The Reign of Trump

[Forty Two]

It's not about moving factories from China to the US. It's about building business and industry here. We don't have to manufacture party hats and plastic whistles here in the US to have a strong manufacturing sector.

Well you can try to bully yet more nations into buying that fiasco of a warplane the F-35.. but maybe Trump will cancel that as well. What areas of manufacturing, other than aerospace, do you imagine you can build up and be competitive with the rest of the world? Automobile manufacturing perhaps?

LOL - nobody was forced to buy the plane. I never liked the F-35, though. I was a fan of the F-22, but there were political reasons the F-35 won out. Those airplanes don't matter. Next generation fighters will have no pilots.

Yes, definitely auto manufacturing. Ford, GM and Chrysler are putting out excellent vehicles now. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power plants, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, you name it -- auto manufacturing should be going full speed ahead on self-driving vehicles. The US could lead the world in robotic automobiles.

Auto manufacturing is a domestic industry though.

Not sure what you mean by that. US Auto manufacturers opened many many manufacturing plants in Mexico and overseas over the past 25 years. The key is to get them opening plants here in the US. Same with other industries.

[Forty Two]

robotic automobiles

Do you really think they are the answer? Another short sighted car maniac.

Yes, that's why I said it. They are a fantastic answer, because they will result in tremendous fuel savings, the elimination of traffic jams, and the saving of 10s of thousands of lives, the reduction in commuter times, and the creation of new travel options for individuals. People will be able to call rides from their smartphones, and robotic cars parked nearby will come over to grab riders. Some robotic vehicles will be high capacity (like buses) which will cheaply get people around as mass transit, without the need of expensive rail construction and once improved the numbers of available buses will be dramatically increased, making them more widely available. We already have the roads in place, but the driverless vehicles will be communicate with central traffic control computers which will direct traffic through most efficient routes.

I'm not a car maniac, but of course you can't possibly make a post without adding an insult. You and a couple other folks here do that a lot. You can't just make an argument. You have to insult. And, what's worse, as usual you don't even make an argument. You make a stupid comment, calling me a maniac, and just ask "do you really think they are the answer? What an insipid, inane comment to make. It's a pointless fart.

You wrongly assume that I have some maniacal attachment to automobiles, which I do not. If I could, I wouldn't even own one. I think they are too expensive, and I loathe buying them. The only reason I bought a car recently was to have my wife and kids driving in something new. I personally drive a vehicle I've had for 8 years, and I take care of it and I don't plan to buy a new one because I don't like paying monthly payments and I have no desire to plunk down even $30,000 on a vehicle. I have nothing against trains per se, and I would love it if I could just trot down to the corner and hop on rail transportation and get to walking distance from my workplace. However, that's not practical for most people over here, except those living near busy rail lines like in the New York metropolitan area.

The key here would be for you to explain why driverless cars aren't the answer, or why something else is the answer. You don't do that, though - ever. You never actually present a coherent argument for or against a point. You make a declaration, and pepper it with an insult.

In any case, be advised that I was referring to robotic cars being the future for the US. It may well be that a tiny, densely populate blip like the Netherlands has a different answer to their transportation needs. Like, how New York City won't abandon subways anytime soon, due to the sheer volume of traffic in a small area. However, for the US nationally, with it's more disbursed population and massive network of roadways, and the practicalities involved, robotic vehicles are going to revolutionize commuter transit.

But, I'll stand ready to hear your argument as to why robotic vehicles are not the future for the US, and what would be the non-shortsighted solution that you would favor. Care to actually make a substantive reply?

[Forty Two]

Until computers are able to adapt instantly to new and unexpected situations I will not be entrusting my life to one by allowing it to drive my car. Statistically safer driving assumes a benefit only if my own driving falls below the median of other human drivers on the road, which it doesn't, and is of no benefit at all if I have to be constantly ready to assume control in the instant anything occurs which falls outside the scope of the computer's program occurs.

They are able to make those adaptations, which is why driverless cars and buses are already hitting the roadways in certain places. The plans are moving forward, and soon you will hear of "driverless vehicle lanes" being put in place. First, the vehicles will be seen more in low-speed city areas where they will be shown to work reliably. Accidents will mostly be caused by human drivers hitting them. It will take a few years, but the numbers will grow.

It'll start with the young. When people see that their kids will be safer with robotic vehicles -- they'll always drive at safe speeds, and never drive drunk, and always be GPS locatable -- parents will run toward their use for their teenage kids. A teenager goes to college in 4-6 years, and then he or she is an adult completely comfortable with the idea of being driven around. Just a few years after that, people will start to think of driving as a chore and a hassle when they can read, work, watch tv, talk, laugh - drink beer - whatever, while the car gets them safely to their location.

In the not too distant future, the idea of humans driving their own cars will be seen as massive insanity, and the notion that we allowed 30,000 people a year to die on the roadways will be viewed as ridiculous.

[cronus]

[Scot Dutchy]

A very American oriented answer but does not apply to most other civilised countries. Here in Europe the emphasis is clearly moving away from cars. They are no answer in our very crowded bit of earth. Paris with its smog is clearly thinking other alternatives. People dont need to commute with a car. Single occupancy is one the greatest problems for traffic jams.
We need to get them into other transportation systems. In the rush hour at the tram stop 25 metres from my apartment there is a tram every three minutes. Nobody in their right mind would think of taking a car into the city even if you did have a parking space. This system is now been tried out on the railways. The busiest routes do not have time tables but there is a train every eight minutes.

By 2025 no petrol or diesel car will allowed to be sold in this country.

[Svartalf]

well Pariss is not thinking well enough, the main throughfares are congested as the coronaries of a hamburger guzzling 2 package a day smoker, and the public transports are completely overcrowded at peak hours...

[Hermit]

Statistically safer driving assumes a benefit only if my own driving falls below the median of other human drivers on the road, which it doesn't

Statistically, 90% of male drivers regard themselves as better drivers than 90% of all others. FACT!

[Forty Two]

Infrastructure solutions lie elsewhere and not in vehicles as robotic cars and trucks. Cars and trucks are out of date. Their time is over. The future of transportation lies in completely new concepts.

Well, feel free to describe those concepts and state your reasons.

Is it rail? The United States has by far the largest rail network in the world, with more than twice as much track as China. How much more do you think would need to be built in order to get 130,000,000 daily commuters to and from work every day? How about the 1.1 billion trips per day taken by Americans generally? How can rail solve that problem?

Is it something else? What?

[Jason]

It's not about moving factories from China to the US. It's about building business and industry here. We don't have to manufacture party hats and plastic whistles here in the US to have a strong manufacturing sector.

Well you can try to bully yet more nations into buying that fiasco of a warplane the F-35.. but maybe Trump will cancel that as well. What areas of manufacturing, other than aerospace, do you imagine you can build up and be competitive with the rest of the world? Automobile manufacturing perhaps?

LOL - nobody was forced to buy the plane. I never liked the F-35, though. I was a fan of the F-22, but there were political reasons the F-35 won out. Those airplanes don't matter. Next generation fighters will have no pilots.

Yes, definitely auto manufacturing. Ford, GM and Chrysler are putting out excellent vehicles now. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power plants, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, you name it -- auto manufacturing should be going full speed ahead on self-driving vehicles. The US could lead the world in robotic automobiles.

Auto manufacturing is a domestic industry though.

Not sure what you mean by that. US Auto manufacturers opened many many manufacturing plants in Mexico and overseas over the past 25 years. The key is to get them opening plants here in the US. Same with other industries.

I mean how many cars are built in the US and sold outside NAFTA? I'm thinking it's very few. With the new growth in the Indian and Chinese auto manufacturing industry I don't see the US becoming competitive in that market. In fact, I'd be worried that aerospace might move to India and China in 20 or 30 years.

[Jason]

Until computers are able to adapt instantly to new and unexpected situations I will not be entrusting my life to one by allowing it to drive my car. Statistically safer driving assumes a benefit only if my own driving falls below the median of other human drivers on the road, which it doesn't, and is of no benefit at all if I have to be constantly ready to assume control in the instant anything occurs which falls outside the scope of the computer's program occurs.

They are able to make those adaptations, which is why driverless cars and buses are already hitting the roadways in certain places.

No. They aren't. They can't adapt to something as simple as a semi-truck crossing the divided highway and skidding sidelong in front of them. Sure they detect the obstacle but much too late to do anything about it. An alert human driver would have noticed the incident from its beginning and slowed or stopped before the actual obstacle was present.

[Forty Two]

A very American oriented answer but does not apply to most other civilised countries.

Why would the United States adopt the solution of another country, if that solution is not the best oriented for the US? Just because you like a Dutch oriented answer doesn't mean the Dutch oriented answer is best for everyone. Even within civilized countries, the answer is not always the same. I would imagine a widely disbursed Australian population with a continent-wide country needs a few different solutions than a tiny, tidbit of a country, like the Netherlands, which is as densely populated as New Jersey.

Here in Europe the emphasis is clearly moving away from cars.

And, that's all well and good, and perhaps best in your circumstance. However, that doesn't make the US answer wrong. You just have this constant myopia that whatever you invent there is the best way to go. It may well be the best way to go for you, but it may not be the best way to go for Brazilians, Mexicans, Americans or Canadians.

They are no answer in our very crowded bit of earth. Paris with its smog is clearly thinking other alternatives. People dont need to commute with a car.

They do, if they don't live in densely populated areas. For example, in my town, it would be very difficult, and highly impractical, to have train stations within walking distance of everyone's house. The population lives in suburbia, and a large percentage of the population is not going to move to small apartments from their 600 to 1300 square meter homes.

Single occupancy is one the greatest problems for traffic jams.

It is now, but driverless vehicles present a solution to that problem. Central computer control of traffic in real time can solve that problem, and eliminate both accidents and traffic jams, saving fuel, saving lives, and saving time.

We need to get them into other transportation systems.

Sure, but, in the US, even though we have the most rail miles in the world, we do not have commuter rail systems set up throughout the suburbs, exurbs, and in many cities. To build them would involve construction projects the likes of which the country has never seen, with thousands of miles of tracks built right through existing neighborhoods and massive numbers of train stations constructed. Somehow, the rail lines would have to service 10s of millions of people not currently being serviced today, and in a way that allows them not to have to get into a car to drive to the train station.

In the rush hour at the tram stop 25 metres from my apartment there is a tram every three minutes.

As I said, when you live in a city, it's easy to have train stations, like they have in New York City, every block, and in northern New Jersey, it's easy to have rail lines going every few minutes across the top of the state and in and out of New York City. But, in other places, the population is disbursed more widely, and it would not be possible to have a tram stop every 25 meters from their houses. If there was going be a tram stop every 25 meters from every house in my town, there would be literally hundreds of tram stops in my town alone. I work 20 miles from home. So, I can't go be "tram" -- if they even had a single tram traveling 20 miles, with stops constantly en route, it would take me hours to get to work. By car, it takes me 40 minutes.

So, you like where you live, and you're probably reacting in your usual way that things are "civilized" where you live, and superior there. But, that's your myopia, and your inability to understand that not only do many people not live in cities where there can be tram stops every 80 to 100 feet, but also it's not necessarily a "better" way to live. Some people want to live where there is woodland area and wildlife around their homes. Some people want to live in a bigger, roomier, nicer home. Some people want to live where they can have a yard/garden. And, some people want to live in places where the population density doesn't have hundreds or thousands of people per square block.

Nobody in their right mind would think of taking a car into the city even if you did have a parking space.

They would if they didn't have a tram stop near their house. I have taken a car many, many times into New York City. There are plenty of train and train stops/stations all over the New York Metropolitan area, but I wouldn't use them, because I have to start out in a car. Which means that to use the train, I have to drive to a train station and park my car, and pay for parking, and get all our stuff that we need for my family (two kids) and then hop on the train and get off at Grand Central Station or some other stop in New York and go from there. Then to get home, I'd have to commute by train back out of the city, and then get my car and then drive away from the station. It's much easier for me to just drive in and park in a parking garage, do my sightseeing with the family, and then walk back to the car.

In terms of commuting to work, many millions of people use the rail lines in the New York metropolitan area, and the work fine. And, people who live there are happy to use the rail lines for pleasure too.

This system is now been tried out on the railways. The busiest routes do not have time tables but there is a train every eight minutes.

By 2025 no petrol or diesel car will allowed to be sold in this country.

Good for you. It's a workable solution on a scale of the Netherlands. Have you estimated the number of rail miles and the number of rail stations that would need to be constructed in order to have that same system handle 130,000,000 million daily commuters and 1.1 billion trips per day?

[Tero]

Nixon is a big challenge, but I'm confident in Trump, he will match Nixon
https://corrupt.af

Some good stuff:
FIRM HOLDING MUCH OF TRUMP’S DEBT MAY BE UP FOR SALE
Mother Jones, 7 days ago
On Friday, Reuters reported that his second-biggest lender, a small Wall Street firm called Ladder Capital Strategies, may be putting itself up for sale to the highest bidder. Public records show Trump owes the firm at least $282 million, on four lines of credit. This means that other big money players—Wall Street firms, American banks, overseas banks, financial institutions partly owned by foreign governments—could move to buy up the debts of a US president and create a host of conflicts of interest.

Ladder Capital holds mortgages on Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street, worth $100 million and $160 million respectively, and two smaller Trump properties in New York City. All of the loans Trump has taken out since 2012 have been from either Deutsche Bank and Ladder Capital. That includes his most recent loan, a $7 million mortgage from Ladder Capital that Trump took out on three condo units in the Trump International Hotel Tower on New York City’s Columbus Circle. That loan was taken out in July, weeks after Trump’s most recent personal financial disclosure was filed.

[Forty Two]

A driverless bus is just a tram that can change routes, and part of the amazing import of driverless vehicles is exactly that. You can have a public transportation system that includes "trams" that show up on request, in addition to showing up at designated places.

Smaller "trams" are called "driverless cars" - and they will take people where they want to go. Some can be owned individually, but like "Uber" we can have a system where people simply request a ride and pay as they go. The small tram will drive up to a person's house, or to a bar at 2am, or to a person's workplace, and drive them home or to other locations. Far more flexible than tram services that are rigid stops.

[Tero]

Trump attacks nasty young woman
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 30c93b6a98

[L'Emmerdeur]

A tremendous, tremendous troll army! It's huge!