It is interesting that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose. Most religions allow people to choose to do good or choose not to. Why does the Muslim religion seem to want to control everything? Conversion by force, death sentence for converting to another religion, hiding women's bodies so not to tempt men and now censorship. What would a religion have to force it's followers to conform? What proves a person's faith is the ability to resist temptation. Look at the trials of Job. If the people need to be "protected" from temptation then their faith is weak.
Since we're playing the "Should game", income tax shouldn't be paid to the public anyway, so moot.
That is a cop out and you know it. Income taxes are collected so deal with it.
So you think all data the government has on someone should be available to the public? How about medical records of veterans? What about a driver's license current address? Stalkers would love that information. There is a lot of information in government hands that I and many others would like to keep confidential.
Read the post I was replying to. I was not advocating making that information public. The poster thinks that license plate scans, and any other information in government hands, should be available to the public. I disagree.
The owner of a parking lot could engineer in the specific parking locations he wants cars to use and the cars will automatically park exactly centred on them without a problem (thanks GPS..)
Sorry but unless you are using differential GPS the accuracy due to atmospheric factors is only about 10 feet. That is yet more infrastructure needed to make autonomous cars work.
Alternately, once a large number of cars are autonomous they can drop you off at the door..
Taking pictures of streets is far from gathering enough data fro the Google car to navigate them. The other issue is that the scan information for the google car gets out of date very fast. Street View scans streets less than once a year. Some have only been scanned once.
Analysing the data is just a matter for big iron.
No, it is a matter of the human intelligence needed to code the scans correctly. There is yet to be a program to do it.
compared to the problems they've already solved, they don't look that menacing.
Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? 80% of the time is spent solving the last 20% of the problems. Easy problems are solved quickly. Harder problems take much longer. Here is an example of a real world issue I doubt Google car can handle. There is a pedestrian standing at a crosswalks. What will the car do? will it slow down? Will it stop? Will it continue at regular speed? The problem is that in a significant number of cases the pedestrian has no intention of crossing or is waiting for the car to pass before crossing. The Google car has no way of understanding that and the pedestrian has no way of waving the vehicle on. There are many other problems like this that require higher level intellect to decide what to do.
Well, can't solve that problem so lets hang up the entire concept of self-driving cars because of a handful of hypothetical obstacles
How about, "Lets tone down the hype that makes Google look great and their stock prices go up and instead look at the real difficulties in autonomous vehicles".
What if there are no parked cars? What if the spot next to the parked car is a lane or restricted spot (loading zone, handicap, pedestrian access, etc)? What if the first car parked incorrectly?
How do you know where to park?
I look at the marks on the pavement which Google car can not do. On gravel I use my experience and intelligence to decide where to park. A rule based system like Google car is not able to do that.
I like how you left out the fact that, clearly, they didn't need special roads.
Depends on how you define "special road". Google cars can only drive down roads that have been thoroughly scanned and analyzed by Google staff. Considering less than 1% of the roads in the US have been scanned and analyzed by Google I would call those "special roads".
When you are talking about a couple hundred vehicle trying to transfer gigabits of information WiFi won't cut it. Also, most roads are out of WiFi connectivity anyway.
he same reason worlds fair showed tech that will be coming out in 5-10 years.
I think your 5-10 year estimate is ludicrously optimistic. Until the vehicle can classify what a person is doing on the side of the road it is not a viable solution. That person could be a statue, a child who could dart into the road, an person standing safely on the side, a police officer pulling the car over, etc. That kind of AI is much further down the road. By the way, that is one reason for the pre-scanning. The vehicle scanner can not tell the difference between a mailbox and a person let alone predict identify what that person is doing.
I can go to my provincial (Canada) government website and download the entire traffic map,
I have worked in GIS road mapping for years and government geocoded maps do not have driveways marked. Google has access to that type of data yet they still need to pre-scan roads. Also the mapping for the autonomous car is not just about the road. It also maps things close to the road. For example, that blob of pixels may be a person or it may be a mailbox. They are treated differently by the vehicle.
If you mean the car will not swerve madly into the other lane,...
No we mean moving a couple of feet within the lane so the sidewall does not get ripped out causing an accident.
If you need car to park itself, there is already technology out there TODAY on the roads.
Sure it works for parallel parking but that is only one kind of parking. That algorithm does not work for angle parking or side by side parking.
If a car can drive itself 90% of the way,
Google is not even close to that yet they make it seem they are.
Why not provide a mechanism so that when you drive over the road, data is sent to Google.
One word; bandwidth. Do you have any idea the amount of data there is in a road scan? That data would also need to be analyzed by a person to filter out problems.
Issue is not just the scanning but that the scans have to be gone over by a person to decipher them and make them usable by the vehicle. Also, what happens when something changes?
Those people are called idiots. Designs should not imitate idiots
"nearly nothing about parking"??? There are PEOPLE that can't park - just look at any shopping parking lot and you will find a lot of vehicles that aren't parked between the lines... taking up two or more parking spaces. And yet, some of the advertisements for cars are now for "self parking" ability so that the driver doesn't have to.
Again, idiots. Parking like an idiot is still wrong. If every car did it there would be big problems. Also parking assist is designed for parallel parking between two vehicles. It is a well defined problem with a vehicle in front, a vehicle behind and curb on one side. An open parking lot on the other hand much more difficult. Unless the car can decipher the markings on the pavement it has no clue where to park. Sure a car could find a spot between to other cars but what if that "spot" is actually lane between isles? What if that spot is actuall the open space between two vehicles parked in handicap spots? What if there are few cars in the lot. Can it tell the difference between a regular spot and a restricted (handicap, loading zone, parent with kids, etc) spot?
No problem there either.
As for the rest... DARPA has already given contests (which have been won) about driving without a road map.
References? If you are talking about the DARPA Grand Challenges noe of the winning technology was even close to commercially viable. They were proof of concept at best.
Why the media keeps hounding Google on all these issues seems immature.
It is to counter Google's skewed data that make it look like autonomous cars are just around the corner. For example, why come out with a vehicle that has no steering wheel if it is not viable for another 5-10 years (by your estimate)? Do you ever see a Google press release mention any of these limitations? All you hear from Google is a rising tally of miles driven and the fact that there have been no accidents. The fact that the miles are driven on carefully selected, heavily scanned roads under optimal conditions never seems to make it into the reports. Driving down the same roads thousands of times is not progress.
Do you think your income tax records, water usage, parking ticket record, etc should be publicly available? All of this is data owned by the government. Just because it belongs to the people does not mean that is is not private data and should not be available to the public.
When metaphor gets into science then the science becomes inexact. Even if in most cases the material acts like a plane there might be other cases in which it does not act like a plane. If we always treat it like a plane then we assume things will work one way when they might not and we will come to incorrect conclusions.
Being pedantic is what science is all about. Close enough is not exact.
So, when you draw a line on paper, it's a line on a plane,...
No, it is a representation of a line on a plane using the tools we have. The ink has depth and width so it is only a representation of a one dimensional objects. We live in a 3 dimensional world any solid objects existing in this world has 3 dimensions.
Can the two dimensional sheet pass through a gap that is 2 atoms wide? No since it is 3 atoms thick and therefore three dimensional.
OK, so they are on the drawing board. Is there anything even close to viable yet? The last time autonomous motorcycles was in the news was in 2005 and I can not find anything after that.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose. Most religions allow people to choose to do good or choose not to. Why does the Muslim religion seem to want to control everything? Conversion by force, death sentence for converting to another religion, hiding women's bodies so not to tempt men and now censorship. What would a religion have to force it's followers to conform? What proves a person's faith is the ability to resist temptation. Look at the trials of Job. If the people need to be "protected" from temptation then their faith is weak.
I guess you dont know how to do a google search. Russia has not gone all out but they are there.
Since we're playing the "Should game", income tax shouldn't be paid to the public anyway, so moot.
That is a cop out and you know it. Income taxes are collected so deal with it.
So you think all data the government has on someone should be available to the public? How about medical records of veterans? What about a driver's license current address? Stalkers would love that information. There is a lot of information in government hands that I and many others would like to keep confidential.
Read the post I was replying to. I was not advocating making that information public. The poster thinks that license plate scans, and any other information in government hands, should be available to the public. I disagree.
The owner of a parking lot could engineer in the specific parking locations he wants cars to use and the cars will automatically park exactly centred on them without a problem (thanks GPS..)
Sorry but unless you are using differential GPS the accuracy due to atmospheric factors is only about 10 feet. That is yet more infrastructure needed to make autonomous cars work.
Alternately, once a large number of cars are autonomous they can drop you off at the door ..
The problem with that is the transition period.
Taking pictures of streets is far from gathering enough data fro the Google car to navigate them. The other issue is that the scan information for the google car gets out of date very fast. Street View scans streets less than once a year. Some have only been scanned once.
Analysing the data is just a matter for big iron.
No, it is a matter of the human intelligence needed to code the scans correctly. There is yet to be a program to do it.
compared to the problems they've already solved, they don't look that menacing.
Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? 80% of the time is spent solving the last 20% of the problems. Easy problems are solved quickly. Harder problems take much longer.
Here is an example of a real world issue I doubt Google car can handle. There is a pedestrian standing at a crosswalks. What will the car do? will it slow down? Will it stop? Will it continue at regular speed? The problem is that in a significant number of cases the pedestrian has no intention of crossing or is waiting for the car to pass before crossing. The Google car has no way of understanding that and the pedestrian has no way of waving the vehicle on. There are many other problems like this that require higher level intellect to decide what to do.
Well, can't solve that problem so lets hang up the entire concept of self-driving cars because of a handful of hypothetical obstacles
How about, "Lets tone down the hype that makes Google look great and their stock prices go up and instead look at the real difficulties in autonomous vehicles".
look at another parked car and park next to it?
What if there are no parked cars? What if the spot next to the parked car is a lane or restricted spot (loading zone, handicap, pedestrian access, etc)? What if the first car parked incorrectly?
How do you know where to park?
I look at the marks on the pavement which Google car can not do. On gravel I use my experience and intelligence to decide where to park. A rule based system like Google car is not able to do that.
I like how you left out the fact that, clearly, they didn't need special roads.
Depends on how you define "special road". Google cars can only drive down roads that have been thoroughly scanned and analyzed by Google staff. Considering less than 1% of the roads in the US have been scanned and analyzed by Google I would call those "special roads".
When you are talking about a couple hundred vehicle trying to transfer gigabits of information WiFi won't cut it. Also, most roads are out of WiFi connectivity anyway.
he same reason worlds fair showed tech that will be coming out in 5-10 years.
I think your 5-10 year estimate is ludicrously optimistic. Until the vehicle can classify what a person is doing on the side of the road it is not a viable solution. That person could be a statue, a child who could dart into the road, an person standing safely on the side, a police officer pulling the car over, etc. That kind of AI is much further down the road. By the way, that is one reason for the pre-scanning. The vehicle scanner can not tell the difference between a mailbox and a person let alone predict identify what that person is doing.
"Do you ever see a Google press release mention any of these limitations?"
Yes.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com... [blogspot.com]
Notice that they never mention pre-scanning roads.
That is the smart way to start, but they are moving past that.
References please. I have never heard of any test under adverse conditions.
A team member took one from Google campus to Tahoe on a trip.
After the route was pre-scanned.
Do you lay awake at night just trying to think of ways to hate cool new things?
No, I just hate hype.
I can go to my provincial (Canada) government website and download the entire traffic map,
I have worked in GIS road mapping for years and government geocoded maps do not have driveways marked. Google has access to that type of data yet they still need to pre-scan roads. Also the mapping for the autonomous car is not just about the road. It also maps things close to the road. For example, that blob of pixels may be a person or it may be a mailbox. They are treated differently by the vehicle.
If you mean the car will not swerve madly into the other lane,...
No we mean moving a couple of feet within the lane so the sidewall does not get ripped out causing an accident.
If you need car to park itself, there is already technology out there TODAY on the roads.
Sure it works for parallel parking but that is only one kind of parking. That algorithm does not work for angle parking or side by side parking.
If a car can drive itself 90% of the way,
Google is not even close to that yet they make it seem they are.
Why not provide a mechanism so that when you drive over the road, data is sent to Google.
One word; bandwidth. Do you have any idea the amount of data there is in a road scan? That data would also need to be analyzed by a person to filter out problems.
Issue is not just the scanning but that the scans have to be gone over by a person to decipher them and make them usable by the vehicle. Also, what happens when something changes?
I know a LOT of people that do drive over them.
Those people are called idiots. Designs should not imitate idiots
"nearly nothing about parking"??? There are PEOPLE that can't park - just look at any shopping parking lot and you will find a lot of vehicles that aren't parked between the lines... taking up two or more parking spaces. And yet, some of the advertisements for cars are now for "self parking" ability so that the driver doesn't have to.
Again, idiots. Parking like an idiot is still wrong. If every car did it there would be big problems. Also parking assist is designed for parallel parking between two vehicles. It is a well defined problem with a vehicle in front, a vehicle behind and curb on one side. An open parking lot on the other hand much more difficult. Unless the car can decipher the markings on the pavement it has no clue where to park. Sure a car could find a spot between to other cars but what if that "spot" is actually lane between isles? What if that spot is actuall the open space between two vehicles parked in handicap spots? What if there are few cars in the lot. Can it tell the difference between a regular spot and a restricted (handicap, loading zone, parent with kids, etc) spot?
No problem there either.
As for the rest... DARPA has already given contests (which have been won) about driving without a road map.
References? If you are talking about the DARPA Grand Challenges noe of the winning technology was even close to commercially viable. They were proof of concept at best.
Technically speaking they can. They just have to wait for the road to be surveyed before hand.
Why the media keeps hounding Google on all these issues seems immature.
It is to counter Google's skewed data that make it look like autonomous cars are just around the corner. For example, why come out with a vehicle that has no steering wheel if it is not viable for another 5-10 years (by your estimate)? Do you ever see a Google press release mention any of these limitations? All you hear from Google is a rising tally of miles driven and the fact that there have been no accidents. The fact that the miles are driven on carefully selected, heavily scanned roads under optimal conditions never seems to make it into the reports. Driving down the same roads thousands of times is not progress.
Do you think your income tax records, water usage, parking ticket record, etc should be publicly available? All of this is data owned by the government. Just because it belongs to the people does not mean that is is not private data and should not be available to the public.
When metaphor gets into science then the science becomes inexact. Even if in most cases the material acts like a plane there might be other cases in which it does not act like a plane. If we always treat it like a plane then we assume things will work one way when they might not and we will come to incorrect conclusions.
Being pedantic is what science is all about. Close enough is not exact.
I think you need to have your humor unit recalibrated
Humor has nothing to do with the incorrect definition of the number of dimensions of an object. I don't see any references to humor in the article.
Let me draw you a diagram _________________
That is a two dimensional non-solid object since is has a height, one pixel, and a width, more than one pixel.
So, when you draw a line on paper, it's a line on a plane,...
No, it is a representation of a line on a plane using the tools we have. The ink has depth and width so it is only a representation of a one dimensional objects. We live in a 3 dimensional world any solid objects existing in this world has 3 dimensions.
Can the two dimensional sheet pass through a gap that is 2 atoms wide? No since it is 3 atoms thick and therefore three dimensional.
If a 2 dimensional sheet has a thickness, in this case 3 atoms, does not that make it a very thin 3 dimensional object?
How about this. If you are making a profit from taking someone where they want to go it is no longer sharing it is working.
The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat
If more money than the partial cost of gas changes hands it is no longer sharing.
OK, so they are on the drawing board. Is there anything even close to viable yet? The last time autonomous motorcycles was in the news was in 2005 and I can not find anything after that.