A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old October 15th 17, 02:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 09:54 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 09:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 09:58 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 10:05 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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  
Old October 16th 17, 12:48 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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 won’t be allowed. In this case the policeman
is just another pedestrian.

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

The technology is there for all that. It just needs refining. 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  
Old October 16th 17, 02:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 16th 17, 03:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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 won’t be allowed. In this case the
policeman is just another pedestrian.

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

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


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

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

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

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

--
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  
Old October 16th 17, 03:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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  
Old October 16th 17, 08:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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.). I’ve already shown that one of your
“impossibilities” already exists. The database exists and
can easily be licensed for use. Anyone in the UK can buy a
download of a map to that resolution now.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.