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
  #101  
Old October 16th 17, 01:26 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default 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  
Old October 16th 17, 02:55 PM 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 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  
Old October 16th 17, 04:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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.). I’ve already shown that one of your
“impossibilities” already exists. The database
exists and can easily be licensed for use. Anyone in the UK
can buy a download of a map to that resolution now.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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






--
Terry Austin

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

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #104  
Old October 16th 17, 04:37 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 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  
Old October 16th 17, 04:38 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 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  
Old October 16th 17, 08:04 PM 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:
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.). 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.









  #107  
Old October 16th 17, 09:16 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:
You claim the technology exists. Name a company that is making
a car that can drive itself on roads that car maker hasn't,
themselves, mapped, in the dark, in the raid, past an accident
with a cop directing traffic.

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

Dumbass.


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


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

It's a simple question, retard:

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

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



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

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

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

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




Mike Collins wrote in

ter nal-september.org:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

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

No there isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

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

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

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

Most accidents are caused by human error.

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

We already have this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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













--
Terry Austin

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

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #108  
Old October 17th 17, 11:24 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:
You claim the technology exists. Name a company that is making
a car that can drive itself on roads that car maker hasn't,
themselves, mapped, in the dark, in the raid, past an accident
with a cop directing traffic.

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

Dumbass.


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


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

It's a simple question, retard:

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

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



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

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

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

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




Mike Collins wrote in

ter nal-september.org:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

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

No there isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

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

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

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

Most accidents are caused by human error.

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

We already have this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

That seems a contrived reason. Until self driving cars can
avoid pedestrians they won†t be
allowed. In this case the policeman is just another
pedestrian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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














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

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

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

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


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

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog...omment-2036336

  #109  
Old October 17th 17, 05:06 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default 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 don’t do any thinking with my arse. I find
the brain is better for that purpose.


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

It's a simple question, retard:

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

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



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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...90431/See-worl
d-
eyes-CAR-High-resolution-maps-reveal-self-driving-vehicles-rapi
dl y-navigate-busy-roads.html

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

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

No there isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

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

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

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

Most accidents are caused by human error.

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

We already have this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

That seems a contrived reason. Until self driving cars
can avoid pedestrians they
won†t be
allowed. In this case the policeman is just another
pedestrian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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














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

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

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

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


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

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





--
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  
Old October 17th 17, 05:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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 don’t do any thinking with my arse. I find
the brain is better for that purpose.

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

It's a simple question, retard:

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

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



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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...90431/See-worl
d-
eyes-CAR-High-resolution-maps-reveal-self-driving-vehicles-rapi
dl y-navigate-busy-roads.html

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

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

No there isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

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

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

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

Most accidents are caused by human error.

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

We already have this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

That seems a contrived reason. Until self driving cars
can avoid pedestrians they
won†t be
allowed. In this case the policeman is just another
pedestrian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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














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

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

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

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


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

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






You want to snip then do it yourself.

Learn to bottom post.


 




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 11:07 AM.


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.