploying all the people who are going to be out of a job isn't even remotely practical.

    If you can even vaguely understand the points I just made, Sanders is who you want for president. Then you want to elect similar congresscritters, etc.
    If you can't... well, being a Republican or large-L libertarian won't get you lynched. Yet.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by lgw · · Score: 1

      In the "you get to unload this yourself" category, there's nothing technological to stop it

      How would that work exactly? It wouldn't work for home delivery. It wouldn't work for commerical delivery where the same truck goes to multiple customers, or any sort of route sales for that matter. I guess it could work for a company moving stuff between 2 of its own warehouses?

      etter start voting for people who know what a social safety net is and are willing to fight for same

      Just learn to do work that is of value to society.

      being a Republican or large-L libertarian won't get you lynched. Yet.

      The (anti-gun) left sure does think a lot of itself. If society divides into one group that does work of value to society, and one group that doesn't, which group do you imagine will have the power?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re: Oh, it's coming, all right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you can have a kid sitting in the truck doing the offloading who doesn't even have to know how to drive.

      Welcome to the next stage in widening the gap between the skilled and wealthy and the uneducated and poor.

    3. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A social safety net is not intended to support those who won't work ever, but rather to support those who have been temporarily displaced for some reason and need some help to get back on track. That's why it's called a "safety net".

    4. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      etter start voting for people who know what a social safety net is and are willing to fight for same

      Just learn to do work that is of value to society.

      So, if you're not making enough money, just get a better job. Why didn't I think of that?

    5. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Just learn to do work that is of value to society.

      And if machines already do 90% of the work that is of value to society, what then?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by lgw · · Score: 1

      Same thing we've done for the past 500 years of technological advancement. People want more. It is fundamental human nature that our reach exceeds our grasp, and that won't change. There's plenty that people want now (and robots won't do anytime son), but most can't afford so the market is small. As the prices of everything robots can do falls, those markets will expand. Same as has happened for the past 500 years of automation.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Ah, you are one of those that have the dream that capitalism will always have room for everyone. Don't wake up, because the fact of the matter is if capitalism doesn't need anything, then people starve.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by lgw · · Score: 1

      So you imagine a world of automated factories building warehouses full of production that no one can buy? Frankly, I can't even understand the distopian future the Luddites fear, here. About 10% of jobs in the US are still manufacturing-related. That will certainly drop to below 5%, just like agriculture jobs. The drop has been going on for 50+ years, and the world hasn't ended. Some unskilled service jobs will follow in the new wave of automation. Where's the mushroom cloud again?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      They'll find someone else in the world to buy it, just as they have found someone else in the world to make it. I hear india and China are new emerging markets. Surely you don't think it is just manufacturing jobs going away.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's pretty crazy even by /. conspiracy theory standards.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      This is an article about autonomous truck driving; do you know how many truck and taxi drivers there are, and what a ripple that will cause in the economy on its own? There are 250,000 taxi drivers and 3.5 million truck drivers. That is a lot of people out of work in a short span of time. A taxi driver can't just decide to compete with those millions of other people and open a lawn care company when the jobs dry out. Now add to that all the other jobs to be replaced by AI. It's dark times ahead. I can't see autonomous truck driving being practical in the short term but when it does become practical it's going to suck.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by lgw · · Score: 1

      Truck drives jobs will be secure for many years to come. Trucks are expensive - if the AI were ready today it would take 10-20 years. The lawn care business is pretty saturated, but there aren't enough plumbers or electricians or welders or handimen. And it's not like construction-related truck driving is going away in my lifetime.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      How would that work exactly? It wouldn't work for home delivery. It wouldn't work for commerical delivery where the same truck goes to multiple customers, or any sort of route sales for that matter

      From the post you were replying to:

      In the "we'll unload this for you" [category], other types of automation will be employed, so that's perhaps a couple or three years down the road, so to speak, but nonetheless, inevitable.

      Just learn to do work that is of value to society.

      That response is so clueless I won't dignify it with a direct comment.

      The (anti-gun) left sure does think a lot of itself. If society divides into one group that does work of value to society, and one group that doesn't, which group do you imagine will have the power?

      WTF are you taking about now? I am pro-constitution, and the constitution says "right to keep and carry", and as far as I'm concerned, barring use of, and success in employing, article 5, arms, kept and carried, are 100% legitimate. I own firearms (and several other types of arms) and consider anti-gun sentiment, quite aside from constitutional issues, to be completely misdirected. People commit crimes because they want to. If they use an object, it's not the object's fault. If they can't get one object to accomplish their goals, they will use another. And yes, absolutely, criminals will have weapons, and law-abiding citizens would not, in an environment where calling for law enforcement might (and I do mean might) get you a response in minutes, in a situation where every second counts, you could die, your family could die, etc. Anti-gun people are being both stupid and shortsighted. NONE of which changes the fact that they are extremely numerous and would just as soon see you completely defenseless and anyone who disagrees with them muzzled, pun intended.

      Also, none of which changes the fact that the Republicans have absolutely nothing of value to offer in terms of a candidate at this point in time, or that the Republican party has fractured into a drooling bunch of Trumpettes, a collection of theocrat-worshiping fools, and a remainder of more-or-less run of the mill party plankers (most of whom are absolutely appalled at the very presence of Trump and Cruz in the primaries.) Libertarians (both cases) are such a minority that even without being actually reviled, they are basically irrelevant. I would know: a lot of my views lean strongly (small-L) libertarian. None of which makes me think that other individuals aren't just as worthy of being kept healthy and sheltered as I am, no matter if they agree with me or not, BTW.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    14. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      That's been true in the past. Should it remain true in a society where work is simply not available for many?

      Of course not.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    15. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      The AI is there, or so close to it as to make no difference at all. Done deal. The rest is a matter of normal truck cabs wearing out and being replaced (that actually happens pretty fast in most cases, trucks do heavy service and they don't last all that long) and/or financial decisions based on available capital, and the ROI of replacing fallible, expensive humans with much less fallible automation and (for a little while, anyway) a much less expensive grunt laborer.

      The median annual wage for a trucker that works for a private fleet, such as a truck driver employed by Walmart, is $73,000, according to ATA. The Labor Department pegs the median annual salary for all truck drivers at around $40,000. Of course, the cost is higher than the salary: social security, insurance, etc. Ten years of that is about half a million dollars. A new tractor (the part of the truck we're talking about): $110,000 to $125,000. The laborers, if even required in the use case, will only be temporary and will cost much less anyway.

      It's pretty obvious what's going to happen here. Companies will automate as fast as they can; the financial case is hugely in favor of it.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    16. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Why didn't I think of that?

      Because you have functional critical thinking facilities.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    17. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I know that trucks are expensive.. I know someone who had a mortgage on one. But efficiency matters as well, and AI is automatically 1/3 more efficient then a human driver. This will be enough for new providers of AI trucks to emerge if the current shipping companies don't convert. Traditional human shipping companies will be undercut, there is no way around it. The only thing keeping them from starting now is that AI is not perfect yet. Put one on the road and you're liable for a whole bunch of lawsuits because your truck drove into a bus. The that 'there are not enough' tradesmen is a healthy situation. This keeps the wages at a healthy rate for tradesmen. Enter millions more into the trades, and the wages are not so healthy any more. Instead, the tradesmen need to spend their own time to keep working and they can only wish for a healthy wage. We had our house reno'd not long ago and we had a hard time finding a plumber, but we found one. Speaking from an economical perspective, it would be bad for everyone if I could find one right away. For one thing, the tradesman would not longer be paid what they are truly worth. For another thing, I would be very likely to get someone who was rushed in and did not have the same skills or ability or experience. I know there is a journeyman program. But if you are expecting a 55 year old truck driver to spend time learning plumbing, then getting his journeyman ticket, while still supporting a family then you have another thing coming. That just won't work.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:Oh, it's coming, all right by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Also, one more thought. From what I hear, it is very difficult for someone coming out of plumbing school to find someone who will support them in getting their journeyman ticket as it is. Enter millions of more people in the industry, and good luck. Now they have spent money on their education and owe, and they are stuck before they start.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  29. Bend over, I'll drive you there by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Just what does a "secure" human look like?

    Kinda like this

    Or drive like?

    If you keep the whip in the middle of their backs, they generally drive pretty straight until they're just too tired. Then they fall over. Same as other forms of cattle. Just ask Fox News.

    No, no need to thank me, delighted to enlighten you.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  30. And there's this: by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re: And there's this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's electric. What about gasoline? I imagine these trucks had to refuel at some point...

    2. Re: And there's this: by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      That's a robotic arm bringing a refueling source to a client. That it's electric is entirely beside the point.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  31. Drivers still on board... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video kind of glosses over it, but the trucks still have drivers. However, each truck has automation that allows them to follow each other more closely, saving fuel, and steer and brake automatically.

  32. Was JCVD doing the splits between 2 of the trucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm hoping that Jean Claude van Damme was doing the splits between 2 of the trucks for the whole journey..
    Google "Volvo van damme" for the video,

  33. I am plowing my field right this second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And am full of bull shit but I bet sooner or later no farmer needed to grow food.

  34. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    It is fully permitted. I did everything fully legal. Except maybe the solar. The house is wired for 120vAC and the solar is not permanently attached to anything. I bring in 30A 120AC from a UL listed inverter through the breaker panel on the side of the house. It was assumed the house would run from a generator, but 120vac is 120vac and I get much cleaner power off of the inverter than the generator. And I do pay tax, but it has gone up a lot since I finished the house. Still only a few hundred dollars/year.

    Rough breakdown is $6k solar (2.5kw), $2k slab foundation, $12k house material (wood/roofing), $5k septic. I found a lot of material like windows and doors on craigslist and also talking to people at building construction sites where I picked up their garbage/leftovers. It has taken me over 7 years from my first nights in a tent, but I quickly found a free trashed rv after that. Solar is only half price now from what I originally paid in 2008, but compared @$0.5kwh fuel for the generator, it has paid for itself.

    I share a well with a neighbor but have quotes for ~$12k to drill a new hole @330' (same depth as theirs). I seriously doubt anyone would be interested in developing the area. There are a few big mansions being built around me, mostly by people from California, but most don't stay for long and move out after a couple of years. It's very boring out here unless you are self entertaining. Most people aren't.

    If you don't feel like doing work yourself, you can always find old abandoned houses around ghost towns with acreage. I haven't looked into that much, but did look at a few complete turnkey farms in small towns in OH and MI a few years ago in the $80k range.

  35. chaussure nike air jordan pas cher by zhenlinfan · · Score: 0

    Unlace your own footwear once getting all of them away air jordan pas cher . Everybody wants to only fall away each of our sneakers instantly when we finally get back, yet sliding hours footwear out as well as placing it well upon with no helping to loosen the actual shoelaces causes stretching out out of sneaker setting up a worse suit leading to much less features as well as a reduced living. Wait to purchase low cost athletic shoes. Affordable footwear produced in higher quantities inside of a unusual firm, purchasing including the jogging sneakers the thing is that inside store, have little likeness while in the executive chaussure nike tn requin 2016 France . They're successfully you actually standard running shoe that has a laminated on the subject of style and design to ensure they overall look stylish. For that reason, there isn't really enhanced anatomist to increase the perform no cause for all of them to stay longer over a approximately 200 mls. How much may be to not spend as much moment jogging and many more period dealing with your own final jog. Although counter-intuitive, low cost running footwear are in fact higher in price.

  36. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    You know when that is useful, exactly when that is useful, when 7 billion people can do it. Earth is 51.01 billion hectares, of which 3.107 billion hectares is arable so as we would need 112 billion hectares, we do you suggest we find the other 36 earths so we can all live like you, or do you suggest we simple eliminate sufficient people to end up with 1 36th of the number of people we have now. If you seriously think when the rest of the earth's ability to sustain the current population diminishes, you'll be safe, you have quite a few screws loose. The only way to be relatively safe as a human is to be part of a sound, properly functioning society, everything else exposes to far higher risk, whether it be random infection, insect bite or even a random fall, all of them can see you dead, quite quickly without the assistance of the rest of society.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  37. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    It is fully permitted.

    The only place I see this flying is in Alaska. Otherwise local citizenry or local government would be raiding your home and burning it down. What state did you pull this miracle off in?

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  38. Wifi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they get jammed every time they go around an expensive hotel?

  39. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Property taxes, right?

    Not too found of them on residential houses since a loss of income can ruin someone's life.

  40. Why do Google/Volvo get credit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I first heard of the concept whilst participating in the first DARPA Grand Challenge.

  41. An autonomous tractor sounds great, but by sabbede · · Score: 1

    what I'd actually be interested in buying is an autonomous lawn mower. Ball's in your court John Deere.

    1. Re:An autonomous tractor sounds great, but by jrbrtsn · · Score: 1

      what I'd actually be interested in buying is an autonomous lawn mower. Ball's in your court John Deere.

      We've had those for all of recorded history: grazing animals

    2. Re:An autonomous tractor sounds great, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already sell these. It is basically a roomba for your lawn.

    3. Re:An autonomous tractor sounds great, but by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I know, but I'd have to fence in my yard and I just can't afford it. Plus, goats kinda creep me out.

  42. Re:The EU has a lot to cover the displaced workers by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    Huh? My friend just finished building a house in "overregulated" California, in a crowded suburb of the bay area. He did full permits on everything, and some items such as the foundation were done by professional crews. The vast majority of the work was done by amateurs using scrounged materials. It's a small house but it cost around $50k to make in an area where you can't find a shitty condo for $300k.

    I think you can pull this off most anywhere. Some cities are more uptight than others, but as long as you meet code and pull permits and don't be a dick to the inspectors you will have smooth sailing.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!