|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
On Monday, 16 October 2017 09:30:00 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:
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. Don't you wish trolls were better informed? GUCS is just another, vacuous troll with delusions of grandeur. He imagines his infantile insults actually insult. Instead of which he repeatedly insults our intelligence. We could make quite a decent argument for reverse Darwinism. If there were any trees left for such throwbacks to return to. Loss of habitat often has unforeseen consequences. Ironic that he imagines 'tree huggers' as an inferior species. ;-)) |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:59:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
wrote: I lived and drove in LA for decades. Since you are now a proven and admitted liar, I don't believe you. I'm sure a small google search would confirm it. In any case, you're clearly clueless. You're just another chump the world is going to move past as technology matures. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
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. Mike Collins wrote in nal-september.org: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: Mike Collins wrote in ern al-september.org: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: Mike Collins wrote in news:1310148336.529750377.817133.acridiniumester-gmail.com@new 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...-registry-plan s- th e-basis-of-land-registry-applications/land-registry-plans-the -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.). Iâve already shown that one of your âimpossibilitiesâ 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 wonâÂÂt 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. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
"Chris.B" wrote in
: On Monday, 16 October 2017 09:30:00 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote: 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. Don't you wish trolls were better informed? If you were better informed, you wouldn't be a troll. -- 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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:59:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: I lived and drove in LA for decades. Since you are now a proven and admitted liar, I don't believe you. I'm sure a small google search would confirm it. No doubt. I still don't believe you. In any case, you're clearly clueless. You're just another chump the world is going to move past as technology matures. And I'll be laughing my ass off the whole time. -- 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. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
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. https://www.nvidia.co.uk/self-driving-cars/hd-mapping/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...usy-roads.html https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/th...sees-the-road/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...-driving-cars/ Mike Collins wrote in nal-september.org: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: Mike Collins wrote in ern al-september.org: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: Mike Collins wrote in news:1310148336.529750377.817133.acridiniumester-gmail.com@new 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...-registry-plan s- th e-basis-of-land-registry-applications/land-registry-plans-the -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.). IâÂÂve already shown that one of your âÂÂimpossibilitiesâ 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. Thatâs 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 wonâÃÂÃÂt 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 donât suffer from your problem, particularly common in the USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which doesnât confirm your prejudices. Itâs all tied up with inability to compromise and a deep personal insecurity. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
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.). IâÂÂve already shown that one of your âÂÂimpossibilitiesâ 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. Thatâs 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 wonâÃÂÃÂt 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 donât suffer from your problem, particularly common in the USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which doesnât confirm your prejudices. Itâs 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. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
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 donât 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.). IâÃÂÃÂve already shown that one of your âÃÂÃÂimpossibilitiesâà Âàalready 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. ThatâÂÂs 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 wonÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂàt 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 donâÂÂt suffer from your problem, particularly common in the USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which doesnâÂÂt confirm your prejudices. ItâÂÂs 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...omment-2036336 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
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 donât 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.). IâÃÂÃÂve already shown that one of your âÃÂÃÂimpossibilitiesâà Âà  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. ThatâÂÂs 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 wonÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂàt 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 donâÂÂt suffer from your problem, particularly common in the USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which doesnâÂÂt confirm your prejudices. ItâÂÂs 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 -- 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. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
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 donât 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.). IâÃÂÃÂve already shown that one of your âÃÂÃÂimpossibilitiesâà Âà  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. ThatâÂÂs 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 wonÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂàt 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 donâÂÂt suffer from your problem, particularly common in the USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which doesnâÂÂt confirm your prejudices. ItâÂÂs 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Elon Musk ... Genius | Double-A[_4_] | Misc | 0 | August 14th 17 10:45 PM |
Elon Musk and Mars | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | Policy | 19 | August 3rd 13 06:43 AM |
Elon Musk other ideas:) | bob haller | Policy | 33 | July 27th 13 12:03 AM |
BBC interview with Elon Musk | David Spain | Space Shuttle | 3 | January 4th 13 11:05 AM |