Google Gets Driverless License For Nevada Roads

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Gets Driverless License For Nevada Roads

Posted by Unknown on Monday May 7, 2012 @10:50AM from the but-officer-the-car-was-driving dept.

Fluffeh writes "On Monday, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles approved Google's license application to test autonomous vehicles on the state's roads. The state had approved such laws back in February, and has now begun issuing licenses based on those regulations. The state previously outlined that companies that want to test such vehicles will need an insurance bond of $1 million and must provide detailed outlines of where they plan to test it and under what conditions. Further, the car must have two people in it at all times, with one behind the wheel who can take control of the vehicle if needed. The Autonomous Review Committee of the Nevada DMV is supervising the first licensing procedure and has now approved corresponding plates to go with it, complete with a red background and infinity symbol."

215 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Google Beta by Vectone · 2012-05-07 10:50 · Score: -1, Flamebait

With Google's insistence to label pretty much all of their projects as "beta" to avoid liability, I think this is a very dangerous project. We are not talking about something like email hosting or fun things like YouTube here - we are talking about vehicles that can, and do kill people. Not only people inside the car, but other people too.

On top of this we can think about Google's history of privacy violations. It's obvious they are trying to gain something from this and with their style and business practices, it probably means something that outright violates your and everyone else's privacy. I was already shocked when I read about Google Goggles and the way the device works. It doesn't process the image on the device itself but instead sends it to Google's servers. Combined with Google's facial recognition technology and patent, Google Goggles will give the company outstanding amount of living world and meatspace data.

Now I can only guess that Google is trying to expand their privacy violations to roads, driving habits and your everyday life.
1. Re:Google Beta by cheater512 · 2012-05-07 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Err 1 million dollar bond just for the licence? Shill much?
2. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 10:56 · Score: -1
  
  Paranoid much?
3. Re:Google Beta by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-07 10:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Fortunately beta car are not allowed on roads, or else every car manufacturer would claim their car is a beta version and get away with it. Go shill elsewhere.
4. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Google is trying to find the next massive source of money. Driverless cars can and will change the world in addition to making billions of dollars for those involved. Google wants to be involved in that.
  But you've figured it out. Because gmail said "beta" a bit too long...the driverless cars suck and will murder people.
  You're a useless anti-google shill.
5. Re:Google Beta by 0123456 · 2012-05-07 11:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I wonder who's going to be immortalised as the first person to be killed by a computer-controlled car?
6. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Paranoid" does not mean "more concerned than I am". And yes, that is what you were saying.
7. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-07 11:05 · Score: 3
  
  Having seen the way most humans drive, I trust the Google'mobile much more than my bio-brethren.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
8. Re:Google Beta by Vectone · 2012-05-07 11:08 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  So why the hell do we allow Google to release non-working beta software on the internet? Why do we allow them to blatantly violate our privacy and sell our information to advertisers? It's time for the government(s) to step in and do something about them. Google needs to be shutdown, or at least they need to be made to change their blatantly obvious and abusive business. And if they refuse, the CEO's and higher level people need to be put for jail for their violations. Just like we need to revamp the banking industry and held people responsible for their abusive practices.
9. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ahem...
10. Re:Google Beta by DragonWriter · 2012-05-07 11:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  With Google's insistence to label pretty much all of their projects as "beta" to avoid liability
  "Beta" has no direct effect on legal liability. It mainly exists to manage customer expectations about feature stability and functionality.
  And, anyway, its not something they do that much anymore.
  Plus, posting a $1 million bond liability bond is a strange thing to do to "avoid liability".
  
  On top of this we can think about Google's history of privacy violations. It's obvious they are trying to gain something from this
  
  I think there are lots of really obvious ways you could "gain something" from driverless vehicle technology that don't involve privacy violations.
  Starting with licensing driverless vehicle technology to vehicle manufacturers.
  
  I was already shocked when I read about Google Goggles and the way the device works.
  
  Google Goggles isn't a device at all, its software that's available for various devices.
  
  It doesn't process the image on the device itself but instead sends it to Google's servers.
  Uh, yeah, it advertises itself as an image-based version of search. Next thing you are going to be surprised that the Google Search app doesn't do the search locally on your device, but sends the search terms to Google's servers.
  
  Combined with Google's facial recognition technology and patent, Google Goggles will give the company outstanding amount of living world and meatspace data.
  "living world" and "meatspace" are the same thing.
  And it would give them the same amount of information as with the facial recognition technology without the patent, which is a red herring.
  
  Now I can only guess that Google is trying to expand their privacy violations to roads, driving habits and your everyday life.
  So? Aside from revealing your personal biases, what value do you think your unsubstantiated guess in this area provides?
11. Re:Google Beta by poity · 2012-05-07 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  First person to sue for Google-induced-whiplash will be much earlier
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
12. Re:Google Beta by MrMista_B · 2012-05-07 11:14 · Score: 2
  
  And what, exactly, makes you think you have any privacy, or expectation of any privacy, on public roads?
13. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:16 · Score: -1
  
  Go away you fucking worthless shill. People like you should be shot.
14. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  In a way, that is *also* what I am saying. Read the post from OP and tell me that isn't paranoid.
  "It's obvious they are trying to gain something from this and with their style and business practices, it probably means something that outright violates your and everyone else's privacy."
  Google goes out does something that no other company was willing to explore, and this undoubtedly will cost them billions in R&D. Of course they are going to try to gain something from this. OP must be living in some dream world where companies do these things for free.
  "Now I can only guess that Google is trying to expand their privacy violations to roads, driving habits and your everyday life."
  Like I said, paranoid much?
15. Re:Google Beta by DragonWriter · 2012-05-07 11:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So why the hell do we allow Google to release non-working beta software on the internet?
  
  Because:
  (1) Google's "non-working Beta software" often works better than software from other companies that purports to be ready for general release,
  (2) For most software purposes on the internet, there isn't the kind of immediate public safety concern that justifies regulation of what vehicles are allowed on public roadways.
  
  Why do we allow them to blatantly violate our privacy and sell our information to advertisers? It's time for the government(s) to step in and do something about them.
  Insofar as thee have been actual credible accusations of privacy violations at Google, governments -- both in the EU and the US -- have stepped in.
  If you have information on cases where that has not occurred, you should provide specifics, rather than vague handwringing.
  Though, preferably, in an appropriate place -- even if you had a point, without some nexus beyond a connection to the same company, it would still be off-topic in a thread on Google's driverless car technology.
  
  Google needs to be shutdown, or at least they need to be made to change their blatantly obvious and abusive business. And if they refuse, the CEO's and higher level people need to be put for jail for their violations.
  As a pretty firm believer in the principal of legality as opposed to the rule of lynch mobs, I'd like to see some credible evidence that the "CEO's and higher level people" actually committed offenses for which jailing is the punishment prescribed by law before accepting that they ought to be put in jail.
16. Re:Google Beta by Githaron · 2012-05-07 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use Google's services?
17. Re:Google Beta by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-07 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  I hate these practices too. But google is hardly alone on this. Pretty much every software I have used has a disclaimer that say, there is no guarantee that the software will work and they are not liable for any damages.
  
  I hope the FTC takes interest and clamps down hard on such practices.
  
  I see you are still singling out Google. You just confirmed that you are a shill.
18. Re:Google Beta by joggle · 2012-05-07 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  Google has been testing fully autonomous cars in the Bay area for years without any incidents. I would hardly call it 'beta' in the sense of beta software. There's also a requirement that two people be in the car while it's running. It's not as if Google will let hundreds of these cars out on the streets of Nevada with nobody inside to stop them. Not only will Google have $1 million in liability coverage, the lives of two of their own employees per vehicle will be on the line. I'm not too worried about them getting in accidents (at least not of their own fault).
19. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  you do realize that it's not even possible to do the processing on the Goggles, right?
20. Re:Google Beta by vux984 · 2012-05-07 11:25 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use Google's services?
  Since when is "gun to the head" the standard by which these things are judged anyway?
  Is the TSA putting a gun to my head. No. I can choose not to ever leave my house. Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet.
  And if I want to avoid the TSA and Google I guess I might as well live in a cave. But its completely my choice not to live in a cave... nobody put a gun to my head. /facepalm
  That said, I for one like using the internet.
  And you have to take some pretty significant effort to avoid leaving an imprint of yourself on google's stuff.
  You aren't private by default, which is as it should be.
21. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's not as beta as you think. The google car has already completed 200,000 miles without accident.
22. Re:Google Beta by ChatHuant · 2012-05-07 11:31 · Score: 2
  
  And what, exactly, makes you think you have any privacy, or expectation of any privacy, on public roads?
  I think the answer has already been given by the SCOTUS in the warrantless GPS tracking case: see here for details. The SCOTUS decided that, even though drivers used public roads, the amount of tracking the police was doing was orders of magnitude above the normal expectation for a public place, both in individual tracking and in the sheer number of trackers that could be active simultaneously. Of course, the decision in this case applies to governments, but I believe the same arguments work identically for the Google car.
23. Re:Google Beta by Bucky24 · 2012-05-07 11:34 · Score: 2
  
  Considering how people drive around here I can't see how a driverless car can be any worse...
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
24. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-07 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Having seen the way most humans drive, I trust the Google'mobile much more than my bio-brethren.
  Uh, yeah, wait until version 3 before you put that much faith behind it.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
25. Re:Google Beta by Majkow · 2012-05-07 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  bin laden also tried living in a cave but he prefered a house. his computer also didn't have access to the internet. and he was still tracked down my google analytics.
26. Re:Google Beta by BasilBrush · 2012-05-07 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  No. And I don't use them any more. However that doesn't mean Google has stopped spying on me. Their analytics spyware is embedded in sites all over the net. There's no avoiding it, without giving up the WWW.
27. Re:Google Beta by BasilBrush · 2012-05-07 11:39 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Thankfully those aren't the only choices we're going to get. Other more trustworthy companies will also be developing driverless car systems.
28. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Software is released with no warranty because mostly nobody is willing to pay for better software (except for a few industries like oil, etc, where a software failure can cost billions). Given the options of cheap or good, people will choose cheap.
29. Re:Google Beta by Endovior · 2012-05-07 11:40 · Score: 2
  
  Smart money is a drunk driver, who does something far too stupid for the computer to compensate for, and dies after hitting the thing.
30. Re:Google Beta by letherial · 2012-05-07 11:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet."
  better yet, you can use the internet but choose not to use any of googles services
  there are lots of search engines....google it if you dont belive me.
31. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure the GP meant Project Glass, not Google Googles.
32. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  Where have I seen uids just like yours?
33. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-07 11:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What version do you think it's in currently? They've they've clocked nearly 150k miles on this system. For reference, that's over 50 trips from San Fran to NY, NY.
  Or if you'd prefer, about 20 complete laps around the perimeter of the lower 48.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
34. Re:Google Beta by espiesp · 2012-05-07 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Because it's FREE, just like the USA. So go fuck yourself.
35. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-07 12:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  While I don't share the paranoid viewpoints of some, your argument fails from the outset. Google may not be holding a gun to my head, but a poorly designed AI car can certainly cause as much damage as a pistol (if not more) Let alone the damage that could be caused if poorly designed AI cars achieve fleet numbers.
  That said, I trust Google on this one (well, Google plus the powers that be along the approval process) Putting out a shoddy product in this venture would cause a Torches and Pitchforks riot the likes of which haven't been seen in my lifetime. And Google knows it.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
36. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot's under attack from the shills!
  http://slashdot.org/~Katakee (#2632925)
  http://slashdot.org/~Katakaa (#2632969)
  http://slashdot.org/~Vectone (#2633883)
37. Re:Google Beta by yurtinus · 2012-05-07 12:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, why the hell do you use Google's non-working beta software when you can find released software on the Internet? Why the hell do you give them your personal information to sell to advertisers? It's time for *YOU* to step in and do something about them.
  
  Good God man, nobody is forcing Google on you.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
38. Re:Google Beta by stephanruby · 2012-05-07 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  I bet it will be someone in the Middle East.
39. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-07 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  And so you think it'll have exactly the same track record when there's a million of these on the road?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
40. Re:Google Beta by misexistentialist · 2012-05-07 12:09 · Score: 2
  
  What answer? Attaching devices to your car was obviously illegal! How about the real problem: plate readers, which can easily achieve total surveillance of road traffic. But a ruling against those would raise questions about the millions of other government cameras monitoring the public. And at this point questioning those is simply not going to be allowed.
41. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Just like we need to revamp the banking industry and held people responsible for their abusive practices.
  I see what you did there. How does it feel to be so completely out of control? To be so angry that you're out of control that you froth and piss and moan, wring your hands and clench your teeth.
  And then fire up a browser and use Google's services anyway. Hypocrite.
42. Re:Google Beta by interkin3tic · 2012-05-07 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought you were a shill, until I heard this was managed by the same system that is managing google voice. Even computers should not be texting while driving.
  
  (Disclaimer: I did not hear that. It was a lame joke.)
43. Re:Google Beta by Black.Shuck · 2012-05-07 12:17 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder who's going to be immortalised as the first person to be killed by a computer-controlled car?
  Anyone know the immortal name of the first person to be killed by a person-controlled car?
44. Re:Google Beta by Centurix · 2012-05-07 12:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Goolash. Another fine dish tainted.
  
  --
  Task Mangler
45. Re:Google Beta by vux984 · 2012-05-07 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  there are lots of search engines....google it if you dont belive me.
  Every time you visit a website with google ads you are tracked.
  Every time you visit a site with google analytics you get tracked.
  Any time you visit any of a gazillion sites with youtube content embedded.... you get tracked.
  Every time you exchange an email with someone who uses gmail, (or any other domain hosted by google apps).
  Every time someone you know uploads their contact list with your email address in it to google+ or gmail... they can build a ghost social network profile on you. (Facebook does this too...)
  Everytime you phone or text message someone who uses an android... actually... i'm just speculating on that one, but if android users can't review their call history, voice and text messages via their google account today... I'd expect it soon.
  Avoiding google on the internet isn't nearly as simple as simply not using their search engine. ... Google it if you don't beleive me.
46. Re:Google Beta by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-05-07 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  except gps is probably an integral part of the nav system of the driverless cars, and to avoid and anti privacy claims to use the car it will probably have clause in what ever you sign when you buy the car that you accept their tracking you.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
47. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, Mary Ward
48. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  About a year ago I recall seeing a youtube video of a guy who happened to be behind one of the google cars as it was driving down the street. Suddenly for no apparent reason the google car slams on its brakes and the guy behind him barely avoided slamming into the rear of him. The google car then continues to drive like nothing happened.
49. Re:Google Beta by legont · 2012-05-07 12:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well... I do; for the US that is.
  
  It was Henry Bliss. He was a real estate agent in NY (no surprise here), killed by a taxicab (still no surprise).
  
  What is interesting, it was an electric car. We got to stay with gas just for the sake of children. http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2011/09/0913first-us-pedestrian-killed-by-car/
50. Re:Google Beta by Kjella · 2012-05-07 13:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why would he be particularly immortalized? For example if you're looking for the first human to be killed by robots, you don't have to wait for "I, robot" to become reality as that happened already back in 1979. Doesn't mean that robots have went away, people are quite regularly maimed or killed for neglecting safety zones, getting caught in presses and grinders and such. My prediction is that the first person killed by a computer-controlled car will be a Darwin Award winner that would have been killed by a human driver too, had there been one. Don't get me wrong, a computer-controller car won't be better than the people who programmed it and it surely will have bugs, but that one can be refined and get better whereas today every year we let loose a new generation of unskilled teens on the road.
  Perhaps the best analogy is healthcare, you know those life-and-death situations you'd think keep everyone on their toes constantly. Well, nurses and doctors are humans too and they make mistakes, not often but they do. Electronic systems that make sure people always get the right medication in the right dosage at the right time, that they don't get dangerous combinations or medicines they're allergic to has helped save lives. Start counting the times the system corrects the nurses versus the times the nurses corrects the system and you'll find out who is actually the more important part of the two.
  And that's why I think computer driven cars will win out in the end, they will always stick to protocol. They'll obey all speed limits, keep distance to those in front, always change lanes cleanly, always signal, always yield, always drive defensively and eventually all the accidents that don't happen because a human was tired or angry or sloppy or fiddling with the radio or his phone or whatnot will outperform the "creative" thinking capability of humans. Our ability to make good split-second decisions in an emergency situation is overrated, not to mention the choices are rather limited to break, turn and possibly in a few situations give gas. Many people panic and actually make it worse than just slamming the brakes.
  I expect these cars also will have the ability to record near-accidents which you can use for analysis, you don't actually have to have an accident. Here we just managed to perform an emergency brake for a pedestrian who suddenly walked out into the road, could we have done better? Was our response optimal given the data we had? I see a whole new level of preventive improvement possible here. There's no significant learning for me from having one incident every decade, but if you can collect thousands of situations from millions of drivers it can learn to handle the 0.01% situations that we never have any training for or guidelines for what to do.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
51. Re:Google Beta by similar_name · 2012-05-07 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  I hope the FTC takes interest and clamps down hard on such practices.
  I hope not. FTC regulations would lock out smaller players and strengthen larger ones.
52. Re:Google Beta by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-07 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  BS. My business would definitely pay for software that was guaranteed to work error free or at least guaranteed not to produce incorrect results.
53. Re:Google Beta by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-07 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  150k miles, they say, under conditions we don't know but they controlled.
54. Re:Google Beta by giorgist · 2012-05-07 13:25 · Score: 2
  
  Aren't all cars computer controlled to some level. What is fly by wire ? There is GPS, obstacle avoidance ... What about Volvos embarrassing video
  
  Effectively creating a moral hazard where people will less likely to be be careful in how they drive or walk.
  
  Pedestrian Detection with Full Auto Brake
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voz4dosVGSM
  
  But in the first demo
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ZwS9izm4E
55. Re:Google Beta by Baloroth · 2012-05-07 13:38 · Score: 2
  
  No, I don't, because I opt out through the use of Ghostery (I do use GMail, though, but all those parts are exactly identical to any other third-party email host). As far as the Android thing goes: I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed if they did that. You know, given that they make the source available and you can get root access on many of the phones and all that.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
56. Re:Google Beta by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-05-07 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  to avoid and anti privacy claims to use the car it will probably have clause in what ever you sign when you buy the car that you accept their tracking you.
  While likely true, that doesn't immunize google, or anyone else, from criticism for doing it.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
57. Re:Google Beta by edremy · 2012-05-07 13:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In all seriousness, this (and other insurance fraud) won't be an issue. The cars are instrumented to the gills, and I'm sure in the case of any accident they can dump the data to show that what the person is claiming is impossible.
  My personal feeling is that insurance rates are going to drive the adoption of self driving cars. Once the insurance companies realize that they have a lower error rate than humans (never tired, drunk, distracted, etc) and that they can tell who was at fault in an accident (almost certainly the other guy) you'll see serious incentives to keep cars in auto-drive.
  
  --
  "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
58. Re:Google Beta by galluk · 2012-05-07 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder who's going to be immortalised as the first person to be killed by a computer-controlled car?
  John Connor?
59. Re:Google Beta by vux984 · 2012-05-07 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, I don't, because I opt out through the use of Ghostery
  Which aligns with what i said -- that you have to make a pretty serious effort to avoid being tracked.
  (I do use GMail, though, but all those parts are exactly identical to any other third-party email host)
  Yes and no. Mostly no. When you sign up with gmail you add your data points to the largest advertising and data mining company on the planet. They have their tendrils in everything.
  Your data point is integrated with everything else.
  When you sign up for a free webmail account with rinkydink-hosting-inc your datapoint is all they have to work with.
  Even if rinkydink were every bit as dedicated to invading your privacy as google is, they simply don't have anywhere near the same reach.
  Scale matters. Being caught on some tourists vacation photos is irrelevant. But having every camera in the country send its pictures to one database with facial recognition is a massive invasion of privacy.
  Rinkydink webmail is a tourists camera. Google is the country spanning camera infrastructure. Don't pretend they are the same just because they both took your picture.
60. Re:Google Beta by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-05-07 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  and if it is an industry standard to require it than they will be the same as everyone else so critising them would be pointless
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
61. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  and if it is an industry standard to require it than they will be the same as everyone else so critising them would be pointless
  (A) No it wouldn't. Just because everybody else is jumping off the bridge doesn't mean you have to agree to jump too.
  (B) There is no industry for driverless cars yet.
62. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is called no-script download it and use it and you wont have any trouble avoiding google's nefarious monitoring. If you miss the functionality that google provides then kill yourself please. No one is going to provide all the functionality and ability to generate revenue on free content without something in return.
63. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  And, as mentioned above:
  http://slashdot.org/~Jamestos/ (2633863)
  http://slashdot.org/~Miskaata/ (2633855)
64. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  You can (pay for people to) formally prove the code works (according to the specification, that is; getting the specification right is a different problem). It's expensive and probably not worth it if the critical code is not very, very short/simple. An alternative is to run different (and independent, made by a separate team) implementations on different hardware, hoping the majority (e.g. 2 of 3) will get the (same) correct answer, or at least not give the exact same wrong result (i.e. it's the same technique used to detect hardware faults).
65. Re:Google Beta by ultranova · 2012-05-07 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  They'll obey all speed limits, keep distance to those in front, always change lanes cleanly, always signal, always yield, always drive defensively
  
  And by "always" you mean "until a manufacturer realizes that you can get ahead by trusting other automated cars to err on the side of caution", right? And pretty soon we're having automated cars trying to drive as agressively as possible as yet another demonstration of the tragedy of the commons.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
66. Re:Google Beta by hot+soldering+iron · 2012-05-07 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  I understand your aversion to Google knowing everything about you, but you can soon lay your fears to rest. Once CISPA is law, you'll have absolutely no privacy anymore, even if you totally avoid Google. Companies will have total legal shielding about sharing your information with any government agency that asks for it. Even your local dog catcher will be able to find out anything they want about you.
  Feel better now? No more worries about Google!
  
  --
  When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
67. Re:Google Beta by Chuck+Chunder · 2012-05-07 15:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I wonder who's going to be immortalised as the first person to be killed by a computer-controlled car?
  That sounds like the opposite of being immortalised.
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
68. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  They'll obey all speed limits, keep distance to those in front, always change lanes cleanly, always signal, always yield, always drive defensively
  Will they *finally* get rid of gawker slowdowns and sun-up/sunset slowdowns too?
69. Re:Google Beta by Gumbercules!! · 2012-05-07 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  I used to think that every time someone posted "shill", etc they were just being paranoid but seriously, this is just now getting beyond a joke.
  
  You have 6 posts - all of them anti Google, on a brand new account. Honestly; how dumb do you astroturfers think people are?? If you're getting paid to do this, you're wasting your client's money. At least try and be vaguely opaque about what you're doing. Posts like this are an insult to our collective intelligence and a complete waste of your time and resources.
  
  It also lowers the general opinion of the likely candidates for cliency (i.e. Microsoft), so it's not only failed in the primary purpose of making people question Google - it's also made us more likely to automatically defend Google simply to shut you down and it's also made people even more distrustful of Microsoft (because it's easy to put 1 and 1 together and notice the plethora of anti-Google posts coupled with the pro Windows phone posts from similar accounts).
  
  Please stop this crap because you're wasting everyone's time and damaging your own client in the process.
70. Re:Google Beta by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-07 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  How would you like it if we put you in jail for blantantly obvious and abusive use of the Internet?
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
71. Re:Google Beta by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-07 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  Please do.
  Starting with here.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
72. Re:Google Beta by InspectorGadget1964 · 2012-05-07 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  You don't have much to worry about, unless you own a petrol station. Think about that car going in to fill up. Without a driver, who is going to pay the bill?
73. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  An improbably sexy researcher chick. Saw it on NCIS.
74. Re:Google Beta by jkflying · 2012-05-07 18:11 · Score: 2
  
  150k miles on real roads.
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
75. Re:Google Beta by letherial · 2012-05-07 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  People have been tracked through methods since way before 'google it' became a catch phrase..You seem to be against the system, this differs from being against the top players in the system. On your thinking, you simply cannot exists because everyone is tracked, one way or another, you cannot remove yourself from this system without very drastic changes to lifestyle, the internet being the least of your problems
  Infact, the internet can be completely anonymous if you know what your doing; but im not here to give a education course on privacy. im here to say
  Tracking is a reality of commerce now, well it always has been, the internet makes it easier...you cannot do commerce and not be apart of this system.
  and
  You can safely and anonymously search the web, use e-mail, and other legal and illegal uses.
76. Re:Google Beta by tbird81 · 2012-05-07 21:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ahhh, the kilomile. Glad to see metric catching on.
  For those interested there's 52 800 000 centifeet in a kilomile, and 83 milliinches in a microfoot.
77. Re:Google Beta by Robert+Zenz · 2012-05-08 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  But that wasn't that car per se! It was a program hidden in a hidden partition of the BIOS...or at least so I remember it...well at least that time they didn't try to partition the RAM!
78. Re:Google Beta by Robert+Zenz · 2012-05-08 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Can you give us a car-analogy for that?
79. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why would he be particularly immortalized? For example if you're looking for the first human to be killed by robots, you don't have to wait for "I, robot" to become reality as that happened already back in 1979.
  Perhaps you don't know what immortalized means. You've already demonstrated why that person would likely be immortalized. You've found an article about the first person to be killed by a robot. The first person killed by an automated car will likely also have many an article written about him.
80. Re:Google Beta by damien_kane · 2012-05-08 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  Can you give us a car-analogy for that?
  According to Google; 150 000 mi = 241 401.6 kilometers
  According to Wikipedia; A new-style VW beetle is 4.129m (4129mm)
  
  A bit of calculation shows that this Google Autonomous Car has driven the length of about 58.5 million VW beetles
81. Re:Google Beta by Thugthrasher · 2012-05-08 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  And by "always" you mean "until a manufacturer realizes that you can get ahead by trusting other automated cars to err on the side of caution", right? And pretty soon we're having automated cars trying to drive as agressively as possible as yet another demonstration of the tragedy of the commons.
  How would they "get ahead" by doing that? I don't see why programming your car to go faster than the speed limit, or not doing ANY of the things parent mentioned, could benefit the company in any way. My guess would be that it would be illegal to sell a car that did that (similar to how it is illegal to do a lot of those things for human drivers), so advertising that your car did that would be out of the question. It likely wouldn't be any cheaper to design that way.
  
  If you're talking about skimping on collision detection/avoidance, then after their first car gets into an accident that could have been avoided, you can bet that the company will be losing enough business to make up for any money they saved by doing that.
  
  So what is to gain for the company, again?
82. Re:Google Beta by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-08 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately beta car are not allowed on roads, or else every car manufacturer would claim their car is a beta version and get away with it. Go shill elsewhere.
  You're completely and entirely incorrect. Manufacturers test pre-production vehicles on roads, and that's exactly what Google's doing here.
83. Re:Google Beta by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-08 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Every time you visit a website with google ads you are tracked.
  You mean those Google ads that I block using Adblock Plus?
  
  Every time you visit a site with google analytics you get tracked.
  You mean that Google Analytics junk that I block using NoScript?
  Again, who forced you to use Gmail or buy an Android phone? Nobody. Your problem isn't that your data is being mined, it's that other people don't care as much as you do. Boo fucking hoo. Keep ranting on the interwebs, though, I'm sure that you'll soon convince everyone how evil Google is...
  Avoiding Google on the internet is as simple as installing a couple plugins and not using any of their services. You're not helpless and you know it. Instead of ranting, instead, why not instruct people how to use those tools?
84. Re:Google Beta by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  While the worries are somewhat understandable, I think people are becoming a little hysterical over this. There have been dangerous "death-trap" cars on the roads since the beginning of the automobile. Clearly it is a danger that society is willing to accept, and AI controlled vehicles will be no different. People were terrified of the first cars on the road, too, and we laugh about that shit now, just as I'm sure our children and grand-children will laugh hysterically at the thought of society being terrified of a computer-driven car...
  Outside of all the anti-Google hysteria (which frankly has nothing to do with the feasibility of an A.I. driver), the arguments are pretty much baseless. We trust computers to fly us around in metal tubes 35,000 feet above the earth at speeds of hundreds of miles an hour and are comfortable with the fact that, statistically speaking, we're going to be just fine. Of course it needs a little work before it's perfected, but nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect. In my mind, the most important thing of all is the ability for the human being sitting in the driver's seat to over-ride the AI immediately in the event of an emergency, which I'm 100% positive was built in from day one because to do otherwise would be completely retarded (and Google is not retarded). As with auto-pilot on planes (or even cruise control on a car), auto-drive will probably be most utilized on long haul, highway driving, something that I think would be trivial for AI to do compared to, say, navigating the inner-city dodging pedestrians and cyclists and double-parked delivery vehicles and what-not.
85. Re:Google Beta by OldeTimeGeek · 2012-05-08 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Do you drive on the same roads as everybody else? The ones with cars that have 400+ hp just to go to the store? The ones that have had their ECUs reprogrammed or rechipped to allow greater boost or better acceleration?
  Shortly after automated cars are permitted hit the roads, third parties will have devices that will allow occupants of the vehicle (can't call them drivers any more) to override speed and distance allowances either because people want to get to their destinations faster or just because they can.
86. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-08 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think a million google'mobiles will have a much better track record than a million humans.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
87. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-08 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of one unknown on the road, you'll have two. That first year is going to be rocky.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
88. Re:Google Beta by Githaron · 2012-05-08 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  We trust computers to fly us around in metal tubes 35,000 feet above the earth at speeds of hundreds of miles an hour and are comfortable with the fact that, statistically speaking, we're going to be just fine. Of course it needs a little work before it's perfected, but nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect.>
  
  Exactly, in the case for self-driving cars, the AI just needs to be statistically as safe or safer than human drivers for me to accept them. Actually, considering the advantages, I would even accept almost as safe as human drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time these cars hit the mass market one of the three would be true.
89. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  c.f. I, Robot.
90. Re:Google Beta by Thugthrasher · 2012-05-08 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I drive those roads. It probably won't be all that common. Just think it through all the way (I thought like you did, and then I followed my thoughts to their conclusion). It probably will (and should) be illegal to make those modifications to your cars "control system." If it is decided that all automatic cars should go no faster than whatever the speed limit is and there is a way the cars know this limit, then making modifications that bypass this will likely be illegal, as the only purpose is to break the law. So, selling anything that does that will ALSO be illegal.
  
  These systems also will probably not be easy enough to reprogram/hack that everybody could do it. It may not be particularly difficult, but most people aren't particularly good at that kind of thing, anyway. This means the vast majority of people likely won't be able to do it without purchasing something or having someone else do it.
  
  This means that it will only be those that CAN do it on their own and those who purchase these things in the black market who are able to do this. Which makes it more risky than just speeding. And also easy to detect (if the speed limit is 75 and your auto-car is going 85, you've broken the speed limit AND you've modified your car). Yes, there will be those that do it, but because of the increased risk AND increased difficulty of doing it/having it done, the percentage of people who do it will be much smaller than those who have things reprogrammed in their car now (or just purchase fast cars).
91. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-08 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Any AI Cars that join the ranks won't be in addition to other cars, they'll be INSTEAD of other cars. Google isn't going to just put a million empty cars out cruising the roads for kicks.
  Besides, there's already 200 million licensed drivers in the US, and well over 250 million cars on the US roads. If/when a couple thousand AI Cars get added to the mix, it'll be such a minor addition that you'd likely never even see one.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
92. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-08 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Any AI Cars that join the ranks won't be in addition to other cars, they'll be INSTEAD of other cars.
  This 'logic' only works if the AI drivers drive exactly the same. It doesn't and they won't There will almost certainly need to be a software update or two once they start becoming fairly common. Additionally, people will have to learn to drive with these guys on the road. Afterall, by your own admission, they must drive differently than humans, otherwise they couldn't achieve that goal of being better than humans on the road.
  They've earned your hope, but they haven't earned your faith. They still have a big test to pass.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
93. Re:Google Beta by Githaron · 2012-05-08 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  Is the TSA putting a gun to my head. No. I can choose not to ever leave my house. Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet.
  You are comparing apples and oranges. You are not given a real choice with the TSA. Considering how integral flight is to today's society, the choice between not flying and getting felt up and/or irradiated is not a real choice. You can't go to another airport/terminal that is willing to treat its customers better because the TSA is government enforced. If you remove the requirement, the TSA would probably disappear and be replace with private counterparts that treat the airlines' customers much more reasonably. If enough people feel like they need to be felt up in order to feel safe, airports will probably start getting sectioned off so those people can go through separate security lines and use separate planes in a separate parts of the airport.
  Google's services are optional and easy to avoid. Most if not all of their services you can get from other companies. Nothing is forcing companies to collect your data. They could choose to use a different business model is they thought they could get a reasonable chunk of the market. You do not have to stop using the Internet to avoid Google. Currently, you do have to avoid the airport in order to avoid the TSA.
94. Re:Google Beta by Githaron · 2012-05-08 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't private by default, which is as it should be.
  I will agree that privacy should be default. Companies should not be collecting data on you without your express permission. That said, they shouldn't have give you service either.
95. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off, bonch.
96. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  You are assuming that the facts matter. In the case of a computer-driven car funded by a huge company versus a little old lady (or kid), the jury will find for the plaintiff.
97. Re:Google Beta by vux984 · 2012-05-08 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  You mean those Google ads that I block using Adblock Plus?
  You mean that Google Analytics junk that I block using NoScript?
  Thanks captain obvious! I said avoiding google took effort above and beyond simply not going to their website... which you just confirmed.
  Again, who forced you to use Gmail or buy an Android phone?
  I don't. But many of the people i communicate with do. Are you actually suggesting I not communicate them?
  Avoiding Google on the internet is as simple as installing a couple plugins
  And a browser that can use those plugins, on a platform that can run that browser.
  Do you think the average joe at work gets to decide which firefox plugins are installed, or whether firefox is installed at all?
  And what about mobile access from your phone?
  and not using any of their services.
  Or communicating with anyone who uses those services. But hey, that's simple too.
  Your problem isn't that your data is being mined, it's that other people don't care as much as you do.
  If someone wants to be data mined, I'm fine with that. But it shouldn't be "on by default", and opting out shouldn't be a game of cat and mouse with the people trying to track you.
  "Oh, just install this blocker, and that blocker, and this plugin, and don't go there, use this proxy for that, never ever use your real name here, and read this news site so you know what you'll have to do tomorrow too "... is the completely wrong approach to dealing with the issue.
  Its idiotic on the same level as suggesting that we shouldn't pass laws against stalking because people who don't like to be stalked should just avoid the people stalking them, hire a body guard to keep stalkers away, and put on a blindfold and headphones so they can't see or hear them.
  Problem solved. Its simple. /sarcasm
  I'd rather live in a world where people
98. Re:Google Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Quick question: they like to advertise that they have only had once accident, and it was when someone hit them from behind. How many accidents would we have expected the cars to have experienced? Answer: 0
  According to the FARS, we expect about 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles. According to NY state, there are 1-3 accidents per million vehicle miles (I could not find california numbers). So, talk to me when they have a couple million vehicle miles.
99. Re:Google Beta by JTsyo · 2012-05-08 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there will be a few that can't currently drive that'll get a AI car to drive them.
100. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-08 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Your 'logic' assumes all humans drive exactly the same (we don't), and that all AI cars were a distinct departure requiring a vastly different protocol for working amongst (they don't).
  As far as I can tell, from the perspective of a fellow motorist, the only two differences between this car and any other vehicle on the road are the drivers' hands not being on the wheel (which I see every day anyway) and the additional sensors (which might be a little distracting but no moreso than a normal car with anything on a roof-rack.) Are there other factors I'm missing? Is there something a Google'mobile does that the average sedan cannot? Do the brake lights and turn signals operate differently? Does it read and react to street signs and stop lights differently than a human?
  End result: really, we'll just have to wait and see. But while some people express concern, distrust and general FUD, I approach this concept from a perspective of optimism. Even if it doesn't work, at least someone is trying something crazy and out there. A.I. cars were a DARPA pipedream less than a decade back. Welcome to the future, bitches. If all DARPA Challenges hit viable solutions this quickly, we'd have freaking androids before my kids graduate High School
  
  --
  This signature is false.
101. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-08 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your 'logic' assumes all humans drive exactly the same (we don't)....
  No, it doesn't. I will explain in the next bit.
  
  As far as I can tell, from the perspective of a fellow motorist, the only two differences between this car and any other vehicle on the road are the drivers' hands not being on the wheel (which I see every day anyway)...
  That's actually a pretty big difference. Even if these cars drive just like a human does (i.e. with tinted windows, nobody would ever know the difference...), just the idea that that's a computer controlled car will affect other drivers. I'm willing to bet that these cars will advertised that they're automated all over the car. Getting back to my first point, in the beginning it'll be "us vs. them". That lack of trust will make a huge difference. As it is, we already adjust our driving based on what sort of car we see on the road.
  
  Are there other factors I'm missing? Is there something a Google'mobile does that the average sedan cannot?
  When large numbers of them start appearing on the roads, it certainly will. I'll put it this way: Just driving into a city I've never been in before requires adjustment to the way the locals drive. Google hasn't gotten to this point in the testing yet.
  
  End result: really, we'll just have to wait and see. But while some people express concern, distrust and general FUD...
  I think a little clarification is in order. I am not anti-Google, I am not anti-Google Car, I'm not even pessimistic. There is, however, a difference between optimism and blind faith. I think they are making good progress and I am excited about it. What I don't think.. or actually I'll put it another way, Google hasn't proven this to me yet, that when these things really start hitting the roads that it'll all go smooth as silk and the first accident won't cause a huge media kerfuffle. They're not doing anything wrong, but they will still have to evolve their product. I'm confident that they'll get there and we'll finally have our self-driving cars, I just don't think they're going to get there without doing more revisions. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with me having this point of view.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
102. Re:Google Beta by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-08 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  They are alpha versions, not beta.
103. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-08 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Now I see where our assumptions differ. You assume that Google will emblazon their G'cars (as I will call them) with stickers: "AI CAR!! LOOK MA NO HANDS! WOO HOO," and put some geeky references like "Pod Bay Doors" and "I'm afraid I can't do that"
  Where I assume the opposite: that Google will take every possible option to minimize the existence of these cars for as long as possible. I base this assumption on their track record. Though, the cat is a bit outta the bag now, so my assumption might not hold up. If anything, I think the biggest danger around these cars is just that: around these cars. The cars themselves could be perfectly safe, and would still cause plenty of accidents and traffic jams as rubbernecks try to sneak a peak.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
104. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-08 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  What is your basis for that assumption?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
105. Re:Google Beta by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-08 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  For one thing, what "the average joe at work" does is none of my concern. My privacy concerns as far as my boss seeing that I'm surfing the internet when I'm supposed to be working far outweigh anything I'm worried about as far as Google goes. Perhaps the "average joe at work" should be more concerned with not fucking around on the internet all day, especially if their activities are secretive and/or sensitive enough to actually give a fuck. The "at work" argument immediately goes out the window.
  Being stalked by someone is so totally removed from being tracked by Google that it's completely ridiculous to equate them and expect to be taken seriously, not by me anyway. I've actually been stalked by an ex-girlfriend to the point where it took me literally calling the cops right in front of her to get her to leave me the fuck alone and stay away from me. Is Google calling you 38 times a day and filling your voice mail box with alternating "I love you/I hate you" messages? Are they leaving notes on your car while you're at work? Are they going after other people you may interact with to tell them to find their own goddamned man? Are they calling you from outside your house at 11 o'clock at night telling you that they know you're home because the lights are on and you need to come right down right this second to talk to them or they're going to commit suicide in your driveway and it's going to be all your fault? You're not fucking being stalked.
  You're not helpless. The world is not out to get you, and neither is Google. Bitching about tracking cookies when you know how trivial it is for you to circumvent them yourself is a waste of energy. As for communicating with others that don't care, then I guess you've got a fucking decision to make, huh? You're still not helpless. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you just don't want to deal with the inconvenience around actually doing so. Boo fucking hoo. Maybe it's time to dump the internet entirely? It's the only way to be sure...
106. Re:Google Beta by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-08 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Under conditions we don't know but they controlled.
107. Re:Google Beta by jkflying · 2012-05-08 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  So they controlled the real roads? Please take off your tinfoil hat.
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
108. Re:Google Beta by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-09 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Negative, "alpha" versions are test mules, the automotive industry has described pre-production vehicles as the "beta" versions of cars over and over again.
109. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-09 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. Check the post to which you replied. Pay careful attention for a sentence starting with "I base this assumption on ..." and you might have your answer.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
110. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-09 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... my non-brushed-up reading comprehension not only shows not only that you don't believe your own assumption, but the very article you linked to have a very clear photo of a poorly disguised car with nobody in the driver's seat. That's why I don't understand your rationale.
  At first I thought maybe I just missed a step in your line of thought but it's pretty clear right now that you're just backpedaling.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
111. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-09 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  The article talked about how Google ran all of their initial tests without much pomp or circumstance. A few relevant quotes (all emphasis mine)
  
  Harder to notice was that the person at the wheel was not actually driving.
  
  The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves
  
  seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control
  At the point when the article was written 18 months ago, they'd already clocked all those miles, in secret, lending credence to the notion that they enjoy anonymity in this affair. There was slightly more fanfare for the current announcement, simply because they're getting a much bigger sandbox to play in. One does not post a million dollar insurance bond for the entire state of Nevada without someone taking notice.
  Also, if you'll look at the full picture of the test vehicle you'll easily see that a minimalist approach was taken to the modifications. The camera on the roof and off-center license plate are the only real hints that something is amiss. And with Google already known for cars with cameras on top, the camera atop the G'car looks rather subdued. As for the rest of your strawman about "a poorly disguised car with no driver," the picture at the top of the article was obviously a mock-up for the photo-op. They've said quite clearly that every test was conducted with both a driver and passenger.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
112. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-09 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  At the point when the article was written 18 months ago, they'd already clocked all those miles, in secret, lending credence to the notion that they enjoy anonymity in this affair. There was slightly more fanfare for the current announcement, simply because they're getting a much bigger sandbox to play in. One does not post a million dollar insurance bond for the entire state of Nevada without someone taking notice.
  You're (still...) talking about them being discreet while testing the vehicle. Which, really, should be filed under D for Duh. It is completely immaterial. In fact, now you can expect everybody to see that it's self-driving car because Google's running around tooting its own horn about it.
  So... I ask again: Why do you think the final product wouldn't boldly announce that it's running on auto-pilot? Bear in mind, it won't necessarily be Google's decision.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
113. Re:Google Beta by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-09 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  The citation on the wikipedia article seems to dead. I tried reading more about preproduction cars and none of them seem to talk about Joe Dane being able to buy/borrow one. Take the how stuff works article It talks only about testing, in secrecy, in extreme locations. Nothing else. Is there a different source that talks about these. I am genuinely curious.
114. Re:Google Beta by Rich0 · 2012-05-09 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Likely true, and a big reason why I'd like to see some kind of special legal framework for civil suits against the manufacturer in the case of self-driving cars.
  Suppose Google builds a fleet of self driving cars and puts them out on the market and captures 90% market share. Suppose that due to a design flaw that could have been prevented with better diligence those cars kill 100 people per year, but those are the only accidents the cars have. In a court they'd be treated as mass murders, but in reality they would have eliminated one of the highest causes of death in the US (32k people per year - same order of magnitude as things like diabetes). The ubiquitous use of self-driving cars would likely greatly reduce emissions and gasoline use as well. They'd have the potential to greatly reduce the amount of paved land as well - all good for the environment, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. They'd be able to make much better use of electrical power as well.
  How is all of this possible? Self-driving cars don't need to stop at intersections to safely manage traffic, can dynamically adjust the number of travel lanes in each direction, can park themselves someplace other than directly in front of the store you're visiting in, can deliver packages on their own, can form convoys to minimize drag, can potentially complete an entire trip with only an application of regenerative brakes at the destination, and plan all deceleration for coasting or minimal regenerative braking. They can easily function as taxis or operate in other kinds of ride-share modes. And, of course, they are much less likely to crash into things. All of this adds up to a huge increase in efficiency around the use of the roads in general.
115. Re:Google Beta by Rich0 · 2012-05-09 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  If automated cars become ubiquitous there will be all kinds of incentives to remove the ability to operate around non-automated cars. That will include stuff like getting rid of traffic control devices like signs and signals. Your car will be given reservations for the space it uses, and if it tries to go faster it will just find other cars blocking the way as everybody drives a foot apart. About the only thing such modifications are likely to accomplish is getting people hurt. More likely than not cars that don't interact properly with the network will simply be flagged for repairs, and if the car doesn't drive itself to the shop as ordered while you're at work, the police will show up and impound it.
  Cars will operate much more like aircraft with coordinated control. What happens if a pilot decides to cut in line when taxing to the runway, or when on approach? They'd be warned at best (assume a mistake), and if their actions are remotely dangerous they'd be immediately visited by the FAA on arrival. Ever notice how at the airport planes don't jockey for position? They're simply told where to go, and who yields to who. Everybody just parks nicely with safe distances as they queue up at the runway, knowing that the controller will get everybody there in due time. The unlucky plane sent halfway around the airport to ease traffic just goes along with it, since they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Since planes aren't fully automated, mistakes still happen, but they only rarely cause injury. And of course, in a fully automated world there will still be breakdowns, but we'll have to accept that the system that saves 10s of thousands of lives per year might still miss a few.
116. Re:Google Beta by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-09 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  They controlled what roads, what time of day, and weather conditions they would allow the robocar to drive in. I very much doubt their driving conditions closely represented the variety of conditions a production would have to operate in.
117. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-10 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  I have no ability to portend the future, except to examine trends of the past. Google has a history of discretion in regards to their auto-car.
  If you've a more reliable method, I'm all ears. What makes you think the final product (if there ever is a final product) will be some great ostentatious thing?
  Also examine trends of hybrid cars. The only one that's somewhat noticeable is the Prius, and that's mostly because it's an entirely new car with a new body-style. Every other hybrid (Camry, Civic, Altima, Volt, etc.) only has a small logo to identify its hybrid nature. If you think Google (or whoever is eventually in charge) is after sexy sexy P.R. and that's the principle factor to make a hypothetical Auto-auto stand out... I'd say you've already been proven wrong. Any one of those Hybrid-making companies could etch great big leaves in their chassis, or make major modifications to the frames so they get recognized and soak up all the green PR. Hell, the Volt has received so much pomp and circumstance that I half expected it to leave a trail of flowers in its wake... actually saw one a few weeks ago. Pulled up behind her at a stop light. Other than the badge, there was really no way to tell it from every other average sedan at the light.
  P.S. before you say "Tesla roadster," that's noticeable for being an extremely rare high end roadster, the electric component is tertiary at best. No different that seeing a Bugatti Veyron or Maserati Granturismo pulling up next to you.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
118. Re:Google Beta by vux984 · 2012-05-10 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  For one thing, what "the average joe at work" does is none of my concern.
  because the only one in the universe that deserves protection is you?
  My privacy concerns as far as my boss seeing that I'm surfing the internet when I'm supposed to be working far outweigh anything I'm worried about as far as Google goes.
  a) Some of us browse the internet in the course of actually working.
  b) Some of us can actually make a personal call, write a personal reminder on a post it note, or look something up on the web without getting fired for stealing from the company.
  c) Your boss, if they thought about it, might not be too keen on google profiling his employees while they are supposed to be working. Google clearly places value on the data they are collecting from his employees activities... but he's not being compensated for it. Now Google is "stealing" from him too... ;) ...actually been stalked by an ex-girlfriend to the point ...
  I'm genuinely sorry to hear about that. But you must understand that its not a valid argument. The fact that you encountered a pretty extreme case, doesn't somehow invalidate less extreme cases.
  If I say my ipod was stolen on the bus... you don't get to counter with "well someone stole my entire life savings, which is so totally removed from what happened to you...".... that may well be true, and it's certainly far worse, but I'm still the victim of theft.
119. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-10 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  Google has a history of discretion in regards to their auto-car.
  They have a history of discretion in regards to testing their auto-car. This is an important distinction, I'm not making it to be contrarian.
  
  What makes you think the final product (if there ever is a final product) will be some great ostentatious thing?
  I think the first issue is one of liability. It is more than likely that if these vehicles are allowed to share the road with human drivers they will have to be clearly marked as running on 'auto-pilot'. This wouldn't be a Google decision, it'd be up to whatever regulations are put into place onces the states start figuring out how they're going to license these things.
  The second issue is simply marketing. We'll talk about that next.
  
  Also examine trends of hybrid cars. The only one that's somewhat noticeable is the Prius, and that's mostly because it's an entirely new car with a new body-style.
  
  This is just plain not true. When the first hybrid came out they not only gave the body an unusual design, they also buried the rear tires half-way just to grab eyeballs. Once the word 'hybrid' got out there, they dialed it back a bit, mainly because cars still have to look attractive. That distinctive covering of the tire has become an eyesore now. Heh. Another thing to think about is that Google will *not* be manufacturing this car. They'll partner up with an auto manufacturer and... guess what? Toyota or Chevy or whoever ends up inking the deal, they're going to want to make sure people see their cars on the road just like Honda did with the Insight.
  Three's no way an auto company is going to build the dream car everybody's been waiting 50+ years for and not go nuts marketing the hell out of it. That's why I'm having so much difficulty understanding where you're coming from on that.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
120. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-15 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Was out of town for a few days... missed you :)
  
  They have a history of discretion in regards to testing their auto-car. This is an important distinction, I'm not making it to be contrarian.
  What is their history regarding the production of the G'cars? Wait, there isn't one. Until we have some data on their habits in that matter, we can't simply assume one way or the other. In the meantime, I'll use the data currently available (testing data), which, while imperfect, at least exists.
  
  I think the first issue is one of liability.
  I was kinda thinking the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. As I mentioned before, the most dangerous thing about the cars will be the looky-loos trying to see it. To that end, I would expect an insurance company to require a modicum of tact and discretion.
  
  It is more than likely that if these vehicles are allowed to share the road with human drivers they will have to be clearly marked as running on 'auto-pilot'. This wouldn't be a Google decision, it'd be up to whatever regulations are put into place once the states start figuring out how they're going to license these things.
  Have you seen the "new driver" or "elderly driver" logo's that Japanese drivers are required to display? While noticeable, they're hardly gaudy. I would expect something similar for any required markings on an Auto-Pilot car. Also, see the old "HOV APPROVED" stickers that used to adorn hybrids here in the states. Clearly visible, not ridiculously so.
  
  When the first hybrid came out they not only gave the body an unusual design, they also buried the rear tires half-way just to grab eyeballs. Once the word 'hybrid' got out there, they dialed it back a bit, mainly because cars still have to look attractive. That distinctive covering of the tire has become an eyesore now. Heh. Another thing to think about is that Google will *not* be manufacturing this car. They'll partner up with an auto manufacturer and... guess what? Toyota or Chevy or whoever ends up inking the deal, they're going to want to make sure people see their cars on the road just like Honda did with the Insight.
  Three's no way an auto company is going to build the dream car everybody's been waiting 50+ years for and not go nuts marketing the hell out of it. That's why I'm having so much difficulty understanding where you're coming from on that.
  Again, same data, disparate conclusions. I didn't see the half-covered tires as all that crazy. Less eye-grabbing than the yellow "HOV APPROVED" stickers that hybrids used to receive. And you're confusing marketing with road-recognition. Again look at the Volt. There have been hundreds of articles about that car. It's a whole new breed of hybrid, a hybrid-hybrid if you will (half Leaf, half Prius) and for all the pomp and circumstance, one could pull up next to you, and you wouldn't know it.
  All of my assumptions are based on facts: how Google has behaved with regards to this car in the past, how various governments have marked specialty vehicles (both here in the US and abroad) and how car manufacturers have treated "special" cars in the past. Really, I just don't see how a hybrid with covered tires translates into an unsafe auto-pilot car.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
121. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-15 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Was out of town for a few days... missed you :)
  I hope you had a good trip. (no sarcasm or anything like that intended.)
  
  In the meantime, I'll use the data currently available (testing data), which, while imperfect, at least exists.
  The thing is, though, your rationale cancels itself out. They're not market testing, they're "Don't kill humans!" testing.
  
  I was kinda thinking the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. As I mentioned before, the most dangerous thing about the cars will be the looky-loos trying to see it. To that end, I would expect an insurance company to require a modicum of tact and discretion.
  I could see somebody standing up and making that argument, it's not a bad one, but I don't think it'd play out for two reasons: 1. In the US, we LOVE having people to blame . We're very lawsuit happy and Google has deep pockets. People will want to be able to blame Google if there's a crash. 2. People want to know to stay clear of these cars. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if these cars had to have a third different-colored tail light to indicate it's on auto-pilot.
  
  Have you seen the "new driver" or "elderly driver" logo's that Japanese drivers are required to display? While noticeable, they're hardly gaudy. I would expect something similar for any required markings on an Auto-Pilot car. Also, see the old "HOV APPROVED" stickers that used to adorn hybrids here in the states. Clearly visible, not ridiculously so.
  I think I'm misreading your post. You're supporting my point.
  
  I didn't see the half-covered tires as all that crazy.
  They were. The word 'futuristic' floated around a lot when describing that car. I also recall a couple of times I read about how that was a lesson in branding.
  
  All of my assumptions are based on facts...
  None of those facts are anything like: "Google's last car was a sleeper hit. It took word of mouth to gain in popularity because nobody could spot the thing amongst a sea of Prius's and Civics!" It's like bragging about your snake oil being made from 'all natural ingredients'.
  
  Really, I just don't see how a hybrid with covered tires translates into an unsafe auto-pilot car.
  You were the one that went down the path that a highly recognizable self-driving car would mean an accident-prone one. I didn't really get it either, that's why I asked you to elaborate.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
122. Re:Google Beta by jxander · 2012-05-17 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, though, your rationale cancels itself out. They're not market testing, they're "Don't kill humans!" testing.
  I might have slipped ahead in my target timeline... are we discussing the dangers inherent in Google's current line of testing in Nevada, or a potential future environment where anyone with enough cash can buy their own G'car. For the current testing, I expect them to keep following their previous testing models, i.e. the article I linked earlier where they put 150,000 miles on a car in complete secrecy. For future release to the public, well, one would HOPE that they stick with what works. If they follow my hunch and the test cars quietly navigate the Nevada roads in safety... then it would stand to reason that publicly marketed models would retain the same levels of anonymity.
  
  I could see somebody standing up and making that argument, it's not a bad one, but I don't think it'd play out for two reasons: 1. In the US, we LOVE having people to blame . We're very lawsuit happy and Google has deep pockets. People will want to be able to blame Google if there's a crash. 2. People want to know to stay clear of these cars. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if these cars had to have a third different-colored tail light to indicate it's on auto-pilot.
  Per my argument above, it should be easy enough to Google to release liability if a car manufacturer deviates from their testing methods. If forced to install an extra tail light or some other vestigial bit, Google would have their defense in the bag. "We didn't test it with that part... that part (and/or people's reaction to it) caused the accident. Blame Ford" (or whoever)
  
  I think I'm misreading your post. You're supporting my point.
  I think we have different opinions of gaudy or noticeable: Here's an example of the Japanese decals I mentioned for young and old drivers. I can't see the US requiring anything more than that, if anything at all. More on that later...
  
  None of those facts are anything like: "Google's last car was a sleeper hit. It took word of mouth to gain in popularity because nobody could spot the thing amongst a sea of Prius's and Civics!" It's like bragging about your snake oil being made from 'all natural ingredients'.
  The fact is: a google auto-pilot car cruised around a major metro area for several months without anyone the wiser. I live a few hours south of Google HQ, and I didn't hear a peep about this until Google came out with their article. The facts about it's market performance once delivered to the public will come in due time (which, considering the nature of this project, is probably a LONG time... but due time) And how dare you besmirch my snake oil.
  
  You were the one that went down the path that a highly recognizable self-driving car would mean an accident-prone one. I didn't really get it either, that's why I asked you to elaborate.
  I went down the path that being highly recognizable would be the ONLY way for such a car to be unsafe, per the lookie-loos comment, but that the car itself, and the auto-drive technology would be perfectly safe (hence "in due time" probably being a very long time). It'll certainly be a lot safer than most human drivers. However, per my comments above, I think the powers that be (Google, DoT, whatever manufacturer gets involved, etc.) will understand these potential issues, and act accordingly. I'd wager than any marking, aside from the obvious cameras and what-not, will amount to nothing more than a sticker and/or slightly altered license plate. Another thing to consider, if these things ever hit the mass-market, the first wave of Auto-Pilot cars will likely just be a retrofit of a current model.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
123. Re:Google Beta by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-17 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  For future release to the public, well, one would HOPE that they stick with what works. If they follow my hunch and the test cars quietly navigate the Nevada roads in safety... then it would stand to reason that publicly marketed models would retain the same levels of anonymity.
  Won't happen.
  
  Per my argument above, it should be easy enough to Google to release liability if a car manufacturer deviates from their testing methods. If forced to install an extra tail light or some other vestigial bit, Google would have their defense in the bag. "We didn't test it with that part... that part (and/or people's reaction to it) caused the accident. Blame Ford" (or whoever)
  Um... no. They'll be liable for the cause of the crash. Simple as that. If they're forced to add something per whatever regulations are in place at the time, they won't be able to release it until they've done so, and they're gonna test it with the new configuration.
  
  I think we have different opinions of gaudy or noticeable: Here's an example of the Japanese decals I mentioned for young and old drivers. I can't see the US requiring anything more than that, if anything at all. More on that later...
  There is no 'gaudy' in this conversation. It's all about whether or not the drivers around this car know it's on auto-pilot. Just your illustrations alone are more than enough to alert other drivers. (Not to mention R2D2 sticking out the top...)
  
  The fact is: a google auto-pilot car cruised around a major metro area for several months without anyone the wiser.
  The fact is that doesn't matter. Let's see if it can cruise around now without being noticed. Better yet, let's see what happens when (you may have heard this before...) there are a million of them on the road.
  
  I went down the path that being highly recognizable would be the ONLY way for such a car to be unsafe, per the lookie-loos comment, but that the car itself, and the auto-drive technology would be perfectly safe (hence "in due time" probably being a very long time).
  What you just said is that it's safe but it's not safe. And ya know what? That is *really* important. You fan filter out half the equation to try to make your logic work, but in real life it's still there. Your basis for this assumption is that it'll be some big secret. I won't happen for liability reasons, it won't happen for marketing reasons, it won't happen because everybody and their mother wants to see one of these cars, it won't happen unless Google somehow manages to actually conceal the devices on the roof of the car, and it won't happen due to possible regulations making it clear who's driving.
  Once a.) People drive along-side them comfortably and b.) Google has done the inevitable revisions to their software to improve safety and performance, then yeah we're more than likely to see a drop in traffic accident statistics. That first year is going to be really rough. And now we're right back to where I said: Wait for version 3.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
2 people by bobcat7677 · 2012-05-07 10:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

TFA fails to mention why two people are required in the test vehicle. I can understand having a "driver" that can take over if something goes wrong, but what is the purpose of the 2nd person?
1. Re:2 people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  In case the driver gets taken out by the car going rogue. Duh!
2. Re:2 people by cosm · 2012-05-07 10:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  TFA fails to mention why two people are required in the test vehicle. I can understand having a "driver" that can take over if something goes wrong, but what is the purpose of the 2nd person?
  To hold the driver's beer. It's Nevada, common now...
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
3. Re:2 people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  perhaps some one can be fiddling with the laptop/testing code and stuff, while the other keeps his eyes on the road to take over if something goes wrong.
4. Re:2 people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's simple.
  The second person is there to unholster their sidearm, place it against the head of the person in the driver's seat, and shoot them, if they prove to be a Cylon in collusion with the car.
5. Re:2 people by sideslash · 2012-05-07 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Probably for the same reason airliners have two pilots -- so the first guy doesn't just turn on autopilot and go to sleep.
6. Re:2 people by Vectone · 2012-05-07 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  Or Google employee going nuts and remotely killing all the people in the car.
7. Re:2 people by joggle · 2012-05-07 11:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My guess is because the license will be granted with the understanding that it's a research vehicle. Someone will likely want to be closely monitoring the output of the car's instruments, so this insures one guy can do that while the other focuses on the road.
  If there wasn't this requirement, one guy could conceivably monitor the instruments and not pay attention to the road since the car is driving itself.
8. Re:2 people by Radak · 2012-05-07 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's because the real purpose of the vehicle is to drive around and show off to everyone that guy who uses Google Plus.
9. Re:2 people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  The second person sits rearward of the driver position, and makes observations of the appropriateness of the vehicular manoeuvres made by the robot driver. This observer's commentary, suggestions, and criticisms will be applied in real-time to improve the performance of the robot driver.
10. Re:2 people by stephanruby · 2012-05-07 12:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Creating two new jobs for every single one lost. This sounds like this would be the work of some of very forward-looking Teamsters.
11. Re:2 people by jkflying · 2012-05-07 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Spying != killing
  And why the hell would the car allow remote control at all? That would be a terrible design. Have you forgotten to take your pills today?
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
12. Re:2 people by BeardedChimp · 2012-05-08 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  The second person is required to walk in front of the car and wave a red flag to warn of the approaching self propelled automobile. How else would someone know one was coming?
13. Re:2 people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  The 2 people rule is to ensure the car never really hits the road. Its easy to find one person who is delusional and crazy enough to sit in a computer controlled car, but try finding two people.
14. Re:2 people by mcgrew · 2012-05-08 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  To hold the driver's beer. It's Nevada, common now...
  
  Having a second person to hold the driver's beer is common in Nevada? They outlawed cupholders there?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 10:55 · Score: 0

No guy with a red flag in front - wont someone think of the children!
Get them to fly by gottspeed · 2012-05-07 10:56 · Score: -1

If they could just make them fly then I'd get one tomorrow. /Tired of traffic
If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:01 · Score: 0

If only they got a Java license too!
1. Re:If only... by binarylarry · 2012-05-07 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. Uncle Larry has the lawyers working overtime trying to figure out how to sue Google for this.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
1st Death.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:09 · Score: 3, Funny

Probably some poor mechanic working on said car, When owner calls it home whilst still up on the Car Jack.
1. Re:1st Death.... by MachDelta · 2012-05-07 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Step #1 when working on a car is always disconnect the battery. That said, when i worked as a mechanic, no one bothered with that bit unless it was really necessary. So you're probably still right.
2. Re:1st Death.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  Just because they are computer controlled doesn't mean they don't have keys that the mechanic can take out.
3. Re:1st Death.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who builds a car that can drive off a hydraulic lift can afford to pay the settlement.
  Pro mechanics don't use jacks except to change a flat on the side of the road.
Can you still get a DUI with a self-driving car? by Kergan · 2012-05-07 11:12 · Score: 1

Further, the car must have two people at all times, with one behind the wheel who can take control of the vehicle if needed.
I can just picture the epic scene... Drunkard has his car drive him home while he snoozes. And gets arrested for sleeping at the wheel. Would that count as a DUI?
They should test it where I live by damn_registrars · 2012-05-07 11:16 · Score: 1

Here, cars might as well be driverless as a staggering fraction of the drivers should never be licensed any ways. I figure the driverless car is likely a lot less likely to cause the kind of traffic accidents that are caused here every day by the ones with drivers in them, and also less likely to injure me or any actual skilled driver either.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:They should test it where I live by modecx · 2012-05-07 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Here, cars might as well be driverless as a staggering fraction of the drivers should never be licensed any ways
  Don't you see? That's exactly why they're testing it in Nevada. If the autonomous pilot goes rogue and decides to randomly smash up things and mow down pedestrians, the only way you'd possibly know it from a typical human driver is the robot is sure to know how to activate the turn signals.
  
  --
  Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Bad headline by jklovanc · 2012-05-07 11:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Google Gets Driverless License For Nevada Roads
1. It is not driverless as there has to be a driver behind the wheel at all times.
2. From the term "driverless license" it seems that they are comparing it to a "driver's license" which is not true. What is actually being issued is an "autonomous testing business license and license plates:.
It is a license to test autonomous vehicle under very strict guidelines.
A much better headline would have been "Google gets license to test autonomous vehicles on Nevada roads"; less flashy but much more accurate
1. Re:Bad headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  He is not a driver until he drives. If the car never requires him to drive, he is never a driver.
2. Re:Bad headline by jklovanc · 2012-05-08 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  The "driver" has to at least select the destination and probably route and has to initiate the program. Even though he is not moving the controls he still is monitoring the situation and must be ready to drive at any time. There will always be times that the vehicle will need to be driven. For example when re-fueling and stopping at the exactly the right place, dealing with complex road obstructions, avoiding objects on the road that are dangerous but too small for the system to detect, avoiding things like vehicles running a red light that may not be detectable by the vehicle, reacting to emergency vehicles, etc. An autonomous vehicle will not replace a driver in the near future.
Re:Can you still get a DUI with a self-driving car by jxander · 2012-05-07 11:21 · Score: 1

I imagine that if this tech ever becomes mainstream, and whole slew of new laws will have to be put in place. From sleeping/drinking at the wheel, to the current ban on cell phones in most states.
If anything, I'd suspect that sleeping, drinking and anything else that incapacitates you will still be illegal, but anything from which you could recover quickly (talking, texting, reading, etc) would be allowed, with provisions for "in case of emergency, drop the phone and drive manually."

--
This signature is false.
Hi bonch! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:26 · Score: 0

Gotta get paid!
Very cool by GeneralTurgidson · 2012-05-07 11:38 · Score: 2

Congrats to Google and Nevada for getting this going.
I Have Control (?) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 11:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Human: "Holy crap! Computer! You're driving in the oncoming lane!"
Computer: ...
Human: "Stop! Abort! Cancel! Computer -- release your controls!"
Computer: "I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that. I'm detecting that you have an elevated heart rate, which in humans is consistent with high levels of stress. Humans under stress tend to make poor decisions. Many humans have reduced their stress levels by listening to Brahms' music. May I suggest you purchase one of:
J Brahms - Best Of Brahms CD Album
www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/.../Best+Of+Brahms.htm
J Brahms - Best Of Brahms music CD album at CD Universe, Track Listing Symphony No, 4 in E minor, Op, 98 Allegro non troppo; Piano Concerto No, 2 in.
J. Brahms Discography and Music at CD Universe
www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/J.+Brahms/.../albums.htm
Low prices on J. Brahms discography of music albums at CD Universe, with top rated service, J. Brahms songs, discography, biography, cover art pictures, ...
Amazon.com: Johannes Brahms Classical Music CDs
www.amazon.com/s?...Johannes%20Brahms...
Results 1 - 12 of 6351 – Online shopping for Johannes Brahms Classical Music CDs from a great selection of Music; & more at everyday low prices.
Amazon.com: Brahms: Piano Pieces Opp. 116 - 119: Johannes ...
www.amazon.com Music Classical
This item: Brahms: Piano Pieces Opp. 116 - 119 ~ Johannes Brahms Audio CD. In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Eligible for FREE Super Saver ...
Shopping results for Brahms CD
Busch, Adolf/Münch/Barsin: Busch Spielt Dvorak/Brahms ...
$20
7 stores
Brahms: the complete symphonies / karajan, berlin po..."
What next? by NotQuiteReal · 2012-05-07 11:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

First a horseless carriage, now a driver-less car?

Next thing you know there will be a box that just sits in front of you, with a window to the world!

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
1. Re:What next? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Something like that...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqu9NuINKbc
2. Re:What next? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  I see what you did there.
It's "self-driving" by MDMurphy · 2012-05-07 12:05 · Score: 1

As the sign on the back of the vehicle in the article shows it's "self driving". This is not as driverless or autonomous as has been applied to airplanes up till now. If / when cars like these are available to purchase, that's a big difference. This is essentially autopilot, though a pretty advanced one with collision avoidance. Airplanes have had autopilot for decades now, and they are viewed very differently from AUVs or drones.
The State of Nevada does refer to them as autonomous though. The requirement for two people though makes them far from driverless. The NV DMV site says that when these sort of cars are available for public use that motorists will need a special endorsement for their drivers license.
1. Re:It's "self-driving" by dave420 · 2012-05-07 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  The license treats the vehicles as a research project, hence the requirement of two people. Don't confuse this with the finished product, and planes have entirely fuck-all to do with this.
How long until... by jmerlin · 2012-05-07 12:22 · Score: 1

How long until Google decides all of the self-driving cars they've tested and people have used for 7 years with no problems need a massive overhaul and they decide to completely re-do the API interface unnecessarily, completely breaking usability for everyone, causing the cars to be impractically difficult to use and resulting in possible accidents?

Given Google's track record with the new GMail interface change, I can't say I'd be comfortable sitting in a car running their software, ever. You just don't change software that's business-critical willy nilly like that. You just don't. Ever.
1. Re:How long until... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-07 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Given Google's track record with the new GMail interface change, I can't say I'd be comfortable sitting in a car running their software, ever. You just don't change software that's business-critical willy nilly like that. You just don't. Ever.
  Like the kernel module interface in Linux or library ABIs?
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
2. Re:How long until... by jmerlin · 2012-05-07 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Projects which Google owns entirely vs projects to which they merely contribute. Apples meet oranges.
3. Re:How long until... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Gmail is business-critical?
4. Re:How long until... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Apples and Oranges.... fruits :D
Big red bumper stickers by Centurix · 2012-05-07 12:26 · Score: 0

+1 my driving!
Add me to your autonomous driving roundabouts!
My internet is a series of tunnels!
Driver closer, I'm feeling lucky!
Do a barrel roll!

--
Task Mangler
Re:Can you still get a DUI with a self-driving car by rtb61 · 2012-05-07 13:06 · Score: 1

As long as you carry a million dollar insurance bond? Somehow I don't think that will cut it. New business opportunity, instead of itinerants washing peoples car windows they can offer to drive them to a location of the vehicle owners choice.
No extra insurance, use cell phone, sleep and, drink what ever you like. Now a lot of itinerants have mobile phones, as it is their only hope of getting any kind of work, so web site to book cleaner drivers at specific locations and specific times and minimum wage auto drive is achieved.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
To paraphrase the old line by fustakrakich · 2012-05-07 13:14 · Score: 1

It should have one person and a dog... The dog is to bite the driver's hands if he ever reaches for the steering wheel.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Can you still get a DUI with a self-driving car by White+Flame · 2012-05-07 13:21 · Score: 1

As long as you carry a million dollar insurance bond? Somehow I don't think that will cut it
That bond, and this licensing for the car, is only for *testing* autonomous vehicles on public roads. AFAIK, there is no licensing for non-testing common purposes yet.
Re:Can you still get a DUI with a self-driving car by Randle_Revar · 2012-05-07 13:34 · Score: 2

Generally, an emergency would be that last time you should take over. A production quality auto-driving car is going to be better at handling an emergency than 90% of people. And many emergencies can happen to fast for a human to change focus like that.

--
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
What is the point of a driverless car? by Ashbory · 2012-05-07 14:49 · Score: 1

I am all for automating stuff that can help you while driving, but what is the point of a driver-less car? If it is for safety, I don't see it working. What does the car do when it doesn't know what to do? Just stop? - that might be the worst choice. You would have to change the road infrastructure completely, and at that point it would probably be safer to not allow human drivers.
1. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by GradyPhilpott · 2012-05-07 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  I'm with you all the way on this one, buddy. I have no plans to ever visit Nevada and given this venture, I probably never will and if there is a vote on bringing these things to my state, I will vote against it. Has anyone bothered to ask the people what they think about this idea. This is exactly the reason that, although I use some Google services, Google creeps me out.
2. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  The more relevant question is - what is the point of having a human drive a car?
  Roads would be so much safer, and traffic so much faster if there were 0 humans involved in the process. This is one step towards that goal.
3. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  Presumably it does the same thing you would do - guess based on similar experiences in the past. But with a much longer memory. There's no reason in principle why you couldn't have a car programmed to know what to do in more situations then a human would, and with better reflexes, perfect control, perfect attention, and a complete inability to panic. Google has already tested their driverless cars for hundreds of thousands of miles elsewhere, and they currently have a better record then human drivers. It's true that they haven't been tested under every condition yet, but that's why they're still expanding their testing program. It's not just possible but inevitable that driverless cars will eventually be less likely to crash then humans over the entirety of driving experience.
4. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-07 18:14 · Score: 2
  
  You cant be serious. The only reason I dont drive is because I hate driving, especially commuter hour traffic. I consider driving to be one of the most mundane tasks a human has to perform (Ironing clothes comes a close second). In a driverless car, I can read the morning news, while I commute. At somepoint, it would become really reliable, that the car would drive on its own anywhere. It would take children to school on its own, come back pick up my wife and get her to work, come back and pick me up for work. Again if any one in my family needs a car, they just have to ask, it can drive itself. And think of the taxis, pooled community cars.
  I believe at some point change the infrastructure would be more efficient, but it is not required (atleast in Google's design). And to answer your question, it will do what a human does. Find a safe place to stop and stop. Ask you for instructions, or information.
5. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-05-07 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  If it were programmed to stop fi it doesn't know what to do it simulates tourists quite nicely.
  On a more serious note: even if it would it would still be possible to program it to be a way better driver than the average human, watching some of the traffic here in NL. Probably even better than a select few.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
6. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-07 23:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What is the point of a driverless car?
  In order of importance:
  1. Increased safety. Did you know that in the US, 1 out of 9,000 people die in a car accident each year? That is freaky high. Over a lifetime that works out to almost a 1% chance. Autonomous cars can be much safer, are never distracted and never get tired.
  2. Increased access. Folks who are blind or have other disabilities cannot get around by car. Same for older people or people to young to drive. Same for drunk people..
  3. Increased productivity. A car can be your office. Get work done or spend time doing personal reading.
  4. Increased fuel efficiency. Autonomous cars will eventually have the ability to work together to draft and save gas milage
  5. Decreased costs. Autonomous cars will eventually lead to services where you do not have to buy a car. Simply pay for a ride and have a car show up when you need it.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
7. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-07 23:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  People with your mentality are the reason progress takes as long as it does.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
8. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  I am all for automating stuff that can help you while driving, but what is the point of a driver-less car?
  If it is for safety, I don't see it working. What does the car do when it doesn't know what to do? Just stop? - that might be the worst choice.
  The road is already full of people making the worst choice. People driving drunk. People driving at ridiculous speeds while talking on their cell phone. People that make right turns from the left lane of traffic. People driving while sleep deprived. People thinking they can make that light even if it is already slightly red. Amongst all of these and more, I suspect that, once a sufficicient level of development and testing is done, I'll be MORE than happy to trust the "bad judgement" of a computer over the judgement of all of the above.
9. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Did you know that in the US, 1 out of 9,000 people die in a car accident each year? That is freaky high. Over a lifetime that works out to almost a 1% chance.
  Wrong. Independent probabilities don't work that way. Your chance does not get more and more likely the longer you live (disregarding age-related driving factors).
10. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-08 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a 1 in 9000 chance of dying in a car crash each year and live for 80 years, then yes your lifetime odds of dying in a crash are close to 1%.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
11. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  I love driving. It's a relaxing break in the day. Tastes vary.
12. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
  There are many advances that resonate with me and I have been eager to get my hands on.
  I'm not an early adopter, because I'd rather get on board after all the bugs are worked out.
  Instead of just typing out an insult "MyLongNickname," why not enlighten us Luddites as to the wonderful world we will have when most cars are driverless?
  Myself, I like to drive, so tell me how much fun I will have playing solitaire as my car careens across the state of Texas when I make those 900 mile trips back to my home state?
  Will I be able to nap, or will I have to stay alert and focused on the road while doing nothing?
  Will I have to pay for this technology in my car, even though I have no intention of using it?
  Am I safe on the road while the driver in the car in the lane next to me hit "Control, Alt, Delete" and reboots?
  Will the technology be bug-free by the time it hits the market, or will a few thousand people lose their lives, while still in the beta phase?
  These are just some of the reservations that I have.
  Come on, Mr. Smarty Pants. Any bright ideas or are insults your stock in trade?
13. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by olau · 2012-05-08 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot one point: awesomeness!
14. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, using inverse probability (calculating the probability of NOT dying on a lifetime of 80 years).
  1 - ((1 - (1 / 9000))^80) = 0.008849989 = 0.9%
15. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  driverless cars are just a notch below flying cars.
  more than likely it wil be a reality someday but is going to be a long hard road getting there.
  too bad its not as easy as going from horse carriages to horseless.
16. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  If you have a 1 in 9000 chance of dying in a car crash each year and live for 80 years, then yes your lifetime odds of dying in a crash are close to 1%.
  That would be dependent probability. Let's look at an example with playing cards to help see the difference.
  If you have a deck of cards and you pull out one card a year and you die if you pull the Ace of Spades, then probability of getting that card is 1/52. Each and every year. Even on your 52nd pull, your odds are still 1 out of 52.
  In order for the odds to increase over time, the cards could not be replaced in the deck. That is, each year you would have a higher probability of pulling the Ace of Spades because there are less cards to pull from.
  Dying in a car crash is NOT like this in two important ways:
  1. People are replaced.
  2. Your odds of dying next year from a car crash are completely unrelated to whether or not you die in a car crash this year. (again, age related driving problems excluded).
17. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-08 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Let me see if I can clarify
  If you are arguing that you and I have a less than 1% chance of dying in our lifetime because we have already survived a number of decades, I agree. But my point is that if a person born today has a 1 in 9000 chance of dying in a car crash each year and this person would otherwise have lived to 80, the odds are pretty close to 1% that he or she will die in a car crash.
  1 - (8999/9000)^80 is around 0.9%.
  If I am missing something obvious, please clarify.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
18. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-08 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  The only other thing I can think of is you are assuming I am going 1 * 80 / 9000 to get my calc. For numbers this close to zero and for this short of a period, the math works out pretty close, though.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
19. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-08 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bite.
  I cannot say when the majority of cars will be driverless, but I can say the technology is darn near close to ready now. There have been enough real world tests to show that it does work. I think the only thing remaining is to get the cars into the real world. Are there risks? Yes. This is why Nevada required the driver and passenger for the near future. The original poster (may be you, may not be) suggested that even this very controlled rules would mean he would not even travel to Nevada. That is sheer stupidity.
  If you enjoy driving, have at it. Me? I'd much rather do something productivee. 900 mile car rides are for the birds. I've done those and longer. If I could use the time productively, I'd jump at it. And yes, you could nap... the car will be able to drive more safely than you, especially at night when your one mean of perceiving the environment around you is dramatically diminished.
  Are you safe from the driver next to you? Safer than a piloted car. I am a defensive driver and regularly have to adjust for idiots who think a yellow light means they should hurry up and get through the intersection even though they won't make it until three seconds after it turns red. My position on the safety of autonomous cars isn't coming from a vaccum... these cars have been tested in Europe, Asia and North America... the next step is expanding the testing.
  Will it be bug free? Probably not. But neither are the people who drive now. Even a perfect program dealing with an uncontrolled environment will make "mistakes". But it will be safer than human driving. If your argument is that a driverless car will have accidents, therefore we shouldn't use them, then you should also insist we get rid of cars altogether.
  So, I stand by my statement to the GGP. If he won't travel to Nevada because they put in a well-regulated to test an unpiloted car, then he is a luddite.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
20. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-08 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Driverless cars exist today.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
21. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Odds of dying in a given year: 1 in 9000
  Odds of surviving a given year: 8999 in 9000
  Odds of surviving 80 years: (8999/9000)^80 = 0.99115001099511324
  Odds of dying in 80 years 1 - 0.99115001099511324 = 0.0088499890048867602 = 0.88%
  So yes, about 1%
22. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, let me try another example. Imagine flipping a coin. The odds are 1 in 2 that you'll get heads. So you flip once and get tails. You're math indicates that the next probability of getting heads is 1 in 1. However, the real probability of getting heads on the next coin flip is still 1 in 2. Each time you flip, the probability is independent of the previous times you flipped.
  But you're essentially assuming that with each 1 in 9,000 odd you survive that your odds are getting worse the next time. That's a mathematical fallacy. To read more about this check this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
  This is all despite the fact that even if 1 in 9,000 people die in a car wreck each year, that is not the same as your *chance* as though it were a blind lottery of some kind. Teenagers texting behind the wheel have a greater probability of being that 1 in 9000 than an adult paying attention.
23. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  You're math
  And while trying to think about math, my brain forgets grammar. Awesome.
24. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by MyLongNickName · 2012-05-08 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, let me try another example. Imagine flipping a coin. The odds are 1 in 2 that you'll get heads. So you flip once and get tails. You're math indicates that the next probability of getting heads is 1 in 1. However, the real probability of getting heads on the next coin flip is still 1 in 2. Each time you flip, the probability is independent of the previous times you flipped.
  Yes, I agree. If I have a coin with a 50-50 chance of heads or tails, then my 50th flip is also a 50-50 chance. Howevevr, the odds of getting all heads 80 times in a row is (0.5^80). If heads is the chance of dying in a car crash in a given year, then 80 flips means I have a 1 - (0.5^80) chance of dying (not good).
  So if I have a 1 in 9000 chance in any given year of dying, then the cumulative odds of surviving driving over 80 years is (8999/9000) ^ 80. I am not talking about my odds of dying in year 80, but the odds of a single person dying some time in their life.
  I am not assuming that my odds go up each year, but am talking about a forward look cumulative percentage. As a 38 year old, I only have 40 or so years of chances to die in a car crash (I am down to about a 0.4% chance).
  I think we both are talking past each other a bit and don't have any fundamental disagreement about the math.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
25. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, your math is more sound than mine. Remind me not to go to Vegas any time soon. In a car or otherwise.
  At least this 1 in 9000 is not all "chance" per se.
26. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  By similar reasoning, you should avoid visiting locations that may have drunk drivers (who unfortunately never have a sticker on their car labeling them as a drunk driver).
27. Re:What is the point of a driverless car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  >> 5. Decreased costs. Autonomous cars will eventually lead to services where you do not have to buy a car. Simply pay for a ride and have a car show up when you need it.
  Thats exactly why I don't get married, if you know what I mean...
Watch the road! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-07 16:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

If there wasn't this requirement, one guy could conceivably monitor the instruments and not pay attention to the road since the car is driving itself.
Yet half the drivers on the roads in Las Vegas, Nevada are TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONE instead of paying attention to the roads! Even after it was made illegal! And many of them can't even maintain a normal speed or sometimes even lane position! Nevermind being able to react to anything around them.
The penalty is a fine, but perhaps it should be having the phone inserted via one's rectum. (*)
Scratch that, too many weirdos here would like that.
(*)
"Hey that driver with the cell phone just crashed into an innocent person.. They should shove that phone up his ass"
"You mean rectum".
"Rectum? Damn near killed 'em"

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
1. Re:Watch the road! by Riceballsan · 2012-05-08 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well yeah, that is kind of a given around the country, or probably the world. In almost every scenerio I would imagine the self driving cars will outperform real drivers, but the first major accident will lead to a large amount of controversy where people are judging are these things safe on the road, even if their miles/accident ratio is 1/100th of a humans. I suppose that is humans natural inclination to prefer when faced with risks, a statistical 5% chance of killing themselves from their own fault, over a .0001% chance of killing themselves from something they can't control. Same reason why many are afraid to fly, but are perfectly fine driving. or despite statistics repeatedly confirming that people are far more likely to accidentally shoot themselves, than they are to successfully thwart an intruder, many people feel safer with a gun near their bed.
2. Re:Watch the road! by Belial6 · 2012-05-08 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'll agree with the flying part, but I have yet to see any report on gun safety that doesn't use confirmation bias when reporting that owning a gun is more dangerous than not. 99.999% of all incidents where a gun is used to thwart an intruder is never reported. Most of the time the gun owner doesn't even know it happened, or the gun that thwarted the intrusion wasn't even in the house that it thwarted the intrusion for.
3. Re:Watch the road! by joggle · 2012-05-09 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I only have anecdotal evidence, which of course isn't convincing but finding accurate statistics on this isn't easy.
  When my dad was a teenager, he sneaked out of his parents' home then came back early in the morning (at 3am or so). His dad heard something and went downstairs, nearly shooting my dad thinking he was an intruder. He got rid of his gun the next day.
  Even if you could find convincing statistics on accidental shootings, it wouldn't include the many close calls like that case.
  I wouldn't mind owning a rifle, for target shooting or hunting. But if someone broke into my house, I'd rather have bear spray or pepper spray than a gun when confronting them. I think bear spray would probably be more likely to work (even if I miss, which isn't likely, being near the stream would probably disable the intruder), and I don't have to worry about killing someone (either the intruder or a relative), I don't really want to kill anyone if I don't have to. I've read many stories of people who have killed teenagers breaking into their homes who felt tremendous guilt later on even though they were legally defending their homes.
4. Re:Watch the road! by Belial6 · 2012-05-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  How many times did your fathers house not get robbed because there were or could be guns in the house?
5. Re:Watch the road! by Rich0 · 2012-05-09 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, parent probably deserves positive mods.
  Weapons don't have to be used to be effective. Personally I'd rather live in a world where nobody needs guns, but being the only person alive on a planet would be rather lonely, so I can see how they have their place.
  I'd probably never buy a gun without having a security system as well, with full lights applied when it is set off. I think half of my fear if owning a gun is that if there is some creaking noise outside the room I'd have no idea if it is just environmental conditions, some kid looking to steal something, somebody who means serious harm, or just one of the kids using the bathroom. Something like an alarm would wake the house and allow me to be alerted to a problem with sufficient time that my eyes might actually be working before I'm confronted with a potential target. In fact, being groggy and having a gun in your hand is really a bad situation to be in for many reasons - if you're armed and your adversary is as well, you've just placed yourself into a your-life-or-mine situation with somebody who has the element of surprise. If you're unarmed they have less incentive to just fire immediately. The gun really only works out in your favor if you have at least a moment of surprise to identify your target before they realize you're there. The bad guy already knows anybody in the house is unfriendly.
6. Re:Watch the road! by bobcat7677 · 2012-05-16 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons as a deterrent can be effective in a couple ways. I keep a pump shotgun at home partly because the sound of racking it's slide is quite distinctive. If I hear somebody mucking about in my house I can rack the slide on that shotgun and say "whos there". I doubt there is going to be anybody that would not know what that means. At that point, I have "screened" the target to a degree as somebody who is supposed to be there will identify themselves, an average burglar that isn't out to hurt me will have the opportunity to flee, and anybody else is almost certainly having violent intentions and deserves to be treated accordingly. Even still...basic rule: always identify your target.
"Infinity" symbol is a bad idea... by fantomas · 2012-05-07 19:48 · Score: 1

Oh man, using an infinity symbol probably seemed such a cool idea when the high tech-ness of it all impressed the authorities. But you know it's going to be a pain when the next generation of even more high tech even more whizzy road vehicles comes along. Oh heck, they'll need plates with "Infinity plus one" . Doh! Bad idea :-)
Real test: Find parking space by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 22:43 · Score: 0

Wonder how these cars perform if you need to find parking space in a city or crowded parking lot, with other manned and unmanned vehicles competing.
Simple by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-05-07 23:43 · Score: 1

I can understand having a "driver" that can take over if something goes wrong, but what is the purpose of the 2nd person?
The 2nd person is there to help disassemble and hide the car in case it startles a horse.
Seriously, Nevada? by toddmbloom · 2012-05-08 02:33 · Score: 0

How many idiots does the RMV employ that they would think "Hm, you know what the roads in the US need more of? Driverless cars. What could possibly go wrong?".

I'm going to assume that a lot of money exchanged hands between Google and Nevada.
RTFS, genius by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:18 · Score: 0

The state previously outlined that companies that want to test such vehicles will need an insurance bond of $1 million and must provide detailed outlines of where they plan to test it and under what conditions.
Hauling and Trucking will be first customers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 07:29 · Score: 0

I think Truckers will now be replaced by their robotic overlords. Can avoid all the problems at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_driver#Truck_driver_problems_.28U.S..29
1. Re:Hauling and Trucking will be first customers by neonKow · 2012-05-15 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  That would be true if driving a truck were as easy as driving a car. If you've ever tried, you'd probably realize very quickly this is not true.
If you Google "Search engine" by toygeek · 2012-05-08 12:11 · Score: 1

Ironically, if you use Google.com to search for "search engine", the first thing it takes you to is Dogpile.com.
Proof:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=search+engine&l=1

--
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog