They won't solve abject laziness and lack of discipline (as those are inherent human qualities), but they will stop them from being fatal to others. The issue is not just distracted driving - humans' sensor packages are woefully inept when it comes to driving, regardless of what your ego tells you. These cars can see further with more accuracy than you can, and in 360 degrees at practically the same time. Unless you have laser-eyes, a computer brain, and a detachable spinning head you can mount on the roof, you won't even come close.
That wasn't an ad hominem. His attack, if you want to call it that, was pertinent to the discussion and so by definition was not an ad hominem. But you're a misogynist racist asshat, so I'd not expect you to know. That's an ad hominem, and a factually correct one at that.
You honestly think Google can make a car which can drive over 700,000 miles without accident, but can't park in a garage when told to? Or doesn't know how to quickly pull over to let a passenger out? You know when it's legal to pull over because of signage and other visual indications, which the car itself can read and comprehend. It amazes me that people think the Google car team are such incompetent muppets. As for how to tell it where you want to go? Maybe you do just that - tell it where you want to go. With your voice. As you would now with a taxi, for example.
Your Mk. 1 Eyeball with its built-in blind spot, narrow field of view, poor distance and speed judgement, and easily-fooled pattern recognition. Gotcha. Again: your arrogance is the problem.
The computer car would not be driving so fast that it couldn't stop should an old person or a baby stroller be in the road - problem solved. It would apply the brakes and come to a controlled stop without hitting the object, even if the old person/baby carriage was somehow coming at the car at a great speed - it would be able to detect this far better than a human and know what to do to avoid hitting anything.
This kid can break military-grade encryption? If that's the case we've got far bigger problems on our hands.
So you'd run over a rock in a plastic bag because you thought it was a plastic bag, whereas the radar on the driverless cars would have seen through the plastic bag and seen the rock. The pipe on the back of the truck? Well, the car would keep a safe distance, enough for it to avoid any falling object in front of it. That's what humans should be doing anyway. The cars' LIDAR scans for objects approaching the road, and can do so far better than any human can, so your kid-running-into-the-road situation would work out worse with a human behind the wheel. The LIDAR can see farther, with more accuracy, and in 360-degrees. You can't.
The rest of your post is ill-though-out guesswork ascribing idiocy and incompetence to the development team. They are experts in this field - you are not. You spend a lot of your time on Slashdot, being racist and sexist. I wonder who's more trustworthy when it comes to logical appraisal? You've demonstrated you are a slave to gut instincts and untrusting of data which might change your world-view, so no-one in their right minds should be listening to you.
And we know that the Google cars' safety record is that of an exemplary driver. And no - your driving skills are *not* a known quantity to you - you are assuming they are, but as you are human that is patently not the case. You even admit it yourself - you have "some grasp" - not an entire, thorough understanding of everything you can and can not do (unlike the Google cars). Infinitely more people have driven themselves off cliffs and into lakes than Google cars have - why you'd assume they'd do such a thing is beyond me. Oh, no - wait - arrogance.
So you have it entirely backwards - you are the unknown quantity, and the Google cars are the known quantities. Your hubris seems to have swapped those round for you. Again: you are the problem, and every complaint you raise against being labelled as such, so far, has shown it for the truth it is.
No - the computer realised it was having issues correctly ascertaining the airspeed, and the pilots incorrectly tried to compensate, causing the crash. So the pilots should not have got the plane into such a dangerous position, and then should not have screwed up trying to get it out. The computer did what it should have done all the way through - it was the people who didn't.
Human drivers are the "shit" that happens. Your argument is purely emotional and not based on rational appraisal of the risks and capabilities of human drivers and automated cars.
And if you think your judgement and perception is better than this computer system, you are full of hubris and a menace to other road users. It works both ways.
The number of people will stabilise when poor areas get their healthcare and education (as we have seen in recently-developed areas). There is already enough food production, the problem being that lots of it is simply wasted, and is not in areas where it needs to be. Fresh water is also not a problem, but getting it to the people who need it is, but that is getting better every day. Making more food from less resources is a great idea - I honestly support it - but at the moment it seems reducing the amount of food humanity currently wastes is a great place to start.
You are absolutely right if by "consistently worse" you mean "consistently better", and by "significantly worse than perfect" you mean "97.53% accurate".
A democracy can be a republic, or not. A dictatorship can be a republic, or not. You don't seem to know what "democracy" or "republic" mean, which is troubling.
In London kids can, and frequently do, ride unaccompanied from the age of 5. You sound like one of those parents you seem to not like, when viewed from the perspective of your average Londoner. It might behoove you to not judge people so rashly (or appear to judge them) as it encourages others to do the same to you. Just saying.
And then people who have saved already-taxed money are taxed doubly. Wonderful stuff! You are railing against people being stolen from by advocating they should be stolen from. Genius!
Slashdot Mirror
They won't solve abject laziness and lack of discipline (as those are inherent human qualities), but they will stop them from being fatal to others. The issue is not just distracted driving - humans' sensor packages are woefully inept when it comes to driving, regardless of what your ego tells you. These cars can see further with more accuracy than you can, and in 360 degrees at practically the same time. Unless you have laser-eyes, a computer brain, and a detachable spinning head you can mount on the roof, you won't even come close.
Or you could read their papers on the subject and know that your assumptions are woefully incorrect. Or not. I wonder which you'll choose...
That wasn't an ad hominem. His attack, if you want to call it that, was pertinent to the discussion and so by definition was not an ad hominem. But you're a misogynist racist asshat, so I'd not expect you to know. That's an ad hominem, and a factually correct one at that.
You honestly think Google can make a car which can drive over 700,000 miles without accident, but can't park in a garage when told to? Or doesn't know how to quickly pull over to let a passenger out? You know when it's legal to pull over because of signage and other visual indications, which the car itself can read and comprehend. It amazes me that people think the Google car team are such incompetent muppets. As for how to tell it where you want to go? Maybe you do just that - tell it where you want to go. With your voice. As you would now with a taxi, for example.
Your Mk. 1 Eyeball with its built-in blind spot, narrow field of view, poor distance and speed judgement, and easily-fooled pattern recognition. Gotcha. Again: your arrogance is the problem.
The computer car would not be driving so fast that it couldn't stop should an old person or a baby stroller be in the road - problem solved. It would apply the brakes and come to a controlled stop without hitting the object, even if the old person/baby carriage was somehow coming at the car at a great speed - it would be able to detect this far better than a human and know what to do to avoid hitting anything.
This kid can break military-grade encryption? If that's the case we've got far bigger problems on our hands.
So you'd run over a rock in a plastic bag because you thought it was a plastic bag, whereas the radar on the driverless cars would have seen through the plastic bag and seen the rock. The pipe on the back of the truck? Well, the car would keep a safe distance, enough for it to avoid any falling object in front of it. That's what humans should be doing anyway. The cars' LIDAR scans for objects approaching the road, and can do so far better than any human can, so your kid-running-into-the-road situation would work out worse with a human behind the wheel. The LIDAR can see farther, with more accuracy, and in 360-degrees. You can't.
The rest of your post is ill-though-out guesswork ascribing idiocy and incompetence to the development team. They are experts in this field - you are not. You spend a lot of your time on Slashdot, being racist and sexist. I wonder who's more trustworthy when it comes to logical appraisal? You've demonstrated you are a slave to gut instincts and untrusting of data which might change your world-view, so no-one in their right minds should be listening to you.
And we know that the Google cars' safety record is that of an exemplary driver. And no - your driving skills are *not* a known quantity to you - you are assuming they are, but as you are human that is patently not the case. You even admit it yourself - you have "some grasp" - not an entire, thorough understanding of everything you can and can not do (unlike the Google cars). Infinitely more people have driven themselves off cliffs and into lakes than Google cars have - why you'd assume they'd do such a thing is beyond me. Oh, no - wait - arrogance.
So you have it entirely backwards - you are the unknown quantity, and the Google cars are the known quantities. Your hubris seems to have swapped those round for you. Again: you are the problem, and every complaint you raise against being labelled as such, so far, has shown it for the truth it is.
No - the computer realised it was having issues correctly ascertaining the airspeed, and the pilots incorrectly tried to compensate, causing the crash. So the pilots should not have got the plane into such a dangerous position, and then should not have screwed up trying to get it out. The computer did what it should have done all the way through - it was the people who didn't.
Human drivers are the "shit" that happens. Your argument is purely emotional and not based on rational appraisal of the risks and capabilities of human drivers and automated cars.
And if you think your judgement and perception is better than this computer system, you are full of hubris and a menace to other road users. It works both ways.
The number of people will stabilise when poor areas get their healthcare and education (as we have seen in recently-developed areas). There is already enough food production, the problem being that lots of it is simply wasted, and is not in areas where it needs to be. Fresh water is also not a problem, but getting it to the people who need it is, but that is getting better every day. Making more food from less resources is a great idea - I honestly support it - but at the moment it seems reducing the amount of food humanity currently wastes is a great place to start.
In several thousand years, maybe. Get a grip.
You are absolutely right if by "consistently worse" you mean "consistently better", and by "significantly worse than perfect" you mean "97.53% accurate".
and some better than others :-P
So add the difference between the first and last timezone to 4 and compare. It's not too difficult :)
A democracy can be a republic, or not. A dictatorship can be a republic, or not. You don't seem to know what "democracy" or "republic" mean, which is troubling.
Drivers on the central line usually just have to open and close the doors - the rest is done automatically.
In London kids can, and frequently do, ride unaccompanied from the age of 5. You sound like one of those parents you seem to not like, when viewed from the perspective of your average Londoner. It might behoove you to not judge people so rashly (or appear to judge them) as it encourages others to do the same to you. Just saying.
You are assuming they won't make the cars capable of overcoming this, which strikes me as rather strange.
So culture is the reason humans don't have 360 lidar and radar systems? I never knew. Thanks, Senior System Engineer/Architect.
Let us know when each car has its own factory dumping its waste on the road as the car goes.
He didn't say "stable" - you did. His point stands.
And then people who have saved already-taxed money are taxed doubly. Wonderful stuff! You are railing against people being stolen from by advocating they should be stolen from. Genius!
So you think rapists should be raped as their punishment. Gotcha.