Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [BGR]Driverless cars could be the big thing that vaults Google over Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[BGR]Driverless cars could be the big thing that vaults Google over Apple - Page 14

post #131 of 196
Eh, maybe someday but hopefully not in my lifetime. I'm a car guy and love my cars, I can't imagine a world where I don't get to drive or one that I'm severely limited in where I can drive. My commutes are what gets me up in the morning, I love driving! thumb.gif
Osmi
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790S ASUS Z97I-PLUS Visiontek R9 Nano G.SKILL TridentX 2400 CL10 16GB  
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorKeyboard
Sandisk X400 M2 512GB Thermalright AXP-100 Muscle Acer KG251Q TADA68 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair SF450 HG Osmi Rev 2.0 Mionix Naos 7000 Glorious Extended 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser 598SE Schiit Fulla 2 
  hide details  
Reply
Osmi
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790S ASUS Z97I-PLUS Visiontek R9 Nano G.SKILL TridentX 2400 CL10 16GB  
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorKeyboard
Sandisk X400 M2 512GB Thermalright AXP-100 Muscle Acer KG251Q TADA68 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair SF450 HG Osmi Rev 2.0 Mionix Naos 7000 Glorious Extended 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser 598SE Schiit Fulla 2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #132 of 196
Quote:
That is why I made my "Peoples Republic of America" comment ... because it will take a law that will completely change 220+ years of precedence to outlaw those cars off the road. I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it does, you won't recognize this country any more.

That has already happened in many cases. The Rights and Freedoms people get are never absolute. Your rights and freedoms end when they infringe on other peoples rights and freedoms. I have the right to bear arms and my family has a house in the country where I take my rifles out to target shoot at paper plates and coke cans. However it is illegal for me to put a coke can on a busy sidewalk and target shoot with my rifle there. My right to bear arms infringes on other peoples right to their own personal safety and well being.

Same can be applied to cars. A persons freedom to choose to drive manually infringes on another persons right to feel safe while they are in their car. It might seem weird now because everyone has to drive manually, but once an option comes out that makes it to where automotive deaths drop to almost 0, your car becomes a weapon more than anything else.

You will still have the option to drive manually in certain circumstances (like a track), but making a law outlawing it on the roadways doesn't change the country much. If you take things literally and with absolutes, the fact that I can't carry a personal gun into a bank, concealed or not, violates my second amendment rights. Same with not being able to own automatic weapons. The second amendment is "The right to bear arms", not "The right to bear handguns only when you are on your personal property". If you take things literally, this country has been unrecognizable for many years.
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
post #133 of 196
I want to buy a conversion van, put a couch and 50" tv in the back. Should be able to play some games over 4g tethered from my phone. I'll start travelling more.
Main Rig
(21 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz 24/7 MSI P67 GD55 Gigabyte GTX 1070 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance Blue 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial M4 128GB, 3TB HDD, 1TB HDD Samsung DVD-RW SATA Windows 10 64bit Hanns G 23" 1080p 60Hz 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell S2716DG 1440P 144hz Gsync TN Hanns G 23" 1080p 60Hz Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB 1080p Projector (110") Razer Black Widow Ultimate BF3 Edition (orange) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 Corsair 400R Steelseries Rival Steelseries QCK+ 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Asus Xonar DG Astro A40 V Moda Crossfade LP Logitech Z5300 
Audio
Denon 1909 + 7.1 infinity surround 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
A6 3420 HD 6520G 8GB 500GB 5400RPM 
MonitorKeyboard
15.6" 1366x768 Generic with numberpad 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Rig
(21 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz 24/7 MSI P67 GD55 Gigabyte GTX 1070 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance Blue 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial M4 128GB, 3TB HDD, 1TB HDD Samsung DVD-RW SATA Windows 10 64bit Hanns G 23" 1080p 60Hz 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell S2716DG 1440P 144hz Gsync TN Hanns G 23" 1080p 60Hz Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB 1080p Projector (110") Razer Black Widow Ultimate BF3 Edition (orange) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 Corsair 400R Steelseries Rival Steelseries QCK+ 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Asus Xonar DG Astro A40 V Moda Crossfade LP Logitech Z5300 
Audio
Denon 1909 + 7.1 infinity surround 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
A6 3420 HD 6520G 8GB 500GB 5400RPM 
MonitorKeyboard
15.6" 1366x768 Generic with numberpad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

That has already happened in many cases. The Rights and Freedoms people get are never absolute. Your rights and freedoms end when they infringe on other peoples rights and freedoms. I have the right to bear arms and my family has a house in the country where I take my rifles out to target shoot at paper plates and coke cans. However it is illegal for me to put a coke can on a busy sidewalk and target shoot with my rifle there. My right to bear arms infringes on other peoples right to their own personal safety and well being.

Same can be applied to cars. A persons freedom to choose to drive manually infringes on another persons right to feel safe while they are in their car. It might seem weird now because everyone has to drive manually, but once an option comes out that makes it to where automotive deaths drop to almost 0, your car becomes a weapon more than anything else.

You will still have the option to drive manually in certain circumstances (like a track), but making a law outlawing it on the roadways doesn't change the country much. If you take things literally and with absolutes, the fact that I can't carry a personal gun into a bank, concealed or not, violates my second amendment rights. Same with not being able to own automatic weapons. The second amendment is "The right to bear arms", not "The right to bear handguns only when you are on your personal property". If you take things literally, this country has been unrecognizable for many years.

Considering that car deaths are higher than gun deaths, and that 2/3rds of all deaths by guns are self inflicted, car deaths are a massive problem, certainly more than guns. With as many laws (and especially over the past month) being talked about on guns, it is a testament to the "car culture" of America. People think America has a "gun culture", but the bigger culture here is the "car culture". Compared to cars, guns are nothing in this country.

I find it very doubtful that any such restrictions that are currently (and especially being proposed) on guns would ever be applied to cars, even in the interest of safety and deaths.

Just imagine if Z rated tires (as opposed to a folding stock) were all that it took to make your car an "Assault Vehicle" and more tightly regulated or banned? Same with Rear Spoilers (as opposed to a pistol grip), or a "Coffee can muffler" (as opposed to a suppressor), and least we forget about having more than 200 horsepower (as opposed to having more than a 10 round magazine).

Why aren't those things, which are often found in many high speed accidents, outlawed or at least strictly regulated?

How about mandatory minimum sentences for DUI, say 5 years ... just like there are mandatory 5 year minimums when a gun is present in a crime?

The list goes on and on.

As much as I am a fan of guns, I know that this country is even a bigger fan of cars, and nearly any such parallel law to ban people from driving will be met with massive resistance, and as I said before, the face of this country will have to MASSIVELY change before people are banned from driving a car.



As far as your example of the bank, that is a moot point. Your 2nd Amendment right only extends to your personal property and public property. Banks are PRIVATELY owned and as such, the owners of the bank (or any other company not owned by the government, or another citizen) can tell you to you can't come in THEIR property with a gun (or on to their property PERIOD). You would have done better if your example was made with a court house. wink.gif
Edited by 47 Knucklehead - 1/31/13 at 6:41am
post #135 of 196
Quote:
Why aren't those things, which are often found in many high speed accidents, outlawed or at least strictly regulated?

As far as I remember, speed isn't a major factor in accidents. Very rarely is there an accident where the person was driving so fast that they literally couldn't react to things happening. You can control your car in optimal conditions above 90 mph. Most accidents are merging issues where people just either don't see the car next to them or they thought they had more distance than they had. Speed might affect the lethality of the accident, but is rarely the cause itself.
Quote:
As far as your example of the bank, that is a moot point. Your 2nd Amendment right only extends to your personal property and public property. Banks are PRIVATELY owned and as such, the OWNER of the bank (or any other company not owned by the government, or another citizen) can tell you to you can't come in THEIR place with a gun. You would have done better if your example was made with a court house.

The Second Amendment as I have read it mentions personal defense as a reason, but shows no restriction to personal property. It is also a country wide amendment. If it was enforced literally, the private companies would have to honor it or be told to open their business in another country. Just like anything else. The legal drinking age is 21, a privately owned bar can't say, you know what, we will make the drinking age 16 on our property.
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

The legal drinking age is 21, a privately owned bar can't say, you know what, we will make the drinking age 16 on our property.

Actually, that is a misrepresentation of the Federal Law. There is no law that says that you can't drink if you are under 21 in the US. What the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 says is that if a state allow the PURCHASE of booze to people under the age of 21, then the Feds can withhold money to the states. In effect, the Feds are bribing the states to impose their will. But the actual age at which people are allowed to drink (because there is no Constitutional Right to it) is determined by the individual state (ie see 10th Amendment).

The same thing happens with the National Speed limit. The Feds can't impose a limit on them, but what they do is withhold Federal Highway Funds if the state doesn't do what they want. Again, this is more akin to bribery rather than an actual law.

But I digress.

Yes, speed factors in to just about all accidents. Be in 35 mph or 120 mph, almost all accidents are because events happen too fast for human reaction times. That is why people are pushing for "computer controlled cars", because computers aren't distracted and have much faster reaction times.

If we limited speeds to 10 mph for all cars controlled by humans, almost no one would die in auto accidents. So lets ban all these "fast cars", because "If just one life is saved, it's worth it". And best of all, we can do it TODAY, and not have to wait for Google or Apple to invent a special car. rolleyes.gif
post #137 of 196
Quote:
Actually, that is a misrepresentation of the Federal Law.

Still the concept applies. When you are in a country you have to obey the laws of that country, even if you are on private property.
Quote:
Yes, speed factors in to just about all accidents. Be in 35 mph or 120 mph, almost all accidents are because events happen too fast for human reaction times. That is why people are pushing for "computer controlled cars", because computers aren't distracted and have much faster reaction times.

I said "major" factor. If I am eating a microwave dinner going 70mph and crash into a guardrail, distraction from eating is the major factor. The question what is the major factor would be, would I still have hit the guardrail if I wasn't eating and still going 70mph? The answer in accidents is usually no.
Quote:
If we limited speeds to 10 mph for all cars controlled by humans, almost no one would die in auto accidents. So lets ban all these "fast cars", because "If just one life is saved, it's worth it". And best of all, we can do it TODAY, and not have to wait for Google or Apple to invent a special car.

Except you are talking about reducing the efficiency of society and businesses to accommodate a hobby. This is keeping everything equal in efficiency at minimum, or possibly making it more efficient, also while accomplishing the same task of reducing automotive deaths to near 0.
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 196
I think I will just end my philosophical discussion on this subject. I fear that if I go too much further off track, it will become way to political.

Suffice it to say, IF "The Motor Law" ever happens, I hope it happens after I am dead. I honestly do not want to live in a country where I am told that my right to drive no longer exists.
post #139 of 196
Again... the government won't need to ban cars.

Insurance and cost of operating manual cars will. Insurance companies are already researching this.


If automated cars reduce accidents by something like 90%, then premiums will go down. Insurance companies will eventually have to give discounts to automated cars. This will shrink the insured pool. Therefore, the premiums without automated cars will go up. Evnetually, it will become very expensive to have a manual car. This is the economics of it.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Again... the government won't need to ban cars.

Insurance and cost of operating manual cars will. Insurance companies are already researching this.


If automated cars reduce accidents by something like 90%, then premiums will go down. Insurance companies will eventually have to give discounts to automated cars. This will shrink the insured pool. Therefore, the premiums without automated cars will go up. Evnetually, it will become very expensive to have a manual car. This is the economics of it.

True, but then again, this could just cause another issue ... more people driving without insurance. As it stands now, depending on the survey, between 13.8 and 16% of people on US roads don't have insurance, even though in just about every state in the union requires it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [BGR]Driverless cars could be the big thing that vaults Google over Apple