Yes, you've said that you're against any and all progress, and that we should not save any lives unless we save all the lives. You've also stated that one idiot doing something stupid behind the wheel proves that the manufacturer did something wrong, while ignoring the fact that many many idiots do something stupid behind the wheel in other vehicles on a daily basis and yet all the other manufacturers aren't dragged through the mud daily about it.
So far I see you as spreading large amounts of FUD with no basis in facts.
The supporters have provided their statistics. If you want to question them, why don't you provide statistics that prove otherwise? Instead all you're providing is FUD.
Not to mention that 1 death is hardly statistically significant out of the thousands upon thousands of driving fatalities.
So far we know that Autopilot is a safety suite of driver assistance features. We also know that this driver used it inappropriately. Unless your assertion is that nobody else has ever done inappropriate things behind the wheel, there's certainly no reason to think this proves Tesla to be doing anything wrong.
I don't think you're good at risk calculations... you don't sacrifice anyone, you only save some. Maybe you don't save everyone because not everyone gets one, but that doesn't put anyone else at any higher risk than they're at right now.
There's literally no downside at all. There's only some people that don't get the upside, they're no worse off than they are now, and arguably even they're better off because the other car is less likely to collide with them even if they do nothing different.
As for "mass market" I quoted the average price of a new car, you want better, I don't know how you expect to achieve that, but the one thing we DO know is that new technologies always start at the top end, and work their way downmarket.
If you can't afford more than $10K, you're looking at a used car anyway, so that $35,000 car will be the $10,000 car in a few years, should we not improve that car now just because we aren't also retrofitting ones from 10 years ago? Or should we cheer for the improvements that are hitting the high end now, knowing that both the lower end, and the used cars, will benefit from it over time.
So your argument, yet again, is that because it will never be 100%, we shouldn't try at all?
If we save 1 life over not having it, it's good to have. Not saving another life doesn't mean that the system is a disaster, it just means there's still room to make it even better.
As for not being available to the masses, sure it will be. When? How about next year? It'll be available on the $35,000 Model 3 to be released next year, and undoubtedly over time it will migrate down to even cheaper cars (though the average sale price of a new car is $32,000, so there's a good argument that the $35,000 car is "mass adoption")
This is no different than every other technology ever invented. They start off being expensive, and over time become cheaper.
except that you have to subject yourself to the noise of others around, often sub-optimal seating, uncomfortable volume levels, sticky floors/seats, inability to pick your own times, etc.
Sure, it's not as bad as some places, but it still can't beat a decent home setup.
I can have date night with my wife at home. Ship our daughter off to her grandma's place, make homemade pizza, and popcorn, and put a movie on.
So far ALL the evidence shows that autopilot DOES work with human psychology just as well as autopilot. More people have been killed using cruise control than on autopilot.
Their solution right now is SAVING LIVES. it should be mandatory in all vehicles if you use soley that argument.
Tesla has not released a self driving car, have not advertised one, and will not release one until it is 10 times as safe as human drivers (per their statements)
Unfortunately 10 times, or 100 times aren't good enough for you. You'd rather keep killing thousands and thousands of people because that's better than killing one person if you personally can't understand why autopilot and autonomous are completely different words with completely different meanings.
Right now, many homes have theatre setups that produce a far better experience than the theatre. Big screen TVs coupled with good surround sound systems are ubiquitous, the furniture is usually more comfortable, and you place yourself in the optimal viewing position. You have full control of the volume level, the start time, and can pause for bathroom or snack breaks. You also get to chose who you share the experience with.
The ONLY selling feature theatres have left is that impatient people can't wait, and insist on seeing it in theatre because the studios refuse to release it anywhere else until they've made their fortune in the theatre.
If people can get the movie at home, without the ridiculously long wait, theatres are doomed.
Most likely, Tesla will work on it's image processing to try to better capture this particular situation. AND the car doesn't have the hardware to do self driving.
Luckily, nobody has ever claimed that the current hardware could do self driving.
Of course you didn't talk at all about "handling the current situation" you talked about "self driving" which isn't actually related at all.
Having a 'cruise control' that sometimes drives except when it doesn't is too much of a gray area.
This is no different.
Autopilot NEVER drives, EVER. it's a driver assist feature, no different from cruise control. It adds incredible amounts of safety when used properly (which the vast majority of Tesla drivers do, as proved by the fact that only one has managed to kill himself so far) People like you would have lobbied for the automobile to be banned when it first came out. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.
As for deaths, Autopilot has statistically saved more lives than have died, and so far, the only person to die fully deserved it because he was an idiot and watched a DVD while driving. he would have died even faster in any other car ever made (and yes, people in other cars try the same stupid stunts, so that's not unique to the Tesla either)
I wonder how many people have died in a Mercedes while their system was operating? or Volvo? or BMW? I bet they aren't accident free either, but Tesla is the only one people focus on, even though it's the best and safest system of any out there.
You'd think that google, when communicating out a URL, would be able to at least put up a "coming soon" page. Or is that really too difficult for such a small software shop to figure out?
Except that reducing the speed of a collision is not the same as reducing the speed limit, and that a collision at 70mph vs 65mph, is pretty much equally survivable as they're both an awful lot of force. At a certain point adding more force isn't really a factor anymore as you can't be "more dead"
Fatality rates have ALSO dropped when speed limits have increased, or stayed the same. The thing is, fatality rates are dropping pretty much universally, claiming decreasing speed limits saved lives while ignoring the lives saved in the next county over that increased their speed limits is ignoring all the other things going on. your footnote of "seatbelt, airbags, etc., also helped..." is exactly the point. there have been tons and tons of safety improvements in vehicles, there have also been huge improvements in trauma medicine, all of which have reduced fatalities so much that a few mph here and there is basically irrelevant, even if people did follow those rules.
The link to the feature in the article and summary give me a "not found" from google, and all searching I can do turns up the same thing, or articles from google pointing me to non-existent menu settings in the play store app on my phone.
I'm saying that collision avoidance is the responsibility of the driver, not the car. Which is exactly what's been communicated in all the marketing material, the manual, the presentation that drivers have to go through at delivery, the dialog they accept when they enable the feature in the settings, the warning that pops up every single time you activate the feature, and every few minutes while driving if it detects you've removed your hands from the wheel.
Autopilot on any other vehicle will happily crash in to anything in it's path, why do you think Tesla should be held to a different standard?
Yes, the car does try not to kill you, but it's your job to make sure it succeeds.
Using a password vault seems logical, except that any such vault is a huge target for hackers. Certainly any vault in the cloud is just a disaster waiting to happen.
And therein lies the problem. For a password vault to work, there has to be a way to access it. To secure it you need something like a password. So now you have one password that gets you in to the password vault, which then has the passwords for everything else.
This is no more secure than just using that same password on every site, in fact it's probably less secure as you now have one more site that can be compromised.
Then why give all your passwords to a third party in the first place? Seems like this is pretty much the expected outcome.
You're not supposed to use the same password on multiple sites, because if someone gets access to that password, they get access to all the other sites too. Thing is, by putting all your passwords in a keyvault behind a single password, you've done exactly the same thing!
If I'm going to make my passwords vulnerable by having one password that will get in to multiple sites, I'll do it the old fashioned way and use that password on those sites. It will be more secure than adding yet another website to be compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you've said that you're against any and all progress, and that we should not save any lives unless we save all the lives. You've also stated that one idiot doing something stupid behind the wheel proves that the manufacturer did something wrong, while ignoring the fact that many many idiots do something stupid behind the wheel in other vehicles on a daily basis and yet all the other manufacturers aren't dragged through the mud daily about it.
So far I see you as spreading large amounts of FUD with no basis in facts.
The supporters have provided their statistics. If you want to question them, why don't you provide statistics that prove otherwise? Instead all you're providing is FUD.
Not to mention that 1 death is hardly statistically significant out of the thousands upon thousands of driving fatalities.
So far we know that Autopilot is a safety suite of driver assistance features. We also know that this driver used it inappropriately. Unless your assertion is that nobody else has ever done inappropriate things behind the wheel, there's certainly no reason to think this proves Tesla to be doing anything wrong.
Good thing the high end cars never added seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. Those would never have benefited the "average" person.
Every technology starts at the high end, and improves and moves downmarket over time.
You'd be lobbying to ban the wheel if it were invented today.
Except that your base assumption has been proven incorrect.
They ARE proven safer than a human and not contributing to problems.
I don't think you're good at risk calculations... you don't sacrifice anyone, you only save some. Maybe you don't save everyone because not everyone gets one, but that doesn't put anyone else at any higher risk than they're at right now.
There's literally no downside at all. There's only some people that don't get the upside, they're no worse off than they are now, and arguably even they're better off because the other car is less likely to collide with them even if they do nothing different.
As for "mass market" I quoted the average price of a new car, you want better, I don't know how you expect to achieve that, but the one thing we DO know is that new technologies always start at the top end, and work their way downmarket.
If you can't afford more than $10K, you're looking at a used car anyway, so that $35,000 car will be the $10,000 car in a few years, should we not improve that car now just because we aren't also retrofitting ones from 10 years ago? Or should we cheer for the improvements that are hitting the high end now, knowing that both the lower end, and the used cars, will benefit from it over time.
So your argument, yet again, is that because it will never be 100%, we shouldn't try at all?
If we save 1 life over not having it, it's good to have. Not saving another life doesn't mean that the system is a disaster, it just means there's still room to make it even better.
As for not being available to the masses, sure it will be. When? How about next year? It'll be available on the $35,000 Model 3 to be released next year, and undoubtedly over time it will migrate down to even cheaper cars (though the average sale price of a new car is $32,000, so there's a good argument that the $35,000 car is "mass adoption")
This is no different than every other technology ever invented. They start off being expensive, and over time become cheaper.
except that you have to subject yourself to the noise of others around, often sub-optimal seating, uncomfortable volume levels, sticky floors/seats, inability to pick your own times, etc.
Sure, it's not as bad as some places, but it still can't beat a decent home setup.
I can have date night with my wife at home. Ship our daughter off to her grandma's place, make homemade pizza, and popcorn, and put a movie on.
If you can decrypt it using a password, so can they. If you can't, you might as well use a random number generator instead of a keystore.
So far ALL the evidence shows that autopilot DOES work with human psychology just as well as autopilot. More people have been killed using cruise control than on autopilot.
Their solution right now is SAVING LIVES. it should be mandatory in all vehicles if you use soley that argument.
Tesla has not released a self driving car, have not advertised one, and will not release one until it is 10 times as safe as human drivers (per their statements)
Unfortunately 10 times, or 100 times aren't good enough for you. You'd rather keep killing thousands and thousands of people because that's better than killing one person if you personally can't understand why autopilot and autonomous are completely different words with completely different meanings.
Right now, many homes have theatre setups that produce a far better experience than the theatre. Big screen TVs coupled with good surround sound systems are ubiquitous, the furniture is usually more comfortable, and you place yourself in the optimal viewing position. You have full control of the volume level, the start time, and can pause for bathroom or snack breaks. You also get to chose who you share the experience with.
The ONLY selling feature theatres have left is that impatient people can't wait, and insist on seeing it in theatre because the studios refuse to release it anywhere else until they've made their fortune in the theatre.
If people can get the movie at home, without the ridiculously long wait, theatres are doomed.
Both can fully be true.
Most likely, Tesla will work on it's image processing to try to better capture this particular situation. AND the car doesn't have the hardware to do self driving.
Luckily, nobody has ever claimed that the current hardware could do self driving.
Of course you didn't talk at all about "handling the current situation" you talked about "self driving" which isn't actually related at all.
Having a 'cruise control' that sometimes drives except when it doesn't is too much of a gray area.
This is no different.
Autopilot NEVER drives, EVER. it's a driver assist feature, no different from cruise control. It adds incredible amounts of safety when used properly (which the vast majority of Tesla drivers do, as proved by the fact that only one has managed to kill himself so far)
People like you would have lobbied for the automobile to be banned when it first came out. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.
As for deaths, Autopilot has statistically saved more lives than have died, and so far, the only person to die fully deserved it because he was an idiot and watched a DVD while driving. he would have died even faster in any other car ever made (and yes, people in other cars try the same stupid stunts, so that's not unique to the Tesla either)
I wonder how many people have died in a Mercedes while their system was operating? or Volvo? or BMW? I bet they aren't accident free either, but Tesla is the only one people focus on, even though it's the best and safest system of any out there.
Careful, Apple has sued for less...
So they communicate out the URL, before they put anything there? Isn't that kind of marketing 101 type stuff?
You'd think that google, when communicating out a URL, would be able to at least put up a "coming soon" page. Or is that really too difficult for such a small software shop to figure out?
That link works, but has absolutely nothing about family in it.
Except that reducing the speed of a collision is not the same as reducing the speed limit, and that a collision at 70mph vs 65mph, is pretty much equally survivable as they're both an awful lot of force. At a certain point adding more force isn't really a factor anymore as you can't be "more dead"
Fatality rates have ALSO dropped when speed limits have increased, or stayed the same. The thing is, fatality rates are dropping pretty much universally, claiming decreasing speed limits saved lives while ignoring the lives saved in the next county over that increased their speed limits is ignoring all the other things going on.
your footnote of "seatbelt, airbags, etc., also helped..." is exactly the point. there have been tons and tons of safety improvements in vehicles, there have also been huge improvements in trauma medicine, all of which have reduced fatalities so much that a few mph here and there is basically irrelevant, even if people did follow those rules.
The link to the feature in the article and summary give me a "not found" from google, and all searching I can do turns up the same thing, or articles from google pointing me to non-existent menu settings in the play store app on my phone.
I'm saying that collision avoidance is the responsibility of the driver, not the car. Which is exactly what's been communicated in all the marketing material, the manual, the presentation that drivers have to go through at delivery, the dialog they accept when they enable the feature in the settings, the warning that pops up every single time you activate the feature, and every few minutes while driving if it detects you've removed your hands from the wheel.
Autopilot on any other vehicle will happily crash in to anything in it's path, why do you think Tesla should be held to a different standard?
Yes, the car does try not to kill you, but it's your job to make sure it succeeds.
So, as I suspected, there's no reason to have the cloud portion, you're better off just having the passwords stored locally as it's MUCH more secure.
But this site DOESN'T keep it local, and that's exactly the point.
Your cruise control will also run in to trucks without giving a warning. DISABLE IT!!!!!!!
News flash, all systems used for things they weren't designed to do, have a risk of not doing them.
Your air conditioner or stereo wouldn't have stopped the crash either, and they're just as much expected to drive your car for you as auto-pilot is.
If you have to have a file on your local drive, what's the benefit to the cloud portion?
And if the cloud portion allows you to download the file you need locally to a new machine, what's the benefit to the file on the local machine?
I'm sorry, one way or the other it's a stupid idea.
Keeping all the passwords the same is not smart.
Using a password vault seems logical, except that any such vault is a huge target for hackers. Certainly any vault in the cloud is just a disaster waiting to happen.
And therein lies the problem.
For a password vault to work, there has to be a way to access it. To secure it you need something like a password. So now you have one password that gets you in to the password vault, which then has the passwords for everything else.
This is no more secure than just using that same password on every site, in fact it's probably less secure as you now have one more site that can be compromised.
Then why give all your passwords to a third party in the first place? Seems like this is pretty much the expected outcome.
You're not supposed to use the same password on multiple sites, because if someone gets access to that password, they get access to all the other sites too. Thing is, by putting all your passwords in a keyvault behind a single password, you've done exactly the same thing!
If I'm going to make my passwords vulnerable by having one password that will get in to multiple sites, I'll do it the old fashioned way and use that password on those sites. It will be more secure than adding yet another website to be compromised.