User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:16:07 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How much less will my insurance cost if I let it drive? The insurance lobby will ensure you pay pretty much the same as now. You think that industry is going to lay down and die over some new tech when there's millions of car owners to wring like a dirty dish rag? Unlikely. If payouts go down, cost will follow. That's how the market works. Sure it does. Tell me all about it, I live in Texas. We got Tort Reform in 2004. Payouts went through the fucking floor, literally, by their own Lobbying Arms admission they went down by 29%. That was followed by policy deregulation that did away with a standard form allowing companies to write all sorts of policies that essentially cover nothing....more "cost savings".....How much do you think auto insurance costs went down? Give me a number.....Here's a hint, they haven't, at all. None. In fact, they are up in cost and covering less..... Cite? http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/partingshots/2000/06/26/22647.htm Costs Still going up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:16:08 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How so? All the technological advances are skewed towards providing you more time to consume. Removes you from your money and places it in the hands of the corporations that dictate your perfect lifestyle. Go to work, slave away, come home, be fed advertising specific to you as every movement is tracked, consume. They have all but eliminated cash. Everything is paperless. Turns your wealth and dollars meaningless so it becomes easier to separate you from it. Track you via phone, pc, video surveillance to discover tendencies, and bombard you with data to trigger a consumer's response to spend. A cage you're not even aware you're in and the perception that you have a legitimate freedom of choice. You're really looking at choosing between coca-cola or coca-cola, McDonald's or McDonald's, funneling your wealth to the same place as someone else controls the ship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie? Humans are being fed information from the comfort of their moving chairs all the while completely oblivious to the actual world around them and foregoing active participation in it. Lemmings distracted by consumerism. I think the poster was touching at the irony between the message displayed within the film and the way our own reality is headed with technological advances. I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine. How so? All the technological advances are skewed towards providing you more time to consume. Removes you from your money and places it in the hands of the corporations that dictate your perfect lifestyle. Go to work, slave away, come home, be fed advertising specific to you as every movement is tracked, consume. They have all but eliminated cash. Everything is paperless. Turns your wealth and dollars meaningless so it becomes easier to separate you from it. Track you via phone, pc, video surveillance to discover tendencies, and bombard you with data to trigger a consumer's response to spend. A cage you're not even aware you're in and the perception that you have a legitimate freedom of choice. You're really looking at choosing between coca-cola or coca-cola, McDonald's or McDonald's, funneling your wealth to the same place as someone else controls the ship. Humans are consumers by nature. Your point is that we should, what, eschew technology that provides us with opportunities because we're going to become fat and lazy? That's how people work, naturally. Since the dawn of man we have endeavored to make work less burdensome and leisure more rewarding. The wheel, fire, industry, banking, insurance .... all of these things are MONUMENTS to man's inherent attitude towards life; Work smarter, not harder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:17:07 AM EST
[#3]
Will look like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:17:26 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/partingshots/2000/06/26/22647.htm Costs Still going up. Can you provide something written in the last 15 years, or so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:18:15 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryWhich is, honestly, fucking glorious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:20:26 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Humans are consumers by nature. Your point is that we should, what, eschew technology that provides us with opportunities because we're going to become fat and lazy? That's how people work, naturally. Since the dawn of man we have endeavored to make work less burdensome and leisure more rewarding. The wheel, fire, industry, banking, insurance .... all of these things are MONUMENTS to man's inherent attitude towards life; Work smarter, not harder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie? Humans are being fed information from the comfort of their moving chairs all the while completely oblivious to the actual world around them and foregoing active participation in it. Lemmings distracted by consumerism. I think the poster was touching at the irony between the message displayed within the film and the way our own reality is headed with technological advances. I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine. How so? All the technological advances are skewed towards providing you more time to consume. Removes you from your money and places it in the hands of the corporations that dictate your perfect lifestyle. Go to work, slave away, come home, be fed advertising specific to you as every movement is tracked, consume. They have all but eliminated cash. Everything is paperless. Turns your wealth and dollars meaningless so it becomes easier to separate you from it. Track you via phone, pc, video surveillance to discover tendencies, and bombard you with data to trigger a consumer's response to spend. A cage you're not even aware you're in and the perception that you have a legitimate freedom of choice. You're really looking at choosing between coca-cola or coca-cola, McDonald's or McDonald's, funneling your wealth to the same place as someone else controls the ship. Humans are consumers by nature. Your point is that we should, what, eschew technology that provides us with opportunities because we're going to become fat and lazy? That's how people work, naturally. Since the dawn of man we have endeavored to make work less burdensome and leisure more rewarding. The wheel, fire, industry, banking, insurance .... all of these things are MONUMENTS to man's inherent attitude towards life; Work smarter, not harder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:26:41 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Humans are consumers by nature. Your point is that we should, what, eschew technology that provides us with opportunities because we're going to become fat and lazy? That's how people work, naturally. Since the dawn of man we have endeavored to make work less burdensome and leisure more rewarding. The wheel, fire, industry, banking, insurance .... all of these things are MONUMENTS to man's inherent attitude towards life; Work smarter, not harder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie? Humans are being fed information from the comfort of their moving chairs all the while completely oblivious to the actual world around them and foregoing active participation in it. Lemmings distracted by consumerism. I think the poster was touching at the irony between the message displayed within the film and the way our own reality is headed with technological advances. I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine. How so? All the technological advances are skewed towards providing you more time to consume. Removes you from your money and places it in the hands of the corporations that dictate your perfect lifestyle. Go to work, slave away, come home, be fed advertising specific to you as every movement is tracked, consume. They have all but eliminated cash. Everything is paperless. Turns your wealth and dollars meaningless so it becomes easier to separate you from it. Track you via phone, pc, video surveillance to discover tendencies, and bombard you with data to trigger a consumer's response to spend. A cage you're not even aware you're in and the perception that you have a legitimate freedom of choice. You're really looking at choosing between coca-cola or coca-cola, McDonald's or McDonald's, funneling your wealth to the same place as someone else controls the ship. Humans are consumers by nature. Your point is that we should, what, eschew technology that provides us with opportunities because we're going to become fat and lazy? That's how people work, naturally. Since the dawn of man we have endeavored to make work less burdensome and leisure more rewarding. The wheel, fire, industry, banking, insurance .... all of these things are MONUMENTS to man's inherent attitude towards life; Work smarter, not harder. Yet again, you miss the point |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:27:20 AM EST
[#8]
I'll gladly buy such a car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:27:31 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Car- take me to blah blah "I'm sorry, you are on the list" "I'm sorry, environmental restrictions apply today" Or it just drives you to the police station instead, randomly Figures out that the weight in the passenger seat is exactly that of a loaded 1911 and then drives you to the police station. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:28:59 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Id love a 30 minute nap driving into work Incorrect - employers will expect you to give this 30 minutes extra to them, not to yourself. Wait for it and tell me I'm wrong when it happens Your first e-mail of the day for work will be loaded into your car computer. Duh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:30:31 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does it currently work with the Autopilot in planes? My guess (and it's important to remember we're all just guessing, here) is that there's going to be the same legal questions for this kind of liability that we currently enjoy. Was the product reasonably safe? Was the product tested? Did it pass those tests? Was it properly maintained? Did the manufacturer exercise due caution and due diligence in the product's design and implementation? I really doubt, though we can't be sure, that there's going to be a "company crushing" bevy of lawsuits on the horizon that are going to raise legal questions we don't *already* have the answers to and the case law to back those answers up. Frankly, if the tech *is just* 20 percent better than humans, we're talking about over 5K lives saved due to the removal of human input, at worst. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, never. How can they program a car to make a split second decision to react to a situation that is unwinnable? Total hypothetical, crash is imminent, car doesn't veer and likelihood of great injury or death to passengers 95%, if car veers, 75% chance bystander injury or death with car occupants injury rate falling to 25% w/ no deaths. Artificial intelligence and proper fuzzy logic are years if not decades away from being that good. Even then still, some pencil pusher/bean counter will be setting the threshold of who gets fucked, no thanks. I'll rely on my brain and much better than average reaction/reflexes. None of that will be a problem when every car on the road is driven by computers. Bullshit. Pedestrians, animals, debris in the roads, inclement weather, broken or dirty sensors, failure of software or hacking, a computer just isn't exempt from those shitty moral and judgment calls because Google did some testing and it kind of works ok. An empty cardboard box blows across the street, the car can either veer onto the berm where people are standing or run over the box (no time to brake). What does it do? A human being can figure out very quickly the box is not solid and it's an easy moral judgment call. You think a computer will get that right based on programming? Even if it's 95% good, and 20% better than humans, the liability will fucking CRUSH the company that kills innocents over it (and it's going to happen). Class action mayhem, baby, when Adelphi or Microsoft or whoever's programming squashes a crowd of people or two, or 10. As it stands now, the driver is culpable for that, not Chevy. But, when Chevy is at all the wheels that caused death? They'll get stomped by the trial lawyers. Watch and see. How does it currently work with the Autopilot in planes? My guess (and it's important to remember we're all just guessing, here) is that there's going to be the same legal questions for this kind of liability that we currently enjoy. Was the product reasonably safe? Was the product tested? Did it pass those tests? Was it properly maintained? Did the manufacturer exercise due caution and due diligence in the product's design and implementation? I really doubt, though we can't be sure, that there's going to be a "company crushing" bevy of lawsuits on the horizon that are going to raise legal questions we don't *already* have the answers to and the case law to back those answers up. Frankly, if the tech *is just* 20 percent better than humans, we're talking about over 5K lives saved due to the removal of human input, at worst. Airplanes flying across the sky are really nothing at all like driving a car through a crowded city street. They share little if any of the same hazards or moral quandaries. It's going to be really hard to have a conversation or debate with you when such glaring & obvious realities either go over your head, by design or through pure ignorance of the complexities of life on the ground. So, like a driverless car that sees something it knows is just all wrong, I'll apply the brakes here and avoid the pothole that is your argument. Again, watch and see. This is all going to play out in the coming years as brutal reality shits on naive optimism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:31:22 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet again, you miss the point Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie? Humans are being fed information from the comfort of their moving chairs all the while completely oblivious to the actual world around them and foregoing active participation in it. Lemmings distracted by consumerism. I think the poster was touching at the irony between the message displayed within the film and the way our own reality is headed with technological advances. I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine. How so? All the technological advances are skewed towards providing you more time to consume. Removes you from your money and places it in the hands of the corporations that dictate your perfect lifestyle. Go to work, slave away, come home, be fed advertising specific to you as every movement is tracked, consume. They have all but eliminated cash. Everything is paperless. Turns your wealth and dollars meaningless so it becomes easier to separate you from it. Track you via phone, pc, video surveillance to discover tendencies, and bombard you with data to trigger a consumer's response to spend. A cage you're not even aware you're in and the perception that you have a legitimate freedom of choice. You're really looking at choosing between coca-cola or coca-cola, McDonald's or McDonald's, funneling your wealth to the same place as someone else controls the ship. Humans are consumers by nature. Your point is that we should, what, eschew technology that provides us with opportunities because we're going to become fat and lazy? That's how people work, naturally. Since the dawn of man we have endeavored to make work less burdensome and leisure more rewarding. The wheel, fire, industry, banking, insurance .... all of these things are MONUMENTS to man's inherent attitude towards life; Work smarter, not harder. Yet again, you miss the point What ship are you controlling by deciding not to avail yourself of driverless cars ... besides the car? Hey, man, I get it. We should all go back to living off the land, hunting and foraging our dinners and letting the world pass us by. That way nobody can control us. Not the Spaniards, not the British, not the French, NOBODY!! It'll be like 600 AD all over again and the life expectancy will drop back to your late 20's but, hey, at least you'll be driving your own car, amiright? I didn't miss the point because you, nor Jagrmaister (but, mostly you) haven't made a salient one yet. So far, I'm hearing a *lot* of "I don't like it" with very little to quantify such an attitude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:33:55 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Airplanes flying across the sky are really nothing at all like driving a car through a crowded city street. They share little if any of the same hazards or moral quandaries. It's going to be really hard to have a conversation or debate with you when such glaring & obvious realities either go over your head, by design or through pure ignorance of the complexities of life on the ground. So, like a driverless car that sees something it knows is just all wrong, I'll apply the brakes here and avoid the pothole that is your argument. Again, watch and see. This is all going to play out in the coming years as brutal reality shits on naive optimism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, never. How can they program a car to make a split second decision to react to a situation that is unwinnable? Total hypothetical, crash is imminent, car doesn't veer and likelihood of great injury or death to passengers 95%, if car veers, 75% chance bystander injury or death with car occupants injury rate falling to 25% w/ no deaths. Artificial intelligence and proper fuzzy logic are years if not decades away from being that good. Even then still, some pencil pusher/bean counter will be setting the threshold of who gets fucked, no thanks. I'll rely on my brain and much better than average reaction/reflexes. None of that will be a problem when every car on the road is driven by computers. Bullshit. Pedestrians, animals, debris in the roads, inclement weather, broken or dirty sensors, failure of software or hacking, a computer just isn't exempt from those shitty moral and judgment calls because Google did some testing and it kind of works ok. An empty cardboard box blows across the street, the car can either veer onto the berm where people are standing or run over the box (no time to brake). What does it do? A human being can figure out very quickly the box is not solid and it's an easy moral judgment call. You think a computer will get that right based on programming? Even if it's 95% good, and 20% better than humans, the liability will fucking CRUSH the company that kills innocents over it (and it's going to happen). Class action mayhem, baby, when Adelphi or Microsoft or whoever's programming squashes a crowd of people or two, or 10. As it stands now, the driver is culpable for that, not Chevy. But, when Chevy is at all the wheels that caused death? They'll get stomped by the trial lawyers. Watch and see. How does it currently work with the Autopilot in planes? My guess (and it's important to remember we're all just guessing, here) is that there's going to be the same legal questions for this kind of liability that we currently enjoy. Was the product reasonably safe? Was the product tested? Did it pass those tests? Was it properly maintained? Did the manufacturer exercise due caution and due diligence in the product's design and implementation? I really doubt, though we can't be sure, that there's going to be a "company crushing" bevy of lawsuits on the horizon that are going to raise legal questions we don't *already* have the answers to and the case law to back those answers up. Frankly, if the tech *is just* 20 percent better than humans, we're talking about over 5K lives saved due to the removal of human input, at worst. Airplanes flying across the sky are really nothing at all like driving a car through a crowded city street. They share little if any of the same hazards or moral quandaries. It's going to be really hard to have a conversation or debate with you when such glaring & obvious realities either go over your head, by design or through pure ignorance of the complexities of life on the ground. So, like a driverless car that sees something it knows is just all wrong, I'll apply the brakes here and avoid the pothole that is your argument. Again, watch and see. This is all going to play out in the coming years as brutal reality shits on naive optimism. I used that analogy because we have so precious little else to actually compare it to. I will openly admit the comparison is rife with imperfections but, you've not acknowledged the bulk of my argument. What legal issues do *you* foresee that aren't already in play in our systems? I'm genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:36:06 AM EST
[#14]
Yep, and I'll sleep everywhere I go. 5 minutes to the store? Nap time. 24 hours to Colorado? Nap time. Makes no difference. The only thing I loathe more than the hours wasted mowing my lawn are the hours wasted driving a car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:38:29 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is, honestly, fucking glorious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is, honestly, fucking glorious. I don't have any problem what-so-ever with it. How fabulous will taking a corner within inches of someone else's vehicle be when it's timed perfectly. Less wear and tear on the car, brakes, wait-time, whatever. I agree with that. I do agree that this can open up a lot of gov't abuses though. I think a lot of people are faulting the tech on potential loss of freedom as opposed to 'loss of safety'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:39:52 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have any problem what-so-ever with it. How fabulous will taking a corner within inches of someone else's vehicle be when it's timed perfectly. Less wear and tear on the car, brakes, wait-time, whatever. I agree with that. I do agree that this can open up a lot of gov't abuses though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Which is, honestly, fucking glorious. I don't have any problem what-so-ever with it. How fabulous will taking a corner within inches of someone else's vehicle be when it's timed perfectly. Less wear and tear on the car, brakes, wait-time, whatever. I agree with that. I do agree that this can open up a lot of gov't abuses though. I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:41:29 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which is, honestly, fucking glorious. I don't have any problem what-so-ever with it. How fabulous will taking a corner within inches of someone else's vehicle be when it's timed perfectly. Less wear and tear on the car, brakes, wait-time, whatever. I agree with that. I do agree that this can open up a lot of gov't abuses though. I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." Hey, I'm all for it, and I don't think you should hide in your bathtub. It's healthy to have an imagination in some cases. This is wise to be one of those cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:42:50 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:43:14 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course. I'll make my choice on data, not feels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:44:18 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. The Devil's Advocate in me screams "Randy Weaver." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:47:57 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Devil's Advocate in me screams "Randy Weaver." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. The Devil's Advocate in me screams "Randy Weaver." Yeah, but that was just pure vindictiveness because he wouldn't help them get their original targets. I'd say it's safe to assume that most here aren't even loosely associated with people the government is interested in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:50:46 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but that was just pure vindictiveness because he wouldn't help them get their original targets. I'd say it's safe to assume that most here aren't even loosely associated with people the government is interested in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. The Devil's Advocate in me screams "Randy Weaver." Yeah, but that was just pure vindictiveness because he wouldn't help them get their original targets. I'd say it's safe to assume that most here aren't even loosely associated with people the government is interested in. I agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:54:05 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to hide in my bathtub over "possible abuses." This. Possible abuses require manpower, lots of it. It also requires a reason for them to expend the effort to come after you. And quite frankly, most of you are completely and totally boring, there's no real reason to even think about coming after you, so why would they. Technology massively reduces the amount of manpower needed for abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:57:32 AM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Or would you sit behind the wheel like a hyper-alert guard dog just waiting to stomp the breaks, hit the button, whatever option is left to you? I'm not down with that shit, I don't care how they package it. Would you let a computer land a plane you were on? If you fly commercially, you do it all the time! 
IFR Landing |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:58:11 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technology massively reduces the amount of manpower needed for abuse. Still requires manpower. There's almost 320 million people in the US. The technology, manpower, and money to watch that many people don't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:00:56 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine........ Hey, man, I get it. We should all go back to living off the land, hunting and foraging our dinners and letting the world pass us by. That way nobody can control us. Not the Spaniards, not the British, not the French, NOBODY!! It'll be like 600 AD all over again and the life expectancy will drop back to your late 20's but, hey, at least you'll be driving your own car, amiright? I didn't miss the point because you, nor Jagrmaister (but, mostly you) haven't made a salient one yet. So far, I'm hearing a *lot* of "I don't like it" with very little to quantify such an attitude. I think I did make the point of where someone could make the logical leap between the film's fantasy and reality as even you admitted human beings desire to make life easier. Therein lies the parallel where someone could logically take that leap between the advancement of current tech and humans just going along for the ride. So you completely did miss the point of the argument you engaged yourself. I never was arguing whether I thought the auto-pilot car was a grand idea. I'll ride around in one in true ARF fashion as I sleep off the aftermath of a night of hookers and blow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:01:15 AM EST
[#27]
I put my life in the hands of a bunch of retards every time I take to the road...once the tech is mature I think this will be much safer than having to try to dodge morons putting on makeup while they drive and such.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:02:15 AM EST
[#28]
Meh. Being in the state with the worst roads in america I wont have to worry . The car wont be able to make it 5 miles without me taking over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:07:57 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still requires manpower. There's almost 320 million people in the US. The technology, manpower, and money to watch that many people don't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Technology massively reduces the amount of manpower needed for abuse. Still requires manpower. There's almost 320 million people in the US. The technology, manpower, and money to watch that many people don't exist. Google has a picture of almost every house in this country, accessible on the internet. Your phone can allow you to be found in minutes. Ever e-mail, forum post and phone conversation can be searched for keywords. Don't tell me what technology can't do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:13:20 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Google has a picture of almost every house in this country, accessible on the internet. Your phone can allow you to be found in minutes. Ever e-mail, forum post and phone conversation can be searched for keywords. Don't tell me what technology can't do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Technology massively reduces the amount of manpower needed for abuse. Still requires manpower. There's almost 320 million people in the US. The technology, manpower, and money to watch that many people don't exist. Google has a picture of almost every house in this country, accessible on the internet. Your phone can allow you to be found in minutes. Ever e-mail, forum post and phone conversation can be searched for keywords. Don't tell me what technology can't do. You still need *people* to sift through the SUBSTANTIAL chaff to find the grains of wheat. I work in technology, I understand the limitations. For *each* data point you add, you *also* add exponentially more man power required to parse the data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:14:34 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Google has a picture of almost every house in this country, accessible on the internet. Your phone can allow you to be found in minutes. Ever e-mail, forum post and phone conversation can be searched for keywords. Don't tell me what technology can't do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Technology massively reduces the amount of manpower needed for abuse. Still requires manpower. There's almost 320 million people in the US. The technology, manpower, and money to watch that many people don't exist. Google has a picture of almost every house in this country, accessible on the internet. Your phone can allow you to be found in minutes. Ever e-mail, forum post and phone conversation can be searched for keywords. Don't tell me what technology can't do. I guess I should have clarified that the technology to make all 320 million people watchable by the available manpower doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:15:55 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I did make the point of where someone could make the logical leap between the film's fantasy and reality as even you admitted human beings desire to make life easier. Therein lies the parallel where someone could logically take that leap between the advancement of current tech and humans just going along for the ride. So you completely did miss the point of the argument you engaged yourself. I never was arguing whether I thought the auto-pilot car was a grand idea. I'll ride around in one in true ARF fashion as I sleep off the aftermath of a night of hookers and blow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine........ Hey, man, I get it. We should all go back to living off the land, hunting and foraging our dinners and letting the world pass us by. That way nobody can control us. Not the Spaniards, not the British, not the French, NOBODY!! It'll be like 600 AD all over again and the life expectancy will drop back to your late 20's but, hey, at least you'll be driving your own car, amiright? I didn't miss the point because you, nor Jagrmaister (but, mostly you) haven't made a salient one yet. So far, I'm hearing a *lot* of "I don't like it" with very little to quantify such an attitude. I think I did make the point of where someone could make the logical leap between the film's fantasy and reality as even you admitted human beings desire to make life easier. Therein lies the parallel where someone could logically take that leap between the advancement of current tech and humans just going along for the ride. So you completely did miss the point of the argument you engaged yourself. I never was arguing whether I thought the auto-pilot car was a grand idea. I'll ride around in one in true ARF fashion as I sleep off the aftermath of a night of hookers and blow. Making life easier and having the entirety of the human race reduced to tubs of fat floating on chairs aren't really the same thing. This, is a much better way of understanding human desires than watching Wall-E: I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:29:36 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Making life easier and having the entirety of the human race reduced to tubs of fat floating on chairs aren't really the same thing. This, is a much better way of understanding human desires than watching Wall-E: I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine........ Hey, man, I get it. We should all go back to living off the land, hunting and foraging our dinners and letting the world pass us by. That way nobody can control us. Not the Spaniards, not the British, not the French, NOBODY!! It'll be like 600 AD all over again and the life expectancy will drop back to your late 20's but, hey, at least you'll be driving your own car, amiright? I didn't miss the point because you, nor Jagrmaister (but, mostly you) haven't made a salient one yet. So far, I'm hearing a *lot* of "I don't like it" with very little to quantify such an attitude. I think I did make the point of where someone could make the logical leap between the film's fantasy and reality as even you admitted human beings desire to make life easier. Therein lies the parallel where someone could logically take that leap between the advancement of current tech and humans just going along for the ride. So you completely did miss the point of the argument you engaged yourself. I never was arguing whether I thought the auto-pilot car was a grand idea. I'll ride around in one in true ARF fashion as I sleep off the aftermath of a night of hookers and blow. Making life easier and having the entirety of the human race reduced to tubs of fat floating on chairs aren't really the same thing. This, is a much better way of understanding human desires than watching Wall-E: I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams You really harp on the whole fat dynamic, don't you? Sensitive subject matter or what? It's a caricature that people will quickly identify with a sedentary lifestyle absent of active participation in one's environment. The world on auto-pilot. Nobody said it's the textbook for the world to study in regards to the human condition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:34:02 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really harp on the whole fat dynamic, don't you? Sensitive subject matter or what? It's a caricature that people will quickly identify with a sedentary lifestyle absent of active participation in one's environment. The world on auto-pilot. Nobody said it's the textbook for the world to study in regards to the human condition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've seen the movie. That anyone can make the logical leap to there, from here, speaks more to their own lack of critical thinking than it does mine........ Hey, man, I get it. We should all go back to living off the land, hunting and foraging our dinners and letting the world pass us by. That way nobody can control us. Not the Spaniards, not the British, not the French, NOBODY!! It'll be like 600 AD all over again and the life expectancy will drop back to your late 20's but, hey, at least you'll be driving your own car, amiright? I didn't miss the point because you, nor Jagrmaister (but, mostly you) haven't made a salient one yet. So far, I'm hearing a *lot* of "I don't like it" with very little to quantify such an attitude. I think I did make the point of where someone could make the logical leap between the film's fantasy and reality as even you admitted human beings desire to make life easier. Therein lies the parallel where someone could logically take that leap between the advancement of current tech and humans just going along for the ride. So you completely did miss the point of the argument you engaged yourself. I never was arguing whether I thought the auto-pilot car was a grand idea. I'll ride around in one in true ARF fashion as I sleep off the aftermath of a night of hookers and blow. Making life easier and having the entirety of the human race reduced to tubs of fat floating on chairs aren't really the same thing. This, is a much better way of understanding human desires than watching Wall-E: I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams You really harp on the whole fat dynamic, don't you? Sensitive subject matter or what? It's a caricature that people will quickly identify with a sedentary lifestyle absent of active participation in one's environment. The world on auto-pilot. Nobody said it's the textbook for the world to study in regards to the human condition. In debate, I try not to deal in caricatures. If you want to play the "what if" game about driverless cars, the whole Cyberdyne self aware angle will be much more fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:34:48 AM EST
[#35]
It will be painfully slow.
The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:34:56 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember driving home after a vacation in Maine. I was completely exhausted after a sixteen hour drive. I drove through a blind curve and there was a Land Rover sitting in front of me waiting to make a left turn. I locked up the brakes but felt like I was going to kill the guy in my lane. After a Jeep passed in the oncoming lane I moved into the oncoming lane to avoid the guy in front of me. Missed both of the cars by inches. A computer wouldn't do that. The car would not have been exhausted, so likely would have reacted more quickly than you did. Also, by the time we get a high number of self-driving cars on the road, there is a good chance they will communicate location and vectors to each other and thus your car would have known the Land Rover was there before you even saw it, and acted pro-actively to avoid an incident without requiring sudden, evasive action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:37:27 AM EST
[#37]
I work in IT.
So that's a big "negative ghostrider" from me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:39:38 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:40:47 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. City driving will be MUCH faster I'd expect...long distance interstate may be slower...on the other hand you could get on the road at night and arrive to your destination by the morning... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:41:03 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I work in IT. So that's a big "negative ghostrider" from me. Me too. If I were forced to guess, I'd say something close to 99.9 percent of IT "problems" are traceable back to human input. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:41:12 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember driving home after a vacation in Maine. I was completely exhausted after a sixteen hour drive. I drove through a blind curve and there was a Land Rover sitting in front of me waiting to make a left turn. I locked up the brakes but felt like I was going to kill the guy in my lane. After a Jeep passed in the oncoming lane I moved into the oncoming lane to avoid the guy in front of me. Missed both of the cars by inches. A computer wouldn't do that. The computer likely would have never gotten into that situation to begin with, but by some chance it did, it would have dealt with it faster and more efficiently than you were even capable of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:42:15 AM EST
[#42]
never
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:43:00 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. So,no pedestrians? Crush every non-self driving car? Your utopia is decades away. A self driving car on today's roads will be a pain in the ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:43:26 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
City driving will be MUCH faster I'd expect...long distance interstate may be slower...on the other hand you could get on the road at night and arrive to your destination by the morning... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. City driving will be MUCH faster I'd expect...long distance interstate may be slower...on the other hand you could get on the road at night and arrive to your destination by the morning... Also, one of the reasons for ~70 MPH on the freeway (if we ignore revenue generation) is that humans have difficulty adjusting to the environment much above that. If *all* cars are moving at the same speed, there's no reason for the speed to be so low. Electric motors running at 150-170MPH may be the new "normal." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:44:53 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also, one of the reasons for ~70 MPH on the freeway (if we ignore revenue generation) is that humans have difficulty adjusting to the environment much above that. If *all* cars are moving at the same speed, there's no reason for the speed to be so low. Electric motors running at 150-170MPH may be the new "normal." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. City driving will be MUCH faster I'd expect...long distance interstate may be slower...on the other hand you could get on the road at night and arrive to your destination by the morning... Also, one of the reasons for ~70 MPH on the freeway (if we ignore revenue generation) is that humans have difficulty adjusting to the environment much above that. If *all* cars are moving at the same speed, there's no reason for the speed to be so low. Electric motors running at 150-170MPH may be the new "normal." I agree, though was just playing devil's advocate to the guys saying it would be so slow. 150 mph might be a stretch, but ~80-90 seems pretty doable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:46:01 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So,no pedestrians? Crush every non-self driving car? Your utopia is decades away. A self driving car on today's roads will be a pain in the ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. So,no pedestrians? Crush every non-self driving car? Your utopia is decades away. A self driving car on today's roads will be a pain in the ass. I don't think anyone sane is arguing to the contrary. But, eventually, yes, crushing all self driven cars (or, at least, removing them from traffic) will be the *most* beneficial use of the roadways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:47:39 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, though was just playing devil's advocate to the guys saying it would be so slow. 150 mph might be a stretch, but ~80-90 seems pretty doable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be painfully slow. The system default will be "timid". It will default to the posted speed limit, then start deducting speed based on conditions. Dark? there goes 15% of top speed. Rain in the area? (even if the pavement is dry the NWS data will be used.) Construction int he area? etc. The only tool in the toolbox is the brakes. So it will brake a lot. Mix that in with traffic flowing above the posted speed, and the damn things will quickly become a nuisance. Perhaps that is the plan. There are too many shitbirds out there that have made statements like "We have to pry these people out of their cars." They want mass transit. No POV's. Think about how much faster it gets when you completely eliminate accidents, congestion, stop signs and traffic lights. City driving will be MUCH faster I'd expect...long distance interstate may be slower...on the other hand you could get on the road at night and arrive to your destination by the morning... Also, one of the reasons for ~70 MPH on the freeway (if we ignore revenue generation) is that humans have difficulty adjusting to the environment much above that. If *all* cars are moving at the same speed, there's no reason for the speed to be so low. Electric motors running at 150-170MPH may be the new "normal." I agree, though was just playing devil's advocate to the guys saying it would be so slow. 150 mph might be a stretch, but ~80-90 seems pretty doable. I remember reading somewhere (I'm not to pretend I know it to be true) that the highways and interstates in the US are engineered to be safely piloted by humans at ~100MPH. So, if that's the case, ~150MPH by computers may not be so farcical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 11:58:57 AM EST
[#48]
I can't wait.
Imma be a car pimp. Gonna buy a dozen of those things. Make them take people where they want to go. Come home to recharge, back out on the streets. Need a pizza? My car will show up, throw the pie in the seat... zooom. Off it goes. Maybe even a few shaggin wagons. Install a waterbed an one of those internet linked fleshlights... The future is HUUUUUUUGE! My personal car, I want the interior to be set up like one of the teacups at the fair... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:00:59 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have no trouble believing that computers will drive cars more safely than the general public. Yup, and insurance companies are begging for it. If computers won't be better drivers than humans, by and large. Then why would insurance companies WANT drivers to be getting into more accidents and costing the insurance companies more money?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:05:31 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is, honestly, fucking glorious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is, honestly, fucking glorious. Very much so. Who cares if you never go above the posted legal limit? It will drastically reduce commute times. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
