# Whoever Thinks Driverless Cars Will Be Good in the Next 100 Years



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.







And has never heard of an uncontrolled train crossing.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 15, 2017)

Its fucking scary. 
Technology and the abuse that will come is, period.
Look at that iphone10. The facial recognition technology is AMAZING. But think of how it will be abused..
I understand i am cynical, but i also enjoy reality.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Its fucking scary.
> Technology and the abuse that will come is, period.
> Look at that iphone10. The facial recognition technology is AMAZING. But think of how it will be abused..
> I understand i am cynical, but i also enjoy reality.


You have to be cynical.  Even if damn computers always did what you told them to do all of the time they can be hacked.  Hell, even typing this the computer is skipping letters I type.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 15, 2017)

Remember those CIA cables that talked about the CIA hacking driverless cars to pull off assassinations?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 15, 2017)

I want to see one in winter weather on ice HAHAHAHA


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 15, 2017)

Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.


"id say" nobody cares. You dont even know which bathroom to use.


----------



## aaronleland (Sep 15, 2017)

Has anybody tried instructing Siri to find something? If Apple can't find me horse porn I don't trust a computer to get me to my destination safely.


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.



The data lies.

So far, self-driving cars are kept out of difficult situations, either totally or by turning control over to the driver.  And, so far, self-driving cars are well maintained by researchers, rather than being 10-years-old and never having maintenance.  

But, self-driving cars are safer than incompetent drivers.  And, I hope to see them starting to go mainstream in the next few years.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 15, 2017)

Driverless cars will need to have many sensors.
Those sensors will have to be cleaned, inspected and calibrated a lot.
People don't even maintain their regular cars properly nowadays.
If a sensor malfunctions it might make the car go off the road or crash into another car.
Lawsuits are what will prevent driverless cars from happening.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Sep 15, 2017)

aaronleland said:


> Has anybody tried instructing Siri to find something? If Apple can't find me horse porn I don't trust a computer to get me to my destination safely.



With your harelip Siri can be excused for mistaking horse porn for hose porn!


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 15, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Driverless cars will need to have many sensors.
> Those sensors will have to be cleaned, inspected and calibrated a lot.
> People don't even maintain their regular cars properly nowadays.
> If a sensor malfunctions it might make the car go off the road or crash into another car.
> Lawsuits are what will prevent driverless cars from happening.



Self-driving cars will have extensive diagnostics and refuse to move the computer thinks a sensor isn't working right.  The real problem is you'll end up stranded, maybe on the way to work, because the car decides some sensor isn't working, even if the sensor is for something minor.

The massive savings from self-driving cars will mean even lawsuits won't sink them.  They will dramatically reduced wrecks and fatalities.  When all cars are self-driving, we'll be able to fit more than double as many cars onto existing roads, saving cities millions of dollars in road construction.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I want to see one in winter weather on ice HAHAHAHA


Ice road coming up on an unguarded train crossing. 

Sounds like our D.C. Leadership.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Driverless cars will need to have many sensors.
> ...


Yeah, I can't wait. I'm doing 75 on I-15 with traffic and the computer says stop immediately.  Or the clown next to me hacks my computer. 

You obviously don't work with computers much.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.


Anyone who uses a computer more than 4 hours a week knows that's BS.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 15, 2017)

Which would you rather have in the future, self driving cars or 80+ year old seniors doing the driving?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Which would you rather have in the future, self driving cars or 80+ year old seniors doing the driving?


100 year old Alzheimer's patient is a better driver than the best computer.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 15, 2017)

So what if a camera sensor gets covered with mud or the road strip is faded or missing, or there is RF interference with the radar measuring system.....there is a whole lot that can go wrong and cause a catastrophe


----------



## Votto (Sep 15, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> 
> 
> View attachment 149365
> ...



Just think, soon it will be illegal to drive your own car.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 15, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> So what if a camera sensor gets covered with mud or the road strip is faded or missing, or there is RF interference with the radar measuring system.....there is a whole lot that can go wrong and cause a catastrophe


I click on my email to open it up and get the blue circle of death.

When a car is coming at you that blue circle of death will have a whole new meaning.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 15, 2017)

I think autopilot cars will be great. Now autonomous farm tractors, construction equipment or military equipment would be very dangerous & scary as hell if it were hacked by terrorist!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> 
> 
> View attachment 149365
> ...


100 years? No. Driverless cars will be the majority before then. And those problems will be solved.


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 16, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> ...



In less than five years, you'll be able to buy a driverless car.  In another ten years, the only way to buy a car that's not driverless is to buy a used car.  It'll happen fast because of how much safer and efficient (e.g. no traffic jams) they will be.  Insurance savings will pay for the feature.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 16, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I have no doubt.  The government needs more people to die.  Too many reaching retirement age and using retirement benefits.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 17, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



That's easily remedied by lifting the contribution cap.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 17, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Its fucking scary.
> Technology and the abuse that will come is, period.
> Look at that iphone10. The facial recognition technology is AMAZING. But think of how it will be abused..
> I understand i am cynical, but i also enjoy reality.


You mean like the state police and federal cops that use face recognition cameras on their vehicles, it's been done for three years now, along with cameras on guardrails to take pics and track your movements..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.


They will be a reality in less than a decade.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I want to see one in winter weather on ice HAHAHAHA
> ...


Well, we do have a treasonous fat senile old orange clown as President, so you are correct on that issue.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2017)

*First road-tested driverless truck is legally allowed to hit the road in Nevada*
Written by taar Posted June 1st, 2015

In fact, there is already a road-tested big rig truck that’s legally allowed to drive in the state of Nevada.

Early this month, Freightliner (a company owned by Daimler) unveiled the “Inspiration Truck” — a partially autonomous big rig commercial motor vehicle that’s touted for its ability to prevent truck crashes by mitigating driver truck driver fatigue and human stress.

Daimler says it has done more than 10,000 miles of testing on the truck. And now it’s street-legal, as it’s been granted one of Nevada’s “Autonomous Vehicle” license plates (the first for a commercial truck) by Nevada governor Brian Sandoval, according to a recent article on the Verge, “This is the first road-legal big rig that can drive itself.”

First road-tested driverless truck is legally allowed to hit the road

*Looks like reality is once again outrunning fiction.*


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 17, 2017)

The huge fear about these driverless vehicles getting hacked is crazy.   There are numerous safeguards that can be installed that not be accessible except for by technicians actually onsite.   Why go to that trouble when you can talk some crazy into being a suicide driver?


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 17, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> They will be a reality in less than a decade.



Less than a decade?  Hahahaha!

There are already a few self-driving shuttles on fixed routs.  The current generation of Tesla autos being sold are self-driving ready; all Tesla has to do is flick a switch.

In two years, buying a self-driving car will be realistic.  In five years, they'll be common.  In 15 years, they'll be the only thing you can buy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 17, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *First road-tested driverless truck is legally allowed to hit the road in Nevada*
> Written by taar Posted June 1st, 2015
> 
> In fact, there is already a road-tested big rig truck that’s legally allowed to drive in the state of Nevada.
> ...



Trucking is another industry that will change dramatically with technology.    It is sad that truck drivers will be obsolete.  But that is the way of technology.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 17, 2017)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I want to see one in winter weather on ice HAHAHAHA



It won't be long and you will get your wish.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 17, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Driverless cars will need to have many sensors.
> Those sensors will have to be cleaned, inspected and calibrated a lot.
> People don't even maintain their regular cars properly nowadays.
> If a sensor malfunctions it might make the car go off the road or crash into another car.
> Lawsuits are what will prevent driverless cars from happening.



It is a simple fix.   There will be numerous sensors, for redundancy.   If there is a blind spot, the car will warn the driver and not operate until it can sense what is there.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 17, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.
> ...


My eldest daughter is a very skilled engineer for a major automobile company. She tells me things that the auto companies are planning.

The reality is that these driverless cars are already being phased in. But our car culture must be phased into it. We like to control our vehicles.  Anti-lock brakes give you less control over the braking of the vehicle as do anti-collision systems on heavy trucks that are now being used on passenger cars. Computerized ignition systems give you less control over engine performance. Drivers are being conditioned to be comfortable with having less control over vehicle performance.

Soon most new automobiles will be flex fuel electric hybrids. You say within ten years, however I think it will take at least another generation for the public to accept that kind of loss of control of their personal vehicles. The USA has some very deep car culture roots. To many folks their car = liberty.


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 17, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> My eldest daughter is a very skilled engineer for a major automobile company.



A girl a skilled engineer?  <roll eyes>



> Anti-lock brakes give you less control over the braking of the vehicle as do anti-collision systems on heavy trucks that are now being used on passenger cars. Computerized ignition systems give you less control over engine performance. Drivers are being conditioned to be comfortable with having less control over vehicle performance.



I don't agree.  The driver has nearly as much control over our cars today as we did before the first chip ever found its way into a car.  The brakes still work even if the anti-lock mechanism fails.  The anti-lock mechanism only rarely kicks in, and that's only when you brake poorly.   That's a million miles from taking a nap as you cross town.  Besides, anti-lock brakes have been around for over 30 years.

I think cruise control would have been a better example of people giving up control, except it's been around forever and is very passive in its operation.



> The USA has some very deep car culture roots. To many folks their car = liberty.



I disagree for a third time.  Americans are so use to new tech that they adopt it easily, especially young people under 30.  And, anyone over the age of 30 is happy to not have to drive.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 17, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > My eldest daughter is a very skilled engineer for a major automobile company.
> ...



The technologies will be accepted.   The motorheads will just keep an antique around for their car fix.

You could have disagreed 2 times and been fine.    I hope your eye roll at the idea of a girl being a skilled engineer is an attempt at humor.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 17, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> I don't agree. The driver has *nearly as much* control


In other words, you agree that the driver has less control. 

You're just being contentious even though you know what I said is true.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 17, 2017)

Driverless cars are coming soon. Like in the next decade or sooner.


----------



## Taz (Sep 18, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Driverless cars are coming soon. Like in the next decade or sooner.


Most black people still won't be able to pass the driver's test.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 18, 2017)

Taz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Driverless cars are coming soon. Like in the next decade or sooner.
> ...



Maybe they can drive white cars.  You know, the ones that are faster, smarter, and more pure of heart.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 19, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.
> ...


That's not entirely true the DARPA Grand Challenge competition has entries crossing 130 miles of desert.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 20, 2017)

So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"



As lousy as most people are at driving, self-driving cars can only be an improvement, even if the occasional glitch sends you into a tree for no reason.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 20, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"
> ...


We can expect every driver to be involved in an accident every 20 minutes with driverless cars.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"
> 
> View attachment 150287



How many lines of code do you think were written to provide the timer and to sign you out?   

Why would you think that code would be added to the car's programming?   Are you really that dense?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



If you want to expect that, feel free to carry those ridiculous expectations with you.    However, if you do a little research you will find out how stupid those expectations actually are.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 20, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"
> ...


Claims the Dufus who thinks flawless sophisticated code can be created. 

Nonthinkers like you are like driverless cars heading towards a train crossing with no guards.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 20, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...


Says the Dufus claiming machines are as smart as humans.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I have never said any code is flawless.

But I am not the idiot who wants to use Outlook as the measuring stick for all programming.   
Nor am I the Dufus who thinks someone writing code for a driverless car would had the "timed Out" feature.

But the driverless car can take the information from 20 sensors simultaneously and process it in a microsecond.   The well designed driverless car can "see" better, react faster, and make the right choice more often.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Driving does not take great intellect.   I mean, you drive, right?

But a machine can take more multiple inputs and react to them faster than a human can.


----------



## anotherlife (Sep 20, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Its fucking scary.
> ...



I am gonna buy a burka and pretend that I am a woman.  

But then what if the government remotely locks me in my car are redirects it to drive me to the police station?


----------



## anotherlife (Sep 20, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The Google car is a driverless car.  The 3 times that it had accidents was when humans tried to override its algorithms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Oh just stop. Ya sound like a damn fool. "Anyone who has spent 20 minutes with a computer knows...."...yeah, there is probably nobody like that working on driverless cars.

"But but but, this one time on Outlook..." Give me a freaking break.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 20, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"
> 
> View attachment 150287


Why would a session time out error cause an issue?  It would only be in use after the car had the key removed.  Do you think a programmer would even include an idle timer on a car?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Everyday my apps are sucking up a gig of data to download a new version because the old one had flaws.
I made my fortune as an engineer, don't try to lecture me on how machines perform.  When the car in front of you on the 70mph freeway traffic blows a tire, this is what you will get.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 21, 2017)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I want to see one in winter weather on ice HAHAHAHA


Unless you have not noticed, people ain't that great in those conditions.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm typing an email in Outlook when suddenly "Your Session Has Timed Out" and it logs me out Outlook completely.  Imagine a driverless car going down the freeway at 70mph and "Your Session Has Timed Out"
> ...


Yeah, no problem when the computer in your driverless car turns off!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Self driving car with a dead human.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Everyday my apps are sucking up a gig of data to download a new version because the old one had flaws.


The apps did not have flaws. They have to be adapted to new attacks created by Watson Computer, cyber bots & humans.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

KissMy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyday my apps are sucking up a gig of data to download a new version because the old one had flaws.
> ...


Oh boy, let's run with your argument!
Now your car is being hacked!
But that's OK, because next week an update will be coming out!


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


The computer in my car never turns off now. Why would it in the future? 

How cars have become rolling computers


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


You must have been a shitty engineer if you were one at all. You dont even know what you are talking about.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



And you will see it happen and react.  The car will see it, see the cars behind you, and on both sides of you, all at virtually the same time and react faster than you, with more information than you have.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Why would it turn off?    Because your email did?   That is ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Self driving car with a dead human.
> View attachment 150495
> 
> View attachment 150496



The link does not work fir me.   Is it the Tesla that hit the truck?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Basic safety features will not be accessible except through actual contact and plugging into the computer onboard.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


How is it going to be hacked?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2017)

Freewill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I want to see one in winter weather on ice HAHAHAHA
> ...


"Unless you have not noticed, people ain't that great in those conditions."

And they do much better with computer-assisted driving measures, like traction and power control.  In other words, the computer controlling these things is safer than the person controlling them..


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Wait, you say you were an engineer, and you worry about an email Timed Out function will be part of the programming for a driverless car?

It must have been fun driving a train.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No way was he an engineer. If he was then he must have been unemployed.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 21, 2017)

Cars can't do much damage. A autonomous bulldozer could level a town before it get's stopped.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

One last comment about the Timed Out function.   

Weatherman, do you worry about air traffic controllers computers timing out?

Or do the navigation computers for commercial aircraft time out?

Or the computers controlling the cooling systems in nuclear reactors, do they time out?

Your claim is laughable.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Interesting how those gullible enough to trust Big Brother to run their lives trust manmade machines to control their lives too.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Self driving car with a dead human.
> ...


I saw my first Tesla the other day on the highway going about 70 with no trouble.  I just wonder how it goes when it is not being pulled on a trailer by a service truck.

I also saw a driverless car, which seemed to be doing OK, I am not sure if there were people in control or not.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> One last comment about the Timed Out function.
> 
> Weatherman, do you worry about air traffic controllers computers timing out?
> 
> ...


Well Dufus. Just so happens air traffic control computers have gone offline several times. 

But trained professionals who are on constant alert know exactly what to do. 

But you being an uninformed ignorant leftist wouldn't know that.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


My fitbit tells me every hour to get up and walk, I am a mindless clone.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

KissMy said:


> Cars can't do much damage. A autonomous bulldozer could level a town before it get's stopped.


Until the street fair.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 21, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.
> ...



A half assed system of partial driverless and partial human drivers would give you all of the problems, none of the benefits. You can't enact lightless intersections and seamless merging unless all vehicles are automated.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 21, 2017)

There was an incident two days ago where an older lady floored her car and ran into a building.  We also had a man at work go into some sort of seizure and floored his car.  He luckily went over a hill surprisingly missing everyone.

So yeah there are glitches in whatever system employed.  Personally I want to be in control.   But I am lucky to have driver's assist.   She sits next to me everywhere I go and apparently I have become quite the bad driver.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 21, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Its fucking scary.
> Technology and the abuse that will come is, period.
> Look at that iphone10. The facial recognition technology is AMAZING. But think of how it will be abused..
> I understand i am cynical, but i also enjoy reality.



Reality has alternatives, don't you listen to Kellyanne and her explanation of Alternative Facts?

Which reality do you enjoy?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 21, 2017)

Freewill said:


> I am lucky to have driver's assist.   She sits next to me everywhere I go and apparently I have become quite the bad driver.


I have one of those also. They love to distract the heck out of you, then complain about your driving.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Freewill said:


> There was an incident two days ago where an older lady floored her car and ran into a building.  We also had a man at work go into some sort of seizure and floored his car.  He luckily went over a hill surprisingly missing everyone.
> 
> So yeah there are glitches in whatever system employed.  Personally I want to be in control.   But I am lucky to have driver's assist.   She sits next to me everywhere I go and apparently I have become quite the bad driver.


And hundreds have died because the pilots of their aircraft relied upon automation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Your life is run by manmade machines too.  From traffic control, grocery inventory & shipping, electrical power distribution & generation, to the production of medicines and purification of water.   Hell, the car you drive was partially built by manmade machines.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Youre using a man made machine to make your posts dummy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > One last comment about the Timed Out function.
> ...



Not what I asked.    Did the computers go down because they timed out?  THAT is what you have suggested the driverless cars will do.  

So don't be an idiot and suggest otherwise.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > There was an incident two days ago where an older lady floored her car and ran into a building.  We also had a man at work go into some sort of seizure and floored his car.  He luckily went over a hill surprisingly missing everyone.
> ...


More have died while flying the plane themselves.  50% of all aircraft crashes are a result of human error......50%


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


Humans had control because no computer can do the job.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


What do you think auto pilot is?  Were you really an engineer and you dont know this stuff? What kind of engineer?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I watched an Ariane rocket blow up because the code was trying to divide by zero. Computers shut themselves down when they encounter unplanned events. Because computers lack the ability to adapt on their own.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dufus, they crashed because they were on autopilot. 

I have a patent in my name for a medical device process, planes and spacecraft are flying around with parts that have my name on the drawing, as well as being the person responsible for aviation accident investigations for a major aerospace company. 

Your credentials outside of playing Warhammer on a PlayStation?


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Nope they crashed because humans fucked up.

I hope you dont really expect me to believe you have a patent when you think Outlook shutting down due to an inactivity timer means driverless cars wont work ?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Yeah, the software and hardware people.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Nope the pilots.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


And dufus, I just started writing the email I just opened when Outlook shut itself down. Which overrode the "stay logged on" setting as well. 

Your credentials?


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


So because you dont know what youre doing on a computer you blame the programming?

I'm actually a Voice Collaboration and Network engineer.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


So it was the pilots fault instruments told a pilot of a twin aisle he had touched down when in fact he was 11 feet in the air?

I was involved in that accident investigation so go ahead and fill me in on what was missed.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Ah.  Because I was typing an email and the software logged me out without my permission it is my fault. 

You proved my point well. People who do software and those who design involving human interface are typically clueless and always just blame the user.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Of course its your fault for being stupid and not knowing the timer ran out before you started typing your email.

Nope. I test new code on network devices all the time and send it back to the developers. Thats how I know you are inept at best.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Like the mechanic who replaced a sensor in the steering mechanism for an F-16 and tested it and it passed?  Fully armed F-16 in Afghanistan took a sudden right turn while taking off. Thank God the pilot was OK. I led that incident investigation too. 

Sensor said he was going straight so turned the wheel to keep him going straight.  Or what the sensor told the computer was straight. Turned out the mechanic overtightened the sensor and testing failed to find the defect.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


So like I pointed out. Human error.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Ah, so the code let she me start an email, type two paragraphs, then logs me out without permission and I'm just s stupid user who is at fault. 

You are the prime example of why driverless cars should not be allowed.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Yeah, like the crappy code in driverless cars. Human error.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Pretty much its your fault.

You are the prime example that people that dont know what they are talking about or doing shouldnt be allowed to interact with technology.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Just remember me next time you fly or need surgery.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Why would I remember you?

Do you mean so I can amused?


----------



## Desperado (Sep 21, 2017)

Lawyers will be the downfall of driver less cars.
No programmer will ever program a car to break a law for fear of lawsuits.
Now a driver less car comes across a car that is double parked and blocking the lane, the only way to pass is to go into the on coming traffic lane.  Not going to happen with a driver less car and you will just sit there waiting for the double parked car to move.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I'm the idiot who your life may rest upon.  

Enjoy. Just chalk up any issues to human error.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Youre the idiot using a computer to post but railing against technology.

Most issues will be human error. Code only does what humans make it do.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dude, I made my fortune creating technology. 

But unlike you, I know it's limits. 

You're just a gullible Leftist who just follows without thinking.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


You didnt create any technology of that I'm sure. If you did you wouldnt use outlook closing on you as a reason driverless cars wouldnt work.

You said you had patents. What did you invent?  Give me a patent number.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Says the dude claiming it's a users fault because Outlook shuts itself down without permission in the middle of being used. 

Dude, it's flawed programming created by flawed human beings. Just like the flawed programming that killed the man in the driverless car.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Its your fault you are not technologically savvy enough to understand why it shut down.

Dont deflect. Whats your patent number so I can look it up.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You're right!  I have no clue as to why software idiots would create such stupid user unfriendly software!


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


When everyone else can use something you have difficulty using then you may want to start looking at your intelligence as the reason you cant seem to figure it out.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Why does everyone know what a spinning blue circle is?

Yeah, it's what you'll see as your car drives into an intersection.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


A spinning blue circle is a visual representation of the processor doing something. Very similar to when the icon was a hourglass.  Are you sure you were an engineer?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Nice to know we will have a visual icon that the processor is working on it as we speed into the intersection.


----------



## TomParks (Sep 21, 2017)

None of this matters because other than a few west coast liberals NOBODY is going to buy them..we men like our trucks and driving them


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


a cars processor will only be devoted to car driving activities.  Sort of like it is now.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Like the F-16 processor that yanked the aircraft into a turn during takeoff?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

I wonder if the last thing he saw on earth was a blue spinning circle from his dedicated processor.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 21, 2017)

If man could put a man on the Moon in 1969 with the computer technology they had then, I would think that a driverless car is not beyond belief.  After all most commercial jets land themselves, unless the pilot wants practice.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Freewill said:


> If man could put a man on the Moon in 1969 with the computer technology they had then, I would think that a driverless car is not beyond belief.  After all most commercial jets land themselves, unless the pilot wants practice.


Apollo computers didn't do much. And like I said, I watched a rocket blow up because the computer code was trying to divide by zero. 

Maybe one day driverless cars will be possible. But I doubt it, civilization and technology are slowing down rapidly.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


an F-16 isnt a car and like you said it was due to human error.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I said the mounting of the sensor was human error. 

Oh, that's right. Car mechanics are more highly trained than FAA certified aircraft mechanics and never make mistakes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Hey numbnuts, do you think EVERY computer program has a subroutine to time you out?    No, they don't.   Driverless cars will not.  That particular argument is moronic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



So the code in driverless cars is crappy?  How in the hell do you-know that?    Can you see into the future?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I asked you if that was the accident involving the Tesla hitting the truck.   You didn't answer.   The link won't work for me.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > If man could put a man on the Moon in 1969 with the computer technology they had then, I would think that a driverless car is not beyond belief.  After all most commercial jets land themselves, unless the pilot wants practice.
> ...


Technology is slowing down rapidly?  We all now can have a Dick Tracy two way wrist radio.  My watch tells me when to get off my butt and walk.  I see little slowdown in technology, especially the application.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

TomParks said:


> None of this matters because other than a few west coast liberals NOBODY is going to buy them..we men like our trucks and driving them



I drive a truck or a suburban.   But I see Tesla all the time in Atlanta.   Plenty of men driving them.   But look as they go by, because it is unlikely you will catch them.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I wonder if the last thing he saw on earth was a blue spinning circle from his dedicated processor.
> View attachment 150569



What he saw was the DVD he was watching while he ignored 5 warnings from the car.    The driver was an idiot. Consider it chlorine in the gene pool.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 21, 2017)

Being anti technology is such a weird assed thing.

Like, "old people dont want to change their stubborn ways" is supposed to just be cliche these days, not still the norm! God damn you.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

Freewill said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


My grandmother came to California in a horse drawn wagon and watched a man walk on the moon. 60 years after the Wright Brothers man was walking on the moon. Computers were being used 2,000 years ago. 

Yes, things are slowing down.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the last thing he saw on earth was a blue spinning circle from his dedicated processor.
> ...


Oh, that'll never happen!  No one will ever take a nap on a driverless car!


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Hey numbnuts, do you think EVERY computer program has a subroutine to time you out?    No, they don't.   Driverless cars will not.  That particular argument is moronic.



I'm the last person who would throw around insults.  But, d@mn, you're an idiot!  (and probably queer, too) First, yes, every computer program has a subroutine that will time something out.  It's a necessary feature in all complex software to handle non-response situation.  Further, I believe the other posters point really wasn't about software timing out, but about computer glitches.  All software has glitches and bugs and the more complex it is, the more glitches it will have.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the last thing he saw on earth was a blue spinning circle from his dedicated processor.
> ...


Yep, no one will ever take a nap or text while in a driverless car!  And that car will never speed into an intersection when it sees a problem!

You make my point without knowing it.


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


 
In 1960, a gigaflop of processing power cost about 200 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation).  Today, that same power costs about 2 cents.  Thing are slowing down?  Uh, no.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


Personal PC's with a 12MB hard drive did almost as much as today's 500 gig machines.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



And the programming for the Tesla relies on the driver paying attention to the car.   Driverless cars will shut down & pull over.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey numbnuts, do you think EVERY computer program has a subroutine to time you out?    No, they don't.   Driverless cars will not.  That particular argument is moronic.
> ...



Right, that is why he talked about the car timing out at 70 mph.   

The "probably gay" comment is hilarious.   
Yes, there may be glitches.   That us why current cars have it so the driver takes over.   But if the driver refuses, it is not the fault of the coding.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Tell that to the dead guy in the driverless car.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Strawman. 

Only a fool thinks a computer can make decisions faster and more accurate in a car.  You yourself just claimed if there is a problem the car will shutdown. That'll be great on the freeway with everyone traveling at 70mph!  My car stopping in the middle of a freeway!


----------



## BulletProof (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> The "probably gay" comment is hilarious.
> Yes, there may be glitches.   That us why current cars have it so the driver takes over.   But if the driver refuses, it is not the fault of the coding.



Yes, I figure someone who gets pounded in the butt is going to have anal issues.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey numbnuts, do you think EVERY computer program has a subroutine to time you out?    No, they don't.   Driverless cars will not.  That particular argument is moronic.
> ...



Right, that is why he talked about the car timing out at 70 mph.   

The "probably gay" comment is hilarious.   
Yes, there may be glitches.   That us why current cars have it so the driver takes over.   But if the driver refuses, it is not the fault of the coding.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



That is a lie.  I said no such thing.   

And a computer CAN analyze data and make a decision faster that a human can.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The "probably gay" comment is hilarious.
> ...



Is this your idea of a debate?  Call someone gay based on your own imagination and then avoid the topic in favor of attempted insults?  Sad.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



The dead guy was not in a driverless car.   And he ignored 5 warnings from the car.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


A computer can only analyze what it has been programmed to analyze. 

Thus the rocket I watched blow up because it gave up trying to divide by zero while a human would have not taken abrupt nozzle actions and attempted to manually direct it.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The Tesla car was in autopilot, and the car got him killed.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 21, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



When was this?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 22, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Tell that to HAL.  Seriously, why do you make up stuff you know noting about?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 22, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



That is like saying a car with the cruise control on got the driver killed when he rearended someone.   The Tesla warned the driver 5 times.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


And yet the Tesla sped into the intersection killing him anyway.

It is only obvious people will sleep, text, read etc in driverless cars.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 22, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




A driverless car is still illegal.  Tesla walks a fine line with the auto pilot.  The warnings would have involved a flashing alert on the screen and a sound.   If he ignored those, it is his fault.   He was still responsible for the operation of the car.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 22, 2017)

It is time to look at the reality of the driverless cars.   Weatherman, you want them to be 100% safe.  Nice dream, but likely impossible for another decade or so.

You have talked about coding glitches.  And that is entirely possible.   But those would be isolated incidents.  At worst, there might be 500 or so a year.

In 2010 there were almost 5.5 million vehicles crashes, including over 30,000 crashes with a fatality (killing over 32k and injuring over 2.2 million people).    As a people, we suck at controlling our vehicles.

Driverless cars will never be distracted, never be drunk or on drugs, and they will never suffer from fatigue.

Here is some data on accidents involving human drivers:
from: Learn the Facts About Distracted Driving
"According to the NHTSA, over 3,331  people were killed and over 387,000 injured in motor vehicle accidents connected to distracted driving. That represents 10 percent of all fatal crashes and 17 percent of all accidents that caused injuries. The National Safety Council disputes these findings, and says that at least 28 percent of vehicle crashes are caused by _texting and cell phone use alone_—never mind other distractions."

In 2015, according to the CDC, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.   That does not even count those impaired by prescription or recreational drugs.



And as for your claim about the exploding rocket because it was trying to divide by zero, or the idea that the car cannot make decisions as fast as a human, consider this.   The Tesla has 8 cameras and 12 ultrasonic sensors monitoring 360 degrees and out to 250 meters.  It has forward looking radar that can see through fog, rain, smoke and more.   It is processing this data all the time.   So if something happens suddenly, the car knows where every vehicle around you is and how fast they are moving.  It knows where the road is, the hazards are, and can process the best evasion route in a millisecond.  And there is no "divide by zero" in your talk about what happens at 70 mph on the highway.  You basically have 3 choices.  You swerve left, swerve right, or brake hard and stay in the line you are in.  The hazards in the other lanes make this easy, IF you know where the hazards are.  Human drivers tend to forget to check their mirrors every 3 to 5 seconds.  And even then there are blind spots.  8 cameras and 12 ultrasonic sensors remove the blindspots.

Driverless cars are coming. They will make the roads safer than they are now.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 23, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



People are doing that now.   The difference is that they are also driving.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

Toldja.

Self-driving Uber car hits, kills pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona crash


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 20, 2018)

The best part of this moronic thread is that every single paranoid, anti-tech goofball whining about these cars is in another thread, at this moment, whining that "Drowning kills more people than guns...should we pass water control laws? Huh? HUH?!?!?!"

But one pedestrian death...and get out the vaginal sand remover, time to panic!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The best part of this moronic thread is that every single paranoid, anti-tech goofball whining about these cars is in another thread, at this moment, whining that "Drowning kills more people than guns...should we pass water control laws? Huh? HUH?!?!?!"
> 
> But one pedestrian death...and get out the vaginal sand remover, time to panic!


Maybe a hundred driverless cars out there, and 2% have killed people.

What's 2% of 260,000,000?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 20, 2018)

Can someone please explain to him why that is dumb AND factually incorrect on every level? I really don't have the patience.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Can someone please explain to him why that is dumb AND factually incorrect on every level? I really don't have the patience.


Obviously you can't either.

Driverless cars kill people.
Irrefutable fact.


----------



## BulletProof (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Driverless cars kill people.
> Irrefutable fact.



The woman jumped out in front of a moving car, in the dark. She killed herself. The car didn't kill her.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> 
> 
> View attachment 149365
> ...


Driverless cars will be on the road in 5 years.  They are already on the road for testing.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> ...


No doubt, they're already racking up a body count.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Driverless cars kill people.
> ...


You lie with such ease.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone please explain to him why that is dumb AND factually incorrect on every level? I really don't have the patience.
> ...


People driven cars kill people. 
Irrefutable fact.

Driverless cars are inevitable.

Get used to it.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Skynet smiles.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Perhaps.   The singularity is coming.  It could be the end of the human race.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Youre still using Big Brother to post.  Thought you would be off the grid by now.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Wrong.
Big Brother collects the data I post.
For the roundup coming.
I'll be in the first wave.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Nobody will hack driverless cars, computers are immune to such things.

I look forward to my car slamming the brakes everytime a crow hops onto the road.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Youre becoming psychotic. With the speed of technology they will be transporting you to the funny house in a driverless car.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 20, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Most crows dont hop in front of speeding cars.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Someone can hack your car right now.  What do you imagine someone is going to do to your car if they "hack" it?


----------



## Yarddog (Mar 21, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.
> ...





I imagine they will start out giving them to senior citizens who cant see anymore to drive, or get confused. that might kind of make some sense. But other than that I dont like it. There is so much communication that goes on between drivers of close by cars, or pedestrians, I dont know how that could be simulated


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 21, 2018)

aaronleland said:


> Has anybody tried instructing Siri to find something? If Apple can't find me horse porn I don't trust a computer to get me to my destination safely.




You're using the wrong search engine. Duckduckgo has hundreds of sites listed. I use that for all my porn.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Yarddog said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...



They are already using them to transport cargo.   And as far as the amount of communication between car and driver, at least driverless cars will never be distracted, exhausted or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Robbers and rapists can't wait.
Woman gets into her car and all you need to do is roll a shopping cart behind her car and she can't get away.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


The speed of technology. Pfffft.  We flew to the moon 50 years ago, today we can't even get a man into space.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



The car can call 911 and start making noise and flashing all the lights.   I've heard robbers and rapists love all that attention.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Parkland students could call 911 too.

When was the last time anyone even glanced at a car alarm?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



If an assailant armed with a rifle or shotgun attacked a woman in a regular car, she wouldn't survive.  The driverless car is actually safer in such a situation.   If the driver is shot, the car isn't going anyplace.   Where do you shoot a driverless car to disable it?   And the human passenger can hit the floorboards.

A simple emergency program can be installed to make specific maneuvers.  Unless the gunman hits something on the car that completely disables it, the car would perform the maneuver.   In the same situation, the human driver has to be upright and able to see to drive.   There is a very specific target that is in the same place in every vehicle in the US (with the exception of the very, very few RHD vehicles on the road.

Every time I have heard a car alarm I at least look that way.  Most people do.  If they see men attacking a woman, they will do something.  Sometimes that something would include shooting the scum.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


All I need is a shopping car and a rock and she is mine.

Sure, call 911.

Look what it did for the Parkland kids.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



All you need is a shopping cart and a rock and she is yours with a gasoline car too.  

Oh, and unless you are planning to abduct her in the shopping cart, you drove to the parking lot.  That will stop her from getting away too.   Shame about there being cameras in most parking lots, huh?

Oh yeah, the driverless cars have cameras all over them.  That will make convicting you pretty easy.  Instead of one camera shooting from a distance, you have 8 or 10 covering all angles and close up.


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> Remember those CIA cables that talked about the CIA hacking driverless cars to pull off assassinations?



They were actually talking about hacking the existing computer controls in cars with drivers ... It can be done but you get the picture either way.

The oddest response I have heard to the driverless vehicle was from the programmers.
They basically stated that all the required reactions and environmental conditions have not been accounted for in the algorithms.

It was best explained as the fact that they can only program so much ... And that the cars are actually "learning" how to drive from now on.
AI at its best ... The cars learn from their mistakes and teach each other.

The guy interviewed compared the cars to teenaged drivers who simply lacked experience and learning.

.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yeah, no one would think of backing up their car into a shopping cart to flee a rapist.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



You keep mentioning the Parkland kids.

The one who perpetrated that was armed with a semi-auto rifle and did not expect to live.  Unless a woman is accompanied by armed body guards and driving an armored vehicle, that sort of assailant will kill her whether she is driving an EV, a sports car or a big SUV.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

BlackSand said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Remember those CIA cables that talked about the CIA hacking driverless cars to pull off assassinations?
> ...


BS. They are feeding you total BS.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You are the one claiming that calling 911 will save you with a bad guy beating your head with a rock as you call.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Kind of a specific situation you are creating, isn't it?   Do you think that will happen more often than someone driving drunk, driving when exhausted or driving while distracted (like texting?)??   

If you are willing to stop someone's car, use a rock to smash a car window, and drag a screaming woman out of a car in a public parking lot, you are willing to disable her vehicle in other ways.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



No, they are not.


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> BS. They are feeding you total BS.



On the contrary I have seen programs that can "learn" ... They can even change their own algorithms.

.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yes, I sure some where and some time a woman will get into her car in a parking lot. 
I'm sure millennials will look up from their phones while texting and help the woman. Said no one ever.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Did I say "as you are getting beaten"?    No.  But there is obviously a time between when the shopping cart is put behind your car and when the perp has come up to the car, smashed the window, reached in to grab you and then started beating you.   That is supposing that the woman is completely unarmed.  Even without a gun, a good shot of mace to the face will add a delay.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

BlackSand said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > BS. They are feeding you total BS.
> ...


Programed to do what they did.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Back to square one. Shopping cart and a rock is all any robber or rapist needs for a woman in a parking lot in a driverless car.
She cannot get away.  The car will not back up into the cart.
Easy prey.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Next time you are in a parking lot, hit the emergency button on your remote and see if people don't look.  I'm not saying anyone runs to the car, but most people will at least look that way.

And are you claiming that when a car alarm is going off and people hear a window getting smashed, they won't even look that way?    lol


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> No, they are not.



The funny thing is all the people that don't have a clue about how far we have come in "artificial intelligence".
The only scary part is that we are getting to point that AI can not only find a better solution ... But the programmers cannot identify how the AI found it.

Artificial intelligence in some ways is becoming smarter than the people programming it.

.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


See it all the time. Car alarms are background noise these days.  You need to get out of your apartment more.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

BlackSand said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No, they are not.
> ...


You are very gullible.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2018)

I won't be around in 100 years so I don't care but I will never trust my safety to a self driving car


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Or an easy way to get shot.    And it is such a specific, isolated situation.   A bit of programming could fix that very easily.  Many of the driverless cars will park themselves and then pull up to the store to pick you up.  That removes the entire "dangerous" scenario.

Also, ask any woman if she is extra vigilant when walking to her car alone.   Ask her what she does if she sees a guy with an empty shopping cart and a rock standing anywhere near her car.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


What are you going to do in space?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No, just well read on newer technologies.  (plus I have a son who works a very high tech field)


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> I won't be around in 100 years so I don't care but I will never trust my safety to a self driving car


I personally cant wait to get one. The first thing I'm going to do is take a nap on my way to my homies house.


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> No, just well read on newer technologies.  (plus I have a son who works a very high tech field)



AlphaZero AI beats champion chess program after teaching itself in four hours

The program took four hours to teach itself chess well enough to beat a computer program that was designed by humans to win at chess.

.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I won't be around in 100 years so I don't care but I will never trust my safety to a self driving car
> ...



and hope that nap doesn't become permanent


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You cant live forever and going in your sleep has got to be the best way to go.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

BlackSand said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No, just well read on newer technologies.  (plus I have a son who works a very high tech field)
> ...


Chess is easy to figure out for an AI. It can think further ahead than humans.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



So every time you hear a car alarm, you look around to see how people are reacting?


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 21, 2018)

Well written software is trusted in the Operating Room.
I will not use any device driven by software written by an H1-B.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Not before you're old and gray


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The weird part is not that it could figure out how to learn and teach itself ... It was that the programmers couldn't figure out what it did to learn.

.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

BlackSand said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


OK thats freaky. Its an AI so the programmers must have given it a learning algorithm. Why cant they figure out why it learned chess?


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No matter how old or gray you are or are not going in your sleep has got to be wonderful.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Well written software is trusted in the Operating Room.
> I will not use any device driven by software written by an H1-B.


Pretty sure you use it all the time.


----------



## miketx (Mar 21, 2018)

ScienceRocks said:


> Seeing that data suggest that they're safer compared to normal cars I'd say with a few decades of testing they should be ready.


Perhaps the time will coincide with the completion of the Mueller "investigation"?


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

BlackSand said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


I just read the article. It learned the rules instead of using programming based on human experience in chess. It won off of pure logic. I wonder how it would do against different players?  I know I have to switch up my approach depending on the tendencies of the people I play.


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> OK thats freaky. Its an AI so the programmers must have given it a learning algorithm. Why cant they figure out why it learned chess?



Yeah ... And that's why they matched it against another computer instead of a human.

The program in one computer didn't have the advantage of being a computer.
The only difference was that the AI program didn't "know" what the other program did.

They gave the AI program the basics and the objective ... Along with the ability to change itself.
It taught itself how to play chess.

The weird part (again) ... Is that once the program started learning and teaching itself ... It started doing its own thing ...
And the programmers couldn't figure out what it was doing, why it was doing it or how it helped it learn chess..

.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Well written software is trusted in the Operating Room.
> ...


Nope.
H1-Bs don’t write code that drives equipment because equipment *can’t* fail.


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> I just read the article. It learned the rules instead of using programming based on human experience in chess. It won off of pure logic. I wonder how it would do against different players?  I know I have to switch up my approach depending on the tendencies of the people I play.



The article was also about a particular program and there are others ... I'll try to find one more specific in detail.
It wasn't that they made the program so it could use logic ... But the fact they didn't understand the logic it was using after a short while.

Once it gave itself the ability to use its own logic ... The program took over the logic process.
Once you give a program the ability to adapt and innovate ... Sooner or later it will figure out it doesn't have the same limitations a human does.

.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


How are they going to get into her car?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



The same is true if the car is not self driving.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Maybe maybe not

I would rather think I would face my death with my eyes wide open
I wouldn't want to miss the last moments of my life


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


My wife is trained on how to ram any car or truck that is a threat. I think a shopping cart will not hinder her escape.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You got me. No one in the planet can break glass.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



My partner is trained to shoot center of body mass.  She is an excellent shot.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Carrying a loaded gun in a car is a felony unless she has a CCW. 

And if she does, you blow apart the narrative about guns. 

So which is it?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



My partner is trained to shoot center of body mass.  She is an excellent shot.


Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



She has a CCW.   What narrative about guns?  If she is going shopping alone she, at least, has it in the car.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Ah, so allowing women to arm themselves is a good thing. 

Why doesn’t she just dial 911?

Touché.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I have never said allowing women to arm themselves is a bad thing.

The dialing 911 was because a weapon was never mentioned.  Until I brought up mace.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Fact remains, your cars can be boxed in with an empty cardboard box.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Yes, for now.   But then, yours can have the driving mistake the gas for the brake, and kill someone.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


They can’t even make a decent spell correct software, let alone the millions of decisions the brain makes while driving.


----------



## BulletProof (Mar 21, 2018)

Yarddog said:


> I imagine they will start out giving them to senior citizens who cant see anymore to drive, or get confused. that might kind of make some sense. But other than that I dont like it. There is so much communication that goes on between drivers of close by cars, or pedestrians, I dont know how that could be simulated



In the future, self-driving cars will communicate with each other.  Such protocols already exist.  It wouldn't be hard for any smart phone to communicate with nearby cars.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 21, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine they will start out giving them to senior citizens who cant see anymore to drive, or get confused. that might kind of make some sense. But other than that I dont like it. There is so much communication that goes on between drivers of close by cars, or pedestrians, I dont know how that could be simulated
> ...


They already do via bluetooth.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 22, 2018)

I, for one, welcome our new self driving overlords.

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.
Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."

Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 22, 2018)

They should have the car follow a special track -------- oh wait that's called a trolley.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 22, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone please explain to him why that is dumb AND factually incorrect on every level? I really don't have the patience.
> ...


Yes, so do cars with drivers. You're really not fleshing out any coherent points, here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 22, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman


Right, precisely because it is more capable than a human of seeing things in the dark.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 22, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> My wife is trained on how to ram any car or truck that is a threat.


Good god, you people are freaks!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 22, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> They should have the car follow a special track -------- oh wait that's called a trolley.


Oh, that will happen.  Plastic strips that communicate with our cars will be part of our roads in the not-too-distant future.


----------



## BulletProof (Mar 22, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I, for one, welcome our new self driving overlords.
> 
> "The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.
> Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."
> ...



Even though the video camera doesn't show the woman crossing the street until it's too late, I suspect the driver's more sensitive naked eye could have seen the woman crossing the street before the camera saw her. But the Hispanic felon in the driverless car wasn't watching the road.

I also suspect there's something about the scene that foiled the lidar, even though I would have expected the driverless car to be able to "see" into the darkness."

Either way, the woman crossing the road is at fault for crossing in the dark in front of an oncoming car that had the right of way.


----------



## james bond (Mar 22, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> Its fucking scary.
> Technology and the abuse that will come is, period.
> Look at that iphone10. The facial recognition technology is AMAZING. But think of how it will be abused..
> I understand i am cynical, but i also enjoy reality.



It's safe, but I still think it needs a driver behind the wheel.  I think it will be rolled out to be used by Uber and Lyft first.  Other companies are in the link below in a variety of forms.

44 Corporations Working On Autonomous Vehicles

What was shocking was the recent accident in Arizona.  I don't necessarily agree with what the police chief said about it in that Uber wasn't at fault.  It's too preliminary.  The technology should have picked it up even if the victim came out in front of the car.  The car should have slowed down.  The video may excuse the driver, but he could be held responsible if he was using a phone or not paying attention.

Tempe Police Say "No Fault By Uber" In Fatal Crash

Tempe Police Release Disturbing Footage Of Fatal Self-Driving Uber Accident


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I, for one, welcome our new self driving overlords.
> ...


Passengers in driverless cars aren't supposed to have to watch the road.
And you validate my point. Technology is no where near being able to mimic the decision making process of the human mind.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

james bond said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Its fucking scary.
> ...


In real life everyone in one will be sleeping or working on their laptop.
Many don't even give the passenger the option to take over control.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 23, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


You have a link proving *"Many don't even give the passenger the option to take over control."*?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


GM to Launch Driverless Car in 2019 with No Steering Wheel or Pedals

Google’s Next Phase in Driverless Cars: No Steering Wheel or Brake Pedals

Empty cars with no steering wheel could soon be driving in California

-Weatherman, educating the left since 1978


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 23, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


So in other words you dont have a link?  These are all future phases and they dont constitute "many".  From one of your own links moron.

*"Currently, federal automobile standards require steering wheels"*

You cant educate someone if you are ignorant of the facts.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


2019 cars come out in 3 months, shitforbrains.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 23, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


So that means that *none *of the current cars are without steering wheels and pedals in contradiction to your claim that *many* dont (not wont) have them you brainless idiot.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Shitforbrains claims all self driving cars have steering wheels.


----------



## james bond (Mar 23, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



AFAIK, Uber had that philosophy, but the accident may change it, albeit in this case even if the driver was attentive, he probably would not able to stop in time.


----------



## james bond (Mar 23, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman
> ...



Other advantages are that they have a higher and farther view and know where they are going.  The last part is scary since maps can change.  Maybe companies will program swarming if the vehicle realizes another vehicle is going to the same destination.  I would not buy an autonomous car with no steering wheel and brake pedals.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 23, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Weatherman swears all driverless cars have no steering wheel or brake pedals.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


What a lousy liar. Right there in the thread for everyone to see that I never said that, shitforbrains.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 23, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Yes you are a lousy liar. You claimed I said all driverless cars have steering wheels yet I said no such thing. I simply asked you to show us a link where there were "many" driverless cars without steering wheels and you couldnt even do that correctly.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dumbass calls GM and Google liars too. Cripes


----------



## BulletProof (Mar 23, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Passengers in driverless cars aren't supposed to have to watch the road.
> And you validate my point. Technology is no where near being able to mimic the decision making process of the human mind.



The hispanic felon behind the wheel wasn't a passenger, but was a worthless safety driver.  The idea is to work out the bugs from self-driving cars before the safety drivers are done away with.  

Most people would have hit that women crossing the road. What we want is a car that does better than most people.  BTW, I'm sure we're already there, given how incompetently most people drive.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 24, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


It's actually very close.  These cars have driven hundreds of thousands of miles on our roads, and this is the first time any human has been harmed.


----------



## james bond (Mar 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



The law requires autonomous vehicles to have steering, brakes, accelerator, seats, seat belts, etc.  I doubt that's going to change any time soon.


----------



## BulletProof (Mar 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> These cars have driven hundreds of thousands of miles on our roads, and this is the first time any human has been harmed.



Self-driving cars have driven millions of miles, and there has only been one death and that wasn't the car's fault.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 25, 2018)

I too welcome our self driving overlords.


----------



## WinterBorn (Apr 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I too welcome our self driving overlords.
> View attachment 190016



This has become an obsession with you, hasn't it?

Yes, computers can fail.  That does not mean they will all fail at 70mph.  Default setting for safety would be in place.

The driverless car is coming.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I too welcome our self driving overlords.
> ...



It  seems WM2020's vision is near sighted at best.  See:

Ask the Captain: When planes land themselves

This is the big problem with Reactionaries, they believe the good old days were the best of times.  I'm sure WM's great grandfather, when seeing the first horseless carriage, told his wife that will never replace the horse, and yelled as one passed by, "Get a horse!".


----------



## sealybobo (May 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> 
> 
> View attachment 149365
> ...


Being against driverless cars today is like being against cars back in the horse and buggy days


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 28, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> ...


Lemming.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 29, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Why has wm2020 used the word Lemming?  I can only guess, but must assume he is too dumb to post a rebuttal, and signed this 'post' with his nom de plume used as a member of the right wing echo chamber.


----------



## abrere (May 29, 2018)

we wont have a civilization within 20 years, folks. The US is going to collapse from all this debt, dope war, and warmongering,  welfare (mostly to corporations) and commie 'thinking"


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2018)

abrere said:


> we wont have a civilization within 20 years, folks. The US is going to collapse from all this debt, dope war, and warmongering,  welfare (mostly to corporations) and commie 'thinking"


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> The huge fear about these driverless vehicles getting hacked is crazy.   There are numerous safeguards that can be installed that not be accessible except for by technicians actually onsite.   Why go to that trouble when you can talk some crazy into being a suicide driver?


You can not stop the hacvker if he is wiling to spend the time he will get in!


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 28, 2018)

evenflow1969 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The huge fear about these driverless vehicles getting hacked is crazy.   There are numerous safeguards that can be installed that not be accessible except for by technicians actually onsite.   Why go to that trouble when you can talk some crazy into being a suicide driver?
> ...



If the systems that steer and stop the vehicle are not accessible from the outside, there is nothing to hack.  They can locate you, honk the horn, turn on your wipers or roll down the windows, but not drive the car.   

GM cars and trucks can be accessed from the outside via OnStar.   Is that a threat to driver or public safety?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


yes, and i do not beleive that the others are unhackable either!


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> 
> 
> View attachment 149365
> ...


Who would have thought that one day we would be able to hold a powerful computer in the palm of our hands. Eventually driverless cars will be practical and honestly I can't wait I loathe driving for more than a couple hours.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Has little experience driving and/or working with computers.
> ...


Computers, i.e. Software, is getting dumber and dumber.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Computers and software cant get dumber. They are both inanimate objects dependent on humans to make them work.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Thanks for reminding us that Leftists can still get even dumber.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Says the guy that thinks computers have a mind of their own.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





WinterBorn said:


> If the systems that steer and stop the vehicle are not accessible from the outside, there is nothing to hack.



Dufus thinks his PC is safe because it's in his house.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...





Asclepias said:


> Says the guy that thinks computers have a mind of their own.



That's the worst strawman today award.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Except its not a strawman. Inanimate objects dont really think. Your words

*"Computers, i.e. Software, is getting dumber and dumber"
*
and then you wonder why everyone laughs at you when you say you had anything to do with technology.


----------



## Vikrant (Jun 28, 2018)

We have made tremendous progress in the field of artificial intelligence because we have developed a better understanding of our brain. But, we still do not understand quite well what is responsible for our consciousness.

---

How do molecules, cells, neurotransmitters, and other brain “stuff” create the abstract experience of self-awareness? Despite massive breakthroughs in the field of neuroscience over the last century, this question continues to baffle both scientists and philosophers.

In his new book, _The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind_ (Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2018), Michael Gazzaniga, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and director of the university’s SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind, examines what he refers to as this “problem of consciousness.”

And, he notes, the fact that the word “consciousness” means different things to different people and is influenced by personal, cultural, and religious stories adds yet another layer to the complexity of the problem.

“There wasn’t even a word to talk about our current subjective experience until Descartes began using the word around the late 16th century,” Gazzaniga says.

“Throughout the last 2,000 years, three predominant ideas about how consciousness works have become accepted,” he continues. “The Greeks first said that the brain/body creates consciousness. Then, 1,400 years after that came the idea that the brain/body does it, but upon death a ‘soul’ survives the body. And finally, with the onset of dualism, came the idea that the brain is mechanical, but the mind is floating around and makes contact with the brain in a particular spot.

“Therefore,” Gazzaniga goes on, “consciousness either comes from a particular spot in the brain—be that the pineal gland or otherwise—or it comes in and animates us and then leaves us at death.” This simplified snapshot is what experts in the field have been working with up until the present day.

In his book, Gazzaniga uses the metaphor of the system of democracy to help explain his take on consciousness. “Consciousness is a ‘thing’ the way democracy is a ‘thing’—it’s not something you can put on the table; it’s a process,” he says. “It’s a summation of processes that all happen in parallel and our consciousness is a product of these interacting parts.”

This concept of modular organization suggests that specialized areas of the brain do different things, and consciousness itself is the amalgamation of thousands of those processes happening at the same time. Specialized capacities come up one at a time, he explains, and through time they are stitched together to give the illusion of a unified consciousness. In effect, each individual part of the brain is doing its respective job, and each then passes information to the next level of command. This continues until the thought or function—say, sight or sound—becomes apparent.

“There are many layers behind the curtain, so to speak,” Gazzaniga says.

The real question, though, is how to figure out how those layers communicate with one another. What is the protocol? “We have to think about this from the perspective that something can have dual natures, such as how light can be a particle and a wave,” he says, adding, “but we don’t yet know how that works.”

But what does all this say about the nature of the spirit or soul and how the problem of consciousness fits into the discussion? And does reducing consciousness to a complex set of biological processes wring out all the beauty and mystery?

“Understanding how a thing functions doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate its beauty, or that this knowledge depreciates it in your eyes somehow” Gazzaniga says. “This concern that somehow we are lessened by knowing more boggles my mind.”

From his perspective, scientific understanding of the problem of consciousness will not stop people from telling and believing in their cultural and personal stories. “We won’t give up the ghost because we know how the heart works,” he says.

Still a mystery: How does the brain make the mind? - Futurity


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...



Says the dufus who is just making up what others think.

FYI, I don't think my computer is safe because it is in my house.  I think it is safe because it is not connected to anything that is dangerous.  What will my computer do?   Use up the paper in the printer?


----------

