I absolutely believe that under the laws as written, Uber is a Taxi service and should face all the same regulation.
I also cynically believe that with 10s of Billions in funding, Uber is able to "operate outside the law" and get away with it indefinitely, or at least until they can buy new laws that accommodate their business model.
I practically believe that the Taxi regulations, for the most part, fail to benefit taxi riders. I feel as, if not more, protected by basic statutes against assault, battery, fraud, etc. than I do by any special taxi licensing/enforcement.
I'm just trying to see a viable "uber in the sky" scenario...
I wouldn't mind slowly working toward a GA pilot's license while paying instructors to teach/fly me to other places that I also happen to need to be. I realize this cuts down the pool of available pilots, but, frankly, by the numbers, I'd rather not use an "average" GA pilot to transport me - hopefully the instructors are better.
Somewhat off-topic, we used to charter a dive boat with a "really fun" and affordable captain, we were basically paying for his gas - thing was, we were only about 20/22 years old at the time and we were constantly catching things he missed, like how to use his GPS, or how to plan our dives to avoid going over the table limits. The last time we used him he almost ran hard aground on a coral "wall," it finally sank in to us that this guy really had no clue about how to operate his boat, or take care of SCUBA divers.
As for those that think this level of simulation is impossible, it isn't.
Without ANY bugs? Really? The only way this idea works is if you have a divine programmer who cannot make any mistakes who created the universe. This is more like scientology than science.
If we are in a simulation, I would anticipate it to have about 3 lines of code:
1. initialize multidimensional structure full of 0s with one huge number in one location
2. Apply unified theory of everything to structure
There aren't "any limits in software" but progress in software hasn't been anywhere near what it has been in hardware.
The main argument against us "living in a simulation" for me is, that if the observable universe is just as real as the dirt under our feet, the scale of it is so massively larger than anything that we could hope to simulate with our present tech.
Now, if all this incident light from outside the solar system is just simulated, then, maybe.....
Fatalities per mile traveled are ~10x higher in general aviation than in private cars, and they are much more than 10x lower in commercial aviation than in private cars.
One thing the FAA is controlling here is the amount of general aviation traffic, if you put 10x as many general aviation flights in the air, you're going to make their safety even worse than it already is: more crowding at uncontrolled airfields, especially on approach and landing, and more pilots flying when they shouldn't due to "obligations to the customers."
So, what are the miles traveled per fatality comparing: pedestrians to bicycles to cars to taxis to private planes to commercial planes to the space shuttle?
I know plenty of private pilots who would love to have a passenger "split" their expenses with them (especially if the agreed upon split was the passenger paying 98% of the expenses) so they could get more flying hours without having to pay for the bulk of them.
What I think most people fail to appreciate until they try "general aviation commuting" themselves is just how much GA is at the mercy of the weather. If you are depending on a GA flight to get you somewhere, you should be prepared for weather delays ranging from hours to several days or weeks in some locations/seasons.
I'm not sure what's more scary, WWIII or financial armageddon. I doubt we'll exactly get either, though it's not inconceivable that we could get both (in reverse order.)
My prediction for the future is a continued "dynamic society" where things change, rapidly, and not always for the better. Alvin Toffler wrote Future Shock 46 years ago, and it's more true today than it was then - things are changing, faster than they used to. The only thing that shocks me a little is that we're coming up on 20 years of significant internet activity, and it's made relatively little progress in so many areas - starting with: most people are still driving to work and flying to meetings, when the equipment for a "like you are there" teleconference room costs less than flying 2 or 3 people to a single one day meeting.
One point of progress: in 1985 I was pretty convinced that I could be drafted for "the next war," and now it seems that U.S. politics has turned that corner where they're unlikely to bring back conscription. I hope that's a change that sticks.
Efficiency and automation is stagnating the economic output of US-Americans, when expressed in inflation adjusted dollars the "median" US worker makes about the same thing they did 50 years ago, difference being there are roughly twice as many of us today - all vying for the same limited resources (real estate, waterfront property, tables at the best restaurant in town), and the top 5% of the economy has seen explosive growth in their real-income, so, relatively speaking, they are cornering the market on desirable stuff and squeezing out the masses.
Take a drive down a "beachfront homes" street some day and guesstimate how many owners of that very expensive property own several such properties. Look at the actual occupancy rates of luxury homes vs average homes. That's what's changed dramatically in my lifetime.
I think 10 years isn't enough time to see a complete economic revolution, global behavior has a tremendous amount of inertia. If we're lucky, it will be a rapid (30-50 year) economic evolution like we've seen happen since WWII.
I'm not sure why anybody believes that population growth will stop at 10B. Extrapolations from the past are largely irrelevant, predictions of behavior in the future are wildly speculative. The one thing that has been constant throughout history is: when humans have enough to eat, their population grows.
Yet another case of studios being $(*%. Personally, when I'm 10' from my 42" screen, 1080p is already more resolution than I can perceive - sure, when I sit right in front of it I can see the difference, and I have a 30" 4K monitor on my desk that is much better for displaying lots and lots of text at once, but for watching a movie? If I need to see more than a megapixel of resolution to enjoy a movie, there's something wrong with the plot.
I played with low power HTPC things for awhile, and eventually just got an Intel NUC (running Ubuntu) and am done with optimizations and tweaks to make my viewing experience "acceptable." Spend $500 on your hardware instead of $100 and you can save yourself dozens of hours in configuration cleverness.
Oh, and who wants a smart TV? Not us. Dumb monitors are highly preferable and much more configurable and easier to upgrade. Our current "dumb" 42" 1080p screen was purchased 8 years ago and accepts input from any HDMI device, including the aforementioned Ubuntu/NUC - which runs Netflix and KODI and a VLC feed from a 3MP IP camera, and any custom software I care to put on it quite well.
People don't buy Macbooks because they are lighter, or thinner, or faster. They buy them because they run Mac OS X.
I hate to push back here, but a large number of people buy them because of the glowy apple on the lid. I've had Macs, minis, and a Mac Book Pro (although, I've never actually paid for one of these out of my private funds...) - OS X was/is... not terribly exciting, to me.
Appeals to the lowest common denominator - isn't that how you win elections? It's like a self-selecting process, we're literally begging for candidates who appeal to the masses.
Unlike (most) people the N word applies to, a large number of "necks" are proud to carry the label, whether or not they ever got a sunburn above the collar from work, or a NASCAR event.
What I'm saying is they don't care that they're stereotyped- it's actually part of the stereotype that they don't care. Whether it's right or wrong to apply the stereotype is a totally different conversation.
No, most of how we are getting better has to do with producing more food in the areas which need food. It has nothing to do with the IoT.
See, I think that a whole lot of producing food in areas which need food has a whole lot to do with stabilizing governments and militaries such that they aren't controlling the food supply to 98% of the population for luxury benefits enjoyed by 2%.
This isn't strictly an IoT function, yet, but it is highly dependent upon free flow of information, exposure of corruption and abuse, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely believe that under the laws as written, Uber is a Taxi service and should face all the same regulation.
I also cynically believe that with 10s of Billions in funding, Uber is able to "operate outside the law" and get away with it indefinitely, or at least until they can buy new laws that accommodate their business model.
I practically believe that the Taxi regulations, for the most part, fail to benefit taxi riders. I feel as, if not more, protected by basic statutes against assault, battery, fraud, etc. than I do by any special taxi licensing/enforcement.
I'm just trying to see a viable "uber in the sky" scenario...
I wouldn't mind slowly working toward a GA pilot's license while paying instructors to teach/fly me to other places that I also happen to need to be. I realize this cuts down the pool of available pilots, but, frankly, by the numbers, I'd rather not use an "average" GA pilot to transport me - hopefully the instructors are better.
Somewhat off-topic, we used to charter a dive boat with a "really fun" and affordable captain, we were basically paying for his gas - thing was, we were only about 20/22 years old at the time and we were constantly catching things he missed, like how to use his GPS, or how to plan our dives to avoid going over the table limits. The last time we used him he almost ran hard aground on a coral "wall," it finally sank in to us that this guy really had no clue about how to operate his boat, or take care of SCUBA divers.
As for those that think this level of simulation is impossible, it isn't.
Without ANY bugs? Really? The only way this idea works is if you have a divine programmer who cannot make any mistakes who created the universe. This is more like scientology than science.
If we are in a simulation, I would anticipate it to have about 3 lines of code:
1. initialize multidimensional structure full of 0s with one huge number in one location
2. Apply unified theory of everything to structure
3. goto 2.
There aren't "any limits in software" but progress in software hasn't been anywhere near what it has been in hardware.
The main argument against us "living in a simulation" for me is, that if the observable universe is just as real as the dirt under our feet, the scale of it is so massively larger than anything that we could hope to simulate with our present tech.
Now, if all this incident light from outside the solar system is just simulated, then, maybe.....
To hear some tell it, Uber drivers don't really make much - if any - money, either.
Fatalities per mile traveled are ~10x higher in general aviation than in private cars, and they are much more than 10x lower in commercial aviation than in private cars.
One thing the FAA is controlling here is the amount of general aviation traffic, if you put 10x as many general aviation flights in the air, you're going to make their safety even worse than it already is: more crowding at uncontrolled airfields, especially on approach and landing, and more pilots flying when they shouldn't due to "obligations to the customers."
So, what are the miles traveled per fatality comparing: pedestrians to bicycles to cars to taxis to private planes to commercial planes to the space shuttle?
http://journalistsresource.org...
Space shuttle actually does pretty well, per mile traveled, but those people were traveling a whole lot of miles.
So, makes me curious, if you have an instructor's license, can you "teach flying" on point-to-point trips, for a profit?
Most general aviation planes don't even make 300mph.
I know plenty of private pilots who would love to have a passenger "split" their expenses with them (especially if the agreed upon split was the passenger paying 98% of the expenses) so they could get more flying hours without having to pay for the bulk of them.
What I think most people fail to appreciate until they try "general aviation commuting" themselves is just how much GA is at the mercy of the weather. If you are depending on a GA flight to get you somewhere, you should be prepared for weather delays ranging from hours to several days or weeks in some locations/seasons.
I'm not sure what's more scary, WWIII or financial armageddon. I doubt we'll exactly get either, though it's not inconceivable that we could get both (in reverse order.)
My prediction for the future is a continued "dynamic society" where things change, rapidly, and not always for the better. Alvin Toffler wrote Future Shock 46 years ago, and it's more true today than it was then - things are changing, faster than they used to. The only thing that shocks me a little is that we're coming up on 20 years of significant internet activity, and it's made relatively little progress in so many areas - starting with: most people are still driving to work and flying to meetings, when the equipment for a "like you are there" teleconference room costs less than flying 2 or 3 people to a single one day meeting.
One point of progress: in 1985 I was pretty convinced that I could be drafted for "the next war," and now it seems that U.S. politics has turned that corner where they're unlikely to bring back conscription. I hope that's a change that sticks.
Efficiency and automation is stagnating the economic output of US-Americans, when expressed in inflation adjusted dollars the "median" US worker makes about the same thing they did 50 years ago, difference being there are roughly twice as many of us today - all vying for the same limited resources (real estate, waterfront property, tables at the best restaurant in town), and the top 5% of the economy has seen explosive growth in their real-income, so, relatively speaking, they are cornering the market on desirable stuff and squeezing out the masses.
Take a drive down a "beachfront homes" street some day and guesstimate how many owners of that very expensive property own several such properties. Look at the actual occupancy rates of luxury homes vs average homes. That's what's changed dramatically in my lifetime.
I think 10 years isn't enough time to see a complete economic revolution, global behavior has a tremendous amount of inertia. If we're lucky, it will be a rapid (30-50 year) economic evolution like we've seen happen since WWII.
I'm not sure why anybody believes that population growth will stop at 10B. Extrapolations from the past are largely irrelevant, predictions of behavior in the future are wildly speculative. The one thing that has been constant throughout history is: when humans have enough to eat, their population grows.
Yet another case of studios being $(*%. Personally, when I'm 10' from my 42" screen, 1080p is already more resolution than I can perceive - sure, when I sit right in front of it I can see the difference, and I have a 30" 4K monitor on my desk that is much better for displaying lots and lots of text at once, but for watching a movie? If I need to see more than a megapixel of resolution to enjoy a movie, there's something wrong with the plot.
I played with low power HTPC things for awhile, and eventually just got an Intel NUC (running Ubuntu) and am done with optimizations and tweaks to make my viewing experience "acceptable." Spend $500 on your hardware instead of $100 and you can save yourself dozens of hours in configuration cleverness.
Oh, and who wants a smart TV? Not us. Dumb monitors are highly preferable and much more configurable and easier to upgrade. Our current "dumb" 42" 1080p screen was purchased 8 years ago and accepts input from any HDMI device, including the aforementioned Ubuntu/NUC - which runs Netflix and KODI and a VLC feed from a 3MP IP camera, and any custom software I care to put on it quite well.
Lots of people will listen to a man with $59B net worth.
Laying the economic argument for the importance of developing a space tether, perhaps?
Fewer kids, but not zero population growth.
Within the next 1000 years, the current economic pattern will inevitably be turned on its head.
Either: population growth stops, and the whole growing economy model falls apart.
Or: population continues growing by moving off planet, and the entire connected economy thing falls apart as transport costs become significant again.
If the population continues growing at even 1% per year for the next 1000 years, 1.01^1000 = x21,000 growth, or 147 trillion people by 3016.
irony - whoosh - /irony
I care about lighter, but not thinner.
People don't buy Macbooks because they are lighter, or thinner, or faster. They buy them because they run Mac OS X.
I hate to push back here, but a large number of people buy them because of the glowy apple on the lid. I've had Macs, minis, and a Mac Book Pro (although, I've never actually paid for one of these out of my private funds...) - OS X was/is... not terribly exciting, to me.
Appeals to the lowest common denominator - isn't that how you win elections? It's like a self-selecting process, we're literally begging for candidates who appeal to the masses.
Unlike (most) people the N word applies to, a large number of "necks" are proud to carry the label, whether or not they ever got a sunburn above the collar from work, or a NASCAR event.
What I'm saying is they don't care that they're stereotyped- it's actually part of the stereotype that they don't care. Whether it's right or wrong to apply the stereotype is a totally different conversation.
No, most of how we are getting better has to do with producing more food in the areas which need food. It has nothing to do with the IoT.
See, I think that a whole lot of producing food in areas which need food has a whole lot to do with stabilizing governments and militaries such that they aren't controlling the food supply to 98% of the population for luxury benefits enjoyed by 2%.
This isn't strictly an IoT function, yet, but it is highly dependent upon free flow of information, exposure of corruption and abuse, etc.