I didn't even RTFA but can probably answer most of those questions with guesses.
If the Aviation Authority is responsible for the implementation, then copy and paste your questions to any other regulations in place by the same organisation and you will have your answers.
Implementing new regulations is not new to them. This is their job.
I'm GenX and I love Millenials, especially the tasty little drunk ones with their titties out in bars who happily give it up with little effort.
What a great time to be alive.
Whatever it's called, all I know is that my generation was the best, all those before were out of touch, and all those after don't deserve it.
I think my father, grand father, great grand father and every generation before him had the exact same opinion...
How does this shafting work? I mean we hear about it a lot, but that money has to go somewhere.
Either the boomers pass it on to their kids directly, in which case they get free wealth, or they spend it which means their kids, or their kids friends, have to work to earn it.
I see no situation where that wealth just evaporates.
And it's probably not a good idea to steal or vandalize hardware covered in cameras with an internet connection and precise knowledge about where it is, so I doubt that would be as big a problem as you seem to think it is.
You mean like every single bank in the world that ever got robbed,or every 7eleven, or the entire City of London?
Your opinion of the crime deterrence of cameras seems to have no basis in reality.
I didn't say "run over", I said "drive over". You fail at reading comprehension in your rush to make me wrong.
Er, the cardboard box will be taller than the clearance of the vehicle. Your only choice will be to run over, or go around (did I really have to explain that?)
In the first case, a driver will probably have to operate the vehicle remotely, to pilot it around the obstruction..
What if the person is drunk? ie one of the big selling points of robot cars.
Again, you are raising objections that apply equally to normal cars. It's stupidly boring. Stop
I have just raised examples that do not apply to normal cars, but you fail to address that. But sure if calling names makes you feel better about avoiding the point, more power to you.
What if it's a single lane road?
What if the other lane has high density moving traffic and the AI deems it not safe to change lanes? Most meatbags will simply push in, but the AI won't be allowed to do that.
The reason this will fail, is the public road requires risk to operate, but AI won't be allowed to accept any.
You're also assuming the monkey can't get out of the car and kick the offending object to the kerb.
I'm assuming some monkeys won't be in a position to do so (too young, unsure, too old, disabled, too drunk). And do you really think a robot car will be allowed to instruct it's passenger to get out into the middle of busy traffic potentially endangering their lives?
Risk is why it can't work.
What if the cardboard box is filled with concrete?
What happens when the car doesn't have a person it, or the person is mobility impaired?
The reason I raise these objections is because AI is so far behind actual intelligence, it seems ridiculous that otherwise smart people put so much faith in it. Do you know of any real examples where AI has proven itself? I can give you plenty where it has failed (eg Siri/Google voice search, Captcha, Google targeted search etc)
The only time it works is in completely controlled environments (railways, elevators, mine sites). As soon as you add any unknowns it goes to shit. How will this be any different?
Hasn't Google been testing out their cars in the real world?
Only once you accept that their version of "Real World" is a lot different yours and mine.
Tests are heavily controlled, in extremely well known and mapped out areas. I have heard of no real, 'real-world' test that involved giving a car to a novice to take whereever they wanted indefintely. Until I see that, it's not really 'Real-world' is it?
1. GPS not working. Connect to cell towers, detects available wi-fi networks, talks to your phone, checks a glyph printed on the wall of the parking garage, and talks to other cars to determine its location.
Cool, becasue that always works too. If there's one thing we know about technology, it never ever fails....
In fact, your AI driver would probably simply avoid that route altogether precisely for those reasons and still get you to your destination safely and efficiently.
It'll be safe, the law will require that, but don't for one moment think it will be efficient. Based on the amount of risk on your average road, each trip will slow as all hell, so take a LOT longer to get everywhere.
Don't know where you live, but here they change lanes around, close lanes, and reroute traffic on a nearly daily basis.
A few scenarios I've had this week:
A major set of lights was down, with cops directing traffic. Can robot cars deal with this, or do they just become paper weights when faced with unknown circumstances?
A major crash closed a road, so cops were directing traffic over a grass verge, around the accident site, then back onto the road again. I can't imagine any amount of AI will know how to deal with this.
On the main road is what looks either 20kg weight plate (from a gym), or maybe a base from a sun umbrella, right in the middle of the road. It's been there a week and everyone just drives over it as it fits inbetween your wheels and is low enough to clear the car. Will AI be able to handle that type of obstacle? Or will it think it's a cat?
Robot car has fail written all over it.
They're going to see that stuff before it even enters the roadway,
What if it's already in the middle of the road? What if it isn't a cat after all, just a piece of cat-sized rubbish? Does it stop stationary in the middle of the road indefinitely?
Just for a laugh, can I bring the city's traffic to it's knees with a handful of small cardboard boxes strategically placed on certain roads?
It's simply going to decelerate for the curve, and then accelerate again on the other side.
And this is the problem. A human accepts a certain amount of risk to get from A to B, but the AI can't, it has to slow down, making the journey unbearable. While I scoot around the bend at 80km/h, the stupid little egg car with have to slow to 30, just in case.
Riding in one you may as well put a retard sign on your head, because that's what you will look like getting everywhere extremely slowly.
The AI wouldn't drive into a tree in the first place.
Where I live, we have trees literally a couple of metres from roads that are zoned up to 80km/h. Should (when) something go(es) wrong, the car can be propelled towards one of those trees without the means to stop itself.
No-one said this is the only method, the article is merely reporting on a the latest technique, since drone stories make good headlines.
Tin foil hat much?
Slashdot Mirror
An RC Helicopter is not a drone. But thanks for your contribution...
I didn't even RTFA but can probably answer most of those questions with guesses.
If the Aviation Authority is responsible for the implementation, then copy and paste your questions to any other regulations in place by the same organisation and you will have your answers.
Implementing new regulations is not new to them. This is their job.
I'm GenX and I love Millenials, especially the tasty little drunk ones with their titties out in bars who happily give it up with little effort.
What a great time to be alive.
Whatever it's called, all I know is that my generation was the best, all those before were out of touch, and all those after don't deserve it.
I think my father, grand father, great grand father and every generation before him had the exact same opinion...
How does this shafting work? I mean we hear about it a lot, but that money has to go somewhere.
Either the boomers pass it on to their kids directly, in which case they get free wealth, or they spend it which means their kids, or their kids friends, have to work to earn it.
I see no situation where that wealth just evaporates.
That's your argument - technology fails, so we shouldn't/can't ever use it? Brilliant work, sparky!
Er no. Logic isn't your strong point is it?
Let me sum up every single one of your questions:
"I don't know how this works.
Same goes for flying cars yeah?
So far it's me 1, Flying cars and robot cars 0.
Let me know when the robot cars take over the world, I won't hold my breath.
The automated cars are already better than people,
I say otherwise, and eagerly await evidence of your bold claim.
And it's probably not a good idea to steal or vandalize hardware covered in cameras with an internet connection and precise knowledge about where it is, so I doubt that would be as big a problem as you seem to think it is.
You mean like every single bank in the world that ever got robbed,or every 7eleven, or the entire City of London?
Your opinion of the crime deterrence of cameras seems to have no basis in reality.
I didn't say "run over", I said "drive over". You fail at reading comprehension in your rush to make me wrong.
Er, the cardboard box will be taller than the clearance of the vehicle. Your only choice will be to run over, or go around (did I really have to explain that?)
In the first case, a driver will probably have to operate the vehicle remotely, to pilot it around the obstruction..
What if the person is drunk? ie one of the big selling points of robot cars.
Again, you are raising objections that apply equally to normal cars. It's stupidly boring. Stop
I have just raised examples that do not apply to normal cars, but you fail to address that. But sure if calling names makes you feel better about avoiding the point, more power to you.
No, it changes lanes and goes around it.
What if it's a single lane road?
What if the other lane has high density moving traffic and the AI deems it not safe to change lanes? Most meatbags will simply push in, but the AI won't be allowed to do that.
The reason this will fail, is the public road requires risk to operate, but AI won't be allowed to accept any.
You're also assuming the monkey can't get out of the car and kick the offending object to the kerb.
I'm assuming some monkeys won't be in a position to do so (too young, unsure, too old, disabled, too drunk). And do you really think a robot car will be allowed to instruct it's passenger to get out into the middle of busy traffic potentially endangering their lives?
Risk is why it can't work.
What if the cardboard box is filled with concrete?
What happens when the car doesn't have a person it, or the person is mobility impaired?
The reason I raise these objections is because AI is so far behind actual intelligence, it seems ridiculous that otherwise smart people put so much faith in it. Do you know of any real examples where AI has proven itself? I can give you plenty where it has failed (eg Siri/Google voice search, Captcha, Google targeted search etc) The only time it works is in completely controlled environments (railways, elevators, mine sites). As soon as you add any unknowns it goes to shit. How will this be any different?
Hasn't Google been testing out their cars in the real world?
Only once you accept that their version of "Real World" is a lot different yours and mine.
Tests are heavily controlled, in extremely well known and mapped out areas. I have heard of no real, 'real-world' test that involved giving a car to a novice to take whereever they wanted indefintely. Until I see that, it's not really 'Real-world' is it?
A few decades? It'll take three seconds.
1. GPS not working. Connect to cell towers, detects available wi-fi networks, talks to your phone, checks a glyph printed on the wall of the parking garage, and talks to other cars to determine its location.
Cool, becasue that always works too. If there's one thing we know about technology, it never ever fails....
In fact, your AI driver would probably simply avoid that route altogether precisely for those reasons and still get you to your destination safely and efficiently.
It'll be safe, the law will require that, but don't for one moment think it will be efficient. Based on the amount of risk on your average road, each trip will slow as all hell, so take a LOT longer to get everywhere.
The first camp are also people who believe flying cars are only a couple of years away. We all know how that one is working out...
Don't know where you live, but here they change lanes around, close lanes, and reroute traffic on a nearly daily basis.
A few scenarios I've had this week:
A major set of lights was down, with cops directing traffic. Can robot cars deal with this, or do they just become paper weights when faced with unknown circumstances?
A major crash closed a road, so cops were directing traffic over a grass verge, around the accident site, then back onto the road again. I can't imagine any amount of AI will know how to deal with this.
On the main road is what looks either 20kg weight plate (from a gym), or maybe a base from a sun umbrella, right in the middle of the road. It's been there a week and everyone just drives over it as it fits inbetween your wheels and is low enough to clear the car. Will AI be able to handle that type of obstacle? Or will it think it's a cat?
Robot car has fail written all over it.
...the AI in the car would have long ago started braking, so as to avoid the problem in the first place.
So it sounds like a typical journey in these things will be extremely slow with cautious braking all the time. Gee you've got me excited....
They're going to see that stuff before it even enters the roadway,
What if it's already in the middle of the road? What if it isn't a cat after all, just a piece of cat-sized rubbish? Does it stop stationary in the middle of the road indefinitely?
Just for a laugh, can I bring the city's traffic to it's knees with a handful of small cardboard boxes strategically placed on certain roads?
It's simply going to decelerate for the curve, and then accelerate again on the other side.
And this is the problem. A human accepts a certain amount of risk to get from A to B, but the AI can't, it has to slow down, making the journey unbearable.
While I scoot around the bend at 80km/h, the stupid little egg car with have to slow to 30, just in case.
Riding in one you may as well put a retard sign on your head, because that's what you will look like getting everywhere extremely slowly.
The AI wouldn't drive into a tree in the first place.
Where I live, we have trees literally a couple of metres from roads that are zoned up to 80km/h. Should (when) something go(es) wrong, the car can be propelled towards one of those trees without the means to stop itself.
Who said insurance will be cheaper? When people learn to steal or vandalise these things, insurance is going to make them economically unviable.
No-one said this is the only method, the article is merely reporting on a the latest technique, since drone stories make good headlines.
Tin foil hat much?
My current office chair reclines all the back to almost horizontal. I fail to see the need for spending $6000.
It's not about enforcing the law. It's about the guards getting cut out of their graft.
Prisons are awash with drugs and other contraband. How do you think it gets in? Carrier pigeon?
Probably lots of methods, one of which is drone drop. I fail to see how attempting to remove one of those methods is a bad thing?