Ever since machines were invented, they have been taking away jobs from humans. This is in the name of progress and productivity,as well as cost effectiveness. Here is a link that gives you an inkling of how many farmers could have been employed, if these machines were not invented? So driverless vehicles will also take away jobs, and there is nothing we can do about it. The only solution is to adapt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agricultural_machinery
Originally posted by Jason65:Ever since machines were invented, they have been taking away jobs from humans. This is in the name of progress and productivity,as well as cost effectiveness. Here is a link that gives you an inkling of how many farmers could have been employed, if these machines were not invented? So driverless vehicles will also take away jobs, and there is nothing we can do about it. The only solution is to adapt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agricultural_machinery
Do you know that because of machines in farming, productivity increased many folds and therefore, we are able to feed the increasing world population. The machines created many other jobs in manufacturing, logistics, transportation, sales and retail as well. And because of rapid industrialisation, not many people are attracted to farming in the first place.
When they invented the computer, they declared that many trees and the environment will be saved. How wrong they were. With easy editing on the computer, more trees were killed in the process as people were able to print and reprint volumes of reports, letters, forms etc. Imagine the manual typewriter days of old and how difficult it was to just make amendments to any report or letter.
But then...computers created a whole new industry and jobs in paper recycling....
Driverless vehicles will come about eventually, but full implementation will not happen in the next twenty or more years. By then, nobody will want to be taxi drivers just like no one wants to be farmers today.
Originally posted by Jason65:Ever since machines were invented, they have been taking away jobs from humans. This is in the name of progress and productivity,as well as cost effectiveness. Here is a link that gives you an inkling of how many farmers could have been employed, if these machines were not invented? So driverless vehicles will also take away jobs, and there is nothing we can do about it. The only solution is to adapt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agricultural_machinery
Where got cannot do anything about it. In manufacturing you cannot do anything about it because your products have to sell overseas and factories that use robots normally could produce at cheaper prices.
But taxi is a different case, we can kept "cannot meet our requirements driverless taxis" out of Singapore. Remember we are very competitive by developed countries' standard as we charge very low despite highest cost of putting cars to roads.
Very stupid right, eliminate very competitive industry in Singapore when we could protect it for Singaporeans.
Originally posted by Taxilim88:Do you know that because of machines in farming, productivity increased many folds and therefore, we are able to feed the increasing world population. The machines created many other jobs in manufacturing, logistics, transportation, sales and retail as well. And because of rapid industrialisation, not many people are attracted to farming in the first place.
When they invented the computer, they declared that many trees and the environment will be saved. How wrong they were. With easy editing on the computer, more trees were killed in the process as people were able to print and reprint volumes of reports, letters, forms etc. Imagine the manual typewriter days of old and how difficult it was to just make amendments to any report or letter.
But then...computers created a whole new industry and jobs in paper recycling....
Driverless vehicles will come about eventually, but full implementation will not happen in the next twenty or more years. By then, nobody will want to be taxi drivers just like no one wants to be farmers today.
Sure got people still want to be taxi drivers for sure like sure got people wants to become hawkers. No one wants to be farmers because other countries produce cheaper vegetables and fruits than us. If we do not protect ourselves, then all Singaporeans would have no jobs since foreigners are cheaper.
Times change, things change, trends change, and people change along with it. When TV first introduced to Singapore, everybody was very excited. The aim of everyone then is to own a TV set. Nobody care about brand or features or what nots. People just bought what they could afford, and they were happy with it. Then when more channels were introduced, people happily got up from their seats and manuall switched channels, depending on which one was showing their favourite program.
Then, remote control TVs come in. Gradually everyone change to remote control. Now if there is something wrong with the remote and they have to change the channel manually, they will first cpcb.
Same with cars. Now everybody wants to drive because it is the only way to move the car. In future and gradually, all cars will become driverless. People will get used to the idea of travelling in the passenger seat. When something goes wrong with the mechanism and they have to use the manual override, they will also cpcb. Nobody will want to be a TD either
Originally posted by Jason65:Times change, things change, trends change, and people change along with it. When TV first introduced to Singapore, everybody was very excited. The aim of everyone then is to own a TV set. Nobody care about brand or features or what nots. People just bought what they could afford, and they were happy with it. Then when more channels were introduced, people happily got up from their seats and manuall switched channels, depending on which one was showing their favourite program.
Then, remote control TVs come in. Gradually everyone change to remote control. Now if there is something wrong with the remote and they have to change the channel manually, they will first cpcb.
Same with cars. Now everybody wants to drive because it is the only way to move the car. In future and gradually, all cars will become driverless. People will get used to the idea of travelling in the passenger seat. When something goes wrong with the mechanism and they have to use the manual override, they will also cpcb. Nobody will want to be a TD either
TVs will be dinosaur soon..Nowadays, strawberry generation dun watch TV one.
Originally posted by Taxilim88:TVs will be dinosaur soon..Nowadays, strawberry generation dun watch TV one.
Are you also trying to say nowadays strawberry generation dun drive cars one?
Anyway, back to TV topic... that partially explains why sales of digital TV is not good for Japanese companies. Sharp kena taken over, Panasonic stopped production of plasma and LCD TV already. Sony has no facilities for producting LCD TV. Toshiba is ending production of TV.
I am exactly different from that generation. I always have one portable TV cum DVD,VCD,CD,Radio + Game console in my taxi whenever I drive. Many a times, while waiting for customers in the queue, I would watch my portable console. And I do not carry a smart phone and only surf the net at home.
Anyway, the so-called driverless taxi that would be hitting the roads in Singapore is actually run by SMRT in no to little traffic districts at 40 km/h: https://vulcanpost.com/573390/shit-is-getting-real-smrt-is-bringing-in-24-seaters-driverless-cars-end-of-this-year-in-singapore/.
The real threat is from nuTonomy which aims to introduce thousands of driverless taxis in a few years time (I thought LTA only allows new taxi operators very limited number of taxis until they could consistently show compliance with service standards).
Nope. Talking about TV only.
I don't think remote controls is the cause of the drop in TV sales. It is very likely due to the fact that streamed movies are easily available on mobile phones, which again, is a sign of new technology killing offf the old
Originally posted by Jason65:Ever since machines were invented, they have been taking away jobs from humans. This is in the name of progress and productivity,as well as cost effectiveness. Here is a link that gives you an inkling of how many farmers could have been employed, if these machines were not invented? So driverless vehicles will also take away jobs, and there is nothing we can do about it. The only solution is to adapt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agricultural_machinery
Not exactly true in this context. You see when machines are invented since the 17th century, there is still a need of the operator, which is the human. Thus these machines still create jobs for the people in another way. Just that it increases productivity with less people.
Fast forward to the present, this era is different and you can call it, scary. Computer, IT, nanotechnology, and AI, combined can typically replace most of the jobs that the human can do. The computer can even govern another computer behaviour without any human interferance.
Here comes the worrying part, in the next 2 to 3 decades, AI computing, nanotech, robotics, etc wil replace almost all kinds of jobs that the human can do and they are much faster, productive, intelligent, and they don't need breaks, holidays and leaves, don't demand wages, don't strike, etc. Most of all, given the Moore's law and diminishing costs of building technology, humans are facing a threat for the majority. Are we redundant? Is singularity going to be real?
Is it a good thing when you don't need to work or is it a bad thing when you are jobless?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk
Proponents of technology will swear that technology can replace human. The human eye has evolved over millions of years and reports have indicated that it has a resolution of some 576 megapixels, more than any camera resolution available today. But not only that, it can move around at split seconds, has spatial resolution and combine with your brain and life experiences to make sense of the surroundings.
Driving is not simply eye and hand coordination. It involves emotions and life experiences. A simple stopping at the bus stop mentioned above is an example. The DT vehicle will simply not stop because the rules are there to prevent it from doing so. But the human is different. He takes calculated risks and these are the result of life experiences which a computer does not have or will not be allowed to have.
Finally, it is not only about technology, but human factors as well. How proficient we are in using these technologies. Someone using an autonomous/driverless vehicle for about 10,000 km without accident will end up being complacent and trust the machine completely. And that's where the danger lies should the computer screw up as in this unfortunate case.
Originally posted by Taxilim88:Tesla driver dies in first fatal crash while using autopilot mode
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk
Proponents of technology will swear that technology can replace human. The human eye has evolved over millions of years and reports have indicated that it has a resolution of some 576 megapixels, more than any camera resolution available today. But not only that, it can move around at split seconds, has spatial resolution and combine with your brain and life experiences to make sense of the surroundings.
Driving is not simply eye and hand coordination. It involves emotions and life experiences. A simple stopping at the bus stop mentioned above is an example. The DT vehicle will simply not stop because the rules are there to prevent it from doing so. But the human is different. He takes calculated risks and these are the result of life experiences which a computer does not have or will not be allowed to have.
Finally, it is not only about technology, but human factors as well. How proficient we are in using these technologies. Someone using an autonomous/driverless vehicle for about 10,000 km without accident will end up being complacent and trust the machine completely. And that's where the danger lies should the computer screw up as in this unfortunate case.
Wah...going at 50 km/h already got 1 fatality per 130 million miles (compared with 94 million miles for those driving at up to above max normal road speed).
So we definitely must adopt a "wait and see" attitude for driverless cars before we even consider letting them go on our normal "unrestricted" heavy traffic roads.
Jet planes have had autopilot features for years. It is even easier to have pilotless planes than driverless cars, but ask yourself whether you will ever dare to take a plane that has no pilot even with today's advanced technology.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-car-crash-death-autonomous-model-s
"AUTOPILOT IS GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME, BUT IT IS NOT PERFECT AND STILL REQUIRES THE DRIVER TO REMAIN ALERT."
lrt, train etc n are with control environment. car travelling on the road, anything also can happen.
Originally posted by bowah:...with them, and the rest is history. In the history of mankind, create and procreate work hand in hand, we are always in constant changes, from dial phone to handphone, in the 80s, people will laughing over it, how can there be a phone held on hand, and ...
Originally posted by peterpan212:lrt, train etc n are with control environment. car travelling on the road, anything also can happen.