You know, for someone who complains about people's debating skills, mine included, you tend to throw out some pretty flippant and pointless comments. I'm trying to make a point here and get a bit of debate going, and all I'm getting from you is sarky one-liners. Wait: why am I surprised? Do you think you might actually address any of my points rather than just retorting with the mental equivalent of a crayon drawing, or is that too much to ask?

People are stubborn to change. I don't think their stubbornness should hinder technological advancements. Hence: tough titties.

Since you want to debate, I'll add this: your slippery slope argument ignores how the market works. If cars for old losers are in high demand, people will produce them, and those companies typically will have lobbying power to prevent the legislation that you predict.

I honestly don't know, but I see it this way: once autonomous cars are in large numbers on the road the older cars will be phased out, as the (let's call them robocars for handiness' sake) robocars will not want to have to predict essentially unpredictable human behaviour, such as being drunk behind the wheel or cutting one another off for fun. So I think it will end up being illegal to a) manufacture non-robocars and/or b) drive them, unless you end up with specialised driving tracks where those who wish to remember what it was like to drive can do so in safety and without endangering the people in robocars (who, to all intents and purposes, can now be called passengers). I just can't see, in the end, the roads being shared by both, especially if, as that program pointed out, traffic lights would be removed from roads as being no longer required.

Also, as to your first line: I was talking mainly about people losing their livelihoods. That's not stubborn, that's just a will to survive.

Lobbying power means a lot. Plus, things like the sports car industry will not be phased out for that reasoning for a long, long time. There's just too much money in it.

They need to adapt.

Have you watched the programme? You should: it's very enlightening. We're talking about Ford being involved here.
In what way? If you're a truck driver or a taxi cab driver and have been one for most of your life, and there are no other driving jobs available, how do you adapt? Most will be too old to start out afresh; driving for a living will be all they know.

I will, even though as a rule of thumb I ignore people's documentary recs since the docus that people enjoy are the ones that pander to them.

By getting a new job. It sucks, but it's reality. Reminds me of this topic though, which is pretty interesting: https://hackernoon.com/is-ai-driving...m-307c98c87fff

Well I wouldn't say this panders to me, as I have no strong feelings either way about automated driving, as I pointed out in my previous posts. However, Horizon is a long-established and respected BBC show and uses input from some of the most respected minds or experts in whatever field they're discussing. I am surprised though that they hardly even touched on the idea of massive job and livelihood losses, when it's such a huge issue. That kind of disappointed me. I would have liked to have seen better and less biased argument with both sides being allowed to have their say. There is some hint of trepidation in a few of the points, but largely it's spun as being both positive and unavoidable.
Again though, that's very flippant and careless. How does a man who has driven a truck for forty years start again? Or a woman who has driven a bus or taxicab? It's very easy to say "just get a new job", but we both know the reality of trying to start again at that age. It just does not happen.

You get a new job, you put your nose to the grindstone. If you can't survive that way you can use the other safety nets that we already have in place for people in that situation. I never said it was easy, but if society bends that way (which I do not think will happen in the near future) there really isn't anything else to do but adapt. Do you have an alternative or are you just going to get pissy at the bluntness of my opinion?

No, I'm saying (which you seem to be wilfully ignoring) that the first six words of your reply are not that easy. Maybe for you: you're young. If the worst were to happen and I had to get a new job, I'd find it very hard at my age. People don't hire over-fifties unless you're in the high-paying corporate world and have a track record, which I don't. So to say "get a new job" makes it seem terribly easy, but it isn't.

Of course I don't have any solutions. This is why I'm making the point. It's not a case of who can come up with the best idea; I'm saying massive job losses will result from vehicle automation. You're saying so what, let them get another job, which is, on any level, flippant, no matter what you say or how you frame it. You're not providing any answers either. You are, however, trivialising the impact this is going to have on millions of families.

You're the only one here who's saying anything about it being easy. I never said anything of the sort and am aware of how difficult that can be.

My solution: let the industry continue on its current trajectory despite workers in that industry being displaced by the change. It's not as if this will be an overnight transition that will take everyone by surprise. Those who are displaced will need to adapt, that's just the reality of the situation TH. Those who cannot cope with that can rely on the welfare systems that we already have in place to help the unemployed.

Not really: your quote "get a new job" implies that doing that is easy.
Again, I'm not proposing or looking for a solution. I know it will be hard for those who make their living by driving. I'm just pointing out that it's not as rosy as the docu made it out to be, and that people are going to get hurt. That's progress of course, but I just wish they had addressed it properly in the programme, which they did not.

To give my own personal view, it would be super cool to call a car, get in and basically be driven where I want to go without needing any sort of interaction from me. It will also obviously (or hopefully anyway) cut down on or cut out entirely the many thousands of deaths that result from traffic accidents, and the many more life-changing injuries. I'm just trying to represent a balanced view, and say that while it is exciting and interesting, there will be those who will get burned by it. Of course, that's the same with any major change, but for instance sailboat captains in the nineteenth century could adapt to steamships, and those who flew propellor aircraft could learn to fly a jet. But this cuts out all human intervention, leaving those who drive for a living with nowhere to go.

There is no solution I can see. Hopefully some will be able to make a seismic shift and get into another business, but one major effect of this technology will be surely to lengthen the dole queues. Let's not forget petrol stations either: all these cars will be electric, so no longer any need for your roadside gas station and all its accoutrements and staff.

Oh well let me set the record straight then: no it is not ****ing easy. Leave the inferring to other people from now on, you've proven yourself unfit for it.

**** not automating everything. I want to live in a world with robot slaves doing everything for us so we can spend our time talking about music and drinking beer.

It's a pity you have to be such an annoyance even when I'm trying to have a proper debate with you. Anyone reading what you wrote would likely infer the same as I did. However, in the interests of peace and fairness, if that was not what you were saying, then I apologise. But please try not to level snarky insults at me just because it's me. I guarantee if this were anyone else other than Chula you'd be a lot more accommodating.

Anyhoo... maybe one day I'll actually get to "drive" one of these cars, though knowing my luck I'll probably be the first/only person to be run over by one! :laughing:

Incidentally, in that docu one woman who's involved in F1 takes a trip in an automated F1 car which ends up hitting 200 mph! Now I don't think that's something I want to be doing without a driver present! :yikes:

It would help if you took my word for it the first 3 times I told you that that wasn't what I was implying.

Hey, you don't have to tell ME twice! Or, um, three times.
:shycouch:

.

The robo-guards?
https://images.rapgenius.com/0e7bf9a....643x432x1.jpg

Driverless doesn't necessarily mean passengerless. It is interesting to consider all the scenarios that driverless will have to be programmed to deal with. Trolley experiment type ****. Algorithms. Crazier than flying Back to the Futures, man. Say, you wouldn't know where I could get some weed, would you?

.

My 1st robot design: a robot that drinks beer.

I like S.C.I.E.N.C.E.

That is a good album.

Also, don't forget that 1-1+1-1+1-1... = 1/2

Unfortunately, it's not a mathematically valid proof. You can't fiddle with divergent series like that. It's true if you redefine the equals sign, and it's useful for some physics calculations, but the sum of the natural numbers does not equal -1/12.

I thought that infinite series allowed for that?

Not when they diverge, which the alternating 1 -1 + 1 - 1 + ... does. If it was the actual sum, you could calculate infinity to be -1/2 plus or minus squrt(1/3).

https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112

Aluminum and Mercury


The Pharaoh's Serpent in 4K

I have an interesting question for all of you science lovers... Seriously, why don't blue foods exist? (I'm talking about natural foods.) Think about it... Blueberries are not really blue. Blue cheese is not really blue. So why don't blue foods exist??

Magnets.

How much naturally occurring blue anything is there? It's just an uncommon colour.

And blue cheese is not blue because it's actually bleu cheese which means something else.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/sites/de.../blueberry.jpg
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7006/90ap8h.png

Isn't it a color that actually doesn't happen in nature? Like, aren't blueberries actually not even blue?

It occurs but only because it's so rare meaning that it's used in sexual selection (blue jays, frogs) and plants (indigo, blue corn) being more attractive. And a couple of jewels.

Also re: blueberries I think their skins are blue but the fruit is purple? Something like that.