Unexpected shit that's happened to me while driving: - Trailer gate falls off the vehicle in front - Small child runs out from behind parked car - Pheasant flies out of long grass by the road - Lorry driver goes wide on a roundabout and covers both lanes, including the one I'm in - BMW X5 owner tries to ram me - three cows run into the road
Unexpected shit that's happened to other people - 18 wheeler comes through the central barrier at full speed - large wild animal appears in the road - road suddenly floods - Hawker Hunter fails to pull out of a loop, crashes onto the A27 and kills 11 people
Tell me, are you paying attention to objects 80 feet above and behind your vehicle in the 7 o'clock position doing 300mph?
You don't even drive do you? Actually, no, scratch that. It _is_ possible to be that stupid and still drive; see above for some of the examples.
Then why are you trying to solve it with software?
Because we're talking about autonomous vehicles here. That word, autonomous: It doesn't mean "get a human to do the difficult bits".
Shit, handing control over to a human in any scenario where simply coming to a stop will not prevent an accident means the accident will occur before the human is alert enough to take control anyway.
How the fuck did you jump from a cynical satire on the paranoia around certain types of watch to an assumption around misinterpretation of religious beliefs?
He's not racist, you're just stupid. I'd sugar coat that but you're clearly not up to the use of more complex words.
It's our jobs to pen test and see how far we can take it, as long as no one is injured and the equipment isn't maliciously tampered with.
It's not your job to break the law. Maliciously tampering is a very subjective interpretation, and thinking you can merrily compromise someone else's system tells me your judgement is sadly lacking.
Sell them on the black market for way more $$$. That must be what they want.
Or maybe they want responsible disclosure without exploitation. Is that possible?
The preferred course of action in all of these cases is "slow down and wake up the idiot meatbag behind the wheel."
You assume there's a wheel. You also assume there's adequate time to slow down.
Cars aren't going to go anywhere very fast if they don't move when the side of the road isn't completely empty by a 20 yard margin for the next 200 yards.
So unexpected objects will appear in the road. Some can be avoided by slowing down. Some can not. The car will have to decide whether to hit those or change direction to avoid them, and that avoidance will need to factor in other objects - static or otherwise.
Even where an object can be avoided by slowing down, the car should be calculating whether that would force another vehicle (typically one directly behind) to perform an unsafe maneuver. E.g. a new Porsche can safely stop in distances that a 40 year old Ford can't hope to achieve.
This isn't a simple black and white situation, this is infinite shades of grey and no billionaire giving you an orgasm afterwards.
The trouble I always have with the deer or unexpected object philosophical scenario is that its only unexpected for humans.
Please step away from the computer. You are NOT qualified to program anything that might be responsible for, risk or otherwise impact on human safety. Frankly I wouldn't let you near anything with commercial sensitivity either.
As for children playing dare across the road - it'd be good to stop if you see them, but if not there's also a little thing called natural selection that's been really underrated lately.
So your cars are programmed to kill stupid people? Good to know. Does that extend to pedestrians peering at their mobile phone and blind people too, or just children?
I am curious though. How does the car know the child is stupidly playing Dare and not merely still going through the 'Learning roads are dangerous' phase? Or are all children fair game?
You're a selfish self-important cunt, although we knew this because you drive a Prius.
You're not the only person on the road. You have a social obligation to minimise inconvenience to others. Going at 45 in a 70 limit is just obnoxious; if everybody did that your fuel economy would drop.
I concentrate far more at 120mph than I do at 60. Making me drive slower merely bores me, and adds distraction.
I agree the answer is autonomous vehicles. I look forward to those being available, even if it increases average journey times because everyone's going 10mph slower. Until then, I'm not going to do 40 in a 70 limit even if it gives me more reaction time because it's just not fucking safe.
Yeah, it's weird that he's pissed off with them after he's the one that broke multiple laws.
Whether they're incompetent fuckwits exploiting two billion people is totally irrelevant, he still broke the law and shouldn't be surprised if legal action follows.
They already had fuck-off big capital ships called Star Destroyers. It was false advertising by the manufacturers though, they weren't at the star destroying level.
Then again the Death Star wasn't a star. Imperial bragging, etc.
But your theory is flawed. Take the Challenger II tank; it's capable of taking out another Challenger II tank, but if the opposition only has RPGs they can use 90 of the fuckers and the tank is still operational.
I'd assume a planet can take an awfully large amount of damage from a star destroyer and recover. There's no recovering from a Death Star.
Sure, Death Asteroids could seek a happy balance, but sometimes you just need a bigger gun.
It would be absolutely insane to claim that the Constitution would protect non-citizens
This is one reason the US constitution is worthless. Might as well say "only applies to women", "only applies to small boys in China" or "only applies to budgerigars".
Either it enumerates basic rights or it's worthless. There are too many constraints on where it applies. It's fucking worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Unexpected shit that's happened to me while driving:
- Trailer gate falls off the vehicle in front
- Small child runs out from behind parked car
- Pheasant flies out of long grass by the road
- Lorry driver goes wide on a roundabout and covers both lanes, including the one I'm in
- BMW X5 owner tries to ram me
- three cows run into the road
Unexpected shit that's happened to other people
- 18 wheeler comes through the central barrier at full speed
- large wild animal appears in the road
- road suddenly floods
- Hawker Hunter fails to pull out of a loop, crashes onto the A27 and kills 11 people
Tell me, are you paying attention to objects 80 feet above and behind your vehicle in the 7 o'clock position doing 300mph?
You don't even drive do you? Actually, no, scratch that. It _is_ possible to be that stupid and still drive; see above for some of the examples.
Then why are you trying to solve it with software?
Because we're talking about autonomous vehicles here. That word, autonomous: It doesn't mean "get a human to do the difficult bits".
Shit, handing control over to a human in any scenario where simply coming to a stop will not prevent an accident means the accident will occur before the human is alert enough to take control anyway.
How the fuck did you jump from a cynical satire on the paranoia around certain types of watch to an assumption around misinterpretation of religious beliefs?
He's not racist, you're just stupid. I'd sugar coat that but you're clearly not up to the use of more complex words.
It's our jobs to pen test and see how far we can take it, as long as no one is injured and the equipment isn't maliciously tampered with.
It's not your job to break the law. Maliciously tampering is a very subjective interpretation, and thinking you can merrily compromise someone else's system tells me your judgement is sadly lacking.
Sell them on the black market for way more $$$. That must be what they want.
Or maybe they want responsible disclosure without exploitation. Is that possible?
The sad thing about third wave feminism is that I genuinely can't tell if this is a troll.
The situations where it may need to choose between the two are sufficiently rare that they are largely irrelevant to discussions of vehicle safety.
On an individual vehicle level, absolutely. At a full population level? Probably a daily occurrence.
"Buy our car, it wont kill your neighbour's daughter. Can our competitors make the same promise?"
The preferred course of action in all of these cases is "slow down and wake up the idiot meatbag behind the wheel."
You assume there's a wheel. You also assume there's adequate time to slow down.
Cars aren't going to go anywhere very fast if they don't move when the side of the road isn't completely empty by a 20 yard margin for the next 200 yards.
So unexpected objects will appear in the road. Some can be avoided by slowing down. Some can not. The car will have to decide whether to hit those or change direction to avoid them, and that avoidance will need to factor in other objects - static or otherwise.
Even where an object can be avoided by slowing down, the car should be calculating whether that would force another vehicle (typically one directly behind) to perform an unsafe maneuver. E.g. a new Porsche can safely stop in distances that a 40 year old Ford can't hope to achieve.
This isn't a simple black and white situation, this is infinite shades of grey and no billionaire giving you an orgasm afterwards.
The trouble I always have with the deer or unexpected object philosophical scenario is that its only unexpected for humans.
Please step away from the computer. You are NOT qualified to program anything that might be responsible for, risk or otherwise impact on human safety. Frankly I wouldn't let you near anything with commercial sensitivity either.
As for children playing dare across the road - it'd be good to stop if you see them, but if not there's also a little thing called natural selection that's been really underrated lately.
So your cars are programmed to kill stupid people? Good to know. Does that extend to pedestrians peering at their mobile phone and blind people too, or just children?
I am curious though. How does the car know the child is stupidly playing Dare and not merely still going through the 'Learning roads are dangerous' phase? Or are all children fair game?
I guess it'll help with overpopulation.
You're a selfish self-important cunt, although we knew this because you drive a Prius.
You're not the only person on the road. You have a social obligation to minimise inconvenience to others. Going at 45 in a 70 limit is just obnoxious; if everybody did that your fuel economy would drop.
I concentrate far more at 120mph than I do at 60. Making me drive slower merely bores me, and adds distraction.
I agree the answer is autonomous vehicles. I look forward to those being available, even if it increases average journey times because everyone's going 10mph slower. Until then, I'm not going to do 40 in a 70 limit even if it gives me more reaction time because it's just not fucking safe.
Undertaking is illegal e.g. in the UK for a reason.
It's not illegal in the UK. I've gone past police cars on the inside.
This is also why cyclists aren't all being arrested, although to be fair in London it's also why several of them have died.
Yeah, it's weird that he's pissed off with them after he's the one that broke multiple laws.
Whether they're incompetent fuckwits exploiting two billion people is totally irrelevant, he still broke the law and shouldn't be surprised if legal action follows.
If he's lucky it'll only be civil action.
They already had fuck-off big capital ships called Star Destroyers. It was false advertising by the manufacturers though, they weren't at the star destroying level.
Then again the Death Star wasn't a star. Imperial bragging, etc.
But your theory is flawed. Take the Challenger II tank; it's capable of taking out another Challenger II tank, but if the opposition only has RPGs they can use 90 of the fuckers and the tank is still operational.
I'd assume a planet can take an awfully large amount of damage from a star destroyer and recover. There's no recovering from a Death Star.
Sure, Death Asteroids could seek a happy balance, but sometimes you just need a bigger gun.
wtf? It wasn't outside of the empire, it had imperial stormtroopers on it.
The Hutts didn't run the planet, or they'd have been the Government which would make their trade activities legal and not smuggling.
Your whole assumption base is flawed, except the bit about relevance.
people still watch shows about WW II and we all know how that turned out
You say this.. Inglorious Bastards definitely didn't follow the historical narrative.
The mods represent the company. Your mock differentiation is disingenuous.
You didn't ask him why he didn't just cook at home, as he does every other fucking day?
Don't even get me started on how butthurt the Brits were
Butthurt isn't a word in Britain, which kind of demonstrates how much of a cock you are.
They wont, following their conviction for assault and possibly battery.
Maybe you're the sort of cunt that thinks violence is justified in such situations. The courts disagree.
I have a theory that there are no foods that can't be improved by adding either bacon or custard.
I only just thought of it, and I've been enjoying some vodka, so this may not hold up to scrutiny, but for the moment I'm sticking with it.
Just don't mix the two. Although..?
It's a lie. There's also a massive texture thing going on. There's also a range of ways of cooking bacon that can't be replicated with seaweed.
This is vegan propaganda. They lie. They're trying to take away our salty beautiful bacon.
Introduce your wife to gammon. It's like bacon but with texture.
There are no parts of the cow that are not useful.
It would be absolutely insane to claim that the Constitution would protect non-citizens
This is one reason the US constitution is worthless. Might as well say "only applies to women", "only applies to small boys in China" or "only applies to budgerigars".
Either it enumerates basic rights or it's worthless. There are too many constraints on where it applies. It's fucking worthless.