Comment Re:Driverless is the real threat (Score 1) 287
But they will have manual over-rides so that if the car gets stolen while you are in it, you can over ride them
But they will have manual over-rides so that if the car gets stolen while you are in it, you can over ride them
But when you become the passenger you suddenly no longer care at ALL about acceleration, feeling the road, etc.. Driving slower is perfectly OK - because you are already doing something - reading, watching a movie, etc. Arriving someplace 4 minutes slower is no big deal, not even if you are late to work.
In your specific example, the Corolla has much more back seat space, but much LESS torque. Because it doesn't have the torque, it "feel'" weak and slow when you drive it. Which is a major reason why the Taurus is so much more expensive.
The real advantage of lasers is speed of light - perfect for anti-missile weapons. Shoot them when you see them and move out of the way.
With corporations, it often works the other way around - the whole is worth a lot more than the parts. Sum of it's parts is not a reliable way to price something. A prime example would be Apple corporation. If you were to break it up, so that the phone, music players, computers and tablet were all held by different companies and they would be worth a LOT LESS than the whole. It is the integration, the compatibility, that makes those things valuable.
Another good example is Amazon. Break it up into 3 different companies - a book company, an electronics company, amazon prime video, other physical products, and an internet fee processing company and it suddenly becomes far LESS valuable. Amazon makes it's money in large part by being the 'one stop' shopping location.
Management is also either worth something or a drag on the earnings.
Sum of it's parts is not a reliable method of pricing. It is at best, a 'ballpark' method, where things should be worth no more than 3 times that value, and no more than 1/2 that value.
Once that happens, then the industry will entirely change. There will become three basic kinds of vehicles:
1. Recreational vehicles that do not have a computer. Further segregated into speed, off-road, and specialty classes.
2. Cheap. Probably focused on low gas useage, low speed, simple transportation designed to get you to work and the store at a reasonable rate, all while you read, listen to music, or watch videos. Power, speed, appearance will pretty much be ignored here. You want to show off, pick a girl, you get yourself a recreational vehicle.
3. Cargo. People will still need to haul stuff. Minivans/SUV types for parents, trucks for workmen, the main difference will be whether the cargo area is designed for people or for goods, and if for people will it have a minibar stocked with high end liquor, or a Videobar stocked with cartoons.
The idea that the dashboard will become the all important feature only applies to Mommy-mobiles. It will be a relatively small portion of the market.
This combat technique sends drones out to attack. But they will be too far away from the main ship directly communicate soon enough. So you have a slower, hidden super carrier that transports drone carriers most of the way. Say, from Earth to within 20 light seconds of the target (Mars for example). When combat arrives, it launches smaller drone carriers while the super carrier goes dark for the duration of the battle. It never sends any electrical or heat signal, after launching the drone carriers.
The drone carriers will do the final approach, within a couple of light seconds of the target (Earth's moon is 1.5 light seconds away from the earth). Then they launch a bunch of attack drones, which are directly controlled by the drone carriers. Assuming an equal opponent, the drones will attack their opponent's drone carriers. Once all your opponent's drone carriers are taken out, you re-task your remaining drones as scouts looking for your opponent's super-carrier. Unless of course they surrender.
This allows the majority of your military support crew to be a safe distance from the battle until you have won/lost. It minimizes your own losses, while maximizing your opponents.
Any government that was willing to not abuse the currency could simply STOP ABUSING the currency. They would not need to go cashless.
Going cashless would at best be a meaningless symbol.
Coffee, Tea (Sit back and think of England....), Baby Formula (for babies, obviously), Mixed alcoholic drinks, Soda - see Sodastream
Guy gets lucky and wins the lottery!
But this not the story - not literally or figuratively.
Instead real life works like this:
Guy gets lucky and wins the lottery and
1) loses it all within 5 years because he has now idea how to deal with his luck.
2) works his ass off to turn his momentary luck into something long lasting.
Musk, like Gates, Jobs, etc. etc. all got lucky and had to work their asses off to take a bit of luck and turn it into a thriving huge success.
But that hard work they did doesn't mean their success did not depend on their luck as much as it did on their work.
It is legal to teach people how to cheat at cards - they are called 'magic' lessons.
But illegal to teach people how to defeat a machine that is not allowable in a court of law?
Does anyone know of any other skill that it is illegal to teach? Anything?
That sounds really bad. But we need the percentage of "legitimate" calls made from regular phones to really know if it is bad or not.
If that comparison number is less than 60%, than they have no real argument. But if say 90% of regular phone calls to 911 are legit, then they have a more reasonable argument.
It means:
you can't make your own blog, let alone own website
you can't master the concept of an email list to forward all your important news to all your friends
you can't find free games on the internet
you basically need to pay a ton of private personal information that you can never get back, just to participate in the internet - a task that technically literate people can easily do without paying that very high price.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.