Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Angers Autonomous Vehicle Experts By Promising 'Full Self-Driving' Model 3 (cnn.com)

Tesla's now taking orders for Model 3's with a "full self-driving capability" -- meaning "automatic driving on city streets." CNN reports that experts on self-driving technology "say CEO Elon Musk is playing fast and loose with definitions, overselling the technology and potentially creating safety issues." Experts say Tesla's "full self-driving" feature is really a partial self-driving feature that handles minor driving tasks such as keeping pace with other cars on a highway and still requires diligent human oversight. To most autonomous vehicle experts, "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed...

Dean Pomerleau, of Carnegie Mellon University, who in 1995 drove a minivan that steered itself across the country, told CNN Business he has "grave concerns" about Tesla's practices on autonomous driving. "Claiming its vehicles will soon be 'feature complete' for full self-driving is one more step in the unconscionable practices that Tesla is already engaged in with Autopilot -- overselling its capabilities and reliability when marketing its vehicles and then blaming the driver for not reading the manual and paying constant attention when the technology inevitably fails," Pomerleau said.

CNN notes a 2018 study which found that 71% of drivers believe they could already purchase a self-driving car today -- despite the fact that currently there are no such fully-autonomous vehicles. "Experts warn that this lack of understanding could be deadly as humans may put too much trust in systems like Tesla's, leading to crashes...."

"A Tesla spokeswoman declined to comment on details around the automatic driving option, and pointed CNN Business to fine print on Tesla's order page that tells buyers the currently enabled features require 'active' driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."

228 comments

  1. "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'To most autonomous vehicle experts, "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed...'

    No. That's "any even remotely sane person" -- not "most autonomous vehicle experts"...

    1. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not a person is sleeping, and the presence or absence of various mechanical systems should not affect whether a vehicle is capable of full self-driving and whether or not it can receive that label.

    2. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      The silly part is this:

      Experts say Tesla's "full self-driving" feature is really a partial self-driving feature that handles minor driving tasks such as keeping pace with other cars on a highway and still requires diligent human oversight. To most autonomous vehicle experts, "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed...

      1) They're describing AP/EAP as a level 1-2 system. It's actually a level 3 system with Navigate on Autopilot (e.g. makes lane changes, takes exits, etc).

      2) They're describing what's presently available, which is not FSD, as if that's what's being offered as FSD. Which is just ridiculous. What's currently being offered is AP/EAP, not FSD. Heck, they don't even run on the same computer. AP/EAP is HW2, FSD is HW3 (HW2 = GPU, HW3 = custom neural net chip, about 20x faster).

      3) What was targeted for the end of this year has been clearly described, both by Musk in interviews, and in the description of the product: that the car can drive in all situations on its own, but you still need a human monitoring it (aka, level 4 autonomy), with an intent to eliminate the driver requirement as soon as is allowed thereafter (level 5 autonomy). The monitoring requirements will remain until regulators are satisfied that its safety record exceeds that of humans. Musk stated that he expects this to require 10 billion or so miles of data.

      4) This isn't coming out of the blue. Tesla's internal builds already handle city driving (including Musk himself). You don't have to take their word on it - customer cars are already doing detections required for city-driving in shadow mode (same, but at night here) (These aren't Tesla vids - they're from people hacking the AP system to see what data it's detecting and processing).

      You know, it's really easy to attack someone when you render what they say into a straw man. "OMG, Musk is saying that a Level 1 system is FSD!"

      I had issues with Tesla selling FSD a year ago, but then again, so did most people, which is why few bought it. Today? Not so much. They've made a lot of progress in the past year. I still think it's going to be a long time before Tesla's safety data is good enough to convince regulators to say, "Yeah, you don't need a human any more" (level 5). But with Navigate on Autopilot, and their clear progress on city driving, I have no issue with them stating that they expect to be level 4 by the end of the year.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    3. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rei, are you telling us that by the end of calendar year 2029, Tesla will have level 4 cars for sale?

      And the ONLY thing keeping those cars from being full level 5 is legislation and government restrictions, but the cars are otherwise fully level 5 capable?

      Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?

    4. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Yes. And that is what Elon says. These guys are completely irresponsible. THEY BELIEVE THAT FULL LEVEL 5 AUTONOMY will be possible by 12/31/2019. A complete joke, but Elon is saying it because he wants to make money and needs a short term infusion of cash, and Rei is saying it because he is in a cult and following his leader as a good disciple does. If Tesla has full level 5 autonomy by the end of year I will buy the company myself.

    5. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) This isn't coming out of the blue. Tesla's internal builds already handle city driving (including Musk himself). You don't have to take their word on it - customer cars are already doing detections required for city-driving in shadow mode

      LOL, a video and a proclamation and you are already convinced Tesla has completely solved autonomous city driving. Your words, Tesla can 'already handle city driving".

      You are falling for the exact same thing that many already have, bold capability overstatements. Not only falling for it, but you are re-enforcing it.

      Put aside your fandom for a minute and think critically.

    6. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      A video AND a proclamation from the leader is PLENTY if you are in a cult. They truly believe anything the guy says, and then it doesn't happen they explain it away.

    7. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Having fun twisting my words? "Internal builds that handle city driving" != "internal builds are ready for mass deployment". Because if they were... they'd already be deployed, and not be merely internal builds. Obviously. That said, at the rate they've been advancing, deployment with in a year? Yeah, I have no issue with that. Especially since customer cars aka, running on older builds are already doing requisite detections in shadow mode.

      You disagree. Feel free to.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    8. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not known if the person in the first link was on AP. It's at least possible that they were, unlike the latter case. The person in the second case almost certainly wasn't (they were estimated to be driving 70-90 mph on a city street; AP can only be set to 5mph over the speed limit on city streets).

      I'd also like to know what car you think can plow through three palm trees in a row and have the occupant be just fine.

      As far as I and anyone else I've talked have been able to ascertain, the first case appears to be the first case ever of someone dying in a Model 3. And it took being split in half by a semi to do it. Guess what? For the foreseeable future, people will continue to die in car accidents. What matters is the rate per unit distance driven.

      The only thing I'm mad about in the first case is the fact that the US inexplicably does not require side crash guards on semi trailers like we've have in Europe since the 1980s.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    9. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey retard, nobody claimed the second person was on autopilot. But Tesla’s are death traps. It’s only a matter of time before you burn to death in a battery fire due to their shit engineering.

    10. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?

    11. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's actually a level 3 system with Navigate on Autopilot (e.g. makes lane changes, takes exits, etc).

      No. That's not level 3. Level 3 is where you don't have to pay attention to it any more. You can read a book or watch a movie while it drives, and when it needs you to take over it will notify you and you have a reasonable amount of time to stop whatever you are doing, take in the situation and start controlling the car.

      They're describing what's presently available, which is not FSD, as if that's what's being offered as FSD. Which is just ridiculous.

      No. Tesla are selling "Full Self Driving" today. You can go and buy a car with it on their web site right now. And this is how Tesla describes it:

      - Navigate on autopilot
      - Autopark
      - Summon
      - Recognize traffic lights and stop signs (coming "later")
      - Automatic driving on city streets (coming "later")

      That last one is untrue. It will be level 2, drive required to pay babysit it at all times. And none of it is "full self driving".

      It seems like they are doing this to try to avoid the lawsuits over not delivering the full self driving that they started selling way back in 2016. They promised you could summon the car from the other side of the country, and it would drive thousands of miles and recharge itself. They promised you could get in, do nothing and it would take you to work, then go off and find a parking spot.

      None of what they have announced is "full self driving" by their own standard, let along any reasonable person's definition.

      that the car can drive in all situations on its own, but you still need a human monitoring it (aka, level 4 autonomy),

      That's level 2. To get above level 2 the car has to be able to operate without supervision. Furthermore, to be able to handle "all situations on its own" is level 5. That's not what Tesla are offering, they are only claiming city streets, and even that isn't true.

      Also note that in their last filing Tesla said they did zero autonomous miles in the last year.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by slashdice · · Score: 0

      "FSD" means Firetruck Suicide Device., right?

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    13. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone is extra butthurt this AM, most likely because shorting SpaceX stock didn't pay off for you today.

    14. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = AC:
      Rei, are you telling us that by the end of calendar year 2019, Tesla will have level 4 cars for sale?
      And the ONLY thing keeping those cars from being full level 5 is legislation and government restrictions, but the cars are otherwise fully level 5 capable?
      Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019? = = =

      I believe you meant 2019, not 2029. And your direct question is quite on point.

    15. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by sphealey · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Tesla has really accomplished a lot in advancing the design and adoption of electric vehicles, and in forcing the historic auto manufacturers to improve their offerings and speed up their timelines The unrealism of Musk and his fanatic supporters and the string of phony promises might well destroy all that has been done to date.

    16. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize SpaceX had stock. Another Musk genius. If SpaceX had stock I would short it.

    17. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?

      The claim is that they will be able to do level 3, not level 5. Specific conditions, and still requiring a driver who can take over when the vehicle requests it. Probably still BS, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Nope. That isn't what Elon claimed. He said drive coast to coast by end of 2019. He just said it was regulations holding it up, not the technology.

    19. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double LOL. Now you CHANGED YOUR OWN WORDS

      Let's face it, you have ZERO clue as to how close Tesla is to being able to adequately handle city driving. What in your mind are you imagining they will deploy withing a year? I'll tell you right now it will not be full autonomy in the city, not anything close. City driving will not be 'handled' by any means. Maybe a tiny slice of city driving will be enabled with the requisite driver must be ready to take over default.

      Vague descriptions like 'have been advancing' let you off the hook when it turns out they really don't have much true advancement accomplished.

    20. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so says the fully paid up member of the Cult of Tesla.

    21. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >customer cars are already doing detections required for city-driving in shadow mode

      I haven't seen detection of traffic lights in this video, only the detection of stop lines (which are not there at the highway, so that's new) and cars in front of them (which is not new).

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    22. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      I know, I was laughing as I read that ("can handle city driving") and watched the video. Just detecting objects is not enough for self-driving, you also need to determine what actions to take. Nothing in that video indicates they've figured out the second part.

    23. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      How does a video of their object detection system indicate they can handle city driving? You do understand that object detection is just one component of being able to figure out what to do, right?

    24. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that first line was a typo but frankly, no way will Tesla have full real level 5 by 2029, either.

      Elon is full of crap and is going to get even more people killed unnecessarily and Rei is a dumb cultish sheep.

      And from Reis reply, the answer is: bullshit.

      Cult leader makes outrageous claim (obviously lying). Sheep Rei swallows it up and makes hopeless attempt to reword everything to somehow in some bizarro Must/Rei-only universe make it true.

    25. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Internal builds are used in test cars.
      You need something like 4 million km driven in test cars to be allowed to deploy any software change to cars on sale or update already sold cars.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like Musk has changed his tune over the course of SpaceX, Tesla, etc. If what he has produced so far is "good" and justifies his methods, why would you want him to change how he does it?

    27. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 0

      Can we get the site modified so this fucking Rei character's text shows up in bright red when they post. Because the stink of shill is annoying and it's not always possible to avoid their spam.

    28. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REI, one thing seems missing from your list of stuff Tesla is doing;

      5) NOT broadsiding tractor trailers

      But I'm sure they are 'advancing'.

    29. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only consistent thing Luddites do is to be consistently wrong.

    30. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Given that they've explicitly stated that what's targeted to be released by the end of the year is level 4 (aka, requires a human driver), only to transition to level 5 when regulators approve at a later date, you're asking me to say "Yes, Tesla is going to deliver something that they didn't state they were going to deliver".

      Why not just insist that I answer "Yes" to "Tesla is going to deliver Model 3s made of solid gold and reintroduce the Passenger Pigeon by next week"?

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    31. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 1

      How many times are you going to ask me to say "Yes" to something Tesla never promised? And furthermore, I love how you've switched to this from "Tesla will never deliver a $35k Model 3" ;)

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    32. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Rei, are you telling us that by the end of calendar year 2029, Tesla will have level 4 cars for sale?

      Chances are that by the end of calendar year 2029, every car maker will have level 4 cars for sale.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    33. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You're so over-the-top with your anti-Elon moronitude that I almost wonder if you're not the man himself... likely smoking a fatty while trolling the gullible,

    34. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Don't try to weasel your way out of it now.

    35. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35k with gas savings and tax credits that run out in June LOL.

    36. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      self-driving doesn't mean you dont have to pay attention to it, you're just moving goal-post's now and re-interpreting what musk actually meant, when he says something, it's important you understand what he's saying rather then just the words in your head

    37. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6761995/BMW-death-traps-250-000-cars-Britain-risk-bursting-flames.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwju46nM6ubgAhVzoXEKHdQRB_gQFjADegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0X54B9KN9LepHgcBgphbdK

    38. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that first line was a typo but frankly, no way will Tesla have full real level 5 by 2029, either.

      Likely very true -- since Tesla has little chance of being in business in 2029.

    39. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about these vocal haters, I don't understand their motivations myself. Driving is a dangerous activity and autonomous vehicles can help mitigate that. Tesla is pushing the boundaries, which in many ways is good. The rest of the industry is going to be more conservative, but at least it gives them a target to aim at.

      In the grand picture of automotive deaths, I'm not worried about Tesla - as if people really start dying due to them then they will be forced to take a serious step back very quickly. If they don't cause a bunch of deaths, well, then success. The scary part is the middle ground (some preventable deaths but not many), but I think the line between success and failure is so very thin with autonomous vehicles that I think we will know for the most part which side of the line we're on as these things are released and time moves forward.

    40. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. $35k before gas savings and credits. For a US buyer the MSRP minus credits is at most $31250, and depending on state credits, as little as $26250 (Colorado has the best state credits in the US). Then there's gas savings on top of that.

      See for yourself. "LOL".

      All of you people who've been shouting for the past year, "Tesla will never release a $35k MSRP Model 3!", take a lesson in humility from this.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    41. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 2

      No. That's not level 3. Level 3 is where you don't have to pay attention to it any more.

      No. That's Level 4. Level 3 by and large drives on its own, but can require the driver to take over at a moment's notice. Level 4 can encounter situations where it doesn't know how to handle them, but can safely get out of them without driver intervention. Level 5 never encounters situations that it doesn't know how to handle.

      You cannot "read a book or watch a movie while it drives" in a Level 3 system. Quote: "Able to detect the environment around them, level 3 vehicles contain the lowest-tier system that is classified as an automated driving system as opposed to a manual system. With this more advanced technology, level 3 vehicles can make informed decisions for themselves such as overtaking slower moving vehicles. However, unlike the higher rated autonomous vehicles, human override is required when the machine is unable to execute the task at hand or the system fails."

      EAP is a Level 3 system, and has been since NoA was released. Tesla states that it expects to be to level 4 (not 5) by the end of the year.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    42. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      The woman who drove into the parked fire truck at highway speeds did not die, she had only a broken ankle - which is a remarkable testament to how safe the vehicle is built.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    43. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Zyklon++B+Collector · · Score: 0

      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
      iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
      iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
      itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
      iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
      iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
      iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
      iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
      iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
      iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
      itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
      iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
      iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
      iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
      iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
      iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
      iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
      itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
      iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
      iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
      iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
      iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    44. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I would stake money on it.

    45. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?

      If I respond "yes or no" to the question you have asked, which is "They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?", you will get no meaningful answer.

      Why? Because you have two questions in the one sentence.

    46. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >OMG, Musk is saying that a Level 1 system is FSD

      ?

      acronym salad makes no good argument.

      The general population thinks autonomous cars you put an address in satnav and it drives there by itself.

      You get this?

    47. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      There is no chance in hell of Tesla coming out with anything that remotely justifies the moniker "full self-driving". It is an outright lie. It turns out that FSD means autopilot + with some other smattering of features over time - exit ramps, traffic light recognition, automatic driving in cities. So basically some fabulous new opportunities for the software to fuck up in hilarious and fatal ways.

      And claims like traffic light recognition and automatic driving are pretty vague. Probably means little more than stopping and starting in a straight line. Useful I guess for commutes, but hardly "full self driving". I very much doubt it will be capable of turning, or getting in the correct lane, or even recognizing which light applies to which lane. It certainly will not be capable of understanding or solving the multitude of intractible problems that people encounter every single day in an urban environment.

      I'm also looking forward to the advanced summon feature. Apparently it will summon the car from anywhere in a parking lot. Oh the hilarity that will result when it screws up on one way systems, multi-level carparks, concrete pillars, spikes etc.,

    48. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You cannot "read a book or watch a movie while it drives" in a Level 3 system. Quote:

      Yes you can. You are quoting some "self-driving for dummies" article, Wikipedia quotes SAE International:

      Level 3 ("eyes off"): The driver can safely turn their attention away from the driving tasks, e.g. the driver can text or watch a movie. The vehicle will handle situations that call for an immediate response, like emergency braking. The driver must still be prepared to intervene within some limited time, specified by the manufacturer, when called upon by the vehicle to do so.

      You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

    49. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > level 4 (aka, requires a human driver)

      Lie. Level 4 doesn't require a driver:

      Level 4 ("mind off"): As level 3, but no driver attention is ever required for safety, e.g. the driver may safely go to sleep or leave the driver's seat. Self-driving is supported only in limited spatial areas (geofenced) or under special circumstances, like traffic jams. Outside of these areas or circumstances, the vehicle must be able to safely abort the trip, e.g. park the car, if the driver does not retake control.

      Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just check the definitions already, you can't be right about anything if you base assumptions are wrong.

    50. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You claimed you are no jew yet are caught lying quoted long before saying you are a JEW pig https://hardware.slashdot.org/... so stfu lying JUDEN!

    51. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey STINKING LYING SCUMBAG JEW: You shorted your stock caught LYING ya filthy JEW BASTARD https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    52. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are bullshit jew liar caught outright lying https://hardware.slashdot.org/... you chaimie scumbag.

    53. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who believes a word out of Elon's mouth is a moron. The guy is a crackpot and a sham/scam artist who made his billions by lying and ripping off people.

    54. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of that video is how all the SUVs and minivans are both labelled "minivan" by the computer vision.

      Finally, someone said it.

    55. Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      $35k still says 2-4 weeks, so technically still not available :-)

    56. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a negative, ghostrider. A vehicle should not be able to go underneath a semi-trailer. Those trailers should have crash bars like they've had in Europe for ages. Can't those corporations at fault though, can it?

    57. Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love, you will be the one receiving a lesson in reality once this company finally goes belly up. Musketeer apologetics only get you that far.

  2. Free Tesla! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1. Purchase said car advertised as having "Full Self-Driving capability"
    2. Discover it does not, in fact, do that
    3. Sue Tesla for false advertising
    4. Profit!


    Death and destruction due to the 'discovery' of said capability may be hazardous to your health.

    1. Re:Free Tesla! by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      Alternative:
      2. Discover it does not, in fact, do that, by having a nasty accident
      3. Sue Tesla for personal injury
      4. More profit and Tesla's reputation is in the gutter

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    2. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is difficult to sue anyone when you are dead, especially when you are on could nine and all the lawyers are down below...

    3. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla will be in bankruptcy by then so there will be no one to sue. Not to mention no more warranty or service.

    4. Re:Free Tesla! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Assuming you survive... It looks like there was yet another case of Autopilot decapitating a driver due to not seeing a trailer last week.

      Calling it "autopilot" was a mistake, calling this "full self driving" is just reckless. Let's level 2 autonomy, you have to not only be ready to take over, but actively monitor it for failures.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a better way.
      Tesla is hiring a software engineer.

      1) Apply for the job.
      2) Get hired.
      3) Mention that you could be more productive working remotely.
      4) Ask for target hardware.

      FREE ROOTED TESLA :D

      More seriously though, I'd like to buy one. I wish you could customize a little more without extra charges.
      Black paint or +$1500-$2000
      Lowest range = cloth interior, basic maps, and basic audio. Batteries are expensive, a *lot* of people would get the lowest range with partial premium interior to save enough to buy autopilot.

      What I'd want would be:
      paint selection for no additional cost
      Battery options and trim selected separately
      Dual motor selected separately
      autopilot and self driving available after purchase for the same cost if hardware is included

    6. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The service interval is 25000 miles excluding tire rotation.
      Name any conventional car that can do that.

    7. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will lose 3. The "capability" to do something doesn't mean it will do that, only that it is possible to do so. Tesla would be able to prove their cars can fully self-drive in a specific mock city block. If you want to utilize the full self-driving capability, then you should have created an identical mock block and driven on that.

      Just like your internet connection can be advertised as 'up to ' and food companies get away with "100% Fruit Juice" where 95% of the drink is water and the 0.2% of juice added to the drink came only from fruit, instead of say from veggies or from meat juices.

      Words have meaning. To understand anything advertised or promised, you need to understand those meanings.

    8. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save your money. Hire a Lyft or Uber instead. Much safer auto-pilot than this AI BS.

    9. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every conventional car can run 25000 on mile service interval. All you need is long life oil and a good oil filter.

    10. Re:Free Tesla! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Is that before, or after, the free 1000 mile, 7 day trial period?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Free Tesla! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Tesla says 12,500 miles or 12 months, not 25,000 miles. That puts it right along most modern ICE cars, which are typically 8,000 mile inspection/service intervals.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Free Tesla! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Assuming you survive... It looks like there was yet another case of Autopilot decapitating a driver due to not seeing a trailer last week.

      That's a bit one sided. Last week there were 35 deaths in the UK on the roads caused by good old-fashioned human drivers.

      Self driving cars are *never* going to be perfect. And they're going to make mistakes that a fully alert, attentive, skilled driver would never make. But overall how many drivers are any of those things? What about all those overconfident[*], sleep deprived drivers yelling at their kids?

      What you never hear of is the time when the human driver would have got decapitated by a trailer due to not watching the road, but the autopilot didn't make a mistake and everyone carried on as normal not noticing.

      Statistics will tell us if self driving cars or even autopilots are better than human drivers. I *strongly* suspect they are. Every time I venture on to the road and encounter the usual array of the clueless, the careless, the phone-users, boy racers, texters, fuckwits, arsholes, dickheads, white van men, and Audi drivers I can't help thinking that even crappy autonomous cars would be a step up.

      Calling it "autopilot" was a mistake,

      In hindsight perhaps? In practice it does much of what an autopilot does. You set it, and it basically flies/drives the thing for you except you're supposed to be paying attention and in control all the time, it can't do every situation and you're meant to take over if things get too hard. Apparently though most people don't know what autopilots in aircraft do.

      [*]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Free Tesla! by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      It looks that way because stuff like internet connection 'up to ' and "100% Fruit Juice" rarely go to court. For most people it is too much hassle compared to switching vendors.
      Or because said vendor offers a nice settlement to keep stuff out of the news. In Germany, there seem to be a lot of cases lately where Volkswagen is paying off plaintiffs in the Diesel affair.

      But sometimes, those things go all the way to a verdict in court and the courts are usually not convinced by weasel words. They tend to rule based on the marketing slogans and the court's own understanding of those slogans. Not based on the fine print on page 15.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    14. Re:Free Tesla! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's a shame they don't release any stats on how often people have to intervene to stop Autopilot killing them. Maybe it is reasonably safe, but it seems to have persistent problems with two things that Tesla has been unable to fix.

      1. Trailers, just can't see them it seems

      2. Forks in the road, it picks one way at random and occasionally goes down the middle

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Free Tesla! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the US but in the UK Tesla would get fucked senseless. You don't promise 'full self driving' then try and get around the lack of it by adding 'in our fake city block'.

      Either you have full self driving or you don't. Tesla don't.

    16. Re:Free Tesla! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It's a shame they don't release any stats on how often people have to intervene to stop Autopilot killing them.

      Not really a useful statistic without the comparable one about how often driver kill themselves through inattentiveness and the autopolit saves them. The trouble with the latter is it looks like absolutely nothing happened and no one notices them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Free Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tesla circus continues to unravel in public sight. Just why do we need self-driving cars? We don't. I have driven a Leaf and the only thing wrong was the crappy range. I have driven the Tesla X and have a list of questions.
      * why is the car under remote control / management by Tesla all the time
      * why does anyone else touching the car invalidate the warranty
      * what happens the day after the warranty expires
            (a valid question for those not owning a bank)
      * why did I need to almost flip the car to 'exit' self-driving mode on the demo
      The Tesla makes less and less sense the more you look at it.
      Can someone please get me a Leaf with double-juice batteries?

    18. Re:Free Tesla! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Apparently though most people don't know what autopilots in aircraft do.

      Except these are cars not fucking aircraft and don't require a pilot's license.

  3. Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

    When you combine distance sensing cruise control that can work in stop and go traffic and down to a complete stop and then combine it with automatic lane centering it seems pretty automatic.

    I have a '19 Subaru that will lane-assist correct but not lane center, but the cruise control is literally useful in rush hour traffic and will full stop (but not re-start) the car. I'm told automatic lane centering will be a '20 or '21 feature. I think they could add it via software to my car, but they won't for sales reasons.

    I agree that this isn't autonomous, but to most people it seems that way. To me autonomous is it drives itself and I can sit in the back seat.

    1. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla with regards to what they call "full self-driving" or autonomous. They use terms like "driver assistance features" for what they have now, and nobody is deluded by the marketing terms into thinking that the car can drive unattended.

    2. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No vehicle I've tried is even close to "full self-driving", even on a highway. The moment something hairy happens, you're on your own, and your "autopilot self-driving AI" is dead in the water.

    3. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. You are part of the problem. Stupid technocrats and their toys.

    4. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 2

      We are not to full self driving, but Automatic Emergency Braking falls under the category of useful "the moment something hairy happens," you may not even realize it is taking over- you get a chime or notification, but you're way too busy processing everything else. It is really about the difficulty of proving the absence of something- in this case, the absence of a collision.

      From Consumer Reports:

      IIHS data show rear-end collisions are cut by 50 percent on vehicles with AEB and FCW.

      ABS was a technology many thought was lacking- and initially, it probably was. But today- I'm pretty sure the most experienced driver can not beat the most recent ABS, considering the ability to monitor/control the speed of each wheel separately.

    5. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      Really?

      I mean, on those kinds of roads, what is driving? Continuous small steering inputs to keep the vehicle centered in the lane and continuous accelerator adjustment to keep the vehicle at the desired speed. Some modern cars will do the lane centering on their own and distance sensing cruise control can manage speed, up to and including coming to a complete stop. If the car can manage these, why isn't it self-driving?

      I driven one of these cars and other than complaining if you take your hands completely off the wheel for too long, you literally don't have to "drive" on the highway.

      I mostly think this is a semantics problem, and what we really need is a taxonomy of car autonomy.

      Assisted driving: Car can maintain speed and respond to vehicles in front of it changing speed. Provides alerts for unexpected lane deviations, frontal collision avoidance.

      Semi Self-driving: All of above, plus assisted lane deviation avoidance ("self nudging"), speed control can bring car to a complete stop.

      Self-driving: Car can maintain speed and lane position and respond to vehicles in front of it changing speed or stopping without driver input. No course/route control and limited response to unexpected hazards (road surface problems, debris, etc) that require significant course alteration (swerving, lane changes). Some modern cars (mostly luxury) are at this point now.

      Semi-autonomous: All of self-driving plus the ability to integrate GPS navigation and side view sensing to allow for lane changes and following on-highway route changes, including self-navigating most highway-highway ramps and connections. Driver input/control may be necessary for more complex situations (construction, blocked routes, etc). I'd also add in a failsafe "pullover" ability -- in the event of some issue, the car is able to pull off to the shoulder and stop.

      Full autonomous: Car is capable of all driving and navigating tasks without any driver input.

    6. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "I driven one of these cars and other than complaining if you take your hands completely off the wheel for too long, you literally don't have to "drive" on the highway."

      You are an idiot. You need to stop driving at all if you believe that. People are so stupid.

    7. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely wrong in how close we are to safe distracted driving. Your cruise control will fail completely if there's a stopped object in front of you. It will assume the stopped object is a sensor ghost and you'll plow directly into it at full speed. It only works if it can see the object stopping, only then it won't be regarded as a sensor ghost. If the object was already stopped when you turned a bend, you're dead.

      Lane-assist still fails on poorly painted roads, dirty roads, in bad weather, in construction areas, during conditions when you're unable to follow the lane markers, when there aren't any lane makers (such as a newly paved road), etc... All those things can happen on highways. Lane-assist will only work once the car is able to sense the entire road and calculate the movement vectors of everything around it. Self-driving cars don't need lanes, only humans do.

      Someone else posted links to some self-driving videos. People only see what they want to see. You can choose to see how well it can detect cars and lanes, or you can choose to see how unstable those detections are and how it can't detect lanes which aren't in standard alignment (such as when turning or when lanes are offset from each other). So either look how far we've come, we're almost there! Or look how far we need to go, we're not even close! Both views are valid.

    8. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      Do you think that a major car manufacturer would sell a system like that if it didn't work reliably? The product liability would be huge, regardless of what they put in the manual in terms of warnings.

      My guess is this type of a system has technical capabilities that greatly exceed what the official manual says, mostly because if they put a system like this in most people's hands they are going to use it beyond the cautions in the manual. Sure, some will abuse it to the point of getting in collision, but it wouldn't be available at all if in ordinary use it didn't work extremely well.

      You're either a poor who just can't afford something like this or some kind of angry driver who assumes everyone else is doing it wrong.

    9. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want to redefine what "autonomous driving" is, fine, do it. But don't be very surprised when nobody pays attention to what you are saying.

      Autonomous driving is not just "maintain[ing] speed and lane position and respond[ing] to vehicles in front of it changing speed or stopping without driver input."

      A competent driver should be able to respond to any potential problem on the road. Like, shit falling off a trailer front, left, right. Trailer itself detaching and crashing. Other cars losing control and doing crazy stuff. A police chase happening, an ambulance wanting to go by, your friendly Texan pulling out a shotgun and blasting you. And I have not yet begun to enumerate the hairy shit that can happen while you're on the road.

      This is what "autonomous driving" is. The cruise control that used car salesman is peddling is a far cry from "autonomous driving".

    10. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Stupid technocrats and their toys

      That's progress. In 10 years time it will be "Stupid Luddites and their insistence to drive themselves, putting the rest of us in danger"

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I think a psychopath will sell anything to feed his ego. You are right: I can't afford it. You can't either but you are too dumb to know it.

    12. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. What "progress" has there been in 10 years? That is what is wrong with you technocrats: you get cheap toys from China and think that is "progress".

    13. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Kjella · · Score: 1

      ABS was a technology many thought was lacking- and initially, it probably was. But today- I'm pretty sure the most experienced driver can not beat the most recent ABS, considering the ability to monitor/control the speed of each wheel separately.

      When I was getting my driver's license I had the chance to try out both on our mandatory snow and ice testing, because my instructor's car didn't have it and the other car we used did. Early ABS was pretty stupid, it was just unblocking the wheels on a timer whether you wanted steering or not and regardless of traction so if all you wanted was a straight line stop ABS came with a penalty. In deep snow or on gravel you'd still get better results locking up the wheels today. But the moment you needed steering like trying to pump-brake in a light curve matching the ABS performance was hell, either you locked up and skidded out or it took way longer to stop. You could do it with practice but if you're surprised by something behind a curve I'd take ABS every day. And that's usually when shit happens, yes there could be someone running a red light or jaywalkers or animals crossing on a straight road but the difference was rather marginal compared to the downsides in every other situation.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure it works reliably. The problem is that it is the worst kind of automation. It doesn't require your attention until something urgent happens, which means you're very likely to be fatally distracted doing something else. And it will de-skill the operators so they will quickly forget how to actually drive on the highway themselves.

      Anyone using these self-drive systems is setting themselves and people around them up to die.

    15. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      regardless of traction so if all you wanted was a straight line stop ABS came with a penalty.
      No it does not idiot.

      Blocking wheels have a significant longer braking distance than non blocking wheels, a no brainer if you had paid attention in your first years physics class.

      In deep snow or on gravel you'd still get better results locking up the wheels today.
      No you don't ... with locked wheels on gravel, braking distance is nearly twice as long as with ABS.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You forget dozens of things like lane detection, pedestrian detection, sign detection etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      If you're hoping for luddites you had better be careful. Luddites weren't simply people complaining about your hyped fantasy tech on the Internet. Luddites were people who would smash shit up. Does your Tesla have armorplate?

    18. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      what is driving?

      I'm not driving I'm traveling.
      It's not a car it's a vessel.

    19. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our new near Sube has this too. It's missing something crucial though - long distance awareness.

      if you're cruising on the highway and come across a traffic snarl, the Sube will not slow down in time, as it doesn't look far enough ahead. (Of course, i haven't quite tested this fully, just a fair amount of driving - even in city traffic it doesn't seem like it would slow down fast enough when you come across stopped traffic).

    20. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a jew scumbag (you) caught lying your ass off about not being a jew but caught quoted saying you are https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ya lying shitbag JEW!

    21. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only bullshit I see on /. is you caught lying you filthy JEW bastard scumbag https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    22. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're a filthy lying scumbag JEW caught in the act red handed lying you stinking chaimie fuck https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    23. Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      I put 135,000 miles on a car with basically generation 1 distance sensing cruise control, with many miles of highway and metro freeway use. Still alive, zero accidents.

      I don't know where all this hate for these technologies comes from, but it sure as hell isn't from actual experience drive cars equipped with them.

      If I had to guess as to where the negativity comes from, I'd wager its hatred of Musk/Tesla, jealousy/hostility towards people who can afford cars with these features, and general arrogance/ignorance about how great their manual driving skills are.

  4. What if he knows something you donâ(TM)t? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever think that maybe Tesla has developed an autonomous vehicle?

    1. Re:What if he knows something you donâ(TM)t? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No.

      Don't be fucking silly.

    2. Re:What if he knows something you donâ(TM)t? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There aren't even the correct sensors available for a fully autonomous vehicle. Maybe with a $2 million array.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re: What if he knows something you donâ(TM)t? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Not a chance. Tesla has not developed a level 5 vehicle. At best they still have a buggy level 3 vehicle that will drive you into a cement blocker, fire engine or police van.

      Musk is a proven liar running an equally unethical company that has murdered people. No, I do not believe anything he or his shitty company say.

      Autopilot, my ass.

    4. Re:What if he knows something you donâ(TM)t? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There aren't even the correct sensors available for a fully autonomous vehicle.
      Yes, there are.
      And we have autonomous cars since decades, they are just not ready for sale yet. All big German and Japanese brands have autonomous cars, and that is the problem with Tesla, Google, Apple etc. instead of ganging up they develop their own mediocre copies.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:What if he knows something you donâ(TM)t? by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Ok well I guess we'll see how they do first blizzard then. They may be in the ditch with the first and second year drivers.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Again: Any experienced programmer with a significant driving history will tell you that full autonomy -- as in, get in the car, say "take me to work", and you never touch a control -- either won't ever happen or will take much longer than people like Musk are claiming.

    Think about all the situations you've personally encountered as a driver in the last year. For me, that includes: Poorly/unmarked roads, missing/incorrect signs, very heavy rain, snow, black ice, police checkpoints, first responder vehicles on the median necessitating "slow down/move over" maneuvers, detours due to downed trees, and, of course, no end of bullshit from bad drivers the required me to take action to avoid an accident.

    On that last point, how many times when driving have you noticed another driver playing with his/her phone or exhibiting poor lane discipline or who knows what that triggers your defensive driving skills, all things that a car won't detect and respond to on its own?

    Oh, and as for mixing autonomous and human piloted vehicles on the same road? Yeah, nothing to worry about there.

    The best we can hope for in the next couple of decades is very limited use of fully autonomous vehicles, as in special highway lanes. Non-highway roads are too irregular and too poorly marked to support full autonomy.

    1. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The problem is these people are SALESPEOPLE, not engineers. They will say anything to make a buck. And investors really don't know either: they aren't engineers either. You can get to 90% autonomous with a lot of work, but 100% is not possible and likely will never be.

    2. Re: Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can get to 100% by banning human drivers

    3. Re: Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you also gonna ban, pediatricians, cyclists, wildlife, etc...?

    4. Re: Full autonomy = unicorn mode by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. If you redesign the road network and make it fully autonomous you can make it 100% TODAY.

    5. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      *People* respond very poorly to road surface hazards, weather conditions, traffic, etc. Most self-driving modes don't have to perfect, they just have to be better on average than humans in the same situation. It's kind of a low bar to cross in many situations.

      Sensor systems can have problems, but they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they don't drink, take drugs or medications that affects their judgement and can often see in conditions that humans cannot.

      There's as much goal-post moving and demands of perfection with this as there is with AI.

    6. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Autonomous cars are already much better than humans. The problem is that they drive on non-closed systems with non-autonomous cars. If you had a smart roadway that didn't have human drivers you could have autonomous cars right now (and 20 years ago too).

    7. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If you had a smart roadway that didn't have human drivers you could have autonomous cars right now (and 20 years ago too).

      And if you used rail you could have had it 100+ years ago, but that's not the direction we chose to go.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Obviously. The direction we chose to go will not allow for autonomous driving, ever. Unless you redesign the road network and make everything autonomous.

    9. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, 50 years ago some german factories started automating transport of goods inside of the factory. The system is no longer in use. It had kind of rails, but not in the conventional meaning. Just brass lines inserted into the ground. Via induction the car would follow such a brass line and with a purely mechanical computer would change direction at a "road crossing". I don't know how it actually worked or why it got abandoned. I have been in a few factories where you still can see those tracks.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by nnull · · Score: 1

      They were touting fully autonomous vehicles way back in 2014 and 2015, even showing off videos about it (Hell, they were showing off the video of a Tesla parking itself in front of their Irvine office). Now they won't even mention a peep about it and have taken a lot of it down, even going after the people re-uploading the videos. This all started after all the accidents started happening. Tesla definitely hires PR firms to give a positive image and spin to their products. The PR people started hitting up everywhere and I would get attacked by a bunch of them for even mentioning this.

    11. Re: Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Are you also gonna ban, pediatricians

      I don't normally go grammar nazi but that was an entirely superfluous comma.

      wildlife, etc

      I was surprised that read wildlife and not midwife.

    12. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Tesla made that claim. It's a big fat lie.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re: Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also a single car may be able to self-drive quite a distance with moderate traffic and weather.

      But what happens when you have 10,000 of them on a motorway at 7am in a snowstorm?

      What about the software's ability to analyse threats? For example in strong wind a black object is flying towards you, could the computers tell the difference between a plastic bag and a chunk of someone's roof? Could criminals cause a mass crash by throwing a cardboard cut-out of a person into the road? What about a balloon with a face painted on it? What about real people wearing strange or unusual attire - would the software be able to recognise a pedestrian in a black coat and hat in pitch darkness?

      And so on.

    14. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You prove yourself an obvious LIAR jew asshole https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    15. Re:Full autonomy = unicorn mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real humans, not LYING JEWS like you, don't get caught in LIES like you did you JEW FILTH https://hardware.slashdot.org/... you are not smart. You're a stupid LYING JUDE!

  6. Irresponsible by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Tesla is irresponsible even calling what they have "Autopilot". What they really have is "driver assist" and that is what every other carmaker calls it. Lane alerts, car following, etc are NOT Autopilot. As a result you have a ton of idiots cruising down the highway asleep and crashing into semi truck trailers getting beheaded because they think the car will save them. It will NOT. It is just a "driver assist". So call it that. But Musk is Barnum AND Bailey and needs to create the biggest hype to sell his overpriced cars and feed his massive ego. Fortunately Tesla will not likely to survive another 5 years and we can stop hearing about this crap.

    1. Re:Irresponsible by Barny · · Score: 2

      For a moment, just one, think of what "autopilot" actually is. I mean the real thing.

      Set a heading, set a speed, it flies in that direction and screams at you if something bad happens. Exactly what Tesla Autopilot does. In an aircraft, autopilot does not "fly the plane on its own" and it absolutely has to have a registered pilot present while it's engaged. Autopilot, in aircraft, is literally a pilot assist, just like Tesla's Autopilot is a driver assist.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:Irresponsible by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      What is your definition of "Autopilot"? Let's see what Wikipedia says:

      An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.[1]

      The autopilot is often used in conjunction with the autothrottle, when present, which is the analogous system controlling the power delivered by the engines.

      It sounds to me like like autopilot is a pretty accurate term to describe what a Telsa can do. Except the Telsa does more - the equivalent of autothrottle too. Let me guess, you would prefer "Pilot assist" instead of calling it autopilot for planes?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't survive 5 years? It looks like they won't survive 5 months.

    4. Re:Irresponsible by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NO THAT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
       
      "just like Tesla's Autopilot is a driver assist."
       
      Then call it DRIVERS ASSIST. The connotation is that is isn't automatic and needs drivers assitance.

    5. Re:Irresponsible by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Fuck my definition. Most people think of it as "AUTOMATIC" which means it does the driving automatically.

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

      Tesla’s marketing says you can sleep while the car drives. So it must be full self driving capababe. What possible incentive would musk have to lie?

    7. Re:Irresponsible by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese and the Saudis have plenty of money and will give them whatever they need to keep it going.

    8. Re:Irresponsible by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So people think they can get in their car and set a direction and set a speed and it will go there. Thus making Autopilot a BAD FUCKING NAME.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Irresponsible by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps rather than quibbling about a silly name, driver licensing needs to be more strict. Slashdot's penchant for raking Tesla over the coals over a name, because idiots might misinterpret it, is ridiculous.

    10. Re:Irresponsible by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The problem is if 10% of the public don't know what you just stated then it is irrelevant and the car should not have a driver assist feature called auto pilot. The term Auto is strongly associated with the word automatic and many people clearly don't understand that Tesla's auto-pilot is not fully automatic and this is getting people killed.

      Tesla should not use terms that will mislead anyone even if that anyone is only 5% of users because that would still be endangering a lot of people.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:Irresponsible by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      The word "autopilot" has a history. It has been applied to aircraft controls since the days when it was barely able to maintain straight and level flight. Even today, aircraft autopilots do not enable what we call "level 5" though only because regulations don't allow it. But it is fully right and proper to call them autopilots because the word does not mean and has never meant that you don't have to have a pilot.

    12. Re:Irresponsible by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Since when is what the average bonobo thinks a guideline for anything?

      The dude is absolutely right, Tesla's autopilot does exactly what anyone ever having seen an autopilot would expect.

      If you operate heavy machinery, the law holds you accountable if you misuse the machine. Not having read or simply having ignored safety instructions does not make it the manufacturer's fault.

    13. Re:Irresponsible by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How do you live in the world without acknowledging that most people are not that smart? I agree licensing needs to be more strict. They need to have extended licensing for drivers of cars with any kind of autonomy. And when they can figure out how 'engaged' a person is, they should be required to activate it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re: Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If naming things is based on what "most people think", then we would have renamed aircraft autopilot so "most people" are no longer confused about its capabilities.

      But we don't rename things on that basis. Aircraft operators are expected to know that they are legally required to supervise their autopilot at all times. Tesla drivers are expected to know the same thing. What everyone else thinks is irrelevant.

    15. Re:Irresponsible by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "How do you live in the world without acknowledging that most people are not that smart?"

      I mostly read Slashdot for the nostalgia. Quite aware of the average IQ though.

    16. Re: Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Since when is what the average bonobo thinks a guideline for anything?"

      Ummmm that's the bar we set for ourselves harambe.

    17. Re:Irresponsible by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Most zoning in the US means that driving is mandatory throughout most of the US, it's not physically possible to live without a car. If you're going to make licenses more difficult, you need to, first, before you do anything else, legalize high and mid-density mixed use development throughout most of the US so that transit businesses are capable of running with some level of profit and people can walk.

      That's not going to happen. Already the car-only cranks are hitting the Reply button to this in order to make some specious argument about how they prefer suburbs so everyone should be forced to live in suburbs because not being forced to live in a suburb is the same thing as being forced to use public transit and anyway everyone really prefers suburbs and (etc.) So right now, there is no legitimate reason to take anyone's license away. As long as it's essentially means you can't be self reliant without a driver's license, which in a small number of cases is a death sentence, you absolutely have to give everyone one, no matter what their past driving behavior is, no matter how stupid they are, no matter how unsuited they are to driving.

      Sorry to point it out, but I'm going to point it out until the car-only cranks start to recognize that not only are they full of shit, but their ideology is forcing the most absurd things to happen.

      (BTW, if anyone's about to argue "But we already take driver's licenses away...", that's true, but they drive anyway, so literally all you're doing is making people wards of the state in those instances once they get caught.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Irresponsible by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You know what that's called? That's called playing people. Elon Musk is playing people because he's smart enough to know what people will think yet he does it anyway.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    19. Re:Irresponsible by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Good news: High/medium density housing is not only legal, it's _empty_ and waiting for you to move in.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not driving. I'm traveling.
      It's not a car. It's a vessel.

    21. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually autopilot is a quite accurate description. This is essentially what happens in a plane, which is where the name was taken from. Plus the fully autonomous part is going to require a software and hardware upgrade to fully function. They have been very open with their customers, and they're not leading anyone on if you actually to a smidge of research. This article is FUD.

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

      The autopilot in a plane will disocnnect in much the same way as the Tesla cars do. The name is fine.

    23. Re:Irresponsible by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      When Tesla started calling their system "auto-pilot", it was years before others copy-catted or tried to "one up" it with "driver assist" features. The idiots who fall asleep at the wheel and crash are just that; idiots. You can't even get a Tesla to automatically stay in a lane without slightly tugging the steering wheel every 15 seconds or so, or else it beeps and disables that mode. It's frustrating how badly it's crippled in the name of "making things safer for idiots".

      Musk likes to over-promise, but it seems to me like most of it comes from being so excited about what they're working on. Anyone following the brand for a while learns how that works and tempers the Twitter comments with a dose of reality. Basically, you can go test-drive a Tesla right now and learn what it REALLY does/doesn't do. You can optionally pay another $5,000 or so to get "first dibs" on future stuff Elon promises but may not materialize for years.

    24. Re: Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to live in fucking NYC, go there and stay there. Mixed use infill does not work. It is a developer scam with ecogreenies duped into begging for developer anal abuse. Developers rape and run, leaving everyone whimpering in a ditch wondering what happened. Then preening political fucks like Newsom say "What a good boy am I."

    25. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >screams at you if something bad happens.

      the fuck planet you live on?

      here on earth the general population thinks autopilot will *react* if something bad happens ad save your life.

      wilful ignorance is pathetic.

    26. Re:Irresponsible by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Lane alerts, car following, etc are NOT Autopilot.

      Funny you should say that given what Tesla has is far more than lane alert and car following. Why would you mandate someone call a far more advanced system the same as a competitor's lame system? Why are you so biased all of the time? Are you an upset VW shareholder or something?

    27. Re:Irresponsible by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      NO THAT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE THINK.

      Maybe correct what people think rather than pander to ignorance. Frankly if we present a few more darwin awards people may learn something. Or should we just rename our computers "harddrives" too because that's what people think?

    28. Re:Irresponsible by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So people think they can get in their car and set a direction and set a speed and it will go there. Thus making Autopilot a BAD FUCKING NAME.

      But the car literally can do that ...

    29. Re:Irresponsible by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      from your driveway?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    30. Re:Irresponsible by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      driver licensing needs to be more strict

      So maybe the driver's license exam should include the question "Would you believe anything Elon Musk says?" and if the testee answers "Yes", then show them the door.

    31. Re:Irresponsible by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you would prefer "Pilot assist" instead of calling it autopilot for planes?

      Notice that the wikipedia articles specifically says
      "An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft ".
      But Musk isn't making aircraft, so this has no relevance.

    32. Re:Irresponsible by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      The idiots who fall asleep at the wheel and crash are just that; idiots

      Idiots who were misled by Tesla hype, and could fall asleep and kill you and your family.

  7. All or nothing by PsyMan · · Score: 2

    As a UK resident I have been brought up with mainly manual gearboxes on cars, on the odd occasion that I drive an automatic for a while the moment I go back to a manual I inevitable stall at the first dozen or so junctions as I have forgotten to use the clutch. While this is a minor inconvenience in the case of an automated gearbox it has the potential to be fatal when scaled up to other "semi autonomous" functions. I think we either have a car with no human input at all or a manual car otherwise people jumping in and out of cars with varying autonomy will start assuming the car will take care of differing things. If some cars brake for you and other models don't what sort of confusion is going to ensue?

    1. Re:All or nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If some cars brake for you and other models don't what sort of confusion is going to ensue?

      A very short-lived one.

    2. Re:All or nothing by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      moment I go back to a manual I inevitable stall at the first dozen or so junctions as I have forgotten to use the clutch.

      Are you fucking stupid???? I normally don't call people out, but WTF. Yeah you may have ONE rough take off or ONE stall... But you forgot how to use a clutch and stall dozen times???

      What in sam hell is wrong with you? give up you driver's license and you public transportation. For all our sakes...

    3. Re:All or nothing by PsyMan · · Score: 1

      settle down Beavis, I may have been exaggerating a lot but I guess you are too much of a nit picking fuckwit to see the actual point I was trying to make. One rough start or one stall is fine with just a clutch and a junction yes but my point is that the other "Driver assists" could easily cause a pileup if you jumped from one car to another and it had different assists or none at all. Imagin jumping in a rental and trying to work out just which functions you have to do and which the car is going to do for you if they differ from one model to the next. Suddenly the one rough start doesnt seem so bad.

  8. conspire to occupy the truth about us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cease fire stand down.. with robots driving us around we may need to grow armor instead of wings? further backwards each day?

  9. Self Limiting Problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People will buy a Tesla, depend on it being able to drive itself, and the car will get smashed up and the driver killed as a result. This will inevitably result in all such people (and Tesla cars) being eliminated, and the problem will solve itself.

    There is really nothing that needs to be done except get more scrap haulers and road-hosing-down machines ...

  10. Anywhere by markdavis · · Score: 2

    > "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed..."

    AND can drive anywhere on its own, in any conditions, at least as safely as an average human driver. And that is not at all possible yet.

  11. Sorry, but they're not the first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA>_ Experts say Tesla's "full self-driving" feature is really a partial self-driving feature that handles minor driving tasks

    1.Existing automatic cars just have automatic transmission -- and even that is a misleading name, as the hardware can foresight conditions like a slope ahead, when it should not shift gears as if there a level road ahead;
    2. World series is not "world", it's just a USA series;
    3. America is not really that -- it's just the a country named, wait for it, United States of America (meaning: it's not America, duh!)... America is a continent, just like Europe or Africa. You don't name a country as "Europe" and then go saying there are the "North Europe" and "South Europe" continents. Naming a country "South Africa" is a similar blunder. At the very least USA people and "South Africans" should devise a name for the land... at the very least!

    Alas, unfortunately, most "full service" really isn't. Socialism is planning what you can't, capitalism is selling lies. There, I solved a lot of problems for you -- unless you think "ignorance is bliss" -- or at least sent you in the right direction of fixing blunders such as calculating profits without discounting externalities.

    1. Re:Sorry, but they're not the first. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      For 3, how many countries have the word "America" in their name? HINT: it's just one. So it's a convenient shortening of the longer term. Much like it's not Argentina, it's the Argentine Republic. It's not Mexico, it's the United Mexican States, and it's not France, it's the French Republic. It's the Federal Republic of Germany, not Germany. America is short for United States of America - and should be unambiguous as it is the only country that uses that word.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Sorry, but they're not the first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >_ America is short for United States of America - and should be unambiguous as it is the only country that uses that word.

      I am in America and I'm not in the USA right at this moment. Sometimes ambiguity arises from misuse of words and names.

      Perhaps we should change the name of the continent; maybe it would be easier, after all.

    3. Re:Sorry, but they're not the first. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, you're not in America. You're either in North America, or South America. Those are the continents. If you say "I'm in America", then you're in the USA. If you say you're in North America, then you're in Panama or one of the countries up to and including Canada. If you say you're in South America, it's Colombia down to Argentina/Chile. Saying you're in America without meaning the USA is highly ambiguous.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. No, no, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    '"full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel,'

    No! This should never be a thing! There will always be a need for an alert and attentive driver that should be ready to take over in an instant. "Full self-driving" will always mean "as autonomous as possible while still requiring oversight"

  13. Same as all marketing low-lives, really by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Just look what is touted as "AI" today, or all the things that are "revolutionary". Sure, these people corrupt the language, but the real problem is the morons that are their target and believe all that crap.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Same as all marketing low-lives, really by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      But... but... I was told specifically by the man in the television that the new Huawei smartphone has "advanced AI" to make it do all those things that will make my life 100x better, like taking slightly better pictures and wirelessly sharing power with someone else who has the exact same model phone...

      You're not saying that companies LIE about what AI is, are you?

    2. Re:Same as all marketing low-lives, really by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You're not saying that companies LIE about what AI is, are you?

      I would never do that. Honest!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  14. Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being careful by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.

    > Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla

    Every other car company sells MILLIONS of cars. They want to protect their highly successful companies. Tesla sells THOUSANDS of cars and wants to sell millions. Tesla want to increase their sales a thousandfold, and they won't do that by be being careful.

    Musk doesn't mind taking risks, and often doesn't even speak time thinking about the risks before he does or says something. That's part of his success and will probably be his downfall, unless he hands control of the companies over to more careful people, as they transition from "trying to become a major car company" to "is a major car company".

  15. Re: Many new vehicles are pretty close for highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are not to full self driving, but

    There is no "but" here. ABS, like all other stuff you mention is a reactive technique, it does something when something else which is rather simple, physical happens to your car.

    Safe autonomous driving is a lot more.

    Saying Tesla can peddle it this year is an irresponsible lie of a used car salesman and a fraud.

  16. I love cars and I love driving them... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    not for me, I love to drive and will want to take the car to the track as well. I enjoy driving and being in control. Sometimes I like to go faster than I should. My drive to work the last 4 jobs has been less than 5 miles so I really do not need that self driving thing.

    If I were to travel to Mexico I might want it but I think there others might try to hit a tesla to mug you and steal your car! LOL

    --
    Your Average Joe
    1. Re:I love cars and I love driving them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not driving I'm traveling.
      It's not a car it's a vessel.

  17. west coast only by hunter44102 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Autopilot works in California, Arizona, new mexico where the weather is perfect. I can tell you in Ohio (with newer Honda Civic) my assist features are fooled and/or disabled all the time by snow and rain and metal plates on the road (wants to stop). There is salt residue all over the roads and the lines are hard to see, so the lane assist is messed up also. They have a long ways to go before I trust any kind of autonomous vehicle in this area

    1. Re:west coast only by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Weather has been decidedly NOT perfect in California, so far this year! Not only are we getting near-record rain and snow, it's highly variable in just a single day. It's been a rough winter - at least as far as California goes (even snowed in Los Angeles).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:west coast only by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh. Maybe Honda needs to work on their systems. The assist systems in my Mazda work fine here in Canada in February. They lose sight of the lanes in a snowstorm, but then so does everyone else.

    3. Re:west coast only by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, weather and conditions are perfect in Cali 24/7/365...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp9Tg9Z-Hdg

    4. Re:west coast only by Nethead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep, my Subaru does fine going over mountain passes in Washington State. It does surprisingly well even in heavy rain on the freeway. Honda lost their tech lead some years ago.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  18. FAIL by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    Lane assist doesn't even work in the winter here, even if there is a frosty/gravelly haze on the road in the middle. And winter is ALWAYS. Fail!

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:FAIL by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And yet there's youtube videos of Tesla's following lanes quite well in complete whiteout in Finland thanks to detecting the road edges by built up snow, and in the examples it looks to be staying in the lane as well as any human who can't see lane markings.

      What are you doing wrong?

    2. Re:FAIL by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's possible to clear the roads in winter enough for it to work. It's just that no jurisdiction I have ever lived in has done that because it would be incredibly expansive for a Canadian province to do that everywhere.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  19. Redrum by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I read this yesterday and immediately concluded that Elon Musk must not care if he kills people. Flamethrowers were just the beginning.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Redrum by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      In my opinion the guy is a psychopath. Psychopaths will literally do anything to fulfill their goals. He is an ex-Paypal executive so that isn't a stretch. He has hooked a bunch of technocrat cultists who believe he has a "mission" to "save humanity" and take us all to Mars. Idiocracy fueled by cheap money and technology.

    2. Re:Redrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "not care if he kills people" - That could be said for many inventors - Einstein comes to mind. Technology is evolutionary as are their inventors.
      Not sure why people continue to to treat technology as either binary perfect or not. When we know there's grey area and unintended consequences.

    3. Re:Redrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if its just experimental thinking you know the kind that has given us most of the innovations we have today.

    4. Re:Redrum by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Don't experiment on my roads. Go experiment on Mars. He isn't thinking about anything else except for his ego and money.

    5. Re:Redrum by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      the kind that has given us most of the innovations we have today.

      A long list of citations needed.

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

      You sound unfilled and unhappy.
      Why art thou mad?

    7. Re:Redrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JEW gold at risk against him? Obviously. You're a no good lying JEW fucker caught in the act https://hardware.slashdot.org/... no denying it.

    8. Re:Redrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no mere opinion you were caught lying JEW SWINE. It's fact https://hardware.slashdot.org/... you pitiful jew pig.

  20. CNN also says Bin Laden did 9-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But science says otherwise. ae911truth dot org

  21. Trend by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, Florida is investigating two more Tesla crashes.. Isn't this ratio to Teslas on the road getting kind of high for $80K vehicle range?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  22. Too many liabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already too many Tesla accidents from stupid drivers who place too much trust in what Tesla offers in autonomous features. Guy the other day in Florida ran under another truck turning. Most obvious the driver probably had auto pilot on, hit the truck going over 80 mph no evidence of braking attempted. Took the cars clean off along with killing driver. Yeah Tesla and Musk are full of BS and its killing drivers as well as seemingly avoiding critical attention from the NTSA.

  23. Fire the Douche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs was an irresponsible prick who was probably very rightly pushed out of his own company. Musk is a delusional prick whose irresponsibility results in people being injured or killed. Why is he still a thing?

    1. Re:Fire the Douche by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 0

      The Tesla company probably wouldn't survive without Musk involved inside it to keep infesting everybody with hype.

  24. "what failing means" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well there goes the turing test:
    if you fail your drivers license test then the freaking wheeled robot IS smarter then you mu-hahaha.

  25. Re:Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being caref by sphealey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Musk doesn't mind taking risks, [with other people's lives]

    FTFY

  26. Re:Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being caref by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.

    It's fine and dandy for him to be a daredevil firing rockets into space.

    It's not OK at all for him to be a daredevil filling the highways where my family drives with cars designed and marketed to lull their drivers into a false sense of security.

  27. Re:Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being caref by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Thats great. But I don't want daredevils selling cars who drive on roads with me. Go blow yourself up in a rocket. But don't get on the road with your crappy "self-driving" junk.

  28. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People need to shut the hell up and let Tesla innovate. I could care less what these talentless hacks think. They need to shut up and let things happen

  29. No surprise... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Gotta do something to keep sales rolling, and recover the 10% price dump the stock took when Elon announced they were closing their dealerships...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  30. Why doesn't he say, by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    It's Unlimited?

    --
    Rick B.
  31. autopilot has a decades old definition by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    I agree with Elon on this one. Today's aircraft autopilots are fully capable of piloting an aircraft from takeoff to landing and could likely handle gate-to-gate with just a little work. They can even handle takeoff and landing on carriers.

    Yet, even in the air with almost nothing to hit, we still require an attentive pilot in the cockpit at all times. Aircraft autopilots are not allowed by regulation to operate as level 5. But we still call them autopilots and have done so since the days in which they were far less capable including being completely unable to handle their equivalent to city traffic - takeoff and landing.

    The automobile application is not so different from the aircraft application to warrant a radical redefinition of an already common word.

    1. Re: autopilot has a decades old definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No current autopilot system is capable of takeoff.

      Furthermore, there are more obstacles in the air than you seem to believe. Pilots are constantly scanning their surroundings for other aircraft. And unlike on the road, there are penalties for getting too close to other vehicles even if there is no collision.

    2. Re: autopilot has a decades old definition by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      First, you proved my point. Autopilot does not mean you can dispense of the pilot.

      No commercially approved system can be used for takeoff due to regulation. There absolutely are systems that are capable of it, even from carriers, and many would argue that some of the very advanced ones are safer.

      As for the obstacles in the air issue, yes, I have worked on semi-autonomous flight systems and understand. Though it isn't like the obstacles usually appear from behind buildings, trees, and other vehicles or from around curves.

      As for how much the pilots are relied on for spotting obstacles, I worked with high speed, ground-hugging flight systems over 30 years ago that could not have performed their mission if the pilot had been relied on for spotting obstacles. Even then, yes, they failed. Having a large bird penetrate your cockpit when you're 100 ft off the ground tends to result in an immediate need for ejection - if you're lucky.

    3. Re: autopilot has a decades old definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't disputing your general point. Just nitpicking a couple of details.

    4. Re:autopilot has a decades old definition by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      The automobile application is not so different from the aircraft application

      Except the people who operate aircraft must pass tough exams and have many hours of experience before they are allowed to fly by themselves.
      This is not the case with cars.

    5. Re:autopilot has a decades old definition by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      That would make a case for letting people use the autopilot sooner in cars. There is a far better chance of an aircraft pilot being safer than the autopilot than of a driver being safer than the autopilot.

      We've already absolutely proven through decades of example that we can do little to control whether people drive drunk, talk on phones, text, etc. while driving. Pilots have a much better (though still not perfect because, hey, human) record at this sort of thing.

      Anyway, the original point stands. Aircraft autopilots have always required an attentive pilot to be present at all times and have always been called autopilots.

  32. Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk... overselling? The very idea!

  33. Suck it up, experts. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Yeah, it annoys me, 8 kW L2 charger is called "High Speed Charger". It annoys me piddly 1920x1080 calls itself FULL High Definition. It bothers me commissioned salesmen pitch gold plated contacts in HDMI cable as though it is going to make a difference.

    Experts, meet marketing. Marketing, meet experts. Chokra, fetch me my bucket of pop corn. Start.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  34. Won't work by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Never would, never will, will always fall short enough of the mark to never be trustworthy. Don't risk your life.

  35. Tesla lying about car autonomy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unpossible!

  36. talk is cheap, results by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    let the man do his job. i hope he gets the job done. in any case, i will check it out on cnn.

  37. The question is simple by gkearney · · Score: 1

    Fully autonomous cars will be a reality when and only when my wife, who is blind, can legally have such a car drive her to any location at any time and in any weather she might wish. At that time I shall be happy to buy such a car but not until.

  38. Re:Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being caref by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't great being caught lying you JEW fuck saying you're no jew but proved you are quoted saying so https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ya stinking JEW PIG LIAR!

  39. Re:Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being caref by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats great. But I don't want daredevils selling cars who drive on roads with me.

    Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want. There are lots of daredevils already driving on the roads, Tesla or no Tesla.