The other advantage of self driving cars is all that information, as you described, would be recorded in the onboard comptuer and easily verifiable, where as in your particular situation it's just your word against another driver. It's a sad reality, I've had someone merge into me before, back passenger side, and claim I cut her off, my word against hers, insurance wouldn't cover it because there was no evidence one way or the other. If we were all using self driving cars it wouldn't have occured in the first place.
I hope you realize Google's been testing self driving cars for years. Over 500,000 miles, only one accident I've heard of. The car was already stopped at a red light and a human driver, who wasn't paying attention, rear ended it.
And the onboard computers will keep track of all that information in real time. The onboard will know more about every aspect of the car than any average human driver will know. If a car isn't capable of driving at a set speed in traffic or meeting minimum specific parameters, which the onboard will keep track of, it won't be on the road. So it's irrelevant.
which makes that totally board and intentionally disengaged driver legally responsible for the vehicle's decision to run over the child in the street rather than intentionally crashing into other vehicles when presented with the facts.
Kid runs out into the road unexpectedly, seems the legally responsible issue has been resolved. A normal driver won't be held accountable for that, no way a computer with IR and other sensors out the wazoo that react better and faster than any human is going to be. Not to mention I image the black box will have everything recorded and we'll know for sure if there was anything the computer could have done. If that kid has a chance to escape death, a computer is going to increase that ten fold over a human driver.
You appear to accept the fact that the machine should decide for "the greater good".
I'd rather have a machine making that decision because, frankly, humans suck at it. What is "good" to one person isn't always "good" for another person, throw emotions, agendas, and split second timing int he mix and I'm sure we'll all find the computer is making the "best" decision.
I'm seeing this argument a lot. I want you to ask yourself, Why do you have to be alert 100% of the time?
I'm betting the answer is mostly because of other drivers, which won't be a factor when eventually all cars are self-driving. Some times there will be a deer while driving at night, which a car with infrared sensors will detect sooner than a human would. Some times it'll be a person stepping of the sidewalk without warning, which a human driver probably wouldn't be able to avoid anyway and would most likely cause an even bigger accident trying to do so.
In any case a computer will almost certainly handle an emergency situation better than a human will. There will also most likely be a pesky fail safe where the car will pull over rather than alerting you seconds before an eminent crash, "Oh, sorry I didn't see that coming! Take the wheel Dave, it's been nice kno.....".
Have to agree, child locks are the best if you have a toddler in the back that you can't be watching while your driving. If you don't have a toddler, flip the switch and turn the child locks off.
Reminds me of the time I freaked my parents out when I was six. I got out of the car after my Dad had buckled me in before he left to drive me and my sister back to our Mom's place. Just before getting to my Mom's my Dad realized I wasn't in the car and thought I had fallen out while he was driving, because I use to open the door while on the highway. Funny it was a two hour drive without him noticing I wasn't in the car with him, Funnier was my eight year old sister let him think I'd jumped out. There were no cell phones, at least they weren't common, at the time so my step-mom couldn't call him to tell him he'd left me behind.
It's not that a driverless car can "do better" under certain circumstances, it's what happens when it doesn't.
This statement gets a little under my skin because it implies that under some conditions an average human driver will be able to avoid an incident that the car can't. Humans will never, at least not without implants, be able to compute the variables faster than a computer. If a self-driving car can't avoid an impending incident there is no way I will believe a human could. Any accidents that occur with self-driving cars, initially, I'm sure will be because of human drivers not doing what they should be doing. In the longer term any accidents that occur with self-driving cars, when eventually there are no more manual driving cars, will be unavoidable, like a piano falling out of the sky landing directly on a car in traffic.
Most of the time I've seen this is because of rubbernecking. Two lane, median divided highway, there's no reason for traffic to slow to a craw if it's not the lane the accident occurred in, and yet it does. What's worse is I've seen accidents in both directions because someone was rubbernecking the accident in the opposite lane and rear-ended the car in front of them because they weren't paying attention to the guy in front of them who was also checking out what was going on in the other lane and slowed down for a better look.
Doesn't matter, GP is correct what's important is keeping traffic flowing, not how fast the occupants want to go because they have a faster car. Speed is eventually going to be irrelevant because the car will chose the proper speed for conditions. They won't care the occupant is running ten minutes behind or wants to race with the guy next to them or just likes going fast, which is how it should be and if it was no one would think self-driving cars would be an improvement. As it is self-driving cars take all the human factors out of something that human factors (like emotions, alertness, intoxication, need for entertainment) screw up continuously putting everyone in danger, self-driving cars will do what they're suppose to do and nothing else.
A skilled driver will know and drive accordingly. An unskilled driver will do what they want regardless.
I'd be opposed to self-driving cars if more drivers were skilled drivers. Unfortunately it's been proven again and again, practically on an hourly basis, most drivers are unskilled and can't drive, even in a well maintained car, if their and others lives depend on it, which it frequently does and people get killed.
We have to move from point A to B, cars are the most efficient way to do that, but we put our lives in the hands of other drivers, most of which shouldn't be driving, on a daily basis to get to where we have to be. For that one simple fact, and I think it's a shame for the actually skilled drivers who just enjoy driving, I can't wait for self-driving cars to be the norm.
Yeah, I'm Canadian. Canada has a pretty good "sharing" relationship with the US. It's a safe bet that if data is stored here we're pretty much just going to hand it to any US government org. that asks for it. I'd be willing to bet this is a scheme cooked up by the NSA because they know Canada will just roll over and hand the info back to them so they can just continue on business as usual. We're not really the confrontational types up here.
Sounds like someone needs to add a rule "don't scan network drives" to it.
I don't have access to the config so I don't know if this is what they're doing, but it would certainly make a lot of sense. I sent off a helpdesk request to see if someone will check into this, which I doubt they will. At this point there have been so many complaints about the virus scan I think IT just set a rule that anything related to the issue just gets filed in the deleted folder.
If someone does get back to me and it's that simple of a fix kudos to you.
why use that method?
It's required for security standards compliance. Why does it have to be McAfee? I don't know
Isn't there an option to only scan system areas?
I don't know, probably, but again I'm not in charge of IT security and they don't listen to anyone that can't chop off their balls. So basically no one that's not their divisions manager, who backs them 100%.
LOL, I just though of how people drive their cars and imagined people driving like that in tanks, then I remembered this gem. Yeah, I feel safer with out soccer moms driving around in tanks, they shouldn't even be allowed to own SUVs.
Let me know next time someone shows up with Congress with a gun demanding the little people get their say because I have literally never seen this happen.
Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence and even then their necessity was questionable seeing as how you can kill someone without a gun anyway. If you want to say you need a gun to hunt and feed your family, I'm on board with that. You want a gun for other fun sport shooting or just to scare off some crows, I'm with you there too. You want a gun because it'll protect you from the massive complex that is federal government is pissing on your right to free speech... Yeah let me know how you make out when they roll over you with a tank, because they're not afraid of your peashooter and waving a gun in their face just gives them the justification to stomp you out of existence rather than negotiate with you peacefully.
It's actually two separate scans done back to back. I do bitch about the IT group a lot and their incompetence, but a lot of it might be more they know what *should* be done, but they just don't care and do things the lazy way. At one point someone figured out if you restart your computer twice in a row the McAfee scan gets canceled. Once the security group got wind of that they started a second scan so if the first one doesn't complete the second one starts up sometime later. Except if the first scan completes normally, the second one still runs. On top of that, we don't know when it stopped working, you can no longer cancel a scan by restarting your machine. The scan just starts over again from scratch. Guess it's punishment from the IT group for trying to subvert their will.
...you could begin the scans at 6:00 PM instead of 1:00 AM, so they would be finished by 8:00 the following morning...
That was my suggestion, but part of the reason it's done on Tuesday morning is we're not *suppose* to leave our machines on over the weekends or at night. Many of us do because we know, for some reason, the scan starts at 1AM, so If you come in later on Tuesday the scan might finish between 2 and 3 PM and for a few hours in the afternoon you might be able to get something done. If you leave your machine off and the scan starts at say 7 or 8 AM when you turn the machine on, your day is completely wasted.
I did say they were incompetent in my original post. The group is primarily made up of community college interns and a few veterans that just don't care being lead by managers that don't know any better. Anyone that's competent in the group gets promoted out to other divisions of the organization. The IT management isn't, and has never been, occupied by a competent technical person. They're great politically and have a lot of pull, but when it comes to making actual decisions about IT they rely on the underling managers and veterans that don't care because they've been doing the same thing for 30+ years with no hope of ever getting out or being promoted into a better position, which has given them a bad attitude, which keeps them where they are. Terrible cycle.
Our IT group has our machines locked down so we can't disable McAfee. Well most of our machines, my particular group isn't part of IT, but we do some heavy software development so we qualified for special exceptions. We can't actually disable McAfee, not legitimately anyway, but we have more privileges than everyone else in the building.
I certainly feel for everyone else. What's really nuts is Microsoft software takes the biggest performance hit. So Word, Outlook, Access, Excel, and IE all break badly when McAfee is running, sometimes to the point that they just don't work period. Other programs, like Eclipse, Chrome, Libre products, SQL Developer and Aptana Studio are slow, but the at least work to a point. I often just end up checking my Outlook mail through our webmail interface on Tuesdays because I can't even open Outlook without something catastrophic happening.
Because the IT group (of which the security group is part) mandated that we're not allowed to leave our machines running over the weekend, saving power and all... We're technically not suppose to leave them on over night through out the week either. Otherwise they could start the scan at say 5PM on Monday evening and it'd run until 7AM Tuesday morning when no one's in the office anyway. Instead they'd rather waste everyone's time by running the scan during working hours when they know everyone will be at their desks with their computers on tearing out their hair instead of working.
as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.
I frigg'n wish. Unfortunately my incompetent security group insists on McAfee. Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM. If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 PM you'll be lucking to get out of the office by bedtime. McAfee has absolutely no ability to scale CPU usage, it's 100% all the time.
Actually given that AT&T is in an oligopoly with (Other nefarious large telecom) and they've pretty much shutdown the idea of other competition stepping in, you really don't have a choice. That is unless you want to live in a cave with no internet or TV. Full disclosure, I'm actually Canadian, we have our own issues with our telecoms up here, but our systems are pretty closely linked so if AT&T decides to go that route you can be pretty damn sure Rodgers, and Bell will follow suit quickly.
I think this was a pretty good video for anyone that really doesn't understand what's at stake here and what the large telecoms have done, and are doing. It's kind of long and a little slow, but there's a lot of good information. Enjoy
In theory it's possible to provide more bandwith if there's more revene coming in topay for the infrastructure.
In theory AT&T should be using some of their $3+ Billion per quarter profits to pay for infrastructure upgrades rather than claiming they don't have enough money so they can justify throttling services, applying ridiculous caps and ensuring consumer prices remain high.
Slashdot Mirror
The other advantage of self driving cars is all that information, as you described, would be recorded in the onboard comptuer and easily verifiable, where as in your particular situation it's just your word against another driver. It's a sad reality, I've had someone merge into me before, back passenger side, and claim I cut her off, my word against hers, insurance wouldn't cover it because there was no evidence one way or the other. If we were all using self driving cars it wouldn't have occured in the first place.
I hope you realize Google's been testing self driving cars for years. Over 500,000 miles, only one accident I've heard of. The car was already stopped at a red light and a human driver, who wasn't paying attention, rear ended it.
And the onboard computers will keep track of all that information in real time. The onboard will know more about every aspect of the car than any average human driver will know. If a car isn't capable of driving at a set speed in traffic or meeting minimum specific parameters, which the onboard will keep track of, it won't be on the road. So it's irrelevant.
which makes that totally board and intentionally disengaged driver legally responsible for the vehicle's decision to run over the child in the street rather than intentionally crashing into other vehicles when presented with the facts.
Kid runs out into the road unexpectedly, seems the legally responsible issue has been resolved. A normal driver won't be held accountable for that, no way a computer with IR and other sensors out the wazoo that react better and faster than any human is going to be. Not to mention I image the black box will have everything recorded and we'll know for sure if there was anything the computer could have done. If that kid has a chance to escape death, a computer is going to increase that ten fold over a human driver.
You appear to accept the fact that the machine should decide for "the greater good".
I'd rather have a machine making that decision because, frankly, humans suck at it. What is "good" to one person isn't always "good" for another person, throw emotions, agendas, and split second timing int he mix and I'm sure we'll all find the computer is making the "best" decision.
I'm seeing this argument a lot. I want you to ask yourself, Why do you have to be alert 100% of the time?
I'm betting the answer is mostly because of other drivers, which won't be a factor when eventually all cars are self-driving. Some times there will be a deer while driving at night, which a car with infrared sensors will detect sooner than a human would. Some times it'll be a person stepping of the sidewalk without warning, which a human driver probably wouldn't be able to avoid anyway and would most likely cause an even bigger accident trying to do so.
In any case a computer will almost certainly handle an emergency situation better than a human will. There will also most likely be a pesky fail safe where the car will pull over rather than alerting you seconds before an eminent crash, "Oh, sorry I didn't see that coming! Take the wheel Dave, it's been nice kno.....".
Have to agree, child locks are the best if you have a toddler in the back that you can't be watching while your driving. If you don't have a toddler, flip the switch and turn the child locks off.
Reminds me of the time I freaked my parents out when I was six. I got out of the car after my Dad had buckled me in before he left to drive me and my sister back to our Mom's place. Just before getting to my Mom's my Dad realized I wasn't in the car and thought I had fallen out while he was driving, because I use to open the door while on the highway. Funny it was a two hour drive without him noticing I wasn't in the car with him, Funnier was my eight year old sister let him think I'd jumped out. There were no cell phones, at least they weren't common, at the time so my step-mom couldn't call him to tell him he'd left me behind.
It's not that a driverless car can "do better" under certain circumstances, it's what happens when it doesn't.
This statement gets a little under my skin because it implies that under some conditions an average human driver will be able to avoid an incident that the car can't. Humans will never, at least not without implants, be able to compute the variables faster than a computer. If a self-driving car can't avoid an impending incident there is no way I will believe a human could. Any accidents that occur with self-driving cars, initially, I'm sure will be because of human drivers not doing what they should be doing. In the longer term any accidents that occur with self-driving cars, when eventually there are no more manual driving cars, will be unavoidable, like a piano falling out of the sky landing directly on a car in traffic.
How about you set way points to ensure the car takes the route you think is best?
Most of the time I've seen this is because of rubbernecking. Two lane, median divided highway, there's no reason for traffic to slow to a craw if it's not the lane the accident occurred in, and yet it does. What's worse is I've seen accidents in both directions because someone was rubbernecking the accident in the opposite lane and rear-ended the car in front of them because they weren't paying attention to the guy in front of them who was also checking out what was going on in the other lane and slowed down for a better look.
Doesn't matter, GP is correct what's important is keeping traffic flowing, not how fast the occupants want to go because they have a faster car. Speed is eventually going to be irrelevant because the car will chose the proper speed for conditions. They won't care the occupant is running ten minutes behind or wants to race with the guy next to them or just likes going fast, which is how it should be and if it was no one would think self-driving cars would be an improvement. As it is self-driving cars take all the human factors out of something that human factors (like emotions, alertness, intoxication, need for entertainment) screw up continuously putting everyone in danger, self-driving cars will do what they're suppose to do and nothing else.
A skilled driver will know and drive accordingly. An unskilled driver will do what they want regardless.
I'd be opposed to self-driving cars if more drivers were skilled drivers. Unfortunately it's been proven again and again, practically on an hourly basis, most drivers are unskilled and can't drive, even in a well maintained car, if their and others lives depend on it, which it frequently does and people get killed.
We have to move from point A to B, cars are the most efficient way to do that, but we put our lives in the hands of other drivers, most of which shouldn't be driving, on a daily basis to get to where we have to be. For that one simple fact, and I think it's a shame for the actually skilled drivers who just enjoy driving, I can't wait for self-driving cars to be the norm.
And that is what we call a Canadian burn, Eh!? ;)
Yeah, I'm Canadian. Canada has a pretty good "sharing" relationship with the US. It's a safe bet that if data is stored here we're pretty much just going to hand it to any US government org. that asks for it. I'd be willing to bet this is a scheme cooked up by the NSA because they know Canada will just roll over and hand the info back to them so they can just continue on business as usual. We're not really the confrontational types up here.
Sounds like someone needs to add a rule "don't scan network drives" to it.
I don't have access to the config so I don't know if this is what they're doing, but it would certainly make a lot of sense. I sent off a helpdesk request to see if someone will check into this, which I doubt they will. At this point there have been so many complaints about the virus scan I think IT just set a rule that anything related to the issue just gets filed in the deleted folder.
If someone does get back to me and it's that simple of a fix kudos to you.
why use that method?
It's required for security standards compliance. Why does it have to be McAfee? I don't know
Isn't there an option to only scan system areas?
I don't know, probably, but again I'm not in charge of IT security and they don't listen to anyone that can't chop off their balls. So basically no one that's not their divisions manager, who backs them 100%.
LOL, I just though of how people drive their cars and imagined people driving like that in tanks, then I remembered this gem. Yeah, I feel safer with out soccer moms driving around in tanks, they shouldn't even be allowed to own SUVs.
Brilliant...Absolutely Brilliant...
Let me know next time someone shows up with Congress with a gun demanding the little people get their say because I have literally never seen this happen.
Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence and even then their necessity was questionable seeing as how you can kill someone without a gun anyway. If you want to say you need a gun to hunt and feed your family, I'm on board with that. You want a gun for other fun sport shooting or just to scare off some crows, I'm with you there too. You want a gun because it'll protect you from the massive complex that is federal government is pissing on your right to free speech... Yeah let me know how you make out when they roll over you with a tank, because they're not afraid of your peashooter and waving a gun in their face just gives them the justification to stomp you out of existence rather than negotiate with you peacefully.
...you could begin the scans at 6:00 PM instead of 1:00 AM, so they would be finished by 8:00 the following morning...
That was my suggestion, but part of the reason it's done on Tuesday morning is we're not *suppose* to leave our machines on over the weekends or at night. Many of us do because we know, for some reason, the scan starts at 1AM, so If you come in later on Tuesday the scan might finish between 2 and 3 PM and for a few hours in the afternoon you might be able to get something done. If you leave your machine off and the scan starts at say 7 or 8 AM when you turn the machine on, your day is completely wasted.
I did say they were incompetent in my original post. The group is primarily made up of community college interns and a few veterans that just don't care being lead by managers that don't know any better. Anyone that's competent in the group gets promoted out to other divisions of the organization. The IT management isn't, and has never been, occupied by a competent technical person. They're great politically and have a lot of pull, but when it comes to making actual decisions about IT they rely on the underling managers and veterans that don't care because they've been doing the same thing for 30+ years with no hope of ever getting out or being promoted into a better position, which has given them a bad attitude, which keeps them where they are. Terrible cycle.
Our IT group has our machines locked down so we can't disable McAfee. Well most of our machines, my particular group isn't part of IT, but we do some heavy software development so we qualified for special exceptions. We can't actually disable McAfee, not legitimately anyway, but we have more privileges than everyone else in the building.
I certainly feel for everyone else. What's really nuts is Microsoft software takes the biggest performance hit. So Word, Outlook, Access, Excel, and IE all break badly when McAfee is running, sometimes to the point that they just don't work period. Other programs, like Eclipse, Chrome, Libre products, SQL Developer and Aptana Studio are slow, but the at least work to a point. I often just end up checking my Outlook mail through our webmail interface on Tuesdays because I can't even open Outlook without something catastrophic happening.
Because the IT group (of which the security group is part) mandated that we're not allowed to leave our machines running over the weekend, saving power and all... We're technically not suppose to leave them on over night through out the week either. Otherwise they could start the scan at say 5PM on Monday evening and it'd run until 7AM Tuesday morning when no one's in the office anyway. Instead they'd rather waste everyone's time by running the scan during working hours when they know everyone will be at their desks with their computers on tearing out their hair instead of working.
If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 AM
Sorry just noticed the typo.
as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.
I frigg'n wish. Unfortunately my incompetent security group insists on McAfee. Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM. If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 PM you'll be lucking to get out of the office by bedtime. McAfee has absolutely no ability to scale CPU usage, it's 100% all the time.
Actually given that AT&T is in an oligopoly with (Other nefarious large telecom) and they've pretty much shutdown the idea of other competition stepping in, you really don't have a choice. That is unless you want to live in a cave with no internet or TV. Full disclosure, I'm actually Canadian, we have our own issues with our telecoms up here, but our systems are pretty closely linked so if AT&T decides to go that route you can be pretty damn sure Rodgers, and Bell will follow suit quickly.
I think this was a pretty good video for anyone that really doesn't understand what's at stake here and what the large telecoms have done, and are doing. It's kind of long and a little slow, but there's a lot of good information. Enjoy
In theory it's possible to provide more bandwith if there's more revene coming in topay for the infrastructure.
In theory AT&T should be using some of their $3+ Billion per quarter profits to pay for infrastructure upgrades rather than claiming they don't have enough money so they can justify throttling services, applying ridiculous caps and ensuring consumer prices remain high.