XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 1/23/2014 4:14 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > In article , rex   
   >  wrote:   
   >> "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   >> news:240120140903107097%YourName@YourISP.com...   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> In fact a number of computer systems do have that capability.   
   >   
   > Nope. No computer comes even close to having such things on the same   
   > level as an average human being ... they aren't even close enough to an   
   > extremely stupid baby.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> It is in fact quite easy for a computer to do that better than a human can.   
   >   
   > Only if ALL the road signs exist, are fully / mostly visible, located   
   > in pretty much the same place, hasn't been stolen since yesterday,   
   > etc., etc.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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   
   >>> changed for some reason.   
   >>   
   >> But with those, the computer can use the database   
   >> and knows how the road should be marked.   
   >   
   > Again, a MASSIVE task to try and keep it updated. What's the point in   
   > having a car that can drive itself, when you then have to relgate   
   > millions of people to doing boring and pointless data entry.   
   >   
   Job security?  :)   
      
      
   --   
   The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,   
   hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with   
   methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate   
   wouldn't tolerate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)