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 17

post #161 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

It does not have to account for human behavior at all. It just has to model objects and possible behaviors.

i.e. A car is just box moving at X speed. The most it can drift/turn in X time is X amount. Therefore, keep X distance away.

Because children never dart out from between 2 parked cars to chase a ball into the street, or a deer doesn't bound into the road at night, or any number of other possibilities?

Sorry, in order to totally replace a human while driving a car, the car HAS to be able to deal with the unexpected beyond just keeping x feet behind the car in front of you.
post #162 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

Oh, I see your point of view just fine. I just don't agree with it. Further, for the past couple posts, I'm looking at things from a point of view ... a Constitutional (specifically a 10th Amendment) point of view.

Now if you want to say that we will have this technology and magically this very divided country will magically pass a new Constitutional Amendment to get around all the legal issues, then fine. I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Forget the technology side of things, this country is just WAY too polarized to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would strike at the very heart of how our society works. Thus, for the very foreseeable future, the notion of "banning humans from driving" will be, at BEST, on a state by state issue.

I don't really see how automated cars would have an effect on the State's sovereignty...the federal government circumvents it all the time by not giving money if a state doesn't agree to follow some "guideline". I would assume the same would happen here if they needed it to, but I am very sure no state government in its right minds would not get on board with something that would increase road safety in their state; especially if most of the cost would be passed onto the people who by the cars. Provided that automated cars did indeed increase road safety.
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #163 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

I don't really see how automated cars would have an effect on the State's sovereignty...the federal government circumvents it all the time by not giving money if a state doesn't agree to follow some "guideline". I would assume the same would happen here if they needed it to, but I am very sure no state government in its right minds would not get on board with something that would increase road safety in their state; especially if most of the cost would be passed onto the people who by the cars.

Not all states follow that guideline. For example, several states have told the Feds to keep their Federal Highway Funds and ignore the Feds desire for a speed limit. What would happen in this case? If you bought a legal car in one state that doesn't require these cars, would you make them illegal to drive in another state? As it stands now, that doesn't happen. Are you going to have police lined up on the Maryland border and turn away/arrest anyone with a New Jersey tag on their car?

I'm just saying, unless there is a LEGAL Federal law (which would take a Constitutional Amendment), this won't happen.

Then there is the invariable host of other groups that will oppose it for financial reasons. International Brotherhood of Tow-truck Drivers and Body Workers and Painter of America (I jest), but with fewer accidents, less need for their jobs. Hey, maybe we can get rid of a few doctors, mortitions, coffin makers, and all the people who make hospitals and pharmaceutics to treat accident victims.

You may think I'm kidding, but there are a lot of people who stand to lose in this. It's not just about the technology.
Edited by 47 Knucklehead - 1/31/13 at 10:32am
post #164 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

Not all states follow that guideline. For example, several states have told the Feds to keep their Federal Highway Funds and ignore the Feds desire for a speed limit. What would happen in this case? If you bought a legal car in one state that doesn't require these cars, would you make them illegal to drive in another state? As it stands now, that doesn't happen. Are you going to have police lined up on the Maryland border and turn away/arrest anyone with a New Jersey tag on their car?

I'm just saying, unless there is a LEGAL Federal law (which would take a Constitutional Amendment), this won't happen.

What state doesn't follow the speed limit mandate? I know of some stretches in Montana and Texas with 90MPH limits, but they had to go through a lot of hoops and safety tests to get that...and they still get the federal highway money as far I have heard...guess I've never really looked into it, but I do know they set those limits with the federal government's blessing.

I still don't see how this has any play on this though. There likely wouldn't be any federal law requiring people to drive automated cars...I doubt that there would be any state laws either. It would be a person's choice. You could drive an automated car or drive a manual car and be hit with all the high insurance rates and hassle of having to drive. Why do laws need to get into the mix at all? There is no law giving you the right drive...that is a privilege that can be taken away at any time and for any reason. Though since driving makes people more productive and provides more income to governments they don't take it away for crazy reasons.
Edited by Vagrant Storm - 1/31/13 at 10:37am
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #165 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

I still don't see how this has any play on this though. There likely wouldn't be any federal law requiring people to drive automated cars...I doubt that there would be any state laws either. It would be a person's choice. You could drive an automated car or drive a manual car and be hit with all the high insurance rates and hassle of having to drive. Why do laws need to get into the mix at all?

Well, this plays right into the other discussion above about how complex a computer system would be needed if there was a mix of human controlled cars and machine controlled cars on the road ... as opposed to just having "computer only" cars, which could be more simple. So if you don't ban humans from driving then the cost of the automated cars will go up because they will have to be more complex. The more a car costs, the fewer people who can afford them. Etc.

And the reason why laws need to get into the mix is because I thought were were having a discussion about reality. If we aren't, and we can just simply ignore laws and reality, then my vote is to ban all cars and I will go fly my fire breathing dragon here in fantasy land.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but really, any discussion outside of the realm of reality and taking into account all aspects is really a pointless discussion.
post #166 of 196
Quote:
I'm just saying, unless there is a LEGAL Federal law (which would take a Constitutional Amendment), this won't happen.

Maybe under the strictest definition, but it wouldn't necessarily take that. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that defines Congressional powers in no way shows they have the power to make gun laws for civilians, but a Federal Gun Law for Assault Weapons was passed during the Clinton administration without adding a Constitutional Amendment.
Quote:
Then there is the invariable host of other groups that will oppose it for financial reasons. International Brotherhood of Tow-truck Drivers and Body Workers and Painter of America (I jest), but with fewer accidents, less need for their jobs. Hey, maybe we can get rid of a few doctors, mortitions, coffin makers, and all the people who make hospitals and pharmaceutics to treat accident victims.

I don't think that hurting people to make sure doctors keep their jobs would be a very good argument.
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 #167 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

Maybe under the strictest definition, but it wouldn't necessarily take that. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that defines Congressional powers in no way shows they have the power to make gun laws for civilians, but a Federal Gun Law for Assault Weapons was passed during the Clinton administration without adding a Constitutional Amendment.

I don't think that hurting people to make sure doctors keep their jobs would be a very good argument.

Two points. Just because politicians pass a law, doesn't mean it's Constitutional and won't be reversed. If you want to keep it related to guns, look at what the Supreme Court did with regards to Washington, DC's gun laws (District of Columbia v. Heller). Basically striking the guns ban in the city as Unconstitutional.

As I said, it isn't just doctors, there is a whole host of other industries and jobs that would be effected. I just took it to the most absurd example to illustrate the point. But yes, people love to protect their jobs, even if it means "someone else" dies or is hurt, so be it. Tax laws (heck the entire tax code) is kept overly complex to keep lawyers and accountants (not to mention tens of thousands at the IRS) employed. Drug laws keep tens of thousands of cop, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc all employed. Etc, etc, etc. Almost every aspect of our lives could be simplified and made simpler and safer if money was taken out of the equation (and come to think of it, lawyer too ... because with less accidents, you would have less lawsuits in accident cases, and we all know the lawyers lobby is very powerful).

I just don't see it happening given our culture and legal system. Not for a long time at least. Technology being only a tiny part of the equation.
Edited by 47 Knucklehead - 1/31/13 at 11:01am
post #168 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie1337 View Post

If it's driven by Google maps there may be some problems. tongue.gif

Just saying when some of the streets I know gain an extra 200meters or so you do have to worry.

Problems with Google maps, nah. Now if it was apple maps you wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
Red October
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (C2) Asus Crosshair V Formula Asus GTX 680 DC2 4GB Mushkin Redline 8GB DDR3 2133 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 830 & Western Digital 640 Black  LiteOn Blu-Ray & Lightscribe CD/DVD Corsair H100 Windows 7 64 Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
23' Samsung LED XL2370 1920x1080 Ducky 9008-G2 OCN Edition (MX Brown) / Ducky Sh... Corsair 750HX Cooler Master HAF 932 - Paint Modded 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Razer Deathadder Sennheiser HD 595 X-Fi Titanium HD (Modded) Bravo Audio V1 rolled w/ Mastushita  
Audio
Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 80 
  hide details  
Reply
Red October
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (C2) Asus Crosshair V Formula Asus GTX 680 DC2 4GB Mushkin Redline 8GB DDR3 2133 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 830 & Western Digital 640 Black  LiteOn Blu-Ray & Lightscribe CD/DVD Corsair H100 Windows 7 64 Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
23' Samsung LED XL2370 1920x1080 Ducky 9008-G2 OCN Edition (MX Brown) / Ducky Sh... Corsair 750HX Cooler Master HAF 932 - Paint Modded 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Razer Deathadder Sennheiser HD 595 X-Fi Titanium HD (Modded) Bravo Audio V1 rolled w/ Mastushita  
Audio
Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 80 
  hide details  
Reply
post #169 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

Well, this plays right into the other discussion above about how complex a computer system would be needed if there was a mix of human controlled cars and machine controlled cars on the road ... as opposed to just having "computer only" cars, which could be more simple. So if you don't ban humans from driving then the cost of the automated cars will go up because they will have to be more complex. The more a car costs, the fewer people who can afford them. Etc.

And the reason why laws need to get into the mix is because I thought were were having a discussion about reality. If we aren't, and we can just simply ignore laws and reality, then my vote is to ban all cars and I will go fly my fire breathing dragon here in fantasy land.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but really, any discussion outside of the realm of reality and taking into account all aspects is really a pointless discussion.

As they are today...they are driving around with manual cars and accounting for nothing but manual driven cars. These are not science fiction

And these are prototypes. Refine them a bit more and they might be able to drive though a herd of animals running any which way without hitting one...probably an exaggeration, but if they are this successful now who knows what is possible.

Heh, the laws discussion is just sort of weird because aside from some laws that say what you CANNOT do in a car there aren't any laws around driving cars now. If the automated cars react like superhuman perfect human drivers I don't see any reason for the law to get involved beyond what we have today. Unless the new car systems are so successful that local, state, and federal governments all want to enforce it on people...and I doubt they would do that if the majority of voters were not backing the idea as well. We will see what comes of it, but am quite sure there will be no revolutions or people leaving tread marks on the whitehouse lawn in protest. You could say the same thing about smoking...there aren't really any laws about that from the federal level, but since it is safer for people state and local governments are getting on board with smoking bans. I see them doing the same with automated cars if they improve safety.
Edited by Vagrant Storm - 1/31/13 at 11:17am
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #170 of 196
Quote:
As I said, it isn't just doctors, there is a whole host of other industries and jobs that would be effected. I just took it to the most absurd example to illustrate the point. But yes, people love to protect their jobs, even if it means "someone else" dies. Tax laws (heck the entire tax code) is kept overly complex to keep lawyers and accountants (not to mention tens of thousands at the IRS) employed. Drug laws keep tens of thousands of cop, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc all employed. Etc, etc, etc. Almost every aspect of our lives could be simplified and made simpler and safer if money was taken out of the equation (and come to think of it, lawyer too ... because with less accidents, you would have less lawsuits in accident cases, and we all know the lawyers lobby is very powerful).

True. I never liked that about society. It is what drives our unemployment rates to begin with. I do computer programming for a living and I can manage a decent life out of it. If computer programming fell off the map, I would do something else. I have known DBA's that have been out of work for 3 years because they can't find a DBA position. People like that are plagues to society. There are jobs out there. If you made 100,000 a year before, you might have to settle for 40,000 now, but that is how it goes.

Progress shouldn't be hindered by the needs of the few. If you are a Doctor and less people are sick so your job gets cut back, you need to learn to do something else. Adapt or die.
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
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