Autolanding is not a complex task. It entails beam following, speed maintenance, and a simple maneuver called flaring before landing. Another issue is that the aircraft is separated from others by large distances. This is far different than vehicles driving feet apart at high speeds changing lanes with traffic signals, crossing traffic, road obstructions, animals darting into traffic, etc. Landing on a calm day is easy. Landing in rough weather is much different and we still use pilots for that. Comparing aircraft autopilot to autonomous vehicles is like comparing tiddlywinks to chess.
The current technological hurdle is to get ATC guidance into the airplane's systems.
That has already been solved as shown by military drones. The thing stopping it is that pilots are still required when autopilot can not handle the difficult situations.
The main issue is that a computer can not tell the difference between a child standing at the side of the road and a mailbox at the side of the road. Google does this by driving another vehicle along the road before the diverless car. If the object was not there the first time it must be movable. Computers do not yet have the cognitive ability to differentiate objects and predict what they will do.
I know this is an old article but the technology has not changed. The AI is just not there to differentiate objects yet
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. 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.
The AI is just not good enough yet to differentiate objects yet which leads to the third point I posted.
The trains in Canada have been automated for decades and they're fine.
On tracks where they are the only ones with minutes between trains and controllers watching every move. This is completely different than vehicles on streets.
The Google fleet drove across the US several times,
Only on roads that have been high resolution scans within hours of the Google vehicle passing and with a driver taking over from time to time when the vehicle gets into trouble.
I don't want to drive it. I want auto-driving cars and I want them now.
Sorry but the technology isn't reliable enough yet.
The problem is that you confuse manual controls and manual control inputs. What type of control a person or computer uses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the mind making the decisions about what inputs to make. Computers are yet to be sophisticated to handle many situations as well has humans do.
The driver isn't in direct physical control of the vehicle and hasn't been for some time. Progress towards fully autonomous vehicles is a matter of degree,
Completely false. Whether it is fly by wire or cables the inputs are still made by humans and that is the important part.
The brain is the important part of the machine and not the nerves. Computer brains are not up to the task yet.
The difference being that natural selection is a slow process. What people are doing is causing a much faster change in the ecosystem by moving species around to places they did not evolve in. What we are doing is not a natural process.
Some patents are filed defensively. The patents is filed so that no one else can file. The patent is not intended to be defended, one does not have to, but is a defense against someone else getting the patent. In some cases it is less expensive to file a patent than to get a patent overturned.
A person gave a hypothetical based on widely known and scientifically studied data,
He did not state a hypothetical. he stated it as fact.
Had it been some urban black kid it would have been 5 years hard time.
To state it as a hypothetical it would have been phrased as follows.
Had it been some urban black kid it would probably have been 5 years hard time.
See the difference? The former is a statement of fact the latter is a statement of possibility.
To comment on what you do not know know, makes you an idiot.
Again I refer you to "ad hominem" . Calling people names does not strengthen your argument. I do understand the disparity in sentencing. I also like to see statements of fact backed up.
Again you are demanding an absurd and impossible standard. However green your national power grid is, there is always going to someone somewhere using a diesel generator for something or other.
Those diesel generators will not be feeding power to the grid so that statement is irrelevant.
This cannot be the yardstick used for moving towards a greener economy because all progress would be impossible.
Falsely calling something zero emission stops progress because if falsely states that the goal is already met.
It remains a fact that anyone exchanging their gas guzzler for an electric vehicle is causing a reduction in CO2 emissions equal to what the gas guzzler used to produce.
This is a factually false statement. You miss the CO2 produced by the electricity plants to produce the electricity to charge the vehicle.
You could have picked a better analogy
Would a processed food be organic if no pesticides were used during the processing of the food?
There are enough real issues with racial disparity without making up stories. This is the first time I have been called a "myopic pedantic idiot" for asking for facts rather than fantasy. By the way you might want to Google "ad hominem".
Only if those power plants actually do produce CO2, which is often not the case. Your assumption that all power generation always emits CO2 is over one hundred years out of date.
In every country of the world at least some of the electricity is produced from fossil fuels. If you want to say "zero emission" and not "low emission" then all the electricity has to be produced from non-fossil fuel sources.
Europe has a cap on total CO2 emissions in electricity generation,
You just changed the subject. First you were talking about green electricity certificates and now CO2 caps. They are different matters. Someone buying a green certificate does not decrease CO2 production because it does not change how the energy used is produces. All it does is allow the buyer the smug idea that they are using clean energy while someone else who does note buy the certificates is using more unclean energy. CO2 caps are different in that they require a limit in the production of CO2. The deciding factor is that at the CO2 cap is not zero. Therefore anything that uses electricity is not zero emission.
It all comes down to the use of an absolute term like "zero emission". Terms like these should be used very carefully as they are very powerful. Would you consider a food fat free if it has.1% fat in it? I would call that low fat but "fat free" makes better marketing. To me , plug in electric vehicles are low emission.
does not reflect negatively on the vehicle that ends up using that power because it doesn't really have much choice:
The driver of the vehicle does have a choice; to drive or not to drive. The choice to drive causes the power plants that generate the electricity to power the vehicle to emit CO2. Therefore the choice to drive causes CO2 emission.
Driving an electric car causes emissions of CO2. The only different in that they are less and at a different time and a different place that with an internal combustion engine. The point is that electric vehicles are not zero emission they are lower emission. They are only zero emission if all the electricity going into the grid that powers them is zero emission. That has yet to happen.
perhaps you'd be able to buy pink certificates to ensure your power comes from non baby burning sources
That is a marketing ploy as it does not decrease that actual emissions. It only causes people who don't buy certificates to use a higher proportion of dirty energy. It makes the buyer feel good but has no effect on the environment.
Do you actually have an example of a black kid smashing their vehicle through someone's house and getting 5 years hard time? Otherwise your post is pure fiction.
By this standard you will find that in fact no human activity can ever be zero emission
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. That is not the standard I am talking about. If you want specifics, I use the following test; "Is there CO2 created in generating the energy used to move the vehicle? " If, at some time, all the electricity we used was created without burning fossils I would consider electric vehicles to be zero emission. That is not the case right now therefore electric vehicles are not zero emissions. Would you call a vehicle that runs on a flywheel zero emission if it used a gasoline engine to get the flywheel up to speed? To me electricity production is similar.
Because the land speed record requires you to run in both directions in the same vehicle within an hour.
The record is standardized as the speed over a course of fixed length, averaged over two runs (commonly called "passes"). Two runs are required in opposite directions within one hour, and a new record mark must exceed the previous one by at least one percent to be validated.
It is only finalized after the involved countries pass legislation to enact the agreement. When the bill comes before the individual countries that is the time for open debate and objections.
Only after they have gone through committees and had a lot of "behind closed doors" discussions. This agreement will be debated by every government that needs to enact it.
It'll be dumped in a "take it or leave it" form.
There is a third option; send it back for revision.
why the secrecy here?
Do you really think is is a good idea for every proposal or wording to be debated in the open? Most of these idea/proposals will not make it into the final draft yet having to publicly defend them will just distract from the work at hand.
Because they're afraid that people will object to certain provisions that never get into the final draft.
FTFY
The problem with public review of every proposal is that it stifles creativity. Try having a creative discussion when every proposal must be perfect before it is presented. It does not work.
we have public broadcasting networks in both radio and TV
Which very few people watch. To get the message out is needs to be where and when people are watching and listening and that means network prime time.
The Court citing "free speech" as if it always triumphs every other consideration ignores the fact that our society and our courts often limit the free speech of individuals when not doing so would cause harm to other individuals or to society as a whole
Libel, slander, hate speech, incitement to violence, etc are a far cry from expressing one's opinion on a political issue. Political speech is a very protected thing in the US.
Aside from that, I do not agree that campaign spending equals free speech.
Here is a problem with limited spending. Say later in a campaign a rival splurges and exposes some event in your past that is spun all out of recognition. You have spent almost all your limit and now can't respond effectively. Do you not spend as much earlier just in case? Wouldn't that limit your speech?
Many of the representatives who signed Letter 2 that was referenced in the Ars Technica article represent areas where Internet access is very limited. They are betting that since so many of their constitutents don't have home Internet access, most of them won't even notice their actions on net neutrality or even know what it is.
It is interesting that you have such a strong psychic link that you know what "[t]hey are betting". Your statement is merely your spin on their actions and has no basis in proof.
They got contributions and signed the letter they were asked to sign because that's how the campaign funding business works.
According to this of the 44 representatives who receive $30K or more in contributions only eleven signed a letter. Twenty five percent is not a very good success rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Autolanding is not a complex task. It entails beam following, speed maintenance, and a simple maneuver called flaring before landing. Another issue is that the aircraft is separated from others by large distances. This is far different than vehicles driving feet apart at high speeds changing lanes with traffic signals, crossing traffic, road obstructions, animals darting into traffic, etc. Landing on a calm day is easy. Landing in rough weather is much different and we still use pilots for that. Comparing aircraft autopilot to autonomous vehicles is like comparing tiddlywinks to chess.
The current technological hurdle is to get ATC guidance into the airplane's systems.
That has already been solved as shown by military drones. The thing stopping it is that pilots are still required when autopilot can not handle the difficult situations.
The main issue is that a computer can not tell the difference between a child standing at the side of the road and a mailbox at the side of the road. Google does this by driving another vehicle along the road before the diverless car. If the object was not there the first time it must be movable. Computers do not yet have the cognitive ability to differentiate objects and predict what they will do.
I know this is an old article but the technology has not changed. The AI is just not there to differentiate objects yet
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.
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.
The AI is just not good enough yet to differentiate objects yet which leads to the third point I posted.
The trains in Canada have been automated for decades and they're fine.
On tracks where they are the only ones with minutes between trains and controllers watching every move. This is completely different than vehicles on streets.
The Google fleet drove across the US several times,
Only on roads that have been high resolution scans within hours of the Google vehicle passing and with a driver taking over from time to time when the vehicle gets into trouble.
I don't want to drive it. I want auto-driving cars and I want them now.
Sorry but the technology isn't reliable enough yet.
The problem is that you confuse manual controls and manual control inputs. What type of control a person or computer uses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the mind making the decisions about what inputs to make. Computers are yet to be sophisticated to handle many situations as well has humans do.
The driver isn't in direct physical control of the vehicle and hasn't been for some time. Progress towards fully autonomous vehicles is a matter of degree,
Completely false. Whether it is fly by wire or cables the inputs are still made by humans and that is the important part.
The brain is the important part of the machine and not the nerves. Computer brains are not up to the task yet.
The printed circuits have already been discussed
While they have not done it yet they seem to want to wipe another country off the map.
How about the Chinese develop the ability to launch weapons from the Moon, or Mars, pretty much without any fear of retribution?.
China is still on Earth and therefore can be the target for retribution.
They can pour almost endless resources,
Even if that is true it is still not enough to colonize Mars.
In fact, maybe if these projects were done privately from start to finish they would not see multi billion dollar cost overruns time after time.
You are probably right as they would just run out of money an not be completed.
community service
Stand around do as little as possible
probation
Don't get caught for a period of time
or rehabilitation
Go to a set number of "councelling" sessions and ignore them
is the key,
Really?
The difference being that natural selection is a slow process. What people are doing is causing a much faster change in the ecosystem by moving species around to places they did not evolve in. What we are doing is not a natural process.
Some patents are filed defensively. The patents is filed so that no one else can file. The patent is not intended to be defended, one does not have to, but is a defense against someone else getting the patent. In some cases it is less expensive to file a patent than to get a patent overturned.
A person gave a hypothetical based on widely known and scientifically studied data,
He did not state a hypothetical. he stated it as fact.
Had it been some urban black kid it would have been 5 years hard time.
To state it as a hypothetical it would have been phrased as follows.
Had it been some urban black kid it would probably have been 5 years hard time.
See the difference? The former is a statement of fact the latter is a statement of possibility.
To comment on what you do not know know, makes you an idiot.
Again I refer you to "ad hominem" . Calling people names does not strengthen your argument. I do understand the disparity in sentencing. I also like to see statements of fact backed up.
Again you are demanding an absurd and impossible standard. However green your national power grid is, there is always going to someone somewhere using a diesel generator for something or other.
Those diesel generators will not be feeding power to the grid so that statement is irrelevant.
This cannot be the yardstick used for moving towards a greener economy because all progress would be impossible.
Falsely calling something zero emission stops progress because if falsely states that the goal is already met.
It remains a fact that anyone exchanging their gas guzzler for an electric vehicle is causing a reduction in CO2 emissions equal to what the gas guzzler used to produce.
This is a factually false statement. You miss the CO2 produced by the electricity plants to produce the electricity to charge the vehicle.
You could have picked a better analogy
Would a processed food be organic if no pesticides were used during the processing of the food?
There are enough real issues with racial disparity without making up stories. This is the first time I have been called a "myopic pedantic idiot" for asking for facts rather than fantasy. By the way you might want to Google "ad hominem".
Only if those power plants actually do produce CO2, which is often not the case. Your assumption that all power generation always emits CO2 is over one hundred years out of date.
In every country of the world at least some of the electricity is produced from fossil fuels. If you want to say "zero emission" and not "low emission" then all the electricity has to be produced from non-fossil fuel sources.
Europe has a cap on total CO2 emissions in electricity generation,
You just changed the subject. First you were talking about green electricity certificates and now CO2 caps. They are different matters. Someone buying a green certificate does not decrease CO2 production because it does not change how the energy used is produces. All it does is allow the buyer the smug idea that they are using clean energy while someone else who does note buy the certificates is using more unclean energy. CO2 caps are different in that they require a limit in the production of CO2. The deciding factor is that at the CO2 cap is not zero. Therefore anything that uses electricity is not zero emission.
It all comes down to the use of an absolute term like "zero emission". Terms like these should be used very carefully as they are very powerful. Would you consider a food fat free if it has .1% fat in it? I would call that low fat but "fat free" makes better marketing. To me , plug in electric vehicles are low emission.
Then use that as an example and not a fantasy. By the way, there is an ongoing process to correct that wrong.
does not reflect negatively on the vehicle that ends up using that power because it doesn't really have much choice:
The driver of the vehicle does have a choice; to drive or not to drive. The choice to drive causes the power plants that generate the electricity to power the vehicle to emit CO2. Therefore the choice to drive causes CO2 emission.
Driving an electric car causes emissions of CO2. The only different in that they are less and at a different time and a different place that with an internal combustion engine. The point is that electric vehicles are not zero emission they are lower emission. They are only zero emission if all the electricity going into the grid that powers them is zero emission. That has yet to happen.
perhaps you'd be able to buy pink certificates to ensure your power comes from non baby burning sources
That is a marketing ploy as it does not decrease that actual emissions. It only causes people who don't buy certificates to use a higher proportion of dirty energy. It makes the buyer feel good but has no effect on the environment.
Do you actually have an example of a black kid smashing their vehicle through someone's house and getting 5 years hard time? Otherwise your post is pure fiction.
By this standard you will find that in fact no human activity can ever be zero emission
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. That is not the standard I am talking about. If you want specifics, I use the following test;
"Is there CO2 created in generating the energy used to move the vehicle? "
If, at some time, all the electricity we used was created without burning fossils I would consider electric vehicles to be zero emission. That is not the case right now therefore electric vehicles are not zero emissions. Would you call a vehicle that runs on a flywheel zero emission if it used a gasoline engine to get the flywheel up to speed? To me electricity production is similar.
Because the land speed record requires you to run in both directions in the same vehicle within an hour.
The record is standardized as the speed over a course of fixed length, averaged over two runs (commonly called "passes"). Two runs are required in opposite directions within one hour, and a new record mark must exceed the previous one by at least one percent to be validated.
It is only finalized after the involved countries pass legislation to enact the agreement. When the bill comes before the individual countries that is the time for open debate and objections.
Congress and parliaments openly debate bills,
Only after they have gone through committees and had a lot of "behind closed doors" discussions. This agreement will be debated by every government that needs to enact it.
It'll be dumped in a "take it or leave it" form.
There is a third option; send it back for revision.
why the secrecy here?
Do you really think is is a good idea for every proposal or wording to be debated in the open? Most of these idea/proposals will not make it into the final draft yet having to publicly defend them will just distract from the work at hand.
Because they're afraid that people will object to certain provisions that never get into the final draft.
FTFY
The problem with public review of every proposal is that it stifles creativity. Try having a creative discussion when every proposal must be perfect before it is presented. It does not work.
It reminds me of advertisements like this. Every one of their products have chemicals in them.
Most "(enter substance here) FREE" campaigns are marketing ploys.
we have public broadcasting networks in both radio and TV
Which very few people watch. To get the message out is needs to be where and when people are watching and listening and that means network prime time.
The Court citing "free speech" as if it always triumphs every other consideration ignores the fact that our society and our courts often limit the free speech of individuals when not doing so would cause harm to other individuals or to society as a whole
Libel, slander, hate speech, incitement to violence, etc are a far cry from expressing one's opinion on a political issue. Political speech is a very protected thing in the US.
Aside from that, I do not agree that campaign spending equals free speech.
Here is a problem with limited spending. Say later in a campaign a rival splurges and exposes some event in your past that is spun all out of recognition. You have spent almost all your limit and now can't respond effectively. Do you not spend as much earlier just in case? Wouldn't that limit your speech?
Many of the representatives who signed Letter 2 that was referenced in the Ars Technica article represent areas where Internet access is very limited. They are betting that since so many of their constitutents don't have home Internet access, most of them won't even notice their actions on net neutrality or even know what it is.
It is interesting that you have such a strong psychic link that you know what "[t]hey are betting". Your statement is merely your spin on their actions and has no basis in proof.
They got contributions and signed the letter they were asked to sign because that's how the campaign funding business works.
According to this of the 44 representatives who receive $30K or more in contributions only eleven signed a letter. Twenty five percent is not a very good success rate.