The smart ass is still harassing me with stupid comments, like "look what I found in the dictionary about 'break'" instead of pointing out, I made a typo.
Understandable, I actually never had an encounter with wildlife on the road. Only saw them on the meadows or in the trees besides the road.
The only nearly accident was a bird of prey that nearly crashed into my windshield. No idea what it saw there and was trying to catch. But with far over 100km/h on the highway that probably could have ended very nasty for me.
Sad story. We learn in driving school to only break and not swerve... but even then you can be partly guilty when one crashes into you from the rear.
Reminds me about a friend of mine who came late to a party... brought by an ambulance. He had a collision on his motorbike with a wild boar. The bike was a complete loss and he was pretty bruised.
Next morning a score of hunters went out to find the boar and shoot it (assuming it would be heavily wounded and would be suffering)... they found lots of blood traces and skin but never the animal... it seems it also only got a bit bruised.
I would imagine second or third generation self-driving cars will be networked together: transmitting obstacle information down the line to cars farther behind, around corners, etc. Having that capability will be inevitable in my opinion. Off the shelf cars right now are already networked to inform each other about traffic and accidents an other shit.
Show me a driver who goes for the ditch when he has to make that decision, and then invite him to the programmers and teach them ho to make the car that decision.
You and other guys here are talking about stuff that is fully out of scope for a normal human but expect other normal humans, the programmers, to blow some artificial ethics into a stupid self driving algorithm?
No one is programming a car that way. The first rule is to anticipate and slow down before anything could happen. The second rule is to brake. And the third is to stay on your lane. Except you have a spare lane going same direction.
Neither a programmer nor a car is deciding if it hits 2 3 4 or 1 person. If the thing in its lane is not going away, and the car has not stopped in front of it: it is hit. As simpel as that.
What is next is a realtime auction between the life insurance companies of the potential victims to determine who gets hit. Run by AI bidding bots?
But I'd feel ever better if they shredded people-killers Tz tz tz... they should be smelted, with just 1C degree above their smelting point to make their death painful and s_l_o_w!
If there is a potential to crash into someone/something it breaks. And usually it breaks long before that, so that the situation does not even escalate to such a point (decission)..
What the fuck is ethical in avoiding hitting 4 people who cause an accident and hitting a bystander instead? You have some mental problems I think.
What is next? 4 sick old retirees versus a young pregnant mother?
An AI cant read that sort of thing. First of all, self driving cars are not run by an AI.
Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out. A self driving car can judge such things. And the cars I was involved in do!
The problem imho is that some idiot companies in the USA wanted to reinvent "self driving" technology instead of either partnering or buying european know how.
We have self driving cars on the roads since a decade or longer. Of course only a few still doing their required 100 miles test run (or how many miles that are), of course under supervision of humans (usually a crew and not a single "ersatz driver")
There is no single published incident involving a selv driving car.
And now two companies in the US who are "new to that business" already have several... yeah, I know "autopilot" is not "self driving", but it is pretty close.
And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. It has everything to do with the topic. It's the whole point of copyright.
No it has not, if you copy my work and redistribute it, it is a cooyright infringement. Regardless if you make money from it or if I lose money by it. Most countries have no 'fair use clauses' anyway.
In the US you have the idea that copyright exists to give authors an incentive to create more works, beccause that is how it is written in the constitution. In Europe the incentive simply us to protect the work.
The court costs are irrelevant, you need the courts anyway. I doubt I would pay a noticeable less amount of tax money if we would get rid of copyright (which is only going to happen when we turn away from 'capitalism')
You can not test on your own roads, how would you produce the amount of traffic? How would the cars beccome clearance for publiccc roads if they never where there?
Data disclosure for a court and experts after a crash, that is reasonable. Public data is not. But good luck with your campaign:)
you still don't explain to me, why hitting ESC, j, j, j and then i again should be faster than just using the down arrow instead of leaving insert mode and getting back into it...
Yes, vim is an editor for programmers, that is why I use it mostly under unix. However 90% of my editing time I do in a modern IDE. Vim I only use for bash or awk scripts or the occasional other text file I stumble over.
If you spent so much time typing and not thinking, you most likely do it wrong anyway... work smarter, not harder!
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you :D
The smart ass is still harassing me with stupid comments, like "look what I found in the dictionary about 'break'" instead of pointing out, I made a typo.
I hate stupid people that think they are smart.
You push the brake with your foot.
Some people call it "slam" though.
Understandable, I actually never had an encounter with wildlife on the road.
Only saw them on the meadows or in the trees besides the road.
The only nearly accident was a bird of prey that nearly crashed into my windshield. No idea what it saw there and was trying to catch. But with far over 100km/h on the highway that probably could have ended very nasty for me.
By pushing the breaks ...
If that is incorrect english, correct it, instead of trying to make a smart comment. After all your comment looks pretty retarded to me.
Sad story. We learn in driving school to only break and not swerve ... but even then you can be partly guilty when one crashes into you from the rear.
Reminds me about a friend of mine who came late to a party ... brought by an ambulance. He had a collision on his motorbike with a wild boar. The bike was a complete loss and he was pretty bruised.
Next morning a score of hunters went out to find the boar and shoot it (assuming it would be heavily wounded and would be suffering) ... they found lots of blood traces and skin but never the animal ... it seems it also only got a bit bruised.
... but this comes from the brain dead idea that everything is privatized.
You can't buy a german or french university. Well, we have a few "private schools", too. Sure. But I don't even have one in mind while I write this.
I would imagine second or third generation self-driving cars will be networked together: transmitting obstacle information down the line to cars farther behind, around corners, etc. Having that capability will be inevitable in my opinion.
Off the shelf cars right now are already networked to inform each other about traffic and accidents an other shit.
A self driving car knows if the road is iced.
Show me a driver who goes for the ditch when he has to make that decision, and then invite him to the programmers and teach them ho to make the car that decision.
You and other guys here are talking about stuff that is fully out of scope for a normal human but expect other normal humans, the programmers, to blow some artificial ethics into a stupid self driving algorithm?
Yes, I simplified a bit. ...
But it would not pick a small group of people for not hitting the big one
No one is programming a car that way.
The first rule is to anticipate and slow down before anything could happen.
The second rule is to brake.
And the third is to stay on your lane. Except you have a spare lane going same direction.
Neither a programmer nor a car is deciding if it hits 2 3 4 or 1 person. If the thing in its lane is not going away, and the car has not stopped in front of it: it is hit. As simpel as that.
What is next is a realtime auction between the life insurance companies of the potential victims to determine who gets hit.
Run by AI bidding bots?
Of course it is not the number of individuals ... no one claimed that.
You guys need to get out of your basement. :D
And you should get some clue
E.g. I have no basement ... just like you have no shoes ... or who was it you referred to, who has no shoes?
But I'd feel ever better if they shredded people-killers ... they should be smelted, with just 1C degree above their smelting point to make their death painful and s_l_o_w!
Tz tz tz
According to the summary, the pedestrian stepped so sudden into the path of the car, that no one/nothing could have prevented the crash.
The car makes no choices.
If there is a potential to crash into someone/something it breaks. And usually it breaks long before that, so that the situation does not even escalate to such a point (decission)..
What the fuck is ethical in avoiding hitting 4 people who cause an accident and hitting a bystander instead? You have some mental problems I think.
What is next? 4 sick old retirees versus a young pregnant mother?
An AI cant read that sort of thing.
First of all, self driving cars are not run by an AI.
Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out.
A self driving car can judge such things. And the cars I was involved in do!
The problem imho is that some idiot companies in the USA wanted to reinvent "self driving" technology instead of either partnering or buying european know how.
We have self driving cars on the roads since a decade or longer. Of course only a few still doing their required 100 miles test run (or how many miles that are), of course under supervision of humans (usually a crew and not a single "ersatz driver")
There is no single published incident involving a selv driving car.
And now two companies in the US who are "new to that business" already have several ... yeah, I know "autopilot" is not "self driving", but it is pretty close.
They also have more or less fresh made food. So if one of the food stuff is infected it spreads easy to the passengers and crew.
E.g. tossed salad ...
Yes, but you have to upload it manually ... here comes the trick!
On a 7 billion planet?
Why don't you google?
https://garfors.com/2014/06/10... that is from 2014 ...
No, they are simply plain dumb.
The spread is via the airconditioning system.
Not incorrect.
I was responsible for testing most of them in a majour company supplying Audi, Toyota and BMW and meanwhile a few more.
Troll.
in my version of the summary, it still looks like this: That's the conclusion that two sociologists came to after .
Tey will be selling robots instead, at least Asia.
And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. It's the whole point of copyright.
No it has not, if you copy my work and redistribute it, it is a cooyright infringement. Regardless if you make money from it or if I lose money by it. Most countries have no 'fair use clauses' anyway.
In the US you have the idea that copyright exists to give authors an incentive to create more works, beccause that is how it is written in the constitution. In Europe the incentive simply us to protect the work.
The court costs are irrelevant, you need the courts anyway. I doubt I would pay a noticeable less amount of tax money if we would get rid of copyright (which is only going to happen when we turn away from 'capitalism')
You can not test on your own roads, how would you produce the amount of traffic?
How would the cars beccome clearance for publiccc roads if they never where there?
Data disclosure for a court and experts after a crash, that is reasonable. Public data is not. But good luck with your campaign :)
Rofl,
you still don't explain to me, why hitting ESC, j, j, j and then i again should be faster than just using the down arrow instead of leaving insert mode and getting back into it ...
Yes, vim is an editor for programmers, that is why I use it mostly under unix. However 90% of my editing time I do in a modern IDE. Vim I only use for bash or awk scripts or the occasional other text file I stumble over.
If you spent so much time typing and not thinking, you most likely do it wrong anyway ... work smarter, not harder!