Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Welcome to the Future

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 2:54:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Google has actually been doing this for a couple years. Drove cross-country on its own with one accident - and the accident was the other driver's fault. Otherwise... 'flawless victory'. It was a better driver than what what insurance companies would consider low-risk man-drivers.

Naturally, the only thing in the way of this is government regulations.

In any case, welcome to the future. Still waiting on my flying cars, though.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 5:35:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 1:01:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Three companies had prototype automatic driving cars at the Los Angeles car show this.

The technology is working its way into production incrementally. Now available are cars that automatically parallel park, automatically put on the brakes if you are about to hit something, and automatically sense wandering out of the lane. I'm told the lane sensor only works on straight roads.

Several states, including Nevada and California, now license self-driving cars. The states insist that there be a human driver behind the wheel ready to take over at any time.

Many say that self-driving cars will be in production by 2020.

Self-driving cars are probably the answer to drunk driving. Availability would answer one of the objections to drug legalization.
NotReallySmart
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 7:56:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Only problem with the implementation of this technology is that it means less jobs.
There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge; that is Curiosity.

There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others; that is Vanity.

There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve; that is Love."

- Bernard of Clairvaux
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 1:54:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 2:54:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Google has actually been doing this for a couple years. Drove cross-country on its own with one accident - and the accident was the other driver's fault. Otherwise... 'flawless victory'. It was a better driver than what what insurance companies would consider low-risk man-drivers.

Naturally, the only thing in the way of this is government regulations.

In any case, welcome to the future. Still waiting on my flying cars, though.



Next time Mercedes does a promotional video the guy in the non-driver seat should not have his hands inches above the steering wheel looking like it is going to fail at any moment. lol
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 1:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 1:01:12 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Three companies had prototype automatic driving cars at the Los Angeles car show this.

The technology is working its way into production incrementally. Now available are cars that automatically parallel park, automatically put on the brakes if you are about to hit something, and automatically sense wandering out of the lane. I'm told the lane sensor only works on straight roads.

Several states, including Nevada and California, now license self-driving cars. The states insist that there be a human driver behind the wheel ready to take over at any time.

Many say that self-driving cars will be in production by 2020.

Self-driving cars are probably the answer to drunk driving. Availability would answer one of the objections to drug legalization.

I can't wait to have happy hour on the drive home from work. Mankind will live years longer no longer dealing with the stress of traffic!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 2:18:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:56:44 AM, NotReallySmart wrote:
Only problem with the implementation of this technology is that it means less jobs.

This is a common economic fallacy. Read Chapter 7: The Curse of Machinery [http://mises.org...].
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 3:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:56:44 AM, NotReallySmart wrote:
Only problem with the implementation of this technology is that it means less jobs.

Automation frees up workers to do higher value jobs, so that's not a problem.

When you say that it eliminates jobs, I suppose you mean professional drivers. I'm not sure what the effect will be on jobs. For local delivery trucks, the driver does the unloading at each stop. Someday robots will probably do the deliveries into buildings, but that's not going to be soon. For long haul big rigs, the cargo is usually quite valuable, so shippers have to worry about guarding the shipment and also taking care of the truck and its load if something breaks. I'm thinking they will still want an operator on board, possibly with a different skill set.

Taxicabs are an interesting case. It seems to me that with cams and credit card ID they could be left to operate unattended, and cab drivers would be out of jobs. So if you are not going to use the family car for an afternoon, you could send it out to earn some money. There will be an app for that.
NotReallySmart
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 5:52:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 3:19:13 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/15/2013 7:56:44 AM, NotReallySmart wrote:
Only problem with the implementation of this technology is that it means less jobs.

Automation frees up workers to do higher value jobs, so that's not a problem.

Hmmm.. I always thought workers initially do lower value jobs because they don't have the education or skill to do higher value jobs so how does automation do that?

When you say that it eliminates jobs, I suppose you mean professional drivers. I'm not sure what the effect will be on jobs. For local delivery trucks, the driver does the unloading at each stop. Someday robots will probably do the deliveries into buildings, but that's not going to be soon. For long haul big rigs, the cargo is usually quite valuable, so shippers have to worry about guarding the shipment and also taking care of the truck and its load if something breaks. I'm thinking they will still want an operator on board, possibly with a different skill set.

Wouldn't unloading pay less then driving use to, so it might not mean less jobs, but doesn't it mean jobs that pay less?

Taxicabs are an interesting case. It seems to me that with cams and credit card ID they could be left to operate unattended, and cab drivers would be out of jobs. So if you are not going to use the family car for an afternoon, you could send it out to earn some money. There will be an app for that.

I guess so, I don't know much about economics so please answer my questions. I'll make sure to read that chapter and the whole book if I can WSA, thanks in-advanced for enlightening me on this issue.
There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge; that is Curiosity.

There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others; that is Vanity.

There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve; that is Love."

- Bernard of Clairvaux
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 10:29:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Automation frees up workers to do higher value jobs, so that's not a problem.

Hmmm.. I always thought workers initially do lower value jobs because they don't have the education or skill to do higher value jobs so how does automation do that?

What it means is that workers move to industries that are more productive. Individual salaries may drop, especially if they need to be retrained, but society it not harmed. An example is given by North Carolina where textiles were a traditional industry. Textiles means sewing underwear and such. Manufacturers closed the textile plants and moved operations to Mexico, precipitating outrage over job loses. The state then had labor surpluses and recruited banking and pharmaceutical industries into the state. Not every person sewing textiles found a new job in the new industries, but overall the state prospered by replacing a low-valued industry with higher-valued ones. It does put a premium on retraining.

Wouldn't unloading pay less then driving use to, so it might not mean less jobs, but doesn't it mean jobs that pay less?

I'm guessing probably not for local deliveries, because the delivery part is more important than the driving part. Currently there is a shortage of long-haul truck drivers because trucking companies don't want to pay the insurance costs for inexperienced drivers. So in that case, salaries would probably drop, but shortages would be filled. Automation virtually always creates high-paying jobs for technicians maintaining and repairing the equipment, and in manufacturing the automated devices.

Increased productivity benefits society by lowering the cost of goods. Farming is a dramatic example. A hundred years ago, about 90% of the population was engaged in agriculture. Now there is only 4% in agriculture and a lot more food produced. So 86% of all the jobs in the country were wiped out by automation -- yet we are better off because food prices dropped and people are in more valuable industries.
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:07:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 2:54:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Naturally, the only thing in the way of this is government regulations.

In any case, welcome to the future. Still waiting on my flying cars, though.


Actually, welcome to the present -a company grossly violating government regulations (last time I checked a car moving without a driver IS illegal right now) and celebrating their complete victory.

Ah, to be again the naive kid who read science magazines in the early 60s and dreamed of a better future.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 2:18:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/15/2013 7:56:44 AM, NotReallySmart wrote:
Only problem with the implementation of this technology is that it means less jobs.

This is a common economic fallacy. Read Chapter 7: The Curse of Machinery [http://mises.org...].

It is a fallacy that has an end date because it is built upon the premise that building and supporting new technology uses humans. In effect it is no longer a fallacy when the reinvestment of higher profits does not create jobs because the design, manufacturing and service of the equipment is automated. We are far from that point, but there is no reason to believe that level of productivity will not be achieved.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:22:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 7:56:44 AM, NotReallySmart wrote:
Only problem with the implementation of this technology is that it means less jobs.

so did the monorail, although cheaper transportation is likely to encourage innovation and business which create new jobs in other sector.

In general it's probably a bad new for taxi driver, but good news for societies overall.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 7:12:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always wonder how many traffic problems are due to poor driving rather than actual volume of traffic and how that could be alleviated by having all traffic be automated.

I think it's completely feasible, it's just a matter of getting the infrastructure and regulation out there. The routing of cars to their destinations would be a snap.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 11:38:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This technology will never see the light of day as long as local and state governing authorities have any say. Not only that, the insurance lobby will fight tooth and nail to keep this from happening.

The amount of loss in state revenue that will be lost due to massive decreases in traffic violations and dui would be staggering. Insurance company profit margins would also drop considerably.

I know this is a cynical view, but I know how these governments think and work. Cities, counties and states want you to violate traffic laws. It is a major source of revenue. The more citations you get, the more insurance companies are justified charging you higher cost insurance. Just something to consider before you get your hopes to high.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 12:34:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2013 7:12:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
I always wonder how many traffic problems are due to poor driving rather than actual volume of traffic and how that could be alleviated by having all traffic be automated.

I think it's completely feasible, it's just a matter of getting the infrastructure and regulation out there. The routing of cars to their destinations would be a snap.

If people do not need to drive and can spend time on DDO while being driven, then they will probably care a whole lot less about how quickly they arrive.

In one futuristic vision, cars know where other cars are. There is no need for traffic lights because cars can be made to interleave perfectly at full speed at intersections. Cars could travel very close together under computer control, getting more cars per minute at any given speed. A disruption like an accident typically causes an oscillating stop-and-go wave past the point. Computers could maintain a smooth speed, merging lanes at speed. There should be many fewer accidents, and that would help speed things up.

I don't think localities will be able to stop self-driving cars, because popular demand will be too great. Lots of people will want them as a remedy to drunk and drugged out driving, people who drink and take drugs will want them, there will be pressure from delivery companies who will benefit, old and handicapped people will want them to improve their mobility, and most other people will want to be able to be on DDO --or possible do some other activity-- during drive time. Besides, politicians have never been challenged by inability to find things to tax. They'll tax the CO2 emissions from breathing.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 12:59:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 12:34:13 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:12:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
I always wonder how many traffic problems are due to poor driving rather than actual volume of traffic and how that could be alleviated by having all traffic be automated.

I think it's completely feasible, it's just a matter of getting the infrastructure and regulation out there. The routing of cars to their destinations would be a snap.

If people do not need to drive and can spend time on DDO while being driven, then they will probably care a whole lot less about how quickly they arrive.

In one futuristic vision, cars know where other cars are. There is no need for traffic lights because cars can be made to interleave perfectly at full speed at intersections. Cars could travel very close together under computer control, getting more cars per minute at any given speed. A disruption like an accident typically causes an oscillating stop-and-go wave past the point. Computers could maintain a smooth speed, merging lanes at speed. There should be many fewer accidents, and that would help speed things up.

I don't think localities will be able to stop self-driving cars, because popular demand will be too great. Lots of people will want them as a remedy to drunk and drugged out driving, people who drink and take drugs will want them, there will be pressure from delivery companies who will benefit, old and handicapped people will want them to improve their mobility, and most other people will want to be able to be on DDO --or possible do some other activity-- during drive time. Besides, politicians have never been challenged by inability to find things to tax. They'll tax the CO2 emissions from breathing.

The possibilities are certainly intriguing. I saw a documentary on television some years back that discussed what they called "smart cars" basically being just another node in a network as you described. In this program they showed how the vehicle would transform into a mobile workstation. They described vehicles that were smart enough to change the very pigment of the paint to change at your whim. Windows were mere monitors that could display anything from a virtual reality drive in france while driving in New York City to a business operations command center to a relaxing moon lit night on a beach in the tropics where it would wake you when it arrived at your destination.

Speeds were also increased significantly and rush hour would become a thing of the past. In short, the vehicle would become a place of rest, relaxation or productivity. Perhaps you are right Roy, but it will be an up hill battle with this generation of politicians.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 11:52:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am all for it in the transportation and trucking industry, but my own car? Never. How friken boring and lame.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%