Automakers Working on Car-to-Car Ad-Hoc Networks

LouCifer writes "The Register is reporting that BMW, Audi, Daimler Chrysler, Volkswagen, Renault and Fiat are working with a German government grant to help develop a standard method for car-to-car wireless networking dubbed 'NOW' (Network On Wheels). NOW is based on 802.11 and IPv6 to allow inter-vehicle communication based on ad-hoc networking to share traffic information. With routing capabilities, the hope is the vehicles will be able to warn each other - and the drivers - about bad weather, accidents and road problems. A prototype is expected by mid-2005 with field trials to start late Q1 2006."

Comments

Get this!

[Inoshiro]

Driving is a co-operative thing. Traffic has properties of fluid and properties of dynamic packets on a switched network, each with discrete start and end points. By not following a set of pre-ordained rules that all fellow traffic drivers share, you are fucking shit up.

I hope you learn how to drive co-operatively with others thanks to technology like this, because fucktards like you cause congestion and impede the normal flow of traffic.

See also: traffic waves.

Wow, way to leave that out of your original post.

[Inoshiro]

Now, is that because you thought of it on the spot, or because you didn't preview your comment before you posted it?

The fact is, most people speed regardless of context. You may find elaborate ways to rationalize it, say when I call you on it in a post on Slashdot... most people speed first and ask questions later. They also do stupid things like failing to signal, and causing other problems because most humans are not cut out to make decisions in a large-scale, co-operative approach. When you're working on a big software or engineering project, is everyone given equal power over which way the project goes?

Taking people out of the driving equation will make road safety a reality more so than anything else. If you want SiR, go to the race track.

Uh-huh.

[Inoshiro]

So what you're saying is, you're unable to effectively communicate this without having several followup postings.

Why did you need to post 2 followups to explain context, when you could've written a more concise post originally?

In fact, why was your original post so much more "off the cuff" and poorly written compared to your posts?

Of your original post, only this section implies your intent/motive/need point: "How long until they combine this with the upcoming black box recorders in cars so my car can politely inform the officer that while I'm not speeding right now, I was going 15 over three miles back?"

And it's not strongly implied, nor is it worded in a way to suggest you think about context. Instead, followed with the "Drat! My car is gonna look really ugly covered in tinfoil." it implies you are wanting to avoid possible punishment for avoiding rules.

My original response is totally valid, considering the many points of ambiguity you left in the context of the original post. I find your comments about diabtribes and fucktard comments rather insulting and flippant considering the validity of my comment. If you actually look at the other replies, you'll they also interpret what you wrote the same way I did.

Rather than saying, "oops, I meant to say .." (hey, it happens to everyone on message boards), you instead insult me. That's rude, and I don't appreciate it. Obviously you're smart enough to understand netiquette and such, which means you're also smart enough to post a reply which isn't rude.