The companies named "Ford" and "Toyota" will have self driving cars long before Uber ever would. Its questionable if the existing auto makers want to get into the delivery business (human or freight). Apple and Google too, more likely they would simply want to license the tech to the automakers. Tesla may be the exception.
Self driving cars are likely to come from an existing auto manufacturer, uber won't be locked out of purchasing these. Apple, Google, whoever is not going to be able to tell their manufacturing partner who they can and cannot sell cars too.
How could a self driving car inventor with patents prevent uber from buying cars? How much better a price on a car could uber get, and how many such deals would it cost to make back both the actual R&D and the opportunity costs of that money that went in their R&D?
Newspaper readers have a highly skewed demographic.
Perhaps for subscriptions. But a person actively searching for an apartment, a house, a job, etc may make an anonymous purchase of a paper at vending machine, newsstand, grocery store, convenience store, etc.
wasn't talking about Fuchsia but QNX, yet to be seen if Fuchsia can do anything it claims. Put your crystal ball away and we'll see someday what reality is.
The reality is that the project developers are saying desktops are also a target.
The short term stock investors seeking instant profit sure make it difficult for a company to do any sort of long term growth plan or invest in anything for a potential future.
Well the President is working on that problem, he wants to get rid of quarterly SEC filings.;-)
Well there is also the professional to design, maintain and operate the database on AWS. And the business development guy to sell rider's location data to facebook and others.
Uber does not need to be the inventor of the self driving car. They only need to be a user of the self driving car. And frankly they are behind in self-driving R&D and doing a crappy job at it as well.
No , the miner does not need return fuel. As I said, when the fuel vehicle reports it has made sufficient fuel the miner can then be sent.
Elementary oxygen is not needed. "H" and "O" from electrolysis being ingredients in a more complex fuel is something different than "H" and "O" being the only ingredients, ie there is more than one option.
Nuclear batteries being slower is not an issue. And a nuclear reactor does not have to lift from earth, it too could be lunar manufactured. Again, bootstrapping.
A Falcon Heavy is 1/12th the cost of a Saturn 5 launch. The Falcon Heavy is heavily reusable. The Saturn V had to carry everything in a single launch. An earth to lunar vehicle plus payload and fuel could be delivered to orbit via multiple Falcon Heavy launches. Much like the ISS components were launched piecemeal.
You don't include fuel generating equipment with every mining vehicle. Once probes find an asteroid with interesting ore and ice you send a refueling ship. When it reports back that its operational and successfully making fuel you can start sending mining vehicles.
H and O are not the only possible fuels. Asteroids can be rich with all sort of compounds. Also the power source of the refueling ship need not be solar, nuclear is another option.
Lifting the lunar equipment from earth is a one-time thing, and all the infrastructure need not necessarily be lifted. A bootstrapping approach can be used. Equipment for a small scale operation can be lifted to manufacture the equipment for a large scape operation using local resources. The mining and refueling vehicles could be made from lunar resources.
I'm also convinced that you can provide a method how we should separate valuable material from...
Feasability: Miners have been separating ore from non-ore with picks, hammers, chisels, etc for centuries.
... I don't want to take the whole rock with me.
Too bad, I'm referring to ore. Debunking your earlier straw man of do bring an asteroid to earth orbit.
Mining and processing will likely start on the lunar surface. Asteroid mining deriving from the lunar technology and experience.
And we're back at dV and getting heavy stuff to the moon.
Pick the right asteroid and there is fuel at the asteroid.
Processing of asteroid ore also likely occurring at existing lunar facilities. Feasibility, in 1969 we could land 16 ton vehicles on the moon with a fair degree of accuracy.
Yes, and it only took a rocket weighing 2,970 tons to put it there.
The ore is coming from an asteroid in a near-zero G environment, not from the earth's surface.
By "processed stuff" stuff I am referring to ore-like materials, not finished ingots of iron and nickel. Regarding feasibility, today we have robots on mars that can analyze a rock for its mineral composition.
Mining and processing will likely start on the lunar surface. Asteroid mining deriving from the lunar technology and experience. Processing of asteroid ore also likely occurring at existing lunar facilities. Feasibility, in 1969 we could land 16 ton vehicles on the moon with a fair degree of accuracy.
Could you have manufactured a more complicated straw man? I want a robot to visit an asteroid and bring back processed stuff. Or in the shorter term mine and lift processed stuff from the moon.
Improve all you want, in the end you cannot violate the laws of physics. Anything you take to orbit has mass. Every kilogram of mass you wish to take to orbit you have to accelerate by about 10km/s. Note that every kilogram of propellant IS actually also something you have to take into account, i.e. every kilogram of fuel you take with you actually makes you heavier and thus requires more fuel to accelerate it.
You realize you are arguing a straw man that no one is disagreeing with? Our disagreement involves two thing. (1) What has to be lifted, manufacturing equipment vs finished goods. (2) The mass of this manufacturing equipment vs the finished foods, you pulled a 20x out of... the air... for the manufacturing equipment launch. That is what I was referring to. If we were to manufacture something to produce "shade" that something will likely outmass the equipment that made it.
The core idea is that we are approaching a point where we can have the capability to "build locally" rather than lift every ounce from earth. Actually I take that back, that's a tangent idea, not the core idea. The core idea being that science and engineering via climate engineering are likely a required component for our climate problems. Producing shade from beyond the atmosphere being one of many options.
Storage has not been shown to scale as needed, its still at the wishful thinking stage. The environment impact of the batteries manufacture and disposal is often hand waived. As much as I'd love the idea of each home getting 1-3 Tesla power wall type devices in each home we are decades away from that, assuming we can even obtain the resources necessary.
The recent frenzy of decommissioning was Fukushima inspired. Before that Bill Clinton's shutdown of modern reactor R&D was political payback to environmental lobbyists. Various old school environment leaders now see the err of their ways and see nuclear as part of the "all of the above" solution that is required for success.
Many of the heavy polluters, and holders of nuclear wastes, are already nuclear states so the non-proliferation argument is a red herring. Plus all that existing waste that needs to be stored is also a security problem with respect to weaponizable material.
"factor of 20" -- ok, you're just making up BS numbers. That fact remains we have made amazing progress in the past in a small number of decades and technological improvements are accelerating. We are on the verge of having manufacturing in orbit. Your have to lift final products and all resources model is becoming obsolete. What is lacking is more a willingness to proceed than the engineering and science. if you want to "fix" the climate this has to change, solar and wind will likely not be enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a better deal with a traditional auto manufacturer ... a deal that will recoup losing $1B every three months? :-)
Doesn't matter, the point is that the suggestion is already forbidden.
And discrimination in advertising homes, jobs, etc is also forbidden. Yet it happens, similar story for the countermeasure.
Facebook forbids fake accounts. They will delete them.
It only needs to last long enough to get the home, the job, etc.
The companies named "Ford" and "Toyota" will have self driving cars long before Uber ever would. Its questionable if the existing auto makers want to get into the delivery business (human or freight). Apple and Google too, more likely they would simply want to license the tech to the automakers. Tesla may be the exception.
Self driving cars are likely to come from an existing auto manufacturer, uber won't be locked out of purchasing these. Apple, Google, whoever is not going to be able to tell their manufacturing partner who they can and cannot sell cars too.
How could a self driving car inventor with patents prevent uber from buying cars? How much better a price on a car could uber get, and how many such deals would it cost to make back both the actual R&D and the opportunity costs of that money that went in their R&D?
Newspaper readers have a highly skewed demographic.
Perhaps for subscriptions. But a person actively searching for an apartment, a house, a job, etc may make an anonymous purchase of a paper at vending machine, newsstand, grocery store, convenience store, etc.
wasn't talking about Fuchsia but QNX, yet to be seen if Fuchsia can do anything it claims. Put your crystal ball away and we'll see someday what reality is.
The reality is that the project developers are saying desktops are also a target.
One DB guy and a business development guy is also an exaggeration. :-)
The short term stock investors seeking instant profit sure make it difficult for a company to do any sort of long term growth plan or invest in anything for a potential future.
Well the President is working on that problem, he wants to get rid of quarterly SEC filings. ;-)
Well there is also the professional to design, maintain and operate the database on AWS. And the business development guy to sell rider's location data to facebook and others.
The self driving division is a vanity project. Their R&D is behind others and they are doing a crappy job at it in general.
Replacing drivers is absolutely the goal but they can do that with a self driving car that someone else invents.
Uber does not need to be the inventor of the self driving car. They only need to be a user of the self driving car. And frankly they are behind in self-driving R&D and doing a crappy job at it as well.
No , the miner does not need return fuel. As I said, when the fuel vehicle reports it has made sufficient fuel the miner can then be sent.
Elementary oxygen is not needed. "H" and "O" from electrolysis being ingredients in a more complex fuel is something different than "H" and "O" being the only ingredients, ie there is more than one option.
Nuclear batteries being slower is not an issue. And a nuclear reactor does not have to lift from earth, it too could be lunar manufactured. Again, bootstrapping.
A Falcon Heavy is 1/12th the cost of a Saturn 5 launch. The Falcon Heavy is heavily reusable. The Saturn V had to carry everything in a single launch. An earth to lunar vehicle plus payload and fuel could be delivered to orbit via multiple Falcon Heavy launches. Much like the ISS components were launched piecemeal.
Utterly irrelevant to bring up a little embedded OS fit for cars and blackberries and compare it to Linux. You have no point,
You are misinformed. Google Fuchsia is being designed for embedded applications, mobile devices and computers.
It may very well replace also those closed modified Linux boxes used internally.
You don't include fuel generating equipment with every mining vehicle. Once probes find an asteroid with interesting ore and ice you send a refueling ship. When it reports back that its operational and successfully making fuel you can start sending mining vehicles.
H and O are not the only possible fuels. Asteroids can be rich with all sort of compounds. Also the power source of the refueling ship need not be solar, nuclear is another option.
Lifting the lunar equipment from earth is a one-time thing, and all the infrastructure need not necessarily be lifted. A bootstrapping approach can be used. Equipment for a small scale operation can be lifted to manufacture the equipment for a large scape operation using local resources. The mining and refueling vehicles could be made from lunar resources.
I'm also convinced that you can provide a method how we should separate valuable material from ...
Feasability: Miners have been separating ore from non-ore with picks, hammers, chisels, etc for centuries.
... I don't want to take the whole rock with me.
Too bad, I'm referring to ore. Debunking your earlier straw man of do bring an asteroid to earth orbit.
Mining and processing will likely start on the lunar surface. Asteroid mining deriving from the lunar technology and experience.
And we're back at dV and getting heavy stuff to the moon.
Pick the right asteroid and there is fuel at the asteroid.
Processing of asteroid ore also likely occurring at existing lunar facilities. Feasibility, in 1969 we could land 16 ton vehicles on the moon with a fair degree of accuracy.
Yes, and it only took a rocket weighing 2,970 tons to put it there.
The ore is coming from an asteroid in a near-zero G environment, not from the earth's surface.
By "processed stuff" stuff I am referring to ore-like materials, not finished ingots of iron and nickel. Regarding feasibility, today we have robots on mars that can analyze a rock for its mineral composition.
Mining and processing will likely start on the lunar surface. Asteroid mining deriving from the lunar technology and experience. Processing of asteroid ore also likely occurring at existing lunar facilities. Feasibility, in 1969 we could land 16 ton vehicles on the moon with a fair degree of accuracy.
Could you have manufactured a more complicated straw man? I want a robot to visit an asteroid and bring back processed stuff. Or in the shorter term mine and lift processed stuff from the moon.
Lunar, asteroid, ... we already have missions visiting asteroids, some "prospecting" mission are planned to sense available resources, etc.
Improve all you want, in the end you cannot violate the laws of physics. Anything you take to orbit has mass. Every kilogram of mass you wish to take to orbit you have to accelerate by about 10km/s. Note that every kilogram of propellant IS actually also something you have to take into account, i.e. every kilogram of fuel you take with you actually makes you heavier and thus requires more fuel to accelerate it.
You realize you are arguing a straw man that no one is disagreeing with? Our disagreement involves two thing. (1) What has to be lifted, manufacturing equipment vs finished goods. (2) The mass of this manufacturing equipment vs the finished foods, you pulled a 20x out of ... the air ... for the manufacturing equipment launch. That is what I was referring to. If we were to manufacture something to produce "shade" that something will likely outmass the equipment that made it.
The core idea is that we are approaching a point where we can have the capability to "build locally" rather than lift every ounce from earth. Actually I take that back, that's a tangent idea, not the core idea. The core idea being that science and engineering via climate engineering are likely a required component for our climate problems. Producing shade from beyond the atmosphere being one of many options.
Storage has not been shown to scale as needed, its still at the wishful thinking stage. The environment impact of the batteries manufacture and disposal is often hand waived. As much as I'd love the idea of each home getting 1-3 Tesla power wall type devices in each home we are decades away from that, assuming we can even obtain the resources necessary.
The recent frenzy of decommissioning was Fukushima inspired. Before that Bill Clinton's shutdown of modern reactor R&D was political payback to environmental lobbyists. Various old school environment leaders now see the err of their ways and see nuclear as part of the "all of the above" solution that is required for success.
Many of the heavy polluters, and holders of nuclear wastes, are already nuclear states so the non-proliferation argument is a red herring. Plus all that existing waste that needs to be stored is also a security problem with respect to weaponizable material.
"factor of 20" -- ok, you're just making up BS numbers. That fact remains we have made amazing progress in the past in a small number of decades and technological improvements are accelerating. We are on the verge of having manufacturing in orbit. Your have to lift final products and all resources model is becoming obsolete. What is lacking is more a willingness to proceed than the engineering and science. if you want to "fix" the climate this has to change, solar and wind will likely not be enough.
"... including a 175 percent increase in shipments to the United Kingdom, and a doubling to France ..."
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
You don't launch the "lampshade material". You launch the machine that makes the "lampshade material" and use lunar or asteroid resources.