A roundabout is simply nothing more than a right hand turn at a yield sign, followed by an exit ramp. If your application can't handle that, then why the hell is it on the road in the first place?
So why do so many drivers get confused with the give way rules at roundabouts? especially when they have multiple lanes.
Because they're idiots and can't think outside of their small world view?
But those drivers don't just simply appear when in roundabouts, they are idiots all of the time, on all of the roads. How is the poor google car going to deal with people who have the right of way, yet stop and wave you through, even though you are the person facing the sign and they are facing nothing but open road?
I have seen perfectly sober drivers go the wrong way on a roundabout.
So have I, and in splitting my time between countries that drive on the left and on the right I had to seriously question if the car that was coming at me was because it was my fault or his fault - which is not a good feeling when you just rented a fully restored '67 mustang convertible for the weekend
Self driving cars in a beta if not alpha program having to contend with asinine drivers like that would understandably need human intervention remember this is not a finished product, not even a release candidate, it is a limited alpha release it will be improved by the time it gets to market.
However, the cause of how people came to drive at an autonomous car is irrelevant, whether it be in a roundabout or just driving down the wrong side of the street - only the response is relevant and that should be the same in both of those situations. So I contend that if the car is safe to drive autonomously on a straight street (within googles limitations), it must also be safe to drive in a roundabout.
How many places, other than roundabouts, is it legal (or wise) to start in the left lane, and CROSS (not merge into) the right lane to get off at your exit? But that is exactly what you are supposed to do in a roundabout.
Do you mean like traveling in the left hand lane of a freeway and wanting to get off on an exit ramp on the right hand side without colliding with anyone? I'd say that that is a pretty basic function to master. It may seem like its different, but it is effectively the same topology, just with different scale factors - and to a computer, once you have mastered the topology, the scale should be irrelevant.
Part of driving is dealing with a certain percentage of drivers who either don't know or simply fail to follow the 'rules'.
That comment applies to all driving and not just roundabouts. The car successfully dealt with a cyclist who wandered into the cars path, so it should be able to deal with other cars that do wrong things - if it can't then get it the hell off the road.
But, I can see why roundabouts, particularly multi-lane ones, would be difficult to program the algorithms for. Part of effective roundabout driving is a bit more anticipatory than many other driving tasks.
All I see at a roundabout is turn right on yield and merge right to exit ramp. There is nothing particularly hard about that, even with multiple lanes. I'm sure that fundamental to the google car is an algorithm that says (very simplified) "Analyze the objects around you, predict where they are going and don't generate a path of your own that intersects with those predicted paths". That works just as well on any right turn as well as a roundabout.
Even navigating the famed magic roundabout is just an extension of these principles (albeit in mirror image to the US)
Why does version 2.0 of your application still not have all its features?
Because code takes time. And you can't just manpower your way through it.
A roundabout is simply nothing more than a right hand turn at a yield sign, followed by an exit ramp. If your application can't handle that, then why the hell is it on the road in the first place? And what connection does this have to what *other* drivers do?
Yeah, and it went into manual controlled mode when it recognized obstacles it couldn't handle:
B. A roundabout
Yeah.. but I found the reasoning of the roundabout issue to be particularly lame:
It also noted: “[Roundabouts are] particularly challenging, where many drivers don’t know the proper rules in the first place.” In an e-mail to colleagues at the DMV, Breslow wrote, “We can’t fail an applicant for not being able to navigate a traffic circle if they say that there [sic] vehicle can’t yet do it.”
Really? Whats so hard about a roundabout that Google's famed engineers couldn't program the requirements into the car? Isn't the point of these autonomous cars that they drive better than people and can deal with people driving around with them?
The big reveal images have already been negotiated with some major media outlet. Nat Geo, NBC, CBS, ABC, or BBC, and similar outfits in other languages.
Seriously. There's nothing to discuss. Ballmer wrote the message. So what?
Bet you wouldn't say that if Bennet had posted this story. But the again it would have been a philosophical piece about how while he likes the color blue, its not his favorite color blue, and how he wished that all error display screens should be *his* favorite blue color, and how dare the manufacturers of all the different OS's not consult him and get *his* opinion on what makes for a really nice blue color, even though each of those OS manufactures have their own ideas as to how things should be done and they have most likely done their own research into colors, but anyway that should all be scrapped and re-implemented Bennett's way (at their own expense of course) and while their at it could they also make it so every program works exactly the same on every different combination of computer and OS as it's a major hassle having to learn how to do things differently whenever you site down at an unfamiliar computer, but then again why should computers be unfamiliar in the first place, maybe it would be better if they all had a dedicated "Bennet" login so that he would just be able to sit down at any computer and just use it the way he wanted to, in fact what would be even better if all that research into melding telepathy and machines was finally completed so that he wouldn't even have to sit down at a computer as it would simply recognize him from a distance and would then fire up its 3D holographic welcome display (which BTW is fully detailed 3D model of Bennett himself - on a pedestal) so that he can instantly get down to his.. Oh look! Squirrel!!
this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those with a clue and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.
FTFY and also identified the root cause of the issue at hand.
They originally wanted to call it the Google Quantum A Team, but they were warned off that name after receiving an anonymous email that was liberally sprinkled with the word "fools" and signed with the moniker "Mr T"
... means just asking to get hacked due to not keeping up-to-date with patches.
This is the '90's anymore.
To be fair he was talking about the embedded debian installation built into the transmitter hardware, not some general purpose surf the internet type thing.
So I assume you wrote similar comments to all news about 9/11 or any american politics, which is not related to technology at all?
Nowhere in TFA is there a discussion of politics or the state of protests, and the only relation to technology is that the guy *happens* to be a kernel developer - which is not even germane to TFA
If after 9/11/. had run a story about how some random kernel developer got dirt in his computer after the towers came down (and that was the only topic of the story) I would have reacted just the same.
If however, TFA included summary and discussion of the state of pro-Ukraine protests *within* Russia and/or use of technology to mobilize said protests, and what the Kremlin was doing to subvert said protests/technology, then yes, that would have made it worthwhile to see.
Or do you mean that Ukraine is not important while USA is?
information about kernel developer / russian invasion on Ukraine is not important?
Because it's a personal interested story about some guy protesting something that his government did and getting arrested for it.. oh and BTW he's a kernel developer.
TFA has fuck all to do with the state of Russian/Ukraine protests - so it doesn't even count as politics It is barely tangentially a technology story - oh noes if a kernel developer goes to jail, what will happened to my precious ^w Linux
I can easily see why someone would feel threatened about someone else breaking into their house at 3:30 AM. To make it worse, if there was any reason to believe that the intruder could know that the homeowner was a cop (and therefore armed), it would be quite reasonable to assume that the intruder was prepared (and therefore armed) or that his entire motive was to kill.
What you seem to be arguing for is "I guess they were threatening me (even though no evidence to the fact was known at the time) so I am free to shoot them."
Consider how that stance plays into the *multiple* occasions where by innocent people have been blown away just for the sake of knocking on the wrong door.
As I just pointed out above, in VA you can only shoot in order to defend your life, and not your property. In no way did his daughter threaten his life. Hence the Deputy broke the law, yet remains unpunished (aside from all the therapy his daughter will need)
Slashdot Mirror
A roundabout is simply nothing more than a right hand turn at a yield sign, followed by an exit ramp. If your application can't handle that, then why the hell is it on the road in the first place?
Oh, yeah, sure.
http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-...
What is the point of this? Is it that its a left turn and left merge? Or that there are multiple lanes?
Not if it's a two-lane roundabout.
Which just means an extra lane change left and right. Your google car can change lanes can't it?
So why do so many drivers get confused with the give way rules at roundabouts? especially when they have multiple lanes.
Because they're idiots and can't think outside of their small world view?
But those drivers don't just simply appear when in roundabouts, they are idiots all of the time, on all of the roads. How is the poor google car going to deal with people who have the right of way, yet stop and wave you through, even though you are the person facing the sign and they are facing nothing but open road?
I have seen perfectly sober drivers go the wrong way on a roundabout.
So have I, and in splitting my time between countries that drive on the left and on the right I had to seriously question if the car that was coming at me was because it was my fault or his fault - which is not a good feeling when you just rented a fully restored '67 mustang convertible for the weekend
Self driving cars in a beta if not alpha program having to contend with asinine drivers like that would understandably need human intervention remember this is not a finished product, not even a release candidate, it is a limited alpha release it will be improved by the time it gets to market.
However, the cause of how people came to drive at an autonomous car is irrelevant, whether it be in a roundabout or just driving down the wrong side of the street - only the response is relevant and that should be the same in both of those situations. So I contend that if the car is safe to drive autonomously on a straight street (within googles limitations), it must also be safe to drive in a roundabout.
How many places, other than roundabouts, is it legal (or wise) to start in the left lane, and CROSS (not merge into) the right lane to get off at your exit? But that is exactly what you are supposed to do in a roundabout.
Do you mean like traveling in the left hand lane of a freeway and wanting to get off on an exit ramp on the right hand side without colliding with anyone? I'd say that that is a pretty basic function to master. It may seem like its different, but it is effectively the same topology, just with different scale factors - and to a computer, once you have mastered the topology, the scale should be irrelevant.
Oh, if it's so simple, why didn't you just write the code?
Why should I? Google already has written the right turn and merge right code.
Part of driving is dealing with a certain percentage of drivers who either don't know or simply fail to follow the 'rules'.
That comment applies to all driving and not just roundabouts. The car successfully dealt with a cyclist who wandered into the cars path, so it should be able to deal with other cars that do wrong things - if it can't then get it the hell off the road.
But, I can see why roundabouts, particularly multi-lane ones, would be difficult to program the algorithms for. Part of effective roundabout driving is a bit more anticipatory than many other driving tasks.
All I see at a roundabout is turn right on yield and merge right to exit ramp. There is nothing particularly hard about that, even with multiple lanes. I'm sure that fundamental to the google car is an algorithm that says (very simplified) "Analyze the objects around you, predict where they are going and don't generate a path of your own that intersects with those predicted paths". That works just as well on any right turn as well as a roundabout.
Even navigating the famed magic roundabout is just an extension of these principles (albeit in mirror image to the US)
Why does version 2.0 of your application still not have all its features?
Because code takes time. And you can't just manpower your way through it.
A roundabout is simply nothing more than a right hand turn at a yield sign, followed by an exit ramp. If your application can't handle that, then why the hell is it on the road in the first place? And what connection does this have to what *other* drivers do?
Yeah, and it went into manual controlled mode when it recognized obstacles it couldn't handle:
B. A roundabout
Yeah .. but I found the reasoning of the roundabout issue to be particularly lame:
It also noted: “[Roundabouts are] particularly challenging, where many drivers don’t know the proper rules in the first place.” In an e-mail to colleagues at the DMV, Breslow wrote, “We can’t fail an applicant for not being able to navigate a traffic circle if they say that there [sic] vehicle can’t yet do it.”
Really? Whats so hard about a roundabout that Google's famed engineers couldn't program the requirements into the car? Isn't the point of these autonomous cars that they drive better than people and can deal with people driving around with them?
Take a moment to think about that.
If you think all that is bad, then consider that the NFL is a non-profit organization. Should the NFL continue to enjoy non-profit status?
The big reveal images have already been negotiated with some major media outlet. Nat Geo, NBC, CBS, ABC, or BBC, and similar outfits in other languages.
Anyone as long as it isn't the History Channel.
We know you are out there some where .. or maybe its just your ghost?
They should come to Virginia and check out FoamHenge!
If they could, they'd all be out moving all their local currency into dollars already.
That's what friends who travel internationally are for :D
Seriously. There's nothing to discuss.
Ballmer wrote the message. So what?
Bet you wouldn't say that if Bennet had posted this story. But the again it would have been a philosophical piece about how while he likes the color blue, its not his favorite color blue, and how he wished that all error display screens should be *his* favorite blue color, and how dare the manufacturers of all the different OS's not consult him and get *his* opinion on what makes for a really nice blue color, even though each of those OS manufactures have their own ideas as to how things should be done and they have most likely done their own research into colors, but anyway that should all be scrapped and re-implemented Bennett's way (at their own expense of course) and while their at it could they also make it so every program works exactly the same on every different combination of computer and OS as it's a major hassle having to learn how to do things differently whenever you site down at an unfamiliar computer, but then again why should computers be unfamiliar in the first place, maybe it would be better if they all had a dedicated "Bennet" login so that he would just be able to sit down at any computer and just use it the way he wanted to, in fact what would be even better if all that research into melding telepathy and machines was finally completed so that he wouldn't even have to sit down at a computer as it would simply recognize him from a distance and would then fire up its 3D holographic welcome display (which BTW is fully detailed 3D model of Bennett himself - on a pedestal) so that he can instantly get down to his .. Oh look! Squirrel!!
I've seen the show in person. They have a mix of regular and professional audience members.
What the hell is a "professional audience member"??
this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those with a clue and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.
FTFY and also identified the root cause of the issue at hand.
Now there's a business card I want to have....
They originally wanted to call it the Google Quantum A Team, but they were warned off that name after receiving an anonymous email that was liberally sprinkled with the word "fools" and signed with the moniker "Mr T"
... means just asking to get hacked due to not keeping up-to-date with patches.
This is the '90's anymore.
To be fair he was talking about the embedded debian installation built into the transmitter hardware, not some general purpose surf the internet type thing.
So I assume you wrote similar comments to all news about 9/11 or any american politics, which is not related to technology at all?
Nowhere in TFA is there a discussion of politics or the state of protests, and the only relation to technology is that the guy *happens* to be a kernel developer - which is not even germane to TFA
If after 9/11 /. had run a story about how some random kernel developer got dirt in his computer after the towers came down (and that was the only topic of the story) I would have reacted just the same.
If however, TFA included summary and discussion of the state of pro-Ukraine protests *within* Russia and/or use of technology to mobilize said protests, and what the Kremlin was doing to subvert said protests/technology, then yes, that would have made it worthwhile to see.
Or do you mean that Ukraine is not important while USA is?
That's a pretty lame attempt at trolling.
But rather than give the food to some needy Greeks, the food was destroyed.
Destruction of food happens fairly regularly, no matter how wasteful/stupid you think it might be.
information about kernel developer / russian invasion on Ukraine is not important?
Because it's a personal interested story about some guy protesting something that his government did and getting arrested for it .. oh and BTW he's a kernel developer.
TFA has fuck all to do with the state of Russian/Ukraine protests - so it doesn't even count as politics
It is barely tangentially a technology story - oh noes if a kernel developer goes to jail, what will happened to my precious ^w Linux
The largest battery in the world already exists in Virginia.
Bath County Pumped Storage Station
Which can deliver 3 GIGAWATT for a metric shitload of time
I can easily see why someone would feel threatened about someone else breaking into their house at 3:30 AM. To make it worse, if there was any reason to believe that the intruder could know that the homeowner was a cop (and therefore armed), it would be quite reasonable to assume that the intruder was prepared (and therefore armed) or that his entire motive was to kill.
What you seem to be arguing for is "I guess they were threatening me (even though no evidence to the fact was known at the time) so I am free to shoot them."
Consider how that stance plays into the *multiple* occasions where by innocent people have been blown away just for the sake of knocking on the wrong door.
As I just pointed out above, in VA you can only shoot in order to defend your life, and not your property. In no way did his daughter threaten his life. Hence the Deputy broke the law, yet remains unpunished (aside from all the therapy his daughter will need)