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.