Similar is done in many remote applications already, basically if it is capable of handling all short term decisions, just like the fancy cars today. Some cars can already stop on their own before hitting the car in front, avoid crossing lane lines (in a corner or straight), park in a parking space... The more difficult things like, can I run over that plastic bag/tumbleweed, is it solid or a important life. Can I drive on the shoulder around the debris in the road. Is that a wet road ahead. Are the cars blocking my way ever going to move, or do I need to maneuver around. Construction took away the lane markers, what now? Having a autonomous 4 seat car that could shuttle people around continuously, without having 25% of the car capacity being consumed for the driver as a possible huge plus. Especially with cars with a limited range (electric for example) where all the chargers are full at your desired destination, but it can go 4 miles to the nearest open charger, and come back charged. (or not hog a charger for my 8 hour work shift, if it took 2 hours to get its fill.)
The question I have is owner maintenance and modifications. What happens when the cameras pointed straight down at the road, the Tires have patches on the sidewalls, the Car is loaded with 10 bags of 100# cement, and a couch is strapped to the roof?
>If you're under the impression that a 15 kWh battery that can deliver 100+ kW of power is fit only to be junked, then you couldn't spell clue if you fronted the C and L.
When your range goes from 80 miles to 55 miles per charge, yet your still trying to commute 60 miles to work. then the value of the 15kWhr battery is not much to you any more. If a gasoline mpg goes from 40 to 30 over 20 years, and you have to fill up every week instead of once every week and a half, it still has value (even if the cost of gas went up considerably during the time, it is still functional at least.)
On the engine front, manufactures have a long desire for security, and recent requirements from the EPA to implement them. Most manufactures have the same engine with different HP ratings, they charge more for the higher HP, partially because of the extra warranty anticipated, some due to development, some due to higher EPA costs associated. Also they want to protect the development of the software, fuel and hp settings. Now the EPA is mandating that they protect, and prove the emissions settings that were tested are what is running in the vehicle. Although there is a long track record of the after market eventually cracking, and being able to load tunes onto OEM ECM's, thats out on new vehicles, and almost all tunes now require external hardware to do the fooling. Now thats on the Engine, that incentive is not there on other ECM's.
> Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan
Japan and South Korea adapted western politics (democratic reforms and worker rights + access to education) before widespread acceptance of trade and thus economic growth. I am fine with the outsourcing, but when you have a society (Like china) where the vast majority of the money and power is still going to only the politically connected, while those doing the work don't get enough of a share to live a healthy life, or even have a safe place to work. I think we have the obligation to be restrictive (but not the obligation to force a change) does fall on us, and our government.
>So basically, you are happy to take all of the advantages of the union, but expect everyone else to pay for it.
It really sucks, when you find yourself in a union (like the UAW) where retirees get to vote for officers. I was a electrician in the UAW, when I had a legit complaint that they refused to investigate. The reason they gave, was "we want all of the electricians to quit, so they have to renegotiate the entire contract." I cant vote that guy out of office, because he is looking out for the retirees, so they won't vote him out. It was a right to work state, so I quit paying in. Also the UAW did everything in their power to keep the contract up for vote, because I worked at a lower wage factory than the others, they didn't like that, even though the workers at the factory were happy with the pay. The right to work state allowed the company and workers to kick out the UAW. In a non right to work state the factory would have had to close.
> energy to build panels is just like ethanol, another energy shell game where the losers are us.
I'll gloss over that solar panels and ethanol do have a net pay off in energy but that isn't the most important factor. With oil, the amount of energy to make the motor+refine+transport (fuel+infrastructure) to site+motor efficiency... consumes the majority of the energy in the fuel to begin with (over 3/4 is lost.) So if the batteries+Solar panels can be made to be more convenient and reduce the risk of pollution... then it can still be a net payoff. Similar with the Ethanol, the oil energy inputs to ethanol from farming is very small %, the majority is natural gas in the corn->oil conversion, and since ethanol is still much easier to store/use/burn in a car (LnG works well, but it takes up more than half the energy to compress to liquid, thus even more in-efficient than using natural gas to make Ethanol.)
From what they constitutional lawyer said on the news that I was watching during discussion of that event, that anyone (including the IRS lawyer) could, even as a defendant, assert the 5th at any time, but the jury/court could use that unwillingness to answer to prejudice the testimony they gave before/after pleading the fifth. So if the subject matter changes, you could plead the fifth without self incriminating. But if you tried defending your self, then refuse to clarify statements you made, then the jury could re-interrupt your earlier statements against you.
FYI, The US Constitution is defining the rights of the government; with few exceptions, it doesn't apply to any private party, or any civil court actions between non government entities. So you can sign away constitutional rights in a NDA, and a civil court judge can order you to pay up on that NDA, even if the NDA violation would be protected by the constitution. Now many of the constitutional rights have also been codified into contract law; in that case it is the contract law that is giving you rights, not the constitution...
FYI, the dailyTech article (despite the rest of the article being a mess of mis information, see the comments below it ) you linked to pretty much debunks your FUD attempt. Monsanto has not gone after any organic farmers, the organic farmers went after Monsanto and were dismissed because they had no claim, other than organic purchasers may over react someday; to something we haven't actually documented...
the fact that none of the farmers had been personally threatened by Monsanto, and the fact that Monsanto only brought a small number of patent infringement suits last year.
The company successfully argued that the suit was pointless as its policy was not sue if "trace" amounts of patented seed were found on an organic farmer's land.
Wrote the judge, "[the allegations] are unsubstantiated... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." She also complained that the farmers had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement", which documents indicated entailed 13 cases last year, which she opined "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."
>(which are just new seeds) you're not allowed to plant
I am not sure this ruling covers the doing of this by someone who hadn't agreed to a license from Monsanto. This sounds like it was a farmer that signed a agreement with Monsanto, then likely broke that agreement by planting seeds that he should have known violated his agreement with monsanto.
Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought the expensive, patented seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.
Monsanto does require a "Technology Stewardship Agreement" to "buy" their seeds. I am guessing the agreement is more of a your licensing the seed. So while you could re-sell the seed they sold you to another licensed grower, the resulting output is being controlled by the stewardship agreement.
Your statement is only true for insurers who are going to push their clients to medicare when they reach 65, and thus they will pay equally to health insurance, but the government picks up more of the tab for the healthy. The numbers quoted from the above source show non smokers live 15% longer and cost 22% more in helathcare costs. What isn't is how much smoking/obesity cut down on productivity and thus taxes paid...
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.
Not sure how you got that from my post, I was supporting the addition of laws for cellphone use, etc. Just that cops should be spending the time tracking down real crimes like rape/murder, not busting a person who uses a device at a appropriate time in a car, without endangering anyone. The libertarian view that we don't have any laws laying down what your expected to do in society, then get sued into bankruptcy for missing something you never thought of, is complete BS. But also enforcing laws because we can, not because of a real danger is a waste of resources, and teaches the wrong message of "follow the rules no matter what" not to be considerate of others first, and yeah know the rules that exist to show who has the right-of-way.
> i am also a firm believer that GPS should not be able to be accessible while driving. meaning if the device is in motion, you should not be able to fiddle with the device, cell phone or standalone, set it before you leave the driveway/parking lot and be done with it.
I have been the passenger in a car that did exactly that (hertz rental car), what a pain, got stuck in a traffic jam causes by a accident, and wanted to know options, everytime traffic moved it kicked me out, as if it would be impossible for anyone but the driver to be in a vehicle.
> we should not outlaw "darwin awards"
I much prefer having these as unenforced laws, I thought when they made seatbelt laws that you couldn't be pulled over for that was ideal. It is very nice when things go wrong in a accident... to be allowed to investigate. IE without these laws if person A makes a mistake and a accident occurs, that if person B could have still avoided the accident had they not been on the phone, and if the accident would have been a $1000 accident had they been wearing the seatbelt, but it is now a 10,000 PI accident, that the officer should be able to check the phone, and seatbelt useage, and decrease the liability to person A. Without it being illegal, there is no cause for the officer to investigate these. As far as issuing seatbelt/phone use/ GPS use tickets without other cause, that I consider overreaching and not helpfull.
I would agree, except for the "yourself" part of that post, if I believed in abstinence only, I would have left out the unprotected in "unprotected sex." Had they said "ourselves" it would have been a insightful post. Yourself makes it a baseless attack, more flamebait than insight.
> keeping teens from having sex is far more important than keeping them safe from firearms.
I am assuming your trying to be sarcastic, but it is likely a true statement. IE thousands more teens will die from un-protected sex, than firearms. IN USA there are a estimated 6312 cancer deaths per year due to HPV. and close to 10,000 deaths per year due to aids. The total deaths by gun deaths is droppin from 11,000 (less than 3000 were teens.) No numbers to say what % are infected as teens, but I think it is safe to say a teen having unprotected sex is more likely to die because of the sex, than from a gun in the USA. (of course driving make both of these causes tiny in comparison.)
> t the company is running out of money". Did Steve Jobs ever tell that to anyone?
Actually, pretty close. When he had Wozniack redesign a board for Atari, Instead of paying the $5k he owed Woz, he only gave him $350 claiming he didn't get paid the correct amount. I am sure he wasn't the only one Jobs didn't pay claiming no money. But your probably correct, he probably never fired anyone for that reason, he just lied and used that as a excuse to not pay them. (very office space like, don't fix firing a guy that keeps working, just stop paying them and wait to see how much work they will do for free.)
>Yeah, everybody lies to young people, then we can't figure out why they are so disillusioned. Nah, just the people who tell them what they want to hear. >get something up front or get it in writing Good luck with that. Only after you have proven yourself, is someone going to listen to a request like that. But it is a good idea, don't get yourself in 100k of school debt without written guarantee (or TLDR don't take on 100k+ of debt, you cant discharge.)
In the US, I recall reading several of studies where the obese, smokers, unhealthy lifestyles saved medicare money, mostly because the typical treatments for the diseases, etc; Are lower cost, than the late in life cancer treatments, assisted living... that healthier people would live to need. Granted medicare wouldn't see all the younger costs that NHS system will.
I don't have much love for the NRA. And in this case the NRA spokesperson is going beyond the vast majority of the members beliefs that more background checks are acceptable. But I really don't think the malevolence you prescribe to them is there, at all. They are first and foremost a political mouthpiece, where the other-side will not budge one bit, and a middle ground is going to be reached, so politically they have no motivation to give. If they give, the other-side will not give, and the end result will not be as favorable to there members. Also the best sales technique for guns has been increased regulations, and increased talk of regulations, the assault weapons ban is given credit for more than doubling the amount of assault weapons in this country, not the decrease of sales.
I think the original was clear, they don't care about recorded views. Seams they want quick notification; my guess would be to catch them red handed. No police notification was mentioned, my interpretation was they can handle enforcement, perhaps live 5 minutes away, have 10 minutes of physical security, have fire power; only thing missing is notification.
This is a list of CC gun owners, so this list address none of your concerns. This says the person went through training, showed no instability during, and have no serious convictions on their record. Also a much higher percent of these people are going to be police and ex military, not the type to live in a high crime area. Also your concern about mental health is unfounded, those cause 20 deaths a year, of the thousands of fire arms deaths per year,Hnot worth a moments thought to your families security. Personally I was thinking, stats being equal on crimes... I would choose the armed neighborhood because it would be a indicator of self control present, it isn't a hostile neighborhood lacking the ability. It is a neighborhood that has been exhibiting self restraint, without oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
Similar is done in many remote applications already, basically if it is capable of handling all short term decisions, just like the fancy cars today. Some cars can already stop on their own before hitting the car in front, avoid crossing lane lines (in a corner or straight), park in a parking space... The more difficult things like, can I run over that plastic bag/tumbleweed, is it solid or a important life. Can I drive on the shoulder around the debris in the road. Is that a wet road ahead. Are the cars blocking my way ever going to move, or do I need to maneuver around. Construction took away the lane markers, what now? Having a autonomous 4 seat car that could shuttle people around continuously, without having 25% of the car capacity being consumed for the driver as a possible huge plus. Especially with cars with a limited range (electric for example) where all the chargers are full at your desired destination, but it can go 4 miles to the nearest open charger, and come back charged. (or not hog a charger for my 8 hour work shift, if it took 2 hours to get its fill.)
The question I have is owner maintenance and modifications. What happens when the cameras pointed straight down at the road, the Tires have patches on the sidewalls, the Car is loaded with 10 bags of 100# cement, and a couch is strapped to the roof?
>If you're under the impression that a 15 kWh battery that can deliver 100+ kW of power is fit only to be junked, then you couldn't spell clue if you fronted the C and L.
When your range goes from 80 miles to 55 miles per charge, yet your still trying to commute 60 miles to work. then the value of the 15kWhr battery is not much to you any more. If a gasoline mpg goes from 40 to 30 over 20 years, and you have to fill up every week instead of once every week and a half, it still has value (even if the cost of gas went up considerably during the time, it is still functional at least.)
On the engine front, manufactures have a long desire for security, and recent requirements from the EPA to implement them. Most manufactures have the same engine with different HP ratings, they charge more for the higher HP, partially because of the extra warranty anticipated, some due to development, some due to higher EPA costs associated. Also they want to protect the development of the software, fuel and hp settings. Now the EPA is mandating that they protect, and prove the emissions settings that were tested are what is running in the vehicle. Although there is a long track record of the after market eventually cracking, and being able to load tunes onto OEM ECM's, thats out on new vehicles, and almost all tunes now require external hardware to do the fooling.
Now thats on the Engine, that incentive is not there on other ECM's.
> Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan
Japan and South Korea adapted western politics (democratic reforms and worker rights + access to education) before widespread acceptance of trade and thus economic growth. I am fine with the outsourcing, but when you have a society (Like china) where the vast majority of the money and power is still going to only the politically connected, while those doing the work don't get enough of a share to live a healthy life, or even have a safe place to work. I think we have the obligation to be restrictive (but not the obligation to force a change) does fall on us, and our government.
>So basically, you are happy to take all of the advantages of the union, but expect everyone else to pay for it.
It really sucks, when you find yourself in a union (like the UAW) where retirees get to vote for officers. I was a electrician in the UAW, when I had a legit complaint that they refused to investigate. The reason they gave, was "we want all of the electricians to quit, so they have to renegotiate the entire contract." I cant vote that guy out of office, because he is looking out for the retirees, so they won't vote him out. It was a right to work state, so I quit paying in. Also the UAW did everything in their power to keep the contract up for vote, because I worked at a lower wage factory than the others, they didn't like that, even though the workers at the factory were happy with the pay. The right to work state allowed the company and workers to kick out the UAW. In a non right to work state the factory would have had to close.
> energy to build panels is just like ethanol, another energy shell game where the losers are us.
I'll gloss over that solar panels and ethanol do have a net pay off in energy but that isn't the most important factor. With oil, the amount of energy to make the motor+refine+transport (fuel+infrastructure) to site+motor efficiency... consumes the majority of the energy in the fuel to begin with (over 3/4 is lost.) So if the batteries+Solar panels can be made to be more convenient and reduce the risk of pollution... then it can still be a net payoff. Similar with the Ethanol, the oil energy inputs to ethanol from farming is very small %, the majority is natural gas in the corn->oil conversion, and since ethanol is still much easier to store/use/burn in a car (LnG works well, but it takes up more than half the energy to compress to liquid, thus even more in-efficient than using natural gas to make Ethanol.)
>point of debate in the IRS congressional hearing
From what they constitutional lawyer said on the news that I was watching during discussion of that event, that anyone (including the IRS lawyer) could, even as a defendant, assert the 5th at any time, but the jury/court could use that unwillingness to answer to prejudice the testimony they gave before/after pleading the fifth. So if the subject matter changes, you could plead the fifth without self incriminating. But if you tried defending your self, then refuse to clarify statements you made, then the jury could re-interrupt your earlier statements against you.
FYI, The US Constitution is defining the rights of the government; with few exceptions, it doesn't apply to any private party, or any civil court actions between non government entities. So you can sign away constitutional rights in a NDA, and a civil court judge can order you to pay up on that NDA, even if the NDA violation would be protected by the constitution. Now many of the constitutional rights have also been codified into contract law; in that case it is the contract law that is giving you rights, not the constitution...
FYI, the dailyTech article (despite the rest of the article being a mess of mis information, see the comments below it ) you linked to pretty much debunks your FUD attempt. Monsanto has not gone after any organic farmers, the organic farmers went after Monsanto and were dismissed because they had no claim, other than organic purchasers may over react someday; to something we haven't actually documented...
the fact that none of the farmers had been personally threatened by Monsanto, and the fact that Monsanto only brought a small number of patent infringement suits last year.
The company successfully argued that the suit was pointless as its policy was not sue if "trace" amounts of patented seed were found on an organic farmer's land.
Wrote the judge, "[the allegations] are unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." She also complained that the farmers had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement", which documents indicated entailed 13 cases last year, which she opined "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."
>(which are just new seeds) you're not allowed to plant
I am not sure this ruling covers the doing of this by someone who hadn't agreed to a license from Monsanto. This sounds like it was a farmer that signed a agreement with Monsanto, then likely broke that agreement by planting seeds that he should have known violated his agreement with monsanto.
Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought the expensive, patented seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.
Monsanto does require a "Technology Stewardship Agreement" to "buy" their seeds. I am guessing the agreement is more of a your licensing the seed. So while you could re-sell the seed they sold you to another licensed grower, the resulting output is being controlled by the stewardship agreement.
Your statement is only true for insurers who are going to push their clients to medicare when they reach 65, and thus they will pay equally to health insurance, but the government picks up more of the tab for the healthy. The numbers quoted from the above source show non smokers live 15% longer and cost 22% more in helathcare costs. What isn't is how much smoking/obesity cut down on productivity and thus taxes paid...
first google result for smokers:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.
Not sure how you got that from my post, I was supporting the addition of laws for cellphone use, etc. Just that cops should be spending the time tracking down real crimes like rape/murder, not busting a person who uses a device at a appropriate time in a car, without endangering anyone.
The libertarian view that we don't have any laws laying down what your expected to do in society, then get sued into bankruptcy for missing something you never thought of, is complete BS. But also enforcing laws because we can, not because of a real danger is a waste of resources, and teaches the wrong message of "follow the rules no matter what" not to be considerate of others first, and yeah know the rules that exist to show who has the right-of-way.
> i am also a firm believer that GPS should not be able to be accessible while driving. meaning if the device is in motion, you should not be able to fiddle with the device, cell phone or standalone, set it before you leave the driveway/parking lot and be done with it.
I have been the passenger in a car that did exactly that (hertz rental car), what a pain, got stuck in a traffic jam causes by a accident, and wanted to know options, everytime traffic moved it kicked me out, as if it would be impossible for anyone but the driver to be in a vehicle.
> we should not outlaw "darwin awards"
I much prefer having these as unenforced laws, I thought when they made seatbelt laws that you couldn't be pulled over for that was ideal. It is very nice when things go wrong in a accident... to be allowed to investigate. IE without these laws if person A makes a mistake and a accident occurs, that if person B could have still avoided the accident had they not been on the phone, and if the accident would have been a $1000 accident had they been wearing the seatbelt, but it is now a 10,000 PI accident, that the officer should be able to check the phone, and seatbelt useage, and decrease the liability to person A. Without it being illegal, there is no cause for the officer to investigate these. As far as issuing seatbelt/phone use/ GPS use tickets without other cause, that I consider overreaching and not helpfull.
I would agree, except for the "yourself" part of that post, if I believed in abstinence only, I would have left out the unprotected in "unprotected sex." Had they said "ourselves" it would have been a insightful post. Yourself makes it a baseless attack, more flamebait than insight.
> keeping teens from having sex is far more important than keeping them safe from firearms.
I am assuming your trying to be sarcastic, but it is likely a true statement. IE thousands more teens will die from un-protected sex, than firearms.
IN USA there are a estimated 6312 cancer deaths per year due to HPV. and close to 10,000 deaths per year due to aids. The total deaths by gun deaths is droppin from 11,000 (less than 3000 were teens.) No numbers to say what % are infected as teens, but I think it is safe to say a teen having unprotected sex is more likely to die because of the sex, than from a gun in the USA. (of course driving make both of these causes tiny in comparison.)
> t the company is running out of money". Did Steve Jobs ever tell that to anyone?
Actually, pretty close. When he had Wozniack redesign a board for Atari, Instead of paying the $5k he owed Woz, he only gave him $350 claiming he didn't get paid the correct amount. I am sure he wasn't the only one Jobs didn't pay claiming no money. But your probably correct, he probably never fired anyone for that reason, he just lied and used that as a excuse to not pay them. (very office space like, don't fix firing a guy that keeps working, just stop paying them and wait to see how much work they will do for free.)
>Yeah, everybody lies to young people, then we can't figure out why they are so disillusioned.
Nah, just the people who tell them what they want to hear.
>get something up front or get it in writing
Good luck with that. Only after you have proven yourself, is someone going to listen to a request like that. But it is a good idea, don't get yourself in 100k of school debt without written guarantee (or TLDR don't take on 100k+ of debt, you cant discharge.)
In the US, I recall reading several of studies where the obese, smokers, unhealthy lifestyles saved medicare money, mostly because the typical treatments for the diseases, etc; Are lower cost, than the late in life cancer treatments, assisted living... that healthier people would live to need. Granted medicare wouldn't see all the younger costs that NHS system will.
I don't have much love for the NRA. And in this case the NRA spokesperson is going beyond the vast majority of the members beliefs that more background checks are acceptable. But I really don't think the malevolence you prescribe to them is there, at all. They are first and foremost a political mouthpiece, where the other-side will not budge one bit, and a middle ground is going to be reached, so politically they have no motivation to give. If they give, the other-side will not give, and the end result will not be as favorable to there members.
Also the best sales technique for guns has been increased regulations, and increased talk of regulations, the assault weapons ban is given credit for more than doubling the amount of assault weapons in this country, not the decrease of sales.
I think the original was clear, they don't care about recorded views. Seams they want quick notification; my guess would be to catch them red handed. No police notification was mentioned, my interpretation was they can handle enforcement, perhaps live 5 minutes away, have 10 minutes of physical security, have fire power; only thing missing is notification.
This is a list of CC gun owners, so this list address none of your concerns. This says the person went through training, showed no instability during, and have no serious convictions on their record. Also a much higher percent of these people are going to be police and ex military, not the type to live in a high crime area. Also your concern about mental health is unfounded, those cause 20 deaths a year, of the thousands of fire arms deaths per year,Hnot worth a moments thought to your families security. Personally I was thinking, stats being equal on crimes... I would choose the armed neighborhood because it would be a indicator of self control present, it isn't a hostile neighborhood lacking the ability. It is a neighborhood that has been exhibiting self restraint, without oversight.
In edisons time it wasn't practical to convert to and from high voltage DC, now it is and is more efficient for transmission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current