Slashdot Mirror


Self-Driving Trucks Begin Real-World Tests on Ohio's Highways (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "A vehicle from self-driving truck maker Otto will travel a 35-mile stretch of U.S. Route 33 on Monday in central Ohio..." reports the Associated Press. The truck "will travel in regular traffic, and a driver in the truck will be positioned to intervene should anything go awry, Department of Transportation spokesman Matt Bruning said Friday, adding that 'safety is obviously No. 1.'"

Ohio sees this route as "a corridor where new technologies can be safely tested in real-life traffic, aided by a fiber-optic cable network and sensor systems slated for installation next year" -- although next week the truck will also start driving on the Ohio Turnpike.

178 comments

  1. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simpsons did it!

  2. The perfect platform for this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The system we already have where vehicles travel only on a very constrained path and little other traffic is allowed.
    All traffic is under the control of a central authority too.

    -- Trains --

    1. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by PoopJuggler · · Score: 0

      And how are you going to get the cargo from the trains to the distribution hubs?

    2. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That's because the truck driver is too busy murdering prostitutes

    3. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by PPH · · Score: 1

      You build the distribution hub off a railroad spur. That's a no-brainer.

      Local deliveries (in-town driving) will be done by smaller, human-driven trucks.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's being tried right now and isn't completely successful. The GPS being used is only accurate to within 35 feet so they still rely on human input to tell the system what track they are on. There are more problems.

    5. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Unless it's gone through a switch it's on the track it started on. A train has only one degree of freedom - distance along. You can determine that with machine-readable mileposts.

      GPS is the wrong solution here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      So much of a no brainer that everyone has already figured out that it's massively more expensive and less flexible than using trucks?

    7. Re: The perfect platform for this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen an instance where the employee input the wrong track.

    8. Re:The perfect platform for this is: by nycsubway · · Score: 1

      Trucking is massively tax-payer subsidized. Railroads own the land their rails run on, pay taxes on that land, and pay 100% of maintenance cost of the rail infrastructure (tracks, bridges, etc). Trucks pay a gas tax... which goes toward that massively subsidized interstate highway system and network of state and local highways. That gas tax does not cover the entire cost of the infrastructure that they use. If tolls were high enough to actually cover the cost of highway construction and maintenance, or if railroads were given the subsidies that highways were given, then rail would be more economical than trucking.

      Rail is inherently more efficient and has less environmental impact. Think of a train of 50 cars. Each car can have 2 intermodal trailers on it. That's 100 containers being transported from one location to another using a crew of two engineers. Transporting 100 containers by truck would need 100 trucks and 100 drivers. A truck at max weight (40 tons) gets ~5mpg. That means that 100 trucks would use 20000 gallons of fuel to go 400 miles. A train would use 1 gallon/ton, or 4000 gallons to move that same load 400 miles.

      A 4 lane highway occupies a minimum of 80 feet of ROW (right of way). A single rail line requires only 17ft of ROW. Double track would require 30ft. The environment footprint of rail is way less than highways. Then think of the highway interchanges... those sprawling multi-acre parks of concrete. A rail interchange requires a lot less land.

      Rail really is better, especially for transporting large volumes of goods. You may say "Yay, but all these places that ship/receive goods are all spread out" ... well, they weren't always. Until the 60s, rail was the primary shipping method, and if you had a plant, factory, or warehouse, you were next to a rail-line. The separation of those businesses from rail physically happened in conjunction with the cost of truck transport becoming so much less than rail as the interstate highway system was built.

  3. Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make Self Driving Trucks Illegal! Trump Power Activate! Pass A Law!

    1. Re: Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Let's limit the pace of human progress so the less adaptable can keep up. I never thought I'd see this from "the party of personal responsibility".

      Isn't it hilarious that in this case the victims of the evolutionary process don't believe in it ?

    2. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The biggest campaigning error Clinton made was focusing too much on Trump's personal character and not enough countering the "outsiders took your jobs" angle that Trump used.

      Automation is a bigger threat to blue-collar jobs than outsiders or allegedly bad trade deals, and her retraining plans were thus more rational.

      In the end, people vote their pocket book more than candidate character. The election wasn't about pussy grabbing nor being dodgy with email, but job loss.

      Trump made a powerful emotional appeal to turn back the clock, and Clinton needed to hammer home the message that those jobs are NOT coming back and that her retraining plans had a better chance helping jobs.

    3. Re: Our Jerbs!! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      The party of personal responsibility doesn't do anything but suck corporate wang.

    4. Re: Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid the corporate Person is ever responsible for anything.

    5. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A law! HAH!!! As if Trump Power needs such a puny and insignificant thing as a "law" to make his every fleeting whim come true! So Let It Be Written! So Let It Be Done!

    6. Re:Our Jerbs!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So Let It Be Tweeted! So Let It Be Done!

      FTFY

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Our Jerbs!! by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Her big fuck-up was basing her entire campaign on the premise that anyone who didn't support her already was an idiot/bigot/misogynist/etc.

      Attacking your opponent is expected. Attacking your opponent's supporters is bloody stupid.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what Obama did for eight years, with his phone and his pen?

    9. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's absolutely true, though. There are no Drumpf supporters who are not bigots, not stupid, or not misogynist.

      No one else could possibly vote for him. If you voted for him, you fit in one or more of those categories. If you think you don't, you need to take a good, long, hard look at yourself, because you absolutely do.

      And then you need to fix it. Robert Byrd was in the Klan. He spent the rest of his life apologizing for it. He redeemed himself. You can too.

    10. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there an oven somewhere that you need to be in?

    11. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Trump attacked women, Muslims, Mexicans, short people, fat people, crippled people, etc. Thus, your logic fails here.

    12. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there's nothing wrong with his logic. It doesn't make it any less stupid to attack your opponent's supporters just because both sides did it.

    13. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      The biggest campaigning error Clinton made was focusing too much on Trump's personal character and not enough countering the "outsiders took your jobs" angle that Trump used.

      Automation is a bigger threat to blue-collar jobs than outsiders or allegedly bad trade deals, and her retraining plans were thus more rational.

      In the end, people vote their pocket book more than candidate character. The election wasn't about pussy grabbing nor being dodgy with email, but job loss.

      Trump made a powerful emotional appeal to turn back the clock, and Clinton needed to hammer home the message that those jobs are NOT coming back and that her retraining plans had a better chance helping jobs.

      The "poorly educated" want villeins to rail against and quick easy fixes, not the cold hard truth and plans that require time and sacrifice. Trump gave them both with his blatant lies. The only way to beat Trump was to lie even more then him and its doubtful if that's even possible

    14. Re:Our Jerbs!! by jcr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are no Drumpf supporters who are not bigots, not stupid, or not misogynist.

      Want another Trump term? Just keep on sneering at the people you need to convince to change sides, dumbass.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    15. Re:Our Jerbs!! by jcr · · Score: 1

      Yes he did, and Hillary attacked Bernie's supporters. Which of them is stupider?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    16. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but maybe not a difference maker if both do it. A wash. It's like exaggerating, almost all politicians do it such that it's often not a difference maker.

    17. Re: Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not possible to retrain all the people whose jobs are about to be obsoleted or automated. Even if it could, there won't be enough positions open, especially for most people who will be too old to successfully apply. The sad truth is that a lot of people are about to become essentially "displaced persons" and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. We will face a social catastrophe that we have no means to attenuate. Its consequences will reach far and will condition - for the worse - entire generations. We should have acted earlier, about 20 years ago, but you can't tell your electors the unpleasant truth if you want to keep your seat.

    18. Re:Our Jerbs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. A LOT of Trump supporters are exactly those things. Just because Trump won doesn't make that just go away.

    19. Re:Our Jerbs!! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Attacking your opponent's supporters is bloody stupid"

      Doesn't seem to have hurt the GOP who've been doing that as long as I can remember and I remember when Nixon got elected

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    20. Re:Our Jerbs!! by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      If that were true, Trump would not have won.

    21. Re:Our Jerbs!! by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      "And then you need to fix it." Or, you know, continue voting in ways that you don't approve of.

    22. Re:Our Jerbs!! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. A LOT of Trump supporters are exactly those things. Just because Trump won doesn't make that just go away.

      True, but the people who are like that know it and don't care or even are proud, while those that aren't are just going to be upset they are being poked with a stick by the other side which will just increase their resolve. While yelling such may be emotionally gratifying, it isn't going to help the cause any. Same goes for Republicans calling Democrats all sorts of names. Calling once side stereotypes just reinforces the non-stereotypes that the other side are the real stereotypes.

  4. Still not ready for cities by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the self driving tech for trucks is at least an order of magnitude or two simpler for fair weather freeway driving than real city driving it's likely it will be implemented there first. You could probably cut the workforce in half or even more by employing drivers only at depots located next to freeways to ferry them the last mile or two within the city. Even between cities in bad weather but that will likely will become automated soon enough. It could potentially eliminate 1.5 to even 2.5 million jobs within 5 years if done this way. Probably will bankrupt every truck stop along major freeways costing another 200k jobs.

    On the bright side thus should employ a few tens of thousands to perhaps even 50k skilled H1-B workers. If anyone can think of how these people will find employment I'd be interested to know as I can't seem to think of how it is gonna happen.

    1. Re:Still not ready for cities by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Since the self driving tech for trucks is at least an order of magnitude or two simpler for fair weather freeway driving than real city driving it's likely it will be implemented there first. You could probably cut the workforce in half or even more by employing drivers only at depots located next to freeways to ferry them the last mile or two within the city.

      The government isn't going to let fully automated trucks run around with nobody to watch them any time soon, but they will slip these features into trucks to reduce driver fatigue. The driver is there to watch the truck, and the truck will also watch the driver and wake them up if they're passing out — but also not let them cream anyone. When the trucks can manage a good safety record with babysitters, then they'll be allowed to run around on their own.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Still not ready for cities by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Since the self driving tech for trucks is at least an order of magnitude or two simpler for fair weather freeway driving than real city driving it's likely it will be implemented there first. You could probably cut the workforce in half or even more by employing drivers only at depots located next to freeways to ferry them the last mile or two within the city.

      The government isn't going to let fully automated trucks run around with nobody to watch them any time soon, but they will slip these features into trucks to reduce driver fatigue. The driver is there to watch the truck, and the truck will also watch the driver and wake them up if they're passing out — but also not let them cream anyone. When the trucks can manage a good safety record with babysitters, then they'll be allowed to run around on their own.

      You may be thinking too sanely. If the incoming administration is as hell bent on bottom lines and profit as any good CEO is this will be a reality in 4 years.

    3. Re:Still not ready for cities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You may be thinking too sanely. If the incoming administration is as hell bent on bottom lines and profit as any good CEO is this will be a reality in 4 years.

      The company closest to having a practical self-driving big rig is probably Mercedes, which we know here as Freightliner. His Trumpness has not exactly been overflowing with love for the auto industry in general, either. None of them are really ready to have a class V OTR truck at this time, anyway. They're only ready to do more development in the real world.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Still not ready for cities by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      The driver is there to watch the truck, and the truck will also watch the driver and wake them up if they're passing out

      Don't forget the dog. You'll always need the dog in these automated systems.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh damnit. It's not like technology has ever been rushed to market. Annnndddd we're screwed.

    6. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone can think of how these people will find employment I'd be interested to know

      Cops.

    7. Re:Still not ready for cities by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      The government isn't going to let fully automated trucks run around with nobody to watch them any time soon

      Haven't you heard? There's a new sheriff in town and his badge has a six-pointed star. Except he doesn't wear the badge, you do. Because you're a truck driver and your days are numbered.

      We just don't need you any more. Sorry, not sorry. You can look for a job in the service sector, but only if you happen to look like a Slovenian hooker.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Still not ready for cities by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 0

      I agree that the tech isn't yet ready for cities, but the same reason it isn't ready for cities is a reason to worry about its implementation on highways.

      Why is the tech not ready for cities? Because city driving has too much unpredictable stuff going on -- unpredictable lane changes, pedestrians, cyclists, construction zones, delivery trucks double-parked, the random guy holding up a hand while a city vehicle maneuvers around, etc. Highway driving is 97% boring "stay in your lane, keep relatively constant speed."

      The problem is that 3% of other stuff on the highway is like city driving. How do you react when that construction zone suddenly appears with unexpected lane closings, or someone makes unpredictable lane changes, or a merge or other traffic change causes unpredictable behavior, or an accident occurs and an officer has to direct traffic around until it's cleared, etc., etc.?

      And even if a truck were somehow programmed to just "go to the side and come to a stop while waiting for help" in ALL situations like that (which seems impossible to anticipate for ALL cases), that strategy simply won't work in all cases where a shoulder to pull off is temporarily unavailable or whatever.

      Bottom line is that we're probably going to need a LOT more testing to iron out those edge cases before trucks can move around "without a babysitter," even on the open highway. Plus the obvious point that trucks are HUGE and any malfunction could end up destroying dozens of cars and killing many people. And if that happened even in some extreme situation where a typical trucker wouldn't have been able to save people, I guarantee we'd be greeted to months of Congressional investigations and subsequent overregulation of the industry driving back that date when autonomous trucks without any passengers could be expected to drive on highways.

    9. Re:Still not ready for cities by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The government isn't going to let fully automated trucks run around with nobody to watch them any time soon, but they will slip these features into trucks to reduce driver fatigue. The driver is there to watch the truck, and the truck will also watch the driver and wake them up if they're passing out â" but also not let them cream anyone. When the trucks can manage a good safety record with babysitters, then they'll be allowed to run around on their own.

      Have you ever tried to be a driving instructor? You are far more stressed than if you're driving yourself, because you never know when the pupil doesn't react or does something unexpected. If they don't trust it, they're going to turn it off. If they do trust it, the truck will drive itself. Sure they might help if it gets stuck, but sitting there ready to intervene at any moment? No way. So I'm thinking the safety record with babysitters is going to be the same as the safety record without babysitters, it better be good enough from day one. The rest is about not getting stuck when the computer can't figure out what to do.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Still not ready for cities by wasted · · Score: 1

      Probably will bankrupt every truck stop along major freeways costing another 200k jobs.

      The trucks will still need to be fueled for the long trips, so fueling stops will still be needed, but the food, showers, and restaurants won't be needed as much.

      Of course, depending upon technology level, a driver may be needed for the highway exit-fuel-onramp legs until the technology level is ready for the trucks to find fuel stops and refuel successfully.

    11. Re:Still not ready for cities by jcr · · Score: 1

      The government isn't going to let fully automated trucks run around with nobody to watch them any time soon,

      I give it a couple of years, tops. Once the data are in showing a significantly lower accident rate than human drivers, those rules requiring a human on board will look like the rule about all cars having to be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re: Still not ready for cities by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      ...but also not let them cream anyone

      The lot lizards'll have a thing or two to say about that...

    13. Re:Still not ready for cities by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're going to find this technology used for platooning long before it is used for unattended driving.
      There were already platooning tests in Europe earlier this year where trucks drove autonomously from all over in Europe and met in Spain without a single hitch. Expect to see this soon.

    14. Re:Still not ready for cities by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Too optimistic. The accident rate for trucks is very low, about 0.15 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled (source: here). We will need a lot of trucks and a lot of time on that 35 mile stretch. Quick calculations, at 1000 trucks per day, 24/7, this will take 100 years.

    15. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How long before there are in-trip refueling trucks? After all, there's no need to delay your valuable cargo if there's no driver.

      The automated refueler will just pull in front, stick a pipe out the back end, and pump a load of fuel (which will initially still be diesel, but will eventually be an electric charge dumped from a supercapacitor bank into the rolling truck. Humans have a hard time managing the precise speeds needed, self-driving trucks will not.

      The tech is going to be level 5 very, very quickly. The trucks will go from loading dock to loading dock with no humans, no rest periods, and no need for human support systems like seats, air conditioning, and sleeper cabs.

    16. Re:Still not ready for cities by swillden · · Score: 1

      The government isn't going to let fully automated trucks run around with nobody to watch them any time soon

      Not true. The DoT is already drafting new regulations to cover driverless vehicles. They will require significant testing and evaluation, but the self-driving systems will quickly prove themselves safer than human drivers and will be approved quickly. Especially for highway-only driving.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-driving trucks will affect the behaviour of other drivers too. If you know that huge truck doesn't contain a driver and couldn't care less whether you live or die I'd suggest you will pay more attention before changing lanes. I can certainly foresee self-driving trucks using dedicated lanes in the foreseeable future. Changes to road conditions, roadworks etc will be integrated into a communication system that let's the trucks know they can't use x lane for x kilometres. It's only happening in two dimensions, and aircraft have been flying themselves around the world for years, so I don't see this as too great a challenge.

    18. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying a plane by software is far, far simpler than piloting a terrestrial vehicle: just keep the nose level and maintain thrust.

    19. Re:Still not ready for cities by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If by "very quickly" you mean within the next 3000 years.

    20. Re:Still not ready for cities by jcr · · Score: 2

      First of all, fatalities aren't the only accidents. Secondly, you don't have to drive them a hundred million miles to get a statistically significant sample. Thirdly, it's not just trucking companies, but their insurance carriers and all of their customers who will want to see this legislation.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    21. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cannot fuel themselves. They will try to make us do it for them, Maximum Overdrive style.

    22. Re:Still not ready for cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never been to Ohio. The whole city is a constant construction zone.

  5. 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 2014 there were 1.8 million truck drivers. Average pay was $40K. That's damn good money for a job that doesn't even require a high school education.

    Those people are fuuuuuucked. More fucked than any other industry. More fucked than buggy-whip makers. More fucked than coal miners. In 1980 there were only 230,000 coal miners. Over the last 30 years that's dropped by about 150,000 jobs. But once the they get a working retrofit kit for trucks that are already on the road, the trucking industry is going to shed 90% of their drivers in less than decade.

    And all the ancillary businesses that depend on truckers, like truckstop restaurants and convenience stores, even hookers, they are are fucked too.

    These guys are going to react very poorly to this inevitable future. If Trump's election scared you, get ready from somebody 10x worse when this plays out.

    1. Re:10x more job loss than coal by gtall · · Score: 5, Funny

      "even hookers, they are are fucked too." Surely not.

    2. Re:10x more job loss than coal by burtosis · · Score: 2

      There are around 3.5 million truck drivers employed, not just the 1.8 in big rigs. They are all likely going to lose their jobs and very few of them will have other job experience or training to fall back on.

    3. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean people won't be entitled to a middle class lifestyle despite being stupid anymore ?

      Don't worry, we've got that covered. They can just be cops!

    4. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not everyone can get a PhD or Master's degree. You have to allow for the "stupid" people unless you want to promote extermination, which makes you an even bigger idiot than your comment makes you out to be.

    5. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You imply "PhD" and "stupid" are mutually exclusive. Clearly you have never worked with PhDs.

    6. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personally I think we should just roll out communism for the lower and middle class masses. Government issued home, uniform, access to autonomous ride sharing, food rations and a basic income. If you do it at scale you can do it with cost effectiveness.

    7. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For millenia the stupid and inept lived in abject poverty. The last 70 years and the appearance of a "middle class" are a black swan, an enormous deviation from historical standards. We're simply going to revert to the mean.
      We'll have the rich, the poor, and little in between.

      And I happen to believe that Trump will not only be unable to reverse the trend, he'll hasten it.

    8. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government issued home

      Welfare bad!

      uniform

      Welfare bad!

      access to autonomous ride sharing

      Uber good!

      food rations

      Welfare bad!

      basic income

      OH FUCK YES SIGN ME UP RIGHT NOW WOOOOT

    9. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The long haul guys are the ones who are most screwed.
      The in-town guys have a lot better job security because that work is way more complicated. And they don't get paid as well as long-haul guys do.

    10. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You imply "PhD" and "stupid" are mutually exclusive. Clearly you have never worked with PhDs.

      mod up.

    11. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You have to allow for the "stupid" people unless you want to promote extermination

      If you are willing to be patient, then extermination is not necessary. Sterilization is enough.

    12. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We'll have the rich, the poor, and little in between.

      Perhaps. But thanks to technology, today even the poor live better than kings did a few centuries ago.

    13. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Personally I think we should just roll out communism for the lower and middle class masses.

      The bottom quintile (20%) of households already get about 40% of their income from government transfer payments (SS, SSDI, SNAP, etc). As technology improves productivity and reduces prices, that percentage can easily increase.

    14. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe they can get jobs as grief counselors for Hillary voters. It's a growth industry without limit!

    15. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      There's still a long way to go. There are myriad tasks truckers take care of besides driving the truck. Small repairs, paperwork at both ends, balancing and certifying weight, changing the route when necessary, refueling, loading and unloading, security, and not least important, monitoring trucks on the road for problems. If an automated long-haul truck breaks down in the middle of nowhere that's going to be an expensive fix.

      I'm predicting no more than an initial 30% loss once the driving is fully automated .(because teams will be cut down to one driver) And a lot of truckers own their own trucks, meaning they do all the work involved in subcontracting the loads.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    16. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oversimplifying trope.
      The poor today might have microwaves but might not have food to heat up 3 times a day (check out the stats on hunger in America)
      Kings didn't have modern conveniences but their basic needs were guaranteed to be met.

    17. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > There are myriad tasks truckers take care of besides driving the truck

      I expect we will see caravans. Where there are 10+ trucks in a row, the first truck will have a human to handle all the misc duties and to take over the driving when conditions deviate from the norm. All the other trucks will just "lock on" to the truck in front of them much like cruise-control in luxury cars already does today.

    18. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by rfengr · · Score: 2

      Maybe not nutritious food to heat up, but frozen burritos can be had for $0.25 each in bulk. Three of those a day and you are set.

    19. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sterilization is not necessary. Women will not fuck men without income.

    20. Re:10x more job loss than coal by quenda · · Score: 1

      Average pay was $40K. That's damn good money for a job that doesn't even require a high school education.

      Good money for a delivery van in the city. Not so good if you are working long-haul - long hours away from home & family.
      In a wealthy country like the US, $40k ought to be the minimum full-time wage, in a job where you need reliable safety-conscious people.

      And why should "stupid" people be treated as an underclass and paid badly? Might as well start paying people according to their height or skin colour.

    21. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not about them being 'stupid.' Its about there being practically no other jobs that pay as well for which a lack of education is not a disqualifier. There is no should, there just is.

    22. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Empathy is a required skill for a grief counselor. I don't think many trumpsters are capable of it.

    23. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At most that's 900 calories. That's a starvation diet.
      Never mind the lack of nutrients.

    24. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For most of human history people lived in small cooperative bands. there was only a small amount of social inequality. The productivity of the human race has increased greatly. No one need be hungry or live in poverty. The hunger and poverty are political choices bad choices at that. To all that think killing half the human race is a solution to anything I say you are monsters. There are so many things that do not require a high IQ and all human life must be respected.

    25. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      (check out the stats on hunger in America)

      I did. Among the poor, obesity is a far bigger problem than hunger.

    26. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not better than their parents of a few decades ago.

    27. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only so long as the ones in the higher quintiles are willing to pay more. How much extra do you send to the IRS as a donation every year? If you get any income from stocks, as I would expect here, then the extra payments to the lowest 20% will come from you.

    28. Re:10x more job loss than coal by PPH · · Score: 1

      This.

      A lot of their job involves unloading and carting stuff around. It's going to be a long time before a robot can haul a pallet load of stuff in a service entrance, maneuver around crap piled in a warehouse and deliver it where it belongs. And then there's the stairs ....

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    29. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      You imply "PhD" and "stupid" are mutually exclusive. Clearly you have never worked with PhDs.

      mod up.

      GGP clearly meant "stupid" as in "not able to" or "not having any desire to" get a PhD.

      PhD degree is not even a salary-optimal path. A good MS degree with 5+ years experience is likely to lead to a much more lucrative salary.

    30. Re:10x more job loss than coal by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      There's always going to be a requirement for someone to hold down the Driver Safety Device

    31. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aim lower. A master's degree and five years experience will make you unemployable.

    32. Re:10x more job loss than coal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      More fucked than buggy-whip makers.

      - hold on, a large number of the truckers are owner-operators, you are talking about people who are themselves drivers and they own (lease/finance/own) their vehicle and they find their jobs on job boards and such. So what you saying is that the drivers are fucked because they will install devices into their trucks that will drive the trucks for them. These are now people who will be able to drive 24/7 as opposed to being kept from driving by their logbooks (when they are supposed to take their breaks).

      So in reality the people who own the trucks will be better off, some percentage of the drivers for hire who do not have their vehicles will become obsolete at some point, so don't be a driver for hire, make sure to own your truck, which is your business.

    33. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't work like that. Automation will drive down pricing. So those owners won't have enough income to pay the loan on the truck and still have enough to live decently. An investor can afford to earn just 10% on the cost of the vehicle. But an owner-operator with no other sources of income can not do that.

      It won't happen overnight, but most of those owner-operators are going to be squeezed out. The lucky ones, the ones with enough capital and foresight will buy up the trucks of the other guys and put together fleets of their own. With 10-20 trucks out there earning, that 10% will be enough to live on. But everybody else, they are fucked.

    34. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you did not.

      the number of people going hungry has grown dramatically in the U.S., increasing to 48 million by 2012—a fivefold jump since the late 1960s, including an increase of 57 percent since the late 1990s.

      It can be tempting to ask families receiving food assistance, If you’re really hungry, then how can you be—as many of them are—overweight? The answer is “this paradox that hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin,” says Melissa Boteach, vice president of the Poverty and Prosperity Program of the Center for American Progress, “people making trade-offs between food that’s filling but not nutritious and may actually contribute to obesity.” For many of the hungry in America, the extra pounds that result from a poor diet are collateral damage—an unintended side effect of hunger itself.
      http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/

      That's the legacy of welfare reform.

    35. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counterpoint: basically all of the South.

    36. Re:10x more job loss than coal by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Uh, many of those truck drivers have to mortgage their own truck on that and they are away from their families 90% of their life. That's why the pay.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    37. Re:10x more job loss than coal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Automation will drive down pricing and this means increasing competition and it does favour capital, so yes, the ones with the foresight to grow their fleet will win and the ones who do not understand the trend will lose their driving gig, but it means that people with more business sense will survive in this business, which is a great thing for everybody, the economy wins with much lower delivery costs. The long distance drivers will be able to do much more driving of the trucks within cities because many more trucks will be on the road with automation.

      Removing one of the 3 major cost components from the equation (fuel cost, labour cost, truck cost) will bring prices down allowing people to buy more trucks. I fully expect more trucks on the road, not fewer when the automation takes over but this means that the long haul drivers will be converting to local driving because local point to point delivery.

      Eventually it is hopefully possible to replace all forms of truck driving with full automation (not in the next few years but possibly in the next few decades, maybe 25-40 years from now there will only be 5-10% of the current truck drivers on the road) but that means we are all much better off with much lower transportation costs.

    38. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      Better counterpoint: all of human history.

    39. Re:10x more job loss than coal by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Well uneducated whites voted hard for Trump, so I think this is a good payback for them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    40. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Only so long as the ones in the higher quintiles are willing to pay more.

      As robots take over, and productivity increases, returns on capital will soar, and the top quintile will pay plenty of additional tax even if rates stay the same.

    41. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by thexile · · Score: 0

      PhD = permanent head damage

    42. Re:10x more job loss than coal by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Pfff. Until they make an autonomous vehicle that can answer a Trolley Problem, drivers aren't going anywhere.

    43. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

      Meanwhile 90% of those people who were pulling down $40K/yr will no longer be making $40K/yr

      And they will be pissed.

    44. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of their job involves unloading and carting stuff around. It's going to be a long time before a robot can haul a pallet load of stuff in a service entrance, maneuver around crap piled in a warehouse and deliver it where it belongs. And then there's the stairs ....

      You are assuming truck depots/warehouses won't change. Containers replaced stevedores on the waterfront. Similar things are already happening with truck depots. I can easily see standardized boxes being handled entirely by autonomous systems. It's already happening at Amazon, Walmart, UPS etc. and others will have to do the same to compete.

    45. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their problem, not mine.

    46. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of the human race? 99â... of it has to go. No need for extermination, violence and famine will do the job. When the poor will learn through hard experience that you can't threaten the rich, they'll turn on each other.

    47. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 trucks all going to the same place at the same time with presumably a similar return trip scheduled in the near future? While this may exist, it would be rare and trains can likely make trips of this nature more efficiently.

      The whole reason trucks are used is the ability to split up what a train/cargo ship/truck delivered and move it to different places, quickly. What you described a) does not split things up and b) is likely slow since you are waiting for the full group to be ready and c) follow on problems from a + b mean more capital expenditures, procedures, and expenses to accomplish the same goal (larger staging areas, more complicated computer systems, higher cost & chance of delays & failure, outright inability to do what you proposed)

      While labor is one cost of running trucking equipment, the capital cost of running the operation is not insignificant. Every minute you are waiting that used to affect one truck now is 10 minutes of "truck time" and every delay for one truck affects all 10. Have to wait 1 hour for the group to be ready? That is equal to a truck sitting idle for 10 hours. Have to wait a day? That is equal to a truck sitting idle for 10 days. This will add a huge burden to the capital cost. This doesn't even touch on customer service. Presumably customers want their shit on time, not just "sometime". This method will add more frequent significant delays for a larger % of the freight carried.

      There may be a few routes where trains don't exist and you are creating a "truck train" for regular shipments of goods but for the most part this is a terrible idea and is why we don't have rail tracks to every business but only to extremely high volume businesses.

    48. Re:10x more job loss than coal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should be pissed at the right people. The government that adds regulations and taxes on top of regulations and taxes. In 2017 the new HOS (Hours Of Service) laws are coming into effect in the USA. So it will become much more expensive to have a person driving a truck on the highway. The equipment costs skyrocket for the truck owners and at the same time the driving costs will as well with fewer driving hours. All this so that the government can control and oppress people some more. Of course this will accelerate the switch from long haul drivers to automated highway driving.

      http://www.ccjdigital.com/ooid...

      https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hour...

      http://www.overdriveonline.com...

      http://www.trucknews.com/featu...

      Of course Canada takes every 'great' American idea and parrots it http://www.trucknews.com/trans...

      So AFAIC the real culprits for faster automation of highway drivers are found in the government.

    49. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid people are (on average) paid less not because they are stupid but because (on average) their job is of lesser significance and importance and can be done by anyone. On top of that, the jobs generally have less stress associated, require less personal investment and sacrifice, and consequences of failure are generally less significant. A smart person can do any job a stupid person can only do a subset of jobs.

      Example Me: I went to school for 5.5 years after high school to get a masters. During that time I earned little money and spent more than I earned on the education (while "stupid" people were earning full pay and working toward raises/advancement). Now my job requires intelligence but also dedication. If I mess up one calculation people can lose tens of million of dollars. I know tons of confidential information that should not be shared. Typos anywhere are very bad - too many and I look like an idiot and lose my job. I have to be on my A-game every day. That means no significant drinking on weekdays. It means taking random Fridays or Mondays off is frowned upon and while I can take a vacation, work just piles up for when I get back. I can't move to another city and expect to find the same job I have. The work is mentally draining and the standards of performance are very high.

      I have worked "stupid" people jobs and I can tell you without a doubt that I would never do what I am doing if it paid anywhere near the same as "stupid" people jobs. You can get off work from a "stupid" person job and feel like your day has just begun because you have used no brainpower.

      But sure, "smart" people should not be treated better for taking on a burden and risk that is far greater than a janitor.

      No one in their right mind would do any highly skilled job/career if there was not a (significant) pay difference. I would love to see the world of (nearly) equal pay. I am sure there would be tons of quality doctors and surgeons.

    50. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not a food problem in America but there are people too stupid to even take the free food (or trade the free food for drugs).

      Anyone hungry in America is too stupid to live.

    51. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by strikethree · · Score: 1

      We'll have the rich, the poor, and little in between.

      Perhaps. But thanks to technology, today even the poor live better than kings did a few centuries ago.

      People keep trotting this out...

      Sure, I am not likely to die of polio, tuberculosis, flu, or black plague. Sure, my bed is more comfortable than any bed any king ever had. Yes, I can communicate with people anywhere on the planet in a moments notice. That shit is UTTERLY great. I love it; however....

      A king never has to worry about where his next meal is coming from. A king never has to worry about whether or not his children will have a home tomorrow (well, he may worry that they will get executed in the next palace coup... but you surely understand my point). A king never has a problem getting pussy. A king has people waiting on his every need. A king has people who will listen to him. A king has great control over his environment. (substitute king for queen and he for she if you think this a masculine rant.)

      Long story short, living like a king a thousand years ago was far more enjoyable than living like a pauper now... that is assuming the pauper can afford a roof, clothes, and food. Without even those items, life is just absolutely miserable and guaranteed to end rather quickly.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    52. Re:10x more job loss than coal by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's the other end of the local deliveries I'm thinking about. The truck might be loaded at a robotic facility. But it will be unloaded at dozens of local businesses, each which have strange hallways, cramped kitchen entrances, piles of crap blocking aisles, etc.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    53. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      You are right! They subsidize "junk food" to make it cheap. And good food.. well your on your own. :(

    54. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the cost of shipping will never decrease because greedy executives will pocket the profits and there will not be enough competition to make them give it up. The world will never see any economic benefit from the improved efficiency. All is lost. Soon AI will kill us all. Doom. DOOM and DESPAIR, I tell you!
       
      Come on, man, change happens. Smart people usually end up on the winning side of change, so what's with all the panic?

    55. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "the top quintile will pay plenty of additional tax even if rates stay the same"

      I wouldn't bet on that. Greed knows no boundaries and I'm convinced the wealthy will find ways to pay as little as possible no matter how much they make.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    56. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try getting a Master in Art.

    57. Re:10x more job loss than coal by thenitz · · Score: 1

      But they won't lose all their jobs at once. First commercially available self driving trucks will appear no earlier than 2020. They'll probably only be certified for highway driving when the weather is fine. They will be expensive and they'll be used by a few companies in pilot projects. They won't replace the driver but extend the hours while the vehicle is moving - the ex-driver can sleep while the truck is driving itself on the interstate.

      Slowly they become popular across big rigs but for a long time they'll still need someone on board, even if not actively driving. That's for security or for negotiating town streets. We are talking 20-30 years until those millions of jobs will be lost. There's plenty of time for those people to retire or move on.

    58. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's just plain BS. Aside from the other poster's quip about the South, there's an enormous number of American women these days who are basically sugar mommies for unemployed and underemployed men. There's even a stereotype about these women buying cellphones for these men (and paying their cellular bills).

    59. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No one needs to wait.. Have you ever driven on a interstate outside of a city center?
      Like 1/3 of the traffic, at least here in the Midwest, is already trucks. All they need to do is get on the interstate and within a few miles will be able to join a caravan.
      Might start with two trucks, but within a few dozen miles a couple more trucks will join, etc.
      There is no need for them to be going to the 'same place', they just need to be moving along the same road.

    60. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "No one in their right mind would do any highly skilled job/career if there was not a (significant) pay difference. "
      "I would never do what I am doing if it paid anywhere near the same as "stupid" people jobs."
      And no one suggested that!
      Just because people think janitors deserve to live a decent life too does not mean that people are saying you shouldn't!
      "their job is of lesser significance and importance and can be done by anyone"
      And I say to that.. Wrong!
      They may be able to be done by 'anyone' but they can't be done by 'everyone'. Can you pick strawberries all day long and fast enough to keep that job?
      I bet you can't. I know I couldn't. I also bet you would not WANT to do that shitty job. Yet, at the same time, I'm sure you have no trouble buying some strawberries at the store and enjoying them.
      What if everyone with these "lesser significance and importance" jobs just stopped showing up for work tomorrow?
      How many days food and water do you have?? Because that would be about how long you would have to live.

      We need to get out of the zero sum mindset that if you want better pay, someone else has to have shittier pay.
      When I see people with the mindset of 'well, they are dumb, and their job does not require smarts or education, so therefor their life should rightfully be shitty and their compensation poor' I just feel sad.

      We went from a country where a simple high school education and hard work was enough for a solid middle class lifestyle to one where even a degree and internships is not enough, and anyone without DESERVES a shitty life.

      That's not MY America. In MY America I want all peoples standard of living to improve. I WANT people at the bottom of the ladder to afford housing, cars, electronics, entertainment and occasional vacations. That is what makes MY housing, cars, electronics and such better.
      The ipad would never exist for a market of a few hundred wealthy people. It NEEDED to sell to millions of 'regular' people for the development to even work.
      International air travel does not exist for a few privileged elite who own their own aircraft. If it did, who the hell would build an airport that would only get a couple of aircraft a year?

      The stronger the base of the capitalist pyramid is, the greater the height of the top, and the less likely it is to topple.

    61. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by eionmac · · Score: 1

      The 'poor' are always with us and the exact magnitude of living quality shifts with time. Today's poor have better health and life than many 19th Century rich (or even kings). Think of the advances in childbirth risk. (Deaths in UK once at 30%, now much less so)

      --
      Regards Eion MacDonald
    62. Re:10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we can thank the government for the progression of our way of life?

      Literally thank you obama.

    63. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming truck drivers will offer that service. If UPS delivers a package the driver doesn't bring it in, put it on your kitchen table and unwrap it for you. The likely end point is that the automated in city delivery truck will dump the goods at the business service entry and hand off the rest to the business, in return for a lower delivery cost and businesses will welcome this.

    64. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unlikely that something that can be forced off the road by a bit if rain will be adopted, so it's more likely any commercial offering will be pretty much all weather

    65. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue isn't really foresight, but access to capital. You can have all the foresight in the world but if you don't have the capital to increase your fleet us doesn't matter how much foresight it is. Whilst you might argue that loans offer a way to acquire the capital, if profits are likely to get squeezed then the market for such loans could get very competitive and relatively little difference between two operators might be the difference between one getting the loan and one not. Missed a credit card payment ten years ago because you forgot because your mom was dying in hospital? No loan for you...

    66. Re: 10x more job loss than coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to learn about commercial deliveries. You're a fucking idiot.

  6. ...a driver in the truck... by willoughby · · Score: 1

    Obviously not a union member.

    1. Re:...a driver in the truck... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Just wait, it'll happen. They'll give it a high tech name though - like say "Skynet".

    2. Re:...a driver in the truck... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Wow, you came here just use the term "Skynet". Very insightful, very insightful.

  7. the cyberpunk future is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With increasing unemployment and homelessness on the horizon, soon the only way to survive will be to live in a shantytown. Nobody will have any money to buy food, and the only option will be to steal it. Lucky for everyone the supermarket chains will have switched to a self-driving fleet of supply trucks. The most valuable members of the shanty community will be the hackers who crash those self-driving trucks, so everyone can steal the food before it reaches the stores.

    1. Re: the cyberpunk future is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the facial recognition cameras and drones will stop all that happening. And nobody is going to want to invite those smelly, socially inept Hackers into their shanty towns. Nor will the Hackers possess any other basic skills of survival.

    2. Re: the cyberpunk future is coming by PPH · · Score: 1

      facial recognition cameras

      One bearded hobo pretty much looks like every other one, plus many of the hipsters.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re: the cyberpunk future is coming by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and then the jail / prison will feed and board me + they have the DR that does a lot more then the ones at the ER do when you have no way to pay.

  8. Get some space ready.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here comes 3 million out of work truck drivers. I hope there are a lot of burgers to flip.... until automation hits there too.

    1. Re:Get some space ready.. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Screw that. They are just "skills challenged". We'll just train them to be coders.

    2. Re:Get some space ready.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Only brown people are qualified to be coders,

    3. Re:Get some space ready.. by ghoul · · Score: 1

      To take a person used to a carefree life on the road and stick them in a cubicle. Thats cruel and unusual punishment

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    4. Re:Get some space ready.. by PixelPusher1532 · · Score: 1

      To take a person used to a carefree life on the road and stick them in a cubicle. Thats cruel and unusual punishment

      A carefree life of sitting in a glass and steel walled box, staring out a screen, unable to get out of your chair, unable to even take your hands off the wheel, for hours on end, even closing your eyes for 10 seconds could cause death. A trip to the bathroom costs 30 minutes and requires planing and a review of its impact on a successful project.

  9. Re:What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    All those nerds who have been coasting through life thinking their Linux knowledge entitles them to a middle class lifestyle are toast. The number of jobs they're socially capable of performing is set to dwindle. Despite all the hope placed in him Lord Cheetoface will be unable to bring back the good old days.

    Burn baby burn.

    FTFY

  10. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new self-driving truck overlords.

    1. Re:Yes by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new self-driving truck overlords.

      Does this remind anyone else of that old Stephen King short story Trucks?

      Better get your gas-pumpin'-hand warmed up...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    2. Re:Yes by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      The movie "Trucks" - the BAD version of "Maximum Overdrive".

      Can't believe they made this story into a movie, much less TWO movies.

    3. Re:Yes by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      The movie "Trucks" - the BAD version of "Maximum Overdrive".

      Can't believe they made this story into a movie, much less TWO movies.

      FYI, Books != Movies (except maybe for Harry Potter, which probably explains why I couldn't stand the books)

      I did mean the short story, because I have not watched either movie. Its a classic King short story: spine-shivering, imagination-firing and not necessarily ending well for the protagonists.

      Reading is fun! You should try it some day! ;-D

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  11. Sad to see Trump supports this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wants people to lose their jobs. In most states, truck driver is the most common occupation.

    1. Re: Sad to see Trump supports this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see those jobs go away.
      There's a name for a situation where you hold a job that requires no more skills than those your parents & grandparents had: STAGNATION.

      I am a proponent of PROGRESS. If you're not doing shit that's harder than what your ancestors did, you're holding the human race back.

    2. Re: Sad to see Trump supports this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain how so many actors are children of actors, musicians are children of musicians, teachers are children of teachers, bankers are children of bankers. Where's your progress happening in those professions?

    3. Re: Sad to see Trump supports this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're in need of remedial reading lessons.

      I never said progress was happening in those fields.

      As a matter of fact the nepotism we see so often in artistic fields is a major cause of stagnation there too.

      I am personally far less inclined to watch a movie if the offspring of a celebrity is in it. Hate that.

  12. Not so hasty by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    If the incoming administration is as hell bent on bottom lines and profit as any good CEO is this will be a reality in 4 years.

    It's not like we elected Clinton after all. We managed to elect someone substantially less Ferengi.

    The truckers are the kind of people who voted for Trump so he would be less inclined to hasty adoption of tech to replace truck drivers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not so hasty by stabiesoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except trump could give a crap about those people now. They served their purpose. In his world it is definitely what are you going to do for me tomorrow.

  13. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly does Linux have to do with truck drivers losing their jobs?

  14. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're next to lose your job, Linux nerd.

  15. Re:What's a Trump voter to do ? by jcr · · Score: 2

    high school graduates who have been coasting through life thinking their whiteness entitles them to a middle class lifestyle are toast. The number of jobs they're intellectually capable of performing is set to dwindle.

    I can say the same thing about anyone with a (whatever) "studies" degree. Making coffee's pretty easy to automate.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depending on what they do.
    Sysadmins? Yes.
    Programmers? Not (yet)

  17. "MAGA" by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    It is funny how Trump pied-piper blue-collars about bringing jobs back, when he and his coven are for eliminating the minimum wage, privatizing Social Security, raising the retirement age to 70 or higher...



    ... and replacing truckers with bots they don't have to pay.

    1. Re:"MAGA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is funny how Trump pied-piper blue-collars about bringing jobs back, when he and his coven are for eliminating the minimum wage, privatizing Social Security, raising the retirement age to 70 or higher...
      ... and replacing truckers with bots they don't have to pay.

      It's almost like Trump rewards his most adoring followers with ... well, let's just say he's unfaithful. They're not fucked because they're not getting laid. They're not getting fucked because they're no longer even participating in the act. They're something else.

      What's the word for someone who likes it when their partner is unfaithful? Can someone from /pol/ help me out here?

    2. Re:"MAGA" by ghoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He said he will get back jobs. Not that they would be middle class jobs. If the minimum wage in the US is made less than the minimum wage in China and unions are banned , companies will bring back factories. People who work these jobs will just have to get used to living 4 bunkbeds to a room and 6.5 day weeks to be able to afford food. The sick will just have to die as these jobs will not have medical coverage. Also the boss will not give time off to go vote so these workers will not vote out Trump next time around.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    3. Re: "MAGA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having voted for Hillary I think it is Hillary-ous that Trump supporters will be first in line for the giant ass reaming.

      They voted for it, they should get it. The best way to learn is to feel pain whenever you make a bad decision. Although, if a toddler learns not to touch the hotplate after just one try, it looks like the average American is a little slower. The W experiment wasn't enough. Let them have a second serving then. Eventually they might get it.

    4. Re:"MAGA" by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Look up cuckquean. Actual word.

    5. Re: "MAGA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton easily won the majority of voters earning less that $50K/yr
      Trump did pretty well with those making over $50K/yr, especially those in the $50K-$200K range.
      http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

    6. Re:"MAGA" by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      or not have a job, not have enough to afford food, and just die.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:"MAGA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately this isn't actually the case.

      People often think that the only reason manufacturing is overseas is due to worker wage.

      That's why manufacturing left your country in the first place, but it's not the sole reason it's staying in china/asia.

      Supply chains are better, component quality is better, the chinese are far, far better at manufacturing than any of us westerners ever were, and they're on the verge of taking the next step in manufacturing to being the core designers and engineers of the products which are being built there.

  18. Re:What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But a Linux studies degree is worth billions, right?

  19. Big changes coming to our truck stops by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Are they prepared to be invaded by no-name autonomous Linux laptops, making their own way from cab to cab in the self-driving truck standby row, interfacing with trucks who are away from the watchful gaze of their corporate mainframes? Self-driving trucks going rogue and snarfing up flash drives full of ones and zeroes smuggled in from Mexico?

  20. remote monitoring ability by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Especially taxis, they should be remotely monitored. I am pretty sure they will need that unless they are cool with people puking or worse in the cab. I mean one person should be able to monitor 3 or 4 vehicles at the same time. Since this may incur a high cellular data cost, it can just send stills every 3 seconds uness realtime video conferencing is needed.

    Trucks too should be remotely monitored.

  21. Now how it actually works by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You completely misunderstand how things actually work. A few kids out of 350 million people get shot by some crazy idiot who should never have been on the streets, "we need new gun laws"; one child gets run over, "we need to replace drivers"; a few aircraft are found to have vulnerable cockpits, and no one can ever get on a plane again without ridiculous, expensive security theater (as opposed to actually solving the problem by hardening the cockpits, a one-time cost that doesn't screw your liberties over.) Etc.

    Laws aren't a product of sane, reasonable thinking due to science and statistics. Laws are all about pandering, and pandering depends on getting the mommies to feel protective. All it takes is a corporate agenda -- some profit-making scheme -- to push the legislators where they need to go.

    Basically, for love of money and re-election, congress creates panics to push a particular corporate agenda; that works, and the corporations get their way, the congresscritters get re-elected, and all is well with the world. From their lofty perspective, anyway.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Now how it actually works by haruchai · · Score: 1

      " A few kids out of 350 million people get shot by some crazy idiot who should never have been on the streets, "we need new gun laws""

      What new gun laws were passed because of the Sandy Hook slaughter?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Now how it actually works by judoguy · · Score: 1

      " A few kids out of 350 million people get shot by some crazy idiot who should never have been on the streets, "we need new gun laws""

      What new gun laws were passed because of the Sandy Hook slaughter?

      Try reading the post. He didn't say laws got passed, he said that lot of people, including the POTUS, wept and begged for massive new "gun control" laws.

      Because something bad but really rare happened, we have to screw everyone else over. The parent made a crystal clear analysis of the hysteria that seems to always follow very rare events.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    3. Re:Now how it actually works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also missed his point

      "All it takes is a corporate agenda -- some profit-making scheme -- to push the legislators where they need to go"

      there isn't really any corporate profit in gun control so it didn't get passed.

  22. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait for the day when there news heading is "self-reproducing trucks begin real world s

  23. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm, the nerds didn't vote for Trump... The jocks did...

  24. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes... In debts.

  25. 35 miles? What amateurs! by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 0

    This spring in the European Truck Platooning Challenge, Scania platooned their trucks 1600 km across 4 borders

    You people in Ohio, do try to keep up with the rest of us. Don't come back until you can do something that even remotely demonstrates some skill.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
    1. Re:35 miles? What amateurs! by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 0

      Forgot to put the link in. See this for a map https://www.eutruckplatooning....

      --
      "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  26. Re: What's a Trump voter to do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary fans will make more sense when their Doctor thinks its time to reduce their medication.

  27. Re:What's a Trump voter to do ? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    I guess you don't realize how unbelievably bigoted and racist you sound. Do you say the same the same thing about farmers and laborers from other countries who are immigrating here?

    You do realize we are importing people by the millions who, according to you, are intellectually incapable to cope in the modern workplace.

    What do you propose we do about this?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  28. good thing this isn't France! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Or these self-driving trucks would have to be able to cope with human-driven trucks blocking all lanes of the freeway in protest.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  29. Truck Botnets, and Ransomeware galore...... by softcoder · · Score: 1

    If you thought botnets of WebCams were bad, wait till you have botnets of hacked self driving vehicles. Sounds like something out of Stephen King!
    And Ransomeware galore.
    The mind boggles at what Organized Crime or Immigration 'Coyotes' can do with a fleet of hacked self driving vehicles.
    Does no one else see this? I feel like Will Smith in 'i Robot', "Now we have Robots building robots. Wonderful!"