It won't take a lot to achieve critical mass on this. Once people have electric, self-driving cars, the behaviors of the owners (for better or worse) will influence others.
Oh dear. Replace that statement with "flying cars" and see how stupid that sounds. There's a whole bunch of obstacles none of which are technological that pretty much guarantee this will never be mainstream. Think of the escalator, it is the robot equivalent of stairs. Escalators actually exist, yet how many people do you know with an escalator in their house?
Liability covers more than just who is driving. If you fail to properly maintain your vehicle, that's not the self driving feature's fault hence the liability.
Er, if you have a robot car, then it can be programmed to automatically return to base for servicing. Once you are fully automated, the occupants are merely passengers.
You can automate most aspects of something like a car, but this is a high performance machine that operates in a wide variety of weather and abusive conditions. It has to be serviced and inspected from time to time. dipshit who does no do that now isn't going to start when the thing becomes more automatic than it already is, (s)he will pay even less attention.
Er, once you've solved the robot car part, then programming it to return to base for scheduled maintenance will be trivial.
Either we trust the autonomous cars, or we don't. But I'm not taking any liability for it, and I'm sure as hell not paying for liability for it.
That's just companies wanting the best of both worlds.
You want autonomous cars, fine, then I'm a passenger with no controls. At which point these things are only economically viable in a rental model... because why the hell would I pay to own one?
All good points, so where I see this landing is that robot cars will be rentals, the owner will cover all insurances, and as is the nature with public liability it will be expensive, on top of the already expensive robot technology, and all these costs will be passed on to the customers. Given the choice of $100 to ride in a robot car or $3 for the bus, I'm guessing most people will opt for the latter.
I simply can't see a model where individual robot cars are economically viable. Robot elevator -> done. Robot train -> done. Robot bus will be next along with robot trucks on freeways, but a personally owned robot car just has far too many non-functional challenges to ever become mainstream.
But if you want to bring up logic, the example you cited of western countries with gun control having less gun violence illustrates a correlation, not causation.
I didn't make claims to either, I merely made an observation.
Just because you're ignorant of its usage, that doesn't mean the term isn't broadly used around the world in countries with large English-speaking populations.
My definition of "broadly used" must differ from yours. I just asked three different people for their definition and got three different answers. Maybe the media you read isn't as popular in the real world as you think.
Dude, it's a technology site, it even says so it the title. If you've actually read any comments at all ever you would realise this and stop being such a US-centric arse-clown.
Well that sounds great except that all the western countries with gun control have a LOT less gun violence than the one country that doesn't.
But then logic isn't important when discussing religion...
but to most folks, they appear exactly the same. This is how gun-control types inject fear, uncertainty and doubt into the debate.
So it's gun control types that are guilty of confusing two identical looking weapons? And that the manufacturer hasn't done that deliberately so gun types a can feel tough and intimidating with their replica machine gun?
I have no problem with gun ownership, but there's some crazy logic going on in both sides of this debate.
You do realise that English is spoken in many countries, and some of the words in that language can be localised to specific areas??
Or maybe not, as you seem to be American...
" This is an international forum "
Really? This forum is in english and is based in the US. The news is mostly US based. Sure people from around the world come here but this is most certainly a US based forum. It is no more an international based forum than a web forum based in France and where the posts are in French is or any other forum on the Internet. Sure everyone is welcome but it is a US centric site.
No it isn't, it is a technology centric site. It even tells you that in the title. You are a US-centric person because that's the poor education that you had as a child. Using your own data against you, The US barely makes 10% of the market https://www.google.com.au/tren...
Actually, at a time-of-day cost differential of about $0.22/kWh they are break-even. So, not cost effective in most areas, but very very close.
When you say most areas, you mean most areas in your immediate vicinity? This is an international forum (you know the Internet isn't just in your suburb right?), and where I live it's 46c/kwh peak, 9c/kwh offpeak. And it's going up every year. Where do I sign up?
Couldn't put it any more perfectly. What the fuck is the point of a video of someone talking? Especially when that person is ugly, uninteresting, and can't talk properly? Slashdot should know better.
If they aren't going slow enough for you to be about to hit them, then it won't apply the brakes after all.
If the gap is small enough to eliminate a safe stopping distance should the car then emergency brake, then it will.
A human will usually accept this risk, an AI won't legally be allowed to. Thus, in the hustle and bustle of the big smoke, your robot car will drive like your 80 year old grand mother. That's going to be a hard sell, especially since these things are not going cost the same as a regular car. Goes slower, feels uneasy, costs more. Tell me again why anyone would buy this?
Easy fix. Coke, McDonalds, VISA, Budweiser and every other US corporation can pull sponsorship, then see how it works out for them. I've also heard UEFA (European Football) is discussing separation from FIFA, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to get the Japs and Koreans on-board, ask if Uncle Rupert wants to buy in, and start a whole new organisation. Screw the Russian and Arabs, we don't need their filthy money.
I've already articulated the benefits to society of connected, intelligent energy intensive appliances. You've just ignored those benefits due to some kind of personal grudge.
You articulated what you think are benefits and ignored any downsides (Complexity!) I tend to be a bit more cynical, mainly because I've heard it all before. 3D-TV anyone?
Our energy grid is growing increasingly complex and unpredictable,
So your solution is more complexity and unpredictability?
Also power generation isn't complex, it's fairly well understood. Once people get over the nuclear power boogie man, we just ramp up generation. Problem solved.
"stupid" devices have obvious drawbacks for grid management, demand response, electricity markets, etc.
Yes but many other benefits, namely simplicity to produce, maintain and repair.
Paired with distributed storage and generation, coordinating electrical usage can dramatically reduce the generation, transmission, and distribution costs during times of peak demand and minimum demand. We'll eventually have market-based pricing that will take all this into account... and you'll pay money and others will save.
You'll pay more for all your devices because they'll all need Network adapters and processors, and software, and OSes, and updates and monitoring and logging....
And for most average Joes, they'll need to pay someone to come over and set it up, and then come back and fix it when it invariably stops working properly.
I support your choice, why don't you support mine?
Fill your boots. If you want an Internet Fridge more power to you, my original claim was that I don't buy into, and I think many others won't either.
Or the writer is popular. Then he'd immediately inform his fans that said politician is using his song without him wanting to support him and said politician probably just committed political suicide, with people not liking the song not liking his campaign because they don't like the song, and people who do like the song despising him for using it without the artists OK.
Makes no sense to use that song, does it?
I take it you haven't followed any election anywhere in the last 30 years. They are littered with cases of pollies using music without permission and ignoring any complaints from the artists (Reagen and Born in the USA is one that comes to mind. I think Tony Blair did a similar thing in the UK). There are no political consequences because politics is mostly like religion. Even if you fuck children, or fly planes into buildings, the great unwashed will shrug and carry on with whatever they believed yesterday.
Keynesian economics is the primary fraud that regards deficit spending as a good idea,
It's less the economic religion you choose to follow and more about the lack of appropriate regulations. Countries with stricter financial regulations were the ones that came through the GFC relatively intact. Americans seem to struggle with this concept.
Conversely, you seem to think technology is the solution to everything. Just because you can add technology doesn't mean you should.
An example is a German oven (no Godwin jokes here). The Germans make the best ovens, and a lot of them still have mechanical controls. Why do you think this is? Surely digital is better? And why not make a smartphone app for them? What could be better than that?
A Swiss watch?
The humble bicycle?
Why do you think these things exist?
Sure Technology is great, but not it's not the default answer for EVERYTHING! ALL THE TIME!
When you grow up you might appreciate this a bit more.
Yeah until it breaks, then it costs $150/hour to get an expert to repair it. Your friends must've missed the first day of Engineering school where they teach you KISS.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't take a lot to achieve critical mass on this. Once people have electric, self-driving cars, the behaviors of the owners (for better or worse) will influence others.
Oh dear. Replace that statement with "flying cars" and see how stupid that sounds. There's a whole bunch of obstacles none of which are technological that pretty much guarantee this will never be mainstream. Think of the escalator, it is the robot equivalent of stairs. Escalators actually exist, yet how many people do you know with an escalator in their house?
Liability covers more than just who is driving. If you fail to properly maintain your vehicle, that's not the self driving feature's fault hence the liability.
Er, if you have a robot car, then it can be programmed to automatically return to base for servicing. Once you are fully automated, the occupants are merely passengers.
You can automate most aspects of something like a car, but this is a high performance machine that operates in a wide variety of weather and abusive conditions. It has to be serviced and inspected from time to time. dipshit who does no do that now isn't going to start when the thing becomes more automatic than it already is, (s)he will pay even less attention.
Er, once you've solved the robot car part, then programming it to return to base for scheduled maintenance will be trivial.
Either we trust the autonomous cars, or we don't. But I'm not taking any liability for it, and I'm sure as hell not paying for liability for it.
That's just companies wanting the best of both worlds.
You want autonomous cars, fine, then I'm a passenger with no controls. At which point these things are only economically viable in a rental model ... because why the hell would I pay to own one?
All good points, so where I see this landing is that robot cars will be rentals, the owner will cover all insurances, and as is the nature with public liability it will be expensive, on top of the already expensive robot technology, and all these costs will be passed on to the customers. Given the choice of $100 to ride in a robot car or $3 for the bus, I'm guessing most people will opt for the latter.
I simply can't see a model where individual robot cars are economically viable. Robot elevator -> done. Robot train -> done. Robot bus will be next along with robot trucks on freeways, but a personally owned robot car just has far too many non-functional challenges to ever become mainstream.
But if you want to bring up logic, the example you cited of western countries with gun control having less gun violence illustrates a correlation, not causation.
I didn't make claims to either, I merely made an observation.
Just because you're ignorant of its usage, that doesn't mean the term isn't broadly used around the world in countries with large English-speaking populations.
My definition of "broadly used" must differ from yours. I just asked three different people for their definition and got three different answers. Maybe the media you read isn't as popular in the real world as you think.
Dude, it's a technology site, it even says so it the title. If you've actually read any comments at all ever you would realise this and stop being such a US-centric arse-clown.
Well that sounds great except that all the western countries with gun control have a LOT less gun violence than the one country that doesn't.
But then logic isn't important when discussing religion...
but to most folks, they appear exactly the same. This is how gun-control types inject fear, uncertainty and doubt into the debate.
So it's gun control types that are guilty of confusing two identical looking weapons? And that the manufacturer hasn't done that deliberately so gun types a can feel tough and intimidating with their replica machine gun? I have no problem with gun ownership, but there's some crazy logic going on in both sides of this debate.
Assault Rifle is essentially a made up term which can apply to what ever the government nitwits want it to apply to.
It can also be applied by gun owning nitwits too right?
You do realise that English is spoken in many countries, and some of the words in that language can be localised to specific areas?? Or maybe not, as you seem to be American...
Ironic you say that in a thread about a German Car manufacturer...
" This is an international forum " Really? This forum is in english and is based in the US. The news is mostly US based. Sure people from around the world come here but this is most certainly a US based forum. It is no more an international based forum than a web forum based in France and where the posts are in French is or any other forum on the Internet. Sure everyone is welcome but it is a US centric site.
No it isn't, it is a technology centric site. It even tells you that in the title. You are a US-centric person because that's the poor education that you had as a child. Using your own data against you, The US barely makes 10% of the market https://www.google.com.au/tren...
Actually, at a time-of-day cost differential of about $0.22/kWh they are break-even. So, not cost effective in most areas, but very very close.
When you say most areas, you mean most areas in your immediate vicinity? This is an international forum (you know the Internet isn't just in your suburb right?), and where I live it's 46c/kwh peak, 9c/kwh offpeak. And it's going up every year. Where do I sign up?
You do realise Slashdot and the Internet are used by people outside the US right?
Couldn't put it any more perfectly. What the fuck is the point of a video of someone talking? Especially when that person is ugly, uninteresting, and can't talk properly? Slashdot should know better.
If they aren't going slow enough for you to be about to hit them, then it won't apply the brakes after all.
If the gap is small enough to eliminate a safe stopping distance should the car then emergency brake, then it will. A human will usually accept this risk, an AI won't legally be allowed to. Thus, in the hustle and bustle of the big smoke, your robot car will drive like your 80 year old grand mother. That's going to be a hard sell, especially since these things are not going cost the same as a regular car. Goes slower, feels uneasy, costs more. Tell me again why anyone would buy this?
Easy fix. Coke, McDonalds, VISA, Budweiser and every other US corporation can pull sponsorship, then see how it works out for them. I've also heard UEFA (European Football) is discussing separation from FIFA, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to get the Japs and Koreans on-board, ask if Uncle Rupert wants to buy in, and start a whole new organisation. Screw the Russian and Arabs, we don't need their filthy money.
I've already articulated the benefits to society of connected, intelligent energy intensive appliances. You've just ignored those benefits due to some kind of personal grudge.
You articulated what you think are benefits and ignored any downsides (Complexity!) I tend to be a bit more cynical, mainly because I've heard it all before. 3D-TV anyone?
Our energy grid is growing increasingly complex and unpredictable,
So your solution is more complexity and unpredictability? Also power generation isn't complex, it's fairly well understood. Once people get over the nuclear power boogie man, we just ramp up generation. Problem solved.
"stupid" devices have obvious drawbacks for grid management, demand response, electricity markets, etc.
Yes but many other benefits, namely simplicity to produce, maintain and repair.
Paired with distributed storage and generation, coordinating electrical usage can dramatically reduce the generation, transmission, and distribution costs during times of peak demand and minimum demand. We'll eventually have market-based pricing that will take all this into account ... and you'll pay money and others will save.
You'll pay more for all your devices because they'll all need Network adapters and processors, and software, and OSes, and updates and monitoring and logging....
And for most average Joes, they'll need to pay someone to come over and set it up, and then come back and fix it when it invariably stops working properly.
I support your choice, why don't you support mine?
Fill your boots. If you want an Internet Fridge more power to you, my original claim was that I don't buy into, and I think many others won't either.
Or the writer is popular. Then he'd immediately inform his fans that said politician is using his song without him wanting to support him and said politician probably just committed political suicide, with people not liking the song not liking his campaign because they don't like the song, and people who do like the song despising him for using it without the artists OK.
Makes no sense to use that song, does it?
I take it you haven't followed any election anywhere in the last 30 years. They are littered with cases of pollies using music without permission and ignoring any complaints from the artists (Reagen and Born in the USA is one that comes to mind. I think Tony Blair did a similar thing in the UK). There are no political consequences because politics is mostly like religion. Even if you fuck children, or fly planes into buildings, the great unwashed will shrug and carry on with whatever they believed yesterday.
even if it's not of itself enough to support a 'well off' lifestyle.
This is where the last 50 years has skewed expectations. Artists aren't supposed to be rich.
Keynesian economics is the primary fraud that regards deficit spending as a good idea,
It's less the economic religion you choose to follow and more about the lack of appropriate regulations. Countries with stricter financial regulations were the ones that came through the GFC relatively intact. Americans seem to struggle with this concept.
Conversely, you seem to think technology is the solution to everything. Just because you can add technology doesn't mean you should.
An example is a German oven (no Godwin jokes here). The Germans make the best ovens, and a lot of them still have mechanical controls. Why do you think this is? Surely digital is better? And why not make a smartphone app for them? What could be better than that?
A Swiss watch?
The humble bicycle?
Why do you think these things exist?
Sure Technology is great, but not it's not the default answer for EVERYTHING! ALL THE TIME! When you grow up you might appreciate this a bit more.
It only seems that way because you're too stupid to understand what I wrote.
Yeah until it breaks, then it costs $150/hour to get an expert to repair it. Your friends must've missed the first day of Engineering school where they teach you KISS.