XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , rex   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   > news:240120140855359808%YourName@YourISP.com...   
   > > J. Clarke wrote:   
   > >> In article <52e0c728$0$52806$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, dtravel@sonic.net   
   > >> says...   
   > >> > On 1/21/2014 9:49 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >> > > In article <52df5822$0$52798$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional   
   > >> > > Traveler  wrote:   
   > >> > >> On 1/21/2014 7:46 PM, Greg Goss wrote:   
   > >> > >>> "John F. Eldredge"  wrote:   
   > >> > >>>>   
   > >> > >>>> Several years back, something got royally screwed up in the Google   
   > >> > >>>> Maps   
   > >> > >>>> database.  If I recall correctly, going from one particular town   
   > >> > >>>> to   
   > >> > >>>> another in Scotland showed, correctly, a land trip of about 20   
   > >> > >>>> miles.   
   > >> > >>>> Going in the reverse direction showed a trip of several hundred   
   > >> > >>>> miles,   
   > >> > >>>> passing through three different countries and involving two trips   
   > >> > >>>> across   
   > >> > >>>> the North Sea.   
   > >> > >>>   
   > >> > >>> I forget whether it was Google Maps, or some predecessor mapping   
   > >> > >>> internet program, but I was once told to turn left from one car   
   > >> > >>> ferry   
   > >> > >>> onto another near Nanaimo.   
   > >> > >>>   
   > >> > >> I once had map software on my laptop while I was entering St. Louis   
   > >> > >> via   
   > >> > >> a bridge across the Mississippi try to tell me to take a left turn   
   > >> > >> from   
   > >> > >> the divided interstate highway bridge a hundred feet up in the air   
   > >> > >> onto   
   > >> > >> the riverside jogging/bike path below.   
   > >> > >   
   > >> > > One example of NUMEROUS that prove self-driving cars simply aren't   
   > >> > > going to happen any time soon.   
   > >>   
   > >> If a self-driving car took its _only_ navigational information from a   
   > >> GPS this would be an issue.  But the Google cars take their information   
   > >> from a variety of sources and should not drive off of the road simply   
   > >> because a GPS tells them to.   
   > >   
   > > Without massive amount of expensive changes to the roading system and /   
   > > or a sudden, and currently immpssible, increase in the functionality of   
   > > "artificial intelligence", there's no way to stop the cars going the   
   > > wrong way down a one-way street (as one example) simply because Google   
   > > Maps told them to.   
   >   
   > It wouldn't be hard to ensure that google maps is always up to date   
   > with any road change like that,   
      
   It would be a MASSIVE task to try and keep it up to date with all the   
   local changes worldwide, especially temporary ones.   
      
      
      
      
   > and to even have the self driving car check the signs on the road that   
   > the human drivers use too.   
      
   That was the point of the example - the sign may well be in different   
   places on different road, partially or fully obscured, stolen, graffiti   
   altered, etc.etc. A human driver can tell in most cases (fully obscured   
   being the exception), but a computer simply can't.   
      
   And that was only one example of numerous possibilities where a   
   computer simply can't perform the same way as a human driver.   
      
   The current and soon-to-be released self-driving cars all perform   
   extremely simple tasks within set boundaries, but a self-parking car   
   cannot tell whether or not the "parking space" is actually a real or   
   legal one, and the amount of information needed to make that decision   
   is huge, let alone actually drive a car fully.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)