I think that if there is one thing everyone should have learned from the 2016 election, it's that the words that are heard coming out of Trump's mouth on any given day N are no indication of what his words or behavior will be on day N+1 or later.
In most cases a politician doing that would be considered a bad thing. In his case it's more of a relief.
It kills me because it seems like the specialists have figured this out, just not Primary Care. My eye doctor always has some sort of assistant present to help out with the mechanics of dealing with the electronic charts. Been that way for years and years. Why the hell have the highest paid guy in the room be spending time that doesn't require his skillset when that can be offloaded by someone cheaper? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
It's simple. It's because of reimbursement rates. For some reason primary care physicians have lower reimbursement rates, so they can't as easily justify a scribe. It's possible it's because as a whole they don't negotiate as effectively with insurance companies. Generally PCPs choose primary care over more lucrative specialties because they want to help patients more than they just want to make a few more bucks. That seems to self select for less successful businesspeople.
So what's the difference? In the case of tables of integrals, the problem is probably unusually well suited to solving with computer algebra software. Lots of difficult algebra to solve by hand, but relatively few rules to program that, when correct, can be repeated as needed. In large computer generated proofs, there is no easy way to check them to the point that some are basically unverifiable. The only solution I can think of is going back to formal mathematical proof specifications and crunching away until its verified.
We'll have single payer healthcare before we have "driverless cars", because the insurance industry lobby will prevent it. If everyone had a perfectly-run, accident free, computer controlled vehicle that obeys every law and will always avoid an accident, they'd have to lower rates. And you *know* they aren't going to do that.
They may have to lower rates, but that doesn't mean it will lower profits. As long as their costs (payouts and administration) go down faster than they're premiums their profit could actually increase while lowering rates. Insurance companies don't like paying claims, so you can bet as soon as autonomous cars get safer than human drivers, the rates for human driving will go up and will go down for autonomous cars. The faster autonomous cars get safer, the faster the rate differential will create the incentive to move to autonomous cars.
So while some claim that it will be even more than 20 years because current cars will stay on the road, instead it is possible the insurance and liability incentives will cause human driven cars to be so expensive that the transition will happen faster. Of course, those people could be right because it's hard to predict the future.
I also think that it's possible vehicle to vehicle communication will have a bigger impact faster than fully autonomous cars. If cars can relay information about hazards and make new maps, then cars don't have to be fully autonomous to make them radically safer. On the other hand that will take good communications standards and there's a good chance commercial pressures will cause the possible gains to not be realized, similar to the possible gains of electronic medial records not being realized because of the failure to ensure different systems cooperate efficiently.
Did Elon get the land for his battery factory for free?
Sort of. The total tax and other incentives are estimated at 1.25 billion, more than enough to pay for the land. But I'm with you on your overall point.
The answer is "no". The "subsidies" that the looney left yell about all the time are standard tax breaks available to manufacturers in the US.
Incorrect. Do a quick internet search for "oil tax credit" and learn something new. If you're too lazy for that, try this article: http://www.investopedia.com/ar... If you're too lazy for that, understand that you're incorrect, and there are specific tax benefits that are given to oil investments.
By "subsidies", you apparently mean normal business expense deductions that ALL businesses get.
No. Do a quick internet search for "oil tax credit" and learn something new. If you're too lazy for that, try this article: http://www.investopedia.com/ar... If you're too lazy for that, understand that you're incorrect, and there are specific tax benefits that are given to oil investments.
People are sick and tired of car payments and insurance payments.
I'm sure that's partly true, but I would bet it's more due to the fact that cars last longer than they used to. It used to be relatively rare for a car to drive 100,000 miles, but now for many cars that's their first scheduled tune-up. If cars weren't lasting longer it wouldn't matter if people were sick of car payments, they'd still have to buy another one when their current car broke down. Yes and there does seem to be some evidence of particularly younger people choosing to live closer to work where they can bike and walk to work, but it's certainly not as big a factor (yet) as cars lasting longer.
The future will be driverless cars, mass transit and bicycles in urban/suburban areas.
That's probably true. Though bicycles may never catch on in the US the way they have in Europe and elsewhere. The car lobby and car culture in the US has been successful at limiting the options for biking.
Agree too, but you've missed a couple factors that should be considered.
1. All the "You can have my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" people.
This problem will almost entirely be solved by the pricing of insurance and cars. If that doesn't resolve any problems then drivers licenses and regulations will solve the rest. Consider that once the percentage of cars that operate autonomously hits a tipping point then the drivers that are not represent a hazard and remove the possibility of many of the benefits of driverless cars. Costs of insuring a car to drive it by oneself will go through the roof due to the much higher accident rate and most people will not be willing or able to pay that. That higher insurance cost alone will greatly reduce the number of people driving their own cars. Then if people driving their own cars is still a problem licenses can either no longer be issued or driving simply not be allowed.
I was once like you I loved the freedom of driving, but I've become more flexible and realized that as long as I can get where I want to it doesn't matter how I get there. In fact I'd rather save the time driving for something more enjoyable. I get the same sense of freedom by taking a long distance bike journey.
But I think you're spot on with a lot of the potential risks of trusting the driverless cars. The extent to which those are managed well will determine whether driverless cars represent a benefit or harm to society.
I guess if you want to call expensive industrial laser sintering "3D printing."
But that is the standard now. Language evolves and that is now the standard usage. Wikipedia is no authority, but it does tend toward standard usage and in this case it does align with common sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3...
I think most people, me included, see "3D printing", as opposed to "additive manufacturing techniques we've been using for thirty years", as something you might want to do in your home.
Yes, as 3D printers improve they will find some uses. Currently I don't think there are any good ones. There ARE interesting things being done to develop 3D printing into a useful tool, but we keep getting hype-filled stories like this one instead.
Ok, see your point, but you should've specified the 3D printing methods you referred to earlier.
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
