Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Musk Says Drivers May Become Obsolete, Announces Juice-Saving Upgrades

Posted by timothy on from the dog's-not-that-shaggy dept.

Lucas123 (935744) writes During a discussion at a Nvidia conference, Elon Musk predicted that in the future, consumers will not be allowed to drive cars because it will be considered too dangerous. [Note: compare Lyft CEO Logan Green's opposite view] 'You can't have a person driving a two-ton death machine,' he said. Others agree. Thilo Koslowski, a vice president at Gartner, said instead of laws dictating drivers must cede control to their car's computer, we may someday someday just pass signs requiring drivers to activate auto-drive functionality for certain particularly treacherous stretches of roadway. Kowlowski said fully autonomous vehicles won't be ubiquitous for another 10 to 15 years, but the government could spur that on by offering tax incentives as it does today with all-electric vehicles and hybrids. Related news: it may not be fully autonomous driving, but Tesla S drivers are promised an upgrade a few months from now that gives a taste, with the addition of automatic steering features. And though it's perhaps anti-climactic as a solution to "ending range anxiety," Musk also announced today that Teslas will get in the next two weeks a software upgrade that will greatly upgrade the cars' routing software, integrating "near-realtime" lists of available supercharger stations, and keeping drivers apprised of whether one is within range.

341 comments

  1. The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this something people actually want, empty marketing rhetoric, or a frightening imminent example of 'manufactured consent'?

    1. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would love to never have to drive a car again. Are you the kind of person who "goes for a drive" on weekends with no destination in mind?

    2. Re:The real question in my mind... by lpevey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this really is the important question. Tech visionaries often fall into the trap of not figuring what people actually want into their estimates of how quickly and widely a new technology will be adapted. The politicians who make these rules (or appoint the people who do) are in the business of being re-elected. They are going to go with what the majority wants on this issue, and right now, the vast majority or non-techie people are very, very afraid of self-driving technology. Yes, I agree that will eventually change, but it will likely be very slow. Many, many regulatory decisions have been made not based on the prevailing science of the time, but on what people were willing to accept. Nuclear power has a lot of benefits, but it is not widely adapted because people don't want it anywhere near them. When it comes to drugs, alcohol is perfectly legal while pot (in most states, and for many years) is not. Based on science? Nope, just based on what the majority of people want at the time.

    3. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would love to never have to drive a car again. Are you the kind of person who "goes for a drive" on weekends with no destination in mind?

      You can buy just about anything you can get in a store online, including groceries, and have it all delivered to your door.
      And of course if you 'telecommute' and work from home then you don't have to drive to an office very often. ... and if you need 'face time' with friends you can use Skype or whatnot, and you can text and call... ... so what the heck, who needs a car?! You can stay home and become the 700lb guy stuck in a bed when the ambulance shows up.

      Or, heck, you could take up bike riding, walking, etc...wonder how the self-driving car handles it when the guy on the bicycle swerves out into the road?

    4. Re: The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice FUD there ya lunatic.

    5. Re:The real question in my mind... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. I can see cases for autonomous vehicles, but I can also see cases where one want or even needs to operate the vehicle. I don't doubt that drivers will want to cede driving to the car for their boring commutes or even for relatively boring cross-country drives on interstate highways, but there are on-road and off-road drives that are a lot of fun for the enthusiast and many such as I won't want to give up the option for that.

      This might be one area where looking at the current behavior of the wealthy could indicate how people will behave when self-driving cars become mainstream. Many very wealthy people will employ a driver for mundane driving but will drive themselves for leisure driving or sport. I could see the family sedan or van or SUV being primarily self-driving, but in a household with more than one car a second vehicle might be sportier and more commonly human-driven, either on-road or off-road. I also expect that self-driving vehicles will still be capable of being human-driven so that people can drive on unpaved roads or can place vehicles in garages or service bays where the computer probably would struggle to figure out the logic of the area.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:The real question in my mind... by jd142 · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, what size city do you live in? I'd love to have a self-driving car so I could spend more time at my mother's instead of leaving early so I don't fall asleep on the 2 hours of boring interstate to drive home. And that's just one example. It's a 5 hour drive to Chicago; I'd love to just pull on the interstate and let the car take over for the ride home after a tiring day. In town for groceries and shopping is probably the last place I would let the car take over. There are more variables, but speeds are slower, and it would keep me in practice. Long drives on the interstate, where there are fewer variables would be the first place I'd use it. Sure, the speeds are faster and accidents are worse, but the cars around you are all going in one direction, approximately the same speed, and there are almost no stops, so less to react to. And if the cars can talk to one another it would be even better. Add in infrared detectors to spot the deer in the ditches in the middle of the night and I'd be set.

    7. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will be programmed to eliminate any threat to the domination of the automobile. The cyclist's death will be swift for daring to use the road they're entitled to.

    8. Re:The real question in my mind... by jfengel · · Score: 0

      there are on-road and off-road drives that are a lot of fun for the enthusiast and many such as I won't want to give up the option for that.

      While I'm sorry about the loss of a fun activity, we don't spend tens of billions of dollars per year on roads for entertainment. If the best way to make the roads efficient and safe would be to get the human drivers off of them, I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. (I don't know if that is really required or not, but I suspect that roadways could be a lot more efficient if we eliminated the human factor: closer following distances, no need for yellow cycles on traffic lights, better planning for capacity, etc.)

      People can use the roads for leisure driving now, because every other driver on the road is human and we have built everything to take that into account. But I just don't see giving up potentially billions of dollars in efficiency gains to preserve your ability to have fun on the roads.

      There's probably some compromise that sets aside some roads for you, and maybe even sharing the roads at certain times when there are few other drivers. But I think a lot of people, including me, will consider that a lower priority.

    9. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You started talking about efficiency. There are exist much simpler solutions: 1) Take a bus. (one driver drive several passengers). 2) Take a train. 3). Take a shared drive. Any option will get you what you want (better efficiency), but much cheaper and with no funny technology used.

    10. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this really is the important question. Tech visionaries often fall into the trap of not figuring what people actually want into their estimates of how quickly and widely a new technology will be adapted.

      I remember how Bill Gates never thought that the Internet would ever take off. Also Edison thought we'd all live in pour-in-place concrete houses while Buckminster Fuller expected the geodesic dome to dominate all future construction.

    11. Re:The real question in my mind... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Humans are already willing to make the economically inferior choice in that we don't use mass-transit in many cases even when it would arguably be easier or less stressful than driving ourselves. Part of that is the feeling of control that we want over the situation. While the occupants might technically exercise ultimate control over a self-driving vehicle in the form of ownership, the lack of immediate control might not be accepted.

      There are still people that own and ride horses, even in suburban and urban areas, even after the automobile has supplanted the horse as the primary means of transportation, and despite the drawbacks that caring for another living thing over an inanimate object creates. I very much doubt that eliminating the ability to drive on unimproved 'roads' in national forests and other undeveloped lands will ever pass, as too many people enjoy doing it and too many other people would like the option even if they don't do it regularly.

      I'll happily use a self-driving car for my morning commute and for other mundane driving, but I will not voluntarily give up the right to drive myself when I want to. If it comes down to the choice between only autonomous vehicles or only human-driven vehicles, I would cast my support for the latter.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:The real question in my mind... by aaron4801 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, requirements in the auto industry move slowly. Airbags were patented in the 1950's, saw use in production vehicles in the 1970's, but were not mandated in the USA until a law was passed in 1991....which didn't take effect until 1998. Seat belts have a similar history. And these are things without the moral implications of programming a car to potentially choose *which* imminent accident to avoid. 40+ years to go from concept to federal mandate. Testing has started, but we are still very much in the conceptual phase of self-driving cars.
      Now, layer in the fact that there's a strong culture in the US where driving == freedom, and he still thinks this will be a requirement in any of our lifetimes? For the foreseeable future, it would be political suicide, no matter what the safety statistics say. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

    13. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tech visionaries often fall into the trap of not figuring what people actually want into their estimates of how quickly and widely a new technology will be adapted.

      Americans spend an average of 5.5 hours per week in non-recreational driving (commuting, errands, etc), and a large majority consider it an unpleasant activity. Commuters will, on average, accept a 75 minute train/subway trip in lieu of a 60 minute driving trip, citing the opportunity to read, work, or sleep. People are willing to sacrifice 30 minutes of extra time at home, the privacy of their own car, and flexibility of schedule just to avoid driving in rush hour.

      Demand for self-driving cars will be enormous. The last invention that had the potential to eliminate 5+ hours of chores per week was the washing machine, which changed how we washed clothes nearly overnight. The only barrier to adoption was price, and most of those who could not afford one would rather rent the use of a commercially-owned one than to wash clothes manually.

    14. Re:The real question in my mind... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Humans are already willing to make the economically inferior choice in that we don't use mass-transit

      Only if you don't value your time. I can drive to work in 20 minutes, or I can spend 2 hours on mass transit

      One big benefit of self driving cars will be mass transit that actually works. Instead of infrequent big buses, that drive fixed routes, we could have lots of small vans that go point to point.

    15. Re:The real question in my mind... by TWX · · Score: 1

      By definition that's not mass-transit. That's just transit.

      The real advantage that I see to self-driving vehicles for commutes is their ability to park off-site or to self-valet after dropping off their occupant(s) at the destination. Free parking is the norm in suburban areas, but in urban areas where one cannot necessarily park close to one's destination anyway, being able to subscribe to one's garage or parking lot and simply let the car go park itself after getting out would be a real time-saver. Depending on the cost of parking versus the cost of driving, it might even make sense to send the car home again and have it return later to collect the person. Plus if the navigation and area perception sensors are really good, cars might be able to park too close to open doors, meaning more cars could park in a given area than if passengers have to get in and out while they're parked.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    16. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those may be more "efficient" for everyone else, but not for me. The bus and the train don't go where I want to go when I want to go there, and that wastes my time. My car can do that, as will my future self-driving one.

    17. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is not widely adapted because of accidents at nuclear plants. Prior to those widely publicized accidents, which could/should have been prevented, it was a growing industry in many countries.

    18. Re:The real question in my mind... by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Its mass transit if it effectively moves the same amount of passengers at the same or lower cost.

      Don't get stuck on definitions. The bigger issue is should we be deploying large and expensive "mass transit" solutions that have a lifetime (and amortization schedule) measured in decades (30-50 years in many cases) if it simply won't be able to cover the cost of operation before that. Leaving the operators and local government holding the bag (to finish paying for it.) Typical case of stranded capital.

      If autonomous vehicles effectively (and cheaply) replace the need for mass transit then purchase decisions on mass transit being made today need to be considered. Road improvements and (for example) buses (which have a shorter life cycle) may be the best investment today. Fixed infrastructure (subways, rail, etc) may be riskier.

    19. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is manufactured consent until proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

      This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

    20. Re:The real question in my mind... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      cars might be able to park too close to open doors, meaning more cars could park in a given area

      Also, cars could park directly head-to-tail. Then when a car three deep is summoned, it could signal the other two cars to move. The lanes through the lot could also be made much narrower. The capacity of parking lots could easily be doubled, and possibly tripled.

    21. Re:The real question in my mind... by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      cars might be able to park too close to open doors, meaning more cars could park in a given area

      Also, cars could park directly head-to-tail. Then when a car three deep is summoned, it could signal the other two cars to move. The lanes through the lot could also be made much narrower. The capacity of parking lots could easily be doubled, and possibly tripled.

      In some European cities, it is customary to leave your car parked in neutral and with no parking brake on (obviously on the flat). When someone wishes to park parallel park in a tight spot, they just nudge the cars in front or behind, causing them to roll, widening the spot. This allows cars to be parked "nose to tail".

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    22. Re:The real question in my mind... by catchblue22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember how Bill Gates never thought that the Internet would ever take off. Also Edison thought we'd all live in pour-in-place concrete....

      Yeah well, I don't think that Bill Gates is a genius. According to this interesting perspective,

      What really made him rich was having been in the right place at the right time in 1981 when IBM needed an operating system for its new PC. Gates (with Allen) borrowed heavily, to put it gently, from an existing operating system, Digital Research’s CP/M. (For DR’s version of this history—“Microsoft paid Seattle Software Works for an unauthorized clone of CP/M, and Microsoft licensed this clone to IBM”—see here. A less biased, though still damning, look is here.) In other words, another instance of adopting someone else’s work and taking credit for it—this time with the innovation of litigating aggressively and manipulating markets to defend a monopoly position. Because once it secured that monopoly, Microsoft did everything it could to crush competition.

      And Edison was rather similar. Edison used brute force discovery to solve the light-bulb filament problem, and used some, shall we say agressive business tactics to protect his business. In order to make people afraid of his competition (alternating current, Westinghouse), he used AC to electrocute animals such as elephants. He successfully campaigned to have AC used to execute death row prisoners (the electric chair). He was, IMHO not a genius.

      Elon Musk is, in my opinion, a bona fide genius. With a bachelors degree in physics, he taught himself rocket science, and was the chief designer of an entire rocket, the Falcon I. This rocket managed to put two objects in orbit before being superceded by the Falcon 9. The amount of information he must have learned is astounding. Fluid dynamics, combustion, orbital dynamics and trajectory control, metallurgy, each in and of itself an entire field of study. He also has a solid background in computer science.

      So, I will give what Musk says on the future of transport quite a bit of weight. He has earned it.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    23. Re:The real question in my mind... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It would be mass transit if instead of needing your own van, you could just arrange a ride with one with a simple Uber-like app whenever you needed one, riding with up to several other people who might be going your way. There could be options to pay extra for exclusivity or cargo ("I need to pick up ten bags of lawn fertilizer at Home Depot").

    24. Re:The real question in my mind... by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Is this something people actually want, empty marketing rhetoric, or a frightening imminent example of 'manufactured consent'?

      I definitely think this is manufactured consent. How many drivers complained they don't want to drive anymore? Maybe a few, but the vast majority of the drivers do enjoy driving. Being a passenger all the time sucks. For these people, self-driving cars are a solution to a non-existent problem.

    25. Re:The real question in my mind... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I'd gladly use public transit for a significant percentage of my journeys, if it didn't cost so much more than driving. I'm not going to buy a $2.25 bus ticket to go a couple of miles when my car can get me there on 20 cents of gas.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    26. Re:The real question in my mind... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      As a bicyclist I would prefer computer driven cars to not paying attention human driven cars.
      Most humans don't seem to grasp that they are using a 1000kg weapon to get around. They call,sms or facebook while they should be driving.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    27. Re:The real question in my mind... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You also need to factor in the insurance, maintenance, cost of the car, cost of parking, and cost of legalities of owning a car (registration, inspection, etc.). Pretending those don't exist isn't exactly helping you make a rational case.

    28. Re:The real question in my mind... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not widely adopted because of uninformed public outcry at nuclear accidents, and the inherent costs of nuclear power stations.

    29. Re:The real question in my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe where it is not boring to drive but real pleasure and no thanks no I prefer driving myself and changing the gears, speeding on the highway and good luck thinking your self-driving car can drive better than me or other stick shift drivers in the winding mountain or seaside roads :D we accept the challege.

    30. Re:The real question in my mind... by jjbenz · · Score: 1

      You make a good point there, especially with all the idiots I see lately that want to text and drive at the same time.

    31. Re:The real question in my mind... by burbilog · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree that will eventually change, but it will likely be very slow. Many, many regulatory decisions have been made not based on the prevailing science of the time, but on what people were willing to accept.

      Most probably it's going to be accepted incrementally, one by one, until we wake up with already self-driving car. Nobody (well, almost) complains about ABS now and nobody argues that ABS is much better for 99% of drivers (and remaining 1% is way too overconfident). It's just there.

      The same is going to happen with automatic collision avoidance. With sign recognition. With lane following. One change at time.

    32. Re:The real question in my mind... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      As it happens, my total cost of car ownership has been significantly lower than the $100 monthly buss pass price for the last 5 years. But that's not the point. Many of my trips (and most people's trips) aren't possible without a car, so I have to own the car. As long as I own the car, public transit is prohibitively expensive. If public transit were affordable, people would leave their car at home sometimes.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    33. Re:The real question in my mind... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Consider also that if you're going somewhere with someone the public transit price doubles while the car price remains the same.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    34. Re:The real question in my mind... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Not to mention no pedestrians, no bicycles, no intersections, good lighting and standardized signage.
      That is definitely where automatic driving will get its start.

    35. Re: The real question in my mind... by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

      Which city is that ? In Paris people nudge other cars but handbrake is on

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  2. That's fine for in the city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What do makers of autonomous cars expect people that live in rural areas that drive vehicles off roads to do? No matter how automated your commute in from the suburbs to work gets, there are still people that will need to control their vehicles for some time to come.

    Basically, people NEED to be able to override the self driving aspect whenever they want.

    1. Re:That's fine for in the city by jd142 · · Score: 2

      Funny, I was thinking just the opposite. Rural areas would be easier since there are few interactions with other cars. And they'd be able to react faster when a deer jumps in front of you. Of course, getting a heads up infrared would go a long way to avoiding deer at night. Unless it is planting or harvesting time, the odds of seeing and interacting with anything on gravel road here are practically nil. Maybe 1 vehicle for every 10 miles I drive. Computers should find that pretty easy. All you have to do is keep it between the fenceposts.

  3. HUH by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2

    I thought we'd have flying cars before we'd lose the chance to drive.

    All kidding aside, 40 years from now we'll still be driving our own cars because programmers won't be able to help a car decide if it is allowed to avoid a collision that will kill a driver by swerving onto a sidewalk and killing two pedestrians.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:HUH by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that scenario would even happen. That would require a human mistake on one side. That might happen if one guy was self driving and not letting the computer drive.

    2. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not? If the car knows about the pedestrians and about the upcoming collision, the choice is easy. Avoid the pedestrians. They don't have seats and seat belts and airbags and crumple zones to protect them.

    3. Re:HUH by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Flying cars would be too dangerous to be allowed into the hands of the likes of us. Ordinary cars are bad enough - but at least they mostly kill people on the street, and are hard to weaponise. A flying car would be basically a piloted missile, ready to hit any building the driver wants. If the engineering problems were solved then the only way most governments would allow a flying car to be sold would be with a piloting computer wrapped in anti-tamper measures - all the driver does is set a destination landing pad or pad set from the government-approved list. Manual flying cars may be available with a special license for use by emergency services or law enforcement, in much the same capacity as helicopters are today.

    4. Re:HUH by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you wouldn't allow people to fly small airplanes, now would you?

      Oh, wait...

      What kind of stupid world are we coming to where this nonsense makes any sense to anyone?

    5. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are programmers no longer human?

    6. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft! Too easy...There was never a question. Always go for the pedestrians.

    7. Re:HUH by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      You don't get it. So please spare us your fake indignation. Far from claiming pedestrian life and insurance don't mean anything he's saying that that scenario (where a car would have no valid move but to kill someone) would not exist as the car would not allow itself to be put in such a situation in the first place.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:HUH by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Trouble with flying cars is that they consume more energy than ground cars for every mile they drive. And while oil is cheap right now, it' still quite a bit cheaper to roll along the ground than hovering above it. Granted, things like maglev trains technically are more efficient but they're a special case with a great number of caveats that account for their efficiency. Something as versatile as a car that can go (almost) wherever it wants will always consume less energy if it doesn't have to float over the ground. And that efficiency is really what keeps flying cars from really taking off (pun intended).

    9. Re:HUH by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or a mechanical failure on the part of a self driving car but anyway....

      The reason we will not have a self driving car is because we do not have the technology to do it to the extent that the manufacture will be willing to except the liability in the event of an accident. Instead we will eventually over time with many upgrades along the way get a very advanced version of cruise control that can be turned off and on shifting the liability back to the driver.

      Just like we don't have flying cars because it's not practical from production cost or for the manufacture or owner to take on that liability as a mechanical failure at altitude is immediately a costly accident. This is not the case with the cars we have now mechanical failures although they can don't usually result in an accident.

       

    10. Re: HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cant wait for punks to hop in the road for fun to watch the cars auto-stop :-)

    11. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a more pessimistic view... 40 years from now, we will be either hoofing it or buying overpriced bicycles from China or Mexico because vehicles will be priced well out of reach for the average person (about $450,000 if one takes historical price increases) and people's salaries will still likely still be the same we have now [1]. Even if one gets the vehicle, we likely will still be on oil and coal [2], perhaps with a war in the Middle East, or paying obscene prices to China or Russia for the privilege of re-buying oil/gas from their occupied territories after they have claimed the oil pipelines in the region, and the US is fracked out. I doubt we will see animals because of the amounts of over-regulation (one farmer near me rode his stud bull as transportation on his land until his neighbors who moved a few years ago from California ran videotapes, then sicced PETA and the Humane Society on him.)

      Even if vehicles were available, I wonder if the average person will have the proper zone travel permit to leave a city for another, unless they are being sent to war, or packed up to go to a prison camp. I wouldn't be surprise to see this negative feedback loop about terrorism combined with people freely giving away any rights they have, to end up with so much regulation and Draconian laws... that just crossing a county line or city limits would require a body cavity search... and that is assuming one has the proper permit and money for a crossing fee.

      Air travel? With the "justifications" being security and fuel costs, this will be another thing priced well beyond our means, especially 40 years from now. Tickets are not getting cheaper, nor average incomes rising. Plus, with how absolutely poor the airlines treat passengers in the US, riding a plane would make being packed in a slave ship sound comfortable.

      I don't think we will ever see self-driving cars:

      1: Cities love their money and free vehicles from seizures. Nailing people for traffic violations is a quite lucrative market (look at the red light cameras that will go green to red without a yellow... and how Chicago loves them. Similar with speed cameras which take pictures of cars stopped in traffic... but with a high speed on the pic.)
      2: NIH syndrome Nobody wants a single standard. Everyone wants their own.
      3: No cars made today support it... and realistically, not many Americans can buy new cars or retrofits for their existing rides. Even where I am in Austin, I still see people still driving their 1990s Civics and 2000s-era Hyundais.
      4: If stationary items are needed (say to watch and manage traffic at various complex intersections), no city will built them. Take Austin, for example. The city has not made a significant highway improvement in 20 years, other than toll roads. Think they would help with moving autonomous cars, versus telling residents, "buy a bicycle"?
      5: NIMBY.

      [1]: In the early 1990s, a college degree would get you at minimum, $36,000 a year. Now, unless one has an internship, previous experience, or some in, one winds up getting out to a job at an income less than that. In fact, a $9/hour barista job is what I see computer science students hoping for here in Austin... that or having the US Army recruit them with MOS 11X.

      [2]: It would be great if Jimmy Carter didn't put an executive order putting a permanent moratorium on new power reactors in a knee-jerk reaction to 3MI. Imagine how useful nuclear power would be if we were not dealing with 1950s-1970s technology here in the US. California's water problems would have been solved by reactors and desalination plants, similar to how the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries turn desert into arable, fertile land.

    12. Re:HUH by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Do you think self driving cars will also be mechanically infallible? If the car in front in that situation had a tie rod suddenly snap, then it could very easily come to a very unexpected halt.

      While this is not something that is very likely, I used it as an example because I recently had it happen to me.

      But there are all kinds of reasons that could cause an unexpected obstacle in the road. Crap falls off of trucks more frequently that it should. 20 years ago I was on the highway and a truck in front of me was hauling a trailer full of bricks and cinder block. The trailer broke loose and rolled several times tossing the contents all over the place. I was lucky enough to be closer than the drivers behind me as I could dodge just the trailer and a few flying objects. But a dozen or so cars behind me were hit by debris.

      Computer controlled navigation is not going to overcome metal fatigue, or pothole damage, bridge collapses, or any number of things that unfortunately happen in the real world.

    13. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice that the car isn't allowing itself to be put in to that situation, but what happens if things which aren't the car collude to put it in to that situation? Programs crash all the time. The reason for it is because something happened that the program didn't expect. It happens. The code can be 100% reliable, and then a solar flare can be released which causes a surge in electromagnetic interference, leading to a random bit flip in memory, corrupting a portion of code meant to handle just that situation and then what?

      More likely is, kids are playing on either side of the street and at the same time right as you're about to get up to them, they both swerve out in front of you from both sides to say hi to each other. This isn't a matter of the car putting itself in certain situations, it's a matter of the world putting the car in certain situations.

    14. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is correct only if you assume blind corners don't exist, all objects (trees, rocks, etc.) are somehow prevented from ever falling in the road, the self-driving cars will never break down or malfunction, and the adoption of self driving cars would rise from 0 to 100%.

      There are thousands of situations that don't involve human error that would result in a self driving car having to make an ethical decision. Removing human error would reduce the number of accidents, but it will never eliminate them entirely.

    15. Re: HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Cause you know cars never break down and electronics are 100% infallible.

    16. Re:HUH by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. If it all goes to shit and the car has to inevitably crash I will crash it differently (when I'm driving), depending on who I have with me in the car. If my wife is in the car, you can be sure that I will crash my side of the car, rather then hers. If our child was in the car though, there are too many factors - e.g. I my crash my side, I may crash the child's side. A child without parents is pretty miserable, and a younger child can easily (in physical form only) be replaced by two healthy parents. I would rather have my wife hate me for the rest of hew life, than blame her fate and feel a victim completely out of control ... Until a self driving car is able to make such a distinction - No, my family is not boarding one.

    17. Re:HUH by tompatman · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong. Musk has already indicated that the next Tesla will have some hands free capababilities, no doubt freeway driving assist. This is basically self driving as the driver can remove their hands from the wheel and legs from the pedals. The Infiniti Q50 already has this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . From this point forward the car is going to get incrementally more automated. Name a major car company that isn't currently involved in heavy R&D for self driving tech. If you found one, you just found a car company that will be out of business in a decade.

    18. Re:HUH by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Assuming that your human reactions allow you to make that decision in the few seconds before you collide with the obstacle ahead of you, of course.

    19. Re:HUH by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Good choice of examples. Guess which percentage of plane crashes is caused by pilot error, error by the mechanic, other human error or intentional sabotage? I've just accounted for almost all plane crashes. The actual "mechanical failure" or "weather" causes are quite, quite small. Add that to the fact that cars aren't usually 30,000 feet in the air and subject to being destroyed by plummeting to earth, and I'd think the actual losses of people due to a failed system in a car to be quite small. Yeah maybe the guy whose car broke down in the middle of the desert or a blizzard. But he was going to die anyway in a regular car if that happened. Today's cars fail too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:HUH by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      " a solar flare"

      Right. These things are usually put down as "act of god". They happen today too. If you're clutching to the notion of a freak accident to throw out a concept, well I've got stuff to sell you. I hope you're one of these survivalists who is betting it all on the world ending. Real soon now.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re: HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, jumping in front of those automated cars, with their cameras, facial recognition, GPS, and 8G connections. I'm sure it will be huge - there's no way those punks would be easily caught!

    22. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have flying cars. We call them airplanes and require more training before "drivers" are licensed to operate them.

    23. Re:HUH by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Learning to fly a small airplane requires a lot of money and dedication. Only a tiny minority can do this at present.

    24. Re:HUH by sl149q · · Score: 2

      We can allow people to fly small planes because so few of them want to do it.

      It would be a nightmare if everybody who currently owns a car had a plane and wanted to fly it in the numbers we see cars on the road.

      Effectively, given the requirements for distance before and after each plane, it would be impossible to actually get everyone into the air and flying at the same time.

    25. Re:HUH by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      That would depend, is the driver or the pedestrians better customers for the company? A simple internet query checking buying history, market segment and income status should solve that equation in plenty of time.

    26. Re:HUH by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      It's no more difficult to insure a machine than it is to insure a person. Sure autonomous cars may kill the odd person but so do cars now. When the do the insurance will cover the legal costs. Just like now. It may look right now like th liability moves from the driver to the manufacturer, but that's just a matter of legislation or business model. For sure the cost of that insurance will be passed on. To the car owner in one way or another. There is no hurdle there that need slow the path to autonomous cars by a single day. The hard part is the technical challenges, not how insurance premiums are going through get passed on to car users.

    27. Re:HUH by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the point I was replying to was the viewpoint that it is "too dangerous" to "allow" people to fly cars around.

      If it is, then we shouldn't let them fly anything at all, not even a little bit.

      It is the viewpoint that everything has to be bubblewrap safe or we won't try. What if we had given up on the moon after the Apollo 1 fire?

      Really, we are all so terrified of death that we don't really seem to live anymore...

    28. Re:HUH by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      All kidding aside, 40 years from now we'll still be driving our own cars because programmers won't be able to help a car decide if it is allowed to avoid a collision that will kill a driver by swerving onto a sidewalk and killing two pedestrians.

      Self-driving cars won't even attempt to make decisions like that. If faced with a no-win situation, they'll default to trying to stop as quickly and safely as possible. If that still results in a crash, the car's black box should contain enough sensor data to prove that the crash was either a freak of nature (mechanical failure, etc.) or someone else's fault.

    29. Re:HUH by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall Google stating in a discussion of their self-driving cars that it was obvious that liability would reside with the manufacturer of the driving system. Granted, they're not selling anything yet, but that sounds an awful lot like they'll be perfectly willing to accept liability when the time comes.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    30. Re:HUH by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In fact in the US we already have to insure the machine rather than the person, resulting in the ridiculous situation where one person with multiple cars must insure them all, despite the fact that they can only drive one at a time, even if letting anyone else drive would be violating the terms of their insurance contract

      And if we assume a modest 90% reduction in accident rates for an autonomous system, then I would fully expect the insurance industry to offer at least a 60% reduction in insurance costs for people willing to have an autonomous-only interlock installed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:HUH by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And? So you install a set of "ethically conservative" parameters - maybe even straight utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number. Yeah, maybe that means my car kills me to save two pedestrians. But so long as, statistically speaking, it will have saved my life a dozen or a hundred times before then, that sounds like a good deal to me.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    32. Re:HUH by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Basically a good point, but it's not quite that simple - gliders can reach speeds easily surpassing cars while consuming essentially no energy, especially when they have updrafts to work with - such as if they were flying over the heat-island of an urban area.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    33. Re:HUH by gnupun · · Score: 1

      If automated driving is so perfect, are you willing to fly in a pilot-less commercial plane? No? Remember, planes don't have deal with as much traffic as cars, and yet it not 100% automated. What does that tell you? If automated flying with little traffic is difficult, driving automation is not a fully solved problem, and won't be, for many decades.

    34. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason we will not have a self driving car is because we do not have the technology to do it to the extent that the manufacture will be willing to except the liability in the event of an accident.

      If the car is safer than having a person drive it, and they can charge more for it than car insurance costs now, you're saying that they don't want to make money.

    35. Re:HUH by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Right, I agree. These are great examples of where things can go wrong regardless...

    36. Re:HUH by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Sure. But gliders are hardly practical as replacements for cars.

    37. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And self-driving cars can break down, just like computer self-drive cars. If they're electric self-drive then there's less mechanically to go wrong, so comparing self-driving electric cars and piloted petrol cars, the former is going to be safer when only the mechanical failures are taking into account. Driver error adds to the latter case's problems.

      You're insisting that the scenario that would be worse must happen and that there are no countering factors making it safer, then declaring that unless the system is *perfect* we must stay with you driving the car, which you haven't shown is any safer.

      Why? Because for some reason you think that driving a car is something that makes you better than you would be if you didn't drive a car.

      And that, right there, is why so many drivers are dangerous arrogant bastards. To other cars, pedestrians, animals, cyclists: "I'M MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU!!!!! GET OUT OF MY WAAAAAAAY!!!". Add the stress of a long drive home after a long day's work, and the deaths on the road and accidents from speeding recklessly become understandable, if regrettable, but it still needs to be stopped.

    38. Re:HUH by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Just like we don't have flying cars because it's not practical from production cost or for the manufacture or owner to take on that liability as a mechanical failure at altitude is immediately a costly accident.

      That doesn't take into consideration that the manufacture can put all liability on the customer as a condition of purchase. Nor does it account for that the customer could be very rich and want to avoid 2 hour queues daily to get to work and back.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    39. Re:HUH by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      True, they are awesome replacements for cars.
      However, it appears that they are not sufficiently awesome to overcome their practical issues.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    40. Re:HUH by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      All kidding aside, 40 years from now we'll still be driving our own cars because programmers won't be able to help a car decide if it is allowed to avoid a collision that will kill a driver by swerving onto a sidewalk and killing two pedestrians.

      The self driving car will keep a reasonable distance in these cases. It will be able to stop without risk of colliding with the car before it. There may be only a couple of inches of space if the car before it has way better brakes but there will be room.
      In cases where sufficient distance is not wise due to asshats cutting in (multi-lane roads like highways) there shouldn't be pedestrians at all and thus the car can swerve relatively safely.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    41. Re: HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right, 'cause humans are 100% reliable, and cars don't break if people drive them.

      Are electronics less reliable than humans? Are self-drive cars less reliable to mechanical failure or more susceptible to external events than piloted cars?

      Until you answer those, your sneer is pointless and worthless.

    42. Re:HUH by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Right up to the point that any liability claim for a life [especially a child] win or loose will cost them millions. Manufactures recall product for all kinds of hazards all the time to avoid liability, let a few kids in a school zone run out in front of a self driving car and get killed. Manufactures fault or not the publicity is damaging. This is basically a pipe dream that requires a radical shift in our culture that is not likely to happen and this idea has been a decade away for as long as I can remember.

    43. Re:HUH by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      This has been a decade away for as long as I can remember and there have been working prototypes for decades. We will not have self driving cars we will probably instead use the technology to make a very advanced driver assist system and cruise control. Sorry but remote start isn't going to locate the fob with gps and come pick you up at the curb, valets will still do that for a long time.

    44. Re:HUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you watch too much tv

    45. Re:HUH by burbilog · · Score: 1

      The code can be 100% reliable, and then a solar flare can be released which causes a surge in electromagnetic interference, leading to a random bit flip in memory, corrupting a portion of code meant to handle just that situation and then what?

      And then another subsystem immediately detects memory checksum failure and brakes the car, broadcasting emergency braking signal to all cars around.

    46. Re: HUH by burbilog · · Score: 1

      Yes, jumping in front of those automated cars, with their cameras, facial recognition, GPS, and 8G connections. I'm sure it will be huge - there's no way those punks would be easily caught!

      Unless cameras could see through the fabric of the hood/mask/disguise these punks are going to be safe from poice.

    47. Re:HUH by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I don't know - a powered glider to get airborne and to augment navigation, with the majority of lift and thrust coming from perpetually falling through an updraft? It might work...

      Of course, for "flying cars" to be practical as a means of transport you'd pretty much need VTOL capability - not that you couldn't outfit a glider with vectored thrust engines, but those long wings would make traffic a bitch. Even a far more compact airfoil, say something inspired by those boxy long-gliding paper airplanes, would be impractical if more than a vanishingly small percentage of the driving population took to the air.

      So yeah, short of the development of some sort of antigrav system I don't see flying cars actually being an energy-efficient means of common transportation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    48. Re:HUH by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So? They buy insurance, and pass the cost on to the customer. Or better yet, they don't buy insurance, since they're big enough to amortize losses and keep the insurance-companies profits for themselves. Millions may seem like a lot of money to us, but it's chump change for a major corporation.

      Basically figure they'd be in pretty much the same position as human drivers are now (in aggregate) - Start with your current insurance premiums. Divide by, oh, something between 10 and 100 to reflect the fact that their automated systems are far safer drivers than you. Then divide by another factor of... oh, let's call it 2... to remove the insurance company profits. That's the expected liability cost of the automated driving system. Maybe you pay it all up front, or perhaps you pay a monthly "virtual chauffeur" subscription. Or maybe we go ahead and leave liability on you and you pay for it in your own auto insurance (which should be much cheaper than today, assuming you rarely drive) It all amounts to pretty much the same thing in the end - no matter who has legal liability, it's coming out of your pocket at the end of the day - just like the expected costs of catastrophic mechanical failure do today. the corporations are all in the business of making money after all - and that requires that they charge you a premium at least as large as they, on average, stand to lose.

      Besides which, it's *extremely* unlikely that a kid could manage to get killed by an automated car in a school zone: the car would almost certainly be obeying the speed limit, be monitoring the entire 360* environment with far more obsessive attention than you could possibly muster, and will have started emergency braking before your brain has even registered that there's something in the road, much less sent the glacially slow signal to your foot to slam on the brakes a sizable fraction of a second later. Barring faulty software, any child that gets killed by an automated vehicle could almost certainly not have been saved by a human driver - no matter how safe we try to make the world, at some point Darwin will take his due, and I believe the courts generally respect that fact in cases where the only fault lies with the victim.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    49. Re:HUH by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Not at all. A decade ago, DARPA had a competition for autonomous vehicles to go around a fixed off-road course of 100 miles or so , which the developers could study beforehand. And not a single vehicle even got halfway. Autonomous vehicles on the roads seemed like many decades away right then.

      And before that, they'd seemed science fiction, not a decade away.

      They've never seemed closer than now. In fact they are actually working right now, as prototypes, successfully mixing with ordinary traffic.

      Autonomous vehicles are not in the category of flying cars or hoverboards. They don't have any insurmountable hurdles. Just a continued path of improvement until they are judged superior to human drivers in virtually all safety considerations. At that point those that can afford them and want them will buy them.

      I agree with you that ever increasing driver assist is another path that will be followed, eventually meeting up the fully autonomous prototypes.

      Just as autopilot started out as assists to maintain a fixed level and/or course, but are now capable of doing a complete journey from takeoff to landing by themselves.

    50. Re:HUH by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
      "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
      "...we do not have the technology to do it to the extent that the manufacture will be willing to except the liability in the event of an accident. "

      Famous words and maybe some soon to be (20 years) famous words.

  4. Renting private chargers by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They should let owners lend their private chargers for a fee, handled by Tesla. Something like Uber but for charging your car.

    1. Re:Renting private chargers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but what if Germany decides to raid Tesla to protect licensed charging stations?

    2. Re:Renting private chargers by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, private chargers are generally really slow and usually meant for overnight charging, it's rarely what you want to wait for if you are running out of juice. Here in Norway we already have several vendors that have set up paid fast charging points - not quite as fast as superchargers but 20-50 kW is overkill at home. And you'll still be paying for the same power, just not the premium but if you put any reasonable value on your time it's probably better anyway unless there's something you'd like to spend time on (eating, shopping, entertainment, whatever) nearby.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Renting private chargers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem with private chargers is that they are slow. A 7kW charger needs a 60A circuit. In Europe houses usually have a 100A breaker... It's actually an issue for people who want two EVs charging at home at the same time. In a car the size of the Tesla a 7kW charger is a bit slow.

      Having said that, there is a scheme called PlugShare that allows EV users to share their home charger and access other's on the same scheme.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Renting private chargers by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      They should let owners lend their private chargers for a fee, handled by Tesla. Something like Uber but for charging your car.

      Well, there's PlugShare which pretty much does that, although I don't think people typically charge a fee; rather they do it pro bono on the assumption that when they need a recharge someone else will do the same for them.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Renting private chargers by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Europe is mostly on 240V. We would only need 30A for it.
      Dunno if 100A is common, the house where I knew the main breaker value had 3x32A (three phase power, used to include an attached farm).

      Separate circuits are usually 16A here. A 32A breaker would require new heavy duty wiring from the breaker box to the charger. Probably 4 mm2. And that is in addition to the potential thousand bucks to replace the main breakers and the additional fee because of those heavy breakers.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:Renting private chargers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In Europe most houses are 100A breakers, but some have 60A breakers and it causes problems for people with EVs who want to charge and use an electric cooker or take a shower at the same time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Renting private chargers by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm confused. I know that when you bought a Chevy Leaf, included in the cost was somebody coming to your house to do the electrical work so you could have a high-amperage charger in your garage. Does Tesla not offer a similar service?

    8. Re:Renting private chargers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK you get a government grant for the charger and you can have whoever you want install it. It's a Nissan Leaf, by the way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Renting private chargers by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      This would precipitate zoning and HOA / CC&R outrage.

  5. Musk is 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lyft and Uber have a few more years and then we won't ever hear about them or any other type of similar company again.

  6. Quick someone give Musk a Crystal ball by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    If you want to accurately predict the future do as Jules Verne did and write as many of them as you can possibly think up. History indicates that you will be mostly wrong and a large number of predictions will increase the odds of getting something right.

  7. Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    we may someday just pass signs requiring drivers to activate auto-drive functionality for certain particularly treacherous stretches of roadway.

     So on the sections of road I'm going to be most terrified to navigate I should secede control to the computer? In principal, this makes sense, but in reality this is a pee-your-pants moment that even adrenaline junkies will probably say no thanks to.

    1. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Just got back from a trip to downtown Philadelphia. I ahd to get around parts of a wrecked car, a stalled truck, and then run a light that was on permanent red - after waiting for the other 20 people ahead of me to realize it was never going to change and do likewise. So how is Mr RoboCar going to do THAT? How long would it wait for a green light? Would it crash into a fender in the road or stop for a McDs bag?

    2. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If the road is so bad that it's a "pee-in-your-pants moment" to navigate, you're better off letting the car handle it. It won't over-steer or make a mistake due to jitters.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The self driving and flying car have been a decade away for the last four decades so I wouldn't worry about it. Although I imagine more assisted driving features will become available notification of objects in blind spots, backing camera, proximity alerts, and maybe even a cruise control that can maintain a lane and match trafic speed.

    4. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine what a difference would make if all the cars in that area were automatic

    5. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything but the red light is within the scope of a self-driving car.

      The thing about the red light is that you have it backwards. When self-driving cars become common place the very fact that such a broken red light would cause so much trouble means that the dept of transit will put a lot more effort into making them robust and repairing them very quickly. Traffic lights are already networked in many cities, it won't take much to trigger an alarm on a traffic manager's console if a light malfunctions.

    6. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...get around parts of a wrecked car, a stalled truck...

      These would be an easier solve for a self-driving car than solving for a ped or bike. Neither one is moving.

      ...and then run a light that was on permanent red...

      Once every car is self-driving, you won't need traffic lights. Every car will know where every other car is, they can pre-calculate and "riffle-shuffle" through an intersection.

      After a while, people will no more be allowed to have human-drive cars, any more than they are allowed to ride horses down the freeway now.

    7. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They can be taught to do exactly as you did. LIDAR can see with far more accuracy than you can, and can detect immobile objects better than you can. It knows how wide it is, how wide the lanes are, and the size of the obstacle, allowing it to drive round it with more accuracy than you can. As it can see traffic lights, it too can realise when one is on red for too long and follow the rules of the road in such circumstances, just as you do.

      If you have such a high opinion of yourself and assume that a computer can't perform basic operations, no wonder you think they'll never work. One day these cars which you think won't work will be driving people around without issue. Will you still claim they're impossible?

    8. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      we may someday just pass signs requiring drivers to activate auto-drive functionality for certain particularly treacherous stretches of roadway. So on the sections of road I'm going to be most terrified to navigate I should secede control to the computer? In principal, this makes sense, but in reality this is a pee-your-pants moment that even adrenaline junkies will probably say no thanks to.

      A day is coming where people will trust autonomous driving ability more than human but that's not anywhere near close to being a reality today. More likely 30+ years from now. I imagine one day there will tracks of road that doesn't support self driving and instead those will become pee-your-pants moments for regular folks. Adrenaline junkies will still be doing their off road tracks for their kicks just like they do today!

    9. Re:Auto-drive on treacherous sections? by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      Just got back from a trip to downtown Philadelphia. I ahd to get around parts of a wrecked car, a stalled truck, and then run a light that was on permanent red - after waiting for the other 20 people ahead of me to realize it was never going to change and do likewise. So how is Mr RoboCar going to do THAT? How long would it wait for a green light? Would it crash into a fender in the road or stop for a McDs bag?

      Really? I fully admit computers can be dumb but for this to work they're not going to be that dumb. If self driving cars are to ever become mainstream everything will have to be integrated. In other words, on a highway of 1000's of vehicles, each vehicle will know the status, location, and conditions of the other vehicles present. Information could be relayed regarding any accidents or problems and traffic, communications to all other vehicles and likely will be instantly sent out in real time. Possibly even notifying service vehicles for clean up and municipal authorities to the problem to alter traffic light patterns to accommodate the situation. Yeah, that's right, we're talking about Borg collective sh**. This kind of tech may already exist in some theoretical shape or form today but it's not implemented anywhere in the real world today. Doing that part is a lot harder and expensive than anyone can imagine.

      That being all said, we're still very far away from this today... but that's where we are headed. Maybe 25+ years.

  8. Why not word it as... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    Within 3 hours drive of a charging station. Seriously, when is the last time you've driven more than 5 miles out of your way to get a fill up. And he wants to say wherever you are there is a charging station within 3 hours! Err...really now?

    1. Re:Why not word it as... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If this worries you then you must be one of those people that constantly drive around with less than a quarter tank and consider $5 to be a big expense when you put gas in the car. Your nearest filling station is of course your own garage.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Why not word it as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness, there's a stretch of I-70 in Utah that I think it's about 100 miles from one gas station to the next. That means 50 miles away at the worst point. Granted at least for me, it's never been out of the way, just a long way out.

  9. this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to ban autonomous driving asap. Call your congressperson.

  10. You can have my steering wheel. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

    Which may very well occur when autonomous vehicles can't decide what they should do and come to a stop, causing others to plow into them.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by rsborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

      Which may very well occur when autonomous vehicles can't decide what they should do and come to a stop, causing others to plow into them.

      More likely, just like older folk that insist on hand-writing letters, having a land-line, and banking in person, you will not be forced to give up your driving. Instead, your costs will go up, while other more inexpensive or convenient options will become available for those who don't care to drive to get from A->B.

      Feel free to yell at those folks from your porch to stay off your lawn as they blissfully ignore you.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      If you keep your distance that won't be a problem. A properly designed autonomous vehicle will do that by default.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      No because you see, the other autonomous vehicles will stop in time.

      As for the manually driven cars plowing into them - well they do that today anyway, don't they?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure. Bring one of those nice self driving cars up the great white north, where you don't see a line on the road (or even asphalt) for months at a time because of packed snow/ice.

      I'm not referring to the boonies. Downtown Ottawa.

    5. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vehicle stopping never causes others to plow into it. Bad drivers plow into stopping cars because they are driving badly. That's why if you hit a car from behind, you're at fault.

    6. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not referring to the boonies. Downtown Ottawa.

      So you are referring to the boonies.

    7. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      A vehicle stopping never causes others to plow into it. Bad drivers plow into stopping cars because they are driving badly. That's why if you hit a car from behind, you're at fault.

      You've never run into a whiplash scam, have you?

      Before I left the UK, I'd see a news story every few months about someone who'd been pulling in front of other cars and slamming on their brakes to cause a collision so they could make fraudulent insurance claims.

    8. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by akume325 · · Score: 1

      no GPS in the boonies?

    9. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dash cam. Get one. Lower insurance costs.

    10. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      In my neck of the woods, making a lane change, and slamming the brakes is considered "unsafe lane change" and is a moving violation. It happened to me, and the other driver was cited for that among other charges. That and I am (was??) a good driver, and almost missed him completely. The skid marks on the road, showing me maintaining control of my car, was enough for the police to rule right there that I was not at fault.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      ...you will not be forced to give up your driving.

      You must've missed the part in the summary where Musk said, "You can't have a person driving a two-ton death machine". That sounds more like the attitude of someone who would revoke "manual" driving privileges if he was in charge - regardless of what individuals wanted.

      As for costs going up: If it's true market forces, then fine. If it's the government taxing non-automated drivers out of existence (similar to cigarette or other vice-driven taxes), that's bullshit.

    12. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...when autonomous vehicles can't decide what they should do and come to a stop, causing others to plow into them...

      You realize you're describing a situation where the "plowing into" is being caused by fallible humans who were: following too close, distracted, and/or speeding.

      Checkmate, puny human!

    13. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      GPS is neither reliable enough nor accurate enough to stay on the road. Google knows this, that is why there is a LIDAR on top of their cars.
      The times I have driven in heavy snow I had tracks that indicated where the road was. A self driving car will detect those tracks even more easily because humans rely on contrast while self driving cars will have LIDAR, SONAR and/or RADAR. When the track does not follow the road sensors in the suspension will indicate that there is something amiss and correct back on the road. The speed the car will have will allow it to correct safely.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    14. Re: You can have my steering wheel. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible a network could be at up in place with smart traffic lights to help in these types of areas?

    15. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The insurance companies will be the ones to force manual driving out of the picture for most people, as self-driving cars will be inherently safer due to their better visibility, lack of distraction, better situational awareness, better feedback from the car and so on.

    16. Re:You can have my steering wheel. . . by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Listen, jerk: This is a matter of choice. We won't just blithely give away our abilty to CHOOSE what we want to do or how we want to live, not for something as stupid as 'safety', not for money not for ANYthing.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  11. my car my rules by kencurry · · Score: 2

    i will drive it, thank you very much.

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    1. Re:my car my rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your car, your rules? Explain that to The Man when you get caught doing 90 in a 55.
       
      Let us know how that goes for you.

    2. Re: my car my rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure as long as you keep it on your roads. Oh what's that? You don't have any private roads of your own? Peasant.

    3. Re:my car my rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There will be a day without stoplights, speed limits, road signs. Cars will travel 200 mph and will seamlessly maneuver around each other. It will be far too dangerous for people to drive.

    4. Re:my car my rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just look at all the equestrian infrastructure that's still available for the people who refused to give up riding horses around...

    5. Re: my car my rules by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Funny and true!

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    6. Re:my car my rules by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      You're the first person I've heard that has spoken about giant speeds as a result of driving AI. You may be anon, but I think that's an awesome concept.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    7. Re:my car my rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You told them...

  12. And so it begins by chrism238 · · Score: 2

    First they say that drivers are obsolete; next it'll be the passengers. Then, before you know it, there's a gathering of them in car-parks and garages around the country.....

    1. Re:And so it begins by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      with VR eliminating several of the reasons for actually going anywhere, you may be right.

  13. Waring against AI.... by zlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

    wasn't elon just recently warning us against autonomous intelligence?

    1. Re:Waring against AI.... by deathcloset · · Score: 1

      He, like most rich and powerful people are, is afraid of that which he cannot or could not control. Bostrom, the philosopher drumming-up all the fear, is afraid of that which he cannot or could not understand.

      Look how the powerful record and media companies reacted (and continue to react) to file sharing. Look how a chess champion reacts to being beaten by a computer.

      I think that the powerful don't want something more powerful than them and the smart don't want something smarter than them.

      But I believe the wise will always seek that which is wiser than them.

      What was this thread about again? Cars?

    2. Re:Waring against AI.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's against sentient AI. Self-driving cars can probably be done feasibly with advanced vision processing but only limited decision making capability.

    3. Re:Waring against AI.... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Actually, computer vision, in terms of difficulty, is indistinguishable from strong AI. Look up the term "AI-complete".

    4. Re:Waring against AI.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said specifically that car AI is specific and simple enough not to pose any risk. Which makes sense, as they don't need to be general purpose thinking machines.

  14. "Solving the range anxiety problem"? Ahahahahah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, 'solving' means showing a message about how large a detour I must make to have a chance to wait for an hour or more of charging? Ahahahahah, that's brilliant engineering.

  15. what about cruising and necking in the car? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking back in the days when I first got a car so I can go cruising and also for going on dates. With drivers obsolete how would it impact this kind of social behavior? Or young people don't do this kind of thing anymore? Just wondering.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:what about cruising and necking in the car? by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      Young people live their entire lives on Facebook when they're not being mall rats

    2. Re:what about cruising and necking in the car? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking back in the days when I first got a car so I can go cruising and also for going on dates. With drivers obsolete how would it impact this kind of social behavior?

      More time to make out in the backseat while the car drives itself?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:what about cruising and necking in the car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mallrats? What decade do you live in? Malls are dying out because no one goes to them any more. Most kids use Amazon these days.

    4. Re:what about cruising and necking in the car? by drkim · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking back in the days when I first got a car so I can go cruising and also for going on dates.

      Wouldn't you rather be humping your date in the back seat on the way to the restaurant, rather than sitting up front driving?

  16. and what will happen to people automated out of a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and what will happen to people automated out of a job?

    Go back to school and rack up big loans just to be told you are to old for the job?

    End having to use the jail / prison for there doctor for the stuff that er will not cover?

  17. From another article... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    jalopnik article

    '"It's much easier than people think" says Musk, outlining how most of the sensors and systems available right now can handle self-driving duties on the freeway, something Tesla showed off late last year with its AutoPilot features.'

    As someone who has spent a career working on safety-critical real-time systems, I can assure you that it's not in any way "much easier than people think". Quite the opposite. Sure, driving a car down a well marked highway on a clear sunny day with little traffic and no system failures is easy. But if you obscure the lane markings in any of a number of ways, add inclement weather, throw out random obstacles, random system failures, etc. the problem gets monumentally harder. Throw in an urban environment with all sorts of other issues just keeps making it harder and harder. And solving all of those problems takes up well over 90% of the effort when designing an autonomous system. Hell, developing something that can recognize the problem in the first place is hard enough. Being able to differentiate between sensor failure and sensors indicating a failure is a non-trivial task. He's full of it if he thinks we're anywhere near having a self driving car that's ready for public consumption.

    Sure, there are self driving cars out there on the road. But they have huge engineering and support teams using them as an evaluation platform. And it's good that we have made as much progress as we have. I look forward to seeing the work continue and advance the technology. But it's not an easy task. It's going to take probably decades before we're really ready for a fully autonomous self driving car that's ready for public consumption. We'll probably see some of the technologies work their way into cars between now and then. And that's a good thing too. But it's not going to happen overnight because it's much harder than people think.

    1. Re:From another article... by DrTJ · · Score: 1

      Amen to that.

      People just don't get that AD is severly plauged by the curse of dimensionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality).

      How do you define test coverage for "traffic situations"? How would it at all be possible to make a "safe system" without even a concept of how to define or measure test coverage? How do you *prove* that the remainder of the situations pose an acceptable risk to the public?

    2. Re:From another article... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      If it happens like the evolution of safety in aircraft systems, you'll see horrendous crashes that kill people being the impetus behind recalls and safety upgrades. There's simply too many permutations for anyone to accurately predict a complete set of potential hazards, much less find a way to get a computer to identify them all and come up with a strategy to deal with them. There will be some combination of issues that causes a crash where people die and everyone who has ever worked on autonomous cars will say "I never thought of that".

      That being said, autonomous cars don't have to be perfect to be a success. They can still have some accidents due to unforeseen combinations of problems. But If we can get autonomous cars to the point where they cause fewer accidents than humans, we're ahead of the game even if they aren't perfect. And given how poorly so many people drive, the bar is lower than it should be. Nevertheless, the more accidents we avoid, the better off we all are.

    3. Re:From another article... by dixonpete · · Score: 1

      I'll go with Elon on this one. Cuz.. well.. he's Elon Musk.

    4. Re:From another article... by Rhys · · Score: 1

      Remember it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the bottom 50% of drivers. The bar here is not high. How do the bottom 50% of drivers handle random system failures? Say ice on the road. If he doesn't implement 'panic' as an option, its probably already above a good chunk of those folks, judging by accident rates in winter storms.

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    5. Re:From another article... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Remember it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the bottom 50% of drivers.

      That's great for the bottom 50% of drivers. No so great for those of us who've been driving for decades and never caused an accident.

      Why would I want to travel in a self-driving car that drives worse than I do?

    6. Re:From another article... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I added that thought in the follow up to the first response to my comment. If we can get fewer accidents per mile driven than we get now, it's a win. The more we reduce accidents the better. Which is why it's good to see accident reducing technology showing up in cars long before the cars actually drive themselves. And even if that's all we ever really get out of the effort to have self driving cars, we're still better off

    7. Re:From another article... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      He's been a successful entrepreneur, no doubt. But he really doesn't have the background in actually building safety-critical systems to fully understand the complexity of the problem. Sorry but I'm going to go with actual engineers who have done the actual work instead of the flashy business guy with no real experience actually building it.

      That being said, I'm 100% in favor of him putting resources into developing the technology. It's good that he has many engineers working on the problem because the long term benefits of the work will save countless lives. It's just that he's wrong about it being an easy task. It's hard and it's going to take a lot longer than he thinks.

    8. Re:From another article... by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Remember it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the bottom 50% of drivers.

      That's great for the bottom 50% of drivers. No so great for those of us who've been driving for decades and never caused an accident.

      Why would I want to travel in a self-driving car that drives worse than I do?

      I and 80% of the other drivers on the road agree completely.

    9. Re:From another article... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Musk's secret with Autopilot is that it doesn't cope with difficult conditions, it hands back to the human driver. If there is snow on the road and it can't see the markings it won't engage, simple as that. When he says it could do 90% of a long journey he doesn't mention the caveat that it can only do so in good conditions on good roads.

      It's still a useful feature, but Musk does tend to exaggerate. He said you could own a Model S for $500 a month, but when you look at it that includes savings on fuel and maintenance compared to an extremely inefficient petrol car doing very high mileage. It's a good car, I don't know why he feels the need to bullshit about it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:From another article... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      He's a salesman as much as anything else.

    11. Re:From another article... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to travel in a self-driving car that drives worse than I do?

      So you can get yourself and your car home when you're drunk.

      Seriously... if you want to manually drive your self-driving car, go right ahead. Even that weird Mercedes prototype thing still has a steering wheel and pedals so you can drive it manually if you want to.

      The question is, do you want to have the option of not driving in situations where it would be inconvenient, tedious, or dangerous for you to drive? If so, you might find a self-driving car useful.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. Re:From another article... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      How do you define test coverage for "traffic situations"? How would it at all be possible to make a "safe system" without even a concept of how to define or measure test coverage? How do you *prove* that the remainder of the situations pose an acceptable risk to the public?

      I can predict how it will actually be done... release a product and see what happens. When something goes horribly wrong, wipe up all the blood, review the log files, figure out what went wrong, and issue a software patch. Repeat as necessary until bad things don't much happen anymore. It was good enough for Windows, and by God it will be good enough for Tesla. ;)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    13. Re:From another article... by drkim · · Score: 1

      There is an extension to this as well:

      The more self-driving cars are on the road, networked together, each able to predict the others behavior, the safer things will get in general.

    14. Re:From another article... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He worked on the designs for Falcon 1. That was just one large explosion restrained by safety-critical systems. I'd say you're doing him a slight injustice :)

    15. Re:From another article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh don't?

    16. Re:From another article... by dasunt · · Score: 1

      As someone who has spent a career working on safety-critical real-time systems, I can assure you that it's not in any way "much easier than people think". Quite the opposite. Sure, driving a car down a well marked highway on a clear sunny day with little traffic and no system failures is easy. But if you obscure the lane markings in any of a number of ways, add inclement weather, throw out random obstacles, random system failures, etc. the problem gets monumentally harder.

      The criteria shouldn't be "a perfect AI" but "a better AI than a human driver".

      Human drivers tend to be a pretty low bar.

    17. Re:From another article... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Some of the lane stripes around western WA perplex me after 20 years of driving on them, can't imagine software could reliably figure them out. Re danger, isn't that why New Jersey and Oregon defend their anachronistic prohibition of self-serve fuel pumping?

  18. I, Robot Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will gladly welcome this transition! Hopefully by that time we aren't still battling SSL exploits :)

  19. Re:Systemd, for or against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously DO give a shit. So much so, you took precious minutes out of your one life to post a snide remark about it.

  20. Robert A. Heinlein by Archfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He wrote about teens jumping in front of convoys of automated big rigs a long time ago, out of sheer boredom and an innate desire to cause chaos. Even in Methuselah's Children the long lived had methods of switching off auto drive to avoid being tracked everywhere at all times. It has been pointed out previously what about people on farms driving completely off the grid, not to mention the totally unresolved issue of whose at fault when my auto drive car is involved in an accident, or the choice HAS to be made between saving MY life, the driver or some stranger on the side of the road who wants to commit suicide by being run over...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Robert A. Heinlein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the totally unresolved issue of whose at fault when my auto drive car is involved in an accident,

      That's easy. We already have it in a number of states. Its called no-fault insurance.

    2. Re:Robert A. Heinlein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it does exactly *nothing* to prevent the other driver from suing you into bankruptcy.

  21. Self-driving cars are nice and all... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2
    But these people who say that self-driving cards work, and who live in the wonderful, sunny climate of California, have to venture out a bit more and see what driving is really like.

    .
    Show me a self-driving car that could navigate the snow-choked roads of Boston this winter.

    1. Re:Self-driving cars are nice and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me a self-driving car that could navigate the snow-choked roads of Boston this winter.

      I don't see how a self driving car could do much worse than most people driving in the snow. Especially since they should be able to map features like lampposts and combine that with GPS maps to always know where the lanes should be. With good tires, whats the big problem? And with bad tires, you shouldn't be driving in snow. Hell, some of their radar might be able to see into snowbanks or piles of snow to see objects hidden there.

      Now, you might have to clean your sensors before you head out, but you have to scrape your windshield anyway.

    2. Re:Self-driving cars are nice and all... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Now, you might have to clean your sensors before you head out, but you have to scrape your windshield anyway.

      Before you head out?

      You do realise that most of the crap on your sensors gets there while you're driving, right? So you'll get half-way there and the car will say 'oh crap, I can't see, I CAN'T SEE! I'M GOING BLIND!' and you'll have to get out in the middle of the road and clean them so it can finish the journey?

      Try driving in the snow belt in a car with a rear-view camera, and you'll have a better idea of just how little time you can drive around without having to clean all those fancy sensors.

    3. Re:Self-driving cars are nice and all... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Who cares. If it can drive for six months out of the year that's still an improvement. Moreover you should see a decrease in accidents for those 6 months. It isn't wise to initially shoot for 100% coverage over all conditions. It's much smarter to cherry pick just the sunny days with no snow/ice.

    4. Re:Self-driving cars are nice and all... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Who cares. If it can drive for six months out of the year that's still an improvement...

      You make the huge assumption that people will still know how to drive. And, if they do know how to drive, that they will remember enough after six months of not driving to be able to drive safely in the winter.

      .
      People who drive year-round still have difficulties driving safely in the winter.

    5. Re:Self-driving cars are nice and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      definitely if It can't cope with 20 days a year in a specific location. FUCK IT ALL FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD FOREVER. great thinking man. you should run for president.

  22. Soon 'mere humans' won't be allowed to do anything by ickleberry · · Score: 2

    Except sit at home with their tablet / laptop which is all that most people including most politicians do these days. We'll be living in a curated idiot-proof society soon, where the overlords decide what pre-packaged entertainment you're going to soak up today. All the old adventurous hobbies like driving sport cars and other vehicles, hunting and even things like doing certain DIY work on your own house are slowly being regulated out of existence to protect people from themselves.

    The thing is, governments see us only as tools to keep the economy going, the economy and creating jobs are far more important than getting people to extract enjoyment out of their lives so it is in their interest to keep us as dependent on the economy as possible and since in the West we don't manufacture much anymore it also means coaxing people to use as many services as possible

  23. Re:Systemd, for or against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naa, I don't even use Linux.

  24. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and what will happen to people automated out of a job?

    Go back to school and rack up big loans just to be told you are to old for the job?

    End having to use the jail / prison for there doctor for the stuff that er will not cover?

    Being automated out of a job is inevitable - it's been happening for decades. The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.

    Going back to school under those conditions is insane - why rack up debt to train for a job you'll never get?

    Jail is an option some homeless people have been using for years - break a window, wait for the cops, sleep in a not-so-cold jail cell.

    No, I don't have any real solutions :-( Sorry.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  25. Are you sure? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

    That's dangerous talk from someone who has built his car business on a reputation for performance and quality... when cars drive themselves, they won't need to be fast, or good looking, because nobody will be looking. They could look like the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile and nobody would notice.

    Oh well. Fun is always short lived.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    1. Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might not need to be fast, but ride quality and looks will still be important, as well as interior details.

    2. Re:Are you sure? by ageoffri · · Score: 1

      Fast is something that will be a major selling point of autonomous cars. With great computer controlled precision I'd want highway speeds to be much higher in good conditions. The point on good looking was already addressed, and I can only state that a good looking car will be a major concern for the majority of the buyers.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    3. Re:Are you sure? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Fast means different things to different people though... I'm all for fast self driving cars that get me to remote places while I nap... but white-nuckle driving fast is only enjoyable to the person who's hands are on the wheel. When that goes away, many enthusiasts will go away also. A 100hp car is as fast as a 1000hp car when you're talking about getting between cities in the western US. The 0-60 numbers are part of why I love Tesla (I'll never afford one BTW). But without that... I'm way more likely to buy a self-driving leaf than a self-driving tesla. Once love of form and function is gone, it becomes utility, and once we're talking utility... I'll buy cheap. As for good looking... I'll restate: if nobody is looking, nobody will pay a premium to look good. If I'm sitting in a self-driving car going cross town or cross country, I'll likely be looking at my laptop or phone, not out the window. I won't even notice other drivers. Self Driving cars, they'll look nice, but not sexy. Form will give way to function, and you'll see a resurgence of Ford Taurus (tapered on both ends like a turd) designs that won't really inspire love.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  26. I'm one of those engineers... by DrTJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... that work on the new holy grail, autonomous vehicles. Somehow, the level of confidence in this new technology seems to be inversely proportional to the distance to the nitty-gritty details of actually doing this. Can someone please tell me, exactly, how this is supposed to be done? Without using the phrase "how hard can it be".

    Let's take the simplest of all the detection problems. How many lines of code does it take to reliably and safely detect the lane markings of a road? Nobody knows, because nobody has done it yet. Yes, there are prototypes that can handle some sub sets of all cases. The best I've seen handles 90% of the cases. That takes 1 MSLOC and still counting. How expensive will the last 10% be? How many hours of recorded video data does it take to verify the last 10%? The last 1%? The 90% takes a room full of TB harddisks and thousands of units parallel verification.

    But yeah, how hard can it be to make a fully autonomous vehicle? I'll bet we'll have the fusion, flying car and AI analog: constantly 30 years in the future with winters interspearsed.

    1. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Can someone please tell me, exactly, how this is supposed to be done?

      It's pointless, anyway. Half the year, you can't see the lane markings here because they're covered in snow. The other half, you can't see them because they've been scraped off by snow ploughs. Maybe for two days a year you can see them, because they just got repainted before the snow started again.

      Any system that relies on seeing lane markings is doomed, unless it's restricted to open highways in good weather.

    2. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by PPH · · Score: 2

      Without using the phrase "how hard can it be".

      We prefer the term AI Complete.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by jmkaza · · Score: 2

      Yep, it's really hard. That's why you develop a system that doesn't need to detect 100% of the lane markings. If you can optically detect 30-40% of them, and add that data to lidar mapped concrete patterns, medians, satellite imagery, gps, and other data sources, the software can accurately construct the proper path to follow. It's like a circle, you don't need to see the whole thing to draw a copy, you only need three points from it.

    4. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      All of that is true however in 50-60 years all those drives and processing will likely fit in a cellphone size, cost and power form factor. I doubt it will even be 100 years before we can have true autonomous cars, I'll guess under 50 for the commonly held idea of the capabilities(city driving, etc). Probably another 30 for people to accept them on top of that. But eventually they are pretty likely.

    5. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by zlives · · Score: 1

      we havnt even fixed the train crash issues yet... and how hard could that be :)
      perhaps we should start with fixed lane issues like planes, trains and then perhaps automobiles :)

    6. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

      Let's take the simplest of all the detection problems. How many lines of code does it take to reliably and safely detect the lane markings of a road? Nobody knows, because nobody has done it yet. Yes, there are prototypes that can handle some sub sets of all cases. The best I've seen handles 90% of the cases. That takes 1 MSLOC and still counting.

      What's an emslock?

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
    7. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many lines of code does it take

      Found your problem. You need to be using artificial neural networks. Let me explain something about fault tolerance: Life is error correction. You allow a little error, and filter against it. The correct question is how many redundant permutations of the neural network running in parallel are required to surpass human driver safety levels of error correction.

      The lines of code are minimal. The self reflective data in a cybernetic system is what you need to solve. If you really do work in the autonomy field and you still think an expert system is the answer, then your company is doomed.

    8. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Seriously? It's called OCR. That's being done for things way harder than lines on the road. To the point that the Teslas today will display what the speed is on the road that they read from the sign off towards the side.

      As others pointed out, you don't just use one signaller. You use multiple ones, chained. The odds that all are wrong in the same exact way will be much, much less than 10%.

      Furthermore, you don't need to be perfect to improve road safety. You just need to improve on the average driver. Which is much, much easier than perfection.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there could be some roads that are self drivable and some that aren't? "You can't go there Dave." Also, as roads become unsafe a dynamic alert system would add to the cars list of un-drivable areas. At some point you would just have to take manual control or tell the car to park and call for help. As and example an elderly person who can no-longer drive and depends on driverless transportation would, at least temporarily, have to find an alternative (taxi, bus, friend, relative) until the situation improved.

    10. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's take the simplest of all the detection problems. How many lines of code does it take to reliably and safely detect the lane markings of a road? Nobody knows, because nobody has done it yet. Yes, there are prototypes that can handle some sub sets of all cases. The best I've seen handles 90% of the cases. That takes 1 MSLOC and still counting.

      What's an emslock?

      1 MSLOC = 1 Microsoft line of code

    11. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

      Weird, I've never seen it with an S in there, only as LOC and xK LOC. I though maybe it was something different than the LOC counts I'd seen before. Of course, I've never dealt with projects that were in the millions either, so maybe that's why I've never heard the S variations.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
    12. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Kiwikwi · · Score: 2

      we havnt even fixed the train crash issues yet... and how hard could that be :)

      Not that hard. Automatic train operation is a solved problem; a properly installed, modern ATO system is safer than the best human driver, better at following time tables, and even has significantly lower energy consumption. In fact, many ATO mass transit lines cannot be run manually (without cutting down on the number of departures); human drivers are not able to keep up with the amount of traffic managed by the ATO.

      An ATO will not stop the train if there's an unregistered person or vehicle on the tracks (or if the tracks are gone entirely, e.g. due to flooding). But then, the braking distance for a passenger train at speed is high enough that a human won't be able to stop it either.

      Also, ATO systems may have a higher false-positive rate than manual systems... e.g. stopping the train because an umbrella has fallen on the tracks (to take a concrete example from the Copenhagen Metro). But that's an availability issue, not a safety issue. (And as noted, humans aren't able to keep up during normal operation, so the ATO still wins on availability overall.)

      Full disclosure: I work with ATO systems.

    13. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying there's no comprehensive "default" behavior you can apply when the car can't detect lane markings. That's depressing.

    14. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by dlingman · · Score: 1

      Cue the guys with stick on extra zeros, of maybe just an extra 1 or 2 for the front...

    15. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by DrTJ · · Score: 1

      Yes, seriously. Traffic Sign Recognition is a very easy problem, but it's not directly related to safety concerns. Usually the speed can be picked up from the navigation system, so TSR is mostly improving the accuracy of the speed detection. Using standard classification techniques, this is mostly a problem on how much computing power you can throw at the problem (the limiting factors, in an automotive setting, are: dissipated heat, budget, physical size and environmental resilience). It can be mostly be solved using well-known computer vision mechanisms and there's no merit at all in showing "current speed". That's 101-level.

      Lane detection is directly related to safety. It supports services like Lane Keep Assist, Lane Departure Warning and Lane Departure Prevention. These are all ADAS services. Lane Depature Prevention steers (or brakes) you back into your lane if you inadvertantly change lanes. The safety analysis of this function alone is many, many man-years of effort. Let me take one example: wrong sign. A hazard is that the activation is done with the wrong sign, sending your vehicle into the lane of oncoming traffic. How do you design your system (from visual detection throughout the car, to the braking system) to make sure that there's not a bit flip anywhere (in any message or code executing in RAM or flash) that changes the sign of the activation?

      These additional safety (ADAS) systems are constantly on, while the situations where they save you from an accident are constitute a vanishingly small percentage of the time. You have to *prove* that the additional safety it brings in that tiny, tine time, is not invalidated by a small risk in the normal driving use case. So, a TP rate of 0.9 cannot be combined with a FP rate of 0.1. The FP rate has to be on the order of 1E-6 given the large accumuluated normal driving time.

      If we're talking about AD, then the TP rate must be upped to 5 or 6 nines, while the FP rate is still 1E-5 or 1E-6.

      So, if you think you can solve this, I have a well-paid job opening for you.

      (TP=true positive, FP=false positive)

    16. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that even if we don't solve the lane marking problem, it'll be orders of magnitude cheaper to put down special markers on the road that AI can read perfectly, than it is to keep wasting millions of man-hours per day having to drive a car manually.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    17. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by Tom · · Score: 2

      How many lines of code does it take to reliably and safely detect the lane markings of a road?

      As you are from this area, I'm sure you already know what I'm about to say, but maybe you have an answer:

      The goal is not 100% detection rate. The goal is a detection rate that is equal to or better than that of most human drivers. I've driven roads where the line markings were so difficult to see (maybe just in the particular conditions of that day) that it was more a matter of guessing than actual detection.

      So what is the detection rate of human drivers? Probably much lower than intuition would make us think, because we are very good and fast and automated in using other cues as well, and in many cases don't actually look for the lane markings, we "know" from other input where they are supposed to be and basically just check now and then if they really are or something is wrong.

      Yes, it's a hard problem, and the more we do in the field of computer vision the more we understand just how amazing human vision is, but it is also full of bugs and problems, so the target is not perfection.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:I'm one of those engineers... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      On the speed detection: TSR is not just improving the accuracy of the speed detection. How do I know? The Tesla read a sign on the side of the freeway, and thought it was the speed limit for the freeway. It wasn't. It was the speed limit for the frontage road next to the freeway, and I was about 30 mph over that speed. So whatever they're doing, they're not just doing a tree search weighted with the currently known speed.

      But yes, that's 101-level.

      Fair enough that the hard issue is the amount of time the lane analysis needs to be right. Here's something though that doesn't make sense to me in your problem description: why in god's name would you ever consider a discrete change in assessment of where the lane is to be valid? Specifically, why would you perform an action based on a sudden change in where the lanes are? Granted, I'm making an assumption about continuous lanes, but the scenario you're describing is that the car is humming along in the right lane just fine and dandy, and then, due to bug/memory corruption/light glare off of the cameras, the algorithm thinks it needs to move exactly one lane over. Yes, it's hard to get the TP rate up to 5 nines, but then again, the decision process should never be such that a jump in lane condition results in an immediate action.

      There's a separate problem with line markings disappearing, but I contend that that's a problem even human drivers struggle with.

      Finally, I don't think that I can solve this - I've seen it solved: by Google and Audi, specifically. Now, how "solved" this is? Google has a few 100k miles under the belt of its autonomous cars, Audi quite a bit less. But both have navigated in traffic, with passengers inside. My incredulity doesn't come from me having solved it, it comes from having used other people's work 20 years ago to answer the question "what am I looking at", and having seen it progress from edge detection in a jpg to cars driving on their own in a fenced-off terrain 10 years ago, and now have seen driverless cars on the road. Doing what you're describing as not solved.

      Maybe you should talk to the Google engineers. Or the Audi ones. Or the Tesla ones. I hear Tesla opened up all its patents anyway. Maybe they opened up how they do their lane detection and decision process.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  27. These techies miss common issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The self driving car sounds wonderful and of course promises perfect driving. However as we all know, tech is not perfect as it is designed and attacked by human's. You could say the very tech that runs stop and go lights are wonderful when they work right and everyone obeys them. But lose power or have some sort of glitch and traffic becomes a mess. In my opinion these self driving predictions are flawed because they fail to accept that they will not be perfect and we will judge them based on how often they fail and what problems they create. We design planes to be self flying, but I will bet not many people will fly on a plane without
    a pilot. I do think self driving vehicles will make a presence in the World, but will be accepted or rejected on human traits that may have a hard time letting go even though our driving may be less then perfect.

  28. Re: Systemd, for or against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No we reply cuz you shitpost this everyday and you know most people use Windows.
    Flamebait meet more flamebait.

  29. Re:Systemd, for or against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Furthermore, the reason you felt the need to express how much you don't care, is because you are against system and your side lost. Again, people who truly don't give a fuck didn't even bother clicking these posts.

  30. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I don't have any real solutions :-( Sorry.

    Of course not, you're a troll.

  31. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.

    The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.

  32. I'm partial to my now 47 year old muscle car by darthsilun · · Score: 0

    I have no plans to stop driving it.

    Sure, compared to today's cars it's nowhere near as safe, but it's going to be a tough sell telling others like me they can't drive their cars any more.

    Unless Elon wants to pony up some of his own money to retrofit self drive tech into it. He seems to have plenty of money to throw around. Otherwise he should just shut the fsck up.

    1. Re:I'm partial to my now 47 year old muscle car by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You can still take it to the track, instead of risking the lives of others for your own amusement. Was that so difficult?

    2. Re:I'm partial to my now 47 year old muscle car by darthsilun · · Score: 0

      You seem to assume that I'm driving negligently or recklessly. Just because it's a muscle car with a big motor? Why should I have to take my street legal car to a track just to drive it? I pay taxes to maintain roads on which to drive my cars. If it was safe enough to drive it – responsibly – on the public roads in 1968, it's still safe 47 years later IMO.

      Smarmy "Was that so difficult" comments are just, well, smarmy. Next time save that for your spot at open mike night at the comedy club.

  33. Re: Systemd, for or against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only OP reply is right here -OP

  34. CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Is the wealthy "Libertarian" way of dictating social standards.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Holy shit mod points!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Says the guy with his own 4 GHz computer, without the slightest trace of irony.

    3. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Did you know that every elevator once had a elevator operator? Did we have more freedom, somehow, back when this was the case?

    4. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that every elevator once had a elevator operator? Did we have more freedom, somehow, back when this was the case?

      Give me one example of a deer jumping out in front of an elevator. Or a multi-elevator pileup accident. An elevator hitting black ice?

    5. Re: CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elevators used to be deadly and human operators could not do anything about it. Then we built automated system that prevented elevator from dropping.

    6. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by drkim · · Score: 2

      Give me one example of a deer jumping out in front of an elevator. Or a multi-elevator pileup accident. An elevator hitting black ice?

      Do you really think a drunk/sleepy/texting/burger eating/radio adjusting/sneezing/elderly human driver will handle these situations better than a high-speed computer that is never distracted?

      And with networked, radar-equiped cars, do you really think there will still be multi-car pileup accidents?

    7. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Give me one example of a deer jumping out in front of an elevator.

      Contrived scenarios to demonstrate that there are unsolvable situations are fun but don't prove anything relevant about automatic cars.

      Or a multi-elevator pileup accident.

      That one seems quite unlikely, given much better reaction times and distance estimations capabilities of computers.

      An elevator hitting black ice?

      I find it difficult to believe that a car with active sensors wouldn't notice that. In fact, this might be the one case where a computer with proper sensors could be significantly superior to a human driver. You don't have multispectral eyes, but a computer can.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:CALLING THINGS "OBSOLETE" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I run an SGI Indigo R4400 with "Elan" graphics, and a 2nd rev Blue & White Apple G3. ;-)

      Now, stop crossing areas of domain knowledge in ways that create false correspondence.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  35. "strong incentives" rather than requirement by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Like acess to freeway lanes, or much lower toll freeway lanes.
    Like much cheaper insurance.

  36. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

    Universal Basic Income, funded by the recognisation that if the only things in the loop are energy and material resources that are rightfully property of everyone on planet earth, and robots manufacturered from said resources, then everyone should get a share.

    By all means, have bonuses for those who like to innovate, but Luxury Automated Communism!

  37. "Activate auto-drive" ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... I requested.

    My 35 year old car just looked back at me and said, "Dude! What?"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:"Activate auto-drive" ... by zlives · · Score: 1

      my old cavalier would sometimes turn on by itself... but i think that was a feature test for the GM ignition rollout.

  38. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Ah, 'Universal Basic Income', the last gasp of socialism as it fades into irrelevance.

    We're looking at a future where you can build anything you want in your parents' basement so long as you have the raw materials to do so. Why would I want the Glorious People's Central Income Committee deciding what I should and shouldn't have?

  39. Re:Soon 'mere humans' won't be allowed to do anyth by jmkaza · · Score: 1

    I'm going to extract a shitton of enjoyment out of going to sleep in my pod in Denver and waking up at the beach in San Diego!

  40. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by erice · · Score: 1

    The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.

    The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.

    That's a secondary problem. Most people worry about how they would *survive* without the paycheck that comes from having a job.

  41. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

    That's not how universal basic income works. Everyone gets enough for cost of living (food, shelter, utilities). If you want more than that, it's up to you.

  42. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by chihowa · · Score: 1

    At least in the US, we'll see rioting and the very imminent threat of mass scale starvation before anything like UBI comes into play. I think Luddite-style robot smashing and a descent from an automated technological society will happen before our 'betters' part with a shiny penny of their hoard. (In typical idiot revolution fashion, the robots that could provide for us all will be targeted before the robot's masters who are keeping the productivity to themselves.)

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  43. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Mantrid42 · · Score: 2
    I have a solution: raise wages, shrink the work week. It worked after the Great Depression. Minimum wage came into existence, work weeks were reduced from 60 hours to closer to 40, and you got a blue eagle label for your business if you complied, to add social pressure.

    The idea that everyone needs to be working 40 hours a week in our modern, increasingly automated world is absurd. Productivity has done nothing but go up for forty years. Remember the dream of a world where people could pursue hobbies and have more leisure time, away from work, because we designed machines to do the hard work for us? It's basically here, but we're all operating under this crazy mentality that we should be working eight hours a day, five days a week, if not more. And you know what more free time means? More time for people to innovate and invent. There are tons of brilliant people out there with a great idea for a new product or new business, but they don't have the time to pursue it.

  44. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're looking at a future where you can build anything you want in your parents' basement so long as you have the raw materials to do so.
    Why would I want the Glorious People's Central Income Committee deciding what I should and shouldn't have?

    Until everyone can build food in their parent's basement, the income committee is the only thing separating most people from starvation. Most men don't starve quietly.

  45. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was always curious when the onus for job training got placed on the employee. I mean I could see an arrangement like they have for nursing where you agree to x years of service in return for having your tuition paid, but paying for job training myself? Are you mad? That seems like an externalized company cost.

    And it's gotten to a point where companies feel free to demand concessions from K-12 education to better serve them, while at the same time doing everything possible to minimizing paying taxes for that education. All on the promise of some jobs in the future, when everyone knows any business will pack-up when there is some new labor market to exploit.

  46. JUICE SAVING!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey timmyboy, nice journalistic pizazz. Juice saving? Like, concentrating orange juice and then freezing it in cardboard cylinders?

  47. Ghost Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self driving cars + stations where cars can self-recharge. Give the car an approximate destination (i.e. you're on vacation, maybe just looking for a not-too-crowded beach in a general area). Then have a stroke or heart attack and die. The car keeps driving waiting for further instructions, recharging itself as long as your credit card holds out or until it breaks down. Electric cars are very reliable plus maybe auto payment of your credit card bill and you have a GHOST CAR! How long until somebody realizes what's going on?

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. No No NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely not! Just like guns, you will take my steering wheel away from my cold dead hands! I have a license to drive. which certifies that I'm capable in accordance with government regulations. Until I no longer meet those requirements (Old age, cannot see) I will not relinquish my ability to drive a car. Not going to happen buddy.

    If they try to do this, I will just from that point on turn my Camaro into a classic status vehicle and never buy a new car.

  50. Re:Soon 'mere humans' won't be allowed to do anyth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless the government closed the beach due to there being no lifeguard on duty or a shark spotted nearby, and the government decided you're not qualified to risk it...

    Which has happened...

  51. How much would a driverless cab fare cost? by dixonpete · · Score: 1

    Cost the cost in half and I'd ditch my car in a heartbeat.

  52. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    and what will happen to people automated out of a job?

    They will be paid to throw rocks at windows in order to generate jobs for glaziers.

    Or they can spend their time studying economic fallacies.

  53. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kinda.

    As it is, there are several countries flirting with different methods of governance, and especially as there is so much focus put on innovation, the old trusts expend more money in maintaining their position than they receive. If some country finds a means to reduce overhead and improve services, they have a huge advantage over old trusts spending ever increasing amounts to maintain their position. Government especially seems like an area where innovation has staled.

    It's like maintaining a feudal system in modern times. I doubt the US will go willingly, but enough countries bring about better methods and outcomes may ultimately force their hand.

  54. Elon Musk just lost my respect by kheldan · · Score: 0

    I will NEVER, EVER get in an automobile that I cannot have immediate and complete MANUAL control over. Ever. I will also NEVER give up riding a motorcycle, and you CANNOT 'automate' that. Fuck you, Musk. Driving may be a privelege and not a right, but it IS a manifestation of personal freedom and I'll be damned if that is taken away from me. Others agree.

    DISCLAIMER: I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with me or not, I don't give a flying fuck about your insults, and you're not changing my mind, EVER, either, so just don't bother commenting on the above at all, deal with it.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't give some of those flying fucks away they'll start to pile up. Pretty soon your house looks like something out of Hoarders, what with the flying fucks everywhere.

    2. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're probably either obviously kidding or running a little experiment here with your commentary - to see how many people "disagree" with you. I don't know.
      But in case you are not, here are some of Elon's latest tweets:
      https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/577946471804235776
      @elonmusk Mar 17
      To be clear, Tesla is strongly in favor of people being allowed to drive their cars and always will be. Hopefully, that is obvious.

      https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/577946893646364673
      @elonmusk Mar 17
      However, when self-driving cars become safer than human-driven cars, the public may outlaw the latter. Hopefully not.

    3. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm shocked that he had your respect in the first place. This pasty face asshole is from South Africa. Evidently you don't know much about South Africans. Now if we can just get the rest of Slashdot to stop sucking his dick we can call that progress.

    4. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time, it wasn't a privilege. Read The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile 1890-1950.

    5. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      DISCLAIMER: I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with me or not, I don't give a flying fuck about your insults, and you're not changing my mind, EVER, either, so just don't bother commenting on the above at all, deal with it.

      Your post sounds so much better when read in an Abe Simpson voice.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Gumby · · Score: 1

      So do you only drive model T's? Modern cars already do a lot of the "control" of low level components based on your "inputs". Raising our level of control abstraction to a simple joystick for direction, or just a voice command of "go there" is just a matter of degree.

    7. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by drkim · · Score: 1

      ... when self-driving cars become safer than human-driven cars, the public may outlaw the latter...

      This may happen incrementally...

      Imagine that left 'carpool' lane of the freeway turned into a 'auto-drive' only lane. 180 speed limit. Auto-drive cars merging effortlessly into and out of the lane. People sleeping, texting, eating, watching movies as they zip by.

      After a few years, only the right lane is open for 'human driven' cars. They will be stuck behind whoever the slowest driver in their lane is. Their insurance rates will be crazy high.

      You won't even need to outlaw human drivers, any more than you need to outlaw people taking a horse and buggy to commute to work these days.

    8. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Manifestation of personal freedom"! If that's what it means to you, your ideas of freedom and your own self image are damaged beyond repair. If you're admitting you'll never change your mind, you are not being rational, by the very definition of the word. If you're not being rational, why should anyone assume you were rational when you concocted your strange opinion? You essentially just farted on Slashdot, and it made you feel good. Nice. Thanks for that.

    9. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He just doesn't want anyone pointing out that driving a car on public roads for pleasure is endangering others for their own amusement. If he can twist this into some stance in defense of Freedom, then it makes him feel less of an asshat for trying to demand no-one impinge on his right to endanger others, when that's all he really cares about in the first place.

    10. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I drive a small pickup with a 5-speed stick, and I know for a fact that the only control that doesn't have a direct mechanical linkage is the throttle, and I can live with that. I know I can always bring the vehicle to a complete stop whenever and wherever I choose and no automated system can override me, everything still functions even if the engine quit running.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    11. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by kheldan · · Score: 1
      Maybe YOU endanger the public when YOU drive a car, but I do not. Maybe YOU should sell your car and take the bus or a cab, but I do not have to because I do not suck at driving. Enjoy being subject to the whims of others -- including whatever software engineer fucked up writing that one line of code that sends you to a firey death when your controll-less autonomous car runs full speed into a concrete abutment. Really, you 'autonomous car' assholes can go fuck yourselves.

      "Manifestation of personal freedom"! If that's what it means to you, your ideas of freedom and your own self image are damaged beyond repair. If you're admitting you'll never change your mind, you are not being rational, by the very definition of the word. If you're not being rational, why should anyone assume you were rational when you concocted your strange opinion? You essentially just farted on Slashdot, and it made you feel good. Nice. Thanks for that.

      Where do you live so I can beat your fucking face in for saying that to me, you little bitch? Fuck off and die, slag. People like you don't DESERVE to be in control of ANYTHING, especially not when, where, and how you get around, you should be on a LEASH and TOLD what to do, you're obviously not responsible enough to be allowed to run around loose.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! So tough! Oooh scary! You gonna run me over in your awesomemobile? If you get this upset with a slashdot post, imagine what you'd do in a case of road rage. You didn't really do yourself any favors by flying off the handle. You're just proving my point with every angry word you vomit forth. Keep up the good work, Internet Tough Guy!

    13. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go "beddy bye" Dave420: You're getting pwned all over this site today.

    14. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big talk from a scared wuss named Dave420: Where do you live? The reason you won't say it is you know you're heading into getting your weasel faced smeared all over the pavement if not getting curb kicked like the despised jerk you are on this website.

    15. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I know it must happen to you at least a few times every week, but: The next time someone beats you to a pulp in real life, you piece of shit? You'll have to wonder if it's me.

      Sleep well, asshole -- if you can. Guys like you? Your days are numbered, both on the Internet, and in real life. Enjoy living in fear.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    16. Re:Elon Musk just lost my respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your meds and quit foaming at the mouth already, ok? Your spittle flew into everyone's face through our computer screens it's so bad!

  55. Mr. "product mgr." (aka - a bullshitter) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey APK.. you only get to say something when you actually write a piece of software that does not need a 3 year education for the operator to work with it" - by I4ko (695382) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @04:22PM (#49286645)

    See subject: It doesn't - just an IQ above 10 below plantlife (like yours isn't obviously). You only get to talk to ME that way when you can do better YOURSELF, blowhard.

    ---

    "and... err... you know.. .actually works, instead of just taking 100% cpu for 4 hours." - by I4ko (695382) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @04:22PM (#49286645)

    My system does nearly 4 million record entries in well under 35 minutes (older Core I7 920)!

    I'd think a "bigshot product manager" like YOU CLAIM TO BE could afford the same or better system as I possess - apparently not (you must be a shoe salesman @ best/most then).

    ---

    "when the same can be achieved with curl/wget, bash, grep, sort and cat under Cygwin in less than 3 minutes.... Your software does not work" - by I4ko (695382) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @04:22PM (#49286645)

    Doubt it. You don't seem to UNDERSTAND how the data for hosts files works then (obviously) - it's NOT that simple since many providers of them use diff. formats + pack the files with a LOT of "b.s." comments etc. & junk - to get the BEST hosts file, my program shears ALL OF THAT, clean away (string processing's expensive on CPU, but then again, seeing you're a mere "mgt. STOOGE"? I can see your lack of education, experience, & understanding on that note... lol, what else can I say?).

    Plus, that'd mean installing ALL KINDS OF "moving parts" bullshit with runtimes too (overheads galore) - I do it from 1 SINGLE PART I wrote myself... unlike YOUR LIMITED "skillset" making you USE the tools others wrote (but not you yourself).

    APK

    P.S.=> Above ALL else? Listen blowhard: Try doing what I did & get results like my ware being hosted & recommended by the folks @ MalwareBytes' hpHosts site here http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ... apk

    1. Re:Mr. "product mgr." (aka - a bullshitter) by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If you hate spammy advertising so much, why do you force it on us here? Surely you realise your name is universally reviled on Slashdot for this incessant nonsense you spew forth, and your childish attacks on people who point it out to you.

  56. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by marciot · · Score: 1

    I mean I could see an arrangement like they have for nursing where you agree to x years of service in return for having your tuition paid, but paying for job training myself?

    That used to be called an indentured servant, and it wasn’t a very good thing if you ended up stuck with an unscrupulous boss.

  57. Have you ever taken the bus any distance? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    You started talking about efficiency. There are exist much simpler solutions: 1) Take a bus. (one driver drive several passengers)

    Clearly time is not a factor in your efficiency calculation

    1. Re:Have you ever taken the bus any distance? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Average speed of traffic in London is 11mph. Why? It's full of cars.

    2. Re:Have you ever taken the bus any distance? by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      So, in the resistance to Elon Musk or any other "visionary" dictating how you use technology, I offer as an example this very interface, the revised social media oriented version of the Slashdot interface which is even more glaring white than the original and without the horizontal rules that set one reply off from the text.

      On the other hand I can see radical changes to the role of the automobile being possible when self-driving cars become the norm. I have a dog in this fight since I have never been able to operate a car due to poor vision, so, of course I could use a self-driving car. The idea raises many possibilities many of you who are used to individual transportation may not have thought of. One is to convoy together many cars headed for a common point on the interstate system and to move the whole at high speeds, 250 MPH until that point is reached. Another idea is to have a regional fleet of cars that can be used for public transportation that will operate entirely within an area. Buses and Bus stops will no longer be needed. Such a system could make it more desirable for most people to not own a car at all. An effect of self driving cars is that the roads and lanes in them could be made quite narrow. Much land would be reclaimed. The regional or urban car fleet could be stored in very high density garages and much of the land in cities devoted to parking and traffic could be reclaimed for other uses. Most people drive at most 25 miles one way to work and errands. Most of their needs could be met by a publicaly owned fleet. There would be very little need to own a car for most people who now live in cities

    3. Re: Have you ever taken the bus any distance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you try to think outside the box and stop using straw men ? It does not matter what the top speed is. In London you will have a network of bus far superior to most of town in the UK: there is a bus stop close to almost any home. Also a bus stop will stop at many stops which are not yours: you will waste a lot of time especially in the countryside where it will go not in a straight line to pick up people at tiny stops. Jesus this is bloody obvious.

  58. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    And where do you get the raw materials and energy? Trade some of your blood plasma for a couple of pounds of resin? A kidney for a year's worth of food? You can't print bacon and eggs and toast and orange juice for breakfast.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  59. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The problem is that unless it's mandated by the government, instead of being voluntary, compliance won't happen because too many people, given a choice of doing extra hours or being out of a job, will do the extra hours.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  60. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.

    You mean things like starving, freezing and being dirty?

    I can think of plenty of things to occupy my time besides work, but I still need an income.

  61. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    And where exactly do you think those raw materials are going to come from if you don't have any money to pay for them?

  62. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    The answer to that is easy. A Basic Income policy. A standard amount paid to every one. Enough to cover the essentials. Then work is something you do to pay for the extras, not to survive.

  63. Remote driving cheaper than automatic driving. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Why try to build a machine to mimic human intelligence. There are 7 billion people on earth. Already remote control tech is allowing soldiers to maintain a 9 to 5 job fighting wars from their Florida bases. So let us equip the cars with real time feedback remove control and outsource driving to drivers sitting in Bangalore, Bangkok, Dacca, Manila... It will be fun to watch traffic.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  64. hughes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how long will it be before elon stops clipping his fingernails and begins drinking his own pee?

    1. Re:hughes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and...
      3. All is divine
      4. Believing that every birth is a rebirth
      5. Interconnectedness of all life forms
      6. Life is misery and opportunity

      Elon Mushka will start writing songs like "Wah Wah" and "I Got My Mind Set On You" [record scratch]...oh, wait. That guy got dumped into the Samsara Spin Cycle® on 29 November 2001. More likely than not, he is now some swarthy and hirsute 13 year old computer geek living in Edison, New Jersey.

      This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

  65. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    You may not hav noticed, but Laissez Faire Capitalism is a busted flush. It may have been fashionable, coming out of the 1980s, but since 2008, ever fear people are buying into it. If it was actually the one true way, the right wouldn't need a fake news channel to lie to them 24 hours a day.

  66. Can't wait, but doubtful by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Like most engineering problems, once a solution exists in prototype form, it looks like a solved problem to the marketer. In reality, there is a big distance between something that sort of works in ideal conditions and something that is really reliable under most conditions. Driving safely and efficiently is a difficult problem, at present requires expensive sensors and a lot of computing. It will get cheaper and easier and more reliable and will probably be useful. However I think we will still have a full set of manual controls in cars for decades to come.

  67. what an arrogant cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope that nigger elon musk catches ebola

  68. hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice try management

  69. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1
    That's why you shame places that won't get with the program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything that she permits into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird.

  70. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Immerman · · Score: 1

    That fallacy is based on what is rapidly becoming it's own fallacy - that human labor is required.

    Robots are rapidly reaching a human level of dexterity, and amortized cost is rapidly falling below human wages. What kind of job is a man without intellectual talent to do when robots can do every menial task for a fraction of what it costs him to survive? And for that matter we're beginning to automate an increasing amount of intellectual labor as well - by the end of this century it's the vast majority of people will be unlikely to be able to out-perform a robot that costs a fraction of their living expenses in any economically meaningful way. The service and entertainment industries may still prefer "the human touch", but there will be a steady flow of wealth from the service sector to the fully-automated manufacturing and agricultural industries, and the farm/factory owners just aren't going to buy enough services to balance the wealth flow and keep the current economic system viable. Not unless that ownership is spread across a large fraction of the population rather than being almost entirely concentrated in less than 1%.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  71. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    How are you planning on acquiring those raw materials when they're all owned by a select few who have absolutely no incentive to share them? If they've already got all the money they could ever want, why would they bother selling it to you? In their ideal world you die, and they buy whatever pittance you own for pennies on the dollar.

  72. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Do you think THIS society will go along with that rather than pay less elsewhere?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  73. Musk Needs Rehab Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk needs help, and a Press Briefing Is Not Rehab.

    Musk need rehab ... he's brain is all rotty, nothing good, from the drugs and money.

    I am his driver.

    Dis boy need help.

    Brain wired all wrong.

    Can't see.

    Can't talk.

    Can't think.

    Hell, dis White Boy can't even pis ... he has to shoot Heroin in he's Penis just to pee. Dat not right.

    He Need Help.

  74. What happens if noone chooses to work? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Who's going to be left to pay your basic income?

    1. Re:What happens if noone chooses to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would nobody decide to work? All you can afford on the basic income are rent (shared accommodation/singleton flat), heat and food. Basically you have no spare for internet, TV, computers, consoles, drinking ,smoking, eating out, etc.

      Work and every penny you get after tax (and it will be more than zero, taxes aren't and never would be 100%) can be spend on those things. Have expensive tastes? You need a better paid job.

      Can I ask you: what happens if there's no work to choose? You have to pay the basic income to them ANYWAY.

    2. Re:What happens if noone chooses to work? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      As pointed out by the anonymous poster, the concept that everyone is going to give up TV, internet, alcohol, vacations, whatever else in order not to work is a nonsense. And plenty of people enjoy working. So your hypothetical is an impossible.

      But it also misses the point that this is about the robots doing the work. Robots get no choice. So the people that are profiting from the robots doing the work are taxed to pay for the basic income.

    3. Re:What happens if noone chooses to work? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Additionally, you don't introduce a change like this overnight. You start with a nominal sum as a basic income, and then each year you ratchet it up above inflation. You get to the essentials being covered gradually, and each person will reach that point at a different time. So if there are problems they are dealt with over the years as the system unfolds.

    4. Re:What happens if noone chooses to work? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Whoever is raking in all the money because of the automation.

      Automating jobs creates more wealth, not less. The only thing that prevents it from being an unrelieved panacea is that capitalism is quite poor at wealth redistribution.

  75. This is a way better solution than Basic Income. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    and it actually has a tremendous amount of historical evidence to back it up.

  76. Nit picking by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    "ending range anxiety,"

    The comma should go *outside* the right quotation mark, not inside it.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  77. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

    Maybe if you couple it with celebrity endorsement. Funnel a few million to the Kardashian clan and I bet you could make some headway.

  78. You already do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Autopilot is used for 95%+ of the flight, and it's only regulation, not safety, that stops landing being on autopilot.

    So you're already using a pilot-less commercial plane.

  79. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    I periodically link Marshall Brain's "Manna" into these discussions ; his novel basically describes what you just said, only the rich guys "won" by ushering all the "useless poor" into government subsistence camps policed by robots.

    His proposed robo-utopia is probably going to rub most libertarians up the wrong way, seeing as it includes panopticon surveillance and implants that can deprive you of your liberty (in exchange for a life of self-determinism and luxury that would otherwise give most of them a wet dream...).

  80. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    .. .and incidentally, many of his predictions are already true - Amazon and other players already have warehouses where the humans are mere robot arms serving a computer. The only thing really lacking for his Manna 2.0 version is the federated web API for employment contracts, which can't be far off.

  81. IF it's such nonsense? Prove this wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  82. Time to "eat your words" troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  83. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Agreed. If you guys don't manage to destroy your empire before then, that will surely do it.

  84. Time to "eat your words" (again) troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  85. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by Tom · · Score: 1

    the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.

    This. In the 60s and 70s there was this shared vision of what creative and scientific progress mankind could make when freed from most of the boring busywork that many jobs are.

    Then a non-conspiracy(*) decided "what if we just pocket all that profit instead and instead of being just very rich become super-filthy mega rich?"

    (*) most cases where people see conspiracies actually are not, they are just cases where the interests of people or groups of people align so nicely that they don't even need to make a conspiracy to act as if they had.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  86. Amusement's seeing you eat your words & run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never has, or will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  87. What's it taste like "eating your words"? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never has, or will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  88. What's it taste like "eating your words"? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never has, or will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  89. What's it taste like "eating your words"? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never has, or will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  90. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    Probably because, unless something changes drastically, most people can't imagine how they will eat without a job!

  91. What's it taste like "eating your words"? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never has, or will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  92. What's it taste like "eating your words"? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eat your words" Dave420 or prove me wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (which you've failed TONS of times @ & you always ran from that completely FAIR challenge to you, just like the trolling weasel you clearly are...)

    * Tell us: How do those words of yours taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & washed down with your foot in your mouth ramming them down your throat? R O T F L M A O...

    APK

    P.S.=> You called me ALL KINDS of names: Well, since you're technically incompetent & the above link will just prove it again? Live up to a fair challenge put to you (of course, a TROLL WEASEL like yourself never has, or will - & as usual, I win - getting to make a FOOL out of you publicly, yet again also, "bonus"... lol!)... apk

  93. Ask Dave420 the smarmy WORM this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How eating his words tastes + why he ran from http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after being fairly called out for doing the same crap he's doing to you (tossing names, trying to be clever with his 2nd grade education etc.) lol. Ought to be good for a laugh. Always is.

  94. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  95. Reminds me of Red Barchetta by allfieldsrequired · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  96. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  97. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  98. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  99. It's not polite talking w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  100. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  101. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  102. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  103. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  104. Agreed: Dave420 = a punk beyotch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Dave420 why he's eating his words here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as it's always good for a laugh when apk shuts that little weasel punk down easily making Dave420 run from a fair challenge like the little punk beyotch he is.

  105. Others' quoted opinions of you, Dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're reviled (kheldan wants to beat your face in & I'd agree with him for it you little smarmy weasel):

    "Where do you live so I can beat your fucking face in for saying that to me, you little bitch?" - by kheldan (1460303) on Friday March 20, 2015 @11:00AM (#49301349) Journal

    FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Don't blame you 1 bit Kheldan. I'd like to meet him for JUST 5 MINUTES face to face myself... only problem is, he's a punk weasel & we ALL know it! I mean, you KNOW Dave420's a loser if all he has is his bullshit & name tossing (& apparently, he's yet to have his ass beat in the real world for it - then again, you KNOW he doesn't do it there, & that is why! He's a punk bitch... just as you said!).

    ---

    "Smarmy "Was that so difficult" comments are just, well, smarmy. Next time save that for your spot at open mike night at the comedy club." - by darthsilun (3993753) on Friday March 20, 2015 @09:21AM (#49300397)

    FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Agreed: Dave420's a smarmy little WORM punk, no questions asked...

    ---

    "Thankfully, a person, who'd choose to attack the speaker, rather than the content of the speech, removes all doubts about himself with a single utterance â" no need to study his other communications at all." - by mi (197448) on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:38PM (#48516321) Homepage Journal

    FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * That's just a SMALL sampling... want more? There's plenty - your stupidity SUPPLIES THE AMMO FOR ME TO DO IT, easily, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Know what *REALLY* works on you, weasel? Making you "eat your words" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I have SO MANY TIMES NOW, it's not even funny (& it shuts you up every time, which I love, bigmouth) - you're a little punk beyotch, no questions asked, & I am NOT the ONLY ONE saying it... apk

    1. Re:Others' quoted opinions of you, Dave420 by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You should see what people say about you. Here's an entire thread, 23 pages long, of people laughing at your pathetic attempts to threaten someone.

      Just for future reference - I take insults from muppets as a sign I'm doing something right. Each post from you makes me happy, so please continue.

    2. Re:Others' quoted opinions of you, Dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor Dave420 had his cigar blowup in his face here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    3. Re:Others' quoted opinions of you, Dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dave420 yer runnin from this http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? Cat got your tongue or are you just unable to backup your bullshit when called out? I'd say the latter is true.

    4. Re:Others' quoted opinions of you, Dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dave420 reacts poorly dancing like a puppet to apk's tune to get shotdown again http://slashdot.org/comments.p... how many more times can you stand being pwned so much I wonder.

  106. That right. Exactly. Real world roads are just ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That right. Exactly. Real world roads are just like an imaginary geometric shape.

    Oh, wait. A circle you can draw from only three points only exists in a perfect model.

    Sorry, the real world is nothing like that at all.

  107. Bwahahaha Jeremy Reimer? Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask him WHY he resorted to that (I floored ALL of arstechnica's why over @ Window IT Pro after they stalked me there & to MANY forums online) - how?

    Ok - ASK Jay Little, Reimer's "support" (lol, not, HE floored them all along with Dr. Mark Russinovich, a former "co-worker" of mine) Jay Little about that...

    Jay Little, Reimer's 'henchman' since Reimer knows zero on computing himself, had LITERALLY said "I am an EXPERT on Exchange"...

    Well, how come Mr. Dumbshit BLOWHARD from arstechnica (home of the underachiever online) didn't KNOW that memory optimizers are PROVEN to unhalt stalled exchange servers?

    After all - I USED MS' OWN DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE IT & floor their asses, totally (lol, was easy - they're "ne'er-d0-well" dolts, just like you... technically incompetent dolts).

    Too bad Dr. Russinovich PhD took himself along for the ride vs. "lil' ole me"... & when I can FLOOR the likes of him? Fools like you are just (& you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, lol):

    "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"

    To dust, with ease (+ truth & facts).

    APK

    P.S.=> Whimps like them, and you? You're all the same - worms, & VERY EASY to get the better of, using simple facts... apk

  108. It's not polite to talk w/ your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

    Tell us, how does eating your words taste flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?

    Above all else: Get some manners, Dave420 - it's NOT POLITE to talk w/ your mouth full (lmao) of those words of yours you're eating, hahahaha.

    (Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full as you "eat your words" (lmao))

  109. He's an idiot. by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Vint Cerf, when he gave a presentation where I work, mentioned that the latest version of Google's self-driving car didn't even have a steering wheel.

    Allow me to present my two arguments that they're complete idiots:
              1) It's now a few years from now, and half the self-driving cars on the road are 5-10 years old. Many, if not most, were purchased used.
                                How do you feel knowing that many of those cars' owners have never seen a safety recall, much less had one done?
                2) Pull 11705 Dewey Rd, Wheaton-Glenmont, MD up in google maps, go to street view, and rotate to the left, to look at the road. One two
                                      parking lane, directions, no lane markings, and, oh, yes, the bus uses this road, and if I drive to work, I usually drive on this
                                      road. Tell me a self driving car's going to handle it...

    Oh, and argument 3: I can go most places without driving. I use this thing called "public transit". If I really, really need to get somewhere faster, there are these things called "taxis". Consider how much a self-driving car costs, and how long you'll own it, and how much maintenance will cost, and then how much you'd spend on public transit, with or without taxis, and tell me which is a *hell* of a lot more money.

                    mark

  110. Relinquish control? by Toshito · · Score: 1

    Again each time I read an article on Slashdot about autonomous vehicles, I'm amazed at how the same bunch of geeks who would murder someone just so they can retain complete control of their gadgets, computers, websites and houses, can at the same time be happy to let a computer take control of their cars?

    I don't understand?

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
  111. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    Well, by then you won't have a basement for your kids to work in: you'll be lucky to have a tent.
    Or enough energy to keep warm, let alone run your 3D printer.

  112. Absolutely agreed 110%... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dave420's heading for exactly what you said: I've seen it before & apparently so have you...

    * He's SO stupid he doesn't realize it!

    APK

    P.S.=> Imo @ least? Either he's a complete dolt, OR, he's some kid that's underage "acting up"... Gotta be - no responsible adult acts that way... apk

  113. Re:and what will happen to people automated out of by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.

    The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.

    "no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away" Well we aren't replacing high paying manufacturing jobs with high paying manufacturing jobs, but we sure are creating new high paying 'knowledge worker' type jobs all the time. However, I have no idea if the rate of knowledge worker job creation is keeping pace with the decline in manufacturing jobs. I wish it were easier for the layperson to search for things of that nature without having to wade through dozens of biased/politically motivated 'articles'.