What it does is takes those mind-numbing jobs, away.
And replaces them with mind-numbing jobs that can be done by people in third-world countries for 15% of what you're making.
Well done, technology.
I know you are being sarcastic, but if you look at technology as a solution for all humans, not just the wealthy white people, then yes, it has done the most wonderful job of lifting most humans out of poverty.
There actually are a couple of people commenting here that were making exactly that argument, that driving is far too complicated to be successfully automated.
Where? I'm sure a robot can be taught to drive a car, but it's whole other argument as to whether it's viable to become mainstream (you know things like public acceptance, politics, impact to traffic, restriction of personal freedom, cost etc)
Safety is, however, one of the primary concerns with transportation technology.
One of, but not the only. And of all the other concerns this concept fails miserably.
We don't have actual details, but I expect this will cost more, go slower and be more restrictive. Hardly the things that sell cars.
Several also suggested that the helmet would make some of the more types of car occupant injuries worse, for example, the added weight of the helmet would make whiplash and non-impact brain injuries worse.
I can't find the exact study, but recall reading something a while ago that said a headband (similar to a lightweight cycle helmet but only fits around the sides of the head rather than the full face like a motorcycle helmet would improve safety. Whiplash can also be prevented with compulsory neck braces, just like race car drivers use.
We also know that reducing speed in accidents reduces injury, so we could make the speed limits ridiculously low.
The point here, that safety is not the only concern since these solutions already exist but aren't implemented.
On the one hand, automated cars should reduce the number of accidents and that should reduce congestion problems (of course, the convenience may induce additional congestion),
This is my main sticking point. They probably could reduce accidents overall, if everyone has one. But that is a big if, because not everyone will want one.
I can't ever imagine they will be faster, since they will have to err on cautious, whereas most humans already speed and run risks in the name of saving a few minutes.
And based on my own personal experience of having a similar capability. I have regular, reliable public transport at my door, which goes most places I want to go - ie what a robot car offers, or I can ride my motorbike. I choose to ride my bike. It's less safe, more fun, and much quicker. I'm sure I'm not the only person that has similar choices.
on the other hand automated buses and trains seem like an obvious application of the autonomous vehicle technology, I don't think anyone is specifically excluding them.
No, but no-one likes to talk about it because it isn't as Sci-fi/George Jetson as Robot cars. I think robot transport is inevitable. We already have automated trains, elevators, escalators etc, but whether this automation will extend to personal transport, ie the thing that people are most emotionally attached to because of the feeling of freedom it gives, I think is another argument altogether.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Or the previous decade.
Here's the rankings of warmest from the decade
2015 - 1st
2014 - 2nd
2013 - 4th
2012 - 8th
2011 - 11th
2010 -3rd . . .
All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record.
Agreed. Once you purchase something with your hard-earned money it should be "yours". You determine if you want to keep it forever or bequeath it to another.
There's a chance that warrantless wiretaps will become a thing again as long as the general public doesn't understand how their privacy is being violated.
About a quarter of American's don't even know that radio waves make cell phones work.
That's why we have the ACLU , EFF etc.
Since you feel so strongly about this, I'm sure you'll be happy to donate to the cause.
Everything is always a conspiracy around here.
Or maybe the DoD identified a gap in their technology strategy and decided to do something about it? It's hardly like Schmidt is the wrong guy for this type of role is it>
Of are the govt really lizards who want to eat your babies?
No, it's that with robot cars, those options exist to improve safety, if people want to use them, and with human cars they don't exist at all.
So how is the road death rate reducing then? Magic fairies?
The US could reduce it even further with mandatory seat belts and helmets, but if you can't even get that across the line, how will you force people into robot cars?
Without any of the communication between cars and pedestrians/animals, safety and speed would still be improved, just not by as much.
I'm yet to see any evidence of this whatsoever. Sure I can imagine a robot car could be safer in some areas, simply by being over cautious. But it can't be faster and legal.
Given that cars are currently required to have lights/horns/license plates, it's likely that robot cars would be required to communicate as well.
Just like how Google tracks everything I do? Yeah no thanks...
Well, maybe not Google, but the car manufacturer... just as most manufacturers provide complementary roadside service under warranty.
And you know who they use for that service? The AAA guy just puts on a different shirt.
They'll probably know before you do that the car is in trouble, so they may even have a replacement car in-route.
For Free?
And if you buy into the whole shared-car mentality, all you need is that replacement car, you can just leave the broken down car on the side of the road and someone can pick it up later.
For Free?
Even if it breaks down in a traffic lane, no one will run into it because every car will automatically receive traffic updates that warn it about traffic hazards like that.
Hang on. We're a LONG way from one robot car that works to every single vehicle being a robot cars. And it doesn't take into account vandalism either.
And since we've established that more than zero people don't want a robot car, this scenario is pure fantasy.
The minister is doing this on behalf of his friends in the content industry. That's the biggest problem with it - the conclusion that it's a problem was drawn because it's bad for his friends.
Or, all the opposing views didn't even bother to write to their MP because they are too lazy. Democracy is biased toward those who put in effort, you can't complain if your effort is confined solely to bitching on Internet forums.
WTF are you smoking? Would you care to explain how she is gonna "present a facade of security and reliability" when they can literally make an hour long infomercial of her
As I said already, elections are won by people with the most votes, not the most hates. You can hate on GWB, or Obama, or Hillary all you like, but these people win because they have the most support.
The wager is still open. I don't think Hillary will when because she's the best candidate, she'll win because she has all the elements needed to win an election.
I'm aware of that. But don't you find it absurd that this is the case?
Perhaps if the car had been invented in the 18th century it too would be in the Constitution? After all, what use is a well armed militia with no mechanised transport?
Are you willing to bet your house that in a simulator you will be able to detect all relevant vehicles and obstacles better...
No because I live in real life, not a simulator. And in real life I will detect a sandbag and a bus 100% of the time, while it's obvious the google car doesn't.
Feel free to send me the deeds to your house whenever you are ready...
But this absolutely does NOT mean that a reasonable person wouldn't still yield that right for self-preservation and an AV can certainly be programmed with the same logic.
Yet here we are, google car crashing into a bus....
You fail to understand the nuisances of the question.
Problem 1) Everyone THINKS they are a good/above average driver. Therefore 75% of the population doesn't want to let a car drive them.
With you so far. And living in a free country means people should be allowed to have those opinions.
but 50% of the population is a BELOW average driver. That means that at best, 25% of the population that are below average drivers, wrongly think they are good drivers and said they would rather drive themselves. My question was designed to make people overcome their own arrogance and think about bad drivers.
Is being below average, whatever that actually means, enough to restrict an individual's freedom? That should be the real question.
If we can't even force people to wear seat belts, do you think forcing them into robot cars is a viable solution?
Problem 2) You are wrong about most people not having those requirements. While most people are not a 17 year old, nor are they a 71 year old, most people HAVE a 17 year old kid or a 71 year old relative. Those that don't have a 17 year old neighbor or a 71 year old neighbor. The question is whether they want these people, who drive on the same roads as they do, to drive themselves, or to use a driverless car.
Well it happens right now and I don't see too many people complaining. I'd rather people have personal freedom than be forced to use robot cars just because nerds think they're cool.
Ever ridden a packed subway? People aren't there because they want to be. They're there because it costs less than the alternatives and it works.
I take public transport because it's the quickest way to get around. Unless this robot car comes with wings, it will still suffer the biggest issue facing every other car in a major city.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, at one time, companies didn't lay people off at the drop of a hat.
You must be too young to remember when the Railroad was invented...
Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and trust that I'm a highly qualified developer, the type these places would love to have. Why should I move?
And herein lies the problem with kids today...
Exec seems to know more about how the cloud works than guy who works in technology...
And replaces them with mind-numbing jobs that can be done by people in third-world countries for 15% of what you're making.
Well done, technology.
I know you are being sarcastic, but if you look at technology as a solution for all humans, not just the wealthy white people, then yes, it has done the most wonderful job of lifting most humans out of poverty.
There actually are a couple of people commenting here that were making exactly that argument, that driving is far too complicated to be successfully automated.
Where? I'm sure a robot can be taught to drive a car, but it's whole other argument as to whether it's viable to become mainstream (you know things like public acceptance, politics, impact to traffic, restriction of personal freedom, cost etc)
Safety is, however, one of the primary concerns with transportation technology.
One of, but not the only. And of all the other concerns this concept fails miserably.
We don't have actual details, but I expect this will cost more, go slower and be more restrictive. Hardly the things that sell cars.
Several also suggested that the helmet would make some of the more types of car occupant injuries worse, for example, the added weight of the helmet would make whiplash and non-impact brain injuries worse.
I can't find the exact study, but recall reading something a while ago that said a headband (similar to a lightweight cycle helmet but only fits around the sides of the head rather than the full face like a motorcycle helmet would improve safety. Whiplash can also be prevented with compulsory neck braces, just like race car drivers use.
We also know that reducing speed in accidents reduces injury, so we could make the speed limits ridiculously low.
The point here, that safety is not the only concern since these solutions already exist but aren't implemented.
On the one hand, automated cars should reduce the number of accidents and that should reduce congestion problems (of course, the convenience may induce additional congestion),
This is my main sticking point. They probably could reduce accidents overall, if everyone has one. But that is a big if, because not everyone will want one.
I can't ever imagine they will be faster, since they will have to err on cautious, whereas most humans already speed and run risks in the name of saving a few minutes.
And based on my own personal experience of having a similar capability. I have regular, reliable public transport at my door, which goes most places I want to go - ie what a robot car offers, or I can ride my motorbike. I choose to ride my bike. It's less safe, more fun, and much quicker. I'm sure I'm not the only person that has similar choices.
on the other hand automated buses and trains seem like an obvious application of the autonomous vehicle technology, I don't think anyone is specifically excluding them.
No, but no-one likes to talk about it because it isn't as Sci-fi/George Jetson as Robot cars. I think robot transport is inevitable. We already have automated trains, elevators, escalators etc, but whether this automation will extend to personal transport, ie the thing that people are most emotionally attached to because of the feeling of freedom it gives, I think is another argument altogether.
Ah well it must be true, it's on the internet.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Or the previous decade.
.
.
.
Here's the rankings of warmest from the decade
2015 - 1st
2014 - 2nd
2013 - 4th
2012 - 8th
2011 - 11th
2010 -3rd
All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record.
Agreed. Once you purchase something with your hard-earned money it should be "yours". You determine if you want to keep it forever or bequeath it to another.
Including slaves? (that was a joke BTW...)
There's a chance that warrantless wiretaps will become a thing again as long as the general public doesn't understand how their privacy is being violated.
About a quarter of American's don't even know that radio waves make cell phones work.
That's why we have the ACLU , EFF etc.
Since you feel so strongly about this, I'm sure you'll be happy to donate to the cause.
Everyone knows the consent is given by choosing to live in a "safe" country.
I don't know about you, but I chose to be born here...
I'm sure it says 'tech savvy', and not 'religous'...
Everything is always a conspiracy around here.
Or maybe the DoD identified a gap in their technology strategy and decided to do something about it? It's hardly like Schmidt is the wrong guy for this type of role is it>
Of are the govt really lizards who want to eat your babies?
No, it's that with robot cars, those options exist to improve safety, if people want to use them, and with human cars they don't exist at all.
So how is the road death rate reducing then? Magic fairies? The US could reduce it even further with mandatory seat belts and helmets, but if you can't even get that across the line, how will you force people into robot cars?
Without any of the communication between cars and pedestrians/animals, safety and speed would still be improved, just not by as much.
I'm yet to see any evidence of this whatsoever. Sure I can imagine a robot car could be safer in some areas, simply by being over cautious. But it can't be faster and legal.
Given that cars are currently required to have lights/horns/license plates, it's likely that robot cars would be required to communicate as well.
Just like how Google tracks everything I do? Yeah no thanks...
Well, maybe not Google, but the car manufacturer... just as most manufacturers provide complementary roadside service under warranty.
And you know who they use for that service? The AAA guy just puts on a different shirt.
They'll probably know before you do that the car is in trouble, so they may even have a replacement car in-route.
For Free?
And if you buy into the whole shared-car mentality, all you need is that replacement car, you can just leave the broken down car on the side of the road and someone can pick it up later.
For Free?
Even if it breaks down in a traffic lane, no one will run into it because every car will automatically receive traffic updates that warn it about traffic hazards like that.
Hang on. We're a LONG way from one robot car that works to every single vehicle being a robot cars. And it doesn't take into account vandalism either.
And since we've established that more than zero people don't want a robot car, this scenario is pure fantasy.
Wow. You could've chosen to debate actual points but instead you went full retard...
The minister is doing this on behalf of his friends in the content industry. That's the biggest problem with it - the conclusion that it's a problem was drawn because it's bad for his friends.
Or, all the opposing views didn't even bother to write to their MP because they are too lazy. Democracy is biased toward those who put in effort, you can't complain if your effort is confined solely to bitching on Internet forums.
I thought this was news for nerds, not news for web app developers....
WTF are you smoking? Would you care to explain how she is gonna "present a facade of security and reliability" when they can literally make an hour long infomercial of her
As I said already, elections are won by people with the most votes, not the most hates. You can hate on GWB, or Obama, or Hillary all you like, but these people win because they have the most support.
The wager is still open. I don't think Hillary will when because she's the best candidate, she'll win because she has all the elements needed to win an election.
I'm aware of that. But don't you find it absurd that this is the case?
Perhaps if the car had been invented in the 18th century it too would be in the Constitution? After all, what use is a well armed militia with no mechanised transport?
Are you willing to bet your house that in a simulator you will be able to detect all relevant vehicles and obstacles better...
No because I live in real life, not a simulator. And in real life I will detect a sandbag and a bus 100% of the time, while it's obvious the google car doesn't.
Feel free to send me the deeds to your house whenever you are ready...
This is nonsense. Neither the law nor any reasonable person would say that such a bus always has the right of way.
Except this law here you mean?
But this absolutely does NOT mean that a reasonable person wouldn't still yield that right for self-preservation and an AV can certainly be programmed with the same logic.
Yet here we are, google car crashing into a bus....
This is the most sensible use of the technology. Robot vehicles to automate otherwise menial task is workable. Personal robot transport not so much.
You fail to understand the nuisances of the question.
Problem 1) Everyone THINKS they are a good/above average driver. Therefore 75% of the population doesn't want to let a car drive them.
With you so far. And living in a free country means people should be allowed to have those opinions.
but 50% of the population is a BELOW average driver. That means that at best, 25% of the population that are below average drivers, wrongly think they are good drivers and said they would rather drive themselves. My question was designed to make people overcome their own arrogance and think about bad drivers.
Is being below average, whatever that actually means, enough to restrict an individual's freedom? That should be the real question.
If we can't even force people to wear seat belts, do you think forcing them into robot cars is a viable solution?
Problem 2) You are wrong about most people not having those requirements. While most people are not a 17 year old, nor are they a 71 year old, most people HAVE a 17 year old kid or a 71 year old relative. Those that don't have a 17 year old neighbor or a 71 year old neighbor. The question is whether they want these people, who drive on the same roads as they do, to drive themselves, or to use a driverless car.
Well it happens right now and I don't see too many people complaining. I'd rather people have personal freedom than be forced to use robot cars just because nerds think they're cool.
Ever ridden a packed subway? People aren't there because they want to be. They're there because it costs less than the alternatives and it works.
I take public transport because it's the quickest way to get around. Unless this robot car comes with wings, it will still suffer the biggest issue facing every other car in a major city.
But you have to consider the source An organization that would mostly become obsolete with self-driving cars
Now you are saying a complex robot car will never break down or need roadside assistance. Or are Google doing that too now?