Slashdot Mirror


India's Transport Minister Vows To Ban Self-Driving Cars To Save Jobs (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Companies in the United States, Germany, Japan, and other countries are racing to develop self-driving cars. But India's top transportation regulator says that those cars won't be welcome on Indian streets any time soon. "We won't allow driverless cars in India," said Nitin Gadkari, India's minister for Road Transport, Highways, and Shipping, according to the Hindustan Times. "I am very clear on this. We won't allow any technology that takes away jobs." Gadkari is taking a very different approach from politicians in the United States, where both the Obama and Trump administrations have been keen to promote the development of self-driving vehicles. "We are bullish on automated vehicles," said Obama Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx last year. His successor, Elaine Chao, has also signaled support for self-driving technology, while also expressing concerns about safety risks and potential job losses.

142 comments

  1. What about toilets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about toilets?

    1. Re:What about toilets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already banned

    2. Re:What about toilets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deoderant?

    3. Re:What about toilets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about self driving toilets?

    4. Re:What about toilets? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      What about self driving toilets?

      I'm sure that once Uber switch to self-driving cars, the person who books a car that was last used for a pub run will get a complimentary turd.

  2. Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    GPS - not allowed as fortune tellers will tell you your way. No more airlines will be allowed to use auto-pilot - Pilots are to "point and shoot from now on" ATM's are out as they are going back to bank tellers. Oh the humanity (we'll save)....

    1. Re: Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scoff enough Spice and you don't need GPS anymore, you can see the path through prescience.

    2. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may be a solution.

      The trouble is that there are no labor intensive industries to take up the displaced workers.

      When I see a new factory opening and the business and local politicians praising it for hiring hundreds of workers, I just think - 'so?'

      We are going to need hundreds of thousands of operations like that - and they're not coming.

      We don't have industries like the nascent auto industry in the late 19th and early 20th century that needed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of workers. Or the early aviation industry.

      And the economists' solution of "moving up the food chain" is impractical to say the least. Even if everyone were able to do any profession they were trained to do, there's a point of saturation. We will only need so many engineers and programmers in the automation field. The demand isn't infinite.

      And we can't rely on magical thinking of something sometime will come along or 'we've dealt with this in the past." - no, we haven't. Humanity has never had to deal with this issue- The industrial revolution was nothing like this.

      tl;dr: There will be a point where there just isn't enough work for everyone.

    3. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that most people just aren't that artistic and curious and cerebral.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re: Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some guy in the 19th century: Look at these looms that weave themselves! And these tractors, they do the work of 20 men! We must ban these labor saving machines or we will die of starvation!

    5. Re: Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Some guy in the 19th century always saw a different place where those people would be needed. Today any business plan that needs more than 3 real humans is laughed out of the room as unprofitable.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      We don't have industries like the nascent auto industry in the late 19th and early 20th century

      Before there were car factories, cars were assembled one-by-one in garages. Car factories automated the process, and GREATLY REDUCED the labor to assemble each car. So obviously the car factories should have been banned to save jobs.

    7. Re: Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Some guy in the 19th century always saw a different place where those people would be needed.

      No they didn't. The farms were automating at the same time that the factories were becoming more efficient as well. Many many people thought there was no place for the displaced people to go. Back in the 1890s, very few people predicted that their grandkids would be software developers, graphic artists, and pizza delivery guys.

    8. Re: Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Back in 500 BC no one thought there would be tractors, what the hell does that prove? The only thing to consider is that prior to globalization, local companies needed local labor. Post-globalization companies use the cheapest labor anywhere in the world. Back in the 19th century they were still assured that if there was a local company it would need domestic workers to run with, and it is no longer the case.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now a does of traffic reality in India https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Self driving cars do not do well on roads where people make up the rules as they go along and they actual traffic rules are just a vague guide line. Stick automated vehicles in that mess and traffic will stall entirely and you simply can not convert 100% of vehicles at the same time to somehow create automated nirvana out of chaos. There is also a lot of ego tied up in India's extremely prejudiced society and they demand the ego serving abuses of the lower classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... So even if automation is available higher castes will want to abuse lower castes as is their claimed and society formalised right.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      You're reading my mind. its not like the industrial revolution, and in so many ways. Humans have two very basic skills that everything is built on. Brawn and brains. Industrial revolution on the simplest scale automated hard labor and brawn. AI Revolution is now chipping away at the brains. Sure, there will be specialists forever, but those #'s will be very minimal compared to today. Just like we don't have horse drawn buggies, we won't have very many backup doctors to read MRI's once the computers take over.
      All of this may take 100 years, but those of us that can play this out can see that the social structures we live by today are going to need to really change. 100 years isn't long. Humans aren't good with any change. We can already see today the massive change in society in 10 years of screen phones.
      Its a wild time we live in.

      --
      "War is always inevitable given time"

    11. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Factories made goods more affordable and thus increased employment in those areas, but this was fed by increases in living standards ultimately fed by net primary production: agriculture, coal, oil. The USA's resources bounty was a large factor in its rise in the nineteenth century.

      Neither that bounty nor the demand for human capital are likely to be repeated. I don't have any solutions.

    12. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by johanw · · Score: 1

      Humans are extremely good at dealing with change. Compare it with other animals, they often just die out. However, the current rate of change is chalenging even to the most adaptable humans, so there will always be those who can't cope with this rate.

    13. Re: Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. We can finally get rid of the deplorables.

    14. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      tl;dr: There will be a point where there just isn't enough work for everyone.

      Maybe. Or maybe people are being a bit uncreative when thinking about these things.

      Go back 250 years, and tell people that in the future, only 2% of the workforce will work in agriculture. Most people would probably call you mad, while aristocrats who would believe you would probably call for the progressive castration of more and more peasants.

      Go back 150 years, and tell people that in the future, millions will be employed directly and indirectly by various entertainment industries (Hollywood, professional sports, etc.) that will exist for no reason but for giving people a pleasurable way to pass their free time. They would laugh at you, and tell you "but that's not real work!"

      Go back 20 years, and tell people tens of thousands will be employed today as "social media coordinators" and the like. Heck, I don't think that's "real work", and I still wonder why on Earth someone would pay someone $50k per year to sit on Facebook and Twitter all day.

      tl;dr: in a 100 years, machines might be doing 98% of what we today consider "real jobs" and the professions that most people have might look to people of today as glorified hobbies or just being completely useless; but to the people of the future these will be real jobs with real value.

    15. Re:Next Up -- Banning the rest of the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr: There will be a point where there just isn't enough work for everyone.

      Do not underestimate the human capacity to invent jobs. There are already plenty of jobs that do not really contribute to the economy in the sense of increasing wealth or capability. E.g., interior decorators, hairstylists, personal shoppers, entertainers, etc.

      Yes, we can't all do each other's laundry as they say, but the point here is that we are requiring less and less human labor to satisfy our demands. That frees up human labor for all the other types of jobs which make our lives more interesting and comfortable.

  3. No machines, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, no machines in the factories, then? Right. Good call.

    1. Re:No machines, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Machines cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can get a taxi driver for a salary of $150-$300 per month. Compare that to a bus driver's salary of around $4000/month in the US. There's no point in replacing cheap labor.

    2. Re:No machines, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The n+1'th taxi driver still costs $300 a month. The software for the n+1'th self driving car costs $0 a month.

      When n is a large number, it's cheaper to automate.

  4. Not a risk anyway by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think India is at risk of having any self-driving cars any time soon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read more than one account of India's roads, and last I heard they were still a chaotic nightmare most places, where the rules of the road are barely even suggestions, let alone guidelines. That's not an environment a robot can be expected to function well in, if at all. Unless Indians somehow Westernized their vehicular behavior in the past year, there's no risk at all of self-driving vehicles showing up there. Quite aside from the price of the extra equipment. India is still the place that wants and needs to build sub-$6000 vehicles. There's not a lot of room in that budget for servos and sensors.

    India's Transport Minister is grandstanding in the best tradition of government ministers everywhere, "solving" a nonexistent problem.

    1. Re:Not a risk anyway by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite aside from the price of the extra equipment. India is still the place that wants and needs to build sub-$6000 vehicles. There's not a lot of room in that budget for servos and sensors.

      And the labor costs are very low, so the savings are small. They're basically last in line and talking as if it was coming any day now.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Not a risk anyway by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The true test of a man's intelligence is how much he thinks like me. You are obviously very intelligent!

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Not a risk anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Coding autonomous vehicles that go from point A to B with the mandate not to run over people, buildings, and other immovable objects is easier than doing the same thing and then adding those pesky rules of the road.

    4. Re:Not a risk anyway by Alok · · Score: 2

      Over the past few years, traffic in India has actually become worse instead of improving, exacerbated by all the construction without corresponding commute improvements in cities like Mumbai.

      However a robot is probably better suited to always looking in all 4 directions and tailgating 1m behind the vehicle in front continuously to avoid someone squeezing in line - so maybe AI drivers would be far more useful on Indian roads, where driving is otherwise an exhausting ordeal :( Programming it would be quite a task, and you probably want to have 360 deg camera coverage to guard against spurious accident claims, but on the plus side - it probably won't have to deal with speeds above 50 km/h within the city, as most roads are perpetually congested.

    5. Re:Not a risk anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like running people off the road and bumping into cars is allowed, so it may be an easier situation for self-driving cars to function without the usual constraints to demand in other parts of the world.

    6. Re:Not a risk anyway by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's outdated thinking. India has come a LONG way in the past 20 years. For example some cars will actually stop at red lights, ... on major intersections, ... during certain times of the day.

    7. Re:Not a risk anyway by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      There's always the need for tech support centers for all those autonomous cars.

    8. Re: Not a risk anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are solving this problem by exporting people to the west

    9. Re:Not a risk anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think any AI could drive in India anyway 2 mins in that traffic and it would curl up in to the fecal position and alt F4.

    10. Re:Not a risk anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I went to Bangalore last year, the guy said the lane markers were only used when it was raining so drivers could straddle them and know they're still on the road.

      Seriously, 2 lane road? Bullshit, it's 7 across, one way, with a pathetic line of cars trying to fight against the current.

    11. Re:Not a risk anyway by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If they are truly as good as an average human, then they could adapt to drive in that traffic if humans can. I suspect the 'as good as an average human' is in fact a lie though, and no company is actually close to that.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:Not a risk anyway by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Having been in India recently and see it first hand, I'd agree. It's much easier to build a self-driving vehicle in India because there are no rules other than "don't hit anything". Everyone behaves as if there's an invisible bubble around their vehicle, with which they could bump and push other vehicles out of the way. Surprisingly, other drivers also respect this bubble and will move out of the way if another vehicle comes too close. It wouldn't be very hard to simulate this behavior with a computer, since it's very predictable.

      Interestingly, the situation is the same in the US. If you were in a lane and starts drifting towards the car in the next lane, they will try to move away from you too, long before you cross the lane marker. It's an unconscious movement, but it works with most attentive drivers.

    13. Re:Not a risk anyway by geek · · Score: 0

      That's outdated thinking. India has come a LONG way in the past 20 years. For example some cars will actually stop at red lights, ... on major intersections, ... during certain times of the day.

      They still shit all over their streets (literally). You still see dead bodies float down the river constantly. The country barely has running water, most of which still isn't clean and the sewer system is still basically non-existent, and you think they'll have self driving cars any time in the near future?

    14. Re:Not a risk anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think they'll have self driving cars any time in the near future?

      Perhaps their efforts would be better spent on basic sanitation, instead of shitting on the streets.

    15. Re:Not a risk anyway by houghi · · Score: 1

      Savings are small, but they make that up with big numbers.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:Not a risk anyway by Terwin · · Score: 1

      If they are truly as good as an average human, then they could adapt to drive in that traffic if humans can. I suspect the 'as good as an average human' is in fact a lie though, and no company is actually close to that.

      It is generally accepted both that dogs have a better sense of smell than humans and that bats have better high-frequency hearing than humans.
      Neither one needs to be better than humans at algebra to be better than humans in their specific niche.

      Automated vehicles are usually better than humans for long-distance highway driving.
      Humans tend to gradually lose focus and grow tired, an automated truck would be just as alert in hour 25 of a 2000 mile drive as it was in hour 1, but with humans that is far from the case.

      Automated vehicles are not required to be better than the median driver when fresh, just consistently better than the distracted/tired/drunk/inexperienced/half-blind/reckless drivers that cause most accidents.

    17. Re:Not a risk anyway by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Could be, but self driving cars would be a godsend to women in India who risk getting raped by cab drivers

    18. Re:Not a risk anyway by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Automated vehicles are usually better than humans for long-distance highway driving.
      Humans tend to gradually lose focus and grow tired, an automated truck would be just as alert in hour 25 of a 2000 mile drive as it was in hour 1, but with humans that is far from the case.

      That's why trucks are moving to the Europe model where the logbooks are no longer paper, but electronic and every driver has their own smart card that logs the driving data that's downloaded periodically at checkpoints. It's to enforce rest requirements because fatigue is a huge issue (if the wheels aren't turning, you ain't earning). Dispatchers at companies are squeezing the drivers to take the minimum rest (it's not the dispatcher's issue if the driver is caught - sole responsibility for rest and load rests on the driver). So overloaded trucks, etc, all fall on the driver's shoulder, while the dispatcher gets bonuses for reducing costs.

      But the other thing with automated vehicles is they can respond much faster than humans. Human reaction times can easily measure into the seconds range in an emergency, while an automated vehicle can respond much quicker - they're usually sampling the environment a hundred times a second, if not more, and the sensors used are far better than human sensors - cameras that can look further, radars that can look ahead of the car ahead and predict sudden braking, etc.So not only can an automated vehicle apply the brakes much quicker, they can see farther ahead and predict potential emergencies and prepare for them .

      Heck, you can use them to platoon - how about cars that immediately move on a green light rather than one at a time as you have now? (And surely you must have had the experience where you're only a few cars back, and the cars ahead move so slowly the light turns red by the time you reach the intersection). Or better yet, completely automated intersections, where cars plan their arrivals so they can sail on through because they can navigate through the gaps in cross traffic? (This requires V2V and V2I communications so each car can be "scheduled" in to a slot and maintain a precise speed so cars can pass through each other - though it might not happen purely because of the scare factor.

    19. Re:Not a risk anyway by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Stop going on about how quickly AI can respond without any proof of how much that actually helps you in real life driving situations. To quote the example above, a dog can smell better than a human but does that automatically mean they can do things better than a human in general?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    20. Re:Not a risk anyway by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Sure I can see it would be easier to make automated vehicles better at long distance driving, in which case the automation should only be activated in that situation. Until there is a way for the automation to sense if the driver is impaired and thus would be saver than the driver at that time, it should probably be left disabled at times where the human is in fact the better driver.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. We won't allow any technology that takes away jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait what? Isn't that like the definition of a luddite?

  6. ahem. by supernova87a · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...said the minister as he dictated the memorandum to a shorthand stenographer, who then typed it up on a typewriter, and sent it out by a Dehli messenger boy to be posted to the evening Internet by telegram... Oh wait, I guess all those technologies that took away those jobs were ok to happen, just not this one!

    1. Re:ahem. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Let's ban clothes washers too.

      https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...

      Because jobs.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:ahem. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I think they already did.

  7. India is screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until the emdrive takes off...

  8. Makes sense to me by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    India has rampant wealth inequality and absolutely no system in place to redistribute that wealth. Without that automation just hurts people. And I've yet to find a way to move to that idealized Star Trek economy (and no, violence doesn't work, it just devolves into a dictatorship when King Rat takes over. See China, USSR, etc).

    Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth, especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need workers to buy their goods anymore because who need to sell things when you already own everything?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Makes sense to me by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth[y]

      I assume you mean without a violent revolution?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth, especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need workers to buy their goods anymore because who need to sell things when you already own everything?

      Taxes. No loopholes.

      Property taxes, Estate taxes, Asset taxes.

      Essentially, if one person or entity holds too much of anything, tax it at a high rate so they either have to put it to work (by investing it in people lower on the totem pole), or lose it (where it is then redistributed via social "safety net" programs or a UBI).

    3. Re:Makes sense to me by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't be worried about prying the 1% away from their wealth, that's a red herring. We should be worried about quality of life increasing for everyone. Access to medical care. Safe food and water, etc. I don't care if other people are ultra rich, as long as my kids have medical care. These two things seem like the same thing, but they're really different.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    4. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we stop making decisions with other people's money? Ayn Rand and Darwin mentioned this in detail. If someone won't work, hunger is a good kick in the pants so they actually produce and stop leeching from society. There are many, many jobs available... it is just people won't work them.

    5. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charles Dickens syndrome. Do you think the same "one percent" of people always have the wealth, all the time?

      I don't know where you were educated, but you overpaid and they underdelivered.

    6. Re: Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Net worth tax. QED.

    7. Re:Makes sense to me by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth

      Statistics fail! There will always be, by definition, a wealthy 1%.

      Also, they earned their money, what gives anyone the right to take it from them? If you want their money then the best way to get it is the same way they got it, by trading up. I traded $30 for a tank of gas this morning, who got "wealthy" from that? The answer is both me and the gas station. They wanted my $30 more than they wanted that gasoline, and I wanted the gasoline more than I wanted the $30. Now with that $30 they can go buy more gasoline, and pay the cashier, and pay the lease on the property, and so on. With my tank of gas I can now get to and from classes for a week, which gives me an education that has a value of it's own.

      especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need workers to buy their goods anymore because who need to sell things when you already own everything?

      This sounds like someone that lacks knowledge of history. People have always found work, doing things we never even thought of before. Long ago a "computer" was a person good at math. Now such people work at programming the machines we call computers.

      Who knows what they will be doing. I'm quite certain though that they will still be able to find work, because supply often creates a demand on its own. No one knew they wanted a dishwasher until someone started selling them. What are all those people supposed to do now that they aren't washing dishes? I don't know, but they won't be wasting their time doing something so monotonous.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Makes sense to me by v1nce29 · · Score: 1

      which job when everything will be automated ?

    9. Re:Makes sense to me by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      India has rampant wealth inequality and absolutely no system in place to redistribute that wealth.

      Rampant wealth inequality is a fact of life. People are not all equally capable of generating wealth or intelligent with their dispensation of acquired wealth so no matter what system you try to use, some will end up having more or less. Even the various communist governments of the world had or have wealth inequality to similar extents as the various capitalist western democracies. Wealth redistribution systems that arbitrarily take from those who are successful to give to those who are not tend to fall apart over time. Some transition peacefully towards more capitalist systems like Vietnam and China and others collapse into failed states like Somalia that are plagued by civil war.

      Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth, especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need workers to buy their goods anymore because who need to sell things when you already own everything?

      Provide them a good or a service that they want to purchase? That's typically how I get people wealthier than I am to part with some of their money.

      To your other point though, If the wealthy already have everything you want, what is the point of having wealth at that point? If having an automated worker is sufficient to provide you with everything you need, what's to stop someone who has automated works from building more automated workers and giving them to the people who don't already have them? I suppose you could say power and control, but what's the point of having either if they can't get you anything for having them?

      All that aside, inheritance taxes with a reasonable exemption threshold to allow for small family businesses are a possibility if you grant that in return income taxes would be reduced. I generally think it's a better setup in that it allows people who generate wealth to keep it, but doesn't allow for vast family fortunes where people of no particular skill are wealthy simply by virtue of being born into that wealth. It might sound good on paper, but in practice I expect it would just result in more people setting up their own foundations, charitable enterprises, etc. as most people who manage to accumulate vast sums of wealth in their own life probably wouldn't trust the government to manage it.

      There's always some kind of Brave New World setup where humans are manufactured, at which point why make incapable people. That story didn't have robotic laborers, but assuming there were, you'd really only care to have Alphas and perhaps Betas.

    10. Re:Makes sense to me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Also, they earned their money

      Choosing your parents is a job?

      which gives me an education that has a value of it's own.

      ITT closed down. Didn't you notice yet?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re: Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people would rather go hungry than take those jobs.... they don't pay enough.

    12. Re:Makes sense to me by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There will always be a wealthy 1%, but the problem is that making it to the 1% bestows you with the power to stay in the 1%. What's the point of playing king of the hill if the first person who makes it to the top can never be pushed off? That's capitalism today.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Makes sense to me by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth

      The usual way: through socialism or fascism. You can look at history what happens next. Recently, Venezuela tried again. And, oh, by the way, as an educated American, you are almost certainly part of "the 1%" yourself.

    14. Re:Makes sense to me by doctorvo · · Score: 1
      Nice troll, but complete bullshit. Darwin didn't advocate "social Darwinism", and neither did Rand (Rand called social Darwinism "the junkyard of philosophy").

      What liberal Western democracies have traditionally advocated is treating people like adults, meaning you make your choices and you live with the consequences.

      Over the 20th century, progressives, socialists, technocrats, and fascists have tried to kill liberalism and replace it with authoritarianism and paternalism.

    15. Re:Makes sense to me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How about we stop making decisions with other people's money?

      Technically, that's what the rich people are doing in the US now. What with the widespread political corruption and such.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, this is how the left always works. Not trying to improve the life of people who are in need, but trying to bring down the hard-working people, so that everyone can be equally poor. This is one of the reasons socialism can never succeed.

    17. Re: Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "violent revolution" will have only one outcome: piles of thousands of dispossesseds' corpses lying burned and mutilated in the streets. The 1% has the firepower AND the willpower to use it without mercy or restraint. Now that we have no use whatsoever to them we can only fade away to make the Utopia for the Rich a reality. There will be a leisure society after all... For the privileged. For us, the mass graves await.

    18. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to control the masses if they are all equally poor.

    19. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they earned their money

      you do realize that vast majority of the "1%" got that way through inheritance. It's not even the 1% that are the ``problem''. It's income inequality. If you don't have rich parents ("rich" defined loosely, as ``you'll inherit a house to live in, and get through college without crippling debt''), you're facing a VERY uphill battle in life.

      Your college education and/or your first home will ensure you'll be in debt most of your adult life (perhaps 10 years to pay off college, and 30 years to pay off your first home)---in debt means you'll take less chances with your job, you'll be a good order-taker, etc, and most likely won't get far far ahead. Yes, you could be the exception. But most likely you're not. In other words, you'll be lucky to break into the modest ``$1m wealth'' within your lifetime. Even if you save $50k a year (which is outstanding) it will still take you roughly 20 years (give or take a gain/loss in investment value) to get to $1m.

    20. Re: Makes sense to me by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      That's a very dangerous game for "the 1%". Consider the bottom 1% of the top 1% -- which class are they in?

      Everybody who's not at the absolute top has to worry that the "us vs them" cutoff will be (or eventually become) "somewhere above me".

      (Assuming full automation of all labor, so "the 99%" aren't necessary at all.)

    21. Re:Makes sense to me by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you think the wealthy do with their money? You think they just have a giant pile of cash lying around in a vault? Finding places to spend/invest the money is a real problem for wealthy people.

      The wealthy buy companies, employ people and produce things. They put their money into fine art and automobiles and then build museums to house their collections. They invest in real estate and put up hotels and start restaurants. They do things like start racing teams and enter into competitions. They are also human and have human needs. They need to eat, sleep, socialize and relax just like everyone else.

      If you want to get some of their money then you need to be providing them with either the services or products they need.

    22. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also, they earned their money"

      Debatable. The greatest predictor of your wealth is the wealth of your parents. It is easier to "earn" money when you start out with a lot of access to money already, and opportunities not afforded to the masses.

      Unless you want to live in a caste system, there needs to be some correction for that.

    23. Re: Makes sense to me by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If revolt goes on long enough some of the 1%'s idealistic children will betray their parents, or more radical members of the bourgeoisie unhappy with the status quo choose to trade their wealth for political power by switching sides. Do not assume everyone acts in their own self interest 100% of the time.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. Re:Damn Indians working as a fucking "democracy" by galabar · · Score: 1

    Or maybe even a Constitutional Republic where minority opinions and expression are protected.

  10. Jobs before lives It's the capitalist way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they need jobs, they can start by building and using indoor plumbing, and learning about that technological miracle, toilet paper.

    Kurtz was right. *Drop the bomb Exterminate them all* These people will never become civilized, they're barely housebroken.

  11. He may as well have stated... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

    "We in India are back woods, and innovation is not a word we understand."

  12. Increase productivity by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Make use of technology to free up people to do other tasks and increase productivity. If we always sided with maximizing the amount of labor for human beings we would have never accepted the farm tractor.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Increase productivity by Nutria · · Score: 1

      What other tasks in India?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Increase productivity by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Presumably the taxis are taking people somewhere for some purpose.

      But seriously, India exports a lot of fossil fuels, petroleum by products, chemical products, plastics, and even nuclear reactor components.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Increase productivity by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Double, triple, quadruple the amount of fossil fuel, fossil fuels, petroleum by products, chemical products, plastics, and even nuclear reactor components?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Increase productivity by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      That seems better than most economics plans that the politicians there propose.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Increase productivity by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Less -- though still stupidly -- infeasible is still infeasible.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  13. Re:Damn Indians working as a fucking "democracy" by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    That's only allowed when the minority opinions are the right kind of opinions.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. Shortsighted. by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an Indian, I'm horrified at this. While I appreciate that India is very far from deploying any driverless cars, to enforce a policy forbidding the tech is really short sighted. If we listen to Gadkari and his like, all administrative work should be done with pen and paper, all accounting should be entered manually into a ledger, all farming should be done by pulling a plow manually. It is rather unfortunate that someone like him is in power.

    1. Re:Shortsighted. by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry too much. One man can't hold back the tide.

    2. Re:Shortsighted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, how many people in India make their living driving cars, motorcycles, buses, jeepnies, and what not?

      Do you think that it isn't prudent for a country to say "oh, we're going to focus on jobs instead of buying the latest wonder technology because someone wants to sell it to is?"

      This whole self-driving car is mostly just technology fetishism so that tech companies can sell us new shit we don't need.

      And, like all futurists, the belief that we'll re-build the infrastructure of the world to keep up with their world-changing technology is idiotic -- the reality is, the number of existing vehicles on the road is too vast, humans will never interact well with self-driving cars, and you'll never have the money to change the world over to what the futurists tell you.

      Stop listening to what asshole tech CEOs tell you is the future, and open your eyes and ask "is the world really looking to spend money on this stuff, or is it someone trying to sell us something?". You'll find the answer is more often than not someone is trying to sell you something you don't really need or want.

      American CEOs and presidents are all like "yarg, teh 'Murican innovation is going to save teh profit margins" .. and the rest of the world is like "yeah, whatever, I'm not buying a new fucking car so you can can keep up shareholder value".

      Flying cars, self driving cars, cars that link to one another and drive perfectly, cities with smart roadways ... all of these visions of the future require money, lots of it, and not the people hawking the tech.

      And those visions of the future seldom include the rest of us, just the rich folks for whom these shiny new cities will be built.

      All the while the people making this crap are ensuring they won't have to pay for it, and they carry no legal liability when it kills someone. Uber with self driving cars? That will be an exercise in saying they are subject to neither taxi laws, nor do they have liability if they kill someone.

      The world will never be full of self driving cars. Least of all in developing economies.

    3. Re:Shortsighted. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Do you think that it isn't prudent for a country to say "oh, we're going to focus on jobs instead of buying the latest wonder technology because someone wants to sell it to is?"

      No, I don't think that's prudent at all. If you're for job for the sake of jobs, then you should pay people for digging holes, and a second set of people for filling them in.

      And, like all futurists, the belief that we'll re-build the infrastructure of the world to keep up with their world-changing technology is idiotic -- the reality is, the number of existing vehicles on the road is too vast, humans will never interact well with self-driving cars, and you'll never have the money to change the world over to what the futurists tell you.

      Well,if it's always going to be too expensive to implement, banning is pretty redundant, isn't it?

    4. Re:Shortsighted. by thereitis · · Score: 1
      Take your argument and instead:
      • apply it to manually-driven cars
      • pretend cars aren't mainstream yet and that we're trying to save horse-and-buggy jobs

      You could argue that the invention of the wheel has killed more jobs than any other single thing. Ban the wheel! How far back in time do you want your country to travel? The same logic can take you there.

    5. Re:Shortsighted. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      If you're for job for the sake of jobs, then you should pay people for digging holes, and a second set of people for filling them in.

      There are quite a few unemployed people in my country - they get welfare, buy alcohol and drink it. I would prefer if the government, instead of paying them welfare for nothing, made them dig holes and fill them back in for that money. Yes, the job is useless, however, the person then would have less time for alcohol (and if you show up drunk, you don't get paid for that day). Also, this way the person would get used to actually working (instead of drinking all day) and maybe one day would choose a better paying (and actually useful) job.

      It was similar in the USSR - there were no welfare payments for healthy people, but everyone was provided with a job (I think it was even illegal to be unemployed).

    6. Re:Shortsighted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Indian, I'm pleasantly surprised at this. Technology is great, progress is great, but disruptive technology... disrupts. Self-driving cars coming in over a generation (say 30 years), our economy might be able to handle but if you were to take away low skilled jobs in a country like ours over a short period (say five years) without something like UBI in place, you'd have massive unemployment. And "massive" doesn't have to be 50%. 10% is enough to cause serious problems.

      So, no. You can't have your shiny self driving auto. Hire a driver. Spread the love. Money sitting in your bank account doesn't keep the economy moving.

    7. Re:Shortsighted. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      It was similar in the USSR - there were no welfare payments for healthy people, but everyone was provided with a job (I think it was even illegal to be unemployed).

      And look how well that turned out.

    8. Re:Shortsighted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another Indian. In Calcutta. I find it tough to find a driver for my aged parents, who are too old to drive. They are retired, so limited in what they can pay. Most drivers don't want to work for what they can afford, which is understandable, but doesn't solve the underlying problem

      Self driving cars, once perfected to detect and avoid things like potholes, and know which directions certain one-way streets are depending on time of day, would be a blessing to most people. While one can argue that they would cost the jobs of drivers, they'd be great for people who can't afford drivers, but DO have cars.

    9. Re:Shortsighted. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      So, I guess paying them for sitting on their ass all day and drinking alcohol is much better for the society. Got it.

  15. Moron. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Once again, it's demonstrated that government is the realm of people who are too fucking stupid to get a real job.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Re:Damn Indians working as a fucking "democracy" by galabar · · Score: 1

    You're right. We should consult Berkeley to make sure we've got the right ones.

  17. it's too late to save Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He died clear back in 2011. I guess the minister needs to be a little better informed about current events.

    1. Re:it's too late to save Jobs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Hindus believe in reincarnation.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:it's too late to save Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an excellent point. I stand corrected.

    3. Re:it's too late to save Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy must have done some $**tty things in a previous life to get re-incarnated as a government minister.

    4. Re:it's too late to save Jobs by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Jobs was a Buddhist, but there was a story here on /. on how his afterlife is thought to be

    5. Re:it's too late to save Jobs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Jobs was a Buddhist

      Fascinating. He probably wasn't (lots of people play at it), but do you think the Indian transport Minister is?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re:Damn Indians working as a fucking "democracy" by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I doubt we can even come to an agreement on who to consult on the definition of right versus wrong.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. LOL by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    This might be for the best... I mean, it's not like automation is gonna work in a 100 years or so considering how the traffic works in cities like Mumbai or Delhi. :P
    They'd need to invent a new class 6 level to go through something like that.

  20. Man, if there is ANY country that needs them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  21. Its a common populist position in India by Alok · · Score: 2

    Politicians love their vote banks, and will never promote good technologies or any progress that can lead to job loss in the short term. Nobody really tries to think beyond the timeframe that they will be up for re-election, so having a benefit in the medium / long term is simply irrelevant.

    Unlike China which aims to be an AI superpower in next couple of decades, India will happily plod along trying to maximize unskilled jobs to make for nice employment statistics. Its very frustrating to see how much inefficiency exists in all areas that could be easily solved by automation or just better processes. Gas station attendants just to pump gas, crappy websites for most services so you end up having to visit physical offices, broken transportation system which guarantees lots of chauffeur employment as no one actually wants to drive if possible, .... and sadly, all parties are populists to some degree or other so there is no chance of things changing for the better due to policy. Most of the economic progress in India happens despite the administration rather than because of it :(

  22. Who is he helping? by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Not the people that are too poor to own a car and would pay less for the ride without a driver.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  23. Gullible morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The working class cannot have protected jobs but the upper class can license to "restrict the practice" of their jobs?

  24. "We won't allow any technology that takes away.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... jobs"

    Uhmm... why the fuck are they allowing any technology at all into the country then?

    *EVERY* technology obsoletes some job that used to be done by human beings. Traffic lights put cops out of work. Automated assembly put thousands of employees out of work. The invention of the rifle pretty much spelled the end of bowsmithing. outside of a niche market. The light bulb put street lamp lighters out of work. The list goes on....

    The guy is clearly so focussed on what he sees as some sort of immediate problem that his remark doesn't make even the slightest sense.

  25. Ban animals and machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban the use of work animals that do the job a human could instead.
    Ban motors that do work a human could instead.
    A rich person being pulled across country by a team of human sled dogs would be a sign of excellent job creation policy.

  26. 'self driving' cars are Human operated drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A modern flying quad drone gas many automatic flying features, like self-leveling, 'return' to base etc- by they are under Human control. The FAKE self driving cars are the same. They have primitive 'vision' systems and access to a current, accurate to the centimetre, 3D map of their route. But they also have a control centre full of Human operators who can take control of the vehicle at a moment's notice, and deal with manoeuvers the pseudo-AI could never ever handle.

    As one might expect, FAKE self-driving cars work well only on modern predictable road systems with reasonable foot and vehicular traffic. This allows one Human operator to 'operate' many simultaneous vehicles- since most of the time a vehicle can make its own 'safe' choices.

    Roads in India are 100% unsuitable for FAKE self-driving cars. The roads are horrible- the traffic unpredictable. The Human Operator would be in a one-to-one situation with each drone car- reducing the financial benefit of FAKE self-driving cars to zero.

    Of course, the secrecy behind the FAKE self-driving car movement means we don't know the target ratio for Human Operators and the number of vehicles on the road. I'd guess the ratio must be at least 10-to-one.

    However, given the need for primitive employment, and the ideal nature of driving jobs, even a total moron can understand the FAKE self-driving car initiative is not about ordianry urban use- sure that may happen for a time but it isn't going to solve a single issue. Not, the FAKE self-driving car project is a front for the programs by Google and others to build swarms of drone tanks to enable future wars of aggression- especially against Iran.

    While driving is a good job in every part of the world cars/trucks are popular, the West has backed itself into a corner over military 'losses'. The Americans in particular expect to be able to go to war, exterminate millions of innocent Humans in some foreign land, and yet lose only thousands of American lives at worse.

    To sell Google's robotic killing machines- the tech has to be made 'friendly' to the sheeple- expected- unavoidable. So Google fronts the FAKE self-driving car charade using the SAME lie it used with its search engine- namely that machine algorithms do the heavy lifting. Google's search engine success was down to facilities full of thousands of Human operators receiving mined versions of aggregated current search requests so said Humans could create new rule templates to guide future searches with similar patterns. Likewise Google's self-driving cars have remote Human Operators who make all the 'difficult' decisions for the vehicle. But outlets like Slashdot are carefully to never talk about the actually methods behind Google's apparent success.

    Once you understand the trick behind FAKE self-driving cars you'll guess where the project may have some success on the planet- and where it'll be a complete no-hoper.

  27. Re:"We won't allow any technology that takes away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you, fish tits!

  28. great idea! by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    Let's ban electricity as well. And computers. And the internal combustion engine. Imagine how much work we can create if people have to wash their clothes, ride rickshaws, do accounting by hand, etc. That way, we can quickly return to the 17th century, when everybody lived like kings and there was no unemployment or social unrest. It's what progressives crave!

  29. More like the Amish by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    picking and choosing the tech to fit their desired society. Sure, the better solution would be for the fruits of automation to be shared with all, but that's not the world we live and and to be honest a lot of folks don't want it to be. There's the Idle hands/devils plaything camp. There's the folks who don't know what to do if they're not working. There's folks who don't want you taking their money and redistributing it. And there's folks who's only source of power and influence is controlling who gets food & shelter. There's lots of folks who don't _want_ the world automated. Good luck dealing with those people...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:More like the Amish by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      There's lots of folks who don't _want_ the world automated. Good luck dealing with those people...

      Easy... automate the crowd supression/anti riot response! :)

  30. Re:To save lives, more likely by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    With 130 deaths per 100000 vehicles per year, India is already way ahead from US with its 13 deaths per 100000 vehicles per year. Or, phrased differently, India has already more vehicular deaths per 100000 inhabitants per year (17 compared to US' 11) despite having 25 times fewer cars (only ~32 per 1000 inhabitants compared to US' ~800). They don't need autonomous cars to kill more people with cars; they can already do it just fine.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  31. Take the poo to the loo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe automated sanitation could be the first priority?
    There are some jobs that no one should have to do.

  32. The minister then excused himself... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...as he had an appointment to go smash some automated looms.

  33. nonono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its not about jobs, its about Indians being better drivers than robots.

    1. Re:nonono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  34. Re:We won't allow any technology that takes away j by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait what? Isn't that like the definition of a Muslim fundamentalist?

    FTFY.

  35. Autonomous cars don't care about cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's probably the real reason.

  36. Options by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Back in the good old days, it took thousands of men picking in a field to make cotton, fifty percent of Americans were farmers. The cotton gin sure as hell ruined all that, then came all the rest of the automated farm equipment. Now, less than five percent of the population need to be farmers.

  37. Kudos to them by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0

    Now if only they devoted some resources to provide the more than 600 million Indian citizens who lack them with such basic services as running water, electricity and sewage, rather than focusing on international me-too pissing contests, the rest of the world might start taking India with more seriousness.

  38. Re:"We won't allow any technology that takes away. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    *EVERY* technology obsoletes some job that used to be done by human beings.

    Yes. However, for most of history, the "obsolete" people could easily find another job they could do and earn money.

    Nobody needs bows anymore? OK, you are good at woodwork, here, make stocks for rifles.
    A new textile mill opened and nobody is buying your home-produced cloth? Go work at that factory, now that cloth is cheaper, more people want it and the factory can barely keep up with demand.
    Also, I hear that those new factories are burning huge amounts of coal - if there is a coal mine near you, it probably needs some more workers.
    The new railroads need huge numbers of people to maintain and drive the trains, lay/maintain the track, control the signals etc.
    All this manufacturing needs a lot of raw materials - iron, copper etc - maybe there is a mine near you?

    See? In the past there were a lot of jobs for people with little to no formal education, so, if your particular product is now obsolete, you can easily find a similar job (probably making the alternative to your product).

    However, today is a bit different. So the coal mine is closing down because there is not enough demand. OK, maybe you can find a job at a factory? The are all either automated or in China. Well, maybe a taxi driver? Self-driving cars.

    Not every taxi driver or coal miner can be a programmer.

    The difference today is that instead of requiring the "obsolete" people to do a bit different jobs (like it was in the past - less jobs in one place meant increased demand of people somewhere else), we offer no alternatives to them. Self driving cars do not need drivers, but they also do not need anything more than regular cars. In comparison, a old-time factory reduces the number of people required to produce a certain amount of product, but increases the need of coal for its steam engines, requiring more coal miners to keep up with demand.

  39. Re:"We won't allow any technology that takes away. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    It's a safe bet that if we waited until there was a job market for people who would get laid off on account of technology putting somebody out of work, I dare say we would be living in a very different world than we do. When cars went from being built by hand to being built by machine it put a staggering number of people out of work that had no idea what they were going to do next..... the thing is, once they were in that position, many figured out a way to move on.... a way that they would not have anticipated if they had not been put in the situation where they had to adapt or die.

  40. Must forbid all cars and lorries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars anx lorries have taken away jobs from horse drivers in the millions already! Must ban!

    WTF

  41. "Won't Allow Any Technology that Takes Away Jobs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Am I to understand then that you will be restricting computer use and shutting down the outsourcing business as part of that initiative? Sounds like a good plan. India should definitely pursue this enlightened policy without further delay.

  42. nothing different from what Trump did by kvishalk · · Score: 0

    I think this is just to woo voters. Don't think driverless cars can be stopped. Getting it to run in India would be a nightmare, as no AI algorithm is tested with the aggressive driving skills in traffic of Indian drivers. And Trump borrowed it from Indian politics, promise jobs and restrict H1B.

  43. Re:To save lives, more likely by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Yep. He doesn't need to worry. The way they drive drive means a lot more advances in AI are needed before any Indian jobs will be in danger.

    --
    No sig today...
  44. Outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't like jobs being outsourced to robots? How ironic.

  45. Re:"We won't allow any technology that takes away. by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    Agreed, although I dare say some of them just end up homeless.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  46. from an indian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem in India is not cars but roads. The roads (especially highways) have improved a lot in recent years(Pune to Bangalore(860 k.m ) use to take 20 hours and now it takes 14 hours including stoppage to pay tolls in multiple places.

    The via media solution could be that self driving vehicle might be alright on highways and not inside cities where even manual driving is difficut because of bad potholed narrow roads with variety of traffic including pedestirans,animals and a large number of two weheelers and barely visible road signs about which no body gives much attention any way

  47. Mean while in Springfield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, and do not come again!

  48. Re: To save lives, more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They also invented flight 3 thousand years ago. A device called the vimana can travel between galaxies to start new Indian colonies on other worlds.

  49. Economic disparity in a large country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... means that India can have people shitting on the streets while still have more people working on self-driving cars than the united states. Thankfully, they are working on all of these problems at the same time and not only focused on toilets.

  50. Rampant strength inequality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rampant strength inequality is a fact of life. People are not all equally capable of taking other people's stuff or defending their own stuff from being taken so no matter what system you try to use, some will end up having more or less. Even the various communist governments of the world had or have strength inequality to similar extents as the various capitalist western democracies. Power redistribution systems that arbitrarily control those who are stronger to protect those who are weaker tend to fall apart over time. Some transition smoothly towards more weapon-augmented systems like Somalia and Afghanistan while others collapse into middling states like America that are plagued by a constant money-centric competition or even Europe where both strength and intellect and wealth are restrained, dragging down the overall success of the countries.

    Can somebody can tell me how to stop the 1% from using violence, especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need fight anymore because who need to fight when you have bigger guns than anyone else?

    Provide them a good or a service that they want regularly? That's typically how I get people stronger than I am to take me under their protection.

      To your other point though, If the strong already have everything they want, what is the point of having strength at that point? If having an army is sufficient to provide you with everything you need, what's to stop someone who has an army from using that army to defend the weak? I suppose you could say power and control, but what's the point of having either if they can't get you love?

      All that aside, laws to prevent armies with a reasonable exemption threshold to allow for small militias are a possibility if you grant that in return penalties for excessive violence will be reduced. I generally think it's a better setup in that it allows people who have strength to keep more of their stuff, but doesn't allow for vast armies where people of no particular skill are protected simply by virtue of being connected into a mafia. It might sound good on paper, but in practice I expect it would just result in more people setting up their own security companies because most people who manage to create their own armed force probably wouldn't trust the government to enforce the laws.

      There's always some kind of Brave New World setup where humans are manufactured, at which point why make non-violent people. That story didn't have token currency, but assuming there were, you'd really only care to have Riches and Poors.

  51. but the lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But killing off all the lives from car accidents that could be avoided is ok though?

  52. Re:To save lives, more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's this attitude of not embracing new technology which is the reason India is so far behind other countries. Nitin Gadkari lacks imagination. You don't ban self driving cars to "save" obsolete jobs, you create new jobs based on self driving cars. As long as he doesn't understand that, India will continue to stagnate.

  53. Re: To save lives, more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah like they'll need people to scrape pedestrians off the street who got run over by autonomous cars, then take the insurance info from the robot.