XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: robban@clubtelco.com
On 24/01/2014 4:03 am, Your Name wrote:
> In article , David
> Friedman wrote:
>> In article <220120141849207998%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>> Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I don't think that follows. As best I can tell, the Google self-driving
>> car doesn't rely on just GPS and maps. It has mechanisms for watching
>> the actual road and traffic.
>>
>> You might as well argue that human driven cars aren't going to happen
>> any time soon. They too rely on a combination of information sources,
>> one of which is often the GPS.
>
> Human drivers (hopefully) also use intelligence, common sens, and an
> ability to make decisions for themselves ...three things a computer
> simply cannot currently have, no matter how complicated the programming
> is.
>
> Human drivers can also read road signs no matter where they are placed
> (other than behind a tree!), whereas a computer will have difficulty
> doing that in EVERY instance.
>
> Then there are facts like many roads simply not having markings for the
> computer to see, or having duplicate markings where the road has been
> chaged for somereason. The possibilities for something not thought of
> in the programming are endless.
>
Human drivers also think they can maintain a conversation on their
mobile phone, another with their passengers while listening to sport on
their car radio and drive at the same time.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
