Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tech Blogger Take on the Driverless Uber Crash
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 20, 2018 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/20/2018 1:20:31 PM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: Chickensoup

I recall one driverless car drove right into a truck trailer because it couldn’t tell the white trailer was there. I wonder why they are calling this the first fatality?

Freegards


61 posted on 03/20/2018 5:59:35 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

A computer driverless car has 80 accidents by one account. Tell the Dept of Motor Vehicles you have 80 accidents on your record.

Tell the DMV the fatality was a mere computer glitch, and you apologized already.

Government is making human drivers 2nd class citizens.

Many Robot car incidents are angry people smashing the peopleless vehicle.


62 posted on 03/20/2018 6:01:38 PM PDT by TheNext
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

What will happen is the auto-car industry will shovel a sufficient amount of money into the pockets of Congressmen and friends and families thereof, and immunities will be made law.

See: telco immunity


63 posted on 03/20/2018 6:12:13 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Number of arrested coup conspirators to date: 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
You've been listening to Red Barchetta again.

HA! Came up on the playlist this weekend actually.

64 posted on 03/21/2018 6:15:00 AM PDT by zeugma (Power without accountability is fertilizer for tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The bleeding cars are being sold with the claim that they can PREVENT accidents! Obviously they can’t.

Does anybody really think that a camera attached to a computer program can perceive what’s happening in front of it?

A human can perceive another human, based on seeing only a small part of that human. Who is going to try to program a computer to understand that another human is present, when the program is able to examine only a small part of that human and remains unable to determine that it is a part of a whole human?

Example of what I mean: if you see a jacket at a height of about 5 feet off the ground, and it is moving, you know, without thinking, that it is on a human who is walking. Gonna try to program a computer to come to that same conclusion?

Lotsa luck.


65 posted on 03/21/2018 7:38:52 AM PDT by I want the USA back (There are two sexes: male (pronoun HE), and female (pronoun SHE). Denial of this is insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson