Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
You claim the technology exists. Name a company that is making
a car that can drive itself on roads that car maker hasn't,
themselves, mapped, in the dark, in the raid, past an accident
with a cop directing traffic.

I'm going to keep asking until you admit it doesn't exist, or
STFU.

Dumbass.

Unlike some I don’t do any thinking with my arse. I find the
brain is better for that purpose.

Given that you're reduced to outright lying, and your previous link
didn't even try to address most of what's been mentioned, I can't
be bothered to follow any more pointless links.

It's a simple question, retard:

What company manufacturs Level 5 capable cars today? A company
name. It's easier for you to type that than it was to copy and
psste a bunch of links. But you didn't, because you can't.

I'm going to keep asking until you admit it doesn't exist, or
STFU.



https://www.nvidia.co.uk/self-driving-cars/hd-mapping/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...431/See-world-
eyes-CAR-High-resolution-maps-reveal-self-driving-vehicles-rapidl
y-navigate-busy-roads.html

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/th...f-driving-car-
sees-the-road/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ps-future-of-s
elf-driving-cars/




Mike Collins wrote in

ter nal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:65435887.529803658.841144.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news.
et ern al-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:1310148336.529750377.817133.acridiniumester-gmail.com@n
ew s. ete rnal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:26:25 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
news
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:19:09 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

"Micro" electric cars might offer some advantages but
are still vehicle sized. So they are still a waste of
space on grid-locked city roads and still need
parking places.

I expect that within a few decades at the most, the
only vehicles allowed inside the denser parts of
cities (and indeed, maybe everywhere else as well)
will be fully automated. There is no gridlock with
such a system.

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

When you have 1,000,000 cars in a system designed for
500,000 (or, in the case of LA, 20,000,000 cars in a
system designed for 500,000), there is *always*
gridlock.

No there isn't.

Yes. There is. There is a maximum capacity for any road
system.

You can put 10 or 20 times more vehicles on the
roads, and never experience gridlock.

It may well be higher for self driving cars for the same
number of square feet of pavement, but there's still a
maximum capacity. And when you exceed it, you will have
gridlock. Unless, of course, being a retard, you have
redefined "gridlock" to mean something that normal people
will point and laugh at you for.

Cars can drive a few
centimeters apart, at higher speeds than current driving
allows, with optimized routes, considerably reduced wait
times at intersections, and synchronized in all
directions.

Aside from your insane, retarded belief that self driving
cars will *never* *ever* suffer mechanical breakdowns,
resulting in massive, many car pileups because everything
is moving 90 miles an hour at centimeters distance, there
is still a maximum capacity to the road system. Places
like Los Angeles are *so* far behind in keeping that
capacity up with demand that no amount of automation will
keep demand from exceeding capacity.

Hint: We have cars that are, literally, inches apart
*now*, for hours at a time, and waiting lines to enter
the freeway (there are trafic lights at the on ramps to
control this - you don't get on until someone gets off
somewhere down the road). It is literally impossible to
put more cars on the road than that. Automation might
make them move faster - until there's a many car pileup
with dozens dead, anyway - but there are still more
people than will physically fit on the freeways at one
time come rush hour (which lasts 3-4 hours in the
morning, and usually longer in the afternoon).

Less, perhaps, with a system that has no
ego drive narcissism and road rage, but once you exceed
the capacity of the system, there will certianly be
gridlock.

Why would you exceed the capacity of the system? Cities
already have the roads necessary to carry far more
traffic than there's likely to ever be demand for.

You're smoking more Kool-Aid again, I see. No, many
cities have nowhere near the capacity to handle the
amount of traffic *now*. Average speed on the 405 freeway
in Los Angeles is less than 10 mph for six hours a day,
every weekday, and often on weekends, too. Assuming
there's no accidents. If there is one, it's more like the
405 parking lot.

And there is *no* *possible* *way* to *ever* build enough
freeways to handle the demand *now*. Not when freeways
cost over a billion dollars a mile, and take a decade or
more worth of lawsuits to even break ground.

You are, literally, hallucinating a world you'd like to
live in, to the point of being incapable of interacting
the real world.

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

And then you have
the additional gridlock of having damaged cars blocking
traffic.)

Rare. The accident rate will drop to near zero (which
will be one factor pushing the adoption of such
technology), and the hardware is very reliable (and in
most cases won't fail catastrophically).

Keep smoking that Kool-Aid, son. Auto accidents are
caused by mechanical failures now, and always will be.
Adding in computer automation will not eliminate that.

Most accidents are caused by human error.

Plus, of course, no one alive today will live long enough
to see completely automated cars. The technology isn't
even *close*, despite the marketing claims of companies
looking for government subsidies or investment dollars
for a product they know thye have no idea how to produce.
(People like Elon Musk). There isn't a car in existance
today that can drive itself safetly on streets that
haven't been mapped down to a resolution measured in
inches (or less), much less in the raid, or snow, or
anywhere near a construction crew. Or even on a well
mapped street with new traffic signs. And there won't be,
for a long time.

We already have this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nd-registry-pl
an s- th
e-basis-of-land-registry-applications/land-registry-plans-t
he -b as
is-of-land-registry-plans-practice-guide-40-supplement-1

Who is making a self driving car that can use that data to
navigate?

And it says nothing about unexpected, temporary obstacles,
like construction workers or traffic cops directing traffic
around an accident.

In short, you're full of ****. As usual.

The faecal content is confined to your posts. The streets
have been mapped to the resolution you said was impossible.
Self driving cars are equipped with plenty of other sensors
(lidar, acoustic etc.). I’ve already shown that
one of your “impossibilities” already
exists. The database exists and can easily be licensed for
use. Anyone in the UK can buy a download of a map to that
resolution now.

What company makes a self driving car that uses that data,
and can drive anywhere described in it?

You didn't answer that question, of course, because you know
the answer is "none."

Actually every map in the UK is based on this data. Every one
of the self driving projects in the UK uses maps.
Your point was that mapping to that precision was too
difficult. As you can see you were wrong.

And your source still didn't address unexepcted, usually
temporary obstacles, and, of course, you do not acknowled
that, either.

Try reading. Unexpected temporary obstacles are a part of
normal driving. That’s why self driving vehicles have
sensors which are better for that purpose than human senses.

The only **** you see, son, is in the mirror. And you know
it.

As I already wrote the faecal content in these posts is yours.
Why are you obsessed by faeces? Is it a fetish?




This current hallucination that we're close to truly
automated cars
will last until the first death caused by something that
would have been trivial for even a bad human driver to
avoid, like running down a traffic cop directing traffic
around an accident. Then the companies making self
driving cars will go out of business, and rightly so.

That seems a contrived reason. Until self driving cars can
avoid pedestrians they won’t be
allowed. In this case the policeman is just another
pedestrian.

There are already laws being enacted to allow Level 5 self
driving
cars (with no manual controls), and manufacturers talking
about having them on the road within a few years. The tech
companies behind this are as delusional as you are, and
will end up killing people before the politicians realize
it. The technology isn't there, and won't be within our
lifetimes.

The technology is there for all that. It just needs
refining.

So in the space of two sentences, you contradict yourself.

You *know* how full of **** you are.

What bothers me is that anyone could stop an autonomous car
by just walking in front of it. The end of playing chicken
and an easy way to rob a car.

And then you provide yet another reason why it's not
happening any time soon.

I don’t suffer from your problem, particularly common in
the USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which
doesn’t confirm your prejudices.
It’s all tied up with inability to compromise and a deep
personal insecurity.













--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.