And your hosts solution can't block the spam you flood on Slashdot. Go see a doctor - this is getting even more pathetic than anyone is comfortable with. Schizophrenia is no joke.
So you just make up unfounded claims and that's cool, but I have to provide papers?
1. Google has been using this technology with StreetView for years and years. Here is another company's car which can read street signs, from 2013. This, again, is solved. You not knowing about it doesn't change that.
2. The intention of a car driving backwards is pretty obvious - it wants to go backwards. Teaching the SDC about other cars parking isn't exactly difficult, as they can already park themselves. You're not too good at this whole logic thing.
3. Yes, superior sensing. LIDAR. You should learn what that means. They also have multiple cameras, and can scan their entire surroundings (with no blind spots) in milliseconds. Humans can't do anything as close to that.
I see you just gave up on the rest with hopes people would think you have good points. You don't. It's patently clear you don't know what the technology these cars use is capable of, and are arguing from a mixture of ignorance and fear. Sad. If you just really don't like these cars for religious or personal reasons, just say. It'll make you look a lot better than being "the person who doesn't know about something, yet moans about it as if he does".
He's started two less wars than Bush, but he's still pretty bad. I doubt the world will ever see a decent US president, because they all have to play the same game.
The higher the barriers to benefits, the fewer people will get them, and the greater the burden on society will be. Benefits are the cheapest way to deal with people having certain issues (no house, no healthcare, no food, no clothing, etc.). Stopping them from getting it legally means they will have to try to get it illegally, with you picking up the bill. You've not really thought this through.
No, it works like homeopathy - once a person has been in the car, the car has a "memory" of that person, which FlyHelicopters is super-sensitive to. He's a special, precious snowflake who gets headaches and hot-flashes when he thinks of other people being in a similar place to him mere hours or minutes before. Because of that and that alone, self-driving cars should be banned forever and ever and ever.
1. Does the car know that the street is closed and there is a diversion is in place? Yes. It can see the road signs like you can, and can talk to the internet to get all the traffic information it needs. This is already solved.
2. Or that the car in front is reverse parking into a space and not nudge up his ass while he does so? Yes. It can see his lights, can detect his movements far more accurately than any human driver, and knows the precise location of all obstacles/vehicles around it so it can manoeuver out of the way should it need to. This is already solved.
3. Or that the street lights are faulty and how to navigate safely in such an event? Yes. It knows how street lights are supposed to work (just like you do!), and can then see if they're not working. It can then use its superior sensor package to detect all the hazards and navigate them with more accuracy than you can. This is already solved.
4. Or how to obey a cop's hand signals (and not some crazy guy's)? Detecting a cop's uniform isn't particularly difficult - that's all you do, after all. Following hand signals is being worked on by Google, so while maybe not solved yet, it will be shortly.
5. Or see the temporary stop/go signs some roadworkers put up? Yes, like you, it can see the signs and knows what they mean. This is being addressed by Google as we speak, if it has not been already.
6. Or to signal to the pedestrian that we'll wait for them to cross the junction? You should know that drivers should never signal pedestrians. If there is a pedestrian crossing without lights, the car will stop if it sees a pedestrian, and the pedestrian can then cross. This is how it happens in civilized countries already. This is already solved.
7. Or give priority to the oncoming driver in a narrow road. That is not what any sane driver should do, anyway. If the road is narrow, it will drive slowly and make use of available space to pull over to let others pass if needed, and respect other vehicles doing the same. If hazards are on its side of the road, it waits for no oncoming traffic before navigating them. This is already solved.
8. Or what a pothole is and how to avoid it? Its LIDAR can detect a pothole better than you can, and will know its dimensions more accurately than you. It also has better control of the car, and so can avoid them far easier than you can. Plus its reaction times are far, far better than yours, which only helps it. Already solved.
9. Or not to drive through dangerous parts of town? You have dangerous parts of town? How quaint. Anyway, it can find out that information from the internet, if you are really that scared. Already solved.
10. Or how to drive and navigate through a tunnel, carpark or other area where GPS or radio is down? It uses LIDAR to know about the road/tunnel/car park, not GPS or radio. Already solved.
It seems you really don't know the current state of self-driving car technology, which is rather strange for someone so hell-bent on calling it shit.
You should have stayed at the lab for a few more years:) Clearly we can't compare apples to apples, as we are comparing a computer system to a human - perhaps if you elucidated your point you'd get a better answer. The self-driving cars are doing fantastically, and humans are still, on average, shitty drivers. The worst human drivers are fucking abysmal, so making a system better than them has already happened (just look at the Google car stats).
APK, give it a rest. Just because I pointed out an inherent and unfixable problem in your HOSTS solution, you now get all paranoid-stalky and pretend to have conversations with yet more voices in your head all over slashdot for us all to see and laugh at. You really, really need help. It's sad seeing you do this to yourself.
I don't know how it is in the US (beyond the taxi journeys I've had which were never particularly good), but over here in Ye Olde Europe, our taxis are usually well-maintained with knowledgeable drivers. The medallion systems I've heard so much whining about generally don't exist. The only thing Uber is bringing to the table over here is spotty drivers and spotty service.
Is the object conical and orange? It's a cone. Is it fluffy, small, and even slightly moving? It's a small animal. You appear to be arguing from ignorance and emotion. It's not very becoming. The concerns you have are already solved.
The very same controlled environment it's being designed for use on: public roads. And bear in mind that the current version is an early attempt. Clearly they will get better - much better. Computer image recognition has progressed a lot in recent years, and continues to improve every year. Human image recognition isn't perfect, and can not be improved. Human image recognition is ridiculously bad when the image to be recognised is in the road, yet the human's eyes are on their phone/radio/attractive person on the sidewalk/clouds/daydreaming/whatever. Computers aren't distracted by any of those.
You've got to try harder! If you are emotionally distressed by the idea of automatic cars, just say so. Pretending you have logical concerns isn't helping anyone.
The LIDAR in a Google car would see you before you saw it. The rest is just interface work - developing a more human-friendly interface than blinking lights or the ambiguity of a driver's face and gesticulations (is he waving at you or the car trying to turn behind you, etc.).
The fact you are comparing the processing power of a self-driving car to a SunPlus SPC81A shows you're not even bothered in having a rational, adult discussion. You've made your mind up and no amount of evidence will dissuade you from vomiting up paranoid, incorrect nonsense for all to see, as if somehow everyone else won't instantly realise you are a grade-A muppet.
Google's cars have LIDAR at an elevated position. They can see far better than any human, and can far more accurately plan routes through such terrain. You'd know this if you bothered to read.
Slashdot Mirror
And your hosts solution can't block the spam you flood on Slashdot. Go see a doctor - this is getting even more pathetic than anyone is comfortable with. Schizophrenia is no joke.
So you just make up unfounded claims and that's cool, but I have to provide papers?
1. Google has been using this technology with StreetView for years and years. Here is another company's car which can read street signs, from 2013. This, again, is solved. You not knowing about it doesn't change that.
2. The intention of a car driving backwards is pretty obvious - it wants to go backwards. Teaching the SDC about other cars parking isn't exactly difficult, as they can already park themselves. You're not too good at this whole logic thing.
3. Yes, superior sensing. LIDAR. You should learn what that means. They also have multiple cameras, and can scan their entire surroundings (with no blind spots) in milliseconds. Humans can't do anything as close to that.
I see you just gave up on the rest with hopes people would think you have good points. You don't. It's patently clear you don't know what the technology these cars use is capable of, and are arguing from a mixture of ignorance and fear. Sad. If you just really don't like these cars for religious or personal reasons, just say. It'll make you look a lot better than being "the person who doesn't know about something, yet moans about it as if he does".
He's started two less wars than Bush, but he's still pretty bad. I doubt the world will ever see a decent US president, because they all have to play the same game.
They found a few badly-degraded shells which were stolen from testing facilities. There were no ready-to-use WMDs.
The higher the barriers to benefits, the fewer people will get them, and the greater the burden on society will be. Benefits are the cheapest way to deal with people having certain issues (no house, no healthcare, no food, no clothing, etc.). Stopping them from getting it legally means they will have to try to get it illegally, with you picking up the bill. You've not really thought this through.
No, it works like homeopathy - once a person has been in the car, the car has a "memory" of that person, which FlyHelicopters is super-sensitive to. He's a special, precious snowflake who gets headaches and hot-flashes when he thinks of other people being in a similar place to him mere hours or minutes before. Because of that and that alone, self-driving cars should be banned forever and ever and ever.
And APK = guy with serious mental health issues who needs help but doesn't realise it.
Thanks, APK! Off your meds again?
Really? Let's try, shall we?
1. Does the car know that the street is closed and there is a diversion is in place? Yes. It can see the road signs like you can, and can talk to the internet to get all the traffic information it needs. This is already solved.
2. Or that the car in front is reverse parking into a space and not nudge up his ass while he does so? Yes. It can see his lights, can detect his movements far more accurately than any human driver, and knows the precise location of all obstacles/vehicles around it so it can manoeuver out of the way should it need to. This is already solved.
3. Or that the street lights are faulty and how to navigate safely in such an event? Yes. It knows how street lights are supposed to work (just like you do!), and can then see if they're not working. It can then use its superior sensor package to detect all the hazards and navigate them with more accuracy than you can. This is already solved.
4. Or how to obey a cop's hand signals (and not some crazy guy's)? Detecting a cop's uniform isn't particularly difficult - that's all you do, after all. Following hand signals is being worked on by Google, so while maybe not solved yet, it will be shortly.
5. Or see the temporary stop/go signs some roadworkers put up? Yes, like you, it can see the signs and knows what they mean. This is being addressed by Google as we speak, if it has not been already.
6. Or to signal to the pedestrian that we'll wait for them to cross the junction? You should know that drivers should never signal pedestrians. If there is a pedestrian crossing without lights, the car will stop if it sees a pedestrian, and the pedestrian can then cross. This is how it happens in civilized countries already. This is already solved.
7. Or give priority to the oncoming driver in a narrow road. That is not what any sane driver should do, anyway. If the road is narrow, it will drive slowly and make use of available space to pull over to let others pass if needed, and respect other vehicles doing the same. If hazards are on its side of the road, it waits for no oncoming traffic before navigating them. This is already solved.
8. Or what a pothole is and how to avoid it? Its LIDAR can detect a pothole better than you can, and will know its dimensions more accurately than you. It also has better control of the car, and so can avoid them far easier than you can. Plus its reaction times are far, far better than yours, which only helps it. Already solved.
9. Or not to drive through dangerous parts of town? You have dangerous parts of town? How quaint. Anyway, it can find out that information from the internet, if you are really that scared. Already solved.
10. Or how to drive and navigate through a tunnel, carpark or other area where GPS or radio is down? It uses LIDAR to know about the road/tunnel/car park, not GPS or radio. Already solved.
It seems you really don't know the current state of self-driving car technology, which is rather strange for someone so hell-bent on calling it shit.
The fact you used the word "major" as if it's perfectly normal speaks volumes.
You should have stayed at the lab for a few more years :) Clearly we can't compare apples to apples, as we are comparing a computer system to a human - perhaps if you elucidated your point you'd get a better answer. The self-driving cars are doing fantastically, and humans are still, on average, shitty drivers. The worst human drivers are fucking abysmal, so making a system better than them has already happened (just look at the Google car stats).
APK, give it a rest. Just because I pointed out an inherent and unfixable problem in your HOSTS solution, you now get all paranoid-stalky and pretend to have conversations with yet more voices in your head all over slashdot for us all to see and laugh at. You really, really need help. It's sad seeing you do this to yourself.
People don't forget that populations scale... "We so biiig!" is a pathetic excuse for being shit.
Nice Intel joke from 2006! Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaaaahahhhahahaaaahahaahsoclever*burp*
Being able to move from store to store and install what you want, or even install from no store at all, is not a walled garden by any definition.
I wonder what else in your posts you've not checked and attempted to pass off as accurate...
I don't know how it is in the US (beyond the taxi journeys I've had which were never particularly good), but over here in Ye Olde Europe, our taxis are usually well-maintained with knowledgeable drivers. The medallion systems I've heard so much whining about generally don't exist. The only thing Uber is bringing to the table over here is spotty drivers and spotty service.
Google's 350,000+ miles on untouched, unprepared public roads without incident suggests you are not entirely accurate...
Is the object conical and orange? It's a cone. Is it fluffy, small, and even slightly moving? It's a small animal. You appear to be arguing from ignorance and emotion. It's not very becoming. The concerns you have are already solved.
Every single one of your concerns has already been addressed, or has nothing stopping it from being addressed.
The very same controlled environment it's being designed for use on: public roads. And bear in mind that the current version is an early attempt. Clearly they will get better - much better. Computer image recognition has progressed a lot in recent years, and continues to improve every year. Human image recognition isn't perfect, and can not be improved. Human image recognition is ridiculously bad when the image to be recognised is in the road, yet the human's eyes are on their phone/radio/attractive person on the sidewalk/clouds/daydreaming/whatever. Computers aren't distracted by any of those.
You've got to try harder! If you are emotionally distressed by the idea of automatic cars, just say so. Pretending you have logical concerns isn't helping anyone.
The LIDAR in a Google car would see you before you saw it. The rest is just interface work - developing a more human-friendly interface than blinking lights or the ambiguity of a driver's face and gesticulations (is he waving at you or the car trying to turn behind you, etc.).
The fact you are comparing the processing power of a self-driving car to a SunPlus SPC81A shows you're not even bothered in having a rational, adult discussion. You've made your mind up and no amount of evidence will dissuade you from vomiting up paranoid, incorrect nonsense for all to see, as if somehow everyone else won't instantly realise you are a grade-A muppet.
Just like now, with a taxi driver and a kosh. You are really, really clutching at straws. Seriously - you sound like you need help.
Google's cars have LIDAR at an elevated position. They can see far better than any human, and can far more accurately plan routes through such terrain. You'd know this if you bothered to read.