Self driven cars to eliminate countless jobs.

On Sunday, December 8, 2013 10:15:57 AM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> On 12/7/2013 7:10 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
>
> > On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> >> My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
>
> >> of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
>
> >> themselves but who cares if it saves lives?
>
> >
>
> > You know how the old saying goes about ASSumptions.
>
> >
>
> > Why not get rid of cars altogether? Some might object, but who cares if
>
> > it saves lives? Or if that's too radical, let's make a speed limit of
>
> > 20 miles per hour universal. Sure, it will take longer to get to one's
>
> > destination, but who cares if it saves lives?
>
> >
>
>
>
> What's your point? People will give up control of their cars because it
>
> will make life easier for them - the same reason they use cars in the
>
> first place. It will also save a ****load of lives.

A lot of people like to DRIVE, to have 100 percent physical control of their cars. The Joy of Driving. What is next, self piloting for small power boats, small aircraft?

On Sunday, December 8, 2013 6:52:39 AM UTC-10, JR wrote:
> On Sunday, December 8, 2013 10:15:57 AM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On 12/7/2013 7:10 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> My assumption is that these cars will save a lot of lives. One can think
>
> >
>
> > >> of any number of reasons why you shouldn't have cars that drive
>
> >
>
> > >> themselves but who cares if it saves lives?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You know how the old saying goes about ASSumptions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Why not get rid of cars altogether? Some might object, but who cares if
>
> >
>
> > > it saves lives? Or if that's too radical, let's make a speed limit of
>
> >
>
> > > 20 miles per hour universal. Sure, it will take longer to get to one's
>
> >
>
> > > destination, but who cares if it saves lives?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What's your point? People will give up control of their cars because it
>
> >
>
> > will make life easier for them - the same reason they use cars in the
>
> >
>
> > first place. It will also save a ****load of lives.
>
>
>
> A lot of people like to DRIVE, to have 100 percent physical control of their cars. The Joy of Driving. What is next, self piloting for small power boats, small aircraft?

There's no need to state the obvious. A lot of people enjoy riding a horse and buggy. A lot of people enjoy driving at 200 MPH. A lot of people enjoy shooting poison into their veins. What people enjoy has little to do with technological change.

replying to JR , passerby wrote:
> dhiaduit wrote:
>
> to have 100 percent physical control of their cars



Yeah, about that: 100% control of an object moving at, say, highway-leisurely
60MPH? It takes you 0.1 - 0.4 seconds to blink (say, 0.2s on average). By the
time you open your eyes fully, you've traveled 17.6 feet, longer that the car
itself. Have you been in control during that time? I don't think so.

--

On 12/8/2013 8:18 AM, passerby wrote:
> replying to JR , passerby wrote:
>> dhiaduit wrote:
>>
>> to have 100 percent physical control of their cars
>
>
>
> Yeah, about that: 100% control of an object moving at, say,
> highway-leisurely
> 60MPH? It takes you 0.1 - 0.4 seconds to blink (say, 0.2s on average).
> By the
> time you open your eyes fully, you've traveled 17.6 feet, longer that
> the car
> itself. Have you been in control during that time? I don't think so.

That's a good point - 100% control of a car is an illusion. My
ASSumption is that people in the future will find it hard to believe
that people were allowed to drive cars in such a random, uncontrolled,
manner. Of course, the reason we have to do the driving ourselves is
because it hasn't been technically possible before.

I was driving in a Christmas parade yesterday and a car on the other
side of the median strip just stopped to see what was going on and got
rear ended by a truck. Since the car was a Prius and the truck was a
truck, the entire back end of the car was like a accordion. Ho, ho, ho.

On Sunday, December 8, 2013 12:45:32 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> On 12/8/2013 8:18 AM, passerby wrote:
>
> > replying to JR , passerby wrote:
>
> >> dhiaduit wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> to have 100 percent physical control of their cars
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yeah, about that: 100% control of an object moving at, say,
>
> > highway-leisurely
>
> > 60MPH? It takes you 0.1 - 0.4 seconds to blink (say, 0.2s on average).
>
> > By the
>
> > time you open your eyes fully, you've traveled 17.6 feet, longer that
>
> > the car
>
> > itself. Have you been in control during that time? I don't think so.
>
>
>
> That's a good point - 100% control of a car is an illusion. My
>
> ASSumption is that people in the future will find it hard to believe
>
> that people were allowed to drive cars in such a random, uncontrolled,
>
> manner. Of course, the reason we have to do the driving ourselves is
>
> because it hasn't been technically possible before.
>
>
>
> I was driving in a Christmas parade yesterday and a car on the other
>
> side of the median strip just stopped to see what was going on and got
>
> rear ended by a truck. Since the car was a Prius and the truck was a
>
> truck, the entire back end of the car was like a accordion. Ho, ho, ho.

Have you ever watched that Waterworld movie? Lets DRIVE! Lay your ears back, let your eyes turn red, lay the pedal to the metal, and let er Roar.

JR > wrote:
>
>Will those self driving cars slow down for potholes, will they steer around small things that can puncture tires?

Right now they are pretty good about steering around small things that can
puncture tires, but they aren't necessarily good at recognizing things like
flying plastic bags and tumbleweeds which may look like obstacles but should
be ignored.

Potholes, though, are a problem. You need to slow down and you need to
take the pothole at a bit of an angle to reduce the shock on your
suspension too. I think the hard part is seeing the pothole and identifying
the edges of it.

Computer vision has come a long way in the past few years, so I would bet
it would be possible. Certainly would need to be done before you could take
it on the road in Pennsylvania.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
> What's your point? People will give up control of their cars because it
> will make life easier for them - the same reason they use cars in the
> first place. It will also save a ****load of lives.

What's your point? You have no idea if it will "save a ****load of lives"
unless you have devised a way to cross the Einstein-Rosen bridge into
an alternate universe where this has already taken place. Is that what
you've done? What are you doing slouching about here, man, go claim your
Nobel Prize!

Hey, if you want to "save a ****load of lives," why not outlaw fast
food? One of the biggest killers in the U.S. is heart disease. Some
people might complain about not being able to buy a Big Mac, but
what's the problem as long as it saves lives? Hey, we could outlaw
potato chips and fried chicken as well! Just think of the countless
lives that would save!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

The NSA by its actions has shredded the 4th Amendment of the Constitution
and has essentially declared war on the American people. Put the NSA leaders
on trial for treason, and upon being found guilty, publicly execute them to
send a strong message. God bless Ed Snowden! Death to NSA thugs!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2013-12-08, dsi1 > wrote:
> That's a good point - 100% control of a car is an illusion. My
> ASSumption is that people in the future will find it hard to believe

Hey, as long as you recognize what that makes you look like, it's all good.

> manner. Of course, the reason we have to do the driving ourselves is
> because it hasn't been technically possible before.

Ever been involved in software development, bunky? Ever see someone
get killed due to a software error? (I have. Thankfully not my error)
Your quasi-religous faith in technology is misplaced.

I'll be sticking with my old, reliable AMC Hornet. Not a single danged
computer in the whole vehicle, and no sensors beyond what is needed
for the instrument panel.

> I was driving in a Christmas parade yesterday and a car on the other
> side of the median strip just stopped to see what was going on and got
> rear ended by a truck. Since the car was a Prius and the truck was a
> truck, the entire back end of the car was like a accordion. Ho, ho, ho.

So what? You would have preferred that a self-driving truck plough through
it and maybe some passers-by for good measure due to software or sensor
failure? Ho, ho, ho, indeed.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

The NSA by its actions has shredded the 4th Amendment of the Constitution
and has essentially declared war on the American people. Put the NSA leaders
on trial for treason, and upon being found guilty, publicly execute them to
send a strong message. God bless Ed Snowden! Death to NSA thugs!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JR wrote:
> www.activistpost.com Or Google it. Amazon Drones too, if your Amazon goodie doesn't weigh over five pounds.

Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you
(Zager & Evans)

Resistance is futile.

replying to Roger Blake , passerby wrote:
> rogblake wrote:
>
> What's your point? You have no idea if it will "save a ****load of lives"



Yes, you do. When you take the slowest and the least reliable element out of
a system, it is reasonable to expect improvements in the system's overall
performance and reliability.

But the point was, of course, that the OP posted this with clearly negative
intent (or more likely just to stir controversy) - i.e. "eliminate jobs". It
would not be a complete picture if the fact that ten thousand lives (or more)
per year will be saved at the same time is not mentioned. How about accounting
for lost productivity and diminished quality of life of those that survived
the crash but were injured? I think you need to account for that, too, to have
a complete picture.

Wikipedia: "In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, killing 32,885
and injuring 2,239,000." (This is US only)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 1,556,510 truck
drivers in US (an astounding number of people in this dangerous and low paying
occupation - $38K/yr median) and 239,900 taxi drivers and chauffeurs. There
are other categories of jobs I did not care to look up, like bus drivers, but
for some reason I think there are less of those than the other two. So,
there's about 1.8 Million jobs on the line, most of them truck drivers whose
jobs may actually be eliminated first because of the profitability, insurance
and other "hard" business concerns rather than "soft" saving-lives concerns.

But then, just as it always happens with new tech, some jobs will be
eliminated but a lot of new ones will be created. Can they replace all of the
1.8M lost driving jobs? Probably not, but I'm sure jobs created will be less
dangerous and more fulfilling than driving a car/truck from point A to point B

In 10 years time the lost 1.8M jobs will be easily absorbed by other
industries but lives will continue to be saved by not letting people drive
(much).

--