Slashdot Mirror
Cars that Can't Crash?
johnsee writes "Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash. The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions." From the article: "Also on Friday, Microsoft unveiled its Performance Peak Initiative -- a line of computer systems to help the auto industry better coordinate supply chains, streamline design, production and sales and fill vehicles with computer gadgets."
For best straight line ever seen on Slashdot:
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
A car that can't crash...proposed by a software company whose products can't keep from crashing...
Hey! Don't you mod me down! I'm only saying what we're all thinking.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I smell an episode of Fear Factor in the making....
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
but should Gates be working on a OS that doesn't crash first?
"Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash."
Oh, it's too perfect!
... to begin with...
Paul B.
Right. Because MS has such a good track record preventing things from crashing . . . (FP woohoo!)
Gives a whole new meaning to "Blue Screen of Death".
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
Maybe microsoft should develop a PC that can't crash, then work its way up to cars.
Blue Windshield of Death jokes in 3... 2... 1...
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash.
????
I'm speechless, I really am.
Somehow, I can't see Microsoft actually making a OS that won't crash; much less an actual vehicle.
Talk about your Blue Screen of Death.
Because, as we all know, Microsoft is the market leader in not crashing.
Maybe partying will help...
microsoft...
can't crash...
must... make... joke... before head explodes...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash.
May I be the first to point out the irony of that statement.It's like a train wreck-- I wont want to look but later I'll be back to see the poor windows/crash jokes.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Sorry, it has to be posted.
s .html
http://www.usd.edu/~bwjames/humor/ms/microsoftcar
We won't have to worry about them not crashing, as they'll fall apart long before you even get on the road. /only half joking.
... is if it won't start at all!
Cars that cannot crash, heh. Running Microsoft software. M-m, now that's funny.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
That will be all =)
Of course, as an aspiring memeber of Team99 I must point out that all this will be fixed with Longhorn
Sometimes, the jokes just write themselves.
So many crash jokes.... quiver...
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
I just can't say it.
Stand back!! Its a case of blinding irony!!!
Must have to do something with the "Urban_legend_tale" of the GM - M$ snub that they went with Ford instead..
Rapid Nirvana
Microsoft Windows driving my car.
This is a joke waiting to happen, bye bye karma.
lol Crash... I get it
...that things Gates should shoot for computers that don't crash before he wants cars that don't crash.
Just a thought.
I think perhaps Ford is asking the wrong people about how to solve this problem....
First, try to do that with your software. Then, we'll talk cars.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Bill Gates wanted to look good and impress everyone with his success. He decided to measure the accomplishments of Microsoft against General Motors. The comparison went like this:
If automotive technology had kept pace with computer technology over the past few decades, you would now be driving a V-32 instead of a V-8, and it would have a top speed of 10,000 miles per hour. (160,000km/hr)
Or you could have an economy car that weighs 30 pounds (14 kilos) and gets a thousand miles to a gallon of gas. In either case the sticker price of a new car would be less than $50.
In response to all this goading, GM issued a press release stating the following: "If GM had developed technology like Microshaft has, we would be driving cars with the following characteristics:"
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
[oblig] So we're expecting Microsuft to design a car that doesn't crash? They can't get their operating systems to do that... who will feel safe in these damn things???
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
Unlike their operating systems that definitely can crash.
I am completely overwhelmed...
I can't function...
BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
They said the Titanic was "unsinkable"...
They said that M&Ms won't melt in your hands...
Don't believe the hype.
How about an OS that can't crash?
YOU are educated stupid. YOU must seek Time Cube.
Cars...Microsoft...can't...crash..... thud (me falling over dead on floor)
I mean come on, Microsoft is in no position to be talking about anything that won't crash. Even their MS Concience '05 software just crashed in the last few days.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
Will I have to pay yearly license fees to drive my car, or will it just one day swerve off the road if I let my licenses lapse? Can they catch a virus from neighboring cars at the parking lot? Will it come with Clippy? "Hello! you seem to be flying off the roadaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh" (car flies off road, rolls, and catches on fire).
Must resist urge to make bluescreenofdeath jokes.....
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
If Microsoft is involved, doesn't that mean that they'll be crashing all of the time?
What we really need are programs that can't crash.
I sense a disturbance in a force, as if a million slashdotters all went and googled "if microsoft made cars" ...
Here's the content from the first link on Google:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.
2. Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, and you'd have to restart it. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, restart and drive on.
3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.
4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats.
5. Amiga would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads.
6. Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars which would make their cars go much slower.
7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light.
8. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for many years.
9. We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and all auto fluids but the packaging would be superb.
10. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
11. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
12. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened.
13. They wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it.
14. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads.
15. Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM, and play Microsoft Cassettes. Unless of course, you buy the upgrade to use existing stuff.
16. Microsoft would do so well, because even though they don't own any roads, all of the road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars free, including IBM!
17. If you still ran old versions of car (ie. CarDOS 6.22/CarWIN 3.11), then you would be called old fashioned, but you would be able to drive much faster, and on more roads!
18. If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you could just borrow your friends, and then copy it.
19. Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganise the ignition for a few days before it worked.
20. You would need to buy an upgrade to run cars on a motorway next to each other.
Anyone willing to update it for the post-XP generation?
Work on software that can't crash?
Sure I'm not the first to post that question....
how about an OS that cant crash first!
"cars that can't crash"...
that would certainly give those cars a leg up on their operating system.
[insert your joke here]
Microsoft, designing something that can't crash? Is this some sort of new Slashdot super-typo?
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
How many redundant posts will we see in this thread?
every /. reader in the world is gonna think "car that will never crash from the maker of the OS that will always crash?"
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
It's great that Microsoft is working on cars that can't crash.
Now if they would only start working on the same thing for operating systems...
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
"Microsoft" and "can't crash" don't seem appropriate together.
3...2...1!
Yay, for repetitive discussions.
How are they going to stop the cars from crashing when the windows still are.
Before pushing for a car that can't crash, how about getting an OS that can't crash?
"I'm going to be late for dinner, dear...my car just bluescreened, and I'm doing 60 around this hair-pin curve here..."
Gates and Bill Ford Jr., Ford's chairman and chief executive, said high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions will set car companies apart from their competitors.
That's nice and all, but how will these technologies help cars to 'not crash'? It seems like a digital calendar will lead to more crashes.
Driver: "Car! I said DON"T CRASH! DON'T CRASH!"
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
This news come a little too late for the deer I ran into a month ago. Poor thing.
The only car that can't crash is one locked in a concrete room with no doors and no internet connection...
If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than if you just drank gin straight from the bottle.
The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions.
What about a stopwatch?
i r baboon
Do you want to break now?
[Yes][No][Cancel]
Must....Not....Make...Obvious....Joke....Gaaaaahhh hh!!!
I think that was the last MS product I used that I never saw crash. Not sure how you'd teach it to double-clutch though.
4:path=c:\dos\not_pr0n
I'd be real careful when using the [Eject] button after this.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And I bet my insurance rates still won't go decrease, just like they didn't after seat belts and air bags became mandatory.
...everyone.
This is the scariest thing I have ever seen.
Perhaps the Dept of Homeland Security should notify the president that Microsoft and Ford are working on WMDs!
car that can't crash
They are proposing that we all ride around in one really big car so that no crashes are possible (other than crashing the one big car into a building or something stationary). I think experiences in mass transit show the one big car concept won't fly.
Article slim on details. How does having this fancy technology help towards the goal of eventually having cars that don't crash?
for most replies on slashdot moderated "redundant" starts now.
A modern day witchhunt.
Ford Explorer 2007 powered by WindShield ME
..
a whole new take on BSOD
but it comes with a DVD player system
at least Bridgestone/Firestone is staying out of this one
Because the software prevents them from moving ;) Except when the software crashes first of course :(
I wish they would work on computers that wouldn't crash (with Windows installed). Jeff
Red screen of death..?
tada
Some snooty, late 30's, rich (by marriage) woman in a Ford SUV causing a multiple vehicle pileup and subsequent fire (Pinto, Probe) because she was too busy trying to decipher 'that computer language stuff'? What kind of error would that be called?
Looks like my Jeep is going to have to last me for the next 70 years or so.
instead of these virtual things, they'd still crash. Trains do.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Those old Ford Jokes such as:
- Found On Roadside Dead
- Fix Or Repair Daily.
But there may be an upside. Any problem with your can quickly be solved by a reboot. Just like your Windows PC at home.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
What about if MS actually pulls this off?
;)
Having a standard OS running on standard hardware without any of the bloat of current Windows would be a good thing.
This ties in with his "it just works" thingy spouted a few days ago, and the linux pow wow they are planning.
MS aren't stupid and as much as we rip the piss, their OS has managed to pretty much dominate the OS market for over 10 years.
It might not be pretty, and it might not be perfect, but it gets there.
Having asid all that, wheres the list of cars, so I can avoid them
liqbase
[Checks calendar] Hmm... not April 1... Billy boy's trying a career as a comedian now?
Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
This is old news. Microsoft plans to repackage Windows 1.0 for automobiles, if the car can't boot it cannot crash.
Just curious, but will Microsoft open up their standards so when I am out and about in my linux car they will communicate appropriately and not crash? (I'd say I'm pretty confident my car isn't going to crash, but get really sweaty palms when I imagine Windows cars sharing the road with me...)
Okay, I'm done.... next!
This coming from the company that even makes fun of all its BSOD's in their games!
Enjoy the BSOD of Halo 2
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
I would like to request a feature for slashcode.
Instead of just fans and foes, can we have an option to flag 'annoying schmucks who have nothing of value to contribute'? I have a list of about 30 from this article alone, and I didn't want to clutter up my foe list.
Thanks.
That would be the "Red Win@Shield Of Death"
Let's not jump all over microsoft for this. Most of the time, windows crashes are caused by something the user has done to change the system. If the automobile core software is locked out to changes, then the user can't add in anything that may cause the system to crash (latest driver, latest beta verison etc). The most stable system I have ever seen, is the one right after I finish loading the os on a clean drive...
to the new Ford XP ?
MeanWhile in Gotham city. .
Billy Drives towards work..
"Windows has updated your cars firmware wirelessly for you , please restart at your next convineance
Unfortunatly untill restart Services Breaks and services Air-bag will not function"
Billy thinks he better restart.
"*Que restart music*"
Billy heaves a sigh of relife.
"Please enter your username and password"
Billy hurrys to type them in and plows into the back of a bus
"Username 34inig3nß0ingrinnfgpi does not exist "
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
You got that right! Oh, the absurd of irony!!
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." E. W. Dijkstra
I have 10 simple, low tech ways to which will guarentee fewer car crashes. Most of these already come with your current car, and the rest are simple and free to implement.
1. Breaks
2. Steering wheel
3. Side mirrors
4. Don't speed
5. Don't drink while drunk or high
6. Use your turn signal
7. Leave enough space between your car and the car in front of you.
8. Check over your shoulder to look in the blind spot before making a lane change.
9. Be considerate of other drivers.
10. Don't drive in LA.
And a bonus 11th point to feed the trolls:
11. Revoke the drivers licenses for anyone with 3 serious tickets in the last 5 years.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Er...
Ah....
Umm.....
Never mind
Good luck guys.....
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
.... Well it would be ....
Hey Slashdot... get with the times! April 1st was over a month ago.
Sorry, but I don't see how adding "high resolution displays", GPSs, cameras, and other gadgets that merely distract the driver are going to help anything.
Seems like BSOD will mean Bloody Screen Of Death ;-).
echo "getuid(){return 0;}" > e.c; gcc -shared -o e.so e.c; LD_PRELOAD=./e.so sh
...they can design an unsinkable cruise liner.
Oh wait.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Will these computers need more than 640k?
Just mod me redundant now.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
There is much to be said for a nimble vehicle that can stay in control to avoid crashes, as opposed to a dreadnought that's built to survive them (and put the occupants of the opposing vehicle at greater risk of injury or death).
I suggest you read Slashdot
Beyond the humor of the title, the story itself is really lacking. The combined a bunch of buzzwords: LCD, Digital Camera, Voice Recognition Software, GPS Navigation System and from that got to a point where they said. This car will not crash. I am like... How, how are you gonna do that? Feed my need for nerdy details, don't throw buzzwords at me. Make being a nerd cool again.
Install this system on every car ever made. People like to drive man! They like to drive fast, a car that won't crash won't sell.
Does anyone have a shell script I can run that will mark every single comment in this article except the first one down to -1, Redundant?
Better driver training from the start. Everything else follows naturally.
Lenny: Hey, look! Homer's got one of those robot cars. (Crash) Carl: One of those American robot cars.
No wonder I hadn't heard about the autonomous car for a while. Linux Journal reported on that SIX YEARS ago: Autonomous Vehicles By Massimo Broggi and Alessandra Fascioli on Mon, 1999-03-01 Way to go, Microsoft! You've entered the 20th century. Too bad the rest of us are a century ahead of you.
This gives me hope that I may at some point be able to drive an American Made car. Perhaps if these gadget-boxes take off, a decent car that has been struck by lighting and all computers wiped out would be sold really cheaply and a cheap-ass guy like me could buy it.
Right now, the only cars on the market that are worth the market price are used Tercels from the 90's and used Jettas from the late 80s through the time they started getting all rounded. (In trucks some of the light Nissans and Mazdas are OK.) There are some decent deals on older Mazdas too. Outside of the Ford F-150, there is no American vehicle on the market that is worth the price, new or used.
It reminds me of the housing market. As long as you morons keep spending, and someone gives you the credit to do it with, I'll stay in my shitty, drafty, hot in the summer apartment and watch my INGDirect account grow with cold cash. At some point all you fuckers are going bankrupt, and don't expect any handouts from me when it happens.
"Also on Friday, Microsoft unveiled its Performance Peak Initiative -- a line of computer systems to help the auto industry better coordinate supply chains, streamline design, production and sales and fill vehicles with computer gadgets."
Hmmm...I wonder what their motive for this system could really be...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Including the one about Lee Iacoca and Bill Gates discussing cars that crash every 24 hours :o)
If a windows machine crashes in a locked room with no-one there to see, does it still make a blue screen?
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
That most people here still activily use the os they are bashing, yet they have to agree its improved stability wise, I just wish they could work out how to make it less bloated.
Surely they could copy that technology from apple?
How about an operating system that... oh... never mind. That's just TOO easy!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
They will need to make OS's that dont crash! Muahahahah
(Obligatory MS joke)
But did anyone else notice, The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens? I guess crashes were caused by windshields after all. Instead of watching the road, we should be playing Solataire while the car drives itself. When is the trend of removing people from actual control of the devices in their life going to end?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Where is the fist of death when you need it???
Watchin oWo
At a recent computer expo, Bill Gates reportedly compared the
.
computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had
kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would
all be driving twenty-five-dollar cars that get 1000 miles to the
gallon."
Recently General Motors addressed this comment by responding,
"Yes, but would you want your car to crash twice a day?"
And . .
1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have
to buy a new car.
2. Occasionally, your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart, and drive on.
3. Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your car to
fail, and you would have to re-install the engine.
For some strange reason, you would accept this too.
4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you
bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
seats.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was
reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive, but would
only run on five percent of the roads.
6. The Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades
to their cars, which would make their cars run much slower.
7. The oil, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced by
a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "are you sure?" before going off.
--- #@$DF@#2%@^%3^&*$%FRHG%%[NO CARRIER]
If they can't build an operating system that can't crash, how in the hell do they think they can build a car that won't crash? What do you mean invalid page fault in the gas tank, what the....BOOM.....
Making progress here is long overdue. The government has been studying this for at least 15 years.... I did some research work on this in the early 90's: Collision avoidance systems (radar or laser based) drowsy driver detection, etc.
google IVHS (intelligent vehicle highway system) for starters.
Not the Microsoft would be my first choice to design mass-produced life-threatening embedded systems.
You know, like that ship that couldn't sink.
Question everything
where did you want to go today???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Would you like to:
Swerve across lanes running others off the road
Swerve across lanes and hit a lught pole
Take out a bus load of kids
etc.
I want to shoot the messenger!
...Microsoft is busy designing jokes that write themselves.
- Bachelorhood is the father of necessity.
There are many electronic driver aids and there will be more coming. You can already buy cars with ABS, traction control, stability control (impossible to spin the car), lane departure warning, and adaptive cruise control, not to mention the fuel injection and electronic ignition. These systems are controlled by very simple embedded systems. I'm no embedded systems programmer, but I seriously doubt they'll run any kind of multitasking/dynamic memory OS like Windows CE/XP or Linux. BMW's (horrible) iDrive runs Windows CE but only controls secondary systems like navigation, climate control, radio, etc.
What would stop a car, trying to avoid a potential accident, from steering itself off the side of a cliff?
And what about choices that real people may have to decide. If I lost control of my car and the options were
1) Attempt to crash into brick wall
2) Attempt to crash into side of a hill
3) Do nothing and continue on course to plow into a group of children crossing a street.
What would the car decide? What's the failsafe if the magic computer stops working? What level of control is still in the hands of the driver? These are questions people will want to know the answer to, not a bunch of marketing oral-ejaculation about how this is the greatest thing since seatbelts.
Speech recognition would be a good thing: the hands of the average driver are already too busy with phone, radio, mirror adjusting oh, yeah steering too.
hi res displays and nav equipment...not a good thing: The eyes of the average driver already spend too little time focused on the road and the traffic.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Its the safest vehicle ever.
unfortunately due to a restrictive EULA you will not be permitted to sell it once you've used it, and you can be arrested for opening the hood.
Starsucks
They just hang from time to time if you use your blinker and your wipers at the same time. Just push CruiseCTRL+ALTernator+DELetePanelOnStereoConsole and Force Quit the blinker.
"FORD Owners Recommend Dodge"
I wouldn't want to get between the two giants when M$ starts it's old blackmail/extortion scheme. As far as I know their business model hasn't changed. Start with very attractive pricing/investment and some cool facades on other people's ideas, then cave into pressure to keep their stock price inflated and alter previously made understandings.
Ford or Fords' customers will eventually end up paying the extra fees for the built in feature and Microsoft's inability to come up with it's own ideas. History has a way of repeating itself.
Dodge/Plymouth use open source. Maybe a closed forum (with proper influences Intel/IBM/etc...) where anything posted becomes property of the company might balance things out a bit. Most new engineering principle is built on older ones; reverse reverse engineering does work.
Just because a car runs on M$ Windows is not a selling point for me.
Detroit doesn't get it. Customers and the government have been telling them for decades to develop an alternate fuel car and they won't build them.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Speech recognition in a car - that would work just fine. My wife screams "stop" and "Oh my God" when a bird flies by. I'll be dead in a week. Of course, she might view this as a feature, not a bug.
Microsoft...can't crash Thats a 1st. Did I read this right?
someone in the slashdot editors lair made a bet that they could post a story where every single comment except the first would get a "redundant" mod?
Just so I qualify -
Microsoft+Ford = can't crash??
Why did "and the Titanic is unsinkable" just go through my head?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I can just picture one of these cars disobeying a traffic officer instructing the car to cross over into the oncoming traffic lane.
They still haven't figured out how to build an operating system that doesn't crash every so often,
$me thinks these guys are losing it...how can they expect a car running that same operating system to be crash-prone.
... and by the way, that's supposed to be April 1st
After RTFA, I'm wondering... What do Bill Gates really do at Microsoft... he claims to be the Chief Software Architech, but seems to be out of touch with the company. I mean, look at Longhorn and all the delays... Do he honestly thinks that the automakers are going to be all calmed down when the software that he promised them, starts the usual delay-cycle?
Because the software prevents them from moving ;) Except when the software crashes first of course :(
When you practically have to take out a 2nd mortage on your house to be able to afford to put any gas in the tank... what's the point of even booting up the car's O/S in the first place?
Gas prices alone could be the answer to having cars that can't crash... because they'll remain parked.
Quite clearly, it's April 1.
Slashdot, article about cars not crashing, and new windows software to do this.
Clearly my calendar is wrong.
hawk
WRT your dodge quote: MOPAR stands for "Massively Over Powered And Respected" :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Given Microsoft's history with nuclear submarines and spacecraft...I doubt I'd want them working with me on a crashless car. They've shown more than once that even in their most secure systems, they crash....too often.
You'd go to start the car, but the system would tell you "Can't start car, module starter depends on module elect_sys which is not installed."
So then you'd go get module elect_sys. It would tell you "Can't install module elect_sys, module depends on battery which is not installed."
So you'd get battery installed, and then you'd get elect_sys installed, but then starter still wouldn't because it depends on something else.
Then something wouldn't work because starter.conf was written for a coupe model and you have the sedan. So you get to hack that file.
Then you finally get it installed and running and it tells you that it has no warranty.
Of course it won't crash. That is only because it probably won't start either.
Lets be sure that when we take away driver control of a car, we make those cars very small and fragile. I don't want an idiot who is ignoring the primary function of the driver while watching a bid screen tv with voice recognician bullshit to damage my car when he collides with me.
I also hope the cars cost at least $120,000 US, because we like paying enormously high prices for cars that contain all this unecessary crap.
Digital Calendars!!! WHAT WILL THEY THINK OF NEXT!
Notice: I already have a 'digital calendar' on my desktop, laptop, cell phone, pda, and mp3 player. Do I really need another one?
LOL!
Yes the story invites the inevtiable, insipid jokes about Microsoft and unstable software. Some are even clever. Some might even be funny.
It is worth pointing out the scale of this proejct for those who can't (or won't) accept it: cars are simpler than general purpose computers. Yes, cars are complicated machines with lots of interworking parts. However, the hardware installation on a car is fixed (within paramters) whereas today's general purpose PCs are not.
The flexibility of modern computer peripherals makes for seemingly endless combinations of hardware and existing software. Microsoft attempts to support quite a few of those combinations, with the mixed results we see today.
But cars are a different beast. I bet it's possible to get good test coverage of this car software through test driving. The scope is that much smaller. Think of your favorite console game; has it crashed recently? Ever? It is possible to create software that passes some reliability metric with a fixed hardware platform. A general purpose OS would be hard pressed to make that guarantee.
Microsoft could get this right technically speaking. It remains to be if they do.
Oh, and is it a good idea? I wouldn't buy one :)
Titanic couldnt sink.. But we all saw the movie..
My day is now complete!
1) The next upgrade will require a 3,000 horsepower engine just to move its massive bulk around, and it will get 2 mpg, but still move just as fast as any other car on the road.
2) You will only be able to drive on MS-licensed roads, any private ways will be strictly DRMed off limits. A license for a road will cost a prohibitive amount of money, so only the giant corporations and governments with roads will be able to afford it.
3) Drivers will appear to have more security, having locks on the passenger doors, but the hood and trunk will still be accessable to anybody that happens by.
thank you, I'll be here all night.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I fell for your delayed April Fool's posting. It was just delayed, right ???
you will find that when you inserted the key into the ignition, you waived all warrantees of suitability for purpose, waived all liability, and in the case that there was liability anyway, limited it to the price of the software . . .
hawk
I recently heard about a study on NPR where they compared people fiddling with car gadgets like radios, cd players, etc with people who were drunk - both groups drove a simulator of some kind. The drunks drove better than the gadget-involved drivers. This sounds like more gadgets to distract somebody with while driving. Or more like mindless market-hype-drool to get Ford to buy more copies of windows/office. There's one born every minute.
...between can not crash and will not crash.
Using "can't" may be intentional, emphasizing how consumers wouldn't be likely to put up with a car so "smart" if it was likely to crash as often as traditional cars do in the present.
But then again, it's probably a stretch that this differentiation was intentional... oh well.
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
How many redundant posts will we see in this thread?
That makes me wonder though, how many duplicate posts will we see in this thread?
This could lead to constitutional violations. First, they'll take away our ability to control our destinations. Then, they'll take away our right to read the Bible. What's next? These liberal schemes have got to stop, and let me tell you: the buck stops here!
I can see it now... Microsoft will also open a chain of gas stations. The speech recognition gear will hear you say "Hmmm, need to get gas soon..." and suddenly, your car will veer of the road into the nearest default gas station. Sure, you'll try like hell to change your preferences, but it will always default to Microsoft Fuel 1.0 when you aren't looking. Then of course there's the really obnoxious pop ups that ask you "Do you really want to turn here?"... And, don't forget the trojans... Your free screensaver will cause your car to be hijacked and you'll end up parked in front of some sketchy strip mall with stores like "P3NIS 3NLARG3M3NT WRRLD" "HOT 18 YEAR OLDS & DONKEYS 'R' US"...
This is going to be great!
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
Bill must have a short memory:
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon.
In response to Mr. Gates' comments, General Motors issued the following press release (by Mr. Welch himself, the GM CEO). If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.
2. Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, and you'd have to restart it. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, restart and drive on.
3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.
4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats.
5. Amiga would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads.
6. Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars which would make their cars go much slower.
7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light.
8. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for many years.
9. We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and all auto fluids but the packaging would be superb.
10. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
11. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
12. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened.
13. They wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it.
14. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads.
15. Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM, and play Microsoft Cassettes. Unless of course, you buy the upgrade to use existing stuff.
16. Microsoft would do so well, because even though they don't own any roads, all of the road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars free, including IBM!
17. If you still ran old versions of car (ie. CarDOS 6.22/CarWIN 3.11), then you would be called old fashioned, but you would be able to drive much faster, and on more roads!
18. If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you could just borrow your friends, and then copy it.
19. Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganise the ignition for a few days before it worked.
20. You would need to buy an upgrade to run cars on a motorway next to each other.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
that car didnt crash, all those dents are part of the new service pack.
Posting this story on /. is like posting a story about the joys of a hot dog eating contest in a vegan forum.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Yes, I mean the EFI box, too.
l
Ralph Nader meant to make things safer with the airbag: he didn't. He took away the owner's (owner's!) ability to get himself out of a jamb. The addiction to battle-carrier sized cars was the natural extension of his philosophy: don't let the stupid human be responsible for himself.
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.htm
Gladwell does an exceptional job of showing how Nader and the airbag made us FEEL safer. And people with SUVs and airbags FEEL safer. But it doesn't have anything to do with the statistics.
There is plenty of tech that is purely mechanical and would do well with fuel metering, emissions, etc. But since we put a computer in every other damn thing, why not a ton and a half of plastic and steel going fast.
Don't flame if you haven't read the gladwell article. Then if you disagree, chew me out. But LOOK at it.
I can't wait until MSFT is controlling the 'fly by wire' car. That's when I'm dropping out to go raise goats.
RMW
flames > dev/null
They will be outsourced by common virus or spyware. Face it outsourcing is popular these days
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I'll have to go to Jiffy Lube to download service packs and safety updates?
Why am I on Slashdot? I'm bored. Why am I bored? I'm on Slashdot.
No one else has posted it yet, so I just had to. s/GM/Ford to make it more current:
If Microsoft made cars...
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
Take computers and aircrafts, for example. There have been advances in computers in the last 20 years, but to my knowledge, computers have not replaced pilots in aircraft. They have been used to augment the pilot's skills and give the pilot more information. In the case of some unmanned military vehicles, it has removed the need for a pilot to be in the aircraft, but there is still a pilot.
Granted driving isn't as complex and flying or combat, there may be times when a human needs to take control of the situation. At least there needs to be manual override available.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
... and when you complain to the service department that the wheels fell off as you were going down a hill, they will tell you to put the wheels back on, push it back to the top of the hill, and see if it happens again...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
How many Autonomous Vehicles By Massimo Broggi and Alessandra Fascioli have you seen on the road now?
On the other hand *You will* see this MS-Ford car on the road pretty soon. Welcome to the real world.
-Sad linux fan
... Kinda like the titanic, huh?
And, Ford, the pinnacle of engineering prowess, will make this work because..?..
Obviously someone has never used MS products before. Computers crash, programs freeze (at least when using MS software). I would pay extra to have these 'features' removed.
-Lord Shadow
Firestone is supplying the tires!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Today must be that new holiday: May Fools. I can't believe I fell for that joke.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
With MS in it, it will be the Titanic of modern age.http://dr.dk/
Maybe Microsoft will come up with an operating system that can't crash. Until then, their "Blue Screen of Death" might just be too literal for me.....
2)Isn't the crash-proof car what many car manufacturers already working towards. Of course, nobody is anywhere near it, and the goal itself may be inpossible, but that is the goal.
3)It makes sense to use computers and sensors to achieve this goal. The driver is the biggest point of failure in a car. Unless your a professional stunt driver, chances are, in an emergency, you will react the wrong way.
Microsoft jokes aside, embedded computers in cars are a lot more simplistic than an Operating System. It's a lot less likely for a glitch in one sensor to bring the electronics of the entire car down then a crash in Internet Explorer cause a restart of Windows.
That isn't to say that if the OSS communitiy decided to start writing code and designing equipment for embedded sensors and collision avoidence systems that they wouldn't do a better job. But the simple fact of the matter is that they aren't. In the Mark Shuttleworth slashdot interview, he made the comment that the reason why many gov't systems use proprietary OS and software is because nobody is going to write a sewage management system in their spare time. Developers who write that kind of code, get paid to write it, and then go home and contribute to firefox or OO.o
Free MacMini
He that says something is completely fool-proof underestimates the ingenuity of complete fools. As long as there are cars, there will be idiots to drive them. Whether at the wheel or at the keyboard.
I always wonder how well this would work for us up here in the land where the two main seasons are winter and road construction. I've seen too many places where lines cross and signs are messed up for me to think that computers can do a very good job. Well, I suppose that doesn't mean that they can't try...
This is where I get to mention (again) that my favorite vehicle for the open road is a motorcycle I rebuilt myself. It has exactly four circuits, headlight, taillight/breaklight, generator, ignition coil. No black box, no RFID, no computer controlled fues system... in fact, nothing I can't fix with a pocket knife and a crescent wrench on the side of the road.
Why can't we have more cars like this?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
The software company that denies security problems is teaming up with the company that helped cover up faulty Firestone tires and the exploding Crown Victoria.
Only good can come of this.
So on top of patrol tax, car tax, MOT, and all the other taxes associated with running a car, all road users now have to find a £300.00 MS tax also... (and it will still crash, as the per the joke).
One question though, When LongHorn comes out, will we all have hood orniments like Boss Hog from the Dukes of Hazzard?
In my day "FORD" was an acronym for Find On Road Dead.
after all, most crashes are due to faulty drivers...
bah-dum-bum-tzing!
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Auto insurance companies get together and sabotage Microsoft's anti-crash cars...
1. There would be multiple distributors of free cars, though all would be spurned by the commercial auto industry.
2. If you want to change your tires you have to download all the most recent parts and rebuild your engine.
3. Upon building a new car you would find that your new windshield wipers are not yet supported.
4. You could build your own windshield wipers if you really, really wanted to.
5. Sourceforge would release a wrapper to allow you to retrofit Microsoft Windows Wipers (tm) onto your open source car.
6. Sun Motorsystems would make a transmission that was widely accepted and everybody copied, but wouldn't release the original blueprints to the community.
7. The oil, alternator, gas, engine warning lights would be located throughout the car and held on with velcro.
8. People would engage in holy wars over their favorite car distribution, forgetting completely that most people purchase cars and drive them home same-day.
9. We would still be waiting on anyone to finish buiding their gentoo model.
10. We'd all have to make our own gas, which would not be compatible with Microsoft Gas(tm).
11. People would line up to be Linus Torvald's chauffeur.
12. The US government decree that a ciurcular steering controller on any other car violates Microsoft's IP.
13. All components of the open source car would be renamed to begin with "G" or "K".
14. Slashdot posters would imagine Beowulf carpools of anything with wheels.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Consumer "My car won't start."
Ford Phone Support "First, please reboot your Taurus."
Consumer "But I paid all my parking tickets!"
Okay, there's my joke. Next!
It's kind of lame to say "we should do this" and not give a timeframe. Given today's technology, this is not a trivial thing to do as we've recently seen in the DARPA challenge.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Milliseconds before impact, the entire windshields and all the windows go blue.
Funny, perhaps, but this might not be the worst safty feature in the world. Tensing up in an accident actually increases injuries and blanking out the windows for the scary parts might help.
It wasn't clear from the atricle if their looking into cars that drive themselves or ones that simply ignore the signals from the driver based on certain rule sets, sort of like ABS for the steering wheel. Of the two, I think crash-avoidence override is scarier to me than complete automation even though that has a much larger window for failure.
I also worry about overall architecture, given how Microsoft has been approaching the PC. Everyone'll be running down to Firestone for some firewall tires and pulling over to install their updates.
Since in addition to not allowing you to crash they also won't let you drive to an Apple store...
Irony... too thick... can't... breathe......
Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
The company said its technology is currently in 25 vehicle devices from 13 automotive companies.
I want to know what cars have MS technology inside. I will never let my kids ride in one of those cars. I'm serious.
Sounds like peril sensitive sunglasses
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Microsoft spokesmen have confirmed that a crash is possible. To fix the problem, simply pull over and reboot your car.
Adventure City Tours
This makes sense. Remember, if you talk to anyone at Microsoft about it - the BSOD's are mostly all caused by 'Bad Drivers'.
So, if car crashes are caused by 'Bad Drivers' too, then this would be a natural. Remove the drivers from the equation and neither cars, nor Windows crashes...
It's brilliant.
First build a /. editor that can't dupe. Then I'll be impressed.
Statements like this always make me nervous.. No moving object is immune from crashing.
www.lonseidman.com
Singing...
"Clippy the driving Clip.
The Clip who could drive a car.
He drives around
all over the town
Clippy the driving Clip!"
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Can't you just picture all the insurance agent conversations; "I'm terribly sorry sir. Thank goodness nobody was hurt. We've dispatched a roadside assistance, but in the mean time, have you tried shutting the ignition off and restarting the car? We find that in many instance this resolves the situation."
My thoughts exactly. As soon as you move things, there's a chance something will go wrong. Shit happens.
But... You do realize that the (human) driver is one of the failure points? Frankly I'd be happy to get into a car and have the driving done for me. So I could enjoy the landscape, read a book, or have fun with other passengers. Or be able to drive drunk, without risking the lives of other people.
When or how? When the technology has shown to be safer than driving the car yourself. Which won't be anytime soon, especially not when MSFT is involved.
It's like robots doing medical procedures. It will be commonplace one day, and I'll be okay with that. But the technology has to prove itself first. Real-world use over several years would be a bare minimum for me. And no, I'm not volunteering for beta-testing.
This must be what Microsoft's new software "black box" is for. Microsoft.. Ford.. uncrashable car.. my head is going to explode!
Brings new meaning to "Found On Road Dead"!
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
Is it only me who enjoys driving, I find it more of an enjoyment thing. If i wanted to be taken everywhere, I would get the bus, or the train, or a cab. Not have the car drive me where I want to go
The Auto-Pilot Car: Built by Microsoft, For Lazy People.
Business Voyeur
Does this mean they are going to give us a 30day window for activation. Or will my car just not boot one day.
If they want to coordinate supply chains, streamline design, production and sales and fill vehicles with computer gadgets, it's only to lock in technology even further. Soon you will be able to put in any gadget in your car - as long as it's from Microsoft.
sure as long as you take it to your mechanic to have him run carupdate, carvirusscan, and carspybot on a weekly basis..
Also, this concept is absolutely unsellable because if anyone does manage to crash, they would then have grounds for a lawsuit against the manufacturer for fradulent advertising.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Didn't the article two posts ago try to discourage this type of behavior?
How about first making computers that don't crash?
I've seen the car of the future in countless sci-fi movies and books already! But, hey, if Gates says it, then for sure it must be right around the corner. Ho hum..
God help us all if these are the things to come. In fact, I prefer my technology to
Even my first-gen iPod still works! I dunno, I'm past the disliking Gates and his empire and now I'm just sick of him telling everyone what the future's gonna be and the fact that Microsoft's gonna get you there.
Hang it up man, hang it up.
I've been on the MS side of development for the past 6 years. .NET is paying my mortgage. I have a wife and 2 kids who eat food bought with .NET money.
I would never buy a car based on MS technology.
If I found out the ones I already own contain MS technology, I would sell them.
I'll trust fairly sensitive data -- taxes, SSN, credit cards, etc. -- to be stored on MS based technology. Which is somewhat crazy in itself.
But I would never trust my life to it.
I have seen first-hand what MS source code looks like. Not horrible (relatively), but certainly on the level of application code -- definitely not mission-critical code.
Those who can, do.
Those who cannot, teach.
Those who think they can but cannot, manage.
Crashproof cars. Sounds like a good idea doesn't it? I remember a demo back in the 90's that went like this: Gates: And the system prevents itself from crashing Windows: BSOD X^( I'd love to see the EULA on that.
Ignoring the hilarity of who said it, this is ludicrous. We are decades away from having machine vision that's accurate and reliable enough to control vehicles on highways. Embedded sensors aren't a solution, we can't even get hydrogen and electrical refueling infrastructure deployed, let alone elaborate highway sensor systems. Even ignoring both of those issues, US unlimited legal liability will kill it.
Really, the "cars that refuse to crash" scenario is about as realistic as hover-bikes powered by nuclear fusion.
And made of chocolate.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Nah....those little bastards at MIT opened up a quantum bubble big enough to engulf the entire earth at their little Time Travelers Convention.
http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions.
... looks like 98 mph! Why not buy me now!"
...
...
So, given their track record to date, the future of cars involves:
- high-definitionscreens that will suddenly stop working while you're driving - or have pop-up windows that distract you from the real road conditions: "Hi! I'm Marvin the Talking Android, here to Wow! you with our latest in People Pleasing Personalities! If you had me in your car, you wouldn't be about to hit that semi at
- speech recognition technology that will help when your teen tapes your voice with his mini MP3/recorder and plays back "Stop Right Now!" while you're going 98 mph done the road being closely followed by a semi.
- cameras that will suddenly stop working so that you don't see the semi about to move into your blind spot because it pops up a "Time To Upgrade Your Camera Software!" message that obscures the semi because you're on a long road trip and don't have time to stop.
- digital calendars that will remind you while you're driving that your warranty has expired - which you will know, since the engine stopped working because someone forgot to reset the date function.
- navigation equipment with directions that tell you to drive into Puget Sound to go from your house to the house across the canal that just flooded but didn't update in the directions.
- road conditions that tell you that you should have just rode a bike to the gym or walked - it would have been faster and the exercise would have done you good anyway.
Wow! Brave New World!
And don't even get me started about the spam to fill your car with computer gadgets
or what a Blue Screen of Death will become
a Red Screen of Messy Death.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you take the worst-case possibilities, then your car car would need to somehow ensure X car-lengths of clearance on front and back, Y car-lengths to each possible angle of trajectory. Which will lead to highways carrying about 20% of current traffic, and all of it going about 30 MPH.
Yea, the joke is dated... but it may actually apply one day...
1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.
2. Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, and you'd have to restart it. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, restart and drive on.
3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.
4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats.
5. Amiga would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads.
6. Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars which would make their cars go much slower.
7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light.
8. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for many years.
9. We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and all auto fluids but the packaging would be superb.
10. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
11. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
12. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened.
13. They wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it.
14. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads.
15. Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM, and play Microsoft Cassettes. Unless of course, you buy the upgrade to use existing stuff.
16. Microsoft would do so well, because even though they don't own any roads, all of the road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars free, including IBM!
17. If you still ran old versions of car (ie. CarDOS 6.22/CarWIN 3.11), then you would be called old fashioned, but you would be able to drive much faster, and on more roads!
18. If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you could just borrow your friends, and then copy it.
19. Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganise the ignition for a few days before it worked.
20. You would need to buy an upgrade to run cars on a motorway next to each other.
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Just give me an operating system that won't crash.
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Just a few weeks ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant's parking lot after dinner and the engine was running really rough. I mean really, really rough, and this truck has always run fine before. It coughed and it gasped, and the power was just not there. I stopped and started the engine, but it still continued to run rough. I got maybe a half mile down the road when I realized I wasn't even going to make it home.
I pulled to the shoulder, and was going to phone my son to come pick us up when I said "hey, what happens if I reboot this thing?" So I turned off the engine, let it sit totally dark for about five seconds, then started it up. It started right up and took off, no problems, no choking, no gasping.
A cold reboot fixed my truck.
And now Microsoft wants them to run WINDOWS on this thing? Words fail me.
John
our slashdot moderators who will have to mod everyone as troll or funny because we might have gotten a guiness record of the most repetitive Microsoft jokes.
:P
What? You expected an overlords joke?
Hey let's perfect this technology on computers before you go applying it to the auto industry Bill. I see soon a time when a person kicks the tire, knocks on the window six times and say's open sesame and the car door opens and starts the engine for you LOL. Symnatic will get into the Car keys buiness. The auto companies will hacker hackers to create virus' for their competitors cars.
Cars don't crash cars, wheels crash cars! We must, if we want to end accidents, simply take the wheels off the cars. These dangerous devices claim the lives of thousands every year.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
. . .make the doors open at 70 mph,
. . . switch all your radio stations to Air America or Rush
Limbaugh
. . . (de) activate the school zone detection system all the time, especially on the freeway (in school zones).
. . . Turn your automatic window tinting to a nice shade of blue giving new meaning to "Blue Screen of Death"!
CLIPPY: Sorry, I don't understand your input, Shell Gas?
So, we have to start the engine to turn it off?
Bwuahahahahahahahaha!
The creators of DOS and Windos talk about "can't crash"
Oh my.
Pffft.
Stop it, it hurts. All the laughter, oh the pain...
Puh. Now that was a good one.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"The End Of Ford"
I'm hiding under a rock for the rest of my life...
it will come with 640k of memory, cause cars wont ever need more than 640k.
Again!?!
The smartest man in the whole, wide world really don't know that much. - Mose Allison
Geez...I hope they don't EVEN think of putting crap like this on the new Shelby Cobra Mustang due out in '06. 450 'blown' horses bone stock....
Now...why would anyone want to computer control that?? Hell, have the fun of that kind of car is pushing it near or slightly beyone the limits....
Geez...I hate ABS....first time I hit the brakes in a new (new in '97) brakes...thing started clattering and shaking around..I had no idea what the hell was about to happen. Damned near hit the car that slammed on his brakes in front of me...had to swerve as it was. If it hasn't tried ABS'ing...I'd have easily stopped like I expected to...oh well....having to get used to new things. I prefer my cars to be a bit more pre-historic....at least in the sense it give ME the driver more control over things...not a computer. And with all the computer more and more on things...it is getting damned near impossible for an owner to do even basic 'shade tree mechanical' type stuff....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The fact that only a few American cars have these features indicates that adoption could be a bigger issue than development for many of these technologies.
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.')"
Shouldn't they start with a computer that won't crash?
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
Geez, gotta start actually reading the preview before hitting the button... Half the fun... pushing it near or slightly beyond the limits...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How do they plan to do this?
Simply ... http://www.linuxdevices.com/www.linuxdevices.com
Gates & Co. aren't out to do any of us any favors. Instead of putting the weight of himself and his company behind alternative means of transportation, he's just trying to skim cash from yet another industry by adding his own useless gizmos to our already ridiculous gas buggies.
You sound like a troll :)
People like you need to have your driving liceses revoked until you learn how to drive. Your risky behavior puts the health and safety of my family at risk. There is NO excuse for that.
It is not that easy to avoid accidents. My car insurance is $4000 a year.
Yes it is. It's simple.
I've been driving for 17 years without a single serious accident. I've had 3 tickets my entire life. My wife had one accident 15 years ago and has had one ticket. We live in the SF Bay Area, which is well known for it's agressive drivers, bad traffic and dangerous roads.
My parents have been driving for 45 years and have never had an accident, and have only had a few minor tickets.
It's not that hard, even in Texas.
My insurance is $700 a year for me and my wife from one of the top insurance companies. We also have a high deductable.
I tried telling the insurance company it was the other drivers that caused the 4 accidents but they don't believe me. Just because I have 5 speeding tickets doesn't make me a "high-risk" driver.
Yes it does. If you slow down, you will most definately have fewer accidents.
For most drives, speeding will usually only save you a few minutes. Personally, I'd rather arrive a few minutes later and remain relaxed with less stress.
You need to relax. Aggressive driving will only lead to more accidents and a heart attack when you're 55.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Microsoft unveiled its Performance Peak Initiative -- a line of computer systems to help the auto industry better coordinate supply chains, streamline design, production and sales and fill vehicles with computer gadgets.
Is it just me or does the feature list for Performance Peak seem a lot like what we expect from MS?
A number of useful sounding tools (thanks to excellent Marketspeak), bundled into a odd configuration with some really unrelated productivity destroying crap.
California already sends too many of it's drivers, many of whom would never qualify for an Oregon license if they didn't have a Californian one to surrender at Oregon DMV up here. Even if it is from Microsoft and even if the cars can't drive worth crap on their own, it's gotta be better than the Californian wanna-be human solution to driving...
Help us build a better map!
The big question has been how will Microsoft ever burn through its umpteen billion in cash? Finally an answer: product liability lawsuits!
Yes, but how many redundant posts will be mislabeled "Funny"?
Among other ironies, notice that most of the suggested improvements are driver distractions.
Malwares are the new threats... beware!
What about spywares... mean you can't have s... on the backseat anymore... what will our teenagers become!!!
I've never gotten in an accident while speeding, but I do feel a lot better about driving now that I've grown up and slowed down. If other people honk at you, let them honk, you shouldn't break the speed limit.
What is it with automanufacturers nowdays anyway? I look at new cars and their prices and am dumbfounded. Even with all the government safety and emmissions standards you should still be able to buy a brand new car for $5000.00 USD ---and I'm not talking about a $#!+box of a car either.
It's getting harder to find cars without a radio... Why do I have to have a radio? Maybe I want my own after-market radio, so why should I have to buy theirs? Why do (on some models) I have to have power windows? ---Yes I know these are all little things, but there are a lot of these little things now and they are starting to add up
Why not make a more modular car? A car that not only comes with no options, but you can't get it with any. BUT it is made specifically so you can put your own options in. I would love this idea. I could actually afford a car with all the options I want without being forced to buy one with options I feel are ridiculous.
I would love a car that came without a computer. Yes I am well aware of what computers do in cars and why they are there, but don't try to tell me that a car can't be made and still meet all the government mandated emissions and fuel economy requirements without one. At the very least If I'm gunna have a computer shoved in my car, I want one where I can hook up my laptop to and it can tell me what the hell ERROR41 is or what not, none of this force me to go to a dealer crap just to know I need blinker fluid or some other inane but useless thing.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Tensing up in an accident actually increases injuries and blanking out the windows for the scary parts might help.
Isn't that what your towel is for?
In other news...
Ford stock crashes on fears of new Microsoft car models.
To be honest:
Ford Motor Co is working with Microsoft towards PC that can't crash.
Shouldn't this sound better?
Shouldn't have read your comment right after taking the Butter poll.
Butter overflow?
Took me a couple rereads to get it right.
he can't see the need for any car to ever need more than 64hp.
Seems like they are out of their area of expertise here. If they can't make an OS that doesn't crash, how do they expect to accomplish cars that don't crash? Will I have to click on "Start" to turn the car off?
Seriously though, it should be obvious that this is a technology that can be misused as well. To really accomplish collision avoidance, you would have to have data from angles that the car may not have sensors for. I'm talking about GPS or other possible solutions that may be questionable. Are we going to end up with marketing companies generating ads for you as a driver based on places that you frequently visit? What is the real goal here?
There isn't enough money in just selling a software solution for something like this - there has to be something else - some other way of leveraging it. That is the component that scares me.
Instead of filling out cars with hi-def screens, and the ability to get email, why don't they concentrate on creating automobiles that help enforce safe driving habits.
Create a system that ensures cars come to a complete and total stop at stoplights and stop signs.
A system using the little parking sensors to enforce safe following distances.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Cars don't crash, bad drivers do.
you'll be driving along, the windscreen is a full-frame computer screen allowing you to see your speed, car status, map and rear/side views without taking your eyes off the road. By law its required that you don't use the screen for anything else while driving and it must not distract you or block your view. Suddenly a big goats.cx pop-up window appears and does just that, you almost hit 3 cars before you manage to close it which promptly turns into a blue screen of death, with no screen-power-button handy, and no way to power down the car computer you are forced to turn off the engine to power-cycle it while desperately looking out of the side window to avoid a line of kids crossing the road. Of course the computer controlled breaks and steering don't work with the power off, but at least you can see the people you're about to run over. Finally it re-starts, just in time for you to avert disaster - your impact is cushioned by a Microsoft employee you managed to swerve into at the last second.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
After making a second consecutive right turn, Clippy appears. "It seems like you're turning. Would you like help about this topic?" You say no.
AutoFormat kicks in, causing your car to automatically turn right at every intersection. You manage to get rid of that, but now every time you try to turn left the steering wheel is AutoCorrect'ed to the right.
You finally just let the car drive you wherever while you listen to MSN radio. You don't get where you wanted to go, but at least you didn't crash.
If your ABS came on, you were skidding, and you would not have stopped as fast if you didn't have ABS.
If ABS came on before you lost traction, your ABS sensor is broken.
The computer control stuff is what allows cars to be as good as they are today. If you prefer to not have that, restoring an old car to better than new condition can be done for less money than a new car today.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
You forget item 12, have police patrol the roadways and ticket people committing moving violations. The police simply do not patrol the Chicago expressways during the morning and evening commute.
I live in downtown Chicago and have to commute to the suburbs. I can't tell you how many people don't believe in items 6, 7 and 8. Heck, I've even had people not signal, not check that the lane's clear, start moving into my lane and continue doing so as I lay on the horn. I've seen someone try to force their way into an occupied lane three times in a row (start moving into occupied lane, swerve away, repeat)! It can also be quite fun changing lanes at the same time as someone else two lanes over, but who doesn't signal.
People who don't use their turn signals should be shot.
My initial reaction to this article was probably the same as many: my head began to throb, not only from the sudden irony overload, but at the thought of wading through the sea of responses from the people of Slashdot making the entirely obvious jabs. :)
But after reading the article, one has to imagine why in the 21st century we're still driving vehicles that can kill us as much as they do. Think about it: if a drug, say Tylenol, killed as many people each year as cars so there'd be one hell of a recall. Why is it that the same protective logic is never applied to the automotive industry?
It's one of the most lethal devices devised by man. I've owned two cars in my life so far, both (even the brand new one) have been involved in pretty serious accidents due to the complete negligence of others on the road. Why not have their car say "the light is red, the car in front of you has stopped, I'm going to stop now before you put someone in the hospital because you're too busy chatting on your fucking cell"? I for one applaud Microsoft and Ford for at least taking steps in a positive direction.
By my own preferences, I wouldn't touch a Ford with a 10 foot pole, especially one powered by a Microsoft operating system, but I very much agree with what they're doing, conceptually speaking.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Don't forget to shoot them too ;-)
If they can't keep Windows from crashing, how are they going to keep a car from crashing???
Sigh, where to begin?
First I'd like to point out to the OP that it was recently MAY first, NOT April first.
Loading...
I would rather have nuclear power plants running windows. Less deaths.
Sun and Microsoft have buried the hatchet.
Now Microsoft is interested in cars.
Is this coincidence?
For the last "Gates" vision of an automated home that reordered your groceries for you, wiped your dirty hiney and kept your kids from driving you crazy. Aren't cars sophisticated enough now? They already cost too much and destroy the environment. How about addressing those issues first before attempting a problem that is dwindling already. Is Gates riding the retirement train or what?
The unity of Slashdotters above is quite beautiful. I've never seen anything quite like it, where an entire discussion can be moderated redundant once and be completely correct. It is the most amazing thing to have happened since user #1 signed on...to be honest, it brings a tear to my eye.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
...who tries to hack-crash the cars.
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." E. W. Dijkstra
So.. many.. jokes..
Head.. hurts...
ARGH!
Even if by some miracle of duct tape and chaos theory they pull it off, your automobile insurance rates will STILL continue to rise.
Am I the only geek in here that's had enough experience with technology that the most advanced gadget I want in my car is the sterio system?
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
now how about a version of Windows that doesn't crash!!!!
<overrated>Insert Sig Here</overrated>
that Microsoft actually believes people are stupid enough to entrust the lives of themselves and their families/friends to MS software that determines a 1-2 ton mass's actions...
that Ford would actually consider using Microsoft software for realtime cirtical functionality, putting the world at large in greater jeopardy than it has yet known (nuclear dangers aside)...
or that people may actually opt to buy such a product.
perhaps a letter-writing campaign to Ford letting them know in no uncertain terms such a product is not an option - period.
So let's see, they really have history going for them here:
Ford - Pinto
Microsoft - nearly everything
Sounds like a match made in heaven!
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
Just a thought....
Hmm... Everyone seems so wrapped up in the absurdity of MS making something that won't crash that they seem to be missing something else in this article: ... digital calendars."
"The future of cars according to Gates, will involve
Car: I'm sorry, but we don't have time to stop by the coffee shop this morning - your TPS reports are due!
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
If you are familiar enough with the braking system to be able to achieve optimal braking then the ABS will never activate (unlikely, would require lots of practice on a skid pan). If it does activate, then it stopped you from skidding.
Letting Microsft put software in our cars to control them would be like letting BIN LADEN work as an air traffic controller !!! AHHHHHH Are you crazy!??!?!
We already have little sensors on the back bumper that make a little speaker beep to let us know how far away we are from the car behind us, I found some and fitted them the other day. Now just get a load of those sensors and stick them all around the car, wire them up to the computer and have a little looping program checking each one. If one detects something too close then hit the brakes and cut the power. That could be the Starter Edition anyway, the Professional version could detect things further away and slow you down instead of suddenly stopping you - and maybe be able to tell the difference between leaves in the wind and a real obstacle so you don't have to keep restarting the engine everytime you drive under a tree in autumn.
I suppose that right before you were going to crash, a Dr. Watson airbag deploys, inquires about your state of mind and sends it to your analyst to help prevent future crashes, and then forces you to take a quick nap before continuing.
The below quote was at the bottom of Slashdot while I was reading this article.
"Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb "
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The only way for the company that cannot make stable software to build an uncrashable car is to prevent it from starting in the first place:
Car: "Keyboard error. Press F1 to continue."
--Udo.
She complains about our ABS on the van, claiming that it's pulling control away from her as it engages on ice. I've *tried* to explain that she's already lost control before they engaged, but . . .
.]
[Yes, I am aware that there are a very small handful of drivers that can indeed brake more efficiently than ABS. I'm also aware that most people who believe themselves to be in this class are not . .
hawk
I personally would rather that I, and only I, be in control of my car. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how are they to create an 'un-crashable' car without sacrificing at least some of the driver's control over the vehicle?
And what would happen if the software running the automatic-driving system pulls a M$ and crashes?
To me, this sounds more dangerous than safe...
~You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because I'm insane~
are a reflection of the corporations who design them. Asking Microsoft to implement the spec "cars that can't crash", begs the solution "remove the wetware"
Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb
Cars themselves never crash. It's the people that drive or interfere with them that crash the cars. Sure, the warning systems may increase the person's awareness, but there's always going to be a chance of the car crashing.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
Please tell me this is a joke? I thought April Fools was behind us. How about an OS that doesn't crash, first, Bill? Seriously, is Ford so desperate that they'd trust Microsoft to create something that can't crash? I have a better idea...how bout Microsoft makes software that doesn't crash and Ford makes cars that don't suck and aren't ugly, then we'll reconsider this half-baked proposal?
Better yet, how bout requiring people to know how to control their cars in an emergency situation before issuing them a drivers license instead of giving the control to the car and letting any retard that can comprehend the written test at DMV drive?
Even better, let the nimrods kill themselves...whatever happened to survival of the fittest, anyway?
Oh wait, that's exactly what this will accomplish...I'll STFU now.
Isn't it getting old for April Fools jokes by now?
Oh, this IS an April Fools joke, right?
I guess blue screen of death will take on a whole new meaning
Would mean that you don't have to drive ever again:
http://www.skywebexpress.com/
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/
It's called Personal Rapid Transit.
Deleted
until I can play everquest2 in my car it aint nothing at all.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
'talk' to a gas station?
what did it say?
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/
k .htm
http://www.skywebexpress.com/
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/prtquic
etc.
Deleted
Regardless of what software/hardware manufacturer actually comes through with this system, I think it would be beneficial to the driving community across the board. It will be very easy to market the convenience of preplanning a trip to the grocery market, getting in your car, and letting a digital chauffeur take you to your destination while you surf the internet from your wireless laptop for coupons on bacon strips. As an ex-"streetracer", I can tell you that there will be lots of people that will not want to relinquish control of their driving experience. If such a system were to be successfully deployed, a mixture of virtual and human drivers would not be safe. There are too many variables to make such a system work safely. As a result, I think amateur racers would quicly start building small tracks and locations for pure racing without the constraints or expense of professional racing associations. I think this would be widely popular, and it would bring the racing community closer together. I'm all for it. I gave up streetracing a long time ago because no matter how skilled you are with your own vehicle, there's always some mental slug out there who will pull right out in front of you without looking first...
It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
I know I'm super late on this, and there are like 4 million posts before me, so no one will likely read this, but if you do want to see a comany doing some really cool stuff with car safety, check out this site http://www.intellimec.com/
Really cools stuff like tracking where people's heads are to see if it is safe to deploy air bags, checking people's weight and position to determine if there are children in the car and what safety stuff to deploy for them...and the best one...tracking the heartbeat of ocupants without actually making them put on hearbeat sensors using some ungodly cool dsp stuff.
...no two people are not on fire.
Fixes issues with sluggish control.
Please do not install this update before uninstalling Q3245781. There have been reports of brakes malfunctioning, when installation of said patch was present in the system.
For more information, ask Clippy, your trusted co-driver.
Recommended: Please turn your Autoupdate on.
MS Autoupdate will automatically download and install updates while you are on the road!
MS:We value your safety!
VStrider.
Decent ABS is linked to traction control. Your traction control was out of whack. Cheap cars have cheap ABS that just pumps the brake all the time.
...with 150lbs of subwoofers, NOS, lowering, and hair dryers forcing air into the intake.
However, the hardware installation on a car is fixed (within paramters) whereas today's general purpose PCs are not.
Physician, heal thyself!
Honestly I would not feel safe driving a car that has more control over itself then I do, as it is I feel that the computers in cars do far more then they should. Talk to any mechanic and they will tell you how much new cars suck. Here is a small example: Lets say one sensor in new car is not reporting correctly, this one event will cause the computer(ECU) to adjust things that in reality dont need to be adjusted, causing further problems, now other sensors are (validly this time) reporting problems. The spiral effect kicks in here and you can imagine the problems this would cause, all due to a sensor misreporting something.
Lets take a real life example shall we?
I own a 1995 GMC Sierra pickup truck, it has 190,000miles on it and i have never replaced anything on the engine except the alternator at 185,000mi. (Note: this is excluding general maintaince things obviously). The truck does have a pretty basic ECU, in fact so basic it cannot even be soft programmed to change performance settings. The truck runs awesome, in the winter it gets down to around -20F(-29C) in this area, the truck runs fine even then (though the heat doesnt have much effect).
Now my dad on the other hand, he has a 2004 Gmc Sierra pickup truck, with the same options as my truck (yes he even custom ordered it with roll down windows + non power locks). The ECU in his truck is rediculously complex, controlling everything from headlights to complex engine tuning settings. Last winter on one of those days where it was -20F he went to leave for work and it informed him 'CHECK BRAKE BOOSTER MOTOR' and would stall when he stepped on the brakes. The cause? the sensor was too cold and wasnt reporting the correct data. In addition, dad has this thing about buying a certain brand of battery (dont ask) so he charged the battery and swapped them. guess what? couldnt drive the truck more then 10mph without it stalling... somehow managed to get it to the dealer (first time we have ever brought a vehicle to a dealer for _ANY_ sort of work) and they basically said 'you disconnected the battery, it reset the computer and we had to reprogram it'.
Honestly i would never want a vehicle that i couldnt work on, Whats more is i do not trust a computer to have more control over my vehicle then i do.
Just my $0.02
I have accepted Provolone into my life!
Just not on regular roads. Retrofitting the existing road network with the required level of instrumentation is actually more expensive than building a new one.
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/PRT/
Deleted
if they build it, a florida driver can crash it.. THAT'S a guarantee...
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
No doubt, some guy is going to create a random key generator, post it online, and teenagers will be stealing all the latest cars.
The car will be so bloated that no matter how slow your reflexes, you'll always be able to avoid the crash through quick thinking
the Blue Screen Of Death will suddenly take on a new, real and tragic meaning...
Shouldn't Microsoft be creating *Operating Systems* that can't crash before they go into other industries??
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
At the risk of being on-topic and imparting fresh, relevant information - always a no-no, I know - here's some prior art. I knew I remembered sitting in my local pub reading this LJ article when it came out; a Linux-controlled car which drove 2000km autonomously on (get this) Italian public roads. All the gory details in that typically excellent Linux Journal article. (I've no connection to them, I just wish I still had time to read it!) (PS: check the not-inline images for cool shots of an X11 interface for your car! Move over MS, the engineers are comin' thru'! ;)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Can someone tell me which 25 so I know what to avoid?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Microsoft and Ford. Now here are two companies known for quality!! NOT!!
Does this mean we will have to sign a EULA before we can drive the car?
Is the warrantee void if we violate the EULA?
Do accessories and upgrades have to be signed?
Will the BSA threaten to take me to court if I don't let them look under the hood of my car?
Will the MPAA & RIAA sue the DMV to find out the name of the driver who's car was performing illegal P2P?
Will my car stop cold if I attempt to drive it in locations the car was not meant to be driven?
Will they require a software license for each user who uses the car, or one for each seat belt?
Do I get a discount if my car is used for educational or non-profit uses?
How about a Windows that can't crash first?
From now on, cars will have "issues."
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
What I'm really looking forward to is a paperclip popping up and blocking all the view, asking me whether I really want to brake. :)
If the irony doesn't kill you, the car will.
Humorless sig goes here.
why do companys feel the need to force a device to do 5000 million differnt things unrelated to the original devices intent. who sat around while working how to make cars safer and thought 'hey lets make a car with a calender yea cars need calenders!" how bout work out the original safety features First then work on fluff such as a calender. the same thing is going on with cell phones. they get porr signals bad battery life, but instead of fixxing these issues no we get mp3s in our phones. or raido or god knows what else that has no thing to do with my phone and i wont use it. not to mention my phone has a calender why does my car need one too? how about safer cars with better mileage... no but hot dam my digital calender will be put to amazing uses never before seen by the likes of a calender!!
Poor
Old
Neanderthal
Thinks
It's
A
Cadillac
When you read a summary for a story like this on the front page of Slashdot, dosen't your jaw drop, and the words "This is going to be flamed and joked about to death" fall from your lips?
... a BSOD obstructing your view out the windscreen.
...make it seem like he reads mostly old Tom Swift books these days.
KITT: It sounds like you're trying to jump over a construction site. Would you like help?
Michael: Yes! Turbo Boost now!
KITT: There's a grammatical error in that --
Michael: You bastard!
*crash*
A few hours later, in the Knight Travelling Truck...
Michael: Bonnie, KITT has something wrong with him. When I asked him to Turbo Boost, he kept asking for confirmation, and then said that I talked funny.
Bonnie: No problem, let me look under the hood. (pulls vainly on hood) KITT, open up.
KITT: No, Bonnie, you are not authorized to look at my internals.
Bonnie: Devon, what is this crap?! What's going on?
Devon: Oh, we signed a contract with Microsoft for them to provide us with software updates. After all, the Knight Foundation can't afford as many programmers as Microsoft can.
Bonnie: But Devon, I'm the only programmer who ever worked on KITT!
Devon: But look, Bonnie, KITT can now play all these MP3's. Watch. KITT, play "Knight Rider TV Theme Song."
KITT: No, Devon. "Knight Rider TV Theme Song" is owned by Universal Studios. You do not have the right to play that song.
Devon: Bloody hell. KITT, play "Knight Rider 2010 Theme Song".
KITT: No, Devon. "Knight Rider 2010" sucked.
Devon: What cheek! You little wanker!
KITT: It sounds like you're trying to view pr0n. Would you like help?
Michael: See? See?
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Soon available at a dealership or wrapped around a pole near you.
You are full of shit.
MS is a synonym for crash. Now its going to be "Sorry officer, my car blue-screened and then I hit the truck..."
Have you ever tried strapping anything to a cat?!?!
If your office is in or through Washington DC, it will also issue you a virtual speeding ticket or red light ticket. Hey, you get them in real life, why not virtually? Then when you go home there will be the inevitable parking ticket, maybe boot.
A virus could cause the car to take you to a time share opportunity.. and back again if you don't buy.
More seriously, just imagine how much fuel would be saved if we could all work at home.
Now to write some Leno jokes about this.
Simple. Of course it won't crash if you can't even start it and get it out the driveway.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
nah, the question is:
"where do you want to go today"?
Oldie, but goodie ;-)!
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10..... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
My lame blog.
Microsoft making something that doesn't crash? That's a change! ;)
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions.
Article should read: "Guy who sells software and electronics says future cars will use lots of software and electronics."
I can't imagine needing or even wanting--even for curiosity's sake--ANY of that bullshit he just listed. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel as though we're already assaulted enough with some marketroid's idea of what handy gadget we need next? With the climbing price of gasoline, I draw the line at hybrids.
The thing that really kills me is that people like BillyG probably will have an effect on the future of automobiles, and twenty years down the road (no pun intended) I won't be able to purchase the kind of car I actually want: a simple fuel-efficient car without a bunch of expensive Star Trek features. It just won't be available. Everything's going to have those damnable screens and voices and self-driving mechanisms and cost about $30,000(considering inflation) more because of it.
It's crap like this that turns people into luddites.
BSOD will be hence fourth synonymous with "mayday."
If cars had followed the same developmental path as computers a Rolls Royce would cost $100 today, get a million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Sorry, you forgot to make a joke about microsoft software crashing, so you have been moderated down.
The thing is, putting faster computers into cars is cheap. Moving to alternative fuels is very expensive.
Ergo, we get more shiny gadgets but no real fundamental changes to cars.
Newsflash:
Cars are made of matter (shocking as it may seem to people who sit in front of the abstract of the computer screen all day). Thus, most laws of physics still apply to them. I think DARPA's cross-desert vehicle challenge proved how well computers understand these laws and apply them to driving.
A car can also be in a crash if it is parked and off. Inhabited car-on stopped or parked car collisions happen often in crowded cities. Let's see all that fancy-pants hardware and software prevent accidents when there is no current running through it.
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
(assuming this no-crash leads to auto-piloting)... The first recursive error is found, with the car looping the I-405 for severals days before authorities are notified...
//Nothing to see here, please move along.
As long as it looks like this, I'm all for it ;-)
How about computers that can't crash?
(Weiner dog.) Ooo ... I'm gonna get shit at home. :-)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Computers are faster than you are.
You can't fly an F-16 without a flight control computer. Seat of the pants doesn't do you any good when the airplane doesn't know which end to keep into the wind.
You might argue that overly intrusive computer controls detract from the driving experience, but I don't agree for a second that computers in cars are categorically bad. If the yaw control in the 911 Turbo keeps you from spinning your car off the Nurburgring, that's Good.
Now, Microsoft operating systems in cars are CERTAINLY in that "categorically bad" category. I'll never understand what possessed BMW to go to Microsoft to get their iDrive user interface.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Ford cant make a car that doesnt break down.
Microsoft hasnt been able to make a product that doesnt crash. Actually it may be illegal to say "microsoft" and "doesn't crash" in a sentance.
I love a good "callenge"
What happened to QNX? I thought Ford was already working with them. Moving to MS would be a big step backward.
until he controls all aspects of your life. MS wants to control your home (with I'm sure some form of X10 knockoff soon). They want to control your internet access (IE). They want to control your television and media (they are becoming the defacto choice in the cable industry with Windows media server). The want to control your car next. Soon they will demand you install a chip under your skin so they can track your every move. BILL IS YOUR BIG BROTHER!!! On the bright side, all this crap will fail on a regular basis and the "Man" will remain clueless of your whereabouts most of the time.
Here's a fun experiment for #8.
.5s ? 2 seconds ?
Look over your shoulder for as long as it takes you to determine it's safe to make a lane change. Count how long that was. 1 second ?
Remember that value.
Now, driving along in traffic with a speed and following distance you'd normally have, close your eyes for that amount of time.
Can you? Does it feel safe? Why not?
If you need to look over your shoulder, your mirrors are not properly adjusted. I have most of my cars with the mirrors set to just the maximum of their adjustable range, but the upside is that i am not looking over my shoulder.
Most people adjust their mirrors so they have a beautiful view of the side of their car. While your car is very pretty, there's no reason to be looking at it while you drive - you'll know if it falls off or disappears, even without the help of your mirror. So, you can liberate those side mirrors towards something more useful, like having them pointed all the way out so that you can see into the "blind spot" and the other lane.
On all the cars i drive the mirrors are adjusted so that i can see a person either via mirrors, peripheral vision, or line of sight at all times in a circle around me.
Incidentally, you dont see race car drivers looking over their shoulders - they cant, since they're in a harness and wearing a helmet that cuts side visbility. The magic is in the mirrors.
The best thing you can do to not get into accidents is take a proper driving school, where you learn about mirror adjustment, vehicle dynamics, threshhold braking, looking through and ahead of objects properly, and how to relax and concentrate on your driving.
You also forget to mention that your accelerator is also a good accident avoidance tool. In non-optimal road surface conditions (rain, ice, gravel), acceleration is the _least_ decreased of your tires capabilities, with steering being the most. If i was in a traction limited scenario and had to do an evasive manuever that would challenge the level of grip available, i might opt to accelerate as the tires would deliver acceleratino better than braking or steering.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Well, sure, but only if you're not enough of a hoopy frood to have your Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses handy...
The Department of Energy has assigned the 2006 Hydrogen Car Development Contract to the Hindenburg Coporation due to their experience with Hydrogen dirigibles.
I already can't buy a "base" model of anything. I actually, in amoment of insanity, considered a new car a few years ago.
Wanted a Subaru Forester, but couldn't buy one with: no power windows, keyless entry, and 200 other acceosories I didn't want. Plus, I couldn't find a dealer with a manual in stock.
I JUST WANT A FREAKIN' CAR! Maybe if you live in San Diego or something where you pay $500K for a house it's no big deal to drop $25 or $35k for a car which will be worth 1/3 of that in 5 years. But here where I live, three of those buy a decent house.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Ford now stands for Fix Or Reboot Daily.
They don't "crash". They just "blue-screen" a lot.
Homer no function beer well without.
In other news, Bill Gates predicts that in 10 years, cars won't need more than 640K of RAM.
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash.
h ahhaahahaha.
..ghghou
.......
.arrrrhh.. h harrr... cough. ahrr.. cough..cough.. jhahruarr. ouch..harhrh...aaah...ahrhur...cough...wipe...ough ....sherhh...... snnooort... shhsh,..mauarhhh...ahuah.. . giggle.. .. crouch...buhhhha.. *Hard breathin*... pheww. muah... huhh.. huhuhuh. giggle... ouf... phjew...... pphhlz.z.przz.... doh... holly sheee.t.. no way. fuck maann.. ough... ucant do this to me.. .. gdammnn..
BrrruuaahahhahahahahahahahahaAHAA.
mWWwaAhaAHa
*cough*
*spit*
*coughh* cough
w*ipe trears offface* . . .
mmrrrrruuwuuAHAHAHAhahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HH H
ARrr...ARhhr.. harr..
you mean like... they're re-inventing the BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH ???
godsdman... stop kidding me... muahaha... i cant grok this...
"You seem to be hurtling towards the edge of a cliff. Would you like t..."
Isn't this an oximoron?
Hell must be freezing by now ....
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
Are you sure about that? Microcontrollers run software, usually without an OS. "Summer Games" ran (was) software on a PC without an OS. I guess an OS is only needed when you want to run software (on a general purpose machine) you _don't know_ in advance. The car would not necessarily need additional functions (like 'fly' or so), so in theory you could get away without an OS. An OS may simplify the design, but is not essential.
I'm just going to act as if I never heard Ford, Microsoft, can't, and crash in the same sentence. WARNING:Please do not feed the 800-pound gorilla!
I am Spartacus
Think anything really needs to be said here. Microsoft and 'can't crash' are not words that go together.
Bill Gates happens to have donated 1M to the Ford Museum in Dearborn.
Ford has a major Linux initiative going, sadly, I don't think Gates'1M donation will derrail a 5-year initiative to cut costs and standarize the server farms.
Ummm.. shouldn't they be tyring to make a Windows that doesn't crash before they try to make a car that doesn't crash? Seriously people... The IT industry is deluged with crappy commercial software being designed by nitwits who haven't a clue how to program properly. There are people using MS Access to hold larger amounts of data than it was made for. There are other people who are using HTTP for every possible thing under the sun when it isn't really appropriate in many cases. And they are basing it off of IIS to boot! This is all Microsoft's fault. They made computing and programming "easy" and with it the quality of software has plummeted. Do you really want these kinds of people designing the cars that you will be driving in the future? I certainly don't. Keeping costs down by letting less skilled people work in some areas is possibly beneficial, but not when lives are involved.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I find it interesting that in the world of Ghost in the Shell, humans still drive their own cars, despite being wired up to the wazoo with cybernetic circuitry.
Or perhaps, it is because you are talking about a freaking CARTOON!! Ghost In The Shell is a freaking CARTOON! It isn't real life! Can you not tell the difference between real life and make believe?
How do high definition screens help me crash my car less? What's the point of a high def screen in a car anyways? So you can jerk it to HD porn while you're driving? That would probably cause more crashes.
wont crash and gates in the same sentence...
is their first vehicle going to be called the "Paradox"?
But let's regain our collective composure and think about the prospect of cars that can't crash. We're now talking about robotics with a degree of intelligence. And assuming this is indeed possible at the level needed to make cars uncrashable, will they conform to Asimov's laws?
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asim ov.html
Probably not entirely, but there WILL have to be some judgements made as to the lesser risk when there are no optimal solutions to some traffic scenarios. For example, sliding on ice and being unable to entirely avoid impact with objects or humans. Will the software choose to sacrifice the car's occupants in order to save more pedestrians? Vice-versa? (I suppose it depends on who's paying for the software license. Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Will its "judgement" be good enough? How long would it take to develop software to pilot cars in optimal scenarios, let alone crisis scenarios? This will be a monumental task at best.
that's pretty much spot-on.
You can also get replacement mirrors that have wide-angle views and race cars based on production chassis often have multi-element rear view mirrors that let them see everything by only looking in one spot.
The point being, you have no business looking over your shoulder in daily driving.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
A car that will only drive on the sidewalk, with the doors open - until you install service pack 2?
Remember what happened when the makers of a certain ship claimed that it couldn't sink.
Yes...but does it run Linux?
Shouldn't MS make an OS that can't crash first? I mean, walk before you run, dude!
There is reportedly at least one exception: loose gravel. On a gravel road, locking up the wheels will stop the car faster than ABS. One of the earliest cars with ABS (a Mercedes) had an override switch to disable ABS, for this exact reason.
However, there's a trade-off: you lose steering if the front wheels are locked. Depending on the situation, an longer stopping distance on a gravel would be preferable to no directional control.
Now, I really can sue Microsoft when their operating system crashes... if I actually survive to do so.
Coderz 4 Life
While they won't ship with it, some cheep idiot is bound to buy a used model and use an old copy of ME instead of paying for Longhorn.
"Oh, I didn't know that it would cause me to crash!"
Stay off the roads!
Oh, and good double pun to the GP.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I have in fact nearly been been killed due to the effect of having two tires sand and two tires on pavement after a snow cleared and the road was dry. The brakes refused to engage because they asumed I was doing something stupid.
There is also an intersection in my town that many cars fail to stop at (it has a stop sign) because surface irregularities combined with the fact that it is on a steep downhill grade causes damn near every new car with ABS to studder but keep rolling until they are 1/2 a cars length past the beginning of the intersection.
I think ABS is an overall good thing (especially at highway speeds during emergency manuvers). But there are situations that I turn it off in my car. I have a switch wired to the fuse that controls the ABS in my car. (I drive on gravel a LOT, and I tend to drive like back when I used to rally as well)
I guess my point is this... You will NEVER have an uncrashable car on todays existing roads. Highways would need to be on a computer controlled Rail System.
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
Micro$oft trying to make something that can't crash is an oxymoron. I will never drive a Micro$oft car. A computer can't injure someone if it crashes. A car could kill people! I hope they ban Micro$oft cars. Maybe they will cost too much for anyone but Bill Gate$ to afford.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/04/ms_relocat es_switzerland/
The jokes just write themselves.
why doesn't ford work with microsoft to create computers that don't crash?
than kew, than kew.
I know you're out there, I can hear you sighing...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Cars will still crash. Machine is running a simulation - not reality. Did you see the car in the U.K. that jumped a roundabout berm and wound up embedded in the first-floor up from ground?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't know about your driving habits, but suddenly not seeing through the windshield would not exactly reduce my tension. :-)
In 25 years of trying, Microsoft has been unable to make a program that doesn't crash. But it didn't matter that much, because he only wrote stuff for hobbyists, stuff that no one who wasn't ignorant, stupid, or crazy would use for serious work.
Now, after 25 years of a perfect 000 batting average, he wants to try cars.
It sounds like he doesn't have any better grip on reality than Saddam Hussein. Quick, someone tell the Homeland Security Department that a fleet of Microsoft Autows could kill thousands.
Hopefully Bill's plan to take over the automotive industry supply chain will prevent any of the cars from actually being built.
-Anonymous Phil
Ford already has an Explorer model, this is a match made in heaven!
Meanwhile, somewhere far away in the universe, the space time continuum unravels just a little bit more...
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
I'd like to see a Beowulf cluster of those cars.
If your profitabilty hinges on paying a relatively small fee to Redhat then I think your company has far larger problems than what OS your servers function on.
but i can drive right?
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash. The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions."
/. unless the car drives itself, saying cars can't crash is about as true as saying windows never needs to be reinstalled. If they can drive themselves, I will never, ever, entrust that job to a microsoft product. The last thing I want is a fatal exception when I'm going 60 mph down the highway.
So according to microsoft, if you have high-def screens, speech recognition, cameras digital cameras, etc the car can't crash?????
Here's a clue, protect the driver from distractions so (s)he is focused on driving and not on all them blinking lights, then the car will have less reason to get into an accident.
Maybe I should RTFA, but from the heading on
Uhm, the 06's are already arriving on the lots. Or did you mean the 07's (which are already mostly through the R&D stage and nearly ready to go to production)?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Actually efax are not spammers. They are a legitimate software company who we do tonnes of business with. basically, they give you a number to have things faxed to and then they drop delightfully into your inbox.
actually we use them to drop faxes onto a website but hey.
they have a free version that is supported by ads too so its not like they have only a pay for product.
even the cheap can use their software.
anyways - NOT SPAMMERS
In the parent poster's scenario (choose between hitting children, a brick wall or a hill), a reasonable legal defense might be "I attempted to steer my car into the brick wall, but it overrode my decision and plowed into the children presumably because it was the softer cushion".
If the car decides how to react in a given situation, a certain level of responsibility is taken away from the driver. It certainly seems that along with this responsibility would go a portion of the liability. Since Microsoft and Ford both have deeper pockets, I look forward to them paying the lion's share of the judgement.
Bad for the children; bad for Ford and bad for Microsoft, but I might legally be in a better situation.
So long, and thanks for the fish!
as long as it's blue
I think I've seen this episode before...
Lenny: Look, Homer's got one of those new robot cars!
Carl: One of those American robot cars.
-Yim
How long before someone installs linux on it?
In an attempt to create brand recognition, theporn industry been working on many acronyms, and have finally settled on HDDP.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Not only will they continue to crash, they will
need you to take the battery off once a week to do a cold boot.<p>
Ford havn't made money in Europe for years, so whichever tard thought this up will be sure to
keep it that way.
A company infamous for crashing is going to help a car company NOT crash!? Sounds like the blind is leading someone who can see just fine.
The reason why cars crash is due to driver error (be it the person in said Ford or otherwise). How about better driver training and less annoying distractions from clippy over there.
Or maybe Microsoft wants to make crashes more acceptable so that they don't have to fix their software.
1. A robot must be operated with exclusively MS code.
2. A robot must obey orders given by permission of Bill Gates and his minions and no one else.
3. A robot must arrest any person or machine that attempts to force it to break the first or second law.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
who are you kidding ??
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Who said Asimov wasn't a prophet..
At least in the world of IT.
I can't wait for the digital calendar in my next car, though...
What I will hate is to buy the car, and get forced to upgrade the CarOS every second year... or it will just stop working.
Yes, but does it run Linux?
OK, any cracker can now write a virus and control the Ford's car, and create DoS attack to the already jammed roads, or creates attack to the while house... Oh. another backdoor for the terrorist...
It's Microsoft and Ford. It probably won't crash because it won't run.
.. how does this system integrate with my 1976 Chevy Nova, and how does it stop it from crashing into a crash proof ford?
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
focusing on an OS that doesn't crash!
"If your ABS came on, you were skidding, and you would not have stopped as fast if you didn't have ABS.
Not necessarily true. I saw a special once on cars that were tested with and without ABS brakes on a dry road. The same vehicle with the ABS brakes disabled consistently stopped faster than the same car with ABS brakes. It was another story for wet roads and/or icy conditions, where the ABS brakes helped a LOT to keep the test vehicles under control.
My lame blog.
but the engines will repeatedly stall and restart for no known reason.
I want my jokes back!
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
The computer control stuff is what allows cars to be as good as they are today.
Maybe you'd better define "today". The late 70's Dodge Diplomat / Chrysler Cordova's computerized ignition system couldn't live in the heat of an engine compartment. Within a few years, you couldn't get a new or used replacement. Around the same time there was a BMW or Mercedes that had problems with its ignition control module. The service routine was to whack the under-dash region of the module with a heavy mallet, which would usually reseat the offending controller. Computerization isn't the answer to every problem.
WHY? Why always Gates trumpeting some new innovation to the press who swallow it down hook line and sinker? Besides the fact that is already mentioned - if your computer isn't reliable, then why let the same company put their insights and innovation into your car? - why does Gates get so much press on this crap?
Perhaps it's because it's BILLY who has the RDF - so effective that unlike the other one, NOBODY can see through it?
No stop signs, speed limit
.
Nobody's gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody's gonna mess me around
She complains about our ABS on the van, claiming that it's pulling control away from her as it engages on ice. I've *tried* to explain that she's already lost control before they engaged, but . .
That's exactly why crash-avoidence override is scarier to me than all the time autopilot. Once things start going wrong, loosing control (especially in a new way) is really unnerving. Even if the machine is better at it, my subjective expirience is worse, and more so because the machine is only better most of the time.
I should also add, that I've seen a few drivers so bad that I can actually believe that 80% of drivers are above the mean average.
If you're not steering with all four wheels anyway, then you're not having fun yet. On gravel, accelerator and brakes can count as "steering".
You actually get more steerage locked up on gravel than locked up on bitumen. The tyres act like rudders, pushing the gravel aside. You're talking to a boy who lived at the end of a gravel road when he got his MDL.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Just as you don't want your auto gearbox to elect to shift halfway through a power slide, you don't want your braking system to radically alter your grip as you drift around a corner at 140k. The end result in both case is typically "hello, tree".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They cannot even build an OS that doesn't crash. Imagine a blue screen of death driving 65 down the highway, that might be a bit uncomfortable.
...you're trying to crash your car. Would you like help avoiding th <crunch!> " as the cement truck attempts to use your car as a trick ramp.
Computer-controlled cars, yes - under most circumstances - but letting Microsoft design and build the controls is, as the error message below says, "equivalent to slitting your wrists with a tape leader".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
As far as I can tell no one has mentioned this, but rear-view screen type ideas aren't good. When you're looking out at the road, your eyes are focused to infinity. When you look into the mirrors, they can stay focused to infinity. But if you look at a screen, your eyes will need to refocus, and that takes time, more than you think, especially for people with stigmatisms.
.:Semper Absurda:.
This is so scary it's not even funny! MS making a car that can't crash? They can't even make an OS that can't crash... and they've been doing it for years. Maybe they gave up on the OS challenge and decided to try something else...
Has the advantage of being aconymically accurate if the controlling software was written from the "I dumpster-dive for other people's (broken) code" Redmond Genius.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
But what will the drunks do when their car is suddenly infected with the SOBER virus?
Computers are faster than you are.
But they aren't nearly as smart or adaptable. When the computerized ignition in a Dodge Diplomat (or most any other car) has problems but still isn't completely dead, it will go into "limp home mode", which is barely functional. A guy in a Model T Ford with a hand-advance ignition would be able to beat you in a race. The old points and centrifugal advance ignition wasn't a bad solution for non-racing vehicles. It was simple, cheap, effective and reliable.
US auto companies only started using computerized ignitions to game the EPA emission tests cheaply, since the tests were done at certain RPMs, usually idle and a low range with no load, and the programmable ignitions could be made to do strange, emission-reducing things at certain known parameters. A toaster doesn't need a CPU, but Microsoft wishes you would ask for one so they could sell another license. After all, they are inspired by your need to make toast and will create software to assist you.
I guess at least in this case using Linux instead was a career-enhancing move.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Amazing a simple calandering application can stop your car from crashing.
Today's TODO list:
1. Pick up shopping.
2. Don't crash car.
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
Years ago my mom received an "unbreakable" bottle of mouthwash in the mail. Dubious of its claims, she shouted "Oh Yeah?" and proceeded to, in fact, break it, spilling its contents all over the front porch.
Something tells me it won't take long for some driver to doubt MS's claims and test out the noncrashability for themselves.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
(Just Too Late)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
crash
- Send a ping'o'death to the garage door?
- Lock all of the doors and call Microsoft tech support?
- Check on warez.dnspoisoner.ru for software updates?
- Accidentally use up a licence from your house computer?
- Change your gender or dye your hair?
Now would be a good time to fill out your registration card.Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"Lower your windows and turn down your music. Your geographical and musical distinctiveness will be added to our own. Steering is futile. You will be going to McDonalds."
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
Microsoft releases Windows that can't crash:-)
That's nice and all, but how will these technologies help cars to 'not crash'?
I happen to have a leaked support document relating to that very issue...
"Are you sure you were driving a genuine legally obtained MiFo product?"
"Was the other car also a genuine legally-obtained MiFo product?"
"Do you have your license key handy?"
"Did you use genuine MiFo gas?"
"Do you have a support account?"
"Were all products and accessories in the vehicle (cell phones, coffee cups etc.) genuine MiFo brand products?
"Would you like us to help you confirm that your vehicle and all its' contents are a genuine MiFo products?"
"Do you have a credit card handy?"
If the answer to any of the above questions is "No" explain that that is what is causing the problem.
If they answered "Yes" to every question say "Thank you for choosing MiFo. We hope you enjoyed your spontaneous extra-vehicular excursion. Please check our website for important updates and information."
are the ones that don't move?
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
I had a car that couldn't crash last year. I sold it for $50, though, to a guy with a tow truck.
Most cars actually come equipped with a "don't crash" lever...usually next to the driver's right hand. It has to be activated before the car starts, though.
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
"The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions."
Yeah, that's brilliant, don't make us crash, just give us more stuff to take our attention off of driving. Perhaps Microsoft should focus less on the side effects and more on the real problem How about efficiency? After all, if Operating Systems were automobiles, Windows would be a an SUV, high rollover rate, boxy shape, highly popular for no apparent reason, right down to the mileage.
I like losing arguments, it just means that I can take your point and make it my own.
I was around umich at the time 96-97, and I remember Gates saying this and pissing many people off. A GM based email 'leaked' saying some of these things.
But what will the drunks do when their car is suddenly infected with the SOBER virus?
The car drives them to AA, and they become good little cult members for the rest of their lives, "One Day At A Time."
Stop 0x0000000A or IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL (TechNet article) The Stop 0xA message indicates that a kernel-mode process or driver attempted to access a memory location to which it did not have permission, or at a kernel interrupt request level (IRQL) that was too high. A kernel-mode process can access only other processes that have an IRQL lower than, or equal to, its own. This Stop message is typically due to faulty or incompatible hardware or software.
Do NOT goto this URL http://www.forthesims.com
(For the ignorant, the NT-based US Navy ship that had to be towed back to port when NT crashed.)
Second new Ford motto: "Quality is Job - er, where's the Task Manager?"
"End Task"
"The program is not responding. Do you want to end the task?"
"Yes - that's why I clicked 'End Task' - you stupid fucking piece of shit...!"
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
National Association of Stock Car Auto Networking
which are supposed to be the safest and most fuel efficient ever made.
Then he said the jet's systems were Microsoft-based.
So I sent him an email asking: "What's wrong with this picture?" and referencing the Yorktown.
He replied that he was going to research that part some more, but he got the point.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Ford already has an Explorer model, this is a match made in heaven!
The Explorer Explorer.
Meanwhile, somewhere far away in the universe, the space time continuum unravels just a little bit more...
I'm sure it's being tied up and held together with spaghetti code.
I'm not really sure if I want a car with windows on it.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Until you really need them not to.
With proper and properly adjusted mirrors you can acheive a zero blind spot configuration.
Your state also thought it was safe to put an exploding device in your steering wheel that releases with the capacity to keep an unbelted occupant in the car in a 30mph crash.
Never mind that if such a device explodes in your face when it shouldn't have, you've now become a much bigger safety problem to others than you previously were to yourself.
And before you ask, YES, i do know of at least one accidental airbag deployment (stiff suspension + pothole == boom), and no, i don't have a link.
Your state also lets people operate a motor vehicle with no fundamental understanding of or experience with controlling understeer, oversteer, or panic braking.
I am not aware of any state in the US that has a driving program sufficiently rigorous to keep people from having accidents unless they never experience an unexpected condition.
In other words:
The state laws of Utah are not the oracle of accurcy on all matters of driving. There are plenty of really dumb laws out there. Do you think it's easier to tell people to look over their shoulder, or to explain how to adjust their mirrors on a variety of vehicles? The law suggests a course of action which is an improvement over not even looking, but it's not the ideal scenario.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
...how bout an OS that doesn't crash, Billy boy..?
Aside from the obvious "LMAO"s, "ROFL"s and "LOL"s that stem from the words "Microsoft" and "Automobile" or "Car" being in the same sentance...
Why don't they forget packing all of this shit in cars and start actually trying to fix REAL problems - like gas, which continues to rise in prices, and is about $2.05 per gallon (and that's cheap compared to some places). Put the research dollars where they are not only most needed, but most DEMANDED by consumers. Give me a frickin break!
Microsoft is in the business of creating operating systems, right? So now they're going to help create a car that can't crash?? How in the name of all things holy can they expect to pull that off if they can't even make an *operating system* that can't crash?
:-)
Maybe if MS is now in league with Detroit, that's the whole idea....
CA(r)NT r is silent
I prefer cars that don't have windows
"'Fatal error in steering.sys'? What the fuck does that mea-" screeeeeeeeeeeeechBOOM!
But seriously, I enjoyed the 65,535 comments on how MS should make an OS that can't crash before they start working on cars. Someone cough up another one and maybe we can roll it over (GET IT?! HA HA!)
I'm wondering what the EULA would be for such a car
As part of my work, I spend a lot of time writing software that detects and corrects errors in the way a farm of machines works. This is a rewarding and time-saving thing to do.
However, one cannot just take this idea and extrapolate it straight out to cars. If my software breaks and makes the wrong decision, the absolute worst thing it could do is probably frying the hard disk, which we can replace, format, and restore from backup. If software that prevents car crashes malfunctions and suggests, say, changing lanes into the path of an oncoming truck, it could actually increase the risk of an accident, especially if the driver has trust in it.
One might say to me that commercial passenger aircraft have been flying themselves for years and no one is complaining about that. But then one should ask oneself why said aircraft also carry not one but two pilots, retrained every few weeks, and not one but two sets of controls for each pilot. And even then, there are no traffic lights, lanes and drunk drivers in the air.
... from the company that brings software that can't crash!
Oh, wait...
My other post is a First.
Imagine a group of ten drivers. Assume that one driver (Jim) has had ten serious accidents. Assume that another one (Bob) has two convictions for speeding or some other form of unsafe driving. The rest have never had a crash or been convicted of anything.
In this group, the average is one accident and 0.2 convictions per driver. Since eight of the drivers in the group have no accidents and no convictions, those drivers (ie. 80%) can justifiably claim to be above-average drivers.
It doesn't take a *lot* of people to substantially lower an average - just a handful of really extreme cases. Be wary of confusing 'average' with 'normal' - most normal people have an above-average number of arms and legs. :)
-- Open Source: It's mad, but you don't have to work here to help.
For those people who just don't get irony (I'm looking West), here's a great example of it.
Shouldn't they start working on computers that can't crash first? Or even operating systems that can't crash - or Microsoft OS that can't crash...
I think Bill should slow down and try to work on creating a new "groundbreaking" operating system before he gets too carried away trying to create his ideals for a future ran entirely by computers! And like everyone else has said , you can't have a car that can't crash till you have software that can't crash!
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
That must be the secret to the not crashing thing...
Hey, I think I have a digital calendar somewhere...
I think I'll put that in my car and then I won't crash right?
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
Has been. Trust me on this one. But there is a mode before ploughing (which is basically the tyre bulldozing all before it) in which the tyre is not piling up (much) gravel in front of it, but is acting like a rudder.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I was on a train traveling from Manchester to London when the driver announced that we would be stopping at this station for a while while they rebooted the systems to try and restore power. The slightly more worrying thing is that first go didn't sort it - it took 3 more stops before things worked again.
Anyone know of a M$ powered train?
You can have your BSOD in any color you want, as long as it's blue.
Really? What part of the country? I've called all the Ford dealers in the New Orleans area...and they don't know when the Shelby Cobra versions (450 hp) are going to be in....
I'd really appreciate it if you could post a dealer name!!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Can you imagine downloading mp3s on your car and suddenly you get pulled over by the RIAA?
There are plenty of safe, economical vehicles available, people just don't care. SUVs rock, and that's the end of the argument.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Read the EULA. Forget the lawsuits. You should not have used the software for any critical application and agreed to indemnify the maker by starting the car.
Of course, the EULA will really prove its worth to Microsoft when in a flurry of random happenstance and total coincidence, on the same day multiple Ford cars repeatedly run over and kill, Richard Stallman, Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez, Michael Robertson, Senator Maria Cantwell, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Neelie Kroes, Judge Bo Vesterdorf, Rob Glazer, Luiz Inacio da Silva, Steve Jobs, etc.
Snow builds up in front of a locked wheel and causes your car to slow faster without ABS. However in every other case, unless you are a trained driver of the level that you could compete in F-1 or Indycar or WRC, you cannot out brake the ABS system. Studies have been done. The biggest problem with ABS is people who try to modulate it. If you have ABS and need to stop fast, JAM THAT PEDAL TO THE FLOOR. Let ABS handle the modulation. That is what it is there for. Another study says that the average person gets uncomfortable and feels unsafe when the apparent G force on them exceeds .4g. The average car is capable of lateral acceleration of over .7g. Let your ABS work and use your steering wheel. It will save you. Go in a large parking lot on a Sunday or evening and practice this. It will save your life.
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
That's what your JooJunta Peril-Sensitive CoolGuy (tm) sunglasses are for.
At the first hint of danger, they turn totally opaque, thereby preventing you from seeing anything which might further alarm you.
Aw, nuts.
nobody could change into your lane (without signalling) and _then_ slam on the brakes. So now in addition to a conservative following distance, you also need a conservative following distance behind any cars in lanes adjacent to you.
i cleId=104950
And thus still doesn't solve the problem of you looking the wrong way when a tree falls in the roadway, or any other variety of problems.
Also, at extremely slow speeds the argument falls apart because following distance is more dominated by human reaction time than vehicle speed, i.e. you could safely stop NO PROBLEM if you were looking where you were supposed to, but continuing to drive at 5-10mph for an additional second would cause you to rear end somebody.
And old people never veer the car to the left as they look left over their shoulder.
It's a bad habit. The driver-car interface has the general property that the car tends to go where the driver is looking. Try looking straight sideways sometime and see where in the lane your car is after a few seconds of that. Now try doing it while the road turns.
Let me say this again: the advice you get for a normal licensing test is insufficient. Just because you couldn't find anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist - read any books on competitive driving or talk to any people that instruct at driving schools - they'll tell you just what i have.
Also, you didn't look very hard:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/art
search for the word "mirror"
My wife has been in at least one stop-and-go accident that could have been avoided if she'd been looking ahead instead of over her shoulder. It was not an issue of tailgating either, since she (like many people) are very anxious about following distance.
Suppose taht you're in busy traffic and you need to make a lane change. You look over your shoulder and, it looks clear but at the last second someone dives into that lane so you have to abort your lane attempt. Technically you should look forward now, but what many drivers so is continue looking into the lane to see when the next "hole" appears. This takes a quick lane change and turns it into a long one.. the driver has no idea what has happened ahead of them.
I would postulate that the number of accidents that result from someone rear ending a car whilst looking over their shoulder (even with an appropriate following distance) is higher than the number of accidents that result from someone making a lane change with properly adjusted mirrors. the latter situation is entirely more avoidable as well, by the way. Once you realize you're going to rear end someone, it's basically up to adhesion physics and you've become a passenger instead of a driver (unless you have the presence of mind to have an exit strategy and the skills to apply it).
When you make a lane change that you shouldn't have (Because you didn't see a car in your rear 3/4 view or whatever)
a) they know its coming (your signal)
b) they're "mostly" behind you (if not all the way behind you), making a braking avoidance more effective on their part
c) they're not going rapidly faster than you (because doing so is unsafe and typically illegal)
d) they can lane split with you and the shoulder (or a foot or so of the next lane) while doing avoidance.
The potential accident from a shoulder check (rear ending someone) is a) harder to avoid b) more damaging c) always your fault
the potential accident from an improper lane change is a) easier to avoid b) less damaging c) depends on the circumstances.. if i lane change into someone doing 120, im not sure the judge will fault me for not doing a shoulder check (in the USA)
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
i'm certainly no expert, i'm just less ignorant than some people, as i've had some extra education above and beyond what is typical.
:)
:)
in general, on a safe car the _ability_ of the car to brake should be dictated by the tires, not the brakes.
Said another way, at _any_ speed you ought to be able to lock up your brakes (eventually) if you push on them hard enough. Very, very few cars pass that test from the factory. You should find an empty stretch of road and practice maximum braking, and see how long and hard you have to press on the brake before you acheive wheel lockup or ABS engagement. if you're waiting a long time, your brakes are insufficient for your tires.
Once your tires cannot provide any more adhesive force, additional engine braking or pushing of the brake pedal wont help. In the case of engine braking you can actually get yourself in bad shape doing this. Here's an example from a long time ago, before i had taken any driver training
i was driving an old 80 BMW 528i (5 speed stick, rear wheel drive). The rear tires were reasonably bad and it was extra slick from a first-rain-in-a-while sort of situation. I was driving straight and downshifted from 2nd to 1st. I was travelling such that my 1st gear rpm would be around 5000 rpm (no problem for this motor) but i didn't do any rev matching or anything of that nature.. i just slammed the car in first and let up on the clutch abruptly.
The force required to spin the engine up to 5000 rpm via reverse-load through the drive train was more than the tires grip. Simply downshifting abruptly broke the rear wheels loose and the rear end came around about 30 degrees before i pushed the clutch back in and counter steered. This was going straight at like 30mph on a city street!
In a racing situation downshifting is only done in conjunction with rev matching, as the problem i experienced is magnified.. as cars are always near the edge of the tires adhesive limits. A downshift that puts more load on the drive wheels (the tire also now must provide force to spin up the engine) will slip and send the car sliding. rev matching ensures that the engine is already at the proper speed for the new lower gear so that no new load is added to the tire as the clutch is disengaged. it also makes the shifts buttery smooth and fast, and doesn't upset the balance of the car.
in a panic braking situation, don't downshift because you wont have time. you should be on the brakes as hard as possible whilst not skidding (or, just mash the pedal if you have ABS) when you get very advanced, you can perform what is called "heel and toe" whereby you operate the clutch and gas pedal whilst maintaining threshhold braking force, by using the clutch as normal with the left foot and using the right edge or heel of your braking foot to "blip" the gas pedal so that your downshift is revmatched and you dont unbalance the car. Experienced drivers in heavy braking zones will get on the brakes fully and then do 2 -3 rev-matched downshifts where they must operate all 3 pedals with 2 feet, all while maintaining 95% or better of the maximum braking force the car will develop.
as far as is it safe for the car...
when you slow down a car, you're converting KE into heat (and sound)
That heat can end up in your brake components, which are designed to be easy to replace cheaply and often have vents and ducts for heat dissapation.
Or, that heat can be disappated in yoru transmission and engine, which are difficult and expensive to replace.
You make the call
When i need to really slow down, i use the brakes and rev match my downshifts to keep the engine in its power band, so that if need to rapidly transition from braking to accelerating, i am prepared to do so. I dont think i'm doing any real engine braking while doing this. I will occasionally downshift to "gradually" slow down but again it's more because i want the car in the proper gear if i need to get back o
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
So what happens when u try to start the car and the task manager comes up
"this program is not responding, if you choose to end task now u may lose any unsaved data, would u like to end the task?"
What do u do then?