SCJP
Visit my download page
SCJP
Visit my download page
Randall Twede wrote:otherwise if your car hits someone, who pays? not you because the car was driving. not the manufacturer, you can be sure of that!
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Randall Twede wrote:.. what if the road is iced over and you hear on the radio that there is a wreck just around the corner. wouldn't you want the option of taking over?
Don't talk to me about ice; my fingers still hurt from scraping the windscreen this morning. It took the best part of half an hour to find the glass so I could see whether the road was icy.Randall Twede wrote:. . . what if the road is iced over and you hear on the radio that there is a wreck just around the corner. . . .
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:What about the insurance company?
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
salvin francis wrote:It's all in the news here about a [some huge cab company name here] driverless car running through a red signal while a pedestrian was crossing the road. I wonder what would happen if a manual override was provided.
salvin francis wrote:I wonder what would happen if a manual override was provided.
Maneesh Godbole wrote:Quite some valid and interesting points have been raised above.
I think the correct way to go would be dedicated roads/tracks where ONLY driverless cars are allowed. No human intervention at all. Enclosed environment with all car computers in constants communication with each other would be as close to "fool proof" as we can get.
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
SCJP
Visit my download page
That isn't a future anymore, that is something already exists. London's Heatrow Airport Pods.Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
Maneesh Godbole wrote:Quite some valid and interesting points have been raised above.
I think the correct way to go would be dedicated roads/tracks where ONLY driverless cars are allowed. No human intervention at all. Enclosed environment with all car computers in constants communication with each other would be as close to "fool proof" as we can get.
I think that's the future. The hard part is getting there from where we are today.
It said 90″ on that link. A 90″ delay at roadworks would be enough time for the following driver to string you up from the nearest lamp‑post round here, so pray nobody nearby has any rope handyPaul Clapham wrote:. . . Your estimated hold time is... forty... three... minutes.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:
It said 90″ on that link.Paul Clapham wrote:. . . Your estimated hold time is... forty... three... minutes.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Apart from the increased population, for the last fifty years at least there has been a tendency for people to live farther from where they work, requiring much more travelling. Some of that is by their own choice, some forced on them. About 1½ miles from where I live, the council compulsorily bought and demolished several hundred little terraced houses, forcing their occupants to move elsewhere, usually much farther from work.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:
There is a difference between travelling for pleasure or not, and removing all risk from life. As soon as you start taking risks whilst travelling, you are inflicting risks on others, which is doubtless wrong. Any risks taken to get one's adrenaline levels up should be where innocent people and uninvolved third parties are not put at risk.
Did you see how Paul cut 87% off of his electric heat bill with 82 watts of micro heaters? |