California legalises self-driving cars on public roads - Polidicks

And suddenly, the future happened.

[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;37806196]Google has said they are trying out self-driving cars now, because they did some research, and found it's been feasable and safer than human driven cars for quite a few years now.[/QUOTE] It's actually remarkable how easy it is. When resurfacing a highway, embed control rods into it at predefined intervals and spacing. Sensors on the cars can pick up the rods and get real time measurements of speed and positioning. By communicating with cars around them they can do 75 miles an hour and be 2 feet apart. If one car needs to brake, it communicates that to all the cars nearby, and they can respond almost instantly. Obviously you'd want to increase the distances here because different cars are going to break and accelerate at different rates, but with relatively identical machines you can pull off some crazy stuff. Something else that never gets mentioned when this topic comes up is gas millage. By having the cars extremely close together, they get better gas millage because only the one in the front of the train is fully breaking the air. The biggest problem is safety. Unfortunately the first accident involving self driving cars will have the media pissing their collective pants in excitement. BREAKING NEWS: CAR CRASH WITH SELF DRIVING CARS! IS TECHNOLOGY [i]REALLY[/i] SAFE? FIND OUT MORE AT ELEVEN!

The first accident involving self driving cars will be when one of them becomes self aware an accelerates into a crowded sidewalk.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;37806190]Whats that thing on his face?[/QUOTE] It's called Project Glass and is currently under development by Google. [IMG]http://asset2.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/06/27/20120627_Rafe_Project_Glass_001_610x470.jpg[/IMG] It's controlled by swiping the side of the device, by motion and by voice. Runs on android I think.

This guy knows too much. Better command the car to crash.

To all you muppets who say you would only trust a computer that is 100% reliable: You, as a human being, are not reliable. For what ever reason, somebody can choose to up-end you from behind and kill you at any instant you're out driving. You might, even for a second, have dropped something on the floor that you look at, unluckly hitting a pedestrian. This car can look 360 degrees all the time, in a position above the car. It has, for now, driven 150.000 miles without crashing. That's more than most cars stay on the road, before replacing them. I do not see the problem. Unless there is a national EMP, the individual car should handle itself nicely. To be honest, the U.S. lets it entire nuclear ICBM stockpile be controlled by a computer, it hasn't nuked us yet.

Agreed, though that isn't to say that we shouldn't be careful with this technology. There are going to be problems. It needs to work its way into the system, and it needs to be under brutal tests so that it can reasonably be expected to react well, maybe not ideally, but well, in very unusual and non standard situations. Progress is not without a price. There will be a few accidents, possibly even fatal ones, before we've 'worked the kinks out of the system.'

Well the U.S. Army doesn't use a consumer OS for handling nukes, where as Google's cars probably run on Android, which is exploitable.

That guy looks like a bond villain for some reason

[QUOTE=zombojoe;37811364]Well the U.S. Army doesn't use a consumer OS for handling nukes, where as Google's cars probably run on Android, which is exploitable.[/QUOTE] Do you really believe that?

Virus upload in progress......................watchdogs !

[QUOTE=Swebonny;37811407]Do you really believe that?[/QUOTE] I don't think it'd be unreasonable to say that google would use their success on that OS and whack it in a car for like, in-car apps

[QUOTE=Ylsid;37812286]I don't think it'd be unreasonable to say that google would use their success on that OS and whack it in a car for like, in-car apps[/QUOTE] Yes, an entertainment or informational system that runs on Android isn't unreasonable. [editline]26th September 2012[/editline] But I'm quite sure the analysis of data from the cameras and sensors are done elsewhere. In a dedicated chip or something.

[QUOTE=Ylsid;37812286]I don't think it'd be unreasonable to say that google would use their success on that OS and whack it in a car for like, in-car apps[/QUOTE] In car Android is reasonable, but having it run Android is a massive waste of resources and massive security risk. Ideally it would be running on purpose based chips, or a Unix-like kernel with no connection to the outside world except for it's sensors.

Fuck that, I like driving

Most likely it won't be Android hopefully, it needs to be a Real Time Operating system(RTLinux) that intends to do the work without needing the internet but only the GPS, as planes use them for autopilot, and Proximity sensors, and such.

[QUOTE=TestECull;37802257]If they're scared of my driving they're too nervous to be outside their home in the first place. It's also been proven to fail. There is no infallible computer, nothing with 100% reliability. Having a backup on hand ensures all hell doesn't break loose. And it can fail. A bug could block a key sensor, dirt could corrode connections, poor maintenace could see it glitch, a software bug could appear, something could let go in the electrical system and power the computers off entirely, hell the road itself may cause the computers to go bonkers. There's no telling which of the millions of things at play could cause the computers to fuck up and do something wrong. And when it fails what then? If the occupant is just a passenger we have a computer guided cruise missile that has no idea it's out of control at all on our hands. There needs to be a human at the controls in the likely chance the computers glitch out or something lets go in the electrical system. You wouldn't fly on an airline running with just it's autopilot despite said autopilot being capable of making the whole flight, you'd insist on a human pilot/copilot team in the cockpit anyway, what's so different here? Stop being an ass and realize that these things are anything but infallbile and still rely on the squishy bit behind the wheel should something go wrong.[/QUOTE] You know there are algorithms in place to help minimize damage if it does fail, right? I'm pretty sure the system will sense when something isn't right, and then return control to the user. The vulnerable sensors most likely have a way of self maintenance, such as a compressed air blower to dust off the sensors.

[QUOTE=TestECull;37802257]If they're scared of my driving they're too nervous to be outside their home in the first place. It's also been proven to fail. There is no infallible computer, nothing with 100% reliability. Having a backup on hand ensures all hell doesn't break loose. And it can fail. A bug could block a key sensor, dirt could corrode connections, poor maintenace could see it glitch, a software bug could appear, something could let go in the electrical system and power the computers off entirely, hell the road itself may cause the computers to go bonkers. There's no telling which of the millions of things at play could cause the computers to fuck up and do something wrong. And when it fails what then? If the occupant is just a passenger we have a computer guided cruise missile that has no idea it's out of control at all on our hands. There needs to be a human at the controls in the likely chance the computers glitch out or something lets go in the electrical system. You wouldn't fly on an airline running with just it's autopilot despite said autopilot being capable of making the whole flight, you'd insist on a human pilot/copilot team in the cockpit anyway, what's so different here? Stop being an ass and realize that these things are anything but infallbile and still rely on the squishy bit behind the wheel should something go wrong.[/QUOTE] You really, really underestimate science and technology