# Self-driving Teslas in just 3 months



## Jeeves

Some Teslas Will Be Able To Drive Themselves In Just 3 Months

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/tesla-driverless-car_n_6904062.html


----------



## ElectroFuzz

We all have cruise control now Tesla will have lane control (mainly for highways)
Not exactly a self driven car but it's good PR.
Investors love it.


----------



## Simon

The car can self drive .. it has the tech to do it it's just Tesla is only releasing a partial autonomous driving update. They will eventually release another update which will allow you to call your car from its parking spot. Quit doubting.


----------



## rtaatl

Simon said:


> The car can self drive .. it has the tech to do it it's just Tesla is only releasing a partial autonomous driving update. They will eventually release another update which will allow you to call your car from its parking spot. Quit doubting.


Can we name it KITT...lol! There I go showing my age.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

rtaatl said:


> Can we name it KITT...lol! There I go showing my age.





Simon said:


> The car can self drive .. it has the tech to do it it's just Tesla is only releasing a partial autonomous driving update. They will eventually release another update which will allow you to call your car from its parking spot. Quit doubting.


You have to understand these are just publicity stunts. They will never really allow this to happen.
Musk is desperate to enhance the coolness factor of his cars as Apple is entering the market.

Basically, allowing drivers to take their hands off the steering wheel is a multi-million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. Tesla knows it.

Whenever stopped at red lights, 90% of people are checking their phones. Now what do you think people are going to do if they don't have to keep their hands on the wheel on the highway? 
All the disclaimers in the world won't let Tesla avoid lawsuits, because the Courts will deem that Tesla should have reasonably anticipated driver distraction and factored that in.

Forget highway self-driving, even summoning the car by itself from the garage will not be featured, because let's say, what if a toddler is crawling across the garage. A human driver will stop, can you trust the car's sensors to do so? You think Tesla wants to face these lawsuits?

Most likely, Tesla will claim they have all these super-cool features, but then blame the DOT (Dept of Trans) for not permitting them to install these features in cars. This way Tesla gets publicity / free marketing, thus achieving its real goals.

I mean, seriously, they weren't even allowing Tesla to install rear view cameras instead of side mirrors (the side mirrors increase drag and hence reduce range) and you think they'll allow Tesla to install features that allow hands free driving on the highway?? Think again!!!


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Jeeves said:


> Some Teslas Will Be Able To Drive Themselves In Just 3 Months
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/tesla-driverless-car_n_6904062.html


don't fall for all this marketing hype


----------



## Bart McCoy

title is dreadfully misleading, smh


----------



## Simon




----------



## Brooklyn

Didn't read the article but saw someone mention lane control... don't cars already have lane control?


----------



## Ubermon

I have to jump in. I continuously get the feeling this forum is in denial when it comes to driverless cars. I've seen posters estimate we will not see them on the road for another 10-20 years when Google alone already has hundreds of cars on the road. Mercedes recently had their car driving around San Fran. Apple is rumored to be jumping into the industry. Uber is scrambling to put together a team to build it one after Google revealed they will be rivals and not partners. This is a race folks. Market obstacles? Consumers do not need to welcome the cars whole heartedly.. companies can first start with golf carts, trucks, and taxis. Regulatory obstacles? Hasn't Uber proven they can be overcome?

A toddler crawling around on the driveway? A human being is more likely to hit the child backing up then a car that's equipped with a laser, radars, camera and more. Heart attack while driving? What is better, crashing immediately or the car sensing you're in distress (or responding to your audio command) and driving to the nearest hospital? How much more efficient and safer will the roads be when all the cars talk to each other? How many accidents are caused by falling asleep at the wheel, drunk driving, text messaging, sudden braking, etc? These are all arguments carmakers can make to push the cars on society. The drop in accidents will be so significant that insurance companies and parts manufacturers are already worried. Some of the technology in the cars are already showing up on the road and causing a drop in accidents. http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...iving-cars-could-put-a-dent-in-their-business

Read the following Mashable article posted yesterday (I'll quote a few things below): http://mashable.com/2015/03/19/tesla-google-driverless-car/



> Indeed, the head of its secretive Google X labs, Astro Teller, casually dropped in to his South by Southwest talk earlier this week an intriguing nugget: the company could have offered freeway-driving driverless cars as much as two years ago, but preferred to build a vehicle from the ground up that could handle all driving - and didn't have so much as a steering wheel.


And here's Teller on the unique situations a driverless car could encounter and how they've developed the Google Car to handle them:


> "One of our projects is focused on building a fully self-driving car. If the technology could be made so that a car could drive all the places a person can drive with greater safety than when people drive in those same places, there are over a million lives a year that could be saved worldwide. Plus there's over $1 trillion of wasted time per year we could collectively get back if we didn't have to pay attention while the car took us from one place to another.
> 
> When we started, we couldn't make a list of the 10,000 things we'd have to do to make a car drive itself. We knew the top 100 things, of course. But pretty good, pretty safe, most of the time isn't good enough. We had to go out and just find a way to learn what should be on that list of 10,000 things. We had to see what all of the unusual real world situations our cars would face were. There is a real sense in which the making of that list, the gathering of that data, is fully half of what is hard about solving the self driving car problem.
> 
> A few months ago, for example, our self-driving car encountered an unusual sight in the middle of a suburban side street. It was a woman in an electric wheelchair wielding a broom and working to shoo a duck out of the middle of the road. You can see in this picture what our car could see. I'm happy to say, by the way, that while this was a surprising moment for the safety drivers in the car - and for the car itself, I imagine - the car did the right thing. It came autonomously to a stop, waited until the woman had shooed the duck off the road and left the street herself and then the car moved down the street again. That definitely wasn't on any list of things we thought we'd have to teach a car to handle!
> 
> But now, when we produce a new version of our software, before that software ends up on our actual cars, it has to prove itself in tens of thousands of situations just like this in our simulator, but using real world data. We show the new software moments like this and say 'and what would you do now?' Then, if the software fails to make a good choice, we can fail in simulation rather than in the physical world. In this way, what one car learns or is challenged by in the real world can be transferred to all the other cars and to all future versions of the software we'll make so we only have to learn each lesson once and every rider we have forever after can get the benefit from that one learning moment."


----------



## Ubermon

BTW, I'm not advocating for the cars. Technology is great when it supplements human activity, not when it replaces humans. These cars will not only make us lazier and less capable, they will have a significant negative impact on the large segment of our society relying on transportation jobs. Quickly checking wikipedia, there were 233,900 US taxi cab drivers in 2012. I can't find a good source, but I'm seeing estimates of 3.5 million truckers in google search results. These jobs will be gone. And sure the cars will need maintenance, repair, cleaning, etc.. but we're not increasing the number of cars on the road so why increase the number of those jobs? We may cut DOWN on some of those jobs as accidents lessen. All this while other job sectors will be shedding jobs as companies adopt A.I. technology.

This is going to be car companies/silicon valley vs people. This technology may end up being more disruptive than we're appreciating!


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Ubermon said:


> I have to jump in. I continuously get the feeling this forum is in denial when it comes to driverless cars. I've seen posters estimate we will not see them on the road for another 10-20 years when .......:


You think we'll see them before that? I think we won't see them for another 40 years at least.

And I'm talking about true driverless cars, meaning cars that can transport blind people around.

You see, technology is not as smart as you think. Too many variables. How will sensors function in the snow? What if ice freezes over them while driving? What if the software freezes while on the highway while the car is transporting a blind passenger? Here we are in 2015 and yet haven't even figured out a way to make the auto correct spell check work correctly on our cell phone while typing and this is far easier than developing fool proof driverless cars.

We often think the Internet came around in the mid-to-late 90s, right?

Well, wrong.
It was invented way back in the 1960s. Check wikipedia if you don't believe me. It took over 30 years to go mainstream - it will be more difficult with driverless cars and given how many lives are at stake.

To give another example, my parents were telling me how in 1969 when man first landed on the moon, there was talk that in another 5 years, man would be setting up colonies on the moon, and how by a decade later, man would have conquered Mars. Well, almost 50 years have passed and none of that has happened.

In the same way, when you consider liabilities and risks involved in true driverless cars, for it to go mainstream, won't happen for another 40 years or longer. If you believe otherwise, you're just falling prey to the marketing hype.


----------



## Ubermon

Drive a blind man around? Done two years ago:





Have doubts because there are others in the car? Ok, 9 months ago after redesign from ground up with no steering wheel:





Have doubts about its ability to handle multiple factors? Here's an earlier version of the car (1 year ago) driving around Manhattan. Skip to 2:10 to see it handling ppl still crossing the street when the light is green for the car and a bicyclist who suddenly races out in front of it:


----------



## Jeremy Joe

The technology for it may already exist, but for the technology to have improved to the point of it becoming foolproof, is decades away. DOT won't allow half baked technology on city streets, and no corporation would take on the liability.

We can estimate the timeframe for driveless cars going mainstream, to the evolution of the mobile phone. To quote from wikipedia: "_Enabling technology for mobile phones was first developed in the 1940s but it was not until the mid 1980s that they became widely available."_

So if mobile phones took 40 years, driverless cars will take at least as long, because here we have human lives at stake. Thanks for the video links anyways, they made for interesting viewing, but it is nothing more than hype and will remain so, for at least the next 40 years.


----------



## Ubermon

*Driverless Car to Begin Cross-Country Trip Sunday*
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/driverless-car-begin-cross-country-trip-sunday/story?id=29807224



> Delphi's Chief Technology Officer Jeff Owens said the car has been successfully tested on streets in California and Las Vegas, but the cross-country trip will be the car's "ultimate test."
> 
> "The vehicle will be challenged under a variety of driving conditions from changing weather and terrain to potential road hazards -- things that could never truly be testing in a lab," the release says.
> 
> The car is supposedly able to navigate 4-way stops, merge onto highways and even maneuver around bicyclists -- all without a driver.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

I stick to my opinion that true driverless cars will not go mainstream for at least 40 years or longer. You have every right to your opinion as to how long you think it's going to take. good luck.


----------



## stuber

Jeeves said:


> Some Teslas Will Be Able To Drive Themselves In Just 3 Months
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/tesla-driverless-car_n_6904062.html


Can we just skip over this phase and get back to working on flying cars? Those are way cooler.


----------



## UberTaxPro

DenverDiane said:


> True driverless technology is likely 15+ years away. We may see it on freeways in special lanes in 5. I've been in the tech industry for a LONG time.
> One of the biggest issues facing driverless vehicles is adaptability. I'm sure they do great on a sunny California highway - what happens when you hit a snowstorm or a thunderstorm? Or a some cute bunnies run out in front of your vehicle while some idiot is tailgating you? Brains still work better than algorithms in cases of extreme conditions.
> How well does radar and Lidar and visual imaging do in a downpour? What happens when you are driving around 100 other driverless cars all using radar. Think any radar confusion might result?
> 
> Another big issue is going to be liability. Shortly after the first driverless car hits the city streets some poor schmuck will throw himself in front of it to try and make a few bucks (his lawyer probably gave him a push) . Rinse repeat about 1000 times.
> 
> So there are a "few" issues to iron out. Like any technology company in America for the last 25 years new technology is P.R.d to death in the hopes of getting more investors (see Mars One) and only those not in "the know" actually believe the hype.
> 
> Yeah I'll wait for my riderless car - just like I'm waiting for my flying car.


Sounds like a great song to me!

Standing on an island
In the middle of the road.
Traffic either side of me,
Which way will I go?
I should've stayed at home,
I should have never come outside.
Now I wish I never tried
To cross to the other side.
I'm in a state of* Radar Confusion
Radar Confusion*
It's a state Of
*Radar confusion*


----------



## Jeeves

Id love my car to drive itself. Sooner the better. That or make an app that allows you to drive the car with your iphone. Everyone here in California drives looking at their phone.


----------



## RamzFanz

Jeremy Joe said:


> The technology for it may already exist, but for the technology to have improved to the point of it becoming foolproof, is decades away. DOT won't allow half baked technology on city streets, and no corporation would take on the liability.
> 
> We can estimate the timeframe for driveless cars going mainstream, to the evolution of the mobile phone. To quote from wikipedia: "_Enabling technology for mobile phones was first developed in the 1940s but it was not until the mid 1980s that they became widely available."_
> 
> So if mobile phones took 40 years, driverless cars will take at least as long, because here we have human lives at stake. Thanks for the video links anyways, they made for interesting viewing, but it is nothing more than hype and will remain so, for at least the next 40 years.


Your main error is you are giving examples of expensive technology that didn't have a market. The Internet was useless to people before affordable personal computers. We COULD have built bases on the moon, it wasn't a good value as the shuttle was already in the works for LEO development. Cell phones were just too expensive. I had a buddy in the 90s that would tell anyone who listened that the Internet was a fad. You are now that guy.

Self driving cars aren't as safe as people, they are far safer. The toddler would be run over by a human far more often than a self driving car that can see everywhere at once with multiple systems. Not only can the car detect the toddler, it can instantly communicate that information with all of the surrounding cars.

Lawsuits are based on negligence, not accidents. These companies have long ago weighed the profit to lawsuit risk and insurance cost to protect them.

Self driving cars are ALREADY on the road. The technology already exists and much of it is off the shelf. It's not expensive. They will be the most sold type of car by the middle of the next decade and probably required in many areas not too long after once people like yourself wake up to how many lives will have been saved.


----------



## moop

DenverDiane said:


> True driverless technology is likely 15+ years away. We may see it on freeways in special lanes in 5. I've been in the tech industry for a LONG time.
> One of the biggest issues facing driverless vehicles is adaptability. I'm sure they do great on a sunny California highway - what happens when you hit a snowstorm or a thunderstorm? Or a some cute bunnies run out in front of your vehicle while some idiot is tailgating you? Brains still work better than algorithms in cases of extreme conditions.
> How well does radar and Lidar and visual imaging do in a downpour? What happens when you are driving around 100 other driverless cars all using radar. Think any radar confusion might result?
> 
> Another big issue is going to be liability. Shortly after the first driverless car hits the city streets some poor schmuck will throw himself in front of it to try and make a few bucks (his lawyer probably gave him a push) . Rinse repeat about 1000 times.
> 
> So there are a "few" issues to iron out. Like any technology company in America for the last 25 years new technology is P.R.d to death in the hopes of getting more investors (see Mars One) and only those not in "the know" actually believe the hype.
> 
> Yeah I'll wait for my riderless car - just like I'm waiting for my flying car.


I'd say the biggest, #1 issue is going to be liability, though adaptability is still quite a hurdle. A lot of people are claiming these cars will be able to detect and respond to obstacles faster and better than humans ever could. Perhaps. But what about multiple obstacles, or what about situations where you are going to get into a wreck no matter what you do, it's just a decision on what wreck will be the least serious? For example, if I'm in a car and an 18-wheeler is beside me and starts swerving into my lane faster than I can accelerate or decelerate out of its way, what does a self-driving car do? AI is currently not good enough to weigh between the options and make the choice that does the least damage to everyone involved, and the liability aspects of such a wreck with a driverless car are very interesting.

As for google's driverless car and how "perfectly" it and other driverless vehicles drive, I'd take all that with a grain of salt and consider it mostly hype. I mean, this is google we're talking about, a company that has a home automation system called nest (please note that home automation, especially the kind nest provides, should be relatively simple) that is buggy to the point it had a flaw where you could deactivate fire alarms by waving your arms in front of them. They disabled that feature now, but the fire alarms also have a tendency to register false positives and turn your house into a screeching hell.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

moop said:


> I'd say the biggest, #1 issue is going to be liability, though adaptability is still quite a hurdle. A lot of people are claiming these cars will be able to detect and respond to obstacles faster and better than humans ever could. Perhaps. But what about multiple obstacles, or what about situations where you are going to get into a wreck no matter what you do, it's just a decision on what wreck will be the least serious? For example, if I'm in a car and an 18-wheeler is beside me and starts swerving into my lane faster than I can accelerate or decelerate out of its way, what does a self-driving car do? AI is currently not good enough to weigh between the options and make the choice that does the least damage to everyone involved, and the liability aspects of such a wreck with a driverless car are very interesting.
> 
> As for google's driverless car and how "perfectly" it and other driverless vehicles drive, I'd take all that with a grain of salt and consider it mostly hype. I mean, this is google we're talking about, a company that has a home automation system called nest (please note that home automation, especially the kind nest provides, should be relatively simple) that is buggy to the point it had a flaw where you could deactivate fire alarms by waving your arms in front of them. They disabled that feature now, but the fire alarms also have a tendency to register false positives and turn your house into a screeching hell.


Exactly, I mean Google owns Nest. Google is a multi-billion $$ company with the smartest engineers int he country, or rather world, on its payroll. AND YET, it cannot develop something as Freakin' simple as a reliable programmable Thermostat - look at what customers have to say on amazon here, sorted by Most Helpful reviews first, if you don't believe me!

And now to think, of them being able to invent a RELIABLE & SAFE driverless car, in what ...like 5-10 years.... is a joke!


----------



## Jeremy Joe

RamzFanz said:


> They will be the most sold type of car by the middle of the next decade ............


I give up - You have your mind made up, that within 10 years, calls will be driving themselves, then good for you.

I'm trying closing my eyes and visualizing a scenario where cars with no drivers are whizzing down the congested NY city or LA freeways safely and reliably, in as little as 10 years - and all I can do is - laugh!!

Never gonna happen in 10 short years.


----------



## RamzFanz

I don't think you guys grasp how far we've already come. It's here already.

Are you aware we have destroyers that are capable of identifying and engaging enemy targets on it's own? Multiple targets at the same time? Moving into spot, engaging different weapon systems, fighting subs, planes, drones, land targets, and ships all at once with no human input?

Nest is not a comparable technology. I spent 15 years in home automation. Nest is a bottom rung product.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Ubermon said:


> Drive a blind man around? Done two years ago:


That blind man thingy was as fake as a WWE wrestling match. The finished video was a well produced marketing piece enough to fool gullible people into thinking that driverless cars are just around the corner.

True- the car did drive itself - BUT what they did NOT tell you was that before the experiment, every square foot of the route was specially driven over multiple times and mapped in far more detail than the regular google maps.

That's how the car was able to pull up precisely next to the window of the drive thru.

Stopping at Taco Bell was not as random as the blind man in the video makes it appear to be. It was pre-planned, that's how they were able to get a video shot from inside the restaurant behind the lady handing out the food.

What they also don't tell you was that traffic on that side of the road was totally cordoned off, plus there was police escort following.

These cars are nowhere near ready for the real world - and won't be any time soon.....


----------



## RamzFanz

Jeremy Joe said:


> That blind man thingy was as fake as a WWE wrestling match. The finished video was a well produced marketing piece enough to fool gullible people into thinking that driverless cars are just around the corner.
> 
> True- the car did drive itself - BUT what they did NOT tell you was that before the experiment, every square foot of the route was specially driven over multiple times and mapped in far more detail than the regular google maps.
> 
> That's how the car was able to pull up precisely next to the window of the drive thru.
> 
> Stopping at Taco Bell was not as random as the blind man in the video makes it appear to be. It was pre-planned, that's how they were able to get a video shot from inside the restaurant behind the lady handing out the food.
> 
> What they also don't tell you was that traffic on that side of the road was totally cordoned off, plus there was police escort following.
> 
> These cars are nowhere near ready for the real world - and won't be any time soon.....


OK, dude, think what you will. The industry and experts are saying 2017 - 2020 for the first consumer production model and you think they are just making it all up? They have been driving on trips of hundreds of miles in all types of environments for years. This is a race to be the first, not future vision.

10 years ago Youtube launched and thumb drives became common. Technology changes far faster than you realize.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

RamzFanz said:


> The industry and experts are saying 2017 - 2020 for the first consumer production model .......


So what will the driverless car do when faced with an oncoming overtaking lorry on the wrong side of the road as in this clip?

Will it take to the grass verge as the drivers of 3 vehicles did to save their lives, or will it simply stop in lane?

Will the engineers program in every grass verge and check for softness in every condition? Even if they did, will it be able to guess if the truck is going to take to the verge too by looking at the driver's eyes and hands on the wheel as a human driver would? Of course Tesla will say 'Our cars didn't cause the crash'.


----------



## Ubermon

I suggest you look into the recent Google acquisition "DeepMind". There's a reason Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawkings, etc have recently been making statements of alarm over the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Ubermon said:


> I suggest you look into the recent Google acquisition "DeepMind". There's a reason Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawkings, etc have recently been making statements of alarm over the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.


I don't think I'll worry too much about AI until at least the spell check on my phone starts to work accurately.


----------



## RamzFanz

Jeremy Joe said:


> So what will the driverless car do when faced with an oncoming overtaking lorry on the wrong side of the road as in this clip?
> 
> Will it take to the grass verge as the drivers of 3 vehicles did to save their lives, or will it simply stop in lane?
> 
> Will the engineers program in every grass verge and check for softness in every condition? Even if they did, will it be able to guess if the truck is going to take to the verge too by looking at the driver's eyes and hands on the wheel as a human driver would? Of course Tesla will say 'Our cars didn't cause the crash'.


Ahhhh, I see where you're coming from. You think every part of the road has to be pre-programmed for the car to understand where it is and what it should do. Not at all. They will be able to make decisions like these based on what they are sensing. They will be able to drive on unmapped roads, grass, gravel, driveways, whatever.

For every good decision you can show me a driver make, I can show you 1,000 bad ones.

The REAL consideration is, if these were all self-driving and intercommunicating, things like this wouldn't happen. The truck wouldn't try to pass because it would know it couldn't make it. Even if it weren't a self driving truck, even if they all just communicated, the driver could have been warned to go back to his lane or even forced to.

Even more, every car will know the road conditions well ahead of time. Live weather feeds, live traffic feeds, live accident feeds. Never get trapped in a snow storm again. If deer are spotted on the side of the road, deer humans can't even see, every car knows where they are.

In a hurricane or other evacuation, no road jams, everyone gets out. In civil unrest, the police could lay out a corridor to avoid for all vehicles.

These drones do what I'm talking about at a very primitive level. They not only know what they are doing, they know what every other drone is doing, and they decide together what is best:






This is happening right now:


----------



## JaxBeachDriver

Far too many people die in car accidents. Personally, I hope they do start solving some problems in the near future. Better public transit, driverless cars, etc. -- whatever will prevent people from killing themselves to read a text or have a few drinks.

Of course, even with driverless cars, I believe some people will still prefer to have a driver. Probably not as many, but some will.


----------



## moop

RamzFanz said:


> These drones do what I'm talking about at a very primitive level. They not only know what they are doing, they know what every other drone is doing, and they decide together what is best:


And this is why I'm eternally skeptical of automation claims, because they are frequently and massively overhyped by people who don't know the first thing about computer science, much less automation.

Here's the research paper related to the technology in your video: http://rahauav.com/Library/Multirotors/p28.pdf

The robots in your video are interesting. They can do complicated formation flight and are incredibly agile and accurate for flighted robots. HOWEVER, they do not have a shred of AI, they do not know where their neighbors are, and they do not have the capability of sensing obstacles or knowing where they are.

The machines all have 73mhz arm cortex processors on-board which is far too weak to do any meaningful AI with. The best AI efforts, like IBM's Watson are massive machines. Watson itself has over 2800 ppc cores clocked at 3.7 GHZ and capable of running 11520 computation threads simultaneously. Further, the paper explicitly states that AI is not used, but rather a master computer issuing commands to each robot and coordinating their actions. So no, they do not "know" where they are or where their neighbors are, they just have orders on which direction to move and how far (and using what sensors they have, they can detect that).

As for the sensors, they provide the robot a rough notion of its movement, not a particularly accurate notion, which necessitates the use of an external array of camera sensors to detect and correct their motions and locations (which the main computer handles). Basically, the robots are flying nearly blind and have a helpful seeing eye dog to nudge them in the right direction when they stray from the correct path too much. The master computer issues basic flight commands (like fly upwards at 10m/h) and more detailed location information from the array of cameras surrounding the robots and the robots control their various servos with rough directional data from their sensors to fulfill the commands of the master computer. None of them has any notion that other robots exist, nor that they are flying in formation, nor that they need to avoid an obstacle. They are given orders and they follow them and that's it.

Basically, your video shows not that driverless cars are around the corner, but that the technology to do this reliably without detailed up-to-date 3d maps is still in its infancy.


----------



## Ubermon

moop said:


> And this is why I'm eternally skeptical of automation claims, because they are frequently and massively overhyped by people who don't know the first thing about computer science, much less automation.
> 
> Here's the research paper related to the technology in your video: http://rahauav.com/Library/Multirotors/p28.pdf
> 
> The robots in your video are interesting. They can do complicated formation flight and are incredibly agile and accurate for flighted robots. HOWEVER, they do not have a shred of AI, they do not know where their neighbors are, and they do not have the capability of sensing obstacles or knowing where they are..


This is starting to be a fun thread!

I have two vids to show you. This one is a compilation and has a bit of what moop posted but with much more. Including what you say the robots don't have: three flying robots hold a net. A presenter throws a ball into the air and they get into position to catch the ball as it drops. Then they flip the ball into the air and catch it in the net again. Fast forward to 4:28 for that but I really suggest you watch the whole thing cus there's a few really surprising clips. Turn off your volume though cus the music can be a little annoying after a while.
EDIT: I'm having problems posting the link..



Code:


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b52_1411601207



Second video
Again about Google's DeepMind. This thing is modeled after neural networks and what it can do is a bit scary. In this vid, an AI was set to play the game Breakout with no instructions except "get a highscore". The AI did not know how to play the game but it learned on its own based on score and pixel information. Here's the video but please skip ahead to 29:04:





In a few hours, it learned to play better than professional gamers. The A.I. has gone on to learn several other games, although it still struggles with those that require long term planning. I think the reason we're seeing industry leaders ringing the alarm bell every other day over A.I., is because we're getting to the point where these things can teach themselves. I know I read something last year about a program that was able to edit its own code. O_O


----------



## moop

Ubermon said:


> This is starting to be a fun thread!
> 
> I have two vids to show you. This one is a compilation and has a bit of what moop posted but with much more. Including what you say the robots don't have: three flying robots hold a net. A presenter throws a ball into the air and they get into position to catch the ball as it drops. Then they flip the ball into the air and catch it in the net again. Fast forward to 4:28 for that but I really suggest you watch the whole thing cus there's a few really surprising clips. Turn off your volume though cus the music can be a little annoying after a while.
> EDIT: I'm having problems posting the link..
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b52_1411601207


Did you completely ignore the scientific paper written by Mellinger and co. who created the quadcopter technology in the videos you're linking? I'm not the only one saying those robots do not have AI, their creators literally say the machines are controlled by a master computer in their research article. Since you ignored it, let me quote you a relevant passage.



> *The work in this paper uses a Vicon motion capture system
> [5] to sense the position of each vehicle at 100 Hz. This
> data is streamed over a gigabit ethernet network to a desktop
> base station. * *High-level control and planning is done in MATLAB
> on the base station which sends commands to each
> quadrotor at 100 Hz*. The software for controlling a large
> team of quadrotors is described later in Sec. V (see Fig. 7).
> *Low-level estimation and control loops run on the onboard
> microprocessor at a rate of 600 Hz.*


That literally means the swarm robots created by mellinger and co. do not have any AI capability and are wholly controlled and coordinated by a larger, more powerful computer.



> Second video
> Again about Google's DeepMind. This thing is modeled after neural networks and what it can do is a bit scary. In this vid, an AI was set to play the game Breakout with no instructions except "get a highscore". The AI did not know how to play the game but it learned on its own based on score and pixel information. Here's the video but please skip ahead to 29:04:
> 
> In a few hours, it learned to play better than professional gamers. The A.I. has gone on to learn several other games, although it still struggles with those that require long term planning. I think the reason we're seeing industry leaders ringing the alarm bell every other day over A.I., is because we're getting to the point where these things can teach themselves. I know I read something last year about a program that was able to edit its own code. O_O


I'll say it again, I'm eternally a skeptic of this kind of "automation revolution" talk because people who don't know the first thing about computer science hype the hell out of things they don't know the first thing about. These things cannot teach themselves, not without getting junk results. I remember a story about engineers using genetic algorithms with a computer to design a circuit that acted as a sine-wave oscillator. They ran the algorithm with the test condition being whatever circuit produced the purest sine-wave with the least elements scored highest, and the algorithm eventually designed a circuit that did exactly that, and the engineers didn't understand how it worked. However it worked, or at least it seemed to, until the scientists moved it from where it had been designed. Then it stopped working. Why? After studying the circuit for a long time, the engineers discovered that it had a small makeshift antenna as part of its design, and it was picking up the electromagnetic oscillations of a nearby computer to "produce" it's sine-wave oscillations. The moral of the story is that genetic algorithms, neural networks, and machine learning in general needs to be strictly controlled by humans to get the results you want, otherwise you get junk.

DeepMind is not particularly scary, it's a quite natural application of machine learning and neural networks, and it's not at all surprising that it was able to learn to play certain games with rapid speed training conducted over hours. First of all, please keep in mind what that actually means. An extremely powerful computational cluster ran emulated versions of atari games at speeds high enough where it got trillions or more runs of the game as training and score input for each (which imo is cheating if you're actually creating an AI). It is not surprising that it was able to find patterns that maximize performance in these games, that's entirely the point of machine learning and neural networks. Also please note that this technology is not particularly exotic. I myself am implementing some machine learning and neural networks in order to better automate a system for my laboratory.

Also, your surprise at programs that are able to modify themselves at runtime is quite charming. That trick has existed for quite a long period of time, and there are even algorithmic techniques for having computers write programs for you, such as the aforementioned genetic algorithms. One such technique was used to discover a "hello world" program for the maelbolg programming language, a programming language that was designed to be impossible to write by humans by having each of the control characters modify each others behavior using a hash function of the previously executed control characters


----------



## RamzFanz

moop said:


> And this is why I'm eternally skeptical of automation claims, because they are frequently and massively overhyped by people who don't know the first thing about computer science, much less automation.
> 
> Here's the research paper related to the technology in your video: http://rahauav.com/Library/Multirotors/p28.pdf
> 
> The robots in your video are interesting. They can do complicated formation flight and are incredibly agile and accurate for flighted robots. HOWEVER, they do not have a shred of AI, they do not know where their neighbors are, and they do not have the capability of sensing obstacles or knowing where they are.
> 
> The machines all have 73mhz arm cortex processors on-board which is far too weak to do any meaningful AI with. The best AI efforts, like IBM's Watson are massive machines. Watson itself has over 2800 ppc cores clocked at 3.7 GHZ and capable of running 11520 computation threads simultaneously. Further, the paper explicitly states that AI is not used, but rather a master computer issuing commands to each robot and coordinating their actions. So no, they do not "know" where they are or where their neighbors are, they just have orders on which direction to move and how far (and using what sensors they have, they can detect that).
> 
> As for the sensors, they provide the robot a rough notion of its movement, not a particularly accurate notion, which necessitates the use of an external array of camera sensors to detect and correct their motions and locations (which the main computer handles). Basically, the robots are flying nearly blind and have a helpful seeing eye dog to nudge them in the right direction when they stray from the correct path too much. The master computer issues basic flight commands (like fly upwards at 10m/h) and more detailed location information from the array of cameras surrounding the robots and the robots control their various servos with rough directional data from their sensors to fulfill the commands of the master computer. None of them has any notion that other robots exist, nor that they are flying in formation, nor that they need to avoid an obstacle. They are given orders and they follow them and that's it.
> 
> Basically, your video shows not that driverless cars are around the corner, but that the technology to do this reliably without detailed up-to-date 3d maps is still in its infancy.


Well, yes, that's why I said "These drones do what I'm talking about at a *very primitive* level". They are controlled by a computer that is not onboard and the sensors are primarily external. A self-driving car would have the computer and sensors on-board.

You have to make certain assumptions to believe self driving cars will be a reality soon.  One is that computing power continues to advance at its current rate. That the sensors and programming will do what they say. It's a general statement because there are so many prototypes being tested with different capabilities.

What the video shows is that computers can control vehicles in a 3 dimensional world using sensors. It's old technology. The video itself was uploaded Jan. 2012.

I have never claimed self-driving cars need AI, as that is often misunderstood. Self driving cars are complicated, but will do essentially what these drones do. Go where they are told, know where each other are (in this case it was the central computer that knew), and adjust based on the actions of other vehicles and data received.

If self-driving cars aren't near, it will be because of skeptics and laws, not technology, IMHO.


----------



## RamzFanz

moop said:


> Did you completely ignore the scientific paper written by Mellinger and co. who created the quadcopter technology in the videos you're linking? I'm not the only one saying those robots do not have AI, their creators literally say the machines are controlled by a master computer in their research article. Since you ignored it, let me quote you a relevant passage.
> 
> That literally means the swarm robots created by mellinger and co. do not have any AI capability and are wholly controlled and coordinated by a larger, more powerful computer.
> 
> I'll say it again, I'm eternally a skeptic of this kind of "automation revolution" talk because people who don't know the first thing about computer science hype the hell out of things they don't know the first thing about. These things cannot teach themselves, not without getting junk results. I remember a story about engineers using genetic algorithms with a computer to design a circuit that acted as a sine-wave oscillator. They ran the algorithm with the test condition being whatever circuit produced the purest sine-wave with the least elements scored highest, and the algorithm eventually designed a circuit that did exactly that, and the engineers didn't understand how it worked. However it worked, or at least it seemed to, until the scientists moved it from where it had been designed. Then it stopped working. Why? After studying the circuit for a long time, the engineers discovered that it had a small makeshift antenna as part of its design, and it was picking up the electromagnetic oscillations of a nearby computer to "produce" it's sine-wave oscillations. The moral of the story is that genetic algorithms, neural networks, and machine learning in general needs to be strictly controlled by humans to get the results you want, otherwise you get junk.
> 
> DeepMind is not particularly scary, it's a quite natural application of machine learning and neural networks, and it's not at all surprising that it was able to learn to play certain games with rapid speed training conducted over hours. First of all, please keep in mind what that actually means. An extremely powerful computational cluster ran emulated versions of atari games at speeds high enough where it got trillions or more runs of the game as training and score input for each (which imo is cheating if you're actually creating an AI). It is not surprising that it was able to find patterns that maximize performance in these games, that's entirely the point of machine learning and neural networks. Also please note that this technology is not particularly exotic. I myself am implementing some machine learning and neural networks in order to better automate a system for my laboratory.
> 
> Also, your surprise at programs that are able to modify themselves at runtime is quite charming. That trick has existed for quite a long period of time, and there are even algorithmic techniques for having computers write programs for you, such as the aforementioned genetic algorithms. One such technique was used to discover a "hello world" program for the maelbolg programming language, a programming language that was designed to be impossible to write by humans by having each of the control characters modify each others behavior using a hash function of the previously executed control characters


You are a roadblock thinker. When I was in telecommunications and automation, you were the guy I couldn't wait to get rid of.


----------



## uberThere

RamzFanz said:


> I don't think you guys grasp how far we've already come. It's here already.
> 
> Are you aware we have destroyers that are capable of identifying and engaging enemy targets on it's own? Multiple targets at the same time? Moving into spot, engaging different weapon systems, fighting subs, planes, drones, land targets, and ships all at once with no human input?
> 
> Nest is not a comparable technology. I spent 15 years in home automation. Nest is a bottom rung product.


Interesting, I spent time doing research into neural nets, deep-learning, and computer vision.

What was your specialty?


----------



## uberThere

moop said:


> Did you completely ignore the scientific paper written by Mellinger and co. who created the quadcopter technology in the videos you're linking? I'm not the only one saying those robots do not have AI, their creators literally say the machines are controlled by a master computer in their research article. Since you ignored it, let me quote you a relevant passage.
> 
> That literally means the swarm robots created by mellinger and co. do not have any AI capability and are wholly controlled and coordinated by a larger, more powerful computer.
> 
> I'll say it again, I'm eternally a skeptic of this kind of "automation revolution" talk because people who don't know the first thing about computer science hype the hell out of things they don't know the first thing about. These things cannot teach themselves, not without getting junk results. I remember a story about engineers using genetic algorithms with a computer to design a circuit that acted as a sine-wave oscillator. They ran the algorithm with the test condition being whatever circuit produced the purest sine-wave with the least elements scored highest, and the algorithm eventually designed a circuit that did exactly that, and the engineers didn't understand how it worked. However it worked, or at least it seemed to, until the scientists moved it from where it had been designed. Then it stopped working. Why? After studying the circuit for a long time, the engineers discovered that it had a small makeshift antenna as part of its design, and it was picking up the electromagnetic oscillations of a nearby computer to "produce" it's sine-wave oscillations. The moral of the story is that genetic algorithms, neural networks, and machine learning in general needs to be strictly controlled by humans to get the results you want, otherwise you get junk.
> 
> DeepMind is not particularly scary, it's a quite natural application of machine learning and neural networks, and it's not at all surprising that it was able to learn to play certain games with rapid speed training conducted over hours. First of all, please keep in mind what that actually means. An extremely powerful computational cluster ran emulated versions of atari games at speeds high enough where it got trillions or more runs of the game as training and score input for each (which imo is cheating if you're actually creating an AI). It is not surprising that it was able to find patterns that maximize performance in these games, that's entirely the point of machine learning and neural networks. Also please note that this technology is not particularly exotic. I myself am implementing some machine learning and neural networks in order to better automate a system for my laboratory.
> 
> Also, your surprise at programs that are able to modify themselves at runtime is quite charming. That trick has existed for quite a long period of time, and there are even algorithmic techniques for having computers write programs for you, such as the aforementioned genetic algorithms. One such technique was used to discover a "hello world" program for the maelbolg programming language, a programming language that was designed to be impossible to write by humans by having each of the control characters modify each others behavior using a hash function of the previously executed control characters


Moop,

I agree with you and I have an MSc in this. you seem to have some background, what is it you were trained it?


----------



## moop

uberThere said:


> Moop,
> 
> I agree with you and I have an MSc in this. you seem to have some background, what is it you were trained it?


I just finished my masters level 2 in new information systems (studying probabalistic computing, chemical computing some, and high performance computing). I may dive into a phd researching chemical computers using bz reactions. I'm currently doing a research internship at my lap to add shape recognition and machine learning to a system that analyzes images of embryos and locates cells within the images and determines their lineage for biologists (basically bioinformatics). Here's a vid of bz reactions btw, they are very cool and allow for the creation of nand-gates by bouncing the reaction waves off each other in certain ways: 



.


----------



## moop

RamzFanz said:


> Well, yes, that's why I said "These drones do what I'm talking about at a *very primitive* level". They are controlled by a computer that is not onboard and the sensors are primarily external. A self-driving car would have the computer and sensors on-board.
> 
> You have to make certain assumptions to believe self driving cars will be a reality soon. One is that computing power continues to advance at its current rate. That the sensors and programming will do what they say. It's a general statement because there are so many prototypes being tested with different capabilities.
> 
> What the video shows is that computers can control vehicles in a 3 dimensional world using sensors. It's old technology. The video itself was uploaded Jan. 2012.
> 
> I have never claimed self-driving cars need AI, as that is often misunderstood. Self driving cars are complicated, but will do essentially what these drones do. Go where they are told, know where each other are (in this case it was the central computer that knew), and adjust based on the actions of other vehicles and data received.
> 
> If self-driving cars aren't near, it will be because of skeptics and laws, not technology, IMHO.


1) 2012 is not old tech when it comes to computers. A large amount of computer science from the 60s is just now finding its way into commercial applications. For example: byzantine fault tolerant systems which were first thought up in the 1980s are just now starting to be used in highly fault tolerant systems.

2) The drones do not do what you're talking about, even on a primitive level. It's really an apples to oranges comparison and I don't know why you keep trying to make it.

3) Self-driving cars need some level of AI for hazard mitigation, or else they will not be safe at all. Machine learning does not do well in situations the machine has not been trained for, and some level of AI is needed for the adaptability to keep them safe.

4) Very little is holding tech back nowadays, and that you think laws and skeptics are a problem is laughable. Both exist as a check on technology, otherwise you end up with stuff like the titanic where people are claiming tech has made something impossible that really isn't.



RamzFanz said:


> You are a roadblock thinker. When I was in telecommunications and automation, you were the guy I couldn't wait to get rid of.


lol no, I'm just a realist. Without more solid info on these self-driving cars I just consider them hype released by corps to boost stock prices.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Jeremy Joe said:


> You have to understand these are just publicity stunts. They will never really allow this to happen.
> Musk is desperate to enhance the coolness factor of his cars as Apple is entering the market.
> 
> Basically, allowing drivers to take their hands off the steering wheel is a multi-million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. Tesla knows it.
> 
> Whenever stopped at red lights, 90% of people are checking their phones. Now what do you think people are going to do if they don't have to keep their hands on the wheel on the highway?
> All the disclaimers in the world won't let Tesla avoid lawsuits, because the Courts will deem that Tesla should have reasonably anticipated driver distraction and factored that in.
> 
> Forget highway self-driving, even summoning the car by itself from the garage will not be featured, because let's say, what if a toddler is crawling across the garage. A human driver will stop, can you trust the car's sensors to do so? You think Tesla wants to face these lawsuits?
> 
> Most likely, Tesla will claim they have all these super-cool features, but then blame the DOT (Dept of Trans) for not permitting them to install these features in cars. This way Tesla gets publicity / free marketing, thus achieving its real goals.
> 
> I mean, seriously, they weren't even allowing Tesla to install rear view cameras instead of side mirrors (the side mirrors increase drag and hence reduce range) and you think they'll allow Tesla to install features that allow hands free driving on the highway?? Think again!!!


The A6 Audi loan car I was given had lane assist. Had some Mormon Missionaries from the Pacific Islands onboard. I asked them both if they both believed that their faith was strong.

"Of course" they said in unison.

"I believe you both" I said, "but a true Christian can have their faith tested at anytime and now is one time".

"Look ahead at the oncoming curve on this Motorway we are approaching at 110km/ph (70mph). Now pray together! Pray like you never have before! your faith is now the only driver in this car".

At that I raised my arms and to their astonishment and some recited prayer the A6 took the curve beautifully just touching the line marking but then moving back into the middle, setting off a dash alarm asking me to take control of the vehicle.

You can have fun with clients you've been carting since 1994!


----------



## rtaatl

Jeeves said:


> Id love my car to drive itself. Sooner the better. That or make an app that allows you to drive the car with your iphone. Everyone here in California drives looking at their phone.


Or a Playstation controller...lol!


----------



## Jeeves

Tesla's Self-Driving Feature Leaves Insurers Idling As States Scramble

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/tesla-self-driving-cars_n_6961922.html


----------



## Bart McCoy

RamzFanz said:


> Self driving cars aren't as safe as people, they are far safer. The toddler would be run over by a human far more often than a self driving car that can see everywhere at once with multiple systems. Not only can the car detect the toddler, it can instantly communicate that information with all of the surrounding cars.
> 
> Lawsuits are based on negligence, not accidents. These companies have long ago weighed the profit to lawsuit risk and insurance cost to protect them.


Self driving cars are safer than people as a whole.
But a good driver can be better than a computer, because they have perception.

The computer see's objects,but they dont necessarilty know what it is. Like if there was a tire in the road it wouldnt know the different between a tire, or an object shaped like a tire. A human has perception to tell the difference. Perception that can be used to make the best decision based on what exactly the object is they are coming up on.

Basically the computer doesnt exactly define what the object is,it normally just tries to avoid it,since object in its path is a no no. But a human can tell if its safer to simply run over an object, rather than jamming on the brakes,or swerving,making it dangerous for the cars behind them,like a self driving car might do. There could be a huge 6feet by feet by 1 inch object in the road,a computer will see it as an object. It doesnt know that its steel. It doesnt know that its made of cardboard. A human's perception see its just a cardboard box. Safe to run over. A computer may jam on the brakes, or may run over it. What if theres an open suitcase in the road, with a baby in it. The computer sees an object, but clearly doesnt know the object in the object is a baby. A human knows at all costs that they need to avoid this object. A computer driver car may decide to just run over it anyway. Dealing with object in the road is still a major hurdle. Computer may see an object yards away, but if its in the middle of the road, they still have to deal with avoiding it just like a human would.

A self driving car will do whatever its programmed so far to do. That's why, once they hit they streets, they will still be in test mode because that's when you come across the millions of different scenarios that a computer driver may face. And a computer driver cars needs to 100% be able to handle any situation thrown its away, although of course not all 100% possible situations are programmed into the computer because...theres infinite different scenarios.

Most likely it will take more time just because they need to try to send the cars thru most scenarios as possible before letting them loose on open road.

And computers aren't perfect. Most people seem to be mislead that just because a computer is driving, no accidents can happen,or even possibll. smh. Computers can glitch. And again,the computer needs to be programmed to handle any scenario. For the most part the computer should be able to drive the car fine. But theres always situations where you have to do things a lil differently. But with human perception, its easy to accomplish. For a computer, not always the case,if its not programmed to do so

But lastly, a self driving car also has to deal with human drivers. What does a self driving car do when a driver swerves in their lane? when a human goes thru the intersection when its the self driving car's turn? what does it do when a car cuts it off? The trick is to avoid getting into an accident with the human driving badly, WITHOUT affecting other cars on the road that have nothing to do with the situation. Like if somebody jumps in/swerves in your lane, or if a engine falls off a truck(which with human perception we could see the engine already dangling on the truck so we would have got from behind it,but the self driving car wouldnt notice the engine until it fell into the road and became an object), the only way to avoid a crash is to go into somebody else's lane,or jam on breaks to a complete stop on the highway, or just accept a crash. Scenarios like these is why its still more than a decade away for a fully non-human car to be on the road


----------



## ubershiza

I wonder how their going to spin this one so it convinces drivers they are going to greatly benefit from the introduction of these cars. So the idea is, uber contracts with Tesla or some other company who produces and maintains the cars so uber can still remain an app not a taxi company. The city loses revenue from less licenses issued, drivers get less work and uber gets more profits. Nice to know they really care about their partners.


----------



## hangarcat

Simon said:


> The car can self drive .. it has the tech to do it it's just Tesla is only releasing a partial autonomous driving update. They will eventually release another update which will allow you to call your car from its parking spot. Quit doubting.


OK


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Simon said:


> The car can self drive .. it has the tech to do it it's just Tesla is only releasing a partial autonomous driving update. They will eventually release another update which will allow you to call your car from its parking spot. Quit doubting.


I'm not a betting man, but am ready to wager that Tesla will NOT for the foreseeable future, actually introduce a car where the driver can take his hands off the wheel. Too much potential liability right there. I'd write off their claims as mostly marketing hype.


----------



## MikeB

ubershiza said:


> I wonder how their going to spin this one so it convinces drivers they are going to greatly benefit from the introduction of these cars. So the idea is, uber contracts with Tesla or some other company who produces and maintains the cars so uber can still remain an app not a taxi company. Nice to know they really care about their partners.


In the typical Uber's spirit of utter lie and deception demonstrated by it's famous spin on fare cuts by announcing to drivers the "good news" of their incomes to increase due to increased demand, Uber would probably going to come up with a non-stop spamming of all their drivers' cellphone numbers and email addresses database with a happy-go-lucky messages converting "partners" into pax with an advantage of extra points on the Monument rewards.


----------



## Simon

Jeremy Joe said:


> I'm not a betting man, but am ready to wager that Tesla will NOT for the foreseeable future, actually introduce a car where the driver can take his hands off the wheel. Too much potential liability right there. I'd write off their claims as mostly marketing hype.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6961922


----------



## Lidman

I think the self operating cars will be operated by Dr Sheldon Cooper.


----------



## uberThere

moop said:


> I just finished my masters level 2 in new information systems (studying probabalistic computing, chemical computing some, and high performance computing). I may dive into a phd researching chemical computers using bz reactions. I'm currently doing a research internship at my lap to add shape recognition and machine learning to a system that analyzes images of embryos and locates cells within the images and determines their lineage for biologists (basically bioinformatics). Here's a vid of bz reactions btw, they are very cool and allow for the creation of nand-gates by bouncing the reaction waves off each other in certain ways:
> 
> 
> 
> .


This is the first I've seen for this type of using biological computing, but I've been out of the research for a few years. We had a DNA computing lab, but it was quite bit different from this, as it was formulating logical statements and having them solved by nucleotides. The research I know that did it said it was a lot of prep time in the lab, and then the sequences formed overnight. Not exactly exciting.


----------



## RamzFanz

Bart McCoy said:


> Self driving cars are safer than people as a whole.
> But a good driver can be better than a computer, because they have perception.
> 
> The computer see's objects,but they dont necessarilty know what it is. Like if there was a tire in the road it wouldnt know the different between a tire, or an object shaped like a tire. A human has perception to tell the difference. Perception that can be used to make the best decision based on what exactly the object is they are coming up on.
> 
> Basically the computer doesnt exactly define what the object is,it normally just tries to avoid it,since object in its path is a no no. But a human can tell if its safer to simply run over an object, rather than jamming on the brakes,or swerving,making it dangerous for the cars behind them,like a self driving car might do. There could be a huge 6feet by feet by 1 inch object in the road,a computer will see it as an object. It doesnt know that its steel. It doesnt know that its made of cardboard. A human's perception see its just a cardboard box. Safe to run over. A computer may jam on the brakes, or may run over it. What if theres an open suitcase in the road, with a baby in it. The computer sees an object, but clearly doesnt know the object in the object is a baby. A human knows at all costs that they need to avoid this object. A computer driver car may decide to just run over it anyway. Dealing with object in the road is still a major hurdle. Computer may see an object yards away, but if its in the middle of the road, they still have to deal with avoiding it just like a human would.
> 
> A self driving car will do whatever its programmed so far to do. That's why, once they hit they streets, they will still be in test mode because that's when you come across the millions of different scenarios that a computer driver may face. And a computer driver cars needs to 100% be able to handle any situation thrown its away, although of course not all 100% possible situations are programmed into the computer because...theres infinite different scenarios.
> 
> Most likely it will take more time just because they need to try to send the cars thru most scenarios as possible before letting them loose on open road.
> 
> And computers aren't perfect. Most people seem to be mislead that just because a computer is driving, no accidents can happen,or even possibll. smh. Computers can glitch. And again,the computer needs to be programmed to handle any scenario. For the most part the computer should be able to drive the car fine. But theres always situations where you have to do things a lil differently. But with human perception, its easy to accomplish. For a computer, not always the case,if its not programmed to do so
> 
> But lastly, a self driving car also has to deal with human drivers. What does a self driving car do when a driver swerves in their lane? when a human goes thru the intersection when its the self driving car's turn? what does it do when a car cuts it off? The trick is to avoid getting into an accident with the human driving badly, WITHOUT affecting other cars on the road that have nothing to do with the situation. Like if somebody jumps in/swerves in your lane, or if a engine falls off a truck(which with human perception we could see the engine already dangling on the truck so we would have got from behind it,but the self driving car wouldnt notice the engine until it fell into the road and became an object), the only way to avoid a crash is to go into somebody else's lane,or jam on breaks to a complete stop on the highway, or just accept a crash. Scenarios like these is why its still more than a decade away for a fully non-human car to be on the road


Well, that's a lot. It's an interesting discussion. I think the "a computer driver cars needs to 100% be able to handle any situation thrown its away" is the point that most people make that I don't agree with. People can't handle 100% of what is thrown their way, far from it. 30,000 deaths a year in the US. If self-driving cars reduced that to 10,000, would it not be the better option?

I keep getting asked about babies in the road. I've never seen a baby in the road myself. Here in my town I have heard of two incidents where parents have run over their toddlers backing out. One years ago and one yesterday. Those shouldn't happen with self driving cars with 360 degree vision and no blind spots. You think they can't tell the difference between a suitcase and a baby? They have infrared cameras. This allows them to know what is possibly alive vs inanimate. How about a CLOSED suitcase with a baby? YOU would run it over while the self-driving car would avoid it. That deer in the woods at the edge of the road? It can see it when you can't. They are using infrared, radar, 360 degree cameras, lasers, and a web of communication.

Not only that, but every car for miles around will now know about the baby in the road or the deer on the side because they are going to be able to communicate with each other. Ever watch those videos where car after car after bus slides down an icy hill? Not with self-driving because they will know weather conditions and they will know what other cars are experiencing.

I don't see an example in your post where the self-driving car couldn't react better than a human. About to go over the hill and have the sun in your eyes where there is stopped traffic? The self-driving car isn't messing with the visor or grabbing sunglasses, it already knows there is stopped traffic.

The real issue you present which is the big roadblock is dealing with human drivers. They are erratic and don't act logically. As long as they are on the road it will be less safe and there will be accidents. The transition period will be the hardest. Once they are all self driving, it should be far far safer. When the self-driving car needs to swerve, all the other cars KNOW it needs to swerve and give it the space it needs far faster than humans could.

Imagine a car with no distractions, never mad or tired or drunk, far superior knowledge of what's going on around it, and no teenage years learning to drive.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

RamzFanz said:


> ....They have infrared cameras. ....They are using infrared, radar, 360 degree cameras, lasers, and a web of communication.


Problem will be reliablility. For cars to drive themselves with no human input, they'll need all that you mentioned above and the ability to communicate with other cars - where it gets challenging is getting the technology to all work seamlessly and reliably.

Remember, cars need to work just as well in Arizona (110 degrees heat) as in North Dakota (-20). The hardware (lasers, radar, heat sensing infrared cameras) has to be durable despite constantly being subjected to the jarring of the road and potholes. Not to mention rain, ice and snow. As if that wasn't enough, the software cannot afford to freeze either - no, not even for three seconds as it could mean death for the car's occupants.

So unlike when the app on your phone freezes or GPS loses signal - wherein all you need to do is wait and reboot and things are back to normal again - in case the car's software freezes while on the Interstate, it's gonna mean death and your family needs to start planning your funeral. Pretty tall order, it's gonna be, getting the hardware and software to work seamlessly nonstop, and then getting people to bet their life on it.


----------



## Bart McCoy

RamzFanz said:


> I don't see an example in your post where the self-driving car couldn't react better than a human. About to go over the hill and have the sun in your eyes where there is stopped traffic? The self-driving car isn't messing with the visor or grabbing sunglasses, it already knows there is stopped traffic.
> 
> The real issue you present which is the big roadblock is dealing with human drivers. They are erratic and don't act logically. As long as they are on the road it will be less safe and there will be accidents. The transition period will be the hardest. Once they are all self driving, it should be far far safer. When the self-driving car needs to swerve, all the other cars KNOW it needs to swerve and give it the space it needs far faster than humans could.


Well again, perception goes to the human driver
not making mistakes goes to the computer driver, however,it really needs good perception to not make mistakes....

But so I ask you, why arent driverless cars a normal everyday sighting yet since computer drivers can easily react better than a human? Whats the hold up?


----------



## Sydney Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> Self driving cars are safer than people as a whole.
> But a good driver can be better than a computer, because they have perception.
> 
> The computer see's objects,but they dont necessarilty know what it is. Like if there was a tire in the road it wouldnt know the different between a tire, or an object shaped like a tire. A human has perception to tell the difference. Perception that can be used to make the best decision based on what exactly the object is they are coming up on.
> 
> Basically the computer doesnt exactly define what the object is,it normally just tries to avoid it,since object in its path is a no no. But a human can tell if its safer to simply run over an object, rather than jamming on the brakes,or swerving,making it dangerous for the cars behind them,like a self driving car might do. There could be a huge 6feet by feet by 1 inch object in the road,a computer will see it as an object. It doesnt know that its steel. It doesnt know that its made of cardboard. A human's perception see its just a cardboard box. Safe to run over. A computer may jam on the brakes, or may run over it. What if theres an open suitcase in the road, with a baby in it. The computer sees an object, but clearly doesnt know the object in the object is a baby. A human knows at all costs that they need to avoid this object. A computer driver car may decide to just run over it anyway. Dealing with object in the road is still a major hurdle. Computer may see an object yards away, but if its in the middle of the road, they still have to deal with avoiding it just like a human would.
> 
> A self driving car will do whatever its programmed so far to do. That's why, once they hit they streets, they will still be in test mode because that's when you come across the millions of different scenarios that a computer driver may face. And a computer driver cars needs to 100% be able to handle any situation thrown its away, although of course not all 100% possible situations are programmed into the computer because...theres infinite different scenarios.
> 
> Most likely it will take more time just because they need to try to send the cars thru most scenarios as possible before letting them loose on open road.
> 
> And computers aren't perfect. Most people seem to be mislead that just because a computer is driving, no accidents can happen,or even possibll. smh. Computers can glitch. And again,the computer needs to be programmed to handle any scenario. For the most part the computer should be able to drive the car fine. But theres always situations where you have to do things a lil differently. But with human perception, its easy to accomplish. For a computer, not always the case,if its not programmed to do so
> 
> But lastly, a self driving car also has to deal with human drivers. What does a self driving car do when a driver swerves in their lane? when a human goes thru the intersection when its the self driving car's turn? what does it do when a car cuts it off? The trick is to avoid getting into an accident with the human driving badly, WITHOUT affecting other cars on the road that have nothing to do with the situation. Like if somebody jumps in/swerves in your lane, or if a engine falls off a truck(which with human perception we could see the engine already dangling on the truck so we would have got from behind it,but the self driving car wouldnt notice the engine until it fell into the road and became an object), the only way to avoid a crash is to go into somebody else's lane,or jam on breaks to a complete stop on the highway, or just accept a crash. Scenarios like these is why its still more than a decade away for a fully non-human car to be on the road


Agree with most you say Bart about driverless cars. Just the ability to upload a fix for any scenario that stumps them and needs operator involvement to the whole fleet will see usability accelerate.

The perception issue will also be sorted with the use of increasingly sophisticated sensors. There will be infrared sensors that will recognise the difference between the heat of an exhaust pipe and a child lying in a street. Sonar will zero in on obstacles and check the object density and risk to the car.

Recorded images of driven cars breaching road rules will be uploaded to enforcement agencies to act on. Facial recognition will allow the cars to scan and identify any wanted felons, tag their location and send report back to police. If that car has a rider, another is dispatched to the site to track and update Police on location.

Driverless cars ARE NOT about transport. Its all about Government control and tracking of everyone's movements. Government will HAPPILY handover business monopolies to a new technology player, if that player gives Government all information control.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Sydney Uber said:


> Agree with most you say Bart about driverless cars. Just the ability to upload a fix for any scenario that stumps them and needs operator involvement to the whole fleet will see usability accelerate.
> 
> The perception issue will also be sorted with the use of increasingly sophisticated sensors. There will be infrared sensors that will recognise the difference between the heat of an exhaust pipe and a child lying in a street. Sonar will zero in on obstacles and check the object density and risk to the car.
> 
> Recorded images of driven cars breaching road rules will be uploaded to enforcement agencies to act on. Facial recognition will allow the cars to scan and identify any wanted felons, tag their location and send report back to police. If that car has a rider, another is dispatched to the site to track and update Police on location.
> 
> Driverless cars ARE NOT about transport. Its all about Government control and tracking of everyone's movements. Government will HAPPILY handover business monopolies to a new technology player, if that player gives Government all information control.


Well yeah I'm with you, I'll all be figured out, I just believe we are still a long way off though.
Certainly longer than the misleading "Telsa will have driverless cars in 3 months" ahahah
And when they are common, add another decade to that for Uber to figure how computers are supposed to find pax to pick up.

Easy if the pickup is at a resident's single family,detached home, just pull up in the driveway....
Now how about at a Dallas Cowboys football game,with no stopping zones,and 122 other people have called driverless Ubers to the same spot?

When you Uber, how many times did you need to call or text the pax to figure out exactly where they were at?


----------



## cybertec69

Jeeves said:


> Some Teslas Will Be Able To Drive Themselves In Just 3 Months
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/tesla-driverless-car_n_6904062.html


And you believe all this crap, this is only to prop up their stock, what is wrong with people nowadays, self driving cars, really, LOL. What city and state would allow such insanity.


----------



## Jeeves

For some people it's more comfortable to live in the past.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

cybertec69 said:


> And you believe all this crap, this is only to prop up their stock, what is wrong with people nowadays, self driving cars, really, LOL. What city and state would allow such insanity.


What? Prop up their stock? What are you saying?

Funny thing is, as BS as Tesla's stock price is, their market cap is still less than Uber's reported "value" of $40 billion.


----------



## cybertec69

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> What? Prop up their stock? What are you saying?
> 
> Funny thing is, as BS as Tesla's stock price is, their market cap is still less than Uber's reported "value" of $40 billion.


There will be NO self driving cars on US roads, period. These silicon Valley turds think everything they touch will turn to gold and will be gospel "Google Glass anyone", maybe if they leave their little fairy tale campuses and their cubicles, and go out to the real world, maybe then they will understand. Self driving cars, LOL, maybe in Disney World resort, and I said maybe.


----------



## Simon

Lol... wow I can't get over the fierce denial here. They are coming and anyone who is a driver as their career will be obsolete and forced to aquire a different skill. 

Deny to your demise.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

The Uber model won't work with self driving cars. The Ubermodel is based on screwing over the driver. With a self driving car, there's no driver to screw over.

If Uber owns the car, they have to provide insurance, maintenance, etc. They can't pass those costs onto their "partners".


----------



## cybertec69

I want to see a self driving car try to make a left or right turn in NYC, since pedestrians don't stop, it will be just sitting there all day, and the pax sitting in the back would lose his/her mind.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> Well yeah I'm with you, I'll all be figured out, I just believe we are still a long way off though.
> Certainly longer than the misleading "Telsa will have driverless cars in 3 months" ahahah
> And when they are common, add another decade to that for Uber to figure how computers are supposed to find pax to pick up.
> 
> Easy if the pickup is at a resident's single family,detached home, just pull up in the driveway....
> Now how about at a Dallas Cowboys football game,with no stopping zones,and 122 other people have called driverless Ubers to the same spot?
> 
> When you Uber, how many times did you need to call or text the pax to figure out exactly where they were at?


They are real issues today Bart. I'm no crystal ball gazer but make an opinion from what I've read in places. Two of the world's most conservative car companies Mercedes Benz and Volvo say they will have driverless cars totally ready to roll by 2021 & 2023.

In regards to Uber's specific operational requirements they'll put the onus on the rider.

The robot will arrive at the ping, an updated rider location will be generated and the riders bluetooth will be activated. (Bluetooth is now directional up to 50m). A countdown plus on screen prompts as to where the waiting robot is will be the start of the contract.

If the rider doesn't present to the robot for fingerprint or facial recognition within 5 minutes they'll be asked on the app screen: "Would you like to cancel request or begin trip - charges apply".

No answer gets a double cancelled fee.

That will train them.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Sydney Uber said:


> They are real issues today Bart. I'm no crystal ball gazer but make an opinion from what I've read in places. Two of the world's most conservative car companies Mercedes Benz and Volvo say they will have driverless cars totally ready to roll by 2021 & 2023.
> 
> In regards to Uber's specific operational requirements they'll put the onus on the rider.
> 
> The robot will arrive at the ping, an updated rider location will be generated and the riders bluetooth will be activated. (Bluetooth is now directional up to 50m). A countdown plus on screen prompts as to where the waiting robot is will be the start of the contract.
> 
> If the rider doesn't present to the robot for fingerprint or facial recognition within 5 minutes they'll be asked on the app screen: "Would you like to cancel request or begin trip - charges apply".
> 
> No answer gets a double cancelled fee.
> 
> That will train them.


[email protected] cancelled fee
they'll be a lot of cancels then
because most pax lolligag getting to the car right now


----------



## Sydney Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> [email protected] cancelled fee
> they'll be a lot of cancels then
> because most pax lolligag getting to the car right now


Whatever works for Uber!!


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Sydney Uber said:


> Two of the world's most conservative car companies Mercedes Benz and Volvo say they will have driverless cars totally ready to roll by 2021 & 2023.


Total lack of any critical reasoning skills on the part of anybody who actually believes that nonsense.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Simon said:


> Lol... wow I can't get over the fierce denial here. They are coming and anyone who is a driver as their career will be obsolete and forced to aquire a different skill.
> 
> Deny to your demise.


My friend, Google cannot even invent a simple ****ing thermostat that works reliably without giving out false alarms ...think Nest...and to think that in a few short years, they are gonna be able to invent a safe and reliable driverless car , where one software glitch is all it takes to kill the occupants, is well, just laughable.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Sydney Uber said:


> ....The robot will arrive at the ping, an updated rider location will be generated and the riders bluetooth will be activated. (Bluetooth is now directional up to 50m). A countdown plus on screen prompts as to where the waiting robot is will be the start of the contract.
> 
> If the rider doesn't present to the robot for fingerprint or facial recognition ......
> 
> ......................The perception issue will also be sorted with the use of increasingly sophisticated sensors. There will be infrared sensors that will recognise the difference between the heat of an exhaust pipe and a child lying in a street. Sonar will zero in on obstacles and check the object density and risk to the car.
> 
> Recorded images of driven cars breaching road rules will be uploaded to enforcement agencies to act on. Facial recognition will allow the cars to scan and identify any wanted felons, tag their location and send report back to police. If that car has a rider, another is dispatched to the site to track and update Police on location.


Gosh, how many Hollywood movies you watch?

This is all science fiction that will take many many decades to become reality


----------



## Sydney Uber

Jeremy Joe said:


> Gosh, how many Hollywood movies you watch?
> 
> This is all science fiction that will take many many decades to become reality


It took 3-4 decades to get from a V2 rocket to putting a man in space. Without the use of powerful computer aided design and cheap Indian programmers.

Like I said, listen to what 2 of the most conservative car manufacturers say, 6-8 yrs. I'm not making this stuff up,

I'm too busy to get to movies but I have clients that control driverless multi-million dollar mining equipment from their laptops wherever they are.

Met a guy from Yamaha selling drones to police departments around the world. Theyre fitted with automatic number plate recognition for enforcement of expired registration and outstanding fines. They can hover for 45-60 minutes. Once they get a hit they can tail the car till low on power updating responding cars of vehicle location.

Face recognition from a moving platform is about 3 yrs away he reckons.


----------



## Simon

I'm in awe at the stupidity in this thread. 

In the uber scenario

The self driving cars will be owned by private companies who will insure and maintain them. Picture a guy in a garage reading a paper and bam an alert pops up on his phone or whatever alerting him to the issue with the vehicle. He makes the choice to recall it or if worse go retrieve iT Uber would still provide the same service just built into the cars. Dumass

In 1 year if you own a tesla you will be able to let the wheel go and the car WILL self drive. It exists and will release via update to tesla NEXT YEAR.

The legislation on wether it's illegal or not will go the way of uber.. throw it out there and see what happens. Agree or not it exists and will be coming. 

I plan on getting the caddilac with super cruise as soon as it releases. Freaked google it... Quit talking out of your asses. Dumasses.


----------



## Jeeves

Simon said:


> I'm in awe at the stupidity in this thread.
> 
> In the uber scenario
> 
> The self driving cars will be owned by private companies who will insure and maintain them. Picture a guy in a garage reading a paper and bam an alert pops up on his phone or whatever alerting him to the issue with the vehicle. He makes the choice to recall it or if worse go retrieve iT Uber would still provide the same service just built into the cars. Dumass
> 
> In 1 year if you own a tesla you will be able to let the wheel go and the car WILL self drive. It exists and will release via update to tesla NEXT YEAR.
> 
> The legislation on wether it's illegal or not will go the way of uber.. throw it out there and see what happens. Agree or not it exists and will be coming.
> 
> I plan on getting the caddilac with super cruise as soon as it releases. Freaked google it... Quit talking out of your asses. Dumasses.


Name-calling doesn't help prove your case.

Time will tell.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Jeeves said:


> Some Teslas Will Be Able To Drive Themselves In Just 3 Months
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/tesla-driverless-car_n_6904062.html


If I ever walk into a bar and there is a robot serving me a drink, Im' outta there. For the same reason, no driver, I'm outta there.

I don't care if it's safe, there's this thing called humanity, human interaction is needed for some service industries ( but not all of course, like a laundromat ).

There's a ton of things that can happen where a human is needed that no programmer thought of when they programmed the thing.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> Your main error is you are giving examples of expensive technology that didn't have a market. The Internet was useless to people before affordable personal computers. We COULD have built bases on the moon, it wasn't a good value as the shuttle was already in the works for LEO development. Cell phones were just too expensive. I had a buddy in the 90s that would tell anyone who listened that the Internet was a fad. You are now that guy.
> 
> Self driving cars aren't as safe as people, they are far safer. The toddler would be run over by a human far more often than a self driving car that can see everywhere at once with multiple systems. Not only can the car detect the toddler, it can instantly communicate that information with all of the surrounding cars.
> 
> Lawsuits are based on negligence, not accidents. These companies have long ago weighed the profit to lawsuit risk and insurance cost to protect them.
> 
> Self driving cars are ALREADY on the road. The technology already exists and much of it is off the shelf. It's not expensive. They will be the most sold type of car by the middle of the next decade and probably required in many areas not too long after once people like yourself wake up to how many lives will have been saved.


 Human interaction is desireable for some service industries even though a robot could do the job. It will boil down to not whether or not it's doable, but whether or not people will want it. They tried digitizing car speedometers, they tried it a long time ago, but people didn't want it, they wanted the analog and that is why cars still have analog dials on their dashboards.

There are some things that technology will never replace, though they could. There are some things that technology exists right along side, such as chairs that massage, but they are not putting masseuses/eurs out of business. They can totally fly planes without humans, yet they haven't fired any pilots that I know of, lately.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Jeremy Joe said:


> You think we'll see them before that? I think we won't see them for another 40 years at least.
> 
> And I'm talking about true driverless cars, meaning cars that can transport blind people around.
> 
> You see, technology is not as smart as you think. Too many variables. How will sensors function in the snow? What if ice freezes over them while driving? What if the software freezes while on the highway while the car is transporting a blind passenger? Here we are in 2015 and yet haven't even figured out a way to make the auto correct spell check work correctly on our cell phone while typing and this is far easier than developing fool proof driverless cars.
> 
> We often think the Internet came around in the mid-to-late 90s, right?
> 
> Well, wrong.
> It was invented way back in the 1960s. Check wikipedia if you don't believe me. It took over 30 years to go mainstream - it will be more difficult with driverless cars and given how many lives are at stake.
> 
> To give another example, my parents were telling me how in 1969 when man first landed on the moon, there was talk that in another 5 years, man would be setting up colonies on the moon, and how by a decade later, man would have conquered Mars. Well, almost 50 years have passed and none of that has happened.
> 
> In the same way, when you consider liabilities and risks involved in true driverless cars, for it to go mainstream, won't happen for another 40 years or longer. If you believe otherwise, you're just falling prey to the marketing hype.


The internet was invented in the 60s, okay,, but the world wide web ( hypertext markup etc ) came later, right? 
Most people when you say "internet" , they think of the web.

P


----------



## Bart McCoy

Simon said:


> I'm in awe at the stupidity in this thread.
> 
> In the uber scenario
> 
> The self driving cars will be owned by private companies who will insure and maintain them. Picture a guy in a garage reading a paper and bam an alert pops up on his phone or whatever alerting him to the issue with the vehicle. He makes the choice to recall it or if worse go retrieve iT Uber would still provide the same service just built into the cars. Dumass
> 
> In 1 year if you own a tesla you will be able to let the wheel go and the car WILL self drive. It exists and will release via update to tesla NEXT YEAR.
> 
> The legislation on wether it's illegal or not will go the way of uber.. throw it out there and see what happens. Agree or not it exists and will be coming.
> 
> I plan on getting the caddilac with super cruise as soon as it releases. Freaked google it... Quit talking out of your asses. Dumasses.


since you calling people stupid and dumassess, guess that reenforces what you are saying is the truth, smh

But nobody disagreed its coming, we all now its coming. At issue is TIME,which of course you cant pinpoint. Definitely wont be 3 month. And telsa's update next year you mention and the Super cruise is still a far cry from having fully autonomous cars on the road


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Oscar Levant said:


> Human interaction is desireable for some service industries even though a robot could do the job. It will boil down to not whether or not it's doable, but whether or not people will want it. They tried digitizing car speedometers, they tried it a long time ago, but people didn't want it, they wanted the analog and that is why cars still have analog dials on their dashboards.
> 
> There are some things that technology will never replace, though they could. There are some things that technology exists right along side, such as chairs that massage, but they are not putting masseuses/eurs out of business. *They can totally fly planes without humans, yet they haven't fired any pilots that I know of, lately.*


After the recent GermanWings incident, I can see a push to eliminate the human control of airliners.


----------



## Bart McCoy

I don't know of any commercial planes that fly without human pilots. That will be longer than it takes Uber to be fully have driverless cars


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Oscar Levant said:


> They can totally fly planes without humans, yet they haven't fired any pilots that I know of, lately.


Are you referring to drones? or to autopilot in commercial flights?

Drones (like the ones costing millions of dollars apiece, that the US Army uses to conduct surveillance in Afghanistan & Iraq) aren't driverless in a true sense. They are basically remote controlled. Big difference. Instead of sitting in the cockpit, they install hi-def cameras in the pilot's seat, and the pilot sits on the ground in front of the video screens and flies them, for safety and to save on fuel for longer flying time.

Autopilot is glorified cruise control. Nothing more. All it does is keep the airspeed and altitude constant. If the plane needs to fly around say thunderstorms then pilots do it manually. Same with when they take off and land.

There has never been, not even once in history, a plane that has, in a true sense, ever flown without human pilots, ever.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> After the recent GermanWings incident, I can see a push to eliminate the human control of airliners.


nah, won't happen. there are just two plane manufacturers Boeing and Airbus, neither of them will make claims of trying to eliminate pilots, because their customers are not the general public but the airliners, that are too smart to get fooled by that crap.

car companies are creating all this BS hype about driverless cars, as it provides impressive free marketing for them, makes their brand sound cool and appealing, pleases investors and pushes up their stock price.

All these CEOs who claim driverless cars are gonna go mainstream in 5-10 years know fully well this ain't gonna happen, and as soon as the cameras turn away, they must be chuckling at the stupidity of the people who actually believe them.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Ubermon said:


> I suggest you look into the recent Google acquisition "DeepMind". There's a reason Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawkings, etc have recently been making statements of alarm over the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.


pal, let's talk about artificial intelligence after we at least get spell check on the cell phone to work accurately. Let's chill till then.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Oscar Levant said:


> If I ever walk into a bar and there is a robot serving me a drink, Im' outta there. For the same reason, no driver, I'm outta there.
> 
> I don't care if it's safe, there's this thing called humanity, human interaction is needed for some service industries ( but not all of course, like a laundromat ).
> 
> There's a ton of things that can happen where a human is needed that no programmer thought of when they programmed the thing.


You thrill-seeker Oscar!

Have you seen some Cabbies and Uber drivers who have a closer affinity to driving a horse drawn cart than a modern motor car.

It will be a huge leap of faith, but after about 5 years of actual on road development, driverless cars will provide a superior, safer, cheaper taxi ride.

If you want human interaction you'll need to pay close to double and wait for a Chauffeur


----------



## Oscar Levant

Sydney Uber said:


> You thrill-seeker Oscar!
> 
> Have you seen some Cabbies and Uber drivers who have a closer affinity to driving a horse drawn cart than a modern motor car.
> 
> It will be a huge leap of faith, but after about 5 years of actual on road development, driverless cars will provide a superior, safer, cheaper taxi ride.
> 
> If you want human interaction you'll need to pay close to double and wait for a Chauffeur


It will rise and fall on one concept, will people want it?. People want to driver their cars, period. how you gonna go against that? On taxis, or Ubers, It will be a curiosity, just as the segue was a curiosity but it was marketed as a revolutionary mode of inner city transportation, and I don't see many segues downtown, I mean, like zero, it flopped overall, so I think driverless taxis/ubers will flop, as well, so that's my prediction. But, no one knows until it's tried.


----------



## Oscar Levant

About every fourth trip has a bogus or ambigous addy, how is a robot going to square with that? I'll get an addy on a major thoroughfaire and there is nothing there but sidewalks and hedges. The actually addy was a block over. how is a robot going to square with that? There's a zillion little things that come up that no programmer is going to predict. As soon as customers realize the shortfalls of these things, they are going to want conventional Ubers and taxis. An Uber pulls up, and there is no where to park, the only possible solution is to double park, so are Ubers going to double park, violating the law? A real driver will just watch for cops and circle if they see one, is a driverless car going to do that? And I'm just getting started. I'm driving up the freeway, my rides in back, and the Uber navigator says to get of at the Blah blah exit, one full mile past the destination for which there is a closer exit ( this happened to me today ), I just happened to know where the restaurant was and took the closer exit. The navigator would have overcharged my rider by about two miles.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Simon said:


> I'm in awe at the stupidity in this thread.
> 
> In the uber scenario
> 
> The self driving cars will be owned by private companies who will insure and maintain them. Picture a guy in a garage reading a paper and bam an alert pops up on his phone or whatever alerting him to the issue with the vehicle. He makes the choice to recall it or if worse go retrieve iT Uber would still provide the same service just built into the cars. Dumass
> 
> In 1 year if you own a tesla you will be able to let the wheel go and the car WILL self drive. It exists and will release via update to tesla NEXT YEAR.
> 
> The legislation on wether it's illegal or not will go the way of uber.. throw it out there and see what happens. Agree or not it exists and will be coming.
> 
> I plan on getting the caddilac with super cruise as soon as it releases. Freaked google it... Quit talking out of your asses. Dumasses.


but that's more like auto pilot -- there still is a driver, YOU. not the same thing as climbing into an Uber with no driver.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Simon said:


> Lol... wow I can't get over the fierce denial here. They are coming and anyone who is a driver as their career will be obsolete and forced to aquire a different skill.
> 
> Deny to your demise.


about every third ride, I clean out the car, sweep it, vacuum it, etc. Cars get dirty quickly. How is a robot doing to clean the car?


----------



## Bart McCoy

the thing about true driverless cars, are you going to have to know the address of every place?
like I want to run to the local 7-11 or Walmart, I easily know how to get there, but I have no clue the actual address
And theres this park where they let you roam your dogs: i dont have the address, dont even know the name of the park, but I know how to get there with my eyes closed
how do u tell the car to "go for a stroll" ??


----------



## moop

uberThere said:


> This is the first I've seen for this type of using biological computing, but I've been out of the research for a few years. We had a DNA computing lab, but it was quite bit different from this, as it was formulating logical statements and having them solved by nucleotides. The research I know that did it said it was a lot of prep time in the lab, and then the sequences formed overnight. Not exactly exciting.


I prefer to call it chemical computing, since the elements of the computer in a chemical computer don't necessarily have to be organic. For example, the nucleotide computing would be an example of using a chemical reaction network as a language. I just read a paper for one of my classes, proving that this style of computing has some serious issues with common problems. For example, while a chemical reaction network can calculate the existence of a chemical in the reactor in a parallel method (where there is a reaction between two chemicals where one is a fuel chemical, ie: can be increased or decreased arbitrarily without modifying the result of the calculation). However, it cannot count the number of molecules of a chemical in a parallel manner, meaning that this basic problem causes a situation where you have to rely on two limited concentration reactants to fully react in order to get a proper answer (hence having to wait all night for a nucleotide calculation to finish). While the nucleotide example is an example of using a chemical reaction network as a language, that's just one of the approaches I've heard of for chemical computers. The one I mentioned earlier is called a bz-computer, and uses the wave properties of the chemical reaction I linked a video of to create logic gates. From what I understand, this style of chemical computing is much more rapid and already shows some serious promise. They've already been able to make chemical processors that can do stuff like compute voronoi diagrams!

These are some nice pdfs about chemical computing:
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/fet-proactive/chemit-02_en.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.3168.pdf


----------



## uberThere

moop said:


> I prefer to call it chemical computing, since the elements of the computer in a chemical computer don't necessarily have to be organic. For example, the nucleotide computing would be an example of using a chemical reaction network as a language. I just read a paper for one of my classes, proving that this style of computing has some serious issues with common problems. For example, while a chemical reaction network can calculate the existence of a chemical in the reactor in a parallel method (where there is a reaction between two chemicals where one is a fuel chemical, ie: can be increased or decreased arbitrarily without modifying the result of the calculation). However, it cannot count the number of molecules of a chemical in a parallel manner, meaning that this basic problem causes a situation where you have to rely on two limited concentration reactants to fully react in order to get a proper answer (hence having to wait all night for a nucleotide calculation to finish). While the nucleotide example is an example of using a chemical reaction network as a language, that's just one of the approaches I've heard of for chemical computers. The one I mentioned earlier is called a bz-computer, and uses the wave properties of the chemical reaction I linked a video of to create logic gates. From what I understand, this style of chemical computing is much more rapid and already shows some serious promise. They've already been able to make chemical processors that can do stuff like compute voronoi diagrams!
> 
> These are some nice pdfs about chemical computing:
> ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/fet-proactive/chemit-02_en.pdf
> 
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.3168.pdf


Thanks for the info, I will definitely give this a read. It does seem that bz-computers will be quicker as DNA computer is rather slow due to the bonding process. I'm not familiar enough to comment on whether there are issues with it being able to fully interact, but from what I remember from my organic chemistry, this is likely an issue. Unlike inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry is about what happens, and not how much of a substance is actually involved.

What should be interesting is going back down to the low levels of computing for me. I used to program FPGA chips, and that was all NAND gates, but it was a long time ago.


----------



## RamzFanz

Jeremy Joe said:


> Problem will be reliablility. For cars to drive themselves with no human input, they'll need all that you mentioned above and the ability to communicate with other cars - where it gets challenging is getting the technology to all work seamlessly and reliably.
> 
> Remember, cars need to work just as well in Arizona (110 degrees heat) as in North Dakota (-20). The hardware (lasers, radar, heat sensing infrared cameras) has to be durable despite constantly being subjected to the jarring of the road and potholes. Not to mention rain, ice and snow. As if that wasn't enough, the software cannot afford to freeze either - no, not even for three seconds as it could mean death for the car's occupants.
> 
> So unlike when the app on your phone freezes or GPS loses signal - wherein all you need to do is wait and reboot and things are back to normal again - in case the car's software freezes while on the Interstate, it's gonna mean death and your family needs to start planning your funeral. Pretty tall order, it's gonna be, getting the hardware and software to work seamlessly nonstop, and then getting people to bet their life on it.


True. The sensors will need to be very robust and reliable in weather. Of course, with radar and thermal imaging, he car can actually see better than humans in foul weather.

The trick in both using sensors and software is redundancy. If one system fails, it can be handed off to another. When an app fails, that doesn't happen. The assumption that a failure is automatically an accident isn't accurate.

I'm not saying there aren't challenges but the tech is more advanced than many people seem to think. Some trains have been run driverless since the 1980s.

Delphi just drove 3,400 miles, highway and city, and driverless 99.9% of the trip.


----------



## RamzFanz

Bart McCoy said:


> Well again, perception goes to the human driver
> not making mistakes goes to the computer driver, however,it really needs good perception to not make mistakes....
> 
> But so I ask you, why arent driverless cars a normal everyday sighting yet since computer drivers can easily react better than a human? Whats the hold up?


The hold up? Trains started going driverless in the 80's. It's just a natural progression. Obviously, proof of concept is a huge hurtle because of the risks involved. What most convinces me are the major players all working on models and the live testing going on right now. If it were just car companies, I wouldn't expect a quick finished product, but Apple, Delphi, and Google are not dragging their feet.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> Human interaction is desireable for some service industries even though a robot could do the job. It will boil down to not whether or not it's doable, but whether or not people will want it. They tried digitizing car speedometers, they tried it a long time ago, but people didn't want it, they wanted the analog and that is why cars still have analog dials on their dashboards.
> 
> There are some things that technology will never replace, though they could. There are some things that technology exists right along side, such as chairs that massage, but they are not putting masseuses/eurs out of business. They can totally fly planes without humans, yet they haven't fired any pilots that I know of, lately.


Yes, no doubt. There will have to be a market. I believe the market is huge. Massive. I know I would buy one once they are proven to be safer than humans.

The time, the safety, the ease, it's all going to make them a desirable product. Would I like to drive drunk? Sure. Get dropped and picked up at the door? Yes. Sleep, eat, work, read, or whatever instead of driving? No doubt. Send a car my on errands? For sure. Not even own a car and just rent one when I need a ride? Fantastic.

By the way, if the airlines could go pilotless, they probably would and we would all be safer. The vast majority of airline crashes are pilot error or, even worse, intentional.


----------



## Ubermon

moop, this one is for you

"Drone autonomously avoiding obstacles at 30 mph. No prior knowledge. All processing onboard."
The video also contains clips from the drones point of view with red designating obstacles it's identified. Drone includes 2 stereo cameras and 2x quad core CPUs.


----------



## humandriver

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, no doubt. There will have to be a market. I believe the market is huge. Massive. I know I would buy one once they are proven to be safer than humans.
> 
> The time, the safety, the ease, it's all going to make them a desirable product. Would I like to drive drunk? Sure. Get dropped and picked up at the door? Yes. Sleep, eat, work, read, or whatever instead of driving? No doubt. Send a car my on errands? For sure. Not even own a car and just rent one when I need a ride? Fantastic.
> 
> By the way, if the airlines could go pilotless, they probably would and we would all be safer. The vast majority of airline crashes are pilot error or, even worse, intentional.


Actually, what I've heard from an FAA regulator was that crashes occur because pilots aren't getting enough hands on flying experience anymore and when the onboard systems fail they don't know how to properly respond.


----------



## humandriver

Ubermon said:


> moop, this one is for you
> 
> "Drone autonomously avoiding obstacles at 30 mph. No prior knowledge. All processing onboard."
> The video also contains clips from the drones point of view with red designating obstacles it's identified. Drone includes 2 stereo cameras and 2x quad core CPUs.


That is impressive but I don't see how it relates to driving. The trees are not other moving vehicles or a dynamic public road with an infinite number of variables.


----------



## humandriver

RamzFanz said:


> True. The sensors will need to be very robust and reliable in weather. Of course, with radar and thermal imaging, he car can actually see better than humans in foul weather.
> 
> The trick in both using sensors and software is redundancy. If one system fails, it can be handed off to another. When an app fails, that doesn't happen. The assumption that a failure is automatically an accident isn't accurate.
> 
> I'm not saying there aren't challenges but the tech is more advanced than many people seem to think. Some trains have been run driverless since the 1980s.
> 
> Delphi just drove 3,400 miles, highway and city, and driverless 99.9% of the trip.


The bottom line is that even onboard systems fail. Machinery is not infallible. So without a driver/operator who is responsible for operation of the vehicle there will be more opportunities for dangerous situations to occur.


----------



## RamzFanz

humandriver said:


> The bottom line is that even onboard systems fail. Machinery is not infallible. So without a driver/operator who is responsible for operation of the vehicle there will be more opportunities for dangerous situations to occur.


You just keep ignoring the redundancy. When one system fails, another takes over and takes appropriate action. None of this technology is expensive. You could have many layers, many power sources, even mechanical braking if all of the systems somehow failed like a lightning strike or something.

Humans fail at driving at a terrible rate. Machines don't have to be perfect, just better than humans, and that's a low bar they will leap over.


----------



## humandriver

Really? Humans fail at driving at a terrible rate?? That is hilarious! There are 250 MILLION cars on the road every day in the United States. How many miles do you think they log a day? At least 250 million. By your logic there should be millions of deaths from traffic fatalities in the US instead of 37,000. And how many of those are a result from drunk driving or poor driver education? 
Me personally I've logged 1200 - 1500 miles a week for over 10 years accident free.


----------



## RamzFanz

humandriver said:


> Really? Humans fail at driving at a terrible rate?? That is hilarious! There are 250 MILLION cars on the road every day in the United States. How many miles do you think they log a day? At least 250 million. By your logic there should be millions of deaths from traffic fatalities in the US instead of 37,000. And how many of those are a result from drunk driving or poor driver education?
> Me personally I've logged 1200 - 1500 miles a week for over 10 years accident free.


You only count deaths? What about accidents that don't result in death? Humans are terrible, tired, drunk, drugged, reckless, distracted, and just poor drivers. Computers can gather data from their sensors, satellites, terrestrial towers, and other cars and act on it in milli-seconds. They can see in the dark and know about a deer beside the road or an obstruction ten miles ahead. It's not even close.

Deaths are down because cars are made safer, airbags, seatbelts, extensive crash testing, not because humans are good drivers.

As of September 2015, Google had test driven their fleet of vehicles 1,210,676 miles with zero accidents other than minor impacts from HUMAN driven cars, and these are just prototypes.

You just refuse to grasp or acknowledge the technology. There is no comparison in capability. Instead of 37,000 deaths a year, an outrageous number we would never allow in any other activity, we can one day have a tiny fraction of that or even none.


----------



## JaredJ

Simon said:


> The car can self drive .. it has the tech to do it it's just Tesla is only releasing a partial autonomous driving update. They will eventually release another update which will allow you to call your car from its parking spot. Quit doubting.


No. It doesn't. My dad has a p95+. Many advocates and ceos of self driving cars have clearly stated that self driving cars are quite a ways off before they will pass safety regulations. Kalanick stated in a recent interview that self driving cars are like California drivers in rain right now. They don't get along.


----------



## humandriver

RamzFanz said:


> You just refuse to grasp or acknowledge the technology. There is no comparison in capability. Instead of 37,000 deaths a year, an outrageous number we would never allow in any other activity, we can one day have a tiny fraction of that or even none.


Honestly, you sound like you work for Google. Medical malpractice and hospital errors contribute to 200-400k preventable deaths a year, smoking tobacco an estimated 435K deaths a year, medical complications due to obesity 100K, alcohol 85K, infectious diseases 75K.

So what is to say that autonomous technology can't be used to ENHANCE human driver's capabilities to mitigate accidents? Apparently that is plausible, considering Toyota is betting a BILLION dollars on it. Google won't admit or even acknowledge that premise because they have a huge vested interest in trying to consolidate and monopolize the automotive industry. I don't know what you stand to gain, but you are cheerleading for a mega successful company with absurdly rich founders to gain even more power and money.


----------



## RamzFanz

humandriver said:


> Honestly, you sound like you work for Google. Medical malpractice and hospital errors contribute to 200-400k preventable deaths a year, smoking tobacco an estimated 435K deaths a year, medical complications due to obesity 100K, alcohol 85K, infectious diseases 75K.
> 
> So what is to say that autonomous technology can't be used to ENHANCE human driver's capabilities to mitigate accidents? Apparently that is plausible, considering Toyota is betting a BILLION dollars on it. Google won't admit or even acknowledge that premise because they have a huge vested interest in trying to consolidate and monopolize the automotive industry. I don't know what you stand to gain, but you are cheerleading for a mega successful company with absurdly rich founders to gain even more power and money.


Thank you for illuminating my point. If technology could eliminate deaths in any of your comparisons, we would use it, and we do. From microwave sterilization, remote robotic surgery, to e-cigs. We choose technology over needless death.

Google isn't developing self driving cars or at all interested in the auto industry from anything I've seen. They are developing the system platform that can be leased so all manufacturers can have self driving cars.

Your last sentence explains your reluctance. It's a philosophical argument rather than a technological one. Google will invent and introduce and others will innovate and adapt. It's the way of the world. ALL companies fail or fall out of relevance eventually, as will Google.

Walmart does good things. Even as a perceived greedy disgusting company. It lowers the cost of living in any town it opens by thousands of dollars. It can put low income people on a more even playing field with access to technology and communications they can afford. Work clothes that don't destroy the budget. Healthy food that doesn't break the bank. Savings they can put away. It employs the hard to employ low skill people. And if they are driven, they can actually make a good living and career. In fact, we now know that while Walmart displaces some smaller companies and jobs, it is a great anchor for unique businesses to be around.

Google is a monster sized company right now but they make the web easy, deliver sales for new companies through cheap ads, and soon, a self driving car that will lead to tens of thousands of lives saved every year. It's not just the lives saved, it's the HOURS of a life saved. Imagine in CA if that 2 hour commute each way was a person working, communicating, creating art, sleeping (which we do not get near enough of), or just dreaming of a better life rather than the anxiety, stress, and lost life of driving? I think that not only will SDCs save our lives, they will extend our lives.

I'm not sure why people worry about how much a company earns. It's a publicly owned company. If you had invested $50,000 in Google when it IPOed 11 years ago, you would have almost $700,000 today. This is earnings in people's 401k and IRA accounts. Should we hope they lose money? Isn't it great they are American and lead the industry employing hundreds of thousands directly and indirectly and getting our businesses world wide visibility?

_How does their success detract from yours? Would we be better off without them? Wouldn't a life without driving be great?_


----------



## Simon

JaredJ said:


> No. It doesn't. My dad has a p95+. Many advocates and ceos of self driving cars have clearly stated that self driving cars are quite a ways off before they will pass safety regulations. Kalanick stated in a recent interview that self driving cars are like California drivers in rain right now. They don't get along.


Your correct but eventually it will.. as quoted.


----------



## humandriver

RamzFanz said:


> Thank you for illuminating my point. If technology could eliminate deaths in any of your comparisons, we would use it, and we do. From microwave sterilization, remote robotic surgery, to e-cigs. We choose technology over needless death.


I didn't illuminate your point, I gave you 5 examples of behaviors "we" (the collective "we" that elitists like to quote) put up with that are risky and life threatening. Nice try using my words against me, but you aren't that clever.



RamzFanz said:


> Google isn't developing self driving cars or at all interested in the auto industry from anything I've seen. They are developing the system platform that can be leased so all manufacturers can have self driving cars.


Really? Well then hiring ex deputy administrator of the NHTSA Ron Medford and former president of the north american division of Hyundai John Krafcik were interesting personnel choices.



RamzFanz said:


> Walmart does good things. Even as a perceived greedy disgusting company. It lowers the cost of living in any town it opens by thousands of dollars. It can put low income people on a more even playing field with access to technology and communications they can afford. Work clothes that don't destroy the budget. Healthy food that doesn't break the bank. Savings they can put away. It employs the hard to employ low skill people. And if they are driven, they can actually make a good living and career. In fact, we now know that while Walmart displaces some smaller companies and jobs, it is a great anchor for unique businesses to be around.


Now you're defending Wal-Mart? What are you, the champion of big business? Wal-Mart devastates communities and destroys small businesses that would've spent their profits in the local economy, while Wal-Mart pays their workers poverty wages that makes them have to rely on foodstamps and welfare to make ends meet. Are you kidding me? So they sell a bottle of shampoo $1 cheaper, is that worth it? Is that worth it to increase income inequality while the top corporations make HUGE profits and don't distribute that money in the communities they do business in? They don't even pay much in dividends, so even shareholders aren't getting much out of it either.



RamzFanz said:


> It's not just the lives saved, it's the HOURS of a life saved. Imagine in CA if that 2 hour commute each way was a person working, communicating, creating art, sleeping (which we do not get near enough of), or just dreaming of a better life rather than the anxiety, stress, and lost life of driving? I think that not only will SDCs save our lives, they will extend our lives.


Hour's saved? BIG DEAL. If you don't want such a long commute, live closer to work. Or find a job closer to where you live.
Communicating? Like people don't spend enough time on their phones.
Creating Art in a moving vehicle? It's called doodling, and people who are serious about their art would reserve more time to do it then the ride to "work."
I don't even know what mysterious dream job they would be commuting to considering automation is on pace to destroy up to 45% of occupations.



RamzFanz said:


> _How does their success detract from yours? Would we be better off without them? Wouldn't a life without driving be great?_


Well completely autonomous vehicles (cars, shuttles, trucks) would mean:
Higher unemployment
Less money being distributed to labor, more money going to capital investors (ALREADY GIANT CORPORATIONS)
More inequality
More civil unrest
Economic instability


----------



## FlDriver

There's a huge difference between a car having the technical ability to drive itself and such cars being allowed to drive in traffic with regular cars.


----------



## Ubermon

Was thinking of this thread and had to dig it up. So if all the old players are still around and with all the recent activity with self driving vehicles, have your views changed at all?


----------



## RamzFanz

Ubermon said:


> Was thinking of this thread and had to dig it up. So if all the old players are still around and with all the recent activity with self driving vehicles, have your views changed at all?


What part?


----------



## Jermin8r89

I think doing this shows we humans are flat out stupid! We creating smart machines that could someday be perfect. Think about that humans are not perfect. We suck at driving we suck at teaching, parenting,seeing,hearing,our bodies suck as we can't go into space with out our bodies going threw substantial negatives . our pursute of protection . Oh government wants to microchip us. Self driving will take away a big freedom. I like to travel and hike with freedom to stop look maybe go to bathroom. You guys take away our right of freedom we will not go silently into the goodnight


----------



## Fireguy50

Not all great ideas are welcomed by the public, government, or rival companies 
Preston Tucker couldn't even build 50 cars before the rival companies and investors turned on him. Then the government him down.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48


----------



## Jermin8r89

That's a beautiful truck. I love trucks grew up with them I have like about 1 whole half of my family and also going for my class ACDL A in another month.


Fireguy50 said:


> Not all great ideas are welcomed by the public, government, or rival companies
> Preston Tucker couldn't even build 50 cars before the rival companies and investors turned on him. Then the government him down.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48


----------



## Ubermon

Have to drudge up this thread considering latest Uber news regarding self driving cars starting in Philly.


----------

