The moment it hits the brakes it transmit an emergency network STOP code to cars behind it. They are "bumper to bumper", or within 1 meter of each other. Every car in the chain behind will apply maximum braking force the very moment it receives the STOP code, bringing the entire chain of cars to a smooth halt.
You can imagine what would happen as soon as some sociopathic teenagers/hackers/terrorists/what-have-you figured out how to hack their car's firmware to send the STOP code at the press of a dashboard button.
A hacker could certainly send out a STOP code, but all it would do is bring the cars to a safe stop. (Obviously, the car firmware would be programmed to come to a stop that would not subject the occupants to damaging G forces.) This would be far more complex, and far less dangerous than the people pointing LASERs at aircraft now.
While irritating, it wouldn't cause a fatal pile-up.
For the hacker, they would face felony penalties. Similar penalties are already on the books.
And you think that they will what?.. put it to good use? No they will use it as a stimulus to further automate things and make up the lost revenue of tickets by investing in lawyers to make up more BS laws.
Could be. That depends on the leaders we elect.
My point was only that auto-drive car will have positive financial impact that could out weigh the negative.
Why would emergency personnel be allowed to drive?
By the time you get to 90% autonomous vehicles on the road it starts to make sense to just ban non-autonomous ones, because the autonomous one can then use the space much more efficiently, travelling faster, and closer together (but communicating with each other to not collide). Even an emergency vehicle in this situation will 1) get there faster if driven autonomously, 2) be safer than if not driven autonomously.
Once you get to 100% auto-drive cars, you won't need red/green lights, or traffic direction signs, or speed limits.
An emergency vehicle will just transmit a digital beacon that moves every other car out of it's way.
If you actually watch emergency vehicles now, they pretty much travel the speed limit; however, other cars move aside for them (theoretically!) and they go through red lights (carefully.)
Maybe for local trips, but if you are commuting daily and on the road for 1-2 hours a day, wouldn't you rather do something else?
Exactly! Wouldn't you rather text, or read a newspaper, or eat a bowl of noodles with both hands, or get drunk, or make out with your GF, than have to concentrate on controlling your vehicle?
Oh wait, you're already doing all that stuff, you idiots!!
"We'll soon reach a point where autonomous vehicles are orders of magnitude less likely than human-driven vehicles to have an accident."
No, we will not. You're too ignorant to think of the other thousands of extraneous factors that can make things go wrong outside of both human and computer control. Like metal fatigue causing physical wear and tear on brakes, rotors, axles, etc.
But, by this standard, a car that auto-drives perfectly, but might have an accident because of physical "wear and tear" would still be safer than a human-drive car that might have an accident because of physical "wear and tear" or human error.
The first car cannot avoid the deer, true, but this condition will not cause a pileup...
Actually, the situation is safer than that:
The moment it hits the brakes it transmit an emergency network STOP code to cars behind it. They are "bumper to bumper", or within 1 meter of each other. Every car in the chain behind will apply maximum braking force the very moment it receives the STOP code, bringing the entire chain of cars to a smooth halt.
revenue from traffic tickets would disappear. Now, many police departments rely on those revenues. So, will they shrink, or find some other source of revenue?
Conversely, city costs would shrink. There is a good deal of tax and ticket revenue money that goes toward special police traffic units, driver instruction, court costs, emergency services for accidents, highway signage, etc. that would decrease dramatically.
It's possible that auto-drive cars could actually save the city costs.
Autonomous cars will more than likely drive at exactly the speed limit.
Probably: yes......and no. There could be "Auto-Drive Only" lanes (like HOV lanes now) that have a speed limit of 150 or 200 MPH. If the lane was all auto-drive cars, that were all doing real-time information networking with each other, there's no reason they couldn't run as fast as the vehicle would allow.
call me when your injured and they want one of these to drive you to the hospital. then tell me how you think of these "autonomous" cars. i'm alive because someone put me in their car as kid and drove me to the hospital as a kid doing 80 the entire drive. believe me these things are going to kill people and the makers are going to be all "it's a flawless system"
So, some "kid doing 80 the entire drive" to the hospital seemed safer to you than calling an ambulance? Uh, OK.
The game industry does not work like this because "the talent" does not get a big enough share of the profit - when was the last time you heard of a head creative or a head developer making 20 million on a game
The reason it happens in film is not because the film industry wants to be 'kind' to it's actors or directors - it's because if you can put "Starring Brad Pitt" or "Directed by Quentin Tarantino" in the ads, you can put more asses in the seats.
Think about it, most people wouldn't know Shigeru Miyamoto or Cliff Bleszinski if they bit them on the leg.
Bonus fact: If Shigeru Miyamoto bit you on the leg, it would be way cooler 'cause he'd be a zombie!
(Note to self: start Kickstarter for "Zombie Kong" game. Don't tell anyone!!!!)
Actually, the opposite is what happens: sell prices are minimized while buy prices are maximized. That's the whole point, they make their money in the difference...
Exactly. It's just a legalized form of the salami swindle.
A brief timeline of the market conversion to electronic trading:
-The London Stock Exchange moved to electronic trading in 1986. -The Borsa Italiana, Italy's stock market, located in Milan, moved to electronic trading in 1994. -The Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai, embraced electronic trading in 1995. -The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) adopted electronic trading in 1997. -International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) moved to electronic trading in 2005. -Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGEX) moved to electronic trading in 2008. -New York Stock Exchange, 2006-2007, under John Thain. -New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex), 2006.
If I'm willing to sell a share of ABCD for $10 and Bob is willing to buy a share of ABCD for $11, why is it better for HFT to pocket $1 rather than for me to sell for $10.50 and Bob to buy for $10.50, effectively splitting the $1 between the two of us?
I understand why it's better for the HFT. I'm asking why it's better for everyone else.
Using your example: if you're offering your share of ABCD for $10 and someone else buys it at $10.00 before Bob executes his buy (at any price), would you not be happy to sell?
How long does Bob need to hold onto his share of ABCD before he's allowed to sell it for $11.01?
In a world without HFT: There is no "someone else" Me selling for $10.50 instead of my $10.00 asking = happier Bob buying for $10.50 instead of $11.00= happier
Since the introduction of high frequency trading, transaction costs have fallen considerably...
Yes but HFT didn't cause that; in fact it was the same technology that lowered transaction costs, that made it possible to do HFT.
With the advent of faster electronic trading, brokerage firms have been able to increase trade volume, seriously decrease their staff, and decrease all the costs of humans screaming at each other in the pits - performing each trade one at a time.
...You can't afford to build $huge_project, I can't and there's nobody who can. Hell, even we together cannot. But if we can find a few hundred or a few thousand people who're willing to invest a few bucks, we can pull it off.
... Imagine it: An engine that lasts for years and years, improved over and over without losing compatibility with any of the past levels. A dialog between the players and developers about what features to build next. A distributed online service that never goes down. User created content AND an aggregator to bubble good stuff up to the top. Professionally made new episodes of single player to bring batches of new high quality goodness to the games... Actually letting a game end of life on the development side with an infinite future of new free content...
Slashdot Mirror
The moment it hits the brakes it transmit an emergency network STOP code to cars behind it. They are "bumper to bumper", or within 1 meter of each other. Every car in the chain behind will apply maximum braking force the very moment it receives the STOP code, bringing the entire chain of cars to a smooth halt.
You can imagine what would happen as soon as some sociopathic teenagers/hackers/terrorists/what-have-you figured out how to hack their car's firmware to send the STOP code at the press of a dashboard button.
A hacker could certainly send out a STOP code, but all it would do is bring the cars to a safe stop. (Obviously, the car firmware would be programmed to come to a stop that would not subject the occupants to damaging G forces.) This would be far more complex, and far less dangerous than the people pointing LASERs at aircraft now.
While irritating, it wouldn't cause a fatal pile-up.
For the hacker, they would face felony penalties. Similar penalties are already on the books.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/532992/SIGNAL-TAMPERING-TO-BRING-FELONY-CHARGES.html?pg=all
Every car could have a constellation of sensors that would combine the wireless network info as well as motion sensor and camera data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlSvtUInu0
And you think that they will what?.. put it to good use? No they will use it as a stimulus to further automate things and make up the lost revenue of tickets by investing in lawyers to make up more BS laws.
Could be. That depends on the leaders we elect.
My point was only that auto-drive car will have positive financial impact that could out weigh the negative.
Why would emergency personnel be allowed to drive?
By the time you get to 90% autonomous vehicles on the road it starts to make sense to just ban non-autonomous ones, because the autonomous one can then use the space much more efficiently, travelling faster, and closer together (but communicating with each other to not collide). Even an emergency vehicle in this situation will 1) get there faster if driven autonomously, 2) be safer than if not driven autonomously.
Once you get to 100% auto-drive cars, you won't need red/green lights, or traffic direction signs, or speed limits.
An emergency vehicle will just transmit a digital beacon that moves every other car out of it's way.
If you actually watch emergency vehicles now, they pretty much travel the speed limit; however, other cars move aside for them (theoretically!) and they go through red lights (carefully.)
Maybe for local trips, but if you are commuting daily and on the road for 1-2 hours a day, wouldn't you rather do something else?
Exactly! Wouldn't you rather text, or read a newspaper, or eat a bowl of noodles with both hands, or get drunk, or make out with your GF, than have to concentrate on controlling your vehicle?
Oh wait, you're already doing all that stuff, you idiots!!
"We'll soon reach a point where autonomous vehicles are orders of magnitude less likely than human-driven vehicles to have an accident."
No, we will not. You're too ignorant to think of the other thousands of extraneous factors that can make things go wrong outside of both human and computer control. Like metal fatigue causing physical wear and tear on brakes, rotors, axles, etc.
But, by this standard, a car that auto-drives perfectly, but might have an accident because of physical "wear and tear" would still be safer than a human-drive car that might have an accident because of physical "wear and tear" or human error.
The first car cannot avoid the deer, true, but this condition will not cause a pileup...
Actually, the situation is safer than that:
The moment it hits the brakes it transmit an emergency network STOP code to cars behind it. They are "bumper to bumper", or within 1 meter of each other. Every car in the chain behind will apply maximum braking force the very moment it receives the STOP code, bringing the entire chain of cars to a smooth halt.
revenue from traffic tickets would disappear. Now, many police departments rely on those revenues. So, will they shrink, or find some other source of revenue?
Conversely, city costs would shrink. There is a good deal of tax and ticket revenue money that goes toward special police traffic units, driver instruction, court costs, emergency services for accidents, highway signage, etc. that would decrease dramatically.
It's possible that auto-drive cars could actually save the city costs.
Autonomous cars will more than likely drive at exactly the speed limit.
Probably: yes... ...and no.
There could be "Auto-Drive Only" lanes (like HOV lanes now) that have a speed limit of 150 or 200 MPH.
If the lane was all auto-drive cars, that were all doing real-time information networking with each other, there's no reason they couldn't run as fast as the vehicle would allow.
call me when your injured and they want one of these to drive you to the hospital. then tell me how you think of these "autonomous" cars. i'm alive because someone put me in their car as kid and drove me to the hospital as a kid doing 80 the entire drive. believe me these things are going to kill people and the makers are going to be all "it's a flawless system"
So, some "kid doing 80 the entire drive" to the hospital seemed safer to you than calling an ambulance?
Uh, OK.
nothing of value was lossed.
But your reputation as an English literate.
He is not from an English speaking country you insensitive clod!
Yes, he's from the United Kingdom.
Same contractor as healthcare.gov?
Perhaps all the FB IT people have been hired over to fix healthcare.gov...
The game industry does not work like this because "the talent" does not get a big enough share of the profit - when was the last time you heard of a head creative or a head developer making 20 million on a game
The reason it happens in film is not because the film industry wants to be 'kind' to it's actors or directors - it's because if you can put "Starring Brad Pitt" or "Directed by Quentin Tarantino" in the ads, you can put more asses in the seats.
Think about it, most people wouldn't know Shigeru Miyamoto or Cliff Bleszinski if they bit them on the leg.
Bonus fact: If Shigeru Miyamoto bit you on the leg, it would be way cooler 'cause he'd be a zombie!
(Note to self: start Kickstarter for "Zombie Kong" game. Don't tell anyone!!!!)
"If you had one three billion long you could have Turing himself."
Not as interesting. We already know that Turing halts.
In 1954.
That wasn't a error halt. Turing code correctly detected hostile external attacks and shut itself down to avoid further damage.
Plus - this would be TURING 2.0 !
Well, if you only had one of them, you would only have a very tiny bit of Turing himself.
It's f-ing TURING dude!
Code includes a "do - until" replication loop.
Does this mean geneticists just figured out how to overclock cells?
No. Just added custom instruction set.
If you had an infinitely long one of these, it would be kind of like a Turing machine.
If you had one three billion long you could have Turing himself.
Actually, the opposite is what happens: sell prices are minimized while buy prices are maximized. That's the whole point, they make their money in the difference...
Exactly. It's just a legalized form of the salami swindle.
http://zvon.org/comp/r/ref-Security_Glossary.html#Terms~salami_swindle
A brief timeline of the market conversion to electronic trading:
-The London Stock Exchange moved to electronic trading in 1986.
-The Borsa Italiana, Italy's stock market, located in Milan, moved to electronic trading in 1994.
-The Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai, embraced electronic trading in 1995.
-The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) adopted electronic trading in 1997.
-International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) moved to electronic trading in 2005.
-Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGEX) moved to electronic trading in 2008.
-New York Stock Exchange, 2006-2007, under John Thain.
-New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex), 2006.
If I'm willing to sell a share of ABCD for $10 and Bob is willing to buy a share of ABCD for $11, why is it better for HFT to pocket $1 rather than for me to sell for $10.50 and Bob to buy for $10.50, effectively splitting the $1 between the two of us?
I understand why it's better for the HFT. I'm asking why it's better for everyone else.
Using your example: if you're offering your share of ABCD for $10 and someone else buys it at $10.00 before Bob executes his buy (at any price), would you not be happy to sell?
How long does Bob need to hold onto his share of ABCD before he's allowed to sell it for $11.01?
In a world without HFT:
There is no "someone else"
Me selling for $10.50 instead of my $10.00 asking = happier
Bob buying for $10.50 instead of $11.00= happier
Unclear how HFT makes us better off.
Since the introduction of high frequency trading, transaction costs have fallen considerably...
Yes but HFT didn't cause that; in fact it was the same technology that lowered transaction costs, that made it possible to do HFT.
With the advent of faster electronic trading, brokerage firms have been able to increase trade volume, seriously decrease their staff, and decrease all the costs of humans screaming at each other in the pits - performing each trade one at a time.
...You can't afford to build $huge_project, I can't and there's nobody who can. Hell, even we together cannot. But if we can find a few hundred or a few thousand people who're willing to invest a few bucks, we can pull it off.
Why didn't they just call it Kickstarter?
Can you imagine the havoc it would cause when GPS directions get added for underwater routes?
Apple Maps already has that capability.
It wasn't supposed to have it... but it does.
...If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and just ran down the lane and kicked over the pins...
I love your analogy, may I improve it?
... Imagine it: An engine that lasts for years and years, improved over and over without losing compatibility with any of the past levels. A dialog between the players and developers about what features to build next. A distributed online service that never goes down. User created content AND an aggregator to bubble good stuff up to the top. Professionally made new episodes of single player to bring batches of new high quality goodness to the games... Actually letting a game end of life on the development side with an infinite future of new free content...
Sounds like the Unreal Engine. (sigh...)
I had so much trouble getting hacked on Origin, and getting BF3 to run, I'm giving up on these guys...
I want to spend my time playing; not dicking around with DRM.