I just had a thought while chatting with some friends. What if Apple buys Tesla, and leverages the IP, along with moving iOS and even Mac production stateside? There has been plenty of speculation about them building cars or buying Tesla, and Donald Trump was recently reported to have said that he would make them move production back stateside. This might actually be something which would benefit Apple’s bottom line. I think they have enough IP protection to pull all of that off. And they’d have PR coups over even the American car manufacturers, which would place pressure on them to move more production back stateside. I really think, the more that I think about it, that Trump winning could make Apple more money than its ever made over a Presidential term. It could be absolutely massive. With IP, you can afford union wages, as the restricted competition means greatly increased profit margins. Considering the nationalist fervor which would accompany a Trump win, this might be a win for Apple as well.
January 19, 2016
January 27, 2015
Driverless vehicles are all the rage all over the Internet. In October, Tesla announced an autopilot feature which, in addition to providing some useful driver assistance features, will also allow the car to park itself when on private property. Mercedes has had similar driver assistance features for some time. Of course, Google is famous for experimenting with fully autonomous cars for years and have been improving the technology steadily. I have every confidence in the engineering. The capability to make a reliable autonomous vehicle is nearly upon us and is a very reachable goal. However, that is not the determining factor in them becoming commonplace on the roads.
The proponents for autonomous cars largely come from the technologically sophisticated left. There are some significant potential efficiency and safety gains to be had from self-driving vehicles. The driver is the most unreliable part of a car. Driver behavior has a large impact on energy usage as well. Up to this point, there has not been much in the way of vocal opposition to driverless cars. There are concerns, yes. Perhaps they will make traffic worse. There are potential ethical dilemmas. But these are not serious impediments to adoption. The serious impediment to the adoption of autonomous cars is the state.
Some of the things being touted as benefits of autonomous cars are threats to some parties. Let’s look at safety. Assume an autonomous car obeys all traffic laws. What does that do to various governments who depend on ticketing revenue? Driving irregularities are a leading reason for traffic stops which allow for the detection of drug trafficking, which is another major source of revenue for local police departments. Will police departments and municipalities be onboard for technology which will potentially eliminate the majority of their revenues? I think not.
Assuming the limited testing of computer controlled cars is promising, what are likely reactions from governments? If a driverless car is really safer and more efficient, how long before anything else is banned? Look at technologies such as airbags and backup cameras. These things went from high-end features to mandatory ones within 3 car generations. How long before something which could save considerably more lives would be similarly mandated? And that would spark outrage among both car enthusiasts and the automakers who cater to those enthusiasts. Those are moneyed interests whose influence should not be underestimated.
I do not expect these reasons to be the explicit cases for banning or at least slowing the adoption of autonomous vehicles. They are too cynical to be digested by the public. There will be other reasons given. I’m sure many factions are chomping at the bit for the first fatality which is caused or at least exacerbated by some sort of failure or design flaw in an autonomous car. When that happens, it will be put to maximum use by political interests who have had to largely remain silent due to their somewhat unsavory motivations. I expect us to have autonomous vehicles. But not without a fight, and not when the technology is ready. Perhaps a generation after the technology is readily available, the political climate will have sufficiently changed to allow them to become commonplace, but I don’t expect them to be common on American roads for at least 20 years after we have fully operational, reliable, cost-effective prototypes. The state will probably not allow it to happen any sooner than that.
November 2, 2009
In the December 2009 issue of Car and Driver (article not available online), David E. Davis, Jr. lambasts the wildly popular “cash for clunkers” program:
Not until the government got involved was anyone stupid enough to pour sodium silicate into the engines of the trade-ins on used-car lots and render them useless except as junk to be sold by the pound.
A fleet of American used cars like, say, 1977 Chevrolet Caprices could be shipped to any country in the Third and Fourth Worlds and would revolutionize the way people live. Women with sick children would not be hitchhiking 50 miles to clinics.
Of course, the environment is far more important than a few million poor foreigners. The government bureaucrats, in their seemingly never ending quest to absolutely perfect their abilities to do evil, work tirelessly to minimize any actually good secondary effects from their actions.
January 19, 2009
Obedience to the state is a form of idolatry. The American civic religion, as it is often called, is the American denomination of this faith, which is common around the globe. In some places, the state religion, and the older, more authentic varieties, have been merged into something which confuses both the faithful and their opponents. In America, no such merger has occurred. This does not, however, mean that America is immune to the sort of religious savagery which grips much of the world.
The American civic religion, in stark contrast to that of much of the world, has never has an unambiguous instantiation upon which large portions of the populations could agree. America has always fancied itself a “melting pot,” blending together people of disparate cultures, races and religions. This is not an entirely accurate notion, but this variety of backgrounds from which Americans originate has proven an important impediment to state power. Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Jews of varying levels of religious fervor, and Catholics have never been able to agree on enough to begin a campaign of terror on those who differ, even if they had those among them who would be amenable to such an arrangement. American disunity has been of major import in maintaining domestic peace.
Now America is threatened, not from disunity or lack of patriotic fervor, but something quite different. America, its people and ideals face a grave threat from the very civic religion which their disunity has previously neutered. Barack Obama represents a grave threat to America, though not through any particular fault of his own. Indeed, George Bush is perhaps the man most responsible for the threat, as the extraordinary disillusionment with his Presidency has sparked a yearning in the hearts of many for a rescuer, a hero, a messiah. The national consciousness has been captured by Obama in a way I have never witnessed in my life. His ascension as the state god now made flesh should be alarming to all who oppose the state and its predations.