With physical access to the cars the men were able to make vehicles appear to drive slower than actual speed, manipulate brakes, alarms and unlock doors.
The article links to a paper discussed in a previous article that also dealt with control through direct physical access. Here is a quote from the paper
Figure 2 shows the experimental setup inside the car. For these experiments, we connected a laptop to the car’s standard On-Board Diagnostics II (OBD-II) port.
They have physical access to the diagnostics port not wireless access through a vehicle system.
According to this even pigeons have a small area of binocular vision. Notice the difference between the owl and pigeon. The owl is biased toward the attack while the pigeon is biased toward the defense but they both have binocular vision in at least a small part. Look at these illustrations showing hawks and crows. Notice the relatively large area of binocular vision. Not as big as owls but bigger than pigeons.
The forward facing eyes and huge visual cortex couldn't be because flying through trees and landing on branches requires accurate depth perception and finding food by mainly sight requires acute vision./sarcasm
Compared with three other categories of stimuli (monkey faces, monkey hands, and geometrical shapes), snakes elicited the strongest, fastest responses,
They compared one high value stimulus with a number of low value stimuli. How about adding a few other possibilities to the mix; predators like lions or wolves, prey animals, spiders, birds, etc. We have no idea if these other stimuli would get a greater response and, by their theory, influence primate evolution more. The study is obviously flawed.
I thought they were prevalent on hunting animals because stereoscopic vision was important to depth perception which is critical when attacking another animal. Are snakes the reason for raptors having forward facing eyes too?
Something else that looks like a snake? Vines used by primates to move through jungles.
Do our electric vehicles have the capability of being zero emission?
All I am talking about is the factual accuracy of using an absolute like "zero emission". Today and for the foreseeable future using an electric car will cause emissions of greenhouse gasses. Emissions are non-zero. Until they are zero emission using the term is a lie.
Yes. If the possibility is easily there, then I don't see a reason why the term shouldn't stay.
By that logic all food is organic because it is possible to be organic. I am not interested in what could be; I am interested in what is. Considering most electric cars will be plugged into the grid and the grid will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future it is not as easy as you think.
I hate that term as it is inaccurate. While the vehicle may not emit pollutants one is just shifting the emissions to the coal/natural gas fired electricity generation plant. If the cars were not charging the plants would not be emitting as much. It is less emissions that an internal combustion engine but it is non-zero. Sure, you can hook your car up to you PV array or wind turbine but if you are using grid energy it is not zero emission. If the source of the electricity is not zero emission then calling the electric car zero emission is a lie.
I realize the article is two years old but it may still be relevant;
Two things seem particularly interesting about Google's approach. First, it relies on very detailed maps of the roads and terrain, something that Urmson said is essential to determine accurately where the car is. Using GPS-based techniques alone, he said, the location could be off by several meters.
Google map data has been inaccurate and/or out of date a significant amount of the time. I would not trust my life to a Google map.
The second thing is that, before sending the self-driving car on a road test, Google engineers drive along the route one or more times to gather data about the environment. When it's the autonomous vehicle's turn to drive itself, it compares the data it is acquiring to the previously recorded data, an approach that is useful to differentiate pedestrians from stationary objects like poles and mailboxes.
So you have a human drive the road, record the path and then the semi-autonomous car does it's best to follow that path. That's cheating. A scan like that is only valid for a few days at most and how much data is needed to store that kind of scan? An everyday vehicle would need a high speed connection to just keep up with the changes.
Out of the box a Raspberry Pie can do nothing. By concentrating on one single component you lose the whole picture.
And much of the hardware used in the self-driving cars has extensive uses outside that market
How many other applications are there for a 64 beam laser rangefinder(The main sensor used in the Google car)? Also many of the components are already at very low prices, gps, inertial sensors, ultrasonic sensors, etc. They won't significantly come down in price any time soon.
Our Semi-Robot Cars With You As Backup When The Computer Can't Handle It Are Better Drivers Than You Alone
FTFY They are not comparing with completely robotic systems as there always needs to be a qualified driver to take over when the computer can not deal with the situation. The robots we have are assisting drivers not replacing them.
Wen I see a deer at the side of the road I slow down and move more toward the center of the road. That takes forethought and the ability to differentiate between a deer and a postal box on the side of the road. The AI for a computer to do something similar is not simple and has yet to be invented.
Moore's law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. "
You also forget power supply, software, technical expertise and tools needed to get a raspberry pie to do anything useful.
Also the high starting price of a computer was about three months average salary while the starting price of an autonomous car is closer to five years salary. The other issue is that businesses could justify buying computers to increase productivity. That can't really be said for semi-autonomous vehicles. The penetration into business drove the price down to make it affordable to the consumer. Computers facilitated the information revolution. People were willing to pay a reasonable price to get into the game. I doubt there is that much incentive for semi-autonomous vehicles,
Moor's law is about capability and not price. If it was about price since I bought a computer for $3000 in 1985 I should be able to buy one for $23. Even if the price of the system gets down to $5000 it would still be a third the price of some new vehicles. Then there is the catch-22 of pricing; people don't buy something because the price is so high and the price is so high because people are not buying them. We are not talking about a couple of thousand dollars. The price of an autonomous vehicle will be out of range of most people and available only to the very rich for a long time to come.
Urmson showed a new dashboard display that his group has developed to help people understand what an autonomous car is doing and when they might want to take over.
This is an interesting quote that brings up a few points. If the driver has to take over the vehicle is not autonomous and it is being driven by autopilot. There is a big step between "drive most of the time" and "drive all of the time". I am a big believer in the 80/20 rule. In this case 80% of the work needs to be done to deal with the last 20% of the situations the vehicle gets into. Another issue is that all current tests have been with drivers who's only job is to test the vehicle and monitor it's performance. The average driver will not be that attentive. What happens when the driver is asleep, distracted and/or drunk when the system tells them to take over? What if the driver has not been watching the situation when the system tells him to take over. It will take a few seconds to orient oneself to a dangerous situation and by that time it may be too late to react. This whole "take over when needed" method predicates on drivers doing keeping track of what is going on so they can take over when needed. Most drivers are not attentive when they have to be let alone when they don't have to be.
One of those analyses showed that when a human was behind the wheel, Google’s cars accelerated and braked significantly more sharply than they did when piloting themselves. Another showed that the cars’ software was much better at maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead than the human drivers were.
We’re spending less time in near-collision states
No news here. Computers have better reflexes and measurement techniques than humans and they are infinity more patient. When the car in front slows a bit the computer will instantly know and be able to react which will lead to smoother breaking and better distance control. A human may take a few seconds to react which will mean harder braking and loss of distance. The real question is "is it significant?". Following a vehicle is a simple problem for a computer but there are many, much more difficult issues involved when driving. The Google solution is to have the driver take over which has issues in itself. Also, who defined what is "near-collision states"? The word "near" is a relative term and is defined by the context where it is used. For example near means something different to an astronomer than it does to a microbiologist. It could be argued that cars are in a "near-collision state" most of the time. All it takes is for the vehicle in the next lane to swerve and there is a collision. If no collision happened is there a problem? is "near-collision state" really a good measure of safety?
When the computer can drive 100% of the time we will have autonomous vehicles. Until then we are trading one problem for another.
I looked up a few countries; France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland. They all have provisions for sentencing convicted murders to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Some allow parole while some do not. According to this 11 countries out of 108 limit life sentences to 30 years or less. Other determinate sentences range as high as 75 years which is effectively life.
long enough to count as severe punishment that completely changes person life
Do you really think that many people who have been in a maximum security prison for 30 years can be released and become responsible citizens? It may happen in a few cases but for most people they will be back in prison very quickly; usually after killing someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the quote from the article;
With physical access to the cars the men were able to make vehicles appear to drive slower than actual speed, manipulate brakes, alarms and unlock doors.
The article links to a paper discussed in a previous article that also dealt with control through direct physical access.
Here is a quote from the paper
Figure 2 shows the experimental setup inside the car. For these experiments, we connected a laptop to the car’s standard On-Board Diagnostics II (OBD-II) port.
They have physical access to the diagnostics port not wireless access through a vehicle system.
According to this even pigeons have a small area of binocular vision. Notice the difference between the owl and pigeon. The owl is biased toward the attack while the pigeon is biased toward the defense but they both have binocular vision in at least a small part. Look at these illustrations showing hawks and crows. Notice the relatively large area of binocular vision. Not as big as owls but bigger than pigeons.
They also used to move through the trees. It is very important to know just how far away that branch or vine is if you want to jump to it.
The forward facing eyes and huge visual cortex couldn't be because flying through trees and landing on branches requires accurate depth perception and finding food by mainly sight requires acute vision. /sarcasm
Compared with three other categories of stimuli (monkey faces, monkey hands, and geometrical shapes), snakes elicited the strongest, fastest responses,
They compared one high value stimulus with a number of low value stimuli. How about adding a few other possibilities to the mix; predators like lions or wolves, prey animals, spiders, birds, etc. We have no idea if these other stimuli would get a greater response and, by their theory, influence primate evolution more. The study is obviously flawed.
I thought they were prevalent on hunting animals because stereoscopic vision was important to depth perception which is critical when attacking another animal. Are snakes the reason for raptors having forward facing eyes too?
Something else that looks like a snake? Vines used by primates to move through jungles.
Maybe if enough people decided to go for truth instead of spin things would be better.
As for the whole "long tailpipe" argument against EVs, that's so ten years ago.
And it is still true today.
Do our electric vehicles have the capability of being zero emission?
All I am talking about is the factual accuracy of using an absolute like "zero emission". Today and for the foreseeable future using an electric car will cause emissions of greenhouse gasses. Emissions are non-zero. Until they are zero emission using the term is a lie.
Yes. If the possibility is easily there, then I don't see a reason why the term shouldn't stay.
By that logic all food is organic because it is possible to be organic. I am not interested in what could be; I am interested in what is. Considering most electric cars will be plugged into the grid and the grid will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future it is not as easy as you think.
I hate that term as it is inaccurate. While the vehicle may not emit pollutants one is just shifting the emissions to the coal/natural gas fired electricity generation plant. If the cars were not charging the plants would not be emitting as much. It is less emissions that an internal combustion engine but it is non-zero. Sure, you can hook your car up to you PV array or wind turbine but if you are using grid energy it is not zero emission. If the source of the electricity is not zero emission then calling the electric car zero emission is a lie.
Did you stop reading at the quote? The point is the cost of an autonomous car system is much more than the main motherboard.
I realize the article is two years old but it may still be relevant;
Two things seem particularly interesting about Google's approach. First, it relies on very detailed maps of the roads and terrain, something that Urmson said is essential to determine accurately where the car is. Using GPS-based techniques alone, he said, the location could be off by several meters.
Google map data has been inaccurate and/or out of date a significant amount of the time. I would not trust my life to a Google map.
The second thing is that, before sending the self-driving car on a road test, Google engineers drive along the route one or more times to gather data about the environment. When it's the autonomous vehicle's turn to drive itself, it compares the data it is acquiring to the previously recorded data, an approach that is useful to differentiate pedestrians from stationary objects like poles and mailboxes.
So you have a human drive the road, record the path and then the semi-autonomous car does it's best to follow that path. That's cheating. A scan like that is only valid for a few days at most and how much data is needed to store that kind of scan? An everyday vehicle would need a high speed connection to just keep up with the changes.
Out of the box a Raspberry Pie can do nothing. By concentrating on one single component you lose the whole picture.
And much of the hardware used in the self-driving cars has extensive uses outside that market
How many other applications are there for a 64 beam laser rangefinder(The main sensor used in the Google car)? Also many of the components are already at very low prices, gps, inertial sensors, ultrasonic sensors, etc. They won't significantly come down in price any time soon.
Our Semi-Robot Cars With You As Backup When The Computer Can't Handle It Are Better Drivers Than You Alone
FTFY
They are not comparing with completely robotic systems as there always needs to be a qualified driver to take over when the computer can not deal with the situation. The robots we have are assisting drivers not replacing them.
Wen I see a deer at the side of the road I slow down and move more toward the center of the road. That takes forethought and the ability to differentiate between a deer and a postal box on the side of the road. The AI for a computer to do something similar is not simple and has yet to be invented.
Exactly my point that Moore's law does not apply.
Guess again
Moore's law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. "
You also forget power supply, software, technical expertise and tools needed to get a raspberry pie to do anything useful.
Also the high starting price of a computer was about three months average salary while the starting price of an autonomous car is closer to five years salary. The other issue is that businesses could justify buying computers to increase productivity. That can't really be said for semi-autonomous vehicles. The penetration into business drove the price down to make it affordable to the consumer. Computers facilitated the information revolution. People were willing to pay a reasonable price to get into the game. I doubt there is that much incentive for semi-autonomous vehicles,
All robot situations will work great but mixing in humans is just asking for trouble;
and animals, pieces of tires, fallen rocks, icy conditions, etc. Like I said, 80/20.
Moor's law is about capability and not price. If it was about price since I bought a computer for $3000 in 1985 I should be able to buy one for $23. Even if the price of the system gets down to $5000 it would still be a third the price of some new vehicles. Then there is the catch-22 of pricing; people don't buy something because the price is so high and the price is so high because people are not buying them. We are not talking about a couple of thousand dollars. The price of an autonomous vehicle will be out of range of most people and available only to the very rich for a long time to come.
Urmson showed a new dashboard display that his group has developed to help people understand what an autonomous car is doing and when they might want to take over.
This is an interesting quote that brings up a few points. If the driver has to take over the vehicle is not autonomous and it is being driven by autopilot. There is a big step between "drive most of the time" and "drive all of the time". I am a big believer in the 80/20 rule. In this case 80% of the work needs to be done to deal with the last 20% of the situations the vehicle gets into. Another issue is that all current tests have been with drivers who's only job is to test the vehicle and monitor it's performance. The average driver will not be that attentive. What happens when the driver is asleep, distracted and/or drunk when the system tells them to take over? What if the driver has not been watching the situation when the system tells him to take over. It will take a few seconds to orient oneself to a dangerous situation and by that time it may be too late to react. This whole "take over when needed" method predicates on drivers doing keeping track of what is going on so they can take over when needed. Most drivers are not attentive when they have to be let alone when they don't have to be.
One of those analyses showed that when a human was behind the wheel, Google’s cars accelerated and braked significantly more sharply than they did when piloting themselves. Another showed that the cars’ software was much better at maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead than the human drivers were.
We’re spending less time in near-collision states
No news here. Computers have better reflexes and measurement techniques than humans and they are infinity more patient. When the car in front slows a bit the computer will instantly know and be able to react which will lead to smoother breaking and better distance control. A human may take a few seconds to react which will mean harder braking and loss of distance. The real question is "is it significant?". Following a vehicle is a simple problem for a computer but there are many, much more difficult issues involved when driving. The Google solution is to have the driver take over which has issues in itself.
Also, who defined what is "near-collision states"? The word "near" is a relative term and is defined by the context where it is used. For example near means something different to an astronomer than it does to a microbiologist. It could be argued that cars are in a "near-collision state" most of the time. All it takes is for the vehicle in the next lane to swerve and there is a collision. If no collision happened is there a problem? is "near-collision state" really a good measure of safety?
When the computer can drive 100% of the time we will have autonomous vehicles. Until then we are trading one problem for another.
You're right. I'm wrong. I screwed up. Guess I am watching too many TV shows. Sorry (serves me right for not checking facts)
Environmental groups, as you might expect, are not happy."
Probably posting about it on the lithium battery powered laptops or phones.
"Most" is not "all". There are still provisions to hold convinced criminal until they die so you assertion is factually false.
All of which can and have been taken to court a "cruel and inhuman punishment". There are also a significant portion of lifers who just don't care/
I looked up a few countries; France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland. They all have provisions for sentencing convicted murders to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Some allow parole while some do not. According to this 11 countries out of 108 limit life sentences to 30 years or less. Other determinate sentences range as high as 75 years which is effectively life.
long enough to count as severe punishment that completely changes person life
Do you really think that many people who have been in a maximum security prison for 30 years can be released and become responsible citizens? It may happen in a few cases but for most people they will be back in prison very quickly; usually after killing someone else.