You're idea would be a total mess. 'I'm sure they would come up with a workable solution' is a total pile of crap. Come up with the solution, then talk about it.
When I was talking about living conditions, I was referring to the pod hotels in Japan. The reason those are a thing is because people are expected to work such long hours and so far away from home that they don't have time to go back even to sleep.
Now about staying on vacation. I do see your point, but you must have some sort of minimum requirements. The last hotel that I scrimped on, thinking I just needed a place to sleep, had a prostitute in the next room. There were no baseboards, the carpet was dirty, there was a hole in the wall and an eye painted on the back of the bathroom door. The john from the next door room watched us as we emptied out our vehicle of our luggage for the night. We considered pushing furniture up against the door. We slept above the sheets for obvious reasons and, frankly, I was shocked that our vehicle was there the next morning. I don't find this kind of lodging relaxing and I swore never to do this on vacation again. I certainly wouldn't have stayed there if I had a family. I've stayed at two resorts and they have been in disrepair. Complaints mean nothing to them.
Your minimum requirements are obviously different then mine. I like to relax on my vacations and I don't find that kind of lodging relaxing. As a consumer I don't understand a system where we must pay $200 more a night to get $3 worth of shampoo and conditioner and clean sheets. Capitalism loves the lowest common denominator. I'm glad you enjoy where you stay, I really am, but some day you will find that you aren't getting what you expect either. One day you'll have to stay with your entire family in a 65 square foot room or be split into sleeping pods, or just sleep in your rental car. That's just the way capitalism works I guess.
The point is, these kinds of arrangements are not used in areas where the economy is doing well. It is only because so many people are scraping by, combined with rising prices of regular hotel rooms, why this is a viable business. It is just another sign of the depletion of the middle class.
Unfortunately, there is always someone who will pay for anything. If there was something $10 less than a 65x65 room, then there to some people the 65x65 room looks like a frivolous luxury expense. Chasing these consumers will always be a race to the bottom. This is why there have always been health and safety regulations. Now with Ubers and Air BnBs able to work around the regulations, there is nothing to stop from hitting the bottom.
Let me add, the reason this is done in Japan is because people have to work such long hours and need to live so far away from home that they are forced to sleep somewhere close by where they work some nights. People die because they are overworked there. Hardly the kind of life we want here.
Oh I know it has been done in other parts of the world... but again, those are parts of the world I have not chosen to go to for this kind of reason. The fact that they exist is not a good commentary on the economic differential in a region at all.
Why would anyone want to own a road? If someone owned it, then the public wouldn't be able to use it. What is the point of owning a road that no one can use? Or does your solution of traveling around a city involve stopping for a toll booth every 50 feet? I'm still interested in knowing how you see this as a workable solution.
Does this really surprise you though? Every new 'advance' in these micro-payment type solutions is really just making another step down the rung of the downward spiral seem acceptable. After the 65 by 65 room, someone will realize that they can just offer a building full of horizontal sleeping pods and make money.
Also, still not clear on who fixes a pothole in times square.. The businesses on times square won't profit from it so they won't do it, they are largely getting foot traffic anyway.
It just seems like things will go undone, looking for some white knight to fix it. A thing that people are really great at is claiming that it is someone else's problem, which basically seems to be what you are doing. Once people start doing that, large parts of infrastructure fall through the cracks and everything breaks down.
So say times square has a pothole in it, who pays to fix that?
Also, who decides to make a highway from one city to the next? How do the highways collectively across the nation get formed in the way that is most efficient for the needs of that country instead of getting built in a way that best serves the person who built it?
How did you come to be posting on Slashdot? Were the components of the system you are using manufactured in your back yard or they delivered on shared highways and rails? Are you using pure solar power or does your power come to you on shared wires? Did you pay for your portion of traffic on every router between you and Slashdot's servers? Perhaps you are taking many of these shared resources for granted.
Well, ultimately we will have to see what insurance companies think of that and how affordable it is. Insurance companies don't like risk they can't calculate with a high degree of accuracy and they won't be able to do that without seeing a great deal of use under local conditions. Since people can't drive without insurance here either, it will ultimately have to be Google that provides those real world examples and testing. I live in a place where there are a lot of blizzards and snow covering everything. They don't plow down to pavement and the ice ruts that remain don't line up with lanes and can spin a car sideways and have it sliding down the road in an instant. If the insurance companies have the attitude users of the vehicle must pay for the unknown liability of a black box being able to accurately map the contour of the ice on the road and drive on it properly then they will be unaffordable anyway, even if the damage they may cause is within a reasonable limit.
Then I don't see the point of putting AI in a car. If I'm driving the car and I want to be safe, I drive slower and/or more carefully. If I have AI in a car, I have no choice I just have to accept what happens and that's pretty ridiculous unless they can make it 100% safe.
The multiple comments of 'they could donate if they wanted to' demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how important it is for society to work together to achieve goals. No wonder America is so messed up.
If they are potentially dangerous then they are not ready for market, period. Imagine if people had to buy insurance before boarding a bus or a train. An automated car is nothing more than a personal bus driven by a black box. I should be able to trust that black box like a bus driver or train engineer, not play some sort of Russian roulette with my insurance policy.
So let Apple worry about their own role in the economy. As you say, they're doing fine. The poster is called a consumer. The consumer's role in the economy is to figure out what they want, expect companies to cater to it, and buy whatever fills that requirement the best.
Slashdot Mirror
You're idea would be a total mess. 'I'm sure they would come up with a workable solution' is a total pile of crap. Come up with the solution, then talk about it.
*GASP*..... you have round corners?
I have one, and recently inherited the mother in law's... Put Lubuntu on them. Great little squeezebox players.
How do they have room for ten paces in that tiny unibody case?
Ok.. in ten or twenty years probably, but it seems like Google is looking at releasing these imminently.
When I was talking about living conditions, I was referring to the pod hotels in Japan. The reason those are a thing is because people are expected to work such long hours and so far away from home that they don't have time to go back even to sleep.
Now about staying on vacation. I do see your point, but you must have some sort of minimum requirements. The last hotel that I scrimped on, thinking I just needed a place to sleep, had a prostitute in the next room. There were no baseboards, the carpet was dirty, there was a hole in the wall and an eye painted on the back of the bathroom door. The john from the next door room watched us as we emptied out our vehicle of our luggage for the night. We considered pushing furniture up against the door. We slept above the sheets for obvious reasons and, frankly, I was shocked that our vehicle was there the next morning. I don't find this kind of lodging relaxing and I swore never to do this on vacation again. I certainly wouldn't have stayed there if I had a family. I've stayed at two resorts and they have been in disrepair. Complaints mean nothing to them.
Your minimum requirements are obviously different then mine. I like to relax on my vacations and I don't find that kind of lodging relaxing. As a consumer I don't understand a system where we must pay $200 more a night to get $3 worth of shampoo and conditioner and clean sheets. Capitalism loves the lowest common denominator. I'm glad you enjoy where you stay, I really am, but some day you will find that you aren't getting what you expect either. One day you'll have to stay with your entire family in a 65 square foot room or be split into sleeping pods, or just sleep in your rental car. That's just the way capitalism works I guess.
The point is, these kinds of arrangements are not used in areas where the economy is doing well. It is only because so many people are scraping by, combined with rising prices of regular hotel rooms, why this is a viable business. It is just another sign of the depletion of the middle class.
Yeah, not sure where I got 65x65 from.
I know. And the places where these exist have real shitty living conditions that come with them.
Unfortunately, there is always someone who will pay for anything. If there was something $10 less than a 65x65 room, then there to some people the 65x65 room looks like a frivolous luxury expense. Chasing these consumers will always be a race to the bottom. This is why there have always been health and safety regulations. Now with Ubers and Air BnBs able to work around the regulations, there is nothing to stop from hitting the bottom.
Let me add, the reason this is done in Japan is because people have to work such long hours and need to live so far away from home that they are forced to sleep somewhere close by where they work some nights. People die because they are overworked there. Hardly the kind of life we want here.
Oh I know it has been done in other parts of the world... but again, those are parts of the world I have not chosen to go to for this kind of reason. The fact that they exist is not a good commentary on the economic differential in a region at all.
Why would anyone want to own a road? If someone owned it, then the public wouldn't be able to use it. What is the point of owning a road that no one can use? Or does your solution of traveling around a city involve stopping for a toll booth every 50 feet? I'm still interested in knowing how you see this as a workable solution.
Does this really surprise you though? Every new 'advance' in these micro-payment type solutions is really just making another step down the rung of the downward spiral seem acceptable. After the 65 by 65 room, someone will realize that they can just offer a building full of horizontal sleeping pods and make money.
I was actually thinking the same thing.. that this sounds a lot like living in countries I would never want to have to live in.
Also, still not clear on who fixes a pothole in times square.. The businesses on times square won't profit from it so they won't do it, they are largely getting foot traffic anyway.
It just seems like things will go undone, looking for some white knight to fix it. A thing that people are really great at is claiming that it is someone else's problem, which basically seems to be what you are doing. Once people start doing that, large parts of infrastructure fall through the cracks and everything breaks down.
So say times square has a pothole in it, who pays to fix that?
Also, who decides to make a highway from one city to the next? How do the highways collectively across the nation get formed in the way that is most efficient for the needs of that country instead of getting built in a way that best serves the person who built it?
I'm very confused about how infrastructure even stays usable under your philosophy. Individuals benefiting themselves aren't going to fix the roads.
How did you come to be posting on Slashdot? Were the components of the system you are using manufactured in your back yard or they delivered on shared highways and rails? Are you using pure solar power or does your power come to you on shared wires? Did you pay for your portion of traffic on every router between you and Slashdot's servers? Perhaps you are taking many of these shared resources for granted.
Well, ultimately we will have to see what insurance companies think of that and how affordable it is. Insurance companies don't like risk they can't calculate with a high degree of accuracy and they won't be able to do that without seeing a great deal of use under local conditions. Since people can't drive without insurance here either, it will ultimately have to be Google that provides those real world examples and testing. I live in a place where there are a lot of blizzards and snow covering everything. They don't plow down to pavement and the ice ruts that remain don't line up with lanes and can spin a car sideways and have it sliding down the road in an instant. If the insurance companies have the attitude users of the vehicle must pay for the unknown liability of a black box being able to accurately map the contour of the ice on the road and drive on it properly then they will be unaffordable anyway, even if the damage they may cause is within a reasonable limit.
Then I don't see the point of putting AI in a car. If I'm driving the car and I want to be safe, I drive slower and/or more carefully. If I have AI in a car, I have no choice I just have to accept what happens and that's pretty ridiculous unless they can make it 100% safe.
The multiple comments of 'they could donate if they wanted to' demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how important it is for society to work together to achieve goals. No wonder America is so messed up.
If they are potentially dangerous then they are not ready for market, period. Imagine if people had to buy insurance before boarding a bus or a train. An automated car is nothing more than a personal bus driven by a black box. I should be able to trust that black box like a bus driver or train engineer, not play some sort of Russian roulette with my insurance policy.
So let Apple worry about their own role in the economy. As you say, they're doing fine. The poster is called a consumer. The consumer's role in the economy is to figure out what they want, expect companies to cater to it, and buy whatever fills that requirement the best.
What is being said that is inaccurate? You posted as AC so I can't tell where you have called that out.