New York Times: $15 an Hour is Meant to Drive Fast Food Out of Business

[OnePercenter]

Dude...there already are!

Really? Who's marketing them? Ford? Chevy? Dodge? Your current science fiction movie?

Google (and others) is testing them...they are on the road RIGHT NOW.

(and others) have been testing them over the past twenty years, and yet, no driver-less car is available to buy. The driver-less car is nothing but a pipe-dream.

There are two ways we can go with driver-less cars. Either put incredible smarts (and more points of failure) in cars so they can deal with human drivers (who are unpredictable and uncontrollable), or outlaw human controlled cars and put the smarts into a control system. Here's how I think it will go. The first "smart" cars are being developed now that will try to be smart enough to handle interactions with human driven cars. They will fail, and the second option will be adopted. Cities will build in control mechanisms for city streets, and cars will be developed that will communicate with those mechanisms. Then human driven cars will be illegal within ever expanding prescribed areas.

Perhaps in the year 2525.

 

[bripat9643]

[
I predict that urban centers will go first. Once control mechanisms are in place, it will become illegal to drive a car in the city.

I'll bet you are a fan of Sci-Fi.

You mean some people are not?!?!?

My point is that you've confused Sci-Fi with reality.

A lot of things that you consider "reality" were once thought of as sci-fi, like your cell phone.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

now this really sucks! now where am i going to get my fattening and inexpensive Chinese Food ? !!!!

 

[OnePercenter]

It doesn't take incredible smarts for self driving cars to avoid accidents with humans. A typical laptop has more than enough smarts. the number of rules to be followed is really quite small.

The difficult part is getting the car to recognize where the road is and to accomplish other driving tasks, like how to negotiate a parking lot. Google seems to have accomplished this later feat.

Self driving cars will be all over the highway within 10 years. Count on it.

This is your brain on driving.

Parts of the Brain Used While Driving LIVESTRONG.COM

Tell me, which laptop can replicate this?

 

[OnePercenter]

But it still doesn't matter to the point of this discussion.

Even if liability is 50/50, that makes no difference to the question of whether self-driving cars are going to be on the road.

No logical person would conclude that we shouldn't have self-driving cars, because human-driven cars, rear-ended the self-driving ones. That's not rational by any stretch.

That would be like me, rear-ending you, and then claiming you should not be allowed on the roads, because I hit you.

1) The question regarding 50/50 has to do with a question of liability.

2) The fact that Google hasn't released police reports cements my theory that driver-less cars have evolved very little over the past 20 years.

3) I've never stated that SOMEDAY we won't have driver-less cars, but nowhere in the near future (100 years).

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't take incredible smarts for self driving cars to avoid accidents with humans. A typical laptop has more than enough smarts. the number of rules to be followed is really quite small.

The difficult part is getting the car to recognize where the road is and to accomplish other driving tasks, like how to negotiate a parking lot. Google seems to have accomplished this later feat.

Self driving cars will be all over the highway within 10 years. Count on it.

This is your brain on driving.

Parts of the Brain Used While Driving LIVESTRONG.COM

Tell me, which laptop can replicate this?

They don't have to replicate it, nimrod. they only have to produce the same end result.

 

[OnePercenter]

It doesn't take incredible smarts for self driving cars to avoid accidents with humans. A typical laptop has more than enough smarts. the number of rules to be followed is really quite small.

The difficult part is getting the car to recognize where the road is and to accomplish other driving tasks, like how to negotiate a parking lot. Google seems to have accomplished this later feat.

Self driving cars will be all over the highway within 10 years. Count on it.

This is your brain on driving.

Parts of the Brain Used While Driving LIVESTRONG.COM

Tell me, which laptop can replicate this?

They don't have to replicate it, nimrod. they only have to produce the same end result.

OK. Tell me, which laptop can produce the same end result.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dude...there already are!

Really? Who's marketing them? Ford? Chevy? Dodge? Your current science fiction movie?

Google (and others) is testing them...they are on the road RIGHT NOW.

(and others) have been testing them over the past twenty years, and yet, no driver-less car is available to buy. The driver-less car is nothing but a pipe-dream.

There are two ways we can go with driver-less cars. Either put incredible smarts (and more points of failure) in cars so they can deal with human drivers (who are unpredictable and uncontrollable), or outlaw human controlled cars and put the smarts into a control system. Here's how I think it will go. The first "smart" cars are being developed now that will try to be smart enough to handle interactions with human driven cars. They will fail, and the second option will be adopted. Cities will build in control mechanisms for city streets, and cars will be developed that will communicate with those mechanisms. Then human driven cars will be illegal within ever expanding prescribed areas.

Perhaps in the year 2525.

Yea ok.
Oil Trucks In Canada Will Soon Drive Themselves Popular Science

 

[Andylusion]

now this really sucks! now where am i going to get my fattening and inexpensive Chinese Food ? !!!!

Don't worry. They'll find a way to automate it.

 

[Andylusion]

But it still doesn't matter to the point of this discussion.

Even if liability is 50/50, that makes no difference to the question of whether self-driving cars are going to be on the road.

No logical person would conclude that we shouldn't have self-driving cars, because human-driven cars, rear-ended the self-driving ones. That's not rational by any stretch.

That would be like me, rear-ending you, and then claiming you should not be allowed on the roads, because I hit you.

1) The question regarding 50/50 has to do with a question of liability.

2) The fact that Google hasn't released police reports cements my theory that driver-less cars have evolved very little over the past 20 years.

3) I've never stated that SOMEDAY we won't have driver-less cars, but nowhere in the near future (100 years).

That is not a rational claim by any perspective. Again, what difference does liability have, to how far the automated driving system has advanced?

How is it the computers fault, that a car driven by a human, rear-ended it? Again, legally the liability might be 50/50, but that doesn't change who hit whom.

We have computer controlled breaking.... known as ABS. If I'm stationary at a light, is it my ABS fault that I was rear-ended? We have computer controlled speed... known as cruise control. If I fail to turn off my cruise control, is it the cruise controls fault I hit someone?

We right now, have on the road, automatic parallel parking. If someone hits your car, while it is automatically parking, is it the computers fault someone rammed you?

Your argument is about as logical as suggesting that if a person rear-ends a Ford Model T, and another person rear-ends a 2015 Chevy Corvette, "well clearly cars have not advanced at all"

That's idiotic.

"Well the Corvette was hit from behind just like the model T, so obviously nothing has improved since 1908"

Surely you can see this is a brainless position to hold.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't take incredible smarts for self driving cars to avoid accidents with humans. A typical laptop has more than enough smarts. the number of rules to be followed is really quite small.

The difficult part is getting the car to recognize where the road is and to accomplish other driving tasks, like how to negotiate a parking lot. Google seems to have accomplished this later feat.

Self driving cars will be all over the highway within 10 years. Count on it.

This is your brain on driving.

Parts of the Brain Used While Driving LIVESTRONG.COM

Tell me, which laptop can replicate this?

They don't have to replicate it, nimrod. they only have to produce the same end result.

OK. Tell me, which laptop can produce the same end result.

Just check with google to see which one they used.

 

[bripat9643]

But it still doesn't matter to the point of this discussion.

Even if liability is 50/50, that makes no difference to the question of whether self-driving cars are going to be on the road.

No logical person would conclude that we shouldn't have self-driving cars, because human-driven cars, rear-ended the self-driving ones. That's not rational by any stretch.

That would be like me, rear-ending you, and then claiming you should not be allowed on the roads, because I hit you.

1) The question regarding 50/50 has to do with a question of liability.

2) The fact that Google hasn't released police reports cements my theory that driver-less cars have evolved very little over the past 20 years.

3) I've never stated that SOMEDAY we won't have driver-less cars, but nowhere in the near future (100 years).

That is not a rational claim by any perspective. Again, what difference does liability have, to how far the automated driving system has advanced?

How is it the computers fault, that a car driven by a human, rear-ended it? Again, legally the liability might be 50/50, but that doesn't change who hit whom.

We have computer controlled breaking.... known as ABS. If I'm stationary at a light, is it my ABS fault that I was rear-ended? We have computer controlled speed... known as cruise control. If I fail to turn off my cruise control, is it the cruise controls fault I hit someone?

We right now, have on the road, automatic parallel parking. If someone hits your car, while it is automatically parking, is it the computers fault someone rammed you?

Your argument is about as logical as suggesting that if a person rear-ends a Ford Model T, and another person rear-ends a 2015 Chevy Corvette, "well clearly cars have not advanced at all"

That's idiotic.

"Well the Corvette was hit from behind just like the model T, so obviously nothing has improved since 1908"

Surely you can see this is a brainless position to hold.

Furthermore, if the tail lights aren't working, it's not the fault of the computer driving the car. It's the fault of the people maintaining the car.

 

[hadit]

Dude...there already are!

Really? Who's marketing them? Ford? Chevy? Dodge? Your current science fiction movie?

Google (and others) is testing them...they are on the road RIGHT NOW.

(and others) have been testing them over the past twenty years, and yet, no driver-less car is available to buy. The driver-less car is nothing but a pipe-dream.

There are two ways we can go with driver-less cars. Either put incredible smarts (and more points of failure) in cars so they can deal with human drivers (who are unpredictable and uncontrollable), or outlaw human controlled cars and put the smarts into a control system. Here's how I think it will go. The first "smart" cars are being developed now that will try to be smart enough to handle interactions with human driven cars. They will fail, and the second option will be adopted. Cities will build in control mechanisms for city streets, and cars will be developed that will communicate with those mechanisms. Then human driven cars will be illegal within ever expanding prescribed areas.

Perhaps in the year 2525.

A heck of a lot sooner than that. People who live in major urban areas are going to push for it, when they realize that traffic jams will be a thing of the past.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not to worry, soon there will be robots to replace people. I find it hard to believe a robot can be bought and maintained for much less then 15 dollars an hour but because of the liberals good intentions we soon may find out.

A number of McDonald's have already installed Kiosks where customers can submit their orders. That eliminates the need for 3-4 employees at the front counter. The next thing will be machines to make burgers.

Hey, maybe the machine can get my order right without my having to draw it a picture. Lord knows, the humans don't seem able to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do the math. You will pay the minimum wage hike in the food you purchase. People won't pay that much for fast food and maybe not even restaurant food. It's hard enough to make a go of a restaurant.

Yeah, that Big Mac might cost an extra quarter.

I'll go $4.00 but $4.25 is out of the question! I'd rather starve!

You're deluded about the the cost of labor that goes into selling a Big Mack.

The price of beef, that has skyrocketed. why isn't that putting fast food out of business?

The cost of materials is a much smaller portion of a restaurant's operating costs than is the cost of labor.

Well, yeah. You didn't think McDonald's was buying quality beef.

 

[hadit]

Do the math. You will pay the minimum wage hike in the food you purchase. People won't pay that much for fast food and maybe not even restaurant food. It's hard enough to make a go of a restaurant.

Yeah, that Big Mac might cost an extra quarter.

I'll go $4.00 but $4.25 is out of the question! I'd rather starve!

You're deluded about the the cost of labor that goes into selling a Big Mack.

The price of beef, that has skyrocketed. why isn't that putting fast food out of business?

The cost of materials is a much smaller portion of a restaurant's operating costs than is the cost of labor.

Well, yeah. You didn't think McDonald's was buying quality beef.

The same is true in virtually every industry. Labor costs more than materials.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not to worry, soon there will be robots to replace people. I find it hard to believe a robot can be bought and maintained for much less then 15 dollars an hour but because of the liberals good intentions we soon may find out.

A number of McDonald's have already installed Kiosks where customers can submit their orders. That eliminates the need for 3-4 employees at the front counter. The next thing will be machines to make burgers.

Hopefully they find a robot to do your job next, every profession is open to the corporate axe.

Yeah, but you're pretty safe if you have a job that requires a human ability to perceive and make decisions, instead of having one a chimp could be trained to do.

 

[OnePercenter]

Really? Who's marketing them? Ford? Chevy? Dodge? Your current science fiction movie?

Google (and others) is testing them...they are on the road RIGHT NOW.

(and others) have been testing them over the past twenty years, and yet, no driver-less car is available to buy. The driver-less car is nothing but a pipe-dream.

There are two ways we can go with driver-less cars. Either put incredible smarts (and more points of failure) in cars so they can deal with human drivers (who are unpredictable and uncontrollable), or outlaw human controlled cars and put the smarts into a control system. Here's how I think it will go. The first "smart" cars are being developed now that will try to be smart enough to handle interactions with human driven cars. They will fail, and the second option will be adopted. Cities will build in control mechanisms for city streets, and cars will be developed that will communicate with those mechanisms. Then human driven cars will be illegal within ever expanding prescribed areas.

Perhaps in the year 2525.

Yea ok.
Oil Trucks In Canada Will Soon Drive Themselves Popular Science

Sure they will. LOL

 

[bripat9643]

Google (and others) is testing them...they are on the road RIGHT NOW.

(and others) have been testing them over the past twenty years, and yet, no driver-less car is available to buy. The driver-less car is nothing but a pipe-dream.

There are two ways we can go with driver-less cars. Either put incredible smarts (and more points of failure) in cars so they can deal with human drivers (who are unpredictable and uncontrollable), or outlaw human controlled cars and put the smarts into a control system. Here's how I think it will go. The first "smart" cars are being developed now that will try to be smart enough to handle interactions with human driven cars. They will fail, and the second option will be adopted. Cities will build in control mechanisms for city streets, and cars will be developed that will communicate with those mechanisms. Then human driven cars will be illegal within ever expanding prescribed areas.

Perhaps in the year 2525.

Yea ok.
Oil Trucks In Canada Will Soon Drive Themselves Popular Science

Sure they will. LOL

One of the firms harvesting the oil sands just bought 350 dump trucks that drive themselves.

 

[OnePercenter]

(and others) have been testing them over the past twenty years, and yet, no driver-less car is available to buy. The driver-less car is nothing but a pipe-dream.

There are two ways we can go with driver-less cars. Either put incredible smarts (and more points of failure) in cars so they can deal with human drivers (who are unpredictable and uncontrollable), or outlaw human controlled cars and put the smarts into a control system. Here's how I think it will go. The first "smart" cars are being developed now that will try to be smart enough to handle interactions with human driven cars. They will fail, and the second option will be adopted. Cities will build in control mechanisms for city streets, and cars will be developed that will communicate with those mechanisms. Then human driven cars will be illegal within ever expanding prescribed areas.

Perhaps in the year 2525.

Yea ok.
Oil Trucks In Canada Will Soon Drive Themselves Popular Science

Sure they will. LOL

One of the firms harvesting the oil sands just bought 350 dump trucks that drive themselves.

Which one and from whom?