Driverless Cars are Insane.

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
3,957
Self-driving cars are coming. They are here now.

Rest assured though, nobody is gonna deprive you of your favorite gas guzzling ‘73 Ranchero.
It’s true. Nobody is taking your car away.

But just know the gas powered car will soon go the way of the Polaroid camera. Basically it’ll just end up being super costly. And most of it’s value won’t be in the thing itself but whether or not it makes you look edgy and cool. And you’ll eventually have to come to a decision on whether or not looking cool is worth it or is it better to just switch over. Sorta like you did when you traded in your Nokia for that iPhone.

So rest assured — when self-driving cars take over you will still be able to take your Dodge Viper out to the Drive In. There may even be special roads for you and I can guarantee a lot more rallies for you attend with likeminded folks. And it will be fun for you to reflect on how bad ass gas is and not having some computer telling you to stay in your lane. Then you’ll dance to the oldies and swallow handfuls of geritol. So what’s with the negativity i read in this thread?

This topic is not about some deeper effort to steal away your civil rights nor infect the drinking water with prions - it will just be the same thing that’s been creeping up on you for decades in the automotive industry. It’s not about loss of freedom or system failures. You need to look at this for what it truly is. The eventual dreams of the automotive industry taking it’s next step in what has been a million steps since man first strapped horse to buggy.

* For example we all had to switch from regular leaded gas to unleaded. It happened. I mean we all remember that transition right? It wasn’t all that crazy or revolutionary, but it effected everyone all at the same period of time. It was a transition in the automotive industry that happened and we all survived. Now you can’t find Regular Leaded gas anywhere — but nobody is hollering about that here - on the cusp of 2020. I mean think about it - 2020. It is the future now like it or not. And whomever complained that the loss of leaded gas was infringing on their freedom is long long gone.

But you can forever be a fossil fuel aficionado.
Whatever you think freedom is will remain unscathed by the progressions of modern man.

You do remember the Jetson’s right? There cars flew through the air. Back to the Future the car ran on plutonium. You guys seen Minority Report? We all knew self-driving cars was coming for decades. Why should the auto-industry now be restrained from progressing to it’s natural course. Space cars. Cars that drive themselves. The automotive industry is driven by innovation. It has been since it was a seed and won’t stop now it’s a giant oak.

I mean why be scared or offended by this? I don’t get it. Everyone today is totally fine with unleaded gas — and we have 3 varieties to select from not satiated your primal desire to bitch and complain? You’ll still have it when everything goes self-driving too but it will just cost you $40 bucks or more a gallon. Cause nobody will need it anymore. Demand shrinks, prices sky rocket.

I mean we made the seat belt schism of 1992 ?
I mean we all buckle our seat belt now. There was a time when nobody did. Remember the lone holdout who refused to buckle up? You all knew that guy. One of your buddy. My buddy’s name was Haywood (no joke) he was this surfer cat who’s dad was an exec for chevron (the irony) and he road all tough in this dark blue maxima. Well i buckled up and he didn’t. I guess it was his way of flouting the law or being “dangerous.” But he eventually transitioned cause of laws and it just got old and tiresome acting all tough and being the lone hold out.

My point is how can you progress to anti-lock breaks and not self-driving cars. Self driving cars always been the dream. It’s always been the mission from the inception of auto-making.

Since the day we made the horse and buggy. We were like how do we lose this stinky horse and it’s foul gas. Then we went to the combustible “horseless” engine and have been saying ever since, how do we make a “human-less” engine and get rid of this stinky crap and foul gas.

Well the time is upon us. Kick and scream. Trying and stop it. Make it some bold statement of rebellion just like Haywood did with refusing to wear his seat belt. Make the issue something completely other than what it is if it makes you feel better.

But as someone (me) who graduated from the same design school that has produced all the top automotive designers in the world - the heads of the BMW design team to Volkswagen, to Ford, the dream has always been exactly what they saw on the Jetson’s. Or watched in Minority Report. Or ever dreamt of what glorious things the future could bring. That’s what this is about. The dream of the ultimate car. Nothing less nothing more.

* The ironic news is that when we do finally fully switch over to electric/hydrogen automatic driving automobiles (in the near future) the only ones left crashing into each other or sitting in traffic will be those we call “The Freedom Drivers.” Look forward to idea of being known as a Freedom Driver when the masses get a load of your Metallic Blue Torino chugging down the road. All the dudes in their self-driving cars will look over, give you the thumbs up, and think to themselves, that guy must be freaking loaded to spend money keeping that badass machine running. That must cost him a fortune.
Leaded to unleaded gas is a whole different kind of change compared to going from "I get to choose where I go" to "a computer tells me where I can go and that computer is programmed according to local, state and federal law, so the government is really the ultimate controller of where I go".

I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but it's ignorant and foolish to deny that when driverless cars become the prevalent means of transportation, it will be the government deciding when and where everyone can drive. Maybe it won't be on an individual level, there may only be rules for the masses, but there will be rules that you will be absolutely prevented from breaking and those rules will likely not be workable for large chunks of the population.

And how do we know that? The government makes dumb ass rules all the time. They won't suddenly become clairvoyant and benevolent rulers because of driverless cars. It might be as simple as a city making a law that this one road can't be driven on between x and y hours, but that adds 20 minutes to someone's commute. Or a certain highway out bridge can only have so many vehicles at once. Now somebody can't take their kids to school and arrive at work on time, or get from their job to the night school they were going to so they could get a degree and a promotion.

But hey, to hell with those people, their kids, their families, their personal lives, and their freedom to choose their own schedule because "driverless cars!", right?
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
It's weird. In Britain in the '70s they had a mockumentary called Alternative 003 which relied on what was commonly known research about global warming. They didn't invent it, they just tried to make money on it, and what the trend would mean for the world. That's not the source of the global warming data - again, they just relied on what was commonly reported info. Yet supposedly there was nothing out there about it. Strange.

While much of this was relatively unknown outside of scientific communities in the early 70's, a couple centuries worth of industrial pollution was certainly being examined for ways to combat the effects. In Los Angeles, where I grew up, smog became a catalyst for many studies on man made pollution. In 1952 London, over 4 thousand people died from smog and the industrial pollutants which caused it.
For me, climate deniers remind me of doctors who pushed cigarettes prior to government finally stepping in.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,924
While much of this was relatively unknown outside of scientific communities in the early 70's, a couple centuries worth of industrial pollution was certainly being examined for ways to combat the effects. In Los Angeles, where I grew up, smog became a catalyst for many studies on man made pollution. In 1952 London, over 4 thousand people died from smog and the industrial pollutants which caused it.
For me, climate deniers remind me of doctors who pushed cigarettes prior to government finally stepping in.

Yup, follow the money.

Even though much of what you cite is not necessarily global warming - there was knowledge of it over a century ago as experiments showed what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It was common knowledge in Europe by the 70s, although the time frame was in doubt. In the US, industry fought to hide it with weirdly unscientific "scientific" studies. The evidence is far too strong now, but they're still fighting it with huge campaign contributions to politicians at all levels.

The WW2 generation was the greatest generation for their sacrifices. This may well be the worst generation.
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
Yup, follow the money.

Even though much of what you cite is not necessarily global warming - there was knowledge of it over a century ago as experiments showed what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It was common knowledge in Europe by the 70s, although the time frame was in doubt. In the US, industry fought to hide it with weirdly unscientific "scientific" studies. The evidence is far too strong now, but they're still fighting it with huge campaign contributions to politicians at all levels.

The WW2 generation was the greatest generation for their sacrifices. This may well be the worst generation.

Agreed, i've often referred to the Baby Boomer generation being among the worst in modern times, and i'm a member.
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
Leaded to unleaded gas is a whole different kind of change compared to going from "I get to choose where I go" to "a computer tells me where I can go and that computer is programmed according to local, state and federal law, so the government is really the ultimate controller of where I go".

I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but it's ignorant and foolish to deny that when driverless cars become the prevalent means of transportation, it will be the government deciding when and where everyone can drive. Maybe it won't be on an individual level, there may only be rules for the masses, but there will be rules that you will be absolutely prevented from breaking and those rules will likely not be workable for large chunks of the population.

And how do we know that? The government makes dumb ass rules all the time. They won't suddenly become clairvoyant and benevolent rulers because of driverless cars. It might be as simple as a city making a law that this one road can't be driven on between x and y hours, but that adds 20 minutes to someone's commute. Or a certain highway out bridge can only have so many vehicles at once. Now somebody can't take their kids to school and arrive at work on time, or get from their job to the night school they were going to so they could get a degree and a promotion.

But hey, to hell with those people, their kids, their families, their personal lives, and their freedom to choose their own schedule because "driverless cars!", right?

Wow.

As long as you have two feet you can pretty much go wherever you want, barring certain restrictions. Bicycles aren't likely to come with AI chips, or a skateboard either. How about getting a horse ? As far as I understand it, the Constitution doesn't grant anyone the privilege of driving wherever they want at anytime they wish, or at any speed they choose. Driving into a military installation or trying to drive down a road which is being paved or repaired seems like a fairly reasonable restriction, and more often than not some form of notice will be presented before you get yourself into trouble. I get that some people deal with change better than others, but many of these 'intrusions' which come with progress are for bettering society as a whole, and not necessarily for the comforts of the individual. jmo.
 
Last edited:

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
3,957
Wow.

As long as you have two feet you can pretty much go wherever you want, barring certain restrictions. Bicycles aren't likely to come with AI chips, or a skateboard either. How about getting a horse ? As far as I understand it, the Constitution doesn't grant anyone the privilege of driving wherever they want at anytime they wish, or at any speed they choose. Driving into a military installation or trying to drive down a road which is being paved or repaired seems like a fairly reasonable restriction, and more often than not some form of notice will be presented before you get yourself into trouble. I get that some people deal with change better than others, but many of these 'intrusions' which come with progress are for bettering society as a whole, and not necessarily for the comforts of the individual. jmo.

Nobody brought up the Constitution. But just because a right isn't enumerated there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take the right to probably for example. Or the right to healthcare that lead to the Affordable Care Act.

As foro walking, biking, skateboarding, roller blading, or Pogo sticking, it mostly because those aren't viable options for huge swaths of the population. I can't afford to live near where I work. Rents are double, gas is more expensive, and taxes are higher. So I drive over an hour each way. If a driverless car law was made that stopped me from doing that, everything about my life would change and my family would be eating ramen 3 meals a day. And I'm not a unique case here. This is pretty common all across the country.

I guess I could ride a bicycle 67 miles each way. Give up on college after work and ever seeing my children.

Again, I get that (or more appropriately, it seems very obvious from your comments that) you don't care about other people and you think your life choices are the best life choices, but they don't work for everyone and everyone shouldn't be forced into what you want.
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
Evidently you went to different schools than I did. I can remember discussions from the 60's on overpopulation.
Strange. The vast majority of environmental scientists - except for those employed by the carbon fuel industries - acknowledge man caused global warming as a major problem. The global temps have been rising faster since the beginning of the petroleum industry especially than at any time in history - post ice age periods had bigger rises, but over much larger time scales. The effects of co2 and some other aerosols on temperature are well studied. All those point to a global catastrophe - not for the world, but for the human species, as oceans rise, and the environment changes quicker than humans can adapt.

But what are billions of deaths compared to more profits for the oil companies? And why should we take action to build a sustainable world for our kids and grandkids?
Strange. The vast majority of environmental scientists - except for those employed by the carbon fuel industries - acknowledge man caused global warming as a major problem. The global temps have been rising faster since the beginning of the petroleum industry especially than at any time in history - post ice age periods had bigger rises, but over much larger time scales. The effects of co2 and some other aerosols on temperature are well studied. All those point to a global catastrophe - not for the world, but for the human species, as oceans rise, and the environment changes quicker than humans can adapt.

But what are billions of deaths compared to more profits for the oil companies? And why should we take action to build a sustainable world for our kids and grandkids?

:wow:
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
Again, I get that (or more appropriately, it seems very obvious from your comments that) you don't care about other people and you think your life choices are the best life choices, but they don't work for everyone and everyone shouldn't be forced into what you want.

BINGO
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Leaded to unleaded gas is a whole different kind of change compared to going from "I get to choose where I go" to "a computer tells me where I can go and that computer is programmed according to local, state and federal law, so the government is really the ultimate controller of where I go".

I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but it's ignorant and foolish to deny that when driverless cars become the prevalent means of transportation, it will be the government deciding when and where everyone can drive. Maybe it won't be on an individual level, there may only be rules for the masses, but there will be rules that you will be absolutely prevented from breaking and those rules will likely not be workable for large chunks of the population.

And how do we know that? The government makes dumb ass rules all the time. They won't suddenly become clairvoyant and benevolent rulers because of driverless cars. It might be as simple as a city making a law that this one road can't be driven on between x and y hours, but that adds 20 minutes to someone's commute. Or a certain highway out bridge can only have so many vehicles at once. Now somebody can't take their kids to school and arrive at work on time, or get from their job to the night school they were going to so they could get a degree and a promotion.

But hey, to hell with those people, their kids, their families, their personal lives, and their freedom to choose their own schedule because "driverless cars!", right?

Nobody is going to stop you from going to get a six pack at the Stop and Go

Nobody

Driverless cars are about the automotive industries desire to build the ultimate car

No need to worry about it

Again, nobody is taking away your car or your freedom - that’s just fear

Stop living in fear
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Just going to need a crap load of coal to charge electric cars. We couldn't do it today if we wanted to so tech is not here yet for that.

That is definitely an issue the auto industry will have to face - let’s see how they handle it
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
what is actually happening:

Here's how GM is leading the way as auto giants prep for a revolution


MARK PHELAN | DETROIT FREE PRESS | 12:30 pm EDT April 27, 2019
icon-sms_24.svg
icon-mail_24.svg


Can automakers walk and chew gum at the same time

That’s the challenge facing the world’s giants, from General Motors and Ford to Volkswagen, Toyota and Hyundai.

How do they invest billions of dollars and countless hours of engineering and design talent in electric and self-driving vehicles they won’t sell in meaningful numbers for years and simultaneously develop world-class cars and trucks customers will want until the mobility revolution comes, if it ever does?

GM may be showing the way, as it moves toward the goal of having electric-powered autonomous vehicles in commercial service somewhere in the United States this year and selling a wide range of EVs around the world in the near future.

GM’s approach:




    • Pay less attention to vehicles people don’t care about — the automaking equivalent of Elmore Leonard’s famous instruction to writers: “Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.” Ceasing to build slow-selling, low-profit vehicles like the Chevy Cruze and Impala frees resources for other things.
    • Split product development into two channels: one focused on vehicles that will be built in high numbers for the next few years, the other on vehicles and technologies that will hit their stride later
    • Eliminate the longstanding engine and transmission development group and make its responsibilities part of vehicle engineering, a change that looks minor from the outside, but constituted a seismic shift within GM.

      Things happen when you focus on them,” said Pam Fletcher, who led the program that created the Chevy Bolt electric car and Cadillac Super Cruise semi-autonomous driving system before assuming the new title of vice president for global innovation a few months ago.

      “Our absolute intention is to commercialize these things. It’s not invention for invention’s sake. We’ve only been public about a fraction of what we’re doing.”

      At the same time, human-driven cars powered by internal combustion engines accounted for 95% of the 8.4 million vehicles GM sold around the world last year. They pay the bills. GM can’t take its eye off them as it looks to the future.

      “If you don’t shoot for the best, you fall behind very quickly” in hyper-competitive segments like SUVs and pickups, said Ken Morris, vice president of GM’s global product group. “We need to make money on conventional vehicles and that means we need to be a leader. That’s not going to change.”

      Combining time and talent
      Moving engine and transmission development — Global Powertrain Operations in GM Speak — 20 miles from an engineering campus in Pontiac to GM’s main tech center in Warren, may look like rearranging the deck chairs, but it eliminated bureaucracy and duplication of efforts that cost time and talent, Morris said.

      Combine that with the work saved by dropping slow-selling vehicles and GM can tackle new challenges like batteries, electric motors and self-driving cars. Linking software development more closely to vehicle engineering removed more bottlenecks.

      While electric and autonomous vehicles are profoundly different from today’s vehicles, they share many parts and systems, Fletcher points out.

      They'll “still be putting four wheels and tires on every car. Areas like chassis engineering have teams that work across the organization and portfolio. We share systems across platforms,” Fletcher said.

      Ford recently made similar changes. Joe Hinrichs leads Ford’s global product development and manufacturing. Jim Farley oversees advanced technology, including autonomous vehicles. Ford’s ambitious project to create an EV and AV center in Detroit’s Corktown neighborhood is also part of the company’s approach

      “The reorganizations recognize how the market has the potential to change,” IHS Markit senior analyst Stephanie Brinley said. “It’s a difficult path to walk, but one automakers must follow.”

      A wait and see approach until customers demand EVs and AVs won’t do, she said. No automaker can afford to be last into the new vehicle types, but nor can any afford to ignore what buyers want today.

      That dovetails with GM’s plan.

      We have a large portfolio and a large customer base,” Fletcher said. “We’re going to build a lot of kinds of vehicles for a long time.”











 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
Nobody brought up the Constitution. But just because a right isn't enumerated there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take the right to probably for example. Or the right to healthcare that lead to the Affordable Care Act.

As foro walking, biking, skateboarding, roller blading, or Pogo sticking, it mostly because those aren't viable options for huge swaths of the population. I can't afford to live near where I work. Rents are double, gas is more expensive, and taxes are higher. So I drive over an hour each way. If a driverless car law was made that stopped me from doing that, everything about my life would change and my family would be eating ramen 3 meals a day. And I'm not a unique case here. This is pretty common all across the country.

I guess I could ride a bicycle 67 miles each way. Give up on college after work and ever seeing my children.

Again, I get that (or more appropriately, it seems very obvious from your comments that) you don't care about other people and you think your life choices are the best life choices, but they don't work for everyone and everyone shouldn't be forced into what you want.

Thing is, nobody is talking about taking away your car or truck. When the automobile came around, the horse and buggy weren't banned, people moved forward at a natural progression due to convenience. Some folks may opt to avoid new technologies, they may also face a likelihood of being left behind while others enjoy the benefits provided which ease daily life and lower costs. The choice will be yours, although should you choose to stick with carbon based fuels and personal control for driving your car, ... taxes, insurance and maintenance costs will continue to rise and take a bigger bite out of your budget.
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
Nobody brought up the Constitution.

it seems very obvious from your comments that) you don't care about other people and you think your life choices are the best life choices, but they don't work for everyone and everyone shouldn't be forced into what you want.

Actually, someone did bring up the Constitution earlier in this thread, and it wasn't me.

I'm not sure how you gathered from my posts that I don't care about other people, or that I'm personally responsible for imposing restrictions on your lifestyle, but this isn't about me, this is much bigger than any one person. Like you, I have a single vote at the ballot box on issues which make it to that point, but I have little to do with corporate and/or government policy decisions which impact basic transportation. Those decisions are made at a pay scale far higher than my own and usually about profits and how best to maximize them. That these companies follow national trends isn't remarkable, but they do have the means to cater to pressing needs, and if they get it right, will profit handsomely. One trend now is for cleaner, greener, more efficient automobiles & fuel, that and a quicker, more convenient and functional system of mass transit generally. True that these infrastructure improvements may not have much bearing on rural life, but they will definitely address the lives where most people live and play, in and around cities. I included a post earlier about other national trends including where rural communities are depopulating in massive numbers, it's nothing new, young people tend to prefer city life, whether it be for increased job opportunities, finding better higher education or just finding a mate, and all this migration is having a severe impact on our metropolitan areas. It's not discrimination against the rural to improve the urban, both need better planning and improvements, but corporations follow the money, and that tends to be in the cities where most of the people can be found.
 
Last edited:

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
All the different things that driverless cars will impact is really interesting if you think about it. This is a good example of how we're developing super advanced AI capable of using morality and logic to determine how it operates, regardless of what the owner says. Which is a weird thing, to be in a car that's designed to kill you if it determines that's best for the collective.

Of course the odds that any of us are in a situation like that where the car would need to make that "decision" are punishingly low, but that type of technology ripples out to other things, more advanced robotics and artificial intelligence.

I'm also really interested in seeing how driverless cars are going to impact other industries. Obviously car insurance will have to be completely overhauled once enough driverless cars are on the road as traffic collisions will plummet, but that's also going to do things like essentially kill the auto body shop industry, as there would be less need for body repairs, and more need for regular maintenance.

Then getting into the health and life insurance aspects of it, less crashes on the road mean less injuries and deaths, which impact those industries heavily. Emergency services would get to commit far fewer resources to road side crashes and injuries, which would free them up for other emergencies. However, it would also reduce the amount of things such as running read lights and speeding, which basically eliminates the need for traffic enforcement by police departments, which save tons of resources as well, but also reduces local government revenue (although, I'd say that's a good thing given that the money, should, remain with the people then).

I'm excited for driverless cars, personally. They're a real big rock though, so the ripples it make will be far reaching, it'll totally change how the economy operates.

And frankly I'm not sure those who are in charge have any idea how to deal with it, which means it's going to be far bumpier than it needs to be. At some point we need to give a technology proficiency exam to our government officials and remove them if they fail, because these idiots are still struggling with Google and private businesses and (more worryingly) other countries are running circles around us laughing. Gotta start prepping the economy for the inevitable changes that are coming while it's still a good ways down the road, because it's coming regardless of if we prepare for it or not.

This was an excellent post, thanks. I hadn't really considered the butterly effect but you're correct it's going to shift so many industries.

I don't want to be killed because they are just a bit too feeble to drive safely any longer.

LOL I live in SWFL and that thought occurs to me almost daily.

If a driverless car law was made that stopped me from doing that, everything about my life would change and my family would be eating ramen 3 meals a day

Explain why there would be laws forbidding driverless cars to go places other cars can?

I don't understand where you get that thought.

This is a fun thread for sure.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
You first.

Astrophysics, PhD.

Climate change is real, I've worked with the data on research regarding planetary evolution in order to better predict habitable planets in other star systems.

But meh.

Also while a lot of renewables aren't ready to take over, it's not because it's difficult or wont yield good enough results, but rather because we're not really investing in it. Opposed to just a few decades ago where the space race saw tons of money funneled into sciences for military research (of course many of those projects led to technology we use today).

For example, the technology is there to make cities much cooler, make electricity free, improve traffic patterns, go completely 100% renewable energy, etc. But since people or the government aren't heavily investing in these things yet, they haven't gotten to the point where it's worth the cost to switch things over, even if it's better for our economy, environment, health, and life I'm general.

We could easily have solar roads (which are programmable to be able to change appearances to make anything from a freeway to a basketball court l), solar windows, along with wind and hydro power plants to have more than enough power, bioluminescent algae street lights, planting canopy trees and making our skyscrapers plant accessible (allowing trees to be planted up buildings) lower the temperature of cities, etc. All those technologies exist now, shit there's a gel fridge that doesn't have a door, you just shove your shit into this weird jello looking thing and it keeps it cool, the future is already here. It's just expensive.

Some things like the gel fridge are obviously kind of dumb, and there are better ways, but the rest would all be very cost effective once the price becomes reasonable, which they will as the years continue. Investing only speeds up the process.

And frankly we should invest for nothing else but it would all be much cooler to look at, and life would be better as well, better for the average Joe instead of just a select few.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Astrophysics, PhD.

Climate change is real, I've worked with the data on research regarding planetary evolution in order to better predict habitable planets in other star systems.

But meh.

Also while a lot of renewables aren't ready to take over, it's not because it's difficult or wont yield good enough results, but rather because we're not really investing in it. Opposed to just a few decades ago where the space race saw tons of money funneled into sciences for military research (of course many of those projects led to technology we use today).

For example, the technology is there to make cities much cooler, make electricity free, improve traffic patterns, go completely 100% renewable energy, etc. But since people or the government aren't heavily investing in these things yet, they haven't gotten to the point where it's worth the cost to switch things over, even if it's better for our economy, environment, health, and life I'm general.

We could easily have solar roads (which are programmable to be able to change appearances to make anything from a freeway to a basketball court l), solar windows, along with wind and hydro power plants to have more than enough power, bioluminescent algae street lights, planting canopy trees and making our skyscrapers plant accessible (allowing trees to be planted up buildings) lower the temperature of cities, etc. All those technologies exist now, crap there's a gel fridge that doesn't have a door, you just shove your crap into this weird jello looking thing and it keeps it cool, the future is already here. It's just expensive.

Some things like the gel fridge are obviously kind of dumb, and there are better ways, but the rest would all be very cost effective once the price becomes reasonable, which they will as the years continue. Investing only speeds up the process.

And frankly we should invest for nothing else but it would all be much cooler to look at, and life would be better as well, better for the average Joe instead of just a select few.

You need to start a new thread - maybe without such a negative title - what you posted is fascinating

I am down with the idea of a gel fridge :LOL:
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
You need to start a new thread - maybe without such a negative title - what you posted is fascinating

I am down with the idea of a gel fridge :LOL:

As long as that when I grab a beer half the jell hasn't slimed me on the way out, otherwise might be kind of fun.
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
Our Present :

giphy.gif



Our Future :

giphy.gif



giphy.gif



giphy.gif



giphy.gif



giphy.gif




What happens to those who won't comply :

giphy.gif
 

Farr Be It

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
3,965
While much of this was relatively unknown outside of scientific communities in the early 70's, a couple centuries worth of industrial pollution was certainly being examined for ways to combat the effects. In Los Angeles, where I grew up, smog became a catalyst for many studies on man made pollution. In 1952 London, over 4 thousand people died from smog and the industrial pollutants which caused it.
For me, climate deniers remind me of doctors who pushed cigarettes prior to government finally stepping in.
...and climate alarmists remind me of zombie cult members. (y)

This may well be the worst generation.
Careful, every generation has great and lazy-minded people. I'm learning not to generalize so much about generations.

Climate change is real, I've worked with the data on research regarding planetary evolution in order to better predict habitable planets in other star systems.

As you say, meh, to the habitable planets thing. Earth is the only thing designed remotely close for life. You probably have a better appreciation than most as to the awesome and perfect design of our plant. My view is that God created the other planets and solar systems to show us the difference, so we could appreciate it, and to show us how special we are.

As to "Climate Change is real", you and I don't have to re-engage on this, but you will acknowledge that phrase is just a platitude. I know you mean AGW, which is a more accurate claim. That man is negatively affecting the atmosphere of our planet through our actions. Thousands of great scientists have studied this and disagree. Much data is on their side.

I believe the United States would be foolish to abandon many of our great, and reliable resources such as natural gas, coal and oil, and move toward unproven, and unreliable things, wind especially. We should also resurrect our nuclear industry, as it has proven itself to become very safe, and effective. Study and improve everything, though. If Solar, and hydro have breakthroughs, or lithium, by all means.

But to "phase out" of oil and gas for no other reason than 400ppm of natural CO2 emissions, (plant food) is so foolish, self-loathing, and suicidal to our society. CO2 is wonderful. It should not be treated like poison and the evidence is clear that its affect on warming the earth is not linear. The greening of our earth is in-fact a positive thing.

Somehow it was determined that lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were the "norm". We are at around 400ppm, and many think even a bit higher is better for sustaining life.



We could easily have solar roads (which are programmable to be able to change appearances to make anything from a freeway to a basketball court l), solar windows, along with wind and hydro power plants to have more than enough power, bioluminescent algae street lights, planting canopy trees and making our skyscrapers plant accessible (allowing trees to be planted up buildings) lower the temperature of cities, etc. All those technologies exist now, crap there's a gel fridge that doesn't have a door, you just shove your crap into this weird jello looking thing and it keeps it cool, the future is already here. It's just expensive.
Ah, expensive. As in "not viable, yet"? Maybe never? We can keep an open mind to some of those things without committing to them because of some emotional political wave.

And frankly we should invest for nothing else but it would all be much cooler to look at, and life would be better as well, better for the average Joe instead of just a select few.
Is that a reason to commit to something, Blue? I mean, maybe on a 7th grade science essay, but for real? I'm not trying to be harsh. You are a sharp dude, PhD and all. I know you are just putting into simple terms, and the "making life better" part is not lost on me, but look how far down the road we've gone with the disastrous wind industry, even as evidence is more and more clear that Don Quijote should have slayed that dragon before it procreated.

Lots of bad ideas get "funding" and go on for decades, get entrenched, and have a net negative affect on society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.