The article talked about how Google ran all of their initial tests without much pomp or circumstance. A few relevant quotes (all emphasis mine)
Harder to notice was that the person at the wheel was not actually driving.
The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves
seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control
At the point when the article was written 18 months ago, they'd already clocked all those miles, in secret, lending credence to the notion that they enjoy anonymity in this affair. There was slightly more fanfare for the current announcement, simply because they're getting a much bigger sandbox to play in. One does not post a million dollar insurance bond for the entire state of Nevada without someone taking notice.
Also, if you'll look at the full picture of the test vehicle you'll easily see that a minimalist approach was taken to the modifications. The camera on the roof and off-center license plate are the only real hints that something is amiss. And with Google already known for cars with cameras on top, the camera atop the G'car looks rather subdued. As for the rest of your strawman about "a poorly disguised car with no driver," the picture at the top of the article was obviously a mock-up for the photo-op. They've said quite clearly that every test was conducted with both a driver and passenger.
Anyone with a functioning brain should realize that TSA is a giant waste of money, unless you have stock in a nail-clipper supply company.
Every terror plot that has been averted since 9/11, was averted by passengers. Underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc... all thwarted by civilians who won't tolerate that shit anymore.
You're on the wrong side of the scale, mate. You're talking about weight lifters and athletes who register as false-positives for obesity.
The article is about people coming in UNDER weight, and I've never seen any false-positives on that end. Using myself as an example (I'm 6'2") I would have to weigh less than 140lbs to register as "underweight." My GF standing 5'3" would be in double-digits to fail the criteria.
For any metric lovers: at 1.9m, I would have to weigh 63kg or more to pass this criteria. A 1.6m person would need a mere 47kg. TFA doesn't say anything about upper limits on the BMI
Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Check the post to which you replied. Pay careful attention for a sentence starting with "I base this assumption on..." and you might have your answer.
Now I see where our assumptions differ. You assume that Google will emblazon their G'cars (as I will call them) with stickers: "AI CAR!! LOOK MA NO HANDS! WOO HOO," and put some geeky references like "Pod Bay Doors" and "I'm afraid I can't do that"
Where I assume the opposite: that Google will take every possible option to minimize the existence of these cars for as long as possible. I base this assumption on their track record. Though, the cat is a bit outta the bag now, so my assumption might not hold up. If anything, I think the biggest danger around these cars is just that: around these cars. The cars themselves could be perfectly safe, and would still cause plenty of accidents and traffic jams as rubbernecks try to sneak a peak.
Your 'logic' assumes all humans drive exactly the same (we don't), and that all AI cars were a distinct departure requiring a vastly different protocol for working amongst (they don't).
As far as I can tell, from the perspective of a fellow motorist, the only two differences between this car and any other vehicle on the road are the drivers' hands not being on the wheel (which I see every day anyway) and the additional sensors (which might be a little distracting but no moreso than a normal car with anything on a roof-rack.) Are there other factors I'm missing? Is there something a Google'mobile does that the average sedan cannot? Do the brake lights and turn signals operate differently? Does it read and react to street signs and stop lights differently than a human?
End result: really, we'll just have to wait and see. But while some people express concern, distrust and general FUD, I approach this concept from a perspective of optimism. Even if it doesn't work, at least someone is trying something crazy and out there. A.I. cars were a DARPA pipedream less than a decade back. Welcome to the future, bitches. If all DARPA Challenges hit viable solutions this quickly, we'd have freaking androids before my kids graduate High School
The thing about Piracy is, the people who pirate are not people who would have paid for it in the first place.
Yes and no. I pirated a copy (*ahem*allegedly) because I couldn't be bothered to show up 3+ hours early to sit on a sticky floor in the theatre hallway. I love the comics, love the movie, love Joss Whedon's work... but all of that couldn't compete with convenience of pirating, instead of marinating in the BO of whatever neckbeards WERE willing to sit on a sticky floor all afternoon. If pirating wasn't an option, well I probably would just gird my loins, and deal with the opening weekend BS. So pirating did (allegedly) lose them at least one sale on opening weekend: me.
However. I will still see the movie in theatres. Just not opening weekend. I have every intention of plopping down my $10-15 and getting my Avenger on. Hell, I'll probably see it 2 or 3 times.
Semi- offtopic, but I agree. Mark Ruffalo is perfect in the role. He and RDJ played the Banner/Stark dynamic perfectly (though I suspect Joss helped there)
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Any AI Cars that join the ranks won't be in addition to other cars, they'll be INSTEAD of other cars. Google isn't going to just put a million empty cars out cruising the roads for kicks.
Besides, there's already 200 million licensed drivers in the US, and well over 250 million cars on the US roads. If/when a couple thousand AI Cars get added to the mix, it'll be such a minor addition that you'd likely never even see one.
"Brainwashed into insanity" is probably a better descriptor, but you are correct: a very large portion of the civilian population over there does not have the basic mental capacity to say, "I disagree with you, but that's ok. I don't want to kill you for it."
While I don't share the paranoid viewpoints of some, your argument fails from the outset. Google may not be holding a gun to my head, but a poorly designed AI car can certainly cause as much damage as a pistol (if not more) Let alone the damage that could be caused if poorly designed AI cars achieve fleet numbers.
That said, I trust Google on this one (well, Google plus the powers that be along the approval process) Putting out a shoddy product in this venture would cause a Torches and Pitchforks riot the likes of which haven't been seen in my lifetime. And Google knows it.
What version do you think it's in currently? They've they've clocked nearly 150k miles on this system. For reference, that's over 50 trips from San Fran to NY, NY.
Or if you'd prefer, about 20 complete laps around the perimeter of the lower 48.
I imagine that if this tech ever becomes mainstream, and whole slew of new laws will have to be put in place. From sleeping/drinking at the wheel, to the current ban on cell phones in most states.
If anything, I'd suspect that sleeping, drinking and anything else that incapacitates you will still be illegal, but anything from which you could recover quickly (talking, texting, reading, etc) would be allowed, with provisions for "in case of emergency, drop the phone and drive manually."
A more accurate analogy would be: McDonald's owning all the cows and charging you $20 for a crappy burger... then getting all indignant when people want to just buy some beef and make a burger on their own.
Internet, in the simple "connected to the web" sense of the word, is basic ingredients. It's the ground beef, if you will. From that basic ingredient you can deliver something for people to consume. As it stands, one single company controls the ingredients and the end product, and that company is using their monopoly to strong arm any competition out of the market.
So your argument, set to my corrected analogy would read more like: Why should McDonald's sell meat to Jack in the Box, when it will be used to make slightly-better hamburgers and get people to drop their McD's habit? And the answer is the same to both the real question and the analogy: Because McDonald's/Comcast is fucking NASTY.
And to take the concept even closer to reality, expand the monopoly beyond simply hamburgers. Imagine if one company controlled ALL of the farms and foodstuffs in a given locale. One company had exclusive rights to every single meat, grain, vegetable and dairy product in your city, and this same company had a chain of restaurants which sold the product. How easy would it be for that company to offer a sub-par product at exorbitant prices? And how quickly would that business model get shot down?
Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.
The passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 would raise their hands, but they died proving you wrong.
Speaking for the living: There's a pretty famous group here in the US that literally signed up to do EXACTLY what you've described; stand against all threats, foreign and domestic, giving our lives if necessary to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We're called the Military, perhaps you've heard of us. Chances are good that at least one of us is on that plane somewhere, and we will do what is needed if you won't.
Unless a government mandate forces you to install "super-glass" in all your current windows, I think you'll be safe to ponder the meaning of life with your children as beads of rainwater streak down the glass.
Or, worst case, they'll just make a "rainy day" channel for your TV... kinda how there's a yule log channel around the holidays.
Here we have a nice article about one certain school becoming too tightly focused, and perhaps overspecialized... conveniently ignoring "sports" schools which are a complete farce as degree granting institutions.
At least Standford is dealing with marketable, long-term job creating fields. If you think they need to tweak their focus a bit, that's fair. But if you're really interested in improving the collegiate scene as a whole I'd start with the students who are lined up for the picking this Thursday (that would be the NFL Draft, for those not in the know)
Actually, "they" don't have more guns. Especially when you define exactly who "they" are.
Are they corporate fat cats? CEOs, corrupt politicians, hedge fund babies, etc? Because they are citizens with the exact same rights to guns as I do (if, perhaps, more capital with which to stockpile)
Are they the US military? As a member of that little club, I don't feel very "they." And I can assure you that disillusionment with the status quo isn't something upon which civilians have a monopoly. We follow orders, for now... but as soon as those orders involve us turning against the American populace (i.e. our friends and families) the lines between "we" and "they" become much more blurry.
But the one thing 'they' will never have is numbers. Sheer unstoppable numbers. The US Military has just under 1.5 million active members combined between all 4 branches, with another 1.5 million in reserve. Total US population is well over 300 million. If only 1% of all civilians decide to rebel, they'd have the military outnumbered 2:1 *BEFORE* accounting for any military members who throw down arms and refuse to attack their own families. If 2% or even just 5% of the civilian populace took up arms for a revolution... that puts the ratio at 10:1 in favor of "we."
.
They might have bigger guns, and better training... but more guns they certainly do not have.
You know, now that I think about it... that just might work. Maybe make it a 2/3 majority requirement. If any politician's approval rating gets below ~33%, and you get X number of petition signatures for their removal... hold a "special election" and kick em out
I think it answers GratefulNet's question too: Money
Any turd politician who can run a good campaign for a few months would show their true colors in office, get the boot, and be out the umpteen millions they spent on campaigning. Big business would think twice about who they bankroll knowing that all that funding could be for naught if they back a slimeball who won't last a full term. I would also imagine that it might be a tad difficult to get a job in the civilian sector with "kicked out of public office" on your CV.
Slashdot Mirror
Harder to notice was that the person at the wheel was not actually driving.
The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves
seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control
At the point when the article was written 18 months ago, they'd already clocked all those miles, in secret, lending credence to the notion that they enjoy anonymity in this affair. There was slightly more fanfare for the current announcement, simply because they're getting a much bigger sandbox to play in. One does not post a million dollar insurance bond for the entire state of Nevada without someone taking notice.
Also, if you'll look at the full picture of the test vehicle you'll easily see that a minimalist approach was taken to the modifications. The camera on the roof and off-center license plate are the only real hints that something is amiss. And with Google already known for cars with cameras on top, the camera atop the G'car looks rather subdued. As for the rest of your strawman about "a poorly disguised car with no driver," the picture at the top of the article was obviously a mock-up for the photo-op. They've said quite clearly that every test was conducted with both a driver and passenger.
Anyone with a functioning brain should realize that TSA is a giant waste of money, unless you have stock in a nail-clipper supply company.
Every terror plot that has been averted since 9/11, was averted by passengers. Underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc... all thwarted by civilians who won't tolerate that shit anymore.
You're on the wrong side of the scale, mate. You're talking about weight lifters and athletes who register as false-positives for obesity.
The article is about people coming in UNDER weight, and I've never seen any false-positives on that end. Using myself as an example (I'm 6'2") I would have to weigh less than 140lbs to register as "underweight." My GF standing 5'3" would be in double-digits to fail the criteria.
For any metric lovers: at 1.9m, I would have to weigh 63kg or more to pass this criteria. A 1.6m person would need a mere 47kg. TFA doesn't say anything about upper limits on the BMI
Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. Check the post to which you replied. Pay careful attention for a sentence starting with "I base this assumption on ..." and you might have your answer.
Now I see where our assumptions differ. You assume that Google will emblazon their G'cars (as I will call them) with stickers: "AI CAR!! LOOK MA NO HANDS! WOO HOO," and put some geeky references like "Pod Bay Doors" and "I'm afraid I can't do that"
Where I assume the opposite: that Google will take every possible option to minimize the existence of these cars for as long as possible. I base this assumption on their track record. Though, the cat is a bit outta the bag now, so my assumption might not hold up. If anything, I think the biggest danger around these cars is just that: around these cars. The cars themselves could be perfectly safe, and would still cause plenty of accidents and traffic jams as rubbernecks try to sneak a peak.
Your 'logic' assumes all humans drive exactly the same (we don't), and that all AI cars were a distinct departure requiring a vastly different protocol for working amongst (they don't).
As far as I can tell, from the perspective of a fellow motorist, the only two differences between this car and any other vehicle on the road are the drivers' hands not being on the wheel (which I see every day anyway) and the additional sensors (which might be a little distracting but no moreso than a normal car with anything on a roof-rack.) Are there other factors I'm missing? Is there something a Google'mobile does that the average sedan cannot? Do the brake lights and turn signals operate differently? Does it read and react to street signs and stop lights differently than a human?
End result: really, we'll just have to wait and see. But while some people express concern, distrust and general FUD, I approach this concept from a perspective of optimism. Even if it doesn't work, at least someone is trying something crazy and out there. A.I. cars were a DARPA pipedream less than a decade back. Welcome to the future, bitches. If all DARPA Challenges hit viable solutions this quickly, we'd have freaking androids before my kids graduate High School
... the secret is out!
Mr. Tigger, you may not want to answer that knock at your door. The men in white coats are NOT YOUR FRIENDS! THEY ARE FULL OF LIES AND...
ohhh, the meds are kicking in... yaaaaay
The thing about Piracy is, the people who pirate are not people who would have paid for it in the first place.
Yes and no. I pirated a copy (*ahem*allegedly) because I couldn't be bothered to show up 3+ hours early to sit on a sticky floor in the theatre hallway. I love the comics, love the movie, love Joss Whedon's work ... but all of that couldn't compete with convenience of pirating, instead of marinating in the BO of whatever neckbeards WERE willing to sit on a sticky floor all afternoon. If pirating wasn't an option, well I probably would just gird my loins, and deal with the opening weekend BS. So pirating did (allegedly) lose them at least one sale on opening weekend: me.
However. I will still see the movie in theatres. Just not opening weekend. I have every intention of plopping down my $10-15 and getting my Avenger on. Hell, I'll probably see it 2 or 3 times.
Semi- offtopic, but I agree. Mark Ruffalo is perfect in the role. He and RDJ played the Banner/Stark dynamic perfectly (though I suspect Joss helped there)
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Any AI Cars that join the ranks won't be in addition to other cars, they'll be INSTEAD of other cars. Google isn't going to just put a million empty cars out cruising the roads for kicks.
Besides, there's already 200 million licensed drivers in the US, and well over 250 million cars on the US roads. If/when a couple thousand AI Cars get added to the mix, it'll be such a minor addition that you'd likely never even see one.
I think a million google'mobiles will have a much better track record than a million humans.
"Brainwashed into insanity" is probably a better descriptor, but you are correct: a very large portion of the civilian population over there does not have the basic mental capacity to say, "I disagree with you, but that's ok. I don't want to kill you for it."
While I don't share the paranoid viewpoints of some, your argument fails from the outset. Google may not be holding a gun to my head, but a poorly designed AI car can certainly cause as much damage as a pistol (if not more) Let alone the damage that could be caused if poorly designed AI cars achieve fleet numbers.
That said, I trust Google on this one (well, Google plus the powers that be along the approval process) Putting out a shoddy product in this venture would cause a Torches and Pitchforks riot the likes of which haven't been seen in my lifetime. And Google knows it.
What version do you think it's in currently? They've they've clocked nearly 150k miles on this system. For reference, that's over 50 trips from San Fran to NY, NY.
Or if you'd prefer, about 20 complete laps around the perimeter of the lower 48.
I imagine that if this tech ever becomes mainstream, and whole slew of new laws will have to be put in place. From sleeping/drinking at the wheel, to the current ban on cell phones in most states.
If anything, I'd suspect that sleeping, drinking and anything else that incapacitates you will still be illegal, but anything from which you could recover quickly (talking, texting, reading, etc) would be allowed, with provisions for "in case of emergency, drop the phone and drive manually."
Having seen the way most humans drive, I trust the Google'mobile much more than my bio-brethren.
http://projecthexapod.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Stompy-Isometric.png Picture (well, mock-up) via google image search
A more accurate analogy would be: McDonald's owning all the cows and charging you $20 for a crappy burger... then getting all indignant when people want to just buy some beef and make a burger on their own.
Internet, in the simple "connected to the web" sense of the word, is basic ingredients. It's the ground beef, if you will. From that basic ingredient you can deliver something for people to consume. As it stands, one single company controls the ingredients and the end product, and that company is using their monopoly to strong arm any competition out of the market.
So your argument, set to my corrected analogy would read more like: Why should McDonald's sell meat to Jack in the Box, when it will be used to make slightly-better hamburgers and get people to drop their McD's habit? And the answer is the same to both the real question and the analogy: Because McDonald's/Comcast is fucking NASTY.
And to take the concept even closer to reality, expand the monopoly beyond simply hamburgers. Imagine if one company controlled ALL of the farms and foodstuffs in a given locale. One company had exclusive rights to every single meat, grain, vegetable and dairy product in your city, and this same company had a chain of restaurants which sold the product. How easy would it be for that company to offer a sub-par product at exorbitant prices? And how quickly would that business model get shot down?
Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.
The passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 would raise their hands, but they died proving you wrong.
Speaking for the living: There's a pretty famous group here in the US that literally signed up to do EXACTLY what you've described; stand against all threats, foreign and domestic, giving our lives if necessary to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We're called the Military, perhaps you've heard of us. Chances are good that at least one of us is on that plane somewhere, and we will do what is needed if you won't.
*raises hand*
Unless a government mandate forces you to install "super-glass" in all your current windows, I think you'll be safe to ponder the meaning of life with your children as beads of rainwater streak down the glass.
Or, worst case, they'll just make a "rainy day" channel for your TV... kinda how there's a yule log channel around the holidays.
Here we have a nice article about one certain school becoming too tightly focused, and perhaps overspecialized... conveniently ignoring "sports" schools which are a complete farce as degree granting institutions.
At least Standford is dealing with marketable, long-term job creating fields. If you think they need to tweak their focus a bit, that's fair. But if you're really interested in improving the collegiate scene as a whole I'd start with the students who are lined up for the picking this Thursday (that would be the NFL Draft, for those not in the know)
Actually, "they" don't have more guns. Especially when you define exactly who "they" are.
Are they corporate fat cats? CEOs, corrupt politicians, hedge fund babies, etc? Because they are citizens with the exact same rights to guns as I do (if, perhaps, more capital with which to stockpile)
Are they the US military? As a member of that little club, I don't feel very "they." And I can assure you that disillusionment with the status quo isn't something upon which civilians have a monopoly. We follow orders, for now... but as soon as those orders involve us turning against the American populace (i.e. our friends and families) the lines between "we" and "they" become much more blurry.
But the one thing 'they' will never have is numbers. Sheer unstoppable numbers. The US Military has just under 1.5 million active members combined between all 4 branches, with another 1.5 million in reserve. Total US population is well over 300 million. If only 1% of all civilians decide to rebel, they'd have the military outnumbered 2:1 *BEFORE* accounting for any military members who throw down arms and refuse to attack their own families. If 2% or even just 5% of the civilian populace took up arms for a revolution... that puts the ratio at 10:1 in favor of "we."
.
They might have bigger guns, and better training... but more guns they certainly do not have.
I was leaning towards Digi-Duck.. But BitLoon does have a nice ring to it.
You know, now that I think about it ... that just might work. Maybe make it a 2/3 majority requirement. If any politician's approval rating gets below ~33%, and you get X number of petition signatures for their removal... hold a "special election" and kick em out
I think it answers GratefulNet's question too: Money
Any turd politician who can run a good campaign for a few months would show their true colors in office, get the boot, and be out the umpteen millions they spent on campaigning. Big business would think twice about who they bankroll knowing that all that funding could be for naught if they back a slimeball who won't last a full term. I would also imagine that it might be a tad difficult to get a job in the civilian sector with "kicked out of public office" on your CV.
I was actually referring to the current Governor of California.
Hint: It's not Ahnold anymore.