Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smart Car, Or Dumb Idea?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the can-I-add-a-button dept.

Lee writes: "this article on BBC News (& This longer one on New Scientist, with a nice diagram) talks about an 'artificial passenger' being developed by IBM. It's built into the dashboard of your vehicle and will talk to you, tell you jokes, and monitor your responses ... why? To keep you from falling asleep at the wheel,and adding yourself to the 30% of road traffic accidents caused by falling asleep at the wheel. Some of the countermeasures are entertaining, but there's no mention of electrocution. Damn!"

61 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Water in my face? I don't think so. by davidu · · Score: 3

    If a response indicates a driver is getting sleepy, the artificial passenger has several options available to rouse the person behind the wheel. It could wind down a window to let cold air circulate, sound a buzzer and perhaps even use a spray to dash cold water into the face of the driver.

    Why do I fear this is the first sign of "The Terminator" becoming a reality.

    Sure, water guns today, heat-sensing laser guns tomorrow.
    -davidu
    --

    # Hack the planet, it's important.
  2. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

    I found I could even fall asleep while taking notes. My writing would degenerate into a random wavy line. When my head slumped forward, the shock would cause me to wake up for another minute or so.

  3. The Joke by matthewg · · Score: 2
    Wenn ist das Nunstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!?

    (For the Python-impaired, see this link.)

  4. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by FFFish · · Score: 2

    Yah, telling them not to drive won't do much good, because most people are too fucking self-centered and stupid to accept the *fact* that driving while drowsy puts people's lives in grave danger.


    --

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  5. Put it in "Doctor" mode. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4

    I can just see loading Eliza into this for laughs.

    The irony is that an Eliza-like program might actually be a decent enough conversationalist for these purposes.

  6. Example of how stupid automobiles are by Kludge · · Score: 2

    I think this just shows us how stupid the idea of individually controlled transportation is. This is just one of the reasons any form of mass transit is 7 times safer than automobiles. This "entertainment" is a high tech kludge to a inherently limited transportation system. As long as any joe in any physical condition can jump behind a wheel of a vehicle, automobiles will continue to be deadly.

    It's a pitty that the US government so heavily subsidizes automobiles and gives other forms of transit the shaft, especially with possibility of having other much more technically advanced forms of transit such as high-speed rail and supersonic transport.

    1. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by Kludge · · Score: 2

      >Mass transit isn't as safe as you'd think.

      Mass transit is far safer than you think.
      Any form of mass transit IS 7 times safer than
      automobiles on a per person per passenger mile basis. That is, you are 7 times less likely to die in a bus, airplane, or train than in a car for every mile that you travel. Yes, there are more news articles about people dieing in large crashes than smaller ones, but that is because deaths in small auto crashes are so common (~50000/year in the US!) newspapers don't even print them anymore. Automobiles are FAR more deadly than any mass transit.
      I think you also underestimate the possibilities of mass transit in moderate density areas. But that could be argued much more.

    2. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by Pope · · Score: 2
      I lived in Calgary when they put in the LRT, and it was pretty damn good. At the time, the population was 500,000 and we had a pretty good bus network. If you've even been there, you'll understand "urban sprawl" :)

      Subways, OTOH, always assume a downtown core that you can tunnel under. Either that, or you end up with elevated trains like Boston's old Orange Line, or Chicago's El, neither of which looks very nice :)

      A lot of smaller cities in Ontario (London, Guelph) have bus service. If you're too young to drive, it's pretty much the only option.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by rkent · · Score: 2
      I quickly realised that mass transit ONLY works in huge cities: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Atlanta, Detriot...

      Ah ha ha ha, clearly you've never been to detroit, the DPM is one of the most abysmal examples of public transit in the nation. The Motor City's "mass" transit system consists of 3 whole miles of elevated rail which stop operating at midnight and don't even go anywhere fun, like the freaking baseball stadium even, let alone to residential districts.

      ---

    4. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
      ...I quickly realised that mass transit ONLY works in huge cities: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Atlanta, Detriot, New York, for example.

      Er, NO. Edmonton (like Calgary) had a population in the 500K~750K range (depending on how you counted) when they put in an LRT (Light Rapid Transit) system. They already had a bus system that worked pretty well. I lived there between the ages of 10 and 30. I only owned a car for about 2 years of that time -- and the car was bought by accident (but that's a different story).

      I did almost all of my transport via either bus or bike in Edmonton (being a mostly flat space helps for cycling). Obviously, much less biking in the winter. My biggest complaint was what I called the 'cinderella syndrome': The bus system essentially shuts down at about midnight. After that, it's either bike or taxis.

      The system works well and, in many cases, it turns out that commuting via mass transit is faster than by car (mostly if you end up using the LRT).

      ...
      As for cars killing fewer people per fatal accident, it's probably true since 75% of all car rides are SOV (Single Occupant Vehicles). But like all misleading statistics, it hides the fact that mass transit vehicle accidents are generally rarer, and less fatal than car accidents.

      First of all, the drivers are professionals, and take pride in NOT being in accidents. Second of all, if a transit bus runs over your mazda Miata, guess who's gonna get CRUSHED? Inertia favors the larger vehicle, so unless the bus does a head-on with a dump truck or a brick wall, chances are that the vehicle is gonna come to a stop more gently than most cars do when they get into a similar accident. It generally takes something pretty impressive (and newsworthy) to cause a passenger deaths in a bus/train accident.
      --

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    5. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
      >I don't understand how 30/200 and 4/200 translate to near certainty of death.
      As a pessimist, that's still too high for me...

      That's 1/6 and 1/50 chance of death, respectively, for a catastrophic/fatal accident. Death rates in automobile fatal accidents tend to be in the 1/1 and 2/3 range. If you're in a fatal car accident, the liklihood of you dieing is far more than if you're in a fatal bus accident.

      That having been said, the liklihood of your death being on TV is far higher if you die in a bus/train/air crash. That's because they're so rare. Car deaths don't usually make it onto the news unless they're notably spectacular. Usually you just get the stats on how many people died in their cars this month.

      With transit, it might be considered big news having 3 deaths in 2 years. BC transit would be doing a complete safety review after a pair of years that bad. I can't remember how many thousand busses they have.

      I know people with more accidents per year than some entire transit bus garages have (hundreds of drivers). These are, of course, people that I do not tend to accept rides from.
      --

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    6. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
      That's a bit bigger than the cities I'm talking about (sorry, that wasn't so apparent). I'm talking about cities in the 50k-500k range.
      . . . .
      Exactly. Night service isn't around much. Take a bike, get mugged.

      Uhm, getting mugged in a small city? Where the hell do you live? Cycling in Edmonton and Vancouver, I've never been worried about being mugged on my bike... I've had a propositions from a pair of hot babes -- I mistook them for prostitutes -- god were they insulted. That that may be the closest I've come to being mugged on my bike.

      And when that bus goes over a bridge and turns over, guess who dies? Or what about when it hits the ice, skids, and snaps in half on some telephone poles?

      If a bus skids into a telephone pole, chances are the pole will snap before the bus does. Modern poles are designed to crumple to lessen the impact of a small car. A bus would just slow down. For the newsworthy bus accidents I've seen, most had zero fatalities. I'd have to cross the nation to find a recent multiple-fatality bus accident (brakes failed, flew over a cliff). Even there, the death rate was well under 50%. Far better than if a Mazda had done the same thing (which they do far more often). Fatal car accidents are a dime a dozen.
      --

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    7. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by clare-ents · · Score: 2

      "
      First part agreed. Second part I would disagree with. I was just poiting out that IF you are in a crash on a mass transit vehicle, expect to die."

      I don't understand how this follows, in the UK we've had a number of fatal nasty rail accidents recently. One near Paddington Station - 30 people killed and one near Hatfield - 4 people killed.

      These were both high speed crashes (>100mph), the first caused by driving through a red light - the second by a broken rail.

      In both cases there were in excess of 200 people on each train.

      I don't understand how 30/200 and 4/200 translate to near certainty of death.

      "
      Apart from that, cars keep the driver safe from his own mistakes (that guy came out with a cut to his forehead, nothing more -- he didn't even have an airbag).
      "

      However, public transport does not have the same forces involved in crashes. When your car crashes at 70mph into a stationary object it stops in a distance of around 2 feet. Trains crumple the engine carriage first, the people at the front of the train stop over a distance of 10-20 feet and at the back may 50 feet as the carriages infront gradually deform.

      "
      Driving 200 km/h on the freeway and your car flips a couple of times? I've seen people walk out of cars after that. I'd like to say that about buses, but I can't.
      "

      How many buses have flipped on the freeway?

      In a bus, your biggest risk is the vehicle will catch fire after the inital crash buring everyone inside.

      Incidently in the Hatfield train crash I mentioned earlier, the front carriage caught fire buring the people to death. Several people managed to sramble out through the doors before it caught fire. It is very unlikely that anyone was killed by the impact as is usual with cars.

      Anyway, I commute to work 30 miles across English countryside by train, I do so because it's 30 mins faster and £5/day cheaper than buying a car to drive me. Plus, I can read a book / program my laptop instead of conventrating on driving.

      Driving is only cheap if you don't value your time.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    8. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by shepd · · Score: 2

      >Edmonton (like Calgary) had a population in the 500K~750K range

      That's a bit bigger than the cities I'm talking about (sorry, that wasn't so apparent). I'm talking about cities in the 50k-500k range.

      Unfortunately bike paths are few and far between where I am, and no one respects the people on bikes (most pass them while there is a car in the lane beside). Not too many hills here, but most of the roads are on slopes.

      You can't bike here for 3 months of the year. For 1/2 that time you freeze your ass off (-10 degrees C) and the other half you'd need 5 inch thick tires to get through the snow (well, actually, even people with motorbikes don't come out in the winter).

      >After that, it's either bike or taxis.

      Exactly. Night service isn't around much. Take a bike, get mugged. Take a taxi, pay 20x more than you would have to go by car. Problem is, if you instate night service, you don't get enough takers (it seems) to pay for the service. And there's NO WAY my taxes are going to pay for people freeloading on a bus at night. :-)
      I did take the bus near where I live yesterday. Cost me $2. I could have driven the same distance for $1... It's already too expensive.

      >But like all misleading statistics, it hides the fact that mass transit vehicle accidents are generally rarer, and less fatal than car accidents.

      First part agreed. Second part I would disagree with. I was just poiting out that IF you are in a crash on a mass transit vehicle, expect to die. They might not happen often, but they are damn horrible when they do. Generally in a car you are wearing a seat belt, have a personal air bag (or two). Your seat is adjusted to fit. The crumple zones can protect you. Rollbars save you when your vehicle goes upside down (if this happens on a bus, you WILL go to hospital). And, if you have enough sense about you, your driving can keep you even safer.

      Truth is, I trust myself behind the wheel more than the bus driver. Then again, I hated drama class where they played those "trust" games (you know, fall and expect your partner to catch you).

      >Second of all, if a transit bus runs over your mazda Miata, guess who's gonna get CRUSHED?

      And when that bus goes over a bridge and turns over, guess who dies? Or what about when it hits the ice, skids, and snaps in half on some telephone poles?

      I'm pretty careful about not hitting big objects... I know what they do (I saw a car hit a bus once, ugly... BUT he was going 100 km/h in 1 meter visibility weather). Apart from that, cars keep the driver safe from his own mistakes (that guy came out with a cut to his forehead, nothing more -- he didn't even have an airbag). Driving 200 km/h on the freeway and your car flips a couple of times? I've seen people walk out of cars after that. I'd like to say that about buses, but I can't. Heck, just going over large bumps sends kids to hospital in those things (ala overly played school bus driver having heart attack at wheel video).

      I think you see a lot more car accidents simply because people driving cars generally aren't as good at driving as bus drivers and truck drivers.

      I'd like to see stats on how many people die in taxi accidents. It'd be interesting to see if they are higher than the stats on other mass transit. My feeling is that the driver is what keeps you safe... Not just the vehicle.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    9. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by shepd · · Score: 5

      Mass transit isn't as safe as you'd think.

      Cars kill fewer people at once.

      I guess if something happens while you are on some mass transit you can at least expect it to be on the world news (small comfort).

      >It's a pitty that the US government so heavily subsidizes automobiles and gives other forms of transit the shaft

      As a Canadian who has been to the states often enough to understand mass transit in both countries, I quickly realised that mass transit ONLY works in huge cities: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Atlanta, Detriot, New York, for example. And since a large amount of the population in both countries lives in cities where ANYTHING and EVERYTHING (especially work) takes a minimum of a 15 minute drive (often 1/2 hour) mass transit is NOT a viable choice. I refuse to wait an hour (each way) to get my groceries by bus. Heck, where I live I have to drive 20 minutes just to pick up groceries, and I'm only 5 minutes out of a city of 300,000. This is normal in a not-so-big-but-growing city.

      Rail: Won't work because you'd have to stop for 3 minutes every 3 rail minutes to pick people up, due to urban sprawl. It will take twice as long to get to the destination (assuming traffic on the roads isn't bad -- and in the smaller cities it usually isn't).

      Bus: A better idea, but still much too slow. The amount of buses needed to take so few people ends up pumping more crap into the air than the individual cars, from what I see now.

      Supersonic Transport: Great for going to other cities. But that isn't really the problem, is it?

      Subway: Not unless your city population is in the millions. The price is just way too high.

      Basically, these ideas work well for most other developed countries because their population in most cities is high enough to support them. The United States, and Canada (especially) don't have enough population density to make these ideas work.

      I think if you want to solve the problems of the under 1/2 million population cities you need to pack people in more tightly and fix the roads so that people can get where they need to go quickly. Oh, and you need to encourage more really local business (like a 5 minute walk local), rather than have patches of houses, and (far away) patches of stores.

      Just my 2 cents.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    10. Re:Example of how stupid automobiles are by sessamoid · · Score: 2

      It's not the size of the city that determines how well mass transit works, but the concentration of the population and how it's distributed. San Francisco is considerably smaller than Dallas, Houston, or LA, but mass transit is fairly successful there. The difference is the amount of sprawl seen in most of the newer American cities. SF is pretty old by US standards and is built up along the NYC/Manhattan style.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  7. Re:Oooh, Ooooh! I want one! by sharkey · · Score: 2
    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  8. all I need by Pope · · Score: 3
    is a car that dispenses Tim Horton's coffee! (you think Starbucks coffee is hot? You ain't seen nothing yet! It's why all the drivers on the 401 are maniacs. :)

    Oh, and a nice selection of up-tempo tunes.

    Honestly, if you're feeling tired, don't fuckin' drive! It's been a while since I've have to drive *anywhere*, but back in high school I always knew where the nearest Honeydew or Dunkin Donuts were so I could at least perk myself up for the drive home.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  9. Solving the wrong problem! by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 5

    I can't believe this...no one seems to understand the costly effects of sleep deprivation. The article doesn't even point out that people shouldn't be so stupid as to drive when drowsy. Here's a clue. Take two, they're small!

    Sleep deprivation, that results in drowsiness during repetitive activities as driving and assembly line work, is one of the leading causes of car accidents at night. Mix in a small amount of alcohol, and you have a potentially lethal situation, even when you're very much under the legal blood alcohol limit. Alcohol + sleep debt = ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.

    The problem is, people are too stupid to realize they are sleep deprived. Here's a clue:

    1) Complaints that they are always tired (then don't drive at night. Are they stupid? YES!).

    2) Do the Stanford sleep test...hold a spoon or loud toy out over the floor while sitting down. Have a timer or clock nearby. Close your eyes. If you fall asleep, you will hear the object hit the floor. If it fell 5 minutes or less after your eyes were closed, you have serious sleep deprivation and probably shouldn't be driving for long periods AT ALL. USE COMMON SENSE FOLKS! If you fall asleep and don't hear anything, you are in serious trouble.

    3) Get plenty of sleep. Some people need eight hours of sleep a night, others need more or less. Also, sleep debt is CUMULATIVE. If you require 8 hours of sleep a night, but have only slept 4 hours a night for a week, then you have 4*7=28 hours of sleep debt. The more sleep debt you have, the fast you drop the object in point 2 above. I believe there is a sleep debt maximum (40 hours debt?) but the research is inconclusive.

    This should be common sense folks...but unfortunately the media lacks the vision to let the public know these simple facts.

    References, easily looked up at Amazon.com:

    The Promise of Sleep, by William C. Dement.
    The Sleep Thieves, by Stanley Coren

    *sigh* It only takes a few minutes to learn all this, folks. Anyone want to buy a book on Hell and Handbaskets?

    1. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by edremy · · Score: 2

      3) Get plenty of sleep...This should be common sense folks

      Yep. I've also got a four-day old infant at home right now. He won't sleep unheld for more than an hour. Care to let me know how I'm supposed to get enough sleep? My wife tried to let me sleep from about 1:30 to 6 this morning so I could drive to work, but I still wake up every time he cries, so I probably got about 2 hours of real sleep and 3-4 of half-doze in 30 minute stretches.

      Sometimes sleep-debt can't be avoided.

      Eric

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    2. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by alexjohns · · Score: 2
      Do the Stanford sleep test...hold a spoon or loud toy out over the floor while sitting down. Have a timer or clock nearby. Close your eyes. If you fall asleep, you will hear the object hit the floor.
      I was in the US Navy, in Nuclear Power School in Orlando. Basically, your job was to go to school 8 hours a day. Reactor Physics, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Electrical Theory, Mechanical Theory, etc. Some classes were boring and others were extremely boring. This was recognized as a problem and there was plenty of caffeine on hand to combat this. For some instructors, no amount of caffeine was enough. In those cases, you just went ahead and stood up at the back of the room when they walked in. :) (There was at least one time when someone hit the floor. Did I mention that some of this stuff was BORING!?)

      Anyway, a good friend of mine, Pat Doyen (Hi, Pat. Are you on here?) tried this: Rest your elbow on your desk, holding a penny between thumb and index finger. When you fall asleep, the penny drops on the desk, you wake up, pick up the penny, elbow back on desk. Unfortunately, the first class he tried this in was so boring that the 6th or so drop in as many minutes caused the instructor to forbid any further use of this sleep remedy.

      I imagine he wasn't the first to do this. Anybody do this in college? Anyway, it was pretty funny at the time.
      --
      Alex Johns
    3. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by jesser · · Score: 2

      I'm even more self-centered and stupid (and lazy), so I assume that wherever I am, I'll be able to find someone to drive me around :)

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    4. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by jesser · · Score: 4

      Most people with sleep-deprivation problems (well, at least most students at my college with sleep-deprivation problems) are aware that they don't get enough sleep. They just feel like they have too much work, and so they have trouble falling asleep until they're very tired, or they frequently pull all-nighters. Telling them to "get plenty of sleep" won't help. Telling them not to drive won't do much good if they commute.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    5. Re:Solving the wrong problem! by hyrdra · · Score: 2

      In YOUR own words, I can't believe this. Sleep is NOT cumulative as you jest. You cannot build up on sleep as you cannot require 28 hours of sleep.

      Each person has a set amount of time for which they need to sleep. For most, it's around 8 hours. It doesn't matter if you have been up for three days or napped all day, you will still require the same amount of sleep each night for a good rest.

      Your thinking is just the kind of thing that causes falling asleep at the wheel. I'm sure you probably think you can sleep all weekend and have this "stored up" for the busy work week. This just isn't so.

      Your body is a clock, not a rechargable battery. You don't sleep to rest, you sleep because during this time certain chemicals are released which are required every night or set-time. The state of being tired is just a felling, like pain or hunger is. It's your bodies way of telling you something is wrong, and something needs to be done. And since the act of fullfilling your bodies request is pleasurable, you fall asleep, often at the wheel of your car.

      But you cannot have a sleep "tab" or have "debts" as you claim.

      --


      "I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
  10. I've never understood falling asleep at the wheel. by pete-classic · · Score: 2

    I'll never understand people, the thought of grizzly, fiery death won't keep them up, but Jerry-freaking-Sinfeld will.

    -Peter


  11. I agree completely by debaere · · Score: 2

    Making it easier for people to do stupid things (like drive when tired) just encourages them... and unfortunately, the consequences affect more than the stupid (which otherwise would be a reaon to encourage them :)

    Sleep deprivation is one reason why I *don't* drive... I get too tired to fast when I drive. I also tend to put the relatively mundane tasks of driving in the background, and think about more pressing matters, which is very dangerous, so I don't do it.



    DOS is dead, and no one cares...

    --

    DOS is dead, and no one cares...
    If there's a Bourne Shell, I'll see you there
  12. Re:Sounds Great by DrCode · · Score: 2

    Why not just bring along a Furby? Or bring two, so they can talk to each other.

  13. IBM Patent by Bloody+Pulp · · Score: 3

    Here's the link to the IBM patent for the system.("Sleep prevention dialog based car system", US Patent No. 6236968 ).

  14. Re:We need Hollie from Red Dwarf!! by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

    I'd much rather have Talkie-Toaster, just in case I need a snack.
    =\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\

  15. Fatigue detection systems by Animats · · Score: 4

    There are systems designed to detect truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel. An overview is available. I've always wanted to have these on programmer's workstations, with a systemt that tags lines of code based on fatigue level. The correlation with bugs would be interesting.

  16. Re:Insight and observation by Squib · · Score: 2

    Why don't they just play sound from a porno clip or something.

    No, that would lead to an increase in the already frightening 15% accidents caused by masturbation at the wheel...

    --
    First winter rain-
    even the monkey
    seems to want a raincoat.
     -Basho
  17. Re:Could be a distraction by jallen02 · · Score: 2

    LOL, reminds me of some conversations me and my girlfriend had.

    Here in Georgia when it rains heavy people get weird. They will begin by flipping on their hazard lites, while not illegal is incredibly annoying.

    Then the next phase of driving paranoia kicks in. Phase two is the truly dangerous phase. People randomly slow down in the fast lane or rapidly change lanes going at a much slower speed than the vehicles behind them causing near immediate stops.

    It is down-right distracting to watch a highway full of blinking hazard lights. People start pulling off the road left and right. All people have to do is stay in their lane, maintain a good distance between them and the person in frotn of them and keep going at 45-55. Instead people get panicky and perform these rapid lane changes to get off the road or get to the slow lane that really cause people to get hurt.

    It is crazy.

    The whole time im showing her these kind of people and the way they are driving she is laughing at me. She is from up north so shes quite used to doing 50 in a snow storm. She just thought people driving like this was the funniest thing. Oh well

    Jeremy

  18. Here's what dad did by legLess · · Score: 5
    My dad (RIP) was in the Navy Reserve in WWII; he flew a torpedo bomber off aircraft carriers. He was in flight training in Corpus Cristi, TX, in 1942. What they encouraged pilots to do was put a saucer full of hot (hot by Navy standards, that is, which makes McDonald's look pretty tepid) coffee on their laps.

    One reason, of course, was that if you dozed off at all and the plane left straight-and-level you were guaranteed to be completely alert when you woke up, seconds later.

    Another reason is that much of the military equipment churned out for the war wasn't of the highest possible quality. The US won WWII with our massive industrial base, and in the heat of things some corners were cut. So yeah, during night flying pilots could use their instruments to tell them they were going up, down, or sideways -- but the coffee never lied.

    "We all say so, so it must be true!"

    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  19. It's actually not that stupid... by joto · · Score: 3
    Having something that senses if I start to get drowsy and warning me wouldn't be to bad.

    It doesn't even have to be annoying. A loud buzz if you close your eyes for half a second or more. That should be enough to remind you that taking a break and stretching your legs a little would be a smart move.

    However, the idea of a "virtual passenger" really offends me. I don't want another Eliza to offend my stupidity (or intelligence for that matter).

    They should make it simple, and something that works for responsible drivers. If they have to splash someone in the eyes to wake him up, it's already far too late, and no safety system on the planet, except perhaps something taking control of the car, could help.

    1. Re:It's actually not that stupid... by BadDoggie · · Score: 2
      Already exists. The amazing NAP ZAPPER [sic]. First saw it on some lame Discovery Channel show a couple years ago. What worries me is that it's sold by a company which specialises in stun guns.

      woof.

  20. Re:I'm installing it in my black T-top 84 Trans Am by M.+Silver · · Score: 2
    Both wrong. Goliath will flatten your ass. BTE, if Knight Riger were made today, he would've been an Excursion.

    Actually, it was just an Expedition, in Team Knight Rider. And rumor has it it's still going to be a car in the rumored new series.

    --

    Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
  21. Keep it out of my car by gunner800 · · Score: 3

    The idea of something that can passively detect drowsiness is intriguing, but from the articles, it seems this technology can't tell if you're sleepy without activately talking with you. So it will be a distraction when you're wide awake (99% of the time if you're a remotely compotent driver), and still be a distraction when you're drowsy until it does whatever it does to wake you up entirely. Seems like this would do more harm than good.

    An "on / off" switch is appealing, but only useful if you remember to turn it on when you're drowsy, which you can't bet on.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  22. Clippy, the virtual passenger? by Smudgy · · Score: 5

    I can see it now...

    "It looks like you're trying to take a left turn. Do you need help? If you have right of way, click here. If you do not have right of way, click here. If you aren't sure, click here. If the light is red..."

  23. The first add-on modules will be... by BadDoggie · · Score: 4
    1) Father mode: "I know a short-cut"
    2) Mother mode: "Slow down!"
    3) Wife mode: "Let's just ask that guy there and where _______ is."
    4) Mother-in-law mode: "He's trying to kill us! I know it! My husband, god rest his soul, knew how to drive and it wasn't like this! You kids these days don't think about anyone but yourselves."
    5) Little sister mode 1: "The mall is thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat way!
    6) Little sister mode 2: "Let me off at the corner. I'd just die if my friends saw me getting a ride with you!"
    7) Your driving teacher: "Hands at 10 & 2! Pay attention! This ain't worth a teacher's salary..."

    Does anyone care to speculate on the lame jokes this thing might tell? [1] .

    Will you be the first to hack your buddy's wheels to scream "COP!!!!" at 1:30a.m.?

    woof.

    [1] It won't be anything good like "What's the difference between a tire and 365 blowjobs? The tire is a Goodyear; 365 blowjobs is a very good year."

  24. you have GOT to be kidding me! by cyberconte · · Score: 5
    What about the other 30% (wild guess) of accidents that occur because the driver was disturbed, or their attention was not on the road?!?! Thats it. Lets distract the driver so they dont' fall asleep.

    Brilliance. (sigh)

    1. Re:you have GOT to be kidding me! by loraksus · · Score: 2
      WTF?
      People have told me for many years that I am disturbed. I still drive fine.

      The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit:
      Pissing off coffee drinking /.'ers since Spring 2001.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  25. Ahem... by rneches · · Score: 2
    I thought this is what people put radios in their car for. If I think I'm getting tired, I put something like Rage Against the Machine or Offspring in the CD player.

    Well, as long as it doesn't use that valium drenched voice that Hal had in 2001. That would put me to sleep even if I were wide awake.

    "Dave... Dave... Dave, are you listening to me?"

    --

    --
    In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
    1. Re:Ahem... by really? · · Score: 2
      Bad idee every time i put Rage Against the Machine in my cd player i get so pummed up i start to drive to fast and verry agressive

      Golden Earing's "Radar Love" does that for me. I have a "must get there one hour ago" CD where that song is the every third track. Also the every third track is "Hot Rod Lincoln", and some other "driving songs" there to fill the space.
      "Danger CD", according to my Japanese friends who have seen the influence it has on my driving - yes I do have to pay MAJOR speeding tickets everynow and again...70.000 yen a couple weeks ago. :-(
      (And I wasn't even going that fast, definitely under 220KmH, regardless of what their "laser" said.)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
  26. Commercial Airlines by NSupremo · · Score: 2

    Airplanes have been talking to their pilots for years...

    PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP!

    ---
    Your door is ajar.

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
  27. Re:Could be a distraction by BinBoy · · Score: 2

    A button on the steering wheel might be more reliable and affordable. If your finger slips off the button while the car is moving, it could beep or something. Train engineers have to press a button every few minutes to keep the train moving. Similar idea.

  28. The important question is ... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4

    does this qualify me to drive in the carpool lane?

  29. Re:Could be a distraction by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 2

    If you are driving 55mpg in a blinding snowstorm you need to distracted by your "passenger" yelling at you to SLOW down.

    Nahhh... Wuss. I grew up in Ottawa and Montreal, Canada. I know a thing or two about driving in snow.

    For one thing, you need rear wheel drive. Four wheel drive and front wheel drive just don't do the same thing. A rear wheel drive car or truck will actually take corners faster on snowy roads than it will on dry pavement... assuming the driver is well versed in the judicious use of the fishtail.

    'Nother thing: 4x4 doesn't help you steer or stop. Too many car accidents that I've seen on 401, 417 and Decarie ("of the cavity") expressways have been caused by invulnerable Yentas on cellphones in their Lincoln Navigators. Gimme a break.

    Finally, and most importantly, snow is soft, so when you hit that car in front of you, at least you're padded. [grin]

    Seriously, winter driving is an art, and if the conditions are right, 55MPH in a snowstorm is no big deal - but I wouldn't go any faster than that.

    Novel use for an old power steering pump.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  30. Sounds Great by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 5

    But what I really need when I'm driving late night stretches is a virtual backseat driver. "You're going too fast! Stop tailgating that semi truck! Shouldn't we pull over? I have to pee! Why did you buy that expensive CD player instead of upgrading my CPU?"

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
    1. Re:Sounds Great by multicsfan · · Score: 2

      You forgot "Are we there yet?"

  31. Sending the wrong message by FeTrut · · Score: 3

    This type of thing sends the wrong message. If you're tired enough to do something stupid like fall asleep at the wheel you ought to pull over and take a nap rather than force yourself to stay awake. Having something like this in your car just allows one to delude themselves into thinking it will be alright to keep driving while exhausted.

  32. Options... by perlchimp · · Score: 2

    If you have to put up with an artifical passenger, maybe they should include an optional mannequin so you can drive in the car pool lane.

  33. Re:Could be a distraction by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 2

    down south in the midwest(Iowa here, i'm originally a St Louis boy), we get a lot more ice than you do up north. it's warm enough to melt some of the snow, which then freezes on the road. and even as far north as iowa it's not as bad as down by st louis (where they get freezing rain at least once a year). part of the reason i can put up with the "cold" iowa winters. (i lived in idaho for a bit too... -40degF, -80 with wind).

    anyway, driving in a snowstorm at 55 or 60 is trivial, until the road is icy. once there's ice, the very concept of control is a joke.

    there is little more fun than snowpacked parking lots... *nostalgic sigh*

  34. I'll use it by Ayende+Rahien · · Score: 3

    Just as long as it wouldn't be smart enough to insult my driving.


    --
    Two witches watched two watches.

    --

    --
    Two witches watched two watches.
    Which witch watched which watch?
  35. Uh-oh by Lynx0 · · Score: 2

    I'm not really sure if jokes written by IBM engineers will keep me awake or get the car wrapped around the next tree with me asleep... I you want to get a new joke-and-chat file, it will probably be full of hints like 'buy IBM, buy...'

  36. Oooh, Ooooh! I want one! by Uttles · · Score: 3

    ... as long as it uses the voice of Stephen Hawking...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    --

    ~ now you know
  37. Coffee can lie by mgarraha · · Score: 2

    Maybe the wartime Navy training was too simplistic. If a dozing pilot pushed the plane into an uncoordinated maneuver in the first hour, hot coffee would definitely spill in his lap. However, if he happened to put the plane into a gentle downward spiral, as long as the rudder and ailerons were properly coordinated, the coffee would stay in the saucer until he flew into the ocean. You can verify this on any airline flight with beverage service. Coffee could work as a turn coordinator but not as an attitude indicator.

  38. What I wouldn't give... by anonymoushalibut · · Score: 2

    For the old Macintosh Talking Moose DA to pop up in the upper left corner of my windshield in the middle of those long, late night drives...

  39. Insight and observation by 6EQUJ5 · · Score: 5

    Notice the prototype picture has the wheel on the incorrect, right side of the dash-board... so you can bet it's all British humor. That'll put you to sleep if anything, or even prompt you to drive off the road on purpose and kill yourself.

    Why don't they just play sound from a porno clip or something. That'll keep you up.

    --

  40. Maybe it could sing "Daisy" to you by Phoenix-kun · · Score: 2

    Next it will be locking you out of the car if it decides that you are unable to drive. ;-)

    Open the car doors, HAL

    I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

    Phoenix ;{)

    --
    Phoenix
  41. Could be a distraction by All+Dead+Homiez · · Score: 3
    Here in the Midwest, we often have the displeasure of driving through heavy rains and blinding snowstorms. When you're driving in nasty weather at 55 mph and scanning the road ahead of you for black ice, you don't want any sudden distractions from the task at hand. This "computerized passenger" could be such a distraction if it suddenly starts telling knock-knock jokes while you're driving and you scramble to shut it off (or need to divert your attention to ignore it).

    Just my 2 cents...

    -all dead homiez

  42. Pr0n [Actually on topic!] by UberOogie · · Score: 4
    Five bucks to Tuesday someone will have the thing rigged up to talk dirty to him within a week of its release.

    --
    "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37