Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The Teamsters will have something to say about that, and the Longshoremen, How is it you figure they'll have any say in it? As I mentioned, the first calls aren't coming for them to be equipped with collision avoidance, it's a call for a MANDATE. It's that first one that's the big leap. The rest of the way to total autonomy is easy. Granted, I do wonder if the unions may be able to force a "driver" to sit there as uselessly as the firemen did on diesel engines in the 50s and 60s. It's easy to see how dumb that was today...and how dumb it will be to have a superfluous "driver" in the cab who can do nothing but possibly cause an accident. As to those receiving the deliveries, getting a big cut in price and them always arriving precisely on time will outweigh any other considerations. This is one of the disruptive technologies that is part of the gradually elimination of human labor over the next century. If you think there is going to be issues with this, consider that it isn't that far off that shopping will be done in virtual stores via augmented reality and the product is delivered via autonomous vehicle. Where will all those working for Walmart, UPS, and the like find jobs? Do we pass laws forbidding applied science and technology? Travis, I don't have the answers...but I know what a lot of the questions are and fear the answers may not be so pleasant. Remember the good old days when autonomous cars weren't such a pressing issue? Last year about this time, wasn't ? The speed of change is breathtaking and accelerating all the time. The "good old days" may be months ago in a couple of years. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The new cars are already connected to the Internet and are now vulnerable en total to car thieves, hackers, hit men, and foreign governments that don't like us. They have upwards of 30 small computers in them. You want to be careful not to piss off a hacker as he can take total control of your vehicle and run it into a pole at 100 miles per hour. There are several cases under review. JJK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 You want to be careful not to piss off a hacker as he can take total control of your vehicle and run it into a pole at 100 miles per hour. Not a good idea to piss off your wife, as she can do the same... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angusruler Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 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 again, if what you are saying is true, i believe its laughable....why is so much data falsified and simply untrue?please dont say its untrue, all you have to do is google it. to say man is sooooo powerful to actually change weather is ridiculous! remember the term, global cooling, global warming? its now sunk to climate change....a term that cant be argued! and, so paying a carbon tax makes man made global warming ok? puh-lease! Edited February 23, 2015 by angusruler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Actually, this is where Asimov's 4 laws must be brought into play: 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The "0" law is one he added later. None of that will protect us from AI in the long run, and nobody knows how or whether we can do so. Some even question whether we should try. That starts getting pretty scary and I cannot help that nor do I have an answer. What I am certain of it that you cannot stop science. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The Teamsters will have something to say about that, and the Longshoremen, and the people who receive the deliveries. There is also an issue of common carrier liability that would have to get straightened out before that happens. The Longshoreman had little impact on containerized cargo which decimated their ranks. I think the Teamsters will have the same impact on this new technology. Organized labor will never recover from globalization. When I negotiated a labor contract several years ago, I took the union negotiators to one of our plants in Malaysia. As we were flying back they asked one of the most powerful questions I have ever heard. They asked me, "So what do you want us to do...work for $2,55/hr like your employees in Malaysia?" That really put long term US labor policy in perspective. There is just nothing we can do to preserve manufacturing in the US or stave off the labor consequences of technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There are 3.5 MILLION truck drivers in the USA. And you are going to be willing to pay them for nothing? Seriously? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 That's like asking if I want to condemn 10,000 people to death in an earthquake. I don't have anything to do with it nor any suggestions to stop it. Tell me, how do we avoid it? Pay them 50k per year in welfare and benefits for sitting in the cab? Not sure that will sit well. Don't think I don't see the disruption here, and that it is only the beginning. We've discussed this in depth before and it remains my opinion that capitalism is on a self-destruct course by the requirement of having to remain competitive. That means more technology, and less jobs. My crystal ball ends there and I am not sure I want to see more. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 What exactly are our options? Corporations are global entities, not U.S. entities in anything more than registration. I sat in those meetings where discussions occurred about workforce relocation. It is a matter of numbers, pieces on a chess board and nothing more. We (the U.S.) have no options to stop these relocations nor do we have the will. How many of us shop at Walmart, that model of forced manufacturing workforce relocation. Technology and globalization have trumped anything we could do as a nation to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I do wonder if the unions may be able to force a "driver" to sit there as uselessly as the firemen did on diesel engines in the 50s and 60s. It's easy to see how dumb that was today. I had to look this up, never heard of that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 They ain't gonna take much more. Or what? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's incorrect to insist "there's nothing that can be done," when it was specific actions as the cause. Best I can tell you didn't specify any. Diocletian thought he could control the economy by fiat. Didn't work out so well... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 We (the U.S.) have no options to stop these relocations nor do we have the will. Sure we do. The entire question of job relocation and capital flow are straight forward policies made by the governments and bureaucrats. The two main policies are Trade and Monetary. The GATT, and then WTO and the NAFTA trade agreements specifically created job flows offshore. That's just simple policy. The capital flows which make it so beneficial come from the global monetary system agreements. These policies are designed by the banking and money interests because they are used to maximize wealth creation. Then, they are implemented by bureaucrats and politicians who serve those monied interests. These are not "strange forces" or "uncontrollable events" they are designed strategies implemented to accomplish the goals of those who design them. It's incorrect to insist "there's nothing that can be done," when it was specific actions as the cause. The point is that the U.S. does not make policy any longer. It is those organizations that you mentioned and others. We don't call the shots any longer. It is a global economy with a U.S. backed militia. Whatever tiny hope we had at having any impact on direction of this country disappeared with Citizens United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 BTW, monetary policy is not a function of the government. It is a central bank directed policy. But you knew that. The government does control fiscal policy, but even that is directed by lobbyists and central bankers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 They ain't gonna take much more. Or what? Dave It's incorrect to insist "there's nothing that can be done," when it was specific actions as the cause. Best I can tell you didn't specify any. Diocletian thought he could control the economy by fiat. Didn't work out so well... Dave I was only arguing the position that "nothing could be done." That's just false. I don't know where you live, but the economy certainly IS controlled, and designed, and managed and manipulated. "Fiat" is the wrong word. It is managed to a set of goals. It may wobble, it may take bad turns of course, but it is none the less managed. Not by you, or me, or any other group of citizens. It is a small group of extremely powerful bankers and globalists. The media is controlled by a few major organizations and they program the populace to believe what they wish them to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) If I understand your question you are asking how central bankers affect politicians decision making. But that could not be your question as the answer is so obvious. Look at the revolving door of senior and cabinets level officials who move from government service to high ranking jobs at Citibank, and all other major international banking institutions, then back again. Look to Jamie Diamond as a visible, but certainly not most influential, example. Look to campaign financing. Please... Edited February 23, 2015 by eth2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 That's like asking if I want to condemn 10,000 people to death in an earthquake. I don't have anything to do with it nor any suggestions to stop it. Tell me, how do we avoid it? Pay them 50k per year in welfare and benefits for sitting in the cab? Not sure that will sit well. Perfect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The future for 310 million people in the USA means "next year" - not 5 lifetimes from now. The concept of "creative disruption" is a wonderful notion of neo-liberalism but it is always advanced by people in think tanks with cushy jobs. Large displacements in the employment base have already DECIMATED what was once a vibrant middle class. They ain't gonna take much more. As much as it pulls on your heart strings, you can't suppress advancement. There used to be a lot of people cranking out vacuum tubes many years ago. That's called "history." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 23, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2015 The Teamsters will have something to say about that, and the Longshoremen, How is it you figure they'll have any say in it? As I mentioned, the first calls aren't coming for them to be equipped with collision avoidance, it's a call for a MANDATE. It's that first one that's the big leap. The rest of the way to total autonomy is easy. Granted, I do wonder if the unions may be able to force a "driver" to sit there as uselessly as the firemen did on diesel engines in the 50s and 60s. It's easy to see how dumb that was today...and how dumb it will be to have a superfluous "driver" in the cab who can do nothing but possibly cause an accident. As to those receiving the deliveries, getting a big cut in price and them always arriving precisely on time will outweigh any other considerations. This is one of the disruptive technologies that is part of the gradually elimination of human labor over the next century. If you think there is going to be issues with this, consider that it isn't that far off that shopping will be done in virtual stores via augmented reality and the product is delivered via autonomous vehicle. Where will all those working for Walmart, UPS, and the like find jobs? Do we pass laws forbidding applied science and technology? Travis, I don't have the answers...but I know what a lot of the questions are and fear the answers may not be so pleasant. Remember the good old days when autonomous cars weren't such a pressing issue? Last year about this time, wasn't ? The speed of change is breathtaking and accelerating all the time. The "good old days" may be months ago in a couple of years. Dave Why will they have a say in it, because they have in the past, they still do, and will in the future. On passenger vehicles I can see the public being behind a mandate. It is going to depend on the model and it is going to take a LOT of time. Google and UBER asking for a mandate means nothing, getting 50.1% of a City, County, State or a nation to require a mandate is a completely different matter. It is all going to depend on the COST. If you offer people transportation at the same cost per mile they are operating now they are going to keep their cars out of convenience. If it is less, either through tax credits, other incentives you will see a flood go there. The tax credit for hybrid vehicles is what fueled their demand, not a sense of doing a great thing. With regard to trucking/transportation, I am just trying to bring you into reality with respect to technology. Transportation technology is not free from regulation, unions, and politics. In the old days technology came first and regulations later. Aviation, planes came first, people started getting killed, and the Civil Aeronautics Board was created. Radio came first and competitors signals started stepping on each other and the FCC came about. Technology has always been subject to the laws of supply and demand which is determined by price, but in today's world technology develops within a regulatory and public policy framework as well. Globalization doesn't really apply with transportation in the US. Truck drivers in US are going to be paid either under a collective bargaining model, or plain ole supply and demand. Driver's were getting $50 an hour in the oil patch a few months ago, I don't know what they are getting now. It doesn't matter what drivers are getting in Malaysia, England, France, China or anywhere else. Whether we never build another thing in the country or grown another crop, you still need to get in where it needs to go. You cannot outsource drivers, they kind of need to be here. What matters is what drivers are getting in LA, NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, the oil patch, this state or that state. Simple economics says that if drivers are making more in another state, city or town, drivers will go there to meet the demand. A couple of examples of automation in transportation not being implemented. Freight trains could be completely automated, much more easily than vehicles, and they are not. Why is that? We have a very limited amount of Level 4 automated trains with no operator, short distances in airports from terminal to terminal for example is about all I have ever seen. We have way more Level 3s which require an operator. BART in San Francisco is a Level 2. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 is mandating some Positive Train Control (PTC) in certain commuter train locations around the country designated as a priority which has cost 2 billion, and the entire system is supposed to be updated by the end of 2015 at a cost of 10 to 20 billion. PTC has been available for over 20 years but is only being implemented now because it literally took an Act of Congress, and congress agreeing to fund the 10 to 20 billion it will require train companies to invest. Why didn't train operators implement PTC in the 90s? Cost. Congress was looking at having to extend the deadline for PTC systemwide due to a delay in the technology, equipment and other issues. It does not like they are going to meet the seven year target to phase in PTC. There has been no discussion about the elimination of engineers or operators. There are too many variables in shutting down a train apparently to make that a reality at this point. At this point they are simply trying to set up a "safe zone" around the train. The number of algorithms necessary to keep a safe distance and shut things down is apparently manageable. So trains, technology has been available since the 90s, an Act of Congress was passed to implement a partial automation plan of PTC, gave an 8 year window to do it at a TAXPAYER cost of 10 to 20 billion and the deadline is going to need to be extended. I'm a pilot and when I was learning to fly there was all kinds of news and discussion about the L-1011 could take off and land by itself and the FAA came up with a new set of IFR minimums that were only approved for planes with that level of automation (CAT IIIa). That technology was approved and implemented by the FAA. That was the early 70s. The last time I looked there have been two people upfront in every flight I have ever taken. Why is that forty years later we still have, at least, two people in the cockpit? First, while you can easily automate takeoff, level flight, and landing, there are an almost infinite numbers of things that can go wrong that can go wrong between applying takeoff power and coming to a complete stop after landing. You need an algorithm for each and every one of those possibilities. Plus there is a pretty strong pilot's union. It will probably never be fully automated in this century. Not because the technology isn't available, it is and has been for over 40 years. The reason is because technology doesn't have an answer yet if something goes wrong. We don't generally pass laws that that forbid applied science and technology, we do pass laws relating to safety and economics in the transportation sector. DDT, cyclamates, nuclear power, and a million other things were developed with applied science and are either regulated or outlawed, but they were determined to be harmful. The other law, the law of economics, has always determined the rate of technology, especially in transportation. Look at something as basic as flat panel displays. Given the choice between those old 19" CRT monitors and a flat panel who wouldn't want a flat panel. Price determined the speed of implementation of that technology. Just as it did with cell phones. Those things didn't happen overnight. Price had to meet demand before they took off and became the norm rather than a luxury. Cell phones took what, twenty years? Flat panels, 10 years? With either of those you didn't need to give up something, it was a direct replacement. So with truck drivers you have the union aspect of it (UPS and the teamsters, for example), and the business side of it, Federal Express, UPS, J.B. Hunt, etc. The Teamsters have over 1.5 million members (voters), and they are the 10th largest campaign contributor in the U.S. That is in 2014, not in the good ole days, not in the golden age of labor, that is now, today. They most definitely have a say has to how freight gets handled and moves in this country, that is why we have collective bargaining here. But when you start talking about a model requiring every truck that moves freight is going to be government owned, or operated by a utility company, and you pay a rate to ship, or a model like trains where you are going to require every freight truck to be automated, you are going to see a major push back. You might see relatively quick change on passenger vehicles, something like 10 to 20 years, but you are not going to see a swift change to requiring freight trucks being required to be automated. Why? Well, first it is going to require an Act of Congress, just like trains. When that bill comes up you are going to see truck makers, unions, truck drivers and freight companies lined up together in opposition to it. You have to get a bill doing that through the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation Committee where the CEO's of UPS, FedEx, and on and on will testify they cannot afford it, and then the unions and drivers will testify against it, etc. Ford, Peterbilt, White, and all the manufacturers of trucks will be the last panel and give their thoughts on it, if they get to participate in making the trucks they will be for it, if it cuts into their business they will be against it. You will have to get the cost of an automated truck down below that of what it costs now to get UPS and FedEx on board, that is when it makes economic sense. That is the timetable for change. That can come sooner with legislation, tax credits, etc. UPS is going to go out an buy automated trucks until the cost is less than what it is costing them now. The technology may certainly be here now, today, but that doesn't drive the implementation or usage of technology. Cost/Price does, or legislation. WIth trains the taxpayers had to pay for it to get a limited form. Here is the other issue on trucks, long haul you probably don't need an operator and if you get the cost right it could happen. Local, you still need the guy to take the package and drop it on the front door, you still need the guy to unload and stock the store with bread, and most importantly, the guy to deliver your Jubilees (free shipping by the way). They are not really being paid as a "driver" per se, they are a driver/delivery person and they are always going to be part of the equation. I would say we are on a ten to twenty year time frame for passenger vehicles to be a majority of vehicles on the road, and double that for trucks assuming there is a public policy shift that implements incentives to go in that direction. Like I said earlier, I would like to see passenger cars go that way in a hurry, however, based on the way that technology gets implemented in transportation, in a hurry is a relative thing. Travis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Like I said earlier, I would like to see passenger cars go that way in a hurry, however, based on the way that technology gets implemented in transportation, in a hurry is a relative thing. Travis, I only skimmed the rest after the public hearing part as you lost it there. At the public hearing, what per cent is going to vote to not mandate autonomous cars and justify 58,000 deaths per year that are conservatively expected to drop to 500 or so? At the public hearing, how will they vote when it comes to continuing the 200 billion or so local and Federal dollars per year required just to maintain the current gridlock on the highways as opposed to having 5 times overcapacity immediately? Try to refute those two, and try to imagine how you would vote. I am not trying to win a debate here, nor do I have some passion for this. It's just an objective look at what is happening and how fast it is happening. Look at the intel and evaluate it. I must admit that today as I desperately dodged the Houston maniacs as it entered the freeway to drive home I wished it were here now and wondered if I'd survive long enough to see airline safety on the highway. Living with this in this discussion has kept it on my mind and when I think of all the deaths and injuries, the thousands of hours wasted in traffic, the trillions spent already and still no relief...and realize we can stop the bleeding both of our lives and our treasure in a decade. Yep, I am getting passionate. Doesn't matter as this does not need any lobby. It's on its own trajectory and what you, or I, or anyone else thinks about it doesn't matter. The economic and social imperatives are so overwhelming as to make resistance futile. I've noted there are some massive disruptions to come...those 3.9 million truck drivers being only a part. Hate to put it this way, but they and many others are just collateral damage. Hope you are close to retirement, as DWI is about to become history and that profession is another bit of collateral damage. But I for one won't cry over not having to dodge some drunk fool. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts