Posted on 02/09/2016 8:52:56 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
Elon Musk's Tesla recently became the latest big shot company to enter the self-driving car sweepstakes. Mr. Musk recently announced the hiring of software architecture veteran Jim Keller, who previously had played key roles at Apple and AMD, to lead its Autopilot Engineering team. Teslas move follows the recently announced partnership between General Motors and Lyft, in which the automaker is investing $500 million in the ridesharing company as part of a joint venture to develop self-driving cars.
And of course Google, Uber, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Apple, Audi, Bosch and Delphi Automotive (the big auto parts manufacturer) all have their own much-hyped development programs for autonomous vehicles in full swing. Forget cures for cancer, climate change or world peace, the media has made it clear that self-driving cars will be the Next Great Step in civilizations drive toward magnificence.
It's time to hit the brakes for a reality check.
Despite how much Uber CEO Travis Kalanick likes to crow about our "driverless future," outside of The Jetsons this one is...not...happening...soon. Besides the remaining technological challenges, the liability and regulatory issues involved in letting a 3,000-pound death machine steer itself with no human at the controls are huge.
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
It's only a straw man because you have no valid counter for it, while you ignored the rest of the post. ROFL!!!
And yes you are a luddite. It's not name calling to point out that the person vehemently shouting against the evils of technology is quoting an old failed point of view on life.
Your assumptions are funny to the point of being ridiculously absurd. You've no idea what I do for a living and if you did you'd be eating those words with a healthy dose of crow.
I specialize in disruptive technologies. Those are the technologies that aren't even considered 'bleeding edge' yet they're so new.
Unlike you, I prefer to think for myself and not cede that to a machine that's been pre-programmed with a known set of variables and a "learning algorithm" created by flawed human beings who themselves incapable of thinking through every permutation of every variable of every action and then creating computer code to accomplish an impossible task.
But you go right on ahead with your assertions. ;-)
Have a nice life letting a machine with a computer algorithm doing your thinking for you. It'll probably do a better job anyway.
You made the claim, back it up!
Yeah it does. Because its more reliable. The modern car is EXPECTED to not need ANY of its metal parts replaced for 100,000 miles. Not one. So while initial purchase price might be a bit higher (not much really) lifetime cost is much lower.
Driving two hours isn’t too strenuous. Driving two hours (with a good chunk of it in a city I don’t navigate well), having all the excitement of a concert which doesn’t end until after I’d normally be in bed, then driving TWO MORE HOURS (starting in concert traffic, again navigating unfamiliar territory), at night, on unlit highways, is too strenuous.
It isn’t overkill, and it isn’t stupid. It’s using technology to make a better life for ourselves. It’s the next step of the industrial revolution.
But they ALWAYS do. And after 100,000 EVERYTHING needs to be worked on sooner or later.
No, it’s a straw man because it’s an invalid argument. Nobody is talking about central control of self driving cars. Tying that to Obamacare is a straw man. You’re arguing against central control, which nobody is trying to put in them. Straw man.
I don’t need to know what you’re doing for a living to know that your life is made better by technology that was protested against with the same arguments you’re using. You’re sitting in front a computer that was built with assembly line produced parts, you’re talking about driving which uses cars built on assembly lines, and get oil drilled from the ground via machines.
And now you’re reduced to ad hominems. So since we both know the facts don’t back you, discussion over.
No they don’t. And no they don’t.
Sorry but you’re on the factless curmudgeon path now. Making loud declarative statements that are false simply so you can be the grumpy guy that doesn’t like things.
No IMO it is over engineering and stupid and making life more difficult for those who are just starting out and need basic transportation, not a fighter aircraft.
If we need to design robo cars for older people who want, not need, to go to concerts two hours away and drive home because its past their bedtime then yes that is pretty good reason to build cars like that. /sarc
Already mentioned by multiple people on this thread, here’s one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems
Your opinion isn’t fact. Meanwhile the facts are that cars now last longer than ever before, retain their monetary value better than ever before, require less maintenance than ever before, are safer in an accident than ever before, are a more comfortable ride than ever before, and all these improvement make our lives EASIER (at least on the vehicular front) than ever before.
We need to design robocars because they continue on the path of making cars better than ever before.
I have a Lincoln Navigator SUV. Before 100,000 miles it needed two coil packs, a water pump, brakes, O2 sensor, ball joints and a front wheel bearing. Not all of it was under warranty. So yes they do need work before 100,000 miles. Are you going to call me a liar now?
The affluent usually keep their cars for less than 50K miles. They have no idea the nightmare they are to keep up for us lesser humans. And now you want them to have avionics like an f-14.
That’s called not doing your research. Navigators have a terrible reputation. You bought a piece of crap that 10 minutes of googling would have warned you was a piece of crap. There’s always going to be junk out there, but in this modern world where we have this “over engineered” technology called the internet junk is more avoidable than ever before. Rule 1: don’t buy American, the big 3 make crappy cars.
Not anymore. People are holding their cars longer than ever before. You can see it in the used car market, there basically isn’t one anymore, 90% of the used cars on the market today come from rental companies (and you should never buy them). The people who cycle cars fast don’t buy them they lease them, which of course makes them rentals too. People buying cars keep them until they’re dead. Which takes longer than ever.
I hope you get your sleepy time car before you croak. Maybe it will have a bib and blanket as standard equipment.
I have one of the “bullet proof” Camrys. It has 150,000 miles on it. Should I go over all the crap I have had to replace on it?
And there you go with the ad hominems. So now that we both know you don’t have the facts, we’re done.
It’s at 150,000 miles. 50% past designed life expectancy. And actually it’s probably old enough that it’s closer to 100% past designed life expectancy. If you weren’t so hooked on being grumpy you’d realize the fact that it’s even running means it kicks ass. Nothing made in the 20th century (those simple cars you consider perfect) is getting to 150,000 miles without a ton of work, probably at least one engine replacement.
It needed plenty before 100,000 miles.
And how old is it?
It’s 10 years old
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.