There aren't enough isolated people getting frequent deliveries for it to make economic sense to deploy drones. Why spend millions of dollars developing a new technology to avoid a few trips a year?
Also, a drone that could carry a package 50 miles and return would have to carry a lot of additional weight in fuel. A driverless "car" big enough to carry a package would probably be able to make the delivery for a fraction of the cost.
Except it won't work for heavy packages. And it won't work near airports. And it won't work in bad weather. And it's a safety risk to people on the ground. And some simpler answer will always be better. In 30-50 years, truck delivery and logistics will have made progress too.
Think about it. What real world conditions would have to exist for drone delivery to make more sense than trucks?
Traffic? Use two-wheeled vehicles instead of trucks. No drivers? Driverless trucks or some other ground-based driverless vehicle.
Here's the one situation where airborne drone delivery may make sense: deliveries to boats, to the wilderness, or to people across a body of water with no bridge. That's it.
Or maybe in 200-400 years, when all the challenges to drone delivery have been rendered trivial, it will still be easier and cheaper to use trucks, but since all the problems are trivial and airborne drones are cooler and faster, maybe then use drones sometimes.
The main problem is the overall uneconomical and generally nonsensical idea of using delivery drones. Trucks are simple and work well in bad weather. There's a huge non-employed workforce of people who can easily be trained to deliver packages. Delivery trucks can be powered by natural gas, which is so abundant that many oil rigs simply burn it off rather than going to the trouble of capturing it.
in the general case, delivery drones don't work. Trucks do.
If you thought Comcast was powerful now, wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" against them lets them merge with NBC Universal.
Oh wait, that was 2 years ago. Wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" lets them merge with Time Warner.
What that does not help you with at all is that time ten years hence when no competition remains even on niche platforms, and Amazon decides the price should really be 10 what you are paying now...
Fewer and fewer people read books every year. In 10 years, the market will be much smaller than it is now.
Plus, you're trying to pretend there will somehow be a monopoly on books. Or on electronic distribution of text. Because no one could possibly figure out how to print a book or distribute text without Amazon -- so they'll pay 10x what they're paying now. It's not even the tiniest bit realistic.
Book publishers who overprice books and take a big cut for filling an increasingly valueless role vs. retailing supergiant. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people read books.
Also, if there are multiple providers that want to offer broadband service in an area, that sounds like a great reason not to have municipal broadband. My town can barely keep the streets paved -- why would I trust them to provide reliable broadband service?
It's fair because Comcast is the incumbent provider and has had the benefit of many years of running a monopoly.
But even if it weren't fair, so what? Since when are things fair for people? Why should Comcast's assertions of unfairness get an audience ahead of any other unfair thing that happens to anyone? Because Comcast is so nice to everyone?
Not seriously why to people do water intensive farming in a desert in an effort to preserve their water rights? I am not all that sympathetic to not farmers and not ranchers that through our governments subsidy rules and their use it or lose it water rights are having a hard time in what normally is a desert. Guess not what you live in a desert and if you can't get the water to grow your alfalfa, lettuce, grape, etc crops maybe you should be trying to grow not those things there.
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't enough isolated people getting frequent deliveries for it to make economic sense to deploy drones. Why spend millions of dollars developing a new technology to avoid a few trips a year?
Also, a drone that could carry a package 50 miles and return would have to carry a lot of additional weight in fuel. A driverless "car" big enough to carry a package would probably be able to make the delivery for a fraction of the cost.
Except it won't work for heavy packages. And it won't work near airports. And it won't work in bad weather. And it's a safety risk to people on the ground. And some simpler answer will always be better. In 30-50 years, truck delivery and logistics will have made progress too.
Think about it. What real world conditions would have to exist for drone delivery to make more sense than trucks?
Traffic? Use two-wheeled vehicles instead of trucks.
No drivers? Driverless trucks or some other ground-based driverless vehicle.
Here's the one situation where airborne drone delivery may make sense: deliveries to boats, to the wilderness, or to people across a body of water with no bridge. That's it.
Or maybe in 200-400 years, when all the challenges to drone delivery have been rendered trivial, it will still be easier and cheaper to use trucks, but since all the problems are trivial and airborne drones are cooler and faster, maybe then use drones sometimes.
The main problem is the overall uneconomical and generally nonsensical idea of using delivery drones. Trucks are simple and work well in bad weather. There's a huge non-employed workforce of people who can easily be trained to deliver packages. Delivery trucks can be powered by natural gas, which is so abundant that many oil rigs simply burn it off rather than going to the trouble of capturing it.
in the general case, delivery drones don't work. Trucks do.
If you thought Comcast was powerful now, wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" against them lets them merge with NBC Universal.
Oh wait, that was 2 years ago. Wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" lets them merge with Time Warner.
Boycotts work?
Even if it can only self-drive on a routes I've already driven manually, it would still be extremely useful.
What that does not help you with at all is that time ten years hence when no competition remains even on niche platforms, and Amazon decides the price should really be 10 what you are paying now...
Fewer and fewer people read books every year. In 10 years, the market will be much smaller than it is now.
Plus, you're trying to pretend there will somehow be a monopoly on books. Or on electronic distribution of text. Because no one could possibly figure out how to print a book or distribute text without Amazon -- so they'll pay 10x what they're paying now. It's not even the tiniest bit realistic.
Book publishers who overprice books and take a big cut for filling an increasingly valueless role vs. retailing supergiant. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people read books.
Everyone involved made specific, intentional choices. It didn't happen on autopilot.
But this is a second provider. There's no exclusive franchise agreement.
Also, if there are multiple providers that want to offer broadband service in an area, that sounds like a great reason not to have municipal broadband. My town can barely keep the streets paved -- why would I trust them to provide reliable broadband service?
It's fair because Comcast is the incumbent provider and has had the benefit of many years of running a monopoly.
But even if it weren't fair, so what? Since when are things fair for people? Why should Comcast's assertions of unfairness get an audience ahead of any other unfair thing that happens to anyone? Because Comcast is so nice to everyone?
Why shouldn't companies be able to cherry pick wealthy neighborhoods and offer their services there?
the day all the traffic laws are repealed.
Not people should live in a desert.
Not seriously why to people do water intensive farming in a desert in an effort to preserve their water rights? I am not all that sympathetic to not farmers and not ranchers that through our governments subsidy rules and their use it or lose it water rights are having a hard time in what normally is a desert. Guess not what you live in a desert and if you can't get the water to grow your alfalfa, lettuce, grape, etc crops maybe you should be trying to grow not those things there.
How many times have doomsday predictions been proven correct?
http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
Alright brain, I don't like you and you don't like me. But let's just do this and I can go back to killing you with beer.
Agreed. It's time for some people to grow up.
and people who didn't earn the money want to spend it.
You are the problem. Stop trying to police everyone. Stop trying to be everyone's insane busybody mom. Mind your own business.
So maybe only prevent 60% of the lamest trolling to start. Then try to get better.
The "100% perfect or nothing" is an argument I see all the time. It's a little odd. Almost no one makes any real life choices that way.
Why are the only choices perfect moderation or no moderation?
100% perfect black-and-white rules are almost never possible for anything.
If they can followup and support their arguments logically, then they're either not a troll or it doesn't matter.