The DOJ requested info on 6000 people that liked an anti trump rally on facebook, WHY? And why not the pro nazi movements that must be upsetting to ww2 vets. Now how long will it be they can track your car going to an anti rally?
Edit, what do you have against ww2 vets that gave and sacrificed for freedom of speech and freedom from Nazis?, or was it the DOJ asking for protest supporters, please explain your reason for flagging me
I think itâs absolutely asinine that not once, but twice, discussion about self-driving cars has turned to fascism, socialism, communism, and all the other isms the neo-conservative movement has trained people to fear.
The issue has nothing to do with government systems. Any societal order system save anarchy, obviously, would approach this similarly. Either the government will be heavy-handed and restrict human driving, or the government will be bought by car companies and restrict human driving, or the government will listen to the majority of people who donât like to drive and pave the way to eliminate human driving. Either way, human driving goes away.
Now can we stop channeling insane conspiracy theories in this discussion?
Oh come on folks. You said it yourself, itâs a foregone conclusion that human driving will be restricted. Develop all the software you want but my position is still there needs to be a human also behind the wheel. Hopefully the human wonât be asleep at the same time the software fails. Before condemning everyone that has concerns about government intrusion, remember that frog in the frying pan? Maybe youâre too young but there was an organization back in the 70âs that advocated a take over and re-education camps for those not agreeing. Estimated at 35 million. If they couldnât be re-educated, they would be killed. As told by an FBI informer. And the leader is (or hopefully now was) a national education consultant. Time to take heads out of sand.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
Here we goâŠAnother one of Bings conspiracy theories.
Have you put any thought into this at all? You think that when autonomous vehicles become available then all of a sudden the Government is going to mandate them.
This is a WAG time frame, but at least thought out scenario of what driving will might be like in the future.
. 2030 - First autonomous vehicles available for consumers. There will be driver controls for those who want/need them.
. 2035 - Sales are good, but still less then 5% of population have autonomous vehicles.
. 2040 - More and more autonomous vehicles on the road.
. 2050 - Studies are showing that vehicles with drivers cause 10,000 times more accidents then autonomous vehicles. (yes that number is a WAGâŠbut pick your ownâŠitâs going to be extremely highâŠcould even be north of 1,000,000.)
. 2060 - Some cities are now mandating autonomous vehicles only to reduce traffic accidents.
. 2070 - More and more cities are now mandating autonomous vehicles only. Reduced accidents, but also they can hire less traffic police.
. 2080 - Some interstates require autonomous vehicles only.
. 2100 - Only autonomous vehicles sold.
Autonomous vehicles are coming. Embrace it or not. Most people here probably wonât be alive when cities and states start mandating autonomous vehicles only.
Personally I want autonomous vehicles slowly integrated into our society. This one technology has the potential to displace more jobs then all the other technologies up til now COMBINED. Maybe as high as 40% of the job force could be affected.
More than that. The vision systems necessary to make auto-drive cars possible are the vision systems that other industries are waiting on to make automation possible.
On other tech-related forums Iâm on weâve speculated that as vision systems improve, more and more jobs will be automated. Fast food, retail stocking (and other retail jobs when you consider what devices like Google Home and Amazon Alexa can do with natural-voice interrogatories), car repair, surgery⊠All of these and hundreds more can be handled by a robot if the robot can see well enough to do the job.
And as computers become more capable of independent problem solving rather than following exact programming instructions, other jobs will fall. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects - all of these will fall to AI.
Eventually the only jobs where people will have a hiring advantage over humans will most likely be arts (no one wants to see Les Mis performed by robots) and possibly sex work, although AI/robotics/materials advancements will cut into that field as well.
In short, weâre at the start-point of a massive shift in economics and none of the going economic systems from socialism to hands-off capitalism will be viable, because when over 90% of the public is out of work they are not going to just sit there and accept starvation, which means we will either figure out how people can obtain what they want and need without needing money, or we will deal with a popular revolution the likes of which have never been seen in history.
And auto-drive cars are driving the vision systems that will tip us over the edge and onto that path.
The idea behind redundancy isnât to eliminate risk, but lower it to a tolerable level. A 1% failure rate is way too high. It would have to be more like 1 in a billion or less before I would be ready to a self driving car. Like you, I deal in risk at work all the time. Iâm comfortable with risk as long as it is adequately lowered to a reasonable level. I could have bought a new car with a lot of self driving features, but I donât believe they do the job properly yet. Maybe I will be convinced when it is time to get Mrs JT a new car.
You guys are a hoot. Iâd better sell my money while I can.
âMaybe I will be convinced when it is time to get Mrs JT a new carâ You might want to let Mrs. JT decide what kind of car she would want though.
How much innovation is being pushed just for the sake of being innovative?
seems like most of it. Look at the visibility, tires, headlights, dash on any new car. Specially the touch screen controls.
Trust me if they didnât see a monetary incentive to do itâŠit wonât get done. If seen some extremely cool technology that was abandoned because there was no foreseeable market. Or the margins were too low. With tech startups investors want to see at least a 30% gain in their investment.
Thereâs some money always spent on R&D. But this is well beyond that.
Like ethanol, politics plays a shell game with electric power generation and distribution and the true costs are kept obscure behind a curtain of red tape and a smoke screen from lobbyists. I am old enough to recall when Doctors recommended Salem cigarettes and victory was in sight in Southeast Asia. It became obvious to me that I was being lied to before I turned 20 and only the lies have changed in the 50 years since then. Whatever Washington is pumping I question regardless of party.
What does politics have to do with this technology?
Hasnât that been the case with cars for at least the past 6 decades?
Tail fins?
Opera windows?
âHiddenâ headlights?
Wrap around windshields?
Push-button transmissions?
Rear view mirrors mounted on the top of the dashboard?
Surely you donât think that thoseâŠinnovationsâŠof the '50s, '60s, and '70s were anything more than gimmicks with no real value.
Are you gonna troll all night or do you have something interesting to say, Bing?
I donât know if Iâd really call those things innovations. They were really just styling issues tried and changed as tastes changed. Maybe the push button trans was different but really it just replaced the gear shift and not a true innovation. It didnât last very long though if I remember right. Weâll see if todays confusing joy stick in some models goes the same way. Those wrap around windows were a knee buster though and glad to see them gone.
Nor, would it, but the US carmakers used marketing that told consumers that they were driving hopelessly outdated cars unless they bought a new Whoopie-Mobile with one or more of those innovative features.
I just thought of another one!
Buickâs Advanced Thrust design, which was introduced in '61 or '62, moved the engine and transmission several inches further forward, thereby giving cars that already had lousy weight distribution and really crappy handling even worse weight distribution and even more understeer.
If someone wanted only to drive straight ahead at all timesâwith no consideration of chassis dynamicsâthen I guess that this innovation trumpeted by GMâs Buick Division made some sense. For anyone who wanted to be able to corner safely at more than a walking pace, it made zero sense, but Advanced Thrust at that time was marketed as⊠an engineering innovation.
I had quite a bit (7 months) of experience with former âIron Curtainâ countries in 2000. Two of them actually rebelled and their rebellions were crushed by the extremely powerful Soviet Union. Hungary(1956) and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, (1968). I also visited the former East Germany and was stationed in the former Yugoslavia. There are no doubt a few but I did not encounter anyone who missed the Soviets. I love your very pertinent to this thread humor regarding the HAL 9000 shipboard computer from the film â2001 A Space Odysseyâ. So much science fiction from the 19th century to the near present has become reality.
Not to continue this silly discussion and predictions of the future with 80% unemployment and money no longer usable as a means of exchange, all brought about by software engineers and self-driving cars. And the original reason was? You guessed it, to reduce accidents from idiot drivers? Really? This is the whole point? To reduce accidents? Then in the year 2100 there will be a revolt like the French revolution by the starving populace to throw out the elites that are still eating? Wow.
So lets take it a little farther to maybe 2200 or 2300 with humans no longer needed and the robots are doing their own programming and manufacturing. For what purpose who knows? So your vision of the future is we have managed to develop the technology to make humans redundant and the whole purpose is to reduce accidents.
OK, Iâll vote no now and throw the elitists out now while we still can and save the world a lot of problems. We may have a few accidents from time to time but thatâs better than a future with starvation and only a few human slaves controlled by robots, no?
Yes. The HAL 9000 was the shipboard computer ran amok in the very famous science fiction film â2001 A Space Odysseyâ. A very appropriate comparison for this thread. I canât see how it was presented as a documentary.