So teach the AI that if the vehicle is above a certain size, let it have the right of way for the passenger's safety.
You haven't really thought this through. The end result of this logic is that any hill-billy in a pick-up will simple charge on through anytime they see a nerd in a Google-mobile. While that may be a technically safer option it isn't sustainable. The unwritten rules of the road is that sometimes you have be prepared to hold your ground. I can't imagine that any AI capable of that will be legal.
Of course, most humans would have the common sense to avoid iffy maneuvers around a bus, and the bus driver may have been expecting that as well.
Absolutely, which is why there is more to driving a car than simply knowing programming a rulebook into the computer.
In Thailand, if a foreigner is in a car accident, it is their fault regardless of circumstances. The reasoning is if you weren't in the country, the accident wouldn't have happened. A similar reasoning could be applied here, if a human was driving, regardless of rules they wouldn't try it on with a bus, and no accident would've happened. Hence the robot is at fault.
Excessive regulation can and does hurt the little guy. I expect that isn't something you've really looked into or thought much about.
Having spent a bit of time in state and federal government I can assure you couldn't be further from the truth.
The trouble with the Right is all this catch phrase politics, "Small Government!", "Less Regulations!", "Freedom!". None of these words mean anything without context.
Sure there exists a concept of over-regulation, but just screaming "too many regulations!", isn't really a solution.
Why do you think that Hillary's experience will all of a sudden matter, where none of these other career politicians' experience did?
Because in the eyes of Joe Average, she has not only been a Senator, but Sec of State, and First Lady. Sure that might not mean anything to you or me, but when compared a hothead from Queens, it's almost like royalty.
I know this doesn't matter when any scrutiny is applied, but that's the thing about elections, perception is reality.
She has NO chance in hell. Just go to Twitter and look up the "#whichhillary" tag and see for yourself,
Ok just stop. Twitter has never been useful for anything ever, so don't even go there. Even assuming there was some hate campaign, do you seriously think more people hate her than hated GWB in 2004? Haters don't decide elections, voters do, and Hillary will have more of them on the day.
you can be DAMNED sure Trump's PR team is busy writing down every single one of those flip flops she pulled and WILL use them in the general election.
Doesn't matter. He has the loose cannon vibe, which works well against other crazies in the Republican noms, but it won't work against old mom apple pie and ice cream.
This isn't even bringing up...
As I said none of this matters in elections. The big race is all about presenting a facade of security and reliability. Sure Hillary bight be neither, but that's her gimmick. And the reason it's her gimmick is that she and her team knows it will work.
Lets face it she is fucked and I have zero doubt she will end up with a worse loss than Dukakis, its gonna be a slaughter.
Hillary will get the nomination....and then promptly get SLAUGHTERED in the general election.
I'm not a Hillary fan, but my experience of trying to pick winners tells me she has it in the bag (and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is here).
My reasons:
Trump is clearly the best Republican candidate. Even if he was Satan himself, the guy has a certain no-nonsense charm that people are attracted too. Cruz and Rubio are too much of the old party that (Churchie, anti gay/abortion) that people are getting sick of. Trump may be a buffoon, but he is a fresh take, and has a personality for TV that sells. So he'll win the Republican ticket.
For the Dems, Sanders just makes too much sense and American voters can't deal with that. They aren't used to it so will be suspicious. Hillary will walk the middle of the road, Ma Kettle, familiar friendly face you all know, and win on the numbers (ie the middle is always fatter than the fringes).
For the same reason, come the big race Hillary is a pro and will continue the trusting old mother routine (regardless of facts, this is her gimmick), while giving Trump plenty of rope to hang himself.
Ignore the policies, the history, and your personal opinion, Hillary has the experience in the game, and for that reason she'll win.
Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit.
I never understood why everyone just accepts 'raise the taxes' as a bad option?
Sure no-one likes to spend more money than they have to, but at some point if you want better services, you have to pay more for them.
I would quite happily accept a modest rise in taxes, if they were reasonably even across the board, and they offered a benefit to society.
How about instead of spending $1trillion on a war, we spend $1trillion on education? Can you imagine how much stronger the country would be if the education budget was boosted by $1trillion? You could almost argue the cost of it would almost pay itself back, but that would create too many arguments. Much easier to blow stuff up and keep throwing people in jail. It's so much easier to sell...
Over regulation will and has destroy profit and wealth generation in the areas.
You mean like regulations that mean they can't force you to work 18 hour days? Or the regulations that force them to offer safety equipment in dangerous work environments? Or maybe the regulations that ensure you get paid at the end of the week?
I know the right like to throw around 'regulations' as some bogeyman, but all those rules came about because without them, the little guy was getting fucked over in some way. And unless you are the 1%, you are also the little guy. So be thankful those regulations exist.
They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.
And everything always seems related to freedom, even thought it usually means most people will be worse off. Why? Because freedom!
In addition, most EV owners plug in at home for convenient overnight charging. Electricity is everywhere and everyone has access at home ( unlike gas stations which require a large investment and rely on trucks to deliver fuel).
Yes but an investment which is already paid for, which actually makes a big difference.
I'm not knocking EVs, as soon as one reaches my price range and aesthetic standards (Apart from Tesla, why are they all so fucking ugly?) I'll get one, but I'm not going to pretend that they are as flexible as ICE for traveling out of town.
No. GP is mistaken. There are not 22 million kg, there are ~22 million metric tons, or a thousand times as much. So the limit would be 2 billion cars.
That's still within the "have to consider supply" range. At 2016 rates that's only 30 years worth of cars, enough to get to panic stations within 15 years.
But there is an additional 230 billion metric tons of lithium in the ocean, enough for 20 trillion cars.
Are you lying, or just parroting what someone told you? The Founding Fathers studied the failings of governments of the past, and identified private gun ownership a crucial tool for the preservation of freedom.
It didn't mention guns. Back when it was written, a lot of battles were still fought with swords. Should we give every man a sword because that's how things worked in the 18th century?
And yet, he's still better than Clinton, who will never stand up to an ideological fight because theres a chance she might not win.
I know there's a lot of Clinton haters out there, but I'm telling you now she is going to win.
Why? Because she's the least crazy. And if you're already popular, the least crazy one tends to have the most appeal once it's down to just two candidates.
Not really. They are mostly driven by the experience of being shafted by the politicians who have lied to them for the most of their lives.
And maybe Republican voters are sick of the stupid pro-religious, anti-abortion, anti-gay message that somehow hijacked the conservative agenda. Conservatism means not getting tied up with religion, and not interfering in peoples medical or sexual lives. Trump seems to steer well clear of all of these distractions and is focussing on the real threats, globalisation and immigration.
Did you believe Obama would really bring "hope and change" too?
I think he did. Not so much in any policies, but the simple fact that a black man is the boss sends a huge message out to the world the racism is now a harder position to defend. It may not seem like much to you, but for millions that brought hope and change.
Slashdot Mirror
You only see well in your fovea. You may see movement in your peripheral vision, but you have no idea what it is. It sees well in 360 degrees.
Except buses, apparently.
I expected better from Google.
Why? Most things Google do are utter crap. One or two decent products among hundreds of duds...
Well that's as good as many human drivers ...
Many but not all. The point for me is that it is less good than myself, so why would I buy one?
1st rule of defensive driving- never expect another driver to do anything
Try riding a small underpowered motorcycle. It will teach new a whole new appreciation for defensive driving.
I know I can.
No jury would find against the human and in favor of the robot.
A robot programmed by a human.
See millions of cases of lawsuits that involve machines, the designer is absolutely liable for any faults.
If the Google car really was traveling at just 2 mph, then you have to wonder whether the bus driver could have avoided the accident.
If the Google car really was traveling at just 2 mph, then you have to wonder whether it could have avoided the accident.
So teach the AI that if the vehicle is above a certain size, let it have the right of way for the passenger's safety.
You haven't really thought this through. The end result of this logic is that any hill-billy in a pick-up will simple charge on through anytime they see a nerd in a Google-mobile. While that may be a technically safer option it isn't sustainable. The unwritten rules of the road is that sometimes you have be prepared to hold your ground. I can't imagine that any AI capable of that will be legal.
Of course, most humans would have the common sense to avoid iffy maneuvers around a bus, and the bus driver may have been expecting that as well.
Absolutely, which is why there is more to driving a car than simply knowing programming a rulebook into the computer.
In Thailand, if a foreigner is in a car accident, it is their fault regardless of circumstances. The reasoning is if you weren't in the country, the accident wouldn't have happened. A similar reasoning could be applied here, if a human was driving, regardless of rules they wouldn't try it on with a bus, and no accident would've happened. Hence the robot is at fault.
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge.
Yet here you are, blaming the bus...
No it didn't.
At 2MPH and 15MPH it's at best a shared fault, and more likely the bus to blame.
Of course it is... keep telling yourself that...
Excessive regulation can and does hurt the little guy. I expect that isn't something you've really looked into or thought much about.
Having spent a bit of time in state and federal government I can assure you couldn't be further from the truth.
The trouble with the Right is all this catch phrase politics, "Small Government!", "Less Regulations!", "Freedom!". None of these words mean anything without context.
Sure there exists a concept of over-regulation, but just screaming "too many regulations!", isn't really a solution.
Why do you think that Hillary's experience will all of a sudden matter, where none of these other career politicians' experience did?
Because in the eyes of Joe Average, she has not only been a Senator, but Sec of State, and First Lady. Sure that might not mean anything to you or me, but when compared a hothead from Queens, it's almost like royalty.
I know this doesn't matter when any scrutiny is applied, but that's the thing about elections, perception is reality.
Education is one of those problems that simply throwing money at it, doesn't fix it.
Of course not. Throwing money into a fire won't put it out either, but there are solutions that exist that require money to implement.
She has NO chance in hell. Just go to Twitter and look up the "#whichhillary" tag and see for yourself,
Ok just stop. Twitter has never been useful for anything ever, so don't even go there. Even assuming there was some hate campaign, do you seriously think more people hate her than hated GWB in 2004? Haters don't decide elections, voters do, and Hillary will have more of them on the day.
you can be DAMNED sure Trump's PR team is busy writing down every single one of those flip flops she pulled and WILL use them in the general election.
Doesn't matter. He has the loose cannon vibe, which works well against other crazies in the Republican noms, but it won't work against old mom apple pie and ice cream.
This isn't even bringing up...
As I said none of this matters in elections. The big race is all about presenting a facade of security and reliability. Sure Hillary bight be neither, but that's her gimmick. And the reason it's her gimmick is that she and her team knows it will work.
Lets face it she is fucked and I have zero doubt she will end up with a worse loss than Dukakis, its gonna be a slaughter.
Care to place a friendly wager?
Hillary will get the nomination....and then promptly get SLAUGHTERED in the general election.
I'm not a Hillary fan, but my experience of trying to pick winners tells me she has it in the bag (and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is here).
My reasons:
Trump is clearly the best Republican candidate. Even if he was Satan himself, the guy has a certain no-nonsense charm that people are attracted too. Cruz and Rubio are too much of the old party that (Churchie, anti gay/abortion) that people are getting sick of. Trump may be a buffoon, but he is a fresh take, and has a personality for TV that sells. So he'll win the Republican ticket.
For the Dems, Sanders just makes too much sense and American voters can't deal with that. They aren't used to it so will be suspicious. Hillary will walk the middle of the road, Ma Kettle, familiar friendly face you all know, and win on the numbers (ie the middle is always fatter than the fringes).
For the same reason, come the big race Hillary is a pro and will continue the trusting old mother routine (regardless of facts, this is her gimmick), while giving Trump plenty of rope to hang himself.
Ignore the policies, the history, and your personal opinion, Hillary has the experience in the game, and for that reason she'll win.
Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit.
I never understood why everyone just accepts 'raise the taxes' as a bad option?
Sure no-one likes to spend more money than they have to, but at some point if you want better services, you have to pay more for them.
I would quite happily accept a modest rise in taxes, if they were reasonably even across the board, and they offered a benefit to society.
How about instead of spending $1trillion on a war, we spend $1trillion on education? Can you imagine how much stronger the country would be if the education budget was boosted by $1trillion? You could almost argue the cost of it would almost pay itself back, but that would create too many arguments. Much easier to blow stuff up and keep throwing people in jail. It's so much easier to sell...
Over regulation will and has destroy profit and wealth generation in the areas.
You mean like regulations that mean they can't force you to work 18 hour days? Or the regulations that force them to offer safety equipment in dangerous work environments? Or maybe the regulations that ensure you get paid at the end of the week?
I know the right like to throw around 'regulations' as some bogeyman, but all those rules came about because without them, the little guy was getting fucked over in some way. And unless you are the 1%, you are also the little guy. So be thankful those regulations exist.
They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.
And everything always seems related to freedom, even thought it usually means most people will be worse off. Why? Because freedom!
Tesla has over 3000 charging stations.
rather than he said, she said, how about some references. Here's where I got my number: http://www.teslarati.com/inter...
Plugshare has more than 50,000 charging stations.
Not as convenient for the person on the go.
In addition, most EV owners plug in at home for convenient overnight charging. Electricity is everywhere and everyone has access at home ( unlike gas stations which require a large investment and rely on trucks to deliver fuel).
Yes but an investment which is already paid for, which actually makes a big difference.
I'm not knocking EVs, as soon as one reaches my price range and aesthetic standards (Apart from Tesla, why are they all so fucking ugly?) I'll get one, but I'm not going to pretend that they are as flexible as ICE for traveling out of town.
No. GP is mistaken. There are not 22 million kg, there are ~22 million metric tons, or a thousand times as much. So the limit would be 2 billion cars.
That's still within the "have to consider supply" range. At 2016 rates that's only 30 years worth of cars, enough to get to panic stations within 15 years.
But there is an additional 230 billion metric tons of lithium in the ocean, enough for 20 trillion cars.
But how to get it?
Are you telling me that this was all a dream and the thousands of worldwide Supercharger stations don't exist?
Well if by "thousands" you mean 863, nearly all of which are in the US or Europe...
Are you lying, or just parroting what someone told you? The Founding Fathers studied the failings of governments of the past, and identified private gun ownership a crucial tool for the preservation of freedom.
It didn't mention guns. Back when it was written, a lot of battles were still fought with swords. Should we give every man a sword because that's how things worked in the 18th century?
And yet, he's still better than Clinton, who will never stand up to an ideological fight because theres a chance she might not win.
I know there's a lot of Clinton haters out there, but I'm telling you now she is going to win.
Why? Because she's the least crazy. And if you're already popular, the least crazy one tends to have the most appeal once it's down to just two candidates.
Not really. They are mostly driven by the experience of being shafted by the politicians who have lied to them for the most of their lives.
And maybe Republican voters are sick of the stupid pro-religious, anti-abortion, anti-gay message that somehow hijacked the conservative agenda. Conservatism means not getting tied up with religion, and not interfering in peoples medical or sexual lives. Trump seems to steer well clear of all of these distractions and is focussing on the real threats, globalisation and immigration.
Did you believe Obama would really bring "hope and change" too?
I think he did. Not so much in any policies, but the simple fact that a black man is the boss sends a huge message out to the world the racism is now a harder position to defend. It may not seem like much to you, but for millions that brought hope and change.