Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Apr 28, 2018.
That's the stupidest thing I've seen here today.
He got off pretty lightly given the potential consequences...
A bad driver, distracted driver, intoxicated driver, sleep deprived, etc driver does not remove YOUR ability to control YOUR vehicle.
Hopping into the passenger seat of a machine running a glorified lane-keeping system DOES.
I have yet, in my 40+ years, to encounter a perfect piece of software.
As such, I'm reasonably skeptical about treating the software in a multi-thousand-pound hunk of high speed glass, steel and plastic as if it were.
Just spit coffee everywhere LMFAO.
Take your identity politics and cram them where the sun doesn't shine.
Tesla don't have sensors to make sure someone is in the seat? Even my kia yells at me if i take my hands off the steering wheel.
As someone who is get a bit on the older side, I hope we have autonomous cars in the next 10 years.
I'm hoping to at least have something like this autopilot system to make it easier to drive on long trips, so I can travel more after I retire.
However it DOES affect many people.
I've been rear-ended on the freeway because someone didn't stop in time.
(I stopped, as did several cars in front of me, but they didn't because they where not paying attention.)
My mom was rear-ended at a stop light. She was stopped, saw in her mirror the person behind her was not slowing down, but couldn't go anywhere due to other cars.
I know many others that this has happened to, including people who have been killed.
At the very lease, I think we should make automatic braking systems mandatory.
It would also make it much more difficult for a terrorist to run people down if their truck/van kept applying the brakes.
Remove the jumper and suddenly the system doesn't work anymore...just like anti-lock brakes. I can agree with the idea of automatic braking being a good idea (just like ABS and ESC, etc.), but to argue about how it prevents terrorism is a little extreme given the simplicity to override the system.
Doubt removing a jumper would disable a safety feature like this. Usually it required hacking the car's computer.
At the very least it would eliminate most the attacks, as the terrorist are not that sophisticated.
Banned from driving...
...so his license was suspended?
One study in one city (Houston) which has been criticized for it's methods is probably not much of a nail to hang your argument on.
I know we as humans tend to see evidence, regardless of how weak it ready is, as strong if it supports our world view and weak if it counters it (we are all human, and all guilty of this) but this example seems a little extreme.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you are going to challenge an established paradigm, you are going to need a little bit more than that.
I guess he hasn't hear about what Autopilot has done in the US... tisk tisk.
Depends on the rigidity of the audience who you are challenging. In mathematics, to prove something is untrue, one only needs to provide a single counter example.
Honestly though, people who buy into a lie or are well invested in a system of belief are likely too invested to ever convince otherwise. IE If you were born into a very religious family lead youth groups and became a pastor, it's unlikely that you will be converted to atheism but having a debate about the facts might make third parties less invested think twice about what they believe and why.
The reply wasn't so much for the poster as for third parties to read and consider other evidence. There's a lot of similar evidence for people who wish to look into it. I just provided one.
Heaven help someone if they implore common sense and think about the outrage that occurs when a member of one group is shot and the lack of outrage when a member of another group is shot and if that outrage could possibly affect one's willingness to use deadly force. If one outcome has worse results or consequences, it's not entirely unreasonable to imagine someone taking steps to avoid an undesirable outcome.
Cars have weight sensors in the seats for the Airbags. Take a quick guess how you can easily circumvent that.
Sex robot? Its sex robot right? I'm pretty sure it's sex robot.
No need to respond. I'm almost certain I've guessed it.
Yup, as my car gets fucking annoying as all fuckall if I put a heavy bag of groceries on the passenger street and wonder why the "passenger" doesn't have a seatbelt on and beeps at me like crazy
I totally agree with chas. The system haven't been ready to be publicly used right now. There are still so many things that need to be fixed, like the regulation, etc. I have just read an article that talks about this at https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accident-injury-lawyers-attorneys/. I think there will be a long way before we could enjoy these "future" cars.
I have no problem with most of these systems being used as DRIVER AIDS.
However, I draw the line at people who think they can just turn it on and then tune out.
And before someone brings up the autopilot in planes again.
How many of you spent $320 MILLION on a car with multiple system redundancies which can navigate in three axes, rather than just two and has multi-million dollar ancillary systems that alert you if the autopilot is malfunctioning?
They should have named the feature "Copilot"