Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Adobe oddity?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: how not do self-drive, car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403946 is a reply to message #403940] Fri, 08 January 2021 21:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Fred Smith

On 2021-01-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> There are two parts to the solution: eliminate the edge cases and eliminate the
>> humans. That's why I say enormous infrastructure changes will be required.
>> I'm not in favor of eliminating humans, as I generally enjoy driving.
>
> But, if you eliminated the humans you???d have the road to yourself, and
> driving would be even more fun.
>

So whatever happened to alt.pave-the-world?
Re: how not do self-drive, car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403947 is a reply to message #403940] Fri, 08 January 2021 22:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:12:33 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> There are two parts to the solution: eliminate the edge cases and eliminate the
>> humans. That's why I say enormous infrastructure changes will be required.
>> I'm not in favor of eliminating humans, as I generally enjoy driving.
>
> But, if you eliminated the humans you’d have the road to yourself, and
> driving would be even more fun.

Yup.

I think that the skeptics though are thinking in terms of programmers
trying to write code to deal with every contingency. Tesla seems to
be using big data and pattern recognition instead--they've got a
million cars giving them all sorts of data from all sorts of sensors,
as well as the actions of the human drivers. The more Teslas on the
road, the more data coming in.

Eventually either the AI goes insane or gets pretty good.
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403951 is a reply to message #403931] Sat, 09 January 2021 00:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 21:39:40 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> The same people who tout self-driving cars as a solution for the disabled
> sometimes will also promote systems which expect someone to take over when
> the car encounters a situation it can't handle. Obviously you can't have
> it both ways.

Have you considered for a second that the current driver assist is
an essential step in developing full self driving ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403952 is a reply to message #403930] Sat, 09 January 2021 00:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 21:39:24 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 07:04:28 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>>> What Tesla has is mis-named driver assist features.
>> Why misnamed ? *Nobody* claims it to be anything else. Elon Musk has
>> claimed that Tesla are near to releasing level 5 self driving but they
>> have not done so yet.
>
> The name "Autopilot" implies fully automatic, able to handle all
> situations, analogous to the other common use of the word autopilot, as
> in airplanes. I know Tesla / the manual / the fine print doesn't make

Fine print ? They say it loud and clear and repeat it often.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403954 is a reply to message #403933] Sat, 09 January 2021 03:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: maus

On 2021-01-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 19:42:53 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
> wrote:
>> In <20210102170828.11c34674a8b30f337fc5bb3a@eircom.net> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 16:29:54 +0000 (UTC)
>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> well, there's always the nuclear -> steam -> turbine deal,
>>>>
>>>> Just five years away!
>>
>>> Huh ? That's what nuclear power stations have always used -
>>> sometimes with liquid sodium as a heat exchange between reactor and steam
>>> which I always thought to be a hair raising concept.
>>
>> Wait, what? You mean something promised via press release
>> back in the 1940's actually worked out?
>
> I think electricity "too cheap to meter" was the claim made at the time. There
> was also a Popular Mechanics article about the future that predicted small
> nuclear power generators for the home.
>
I think that the claim was made about the Drax power stations, (Harold
Wilson's time). In what I think is an idea of massive stupidity, Drax
is now being powered by `Biomass' being imported from the US, Canada,
And Australia.


Electriicity; Good:
Fossil Fuels; Bad:
Electricity that uses Fossil Fuells; Good:


--
greymausg@mail.com
Re: how not do self-drive, car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403955 is a reply to message #403940] Sat, 09 January 2021 03:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: maus

On 2021-01-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> There are two parts to the solution: eliminate the edge cases and eliminate the
>> humans. That's why I say enormous infrastructure changes will be required.
>> I'm not in favor of eliminating humans, as I generally enjoy driving.
>
> But, if you eliminated the humans you’d have the road to yourself, and
> driving would be even more fun.
>
>


Are you not human :)

I know a dection of goood road around here which has been replaced by
motorway. The old road is now very dangerous,, as it is now used a
racetrack by what we call `boy drivers'.


--
greymausg@mail.com
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403958 is a reply to message #403932] Sat, 09 January 2021 08:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2021-01-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 22:14:48 +0000, Vir Campestris
> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Of course self driving cars will reduce the alcohol induced death rate.
>> You need not be tempted to drive home after a few drinks.
>
> The solution to that has existed for decades, and requires no advanced
> technology. It's called a taxicab. More recently, the social construct of
> "designated driver" has been invented.

Or, where available, public transportation. Not that good or widespread
in the US outside some very big cities, I know, but in other places it
isn't that bad.

Niklas
--
The bloody handle on the back of an E450 isn't until you try to use it as
such, then it becomes less of a handle and more bloody.
-- Gary Barnes in asr
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403962 is a reply to message #403951] Sat, 09 January 2021 12:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <20210109054720.61c0a36d53c661894cc40fb5@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> Have you considered for a second that the current driver assist is
> an essential step in developing full self driving ?

Developing and testing it certainly is. Shipping it as a product in
its current form that encourages people to over-rely on it is not.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403963 is a reply to message #403962] Sat, 09 January 2021 12:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 17:18:48 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <20210109054720.61c0a36d53c661894cc40fb5@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> Have you considered for a second that the current driver assist
>> is
>> an essential step in developing full self driving ?
>
> Developing and testing it certainly is. Shipping it as a product in
> its current form that encourages people to over-rely on it is not.

Getting millions of miles of data in real world conditions is part
of developing and testing. I don't see anyone being encouraged to over-rely
on it by anything other than it working. That people do is a problem to
which I see no solution except to hope that the idiots are in a minority
and to keep repeating the message and beefing up the attention deficit
detection. Oh and getting to fully autonomous sooner rather than later.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403965 is a reply to message #403941] Sat, 09 January 2021 13:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On 9 Jan 2021 01:16:30 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2021-01-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 07:04:28 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> What Tesla has is mis-named driver assist features.
>>>
>>> Why misnamed ? *Nobody* claims it to be anything else. Elon Musk has
>>> claimed that Tesla are near to releasing level 5 self driving but they have
>>> not done so yet.
>>
>> The name "Autopilot" implies fully automatic, able to handle all situations,
>> analogous to the other common use of the word autopilot, as in airplanes.
>> I know Tesla / the manual / the fine print doesn't make that claim, but the
>> name is still misleading. Three people have died relying on those features
>> to do what their name implies but what they could never do, and plenty more
>> people have done foolish things while letting Autopilot control the car --
>> and of course, posted videos of themselves online.
>
> The concept of such abuse is not new. Years ago I heard (possibly an urban
> legend) about a retired couple who bought an RV, put it on cruise control,
> then went into the back to make a sandwich - with predictable results.

[snip]

I've heard that, but the first instance I remember is Goofy, Donald
Duck, and mikey Mouse drivein in an open top sports car pulling a
trailer. They all go back into the trailer to eat lunch. The car and
trailer starts wobbling a bit. One of them says something like 'Hey !
If all of us are back here, who is driving ?'.

Then they try frantically to get back to the car. They are on a
mountain road.

I thing this cartoon was back in the 1950s.

--
Jim
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403966 is a reply to message #403963] Sat, 09 January 2021 14:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <20210109175121.86e2568a6ea30a41f245f982@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> In article <20210109054720.61c0a36d53c661894cc40fb5@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> Have you considered for a second that the current driver assist
>>> is
>>> an essential step in developing full self driving ?
>>
>> Developing and testing it certainly is. Shipping it as a product in
>> its current form that encourages people to over-rely on it is not.
>
> Getting millions of miles of data in real world conditions is part
> of developing and testing. I don't see anyone being encouraged to over-rely
> on it by anything other than it working. ...

There are plenty of ways to ensure that people are paying at least some
attention, but Tesla doesn't. From the NTSB report on one Tesla crash:

“The Tesla Autopilot system did not provide an effective means of
monitoring the driver’s level of engagement with the driving task, and
the timing of alerts and warnings was insufficient to elicit the
driver’s response to prevent the crash or mitigate its severity,”
reads the report. “Tesla needs to develop applications that more
effectively sense the driver’s level of engagement and that alert
drivers who are not engaged.”




--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403969 is a reply to message #403966] Sat, 09 January 2021 16:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 19:19:07 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <20210109175121.86e2568a6ea30a41f245f982@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> In article <20210109054720.61c0a36d53c661894cc40fb5@eircom.net>,
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> Have you considered for a second that the current driver
>>>> assist is
>>>> an essential step in developing full self driving ?
>>>
>>> Developing and testing it certainly is. Shipping it as a product in
>>> its current form that encourages people to over-rely on it is not.
>>
>> Getting millions of miles of data in real world conditions is
>> part
>> of developing and testing. I don't see anyone being encouraged to
>> over-rely on it by anything other than it working. ...
>
> There are plenty of ways to ensure that people are paying at least some
> attention, but Tesla doesn't. From the NTSB report on one Tesla crash:

No dispute there, that's a shortcoming of Tesla's Autopilot - it's
a real shame that people are stupid enough to need a nanny like that but
it seems they are.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403979 is a reply to message #403965] Sun, 10 January 2021 04:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2021-01-09, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've heard that, but the first instance I remember is Goofy, Donald
> Duck, and mikey Mouse drivein in an open top sports car pulling a
> trailer. They all go back into the trailer to eat lunch. The car and
> trailer starts wobbling a bit. One of them says something like 'Hey !
> If all of us are back here, who is driving ?'.
>
> Then they try frantically to get back to the car. They are on a
> mountain road.
>
> I thing this cartoon was back in the 1950s.

That cartoon is part of what's shown every Christmas Eve afternoon (3 pm
on the dot) here in Sweden. Don't ask me why we show Disney things at
Christmas, it's just become a tradition.

(Christmas Eve being the main event here, Christmas Day is just when you
make use of the fun things you received yesterday.)

Niklas
--
Unfortunately, users are in `unstable' so shouldn't be installed in a
production system.
-- David Richerby
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403981 is a reply to message #403875] Sun, 10 January 2021 06:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 07:27:19 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 01:41:24 GMT
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>> I don't hold the participants in this group responsible for the
>> statements of self-driving car proponents.
>
> I believe that the time will come that self driving cars are safer
> than human drivers on average. From that point they will only get better. It
> is happening without any support from me so I am not a proponent simply an
> observer.
>
> You are correct that there are no self-driving cars today and that
> none of the driver assist autonomy on the market comes close to being
> anything else.
>
>> Consequently, I don't expect
>> an answer to one of my many questions. If the primary motivation for
>> autonomous vehicles is traffic safety and saving lives,
>
> The primary motivation of those developing it is to make money
> selling it. Saving lives is what it will have to do in order for fully
> autonomous vehicles to take off.

Yes, of course the primary motiation is profit. I am under no illusion about
that. My complaint is that you won't hear that put so plainly by self-driving
advocates. They spin a yarn of unparalleled safety, of cars that never make a
mistake. They act like this science-fiction future is inevitable. It is not.
Apparently nothing ever breaks or malfunctions in their shiny dreams.

And apparently there are no vandals, malicious people, or criminals either.
You think ransomware is a problem now, with dozens of hospitals, businesses, and
municipalities getting locked out of their computer systems? Wait till millions
of self-driving cars get hit with a ransomware attack. Or more mundanely, how
about a mistake in a software update pushed out automatically that accidentally
"bricks" thousands of vehicles? Every problem we see today with computerized
systems is almost certain to occur with autonomous vehicles.


> That being said I have seen claims (by Tesla so add salt and check
> if you really care) that the accident statistics already show that the
> current state of the art improves road safety.
>
>> then why aren't
>> these people actively advocating for the many things that can literally
>> be done today without spending billions of dollars trying to develop an
>> expensive, unproven technology that will require radical changes to our
>> transportation infrastructure?
>
> It isn't an advocacy issue teams are working on it without any
> advocacy because they believe it will sell - the evidence to date is that
> they are right it does sell. Since it sells there is a market driven
> feedback loop in place that will ensure continual improvement. The endpoint
> of that is either fully autonomous vehicles or conclusive evidence that it
> is impossible - I do *not* believe that it is impossible to make a system
> that drives better than humans.

Again, of course they want to sell self-driving cars. My point is that the
advocates who tout safety foremost have suspect motivations. They don't really
care about driving safety, because if they did, they could do something about it
today.


> But self driving cars require *no* changes to any infrastructure.
> Electric cars do but electric and self-driving are independent
> technologies. Many petrol and diesel cars have similar driver assist
> autonomy to Tesla's electric cars they just don't shout about it as much
> and don't claim to be blazing the trail to full autonomy.

No, there will be changes, particularly at various endpoints to accommodate
maneuvering and parking limitations. Modifications will also be made to signage
and signals to make it easier for autonomous vehicles to recognize them. It
won't happen right away, and not all at once, but at such point that autonomous
vechicles are permitted to advance past the testing phase, the suggestions to
make these changes will begin. Ultimately those suggestions will be acted upon.
The solution to some of the unusual situations, particularly at endpoints and
edge cases, will be to eliminate the situation.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."

"Well don't do that!"


>> For example, if one is worried about
>> drunk driving, then lobby for stricter laws like has been done in Norway.
>
> We (Ireland) have pretty strict drunk and drug driving laws, and
> laws to keep untrained drivers off the road, and so on. The only thing
> about those is enforcement is inevitably poor.
>
> Fully autonomous vehicles would be a *great* thing to have for so
> very many reasons, being safer than human drivers is a *requirement* that
> they *have* to meet before we can have them. A lot of people are working on
> it and I see no reason to believe that they cannot succeed.

Your unfailing faith in technology is noted, despite the historical record
indicating it is somewhat misplaced.
Re: how not do self-drive, car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403982 is a reply to message #403947] Sun, 10 January 2021 06:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 22:02:05 -0500, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:12:33 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>> There are two parts to the solution: eliminate the edge cases and eliminate the
>>> humans. That's why I say enormous infrastructure changes will be required.
>>> I'm not in favor of eliminating humans, as I generally enjoy driving.
>>
>> But, if you eliminated the humans you’d have the road to yourself, and
>> driving would be even more fun.
>
> Yup.
>
> I think that the skeptics though are thinking in terms of programmers
> trying to write code to deal with every contingency. Tesla seems to
> be using big data and pattern recognition instead--they've got a
> million cars giving them all sorts of data from all sorts of sensors,
> as well as the actions of the human drivers. The more Teslas on the
> road, the more data coming in.

That's great after it learns; maybe not so great for anyone involved in a
Tesla's first-time encounter with a new situation.
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403983 is a reply to message #403952] Sun, 10 January 2021 06:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 05:46:14 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 21:39:24 GMT
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 07:04:28 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> What Tesla has is mis-named driver assist features.
>>> Why misnamed ? *Nobody* claims it to be anything else. Elon Musk has
>>> claimed that Tesla are near to releasing level 5 self driving but they
>>> have not done so yet.
>>
>> The name "Autopilot" implies fully automatic, able to handle all
>> situations, analogous to the other common use of the word autopilot, as
>> in airplanes. I know Tesla / the manual / the fine print doesn't make
>
> Fine print ? They say it loud and clear and repeat it often.

Good for them. The name is still misleading.
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403984 is a reply to message #403951] Sun, 10 January 2021 06:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 05:47:20 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 21:39:40 GMT
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>
>> The same people who tout self-driving cars as a solution for the disabled
>> sometimes will also promote systems which expect someone to take over when
>> the car encounters a situation it can't handle. Obviously you can't have
>> it both ways.
>
> Have you considered for a second that the current driver assist is
> an essential step in developing full self driving ?

No, because they are only a tiny part of what is required for driving.
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403985 is a reply to message #403963] Sun, 10 January 2021 06:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 17:51:21 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 17:18:48 -0000 (UTC)
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> In article <20210109054720.61c0a36d53c661894cc40fb5@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> Have you considered for a second that the current driver assist
>>> is
>>> an essential step in developing full self driving ?
>>
>> Developing and testing it certainly is. Shipping it as a product in
>> its current form that encourages people to over-rely on it is not.
>
> Getting millions of miles of data in real world conditions is part
> of developing and testing. I don't see anyone being encouraged to over-rely
> on it by anything other than it working. That people do is a problem to
> which I see no solution except to hope that the idiots are in a minority
> and to keep repeating the message and beefing up the attention deficit
> detection. Oh and getting to fully autonomous sooner rather than later.

Ah, data is going to save the world!

Like so many, you focus on the technical challanges to the exclusion of
everything else.

How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403987 is a reply to message #403985] Sun, 10 January 2021 07:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Leighton is currently offline  Andy Leighton
Messages: 203
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 11:29:05 GMT, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?

I cannot remember ever seeing policemen direct cars except in film and
tv from the old days. But I don't see it as a huge problem that cannot
be overcome.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403988 is a reply to message #403942] Sun, 10 January 2021 08:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2021-01-06, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > My luck the commissar of garbage will be out that day. We have one of
>>>> > those. Also a dandelion inspector.
>>>>
>>>> You have to be kidding. A weed inspector in an agricultural region I
>>>> can understand. And it's not neccessary to drench the county with
>>>> herbicide to restrain weed plagues. But a dandelion inspector?
>>>
>>> I am a dandelion inspector, kind of. A lot of the species around here
>>> are restricted to very narrow habitats, and many are very rare, so as
>>> a botanist I try to pay attention. One species, Taxaxacum polium, was
>>> declared extinct recently; it was endemic to Gotland.
>>
>> I didn’t think it was possible to kill of dandelions.
>
> Lots of things kill dandelions.
> Starting with Broadleaf Herbicide.
>
> If you want to pull them, it's necessary to get the tap root which goes
> down quite a ways. They make a tool for that but I have a 12 inch knife
> I like to use. Plunge it into the soil at an angle to sever the tap
> root 4 to 6 inches down then pull the plant out. As I'm walking around
> I like to throw the knife at the plants. I'm pretty good with it.
>
> Of course it's pretty hard to kill ALL of them. Those seeds float long
> distances.
>

I used to do this. It took a couple of years, but I had them almost all
gone. Go out after a rain, when the ground is soft.

--
Pete
Re: how not do self-drive, car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403989 is a reply to message #403947] Sun, 10 January 2021 08:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:12:33 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>> There are two parts to the solution: eliminate the edge cases and eliminate the
>>> humans. That's why I say enormous infrastructure changes will be required.
>>> I'm not in favor of eliminating humans, as I generally enjoy driving.
>>
>> But, if you eliminated the humans you’d have the road to yourself, and
>> driving would be even more fun.
>
> Yup.
>
> I think that the skeptics though are thinking in terms of programmers
> trying to write code to deal with every contingency. Tesla seems to
> be using big data and pattern recognition instead--they've got a
> million cars giving them all sorts of data from all sorts of sensors,
> as well as the actions of the human drivers. The more Teslas on the
> road, the more data coming in.
>
> Eventually either the AI goes insane or gets pretty good.
>

Driving in some cities, I think insane.

--
Pete
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403991 is a reply to message #403981] Sun, 10 January 2021 09:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:

> My complaint is that you won't hear that put so plainly by self-driving
> advocates. They spin a yarn of unparalleled safety, of cars that never make a
> mistake. They act like this science-fiction future is inevitable.

I believe this is fiction.

I think if we ever create self driving cars that are safer than human
driven cars it will be a boon.
However, none of the rest of your claims apply to me and I can't
remember anyone else making such claims.

If there are such people, I'd guess there are very few people that
fit in that category.

As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save
a few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that
would be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that
no one would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by
with a fifth of the number of cars we have today.

--
Dan Espen
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403992 is a reply to message #403985] Sun, 10 January 2021 09:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:

> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?

With a transmitter?

Seen a lot of traffic officers lately? Were they directing traffic away
from an event or accident? Do you think there are other ways to do
that other than standing in the street waving your arms?

I see you have an arsenal of weapons to use in your quest.
Thanks for trying to save us.

--
Dan Espen
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403995 is a reply to message #403991] Sun, 10 January 2021 12:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>
>> My complaint is that you won't hear that put so plainly by self-driving
>> advocates. They spin a yarn of unparalleled safety, of cars that never make a
>> mistake. They act like this science-fiction future is inevitable.
>
> I believe this is fiction.
>
> I think if we ever create self driving cars that are safer than human
> driven cars it will be a boon.
> However, none of the rest of your claims apply to me and I can't
> remember anyone else making such claims.
>
> If there are such people, I'd guess there are very few people that
> fit in that category.
>
> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save
> a few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that
> would be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that
> no one would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by
> with a fifth of the number of cars we have today.

I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
state of affairs. I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
from every point on Earth but I see no reason to believe that that's
how it is going to work. I envision many long cold wet waits for the
car to show up, and much lugging of stuff around that I don't want to
be lugging because I have to empty the car every time I get out of it.
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403996 is a reply to message #403992] Sun, 10 January 2021 12:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:13:35 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>
>> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?
>
> With a transmitter?

Then how will they direct non-self-driving cars?

> Seen a lot of traffic officers lately? Were they directing traffic away
> from an event or accident? Do you think there are other ways to do
> that other than standing in the street waving your arms?

I've seen both of those, and also directing traffic during rush hour
when a signal has gone bust.

There might be other ways to do that. When police adopt them get back
to us.

> I see you have an arsenal of weapons to use in your quest.
> Thanks for trying to save us.
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403998 is a reply to message #403995] Sun, 10 January 2021 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>>
>>> My complaint is that you won't hear that put so plainly by
>>> self-driving advocates. They spin a yarn of unparalleled safety, of
>>> cars that never make a mistake. They act like this science-fiction
>>> future is inevitable.
>>
>> I believe this is fiction.
>>
>> I think if we ever create self driving cars that are safer than human
>> driven cars it will be a boon. However, none of the rest of your
>> claims apply to me and I can't remember anyone else making such
>> claims.
>>
>> If there are such people, I'd guess there are very few people that fit
>> in that category.
>>
>> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save a
>> few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that would
>> be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that no one
>> would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by with a
>> fifth of the number of cars we have today.
>
> I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
> have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
> state of affairs. I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
> unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
> from every point on Earth but I see no reason to believe that that's
> how it is going to work. I envision many long cold wet waits for the
> car to show up, and much lugging of stuff around that I don't want to
> be lugging because I have to empty the car every time I get out of it.

I really don't think it's a good idea to go down the "people like you"
road.

I never said I'd do anything to force anyone to give up their personal
car.

If I'm in my house and I click on "send me a car", it would be in my
driveway before I got out of the house if there was a free car within a
quarter mile.

Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. Sure seems to me a simple matter
to build a few more cars if there's a shortage.

--
Dan Espen
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403999 is a reply to message #403995] Sun, 10 January 2021 13:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:29:33 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save
>> a few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that
>> would be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that
>> no one would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by
>> with a fifth of the number of cars we have today.
>
> I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
> have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
> state of affairs.

Yep that's very overstated, I would expect self driving to reduce
personal car ownership as that is already of marginal benefit for many city
dwellers since not keeping a car in a city will pay for a lot of taxi rides
and occasional car hires.

Professional drivers (taxis, vans, trucks) stand to lose a lot of
their jobs if self driving gets good enough (why pay a person to drive the
HGV 8 hours a day when the automation will drive it 24 hours a day). Taxis
would only need drivers if the passenger requests assistance. As for vans,
I expect single pallet modules will turn up sooner or later. Rural public
transport gets more viable if drivers don't have to be paid and fuel costs
are down to electric levels.

All this seems to me to be among the likely consequences of fully
autonomous vehicles, but the end of personal car ownership - certainly not
as long as a flash car is a status symbol and people stop liking to keep
stuff handy in their car and people stop working out of their car and
people stop living where cars are handy.

> I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
> unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
> from every point on Earth

Well last time I was in Seattle there were a lot of instant hire
cars all over the city centre, I'd guess they're dotted around the populous
suburbs too (I had no occasion to look) but I'd be surprised if they were
around at all in the rural areas. I'd expect self-driving hire cars to be
similarly (un)available because the economics seem to be about the same.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404000 is a reply to message #403996] Sun, 10 January 2021 13:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:13:35 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>>
>>> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?
>>
>> With a transmitter?
>
> Then how will they direct non-self-driving cars?

With their hands?

--
Dan Espen
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404001 is a reply to message #403985] Sun, 10 January 2021 13:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <5ffae4f4.2933438@news.dslextreme.com>,
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> Like so many, you focus on the technical challanges to the exclusion of
> everything else.
>
> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?

By waving at them, same as they direct everyone else.

They do have cameras, you know. That's how they know the light is red.




--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404002 is a reply to message #403985] Sun, 10 January 2021 13:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 11:29:05 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?

Recognising and obeying traffic directions is surely a requirement
for full self driving. The lack of this in current driver assist systems
is one reason they are not full self driving systems nor will they be until
they can operate correctly in every circumstance that a human being can be
expected to.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404003 is a reply to message #403998] Sun, 10 January 2021 13:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:29:41 -0500
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I'm in my house and I click on "send me a car", it would be in my
> driveway before I got out of the house if there was a free car within a
> quarter mile.

Sounds about right, and local population density will essentially
determine the probability of that being the case. I'd probably be waiting
for one to make its way to me from several miles away.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404004 is a reply to message #403979] Sun, 10 January 2021 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On 10 Jan 2021 09:36:53 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2021-01-09, JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've heard that, but the first instance I remember is Goofy, Donald
>> Duck, and mikey Mouse drivein in an open top sports car pulling a
>> trailer. They all go back into the trailer to eat lunch. The car and
>> trailer starts wobbling a bit. One of them says something like 'Hey !
>> If all of us are back here, who is driving ?'.
>>
>> Then they try frantically to get back to the car. They are on a
>> mountain road.
>>
>> I thing this cartoon was back in the 1950s.
>
> That cartoon is part of what's shown every Christmas Eve afternoon (3 pm
> on the dot) here in Sweden. Don't ask me why we show Disney things at
> Christmas, it's just become a tradition.
>
> (Christmas Eve being the main event here, Christmas Day is just when you
> make use of the fun things you received yesterday.)
>
> Niklas

Interesting. And my apologies for the tpos.

In Japan, it has become tradtional to eat KFC fried chicken for
Christmas. If anyone here goes there, you have to book it ahead of
time.

--
Jim
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404005 is a reply to message #403987] Sun, 10 January 2021 14:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 06:31:14 -0600, Andy Leighton
<andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 11:29:05 GMT, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?
>
> I cannot remember ever seeing policemen direct cars except in film and
> tv from the old days. But I don't see it as a huge problem that cannot
> be overcome.

I've seen it during Mardi Gras and after hurricanes along the Gulf
Coast.

--
Jim
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404006 is a reply to message #403999] Sun, 10 January 2021 14:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:13:40 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:29:33 -0500
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save
>>> a few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that
>>> would be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that
>>> no one would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by
>>> with a fifth of the number of cars we have today.
>>
>> I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
>> have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
>> state of affairs.
>
> Yep that's very overstated, I would expect self driving to reduce
> personal car ownership as that is already of marginal benefit for many city
> dwellers since not keeping a car in a city will pay for a lot of taxi rides
> and occasional car hires.
>
> Professional drivers (taxis, vans, trucks) stand to lose a lot of
> their jobs if self driving gets good enough (why pay a person to drive the
> HGV 8 hours a day when the automation will drive it 24 hours a day). Taxis
> would only need drivers if the passenger requests assistance. As for vans,
> I expect single pallet modules will turn up sooner or later. Rural public
> transport gets more viable if drivers don't have to be paid and fuel costs
> are down to electric levels.
>
> All this seems to me to be among the likely consequences of fully
> autonomous vehicles, but the end of personal car ownership - certainly not
> as long as a flash car is a status symbol and people stop liking to keep
> stuff handy in their car and people stop working out of their car and
> people stop living where cars are handy.
>
>> I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
>> unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
>> from every point on Earth
>
> Well last time I was in Seattle there were a lot of instant hire
> cars all over the city centre, I'd guess they're dotted around the populous
> suburbs too (I had no occasion to look) but I'd be surprised if they were
> around at all in the rural areas. I'd expect self-driving hire cars to be
> similarly (un)available because the economics seem to be about the same.

And one situation I see AI/hire cars being insufficient. During
evacuations for natural disasters and prior to hurricane landfall.

--
Jim
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404009 is a reply to message #404006] Sun, 10 January 2021 15:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:35:17 -0600
JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:

> And one situation I see AI/hire cars being insufficient. During
> evacuations for natural disasters and prior to hurricane landfall.

Sufficient no, but if a "swarm to the affected area" could be
achieved it might be helpful.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404010 is a reply to message #403998] Sun, 10 January 2021 15:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:29:41 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>>>
>>>> My complaint is that you won't hear that put so plainly by
>>>> self-driving advocates. They spin a yarn of unparalleled safety, of
>>>> cars that never make a mistake. They act like this science-fiction
>>>> future is inevitable.
>>>
>>> I believe this is fiction.
>>>
>>> I think if we ever create self driving cars that are safer than human
>>> driven cars it will be a boon. However, none of the rest of your
>>> claims apply to me and I can't remember anyone else making such
>>> claims.
>>>
>>> If there are such people, I'd guess there are very few people that fit
>>> in that category.
>>>
>>> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save a
>>> few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that would
>>> be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that no one
>>> would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by with a
>>> fifth of the number of cars we have today.
>>
>> I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
>> have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
>> state of affairs. I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
>> unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
>> from every point on Earth but I see no reason to believe that that's
>> how it is going to work. I envision many long cold wet waits for the
>> car to show up, and much lugging of stuff around that I don't want to
>> be lugging because I have to empty the car every time I get out of it.
>
> I really don't think it's a good idea to go down the "people like you"
> road.

There is a class of people who believe that self-driving cars will
result in some kind of automotive utopia where everybody rides
automated taxis and nobody owns a car. Do you deny that you belong to
that class?

> I never said I'd do anything to force anyone to give up their personal
> car.
>
> If I'm in my house and I click on "send me a car", it would be in my
> driveway before I got out of the house if there was a free car within a
> quarter mile.

And if there isn't?

> Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. Sure seems to me a simple matter
> to build a few more cars if there's a shortage.

So we end up with as many cars as we have now, but they all belong to
some vast faceless ride-sharing corporation instead of individuals.
Why does that not reassure me?

And then you have the issue of the last person to use the car and what
condition he left it in.
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404011 is a reply to message #404000] Sun, 10 January 2021 15:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:31:14 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:13:35 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>>>
>>>> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?
>>>
>>> With a transmitter?
>>
>> Then how will they direct non-self-driving cars?
>
> With their hands?

So the cop's standing there at an intersection and he's having to
figure out for each car "is this self-driving or human driven" and
apply the appropriate signal.
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404012 is a reply to message #404010] Sun, 10 January 2021 15:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:29:41 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > My complaint is that you won't hear that put so plainly by
>>>> > self-driving advocates. They spin a yarn of unparalleled safety, of
>>>> > cars that never make a mistake. They act like this science-fiction
>>>> > future is inevitable.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is fiction.
>>>>
>>>> I think if we ever create self driving cars that are safer than human
>>>> driven cars it will be a boon. However, none of the rest of your
>>>> claims apply to me and I can't remember anyone else making such
>>>> claims.
>>>>
>>>> If there are such people, I'd guess there are very few people that fit
>>>> in that category.
>>>>
>>>> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save a
>>>> few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that would
>>>> be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that no one
>>>> would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by with a
>>>> fifth of the number of cars we have today.
>>>
>>> I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
>>> have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
>>> state of affairs. I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
>>> unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
>>> from every point on Earth but I see no reason to believe that that's
>>> how it is going to work. I envision many long cold wet waits for the
>>> car to show up, and much lugging of stuff around that I don't want to
>>> be lugging because I have to empty the car every time I get out of it.
>>
>> I really don't think it's a good idea to go down the "people like you"
>> road.
>
> There is a class of people who believe that self-driving cars will
> result in some kind of automotive utopia where everybody rides
> automated taxis and nobody owns a car. Do you deny that you belong to
> that class?

I'm not Dan, but I would deny that 'class of people' exists, outside of a handful
of individuals and strawman arguments.

I certainly believe that were such self-driving on-demand vehicles available, it would
likely mean that a substantial fraction of the population of larger cities
would find (as many new yorkers and londoners already do) that a
personal automobile is unnecessary.
Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404013 is a reply to message #404006] Sun, 10 January 2021 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:13:40 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:29:33 -0500
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:07:26 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for the boon, well, better safety would be nice, it could save
>>>> a few lives or injuries, but at least at first I don't think that
>>>> would be substantial. What would be substantial is the fact that
>>>> no one would have to own a personal car. We could probably get by
>>>> with a fifth of the number of cars we have today.
>>>
>>> I don't know where people like you get the notion that "no one would
>>> have to own a personal car" or why you consider that to be a desirable
>>> state of affairs.
>>
>> Yep that's very overstated, I would expect self driving to reduce
>> personal car ownership as that is already of marginal benefit for many city
>> dwellers since not keeping a car in a city will pay for a lot of taxi rides
>> and occasional car hires.
>>
>> Professional drivers (taxis, vans, trucks) stand to lose a lot of
>> their jobs if self driving gets good enough (why pay a person to drive the
>> HGV 8 hours a day when the automation will drive it 24 hours a day). Taxis
>> would only need drivers if the passenger requests assistance. As for vans,
>> I expect single pallet modules will turn up sooner or later. Rural public
>> transport gets more viable if drivers don't have to be paid and fuel costs
>> are down to electric levels.
>>
>> All this seems to me to be among the likely consequences of fully
>> autonomous vehicles, but the end of personal car ownership - certainly not
>> as long as a flash car is a status symbol and people stop liking to keep
>> stuff handy in their car and people stop working out of their car and
>> people stop living where cars are handy.
>>
>>> I know you have this rosy vision of there being an
>>> unlimited number of unoccupied cars waiting in a queue seconda away
>>> from every point on Earth
>>
>> Well last time I was in Seattle there were a lot of instant hire
>> cars all over the city centre, I'd guess they're dotted around the populous
>> suburbs too (I had no occasion to look) but I'd be surprised if they were
>> around at all in the rural areas. I'd expect self-driving hire cars to be
>> similarly (un)available because the economics seem to be about the same.
>
> And one situation I see AI/hire cars being insufficient. During
> evacuations for natural disasters and prior to hurricane landfall.

The extensive traffic jams caused by such evacuations when everyone
takes their personal vehicles, on the other hand are their own problem...
Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #404014 is a reply to message #403996] Sun, 10 January 2021 15:57 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:13:35 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>>
>>> How will traffic officers direct self-driving cars?
>>
>> With a transmitter?
>
> Then how will they direct non-self-driving cars?

They manage to direct non-self-driving cars rather successfully now;
why would that change?
Pages (14): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: life in Switzerland, Too much for one lifetime? :-)
Next Topic: DEBE?
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 07:22:31 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 2.52059 seconds