As far as I'm concerned, letting humans drive is putting trust in the other human drivers around me, and frankly, I don't trust them at all. I'd feel much safer if manual driving was illegal.
Important part bolded. Let's see it again, just for emphasis:
I'd feel much safer if manual driving was illegal.
Hmm... why is that eerily familiar sounding phrase making me break out in cold sweats?
Liability is easily managed by using insurance. And insurance companies are excellent at gauging risk. If an auto-car system passes the test for being statistically safer than a human driver, then for sure there will be insurance companies willing to take on that liability.
Presuming that one of these things causes an accident, who do you think would be held liable for damages?
1) says some anonymous person that doesn't know me from Adam. Anyone capable of cogent thought will take your statement with a heaping serving of NaCl.
2) Advertisers are not scientific researchers. They are morons, just like the suckers who fall for their BS.
Any more ad hominems or non sequiturs you care to throw out there?
1) Reaction time to a specific, anticipated event, you're likely right. But there's one crucial element to navigation that humans can do that computers currently can't - make arbitrary, seemingly illogical decisions in the heat of the moment. Take GP's hypothetical about the cliffside road - most humans, thanks to self-preservation instinct, will choose to rear-end the other car rather than drive off the ledge; what would a computer that is programmed to "avoid contact with other cars at all costs" do in that situation? Hyperbole aside, there's no way of knowing until we put one in that real world situation.
2) I'll give you that one, I suck at distance estimation, although I wouldn't go so far as to imply that machine calculations are infallible, either. They are programmed by humans, and subject to elemental factors, after all.
3) If vision is the only sense you use when driving, you shouldn't be driving.
4) an auto-car may maintain speed better, assuming that it is receiving accurate information from its sensors, and interpreting said information correctly. What happens when the auto-car's front facing range finder gets just enough mud on it to make the car think there's an object.2mm from the front end of the vehicle? Will it refuse to move forward, or perhaps start reversing furiously to avoid the "obstacle" it's certain it's about to smash into?
5) A hacker doesn't need to gain access to the actual auto-driving mechanism to cause problems (though, considering the fact these things use Wifi and other forms of RF communication betwix themselves, it wouldn't be a stretch to think they could be compromised), all the perp would need to do is provide enough false or junk data to confuse the auto-driving algorithm into abnormal behavior. This can be done with readily available, off the shelf electronics.
Speaking of which... how do you suppose an auto-car would handle a construction blasting zone, in which drivers are legally required to shut down all radios?
That sounds like a particularly nasty mess right there, as most of the attacks originate from foreign soil.
Interestingly, I had that idea (offensive cyber security) about 5 years ago, but was told by the TLA I approached that implementing such a strategy would do nothing but earn me a long sentence in a federal prison...
That will get better as the tech gets better; today's solar panels run at what, 10-15% efficiency? Just image, we get those puppies up towards 75-90% and recharging your electric car at the "pump" will become a rarity.
I, for one, look forward to a day when I can make my daily commute for free (well, free of fuel cost, but you get the idea).
âoeOne has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.â Martin Luther King Jr.
Even MLK might have had second thoughts about that if he'd spent time in a Chinese prison.
You mean, the same MLK who was fucking murdered for saying such things, knowing it would be his fate the entire time?
Maybe you're just a big pussy.
It's really easy to urge another person to risk personal danger when you're sitting safely behind a computer screen in your mother's basement.
Informing someone that they're a big pussy in comparison to MLK does not equate to "urging them to risk personal danger," but thanks fer trollin', er, playing.
Also, my mother doesn't have a basement - you shouldn't assume everyone on the planet shares your particular living arrangement.
And although I will be going as a tourist, I still need to be able to regularly import large quantities of heroin and cocaine. However, this isn't allowed according to US law, so can anyone suggest how I can circumvent this law largely because I don't accept it and want to carry on with my massive heroin and cocaine habits while there...
No worries, mate, we import shitloads of that stuff from Mexico daily, no need to depend on your own supply! Just head down to the nearest barrio and ask for Jose, he's got your hookup.
So, we have 244 mi/charge for the Tesla,
and about ~340 mi/tank with the 135i.
And from before, re: sedans,
Tesla S = 265 mi/charge
Jetta TDI = 493 mi/tank
I think, judging from the numbers, the Roadster is a nice alternative to your typical gasoline powered sports car; The S, however, has quite a way to go before it can even hold a candle to modern gas sedans.
Not particularly; torque is the measurement of rotational force, whereas horsepower is a measurement of "the ability to do work." If there was an oddly large/small amount of torque being generated by the Tesla, I would say yes, but as the torque of the Tesla Roadster is not abnormally greater/less than what one would see from a similarly powered gas car (288 HP/ 280 ft-lbs), I don't think it would make much difference in this comparison. It does, however, have a bearing on the admittedly impressive 0-60 time, though.
Power/weight ratio has far more to do with the fuel mileage potential of a vehicle than torque, which mainly comes into play when towing and launching (yes, it's far more complex than that, but I don't really have the time or desire to relive my Engines classes right now).
Thousand years from now, someone looking at computer data storage devices might be completely oblivious to what they were meant for.
"Ah, those crazy ancient people, obsessed with making ornamental plastic/metal boxes!"
Kinda makes you wonder about our own civilization's archaeological endeavors, doesn't it? How many odd looking "stones" have been discarded whilst in pursuit of other, more museum-desired items like clay pots and gold jewelry?
Finally, a long term solution so that my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids can see my baby pictures, listen to my Fallout Boy CDs, and watch my disturbing pr0n collection. I'll order a dozen!
***DRM ERROR - Could Not Contact Authentication Server***
Maybe the [insert nation here] government should spend their time fixing the disastrous economy they created instead of wasting time with this nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I'm concerned, letting humans drive is putting trust in the other human drivers around me, and frankly, I don't trust them at all. I'd feel much safer if manual driving was illegal.
Important part bolded. Let's see it again, just for emphasis:
I'd feel much safer if manual driving was illegal.
Hmm... why is that eerily familiar sounding phrase making me break out in cold sweats?
I'd feel much safer
Scary.
The quote even states that drivers are still legally required in the cars
Um... if the car drives itself, wouldn't that technically make the occupants passengers?
Liability is easily managed by using insurance. And insurance companies are excellent at gauging risk. If an auto-car system passes the test for being statistically safer than a human driver, then for sure there will be insurance companies willing to take on that liability.
Presuming that one of these things causes an accident, who do you think would be held liable for damages?
1) says some anonymous person that doesn't know me from Adam. Anyone capable of cogent thought will take your statement with a heaping serving of NaCl.
2) Advertisers are not scientific researchers. They are morons, just like the suckers who fall for their BS.
Any more ad hominems or non sequiturs you care to throw out there?
1) Reaction time to a specific, anticipated event, you're likely right. But there's one crucial element to navigation that humans can do that computers currently can't - make arbitrary, seemingly illogical decisions in the heat of the moment. Take GP's hypothetical about the cliffside road - most humans, thanks to self-preservation instinct, will choose to rear-end the other car rather than drive off the ledge; what would a computer that is programmed to "avoid contact with other cars at all costs" do in that situation? Hyperbole aside, there's no way of knowing until we put one in that real world situation.
.2mm from the front end of the vehicle? Will it refuse to move forward, or perhaps start reversing furiously to avoid the "obstacle" it's certain it's about to smash into?
2) I'll give you that one, I suck at distance estimation, although I wouldn't go so far as to imply that machine calculations are infallible, either. They are programmed by humans, and subject to elemental factors, after all.
3) If vision is the only sense you use when driving, you shouldn't be driving.
4) an auto-car may maintain speed better, assuming that it is receiving accurate information from its sensors, and interpreting said information correctly. What happens when the auto-car's front facing range finder gets just enough mud on it to make the car think there's an object
5) A hacker doesn't need to gain access to the actual auto-driving mechanism to cause problems (though, considering the fact these things use Wifi and other forms of RF communication betwix themselves, it wouldn't be a stretch to think they could be compromised), all the perp would need to do is provide enough false or junk data to confuse the auto-driving algorithm into abnormal behavior. This can be done with readily available, off the shelf electronics.
Speaking of which... how do you suppose an auto-car would handle a construction blasting zone, in which drivers are legally required to shut down all radios?
'Why did you turn off the computer when you know it is proven to be safer?'
"Because my brain operates at a frequency modern computers cannot even begin to match, and it cannot be hacked."
That sounds like a particularly nasty mess right there, as most of the attacks originate from foreign soil.
Interestingly, I had that idea (offensive cyber security) about 5 years ago, but was told by the TLA I approached that implementing such a strategy would do nothing but earn me a long sentence in a federal prison...
If there was a law like that, then it would simply be that American companies would lose business to "foreign" ones.
You, AC, apparently do not understand the function of tariffs.
230KG spread amongst the entire annual landfill volume? That must be very dilute.
Don't think 'landfills' - think aquifers.
That will get better as the tech gets better; today's solar panels run at what, 10-15% efficiency? Just image, we get those puppies up towards 75-90% and recharging your electric car at the "pump" will become a rarity.
I, for one, look forward to a day when I can make my daily commute for free (well, free of fuel cost, but you get the idea).
My point is, if we're talking about mileage, the ability to scream off the line isn't really all that important; hard launches tend to kill mileage.
But yea, the Roadster has some serious torque to be able to accelerate a ton and a half of steel and lithium to 60 MPH in less than 4 seconds.
So how about it slashdotters -- any ideas?
What if we all went and got bridging routers, and just made one big fuckin' mesh network?
It's really easy to urge another person to risk personal danger when you're sitting safely behind a computer screen in your mother's basement.
Informing someone that they're a big pussy in comparison to MLK does not equate to "urging them to risk personal danger," but thanks fer trollin', er, playing.
Also, my mother doesn't have a basement - you shouldn't assume everyone on the planet shares your particular living arrangement.
I'm an irrational Slashdot poster, so I'm just going to blame Apple now even though they have nothing to do with this.
This proves that Apple is the new Microsoft. At least around these parts.
^
Confirmed by Netcraft
Well, one more thing:
If you don't use burners, you should definitely at the very least wipe them and start over when you get back into the states.
I'd recommend backing up then wiping before heading to the ol' PRC as well - better safe than sorry.
14 years for what crime may I ask?
Knowing entirely too much about a cheesy 20-year-old sitcom.
And although I will be going as a tourist, I still need to be able to regularly import large quantities of heroin and cocaine. However, this isn't allowed according to US law, so can anyone suggest how I can circumvent this law largely because I don't accept it and want to carry on with my massive heroin and cocaine habits while there...
No worries, mate, we import shitloads of that stuff from Mexico daily, no need to depend on your own supply! Just head down to the nearest barrio and ask for Jose, he's got your hookup.
Even MLK might have had second thoughts about that if he'd spent time in a Chinese prison.
You mean, the same MLK who was fucking murdered for saying such things, knowing it would be his fate the entire time?
Maybe you're just a big pussy.
'at'll do, pig, 'at'll do.
How about a BMW 135? 3,300 lbs, 302 hp.
P/W ratio = .091
.106
Tesla Roadster
P/W ratio =
Yea, that's pretty close, thanks!
So, we have 244 mi/charge for the Tesla,
and about ~340 mi/tank with the 135i.
And from before, re: sedans,
Tesla S = 265 mi/charge
Jetta TDI = 493 mi/tank
I think, judging from the numbers, the Roadster is a nice alternative to your typical gasoline powered sports car; The S, however, has quite a way to go before it can even hold a candle to modern gas sedans.
Still, a step in the right direction.
Not particularly; torque is the measurement of rotational force, whereas horsepower is a measurement of "the ability to do work." If there was an oddly large/small amount of torque being generated by the Tesla, I would say yes, but as the torque of the Tesla Roadster is not abnormally greater/less than what one would see from a similarly powered gas car (288 HP/ 280 ft-lbs), I don't think it would make much difference in this comparison. It does, however, have a bearing on the admittedly impressive 0-60 time, though.
Power/weight ratio has far more to do with the fuel mileage potential of a vehicle than torque, which mainly comes into play when towing and launching (yes, it's far more complex than that, but I don't really have the time or desire to relive my Engines classes right now).
Thousand years from now, someone looking at computer data storage devices might be completely oblivious to what they were meant for.
"Ah, those crazy ancient people, obsessed with making ornamental plastic/metal boxes!"
Kinda makes you wonder about our own civilization's archaeological endeavors, doesn't it? How many odd looking "stones" have been discarded whilst in pursuit of other, more museum-desired items like clay pots and gold jewelry?
Finally, a long term solution so that my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids can see my baby pictures, listen to my Fallout Boy CDs, and watch my disturbing pr0n collection. I'll order a dozen!
***DRM ERROR - Could Not Contact Authentication Server***
Maybe the [insert nation here] government should spend their time fixing the disastrous economy they created instead of wasting time with this nonsense.
FTFY.
... and made myself sad in the process...
Not quite sure what the big deal is...
It's all Greek to me!
*ducks*