Moores law pretty much guarantees that anything that can be done at all today will be much better faster and cheaper in a few years.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Hm, 30,000 people a year killed in traffic accidents in the US. The vast majority caused by driver fault. I.e. they where not actually accidents.
If autonomous vehicles simply reduce that by half we are 15,000 people to the good. Not to mention the substantial number of people not injured or cars needing repairs.
Autonomous cars do not need to be perfect. They just need to be better than 50% of the human drivers out there.
Hmm, its a problem in those super heavily populated "nordic countries" so that we should not deploy it where the vast majority of people live (i.e. where the sun shines and the snow doesn't for all but a few days a year, and human drivers go bonkers then too.)
We can allow people to fly small planes because so few of them want to do it.
It would be a nightmare if everybody who currently owns a car had a plane and wanted to fly it in the numbers we see cars on the road.
Effectively, given the requirements for distance before and after each plane, it would be impossible to actually get everyone into the air and flying at the same time.
Its mass transit if it effectively moves the same amount of passengers at the same or lower cost.
Don't get stuck on definitions. The bigger issue is should we be deploying large and expensive "mass transit" solutions that have a lifetime (and amortization schedule) measured in decades (30-50 years in many cases) if it simply won't be able to cover the cost of operation before that. Leaving the operators and local government holding the bag (to finish paying for it.) Typical case of stranded capital.
If autonomous vehicles effectively (and cheaply) replace the need for mass transit then purchase decisions on mass transit being made today need to be considered. Road improvements and (for example) buses (which have a shorter life cycle) may be the best investment today. Fixed infrastructure (subways, rail, etc) may be riskier.
I'm typing this on one of my newer Model M's, actually a Unicomp variant (same factory after IBM divested it.) Getting close to 20 years old. All of the other ones I have where purchased used about 1995 and are going strong.
I'm at the point where I wish my fleet of Model M's would simply die so I could justify getting another set (need about 4-5) from Unicomp. Mainly because the new ones are USB and have a Windows key.
The science is "settled" when you can make falsifiable predictions. Which makes climate deniers the people that cannot explain the current (not predicted) 15 plus year "pause".
Unless you are over 80 it is going to happen in your lifetime.
Fully autonomous vehicles will be driving on all (but possibly) rural roads in the near future.
Ice locked right now.
Oil producers are increasing output. Oil would need to drop have to get down to $30-$35 and stay there for for six months before they start shutting things down.
Please explain how they add expense over NFC support?
If you are upgrading your reader to handle chip and pin, then you will also be able to get that with NFC. Possibly that will be slightly more cost than just chip and pin. But that is all you need to support Apple Pay or Google Wallet.
Now IFF you had said Apple Pay, Google Pay OR NFC is expensive... but the incremental cost of the reader is not that much. And you will want to upgrade to chip and pin (if you are in the US) to avoid liability issues (Oct 2015?)
The implication is that the additional security offered by Apple Pay (over pinless Tap to pay) will allow it to be used with higher valued transactions.
So you get the speed of NFC without the slower chip and pin delays.
To be pedantic Apple Pay uses your credit card account to make your payment. It does not need to have your actual card once you have registered your account. I.e. you don't have to have your card to make a payment.
Once your bank switches you to Chip and Pin then swipe becomes unavailable. And your bank WILL be switching you because they don't want the liability to rest with them for unauthorized purchases.
Once they have given you a Chip card then the merchant is liable if they let you swipe (i.e. if they don't upgrade to a chip capable reader.)
So at that point it will be insert and either sign or enter pin.
You obviously have not used NFC with Tap to pay...
Outside of the US where NFC enabled terminals are available:
1. Tap to pay with NFC - 5 seconds or less
2. Debit or Credit card with chip - insert and pay - 15 seconds
3. Credit card without chip - swipe and sign 20 seconds, depends on how long it takes to get the receipt and sign it
4. Cash - depends on how long it takes you to count it out, the clerk to recount and then count your change
5. Cheque - unknown, who takes cheques anymore?
I get very annoyed when people ahead of me at the local grocery store use anything other than Tap to pay. Especially if they pay with actual cash.
Yesterday I had a small purchase, some cans and fresh fruit. It was scanned, paid for in less time than it took to bag, and I caught up to the person who was ahead of me in the line on the escalator to the parking lot. The entire process was less than 20 seconds.