Sectorgame

They = the people designing the tech and doing the work. I don't know the specific companies that are doing it, but I know that there is stuff like that out and no doubt it will eventually improve, like the new machines in the mine with sensor tech and sensors in the mines and cars with basic versions of the tech + GPS and warning systems to warn the driver of things using a computerized voice.

I do know that when/if we make it so all these cars drive themselves, we will have to embed sensors through all the roads or make new ones while installing them in, which would be daunting and take forever, also considering the concept of money slowing progress down even when we have the knowledge and tech to do it. It also makes sense that we would need much faster and more reliable wifi tech. Also, The futurists acknowledge that tech can fail. So that is one thing to consider. But as a specific type of tech moves closer to perfection, we can feel more comfortable with it, though it is always possible for things to go wrong.

On an educational program perhaps on the science channel, they talked about there being two different types of roads: one for manual drivers and one for automatic. But this could still be 50 years away or more, if ever.

gary wrote:They = the people designing the tech and doing the work. I don't know the specific companies that are doing it, but I know that there is stuff like that out and no doubt it will eventually improve, like the new machines in the mine with sensor tech and sensors in the mines and cars with basic versions of the tech + GPS and warning systems to warn the driver of things using a computerized voice.

By companies surely you must mean academics?

I do know that when/if we make it so all these cars drive themselves, we will have to embed sensors through all the roads or make new ones while installing them in, which would be daunting and take forever, also considering the concept of money slowing progress down even when we have the knowledge and tech to do it. It also makes sense that we would need much faster and more reliable wifi tech. Also, The futurists acknowledge that tech can fail. So that is one thing to consider. But as a specific type of tech moves closer to perfection, we can feel more comfortable with it, though it is always possible for things to go wrong.

Not faster and more reliable wifi tech - ad hoc wifi tech. you seem to misunderstand the fundamental challenge - we are not talking about 'perfection'; perfection implies all technological advancement is a linear progression. We are talking about advancement, the branching out of scientific investigation. Do not make the mistake of assuming that, for example, the existence of a wifi connection from your router means you can form information exchanges between moving objects where no fixed infrastructure exists*.

*this is an area, for example, subject to investigation for emergency response situations where existing communications lines have been destroyed (i.e. Haiti).

On an educational program perhaps on the science channel, they talked about there being two different types of roads: one for manual drivers and one for automatic. But this could still be 50 years away or more, if ever.

Which is a completely meaningless statement - what exactly does the chance of a possibility equate to?

Reading it, I get the impression you don't really know what you're talking about.

Maybe I don't know much of the subject, but I haven't studied it or analyzed it enough. Of course I find it interesting. I don't know how the designers could do it, but I know what the futurists say it might be like in the future and brief details.

gary wrote:Maybe I don't know much of the subject, but I haven't studied it or analyzed it enough. Of course I find it interesting. I don't know how the designers could do it, but I know what the futurists say it might be like in the future and brief details.

Well, clearly you don't know enough - the point being that making blanket statements like 'they could do it faster if they tried' (paraphrased) is a bit of an insulting attitude, and one that actually causes real damage if it gets perpetuated as a norm.

Getting vaguely back to the original topic of this derail, I'm not entirely sure we should be perpetuating a driving model where you're one BSOD away from slamming into a wall. Hell, just look at the whole Toyota fiasco.

Top Gun wrote:Getting vaguely back to the original topic of this derail, I'm not entirely sure we should be perpetuating a driving model where you're one BSOD away from slamming into a wall. Hell, just look at the whole Toyota fiasco.

To be fair, the Toyota thing was massively overblown. I think the actual real risk to any one individual was vanishingly small; an extra 6 deaths per year for 2.3 million cars (in the US). Or, from another angle, drive half a mile less in one of the dodgy cars and you're as safe as in any car without the fault (apparently).

(It was, however, advertising gold dust to competitors)

The main problem with self-driving cars is that they're not any fun[i/]. Automatic gears are enough of a retrogade step already....

I onl want a self driving car if it puts the pedal to the floor when it hits an on ramp.

Matthew wrote:I onl want a self driving car if it puts the pedal to the floor when it hits an on ramp.

Funnily enough, that's almost exactly how some b#stard* managed to put a crack in my bumped yesterday.

*not really a b#stard, really. He admitted responsibility and gave me his insurance details, and was generally very apologetic about the whole thing.