XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 24/01/2014 12:17 pm, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > In article , chrysicat@gmail.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 1/23/2014 5:14 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   >>> In article , rex   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >> [snip]   
   >>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >> Did you say 'data entry'? Wow...I could have a job again! It's really   
   >> not that boring for some people...folks like me were capable of doing it   
   >> virtually on autopilot!   
   >   
   > Humans don't need a "database" to get from point a to point b in a car.   
   > Why would the car?  The only way that self-driving cars are ever going   
   > to be viable is if they can navigate using the same cues that humans do.   
   >   
      
   I do some of my navigation from knowing the road layout, but there are   
   some places I go where it's more a question of "When I see it, I'll   
   recognise it", where "it" is some arrangement of buildings or trees that   
   I can't describe and probably don't even consciously remember, but when   
   I see it, I know when to turn. Now, I suppose a self-driving car would   
   have a database of all these "landmarks", or would it?   
      
   --   
   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)