JGutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Learn to snip.

Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:1164563266.529868914.387035.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news.
ete 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...90431/See-worl
d-
eyes-CAR-High-resolution-maps-reveal-self-driving-vehicles-rapi
dl y-navigate-busy-roads.html

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/th...elf-driving-ca
r- sees-the-road/

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




Mike Collins wrote in
news:530855331.529831259.682179.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news
.e ter nal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:65435887.529803658.841144.acridiniumester-gmail.com@new
s. 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...land-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
“impossibilitiesâà‚€Â
� 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.














So you’re not going to read the links in case they might show
your views on the practicality of self driving cars wrong.
Perhaps you will bury your head in the sand instead. By
coincidence I read this on the blog os Charles Stross today
about a test drive of a Tesla using the autopilot.

“One of the things about AI driving (by which I mean Tesla,
because everyone else is so far behind) is that it's a hive
mind. First Tesla down the road says "I'm confused, please take
over" (thinking to itself, I'll watch what the 'uman does).
Probably the next 10 or 20 Teslas down the road do the same
thing but it all gets uploaded to the Borg. Like the Sting song,
it's watching you.

Eventually it gets it sussed out to its own weird level of
satisfaction and stops asking you to take over.

I did a test drive in a Tesla. It took in roadworks as part of
the test drive. Now half a dozen cars had been round and round
that exact loop a dozen times each. When I got there, still on
autopilot, it slowed down to the worksite speed limit. Followed
the detour signs onto a field, drove through the featureless
field (that would one day be a 6 lane highway) that was all the
same dirt colour, just following tyre tracks, around the
roadworks and *stopped at a flagman* until he spun his paddle
round from Stop to Slow. After which it proceeded slowly. None
of the route I took was on any map. My gob was completely
smacked.�


Link to the Blog (the quote is from the thread Excuses post 544

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog.../excuses.html#
comment-2036336






You want to snip then do it yourself.

Learn to bottom post.