Yeah... my non-brushed-up reading comprehension not only shows not only that you don't believe your own assumption, but the very article you linked to have a very clear photo of a poorly disguised car with nobody in the driver's seat. That's why I don't understand your rationale.
At first I thought maybe I just missed a step in your line of thought but it's pretty clear right now that you're just backpedaling.
Your 'logic' assumes all humans drive exactly the same (we don't)....
No, it doesn't. I will explain in the next bit.
As far as I can tell, from the perspective of a fellow motorist, the only two differences between this car and any other vehicle on the road are the drivers' hands not being on the wheel (which I see every day anyway)...
That's actually a pretty big difference. Even if these cars drive just like a human does (i.e. with tinted windows, nobody would ever know the difference...), just the idea that that's a computer controlled car will affect other drivers. I'm willing to bet that these cars will advertised that they're automated all over the car. Getting back to my first point, in the beginning it'll be "us vs. them". That lack of trust will make a huge difference. As it is, we already adjust our driving based on what sort of car we see on the road.
Are there other factors I'm missing? Is there something a Google'mobile does that the average sedan cannot?
When large numbers of them start appearing on the roads, it certainly will. I'll put it this way: Just driving into a city I've never been in before requires adjustment to the way the locals drive. Google hasn't gotten to this point in the testing yet.
End result: really, we'll just have to wait and see. But while some people express concern, distrust and general FUD...
I think a little clarification is in order. I am not anti-Google, I am not anti-Google Car, I'm not even pessimistic. There is, however, a difference between optimism and blind faith. I think they are making good progress and I am excited about it. What I don't think.. or actually I'll put it another way, Google hasn't proven this to me yet, that when these things really start hitting the roads that it'll all go smooth as silk and the first accident won't cause a huge media kerfuffle. They're not doing anything wrong, but they will still have to evolve their product. I'm confident that they'll get there and we'll finally have our self-driving cars, I just don't think they're going to get there without doing more revisions. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with me having this point of view.
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Any AI Cars that join the ranks won't be in addition to other cars, they'll be INSTEAD of other cars.
This 'logic' only works if the AI drivers drive exactly the same. It doesn't and they won't There will almost certainly need to be a software update or two once they start becoming fairly common. Additionally, people will have to learn to drive with these guys on the road. Afterall, by your own admission, they must drive differently than humans, otherwise they couldn't achieve that goal of being better than humans on the road.
They've earned your hope, but they haven't earned your faith. They still have a big test to pass.
I guess I am the only person on the planet who never got a facebook account, and as such will not be impacted in some way when a firm that took all of your personal information and sold it to others fails.
Yay me!
Heh, well yeah I guess there are benefits to not having any friends. I'm glad Slashdot was able to brighten your day.
They may use the question mark, but they're not asking questions. They're setting up the next debate. If more people here actually used the question mark properly there'd be a lot more discussion around here and a lot less debate.
Oh, saaaay, that gives me an idea: Have him read Slashdot! He'll grow up with the benefit of thinking he knows everything without wasting his life doing things like asking questions and learning or asking questions about a topic he doesn't understand. You won't even have to worry about teen pregnancy!
Well.. that's embarrassing. Feel free to point and laugh, folks, I made a real ass of myself.:)
At 3 years old he should be able to read himself - why do you need to read to him?
Oh, saaaay, that gives me an idea: Have him read Slashdot! He'll grow up with the benefit of thinking he knows everything without wasting his life doing things like asking questions and learning or asking questions about a topic he doesn't understand. You won't even have to worry about teen pregnancy!
You started with the tone. In fact, you asked for a dissenting opinion:
No, I didn't.
As for you, apparently you have some idea about how it can actually be valuable. I find that interesting since, other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value.
Which is funny because the headline alone should have clued you in.
Of course I would be modded down since Twitter is the cool...
Slashdot has historically HATED Twitter. You were modded down DESPITE that. Think about it.
What's your explanation of how Twitter can be valuable as a communication tool (not wholly polluted by marketing drivel) and *really* valuable towards interpersonal relationships?
Ask me when you're ready to hear it. It's plainly clear (Although I will concede I'm contributing to this problem.) that whatever I'll say you'll argue with. I'm also put off by the fact that you have a really good reason staring at you in the face while you're typing up these replies. You settle down, I settle down.
Wait wait wait... I'm sorry but just because of your tone I have to ask you about this: Why, on this particular story, are you asking me about what valuable stuff Twitter does after stating that it's only used for the inane dribble of attention seekers? Even though the headline is misleading, you really don't see from that blindingly obvious clue what value Twitter does offer?
Look, I'd be happy to answer your question, but seriously, drop the 'tude. I can share what I know, I'm even happy to do so, but I'm not interested in debating it. Turn your brain back on.
Twitter is bad, only because it sucks.... I'm not remotely interested in having a real time feed of "Ashton Kutcher"...
Okay, so it sucks because you don't understand what it's actually good for. Are you sure it doesn't suck because you couldn't get anybody to follow you?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... my non-brushed-up reading comprehension not only shows not only that you don't believe your own assumption, but the very article you linked to have a very clear photo of a poorly disguised car with nobody in the driver's seat. That's why I don't understand your rationale.
At first I thought maybe I just missed a step in your line of thought but it's pretty clear right now that you're just backpedaling.
What is your basis for that assumption?
Your 'logic' assumes all humans drive exactly the same (we don't)....
No, it doesn't. I will explain in the next bit.
As far as I can tell, from the perspective of a fellow motorist, the only two differences between this car and any other vehicle on the road are the drivers' hands not being on the wheel (which I see every day anyway)...
That's actually a pretty big difference. Even if these cars drive just like a human does (i.e. with tinted windows, nobody would ever know the difference...), just the idea that that's a computer controlled car will affect other drivers. I'm willing to bet that these cars will advertised that they're automated all over the car. Getting back to my first point, in the beginning it'll be "us vs. them". That lack of trust will make a huge difference. As it is, we already adjust our driving based on what sort of car we see on the road.
Are there other factors I'm missing? Is there something a Google'mobile does that the average sedan cannot?
When large numbers of them start appearing on the roads, it certainly will. I'll put it this way: Just driving into a city I've never been in before requires adjustment to the way the locals drive. Google hasn't gotten to this point in the testing yet.
End result: really, we'll just have to wait and see. But while some people express concern, distrust and general FUD...
I think a little clarification is in order. I am not anti-Google, I am not anti-Google Car, I'm not even pessimistic. There is, however, a difference between optimism and blind faith. I think they are making good progress and I am excited about it. What I don't think.. or actually I'll put it another way, Google hasn't proven this to me yet, that when these things really start hitting the roads that it'll all go smooth as silk and the first accident won't cause a huge media kerfuffle. They're not doing anything wrong, but they will still have to evolve their product. I'm confident that they'll get there and we'll finally have our self-driving cars, I just don't think they're going to get there without doing more revisions. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with me having this point of view.
It doesn't matter what you call it. Copyright infringement is just the legalese. It's theft.
No, it isn't, which is why there is a distinction in terms.
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Any AI Cars that join the ranks won't be in addition to other cars, they'll be INSTEAD of other cars.
This 'logic' only works if the AI drivers drive exactly the same. It doesn't and they won't There will almost certainly need to be a software update or two once they start becoming fairly common. Additionally, people will have to learn to drive with these guys on the road. Afterall, by your own admission, they must drive differently than humans, otherwise they couldn't achieve that goal of being better than humans on the road.
They've earned your hope, but they haven't earned your faith. They still have a big test to pass.
Instead of one unknown on the road, you'll have two. That first year is going to be rocky.
I guess I am the only person on the planet who never got a facebook account, and as such will not be impacted in some way when a firm that took all of your personal information and sold it to others fails.
Yay me!
Heh, well yeah I guess there are benefits to not having any friends. I'm glad Slashdot was able to brighten your day.
And so you think it'll have exactly the same track record when there's a million of these on the road?
Having seen the way most humans drive, I trust the Google'mobile much more than my bio-brethren.
Uh, yeah, wait until version 3 before you put that much faith behind it.
I personally think this oft-rumored mini-iPad is just a remote control for the upcoming Apple TV.
I'm just waiting for Sony to file a patent lawsuit over this.
I forget.... are 'yo mama' jokes modded up or down around here?
Wait... if a CEO lies, does that mean he's telling the truth?
Hell, how are we supposed to know that they actually killed him?
He's had plenty of time to say "Nyaa nyaa, I ain't dead yet!"
No real evidence has been shown, never mind a body. A case built on "evidence" like presented so far would be laughed out of even a kangaroo court!
By Republicans, you mean.
They may use the question mark, but they're not asking questions. They're setting up the next debate. If more people here actually used the question mark properly there'd be a lot more discussion around here and a lot less debate.
That is really my main issue right there. 140 characters is really not a lot.
It's more than most Slashdotters need to read before they comment, apparently.
Err .. could you elaborate? I don't understand what you're getting at.
Oh, saaaay, that gives me an idea: Have him read Slashdot! He'll grow up with the benefit of thinking he knows everything without wasting his life doing things like asking questions and learning or asking questions about a topic he doesn't understand. You won't even have to worry about teen pregnancy!
Well.. that's embarrassing. Feel free to point and laugh, folks, I made a real ass of myself. :)
At 3 years old he should be able to read himself - why do you need to read to him?
Oh, saaaay, that gives me an idea: Have him read Slashdot! He'll grow up with the benefit of thinking he knows everything without wasting his life doing things like asking questions and learning or asking questions about a topic he doesn't understand. You won't even have to worry about teen pregnancy!
You started with the tone. In fact, you asked for a dissenting opinion:
No, I didn't.
As for you, apparently you have some idea about how it can actually be valuable. I find that interesting since, other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value.
Which is funny because the headline alone should have clued you in.
Of course I would be modded down since Twitter is the cool...
Slashdot has historically HATED Twitter. You were modded down DESPITE that. Think about it.
What's your explanation of how Twitter can be valuable as a communication tool (not wholly polluted by marketing drivel) and *really* valuable towards interpersonal relationships?
Ask me when you're ready to hear it. It's plainly clear (Although I will concede I'm contributing to this problem.) that whatever I'll say you'll argue with. I'm also put off by the fact that you have a really good reason staring at you in the face while you're typing up these replies. You settle down, I settle down.
Wait wait wait... I'm sorry but just because of your tone I have to ask you about this: Why, on this particular story, are you asking me about what valuable stuff Twitter does after stating that it's only used for the inane dribble of attention seekers? Even though the headline is misleading, you really don't see from that blindingly obvious clue what value Twitter does offer?
Look, I'd be happy to answer your question, but seriously, drop the 'tude. I can share what I know, I'm even happy to do so, but I'm not interested in debating it. Turn your brain back on.
Twitter is bad, only because it sucks. ... I'm not remotely interested in having a real time feed of "Ashton Kutcher" ...
Okay, so it sucks because you don't understand what it's actually good for. Are you sure it doesn't suck because you couldn't get anybody to follow you?
You'd think that'd be natively understood, but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
I wish I was so smart that I would have needed that clarification.
No, you're just really old.