The EU debate - Part III

What does that mean?
You think she is joking?
She has tour dates set up and the No voters have filled in booking forms.
Did you read the article you linked?

 

I think she is joking
I haven't read the whole article

 

You linked an article you didn't even read?

Yes, its legit, she is going through with it.

 

I just got the gist of it

 

You'd be on the next flight to Rome if you could get it up.

 

And the reason liabilities will be so high, is that technologies beyond straight line travel is not yet advanced enough. How do you write software that allows for little Jonny, to run out from behind a parked car, to collect his football. The human brain still works faster than any technology (Custard aside!).

 

I'm surprised he survived the creation of the abacus, to be fair.

 

Probably the first sensible post from you, ever. Why indeed? We have a democraticaly elected executive to make these decisions on our behalf, and an independent legislature to ensure such decisions are inplemented with due regard to established legal process.

So why the **** did Cameron's government put such a vital decision for our country's future in the hands of an ill informed public; especially given the pernicious influence and tide of relentless disinformation spewing forth from the right wing press?

My guess is it's because the spineless, deluded git was convinced the public couldn't possibly be stupid enough to vote to **** the bed in such a spectacular manner. Got that wrong didn't he?

 

South Devon would be a good test area, its full of narrow lanes

 

You can shoot at Uber if you wish but the evidence is clear that they see a market in removing the driver from the equation so they clearly see money to be made. They already have them driving around Pittsburgh as a pilot project covering 12 square miles.

I'm not saying vehicles can't go everywhere autonomously, I'm saying autonomous vehicles will initially be used in cities and on major arteries by those who gain most from it. What on earth makes you think autonomous vehicles will only operate on prescribed routes?

Autonomous cars do not use algorithms for specific scenarios and nor is there any need to assume line of sight is required for communication.

www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=774#programming-model

Simple question solve complex problems.
1. Do we fit
2. Where do we fit
3. Go to location where we fit.

 

You have Aids?

 

Yes she does some of my admin.

 

We all know that the only reason a referendum was called was an attempt by Cameron to put down the anti-EU mob in his own party.

He wrongly thought that he would win and that would shut up the Rees-moggys of the party.

With the 'help' of The Daily Nazi, et al, he badly miscalculated the ****wittery of the British public.

 

In the US Google self driving car was given the same status as a human driver in February this year, since then the rush to market has been impressive tbh.

 

This is not true.
Sensors can detect a potential collision long before it occurs and the computer can act before a human was even aware of the danger. We do not have radar or lidar so do not have the ability to see beyond line of sight. You are effectively placing human limitations on a machine and asking the machine to solve it.

The Google car has driven 2 million kilometers without hitting anyone and being involved in one minor accident where it failed to anticipate that a bus would allow enough space.

Read the link I posted, you don't have to code for a child running out.

 

On this occasion you seem to be tying yourself up in knots.

I really couldn't care less about UBER, you bought them up. The reality is, however, is that they charge self employed owner drivers 20% of the fare total. Who, when, the driver no longer exists will own and maintain the vehicles? That's one hell of an initial investment for UBER or any other similar type industry. I would like to see the business plan for that.

You have also continuously used UBER as an example, but when challenged about "how autonomous a automonous vehicle is" you keep moving the goal posts. Firstly, they are completely autonomous, now only partly?
If I cant get in my UBER taxi and go from point A to B, without a driver then what's the point. Even if the driver is needed for the last few hundred metres, its not truly autonomous. I might as well use another mode of transport, like a bus or train, which is likely to be cheaper!

You are correct that they don't need line of site for their communication protocols, but they will need a number of forms of redundancy built into the safety systems. Good luck with getting the necessary safety approvals, where you are only relying on a single type of communication.

Finally, this technology has been around for years. I first encountered AGV's (automated guided vehicles) in the mid eighties. There is a reason why this technology is still in its infancy, with regards to autonomous vehicles.

 

UBER want autonomous vehicles. I.e no driver. I have not said otherwise. No mention of semi/partly autonomous . I brought them up because they have invested a small fortune in the technology.

As I have already stated. Limited approval has already been granted in various locations around the world and the Google car has been given the same status as a human driver so the move towards getting approval is already under way.

We are not talking about autonomous guided vehicles, we are referring to an autonomous self driving vehicles using AI.

 

You forgot to mention that when testing, Google also has a driver present, who has had to take control for approximately 25% of the time.
You are also confusion driving in America, where road and driving conditions are completely different.

 

What?