User Controls
Do you think there will ever be self driving cars?
-
2017-11-22 at 1:33 AM UTCIMO they should only make self driving cars mandatory for people that have proven that they can't drive safely i.e. DUIs, people with a certain number of at-fault collisions, etc
-
2017-11-22 at 4:07 AM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 2:39 AM UTCNot only are they going to happen, but I bet you anything at some point in the future, nobody will be allowed to drive a car themselves. You guys don't understand, today's consumer products might have bugs, but shit that is engineered for NASA and the like "yesterday" and today are much less prone to failure. There's a difference between hardware/software engineered for consumers and that engineered for extremely precise applications of today.
Imagine a world where a point where a light will be "green" for a fully autonomous environment, all vehicles will progress at once, reducing traffic and congestion by an order of magnitude. The entire infrastructure orchestrated as one. Mark my words, one day your car (or a vehicle that you summon, you don't even get to own it) that has no steering wheel, no gas pedal, you simply input destination, and boom.
There is a such a thing as failure-free circuitry and software. That kind of precision just isn't available at the consumer level during our day in age. It's not economically sound, we simps can't afford that YET. -
2018-02-07 at 2:40 AM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 11:40 AM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 11:55 AM UTCI think self driving trucks will be the first real application. If you need to get a load 12 hours away, it makes sense to use self driving technology.
But of course they will keep their speed to a "safe" level to avoid liability, to save fuel (lower speeds are more fuel efficient), and since there is no driver who has to be paid, so getting stuck behind one on a narrow road will be absolute torture. -
2018-02-07 at 6:03 PM UTCthere can not be self driving cars unless and until every cars are self driving.
self driving cars and human driven ones just dont mix. cant mix. -
2018-02-07 at 6:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader there can not be self driving cars unless and until every cars are self driving.
self driving cars and human driven ones just dont mix. cant mix.
They will mix. Accidents will happen. Some people will blame self driving cars. Some will blame human error. Eventually human drivers will be made illegal, for your safety.
Unabomber already wrote about this. -
2018-02-07 at 6:34 PM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 7:46 PM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 7:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind scenarios like that would be unlikely.
But they would/could happen... they certainly aren't impossible.
And tbh, the people on that bus are the bus's responsibility. I am my car's responsibility. My car should prioritize me and the bus should prioritize itself.
If the bus had to kill me to save the kids, fine. My car shouldn't be worried about anyone but its own occupants. -
2018-02-07 at 8:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS But they would/could happen… they certainly aren't impossible.
And tbh, the people on that bus are the bus's responsibility. I am my car's responsibility. My car should prioritize me and the bus should prioritize itself.
If the bus had to kill me to save the kids, fine. My car shouldn't be worried about anyone but its own occupants.
How about if I just kill the bus, the car, all the kids, and you just kill yourself and your fat knees. -
2018-02-07 at 8:48 PM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 9:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 I dunno, that's 17 years away. By then most new cars should be electric.
17 years isnt enough time for the technology to match, much less exceed, the specs of fossil-fueled vehicles.
the batteries dont last long enough for one thing. what do you do on a cross-country trip when your juice runs out? youre fucked -
2018-02-07 at 9:42 PM UTC
-
2018-02-07 at 9:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 I don't think they ever will be better, but the government is pushing them. Also they *might* have lower running costs.
im sure the .gov will push them...anything to take away freedom of choice.
someday, perhaps. current technology is actually much higher financial running costs. my favorite part is they are actually more hazardous to the environment due to the various manufacturing, mining, and materials-content aspects of e-cars.
as a side note...it is is myth that the US doesnt have any of the rare metals/materials needed for high-tech manufacturing. the fact is, mining such materials...like lithium, neodymium, lead (not rare but its mining applies to my point), etc etc...is expensive and very polluting to the environment so the west closed down most/all of such mines while letting the third-world shitholes mine those materials. while those raw materials are expensive, relatively speaking, now...if a western country opened its mines the costs would skyrocket. that is a simplistic statement since, for example, there are aluminum mines in western countries and third-world shitholes however one specific third-world shithole is mining so much of the stuff they have literally run out of room to store it and caused the prices to drop so low western countries have to give the mining companies subsidies to keep them in business. -
2018-02-07 at 11:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS But they would/could happen… they certainly aren't impossible.
And tbh, the people on that bus are the bus's responsibility. I am my car's responsibility. My car should prioritize me and the bus should prioritize itself.
If the bus had to kill me to save the kids, fine. My car shouldn't be worried about anyone but its own occupants.
I don't believe that scenario is possible. -
2018-02-07 at 11:25 PM UTCThe system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.
Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.
While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications … how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step back—short of the overthrow of the whole technological system. -
2018-02-08 at 12:15 AM UTC
-
2018-02-08 at 1:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind They will mix. Accidents will happen. Some people will blame self driving cars. Some will blame human error. Eventually human drivers will be made illegal, for your safety.
Unabomber already wrote about this.
no, maybe in EU, but not in aemarica.
accidents will happen, people will die, lawsuits will follow, and witch hunts will commence.
then it will be banned.
