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

Groups > sci.physics > #691711 > unrolled thread

Self drive cars

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Self drive cars john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 19:26 -0700
    Re: Self drive cars Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 20:44 -0700
      Re: Self drive cars benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-24 01:09 -0400
        Re: Self drive cars Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 03:49 -0700
      Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-24 13:24 -0700
    Re: Self drive cars Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-25 16:01 +1000
      Re: Self drive cars Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 01:59 -0700
        Re: Self drive cars "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 19:12 -0700
          Re: Self drive cars "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-25 19:34 -0700
      Re: Self drive cars Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-25 16:42 -0500
        Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-25 14:46 -0700
          Re: Self drive cars Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-06-26 08:31 +1000
            Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-26 15:05 -0700
              Re: Self drive cars Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-06-27 08:30 +1000
              Re: Self drive cars "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:03 -0700
                Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-26 16:44 -0700
                  Re: Self drive cars Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-26 18:52 -0500
                  Re: Self drive cars john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 18:45 -0700
                    Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-28 13:53 -0700
                      Re: Self drive cars Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 16:04 -0700
                        Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-29 13:22 -0700
                          Re: Self drive cars "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 13:44 -0700
                            Re: Self drive cars Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 13:50 -0700
                  Re: Self drive cars "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 19:57 -0700
                    Re: Self drive cars "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-26 22:12 -0700
                    Re: Self drive cars Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-28 13:57 -0700
                Re: Self drive cars "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-26 22:10 -0700
        Re: Self drive cars Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-06-26 08:30 +1000
    Re: Self drive cars "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 19:02 -0700
      Re: Self drive cars "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-25 19:33 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#691711 — Self drive cars

Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691712

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-10, john wrote:
> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space

Self driving cars will stop at all stop signs.
They will drive 1 MPH under the speed limit.

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

#691716

On 6/23/2018 11:44 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-10, john wrote:
>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> 
> Self driving cars will stop at all stop signs.
> They will drive 1 MPH under the speed limit.
> 
Not true.

Now think about this guys. The whole essence and problem of self-driving 
cars is decision-making speed. You might think that a computer could 
recognize things and make decisions far faster than a human could and 
sometimes that's true. But sometimes it's not true. Suppose for example 
a self-driving car is following wires in the roads or even some patterns 
painted on the roads. The pattern recognition time to detect errors 
would be very small. Subhuman if you will. But some situations can be 
extremely difficult pattern recognition problems for a computer 
involving tons of data and million upon millions of calculations. In 
these cases, as John says the human wins.

Alan's problem is the typical one of non-science non-engineering people 
(like say cartoonists) who when imagining a robot imagine it to be a 
"mechanical human". From the above you can see this is exactly the wrong 
idea. People all over the 20th century were predicting a future filled 
with humanoid robots walking around your house bringing you drinks, 
making the bed and doing the dishes. Needless to say it was all 
nonsense. Except for the fact that indeed you DO have robots doing your 
dishes and washing your clothes! They are just not humanoid. Because 
they are far more efficient if they only deal with the problems at hand. 
Looks are irrelevant.

Same with Speed limits and stop signs. MUST a robot car stop? Obviously 
stop sign laws were developed for Humans to avoid cross traffic 
collisions. But a robot car might already have the information if 
someone was coming in cross traffic and would have no need to stop to 
make an evaluation calculation. Likewise the speed limit laws are 
inefficient and crude. The idea is to match speed to safe driving 
conditions, not have some singular limit on speed. Clear fair weather 
with light traffic would mean speed over the human limit would be safe 
while in snow or rain a top speed WAY under the limit would be the only 
safe action. The computer 'driver" would of course need access to enough 
information to determine these conditions. A fixed limit driven one mile 
per hour under by a robot, clearly is not only not addressing the real 
problems but is unsafe in some circumstances.

It's all about making a system work, not about trying to build a 
mechanical human driver.

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

#691725

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:09:45 PM UTC-10, benj wrote:
> On 6/23/2018 11:44 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-10, john wrote:
> >> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
> >> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> > 
> > Self driving cars will stop at all stop signs.
> > They will drive 1 MPH under the speed limit.
> > 
> Not true.
> 
> Now think about this guys. The whole essence and problem of self-driving 
> cars is decision-making speed. You might think that a computer could 
> recognize things and make decisions far faster than a human could and 
> sometimes that's true. But sometimes it's not true. Suppose for example 
> a self-driving car is following wires in the roads or even some patterns 
> painted on the roads. The pattern recognition time to detect errors 
> would be very small. Subhuman if you will. But some situations can be 
> extremely difficult pattern recognition problems for a computer 
> involving tons of data and million upon millions of calculations. In 
> these cases, as John says the human wins.
> 
> Alan's problem is the typical one of non-science non-engineering people 
> (like say cartoonists) who when imagining a robot imagine it to be a 
> "mechanical human". From the above you can see this is exactly the wrong 
> idea. People all over the 20th century were predicting a future filled 
> with humanoid robots walking around your house bringing you drinks, 
> making the bed and doing the dishes. Needless to say it was all 
> nonsense. Except for the fact that indeed you DO have robots doing your 
> dishes and washing your clothes! They are just not humanoid. Because 
> they are far more efficient if they only deal with the problems at hand. 
> Looks are irrelevant.
> 
> Same with Speed limits and stop signs. MUST a robot car stop? Obviously 
> stop sign laws were developed for Humans to avoid cross traffic 
> collisions. But a robot car might already have the information if 
> someone was coming in cross traffic and would have no need to stop to 
> make an evaluation calculation. Likewise the speed limit laws are 
> inefficient and crude. The idea is to match speed to safe driving 
> conditions, not have some singular limit on speed. Clear fair weather 
> with light traffic would mean speed over the human limit would be safe 
> while in snow or rain a top speed WAY under the limit would be the only 
> safe action. The computer 'driver" would of course need access to enough 
> information to determine these conditions. A fixed limit driven one mile 
> per hour under by a robot, clearly is not only not addressing the real 
> problems but is unsafe in some circumstances.
> 
> It's all about making a system work, not about trying to build a 
> mechanical human driver.

Wrong thinking is punishable.
Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded.

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

#691759

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 8:44:04 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-10, john wrote:
> > Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
> > Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> 
> Self driving cars will stop at all stop signs.
> They will drive 1 MPH under the speed limit.


Considering the way car manufacturers were able to find a way to have their cars "know" when they were being tested for emissions, and adjust their operation to pass those tests, and then revert of more highly polluting operation in the interest of better performance on the road, why shouldn't we suppose that the designers of self driving cars will take advantage of there better sensing of their surroundings, for instance monitoring police channels, to know when there are no cops in the area, and using good machine judgment as to save time running a stop sign, or exceeding an arbitrary speed limit, or passing in a no pass zone when no cars are coming?

Double-A

    

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

#691799

On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> 

Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is 
that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only 
passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents 
or breaches of the road laws.

Sylvia.

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

#691809

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 8:02:03 PM UTC-10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> > Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
> > Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> > 
> 
> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is 
> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only 
> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents 
> or breaches of the road laws.
> 
> Sylvia.

Your future has already been decided. No democracy can stop
the march of progress. Accept your massive new mercy givers
or die. You people have no choice in corporate governance of
your streets, your face buckets, your confessions. Ride in joy
and accept you place in the hierarchy of your massive animal-like
masters. Your response will be ignored. Watch out. Look both ways.
Don't play with matches. Sit up straight. Pay.

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

#691878

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 1:59:33 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 8:02:03 PM UTC-10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> > > Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no time to react.
> > > Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> > > 
> > 
> > Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is 
> > that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only 
> > passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents 
> > or breaches of the road laws.    Lets see how these cars do on back ice.How about an 18 wheeler rear ending.Will a drunk driver have the last word? Bert
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Your future has already been decided. No democracy can stop
> the march of progress. Accept your massive new mercy givers
> or die. You people have no choice in corporate governance of
> your streets, your face buckets, your confessions. Ride in joy
> and accept you place in the hierarchy of your massive animal-like
> masters. Your response will be ignored. Watch out. Look both ways.
> Don't play with matches. Sit up straight. Pay.

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

#691885

So, Glazier you twisted Swine, did you auction off
the bucket that you shit into in your stinky and
defective van to finally make some honest money,
for the 1st tine, in your useless life, given that your
email address of  herbertglazier0@gmail.com
anagrams to  reber_A.Hitler_z0g@gmail.com_ ,
>
since Hitler's two knives, three spoons & 3  forks
that bear the Nazi eagle, swastika & Hitler's initials
were sold for £12,500 in Dorset,
>
or are you only interested in being nothing but a
Face-Shitter and a criminal Graveyard Vandal who
is seeking Pity, Sympathy  and Apppproval with
your promulgation of the following:
>
(1)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, when Face-Shitter Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com,
& Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>:
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
>
(3)
On 03Aug2017:
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
>
(4)
On 25Mar2008, Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in:
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". --  Bert
>
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
Mark Earnest <gmearnest@att.net> "your nose is
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert

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

#691853

On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
>> time to react.
>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
>>
> 
> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
> or breaches of the road laws.
> 
> Sylvia.

fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,

sensors fail, age, lose calibration
probability of detection is never  100%,
probability of false detection is never  0
one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
plugs corrode, disconnect
the system has an overall failure rate

the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
liability be identified.

that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.

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

#691855

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> >> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
> >> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
> >> time to react.
> >> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> >>
> > 
> > Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
> > that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
> > passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
> > or breaches of the road laws.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
> 
> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
> probability of detection is never  100%,
> probability of false detection is never  0
> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
> plugs corrode, disconnect
> the system has an overall failure rate
> 
> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
> liability be identified.
> 
> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.


The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.

Double-A

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

#691861

On 26/06/2018 7:46 AM, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
>>>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
>>>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
>>>> time to react.
>>>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
>>>>
>>>
>>> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
>>> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
>>> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
>>> or breaches of the road laws.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
>>
>> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
>> probability of detection is never  100%,
>> probability of false detection is never  0
>> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
>> plugs corrode, disconnect
>> the system has an overall failure rate
>>
>> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
>> liability be identified.
>>
>> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
>> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.
> 
> 
> The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.
> 

**Correct and, in that sense, we are very close to that goal. Another 5 
years should see that aim completed.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

#691964

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 3:31:54 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 26/06/2018 7:46 AM, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> >>>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
> >>>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
> >>>> time to react.
> >>>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
> >>> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
> >>> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
> >>> or breaches of the road laws.
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
> >>
> >> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
> >> probability of detection is never  100%,
> >> probability of false detection is never  0
> >> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
> >> plugs corrode, disconnect
> >> the system has an overall failure rate
> >>
> >> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
> >> liability be identified.
> >>
> >> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
> >> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.
> > 
> > 
> > The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.
> > 
> 
> **Correct and, in that sense, we are very close to that goal. Another 5 
> years should see that aim completed.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au


Also, as soon as the fast food restaurants redesign their drive throughs to accommodate them, you should be able to send your care to drive itself to the Pizza Hut, or whatever, by itself to pick up your order!  That way, if the car does get in an accident, you won't even be in it!  

Double-A

   

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

#691970

On 27/06/2018 8:05 AM, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 3:31:54 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 26/06/2018 7:46 AM, Double-A wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
>>>>>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
>>>>>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
>>>>>> time to react.
>>>>>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
>>>>> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
>>>>> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
>>>>> or breaches of the road laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
>>>>
>>>> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
>>>> probability of detection is never  100%,
>>>> probability of false detection is never  0
>>>> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
>>>> plugs corrode, disconnect
>>>> the system has an overall failure rate
>>>>
>>>> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
>>>> liability be identified.
>>>>
>>>> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
>>>> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.
>>>
>>>
>>> The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.
>>>
>>
>> **Correct and, in that sense, we are very close to that goal. Another 5
>> years should see that aim completed.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
> 
> 
> Also, as soon as the fast food restaurants redesign their drive throughs to accommodate them, you should be able to send your care to drive itself to the Pizza Hut, or whatever, by itself to pick up your order!  That way, if the car does get in an accident, you won't even be in it!
> 

**I'm way past you there. Apart from not eating junk food, I am thinking 
of something closer to home. My mother lost her driver's license at age 
85. I am expecting a similar result for me in about 20 years. By that 
time, I expect to own a car which will reverse itself from my garage and 
wait at my front door, whereupon I will enter and my car will take me to 
my destination. I won't have to have a driver's license.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

#691972

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:05:50 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 3:31:54 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 26/06/2018 7:46 AM, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> > >> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> > >>>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
> > >>>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
> > >>>> time to react.
> > >>>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
> > >>> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
> > >>> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
> > >>> or breaches of the road laws.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sylvia.
> > >>
> > >> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
> > >>
> > >> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
> > >> probability of detection is never  100%,
> > >> probability of false detection is never  0
> > >> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
> > >> plugs corrode, disconnect
> > >> the system has an overall failure rate
> > >>
> > >> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
> > >> liability be identified.
> > >>
> > >> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
> > >> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.
> > > 
> > 
> > **Correct and, in that sense, we are very close to that goal. Another 5 
> > years should see that aim completed.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Trevor Wilson
> > www.rageaudio.com.au
> 
> 
> Also, as soon as the fast food restaurants redesign their drive throughs to accommodate them, you should be able to send your care to drive itself to the Pizza Hut, or whatever, by itself to pick up your order!  That way, if the car does get in an accident, you won't even be in it!  
> 
> Double-A
Cars like that will be running when all humankind is dead before they  hit the ground.Will these robot cars be color bigots? Will a Caddy


 try to take over the world.Will electric cars say gas cars fart? Will big heavy cars become bullies.  I think all this started so you do not have to tip a human delivering a pizza
Bert

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

#691977

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:03:28 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:05:50 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 3:31:54 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > > On 26/06/2018 7:46 AM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> > > >> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >>> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
> > > >>>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
> > > >>>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
> > > >>>> time to react.
> > > >>>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
> > > >>> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
> > > >>> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
> > > >>> or breaches of the road laws.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sylvia.
> > > >>
> > > >> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
> > > >>
> > > >> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
> > > >> probability of detection is never  100%,
> > > >> probability of false detection is never  0
> > > >> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
> > > >> plugs corrode, disconnect
> > > >> the system has an overall failure rate
> > > >>
> > > >> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
> > > >> liability be identified.
> > > >>
> > > >> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
> > > >> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > **Correct and, in that sense, we are very close to that goal. Another 5 
> > > years should see that aim completed.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Trevor Wilson
> > > www.rageaudio.com.au
> > 
> > 
> > Also, as soon as the fast food restaurants redesign their drive throughs to accommodate them, you should be able to send your care to drive itself to the Pizza Hut, or whatever, by itself to pick up your order!  That way, if the car does get in an accident, you won't even be in it!  
> > 
> > Double-A
> Cars like that will be running when all humankind is dead before they  hit the ground.Will these robot cars be color bigots? Will a Caddy
> 
> 
>  try to take over the world.Will electric cars say gas cars fart? Will big heavy cars become bullies.  I think all this started so you do not have to tip a human delivering a pizza
> Bert


The possibilities are boundless!  Just consider the hacking of those cars.  Of course the military will get involved.  Can you imagine us fighting Iraq in an age when all their cars were self driving?  Our military could hack into their cars' programs so that they would all suddenly start running over their own pedestrians!  Wouldn't that be great!

Double-A

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

#691980

On 6/26/2018 6:44 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:03:28 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:05:50 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 3:31:54 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2018 7:46 AM, Double-A wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 2:42:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2018 1:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/06/2018 12:26 PM, john wrote:
>>>>>>>> Even if a driver is there supervising, things happen so quickly that
>>>>>>>> unless a person is feeling the road- actually driving- there is no
>>>>>>>> time to react.
>>>>>>>> Nevergoing to work on roads- maybe in Space
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Driver supervision is only being used during development. The intent is
>>>>>>> that the end product will be fully autonomous, with no driver, only
>>>>>>> passengers, and the latter will not be criminally liable for accidents
>>>>>>> or breaches of the road laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fully autonomous vehicles will always have accidents,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sensors fail, age, lose calibration
>>>>>> probability of detection is never  100%,
>>>>>> probability of false detection is never  0
>>>>>> one cannot identify or characterize all road hazards
>>>>>> plugs corrode, disconnect
>>>>>> the system has an overall failure rate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the courts, lawyers, owners, victims, hospitals, will all demand
>>>>>> liability be identified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that June Bug your car hit at 60 mph took out the front right radar
>>>>>> unit, which missed that pedestrian you hit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal is not that self driving cars should be perfect, that only that they have less accidents than human driven cars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Correct and, in that sense, we are very close to that goal. Another 5 
>>>> years should see that aim completed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Trevor Wilson
>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, as soon as the fast food restaurants redesign their drive throughs to accommodate them, you should be able to send your care to drive itself to the Pizza Hut, or whatever, by itself to pick up your order!  That way, if the car does get in an accident, you won't even be in it!  
>>>
>>> Double-A
>> Cars like that will be running when all humankind is dead before they  hit the ground.Will these robot cars be color bigots? Will a Caddy
>>
>>
>>  try to take over the world.Will electric cars say gas cars fart? Will big heavy cars become bullies.  I think all this started so you do not have to tip a human delivering a pizza
>> Bert
> 
> 
> The possibilities are boundless!  Just consider the hacking of those cars.  Of course the military will get involved.  Can you imagine us fighting Iraq in an age when all their cars were self driving?  Our military could hack into their cars' programs so that they would all suddenly start running over their own pedestrians!  Wouldn't that be great!
> 
> Double-A
> 

darn!  just give FREE CARS to IRAN, with backdoor software, and use the
Cameras in front for hunting

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

#691987

AA
“  Just consider the hacking of those cars.  Of course the military will get involved.  Can you imagine us fighting Iraq in an age ”
Already been used for assassinations

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

#692137

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 6:45:19 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> AA
> “  Just consider the hacking of those cars.  Of course the military will get involved.  Can you imagine us fighting Iraq in an age ”
> Already been used for assassinations


Vehicles have already become the weapons of choice of terrorists.  Consider the possibilities when they can master controlling the self driving vehicles!  There will not longer be a need for a suicide driver!

Double-A

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

#692154

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:53:36 

> Vehicles have already become the weapons of choice of terrorists.  Consider the possibilities when they can master controlling the self driving vehicles!  There will not longer be a need for a suicide driver!
> 
> Double-A

Yes AA, that is bad news. If it can be repaired, it can be hacked to be a
servant of military extremists. The Welsh can finally throw off the 
yoke under The Windsor House Dictatorship. They already rule the
isle of Man ! What will they want with their car weapons?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web