Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #376534 > unrolled thread

No Apple Cars afterall ...

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  No Apple Cars afterall ... ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:04 +0000
    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-17 17:33 +0000
      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-17 17:56 +0000
        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-17 18:46 +0000
    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 10:43 -0700
      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-17 20:32 +0000
          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-17 17:22 -0600
          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 09:53 +0100
            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 12:58 +0000
              Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 15:29 +0100
                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 14:54 +0000
                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 16:02 +0100
                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 15:10 +0000
                      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 16:20 +0100
                        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 15:34 +0000
                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 16:40 +0100
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 15:54 +0000
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:41 -0700
                              Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-19 15:52 +0100
                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:39 -0700
                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-18 14:08 -0600
                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-19 15:53 +0100
                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-19 14:04 -0600
              Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-20 11:58 -0400
                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-20 17:32 +0000
                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-20 12:30 -0600
                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-21 02:31 -0700
                      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-21 12:49 -0600
                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-28 09:58 -0400
                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-28 15:24 +0000
                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-29 09:19 -0400
                      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-29 16:04 +0000
                        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-29 16:40 +0000
                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2016-10-29 16:57 +0000
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:44 +0000
                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-29 17:09 +0000
                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-29 13:27 -0400
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:45 +0000
                              Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-30 07:08 -0400
                                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 14:18 +0000
                                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-30 12:49 -0400
                                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 18:47 +0000
                                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 09:16 +0000
                                      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-31 05:38 -0400
                                        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 10:41 +0000
                                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 12:30 +0000
                                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:42 -0700
                                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 21:49 +0000
                                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 08:51 -0500
                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:56 -0700
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-29 16:27 -0400
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:48 +0000
                              Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 09:51 -0400
                                Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 14:22 +0000
                                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 10:28 -0400
                                    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 09:14 +0000
                          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-29 22:15 +0100
                            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:49 +0000
                  Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-28 15:37 +0000
            Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-18 14:07 -0600
        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-18 14:12 +0000
          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-18 09:16 -0500
          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 15:30 +0100
          Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-18 16:49 +0200
    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-18 06:59 -0500
      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-18 08:00 -0400
    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-19 13:00 -0400
      Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-19 20:30 +0200
        Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 18:45 +0000
    Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 09:44 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#376654

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:29:09 AM UTC-6, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote:
> > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
> >> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote:
> >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  "concept of 
> >>>>>> self-driving cars" 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge
> >>>>> anywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported
> >>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My approach to driving is simple.  I never allow my car, and with
> >>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been
> >>>>> 10 seconds previously.  This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive"
> >>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going
> >>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E
> >>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you
> >>>> can probably only afford a bike.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could
> >>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead.  As a
> >>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations
> >>>>> and very quick braking.  The short reaction times, in addition to 
> >>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous.
> >>>>
> >>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they
> >>>> could communicate and share traffic data.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's
> >>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to
> >>>> own one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a
> >>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it.
> >>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such
> >>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit
> >>> driverless cars.
> >>
> >> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country.

Compared to whom?

> > What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars?
> > 
> > 
> >> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse.
> >>
> > 
> > When Trump gets in.
> > 
> >>
> >>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense
> >>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well
> >>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc.  And that is the whole point of
> >>> this type of research.
> >>
> >> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the
> >> highway are entirely different.
> >>
> > 
> > Battlefields make use of highways, moron.  War takes place in the real
> > world, not some fold-out game board.  There will never be driverless
> > cars on American highways.  Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards
> > will have them.  You already drive on the wrong side of the road after
> > all. 
> > 
> 
> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema.

Crack sale in the hood again? You're actually arguing that war zones don't make use of existing highways? Fact: Some are even built with that in mind:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376673

Desk Rabbit wrote:

> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  "concept of
>>>>>>> self-driving cars"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge
>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported
>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple.  I never allow my car, and with
>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been
>>>>>> 10 seconds previously.  This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive"
>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going
>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E
>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you
>>>>> can probably only afford a bike.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could
>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead.  As a
>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations
>>>>>> and very quick braking.  The short reaction times, in addition to
>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they
>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's
>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to
>>>>> own one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a
>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it.
>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such
>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit
>>>> driverless cars.
>>>
>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country.
>> 
>> 
>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars?
>> 
>> 
>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse.
>>>
>> 
>> When Trump gets in.
>> 
>>>
>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense
>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well
>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc.  And that is the whole point of
>>>> this type of research.
>>>
>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the
>>> highway are entirely different.
>>>
>> 
>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron.  War takes place in the real
>> world, not some fold-out game board.  There will never be driverless
>> cars on American highways.  Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards
>> will have them.  You already drive on the wrong side of the road after
>> all.
>> 
> 
> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema.

Were you in the military?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376713

On 18/10/2016 21:08, GreyCloud wrote:
> Desk Rabbit wrote:
> 
>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote:
>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  "concept of
>>>>>>>> self-driving cars"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge
>>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported
>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple.  I never allow my car, and with
>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been
>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously.  This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive"
>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going
>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E
>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you
>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could
>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead.  As a
>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations
>>>>>>> and very quick braking.  The short reaction times, in addition to
>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they
>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's
>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to
>>>>>> own one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a
>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it.
>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such
>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit
>>>>> driverless cars.
>>>>
>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country.
>>>
>>>
>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars?
>>>
>>>
>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Trump gets in.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense
>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well
>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc.  And that is the whole point of
>>>>> this type of research.
>>>>
>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the
>>>> highway are entirely different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron.  War takes place in the real
>>> world, not some fold-out game board.  There will never be driverless
>>> cars on American highways.  Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards
>>> will have them.  You already drive on the wrong side of the road after
>>> all.
>>>
>>
>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema.
> 
> Were you in the military?
> 

Yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376770

Desk Rabbit wrote:

> On 18/10/2016 21:08, GreyCloud wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote:
>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  "concept of
>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge
>>>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported
>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple.  I never allow my car, and with
>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been
>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously.  This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive"
>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going
>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E
>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you
>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could
>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead.  As a
>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive
>>>>>>>> accelerations
>>>>>>>> and very quick braking.  The short reaction times, in addition to
>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they
>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's
>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to
>>>>>>> own one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a
>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it.
>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such
>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit
>>>>>> driverless cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Trump gets in.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense
>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well
>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc.  And that is the whole point of
>>>>>> this type of research.
>>>>>
>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the
>>>>> highway are entirely different.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron.  War takes place in the real
>>>> world, not some fold-out game board.  There will never be driverless
>>>> cars on American highways.  Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards
>>>> will have them.  You already drive on the wrong side of the road after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema.
>> 
>> Were you in the military?
>> 
> 
> Yes.

So was I, but during the Vietnam war.  Believe me a battle field is no place to 
be.
In Vietnam the only roads then were mostly dirt roads.  Only the cities that I 
were in had paved roads.  The situation is always different for different wars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376928

On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:


> There will never be driverless
> cars on American highways.


They'll be here soon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376978

On 2016-10-20, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>
>
>> There will never be driverless
>> cars on American highways.
>
>
> They'll be here soon.

I hope not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377001

Jim Polaski wrote:

> On 2016-10-20, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There will never be driverless
>>> cars on American highways.
>>
>>
>> They'll be here soon.
> 
> I hope not.

They won't sell.  America has too much of a bondage to cars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377115

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 2:30:18 PM UTC-4, GreyCloud wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-10-20, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There will never be driverless
> >>> cars on American highways.
> >>
> >>
> >> They'll be here soon.
> > 
> > I hope not.
> 
> They won't sell.  America has too much of a bondage to cars.


Auto insurance rates ... will be the marketplace motivator for the public to adopt them.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377201

-hh wrote:

> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 2:30:18 PM UTC-4, GreyCloud wrote:
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>> 
>> > On 2016-10-20, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> There will never be driverless
>> >>> cars on American highways.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They'll be here soon.
>> > 
>> > I hope not.
>> 
>> They won't sell.  America has too much of a bondage to cars.
> 
> 
> Auto insurance rates ... will be the marketplace motivator for the public to
> adopt them.
>

Yes, auto insurance companies will be a driving force, ... until someone gets 
killed... then the lawyers will be licking their chops on a very large lawsuit 
against the auto maker or insurance company that won't pay.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378307

On 10/20/2016 11:58 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
> 
> 
>> There will never be driverless
>> cars on American highways.
> 
> 
> They'll be here soon.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/driverless-truck-ubers-otto-makes-colorado-beer-delivery-153340756.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378313

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 11:58 AM, DFS wrote:
>> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> There will never be driverless
>>> cars on American highways.
>> 
>> 
>> They'll be here soon.
> 
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/driverless-truck-ubers-otto-makes-colorado-beer-delivery-153340756.html
> 

Another test.  These things will never be allowed on the road in the US.
It's too easy to win an election on this issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0601/Ban-driverless-cars-NHTSA-says-yes.

https://morningconsult.com/2016/02/08/voters-arent-ready-for-driverless-cars-poll-shows/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378360

On 10/28/2016 11:24 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2016 11:58 AM, DFS wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There will never be driverless
>>>> cars on American highways.
>>>
>>>
>>> They'll be here soon.
>>
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/driverless-truck-ubers-otto-makes-colorado-beer-delivery-153340756.html
>>
> 
> Another test.  These things will never be allowed on the road in the US.


They're already allowed on American highways.  Within a few years
they'll be commonplace.  Hate to see truckers lose their jobs, but
driverless trucks will save companies a lot of money.

Cars have been parallel parking themselves for years.  Soon, big
self-driving delivery trucks will back themselves up to a loading dock
and deliver fresh Chinese-made goods to Walmart and Home Depot.


> It's too easy to win an election on this issue.
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0601/Ban-driverless-cars-NHTSA-says-yes.
> 
> https://morningconsult.com/2016/02/08/voters-arent-ready-for-driverless-cars-poll-shows/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378397

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/2016 11:24 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2016 11:58 AM, DFS wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2016 8:58 AM, deplorable owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There will never be driverless
>>>>> cars on American highways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They'll be here soon.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/driverless-truck-ubers-otto-makes-colorado-beer-delivery-153340756.html
>>>
>> 
>> Another test.  These things will never be allowed on the road in the US.
> 
> 
> They're already allowed on American highways.


Let me know when you see a "driverless" car without a human
inside who has control of the vehicle.


>  Within a few years
> they'll be commonplace.  Hate to see truckers lose their jobs, but
> driverless trucks will save companies a lot of money.
> 
> Cars have been parallel parking themselves for years.  Soon, big
> self-driving delivery trucks will back themselves up to a loading dock
> and deliver fresh Chinese-made goods to Walmart and Home Depot.
>

Nope.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378401

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <ahjgdie92.ad@rooftop.invalid>, deplorable owl wrote:

> > DFS:
> > They're already allowed on American highways.
> 
> Let me know when you see a "driverless" car without a human
> inside who has control of the vehicle.

While you're at it, let us know when we can rent movies without going to 
blockbuster! Or when we can build car without hundreds of people assembling 
them, or when we can know our body fat percentage without going to the doctor! 
Or when airplanes can take off, fly and land themselves! Or when the map tells 
us when to turn! Pfft, never going to happen, I tell you. 

Autonomous cars are important for our road safety, too many idiots on the roads 
today. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYFNDsAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRPloIALNN1CA7fwUGHRxWY29imMbw
pYtH2dmdDSrR2eYmrtJfHwvK8lDMF/yx9JvAo0iHYj3Cq1N9zwfBlt0WsP+ZZE8K
kazkPGIU85PFtfYM8ydHe3HAeo/VtZPCISKUfoNHD65s8FtXOAiiV2IurpUNBlw1
ILBt76zLaGnxPGmMEiJkajJa/jSC1SxO4UUlTD4fwNyKip0sVdtqR1czQfPIMazK
b8N0y6IPSCBQ03tuBOWaZakGnVs6290GEZwiKhJGtR8P3jHn3MscEkStfdDTgk2I
ZOek5fJCOmJaYqTNN+QA65sLaH/yXQLP89frDz8ELSL+mZ/VYfuzLb/Ug762xCI=
=DW55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
Sandman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378404

On 29 Oct 2016 16:40:13 GMT, Sandman,
 published this proof of the Infinite Monkey Theorem:

>
> In article <ahjgdie92.ad@rooftop.invalid>, deplorable owl wrote:
>
>> > DFS:
>> > They're already allowed on American highways.
>> 
>> Let me know when you see a "driverless" car without a human
>> inside who has control of the vehicle.
>
> While you're at it, let us know when we can rent movies without going to 
> blockbuster! Or when we can build car without hundreds of people assembling 
> them, or when we can know our body fat percentage without going to the doctor! 
> Or when airplanes can take off, fly and land themselves! Or when the map tells 
> us when to turn! Pfft, never going to happen, I tell you. 
>
> Autonomous cars are important for our road safety, too many idiots on the roads 
> today. 

Why get into a car, if you're not gonna drive?
They already have vehicles you don't need to drive... taxis and buses.
Take a cab.

If tech is driving the car, I guess tech will pay for any and all damages.
Yet, almost all tech comes with disclaimers disavowing any liability.

I'm not sitting in a stalled car while it reboots after an update.
And the sound system decides I don't have the required permission to run 
the sound system.
And the fuel guage monitor sees that my mp3 player is full.
And the gps shows that you are driving in a lake. (I get that in Mntns)

Let's wait until software can run reliably.
Long after I'm dead.

-- 
♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378448

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <nv2ke2$rmo$1@dont-email.me>, Godzilla wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > While you're at it, let us know when we can rent movies without
> > going to blockbuster! Or when we can build car without hundreds of
> > people assembling them, or when we can know our body fat
> > percentage without going to the doctor! Or when airplanes can take
> > off, fly and land themselves! Or when the map tells us when to
> > turn! Pfft, never going to happen, I tell you.
> 
> > Autonomous cars are important for our road safety, too many idiots
> > on the roads today.
> 
> Why get into a car, if you're not gonna drive? They already have
> vehicles you don't need to drive... taxis and buses. Take a cab.

Humans are unsafe on the road, humans drive buses and taxis. :)

> If tech is driving the car, I guess tech will pay for any and all
> damages. Yet, almost all tech comes with disclaimers disavowing any
> liability.

If 100% of all cars were autonomous we wouldn't have any damages, that's the 
entire point. 

> Let's wait until software can run reliably.

It already can.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYFcEUAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRxeQH/3hX5jO0/E0Ub6jIkyj16xb/
Ezj3gkTSwlKwEwasIiIRV+vYbWDS1CSIRoDgNk4HVdQLRPkNXvORpd4AwtAOmwPN
xmn8C+FgOEMqEm8WB88IlkfETKfIDfiCZV3b3OsCN813/RdHAz0bq8qGeRIsz6e4
LvZ5dAXRY8OWTfeN7UOWQwUlMbNVRD/fGFUKl8F5tJMAWwxqwbA9jnzgirhQaZYM
KIBDAtIRSGsvgxBzjbk2wPkOf3en+K+6qReuiH65P/bWJNHtE/erfyXNKYdlpkjB
lW/92XTMRiqGZet3K3rxEMIVYDGxWoGSduLtyfwr3UicMZIl6VXsSY+5YjNI8Zo=
=Uz+s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
Sandman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378405

Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> In article <ahjgdie92.ad@rooftop.invalid>, deplorable owl wrote:
> 
>> > DFS:
>> > They're already allowed on American highways.
>> 
>> Let me know when you see a "driverless" car without a human
>> inside who has control of the vehicle.
> 
> While you're at it, let us know when we can rent movies without going to 
> blockbuster!

I know.  I hate Blockbuster.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378408

Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Autonomous cars are important for our road safety, too many idiots on the roads 
> today. 

One hopes that autonomous cars are familiar with the bad habits of those
idiot drivers.

-- 
A hundred years from now it is very likely that [of Twain's works] "The
Jumping Frog" alone will be remembered.
		-- Harry Thurston Peck (Editor of "The Bookman"), January 1901.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378449

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <nv2mdf$82v$1@dont-email.me>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> > Sandman:
> > Autonomous cars are important for our road safety, too many idiots
> > on the roads today.
> 
> One hopes that autonomous cars are familiar with the bad habits of
> those idiot drivers.

They are, and can predict it near to perfectly. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYFcFMAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRvmEH/0oVR8LARE/eZG3ns6whg2Yk
HAookDGTnb4+606airlCLCbbAJGBWIQRpCXxk4eQ4NeC2zf9P6UDEfeljyUPvv/B
ftkmjGD7blIxNpowTtSWA8dNizH29SHT7I5bL/SMEDfmys7ccepZ9VFAcEaTt5MM
yT/EYwb5i7ROY4hkBmvpfRknnB+3GbzILfmyGDy8yy+7rTBoSHk5GAYPVnEyzDol
BayGQ9ebE6rKxRsi98p+3Dcmf8fVwjUFHmYPpkkpZxNCyx5D8fwfSw98YlIoBLzC
6Mj7GDKFByjoUT6TS3gfqnptch72jLYLzQQ08xVCNGtI1k8e/QRE71IQ/uEdKlQ=
=lmXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
Sandman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378454

Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> In article <nv2mdf$82v$1@dont-email.me>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > Autonomous cars are important for our road safety, too many idiots
>> > on the roads today.
>> 
>> One hopes that autonomous cars are familiar with the bad habits of
>> those idiot drivers.
>
> They are, and can predict it near to perfectly. 

Sure they can.  Perfectly.

Pull my finger, dude.

-- 
Someone whom you reject today, will reject you tomorrow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web