I agree that there will be a big pressure towards fully automated vehicles. But not all trucks are long haul, and many of them already spend a lot of time just sitting in a lot. So it's not a large as you appear to be estimating.
Maybe some of those trucks wouldn't be sitting idle if they didn't require a human driver to be productive.
That said, I think it's going to be quite strong enough to push things in the direction of full automation, and that will have benefits to individuals and families as well as for companies. But it's only fair to admit that there will also be drawbacks.
Well to me it seems as though the main drawback is the spent resources required to develop the technology. I assume there are other drawbacks (what change doesn't have *any* drawbacks). But I honestly don't see any compelling reason not to do this.
Ransomware is really useful, because it encrypts your important files so that no one can read them. And if you need to access the files again, you can just pay a small some of money and regain access. It's a bit expensive for average people, but it's pretty affordable for a government expenditure of tax money.
I am not sure you know what "pedantic" means. Even if you disagree with me, that's not what I am being.
A box on wheels with no manual controls rolling down the road unoccupied is likely to never happen.
Here's how to be pedantic:
1. It doesn't need to be a box. It can be any shape.
2. Having manual controls available in an autonomous car doesn't mean that they are incapable of full autonomy.
3. There are already autonomous cars on the road where the drivers are just sitting in the driver seat in case something goes wrong.
But yes, this is exactly the thing that is almost certain to happen. This takes zero courage to say. To say something will *never* happen, takes much more courage to say (unless you don't care about being wrong).
That being said, no one is saying we won't have a more advanced 'cruise control' or 'driver assist' system.
No one is saying that anyone is saying that we won't have more advanced cruise control.
Military drones *can* be fully autonomous when it comes to movement. They are *also* able to be controlled by a pilot. The judgement calls are for when weapons are being used.
You won't get that with an autonomous car unless the car service puts cameras inside them that are always recording. Which would could as a huge negative for a lot of people in the buy vs rent a car argument.
I don't think a drivers presence is the only thing that can prevent abuse.
You can make everyone pay a deposit when they get a google account and just take whatever cleaning/repairs out of that account or sue people if the damage they caused exceeds their deposit. Like an apartment.
And the nice thing is that if a google car arrives to pick you up and the seats are covered in dog piss, you can just report it and have a new car sent to you.
I suggest you use one of these mature, thoroughly-proven technologies instead of waiting for one that likely won't ever exist.
There are lots of things that probably won't ever exist. Saying an autonomous car will never exist now is like saying that humans will never go into space in 1941, or that a computer will never be able to fit in a single room. Anyone with even a little bit of imagination can see that not just likely, it's inevitable.
In the scenario you describe I think only using the pool would be cheaper than owning an autonomous car. Owning an autonomous car becomes synonymous with paying for the luxury of keeping a very useful autonomous car idle most of the time. Maybe you could allow your autonomous car to be a taxi when you are not using it, but then you are no longer paying for exclusivity, but rather priority usage rights.
It would make using a car you don't own much cheaper, by increasing the productivity and decreasing the cost to the person who does actually own the car.
OTOH, *most* of the economic upset that fully automated vehicles would cause would also be caused by nearly automated vehicles. I truck driving is de-skilled, then there will no longer be a need for specially qualified drivers, so truck driving will be a minimum wage job...and currently minimum wage means not enough to live on.
$0/hour is still a lot less than minimum wage to pay a driver. Not only that, but human drivers need to eat and sleep. So unless you are going to hire 2 or 3 minimum wage drivers to drive a truck continuously in shifts, that expensive truck is going to be sitting in a parking lot most of the time, even during a delivery.
Even if you drove 50,000 miles a year it would mean your car is still spending 90% of it's time sitting in a parking spot. Autonomous vehicles would eventually lower the cost of taxi services, and make them more cost effective as a mode of daily transportation, to the point where it will be cheaper to use an autonomous taxi everyday than it will be to own a car. When you own a car you are paying for a thing that's not being used most of the time. The only reason taking a taxi or uber everywhere is more expensive than owning a car is because the driver needs to be paid for their time.
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 10 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:...
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 9.99 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:...
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 9.98 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:...W........h.........
...
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 0.01 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:.....a.........t........?
Computer: You have just been in a car accident! Should I alert emergency services, or do you want to do it?
Driver:..
I agree. I and nearly everyone I know actually hunt our own food. I have never seen one of these "stores" people keep talking about. I am not sure they even really exist. Just like "stores", I'll believe in autonomous cars when I see them.
We actually have lots of choices. The problem is that we allow ourselves to be convinced that our only choices are those that are sanctioned by the 2 dominant parties.
Our voter turnout is usually not even 50% in years when there is no presidential election.
If anything the part of our system that is broken is the part we've had since the beginning (the electoral process). This process basically condemns us to a 2-party system, along with giving us fringe general election candidates who were chosen by (usually the extreme) 5% of each party, and removing the importance of voting in all states except swing states.
I think this has more of a detrimental effect on our elections than money, because it breeds apathy.
Maybe, but I don't think anyone spent $500 million to win an election in the 60's or 70's or 80's.
They didn't need to spend that much back then to win an election.
Yes, I agree, there has always been money in politics, but it seems have reached epic (and unhealthy) proportions.
What I am saying is that it has always been the case that money buys elections. Given that, how much should an election cost? Is it better if the election is cheap or expensive? "Taking the money of of politics" doesn't change the fact that the election is for sale, it just makes the election cheaper and more random.
There was always money in politics. I don't even think it's that much worse now. It's just visible rather than hidden.
The real problem is that we clamor for getting money out of politics, despite the real problem being the fact that our electorate is gullible enough to actually fall for the ridiculous 30 second evil music black and white opponent style ads.
Maybe we should be clamoring for an electorate that isn't dumb. Unfortunately this is something that dumb people rarely clamor for.
If we take money out of our current system, what we will be left with dumb people voting for the same bad candidates but with less money.
Assuming that people will magically vote for the right things if we take money out of politics is about as foolish as assuming they will vote for the right things even with lots of money in politics.
We have a democracy, although I think you have a rosier view of what a democracy really is. All the power is in the hands of the voters, they merely decide to abdicate this power every 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who thinks they will be fast enough to react to an imminent accident should go watch some Russian dash cam car crash videos on youtube.
Even if this is 100% true and only mileage (and not time) affects wear. Think of a world with way less space being wasted as parking spots.
I agree that there will be a big pressure towards fully automated vehicles. But not all trucks are long haul, and many of them already spend a lot of time just sitting in a lot. So it's not a large as you appear to be estimating.
Maybe some of those trucks wouldn't be sitting idle if they didn't require a human driver to be productive.
That said, I think it's going to be quite strong enough to push things in the direction of full automation, and that will have benefits to individuals and families as well as for companies. But it's only fair to admit that there will also be drawbacks.
Well to me it seems as though the main drawback is the spent resources required to develop the technology. I assume there are other drawbacks (what change doesn't have *any* drawbacks). But I honestly don't see any compelling reason not to do this.
Ransomware is really useful, because it encrypts your important files so that no one can read them. And if you need to access the files again, you can just pay a small some of money and regain access. It's a bit expensive for average people, but it's pretty affordable for a government expenditure of tax money.
I am not sure you know what "pedantic" means. Even if you disagree with me, that's not what I am being.
A box on wheels with no manual controls rolling down the road unoccupied is likely to never happen.
Here's how to be pedantic:
1. It doesn't need to be a box. It can be any shape.
2. Having manual controls available in an autonomous car doesn't mean that they are incapable of full autonomy.
3. There are already autonomous cars on the road where the drivers are just sitting in the driver seat in case something goes wrong.
But yes, this is exactly the thing that is almost certain to happen. This takes zero courage to say. To say something will *never* happen, takes much more courage to say (unless you don't care about being wrong).
That being said, no one is saying we won't have a more advanced 'cruise control' or 'driver assist' system.
No one is saying that anyone is saying that we won't have more advanced cruise control.
Military drones *can* be fully autonomous when it comes to movement. They are *also* able to be controlled by a pilot. The judgement calls are for when weapons are being used.
You won't get that with an autonomous car unless the car service puts cameras inside them that are always recording. Which would could as a huge negative for a lot of people in the buy vs rent a car argument.
I don't think a drivers presence is the only thing that can prevent abuse.
You can make everyone pay a deposit when they get a google account and just take whatever cleaning/repairs out of that account or sue people if the damage they caused exceeds their deposit. Like an apartment.
And the nice thing is that if a google car arrives to pick you up and the seats are covered in dog piss, you can just report it and have a new car sent to you.
I suggest you use one of these mature, thoroughly-proven technologies instead of waiting for one that likely won't ever exist.
There are lots of things that probably won't ever exist. Saying an autonomous car will never exist now is like saying that humans will never go into space in 1941, or that a computer will never be able to fit in a single room. Anyone with even a little bit of imagination can see that not just likely, it's inevitable.
They also smell bad.
In the scenario you describe I think only using the pool would be cheaper than owning an autonomous car. Owning an autonomous car becomes synonymous with paying for the luxury of keeping a very useful autonomous car idle most of the time. Maybe you could allow your autonomous car to be a taxi when you are not using it, but then you are no longer paying for exclusivity, but rather priority usage rights.
It would make using a car you don't own much cheaper, by increasing the productivity and decreasing the cost to the person who does actually own the car.
Another easy prank is pulling the emergency stop on a train or pulling the emergency door open on an airplane. It's hilarious.
OTOH, *most* of the economic upset that fully automated vehicles would cause would also be caused by nearly automated vehicles. I truck driving is de-skilled, then there will no longer be a need for specially qualified drivers, so truck driving will be a minimum wage job...and currently minimum wage means not enough to live on.
$0/hour is still a lot less than minimum wage to pay a driver. Not only that, but human drivers need to eat and sleep. So unless you are going to hire 2 or 3 minimum wage drivers to drive a truck continuously in shifts, that expensive truck is going to be sitting in a parking lot most of the time, even during a delivery.
Even if you drove 50,000 miles a year it would mean your car is still spending 90% of it's time sitting in a parking spot. Autonomous vehicles would eventually lower the cost of taxi services, and make them more cost effective as a mode of daily transportation, to the point where it will be cheaper to use an autonomous taxi everyday than it will be to own a car. When you own a car you are paying for a thing that's not being used most of the time. The only reason taking a taxi or uber everywhere is more expensive than owning a car is because the driver needs to be paid for their time.
Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means.
Some of the numerous security technologies employed include "theater" and "through obscurity".
I think you overestimate how good people are at driving.
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 10 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it? ........h.........
...
Driver:...
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 9.99 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:...
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 9.98 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:...W
Computer: You are about to crash into another car in 0.01 milliseconds, should I avoid it, or do you want to do it?
Driver:.....a.........t........?
Computer: You have just been in a car accident! Should I alert emergency services, or do you want to do it?
Driver:..
Don't we already have that now?
I agree. I and nearly everyone I know actually hunt our own food. I have never seen one of these "stores" people keep talking about. I am not sure they even really exist. Just like "stores", I'll believe in autonomous cars when I see them.
When autonomous vehicles are less likely to kill me than one with a human driver, I will prefer the safer driver that also doesn't require a salary.
We actually have lots of choices. The problem is that we allow ourselves to be convinced that our only choices are those that are sanctioned by the 2 dominant parties.
Our voter turnout is usually not even 50% in years when there is no presidential election.
If anything the part of our system that is broken is the part we've had since the beginning (the electoral process). This process basically condemns us to a 2-party system, along with giving us fringe general election candidates who were chosen by (usually the extreme) 5% of each party, and removing the importance of voting in all states except swing states.
I think this has more of a detrimental effect on our elections than money, because it breeds apathy.
Democracy isn't enough.
I agree, but at the same time it does open it up to wider participation (not always a good thing, but still...).
I am not sure this is actually better.
Sometimes there are no good solutions, only solutions that aren't as bad as the alternatives. Perhaps this problem falls into that category.
I think everything else being equal, I'd prefer that the people buying our elections be forced to waste more money to do so.
Maybe, but I don't think anyone spent $500 million to win an election in the 60's or 70's or 80's.
They didn't need to spend that much back then to win an election.
Yes, I agree, there has always been money in politics, but it seems have reached epic (and unhealthy) proportions.
What I am saying is that it has always been the case that money buys elections. Given that, how much should an election cost? Is it better if the election is cheap or expensive? "Taking the money of of politics" doesn't change the fact that the election is for sale, it just makes the election cheaper and more random.
There was always money in politics. I don't even think it's that much worse now. It's just visible rather than hidden.
The real problem is that we clamor for getting money out of politics, despite the real problem being the fact that our electorate is gullible enough to actually fall for the ridiculous 30 second evil music black and white opponent style ads.
Maybe we should be clamoring for an electorate that isn't dumb. Unfortunately this is something that dumb people rarely clamor for.
If we take money out of our current system, what we will be left with dumb people voting for the same bad candidates but with less money.
Assuming that people will magically vote for the right things if we take money out of politics is about as foolish as assuming they will vote for the right things even with lots of money in politics.
We have a democracy, although I think you have a rosier view of what a democracy really is. All the power is in the hands of the voters, they merely decide to abdicate this power every 2 years.