That's basically the argument that has carefully NOT been brought before the supreme court. By the Miller decision, one can argue that a military pattern M-4, much less it's semi-automatic variants, are MORE deserving of constitutional protection than weapons not militarily useful - such as your 10/22, black powder guns, hunting rifles, and such. As such, the NFA in most of it's entirety would be unconstitutional, much less the closing of the automatic weapon registry.
They recently asked Scalia about the issue, specifically about hand held missiles. He danced around a bit, but it seems that he, by default, seperates 'arms' and 'ordinance' as 'arms' being something the single soldier can carry and use, are at least semi-commonly issued to such.
My personal line - is it equivalent to what our soldiers are individually issued for use? If so, then it has to be legal for 'the people'. Whether it's a single shot musket or a futuristic laser gun. I'll even go so far as to say that an 'arm' is typically not single use, which would rule out most RPGs, grenades, and such.
Currently, that would be the M-16/4 line of weapons, short barreled shotguns(issued to breach teams a lot), 9mm semi-automatic handguns, etc... The 'milita' isn't expected to be able to show up with 100% conforming weapons, and they can provide a good test-bed of alternative arms, so I'll include PDWs(personal defense weapons like the FN-90), which give potential combatants more firepower in an easier to control platform than handguns, but still maintain a fairly small profile compared to an assault rifle. Along with that, I'll allow alternatives. The Beretta 9mm is the US Service pistol, but the Brits use a Browning or Sig in the same role while the Germans use an H&K USP. US Special forces often use.45ACP, and.40S&W is about the most common police cartridge(where they use pistols more than the military). The FBI wanted to use 10mm, but found it too powerful for some agents. So I'd provide protection for any 'high power semi-automatic handgun', with 'high power' being anything 'roughly' between 9mm Parabellum and 10mm Auto in power range(.45 is fat and slow, about the same as.40S&W, less powerful than 10mm). Rifles would be an even wider range - anything between.223 and.50 BMG, automatic to bolt.
I'm still asking for a source on what you figure the median person pays. I've found plenty of averages. And I've found cases of them charging teen drivers thousands of pounds. Logically speaking, you're pretty far from the average - you're probably a couple standard deviations from the center.
However, 18-14 is still 'only' averaging 2k, and they're what, ~10% of the driving population?
Still, to get back to my original point, with such insurance expenses for the 'worst' drivers, it makes autodrive solutions even more attractive for them. I already mentioned that I was figuring on a top end of $5k for drivers with DUIs, which is close to to your 5k pounds. Much above that and they're uninsurable here in the states.
If you want personal details - my annual liability is only $260/year. My collision(fix my truck if I wreck it) is $493, Comprehensive(damage/loss other than driving - vandalism, theft, fire, hail, etc...) $160. Uninsured/Underinsured(the one who hit me doesn't have insurance) - $83. That and a few other perks(towing/rental) gets my insurance up to $1043/year.
The 'gun rights crowd' got 'hammered' in US v. Miller because the government got to argue up at the supreme court unopposed. Traditionally speaking, not showing up to court is an automatic loss, regardless of the merits of the case. However, Miller had died by then with him having won at the appellate level, and his lawyer didn't feel like showing up to argue at the supreme court. The 'gun rights crowd' hadn't really even formed back then, so nobody else was watching to ensure somebody showed up.
Despite this, gun ownership was STILL decided to be an individual right, and the regulation of 'short barrel shotguns' was allowed only because nobody showed them as useful to a militia. Now, this being the same year as WWII started, most gun rights types feel that making that argument would have been very simple - short barrel shotguns nicknamed 'trench guns' being a semi-common issue in the military of the time.
I'd argue that there are plenty of voters who actually like their candidates, but the 'no one really' comment is merely an exaggeration - Obama, Bush, and Clinton weren't elected because 51% of the population thought he was the best candidate. Realistically, a statistically insignificant number of people is going to believe that their candidate is the 'most optimal choice', but a lot of people are voting for somebody they agree with barely half the time because they perceive the other guy as being even worse.
So when somebody goes to the polls and pulls the lever for Romney when they'd really prefer Ron Paul, they're voting for the 'least worst' candidate they think has a chance.
As a 'moderate libertarian', I'm the type where in preference polls I tend to hit about 40% for both candidates... Huh, this is new, in the 'selectsmart' test I scored 52% for Obama, 39% for Romney. I'll note that in previous tests I normally agreed with Ron Paul(48%) the most. Eh, I had been leaning Obama recently anyways, in the sense that I've seen nothing that suggests Romney would 'do better'.
Given those results, I'd say that a candidate I could vote for without 'holding my nose' would have to at least be in the 70-80% range, average. I say this because Ron Paul is still hold the nose at 62%. Obama(57) clearly leads Romney(45), but not overwhelmingly.
Average lowest of £727 is scotland Per the chart, 71+ averages the lowest at £436, the average of £971 from the other article would be for somebody closer to 30, with an average driving record.
Still waiting for where you source a 'mere' £150 from. Basically, I'll dispute that your insurance figure has any real meaning on reality as you're very far from average, and might be getting a deal such as I'm figuring the automatic driving vehicles might get.
It's a touch annoying to not have a '£' on my keyboard for this conversation.;)
I'd rate the savings as 'insane', personally. Even if you figure that you can only have the trucks drive 20 hours/day due to loading/unloading/refueling/maintenance, that's still double to triple what you can get out of a single driver, and the trucks themselves are over a hundred thousand now. Not quite enough that running teams of drivers is normally worth it, but still substantial capital savings - A self-driving truck can replace 2 drivers($120k w/benefits), 2 trucks(~$240k), with 1 truck(~$100k as you don't need the people conveniences), and auto-drive system($300k).
So you go from $240k + $120k/year to $400k. 10% cost of capital(it's risky), that's $40k/year on the autodrive, replacing $144k. That's without getting into marginal things like possible fuel savings as you program the autopilot to maximize that, keeping average speed up by not stopping as often.
It'd probably be worth it even if it was only 'highway rated' and you ended up having a switchyard on the edge of the highway where you disconnect the trailers and hook up a local hauler with an actual driver, then hooked the auto-driver up to an outbound cargo.
I'll note that we generally don't have $7k insurance policies for new drivers. $5k is more for the 'multiple DUI accident' type. 'Fronting' is a new term for me.
Now, you specified good driver, and I'll admit to rounding up; $1k is about what my comprehensive coverage costs.
Might want to double check that your insurance is valid, apparently there are fraudulent "ghost brokers" running around.
You guys even have cancellation fees?. It's my understanding that they're pretty much unheard of(probably illegal) here in the USA. In addition, increasing from ~700 to 7k while switching to advertising your monthly payment where you used to have your annual price can be considered fraud.
Your point? The price figures for the LIDAR was right out of the USA Today article I quoted. Google paid $70k a pop for the LIDAR systems it put into it's cars. There's an unnamed company getting ready to produce LIDAR for cars at a 'mere' $250 each. You quote $30 each, but that's for systems mounted to vacuum cleaners - don't need the range or operating environment tolerances of a car. Besides, your Hizook article is NOT for a LIDAR system, it's for a 'laser rangefinder', which is sort of like half of a LIDAR. Actual LIDAR attempts to build an image, a laser rangefinder doesn't.
At $150k overall, reducing a $70k expense to $250 would make me concentrate more on the rest of the components. When the goal is $20k overall cost(or less), you wouldn't get there even if you got the LIDAR for free. I wouldn't refuse a $30 one, of course.
Though yes, going from hand manufacture and assembly to mass production can save oodles of money per unit.
Don't overestimate the value of this though. Even a zero accident self driving vehicle that doesn't need collision at all would only save the 'average' driver ~$2k/year(at most). It'd be more worth it to the worst drivers first, of course.
You know, this is why when I propose auto-driving vehicles I point out that the standard should be 'does better than humans on average'. It will probably avoid a lot of the common human accidents with it's superior 'reflexes', but it'll probably get into some accidents that would be stupidly-easy to avoid by humans.
For example - Construction zone - it'll recognize the cones and slow/stop signs and follow the directions. Heck, they might introduce automatic signs(some states have them) that somehow transmit said info to the car in a more reliable fashion. Baseball w/kid following - if it doesn't slow/stop for the baseball, the fact that it's following the speed limit and can react a lot faster than you should enable it to avoid the kid. Ice around curve - lots of humans fall for this; it's hard to say Erratic driver - hopefully in the future he's in an auto-drive car himself so there's no problem, other than that you're back to 'faster reflexes' and that it's a bad idea to be next to a car on the road anyways. You're supposed to stagger(or at least that was what I was taught).
Flat tire - recognizes this and allows the occupant the choice of changing the flat or calling for assistance to do the repair. Same with other car problems Accident - Probably the same as 'Onstar' with GM vehicles; depending on the severity of the accident, disable the engine(to prevent further injury/damage) and call emergency services automatically. Back into the Garage - As long as it's been programmed to do so. Parallel Park - there are non-roadway autonomous vehicles that are already able to do this for the drivers(IE it's an option for rich people that never learned how) Parking - same as the garage; as long as it's been programmed to Alleys - Just a narrow road; maybe with more collision issues if there's stuff in there No Roads - Non-google robot car efforts have been completing the course for years at this point. Have to have a human - Google, right now, yes, due to liability/legal concerns only Call for pickup - one of the planned features Vision impaired use - one of the planned goals Kids to school - again, one of the planned goals.
I've calced out an autodrive system to be 'worth' around $20k to the 'average' person, with the following assumptions: 1. The system is better than 90% of drivers. It may get into accidents that a human would have avoided, but it avoids accidents that a human would have caused. IE it might get into an accident where it didn't recognize the hazard that would have been very obvious to a human, but avoided an accident where the human wouldn't have been able to react fast enough. Whatever, it's somewhere around that 95th percentile. Easily 'professional driver' range for preventing accidents. Result: 90% savings on insurance costs. ($1k-5k/year, depending on record) 2. The vehicle is driven, on average, 1 hour a day, the system lasts 5 years(pessimistic, most cars last 10+), and the ex-driver values his or her time at $10/hour(works, reads a book, surfs the internet while transiting). ($18k) 3. The system results in mild mpg savings(round up)
How valuable would it be to others? Do you drink outside your house? Average cost of a DUI conviction is like $10k. Have a DUI? $1.3k a year for one of those breathalyzer systems, which is a big pain to start your vehicle with AND during driving. Which you might not need if you get an autodrive vehicle instead. Heck, get them widespread enough and it might be mandated for you.
Right now google's system costs $150k per car, with nearly half($70k) being for the laser lidar system. So it's not worth it to the 'average' individual. But what about for cargo moving? Semi-Tractor Trailers? Raise the cost of a driver to $20/hour(more realistic) and 8 hours a day, and it'd be worth it at $320k. Pay some contractor to fill the truck up when it comes in for fuel.
Besides that, there's lidar systems coming out as cheap as $250 per vehicle, which leaves ~$60k cheaper on other parts to make it worth it - and how much of that equipment cost is because it all has to be had made and assembled to modify a car? Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper if it's a factory installed option?
While I agree in the near term, in the long term I'm reminded of This.
- While it may seem harsh that the 31st-century equivalent of "Driving Under the Influence" carries with it the death penalty, this is due to an inherent inequivalency between MOUI and DUI.
With DUI, you need only climb into your vehicle while under the influence of alchohol or drugs and attempt to drive it home.
With MOUI you must disable a number of safety systems designed to prevent idiots like you from manually operating their vehicles while inebriated, overtired, wasted, decaffeinated, angry, emotionally distraught, or suffering from hormonal disorders like PMS or testosterone poisoning (the latter having been positively identified as a leading cause of stupidity among males between the ages of puberty and death). After disabling the safety systems (which task almost certainly requires ice-cold sobriety), you must decide to switch the vehicle to a manual mode of operation. In some cases, this requires installing a manual mode of operation.
Other examples would include 'johnny taxi' in some movies. You don't NEED to have manual operation modes once you reach a certain sophistication, worst case you have a sort of protected mode 'guided direction' where you provide steering information - but the car still worries about avoiding accidents, and will override you to do so.
Manual driven vehicles would be restriction to 'special hazard' zones and conditions where they just haven't programmed a vehicle to be able to avoid all the hazards yet. Perhaps a dock loading zone where you have to worry about something being dropped on you from overhead.
It could be a skill level thing. A rifle/SMG is easier to USE effectively, but a handgun is easier to carry. Handguns are 'good enough' for 99% of the situations police get into by surprise. Beyond that, the rifle/shotgun is in the trunk and SWAT is a radio call away. If you see them, you know it's serious.
That's the thing about defense stuff - there's no NEED to build stuff that needs to be replaced. Build it as tough as you like, the military will still manage to break it.
Putting the grenade level explosives into a small drone is accepted because it gives additional capacity at a cost lower than a dedicated platform.
At $10M, you put a big bomb on it, give it great range, and only use it on the most valuable of heavily defended targets. At $1M, you fire it at ships At $100k, it's shot at planes, tanks and such $10k - concentrations of enemy soldiers $1k - individuals even.
I'd argue that they're quite a bit less sophisticated than even the missiles of the 1980's, which transmitted all sorts of information on the way to their target, could do terrain evasion, etc...
The real difference is that key bits of technology has gotten cheap enough that rather than firing a $10M+ cruise missile, you can have a remote piloted vehicle that transmits back video and other information for under $10k. A fraction of even the cost of a guidance package for a gravity bomb.
Instead, they've gotten drone/remote piloting tech to the point that a cheap package allows you to pilot out of sight, not worry too much about somebody overriding your control, get useful video back, etc... Then gotten said package cheap enough that including a grenade's worth of explosives is still financially viable in certain circumstances.
"Method of engagement" is a coward's way of saying "means of killing people and destroying things."
It's quicker to say though, and there are ways you can engage without killing people and destroying things. Rubber bullets and tear gas is still a 'method of engagement', as is cyber-attacks, graphite bombs over power substations, leaflets, etc...
The navy uses port and starboard not just to be different. They use it because it means 'left and right' absolutely for the ship, and can't be confused for the sailer's left and right.
I do believe that you're right. 'Guided Missiles' specifically.
I guess the difference here is that the UAV can do more than just head to a target for destruction, and CAN be recovered intact for reuse if the operator doesn't chose to detonate it. A cruise missile was launched at a specific target. This you could launch for recon then use destructively if a target of opportunity pops up.
Slashdot Mirror
There are online services that for a reasonable fee will accept your tapes and put them into online storage(or a HD) for you.
That's basically the argument that has carefully NOT been brought before the supreme court. By the Miller decision, one can argue that a military pattern M-4, much less it's semi-automatic variants, are MORE deserving of constitutional protection than weapons not militarily useful - such as your 10/22, black powder guns, hunting rifles, and such. As such, the NFA in most of it's entirety would be unconstitutional, much less the closing of the automatic weapon registry.
They recently asked Scalia about the issue, specifically about hand held missiles. He danced around a bit, but it seems that he, by default, seperates 'arms' and 'ordinance' as 'arms' being something the single soldier can carry and use, are at least semi-commonly issued to such.
My personal line - is it equivalent to what our soldiers are individually issued for use? If so, then it has to be legal for 'the people'. Whether it's a single shot musket or a futuristic laser gun. I'll even go so far as to say that an 'arm' is typically not single use, which would rule out most RPGs, grenades, and such.
Currently, that would be the M-16/4 line of weapons, short barreled shotguns(issued to breach teams a lot), 9mm semi-automatic handguns, etc... The 'milita' isn't expected to be able to show up with 100% conforming weapons, and they can provide a good test-bed of alternative arms, so I'll include PDWs(personal defense weapons like the FN-90), which give potential combatants more firepower in an easier to control platform than handguns, but still maintain a fairly small profile compared to an assault rifle. Along with that, I'll allow alternatives. The Beretta 9mm is the US Service pistol, but the Brits use a Browning or Sig in the same role while the Germans use an H&K USP. US Special forces often use .45ACP, and .40S&W is about the most common police cartridge(where they use pistols more than the military). The FBI wanted to use 10mm, but found it too powerful for some agents. So I'd provide protection for any 'high power semi-automatic handgun', with 'high power' being anything 'roughly' between 9mm Parabellum and 10mm Auto in power range(.45 is fat and slow, about the same as .40S&W, less powerful than 10mm). Rifles would be an even wider range - anything between .223 and .50 BMG, automatic to bolt.
I'm still asking for a source on what you figure the median person pays. I've found plenty of averages. And I've found cases of them charging teen drivers thousands of pounds. Logically speaking, you're pretty far from the average - you're probably a couple standard deviations from the center.
However, 18-14 is still 'only' averaging 2k, and they're what, ~10% of the driving population?
Still, to get back to my original point, with such insurance expenses for the 'worst' drivers, it makes autodrive solutions even more attractive for them. I already mentioned that I was figuring on a top end of $5k for drivers with DUIs, which is close to to your 5k pounds. Much above that and they're uninsurable here in the states.
If you want personal details - my annual liability is only $260/year. My collision(fix my truck if I wreck it) is $493, Comprehensive(damage/loss other than driving - vandalism, theft, fire, hail, etc...) $160. Uninsured/Underinsured(the one who hit me doesn't have insurance) - $83. That and a few other perks(towing/rental) gets my insurance up to $1043/year.
The 'gun rights crowd' got 'hammered' in US v. Miller because the government got to argue up at the supreme court unopposed. Traditionally speaking, not showing up to court is an automatic loss, regardless of the merits of the case. However, Miller had died by then with him having won at the appellate level, and his lawyer didn't feel like showing up to argue at the supreme court. The 'gun rights crowd' hadn't really even formed back then, so nobody else was watching to ensure somebody showed up.
Despite this, gun ownership was STILL decided to be an individual right, and the regulation of 'short barrel shotguns' was allowed only because nobody showed them as useful to a militia. Now, this being the same year as WWII started, most gun rights types feel that making that argument would have been very simple - short barrel shotguns nicknamed 'trench guns' being a semi-common issue in the military of the time.
I'd argue that there are plenty of voters who actually like their candidates, but the 'no one really' comment is merely an exaggeration - Obama, Bush, and Clinton weren't elected because 51% of the population thought he was the best candidate. Realistically, a statistically insignificant number of people is going to believe that their candidate is the 'most optimal choice', but a lot of people are voting for somebody they agree with barely half the time because they perceive the other guy as being even worse.
So when somebody goes to the polls and pulls the lever for Romney when they'd really prefer Ron Paul, they're voting for the 'least worst' candidate they think has a chance.
As a 'moderate libertarian', I'm the type where in preference polls I tend to hit about 40% for both candidates... Huh, this is new, in the 'selectsmart' test I scored 52% for Obama, 39% for Romney. I'll note that in previous tests I normally agreed with Ron Paul(48%) the most. Eh, I had been leaning Obama recently anyways, in the sense that I've seen nothing that suggests Romney would 'do better'.
2nd Opinion: 75% Ron Paul, 60% Obama, 51% Romney.
Given those results, I'd say that a candidate I could vote for without 'holding my nose' would have to at least be in the 70-80% range, average. I say this because Ron Paul is still hold the nose at 62%. Obama(57) clearly leads Romney(45), but not overwhelmingly.
Average lowest of £727 is scotland
Per the chart, 71+ averages the lowest at £436, the average of £971 from the other article would be for somebody closer to 30, with an average driving record.
Still waiting for where you source a 'mere' £150 from. Basically, I'll dispute that your insurance figure has any real meaning on reality as you're very far from average, and might be getting a deal such as I'm figuring the automatic driving vehicles might get.
It's a touch annoying to not have a '£' on my keyboard for this conversation. ;)
I'd rate the savings as 'insane', personally. Even if you figure that you can only have the trucks drive 20 hours/day due to loading/unloading/refueling/maintenance, that's still double to triple what you can get out of a single driver, and the trucks themselves are over a hundred thousand now. Not quite enough that running teams of drivers is normally worth it, but still substantial capital savings - A self-driving truck can replace 2 drivers($120k w/benefits), 2 trucks(~$240k), with 1 truck(~$100k as you don't need the people conveniences), and auto-drive system($300k).
So you go from $240k + $120k/year to $400k. 10% cost of capital(it's risky), that's $40k/year on the autodrive, replacing $144k. That's without getting into marginal things like possible fuel savings as you program the autopilot to maximize that, keeping average speed up by not stopping as often.
It'd probably be worth it even if it was only 'highway rated' and you ended up having a switchyard on the edge of the highway where you disconnect the trailers and hook up a local hauler with an actual driver, then hooked the auto-driver up to an outbound cargo.
I'll note that we generally don't have $7k insurance policies for new drivers. $5k is more for the 'multiple DUI accident' type. 'Fronting' is a new term for me.
I'd consider $15k to be within margin of error; you must value your time at closer to $4/hour.
Source on that £150? I found £971
Now, you specified good driver, and I'll admit to rounding up; $1k is about what my comprehensive coverage costs.
Might want to double check that your insurance is valid, apparently there are fraudulent "ghost brokers" running around.
You guys even have cancellation fees?. It's my understanding that they're pretty much unheard of(probably illegal) here in the USA. In addition, increasing from ~700 to 7k while switching to advertising your monthly payment where you used to have your annual price can be considered fraud.
Your point? The price figures for the LIDAR was right out of the USA Today article I quoted. Google paid $70k a pop for the LIDAR systems it put into it's cars. There's an unnamed company getting ready to produce LIDAR for cars at a 'mere' $250 each. You quote $30 each, but that's for systems mounted to vacuum cleaners - don't need the range or operating environment tolerances of a car. Besides, your Hizook article is NOT for a LIDAR system, it's for a 'laser rangefinder', which is sort of like half of a LIDAR. Actual LIDAR attempts to build an image, a laser rangefinder doesn't.
At $150k overall, reducing a $70k expense to $250 would make me concentrate more on the rest of the components. When the goal is $20k overall cost(or less), you wouldn't get there even if you got the LIDAR for free. I wouldn't refuse a $30 one, of course.
Though yes, going from hand manufacture and assembly to mass production can save oodles of money per unit.
Modem usage has dropped to the point that many providers are dropping their modem banks/numbers for dial-up. Fractions of a percent, I'd say.
Don't overestimate the value of this though. Even a zero accident self driving vehicle that doesn't need collision at all would only save the 'average' driver ~$2k/year(at most). It'd be more worth it to the worst drivers first, of course.
Personally, I think they would have owned up to it being computer driven - then posted that they fixed the problem.
People expect problems with something new, not getting them makes people suspicious.
You know, this is why when I propose auto-driving vehicles I point out that the standard should be 'does better than humans on average'. It will probably avoid a lot of the common human accidents with it's superior 'reflexes', but it'll probably get into some accidents that would be stupidly-easy to avoid by humans.
For example -
Construction zone - it'll recognize the cones and slow/stop signs and follow the directions. Heck, they might introduce automatic signs(some states have them) that somehow transmit said info to the car in a more reliable fashion.
Baseball w/kid following - if it doesn't slow/stop for the baseball, the fact that it's following the speed limit and can react a lot faster than you should enable it to avoid the kid.
Ice around curve - lots of humans fall for this; it's hard to say
Erratic driver - hopefully in the future he's in an auto-drive car himself so there's no problem, other than that you're back to 'faster reflexes' and that it's a bad idea to be next to a car on the road anyways. You're supposed to stagger(or at least that was what I was taught).
Flat tire - recognizes this and allows the occupant the choice of changing the flat or calling for assistance to do the repair. Same with other car problems
Accident - Probably the same as 'Onstar' with GM vehicles; depending on the severity of the accident, disable the engine(to prevent further injury/damage) and call emergency services automatically.
Back into the Garage - As long as it's been programmed to do so.
Parallel Park - there are non-roadway autonomous vehicles that are already able to do this for the drivers(IE it's an option for rich people that never learned how)
Parking - same as the garage; as long as it's been programmed to
Alleys - Just a narrow road; maybe with more collision issues if there's stuff in there
No Roads - Non-google robot car efforts have been completing the course for years at this point.
Have to have a human - Google, right now, yes, due to liability/legal concerns only
Call for pickup - one of the planned features
Vision impaired use - one of the planned goals
Kids to school - again, one of the planned goals.
I've calced out an autodrive system to be 'worth' around $20k to the 'average' person, with the following assumptions:
1. The system is better than 90% of drivers. It may get into accidents that a human would have avoided, but it avoids accidents that a human would have caused. IE it might get into an accident where it didn't recognize the hazard that would have been very obvious to a human, but avoided an accident where the human wouldn't have been able to react fast enough. Whatever, it's somewhere around that 95th percentile. Easily 'professional driver' range for preventing accidents. Result: 90% savings on insurance costs. ($1k-5k/year, depending on record)
2. The vehicle is driven, on average, 1 hour a day, the system lasts 5 years(pessimistic, most cars last 10+), and the ex-driver values his or her time at $10/hour(works, reads a book, surfs the internet while transiting). ($18k)
3. The system results in mild mpg savings(round up)
How valuable would it be to others? Do you drink outside your house? Average cost of a DUI conviction is like $10k. Have a DUI? $1.3k a year for one of those breathalyzer systems, which is a big pain to start your vehicle with AND during driving. Which you might not need if you get an autodrive vehicle instead. Heck, get them widespread enough and it might be mandated for you.
Right now google's system costs $150k per car, with nearly half($70k) being for the laser lidar system. So it's not worth it to the 'average' individual. But what about for cargo moving? Semi-Tractor Trailers? Raise the cost of a driver to $20/hour(more realistic) and 8 hours a day, and it'd be worth it at $320k. Pay some contractor to fill the truck up when it comes in for fuel.
Besides that, there's lidar systems coming out as cheap as $250 per vehicle, which leaves ~$60k cheaper on other parts to make it worth it - and how much of that equipment cost is because it all has to be had made and assembled to modify a car? Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper if it's a factory installed option?
While I agree in the near term, in the long term I'm reminded of This.
- While it may seem harsh that the 31st-century equivalent of "Driving Under the Influence" carries with it the death penalty, this is due to an inherent inequivalency between MOUI and DUI.
With DUI, you need only climb into your vehicle while under the influence of alchohol or drugs and attempt to drive it home.
With MOUI you must disable a number of safety systems designed to prevent idiots like you from manually operating their vehicles while inebriated, overtired, wasted, decaffeinated, angry, emotionally distraught, or suffering from hormonal disorders like PMS or testosterone poisoning (the latter having been positively identified as a leading cause of stupidity among males between the ages of puberty and death). After disabling the safety systems (which task almost certainly requires ice-cold sobriety), you must decide to switch the vehicle to a manual mode of operation. In some cases, this requires installing a manual mode of operation.
Other examples would include 'johnny taxi' in some movies. You don't NEED to have manual operation modes once you reach a certain sophistication, worst case you have a sort of protected mode 'guided direction' where you provide steering information - but the car still worries about avoiding accidents, and will override you to do so.
Manual driven vehicles would be restriction to 'special hazard' zones and conditions where they just haven't programmed a vehicle to be able to avoid all the hazards yet. Perhaps a dock loading zone where you have to worry about something being dropped on you from overhead.
It could be a skill level thing. A rifle/SMG is easier to USE effectively, but a handgun is easier to carry. Handguns are 'good enough' for 99% of the situations police get into by surprise. Beyond that, the rifle/shotgun is in the trunk and SWAT is a radio call away. If you see them, you know it's serious.
That's the thing about defense stuff - there's no NEED to build stuff that needs to be replaced. Build it as tough as you like, the military will still manage to break it.
Putting the grenade level explosives into a small drone is accepted because it gives additional capacity at a cost lower than a dedicated platform.
At $10M, you put a big bomb on it, give it great range, and only use it on the most valuable of heavily defended targets.
At $1M, you fire it at ships
At $100k, it's shot at planes, tanks and such
$10k - concentrations of enemy soldiers
$1k - individuals even.
I'd argue that they're quite a bit less sophisticated than even the missiles of the 1980's, which transmitted all sorts of information on the way to their target, could do terrain evasion, etc...
The real difference is that key bits of technology has gotten cheap enough that rather than firing a $10M+ cruise missile, you can have a remote piloted vehicle that transmits back video and other information for under $10k. A fraction of even the cost of a guidance package for a gravity bomb.
Instead, they've gotten drone/remote piloting tech to the point that a cheap package allows you to pilot out of sight, not worry too much about somebody overriding your control, get useful video back, etc... Then gotten said package cheap enough that including a grenade's worth of explosives is still financially viable in certain circumstances.
"Method of engagement" is a coward's way of saying "means of killing people and destroying things."
It's quicker to say though, and there are ways you can engage without killing people and destroying things. Rubber bullets and tear gas is still a 'method of engagement', as is cyber-attacks, graphite bombs over power substations, leaflets, etc...
The navy uses port and starboard not just to be different. They use it because it means 'left and right' absolutely for the ship, and can't be confused for the sailer's left and right.
I do believe that you're right. 'Guided Missiles' specifically.
I guess the difference here is that the UAV can do more than just head to a target for destruction, and CAN be recovered intact for reuse if the operator doesn't chose to detonate it. A cruise missile was launched at a specific target. This you could launch for recon then use destructively if a target of opportunity pops up.
A Missile+, perhaps.
Giving away copies helps sell the physical book, later books in the series, other books by the same author, books by Baen, etc...
Baen has managed to get better than a grand out of me. Of course, I have almost a thousand books out of them...