There is a great idea that many have been working on for decades: Mag Lev Transportation. Government never moves forward with a good plan, they always wait for the harmful idea, so they can stay in power, ruling in hell rather than serving in heaven.
See here:
This is a classic false dilemma, and of course the kids don't even know that word today, let alone the term. "Driverless car" is not the answer to the risk, waste and cost of transportation. Mag Lev is the answer, but apparently in the last few months that came off the table as a full frontal movement toward "driverless cars" is afoot.
When did they shift from MagLev to "driverless car"? Who knows? But Mag Lev means no oil, no tires, far fewer moving parts, faster, safer cheaper, more efficient. And if privately provided, then confidential as to who is moving where...
With Mag Lev, central computers sort out in advance who is going where by what route safely. There is no human last second decisions, no wrecks, no waste, no risk. The model is more like data along fibre-optic cable, not driverless cars.
Mag Lev is savings, efficiency, safety... robotizing an internal combustion engine is nuts...
As usual, the hegemon hijacked a great idea and replaced it with a terrible one... so now, as usual, the question for policy makers, Aztec priests all, is who dies?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
See here:
“Yet the smarter machines become, the greater the likelihood that the space remaining for uniquely-human skills could shrink further,” Haldane said. He said what was previously unthinkable even a decade ago is now reality, like a driverless car.I was in a junior high school civics class recently when I first heard this. The groupthink assignment was, with driverless cars, should we be programming to die or kill? That is to say, a driver instinctively will turn away from a colliding car to save his own live, with the result far more often passengers present are injured or killed in wrecks than drivers. When programming driverless cars, should we program them to act like humans, or to save the optimum amount of people (utilitarianism).
This is a classic false dilemma, and of course the kids don't even know that word today, let alone the term. "Driverless car" is not the answer to the risk, waste and cost of transportation. Mag Lev is the answer, but apparently in the last few months that came off the table as a full frontal movement toward "driverless cars" is afoot.
When did they shift from MagLev to "driverless car"? Who knows? But Mag Lev means no oil, no tires, far fewer moving parts, faster, safer cheaper, more efficient. And if privately provided, then confidential as to who is moving where...
With Mag Lev, central computers sort out in advance who is going where by what route safely. There is no human last second decisions, no wrecks, no waste, no risk. The model is more like data along fibre-optic cable, not driverless cars.
Mag Lev is savings, efficiency, safety... robotizing an internal combustion engine is nuts...
As usual, the hegemon hijacked a great idea and replaced it with a terrible one... so now, as usual, the question for policy makers, Aztec priests all, is who dies?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment