|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:24:22 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
wrote: 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. I didn't say there isn't. What I said is that the existing road systems can support far more vehicles than there is any need for. They won't meet their maximum capacity in a fully managed system. 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. I didn't say there would never be breakdowns. I said that they would be rare. And LA has incredible road capacity. Far more than they could ever consume. 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. No, it isn't. The problem isn't the road capacity, it's the traffic management. Large sections of the same road, very close by, are running fast. 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. Didn't say it would. Most estimates estimate about a 90-95% reduction in accident rate. Plus, of course, no one alive today will live long enough to see completely automated cars. In a decade they'll be common. In 20 they'll be the standard, and mandatory in many places. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
"Chris.B" wrote in
: On Saturday, 14 October 2017 16:20:26 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote: 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. With electrics there is little noise. With shared personal vehicles, there is little need for conventional parking. Breaking the connection between private vehicle ownership and pride in that ownership would certainly help. Sharing the available fleet of clean, comfortable, but completely anonymous transport, is the most likely way to gain real improvements in average road speeds. If current experience with shared transportation is any indication, when you order the self driving Uber, be sure you have a towel handy to wipe up the urine. At least, you hope it's urine. Removing the pointless commuter cycle by distance working would also help. IBM was the poster child for remote working. Until they're not any more, because it produces lower productivity workers. Bringing workers together in one place, for greater manufacturing efficiency, is a historical throwback to the dark, satanic mills. And still proves to be more productive, even today. According to those with comparative data. Keep smoking' that Kool-Aid! -- 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. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Mike Collins wrote in
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...istry-plans-th e-basis-of-land-registry-applications/land-registry-plans-the-bas 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. 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. -- 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. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Paul Schlyter wrote in
: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:01:48 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: The best thing for the cities would be to get automobiles out altogether. By some definitions of best, maybe. By others, likely far more popular, "best" would involved tracking down all the extremist whackjob enivronmentalists and rendering their bodies down into hydrocarbon fuel. Are you seriously proposing mass murder as the best solution? Are you stupid and illiterate? Some 70+ years ago, a guy named Hitler implemented such a "solution". He ended up killing himself, and causing a cstastrophy over almost a whole continent. Apparently, so, having invoked Godwin's Law, based on your own insane, stupid fantasies. Try replying to what I actually said. Except you're too stupid and illiterate to actually know what I said. -- 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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:24:22 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: 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. I didn't say there isn't. Yeah, you really did. What I said is that the existing road systems can support far more vehicles than there is any need for. And you are completely, utterly full of ****. They won't meet their maximum capacity in a fully managed system. They are already over capacity in many metropolitian areas, which you specifically denied. You're full of ****. 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. I didn't say there would never be breakdowns. Your entire premise is based on that assumption (among other, equally stupid, assumptions). I said that they would be rare. And LA has incredible road capacity. Far more than they could ever consume. You have clearly never been to LA. Go to Google Images and do a search for "405 freeway." 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. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. I liv within walking distance of one of the five busiest freeways in the world, and a short (distance wise, time wise it can easily be two hours) of at least one more. The problem isn't the road capacity, it's the traffic management. Large sections of the same road, very close by, are running fast. You are completely, utterly full of ****. What part of "it's literally bumper to bumper for nearly half of ever day *now*" are you too ****ing *stupid* to understand? No amount of traffic management will reduce the number of cars on the road, and the number of cars on the road is more than the number of cars that will fit on the freeways *now*, literally bumper to bumper. You're trying to fit ten pounds of **** into a five pound bag. 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. Didn't say it would. Yes, retard, it would. Most estimates estimate about a 90-95% reduction in accident rate. Most estimates are fantasy, assuming technology you won't live long enough to see. Plus, of course, no one alive today will live long enough to see completely automated cars. In a decade they'll be common. Keep smokin' that Kool-Aid, son. In 20 they'll be the standard, and mandatory in many places. Keep smokin' that Kool-Aid, son. It calms you down enough that the nurses will let you use the computers. -- 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. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in 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...istry-plans-th e-basis-of-land-registry-applications/land-registry-plans-the-bas 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. 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 wonât 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. 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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:05:08 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
wrote: They are already over capacity in many metropolitian areas, which you specifically denied. You're full of ****. No, I didn't. I said that the roads are way more than adequate to support an automated system. I said that they would be rare. And LA has incredible road capacity. Far more than they could ever consume. You have clearly never been to LA. Go to Google Images and do a search for "405 freeway." I lived and drove in LA for decades. You are completely, utterly full of ****. What part of "it's literally bumper to bumper for nearly half of ever day *now*" are you too ****ing *stupid* to understand? No amount of traffic management will reduce the number of cars on the road, and the number of cars on the road is more than the number of cars that will fit on the freeways *now*, literally bumper to bumper. The roadways are not bumper to bumper. Waves of that move through the traffic. Automate the cars, and they will continue to flow, and they will do so at a reasonable speed. Automation also controls access to those roads, and if optimizes routing. All of this has been simulated. There's no doubt that automated traffic dramatically increases the carrying capacity of existing infrastructure. Anyway, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It's virtually certain to happen, and happen in the not too distant future. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Mike Collins wrote in
al-september.org: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: Mike Collins wrote in news:1310148336.529750377.817133.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news. 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...egistry-plans- 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.). 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." And your source still didn't address unexepcted, usually temporary obstacles, and, of course, you do not acknowled that, either. The only **** you see, son, is in the mirror. And you know it. 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 wonât 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. -- 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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:05:08 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: They are already over capacity in many metropolitian areas, which you specifically denied. You're full of ****. No, I didn't. Since you snipped out the part where you did, now you're just lying. I said that the roads are way more than adequate to support an automated system. While completely ignoring - again - that the roads are now adequate for the number of drivers that use it now *even* *when* *packed* *in* *as* *tightly* *as* *possible* *while* *barely* *moving*. Remember the part of "you have to wait for the traffic light on the on ramp, which won't let you on until someone exits somewhere else"? Of course you do, but you're reduced to *lying*, so you're not man enough to admit it. I said that they would be rare. And LA has incredible road capacity. Far more than they could ever consume. You have clearly never been to LA. Go to Google Images and do a search for "405 freeway." I lived and drove in LA for decades. Since you are now a proven and admitted liar, I don't believe you. Frankly, given how ****ing *stupid* you are, I doubt you've have lived through an attempt. You are completely, utterly full of ****. What part of "it's literally bumper to bumper for nearly half of ever day *now*" are you too ****ing *stupid* to understand? No amount of traffic management will reduce the number of cars on the road, and the number of cars on the road is more than the number of cars that will fit on the freeways *now*, literally bumper to bumper. The roadways are not bumper to bumper. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0b/af...3c0545680360b9 505cf.jpg Retard. Anyway, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. Indeed. And it doesn't matter if you're smoking the Kool-Aid or not, either. We both know I'm right. Or you wouldn't be lying. -- 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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in al-september.org: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: Mike Collins wrote in news:1310148336.529750377.817133.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news. 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...egistry-plans- 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. |
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 12:05 PM |