February 5, 2013

Posted by orrinj at 8:22 PM

LIBERATING MANKIND FROM DRIVERS:

Auto Revolution: A Promising Future for Self-Driving Cars (Christian Wüst, 2/05/13, Der Spiegel)

Self-driving cars, long dismissed as a utopian pipe dream, are rapidly reaching the stage where they will be ready for the market. "We're not talking about 20 years here, but more like five," says Sebastian Thrun, initiator and director of Google's project.

Five years until the first driverless cars hit the streets? It sounds like just any of the other science-fiction ideas that seem to percolate out of the manically creative world that is Google headquarters. But could it be that the company is about to show the automobile industry what the future of mobility looks like?

In truth, however, the real surprise here is something else entirely: Everything Google can do, carmakers already do as well -- they just don't talk about it as openly. In one European Union-funded research project, Volvo successfully drove a convoy of five vehicles that only had a human driver in the lead car. BMW recently sent a robotic car on a two-hour drive from Munich to Nuremberg. And Volkswagen and a research team from Stanford University have caused a stir with their driverless Audi sports car, which that has been zipping around US racetracks.


Although Google doesn't enjoy a monopoly on the field, its prominent position allows it to exert pressure on others and demonstrate the feasibility of the idea. The auto industry isn't missing the technology needed for the next revolution in mobility. It lacks the guts to put that technology on the market.

"The necessary technology for autonomous cars is already in place," confirms Lothar Groesch, an expert on safety technology. Groesch, 66, who holds a Ph.D. in physics, has spent most of his career working in development for Daimler and Bosch, the automotive parts giant. But now his job as a freelance industrial consultant allows him to speak his mind freely, rather than being limited to what his bosses want him to say.

Groesch recently helped Bosch with its development of driver assistance systems. He quickly recognized that, when taken together, all of the instruments designed to assist drivers added up to a technology suite that will ultimately make it possible to liberate cars from their drivers.

The question is whether or not people will embrace it. Carmakers' greatest fear is that this development will rob the automobile of its magic, reducing the once all-powerful driver to a passive passenger.

Human drivers have done enough damage.

Posted by orrinj at 3:36 PM

OUR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT:

Obama's embrace of the Bush doctrine and the meaning of 'imminence' (Peter Feaver, February 5, 2013, Foreign Policy)

The Obama Administration has embraced the Bush doctrine, or at least the preemption part of the Bush doctrine. According to news reports about the Justice Department's memo on drone strikes, the Obama Administration bases its policy on an expansive interpretation of the laws of war, which allow countries to act to head off imminent attack. In particular, according to the reporter who broke the story, the Obama Administration bases its legal reasoning by interpreting "imminence" in a flexible way: 

"The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," the memo states.

Instead, it says, an "informed, high-level" official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been "recently" involved in "activities" posing a threat of a violent attack and that "there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities." The memo does not define "recently" or "activities."

This should sound familiar to anyone who has debated American foreign policy for the past decade, for precisely that sort of logic undergirded the Bush Administration's preemption doctrine. 

Posted by orrinj at 3:32 PM

EXCEPT, OF COURSE...:

The Right Way to Cut Pentagon Spending : The U.S. has an abysmal record of postwar drawdowns that undermine military readiness and modernization (MICHÈLE A. FLOURNOY, 2/05/12, WSJ)

Whether or not Congress avoids sequestration by March 1, defense spending will likely be cut by at least 10% over the next decade. As 20% of the federal budget and 50% of discretionary spending, it will be part of any longer-term budget deal.

Unfortunately, the United States has an abysmal record of managing postwar drawdowns of defense spending. Almost all have resulted in a "hollow force"--too much force structure with too little investment in people, readiness and modernization.


...that the US waltzed to victory in the wars that it began from scratch and struggled only in the conflicts where it had maintained a massive standing military.  In no small part, the determining factor was whether or not we'd remained locked in to antiquated strategy, armaments and tactics or not.

Posted by orrinj at 3:26 PM

...AND LOWER...:

Deficits will fall to less than $1 trillion in 2013, CBO reports (Lori Montgomery, February 5, 2013, Washington Post)

For the first time in five years, the federal budget deficit will come in under $1 trillion in 2013, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday, with the gap between taxes and spending falling to $845 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September.

Attributed in large part to tax hikes adopted on Jan. 1 and deep automatic spending cuts set to hit next month, new projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the deficit continuing to plummet in 2014 and 2015, and falling to less than 3 percent of the overall economy for much of this decade.

Posted by orrinj at 5:33 AM

THE CORE ASSUMPTION HERE...:

How to stop the robots from taking all our jobs (James Pethokoukis | February 4, 2013, AEI)

Assuming the answer isn't to smash the machines, or at least unplug them, what can we do to create an economy that provides plentiful jobs and rising incomes? The good news is that the right policies to deal with technological acceleration are pretty much the same as if you're combating technological stagnation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee offer a list of ideas, mostly centered around education and entrepreneurship, that work either way and could appeal to both the left and the right.

Among them: 1) pay teachers more so better students want to become teachers; 2) hold teachers more accountable for performance by eliminating tenure; 3) encourage more high-skill immigration; 4) create special visas for entrepreneurs; 5) teach entrepreneurship throughout higher education; 6) create a database of "startup-in-a-box" templates; 7) lower governmental barriers to starting a business; 8) upgrade the nation's transportation, energy, and communication infrastructure; 9) increase government funding for basic research such as that carried out by DARPA and NIH; 10) resist efforts to regulate hiring and firing; 11) lower payroll taxes; 12) decouple benefits, such as health insurance, from jobs; 13) don't rush to regulate new innovation business structures such as crowdsourcing; 14) eliminate inefficient, crony capitalist distortions such as the home mortgage deduction and the Too Big To Fail big bank subsidy; 15) shorten copyright periods and increase the flexibility of fair use.

In addition, it may become more important for people to generate income from capital, not just labor, if machines depress wages over the long run. That's right, a return to the Ownership Society. A good first step would be to transform the income tax into a consumption tax by no longer taxing capital income. And we should make it easier for average families to own stock. But that's becoming harder to do with many companies going private. Noah Smith,a finance professor at Stony Brook University, recommends reforming regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley "that make it risky and difficult to go public."

Another option, suggested by economist Tyler Cowen, are so-called universal 401(k) plans where government would help fund tax-free retirement accounts for lower-income Americans, matching personal contributions to those accounts. "A fiscally responsible universal 401(k) plan would not make everyone happy. Libertarians and conservatives would be suspicious of government-created accounts. Liberals might not like freezing or reducing future expenditures on Medicare and Social Security."


...that people would rather engage in drudgery themselves than have a machine do it for them is disproved by the entire history of technology.