User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 7:56:21 AM EDT
[#1]
I would have no problem with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 7:57:15 AM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:00:55 AM EDT
[#3]
Trust it or not, it will probably be standard equipment fairly soon: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:04:35 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can barely stand riding in a car with someone else driving. Sitting there while the car drives itself is gonna take some conditioning.  Exactly. I can barely tolerate someone else driving. Much less a fucking wifi connected computer that some fucker in wherever can hack and drive me into a lake. I'd trust a computer to operate properly on the road way more than most people.  Computers don't get high, drunk, distracted, tired, or angry. https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/bender-booze.gif?w=650 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:09:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:14:49 AM EDT
[#6]
nope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:21:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Is it worse than trusting it to idiots staring into their cellphones, drunks and dumb teenagers like we do now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:24:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd trust a computer to operate properly on the road way more than most people.
Computers don't get high, drunk, distracted, tired, or angry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can barely stand riding in a car with someone else driving. Sitting there while the car drives itself is gonna take some conditioning. Exactly. I can barely tolerate someone else driving. Much less a fucking wifi connected computer that some fucker in wherever can hack and drive me into a lake. I'd trust a computer to operate properly on the road way more than most people.
Computers don't get high, drunk, distracted, tired, or angry. Have we met? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:26:30 AM EDT
[#9]
I already trust my life to a bunch of other idiot drivers on the road with me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:29:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Driverless cars = every car is a video surveillance vehicle for the area around it, and every single car's movement is tracked precisely. It's a totalitarian state wet dream.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:30:31 AM EDT
[#11]
I didn't like anti-lock brakes when they first came out. Especially on snow. At some point I realized the computer did a better job of pumping the brakes than I did. Giving up all control would be difficult but I do it on airplane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:32:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Driverless cars = every car is a video surveillance vehicle for the area around it, and every single car's movement is tracked precisely. It's a totalitarian state wet dream. And when the citizens don't cooperate with the progressive movement, GPS coordinates for nearest correctional center are entered. Time to be rehabilitated, citizen. Yes, Leader, Leader is good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:32:51 AM EDT
[#13]
Yes, and I can't wait for it !
Also, when you read reviews of self driving cars they're all the same:. It starts with the reviewers being anxious and monitoring everything like a hawk, and after a while they observe how good it is, sit back and do something else while the car drives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:41:31 AM EDT
[#14]
I was very leery and concerned about this tech (and I'm in the auto industry). But day after day I see how bad drivers are getting. On their phones non-stop, weaving around, driving off the shoulder. I'm scared crapless out there on the roads these days. Now I'm completely for going automated. Is it ready yet? Heck no. But it is coming, and sooner than people expect.
Remember, autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They just have to kill less people than human-driven cars kill. Where are we at these days, 150,000 people killed in the USA alone per year? If going autonomous drops that to 100,000, isn't that a win? People are inherently bad at driving - we have a multi-billion dollar industry built entirely around how bad people are at driving (auto insurance industry). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:44:51 AM EDT
[#15]
if you trust other drivers more than driverless cars, you are just an idiot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:52:03 AM EDT
[#16]
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could?
ETA links: Google's car better than average driver |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 8:57:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Hell no. Who exactly does a "driverless car" take it's directions from? You or Onstar at DHS's request? Fuck that. My own car isn't taking me to the Goddamn Fema Camp!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:03:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could? I'll try to find the link; it's an interesting read. That kind of reminds of iRobot, where the robot saved the main character instead of the little girl because the chances of survival calculated higher for him. What will happen is a self driving vehicle will get into an accident, someone will die and people will go into a frenzy because a human may have done something differently (which may or may not have made the outcome better) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:04:03 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell no. Who exactly does a "driverless car" take it's directions from? You or Onstar at DHS's request? Fuck that. My own car isn't taking me to the Goddamn Fema Camp! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:05:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could? Weren't most of the accidents caused by human drivers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:05:56 AM EDT
[#21]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:06:33 AM EDT
[#22]
I can't wait for it. Most people have no business behind the wheel of a car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:07:35 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was very leery and concerned about this tech (and I'm in the auto industry). But day after day I see how bad drivers are getting. On their phones non-stop, weaving around, driving off the shoulder. I'm scared crapless out there on the roads these days. Now I'm completely for going automated. Is it ready yet? Heck no. But it is coming, and sooner than people expect. Remember, autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They just have to kill less people than human-driven cars kill. Where are we at these days, 150,000 people killed in the USA alone per year? If going autonomous drops that to 100,000, isn't that a win? People are inherently bad at driving - we have a multi-billion dollar industry built entirely around how bad people are at driving (auto insurance industry). I'm not making this up... Last week during a 30-minute drive towards home, three oncoming drivers broke the centerline. The smartphone can wait for a appropriate time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:09:51 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weren't most of the accidents caused by human drivers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could? Weren't most of the accidents caused by human drivers? after finding the article, yes. all of them were caused by human interference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:10:14 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not making this up... Last week during a 30-minute drive towards home, three oncoming drivers broke the centerline. The smartphone can wait for a appropriate time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was very leery and concerned about this tech (and I'm in the auto industry). But day after day I see how bad drivers are getting. On their phones non-stop, weaving around, driving off the shoulder. I'm scared crapless out there on the roads these days. Now I'm completely for going automated. Is it ready yet? Heck no. But it is coming, and sooner than people expect. Remember, autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They just have to kill less people than human-driven cars kill. Where are we at these days, 150,000 people killed in the USA alone per year? If going autonomous drops that to 100,000, isn't that a win? People are inherently bad at driving - we have a multi-billion dollar industry built entirely around how bad people are at driving (auto insurance industry). I'm not making this up... Last week during a 30-minute drive towards home, three oncoming drivers broke the centerline. The smartphone can wait for a appropriate time. I would wager at least half of drivers on the road are looking at their phone with frequency, and I admit that I take work calls while driving. People are literally looking down reading or sending text messages though....you can't type and drive at the same, your eyes literally can't do both things at once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:11:46 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That kind of reminds of iRobot, where the robot saved the main character instead of the little girl because the chances of survival calculated higher for him. What will happen is a self driving vehicle will get into an accident, someone will die and people will go into a frenzy because a human may have done something differently (which may or may not have made the outcome better) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could? I'll try to find the link; it's an interesting read. That kind of reminds of iRobot, where the robot saved the main character instead of the little girl because the chances of survival calculated higher for him. What will happen is a self driving vehicle will get into an accident, someone will die and people will go into a frenzy because a human may have done something differently (which may or may not have made the outcome better) Yea I think you're right. It will surely have issues, but will likely by significantly safer than it was. People still get upset when the "best" decision was made and it doesn't personally benefit them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:15:31 AM EDT
[#27]
I wonder how well it is going to work on rural gravel/dirt roads that are often one lane wide and if you meet a tractor or another vehicle someone has to back up to the nearest wide spot or driveway. If it is raining it will need to know to put it in 4wd so it can make some of the hills. Sometimes part of the roads get washed out and have deep ruts that would cause most cars to get stuck or high centered if they were driven into.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:17:43 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder how well it is going to work on rural gravel/dirt roads that are often one lane wide and if you meet a tractor or another vehicle someone has to back up to the nearest wide spot or driveway. If it is raining it will need to know to put it in 4wd so it can make some of the hills. Sometimes part of the roads get washed out and have deep ruts that would cause most cars to get stuck or high centered if they were driven into. For a long time stuff like that will have limits for sure, until they can program them well enough to detect and avoid odd obstacles like that in real time. Right now I think the whole idea behind them is highway driving, where people zone out on long stretches of road and become unsafe when their reflexes get tired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:18:54 AM EDT
[#29]
Never
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:21:41 AM EDT
[#30]
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. Ever ride in a taxi or commuter bus, tour bus, ?? Those guys aren't exactly Rhoads scholars either. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:26:31 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can they program a car to make a split second decision to react to a situation that is unwinnable? I think that's a bit of a strawman; how well will the average, even exceptional human driver react in said situation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:34:24 AM EDT
[#32]
Id love a 30 minute nap driving into work
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:36:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could? ETA links: Google's car better than average driver Get your facts out of here! This thread is only for technophobes, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and old men yelling at clouds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:36:55 AM EDT
[#34]
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. I would rather drive. I would rather a computer drive than quite a few humans I know... Quoted:
The technology seems very new, and not tested much in the "real world". I can't imagine that the system would be able to react quick enough in every situation that might pop up. Not sure I would trust it. Volvo have had auto-brake on production vehicles since 2007 and Toyota have been running driver-less cars on their campus for a very long time. Quoted:
I wonder how well it is going to work on rural gravel/dirt roads that are often one lane wide and if you meet a tractor or another vehicle someone has to back up to the nearest wide spot or driveway. If it is raining it will need to know to put it in 4wd so it can make some of the hills. Sometimes part of the roads get washed out and have deep ruts that would cause most cars to get stuck or high centered if they were driven into. The volvo self-drive system requires you to take over when it can't see road markings. The bigger problem for driver-less cars with no controls is what they do when there's just enough snow to obscure the road markings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:42:09 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder how well it is going to work on rural gravel/dirt roads that are often one lane wide and if you meet a tractor or another vehicle someone has to back up to the nearest wide spot or driveway. If it is raining it will need to know to put it in 4wd so it can make some of the hills. Sometimes part of the roads get washed out and have deep ruts that would cause most cars to get stuck or high centered if they were driven into. That tech is out there, but it's still a ways off from being perfect. A human driver is still better in off road conditions. Top gear did a race between May in a Range Rover, and a US military 5 ton that was modified to drive autonomously or by remote.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:42:55 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get your facts out of here! This thread is only for technophobes, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and old men yelling at clouds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but google (trying to judge the efficacy of their new smart car) has spent many many hours driving it around in all sorts of areas. Enough so to get statistically significant numbers. Overall, it was statistically MUCH safer than a human controlled vehicle. Only a few accidents which were extensively reviewed and found that the crash was unavoidable and would have been made worse by a human driver. The computer braked sooner, steered better, and increased overall survivability of the ride, in excess of a humans' biological capabilities. Naturally this raises questions because "fault" is generally determined by what a "reasonable" person might perceive/be able to do. Sober Human driving used to be the gold standard, but now it's not. If someone gets into an accident that a computer could have prevented, then is the person still not liable because they did the best that they could? ETA links: Google's car better than average driver Get your facts out of here! This thread is only for technophobes, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and old men yelling at clouds. Lol that killed me |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:48:16 AM EDT
[#37]
The Trolley Problem is going to be a personal injury lawyers new best friend. Who is liable for when the car makes the decision to save its four occupants and veers away from an imminent accident to kill one bystander? The driver/non-driver or the car manufacturer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:55:21 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Trolley Problem is going to be a personal injury lawyers new best friend. Who is liable for when the car makes the decision to save its four occupants and veers away from an imminent accident to kill one bystander? The driver/non-driver or the car manufacturer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem One thought I have on this is that a computer will likely be better at preventing all of this from even happening. It won't follow too closely, it won't brake to late, it won't oversteer, it'll even be aware of any mechanical failures immediately as they happen and stop the car before anything bad happens. Not saying that some freak accident couldnt happen or shouldn't be considered, but it will be tremendously less likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:56:23 AM EDT
[#39]
No. Google tells me to drive off of bridges and docks all of the time. Heck it happens to people who are dumb enough to blindly follow the instructions too.
The endgame is to force us all into MegaShittys. With the "protected Lands, Green Zones, and Sanctuarys set up as clubhouses for certain types to hang out at(there is a once Golf Course near me that was purchased by some group masquerading as a non-profit, and using it for whatever they want, this stuff is going on everywhere.) They are going to make rural America into nothing but big-agribiz farms, and natural lands that aren't for you. All while making it too expensive/llegally unfeasible to own a car that you drive. These plans are out there in UN documents. so screw them, and their driverless cars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 9:58:22 AM EDT
[#40]
People make pretty bad drivers. They get tired, get distracted. I strongly suspect drivers less cars will have a much better safety record.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:04:34 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Google tells me to drive off of bridges and docks all of the time. Heck it happens to people who are dumb enough to blindly follow the instructions too. The endgame is to force us all into MegaShittys. With the "protected Lands, Green Zones, and Sanctuarys set up as clubhouses for certain types to hang out at(there is a once Golf Course near me that was purchased by some group masquerading as a non-profit, and using it for whatever they want, this stuff is going on everywhere.) They are going to make rural America into nothing but big-agribiz farms, and natural lands that aren't for you. All while making it too expensive/llegally unfeasible to own a car that you drive. These plans are out there in UN documents. so screw them, and their driverless cars. Except the driving force behind it all is Elon Musk and Google. This a man that wasn't impressed with how our efforts to explore space were going and said "Fuck it...we'll just make our own rockets", along with Tesla vehicles and helping to make them mainstream, and fiber and their new wireless high speed. They are like the anti-corporation, looking forward, and honestly I find it fascinating that they are willing to put so much time and money into these endeavors, because they will ultimately make life better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:05:18 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One thought I have on this is that a computer will likely be better at preventing all of this from even happening. It won't follow too closely, it won't brake to late, it won't oversteer, it'll even be aware of any mechanical failures immediately as they happen and stop the car before anything bad happens. Not saying that some freak accident couldnt happen or shouldn't be considered, but it will be tremendously less likely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Trolley Problem is going to be a personal injury lawyers new best friend. Who is liable for when the car makes the decision to save its four occupants and veers away from an imminent accident to kill one bystander? The driver/non-driver or the car manufacturer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem One thought I have on this is that a computer will likely be better at preventing all of this from even happening. It won't follow too closely, it won't brake to late, it won't oversteer, it'll even be aware of any mechanical failures immediately as they happen and stop the car before anything bad happens. Not saying that some freak accident couldnt happen or shouldn't be considered, but it will be tremendously less likely. I totally agree that overall accident rates will go down. It's just the remaining, unavoidable accidents where the computer has to make a decision all based upon probabilities of injuries, etc. Someone has to program in the value of the people in the car. Is a mom with three babies more valuable than the smartest person in the world driving solo? Also the computer needs to analyze the value of the bystanders. I think we are a ways away from this type of programming for the car, but at some point, could the .gov mandate that each car be programed with citizen values? What would your citizen value be? How do you know the internet connected car doesn't change your value when the .gov (Hillary) wants you gone? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:07:46 AM EDT
[#43]
As I get older, I think this could be a good thing, no need to move to town for public transportation.
Figure this shit out before I truly need it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:09:13 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I totally agree that overall accident rates will go down. It's just the remaining, unavoidable accidents where the computer has to make a decision all based upon probabilities of injuries, etc. Someone has to program in the value of the people in the car. Is a mom with three babies more valuable than the smartest person in the world driving solo? Also the computer needs to analyze the value of the bystanders. I think we are a ways away from this type of programming for the car, but at some point, could the .gov mandate that each car be programed with citizen values? What would your citizen value be? How do you know the internet connected car doesn't change your value when the .gov (Hillary) wants you gone? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Trolley Problem is going to be a personal injury lawyers new best friend. Who is liable for when the car makes the decision to save its four occupants and veers away from an imminent accident to kill one bystander? The driver/non-driver or the car manufacturer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem One thought I have on this is that a computer will likely be better at preventing all of this from even happening. It won't follow too closely, it won't brake to late, it won't oversteer, it'll even be aware of any mechanical failures immediately as they happen and stop the car before anything bad happens. Not saying that some freak accident couldnt happen or shouldn't be considered, but it will be tremendously less likely. I totally agree that overall accident rates will go down. It's just the remaining, unavoidable accidents where the computer has to make a decision all based upon probabilities of injuries, etc. Someone has to program in the value of the people in the car. Is a mom with three babies more valuable than the smartest person in the world driving solo? Also the computer needs to analyze the value of the bystanders. I think we are a ways away from this type of programming for the car, but at some point, could the .gov mandate that each car be programed with citizen values? What would your citizen value be? How do you know the internet connected car doesn't change your value when the .gov (Hillary) wants you gone? When the tech gets that far advanced it will be the point that cars can communicate directly with each other, like quad copters that fly in sync. Accident rates will plummet, outside of the rare outlier that is natural chaos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:09:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Self driving cars will be great for the survival rate of motorcyclists. No more distracted drivers to contend with. Unless the mandate no more motorcycles.
Isn't this like the smart gun initiative? Once the smart guns are out there in the market and the .gov thinks they are safer for all the people in the country, they may decree all non-smart guns are illegal to sell. So for cars, will they outlaw all non-smart cars/motorcycles for the general safety of the people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:10:30 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except the driving force behind it all is Elon Musk and Google. This a man that wasn't impressed with how our efforts to explore space were going and said "Fuck it...we'll just make our own rockets", along with Tesla vehicles and helping to make them mainstream, and fiber and their new wireless high speed. They are like the anti-corporation, looking forward, and honestly I find it fascinating that they are willing to put so much time and money into these endeavors, because they will ultimately make life better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. Google tells me to drive off of bridges and docks all of the time. Heck it happens to people who are dumb enough to blindly follow the instructions too. The endgame is to force us all into MegaShittys. With the "protected Lands, Green Zones, and Sanctuarys set up as clubhouses for certain types to hang out at(there is a once Golf Course near me that was purchased by some group masquerading as a non-profit, and using it for whatever they want, this stuff is going on everywhere.) They are going to make rural America into nothing but big-agribiz farms, and natural lands that aren't for you. All while making it too expensive/llegally unfeasible to own a car that you drive. These plans are out there in UN documents. so screw them, and their driverless cars. Except the driving force behind it all is Elon Musk and Google. This a man that wasn't impressed with how our efforts to explore space were going and said "Fuck it...we'll just make our own rockets", along with Tesla vehicles and helping to make them mainstream, and fiber and their new wireless high speed. They are like the anti-corporation, looking forward, and honestly I find it fascinating that they are willing to put so much time and money into these endeavors, because they will ultimately make life better. Oh well, if Google is involved i'm sure it's all just an altruistic what ever is best for mankind sort of affair. Not that they would ever monitor EVERY FUCKING THING YOU DO so they can SELL YOU SHIT......Enjoy your "consumer" status prole.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:11:30 AM EDT
[#47]
Some of you are very trusting...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:11:52 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh well, if Google is involved i'm sure it's all just an altruistic what ever is best for mankind sort of affair. Not that they would ever monitor EVERY FUCKING THING YOU DO so they can SELL YOU SHIT......Enjoy your "consumer" status prole.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. Google tells me to drive off of bridges and docks all of the time. Heck it happens to people who are dumb enough to blindly follow the instructions too. The endgame is to force us all into MegaShittys. With the "protected Lands, Green Zones, and Sanctuarys set up as clubhouses for certain types to hang out at(there is a once Golf Course near me that was purchased by some group masquerading as a non-profit, and using it for whatever they want, this stuff is going on everywhere.) They are going to make rural America into nothing but big-agribiz farms, and natural lands that aren't for you. All while making it too expensive/llegally unfeasible to own a car that you drive. These plans are out there in UN documents. so screw them, and their driverless cars. Except the driving force behind it all is Elon Musk and Google. This a man that wasn't impressed with how our efforts to explore space were going and said "Fuck it...we'll just make our own rockets", along with Tesla vehicles and helping to make them mainstream, and fiber and their new wireless high speed. They are like the anti-corporation, looking forward, and honestly I find it fascinating that they are willing to put so much time and money into these endeavors, because they will ultimately make life better. Oh well, if Google is involved i'm sure it's all just an altruistic what ever is best for mankind sort of affair. Not that they would ever monitor EVERY FUCKING THING YOU DO so they can SELL YOU SHIT......Enjoy your "consumer" status prole.... The fear of technological advancement on this site is comical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:12:25 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, and I can't wait for it ! Also, when you read reviews of self driving cars they're all the same:. It starts with the reviewers being anxious and monitoring everything like a hawk, and after a while they observe how good it is, sit back and do something else while the car drives. For me, that's the kicker. In some cities the average commute is around 3 hours a day. How much *real* shit can you get done in 3 hours of relatively uninterrupted time? Hell, if my employees wanted to make the commute part of their workday, I'd have no issue, at all, allowing them to "work from the car" during their drive to and from the office. Instead of an 8 hour office day, I could easily envision a 5 or 6 hour office day with 2 hours of drive time. Provided they were working on *my* stuff. If they want to work on *their* stuff during the drive, they can still give me my 8 hours in the shop. Want to learn a new language? 10 hours a week is a shitload of time to practice. Taking online courses? 10-15 hours a week in the car is perfect. I can envision all manner of things becoming more commonplace in vehicles. Food storage and ultra-tiny kitchens. Cook your breakfast on the way to your destination. Need a quick bite on the way to your meeting? Fire up your hot plate, throw a burger patty from your car fridge on it and toast a bun while the reverse osmosis water fountain makes your favorite beverage. Remember that car wreck that made you 45 minutes late last week? No more car wrecks (or, at least, reduced to a statistically insignificant number). Want a second beer with dinner? No sweat, Google McTaxiMan is driving you back to the house, in *your* car, for *free.* Honestly, I wouldn't care if it quadrupled the price of cars. I'd buy one for myself, in a heartbeat. Driving is a chore 90 percent of the time. If I could replace the attended act with something beneficial or useful, I'd be ecstatic. I *love* driving as a hobby. I *seldom* drive as a hobby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 10:13:18 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fear of technological advancement on this site is comical. As is the blind trust of same. If you cannot understand that this sort of technology may not be in your best interest you might read Orwell's 1984. And before you get all "conspiracy theory"....When a sitting US Senator goes on TV and says "Due process is killing us right now" you might want to rethink things. That mere statement should be grounds for a charge of treason. |
|
|
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.
