BrewfanGRB

No sweat. Have fun letting people on here bash Democrats, and whoever else they want, like Obama was repeatedly criticized (and his voters) without objection from you. When the economy is in a recession in a year, you can say "I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm better than you because I don't talk about it" while everyone here who did vote for him refuse to accept responsibility when their big argument was "He's a businessman! He knows more about everything than that idiot Corey does!" I'll just stand by and laugh. Have a good one. It was fun while it lasted.

LOL. Except, that's NOT what they said, now is it? They said it was vote of confidence in Trump. I'm not sure why it's difficult to see and understand my objection to Ford's public statements on the issue, not their decision itself.

It's hilarious you think he's trying to make my life better. And I'm a middle-class, straight, white male. There is no scenario under which Latinos, members of the LGBT community, women or the poor are better off with Trump. "He's a businessman." For God's sake.

The economy adds OVER 5,000 jobs A DAY, EVERY DAY. 700 jobs is nothing on a macro level. I can't comprehend how some people don't understand just how big the US economy is. Let's think through this logically: If the max SAAR is somewhere around 17-18MM vehicles, and Ford's taxes go down and regulations are eased to make it easier for corporations to abuse the environment, do you think Ford will sell more vehicles (to who?) or increase profit? If you want to reduce taxes on corporations, make it easier to pollute the environment and make it easier for employers to take advantage of employees, that's your call. All I've said is I won't be a part of that. Ford could have portrayed its move as purely economical and in response to market conditions. They purposely chose to politicize their decision. The fun part is, I've got the money, so I get to decide who gets it and I can politicize my purchasing, as easily as Ford politicizes their decision-making.

Did you read the article? (Hints: a) You're not "sharing" the vehicle with anyone. If you never swap and just want to drive an XT5 forever, all good. b) You can flip models. Escalade for a month-long road trip and come back to a CTS-V for summer at the beach house. And so on. No insurance, registration or maintenance--which yes, I know, virtually all new luxury vehicles have now).

You should go back and read the very first post. It answers everything you ask in your first question.

Because even though The Beast is nearly entirely custom-made, I think the USSS likes that the vehicle is lower. In the even of a threat or attack, the agents literally shove POTUS into the vehicle and cover him. It's a lot easier to do that in a lower-profile vehicle.

Good work, Ford. You've ensured my next vehicle won't be a Ford or Lincoln. Even if the decisions announced here make a ton of sense, I won't give money to a company that believes or portrays Trump's win as something good for the economy or the country. The racist, misogynist, xenophobic Trump voters can keep Ford going. I won't be part of it.

Bzzt. Please cite the source for this definition in which a fleet sale IS less profitable than a retail sale. (Psst: You know fleet sales include more than rental agencies, right?)

Be sure that lesson plan includes a definition of "citation", as well.

While it's true that these drivers are usually under the influence, it's also commonly an elderly driver who has become confused. You can yell "How does that happen" all you want because it's obvious to US. But we're not elderly and don't know what's it like to experience disorientation or diminishing cognitive abilities. As much as I'd hate to admit, while I've never done this, I *could* see how I might find myself in an unfamiliar area, at night, in a poorly lit area or in poor visibility (like fog or snow). It would take a whole chain of events to align, but you can see for an elderly person how it might only take a couple of those factors rather 4 or 5 for the rest of us. Since you can't prevent everything by just telling people to not do it, Ford's addressing it with the vehicle.

Ok? That point doesn't make Richard's analogy a good one.

I don't even know where to begin here. I guess I'll just say "you're right" and move on. (Note that I never said anything about fully autonomous cars being viable and a must-happen. But whatever.

Well, let's see: You have a horrifically bureaucratic FAA that, like virtually every federal agency, simply cannot build and deploy significant computer systems. (And I say this as someone that LIKES the federal government). Then you have the FAA's charter that forces them to satisfy opposing forces (safety and development/promotion of commercial air travel--well, all air travel, I suppose) Then you have airlines that complain about the current system that is clearly untenable on a going forward basis but want to pay little or nothing to improve their own aircraft or toward or for the new system infrastructure. Then you have the need to update and improve airports--some that are as nearly incompetent (or more) than the FAA--who also don't want to pay A despicable Republican-controlled Congress that doesn't want to spend any money--not because they have principles of fiscal conservatism (they had no problem at all prosecuting 2 wars entirely using debt while reducing the tax burden on the rich), but because doing so either gets them primaried or confers a "win" on the President. (To be fair, this is a smaller factor given the fact the FAA can't get anything done when they are given the money). But DESPITE all this, there are improved system already in place at LAX and I believe ATL, among others that significantly increase the number of operations per hour. But this is STILL a terrible analogy because planes do not NEED to conflict like traffic does. You really remove the ethical dilemmas of autonomous cars here plus you remove the difficult parts of navigation (how do you drive on a dirt road? How do you park the car closer to the front porch so grandma can get out?) Keep in mind, 95% of each flight is already automated. The routing is anachronistic and once the FAA and the airlines get off their ass and go fully GPS, you'll just have more direct routings that are more efficient and shorter. They'll still have spacing, but realistically, given the size of the airspace, that's not a big deal. It matters on approach and departure. If you can space the aircraft closer, you'll be able to improve airport efficiency. At airports with full ILS, aircraft can land themselves already anyway. It's not done because on approach and departure is when the aircraft is at greatest risk. Given we've established human drivers are already better than six sigma levels of safety, but flight is orders of magnitude safer than driving and we've now decided that is the standard to which flight will be held, pilots will be needed for a very long time. But here's the deal: Yes, there's less traffic. Yes, there's more space. But if you're driving and something goes wrong, you can just stop and pull over. There are still only a relatively small number of things that can go wrong. In flight, there are many, many more things that can go wrong, but most importantly, you can't just stop (or even just decide to land randomly). If we think we can't get AI to work through everything on the ground and make ethical decisions, etc then I think flight is exponentially harder. Yes, pilots still do cause a lot the crashes that occur--even in the face of automation that if left alone, would've been fine (see: AF 447--OMG I WANT TO STAB SOMEONE IN THE EYE OVER THAT ONE). But pilots also save aircraft from themselves and as noted above, have problem solving skills that will be very, very hard to program. (If it's even possible).

Exactly. Driving, while not exactly a particularly extremely safe activity, is still far safer than people think. And idiotic approaches like WisDOT's "Zero in Wisconsin" program doesn't help anything. Clearly, no one in the entire department has ever been taught about goal-setting because zero traffic fatalities is NOT achievable. Period. The End. Autonomous vehicles would probably cull some low-hanging fruit--like people running red lights, rear-ending others because of inattention, etc. But I think it can CREATE more problems. Like driving in snow. What happens in heavy snow and traffic? Smart drivers slow down and only go as fast as they're comfortable. Will an automated car do that? Will it go the speed limit and think it can slow when it detects a vehicle ahead, but can't stop because of conditions? Or lose control? I'm a tech guy. I don't want to be a naysayer. But I don't think I understand how you solve these problems.

Oh, please. You might be going for the "haha, I can poke fun at people using cell phones!" hyperbole but you're conflating, regardless. The safety rate of human drivers you're asserting here would mean a full-blown collapse of our vehicle transportation system. Hyperbole is one thing but being utterly ridiculous is another.

I agree. I moved to where I now live within walking distance to work. I drive my car maybe once a week (go to Target, visit family, whatever). I've had my Fusion for 7 1/2 years--the longest I've owned any car and while I need to clean up credit cards before I could get a new car anyway, I'd sure like a new car. But I can't justify it. I can't justify $35k for a car I drive once a week and maybe 6000 miles a year. And I like driving, so I sure as hell couldn't justify spending the same $35k on a box that drives me around. Now that I'm 40, I can see how people get old and cranky. But there's no way I've ever buying one of these. A Tesla with autopilot? Sure. But never something I can't drive myself.

You raise a point here, that I was going to expand on. I live in an apartment on Main Ave. My building is deep within the complex but the building # is still XXXX Main Ave. Google Maps puts my building over block east of where I am. Aside from the fact it would be hard for Google to know where my building is anyway, it really makes no sense for where it "pins" my address. But the other issue I found: Humans, when non-impaired, are actually pretty good drivers. They "know" how to get around things. What happens at an intersection controlled by a police officer? Google says its cars analyze intersections and that it can tell a car is going to run a red light before you know it will, can see bicyclists, etc. And I agree with them. But for example, when I leave a sporting event, busy intersections are controlled by a cop and you can't follow the rule of "when a traffic light is out, treat the intersection like a 4-way stop". So then what? Humans are good at sorting this out. I don't know how AI can--but I admit I'm NOWHERE CLOSE to being smart enough to know if can be done. If things were done based on what I know or understand, very little would get done. I'm very torn here. Google's approach is reasonable--you have to take the driver out of it altogether because despite what I say above, nearly all crashes are caused by human error. The problem is, you can't "flip the switch"...you can't get to an "all-automated" environment, so how does an automated car deal with human drivers? Tesla's current approach is intriguing because when the environment allows--high speed, but controlled--you can let the car do the work. It really is like autopilot. On an airliner, the pilot flying completes take off and landing, but nearly everything between is done by autopilot. So in complex environments, people are better. Like what happens when you need to park in a field to go to a concert, etc? It's going to be really hard to program the AI to figure that out. Plus, how does the "driver" tell the car that that is what he wants? It's a very hard problem, I think for those that are committing to the fully automated approach.

The profit in Europe is really encouraging and impressive given ALL of the factors F has to deal with there.

Uggh. Buybacks are an atrocious use of capital.

Some of the best take away from this, I thought. Basically keeping land away from developers or other and letting it be "natural". Also "improving access" to the green space for employees is great.

It phases out well before that. The phase out of the tax credit occurs at 200,000 delivered vehicles per *manufacturer*. Tesla has delivered something like 110,000 vehicles thus far (but now thinking of it, I'm not certain whether that's worldwide or in the US). Regardless, they will hit 200,000 pretty quickly. (There's a chance they'll come close before even delivering a 3).

Sweet Jesus, seriously? That's insane.

Fair enough. Rick Snyder is either just dumb or an awful human being. He's called himself "one tough nerd" and apparently, has the education to back it up. His actions strongly support the latter. Scott Walker, OTOH, is a college dropout who's been the thing he's stopped at nothing to destroy (a public employee) essentially his entire adult life. He's fundamentally a very stupid person. Our legislature is filled with venal, terrible people. Republicans do a lot of whining about debt, but here, we've bonded more of our highway work than ever and have outright refused to consider any sort of tax or fee increase to pay for those costs. That said, the state IS tackling massive projects: Expanding the entire Fox Valley corridor of 41 to 6 lanes (a stretch between De Pere and Grand Chute excepted) with reconstruction of basically every interchange; a rebuild of the Zoo Interchange (the most heavily traveled interchange in WI), expanding 94 between Milwaukee and the state line to 8 lanes (on pause right now, with funds redirected to expedite the Zoo rebuild); etc. However, basically all of I43 in Ozaukee County is probably the worst highway in the entire state. Why it's not being at least resurfaced is baffling. There's no statewide opposition to increasing the gas tax--it's simply reflexive politics of our Republican-dominated state government that won't even consider it. So...debt!

The problem with housing prices in the Bay Area is EXACTLY because of sprawl. Zoning and NIMBYism prevents development of as many multifamily dwellings as is needed and prevents the density (i.e. building UP) necessary to meet the very high demand for housing in relatively confined space. What ends up happening is the people that can least afford lengthy commutes are the people that end up having them because they have to go further and further out to find affording housing.