My personal experience with large old steel cars has always favored the big car in conflicts with smaller vehicles made with more squishy materials. In fact I would be short a couple kids if we were in a minivan instead of a full size passenger van when we were hit. I will not put the lives of my children at the mercy of 'simulations'. End of discussion there.
What drives me batty is that people don't question anything anymore. Especially when said material is generated by people with a financial incentive to achieve a certain set of results. Yes, engineers, researchers and scientists all need a paycheck too I get it.
Bottom line is my personal experience trumps anything an 'industry' cobbles together to prove it's point. The drawback to all this information is the multitude of mis-information and the only thing I can trust anymore is personal experience or conversations with people I know in real life and trust to be reputable.
The rest is just the entertainment / advertisement industry. Those are the facts and I don't care if you approve or not. There's always going to be some shill crying foul somewhere.
Your assumptions about me couldn't be more incorrect but I really don't care. Nobody ITT has done anything to communicate safety in terms the general populace will accept.
The other thing is how groups have made grand claims on what the future will hold. Flying cars and what not while some modest claims had been greatly exceeded./. has become an echo chamber and to hell with anyone that says 'wait, lets analyze this'.
I am extremely interested to see how a simulation reconciles to reality.
The fastest way to start a fight in nearly any community is to declare:
- Flight simulation or driving simulation is nothing close to the real thing. - Simulation is as good as the real thing.
Yes I am sure there are some simulations that reconcile to reality better than others but the real point of all this will be determined by lawyers when 'edge cases' start taking lives.
- Was simulated emergencies adequate testing and who is liable?
I am saying history has proven mankind if far too over-optimistic when it comes to what we think we can achieve and the reality check has often come at the expense of human lives lost.
At some point people will die and whether or not it's been determined if the vehicle was responsible there will be great controversy on either side. Nobody will take the issue *seriously* until after those lives have been lost. ( As with most every tragedy unfortunately ) So far a great overwhelming portion of the conversation here has been 'It's NEW it's going to be AWESOME! The software will make everything PERFECT. I am sorry that punch-bowl just looks like it's WAY too full of koolaid.
*Real world tests* Not simulations, as much as I love playing in them, will be what determines fault.
Have you seen those real world tests? Yes or no? If yes, please cite your references.
That's the most frustrating thing hindering good debate on this forum any more. Dissenting opinions are shouted or modded down no matter how valid the concern is of the dissenter.
Everyone keeps saying you CAN do this or that. And nobody has linked to any real research, done in the real world. Specifically related to vehicle failures.
Also, if the car encounters a condition it's not programmed to deal with, what will be it's default response?
Nice try, that method of argument will not be accepted.
Decades of road simulation? Perhaps with functional programming regarding rules and 'best practices' according to the rule of law and making sure the car operates on the road as expected in ideal conditions. But there's no way to simulate the real world failures like you're asserting has been done. And certainly not for decades.
Pardon the pun, but the real work will be where the rubber meets the road.
The good news is natural selection will get it's chance for anyone that wants to trust their lives to what is essentially a robot and we won't have to put up with their kind too much longer.
By all means engage in self destructive behavior, but don't take out the rest of us in the process please.
Within a few milliseconds of the emergency being detected by sensors, the computer will have fully assessed the situation and determined the safest course of action. A blown tire is simple, because it only really affects the vehicle handling parameters. At over 60MPH on a highway, the vehicle is going to have very minimal handling needs. The steering system can be told (within those milliseconds) that it will need to adjust, and in a few rotations of the tire, it can analyse the shape of effects of the new tire's shape. At minimum, it will know that it needs to steer a few degrees to the side of its intended course, allowing it to stay on course and maneuver safely to the shoulder.
Oh, don't be so coy. You've made an awful lot of assumptions without actually understanding the current state of the art.
I would say the same for you. This is real life, not star trek. The rest of your thread is not worth reading.
An algorithm? Just one? I can tell you have never experienced a blow out that's for sure.
Lets crank it up a notch. The tire didn't blow out, but the tread separated and wrapped itself round some structure of the undercarriage and locks up the rear end. On asphalt pavement with a ton of road grit and gravel.
Then there's this other post:
Lol, now put the driverless car on a highway with thousands of other cars, fog, rain, etc... and let the fun begin.
Put those cars on the rad and let the slaughter begin.
And tell me how you would code that? Tell me how a coder that may or may not have experienced a blowout would approach that problem ?
I have, and it's immediately obvious why you're getting the snot shook out of you while you bring the car to a halt without making it worse. Think about the visual problems that would occur from the shaking and vibrations of that event?
and take the appropriate action
I am sorry, but I really think you don't have a clue.
I believe an older 70's car, be it a gas guzzling charger or a 45mpg Fiat mg, Is safer with seat belts than cars that: - Are packed with explosives ( airbags breaking arms and necks ) - Have 'Anti-lock brakes', ( If you're spinning this will slam slam you into pretty much everything ) - Boast 'Safety features' such as ESP, BAS, ABS. ( There should only be ONE driver )
I could go on but I don't think I need to. I have a 2009 and it's almost killed me trying to 'steer' for me with differential braking in slush. I will take my 89s, 97's or 72s over anything new hands down and I will gladly pay more for them.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't even close to a defeatist attitude. It's a proper rebuttal to the snobbery of the original article.
"You all suck, we are more advanced and will show everyone that's been doing this for most of their lives how it's *really* done right.
Makes me want to smack them in the pie-hole if I didn't have flashbacks of my own pimply-faced days of self-enlightened euphoria.
Defeatist would be "You can't do it, you're wasting your time, etc." Nobody said that. We just have a new competing standard is all.
Mod UP +1 and Thank you for these informative posts.
I am going to load up Linux on my desktop tonight and see how it goes. Going use a separate drive just in case though. :)
So Redox is maintained and developed by raging 25~30 yr old Hipsters...
Your reading comprehension skills need some work.
My personal experience with large old steel cars has always favored the big car in conflicts with smaller vehicles made with more squishy materials. In fact I would be short a couple kids if we were in a minivan instead of a full size passenger van when we were hit. I will not put the lives of my children at the mercy of 'simulations'. End of discussion there.
What drives me batty is that people don't question anything anymore. Especially when said material is generated by people with a financial incentive to achieve a certain set of results. Yes, engineers, researchers and scientists all need a paycheck too I get it.
Bottom line is my personal experience trumps anything an 'industry' cobbles together to prove it's point. The drawback to all this information is the multitude of mis-information and the only thing I can trust anymore is personal experience or conversations with people I know in real life and trust to be reputable.
The rest is just the entertainment / advertisement industry. Those are the facts and I don't care if you approve or not. There's always going to be some shill crying foul somewhere.
Your assumptions about me couldn't be more incorrect but I really don't care. Nobody ITT has done anything to communicate safety in terms the general populace will accept.
The other thing is how groups have made grand claims on what the future will hold. Flying cars and what not while some modest claims had been greatly exceeded. /. has become an echo chamber and to hell with anyone that says 'wait, lets analyze this'.
Wow Bin that was an amazingly low shot.
I am not afraid of technology, but lets do some *real* due diligence before we so blindly strap ourselves in.
Just because we can doesn't mean you should, and you don't grow old by being stupid.
I am extremely interested to see how a simulation reconciles to reality.
The fastest way to start a fight in nearly any community is to declare:
- Flight simulation or driving simulation is nothing close to the real thing.
- Simulation is as good as the real thing.
Yes I am sure there are some simulations that reconcile to reality better than others but the real point of all this will be determined by lawyers when 'edge cases' start taking lives.
- Was simulated emergencies adequate testing and who is liable?
Lets see how that compares to real world testing.
Too much Koolaid in here man.
I am saying history has proven mankind if far too over-optimistic when it comes to what we think we can achieve and the reality check has often come at the expense of human lives lost.
At some point people will die and whether or not it's been determined if the vehicle was responsible there will be great controversy on either side. Nobody will take the issue *seriously* until after those lives have been lost. ( As with most every tragedy unfortunately ) So far a great overwhelming portion of the conversation here has been 'It's NEW it's going to be AWESOME! The software will make everything PERFECT. I am sorry that punch-bowl just looks like it's WAY too full of koolaid.
*Real world tests* Not simulations, as much as I love playing in them, will be what determines fault.
Have you seen those real world tests? Yes or no? If yes, please cite your references.
That's still not an answer.
Having owned a few big boats and seen them in accidents, and been Tboned in one. I call BS.
That old car has to have had some structural tinkering to fail to a tin can like that.
echo-chambers like Slashdot
That's the most frustrating thing hindering good debate on this forum any more. Dissenting opinions are shouted or modded down no matter how valid the concern is of the dissenter.
Everyone keeps saying you CAN do this or that. And nobody has linked to any real research, done in the real world. Specifically related to vehicle failures.
Also, if the car encounters a condition it's not programmed to deal with, what will be it's default response?
and now you're worried about rain?
Nice try, that method of argument will not be accepted.
Decades of road simulation? Perhaps with functional programming regarding rules and 'best practices' according to the rule of law and making sure the car operates on the road as expected in ideal conditions. But there's no way to simulate the real world failures like you're asserting has been done. And certainly not for decades.
Pardon the pun, but the real work will be where the rubber meets the road.
The good news is natural selection will get it's chance for anyone that wants to trust their lives to what is essentially a robot and we won't have to put up with their kind too much longer.
By all means engage in self destructive behavior, but don't take out the rest of us in the process please.
Within a few milliseconds of the emergency being detected by sensors, the computer will have fully assessed the situation and determined the safest course of action. A blown tire is simple, because it only really affects the vehicle handling parameters. At over 60MPH on a highway, the vehicle is going to have very minimal handling needs. The steering system can be told (within those milliseconds) that it will need to adjust, and in a few rotations of the tire, it can analyse the shape of effects of the new tire's shape. At minimum, it will know that it needs to steer a few degrees to the side of its intended course, allowing it to stay on course and maneuver safely to the shoulder.
Oh, don't be so coy. You've made an awful lot of assumptions without actually understanding the current state of the art.
I would say the same for you. This is real life, not star trek. The rest of your thread is not worth reading.
code algorithm
An algorithm? Just one? I can tell you have never experienced a blow out that's for sure.
Lets crank it up a notch. The tire didn't blow out, but the tread separated and wrapped itself round some structure of the undercarriage and locks up the rear end. On asphalt pavement with a ton of road grit and gravel.
Then there's this other post:
Lol, now put the driverless car on a highway with thousands of other cars, fog, rain, etc... and let the fun begin.
Put those cars on the rad and let the slaughter begin.
*Chuckle*
This right here. ;)
and take the appropriate action
And tell me how you would code that? Tell me how a coder that may or may not have experienced a blowout would approach that problem ?
I have, and it's immediately obvious why you're getting the snot shook out of you while you bring the car to a halt without making it worse. Think about the visual problems that would occur from the shaking and vibrations of that event?
and take the appropriate action
I am sorry, but I really think you don't have a clue.
How will a computer respond to a tire blow out on the highway at 60mph plus? Some other emergency?
How will the car that gets slammed into by an autonomous vehicle with a blown tire respond?
How will the cars behind it react to the event in front? How fast?
What will happen to the hacker that intercepted and manipulated those signals the other cars are sending to each other? ( assumption made )
Has any of these scenarios been tested? I don't see any crushed google cars so I am going to guess NONE.
Good thing we have Human brains and not mouse brains.
Brings new meaning to the term 'hotfoot'.
especially since the oldsters are pre-spooked and ready to sell most assets to keep from losing everything as they did before.
Pain doesn't begin to describe the loss. Everything I have done since has been with the expectation that it's all going to come crashing down again.
You're taking a lot for granted by citing safety.
I believe an older 70's car, be it a gas guzzling charger or a 45mpg Fiat mg, Is safer with seat belts than cars that:
- Are packed with explosives ( airbags breaking arms and necks )
- Have 'Anti-lock brakes', ( If you're spinning this will slam slam you into pretty much everything )
- Boast 'Safety features' such as ESP, BAS, ABS. ( There should only be ONE driver )
I could go on but I don't think I need to. I have a 2009 and it's almost killed me trying to 'steer' for me with differential braking in slush. I will take my 89s, 97's or 72s over anything new hands down and I will gladly pay more for them.
>software over-the-air (SOTA) upgrades;
>secure management
Is this a You Laugh You Lose thread?