but it can become profitable with some specific changes according to one analyst.

So, another attempt to get rich on music falls flat on it's face, burning it;s investors arses in the process. And why should anyone care? If we believe the bullshitters, the entire music industry needs to die so that people can pay musicians directly, instead of letting the money be stolen by the music industry.

Well, that'll be great. And if the music industry goes down the shitter and takes the musicians with it, who's going to care?

That and "Ebola" sounds like E. coli, causing people to confuse the two.

Seriously?

Wow, the world is several points more stupid on average than I'd thought, and I'm still astonished that people are astonished that half of all people are of below average intelligence.

Indeed. What they should have done was get the writer/director of the original film, who I gather had been trying to get a sequel made for over a decade, to come and write and direct the new one. Clearly whoever they got to write this didn't really understand Max's character at all.</sarcasm>

See my third paragraph. You're implicitly buying into the myth that people losing their jobs to automation makes the economy poorer. The opposite happens: there's more wealth. Even if a significant number of people lose their jobs and don't get new jobs (or get crappy ones), that loss is more than made up by someone (or everyone) else having more money. There are always customers. The decision whether it's a few super rich people being waited on hand and foot and some people working as gladiators in the entertainment arenas (reality television) or a more equitable distribution, such as in Switzerland where everyone is guaranteed a minimum income, is a political problem that will be solved one way or another. The free market is quite capable of sorting it out by itself, but that way is almost sure to be a lot nastier, probably involving food riots and rich people lined up against walls.

Sure, a truck going the same speed as a car can have the brakes fail completely, or the driver have a heart attack too, then it can take twice, three times, or arbitrarily longer to stop than a car. Or vice versa. Sorry, I assumed you were trying to say something relevant.

I quite pointedly said that things are somewhat more complicated with real vehicles than the simple physics analysis of locked wheels. It's not my theory, it's basic physics (which you claimed did not support my original post), and also the formula that most police forces use to estimate (note, estimate) the speed of vehicles involved in collisions.

You are completely ignoring the fact that, as I posted, US regulations require trucks be able to stop in much less than twice the distance cars can, and test results that indicate most (well maintained) trucks can stop quite a bit better than required. In real life, as is demonstrated in transport safety statistics, large trucks are quite frequently poorly maintained and so their stopping distances may well be longer.

For rape and other sexual offenses, research did specifically find religion as a strong "before" factor.
I think there was a specific "before" finding for murder as well, but my recollection on that isn't 100%.

-

Unlike those bronze age oral histories and iron age letters! /sarcasm

-

Being able to remotely transmit commands in a new general-purpose programming language to the server that stores your irreplaceable data? What could possibly go wrong?

Also, how do you say "Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;" in R?

I'll see your http://www.tempdatareview.org/ link and raise you a http://www.davidicke.com/forum... link.

-

Sure you can. Right up until 100% of us work in service. The majority of us already do, mostly selling each other stuff.

Personally I hope it really does get to the point where people realize how ridiculous it is and we all cut back on how much we work.

The issue of wealth distribution is an entirely different matter, and it's much more of a problem in the US than in any other modern economy. It's not a hard problem to solve technically, although prevailing attitudes in the US seem to make it quite difficult. Technology and automation make economies more efficient and the countries who own them richer. Replacing truck drivers will reduce the price of virtually everything, for everybody. It's a political decision whether you want that increased wealth to go to a few people who don't need it, leaving everyone else poor, or to be spread more equitably.

My first hit for "Global warming"+"times faster" yields this link: As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

All the opinions you mentioned are, at best, poorly informed.

-

Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

In practice, particularly with anti-lock brakes, the situation is a bit more complicated, but it shouldn't be as bad as double. I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.

Note that US federal regulations require large trucks to stop in considerably less than twice the distance of passenger cars (or even motor bikes), and that tested trucks average quite a bit better than that maximum: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA....

So if a truck does take twice the distance of a car, it may literally be criminally poorly maintained.

History disagrees with most of the things you said. As menial, unskilled and repetitive jobs get eliminated, the service industry grows. Fast food servers have been useless for a long time, but they're very rarely replaced by automation. The enormous service industries that are hallmarks of successful western economies are make work programs because we have this antiquated idea that everyone needs a 40+ hour a week job. Plus, most people like having others serve them.

If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained. If you get rid of the reaction time and finally fix brake lag, then the truck may well have an advantage in stopping, especially at lower speeds. In a realistic braking situation, where the driver in front doesn't just slam on the brakes full as soon as he pulls in front, the automated trucks will probably have a huge advantage. Plus they don't get tired and inattentive.