Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Do not want (Score 1) 201

by Kohath (#47804451) Attached to: Hidden Obstacles For Delivery Drones

There aren't enough isolated people getting frequent deliveries for it to make economic sense to deploy drones. Why spend millions of dollars developing a new technology to avoid a few trips a year?

Also, a drone that could carry a package 50 miles and return would have to carry a lot of additional weight in fuel. A driverless "car" big enough to carry a package would probably be able to make the delivery for a fraction of the cost.

Comment: Re:citation needed (Score 1) 239

citation needed ...
because the broken window fallacy still holds

Indeed.

Using the Obama administration's own numbers, a couple years back, for how much they spent for each job "created or saved", and taking the US median income at the time for the cost->jobs destroyed estimator, I got about a 5:1 ratio. Five destroyed for each "created or saved".

Or more: Thats what would happen if they got the money by taxation. The other options are still worse.

The problem is that the VALUE for the government spending comes out of the economy somewhere else:
  - If they tax it, they just suck it out directly.
  - If they borrow it, it competes for investment money and real job creators don't get to create real jobs and/or have to close or downsize when their funding dries up. (This has an additional multiplier: They have to pay it back, with interest. So it kills still more jobs later.)
  - If they print it, it devalues the other currency. The same number of dollars are spent, but less value is spent. Less jobs are funded as a result.

Unfortunately, the anonymous flaimng lefties only see the obvious jobs "created or saved" and not the "invisible men" laid off or not hired as a result.

Comment: Re:The main problem: they don't make sense (Score 1) 201

by Kohath (#47804395) Attached to: Hidden Obstacles For Delivery Drones

Except it won't work for heavy packages. And it won't work near airports. And it won't work in bad weather. And it's a safety risk to people on the ground. And some simpler answer will always be better. In 30-50 years, truck delivery and logistics will have made progress too.

Think about it. What real world conditions would have to exist for drone delivery to make more sense than trucks?

Traffic? Use two-wheeled vehicles instead of trucks.
No drivers? Driverless trucks or some other ground-based driverless vehicle.

Here's the one situation where airborne drone delivery may make sense: deliveries to boats, to the wilderness, or to people across a body of water with no bridge. That's it.

Or maybe in 200-400 years, when all the challenges to drone delivery have been rendered trivial, it will still be easier and cheaper to use trucks, but since all the problems are trivial and airborne drones are cooler and faster, maybe then use drones sometimes.

Comment: The main problem: they don't make sense (Score 2, Insightful) 201

by Kohath (#47803875) Attached to: Hidden Obstacles For Delivery Drones

The main problem is the overall uneconomical and generally nonsensical idea of using delivery drones. Trucks are simple and work well in bad weather. There's a huge non-employed workforce of people who can easily be trained to deliver packages. Delivery trucks can be powered by natural gas, which is so abundant that many oil rigs simply burn it off rather than going to the trouble of capturing it.

in the general case, delivery drones don't work. Trucks do.

Comment: Re:Add a little abrasive language (Score 3, Insightful) 84

If you thought Comcast was powerful now, wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" against them lets them merge with NBC Universal.

Oh wait, that was 2 years ago. Wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" lets them merge with Time Warner.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy

Working...