Mallette Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) I'm not arguing against your vision of transportation necessarily Not my vision. If you look around it's actually going mainstream media as per the newspaper story I referenced. All I am doing is using intelligence correlation techniques to piece together facts from disparate sources into a larger picture. I am no futurist, and not even that smart. But I can read, and I can separate fact from BS. Rossi's pCat? High on the BS meter. Lockheed's truckable fusion reactor? In the middle, indeterminate on the BS meter. Autonomous vehicles? Already tested and easily viewed by the public. Of course, given a large enough economic problem this future might be delayed a bit. Given the virtually incalculable boost to the global economy an economic problem will only delay it if combined with a global catastrophe. This changeover will be the largest single economy altering event for all wealth classes in history and will be one of the fastest, eclipsed only by the 1929 collapse...which, of course, was in the opposite direction. Dave Edited February 13, 2015 by Mallette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 It isn't a matter of choice. Allowing humans to "control" a motor vehicle on a public roadway is socially totally irresponsible and will be criminalized as soon as there is an alternative. Will that same thinking apply to people who want to "control" a gun? freedom , more freedom , to stop more freedom , you need a war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Will that same thinking apply to people who want to "control" a gun? In short, no. But we have no alternative to guns yet. Until we have robots handling law enforcement in accordance with the three laws of robotics, the gun will be with us. Well, there might be an unanticipated (and given the current level of robotics, more likely) development in something that incapacitates with no potential of injury...but I've not heard anything like that. If anything, the current tasers and such are pretty dangerous. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 So, I wasn't speaking of that when I referred to 'fundamental changes'. I was referring to the structural frame that supports life in America: economics and law. The American Dream, and all that. That's what I mean. Those concepts are relics of the past. As you have done, I'd date the official end of that period to December 19, 1972 when we abandoned manifest destiny and American excetionalism, the source of our energy both for good and for evil though certainly the source of our wealth and power, and set out to build Walmarts and perfect the hamburger instead. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Regarding the self driving cars, it disturbs me that a goal behind it is so that seniors who can't drive can be taken to work by these cars. Just makes me sad in the pants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Regarding the self driving cars, it disturbs me that a goal behind it is so that seniors who can't drive can be taken to work by these cars. Just makes me sad in the pants. Agreed. Though, of course, it will also take the poor and the handicapped to work as well. However, the mention in the story I heard on NPR about the seniors was one of those that can be traced to the US making the decision to become a second class technological and economic power. This COULD change, but I am not seeing it yet. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Seems some people here are simply "fiddling while Rome burns"...Dreams and visions aren't the answer to the original question. Your eloquence may make you feel good and impress some, but all you are doing is ignoring the real problem, a real problem that needs solving now, regardless of the cause. The cause is the only thing that is arguable, the fact it is happening is not, thankfully the majority of the rest of the world has recognized this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) No problem with your solution. But what is it, and what science is it based on? IF human science is so vast it can not only control the weather but also geologic forces, and this involves massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions...all assumptions without validation by available research, I suggested several means of achieving this with proven means. Those sounding the alarm loudest are simply suggesting taxing the hell out of us and voluntary cleanups of existing generation plants that isn't going to happen. I don't know if it will help or not, but I've no problem paying for cleaner air one way or the other. I do have problems with the US and other agencies proposing voluntary caps and heavy taxes which have no clear likelihood of making a difference...assuming we puny humans can do so at all with any degree of certainty. Rome isn't burning, and just saying it is doesn't create heat. If there are dreams and visions they are in the minds of those who follow in blind faith without evidence. If the majority of the world has recognized this as you say, then a clear, global, and mandatory action plan is imminent. I look forward to it and the clear, concise steps and readily measureable effects that science provides to support it. Otherwise, it's BS. Dave Edited February 14, 2015 by Mallette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) After Armageddon there will be no democracy, no congress, no senators, no congressman, no lobbyists, no corporations, and no free freedom----just one man rule, I assume a nice dictatorship for 1000 years. JJK Edited February 13, 2015 by JJKIZAK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I wasn't putting forward a solution, I was pointing out that neither were you, you were simply elaborating on your own dreams for this world, while at the same time ignoring the very thing that could put an end to those same dreams. I don't expect you to agree with anything I say, but would hope that you, and others like you, who have ideas for going forward in this world tackle the problems at hand rather than dreaming about the next great thing to move us all around safely and rapidly. Global Warming. Is the hype over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) I wasn't putting forward a solution, I was pointing out that neither were you, you were simply elaborating on your own dreams for this world, while at the same time ignoring the very thing that could put an end to those same dreams. I don't expect you to agree with anything I say, but would hope that you, and others like you, who have ideas for going forward in this world tackle the problems at hand rather than dreaming about the next great thing to move us all around safely and rapidly. Global Warming. Is the hype over? I appreciate the thoughtful and sincere response. I am not suggesting visions and dreams, however, just suggesting that available science suggests the current projections are imminently survivable and that technology can help us not only survive but thrive. There are no predictions outside geologic records. Yes, massive changes. That's what planets do. Until now, we simply dealt with it as we had no clue what was happening. A mere 25,000 years ago homo sapiens lived in a Europe a third covered with ice. We did just fine, thank you very much. We are much better prepared to not only survive this but make lemonade out of it. But I have little interest in any of the plans so far mooted to change nature as they largely look like ways to make the rich richer and the rest of us pay for something I've seen no proof of efficacy. There will be changes like those that have left Greek temples under the sea. The earth isn't dead, it lives. That's a good thing. Just go with the flow and react as required. If the sea rises, MOVE. Dave Edited February 14, 2015 by Mallette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 14, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 14, 2015 Dave, just think what that will do to the DWI/DUI lawyers. They will switch over to representing police officers in shooting cases, or oil and gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 14, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 14, 2015 As regards other uses, don't forget unmanned cars. We're in violent agreement here. Other than collectors and aficionado who will keep their Mustangs...but have to summon an automated carrier to get them to a place where it's legal to drive them...I don't think many people will "own" a car or truck within 20 years...maybe sooner. They'll simply be part of the infrastructure, summoned when needed, dismissed when not. It won't be just groceries, it will be all consumer goods. That first edition of Pink Floyd one of us throwbacks order will show up in a couple of days by a variety of efficient vehicle transfers and that new roll of OLED for the HT will arrive within hours. Mark was the one who initially said it here in a sig line, but there are times when I am not sure he really gets it: "Pay attention. The fundamental things are changing." Dave Won't own a car in twenty years or sooner? That presupposes that Ford, GM, Toyota pack up and go away quietly, well maybe one sticks around to make automated vehicles. Do you think Exxon/Mobil is going to sit around quietly. We have had automated car technology for 15 years, it was demonstrated on I 15 in San Diego in '97. The NTSB designates 4 levels of vehicle automation. They indicate that a special license will probably be required for added training necessary to operate an automated vehicle. That means it will probably require zero drinking, and zero tolerance. Ever wonder why all the hype about automation in the 90s and it fizzled out. It was backed by DOT not by automakers. In order for it to be viable it has to be subsidized. Either a tax break for buying automated vehicles, or a penalty for not having them. Remember clunkers for cash? I think private vehicle ownership is probably safe in this country for at least 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Mark..Are you basically saying we're screwed?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Rome is burning! Rome is burning! How can we stuff our guts senseless, day after day, and conjure up fantasies of a crumbling humanity on the brink of extinction? With our stomachs so full, where's the room to swallow such malarkey like that? Life for the human species, at large, has never been better. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 14, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) No problem with your solution. But what is it, and what science is it based on? IF human science is so vast it can not only control the weather but also geologic forces, and this involves massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions...all assumptions without validation by available research, I suggested several means of achieving this with proven means. Those sounding the alarm loudest are simply suggesting taxing the hell out of us and voluntary cleanups of existing generation plants that isn't going to happen. I don't know if it will help or not, but I've no problem paying for cleaner air one way or the other. I do have problems with the US and other agencies proposing voluntary caps and heavy taxes which have no clear likelihood of making a difference...assuming we puny humans can do so at all with any degree of certainty. Rome isn't burning, and just saying it is doesn't create heat. If there are dreams and visions they are in the minds of those who follow in blind faith without evidence. If the majority of the world has recognized this as you say, then a clear, global, and mandatory action plan is imminent. I look forward to it and the clear, concise steps and readily measureable effects that science provides to support it. Otherwise, it's BS. Dave The vast majority of Americans believe it too, across all political spectrums.NASA believes it, NOAA believes it, Based on science. 90 plus percent of the peer reviewed studies on AGW find that warming has occurred and it is man made. The ocean is warming, because it is the heat buffer, and is more acidic in terms of pH due to CO2. The clear step is to reduce carbon emissions. The measurement is CO2 in atmosphere. Levels are not all voluntary, coal burning plants pay a huge carbon tax NOW for not having most efficient scrubbers. There are some people today, I have met them, believe smoking is not harmful because they are 80 and still smoking; don't believe seatbelts are safer; and there are also some who believe we never actually went to the moon. There will always be people outside the mainstream, for whatever reason. How soon and how much the impact will be I guess all is up to debate. I think technology and the environment might converge and be synergistic for a change on this automated vehicle concept. Electric or hybrids that are fully automated seems to be a win-win. Travis Edited February 14, 2015 by dwilawyer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I think private vehicle ownership is probably safe in this country for at least 50 years No possible response to that. Deny demonstrated science if you wish and try to believe your reactions are faster and better than a computer and that 58,000 deaths per year is acceptable, 600,000 preventable injuries is fine, and all the associated immediately eliminable loses are OK with you. I have a collection of kerosene lamps and I keep the wicks trimmed but I really don't expect to need them soon nor do I consider them superior to LEDs and thankfully they aren't likely to kill as many people as your prediction. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 That means it will probably require zero drinking, and zero tolerance. I've never seen a car that drinks so this is nonsense. What the heck are you talking about? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 14, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 14, 2015 That means it will probably require zero drinking, and zero tolerance. I've never seen a car that drinks so this is nonsense. What the heck are you talking about? Dave The NTSB report on automated automobiles suggests that more training and higher standard for licensure will be required, somethin akin to a CDL. When ever that happens the std for alcohol usually becomes tighter, an .08 to an .04, or even zero tolerence, meaning no detectible amount, like for minors in Texas. They could even require interlock devices where you blow before you can start ignition. Automation will require less physical ability, But more mental ability. You will never see a lifting of drunk driving laws with the advent of automation, certainly not before a level 4 automation. They preformed lengthy demonstration on San Diego I-15 and we are nowhere. I had an MB with active cruise control which was really neet, and could be set to scare ya to death, but I haven't seen anything else. We are at zero percent implementation now, it would take 10 years to achieve maybe 25 percent participation. You could bump that way up with tax incentives, like they did with Hybrids. Because of such inherent safety you could eliminate need for insurance and make that another benefit. Regardless of how soon, they will be privately owned. We don't believe in shared or community ownership here Texas, or anywhere else., You have to get Exxon to sigh on so they don't lobby to kill bill because of hybrids. Automakers will be all for it, a subsidized vehicle, can't ask for anything better than that. Did I understand these were going to go to the poor and elderly also? They could all be Uber drivers, gainfully employed in order to collect social security or welfare. It will be interesting to see what they can offer and at what cost on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 14, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 14, 2015 I think private vehicle ownership is probably safe in this country for at least 50 years No possible response to that. Deny demonstrated science if you wish and try to believe your reactions are faster and better than a computer and that 58,000 deaths per year is acceptable, 600,000 preventable injuries is fine, and all the associated immediately eliminable loses are OK with you. I have a collection of kerosene lamps and I keep the wicks trimmed but I really don't expect to need them soon nor do I consider them superior to LEDs and thankfully they aren't likely to kill as many people as your prediction. Dave That is besides the point, this country is pretty solidly built on private ownership of property, anythink else is a taking. I dont doubt the technology exists, I saw it operate in San Diego. It was big news there and then went away. What is the cost of the car, who gets them? Who builds them? Who pays for the training to operate one. Are they going to need infastructure built in the roadways? Perhaps I am not understanding what you envision. Lets say we have ourautomated car. The ones in SD could turn on their own because of markers on the sides of the road and sensors in the road. The cars are buildt and ready to ggo, do individuals purchase the vehicles, if so that is private ownership. Does the government buy them and make them available to everyone? is that full time use or do you schedule a car to arrive at your house automatically? What if the demand exceeds availability? Are non-automated vehicles allowed on same highway during the transition. If not, it is a government taking and they have to pay cost of vehicle. What is cost of vehicle, cost to upgrade existing vehicle? Will a consumer be able to sue the manufacturer if the car malfunctions and injury or death occurs? Travis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts