Or parking goes away because instead of going to park, the car you rode in goes off to give someone else a ride. When you want to go somewhere else, you call a car that may or may not be the car you arrived in.
They almost got it right when they said people would see vehicles as a service provider.
Driverless cars mean vehicular multiplexing. A car that can transport people on its own is wasting resources sitting parked in a garage.
First, services will spring up that allow you to rent your personal car out while you are at work (that provide insurance against internal damage). Then services will spring up that operate fleets of vehicles (taking advantage of economy of scale for maintenance). Then people will realize that owning a vehicle is more way expensive than using a fleet service and doesn't add much, if any, convenience.
End result, individuals will stop owning vehicles (except for driving hobbyists). Ride sharing will increase. Parking will become less valuable and a lot of parking real estate will be turned toward more productive use (commercial/residential).
Fuelling stations will become centralized. This will allow adoption of gasoline alternatives (like swapping out banks of slow charging batteries).
I read that story in Analog (or one of the other Sci-Fi periodicals) around 20 years ago. In-Vitro meat was the rage with exotics like Mammoth being created in the lab. One of the main characters started selling a secret mystery meat that became very popular. The reveal at the end showed that it was made from a culture taken from his girlfriend's ass cheek.
Eventually, effects costs will be low enough that these can be produced as television series. Then Marvel and DC will create their own television networks with shows that parallel their comic books.
Summer crossover events are going to take up a lot more time.
Netflix has zero negotiating power with digital streaming. They have negotiating power with DVDs because retail prices give them a BATNA.
The studios will raise their prices until subscribers * price is maximized. Then they will raise it a little bit more and take away Netflix's profit. If they give up their DVD mailing service then they are walking dead.
Blockbuster is dead because they didn't do the retail BATNA. They got in bed with the content owners and those owners ****ed them (in bed).
Never do a business where you have a single provided of your supplies if you want to make any profit.
Yes, but you get the radiation from the machine in a second and you get it from the flight spread over an hour. That is also assuming the machine is operating and being operated correctly. I'm not convinced yet. I'll wait several years and see if cancer rates increase among frequent travellers before I allow it to be used on myself or my family.
There isn't a "correct" choice. #1 is the one that gives people incentive to save and be less of a burden on the rest of society. You want to set policy to encourage people to make that choice.
I don't know what investments are "safe". I do know that earning more than "average" from an investment requires either a lot of work or a lot of luck. I prefer to put my hard work into my career and aim to preserve my investments by keeping up with inflation. I think that expecting more than that without making that your profession is unrealistic.
I've also thought that maybe encouraging no savings and making everyone rely on SS might not be a bad idea for the reasons you mention. That is what the OP calls a Ponzi scheme. I disagree that it is a Ponzi scheme. Sometimes SS runs a surplus and sometimes it runs a deficit. As long as those balance out, then everything is okay. The problem is that the surplus/deficit runs last for decades.
To maintain your standard of living after retirement, you need to save about 30% of your post tax income (in the absense of SS). If I earn $100k year, I need to live like someone earning $70k a year who isn't saving for retirement. That suggests a few choices:
1) Continue working hard and saving for a $70k lifestyle. 2) Work less hard, earn $70k and don't save. 3) Continue working hard, don't save, and live a $100k lifestyle.
Autonomous vehicles are going to make owning your own vehicle uneconomical anyway. You won't buy insurance because you won't own a vehicle. Businesses that own and operate fleets will negotiate with the insurance for you. Eventually.
The transition from today to ubiquitous use is going to be messy, but large changes often are.
You'll need special insurance for the cars. The insurance companies will negotiate with the manufacturer to share the burden of responsibility. The manufacturer will have insurance protecting them too.
The cars will have all of their sensor data recorded. If the other person is at fault, they will have a much higher chance of taking the blame.
And you will pay a lot more if you want to drive your car yourself. Once safety passes human ability, insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind adoption.
"Banks do not loan out depositors money. They use depositors money as reserve and create new money which they loan out."
That isn't right. Banks do loan out depositors money, but they have to keep some fraction of it in reserve. The fact that the depositor "has" money in the bank and the borrow has the money is what "creates" the money. When the borrow spends that money and it gets deposited back into the bank, the cycle can continue and multiply again.
Slashdot Mirror
The robot car might be able to recognize aggressive drivers and automatically report them to the highway patrol along with a video record.
Or parking goes away because instead of going to park, the car you rode in goes off to give someone else a ride. When you want to go somewhere else, you call a car that may or may not be the car you arrived in.
They almost got it right when they said people would see vehicles as a service provider.
Driverless cars mean vehicular multiplexing. A car that can transport people on its own is wasting resources sitting parked in a garage.
First, services will spring up that allow you to rent your personal car out while you are at work (that provide insurance against internal damage). Then services will spring up that operate fleets of vehicles (taking advantage of economy of scale for maintenance). Then people will realize that owning a vehicle is more way expensive than using a fleet service and doesn't add much, if any, convenience.
End result, individuals will stop owning vehicles (except for driving hobbyists). Ride sharing will increase. Parking will become less valuable and a lot of parking real estate will be turned toward more productive use (commercial/residential).
Fuelling stations will become centralized. This will allow adoption of gasoline alternatives (like swapping out banks of slow charging batteries).
Coffee is free at Microsoft. Comes out of a machine that brews each cup.
I read that story in Analog (or one of the other Sci-Fi periodicals) around 20 years ago. In-Vitro meat was the rage with exotics like Mammoth being created in the lab. One of the main characters started selling a secret mystery meat that became very popular. The reveal at the end showed that it was made from a culture taken from his girlfriend's ass cheek.
They should turn this into a "Mission to Mars" ride at Disneyland.
Although the wait in line might take quite a long time.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
What kind of retirement plan are those Federal workers getting? I bet if you factor that in, they are paid much, much more than the contractors.
Three words: Graduate Teaching Assistants.
Eventually, effects costs will be low enough that these can be produced as television series. Then Marvel and DC will create their own television networks with shows that parallel their comic books.
Summer crossover events are going to take up a lot more time.
The Hydra hunt could be a television series.
Boy, when that black hole gets drunk he is a real asshole.
Netflix has zero negotiating power with digital streaming. They have negotiating power with DVDs because retail prices give them a BATNA.
The studios will raise their prices until subscribers * price is maximized. Then they will raise it a little bit more and take away Netflix's profit. If they give up their DVD mailing service then they are walking dead.
Blockbuster is dead because they didn't do the retail BATNA. They got in bed with the content owners and those owners ****ed them (in bed).
Never do a business where you have a single provided of your supplies if you want to make any profit.
Yes, but you get the radiation from the machine in a second and you get it from the flight spread over an hour. That is also assuming the machine is operating and being operated correctly. I'm not convinced yet. I'll wait several years and see if cancer rates increase among frequent travellers before I allow it to be used on myself or my family.
There isn't a "correct" choice. #1 is the one that gives people incentive to save and be less of a burden on the rest of society. You want to set policy to encourage people to make that choice.
I don't know what investments are "safe". I do know that earning more than "average" from an investment requires either a lot of work or a lot of luck. I prefer to put my hard work into my career and aim to preserve my investments by keeping up with inflation. I think that expecting more than that without making that your profession is unrealistic.
I've also thought that maybe encouraging no savings and making everyone rely on SS might not be a bad idea for the reasons you mention. That is what the OP calls a Ponzi scheme. I disagree that it is a Ponzi scheme. Sometimes SS runs a surplus and sometimes it runs a deficit. As long as those balance out, then everything is okay. The problem is that the surplus/deficit runs last for decades.
To maintain your standard of living after retirement, you need to save about 30% of your post tax income (in the absense of SS). If I earn $100k year, I need to live like someone earning $70k a year who isn't saving for retirement. That suggests a few choices:
1) Continue working hard and saving for a $70k lifestyle.
2) Work less hard, earn $70k and don't save.
3) Continue working hard, don't save, and live a $100k lifestyle.
I don't see any advantage to #1. Do you?
Means testing will just discourage people from saving on their own. $1M isn't really that much to retire on if you live 30 years after retirement.
I wish you weren't posting AC so that I could friend you.
I've heard before that China pegs their currency, but I don't really understand what that means. Can you explain it terms an idiot can understand?
And you thought city design in the US doesn't promote walking today...
... against entropy.
Autonomous vehicles are going to make owning your own vehicle uneconomical anyway. You won't buy insurance because you won't own a vehicle. Businesses that own and operate fleets will negotiate with the insurance for you. Eventually.
The transition from today to ubiquitous use is going to be messy, but large changes often are.
You'll need special insurance for the cars. The insurance companies will negotiate with the manufacturer to share the burden of responsibility. The manufacturer will have insurance protecting them too.
The cars will have all of their sensor data recorded. If the other person is at fault, they will have a much higher chance of taking the blame.
And you will pay a lot more if you want to drive your car yourself. Once safety passes human ability, insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind adoption.
"Banks do not loan out depositors money. They use depositors money as reserve and create new money which they loan out."
That isn't right. Banks do loan out depositors money, but they have to keep some fraction of it in reserve. The fact that the depositor "has" money in the bank and the borrow has the money is what "creates" the money. When the borrow spends that money and it gets deposited back into the bank, the cycle can continue and multiply again.