My engineering friend said this : just make a gps for all cars with google maps and help me park the car in tight spots and parallel park. No driving assist beyond that.
How does that driving future sound ?
>>54133934
Why?
Every car has GPS, it's called a smartphone. and even most women can park cars.
Self driving cars turn a journey from a stressful time to a relaxing time where one can watch a tv show, read a book ect. Just because you enjoy performing a task manually doesn't mean everybody does.
OP you are a fucking retard, kill yourself
>>54134057
>Every car has GPS, it's called a smartphone. and even most women can park cars.
you have to pay for a cellphone plan and the screen is far too small.
people can park cars, but have difficulty if the cars are parked really closed to each other
>>54134057
women aren't allowed to drive tho
>>54134057
>Self driving cars turn a journey from a stressful time to a relaxing time where one can watch a tv show, read a book ect. Just because you enjoy performing a task manually doesn't mean everybody does.
But anon I already watch hours of tv a day and I already read books / code all day. This means you're just watching a 2d screen once again instead of navigating a 3d space.
>implying all GPS are exactly accurate
>>54133934
>Self driving cars
what the fucking point? I could just order a taxi
Why tale the fun out og driving. Not everyone lives in the city
I want self driving cars for road trips. Driving for several hours like that is tedious and dangerous. You could be sleeping/reading/anything else.
>>54134455
Millennials don't like driving, and have no motivation for independence.
High levels of automation also make tracking and remotely disabling vehicles easier for law enforcement.
Self driving cars *are* taxis.
>>54133934
WOW! HOLY SHIT, CONTACT THE PRESS! CALL ELON MUSK! CALL SCOOBY DOO! Your genius friend has untangled years of enginerring and research by Google, Tesla, and others!!!!!! Incredible!!!! NICE ONE OP!!!!!!!!!
>>54134496
>reading in a moving car
>>54134519
yeah, actually I get carsick from reading
>>54134506
>Millennials don't like driving, and have no motivation for independence.
thats what google / tesla wants shareholders to believe
Once you have advanced driver assistance like tesla's autopilot it's hard to go back to a normal car. You can always disengage it for the fun country roads but you can just stick it on for those long boring motorway journeys.
It will disrupt so many indsutries.
>My engineering friend said some retarded thing
>This deserves its own post!
I hope your friend dies of AIDS.
>>54134510
/thread
I wish I had friends as smart OP's engineering friend.
it doesn't matter every state will have different laws for driverless cars. some will make you be awake in the driver's seat ready to take over in case the car fucks up, other states will let you sleep in the back seat.
so it's not like you can just do whatever you want on long road trips.
I honestly wouldn't mind an autopilot mode for when I don't feel like driving.
I can't wait to take naps in my car while it drives me places.
>>54134097
>spot so tight
What are mirrors.com
Fkn plebs
>>54134496
This.
If you drive half an hour to work you spend an hour in your car doing a task that is just difficult enough to keep you from doing something useful. That's more than 15 days a year. So much wasted time for an absolutely pointless task.
>>54134455
Because it costs money and the taxi driver won't wait in front of my house all day.
>>54133934
This sounds like some 12 year old shit. Did you're engineering friend finish the entire Millennium falchon Lego set?
GPS has shit accuracy, does not work in urbam canyons, and if it goes down people would die. Oh and GPS does not prevent cars from hitting pedestrians
Also the point of self driving cars is to make traffic flow better because machines are better than humans
Don't most recent cars already park themselves?
I mean i can park a car but my car does it much better when it's a tight spot.
Imagine
>go to mates for drinks
>decide to go somewhere else get taxi or w/e
>end up going to a bar
>home time
>fk cabs, have to wait too long and too expense
>call your car for drive by pick up and return
>then go home even
gg, millenials got it made
>>54133934
No. It is happening.
Safety reasons too, because old people should not be allowed to drive.
are you sure that all windows systems loaded with google apps run at <current time>?
Sharona Mc Cotton on a Beetle VW could have a pirated os timed @ 1-1-2001 every day.
the nwo is not ready for this
Self driving cars will be awesome.
>> Car can drop you off wherever you want and go park somewhere more convenient.
>> Easier to share between friends, family, whatever. It can take you to your destination then go serve other people while you're busy.
>> Less traffic because idiots aren't crashing on the motorway.
>> Cheaper insurance because there are no crashes. I've never crashed but I still have to pay a tonne for insurance, primarily thanks to all the idiots that do (and greedy insurance companies).
>> More effective use of parking space. Get out and then the car can park. No need to have such a wide space since there is no need to open the doors.
>> Reduced road toll because it's impossible to drink and drive or text and drive.
>>54134455
Depending on where you live taxis can be pretty unreliable, and it's going to cost you a fortune. Self driving taxis will be extremely cheap, maybe you won't own a self driving car because self driving taxis will be so damn convenient.
>>54134873
If that's the case the car will be programmed to wake you up and get you in the drivers seat when you get to the states that require it.
>>54133934
does she have a degree?
>>54134097
>you need a plan to use GPS
You're an idiot.
>>54133934
Try reassessing parallel parking for your driver's license after using automatic parking for 10 years. Fail spectacularly and have to redo driving school.
>>54133934
>My engineering friend
Second time I see this in a week.
Could this be the birth of a new epic meme?
>>54135005
>Safety reasons too, because old people should not be allowed to drive.
And fat people. Jesus, I've seen some shit when I visited the US. People who literally need two minutes to get in their car, people who drove a car with a disassembled front seat so they could fit in. I highly doubt that those are people who have quick reactions or anything like that.
>>54135075
Not disagreeing with you, but the data plan would make it a whole lot less dumb, sure, it can update maps when you're home with your wifi, but on-the-fly traffic info, points of interest, all that jazz that comes with internet.
Not to mention the whole botnet part of it, uploading driving data to the datacenter so it has enough information to improve on the driving algorithms.
>>54135027
Have a dose of reality
>manufacturers don't keep up with software/firmware updates for models a year or more older
>security flaws are constantly found
>manufacturer offers no patches
>make you pay for a new ECU/computer
>people find out that its easier than ever to steal cars because it can be done over bluetooth with a Chinese cellphone app
>every boy racer on the road will have a button that disrupts the GPS directions of every car around him
>people with malicious intent will remotely disable your car and lock you inside of it in the middle of the road
>elon musk worshiping redditors will respond with "b-b-but I can text and drive."
A. Kill bystander and passenger but swerve and avoid crowd on the road.
B. Kill passenger and swerve to avoid crowd on the road.
C. Kill passenger but avoid crowd.
What one would you choose /g/?
>>54135152
fuck
B. Swerve and kill passenger but avoid pedestrian*
long day.
I will never drive a self driving car because of the ethics involved in sacrifising the driver if a large group of spaniards run accross the street
>Not being able to reverse park without technology
WE SOLVED THIS PROBLEM WITH MIRRORS ALREADY, FUCK THIS GENERATION
>>54135141
You think the likes of Google and Tesla haven't thought of this. This will be a heavily regulated industry, if they can't deliver a safe and secure product then it's not going to happen at all. The fact they're throwing so much money at it suggests that they believe they can deliver.
Also, I'd say it's a fairly conservative estimate that most people in my country would spend at least one year of their life driving. I'd much rather spend that time on other things.
>>54135387
Teslas have already been shown to have numerous issues with software, and not every manufacturer is up to their standards.
Just look at what happened to Jeep. Remotely hackable, control over the stereo, door locks, and could kill the engine. All from one little flaw exposing the entire computer system.
That is the future, and its the same for evey IOT device.
>>54134638
I've been doing lessons for a few weeks now and I already hate it.
Autonmous cars will
- reduce the amount of cars needed in big cities
- a cheaper way of transportation
- make taxi and truck drivers unemployed
- reduce the amount of accidents drastically
- make elderly, disabled and blind people more independent
etc
Self driving cars will only become efficient and viable if there's some sort of centralized algorithm that can redirect cars based on traffic congestion.
Any decentralized system will result in massive traffic jams.
Doesn't matter to me, I'm not a fan of them, I'll be keeping my old truck until I die.
>>54135152
cant I kill the crowd?
Johnny cab taxis when?
I thought it was supposed to streamline traffic in general, not enable lazy fucks to get even more lazy.
>>54134916
>If you drive half an hour to work you spend an hour in your car doing a task that is just difficult enough to keep you from doing something useful. That's more than 15 days a year. So much wasted time for an absolutely pointless task.
You should have moved closer to your work then. Same happened to my dad - he chose to live 1 hr away from work and even when he got rich af on stocks he didnt move closer. Eventually he got cancer.
>>54134097
>you have to pay for a cellphone plan
i use osmand, fully offline
>and the screen is far too small.
big enough, set the map to zoom based on speed, and/or consider voice (tts) directions
>>54135152
like this
>>54135152
D. Plow through the fucking crowd. Like those piece of shit Arizona Trump protesters, they are committing a crime and shouldn't be on the road. I'm not dying or being injured for idiots.
>>54135606
>supposed to
according to whom?
>>54135152
since it's not a pedestrian crossing, i'd brake as much as i can, but i won't go off the road
it's not my nor any off-the-road bystanders' fault a bunch of retards ran onto the road in front of a moving vehicle
>>54135152
Best of both worlds. Hit brakes, swerve to avoid much damage as possible without killing the driver.
Pedestrians on the road are fucking stupid. I know driver has the responsibility but that doesn't grant you permission to be a dimwit and just traipse into the street on your own whim. This time the computer will be objective regarding your impending doom and determine if you deserve it or not.
>>54135973
Can't swerve if other vehicles are around you. Aim straight ahead and maintain speed.
>>54135152
I'd hit the brakes and honk like a madman.
>>54135563
>Any decentralized system will result in massive traffic jams.
Well if the internet can work with a 30 years old distributed protocol stack maybe we can do something about cars.
>>54134097
Android auto. Just plug in your phone and features will show up on your double din car stereo screen... usually about 7 -8 inches, but some can be up to 10.
And data can be had on a prepaid plan for like 45 bucks a month. Less if you are savvy.
>>54133934
All I want is autopilot on the speedways.
Should be very easy to implement.
>>54136074
I didn't say it was impossible.
>>54135152
Swerve to kill as many jaywalkers as possible.
>>54135633
>YOU SHOULD HAVE HURURR UDDUUD
There are many people in that situation for whatever reason.
Personally I would try to move close enough to work to be able to just ride my bike, but that is just not always possible. Plus, often you are just stuck in traffic for the most time.
>>54134057
>every car has a GPS, it's called a smartphone
Are you actually retarded? Cars don't have smartphones.
>>54136136
You wouldn't believe cars these days! All I see is him texting his car friends all day!
>>54133934
electric cars are DOA.
i mean lets get serious who is buying them except for wealthy seattle hipsters?
>>54136159
I'm considering one becasue in my country you pay far less tax on electric cars.
>>54135177
>not writing your own selfish car driving software
>>54136159
Everyone should, tired of being poisoned by naziwagen exhaust gasses.
>>54136558
this
the audacity and stupidity of spewing combustion products to move a 2 ton vehicle around to get people to wal-mart is both shocking and depressing
I seriously cannot believe repubtards that think we aren't killing the planet with our cars when I cannot even go on a run in the city without getting high on exhaust fumes the whole time, then multiply that by 24/7/365 the world over
At least by moving to electric cars we increase the efficiency about 3 fold and centralize energy production
>>54136558
Good luck buying an electric car without your own private garage to charge it every night
>>54136626
stay in reddit where you belong homo
>>54136671
>killing the planet is good!
The republican party used to be full of environmentalists, the modern repubtards like you just spout memes taught to you by the MSM and politicans
>>54135178
imagine, if you will, every parking spot taken up perfectly, every car is parked perfectly, and you'll never scrape your car pulling in.
this isn't a problem of "we fixed this already!" it is a matter of "we have a vastly better solution than what is already on the market."
>>54133934
The car in that picture is already going off course. It needs to go like a meter still before turning if it wants to follow the blue lines. Assuming the turning rate is actually that of the blue lines, it will now drive in to the car to the left of the parking spot.
I'm hoping self driving cars will be an excuse to beef up our shitty mass transit system. Take a self-driving cab to the park and ride (no worrying about parking) a self-driving bus to the train station, then a self-driving cab/shuttle/bus to your workplace.
But it'll never happen because so many people think they're "above" using public transit.
>>54136717
I'm always confused why republicans dont like us investing in energy efficiency, solar/wind/nuclear power, upgrading our power networks and storage, switching to more electric power
I though republicans like self-sufficency and avoiding being dependent on foreign country oil or even coal from another state
All I want is a follow distance sensor so I can chill during traffic jams. I'll even keep it between the lines, I just wish the car would cover all the accelerating and braking in bumper to bumper traffic.
>>54136126
>Personally I would try to move close enough to work to be able to just ride my bike
You won't be able to bike ride when the autobots take over.
>>54136717
>redditor homo projecting his political nonsense
No upvotes here, homo. Take your shit back to your containment site.
Self driving cars clear up traffic, eliminate fatalities and make car ownership optional.
Embrace the comfy future.
>>54137212
there are so many problems with this. For one, everybody wants their own shiny new red car, not a white google one that a pedo came in.
>>54137196
so do you want to burn MORE gas? what is your stance aside from avid shitposting?
>>54137265
depends how much money it will save me and how much more convenient it is to use
the same argument was used against uber/lyft (dirty scummy drivers) but modern technology allows us to quickly weed those people out of business
>>54137405
>accusing anyone of shitposting when you start spouting political bullshit out of nowhere
Seriously, you 12 year old tumblr girl. Go back to your containment site.
>>54137438
>the same argument was used against uber/lyft (dirty scummy drivers) but modern technology allows us to quickly weed those people out of business
there was a serial killer who was an uber driver who picked people up between kills. Newsflash : cars can kill too. Ever heard of K.I.T.T. ?
>>54135824
Is osmand as good as Google maps or at least a Garmin?
I really hate having to use my garmin because it is slow as fuck, doesn't have the backroads I need. Google maps sucks offline and doesn't have features like Trail maps.
For reference I use a GPSMAP 60CSx for hiking with trailmaps and topos,
I also have a Nuvi 52 for Car shit.
It would be nice to get some of that shit on my cellphone because my GPSMAP is showing its age.
>>54137544
Google maps now can be used offline, but offline data maps automatically deleted after 30days.
>>54137603
I know they can be used offline but the scope is limited. IIRC last time I used maps offline I couldn't get my entire county. I would have to preset my route and pray to God that Gmaps didn't crash, otherwise I could kiss some data goodbye.
>>54133934
self driving cars are DOA because people are too dumb
we live in a world of idiots who can't configure a wireless router, they're going to figure out a robot car? I don't think so.
>>54137544
I think it's pretty good. However, the menus are a bit obtuse at times, it feels pretty open source and less smooth than google maps for instance. And the version that's on Google Play seems to be fucking terrible, I use the one on F-droid,
I haven't used much other GPS apps, so I can't really compare though.
>>54137727
Ok, Ill look into that when I get home. If the damn thing has Topos for my region I am sold.
>>54137673
what is there to figure out ? they can operate cruise control, they will be able to do this.
>>54137265
> For one, everybody wants their own shiny new red car, not a white google one that a pedo came in.
Everyone already has a damn car in the US.
>The motor car has clearly become an integral part of American life, with vehicles outnumbering licensed drivers
I for one, look forward to a driverless future.
>>54134057
>driving
>stressful
It's like you never talked to any motorcyclist in your life or in general joy riders
>>54134057
>Self driving cars turn a journey from a stressful time to a relaxing time
you won't be saying that when it's been hijacked and set to kill you.
>>54138014
>Everyone already has a damn car in the US.
Sauce? Lots of people driving around in hoopties out there, things that look embarrassing on a curb.
>>54138018
most people rarely just joy ride, for them it just gets them from point A to point B where the real shit happens.
Like lets put it this way, you remember the last movie you saw, how about the drive to the theater ?
I'm not saying its stressful 100% of the time, but after a while its just another boring thing you do.
>>54138086
>Like lets put it this way, you remember the last movie you saw, how about the drive to the theater ?
I remember it, the drive was fine.
>I'm not saying its stressful 100% of the time, but after a while its just another boring thing you do.
When I drive I can see things in full 3D versus watching tv or using a pc which is 2D. Lots of people like to travel, not just sit at home looking at a screen
>>54138079
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/dv1c.cfm
im going to skip the statista shit and get it right from the gov source.
>>54134519
This.Those self driving cars better be self cleaning too.
>>54138127
again, how does this go against what i said?
>everybody wants their own shiny new red car, not a white google one that a pedo came in.
>Lots of people driving around in hoopties out there, things that look embarrassing on a curb.
People want their own cars, good looking cars like BMW, not some jetta or volks
>>54138165
The point I was making was that everyone in the US already has a damn car, most people won't buy a self driving car AND a regular car.
Its going to be one or the other, not both.
Besides who said that self driving cannot be inside some bently or BWM or audi make ?
>everybody wants their own shiny new red car, not a white google one that a pedo came in.
Yet millions of people use a taxi, or take public transportation everyday.
Here is a thought, if self driving cars (no option for a driver) are proven to be much safer than human drivers, would human operated cars eventually be made illegal ? or basically priced out of the market as insurance rates would start to climb on people who operate their own vehicles.
>>54137544
being that the map data is user-generated (OpenStreetMap), i can't say if the areas you care about have the detail you need, though there are cases where there is more "off-road" details because of this (people adding in for example, cycle tracks they use)
certainly give it a go, i have my entire country on my sd card (relatively small because the data is stored in the original vector format, not rendered/bitmapped tiles)
>>54138331
oh yea, also worth noting that if you feel inclined, you can record GPX tracks and submit them to be added to OpenStreetMap, for your own and others' benefit (additions to OpenStreetMap will eventually make it into a map update in osmand, as that's its source)
>>54138331
Sweet, I just got a S7 and popped a 128GB sd in it, real-estate isn't an issue anymore. (coming from a S3 with a 64GB SD)
>>54138369
Even better, I hope I can import my trails from my handheld garmin, I keep my private trails and property lines on it.
what I don't understand is how self driving cars are even remotely feasible.
I have never had a single piece of technology more advanced than a pocket calculator, that didn't crash or glitch out, even for just a few seconds, at least a couple times a year.
a self driving car's system would have to be incredibly complex to function in the real world, how can they possibly make it utterly foolproof. if my computer crashes or hangs for a few seconds, boohoo restart it. when my self driving car crashes at 60mph and i'm reading a book or asleep or w/e, I and possibly several other people die
>>54134057
>trusting computers to drive something as dangerous as cars
we really hit full retard here
why the FUCK do we keep sticking computers in everything
>>54138393
>Even better, I hope I can import my trails from my handheld garmin, I keep my private trails and property lines on it.
possibly, i don't know much about the subject myself, i just know it can be done
my only contributions thus far have been a few street name corrections/additions around my area
>>54138468
yeah man, as soon as the cpu crashes in the car it will burst into flames and car will just fly off into the air as without the cpu working there won't be anything to hold it to the ground.
Have you considered that the hardware part is the easy part, its the software that is difficult.
Once the software side is figured out making redundant systems will be a cake walk.
>>54138503
Except something like 87 people die every day in car accidents in the US.
and only something like 2 million people injured every year due to car accidents
yeah people are doing such a great job here ...
>>54135027
>implying you owning a driverless car would reduce insurance
motherfucker, you said it yourself your rates are high due to other drivers, whom are the people you drive for, not yourself, and I for one will not get a self driving car. If I could customize my own vehicle it would have very few power operated accessories. Having control of what moves and when means fewer breakages.
>>54138577
i'm talking about the software. if making software that NEVER fails is a cake walk, why hasn't it ever been done, ever? did everyone else just decide not to try? or are only the developers at lord google smart enough to achieve it
>>54138577
>as the cpu crashes in the car
They use RISC architecture and ECC RAM, crashing isn't an issue that can occur
>>54138393
>Sweet, I just got a S7 and popped a 128GB sd in it, real-estate isn't an issue anymore. (coming from a S3 with a 64GB SD)
the maps i use (two countries and a few smaller areas) take up a whopping 1.25G of space
the downside to compressed vector data is that the phone does need to render it, but with a decent phone the speed should be pretty good, possibly even faster than online maps (depending on how fast your mobile data is)
here's an index of osmand map files, to give you an idea of how big they are
http://download.osmand.net/rawindexes/
>>54136101
What happens to that plan if you live somewhere like I do? My buddies parents have to have a cell hotspot just to make their shitty AT&T phones work here. no gps, no cell service or data service without it.
Self driving cars are the new robot vacuums. super neat to think about, but not really all that widely helpful to the general public
>>54138628
Did you even read what I wrote ?
I said redundant systems not software that never crashes.
Let us pretend your driverless system does crash.
If you have a steering wheel you will have to take over.
If you don't have a steering wheel a redundant system will take over and keep on driving or pull you over.
These cars will be made to handle mechanical breakdowns one way or another, they don't exist only in some simulation where nothing can break or go wrong.
>>54138503
>trusting humans to drive something as dangerous as cars
ftfy
>>54138628
>why hasn't it ever been done, ever?
but it has
you just haven't been exposed to any field that uses it
>>54138838
if most humans can't even do it right, then how the fuck can we expect computers to do it better
>>54138856
>if most humans can't into math, how can we expect computers to do it better
0/10
>>54138869
computers were designed for mathematical purposes, not driving
>>54138881
>implying driving can't be described in mathematical terms
>what is hard science
Self driving cars are a meme for the rich. If it were so great, they would of have put money into it and we would all be in self driving cars with the auto industry pushing safety and lobbying for nanny state tier bullshit to get rid of other cars.
If people are still questioning it, its because there isn't much money to be making.
>>54138689
>there are people on this earth that are this narrow-minded
>>54138920
self-driving cars will ultimately be less profitable than regular cars because they are so much more efficient. we will need less cars to go around. that is why there hasn't been a big push
>>54138588
>>54135141
>implying you actually have to OWN the car
You'll just have to pay a monthly fee and a car will come pick you up whenever you request it with your smartphone. Company will take care of insurance and firmware updates.
>>54138977
Exactly, its a lost of profit and no sane business man wants that to happen.
>>54138997
doesn't mean it's not the way forward
sounds like you want the govt to subsidize it
>>54139010
Actually I am against it. I don't want to live in a world where everyone has to have a self driving car. I love the joy of driving and its the one thing I love to do that doesn't involve staring into a screen. They would have to make a world where both must coexist.
My engineering friend said this: your engineering friend is a retarded faggot.
>>54138977
>we will need less cars to go around.
why?
>>54133934
New cars are a huge waste of money. I'll wait until I can buy a used driver-less car for < $5000 with < 90K on the odometer.
I've been doing for every car I've bought since I was 17, and have never had any regrets.
>>54134057
How do you get stressed driving, do you drive a car thats just unsafe or did you never learn or practice enough?
Also self driving cars will still be a hazard mostly based of the maintenance they would require, most people don't do maintenance till the car breaks.
>>54139251
this tbqh
>>54134344
This. Especially with lanes and areas not allowing u turns
>>54139267
I think being stressed out is way better than not being completely chill while driving.
You pay more attention.
>>54138241
>Yet millions of people use a taxi, or take public transportation everyday.
the taxi/public transportation usage is pretty static (people that have no other option). If the driverless car doesn't do better, it will always remain the uncool fallback.
>>54133934
>>54134097
>>54134455
>>54134506
>>54137196
>>54137462
I've just banned all you useless contrarian faggots. Take this to another site.
>>54137078
yes I want this to come to economical cars and to function well, it's not that hard to do
>>54139053
It doesn't matter what YOU want, you whiny faggot. The free market doesn't exist to serve you alone, unless you're rich, which you AREN'T.
>>54136717
>>killing the planet is good!
lol NIMBY faggot what do you think happens to your batteries and where does the energy come from
>>54138503
>trusting computers to drive something as dangerous as an airplane
>trusting computers to drive something as dangerous as a rocket ship
>>54136944
they think it's a lost investment / worst ROI. They aren't so wrong
>>54139242
since the cars are driverless they can go pick up other people instead of sitting idle in driveways and parking lots
>>54139053
Go to a track if you want to drive, those exist today.
>>54134470
Walking or taking the train would still be the better option in the city though.
>>54134800
It works ok if its quick and easy to move back to driving without aid.
>>54134902
How. Cars shake and seats are difficult to get any meaningful sleep out of.
>>54134967
>machines better than humans
Not in this century.
>>54135178
Maybe they drive landbarges.
>>54139267
i'm not stressed out by my driving, i'm stressed out by all the fucking morons driving around me
>>54139418
from centralized power generators that are incredibly more efficient than the ICE in your car if you are talking about fossil fuels, and from all types of other renewable resources
>generalizations and my opinion is the only one that matters, the thread
>>54136729
i like the idea of the car letting me out and parking automatically. useful for narrow spots
Why are there so many shitposters ITT asking the dumbest fucking questions possible and not allowing us to have an actual conversation about driverless car technology
>>54138856
because they;
- can "see" in all directions, all the time
- will never be distracted
- will never be tired
- will never get "road rage"
- will always obey the road rules and limits
- can potentially communicate with nearby cars (useful for example if your car is wanting to leave a blind corner, it can broadcast this fact to approaching cars)
etc, etc
computer-driven cars have the potential to be far better at driving than humans (in general, at the very least)
>>54139569
i like the idea of the car letting me out and then renting itself out to other vetted passengers for profit instead of sitting in a parking garage all day
>>54133934
> just make a gps for all cars with google maps and help me park the car in tight spots and parallel park. No driving assist beyond that.
Yeah good luck in an underground parking garage.
>>54139581
For the past month the quality in posting has gone down significantly site wide in my observation. I have no idea what's going on but I'm waiting for it to blow over.
>>54139558
ok, centralized production is more efficient but it's questionable if the additional material still saves the environment.
>li-ion Charge/discharge efficiency, 80–90%
>Maximum efficiency of electrical engine is usually near 75% of rated load
so about 67,5% of the electricity;
if the coal plant has an efficiency of 40% (typical value for distant, large plants) then we end up at
27% efficiency vs. around 20% for the I.C.E.
>>54133934
your friend are too dumb to be in engineering.
>>54139598
as long as all the options are available, everybody benefits.
>>54134097
You only need data to load the route, once your route has been loaded you can turn off all data and still use your GPS navigation including the TTS. Literally 5 bucks a month on prepaid to have a minute of data time when you need to load a new route.
>>54134519
I've always wondering why we get carsick from reading. I can read on subway which shake a lot more than when my family go on a highway trip.
>>54139587
They also have a much quicker reaction time, and can never panic.
>>54135137
GPS does not require data.
How dumb are you?
Tons of map apps, Google maps included, have the ability to download and cache maps/POI/ect
>>54139651
but coal isn't the only source for electricity, and the electric grid can adapt to alternative fuel sources as the economy changes (renewables, natural gas), whereas an ICE can only run on gas, regardless of the price
>>54139677
>>54135137
>implying map and system updates won't be provided free of charge over LTE by the car manufacturers
>implying you won't be able to subscribe to an updated plan that includes real-time traffic and hazards avoidance
>>54139737
yes, this is a problem, even though combustion engines could also use sugar ethanol or corn ethanol with small changes. There were also cars that tank pressurized natural gas and burn that, poor countries still use them
>>54134097
>you have to pay for a cellphone plan and the screen is far too small.
and cars are for free?
>>54139651
I can't find any good concrete studies about the matter
but some stuff worth reading
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/tank_vs_hybrid.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf
Generally speaking , even taking into consideration the extraction or rare earth metals and other shit for hybrids/EVs , they still come out ahead of ICEs.
What is up to debate still is most how much they come out ahead at this point it seems.
>>54139711
and don't get fatigued, or distracted
>>54139786
all of that is moot since electric cars are here and here to stay
no one is paying money to retrofit their car for biofuels or natural gas when you can put that money towards a superior electric car
there was a short meme period in the early 2000's where people were into biofuel and retro'ing diesels but then they realized that growing monocrops are worse for the environment than just burning gas
>>54134573
me too.
>>54139817
Exactly, It doesn't have to be perfect, but better than a human.
>>54139824
>no one is paying money to retrofit their car for biofuels or natural gas when you can put that money towards a superior electric car
the distant the car can travel is inferior and it also takes longer to charge the car. It is superior in what way?
> but then they realized that growing monocrops are worse for the environment than just burning gas
the same thing may happen with solar cells and batteries, these technologies aren't exactly green.
>>54139814
most of the older hybrid studies are done on the dual-drivetrains (ICE and battery) whereas the newer 'plug-in' hybrids don't really have an ICE per se, but a gas generator that charges the electrical system that ultimately runs the car by itself
simpler and cheaper
>>54139847
you can get a plug-in hybrid >>54139854
with the same range as an ICE car and uses a fully electric drivetrain
>the same thing may happen with solar cells and batteries, these technologies aren't exactly green.
the difference is that solar cell manufacturers are actually scientists and there's been a ton of money invested into it by the largest companies in addition to large governments, whereas the biofuel shit was pushed by hippies
the scope of a large solar farm compared to a guy getting kitchen fryer leftovers to run his VW are drastically different
The current state of solar FAAAAR exceeds the adoption of biofuels
>>54139581
>>54139640
It's not even summerfags yet (I don't think) which is rather worrisome
Has there been a migration from some other platform or has 4chan fully gone mainstream?
>>54139824
>there was a short meme period in the early 2000's where people were into biofuel and retro'ing diesels but then they realized that growing monocrops are worse for the environment than just burning gas
don't get me started on biofuels/E85
What a fucking load of shit.
1) even if you convert every farm in the county to make E85 fuel crop - it still won't be enough
2) you get about ~30% less mileage on E85 fuel
it was a dumb meme that americans fell for, so they could feel good buying some giant SUV that was E85 ready.
Hundreds of millions or even billions were wasted on this project.
Should have just offered people larger rebates for hybrids/EVs instead.
>>54139847
>the distant the car can travel is inferior and it also takes longer to charge the car. It is superior in what way?
First will get better with time and it's nothing that gets you buy surprise, and second is pretty unimportant when you can literally charge your car overnight by your house. Sure you can imagine a scenario where it matters, but I can do the same thing with gas cars.
Also, electric cars are far superior machines in many other ways as well. Lower noise, better, immediate response, far better acceleration, more space, easier to drive, simpler construction etc. Every person I know that has tested an electric car in his life says the same thing: They are just better cars.
>>54139932
yes there do exist other *chans
/g/ is plagued by generals now.
All these irc channels now exist to support most generals, thats why you will never see /g/ without generals at or near the front page now.
As soon as the thread is pruned another one is made, bump limit notices are announced too.
At one point I remember seeing 3 CSG threads on the front page, it is a cancer.
>>54139938
>1) even if you convert every farm in the county to make E85 fuel crop - it still won't be enough
this problem also applies to renewables, the solar fields take up tons and tons of expensive panels to replace one fossil power plant.
>2) you get about ~30% less mileage on E85 fuel
this also applies to the battery car
getting rid of the fossil fuel is a big pain because of the vast amounts of easy energy it provides.
>>54136717
Different anon but electric engines are a money sink in r&d. The cost Thermal runaway is also a factor of why we haven't moved to electric.
Besides the reliability just isn't there in lith-ion battery's as well as nickle metal hydride batteries. They are significantly more fragile. We aren't completely ready to head into all electric yet.
>>54140004
>We aren't completely ready to head into all electric yet.
We really are not, but nobody expects every single person to suddenly buy an electric. It will be a slow transition and I think that's a good thing all in all.
>>54140004
anon I built my own electric vehicle
It's an electric vespa clone that goes 45mph and gets about 90 miles of range hauling about 350lbs total (me+scooter)
I do this shit as a hobby with a basic knowledge of electricity, hub motors, and controllers
The hardest thing was spot welding the batteries with nickel tabbing and soldering on a BMS
I just don't buy that 'we aren't ready yet.' when I can build my own electric transportation in my 900 sq ft condo with a starter set of hand tools
>>54140046
it's the batteries that trouble me. lead batteries can be recycled, but li-ion is almost impossible to recycle because they have so many thin layers of different materials. maybe the best approach is to leach out the contaminents and then bury the rest of the battery.
>>54139998
You do know coal plants cost a lot of money too
and of course you need to keep feeding them some type of fuel
The cost for the new Plum Point plant
> The cost of building the plant, including change orders and addition in scope, was approximately $1,585 per kilowatt (kW).
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=7450
Meanwhile solar has a price of 30 cents per watt or $300 per kilowatt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_per_watt
One curerent downside to solar farms is they require a large area, but on the flipside to this issue is that people can install solar panels on their homes or in other places
lets face it, renewables are the future, and generating electricity at the source (your home/work) is going to be more and more common.
>>54136944
Party is backed by a lot of oil investors.
>>54137078
So just better acceleration and breaking then.
>>54137212
>safer
>stoping traffic
Anon it wont do much for either of those.
>>54137673
Even if they could, would the driver know what to do if something goes wrong.
>>54138749
>made to handle breakdowns
Ive heard that more than once, but one failure can lead to multiple failures. Thats why even in the extreme testing and designing of rockets we still have them fail and have near fatal to fatal effects when multiple fail. What you are calling for is to have google become nasa in r&d which is simply unreasonable.
>>54140444
the calculation for price per watt uses "total project capital cost divided by the amount of peak power or watts-peak (Wp)". solar cells almost never produce at peak production.
It's more practical to compare the energy that was produced rather than the capacity.
I have a perfect driving record, no accidents, drive a Hummer.
>giving up control to a machine while I read a tablet in the back
This is the future they gave me
>>54140453
>Ive heard that more than once, but one failure can lead to multiple failures. Thats why even in the extreme testing and designing of rockets we still have them fail and have near fatal to fatal effects when multiple fail. What you are calling for is to have google become nasa in r&d which is simply unreasonable.
I feel like the argument you are making is like this
"its not perfect solution so we shouldn't do it"
and all I am and most people here are saying that it might not be perfect but it is better than what we currently do.
>>54140511
I don't have any solar panels to pull those figures.
But given the large spread $300/kW vs $1500/kW solar can afford to be inefficient.
>solar is only getting more efficient and cheaper too
>>54140534
>browse dank memes
>car drives me to get tendies at local shop
>go to self checkout
>drive back fapping to loliporn
>never interact with a single person
>>54140641
>and all I am and most people here are saying that it might not be perfect but it is better than what we currently do.
most people dont die in car accidents (which will happen with botnet cars). The people that do are 99.99% of the time under the influence or just recklessly speeding like they think they're in Fast and Furious. You ever hear about the time when Tom Brady got pulled over for doing 190 on an american highway? Yeah. That one didnt make the papers.
>>54135141
>you'll be able to hack the shit out of your own car and install gentoo on it
>>54140641
If solar becomes economically viable and is also able to provide bulk energy when it is needed, big energy will invest in it, no matter if it is good for the environment or not. If you're buying the cell yourself you're taking the financial risk.
>>54140691
If we can avoid 32,000 deaths a year and over 2 million injuries, why wouldn't we ?
>The people that do are 99.99% of the time under the influence or just recklessly speeding
And driverless cars will never do either of those things.
>>54140760
>If we can avoid 32,000 deaths a year and over 2 million injuries, why wouldn't we ?
Not by doing this. This is like if you have a problem with injecting a drug the doctor just cuts off both hands instead of putting him in a jail.
>And driverless cars will never do either of those things.
Sounds a lot like prison.
>>54140793
what are you rambling on about now ?
>>54140816
your analogy makes no sense, are you a woman or something ?
And does not being able to drink and drive bother you that much ?
>>54140835
There's nothing wrong with having a beer and driving or smoking weed and driving. Its fun ill never give it up even if it kills me
>>54140760
>If we can avoid 32,000 deaths a year and over 2 million injuries, why wouldn't we ?
the violation of liberties doesn't justify the reduced numbers, it's not clear how well the botnet car will see, but it's not going to be 0.
even though I wouldn't be surprised if the traffic system slowly adapts to the availability of the new cars and incentivized people to use them to reduce risks
>>54139695
Swaying accounts more for the car sickness than shaking for most.
>>54140079
Lead would require quite a bit more in maintenance based on how they corrode.
>>54140444
I kinda want to see more structural repurposing go to changing the original structure to a solar farm. Especially with dried dams.
Non of that dumb shit like solar road ways.
>>54140641
No im saying that in doing what you said we would need non privatized companies to make these cars because the means to make that end would fall into negative profits. Unlike self driving you would actually be able to sue the company making these care based on the fact that they are an unsafe system, in the occurrence of it failing. Similar to the gm key issue that happened years ago. This would require stricter regulations in order to put out the car as well as more lawsuits filled against the company per incident.
>>54140793
>>54140691
>>54140453
this is probably the most moronic set of posts in the history of 4chan, therefore I'm calling bait
7/8 it was really pretty good but you need to make it just slightly more believable
>>54140945
>Unlike self driving you would actually be able to sue the company making these care based on the fact that they are an unsafe system, in the occurrence of it failing.
no, you wouldnt be able to sue. Its called the "Assumption of Risk" law. The same law they have in every MLB baseball stadium where even if you get killed by a baseball or flying bat you can't sue. Its printed on every ticket and the courts uphold it,
>>54134112
>t. Sheik Mohammed
>>54140945
lol 4/20 bro
your logic is so retarded you must be high
>>54140945
Yes solar road ways are dumb, those stupid solar side walks are dumb as fuck too.
A huge waste of money, they could have installed solar panels on like ~70 homes and getting a better ROI, it was some bs feel good project for politicians.
>Similar to the gm key issue that happened years ago.
The key issue with the ignition/key thing was the GM *knew* about the fault and the possible consequence of it and did nothing to fix it.
so really not similar at all, unless google/the auto maker knew about a fault in the system and never fixed it or notified the owners about it.
>>54140945
>Non of that dumb shit like solar road ways.
yeah, I remember that scam.
>>54140945
>>54141026
not to mention if there's a problem in the software they can push out a fix in minutes or hours over LTE instead of having to recall the cars
>>54140974
Listen anon you car made to ship neets seems as viable as solar roadways. The money to create availability is too intangible to support everyone on command, completely driverless and it becomes a liability, the traffic will only spread evenly which will only slightly speed you up, maintenance will cost more when going to a mechanic thanks to added systems, and it will be far out of the price range of the average consumer.
The only way i see it working is for them to be used by a government/organization/business as busses.
>>54141303
holy fuck are you on drugs
>>54141303
>completely driverless
>liability
It's a liability with a human driver though.
>>54133934
I can't wait to sit in the back seat and read a book rather than concentrating on the road. Op confirmed for retard
in case you goys forgot.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_accessory_power#Electrical
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GPS
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_navigation_device#Sensitivity
cars have plenty of electrical power from the alternator. a standard cell phone has a very low transmit power, this is why cell towers are put so close together. self driving cars should have radios in them that act as micro-cell towers or have high-watt gps tx/rs equipment. There is no reason to use the piss power transmit power found in a battery operated cell phone. Using the power from the alternator would allow for long distance triangulation with distance cell towers and GPS.
obvly the power used should scale up or down depending on the range to towers. in urban areas there are more towers around. also this system would allow the cars to see each other at long distances and even act as cell tower relays/micro-cells for data/voice, this would increase network reliability on highways where towers are rare.
tl;dr don't forget you have a whole fucking engine worth of electrical power at your disposable.
>>54134112
I wish
>>54141548
Actually, now that you bring this up, what happens if the alternator fails? is there an ammeter built into a car? Would it just pull over to the side of the road before the battery dies?
>>54141548
>this is why cell towers are put so close together.
its not the sole reason, a single tower can only support so many users due to spectrum limitations.
The only way around it is to just get more towers (or upgrade the tech)
For example for LTE
>Peak download rates up to 299.6 Mbit/s and upload rates up to 75.4 Mbit/s depending on the user equipment category (with 4×4 antennas using 20 MHz of spectrum)
How much power your phone/the tower has cannot over come the transfer limits because spectrum is limited, with enough users in such a case the speed would slow down to a crawl.
This is why if you go to large sports events or similar you will notice that your speed went to shit, you might not even be able to make a call.
>>54135444
>Teslas have already been shown to have numerous issues with software, and not every manufacturer is up to their standards.
To be honest, using Tesla is a poor example. Their cars haven't been designed from the ground up to be fully autonomous, which I'm sure would eliminate a fair amount of issues.
Even with the features that are available, you're still required to sit in the front seat and be ready to take over at any moment, which shows that even Tesla isn't fully confident. Obviously this is due to this all being in its early stages.
Either way, you have to admit self driving cars is an enormous liability risk, which will make any company that sells them be damn certain to minimize any risks whatsoever. Even if buying a car requires you to sign a waiver, every accident that happens with their vehicle would hurt sales.
Also I'm curious: would encryption have any role in car security in the future?
>>54134057
>relaxing time where one can watch a tv show, read a book ect.
This will not happen until the skynet (google) car is a thing and replaces all other cars. Every self driving car manufactured has a disclaimer stating that the driver is responsible for their own safety and has to remain attentive at the wheel. This disclaimer pops up every time you start the car and you sign away your soul when you buy it at the dealer. Manufactures will not be held responsible if you crash. Driving on public roads requires a coherent operator at all times and autonomous cars are not excused from this.
so no, you won't be able to punch in an address and jack off in the limo tinted back seat. If you want to travel/commute passively you're going to have to make use of public transportation where there is someone else driving for you or get rich and hire a chauffeur.
There is no point to self driving cars until all cars are self driving.
>>54141671
>Manufactures will not be held responsible if you crash.
The courts will decide that. Probably the Supreme Court.
>>54134057
Not only that, with a self driving car, you could theoretically travel across the country and simply sleep in the car or play games/use computer in the car while it drives you across. This could theoretically also, free up the need for housing for some people.
>>54141577
conventional car will first switch off the big consumers, like headlights, then slowly other components fail, like the speedometer. At this point you should pull over to the side because the servo drive will fail in event of total power loss, as well as the engine probably stopping its operation.
>>54141729
I know a lot more about airplane engines than I do about cars. But aren't the spark plugs separate from the alternator? or is that not the case in cars? Because I know in airplanes magnetos (not the alternator) provide power to the engine so that in the case of alternator failure, the engine still runs.
>>54141724
>>54141637
What I feel will happen is that while the car *can* drive itself, there will be laws passed (thank you small gov) that will prohibit you from sleeping, or being drunk in the car while its in operation.
*maybe* if it didn't have a steering wheel/pedals this would be ok, but otherwise I sense that were will be a lot of FUD about the issue and pre-emptive laws will be passed making non-issues illegal.
>>54141750
good question, I believe the motor tends to stop in modern cars because the ECU no longer regulates it then, not sure though.
>>54141577
>>54141548
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_communication_systems
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/diagnosing-car-problems/mechanical/5-signs-alternator-problems.htm
seems like the system will attempt to use the battery more but it's non sustainable. it's usually belts burning up or such though, in an automated car without hybrid drive system the machine could notice if the power from the alternator when under a threshold range and then have the car pull over.
a dead battery is not as bad as a dead alternator.
>>54140993
In that case you would need to be aware of the risk or that the product is warning you of risks. However privatized businesses will avoid dealing with risks when they can, which in this case if they don't warn the user of the product in some way then assumption of risk wont apply based on past cases.
>>54141008
Ok and?
>>54141026
>>54141230
Heres what i don't get how do you not see tech companies that have done the same thing about risks. Like the imessage glitch. Also failure of patching by signal or glitch is a possibility for software. Not all of the tech in it can be fixed via LTE in software especially when they can be corrupted if they could they would be already. In hardware mechanical failures can cause calibration issues as well. Its not an acceptable practice to put unaided auto calibration on machinery.
>>54141631
it's one of the reasons yes, but you see how car micro-cells could help with this issue, ofc they would primary be for V2V and aGSP, whatever.
>This is why if you go to large sports events or similar you will notice that your speed went to shit, you might not even be able to make a call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxQOPFg2mo
normies tend to ignore the physical limits of these systems until they are reminded.
>>54141724
yes, this wasn't uncommon with trains, and actually, trains would have a better efficiency than individual cars for this application, given the cities are connected.
>>54141724
>Not only that, with a self driving car, you could theoretically travel across the country and simply sleep in the car or play games/use computer in the car while it drives you across. This could theoretically also, free up the need for housing for some people.
except you wont be able to shit or piss or eat or take a bath
I hope all the cars also act as meshnet nodes
>>54141823
>Heres what i don't get how do you not see tech companies that have done the same thing about risks. Like the imessage glitch. Also failure of patching by signal or glitch is a possibility for software. Not all of the tech in it can be fixed via LTE in software especially when they can be corrupted if they could they would be already.
Again, this feels like another one of those
>its not a perfect solution, therefore its shit
>what about every possible problem that might arise ?
People will do what they already do when their cars break down/won't start.
They call for a tow and get it fixed.
Also understand the car industry rigorously tests these kinds of things, thats why it feels like the tech (like say navigation) is years behind what you have on your phone, they know how much is literally riding on the system working and that bugs cannot just happen once a while, that is far too often.
>putting yourself into a moving metal cage that can be remotely controlled
GENIUS, WHAT COULD GO WRONG
>>54141863
with a train there is someone else operating or monitoring the train safely. The train isn't driving it self. A self driving car would be treated the same way as in there has to be someone monitoring what the car is doing. i.e. driving the damn car.
>>54141908
>They call for a tow and get it fixed.
are you serious?
>>54141922
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UBdrMTxsvs
check 'em.
>>54141965
>uhm MR. CAR
>>54141833
Why even call it a micro-cell.
You don't call your wifi router a microcell.
its just a mesh network built around short range communication
When you increase the range you increase the data requirement exponentially, so its best to keep it within some reasonable distance.
>>54141724
comfy train
also usually has toilets and a restaurant wagon
>>54141908
>They call for a tow and get it fixed.
that's not easy to do when you're dead
>>54141360
They have to pay for their own insurance.
The owner of the called autonomous car will have to pay for the whatever may occur.
>>54141671
I read that article. Wasent it Bloomberg?
I think its pretty dumb to have it come near to a complete stop if your not attentive though. Seems as dangerous as if it weren't autonomous.
>>54141694
See >>54140993
Assumption of risk would still take effect as long as they warned you.
>>54142011
it's the term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcell
it would need to be high-radius so it could rx/tx with other cars.
see: >>54141786
V2V is like 1km range as p2p, if you connect it to a ground based network it could be sent data about traffic around the area.
>>54142033
ah yes, because if your car breaks down it automatically blows up.
Strange because I was replying to OP when he was talking about glitches and other shit when it comes to updates.
Will driverless cars reduce car related deaths to zero ? Probably not.
Will it make a significant decline in the current number of auto related deaths, it probably will.
>>54142049
>Assumption of risk would still take effect as long as they warned you.
many people say that the assumption of risk law is an archaic, obscure law ripe for overturning in the highest courts
>>54135152
Google's self driving car can see it hundreds of feet away and will avoid the catastrophe altogether.
>>54141764
Other anons in this thread have said that laws for self driving cars will vary by each state, to which I agree.
>there will be laws passed (thank you small gov) that will prohibit you from sleeping, or being drunk in the car while its in operation.
I'm willing to bet this will be what happens when they first become available for purchase to the public. In fact, they will still probably expect you to be alert to take over control if needed. However, years down the line, I can see the laws becoming more lenient when the cars have below a certain threshold of accidents, especially if your car has certain backup systems that are approved by the government to improve safety.
>>54142157
>However, years down the line, I can see the laws becoming more lenient when the cars have below a certain threshold of accidents
mate, there will be no "down the line". This will never happen. Your driverless car fantasy is just that - a fantasy
>>54142150
google sees every citizen - at all times
>>54142049
>I read that article. Wasent it Bloomberg?
i didn't read an article. I just know how laws are now and how law tend to eer on the side of YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY leads me to believe that owners of self driving cars would have to still drive the car less be open negligence when they are found in the back seat napping.
I didn't know about the whole coming to a complete stop when the driver gets drowsy. Would it like slowly come to a stop why it was save? or would it go full "I NEED AN ADULT" and lock brakes?
>>54142150
The car will be faced with an unwinnable situation. What will likely happen is it will try to avoid the accident after it sees the first thing that can harm it, but not the second. So it will swerve so the truck doesn't hit before realizing it killed the kid in the road.
>>54142130
>ah yes, because if your car breaks down it automatically blows up.
have you never had a tire blow while driving? or a brake failure? or pretty much anything else go wrong with a car while it's driving on a crowded road? what do you think a major software crash or serious bug will do to a two-ton piece of tinfoil traveling at a high velocity that relies on it entirely?
it's not really surprising that some people consider trusting some hipster startup more interested in enabling you to more efficiently tweet about your trip to walmart than making a car that actually functions as a car traditionally should is kind of sketchy
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/27/self-driving-cars-and-the-kobayashi-maru/
>>54142177
If a few billion dollar companies are getting involved in this, then I see no harm in at least keeping up with the news about it.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/13314198/1/11-companies-to-invest-in-if-you-are-optimistic-about-driverless-cars.html
http://www.techinsider.io/google-apple-tesla-race-to-develop-self-driving-cars-by-2020-2015-10
>>54142230
>have you never had a tire blow while driving? or a brake failure? or pretty much anything else go wrong with a car while it's driving on a crowded road? what do you think a major software crash or serious bug will do to a two-ton piece of tinfoil traveling at a high velocity that relies on it entirely?
Sure and what happens right now ? The computer will try to handle it as best as it can, the other driverless cars around it aren't tailgating and will likely avoid it with little fanfare.
Time and time again, the same sort of arguments keep appearing which are "well how will the computer handle this ?" like its some a-ha gotcha moment or some bullshit.
Accidents due to mechanical breakdowns won't be prevented, but those are only a small sliver of what causes accidents in the first place, and even if they happen other driverless cars will be able to react quicker and better than any human would.
Alcohol is the largest contributor to car related deaths.
>>54142337
the main application for the self-driving car will be
-alcohol abusers
-texting addicts
-low skill drivers
>>54142311
>If a few billion dollar companies are getting involved in this, then I see no harm in at least keeping up with the news about it.
billion dollar companies are dime a dozen these days. Even airBnb is "worth" $18b and they say only 200,000 people have ever used the "service". (Horrible I might add)
>>54142337
>Sure and what happens right now ? The computer will try to handle it as best as it can, the other driverless cars around it aren't tailgating and will likely avoid it with little fanfare.
Aside from the bullshit assumption that every car will be driverless, how exactly are they going to avoid a car coming at them from behind with a stuck accelerator? Or a loss of control from some outside event that the computer could do nothing about?
>Time and time again, the same sort of arguments keep appearing which are "well how will the computer handle this ?" like its some a-ha gotcha moment or some bullshit.
Wow, gee, it's almost like that's one of the biggest obstacles in the way of this technology, or something. You're right though, who cares about that? All I want is my car to finally be a piece of shiny trendy consumer technology just like my iPhone! Who cares about the logistics or the complicated reality of designing and building cars, just take my money!
>Accidents due to mechanical breakdowns won't be prevented, but those are only a small sliver of what causes accidents in the first place
I never implied or said they should, the point I'm ultimately trying to make is that people shouldn't be so fucking naive and welcome this trend of cars becoming shitty consumer electronics made by unproven companies that have no idea how to build a car in the first place.
>>54142365
>airBnb
Never heard of it to be honest. Anyway, we will find out if this is the future or not in a few years, as the rivalry between the largest automotive companies in the world would yield the best possibility of success.
>>54134112
They shouldn't be. Most women I know are actually too confident behind the wheel. This stems from everyone telling them they are perfect little princesses all the time. They live in a world without real consequences and that is what makes them a dangerous threat on the road. If they get in an accident they can just cry and a man will make it all better.
>>54142472
driverless cars already exist and they perform better than their human counterparts
>welcome this trend of cars becoming shitty consumer electronics made by unproven companies that have no idea how to build a car in the first place
All of the car reviewers (that know way more than you and I) are in agreement that the Tesla Roadster is one of the absolute best cars on the market in all regards
If we can have private companies sending shit to the ISS, I think they can handle cars
