And where do you get the raw materials and energy? Trade some of your blood plasma for a couple of pounds of resin? A kidney for a year's worth of food? You can't print bacon and eggs and toast and orange juice for breakfast.
If the road is so bad that it's a "pee-in-your-pants moment" to navigate, you're better off letting the car handle it. It won't over-steer or make a mistake due to jitters.
and what will happen to people automated out of a job?
Go back to school and rack up big loans just to be told you are to old for the job?
End having to use the jail / prison for there doctor for the stuff that er will not cover?
Being automated out of a job is inevitable - it's been happening for decades. The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.
Going back to school under those conditions is insane - why rack up debt to train for a job you'll never get?
Jail is an option some homeless people have been using for years - break a window, wait for the cops, sleep in a not-so-cold jail cell.
No, because you can't just accelerate to the point you're beside the drive, point and shoot, and then drive off on a crazy course. You have no control of the cars behavior in traffic. It may just choose to drive along behind the driver you want to cap, until they turn off your intended route.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Most of the carriers here don't offer a discount if you own your phone outright, because it's a way to lock you in for another 2-3 years. After all, if you're not getting a discount anyway, might as well take the "free" phone... but that's starting to change. People are not used to paying for their phone - it's "free".
I bought my last two phones outright, and it costs a lot less per month because I shopped around for a carrier that does that. Most people are lazy, or they figure "free phone every 2 years", when they're paying more at the end of those 2 years, and can't just switch at any time if there's a better deal in town.
Therefore you're just fine with putting machines on the road that you KNOW won't have any judgement? Just because some human drivers aren't good? You want fleets of more insentient drivers? How is that acceptable?
Better than putting alcoholics and other impaired drivers on the road - and there's a lot of them. And people who drive, text, and use their laptop at the same time. Or stuff their face while driving - that Big Gulp completely blocks your view of the road. Or drivers that are too tired. Or too timid to do a merge onto a highway in heavy traffic but they try it, and their nerve fails them halfway through, blocking everyone behind them. Or the pizza delivery guy (or soccer mom) who thinks that they can do 45 mph in a school zone. Or can't park worth a darn and end up 4 feet from the sidewalk.
GM had a fleet of electric cars (EV1) that they leased out 19 years ago. So when people were scoffing at the idea of Tesla electric cars, they were ignoring history.
The demand for self-driving cars is there. As the population ages, people with limited mobility or other handicaps, the blind, low vision, etc., are going to push demand through the roof. After all, if you can't pass the medical to keep your license, this looks like the way to keep your autonomous mobility.
Too many people sell their old phones for decent money. Others (like my sister) like their two-year-old models with all their data on them and see no real reason to upgrade, so when they're offered an upgrade, they sell the new phone.
That gives revenue of less than $10k per employee per annum. They must have been selling services instead (setup and breakdown, running the show, etc).
Or maybe they got some funding from the Manitoba government?
Obama's ACA doesn't allow for any federal funding of abortions in any of the insurance plans subsidized by the government. Harper has continually refused to open up the abortion debate, keeping it accessible under provincial health plans.
From what I can see, the "10,000 a pop" includes travel. setup, operational cost (someone to run it), break-up, and shipping costs. The product itself is just a projector and some software controlled by a laptop and webcam.
People at trade shows and events pay for the whole shebang because they only want it for a short time, no hassles, depreciation, cleanup costs, no liability if it falls on someone's head, etc.
Anyone can buy a better-quality projector from tigerdirect for $500 (1024x768) and jury-rig their own system. However, nobody's going to hang a projector from the ceiling projecting onto the floor to play games. Terrible aesthetics, and no "name brand" characters. If they want interactive games on the wall, they just have to buy an xbox + kinect, and a flatscreen, which can also be used for other stuff and doesn't have the problem of the bulb burning out all the time.
Good luck, but selling this to the home market is doomed.
Considering that they saved me from being permanently crippled (twice), blind, or dying (6 times), I'm going to continue trusting them. Then again, I only deal with specialists, not GPs, so... ymmv.
More about that here in response to another poster who thinks medicine went downhill after the '70s.
Terrorist groups show they should be taken seriously by killing people. Cut off their main recruiting and propaganda tools. and you cut down the recruits, cut down the killings, and cut down on news events.
I don't think that anything I've posted here is a secret on slashdot, so sharing it one more time is no big deal. However, a lot happened after 1979.
The term PTSD didn't even exist until 1980, and its acceptance took time. Before that, the symptoms were known under different names, such as "battle fatigue." That it could be present in children and adults who had never gone to war was a new concept. Effective treatment is the only reason I didn't kill myself.
The invention of OCT (optical coherence tomography) to take 3d scans of my retinas is from the '90s. Better diagnosis means better treatment.
The "no-suture" surgical technique for draining the detrius from my eye and removing the membrane was first done in 1996. From what I saw in the OR, nowadays there's a lot of hi-tech gear involved. Without this, I would be blind in my left eye.
While photocoagulation has been around for a long time, today's lasers are way different - different frequencies, better positioning of each burn, smaller individual burns, the ability to do bulk "raster patterns" in various patterns, depending on the goals.
When I got laproscopic inguinal hernia surgery (which was invented in the early '90s) it was still experimental. When I asked the surgeon (he taught the procedure to doctors at a university hospital) I asked him how many he'd done, and he said "a few - all on pigs". I took his advice to be a subject because of the much shorter time to heal, and he was right.
Genetically modified insulin only became available in the '80s. The elimination of having to dip a test strip in a sample of urine to test blood sugar levels only became possible later, thanks to developments in portable electronics.
New methodologies for treating transsexuals are continuously being developed.
Thanks to newer technology - otherwise I'd be crippled, completely blind in one eye and mostly blind in the other, stuck using pig insulin (not an exact match) and peeing in a cup several times a day (and since I'd be blind, someone else would have to do the test and match the color to a chart).
Now what have been your experiences that make you so negative on modern medicine? There's got to be some reason.you're down on modern medicine. Let's hear it:-)
So if they've sold $40 million of their previous product, why can't they just fund it out of profits?
1. There are no profits? (smells of bad management or a dying or no longer competitive product)
2. Wanting a free ride by pretending to be at arms length to both the parent and sister companies? (smells of fraud by not revealing such a relationship to investors)
3. This is just a cheap and easy way to test the market and hopefully get some pre-orders and free advertising, as well as no-risk capital? (smells sleezy)
Isn't having more than 2 parties such a great thing? Proportional representation would probably mean the end of majorities, and the country seems to do better (or at least the government of the day listens better) when it's a minority government.
Slashdot Mirror
And where do you get the raw materials and energy? Trade some of your blood plasma for a couple of pounds of resin? A kidney for a year's worth of food? You can't print bacon and eggs and toast and orange juice for breakfast.
If the road is so bad that it's a "pee-in-your-pants moment" to navigate, you're better off letting the car handle it. It won't over-steer or make a mistake due to jitters.
and what will happen to people automated out of a job?
Go back to school and rack up big loans just to be told you are to old for the job?
End having to use the jail / prison for there doctor for the stuff that er will not cover?
Being automated out of a job is inevitable - it's been happening for decades. The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.
Going back to school under those conditions is insane - why rack up debt to train for a job you'll never get?
Jail is an option some homeless people have been using for years - break a window, wait for the cops, sleep in a not-so-cold jail cell.
No, I don't have any real solutions :-( Sorry.
The three largest have most of the market, both in the USA and Kanuckistan. The smaller ones aren't even available everywhere.
With the decommissioning expected to take 3 to 4 decades, that's pretty good job security.
Just too bad that the half-life of the workers will be less than the half-life of the job. But it "is" a lifetime job."
No, because you can't just accelerate to the point you're beside the drive, point and shoot, and then drive off on a crazy course. You have no control of the cars behavior in traffic. It may just choose to drive along behind the driver you want to cap, until they turn off your intended route.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Most of the carriers here don't offer a discount if you own your phone outright, because it's a way to lock you in for another 2-3 years. After all, if you're not getting a discount anyway, might as well take the "free" phone ... but that's starting to change. People are not used to paying for their phone - it's "free".
I bought my last two phones outright, and it costs a lot less per month because I shopped around for a carrier that does that. Most people are lazy, or they figure "free phone every 2 years", when they're paying more at the end of those 2 years, and can't just switch at any time if there's a better deal in town.
Airbags do make decisions. The airbag decides whether to deploy, and, based on the impact, how fast to inflate.
Therefore you're just fine with putting machines on the road that you KNOW won't have any judgement? Just because some human drivers aren't good? You want fleets of more insentient drivers? How is that acceptable?
Better than putting alcoholics and other impaired drivers on the road - and there's a lot of them. And people who drive, text, and use their laptop at the same time. Or stuff their face while driving - that Big Gulp completely blocks your view of the road. Or drivers that are too tired. Or too timid to do a merge onto a highway in heavy traffic but they try it, and their nerve fails them halfway through, blocking everyone behind them. Or the pizza delivery guy (or soccer mom) who thinks that they can do 45 mph in a school zone. Or can't park worth a darn and end up 4 feet from the sidewalk.
Road rage. Won't happen with self-driving cars. Also, gang-bangers will have a harder time doing drive-by shootings, car jackings, etc.
GM had a fleet of electric cars (EV1) that they leased out 19 years ago. So when people were scoffing at the idea of Tesla electric cars, they were ignoring history.
The demand for self-driving cars is there. As the population ages, people with limited mobility or other handicaps, the blind, low vision, etc., are going to push demand through the roof. After all, if you can't pass the medical to keep your license, this looks like the way to keep your autonomous mobility.
Oops - 7 surgeries for necrotizing fasciitis, not 6. (If there were more, I was in no shape to remember them, never mind give consent).
Too many people sell their old phones for decent money. Others (like my sister) like their two-year-old models with all their data on them and see no real reason to upgrade, so when they're offered an upgrade, they sell the new phone.
That gives revenue of less than $10k per employee per annum. They must have been selling services instead (setup and breakdown, running the show, etc).
Or maybe they got some funding from the Manitoba government?
That's what I've been figuring out - their $10,000 a pop (FTFA) is grossly misleading. And now they plan to ask for $80,000.
Those are pretty bad. My condolences.
Obama's ACA doesn't allow for any federal funding of abortions in any of the insurance plans subsidized by the government. Harper has continually refused to open up the abortion debate, keeping it accessible under provincial health plans.
From what I can see, the "10,000 a pop" includes travel. setup, operational cost (someone to run it), break-up, and shipping costs. The product itself is just a projector and some software controlled by a laptop and webcam.
People at trade shows and events pay for the whole shebang because they only want it for a short time, no hassles, depreciation, cleanup costs, no liability if it falls on someone's head, etc.
Anyone can buy a better-quality projector from tigerdirect for $500 (1024x768) and jury-rig their own system. However, nobody's going to hang a projector from the ceiling projecting onto the floor to play games. Terrible aesthetics, and no "name brand" characters. If they want interactive games on the wall, they just have to buy an xbox + kinect, and a flatscreen, which can also be used for other stuff and doesn't have the problem of the bulb burning out all the time.
Good luck, but selling this to the home market is doomed.
So why, with $40 million in sales, can't you come up with the $80,000 yourself? Something simply doesn't add up.
2 oz Gin
3 oz Clam Juice
1 dash Tabasco
They could have just googled for it :-)
More about that here in response to another poster who thinks medicine went downhill after the '70s.
Terrorist groups show they should be taken seriously by killing people. Cut off their main recruiting and propaganda tools. and you cut down the recruits, cut down the killings, and cut down on news events.
I don't think that anything I've posted here is a secret on slashdot, so sharing it one more time is no big deal. However, a lot happened after 1979.
The term PTSD didn't even exist until 1980, and its acceptance took time. Before that, the symptoms were known under different names, such as "battle fatigue." That it could be present in children and adults who had never gone to war was a new concept. Effective treatment is the only reason I didn't kill myself.
The invention of OCT (optical coherence tomography) to take 3d scans of my retinas is from the '90s. Better diagnosis means better treatment.
The "no-suture" surgical technique for draining the detrius from my eye and removing the membrane was first done in 1996. From what I saw in the OR, nowadays there's a lot of hi-tech gear involved. Without this, I would be blind in my left eye.
While photocoagulation has been around for a long time, today's lasers are way different - different frequencies, better positioning of each burn, smaller individual burns, the ability to do bulk "raster patterns" in various patterns, depending on the goals.
When I got laproscopic inguinal hernia surgery (which was invented in the early '90s) it was still experimental. When I asked the surgeon (he taught the procedure to doctors at a university hospital) I asked him how many he'd done, and he said "a few - all on pigs". I took his advice to be a subject because of the much shorter time to heal, and he was right.
Genetically modified insulin only became available in the '80s. The elimination of having to dip a test strip in a sample of urine to test blood sugar levels only became possible later, thanks to developments in portable electronics.
New methodologies for treating transsexuals are continuously being developed.
Thanks to newer technology - otherwise I'd be crippled, completely blind in one eye and mostly blind in the other, stuck using pig insulin (not an exact match) and peeing in a cup several times a day (and since I'd be blind, someone else would have to do the test and match the color to a chart).
Now what have been your experiences that make you so negative on modern medicine? There's got to be some reason.you're down on modern medicine. Let's hear it :-)
So if they've sold $40 million of their previous product, why can't they just fund it out of profits?
1. There are no profits? (smells of bad management or a dying or no longer competitive product)
2. Wanting a free ride by pretending to be at arms length to both the parent and sister companies? (smells of fraud by not revealing such a relationship to investors)
3. This is just a cheap and easy way to test the market and hopefully get some pre-orders and free advertising, as well as no-risk capital? (smells sleezy)
Isn't having more than 2 parties such a great thing? Proportional representation would probably mean the end of majorities, and the country seems to do better (or at least the government of the day listens better) when it's a minority government.