XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 24/01/2014 10:57 am, Chrysi Cat wrote:   
   > On 1/23/2014 6:34 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   > So wait, would you be inclined to ban _radio receivers_ in cars? Driving   
   > is boring enough that forcing people to do it in silence would lead to   
   > all sorts of fun reactions...   
   >   
      
   A difficult one. I don't think car radio is a major problem unless it   
   has manual tuning. The biggest danger, I suspect, comes from other human   
   passengers whether small children who need attending or hyped up friends   
   who divert your attention. Both of these, I think, are worse than mobile   
   phones. There is also a huge difference between driving through the   
   desert, seeing another vehicle about every half hour or so and no   
   pedestrians, and driving along a busy inner-city freeway when everyone   
   is zipping along at above the speed limit and changing lanes unpredictably.   
      
   --   
   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)