Only if they are so close to the obstruction that a collision cannot be avoided. The safe stopping distance required at that speed is actually less than 300 feet, with about 30% of that being taken up by time required for human reaction time, which should be neglible for a computer controlled system, so the actual stopping distance by a computer can be correspondingly less. And given that the stopping distance at a given speed is almost exactly the same as the minumum recommended following distance, any car with something called an autopilot feature should be able to detect things at that distance (otherwise what the fuck is adaptive cruise control even doing that a basic cruise control that just presets the car's speed doesn't do?)
So why couldn't a sensor on a car modern with a collision avoidance system be able to clearly see that a truck is blocking its path long before it gets too close that it is unable to stop in time?
Or are you saying that he deliberately shifted into a lane that, being less than 300 feet away, *HE* could have plainly seen was blocked as well?
People drive past rows of parked cars all the time, and the difference between passing and colliding is a very small angle or difference in arc radius.
True, but one is in the same lane as you... the other isn't. At highway speeds, usually the lanes are fairly clearly marked. A computer vision based system should be able to extrapolate information about the lanes in the road ahead to tell what cars are within a stopping distance and are on the shoulder vs which may be stopped and blocking the road. In the city, or especially suburban roads where the road lanes may not be so clearly marked, one is also driving at considerably lower speeds, the stopping distance is shorter, and so the angle between cars you would pass vs cars in the same driving lane as you at the necessary stopping distance is correspondingly larger.
If the road is bending, then you'd need to be moving slower anyways... It can't be that hard to ensure that if there is something in front of the vehicle, the car never be moving faster than it could safely stop in the distance to it.
I would think that at highways speeds, it would slow down sooner, basically as when a stationary (or nearly stationary) obstacle is detected directly ahead, and the speed at which the vehicle is going still leaves a safe stopping distance.
If you are a safe following distance behind a car and it suddenly stops, why on earth would it not be able to detect that? If a moose or bear happens to be crossing the road, are you saying it would not see it and try to slow down as quickly as possible? It's obvious that a human driver should also be doing so, but it makes absolutely no sense that at the speeds where a collision is the most likely to be deadly, the so-called collision avoidance system is actually most likely to be unreliable, and thus no more likely to save lives than if it had not been there at all (possibly even less likely, given the nature of human psychology).
The reality is that it'll only stop if the difference in speed between my car and the object in front of me is less than 30 MPH
That is a strikingly severe limitation... one that I had not heard about this previously. is this actually deliberate, because I cannot fathom how it would only be the best we can do technologically.
"cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles"
Ah.... well that's a major pitfall right there. If it can't brake or detect for stationary vehicles, will it also fail to brake or detect someone, perhaps a child, who runs out in front of traffic?
I was under the impression that all modern collision avoidance systems are more than capable of handling this... if Tesla's cannot even manage this detail then their so-called autopilot is, to put it bluntly, a piece of shit.
Every collision avoidance system in vehicles today that I know of knows to apply the brakes when an obstacle is detected in front of the car. The car would be plainly able to detect the vehicle at a distance that is still far enough away that it would have been more than capable of safely slowing down.
If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?
Ignoring the fact that drivers are supposed to be paying attention while autopilot is engaged, I can see no reason that if the driver is telling the truth, that the car would not have slowed to a stop instead of hitting the truck at full speed.
I think it is more likely that the person is either lying (or mistaken) about autopilot being engaged or they were doing something else to override the autopilot's normal function.
Would *YOU* seek your original's destruction if you knew that you were just an artificially made copy? Would you try to take over the original's place in the world, or would you want to find your own?
There's a cool science fiction story premise in there somewhere... I wonder if anyone has written it.
Some browsers, especially on mobile devices, use that encoding for apostrophe, and do not provide any obvious means of specifying that the asciii apostrophe might actually be desired.
[consciousness is] an emergent property of complex systems...
That's the current common theory, yes.
...meaning science isn't yet advanced enough to understand it.
Also meaning that said theory might be entirely wrong.
We are probably now within but a single generation of being able to make computer chips that might rival the human brain in complexity.... but I am skeptical that we will see consciousness emerge from them. I'm not saying that consciousness is magic, but I suspect it takes more than just complexity.
VIN's are (supposed to be) unique. Your PIN is (probably) not. Your PIN is supposed be kept private, while the VIN on your car is published. There is nothing distinctive about your PIN that differentiates you from anyone else, upon request, it merely offers verification of your identity. You must have, prior to this point, already made a claim to having a particular identity, so the PIN does not independently identify you. A VIN can be used entirely by itself to uniquely identify both a specific car and its last registered owner.
I wasn't defending Amazon, I just don't see what everyone is getting all upset about... two competing companies don't want to support the other. What's surprising about that? Why would anyone want to waste the energy being upset with *either* company?
And for what it's worth, you can most definitely buy at least some products by Google on Amazon.
That really only has an impactif they required the OS to turn the switch on at boot time. As I said, I think that it would be preferable for the motherboard BIOS to do turn said switch on immediately after startup, and before even any instructions from the installed operating system starts to execute. If the switch is turned on there, when future CPU's have the problem actually fixed, motherboards designed for such CPU's will no longer need to flip that switch in their BIOS code. Intel may still leave the mechanism for turning the switch on in place for backward compatibility, but once properly fixed, it would amount to a do-nothing operation, and still will cost the OS manufacturers nothing, because any details of manipulating the switch would have ordinarily been taken care of by the BIOS itself. Once the switch is deprecated, the BIOS can be updated when it is convenient to do so.
I believe Amazon started it though when they refused to sell Google products.
No... they refuse to sell *ANY* products that compete with their own... you can't buy a Samsung Chromebook on the Apple store either.... why is this surprising?
And besides.... you can buy Google products from Amazon.... just not devices that compete with things that are made by Amazon.
Expect to be waiting quite a while then.... I have a strong feeling that Intel simply doesn't know how to do a proper fix for this that isn't just another kludge on any processor they will be making for the forseeable future that has already passed through its design phase.
That's not to say that I think they won't figure one out, eventually... but I'd honestly be surprised if we see a proper fix (one that isn't just a hack-on patch that works at a cost) before 2020.
Still, using reskilling as a verb in this context is probably the wrong term. Under the usual conversion rules (coloquially called "verbification") "skilling" would not ordinarily suggest that one is providing someone else with new skills as much it would imply that one is (probably very effectively) utilizing skills they already have.
I suggested only that it would probably not cost any *LESS* than $200 million. On account of simple technological advances, I suspect that we probably *could* do it for somewhat less today than the equivalent that was spent in the 1960's, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't going to be one helluvalot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if they are so close to the obstruction that a collision cannot be avoided. The safe stopping distance required at that speed is actually less than 300 feet, with about 30% of that being taken up by time required for human reaction time, which should be neglible for a computer controlled system, so the actual stopping distance by a computer can be correspondingly less. And given that the stopping distance at a given speed is almost exactly the same as the minumum recommended following distance, any car with something called an autopilot feature should be able to detect things at that distance (otherwise what the fuck is adaptive cruise control even doing that a basic cruise control that just presets the car's speed doesn't do?)
So why couldn't a sensor on a car modern with a collision avoidance system be able to clearly see that a truck is blocking its path long before it gets too close that it is unable to stop in time?
Or are you saying that he deliberately shifted into a lane that, being less than 300 feet away, *HE* could have plainly seen was blocked as well?
True, but one is in the same lane as you... the other isn't. At highway speeds, usually the lanes are fairly clearly marked. A computer vision based system should be able to extrapolate information about the lanes in the road ahead to tell what cars are within a stopping distance and are on the shoulder vs which may be stopped and blocking the road. In the city, or especially suburban roads where the road lanes may not be so clearly marked, one is also driving at considerably lower speeds, the stopping distance is shorter, and so the angle between cars you would pass vs cars in the same driving lane as you at the necessary stopping distance is correspondingly larger.
Ah.... damn that stupid fire truck, jumping out in front the Tesla like that with no warning.
If the road is bending, then you'd need to be moving slower anyways... It can't be that hard to ensure that if there is something in front of the vehicle, the car never be moving faster than it could safely stop in the distance to it.
I would think that at highways speeds, it would slow down sooner, basically as when a stationary (or nearly stationary) obstacle is detected directly ahead, and the speed at which the vehicle is going still leaves a safe stopping distance.
If you are a safe following distance behind a car and it suddenly stops, why on earth would it not be able to detect that? If a moose or bear happens to be crossing the road, are you saying it would not see it and try to slow down as quickly as possible? It's obvious that a human driver should also be doing so, but it makes absolutely no sense that at the speeds where a collision is the most likely to be deadly, the so-called collision avoidance system is actually most likely to be unreliable, and thus no more likely to save lives than if it had not been there at all (possibly even less likely, given the nature of human psychology).
Ah.... so it's untrustworthy when it's also the most likely to be deadly.
Good to know.
I thought stuff like this was supposed to *save* lives...?
That is a strikingly severe limitation... one that I had not heard about this previously. is this actually deliberate, because I cannot fathom how it would only be the best we can do technologically.
Ah.... well that's a major pitfall right there. If it can't brake or detect for stationary vehicles, will it also fail to brake or detect someone, perhaps a child, who runs out in front of traffic?
I was under the impression that all modern collision avoidance systems are more than capable of handling this... if Tesla's cannot even manage this detail then their so-called autopilot is, to put it bluntly, a piece of shit.
Every collision avoidance system in vehicles today that I know of knows to apply the brakes when an obstacle is detected in front of the car. The car would be plainly able to detect the vehicle at a distance that is still far enough away that it would have been more than capable of safely slowing down.
If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?
Ignoring the fact that drivers are supposed to be paying attention while autopilot is engaged, I can see no reason that if the driver is telling the truth, that the car would not have slowed to a stop instead of hitting the truck at full speed.
I think it is more likely that the person is either lying (or mistaken) about autopilot being engaged or they were doing something else to override the autopilot's normal function.
Why would it?
Would *YOU* seek your original's destruction if you knew that you were just an artificially made copy? Would you try to take over the original's place in the world, or would you want to find your own?
There's a cool science fiction story premise in there somewhere... I wonder if anyone has written it.
Some browsers, especially on mobile devices, use that encoding for apostrophe, and do not provide any obvious means of specifying that the asciii apostrophe might actually be desired.
That's the current common theory, yes.
Also meaning that said theory might be entirely wrong.
We are probably now within but a single generation of being able to make computer chips that might rival the human brain in complexity.... but I am skeptical that we will see consciousness emerge from them. I'm not saying that consciousness is magic, but I suspect it takes more than just complexity.
Transhumanism anyone?
Fair call.... I missed that completely.
No kidding about wooosh! My bad.
Uh... no.
VIN's are (supposed to be) unique. Your PIN is (probably) not. Your PIN is supposed be kept private, while the VIN on your car is published. There is nothing distinctive about your PIN that differentiates you from anyone else, upon request, it merely offers verification of your identity. You must have, prior to this point, already made a claim to having a particular identity, so the PIN does not independently identify you. A VIN can be used entirely by itself to uniquely identify both a specific car and its last registered owner.
I wasn't defending Amazon, I just don't see what everyone is getting all upset about... two competing companies don't want to support the other. What's surprising about that? Why would anyone want to waste the energy being upset with *either* company?
And for what it's worth, you can most definitely buy at least some products by Google on Amazon.
That really only has an impactif they required the OS to turn the switch on at boot time. As I said, I think that it would be preferable for the motherboard BIOS to do turn said switch on immediately after startup, and before even any instructions from the installed operating system starts to execute. If the switch is turned on there, when future CPU's have the problem actually fixed, motherboards designed for such CPU's will no longer need to flip that switch in their BIOS code. Intel may still leave the mechanism for turning the switch on in place for backward compatibility, but once properly fixed, it would amount to a do-nothing operation, and still will cost the OS manufacturers nothing, because any details of manipulating the switch would have ordinarily been taken care of by the BIOS itself. Once the switch is deprecated, the BIOS can be updated when it is convenient to do so.
No... they refuse to sell *ANY* products that compete with their own... you can't buy a Samsung Chromebook on the Apple store either.... why is this surprising?
And besides.... you can buy Google products from Amazon.... just not devices that compete with things that are made by Amazon.
Can you say denial of service attack?
Expect to be waiting quite a while then.... I have a strong feeling that Intel simply doesn't know how to do a proper fix for this that isn't just another kludge on any processor they will be making for the forseeable future that has already passed through its design phase.
That's not to say that I think they won't figure one out, eventually... but I'd honestly be surprised if we see a proper fix (one that isn't just a hack-on patch that works at a cost) before 2020.
Still, using reskilling as a verb in this context is probably the wrong term. Under the usual conversion rules (coloquially called "verbification") "skilling" would not ordinarily suggest that one is providing someone else with new skills as much it would imply that one is (probably very effectively) utilizing skills they already have.
I suggested only that it would probably not cost any *LESS* than $200 million. On account of simple technological advances, I suspect that we probably *could* do it for somewhat less today than the equivalent that was spent in the 1960's, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't going to be one helluvalot of money.
Easier, yes. Cheaper, not so much.... and certainly not until we've been doing it for a while.
20 million is no more than a tenth of how much it probably actually will cost someone to get there.