A regulatory "light hand" is appropriate here for a few reasons:
1. The current state of the art is, comparatively, extremely dangerous (even with attentive, good drivers). 2. Google (or the next few guys coming down the pipe) already have an extremely strong incentive to make their cars as safe as possible (speed of adoption, fear of future regulation). 3. OTA updates would resolve problem behaviors after only a few incidents.
Google is coming to the public with a (statistical) goldmine for human development. The cold skepticism they're getting is totally unwarranted and will do nothing but delay the enormous social and economic benefits that fully autonomous roads will bring.
Are we really having a public, political, emotional discussion about the relative merits of ATE vs Validation testing? Come on, Slashdot, you're a bunch of engineers, right? Does the CA state legislature have ANYTHING of value to add to your FMEA? What about your production planning? Test plan? V&V protocols?
It's the height of hubris for outsiders (especially lawyers in the state legislature) to come in and dictate low-level engineering details. A responsible legislature (and public) would acknowledge that they have NOTHING of value to add to the discussion.
The only appropriate regulation is "make it X safe." Don't tell us engineers to get there, and we won't tell you lawyers how to snort coke of a hooker's tits.
SJC and the much bigger PHX are the airports I frequent and both do a pretty good job. $5 may not be much to a business traveler, but in a few years we'll look back at it the same way we'd think of a $5 charge to turn the lights on.
Chevron has a sizable industrial accident in a community. They take losses in it (insurance likely covers direct losses) and lose a contractor. I'm sure that wherever damages did occur, Chevron is on the hook and is likely paying up. The nearby residents had zero damages and weren't owed a thing. Chevron is not getting off cheap or abdicating responsibility through a pizza giveaway.
The situation is comparable to having a tall tree in your yard that falls over on your car. You don't owe your neighbor a pizza, but maybe you buy him dinner anyway just for giving him the jitters.
The country I live in (USA, you may have heard of it) once counted abundant, low cost labor as a comparative economic advantage. At that time, we exploited this advantage, which resulted in a sustained economic boom, accompanied by exploding output, and eventually the creation of a middle class. Our middle class then organized themselves and enforced much better working conditions. This eliminated our labor cost advantage, but we were able to make do with productivity improvements and a shift to services.
Imagine if, say, the UK meddled in our business in the 1880s and forced us to improve factory conditions prematurely. Our growth would have been slowed and the eventual creation of the middle class would have been delayed. A well-meaning effort to improve the lives of a few then would have hurt the quality of life for many later.
Those who criticize Chinese working conditions are either ignorant of economics and history or have an agenda to hold China back.
I believe you are overestimating the effectiveness of the federal government to affect climate change in a way that improves human development and then falling into the utopia trap (infinite good is readily attainable; those who get in the way are infinitely evil).
The Economist ran a spread on this a few weeks ago: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
What a politician railing against free enterprise sounds like: "We need to give people a living wage" "Everyone has the right to free health care" "Energy prices should reflect the true cost of fossil fuels"
And some less partisan ones: "Consumers need automotive dealers and shouldn't be able to buy direct from the manufacturer" "People need an expensive certification program before they can cut hair"
A Global Warming Denier may let bad thinking affect 1 / 100 bills. A Economics-and-Human-Nature Denier lets bad thinking affect 100 / 100 bills. The latter is much more damaging, but only the former raises ire on Slashdot.
There are exactly zero politicians who can be said to generate only data-driven policy.
Inhofe's climate change stance is polluted by bad thinking, which isn't good, but can only result in limited damage. Climate change may influence 1 out of 100 bills.
The 28 democratic CA state assembly members' stance on public unions is polluted by bad thinking, which results in far-reaching damage. Budgetary concerns influence 100 out of 100 bills.
When Google lobbies one right winger, it's news to Slashdot? Is anyone here aware that his views are shared with a significant portion of the population? This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
He's probably wrong about Global Warming, I'll grant that. But I daydream about one day when the coin is flipped and Google's lobbying of a left winger (who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier) is shocking news.
1. I bought a house right out of school, which improved my quality of life to higher than my SW Engineer brother in SJ. 2. There is money here to be invested, and fewer groups are pursuing it, making the odds better for a sharp group with a good idea (big fish, small pond analogy) 3. Public support: Incubators at ASU are actively looking for people with ideas to connect with funders. There is a palpable inferiority complex in the state that can be played to the advantage of the startup. 4. Industry groups: AZBio, AZ Tech Council, etc are active and well attended 5. Local talent: not as bad as is being described here. Remember the aero/semiconductor history of the area. 6. Weather: remember, people, that CA has the best weather on the planet. When compared to half the country (e.g. places too snowy, too humid), Phoenix weather looks pretty good. 7. Political climate: the negatives mentioned here are not a significant factor to developing a business. Significant factors include a much lower tax rate (without the spectre of giant tax increases once it all catches up to you, CA) and less state limitations on business.
The demands of Carreon's initial letter--extortion, in my opinion--ought to be immediately identified as an abuse of power and information asymmetry (again, in my opinion). In a functional legal system, the state bar would review his actions, possibly leading to a revocation of his license.
Those company accounts definitely work against us. In the "make a product for 1 dollar and sell it for 5" business model, we're paid out of the $1 and "they" out of the $4.
For an informative glimpse into the future of STEM in the US, look to the MD profession in the UK. Public policy removed financial incentives from the doctors and students wised up quickly. Today there are very few native-born physicians in the UK; they all come with modest financial expectations from countries with a lower standard of living.
Physicians can't perform their jobs from abroad. Scientists and engineers, however...
The problem with STEM jobs is that they involve actually doing things rather than directing them to be done: the lowest rung on the ladder. Nevermind that the skills required to perform these tasks are far more specialized and difficult to attain than those required by their managers. US students may have sensed that STEM careers are for suckers and are best outsourced; you need only compare the financial state of two equally intelligent 50-year-olds--a scientist and a businessman--to see why.
Most STEM careers are not worth the effort in the US. The ones that are combine technical skills with entrepreneurship or pure luck.
Either (1) workers take unpleasant jobs in sweatshops because it is the best employment option they have or (2) Asian sweatshop workers are persons of weak intellect who have many more attractive job offers but choose to work in sweatshops instead.
Slashdot Mirror
A regulatory "light hand" is appropriate here for a few reasons:
1. The current state of the art is, comparatively, extremely dangerous (even with attentive, good drivers).
2. Google (or the next few guys coming down the pipe) already have an extremely strong incentive to make their cars as safe as possible (speed of adoption, fear of future regulation).
3. OTA updates would resolve problem behaviors after only a few incidents.
Google is coming to the public with a (statistical) goldmine for human development. The cold skepticism they're getting is totally unwarranted and will do nothing but delay the enormous social and economic benefits that fully autonomous roads will bring.
Are we really having a public, political, emotional discussion about the relative merits of ATE vs Validation testing? Come on, Slashdot, you're a bunch of engineers, right? Does the CA state legislature have ANYTHING of value to add to your FMEA? What about your production planning? Test plan? V&V protocols?
It's the height of hubris for outsiders (especially lawyers in the state legislature) to come in and dictate low-level engineering details. A responsible legislature (and public) would acknowledge that they have NOTHING of value to add to the discussion.
The only appropriate regulation is "make it X safe." Don't tell us engineers to get there, and we won't tell you lawyers how to snort coke of a hooker's tits.
SJC and the much bigger PHX are the airports I frequent and both do a pretty good job. $5 may not be much to a business traveler, but in a few years we'll look back at it the same way we'd think of a $5 charge to turn the lights on.
It's 2100, and we only have a few years to go before the last sub-saharan gets a modem and we can turn on the internet!
Chevron has a sizable industrial accident in a community. They take losses in it (insurance likely covers direct losses) and lose a contractor. I'm sure that wherever damages did occur, Chevron is on the hook and is likely paying up. The nearby residents had zero damages and weren't owed a thing. Chevron is not getting off cheap or abdicating responsibility through a pizza giveaway.
The situation is comparable to having a tall tree in your yard that falls over on your car. You don't owe your neighbor a pizza, but maybe you buy him dinner anyway just for giving him the jitters.
The country I live in (USA, you may have heard of it) once counted abundant, low cost labor as a comparative economic advantage. At that time, we exploited this advantage, which resulted in a sustained economic boom, accompanied by exploding output, and eventually the creation of a middle class. Our middle class then organized themselves and enforced much better working conditions. This eliminated our labor cost advantage, but we were able to make do with productivity improvements and a shift to services.
Imagine if, say, the UK meddled in our business in the 1880s and forced us to improve factory conditions prematurely. Our growth would have been slowed and the eventual creation of the middle class would have been delayed. A well-meaning effort to improve the lives of a few then would have hurt the quality of life for many later.
Those who criticize Chinese working conditions are either ignorant of economics and history or have an agenda to hold China back.
Further Reading:
http://www.hamiltoninstitute.com/the-problem-with-sweatshops-is-that-there-are-not-enough-of-them-discuss/
I believe you are overestimating the effectiveness of the federal government to affect climate change in a way that improves human development and then falling into the utopia trap (infinite good is readily attainable; those who get in the way are infinitely evil).
Public Sector Unions and a lack of Tort Reform in the ACA come to mind. I'll leave the details as an exercise for the reader.
The Economist ran a spread on this a few weeks ago:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
What a politician railing against free enterprise sounds like:
"We need to give people a living wage"
"Everyone has the right to free health care"
"Energy prices should reflect the true cost of fossil fuels"
And some less partisan ones:
"Consumers need automotive dealers and shouldn't be able to buy direct from the manufacturer"
"People need an expensive certification program before they can cut hair"
A Global Warming Denier may let bad thinking affect 1 / 100 bills. A Economics-and-Human-Nature Denier lets bad thinking affect 100 / 100 bills. The latter is much more damaging, but only the former raises ire on Slashdot.
There are exactly zero politicians who can be said to generate only data-driven policy.
Inhofe's climate change stance is polluted by bad thinking, which isn't good, but can only result in limited damage. Climate change may influence 1 out of 100 bills.
The 28 democratic CA state assembly members' stance on public unions is polluted by bad thinking, which results in far-reaching damage. Budgetary concerns influence 100 out of 100 bills.
When Google lobbies one right winger, it's news to Slashdot? Is anyone here aware that his views are shared with a significant portion of the population? This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
He's probably wrong about Global Warming, I'll grant that. But I daydream about one day when the coin is flipped and Google's lobbying of a left winger (who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier) is shocking news.
you forgot to add the snark tag
One must be careful about diluting the word "right." Leave it at 3, and protect them fiercely.
There's a lot to this.
1. I bought a house right out of school, which improved my quality of life to higher than my SW Engineer brother in SJ.
2. There is money here to be invested, and fewer groups are pursuing it, making the odds better for a sharp group with a good idea (big fish, small pond analogy)
3. Public support: Incubators at ASU are actively looking for people with ideas to connect with funders. There is a palpable inferiority complex in the state that can be played to the advantage of the startup.
4. Industry groups: AZBio, AZ Tech Council, etc are active and well attended
5. Local talent: not as bad as is being described here. Remember the aero/semiconductor history of the area.
6. Weather: remember, people, that CA has the best weather on the planet. When compared to half the country (e.g. places too snowy, too humid), Phoenix weather looks pretty good.
7. Political climate: the negatives mentioned here are not a significant factor to developing a business. Significant factors include a much lower tax rate (without the spectre of giant tax increases once it all catches up to you, CA) and less state limitations on business.
The demands of Carreon's initial letter--extortion, in my opinion--ought to be immediately identified as an abuse of power and information asymmetry (again, in my opinion). In a functional legal system, the state bar would review his actions, possibly leading to a revocation of his license.
As a resident of Arizona, I asked that this be looked into at http://www.azbar.org/contactus/contactusform.
I believe such action would go far toward preventing this kind of behavior in the future.
To the detriment of all of us
Yes. STEM jobs resemble those that can be commodit-ized to the untrained eye.
Actually, that may be true for some of them.
Please go tell this to all your manager friends and then punch them in the face for not believing you.
Those company accounts definitely work against us. In the "make a product for 1 dollar and sell it for 5" business model, we're paid out of the $1 and "they" out of the $4.
For an informative glimpse into the future of STEM in the US, look to the MD profession in the UK. Public policy removed financial incentives from the doctors and students wised up quickly. Today there are very few native-born physicians in the UK; they all come with modest financial expectations from countries with a lower standard of living.
Physicians can't perform their jobs from abroad. Scientists and engineers, however...
+1 Cathartic
Geez, go work for a small company. I have about 1 hr of meetings per week and work with my hands (not just typing keys) daily.
The problem with STEM jobs is that they involve actually doing things rather than directing them to be done: the lowest rung on the ladder. Nevermind that the skills required to perform these tasks are far more specialized and difficult to attain than those required by their managers. US students may have sensed that STEM careers are for suckers and are best outsourced; you need only compare the financial state of two equally intelligent 50-year-olds--a scientist and a businessman--to see why.
Most STEM careers are not worth the effort in the US. The ones that are combine technical skills with entrepreneurship or pure luck.
Either (1) workers take unpleasant jobs in sweatshops because it is the best employment option they have or (2) Asian sweatshop workers are persons of weak intellect who have many more attractive job offers but choose to work in sweatshops instead.
-Wheelan et al "Naked Economics"