Something like that, spread across all forms of encryption, would give access to almost literally all information spread around the world. At least in the US.
Need to be clear. I'm not arguing with you:P I just think your words might lead to someone underestimating just how incredibly motivated basically every dodgy entity would be to get its hands on this hole grail.
And even if it did... That's a pretty epically big prize waiting for the entity that manages it.
Actually..... This leads to another thought.
Ignoring the damage that it would do to confidence in X, Y and Z system (I really need this to be ignored for this to seem worthwhile:P)
Getting major manufacturers onboard with CLAIMING that this exists.
Then watch the real world attacks reduce substantially as massive amounts of resources are put towards trying to get something that doesn't exist.
In addition to this, if it's 3am, why not just have cars take individuals where they need to go? Far more cost effective than having empty trains running. Put the big vehicles into storage overnight and let the masses of suddenly unused cars do all the work. More convenient, and even if they keep ticket costs the same, still cheaper to run.
Well, Lidar will need to go away anyway. That thing on the roof interferes with too many things, is too easy to sabotage (an empty soda cup will do, and you can expect some people doing that just for fun) and too expensive.
People can already do some pretty damaging stuff 'for fun' - This is like those people who say that people will put balloons that look like rocks in front of the cars to fool them. That's already an option. However, by and large, they don't.
Reading the link you gave, I can't see how it's more than annoying.
As far as putting a can on top of it. I dunno, I'd assume that it would be noticed as soon as it was turned on.
For snow, I'd assume that these instruments could be heated.
Yes, it gets updated. By the traffic signs already in use that get put up or removed. The new rules are in effect immediatly.
Signs today are pretty standardised and very simple. There really isn't a huge amount you could do to improve them for automated cars anyway.
However, what I was replying to was related to GPS maps. You can go on about the fact that they need to deal with things as they are today. And I'd agree with you 100% - But the fact would remain that adding that data to a central DB is still a really good idea. For human drivers using GPS as well as for automated cars. Times have changed, and those doing this stuff need to change with it,
This is a stupid argument. We're not talking about one driver, we're talking about possibly the same self-driving program in millions of cars. You ask millions of drivers if anyone has been in this position and you're going to get at least one. That's really all that matters.
For PR purposes, yeah. Outside of that, all that really matters is that fewer people are killed via automated cars than they are via human-driven ones.
That said, Uber is also stupid. The (usual for these days) poorly written premise is that "human drivers are the biggest cost" with Uber. Human drivers are the ONLY cost with Uber. They don't pay for cars, they don't pay for maintenance, they don't pay for anything like that. They're deliberately taking on expenses that they don't have to and to what purpose? Oh, right..to the purpose of constantly getting people to talk about Uber.
The idea is probably that they could earn all the money. Rather than have it go out to others.
Heads up, millenials: Uber is not your friend. Neither is Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. They all exist to screw over whoever and whatever they can to make a buck, especially in the case of Uber and Facebook which own absolutely no assets of any real value. Think about this: if those two companies literally disappeared tomorrow (hey, a guy can dream, right?) what would go away is literally market capitalization backed up by zero assets. There'd be nothing to sell off in bankruptcy. Nothing. That's what these companies are actually worth. At least Apple actually kinda sorta pretends they make things and owns actual assets, but then of course despite what the media thinks, Apple pre-dates the rest of these companies by a good long time too.
And the information age is the future. You don't have to like it, but it's fact. You can try denying it.... That would end badly for you.
I"m anticipating that it will not be legal for just any person to buy an autonomous car and rent it out freely for use.
Well, that's something we'll find out.
There is too much lobbying by companies like Uber and too many valid problems that may arise
They can lobby, but in the end, it's a problem of Uber's creation. Same thing will defeat them.
How will you know if the car you get into is even safe, or if it has been on the road 24/7 for the last two years without being maintained?
List of approved maintainers which must put into a central DB that they have serviced the car on X date and it's roadworthy.
does a city prevent too many people from putting their cars on the road to aimlessly drive around and clog streets?
Why would they aimlessly drive? That's just wasting money. Far better to just find somewhere to park, and respond if it's the most convenient available vehicle. Whatever happens, it'll need to park somewhere.
There will have to be some sort of regulation similar to what the taxi industry has now. It will cost money and inflate the value of a ride, and it won't be good for the little guy who wants to rent out his car.
Didn't the rise of Uber basically highlight exactly why this is no longer a problem?
Assume a driver costs $40k per year. That's $960,000,000 per year for 24k drivers. Which means that this would pay for itself in a little over a year. Ok, this is a bit simplistic, but I doubt the real number is far off... Almost certainly not more than a two year break even point. With this point declining for the next batch.
And it's not just the monetary cost of paying the drivers. It's also the hassle of dealing with HR. Fewer (or no) drivers equals fewer headaches with unionization drives, sexual harassment of passengers, etc. etc.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Here, bus drivers have been striking for higher pay.
Personally, I'd like to see our council agree to whatever pay rises they want, on the provisor that whatever they give them, they'll also put into a fund that'll be used to implement driverless buses and trains.
If you're walking around randomly in an environment where ton chunks of metal and plastic are moving around at speed.... The drivers aren't the problem here.
You're basically saying that automation can't happen because human pedestrians are idiots.
You're also ignoring that if you step out in front of a human-driven car, you're still going to have a bad time. Because physics.
Many human drivers would plow right into the bag with block, but many others would notice it wasn't moving like a bag should and avoid it.
Some might. Most wouldn't.
It's something that, if it were going to be a problem, would be a problem today. You might as well talk about shining high powered torches into driver's faces at night.
'Anything moving' fails in the fall. Unworkable. Also fails on litter.
Can we agree that there's a reasonable size difference between a child and the vast, vast majority of wind-blown leaves and litter we see in normal circumstances? If something the size of a child is blowing about, it's probably better to at least slow down to avoid it.
We might never have automated 25 mph side street driving.
"Never" is a really, really long time. Look at how far we've come in about the last three decades.
Obviously it doesn't need to be like that. Someone who's next to a bus stop can just go Bus > Train (Or bus to the city if that's an optimal delivery method)
But I'd expect it'll make a huge difference, as well as massively decrease congestion (Train lines can take a huge amount more than roads can, for example, and everything is being used in as efficient a manner as possible.) - Basically load balanced public transport.
It's not necessarily the case that there would necessarily be an increase in congestion. If most people travel for work from A to B, with duration d, at a start time T-kd to T+kd, and kd d but few are traveling B to A, then the reverse journey to pick up more does not necessarily cause congestion. If on-demand SDCs, with sufficient service safeguards, promote car pooling, then it may well reduce congestion.
There are scenarios in which congestion may be increased, but the actual effect will be a function of local geography, culture and cost.
If cost is sufficiently low, and convenience sufficiently high, it may encourage people to live further from work, which might increase congestion, but there Will still be limiting factors
See, what I'm envisioning from this is a complete rebirth of public transport.
I grew up in a town that was in the middle of nowhere. It was never worth sending a bus out.
What I'm imagining is basically a capillaries, veins, arteries type of thing.
Cars go out to the low density areas on demand, pick up people, and take them to the best bus stop. Buses take people to the train station which obviously handles the real bulk transport.
Because human drivers aren't needed, these can be smaller but more regular. Which means that each transfer should be of a fairly minimal duration.
And then the reverse is obviously there as people fan away into smaller areas. Car > Bus > Train > Bus > Car. Entirely on demand. Entirely focused on delivering the largest number of people per hour possible.
Yeah, when you made this point, you were talking about people refusing to adopt because of concerns about being tracked.
Phones have shown pretty conclusively that people don't care. You can point to all the edge cases you like. All the weird and wonderful rare instances that you really seem to need to believe are common, but over all, people have proven they couldn't care less.
If you really need to, go a few kilometers away and ride a bike. Or walk. But in the end, it won't slow adoption of this a jot.
However, that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of places where it is suitable. Starting off in cities in tropical or subtropical areas. Expanding from there as technology improves.
I'm not sure about where you are, but in my city (Brisbane) I can't think of many roads that aren't in the middle of nowhere that are so covered in filth the lines are invisible.
Which means that this would pay for itself in a little over a year. Ok, this is a bit simplistic, but I doubt the real number is far off... Almost certainly not more than a two year break even point. With this point declining for the next batch.
The top crust are rarely taxi drivers.
Also, spoken like an American with an American's knowledge of geography. Asia and India are rarely regarded part of South America
If they significantly overcharge, then competition will come in. From anyone able to scrape together $50k to buy a car.
That'll probably be quite common. Instead of someone renting himself out as an Uber driver during his spare time, he'll rent his car out as an Uber car while he's at work. Great for people who work irregular hours.
As much as Poe's law says that without sarcasm indicators, it's pretty difficult to determine it, that must have been an obvious use of irony to anyone with above celsius room-temperature IQ.
But thank you for highlighting my point to the differently abled.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Linux Sysadmin, it still freaks the hell out of me to see MS working with us. It's five kinds of brilliant, but still feels wrong.
Billions? You're lowballing a bit aren't you?
:P I just think your words might lead to someone underestimating just how incredibly motivated basically every dodgy entity would be to get its hands on this hole grail.
Something like that, spread across all forms of encryption, would give access to almost literally all information spread around the world. At least in the US.
Need to be clear. I'm not arguing with you
And even if it did... That's a pretty epically big prize waiting for the entity that manages it. Actually..... This leads to another thought. Ignoring the damage that it would do to confidence in X, Y and Z system (I really need this to be ignored for this to seem worthwhile :P)
Getting major manufacturers onboard with CLAIMING that this exists.
Then watch the real world attacks reduce substantially as massive amounts of resources are put towards trying to get something that doesn't exist.
Those are more there so you know if your bags have been opened, so you know to check the bags. Not just for anything missing, but for anything added.
No, that's a combination of analyst and therapist.
Being pedantic: MS Office has moved to open formats.
So, that bit's changed.
One of the many actions from MS that made me wonder if hell had frozen over.
For the browser bit: I have to wonder how much of the other browser's success was down to IE6 just being a truly terrible browser.
Nope to them being heavily automated?
Not being a pilot, I couldn't comment. That's just what I found when researching.
Nope to the cost justifying a human pilot?
Considering the cargo/value of a plane and contents vs a taxi, I'd have to wonder.
Nope to crashes being rare? Yeah, they're pretty damn rare.
Nope to the numbe.......
Ohhh, I understand. You just don't see the difference. Sorry,there's a level at which I just can't help you.
In addition to this, if it's 3am, why not just have cars take individuals where they need to go? Far more cost effective than having empty trains running. Put the big vehicles into storage overnight and let the masses of suddenly unused cars do all the work. More convenient, and even if they keep ticket costs the same, still cheaper to run.
Well, Lidar will need to go away anyway. That thing on the roof interferes with too many things, is too easy to sabotage (an empty soda cup will do, and you can expect some people doing that just for fun) and too expensive.
People can already do some pretty damaging stuff 'for fun' - This is like those people who say that people will put balloons that look like rocks in front of the cars to fool them. That's already an option. However, by and large, they don't.
Reading the link you gave, I can't see how it's more than annoying.
As far as putting a can on top of it. I dunno, I'd assume that it would be noticed as soon as it was turned on.
For snow, I'd assume that these instruments could be heated.
Yes, it gets updated. By the traffic signs already in use that get put up or removed. The new rules are in effect immediatly.
Signs today are pretty standardised and very simple. There really isn't a huge amount you could do to improve them for automated cars anyway.
However, what I was replying to was related to GPS maps. You can go on about the fact that they need to deal with things as they are today. And I'd agree with you 100% - But the fact would remain that adding that data to a central DB is still a really good idea. For human drivers using GPS as well as for automated cars. Times have changed, and those doing this stuff need to change with it,
Aircraft already are heavily automated.
But the cost means it's still worth having a human pilot there. Just in case.
Also: Aircraft crashes are pretty amazingly rare. Sure, you've got a few, but it's only a few (no matter how much we freak out about them)
Even in 2014, which included a plane that was shot down and one that just vanished, we only had 761 deaths in that year.
As of 2010, there were 1.25 million car crash fatalities.
Seeing the difference?
This is a stupid argument. We're not talking about one driver, we're talking about possibly the same self-driving program in millions of cars. You ask millions of drivers if anyone has been in this position and you're going to get at least one. That's really all that matters.
For PR purposes, yeah. Outside of that, all that really matters is that fewer people are killed via automated cars than they are via human-driven ones.
That said, Uber is also stupid. The (usual for these days) poorly written premise is that "human drivers are the biggest cost" with Uber. Human drivers are the ONLY cost with Uber. They don't pay for cars, they don't pay for maintenance, they don't pay for anything like that. They're deliberately taking on expenses that they don't have to and to what purpose? Oh, right..to the purpose of constantly getting people to talk about Uber.
The idea is probably that they could earn all the money. Rather than have it go out to others.
Heads up, millenials: Uber is not your friend. Neither is Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. They all exist to screw over whoever and whatever they can to make a buck, especially in the case of Uber and Facebook which own absolutely no assets of any real value. Think about this: if those two companies literally disappeared tomorrow (hey, a guy can dream, right?) what would go away is literally market capitalization backed up by zero assets. There'd be nothing to sell off in bankruptcy. Nothing. That's what these companies are actually worth. At least Apple actually kinda sorta pretends they make things and owns actual assets, but then of course despite what the media thinks, Apple pre-dates the rest of these companies by a good long time too.
And the information age is the future. You don't have to like it, but it's fact. You can try denying it.... That would end badly for you.
I"m anticipating that it will not be legal for just any person to buy an autonomous car and rent it out freely for use.
Well, that's something we'll find out.
There is too much lobbying by companies like Uber and too many valid problems that may arise
They can lobby, but in the end, it's a problem of Uber's creation. Same thing will defeat them.
How will you know if the car you get into is even safe, or if it has been on the road 24/7 for the last two years without being maintained?
List of approved maintainers which must put into a central DB that they have serviced the car on X date and it's roadworthy.
does a city prevent too many people from putting their cars on the road to aimlessly drive around and clog streets?
Why would they aimlessly drive? That's just wasting money. Far better to just find somewhere to park, and respond if it's the most convenient available vehicle. Whatever happens, it'll need to park somewhere.
There will have to be some sort of regulation similar to what the taxi industry has now. It will cost money and inflate the value of a ride, and it won't be good for the little guy who wants to rent out his car.
Didn't the rise of Uber basically highlight exactly why this is no longer a problem?
Assume a driver costs $40k per year. That's $960,000,000 per year for 24k drivers. Which means that this would pay for itself in a little over a year. Ok, this is a bit simplistic, but I doubt the real number is far off... Almost certainly not more than a two year break even point. With this point declining for the next batch.
And it's not just the monetary cost of paying the drivers. It's also the hassle of dealing with HR. Fewer (or no) drivers equals fewer headaches with unionization drives, sexual harassment of passengers, etc. etc.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Here, bus drivers have been striking for higher pay.
Personally, I'd like to see our council agree to whatever pay rises they want, on the provisor that whatever they give them, they'll also put into a fund that'll be used to implement driverless buses and trains.
Ok. To be clear:
If you're walking around randomly in an environment where ton chunks of metal and plastic are moving around at speed.... The drivers aren't the problem here.
You're basically saying that automation can't happen because human pedestrians are idiots.
You're also ignoring that if you step out in front of a human-driven car, you're still going to have a bad time. Because physics.
Many human drivers would plow right into the bag with block, but many others would notice it wasn't moving like a bag should and avoid it.
Some might. Most wouldn't.
It's something that, if it were going to be a problem, would be a problem today. You might as well talk about shining high powered torches into driver's faces at night.
'Anything moving' fails in the fall. Unworkable. Also fails on litter.
Can we agree that there's a reasonable size difference between a child and the vast, vast majority of wind-blown leaves and litter we see in normal circumstances? If something the size of a child is blowing about, it's probably better to at least slow down to avoid it.
We might never have automated 25 mph side street driving.
"Never" is a really, really long time. Look at how far we've come in about the last three decades.
Obviously it doesn't need to be like that. Someone who's next to a bus stop can just go Bus > Train (Or bus to the city if that's an optimal delivery method)
But I'd expect it'll make a huge difference, as well as massively decrease congestion (Train lines can take a huge amount more than roads can, for example, and everything is being used in as efficient a manner as possible.) - Basically load balanced public transport.
It's not necessarily the case that there would necessarily be an increase in congestion. If most people travel for work from A to B, with duration d, at a start time T-kd to T+kd, and kd d but few are traveling B to A, then the reverse journey to pick up more does not necessarily cause congestion. If on-demand SDCs, with sufficient service safeguards, promote car pooling, then it may well reduce congestion.
There are scenarios in which congestion may be increased, but the actual effect will be a function of local geography, culture and cost.
If cost is sufficiently low, and convenience sufficiently high, it may encourage people to live further from work, which might increase congestion, but there Will still be limiting factors
See, what I'm envisioning from this is a complete rebirth of public transport.
I grew up in a town that was in the middle of nowhere. It was never worth sending a bus out.
What I'm imagining is basically a capillaries, veins, arteries type of thing.
Cars go out to the low density areas on demand, pick up people, and take them to the best bus stop. Buses take people to the train station which obviously handles the real bulk transport.
Because human drivers aren't needed, these can be smaller but more regular. Which means that each transfer should be of a fairly minimal duration.
And then the reverse is obviously there as people fan away into smaller areas. Car > Bus > Train > Bus > Car. Entirely on demand. Entirely focused on delivering the largest number of people per hour possible.
Yeah, when you made this point, you were talking about people refusing to adopt because of concerns about being tracked.
Phones have shown pretty conclusively that people don't care. You can point to all the edge cases you like. All the weird and wonderful rare instances that you really seem to need to believe are common, but over all, people have proven they couldn't care less.
If you really need to, go a few kilometers away and ride a bike. Or walk. But in the end, it won't slow adoption of this a jot.
No, it's not suitable for everywhere.
However, that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of places where it is suitable. Starting off in cities in tropical or subtropical areas. Expanding from there as technology improves.
I'm not sure about where you are, but in my city (Brisbane) I can't think of many roads that aren't in the middle of nowhere that are so covered in filth the lines are invisible.
Assume a driver costs $40k per year.
That's $960,000,000 per year for 24k drivers.
Which means that this would pay for itself in a little over a year. Ok, this is a bit simplistic, but I doubt the real number is far off... Almost certainly not more than a two year break even point. With this point declining for the next batch.
On average, yeah, it is.
The top crust are rarely taxi drivers.
Also, spoken like an American with an American's knowledge of geography. Asia and India are rarely regarded part of South America
Moron.
That's why competition is a wonderful thing.
If they significantly overcharge, then competition will come in. From anyone able to scrape together $50k to buy a car.
That'll probably be quite common. Instead of someone renting himself out as an Uber driver during his spare time, he'll rent his car out as an Uber car while he's at work. Great for people who work irregular hours.
As much as Poe's law says that without sarcasm indicators, it's pretty difficult to determine it, that must have been an obvious use of irony to anyone with above celsius room-temperature IQ.
But thank you for highlighting my point to the differently abled.