Learn how to program a robotic car in 7 weeks
Two years ago in “Why We Don’t Have Flying Cars, Yet” I explained why automation is the next big innovation for vehicles, not alternative energy.
Standford is offering a 7 week undergraduate class teaching how to program a self-driving car. Automation improves the under-satisfied outcome of cars but it is also technologically easier to make than low-cost long range batteries for an electric car.
The Predictive Innovation report the video was based on was first offered to GM but they turned it down. European and Asian car companies used the information and are now selling cars with automated driving features.
Volvo’s XC60 has a City Safety feature that automatically brakes to prevent crashes. It’s a pure gasoline car with lots of room and power. It is priced about the same as the Chevy Volt, although doesn’t receive any of the government incentives.
| 2011 US Car Sales | |
| Car | Units Sold |
| Chevy Volt | 7,671 |
| Volvo XC60 | 12,932 |
The Volvo XC60 with City Safe automatic braking sold 68% more cars in the USA than Chevy Volt. So not only was it easier to build, and thus more profitable, it sold more units. The automated car is more desirable to customers. One of the key points of the report was to offer incremental improvements with meaningful value to customers. That made sure the new features were high quality and low cost.
In addition to satisfying safety, automated cars are better for the environment than an electric car. Electric cars just shift the source of pollution from burning gasoline in the car to burning coal at a power plant. Automated cars use less energy.
First, replacing or repairing a car damaged in an accident uses more energy than the car ever will from driving it. And how can you count the cost of injuries and deaths?
Secondly, by reducing traffic congestion automated cars can save energy for all the cars on the road while reducing drive times and frustration.
Automation in vehicles is still a big innovation opportunity.
Larry Lessig’s Video About Copyright Abuse is Abused using DMCA
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090428/1738424686.shtml
If there were anyone out there to whom you would not want to send a random take down notice for an online video, it would probably be Larry Lessig. Given that Lessig has become the public face for those who feel that copyright has been stretched too far, as well as being a founder of Stanford’s Fair Use Project, and who’s written multiple books on these issues, you would think (just maybe) that any copyright holder would at least think twice before sending a DMCA takedown on a Larry Lessig presentation.
If you watch the video it is clearly within the legal limits of Fair Use. Each clip is less than 10 seconds and is used as a quote. Aside from stupidity of Warner Brother activating the The Streisand Effect causing this to go viral, by trying to ban the video they are proving the point the video makes. DMCA is insane!
Lessig makes it clear that the concept of copyrights needs to change. Copyrights are a government granted monopoly. They do not protect artists, and never really have. The big businesses use this government granted monopoly to secure their failing business models while the government wages war on individuals. The same problems that occur in other wars such as innocent victims, wasted money, and corruption occur with the war on sharing. Even though Obama claimed he would protect peoples freedom he lied and appointed an RIAA lawyer to the 2nd most powerful post in the Justice Department.
The problem faced with copyrights stems from the idea of scarcity. Rather than innovate and better serve customers, big business gets the government to use force to protect their monopoly. This is happening with Big Banks, Big Pharma, and Government schools. Any place there is a government granted and enforced monopoly the quality goes down, the cost goes up and innocent people get hurt while a war is waged to protect the profits of the entrenched power group.
There are at least 4 types of business models with countless varieties of each. Two of the types actually benefit from sharing. So this war on sharing is only holding back the bright future that is possible. It won’t stop sharing, it will only drive it underground. Look at how well that approached worked on everything else.
Google Predicted the Election
As I pointed out in my book “Ron Paul Revolution: History in the Making” Google trends is much more accurate measure of the public opinion than limited polls. Since Google searches are what people are really interested in and can’t be swayed by the wording of the questions it’s more truthful. Also Google searches tracks every search so it is not as prone to sample bias.
Google Trends for Obama and McCain
I believe the polling methods used are part of the reason the Republican party failed. And even though the election looks like a big win for Obama and the Democrats I suspect they are missing very important aspects of what happened. Looking at people as groups rather than individuals hides what is really going on. People act as individuals not groups. Individuals have very different needs and desires. The entire election process forces people to pick a watered down version of what they really want.
There are enough people who don’t vote to win an election. That is the unserved long tail majority. In politics it might be possible to ignore the real majority by fighting over pieces of the small pie but businesses can’t do that and succeed. That huge group of potential customers are fuel for disruptive innovation. Any company that reaches that untapped group will jump to the industry leader.
Old methods of polling and marketing research won’t find these hidden non-buyers. Predictive Innovation can show you the untapped markets and how to reach them. As more distributed tools like Google Trends become available it becomes more important to learn how to use the Predictive Innovation Method.
