Slashdot Mirror
California DMV Changes Rules To Allow Testing and Use of Fully Autonomous Vehicles (techcrunch.com)
The California Department of Motor Vehicles is changing its rules to allow companies to test autonomous vehicles without a driver behind the wheel -- and to let the public use autonomous vehicles. From a report: The DMV released a revised version of its regulations and has started a 15-day public comment period, ending October 25, 2017. California law requires the DMV to work on regulations to cover testing and public use of autonomous vehicles, and the regulator said that this is the first step. "We are excited to take the next step in furthering the development of this potentially life-saving technology in California," the state's Transportation Secretary, Brian Kelly, said in a statement. California's DMV took pains in its announcement to highlight that it wasn't trying to overstep the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has the final say on developing and enforcing compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Rather, the California regulations, are going to require manufacturers to certify that they've met federal safety standards before their cars become (driverlessly) street legal. And manufacturers still have to obey the state traffic laws written for California.
I would love to see autonomous vehicles navigate a California parking lot during the holiday shopping season.
Of all the places I've driven, Los Angeles was the most fun. Hills, twisty highway ramps, and long stretches of road to gun it and relax on. Once driverless takes hold it'll be sad to see that excitement fade away, but great helping the traffic problem.
-
What I'm more interested in here is, has California codified who has liability for accidents involving self-driving cars?
Well that'd be a first for California. They've been doing their own thing for years especially with automotive regulations.
And why bother? Just call the car "Undocumented" and then none of the rules apply.
The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel driven by an unpredictable person near people on sidewalks is even more insanity. The person could be drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy.
Very soon people will realize that having a robot drive is much safer and predictable. Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...
The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel hurtling mere feet away from people on sidewalks while a human is at the controls is insanity!!
FTFY.
At least computers are predictable. Software is guaranteed to have bugs. Humans are too. At least with computers, you can fix the bugs when you find them.
Not just that but the bug fixes are cumulative. Find a bug with someones' winter driving and they can take a winter driving course to fix it. It doesn't magically update the firmware in all the other humans.
This. Exactly why I love the idea of testing all this crap out in California instead of where I live.
meaning it'll fold at the first sign of trouble leaving you high and dry. That would probably be fine if we had a proper healthcare system (most folks could survive losing a car) but well, their governor just vetoed a single payer bill...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So you're not a programmer.
Man. Has it really gotten this bad? Anything wrong with the world, blame the liberals. I don't get it. As if every single liberal is the cause of your problems. NO you are the cause of your problems. Same applies to the conservatives.
So, presumably a human will not need a driver license for such a vehicle. Thus we can expect children, drunks, and senile seniors to travel freely. Somehow that seems worrisome for reasons other than traffic safety.
But, again, the first buyers will likely be 'ride hail' companies, and rent-a-car businesses. Children without an approved account will be stuck at home. Legislation is likely to manage their use as well.
The security of the rented vehicle will be a concern. Cameras will be on to record (and charge the customer for) drunks vomiting, drinks spilling and children using crayons. The Johnny Cab could become a disgusting travel choice, but far more affordable than today's options.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...
Which we generally keep far out of harm's way from the people that are
drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy
Well maybe not the heart attack guy. But people walk by on the sidewalk literally centimeters from cars. Most of our threat assessment is not whether they physically could jump out into the street, but whether they seem drunk, high, distracted, mentally impaired, a child or otherwise likely to do something silly. Like the difference between a dog on a leash and a street dog, they may be equally physically capable but I assume an owner will generally restrain a dog trying to run into the road. A computer can land a rocket from space on a tiny barge in the ocean, but without a deeper understanding of people and animals it'll be a nervous Nellie because the slightest gesture must be interpreted in the worst possible way. It's easier the further you're away from human-controlled anything.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
People like you see one human making a mistake out of ten thousand and then go on about humans can't drive. I see humans making a true mistake in traffic, maybe once a month. In that time I must have seen 5000 drivers doing exactly the right thing. It's going to be a long time before you see 4999 autonomous cars not making a mistake ever and one that does.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I think New Mexico already ok'd it and I'd have a hard time believing Texas isn't already on board or will be soon. Texas doesn't give a shit about humans, it cares about corporations, it proves that by being a "Right to Work" state. This generally means a right-to-abuse-workers state.
Only I can judge you.
snowflake.
Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
Only I can judge you.
They're working on your demand now as I type this. There will of course be a "Tank Tax" which will start at $1,000,000 per mile driven. Your right to a safe driving experience will be respected and you will be assigned a road crew to assess and repair roads as you destroy them. Insurance might be a bit difficult but, hey, its a lightly regulated market, just the way you like.
Only I can judge you.
Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism,
So if I call myself AntiPoor, that makes me rich?
Neat.
or bullshit, whichever seems more logical (hint: the second thing).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Your right to a safe driving experience
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that? Or is that a California thing? I can imagine the state might have passed a law, after the LAPD mistook a white kid and two asian ladies for Chris Dorner, and opened fire on their vehicles.
Personally, I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery. YMMV.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point, I'll correct that for you:
If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
Only I can judge you.
Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy. LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery. Yay! We're #1! We're # 1! We're #1!
Only I can judge you.
I am, I know I my software is fallible - but that is because I am. So the bar for AI is quite low.
Plus humans don't come with unit tests!
(their programming just adapts however the hell it wants with no set goal in mind)
I don't know whether it's more dangerous than human drivers or not. The news coverage is extremely biased, and doesn't provide much way to judge. I'm certainly not going to take the word of a manager at GM when talking about his competition.
It would really be nice if this could be done on a county by county basis, so that people could make decisions based on real evidence rather than gut feelings.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
You make find the case a bit difficult to make.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If automation and rockets were this good, we would have already sent ALL of the spent Plutonium out to space. Not gonna happen!! Rockets have historically crashed and exploded in flights. They still do.
Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
Will the camera be able to detect the radar jammer I have that tells the car it is about to hit a brick wall?
With all the ads for "brake assist" cars where they stop all by themselves when about to hit something or someone, I'm truly surprised I haven't see DIY projects for such a jammer. Imagine the fun on a superhighway when someone ahead of you points it back towards your car and it decides to stop right now in the middle of the highway. Or stands on the street corner on a busy city street with one of these.
Back in the day when the AI in the car was human, and radar detectors were ubiquitous, it was a real hoot to have a simple 9V battery, switch, and old microwave door sensor. You could see someone zip past you doing 20 over, push the button, and watch his taillights come on. You'd pass him, then ten minutes later the process would repeat.
Surely there are people who have reverse engineered the signals that are being used to control the brake assist systems and come up with a modern "brake light tester".
Right...so they are being anti-fascist, by beating and killing innocent people they disagree with. Doublethink of the left, everyone.
Because all things are one of two things which are polar opposites of eachother. Leftist extremists, everyone.
Uh, as I recall it is you racist white terrorists who have been killing people concerned about social justice.
The violence might come and you just have to choose, will you do violence to increase racism and inequality or will you contribute your violence to promoting social justice. The ends sometimes/often/usually do justify the means. This, btw is the logic that is used by the US Empire to invade countries, depose their leaders, and kill millions of non-'muricans, because brown people!
Only I can judge you.
Ah, so you're not only a liberal extremist, but also a traitor and/or a worthless foreigner.
A drunk mad man texting his heart doctor for advise on chest pain. By my calculations that cancels it all out. I might have forgot to carry a one...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Obviously he's a pirate.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
That is less of a problem with safety but with energy expense. It's hard enough to get the super-heavy super-dense spent fuel into orbit, but even then what? You cut the invisible leash attached to it so it falls right into the sun? If you think it works like that, I happento own a nice bridge you might want to consider purchasing.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
At least computers are predictable. [...] At least with computers, you can fix the bugs when you find them.
That holds true for classical software, but not for things like neural nets, or anything approaching A.I.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
snowflake. Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
Being a member of Antifa and calling yourself anti-fascist, is like being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and calling yourself a socialist.
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
Indeed it is heavy! You would do it in small amounts at a time.. if rockets could be made reliable and powerful enough.. Having something dangerous near you, that has a half life of roughly 24,000 years is not cool. The other option would be to figure out a way to accelerate the half lives of plutonium. Then we would have a bunch of lead around. -- Decay chains: They all end up as lead. http://metadata.berkeley.edu/n...
I'm still not sure you understand your own proposal.
Assuming you get the stuff into orbit, how do you get it from there to the sun?
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I'm a bit confused here. As far as I recall. The first trip to the moon did not require an earth orbit. They just timed it to reach the moon in it's orbit. THEN the orbiting around the moon began as they neared it.. Now that I researched it. It did require 1/2 an orbit around the earth because of lack of escape velocity. So you get half-off on this discussion. https://www.space.com/26572-ho... 2nd picture down.
There's usually at least two reasons to get into Earth orbit first:
- maintaining an abort window, having some time to verify everything is as it's supposed to be.
- because it doesn't matter much, delta-v vise. The energy it takes to reach the moon is pretty much the same, regardless of whether you directly go for earth escape velocity, or suspend your acceleration for a while at orbital velocity. The image in your link that says "falling to the moon" I find misleading, because while in orbit, you're exactly still falling to the earth (keeping to miss because your horizontal velocity is big enough). The amount of energy to invest to go from falling around earth to traveling to the moon is not insignificant, and at this distance the moon doesn't noticably "pull" either, so it's anything but "falling". It's "burning another stage of your rocket" and called the trans-lunar injection.
Anyway, the comparison between going to the moon and going to the sun is pretty flawed. What you might be forgetting is that the whole system, Earth, Moon, you, me, and your superheavy (or supermany, again it doesn't really matter, energy-wise) uranium-laden rockets, are orbiting *sun*. We *are* already falling "towards" it (again we're just fast enough to be continuously missing it). If your rockets are to fall "into" the sun, then they need to shed their velocity that keeps them orbiting sun -- and that's a healthy 30 km/sec. I don't know how much fuel it takes for a delta-v of 30 km/sec, but it's probably a lot. So it requires even more fuel to lift that fuel into earth orbit in the first place, and then some more for that, and so on (the usual rocket equation).
tl;dr: it sucks...
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Spoken like a true dRumptist/white supremacist/xenophobe.
You on the other hand are a worthless being and a traitor by licking the boots of the orange tyrant currently desecrating the White House by his very presence. It boggles the mind that anyone with even a slightly working brain would support that orangutan.
Only I can judge you.
How do you figure tsqr? I myself disagree with the comparison.
Antifa means exactly that and is what it stands for, you might not agree with a violent approach (to each his own), nonetheless, their goals are clear and well aligned with their name. Violence against fascism does not equate to fascism, violence against equality and social justice is fascism.
Only I can judge you.
Yea, horizontal velocity both from the turning of the earth, causing a curve when it DOES leave earth's gravity. and the natural curving flight of an object as it descends upon the sun or a black hole. But I try to look upon the bright side because of the amassing of more knowledge as we go along. Take this site for instance. - Laser powered rockets and solar powered guidance https://www.sciencealert.com/n... Except we would be aiming for the sun.
This is how I figure:
Applying the label Fascist to a group you don't like, then using violence and suppression of ideas and speech to fight the agenda of that group doesn't make you anti-fascist; it makes you a violent suppressor of ideas and speech. It boils down to embracing the moral framework of your enemy in the name of fighting them; aka, the end justifies the means. People who view Antifa in a negative light aren't generally fans of Fascist principles, they just have problems with the behavior they observe.
I hear you, I disagree.
I approve of their goals. I don't necessarily condone the violence but I feel that the left needs to bring some violence, because I don't fall in line with the peaceful protest approach. If the kkk and the other white supremacists are bringing bats, and riot masks and shields to a protest, then the left also needs to have some folks there, to equalize things. This is more important when local authorities align with the racists. I also have not problem with violently suppressing racist ideas, I'll leave better people to take the high road, some of us have to take the low road. I'm not fully committed and haven't really brought violence yet but I think I know myself enough that I would find myself gleefully participating in a melee if the shit went down.
Only I can judge you.
Fuck off barbarian slime.
You cannot believe the level of complement you have just paid me. I'm picturing you just called me this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Danke!
Only I can judge you.
Learn your Roman history, filth.
The decline and fall off the Roman empire? Read it, what's your point?
Only I can judge you.
Moron, done with this conversation.
I won bigly! Again! I'm winning so much I'm getting tired of winning!
Only I can judge you.
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
Or, maybe try the 10th Amendment, which provides that any power not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution is a power given to the state, and if the state doesn't take it, the people.
So, if your state has a law that guarantees a "right to a safe driving experience," then it's legit. Otherwise, it's a power granted to the people, i.e. it is only a "right" when we all agree to accept it as such.
And as such, there is no right to perfectly safe anything; much to the contrary, liberty itself is quite the dangerous proposition.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy.
Ah, well, good show then!
LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
Now, now, they're just as apt to unload on Caucasians as well - remember the Chris Dorner scandal? You know, how the LAPD "mistook" a short, scrawny, white surfer dude for a 6' 4", 260 lb black man?
In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery.
I think that's the saddest truth I'll read this year :(
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point:
... Says the person who stated their belief that if a group names themselves something, they are that thing regardless of their actions.
If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
So, then, by your own "logic," if Antifa is Anti-Fascist, then they're pro-something? Communist, maybe? National Socialist (the 1936 Germany kind)? Help me out here, O One Who Believes Themselves Wise.
You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess that's par for the course at this point.
Keep on digging, I'll keep tossing you fresh shovels.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese