Exactly. Technology aside, I want to see the liability agreement. If Google says, "We're 100% liable for all harm caused by or insufficiently avoided by our vehicle when the vehicle is in 100% autonomous mode," I'll consider trusting them. Until then, they don't even trust the tech themselves.
That sure is a lot of Kool-Aid you're drinking there.
"Musk has already created the fastest production car from 0-60"
So? No one at ALL said the world needed an electric sports car drag racer. MUSK said he would design and sell an electric sports car, sell it to the rich, and use the revenue to build an EV for the people. Well, he sold it to the rich using massive subsidies from the middle class... and then didn't bring in enough revenue to make the EV for the masses. That's why they've gone out for additional BILLIONS in venture capital twice since Model 3 production began.
"... reusable rockets that land themselves"
A rocket that was able to land itself is not "rockets that land themselves". It's not a proven tech. It's not mass produced. The job's not done. It's still a work in progress.
"... the largest factory in the world"
So? Literally any major company with the need to manufacture could do that if they found it necessary. And it's not like he built it himself.
"... huge batteries"
Big is not an accomplishment if the demand, affordability, production, and distribution aren't there.
"... integrated solar roof panels"
Are you sure that's actually done? Because they're not for sale yet. They've been demo'd on a few Tesla employees' roofs. And it literally will not have a cost comparable to replacing a regular shingle roof. It's still a work in progress.
There are differences between dreams, plans, experiments, production, sales, delivery, and solvency. Musk talks dreams a lot. He plans a fair share. Considering all the products he talks about, the variety of his production is fairly low. Sales of those items produced are good (Roadster, Model S, Model X, Model 3), but delivery is lacking on the Model 3. And solvency (financial surviviability on non-investment, non-subsidy revenue) is highly risky.
People may call me a naysayer, but I consider myself a "less-sayer".
Yes, I knew Musk would produce an EV. But I also knew it wouldn't be affordable to the masses or supportable by the sales of the Roadster.
Yes, I know Musk will produce a Model 3 (a more affordable EV), but I've been saying all along that it (1) won't feel like the Model S, (2) he can't do it with Tesla's own income, and (3) he won't meet his production goals.
Yes, I knew Musk could potentially produce a reusable rocket, but I knew in 2005 when he first got the contract from the Air Force to do so, I knew the tech was way WAY off.
Sure, I know that SolarCity will produce photovoltaic roof tiles that look nice, but I KNOW that getting one of those solar roofs will not cost the same as replacing a shingle roof. There's special math in that claim that requires major subsidies and increasing the cost of a relatively cheap roof by tacking on 30 years of interest when no one would take a 30-year loan on a $8,000-- especially when it will need to be replaced again before the loan is up.
The one thing I'm fairly certain will never happen is the Hyperloop. It's a pipe dream no doubt.
I'm fairly certain that Tesla has a level 3 autonomous vehicle... but I'm almost certain they won't sell a mass-produced level 4/5 for at least 6 more years. Bare minimum.
Musk is a hype man. Remove the hype and consider the tech. Is the tech available now or will Tesla/SpaceX/SolarCity have to develop it? What's the current price in the tech. If Musk doesn't have a bunch of magical fairies slaving away somewhere, to what extent can his promises be trusted?
Musk romances futurists-- people that want to **believe** that the future will be saved by technology and that a few special visionary messiahs will lead the way. They don't want to accept that progress is slow, tough, and incremental. They'd prefer that a technomagical convergence is just around the corner and Musk will bring it. That's concerning.
Ya, that's my problem with this particular post. There are many more reputable organizations/people that don't trust Musk's promises. Showing that CNN has doubt in Musk sounds like an association fallacy.
"CNN has lost much of its credibility. CNN doubts Musk. You doubt Musk. Thus, you have lost credibility."
Linking to an official source or out of one's website is good. It's a citation-style linking. It's when there are links for no good reason that you get bad linking.
Good Link:
(CNN) The president announced today that the Paris Climate Accord (linked to Wiki) would continue tentatively based on continued good faith measures.
Bad Link:
(CNN) (link to CNN stock) The president (link to all recent CNN articles with Trump) announced today that the Paris Climate Accord (link to the last time Trump talked about PCA) would continue tentatively based on continued good faith (link to CNN - Religion Section) measures.
Apple tosses apps out of the app store for many reasons. Over the last 2-3 years, Uber's apps have shown to violate privacy and intentionally deceive regulators on a massive scale. Money aside (I know, that's asking a lot), how does Apple justify allowing them to continue to have an app in their app store?
I've always been the go-to person for information, opinions, and guidance in my social group. When people ask where I get news and ideas, Slashdot is always at/near the top. It's a variety of related news plus some incredibly insightful comments. The value in my life has been thus far immeasurable.
Especially in the wake of the Columbine shooting. The Jon Katz post "Voices from the Hellmouth" (https://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices-from-the-hellmouth) helped me understand that what I was experiencing wasn't abnormal. Nerds, geeks, gamers, goths, loners, introverts -- they were all being profiled as potential mass-murderers. Many were treated as suspects in thought crime. Many were forced into counseling out of such fear. And still the worst was that it was so extremely taboo to say, "While I don't condone what they did, I completely understand why they did it." And that taboo prevented any real reduction in pain for those "at risk" social rejects.
When I went to college, I went in as "me". Long black hair, dark clothing, and chains. People were scared to be around me at first. One person asked me to play a game a gin rummy in my first week at the dorms. He used that game to inquire why "I was angry with life". (This is why I loved the first year of college. It was OK to ask awkward questions and get into deep discussions.) It was the first time someone had attempted that discussion with me. I told him that I wasn't angry with life, but that many things had happened in my life that made me feel contemplative and rebellious against certain ways of life. I continued and explained that I had decided that if "those people" looked like that, then I didn't want to identify is one of them by looking like them.
His eyes burst open like he just suddenly understood a massive part of his own high school experience 4 months too late. We continued to play cards, but I couldn't get the hang of gin rummy. We played poker instead.
In the following years, I decided to reinvent myself. The dark clothing went away. The hair went from long to short to long to short again. I got a bit athletic. I started learning about sports and held manly conversations with people about cars, football, and guns. (You know how it is... you learn one thing about at topic and suddenly you have to LEARN EVERYTHING.) Eventually, I discovered that I had become an undercover nerd. You wouldn't know it from looking at me, but half the time, I just want to go home and play Everquest. (Ya. I still play Everquest.) So when I break out my white-hot data skills, or legal knowledge, or when something at work requires me to learn a new vendor system and I master it in a couple days sufficient to send bug reports to the vendor, people flip out (with joy!).
In today's workplace, people LOVE to have a nerd on hand. They'll happily put up marginal social quirks to have nerd powers in the office across the way. The nation's most visible million/billionaires are nerds. People WANT to look nerdy to be hip. People are demanding that teachers make more FEMALE nerds so we can reach NERD EQUITY. And today, the discussion of the high school harassment is completely blown wide open. Bullying, cyber-bullying, sexual harassment, microaggressions, picoaggressions, quantumshade -- today, in many schools, being mean is bad.
It's not perfect. Your mileage may vary. But it's better.
Still, every 4/20, when people are joking about weed on campus, I'm solemn because I remember what happened with a couple of kids felt so rejected and so alone that they retreated into a cesspool of resentment and no one cared to notice until the violence came. (Seems similar to the building of a lot of white resentment building in the nation today.) I have to explain to people that the root of the problem wasn't simply mental illness or the existence of guns. A major part of the problem was that people felt that it was absolutely OK for kids to torture kids.
I've been part of higher education outreach into low-i
What all of you futurists are missing is a very simple point - the first publicly usable driverless car only needs to be massively more competent than a human driver or wrongful death lawsuits will put the company out of business. You also don't understand the concept of distributed liability.
If Google was able to replace ALL the vehicles in the US with fully-automated vehicles overnight and reduce the deaths and injuries on the road by 75% you might think it would be a success... but Google would cease to exist. Over 30,000 people die on American roads every year. Hundreds of thousands are injured. If the reduction in death is "only" 75%, Google would be directly responsible for 7,500 deaths. Do you think that Google could survive 7,500 wrongful death suits? Do they even want to deal with as many as 100?
The reason our current system works is because the individual drivers of vehicles hold individual liability. A person screws up on the road and only those directly involved pay the price and only the driver(s) at fault share the cost. If Google "drives" all the cars, Google holds ALL the liability.
Thus, "slightly better than the average driver" is insufficient. Even "massively more competent" may be insufficient. The vehicles need to be damn near perfect. Which is why levels of autonomy were established.
Level 0: Human driver controls everything.
Level 1: Emergency assistance (auto-braking)
Level 2: Cruise control, lane assist.
Level 3: Semi-Autonomous, but requiring driver intervention from time to time.
Level 4: Fully-autonomous in specific environments (autonomous transit, taxis)
Level 5: Fully-autonomous and adaptive like a human.
Look -- we don't even have level 1 autonomy on that many vehicles today. Level 1 & 2 together would save thousands of lives per year, but they're so expensive to include as default on vehicles that the general public can't afford them. So what in the world makes anyone think that people would widely accept level 4 or 5? A religious faith in science? No. That won't happen.
We need to just include a LOT more level 1 and 2 features in vehicles and watch the death toll drop. Then people will get used to "vehicle intervention" and be sufficiently curious about level 3. Then 4 and 5.
Last February, I committed to eating breakfast every day. By November, I had lost weight (44 lbs of fat!) felt healthier and better than I ever had.
Other variables
I stopped drinking alcohol
My breakfast on weekdays: 2 hard boiled eggs, 10 baby carrots (Changed from pastries)
My lunch on weekdays: turkey sandwich (Changed from burgers, tacos, soda, etc.)
My dinner on weekdays: Home-cooked chicken, fish, or lean pork with a bunch of veggies and some rice or pasta. (Changed from "anything delivery")
I had one "cheat day" a month where I could eat/drink anything I want.
I ran 2 miles in the morning 4 times a week and did a 10k on the weekend
I take particular issue with cyber bullying because the term doesn't need to exist. It's harassment plain and simple. Often, online harassment quickly becomes PUBLIC harassment, but it's still simply harassment. Just like the adoption of "mansplaining" when "patronizing" already exists, creating new words with unofficial definitions allows people to control and change the definition to fit their needs in the moment.
For example, if a 5th grader harasses another 5th grader via Facebook, many would commonly accept that as cyber bullying. But if a member of the public harasses another member of the public on Twitter and then, by virtue of the harasser's follower size, triggers a mass onslaught attack, is that still "cyber bullying"? What if the victim is someone with unpopular social/political opinions? Does it then depend on what those opinions are? What if the victim is being Twitter shamed for not supporting gay marriage? Is that "fighting the power" or is it "cyber-bullying"?
I ask this as someone who is a long-time supporter of equal marriage rights, but a similarly long-time proponent of the freedom to have one's own damn opinions without being forced into the spotlight and being publicly harassed.
I always get annoyed when investment-prodders say "Never invest more than you can afford." It's impossible to do so anyway. If i have $100, I can't invest $10,000 in anything. What they need to say is, "Don't invest more than they can afford to lose," but they don't want to because that would make the product they're selling seem like a bit of a gamble. Which it is.
Arguing about the safety of fully autonomous vehicles is an exercise is futile theoretics. We know that if they work exactly as we imagine how they should work, it would be safer. But the question is *can* they be perfect? Or *will* they be perfect? Or even *when* will they be perfect?
Arguing about how safe 100% autonomous vehicles are is like debating if a Pegasus can fly faster than Griffin.
How about we stop reporting on how people feel about non-existent/unproven technology and just report the testable advancements in said technology until they're at the point to where the technology is ready for the market... and then report on adoption and experience?
The promise wasn't simply self-landing first-stage rockets. It was a commitment to provide low cost orbital launch vehicles and responsive launch services, on a recurring basis, using a mature vehicle design and a commercially derived booster to meet mission/payload requirements. (2005) It's safe to say that that expectation hasn't been met (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Past_launches).
The promise wasn't "electric cars that you can buy now", it was "electric cars that anyone can afford funded by electric sports cars for the rich". That didn't happen. The public funded the subsidization of the electric sports cars and the "affordable" EV is happening as the result of massive public and private investment. And the affordable vehicle won't even have the features promised.
Home power storage solutions was never a promise because we have still yet to approach the point where people NEED to store their own power. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and has come as a side-effect of Tesla needing to source their own batteries (and thus have a battery factory) and then sell the batteries they'll over-produce.
Someone mentioned solar roof tiles. Those still aren't here yet and they won't ever be at the price of replacing a roof outright as promised. It will only be comparable in price when you factor in receiving all possible incentives (in the long run) and the irrational idea of financing a $7,500 roof with a 30-year loan (thus artificially increasing the cost of a regular roof). It's all here: https://www.tesla.com/solarroo... . And even then, it's not likely going to be the whole roof full of tiles.
Here's the thing-- I don't think these projects will fail in the long run. I know that the private transportation of goods to space is a current reality and it will only improve with time. I know that EVs (or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) are the future of private transportation. I know that we'll eventually have a majority of autonomous vehicles on the road. I know that when we move more towards ubiquitous solar (were sensible) and wind, we'll need better ways of storing energy to deal with grid spikes and valleys. But it won't be nearly as quick as Musk says and it won't be nearly as cheap. Someone has to pay and even if it's not out of pocket for you right now, you're likely paying for it in your taxes via subsidies. Musk isn't a financial or technological genius. He's not the scientist or researcher making these things happen. He's not Tony Stark. He's an ideas guy and a hype-man.
... because there's no way in Hell that Tony Stark would believe that boring holes under a metropolis or the hyperloop would EVER actually work. Those ideas are guaranteed vaporware.
This is exactly how I feel, now. If there's a news article or headline that uses any kind of suggestive emotional descriptor, I turn off.
"Shameful Statements from the President. Critics Respond." -- Newsflash: "Critics criticize!"
"Horrific Accident on the Freeway..." -- Yep. Happens literally every single day of the year.
"Person Stuns Other People" -- I don't care about the emotional responses of other people. Shocked, offended-- doesn't matter. Just tell me what the person did/said.
"Sad Tale of Person Who Feels Bad Now" -- Ok... but what led to the feels?
If you just trim it down to the necessary, journalistic info, you find that most of these articles or TV segments should be 20% their presented length. Just tell me what happened! I'll know figure out my own thoughts, opinions, and feelings on the matter!
I'm not kidding when I say that I would happily pay $30/month for a news service that committed to leaving all that crap out and just reported like the following.
Headline: "President Does This Action", Body: On , President did this. These countries have acted in support. These countries are filing official protests. Here's the legal/historical basis for this action (link).
Headline: "Business Hypeman Unveils Design for Thing", Body: On , Business Hypeman revealed the design for a Thing. The thing is not functional yet. Business Hypeman says when released it will do that. Here's the basis for the technology (link).
Headline: "Law Proposed to Change How This is Done", Body: On , a legislature put forth a bill to make this process standard. Supporters include these guys. Detractors include these guys. Lobbyists involved from these industries have taken sides. Here's the legislation (link) and an analysis from an unbiased source (link).
Off the top of my head, here's how I've experienced portable music players changing:
1. Cassette Player ("Walkman")
2. CD Player
3. MP3-capable CD player, mini-CD player
4. Proprietary medium player (mini-disc, etc.)
5. MP3 player with internal storage, some expandable (Diamond Rio, Creative Nomad, Archos Jukebox, Apple iPod, Sandisk Sansa)
6. Smartphones (using local media collections) & surviving MP3 players in the market
7. Smartphones (using streaming media collections) & re-emerging MP3 players in the market (Fiio, Apple, Sony, many other audio-focused companies)
But then smartphones began to change themselves. They kept getting BIGGER and people no longer felt comfortable needing to lug around a phablet on bike rides, runs, or in their pocket while just walking around the office/house. So, "wearables" hit the market as a solution to wanting both LARGE phone screens and portability. Most people think "smartwatch" and "fitness tracker" when it comes to wearables, but the iPod Shuffle (being part of the "iSuite") might have been one of the first modern wearables.
Opinion
I think we're going the wrong direction with the balance of of the size of the smartphone and the utility of wearables. Today's newest smartwatches are now coming with GPS/GLONASS, app libraries, and direct cellular connectivity and as a result they're getting VERY large. We don't want to carry around phablets while exercising, so we're taking other small devices and making them larger, separating out sub-devices for processes that were previously relegated to smartphones (The Mighty for Spotify playlists, Pebble Core for GPS/alerts, etc.).
But instead of a person owning 3 different GPS trackers, 4 wi-fi chips, and 3 cellular transmitters, why aren't we just focusing on further shrinking the smartphone has a hub for all the processes while developing a separate device to make the smartphone SEEM bigger? One such device is being kickstarted right now (Superscreen). This concept allows you to use your smartphone via a tablet-sized proxy.
Thus, you can get a physically small smartphone, carry it everywhere, connect everything you want to it (BT headphones, smartwatch, etc.) and when you want the LARGE form factor for reading, you pull the "big screen" from your portfolio, coffee table, or desk. Additionally, all of those other devices will need to charge less frequently because your phone is the one doing all the heavy transmitting.
THIS! The greatest myth of attracting large employers is that they won't move to City A because taxes are "too high". The truth is that neither their big money earners want to live there nor do they think they'll be able to attract the necessary skilled employee pool.
People want to live in nice places and, as Seattle, San Diego, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Portland, etc. all show, they'll pay for it. They'll pay for transit. They'll pay for good schools. They'll pay for bikeability. They'll pay for wide sidewalks, shade trees, and farmer's markets. But those things actually have to exist in some way, shape, or form first.
If you try to make your city a tax-free zone, you prevent ALL THOSE SERVICES from developing and thus you will never attract new businesses that actually employ people.
If you can't force legally press someone into labor, then there's no point reporting on anyone that is unwilling to or incapable of working.
If you know that 4.5% of Britons want work, but can't find it, then you can act on that information: find them, find open jobs within their skill-sets, and make connections.
If you know that 21.5% of working-age Britons aren't working, you have to do a LOT MORE work to filter out who can/can't work and who won't work.
By applied, you presumably mean "had some ideas to tweak other peoples' aged ideas"? He had yet to "develop" anything except for very small values of "develop". If he has "developed" the Hyperloop, then I have "developed" a universal job search engine-- that being I've thought about it a lot and made some rough sketches of some relational DBs.
The VAST majority of bicyclists also drive automobiles and, in doing so, pay gas taxes.
More importantly, though, anyone who makes money in the US pays into the road system. The gas tax has been insufficient to fund the roads for the last 30 or so years and income taxes have been covering the difference.
"General taxpayers at all levels of government now subsidize highway construction and maintenance to the tune of $69 billion per year – an amount exceeding the expenditure of general tax funds to support transit, bicycling, walking and passenger rail combined." http://www.uspirg.org/reports/...
Thus, anyone who DOESN'T drive a car, but still holds a job, is paying MUCH more than their fair share of the road (that they can't/don't use).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go with "singin' " as in "I'm singin' all the way to the bank with all this stupid investment capital.
Exactly. Technology aside, I want to see the liability agreement. If Google says, "We're 100% liable for all harm caused by or insufficiently avoided by our vehicle when the vehicle is in 100% autonomous mode," I'll consider trusting them. Until then, they don't even trust the tech themselves.
That sure is a lot of Kool-Aid you're drinking there.
"Musk has already created the fastest production car from 0-60"
So? No one at ALL said the world needed an electric sports car drag racer. MUSK said he would design and sell an electric sports car, sell it to the rich, and use the revenue to build an EV for the people. Well, he sold it to the rich using massive subsidies from the middle class... and then didn't bring in enough revenue to make the EV for the masses. That's why they've gone out for additional BILLIONS in venture capital twice since Model 3 production began.
"... reusable rockets that land themselves"
A rocket that was able to land itself is not "rockets that land themselves". It's not a proven tech. It's not mass produced. The job's not done. It's still a work in progress.
"... the largest factory in the world"
So? Literally any major company with the need to manufacture could do that if they found it necessary. And it's not like he built it himself.
"... huge batteries"
Big is not an accomplishment if the demand, affordability, production, and distribution aren't there.
"... integrated solar roof panels"
Are you sure that's actually done? Because they're not for sale yet. They've been demo'd on a few Tesla employees' roofs. And it literally will not have a cost comparable to replacing a regular shingle roof. It's still a work in progress.
There are differences between dreams, plans, experiments, production, sales, delivery, and solvency. Musk talks dreams a lot. He plans a fair share. Considering all the products he talks about, the variety of his production is fairly low. Sales of those items produced are good (Roadster, Model S, Model X, Model 3), but delivery is lacking on the Model 3. And solvency (financial surviviability on non-investment, non-subsidy revenue) is highly risky.
People may call me a naysayer, but I consider myself a "less-sayer".
Yes, I knew Musk would produce an EV. But I also knew it wouldn't be affordable to the masses or supportable by the sales of the Roadster.
Yes, I know Musk will produce a Model 3 (a more affordable EV), but I've been saying all along that it (1) won't feel like the Model S, (2) he can't do it with Tesla's own income, and (3) he won't meet his production goals.
Yes, I knew Musk could potentially produce a reusable rocket, but I knew in 2005 when he first got the contract from the Air Force to do so, I knew the tech was way WAY off.
Sure, I know that SolarCity will produce photovoltaic roof tiles that look nice, but I KNOW that getting one of those solar roofs will not cost the same as replacing a shingle roof. There's special math in that claim that requires major subsidies and increasing the cost of a relatively cheap roof by tacking on 30 years of interest when no one would take a 30-year loan on a $8,000-- especially when it will need to be replaced again before the loan is up.
The one thing I'm fairly certain will never happen is the Hyperloop. It's a pipe dream no doubt.
I'm fairly certain that Tesla has a level 3 autonomous vehicle... but I'm almost certain they won't sell a mass-produced level 4/5 for at least 6 more years. Bare minimum.
Musk is a hype man. Remove the hype and consider the tech. Is the tech available now or will Tesla/SpaceX/SolarCity have to develop it? What's the current price in the tech. If Musk doesn't have a bunch of magical fairies slaving away somewhere, to what extent can his promises be trusted?
Musk romances futurists-- people that want to **believe** that the future will be saved by technology and that a few special visionary messiahs will lead the way. They don't want to accept that progress is slow, tough, and incremental. They'd prefer that a technomagical convergence is just around the corner and Musk will bring it. That's concerning.
Ya, that's my problem with this particular post. There are many more reputable organizations/people that don't trust Musk's promises. Showing that CNN has doubt in Musk sounds like an association fallacy. "CNN has lost much of its credibility. CNN doubts Musk. You doubt Musk. Thus, you have lost credibility."
Linking to an official source or out of one's website is good. It's a citation-style linking. It's when there are links for no good reason that you get bad linking.
Good Link:
(CNN) The president announced today that the Paris Climate Accord (linked to Wiki) would continue tentatively based on continued good faith measures.
Bad Link:
(CNN) (link to CNN stock) The president (link to all recent CNN articles with Trump) announced today that the Paris Climate Accord (link to the last time Trump talked about PCA) would continue tentatively based on continued good faith (link to CNN - Religion Section) measures.
Apple tosses apps out of the app store for many reasons. Over the last 2-3 years, Uber's apps have shown to violate privacy and intentionally deceive regulators on a massive scale. Money aside (I know, that's asking a lot), how does Apple justify allowing them to continue to have an app in their app store?
I've always been the go-to person for information, opinions, and guidance in my social group. When people ask where I get news and ideas, Slashdot is always at/near the top. It's a variety of related news plus some incredibly insightful comments. The value in my life has been thus far immeasurable.
Especially in the wake of the Columbine shooting. The Jon Katz post "Voices from the Hellmouth" (https://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices-from-the-hellmouth) helped me understand that what I was experiencing wasn't abnormal. Nerds, geeks, gamers, goths, loners, introverts -- they were all being profiled as potential mass-murderers. Many were treated as suspects in thought crime. Many were forced into counseling out of such fear. And still the worst was that it was so extremely taboo to say, "While I don't condone what they did, I completely understand why they did it." And that taboo prevented any real reduction in pain for those "at risk" social rejects.
When I went to college, I went in as "me". Long black hair, dark clothing, and chains. People were scared to be around me at first. One person asked me to play a game a gin rummy in my first week at the dorms. He used that game to inquire why "I was angry with life". (This is why I loved the first year of college. It was OK to ask awkward questions and get into deep discussions.) It was the first time someone had attempted that discussion with me. I told him that I wasn't angry with life, but that many things had happened in my life that made me feel contemplative and rebellious against certain ways of life. I continued and explained that I had decided that if "those people" looked like that, then I didn't want to identify is one of them by looking like them.
His eyes burst open like he just suddenly understood a massive part of his own high school experience 4 months too late. We continued to play cards, but I couldn't get the hang of gin rummy. We played poker instead.
In the following years, I decided to reinvent myself. The dark clothing went away. The hair went from long to short to long to short again. I got a bit athletic. I started learning about sports and held manly conversations with people about cars, football, and guns. (You know how it is... you learn one thing about at topic and suddenly you have to LEARN EVERYTHING.) Eventually, I discovered that I had become an undercover nerd. You wouldn't know it from looking at me, but half the time, I just want to go home and play Everquest. (Ya. I still play Everquest.) So when I break out my white-hot data skills, or legal knowledge, or when something at work requires me to learn a new vendor system and I master it in a couple days sufficient to send bug reports to the vendor, people flip out (with joy!).
In today's workplace, people LOVE to have a nerd on hand. They'll happily put up marginal social quirks to have nerd powers in the office across the way. The nation's most visible million/billionaires are nerds. People WANT to look nerdy to be hip. People are demanding that teachers make more FEMALE nerds so we can reach NERD EQUITY. And today, the discussion of the high school harassment is completely blown wide open. Bullying, cyber-bullying, sexual harassment, microaggressions, picoaggressions, quantumshade -- today, in many schools, being mean is bad.
It's not perfect. Your mileage may vary. But it's better.
Still, every 4/20, when people are joking about weed on campus, I'm solemn because I remember what happened with a couple of kids felt so rejected and so alone that they retreated into a cesspool of resentment and no one cared to notice until the violence came. (Seems similar to the building of a lot of white resentment building in the nation today.) I have to explain to people that the root of the problem wasn't simply mental illness or the existence of guns. A major part of the problem was that people felt that it was absolutely OK for kids to torture kids.
I've been part of higher education outreach into low-i
Here's the linked article: http://www.reuters.com/article...
I'm guessing that was a copy/paste error.
What all of you futurists are missing is a very simple point - the first publicly usable driverless car only needs to be massively more competent than a human driver or wrongful death lawsuits will put the company out of business. You also don't understand the concept of distributed liability.
If Google was able to replace ALL the vehicles in the US with fully-automated vehicles overnight and reduce the deaths and injuries on the road by 75% you might think it would be a success... but Google would cease to exist. Over 30,000 people die on American roads every year. Hundreds of thousands are injured. If the reduction in death is "only" 75%, Google would be directly responsible for 7,500 deaths. Do you think that Google could survive 7,500 wrongful death suits? Do they even want to deal with as many as 100?
The reason our current system works is because the individual drivers of vehicles hold individual liability. A person screws up on the road and only those directly involved pay the price and only the driver(s) at fault share the cost. If Google "drives" all the cars, Google holds ALL the liability.
Thus, "slightly better than the average driver" is insufficient. Even "massively more competent" may be insufficient. The vehicles need to be damn near perfect. Which is why levels of autonomy were established.
Level 0: Human driver controls everything.
Level 1: Emergency assistance (auto-braking)
Level 2: Cruise control, lane assist.
Level 3: Semi-Autonomous, but requiring driver intervention from time to time.
Level 4: Fully-autonomous in specific environments (autonomous transit, taxis)
Level 5: Fully-autonomous and adaptive like a human.
Look -- we don't even have level 1 autonomy on that many vehicles today. Level 1 & 2 together would save thousands of lives per year, but they're so expensive to include as default on vehicles that the general public can't afford them. So what in the world makes anyone think that people would widely accept level 4 or 5? A religious faith in science? No. That won't happen.
We need to just include a LOT more level 1 and 2 features in vehicles and watch the death toll drop. Then people will get used to "vehicle intervention" and be sufficiently curious about level 3. Then 4 and 5.
Last February, I committed to eating breakfast every day. By November, I had lost weight (44 lbs of fat!) felt healthier and better than I ever had.
Other variables
I stopped drinking alcohol
My breakfast on weekdays: 2 hard boiled eggs, 10 baby carrots (Changed from pastries)
My lunch on weekdays: turkey sandwich (Changed from burgers, tacos, soda, etc.)
My dinner on weekdays: Home-cooked chicken, fish, or lean pork with a bunch of veggies and some rice or pasta. (Changed from "anything delivery")
I had one "cheat day" a month where I could eat/drink anything I want.
I ran 2 miles in the morning 4 times a week and did a 10k on the weekend
So, as you can see, breakfast fixed everything!
I take particular issue with cyber bullying because the term doesn't need to exist. It's harassment plain and simple. Often, online harassment quickly becomes PUBLIC harassment, but it's still simply harassment. Just like the adoption of "mansplaining" when "patronizing" already exists, creating new words with unofficial definitions allows people to control and change the definition to fit their needs in the moment.
For example, if a 5th grader harasses another 5th grader via Facebook, many would commonly accept that as cyber bullying. But if a member of the public harasses another member of the public on Twitter and then, by virtue of the harasser's follower size, triggers a mass onslaught attack, is that still "cyber bullying"? What if the victim is someone with unpopular social/political opinions? Does it then depend on what those opinions are? What if the victim is being Twitter shamed for not supporting gay marriage? Is that "fighting the power" or is it "cyber-bullying"?
I ask this as someone who is a long-time supporter of equal marriage rights, but a similarly long-time proponent of the freedom to have one's own damn opinions without being forced into the spotlight and being publicly harassed.
I always get annoyed when investment-prodders say "Never invest more than you can afford." It's impossible to do so anyway. If i have $100, I can't invest $10,000 in anything. What they need to say is, "Don't invest more than they can afford to lose," but they don't want to because that would make the product they're selling seem like a bit of a gamble. Which it is.
Arguing about the safety of fully autonomous vehicles is an exercise is futile theoretics. We know that if they work exactly as we imagine how they should work, it would be safer. But the question is *can* they be perfect? Or *will* they be perfect? Or even *when* will they be perfect?
Arguing about how safe 100% autonomous vehicles are is like debating if a Pegasus can fly faster than Griffin.
How about we stop reporting on how people feel about non-existent/unproven technology and just report the testable advancements in said technology until they're at the point to where the technology is ready for the market... and then report on adoption and experience?
The promise wasn't simply self-landing first-stage rockets. It was a commitment to provide low cost orbital launch vehicles and responsive launch services, on a recurring basis, using a mature vehicle design and a commercially derived booster to meet mission/payload requirements. (2005) It's safe to say that that expectation hasn't been met (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Past_launches).
... because there's no way in Hell that Tony Stark would believe that boring holes under a metropolis or the hyperloop would EVER actually work. Those ideas are guaranteed vaporware.
The promise wasn't "electric cars that you can buy now", it was "electric cars that anyone can afford funded by electric sports cars for the rich". That didn't happen. The public funded the subsidization of the electric sports cars and the "affordable" EV is happening as the result of massive public and private investment. And the affordable vehicle won't even have the features promised.
Home power storage solutions was never a promise because we have still yet to approach the point where people NEED to store their own power. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and has come as a side-effect of Tesla needing to source their own batteries (and thus have a battery factory) and then sell the batteries they'll over-produce.
Someone mentioned solar roof tiles. Those still aren't here yet and they won't ever be at the price of replacing a roof outright as promised. It will only be comparable in price when you factor in receiving all possible incentives (in the long run) and the irrational idea of financing a $7,500 roof with a 30-year loan (thus artificially increasing the cost of a regular roof). It's all here: https://www.tesla.com/solarroo... . And even then, it's not likely going to be the whole roof full of tiles.
Here's the thing-- I don't think these projects will fail in the long run. I know that the private transportation of goods to space is a current reality and it will only improve with time. I know that EVs (or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) are the future of private transportation. I know that we'll eventually have a majority of autonomous vehicles on the road. I know that when we move more towards ubiquitous solar (were sensible) and wind, we'll need better ways of storing energy to deal with grid spikes and valleys. But it won't be nearly as quick as Musk says and it won't be nearly as cheap. Someone has to pay and even if it's not out of pocket for you right now, you're likely paying for it in your taxes via subsidies. Musk isn't a financial or technological genius. He's not the scientist or researcher making these things happen. He's not Tony Stark. He's an ideas guy and a hype-man.
This is exactly how I feel, now. If there's a news article or headline that uses any kind of suggestive emotional descriptor, I turn off.
"Shameful Statements from the President. Critics Respond." -- Newsflash: "Critics criticize!"
"Horrific Accident on the Freeway..." -- Yep. Happens literally every single day of the year.
"Person Stuns Other People" -- I don't care about the emotional responses of other people. Shocked, offended-- doesn't matter. Just tell me what the person did/said.
"Sad Tale of Person Who Feels Bad Now" -- Ok... but what led to the feels?
If you just trim it down to the necessary, journalistic info, you find that most of these articles or TV segments should be 20% their presented length. Just tell me what happened! I'll know figure out my own thoughts, opinions, and feelings on the matter!
I'm not kidding when I say that I would happily pay $30/month for a news service that committed to leaving all that crap out and just reported like the following.
Headline: "President Does This Action", Body: On , President did this. These countries have acted in support. These countries are filing official protests. Here's the legal/historical basis for this action (link).
Headline: "Business Hypeman Unveils Design for Thing", Body: On , Business Hypeman revealed the design for a Thing. The thing is not functional yet. Business Hypeman says when released it will do that. Here's the basis for the technology (link).
Headline: "Law Proposed to Change How This is Done", Body: On , a legislature put forth a bill to make this process standard. Supporters include these guys. Detractors include these guys. Lobbyists involved from these industries have taken sides. Here's the legislation (link) and an analysis from an unbiased source (link).
I say that we all mod this up and call discussion done.
Off the top of my head, here's how I've experienced portable music players changing:
1. Cassette Player ("Walkman")
2. CD Player
3. MP3-capable CD player, mini-CD player
4. Proprietary medium player (mini-disc, etc.)
5. MP3 player with internal storage, some expandable (Diamond Rio, Creative Nomad, Archos Jukebox, Apple iPod, Sandisk Sansa)
6. Smartphones (using local media collections) & surviving MP3 players in the market
7. Smartphones (using streaming media collections) & re-emerging MP3 players in the market (Fiio, Apple, Sony, many other audio-focused companies)
But then smartphones began to change themselves. They kept getting BIGGER and people no longer felt comfortable needing to lug around a phablet on bike rides, runs, or in their pocket while just walking around the office/house. So, "wearables" hit the market as a solution to wanting both LARGE phone screens and portability. Most people think "smartwatch" and "fitness tracker" when it comes to wearables, but the iPod Shuffle (being part of the "iSuite") might have been one of the first modern wearables.
Opinion
I think we're going the wrong direction with the balance of of the size of the smartphone and the utility of wearables. Today's newest smartwatches are now coming with GPS/GLONASS, app libraries, and direct cellular connectivity and as a result they're getting VERY large. We don't want to carry around phablets while exercising, so we're taking other small devices and making them larger, separating out sub-devices for processes that were previously relegated to smartphones (The Mighty for Spotify playlists, Pebble Core for GPS/alerts, etc.).
But instead of a person owning 3 different GPS trackers, 4 wi-fi chips, and 3 cellular transmitters, why aren't we just focusing on further shrinking the smartphone has a hub for all the processes while developing a separate device to make the smartphone SEEM bigger? One such device is being kickstarted right now (Superscreen). This concept allows you to use your smartphone via a tablet-sized proxy.
Thus, you can get a physically small smartphone, carry it everywhere, connect everything you want to it (BT headphones, smartwatch, etc.) and when you want the LARGE form factor for reading, you pull the "big screen" from your portfolio, coffee table, or desk. Additionally, all of those other devices will need to charge less frequently because your phone is the one doing all the heavy transmitting.
THIS! The greatest myth of attracting large employers is that they won't move to City A because taxes are "too high". The truth is that neither their big money earners want to live there nor do they think they'll be able to attract the necessary skilled employee pool.
People want to live in nice places and, as Seattle, San Diego, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Portland, etc. all show, they'll pay for it. They'll pay for transit. They'll pay for good schools. They'll pay for bikeability. They'll pay for wide sidewalks, shade trees, and farmer's markets. But those things actually have to exist in some way, shape, or form first.
If you try to make your city a tax-free zone, you prevent ALL THOSE SERVICES from developing and thus you will never attract new businesses that actually employ people.
Well said!
If you can't force legally press someone into labor, then there's no point reporting on anyone that is unwilling to or incapable of working.
If you know that 4.5% of Britons want work, but can't find it, then you can act on that information: find them, find open jobs within their skill-sets, and make connections.
If you know that 21.5% of working-age Britons aren't working, you have to do a LOT MORE work to filter out who can/can't work and who won't work.
By applied, you presumably mean "had some ideas to tweak other peoples' aged ideas"? He had yet to "develop" anything except for very small values of "develop". If he has "developed" the Hyperloop, then I have "developed" a universal job search engine-- that being I've thought about it a lot and made some rough sketches of some relational DBs.
Wow. I'm going full Poe's Law here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
Either way, color me entertained!
I accept that correction with a grin of shared frustration. ;)
The VAST majority of bicyclists also drive automobiles and, in doing so, pay gas taxes.
More importantly, though, anyone who makes money in the US pays into the road system. The gas tax has been insufficient to fund the roads for the last 30 or so years and income taxes have been covering the difference.
"General taxpayers at all levels of government now subsidize highway construction and maintenance to the tune of $69 billion per year – an amount exceeding the expenditure of general tax funds to support transit, bicycling, walking and passenger rail combined." http://www.uspirg.org/reports/...
Thus, anyone who DOESN'T drive a car, but still holds a job, is paying MUCH more than their fair share of the road (that they can't/don't use).