Page 1 of 12

Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm UTC
by Angua
On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:10 pm UTC
by Mighty Jalapeno
eSOANEM wrote:obeying traffic rules seems like an unusual form of work-to-rule though.

You have clearly never ridden a bus. Red lights, speed limits, the physics of centripetal force when applied to sharp turns... all of these things are merely SUGGESTIONS to bus drivers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:39 pm UTC
by ivnja
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.

Here's a video they made.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:17 pm UTC
by PolakoVoador
ivnja wrote:
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.

Here's a video they made.

Wait, you can *reach* the speed limit during rush our?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:03 pm UTC
by mathmannix
PolakoVoador wrote:
ivnja wrote:
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.

Here's a video they made.

Wait, you can *reach* the speed limit during rush our?

Yeah, certainly not anywhere near DC... it takes my wife over an hour to go just one 5-mile stretch of highway as part of her commute every morning. (I take the train!)

EDIT: oh, and when there's a protest of that type in DC, the trucks taking up all four lanes of the beltway (interstate loop around the city) go 10 mph.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:08 pm UTC
by Xeio
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.
Hrmmm, does Georgia not have "keep right" laws?

This protest would be ticketable in PA at least.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:40 pm UTC
by addams
ivnja wrote:
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.

Here's a video they made.

That is hysterical!

What fun those people had.
There is nothing like a mission to make ya' feel alive.

Good, funny news.
Good.

Go Georgia Tech!
Your people are learning and practicing citizenship.

It can be a little dangerous. And; they knew it.
I think they are brave young people.

edit:
mathmannix wrote:
EDIT: oh, and when there's a protest of that type in DC, the trucks taking up all four lanes of the beltway (interstate loop around the city) go 10 mph.

And; Those people are not nearly as funny.
Reasons?
spoilered because, it turned into a Rant.
The rant overshadowed the Georgia Tech students; That's not funny.
Spoiler:
1. There was No logical and immediate connection between the act and the message.
2. The fucking message was fucking Stupid.
Some of the trucks are displaying flags and signs with a ‘#T2SDA’ hashtag as part of the demonstration that organizers say is a show of solidarity against what Andrews sees as an assault by the federal government on the U.S. Constitution.

An assault by the federal government on the U.S. Constitution?
Idiots. Baggers?
Yes. That's their style.

It is an ok thing to say.
If it has any truth to it.

If I were the fucking Dictator,
Every one of those AssHoles would go to Jail until they could pass a standard Jr. High/High School test on the US Constitution.

It's ok to have something to say.
It's not ok to parrot fucking FOX News and call it patriotic.
That's idiotic.

That was using a dangerous machine in an illegal and dangerous way.
And; That bunch of AssHoles got away with it.

Going to jail until they could pass a standard test on the subject would have thrown them to the Top of the Pop Charts.
I still think it is the right and proper thing to do. No one is allowed to question those fuckers. They are a real problem.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:29 pm UTC
by Alexius
Xeio wrote:
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.
Hrmmm, does Georgia not have "keep right" laws?

This protest would be ticketable in PA at least.


Keep right laws vary. Though Georgia's seems to mean that you are required to keep the left lane clear (congestion permitting) if faster traffic is approaching from behind.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:00 am UTC
by Djehutynakht
Alexius wrote:
Xeio wrote:
Angua wrote:On phone, but a bunch of Georgia tech students protested a speeding ticket by all driving the speed limit on the motorway for 45 mins at rush hour. Backed it up a lot.
Hrmmm, does Georgia not have "keep right" laws?

This protest would be ticketable in PA at least.


Keep right laws vary. Though Georgia's seems to mean that you are required to keep the left lane clear (congestion permitting) if faster traffic is approaching from behind.


I'd think that in this situation any Keep Right law would be nullified. If we assume that they're going the legal speed limit, then no car should be able to legally pass them, as doing so would be breaking the speed limit.

An officer shouldn't be able to ticket you for not allowing cars to pass because doing so would be implicitly endorsing the violation of an equally valid law.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:18 am UTC
by morriswalters
Why don't we switch over to autonomous cars. Georgia Tech students won't ever get tickets, because an autonomous car won't ever speed. Then 55mph will really mean 55mph. Problem solved. :lol:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:19 am UTC
by Thesh
I find it weird that people are able to drive as fast as the speed limit in rush hour traffic.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:44 am UTC
by ucim
Djehutynakht wrote:If we assume that they're going the legal speed limit, then no car should be able to legally pass them, as doing so would be breaking the speed limit.
Sometimes it's necessary to break the law, in the pursuit of a greater good. Getting to work on time is not a greater good, but getting your sister to the hospital might be, as might coming to the aid of your daughter who got stung by a bee and is swelling up.

morriswalters wrote:Why don't we switch over to autonomous cars. Georgia Tech students won't ever get tickets, because an autonomous car won't ever speed. Then 55mph will really mean 55mph. Problem solved.
I assume this is in jest, but in case it is not, removing the ability for people to make decisions dehumanizes all of us. Bigger problem created.

Jose

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:50 am UTC
by PeteP
ucim wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Why don't we switch over to autonomous cars. Georgia Tech students won't ever get tickets, because an autonomous car won't ever speed. Then 55mph will really mean 55mph. Problem solved.
I assume this is in jest, but in case it is not, removing the ability for people to make decisions dehumanizes all of us. Bigger problem created.

Jose

Is that a serious argument against autonomous cars? Are trains mass dehumanizing?^^

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:57 am UTC
by Isaac Hill
Djehutynakht wrote:I'd think that in this situation any Keep Right law would be nullified. If we assume that they're going the legal speed limit, then no car should be able to legally pass them, as doing so would be breaking the speed limit.

An officer shouldn't be able to ticket you for not allowing cars to pass because doing so would be implicitly endorsing the violation of an equally valid law.
I thought so, too, until I got pulled over for doing the speed limit in the left lane. I only got a written warning, so it wasn't bad. But, if I'd gotten a ticket for a moving violation, I might have faced a raise in car insurance premiums for driving the maximum legal limit in the fast lane.

This was in Massachusettes a couple years ago, on a road with only two lanes in each direction. Now when I drive that road, I'm constantly switching lanes to not hit the people who are in the slow lane because they just got on, or are about to get off, the highway and aren't up to speed yet.

I asked the officer what the problem was, since no one should be passing me anyway. He said he can go faster. I pointed out that I moved over to let him pass when I saw his lights. He then said it was to cut down on road rage.

If traffic is light enough that you can afford to keep an entire lane mostly empty, it's light enough that you don't need to micromanage it to this extent.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:26 am UTC
by addams
Thesh wrote:I find it weird that people are able to drive as fast as the speed limit in rush hour traffic.

Gee.
The reason traffic slows down in metro areas was discussed here at xkcd somewhere. It was a darned interesting conversation.
Smart cars that do the driving, while checking road conditions using the internet,
will solve a great deal of the 'rush hour' slow down around our large cities.

I understand your sentiment.
While using the current system, in California it takes 3 hours to go 75 miles during 'the rush'.
I'm told that is making good time.

The students at Georgia Tech were making a statement and proving a point.
They may have proved a thing they did not intend to prove.

The most responsible behavior may not be an increase in speed allowed.
But, a more even handed and consistent enforcement of speed allowed.

What they proved it EVERYONE exceeds the speed limit.
Responsible behavior would enforce 55 for everyone. (sorry)

If the limit is raised to 75, the student would have been sighted for only five over the limit when stopped going 80 Mph.
Of course, as a function of his humanity, he would have been going 110 mph if his car could do it. We know People!

I'm still pleased as punch with the story.
It was very funny. I like to laugh.

Those students learned a lot.
That was active citizenship.

They exhibited initiative! They did Science!
They had a guess about the rate traffic moves.
They had a guess about what 55 Mph would do.

They have solid data!
It is reproducible.

And! They have a story to tell the grandchildren at their knees.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:26 am UTC
by Coyne
This is a joke, not news, but it seems to apply.

This guy went on vacation to a small town in ... Elbonia. His flight was late because of the usual collection of stupidity, so he got there in the middle of the night. (Yes, yes, I know, mud and slingshots and all, so?)

After collecting his bags, he found a taxi to take him to his hotel, which was quite some distance away. His driver was talkative, drove with his hands waving this way and that way, and raced down the streets like a maniac as (no doubt) foreign cab drivers are wont to do...

That was bad enough, but then he came to a red light, he didn't tap a brake, he didn't slow, he didn't look...just whizz, right through the intersection. When his passenger managed to get his heart down out of his throat, he exclaimed, "What in the world! How could you just run a red light like that? What if someone was coming the other way?"

The driver responded, "No worries, mate. My brother and I have driven taxi for years here. We always do that. Never had an accident."

The passenger wasn't very mollified, and tried to persuade the driver to stop for any more red lights, getting shrugging acquiescence. But the next red light...whizzz...right on through.

The passenger was a bit nonplussed, "I thought we agreed you weren't going to do that again?"

"I tell you mate, no worries. Twenty years we've been driving, never a problem, never an accident."

The passenger decided to grin and bear it. But about that time they came to a green light, and the cab skidded to a halt, rubber and brakes squealing. The passenger was greatly confused, "What is this? You run red lights without even a hesitation, now you stop for a green light?"

"Are you kidding? My brother might be coming the other way!"

(Traffic works great, so long as everyone is using the same rules.)

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:01 pm UTC
by morriswalters
ucim wrote:I assume this is in jest, but in case it is not, removing the ability for people to make decisions dehumanizes all of us. Bigger problem created.
Well, mainly it is a jab at the idiocy of the video. I mean, if you don't want a ticket, don't speed. If you choose to speed, smile when you eventually get your ticket. Only self important college students see this as a problem. Personally the idea of driving isn't really something I enjoy anymore. I hate giving up control, but the idea of relaxing while in traffic strikes me as a very zen way to reduce stress. Particularly if they improve the sound quality inside the car. Their isn't anything particularly humanizing about driving, you weren't evolved to drive 2 tons at 80 MPH.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:48 pm UTC
by ahammel
morriswalters wrote:Why don't we switch over to autonomous cars. Georgia Tech students won't ever get tickets, because an autonomous car won't ever speed.

False

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
morriswalters wrote:Why don't we switch over to autonomous cars. Georgia Tech students won't ever get tickets, because an autonomous car won't ever speed. Then 55mph will really mean 55mph. Problem solved. :lol:


But then...

Spoiler:
Image


(Spoiled for bad joke)

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:15 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
morriswalters wrote:Their isn't anything particularly humanizing about driving, you weren't evolved to drive 2 tons at 80 MPH.


It's called wanderlust. Driving is a good way to satisfy that urge, if you have it. Walking or cycling limits your range. Public transport means you're beholden to someone else's timetable, and you have to plan in advance. With a car, you can just wake up one morning and decide "Hey, I want to go somewhere today. No idea where, but I'm going to go there".

Also, you know, it's pretty convenient for getting to work, and going shopping and whatnot.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:20 pm UTC
by Whizbang
But... People will not lose control. They will still be able to program and change routes. All that will happen is the tedious act of actually steering the car will be conveniently removed, with an added bonus that people at large will not have to worry about drunk drivers, or people falling asleep, or texting while driving, or road rage, or a thousand other risks that we all take as part and parcel of driving today. No control is lost, you can still determine where you go, and even change routes mid-way, but there will be a huge increase in safety.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:36 pm UTC
by ucim
PeteP wrote:Is that a serious argument against autonomous cars? Are trains mass dehumanizing?
Not against autonomous cars, but against the prohibition of non-autonomous cars implied by the poster I was referring to, and also against law being enforced by machine. I'm not against trains, but against laws that prohibit travel except by train.

@Isaac Hill - In some areas (France, for example), the requirement to stay right except to pass is quite ingrained. It is normal to weave left and right when passing many cars, rather than simply claim the left lane for yourself.

morriswalters wrote: I mean, if you don't want a ticket, don't speed. If you choose to speed, smile when you eventually get your ticket. Only self important college students see this as a problem.
No, many people other than "self important college students" see this as a problem. Mindless obedience is not what makes a good citizen.

Whizbang wrote:But... People will not lose control. They will still be able to program and change routes.
Today. Not tomorrow, when Google figures out the best route for everyone to take so that capacity can be increased without spending money on more roads. At first you may merely be taxed for taking the scenic route, and ultimately who knows. Each step is small, but the benefit evaporates, eaten by society at large filling the vacuum.

Jose

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:39 pm UTC
by Whizbang
And we, as consumers and voters, have absolutely no way to prevent these things from happening?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:45 pm UTC
by Quercus
I hope that at least some cars will still have the option of full manual control, at least for a while. I say this for two reasons:

1) It's presumably going to be a good while before autonomous vehicles can drive reliably on surfaces that aren't roads, whereas when I lived in the countryside I often wanted to take my car onto things that aren't really roads, particualrly to get to the start of hikes etc. - will an autonomous vehicle know how to drive on a rutted forestry track, or how to park in a field? Or know how far a normal car can be driven onto a beach without getting bogged down? Will it know how to drive in snow, when all the road markings are obscured? I don't want to have to get an expensive, fuel-inefficient four wheel drive off-road vehicle just because all the "normal" autonomous cars refuse to drive on anything that isn't tarmac (which they will, for liability reasons if nothing else).

2) I actually enjoy the process of driving. I find the sort of non-demanding focused attention it requires to be really relaxing.

I could get over (2) given the safety benefits, but (1) would be a deal-breaker for me.

Edit: Also, security is a big issue. These cars are going to be internet-connected, because they just will be, because for some reason no-one manages to convince companies that connecting life-critical infrastructure to insecure networks is a bad ideaTM. I don't want someone on the other side of the world being able to play pinball with my car while I'm in it every time an exploit is found. Anyone who thinks that such exploits won't be found is, frankly, deluding themselves. If banks can't secure their systems with the financial incentive that they have for doing so that's pretty good evidence that guaranteeing the security of an internet-connected system is not practically achievable.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:16 pm UTC
by ahammel
ucim wrote:
PeteP wrote:Is that a serious argument against autonomous cars? Are trains mass dehumanizing?
Not against autonomous cars, but against the prohibition of non-autonomous cars implied by the poster I was referring to, and also against law being enforced by machine. I'm not against trains, but against laws that prohibit travel except by train.
Are you also, therefore, opposed to laws which prohibit the riding of horses on public roads?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:27 pm UTC
by ucim
Whizbang wrote:And we, as consumers and voters, have absolutely no way to prevent these things from happening?
We do now, but we won't later. And more and more, our choices are being dictated by insurance companies, computer executives, virus writers, and lobbyists. You can stand in front of a freight train, but the way to stop it is to get in the cab before it's on the tracks.

ahammel wrote:Are you also, therefore, opposed to laws which prohibit the riding of horses on public roads?
Interesting point. No, but something has been lost in doing so, and I'm not sure it can be gotten back. I'm not against progress, but I am against the idea that all progress is good.

Jose

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:28 pm UTC
by Whizbang
Well, that's it. Back into the bunker I go. See you in another 50 years, losers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:41 pm UTC
by morriswalters
ucim wrote:No, many people other than "self important college students" see this as a problem. Mindless obedience is not what makes a good citizen.
Read what I wrote. I didn't say mindlessly obey. And there are self important people other than college students. Speed limits are a things just about everywhere that have paved roads, and they are there to limit speeds. And they are a product of experience. I know people don't like them. Please lobby your lawmakers if you want to change them. Don't get on the roads where there are already too many frustrated commuters and do a protest.
Quercus wrote:I could get over (2) given the safety benefits, but (1) would be a deal-breaker for me.
I feel your pain. Relax, other than my satire you have no short term worries. Longer term I am unsure just because you want to get to your start point that we need to let you drive on the beach, or on my property. Or in National or State parks. But that is a discussion for another day.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:05 pm UTC
by Quercus
morriswalters wrote:I feel your pain. Relax, other than my satire you have no short term worries. Longer term I am unsure just because you want to get to your start point that we need to let you drive on the beach, or on my property. Or in National or State parks. But that is a discussion for another day.

As far as I'm aware I've never done anything contrary to any law in the UK when I've driven off-road. National parks are a bit different over here - in that people live in them and drive through them and the same traffic laws apply as anywhere else. There are plenty of unpaved tracks that are designated as publicly accessible. It's unfortunately not really practical to have tracts of deserted wilderness in such a small, crowded country.

Generally the places I need to drive to down tracks or in fields etc. are either designated public parking places, or private property with permission of the landowner. I have friends who live in places you can't even get to without driving down a mile or two of dirt track. I agree with you about beaches, that was a bad example.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:39 pm UTC
by Dauric
Quercus wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I feel your pain. Relax, other than my satire you have no short term worries. Longer term I am unsure just because you want to get to your start point that we need to let you drive on the beach, or on my property. Or in National or State parks. But that is a discussion for another day.

As far as I'm aware I've never done anything contrary to any law in the UK when I've driven off-road. National parks are a bit different over here - in that people live in them and drive through them and the same traffic laws apply as anywhere else. There are plenty of unpaved tracks that are designated as publicly accessible. It's unfortunately not really practical to have tracts of deserted wilderness in such a small, crowded country.

Generally the places I need to drive to down tracks or in fields etc. are either designated public parking places, or private property with permission of the landowner. I have friends who live in places you can't even get to without driving down a mile or two of dirt track. I agree with you about beaches, that was a bad example.


Another place one may need to drive without a road: along a fence line. For someone with any significant amount of land fence maintenance is kind of a big deal, and you're not going to be lugging fence-posts, concrete, and rolls of fence wire (for the simplest/lightest wire-type fences) by hand or just on an ATV (even ones with those trailers). At some point you're going to have to load up the pickup truck (probably the same one you went in to town to get those fence parts in the first place) and drive out along the fence line to replace posts. A driverless system will not work well in that scenario.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:16 pm UTC
by morriswalters
PAstrychef wrote:There are safety reasons for the requirement that in today's cars there must be direct, mechanical linkages between the steering and the wheels and the brakes and the wheels. If my driverless software suffers a glitch, then without any manual backup I'm roadkill, or someone else is. Big solar flares can cause havoc in electronics. Want your road safety effected by sun spots? Want some malicious asshole to hack a system just for the lulzs? At least you can only drop one rock off an overpass at a time. On special roads, for long hauls-dandy. Otherwise, there's this great system for nots having to drive when impaired-calling a taxi.
Has your car ever faulted because of a solar flare. It is run by multiple computers now. And stay off big airliners, the newer ones are fly by wire. I don't doubt that controls will stay in cars for the foreseeable future, but humans don't seem to have any problems falling asleep, talking on their phones and in general doing every thing but driving the car. Even if you only cut the death rate by half you would save more than 15000 a year.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:42 pm UTC
by addams
morriswalters wrote:I don't doubt that controls will stay in cars for the foreseeable future, but humans don't seem to have any problems falling asleep, talking on their phones and in general doing every thing but driving the car. Even if you only cut the death rate by half you would save more than 15000 a year.

In 2001 the US death rate by car was nearly 3,000 souls a month.
**A moment of silence in respect for the volume if life lost.**

I was in a position to I hear first hand descriptions
of car trips that resulted in a trip to the hospital.

I'm sorry...but, some of those stories...
We had special training in, "Don't Laugh!"
(phew) We, at least, I needed the class.

The funny stories are the only thing I will miss of the mayhem we experienced during our free wheeling days of total human control.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
PAstrychef wrote:There are safety reasons for the requirement that in today's cars there must be direct, mechanical linkages between the steering and the wheels and the brakes and the wheels. If my driverless software suffers a glitch, then without any manual backup I'm roadkill, or someone else is. Big solar flares can cause havoc in electronics. Want your road safety effected by sun spots? Want some malicious asshole to hack a system just for the lulzs? At least you can only drop one rock off an overpass at a time.

No, no, see, you just have to wait for the technology to be good enough! Remember, nothing is ever a bad idea, it's just Not Mature Yet! At some point in the indefinite but totally near future, the Inevitable March Of Progress will eliminate all bugs forever, and then it will be Future O'Clock!

And the last bug in sight,
An ant passing by,
Saluted his tombstone,
And whispered, "Nice try."

- "The Last Bug"

elasto wrote:Driving is going to become something most people do a few times a week instead of two to three times daily.

[...]

(Obviously I'm talking about in the city here; For people in remote areas, clearly personal transportation is going to remain a necessity)

So driving will become uncommon except for all the places where it won't? I think you're drastically overestimating the number of people who live in "walkable" cities, at least in the context of the U.S. Even bus lines don't get you very far out into the suburbs in most American cities, and biking and walking are very much subject to climate conditions, to say nothing of the distances between things in the suburbs or rural areas, which are perfectly manageable in a car but quite vast on a pedestrian scale.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:47 pm UTC
by addams
commodorejohn!
What a cute poem the Last Bug is.

It's contemporary with an old English cadence.
It's funny and sweet.

Thanks, commodore john.
I needed that.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:57 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
You're welcome - it's a classic ;)

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:59 am UTC
by elasto
commodorejohn wrote:
elasto wrote:Driving is going to become something most people do a few times a week instead of two to three times daily.

[...]

(Obviously I'm talking about in the city here; For people in remote areas, clearly personal transportation is going to remain a necessity)

So driving will become uncommon except for all the places where it won't?

Not sure what was complicated about what I said. I'll try again though:

In cities, I think personal cars will become a luxury instead of a necessity. Most people will use communal self-driving cars. This will be a huge change compared to now. Not least, think of how much valuable real-estate will be freed up once parking becomes the exception rather than the norm?

In rural areas, people will have personal cars but usage will drop from 2-3 trips daily to 2-3 trips weekly, because driving to work and/or shopping will become much less common.

The US is something of an outlier in just how much suburbia it has, and obviously there'll be a continuum going on there. In places like Europe the delineation is much sharper, and hence the social change will be more pronounced.

Is my prediction really so implausible?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:07 am UTC
by HungryHobo
PAstrychef wrote:There are safety reasons for the requirement that in today's cars there must be direct, mechanical linkages between the steering and the wheels and the brakes and the wheels. If my driverless software suffers a glitch, then without any manual backup I'm roadkill, or someone else is. Big solar flares can cause havoc in electronics. Want your road safety effected by sun spots? Want some malicious asshole to hack a system just for the lulzs? At least you can only drop one rock off an overpass at a time. On special roads, for long hauls-dandy. Otherwise, there's this great system for nots having to drive when impaired-calling a taxi.


I think you may have some misconceptions about solar flares.

They're an issue for power grids, they're an issue for long telephone wires and sometimes satellites but they're utterly irrelevant to consumer electronics.

Also as others have mentioned your car likely already relies almost totally on computers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:38 am UTC
by PAstrychef
HungryHobo wrote:
PAstrychef wrote:There are safety reasons for the requirement that in today's cars there must be direct, mechanical linkages between the steering and the wheels and the brakes and the wheels. If my driverless software suffers a glitch, then without any manual backup I'm roadkill, or someone else is. Big solar flares can cause havoc in electronics. Want your road safety effected by sun spots? Want some malicious asshole to hack a system just for the lulzs? At least you can only drop one rock off an overpass at a time. On special roads, for long hauls-dandy. Otherwise, there's this great system for nots having to drive when impaired-calling a taxi.


I think you may have some misconceptions about solar flares.

They're an issue for power grids, they're an issue for long telephone wires and sometimes satellites but they're utterly irrelevant to consumer electronics.

Also as others have mentioned your car likely already relies almost totally on computers.

Well, if my car has satellite navigation, and satellites are disrupted, that coukd be a problem. Also, if the car uses google maps, there will be problems-such as the directions to drive down a flight of stairs in San Franscico they already give. And what if I know a shorter route than the car? Or just one that has better scenery/fewer red lights/that coffee place I sometimes stop at?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:00 pm UTC
by morriswalters
PAstrychef wrote:Well, if my car has satellite navigation, and satellites are disrupted, that coukd be a problem. Also, if the car uses google maps, there will be problems-such as the directions to drive down a flight of stairs in San Franscico they already give. And what if I know a shorter route than the car? Or just one that has better scenery/fewer red lights/that coffee place I sometimes stop at?
Have you ever driven the wrong way down a one way street or gotten lost? I would presume that a autonomous car would handle unexpected things much as you do. Use the sensor suites that it will carry to see those steps before it drives down them. And surprise! If GPS goes dead the car still has eyes and maps, we navigated the world successfully without GPS for years. Autonomous cars don't have to be perfect, they just have to be safer than us. And if you have a preferred route I would assume that you would tell the car to use it and save it as a favorite, much like your favorite music playlist. I should share with you the fact that the thing I have come to hate most about driving, is that if I do it right, the scenery isn't really something I get to enjoy, its something that my passengers get to enjoy.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:22 pm UTC
by Zamfir

Also as others have mentioned your car likely already relies almost totally on computers.

That's stating it too strong, I think. Driving-related systems are not typically computer dependent, at best augmented. In case of safety systems, that's even rarely allowed. There are many electronically assisted systems, but pretty much always with a simpler mechanical fallback. Power steering, brakes, cruise control, fuel injection, look into the details and you'll find a mechanical base system with an electronic or electro-hydraulic system bolted onto it. In such a way that failure will result in a functional reversion to the mechanical linkage.

I have always considered this wise. Drive by wire systems can probably be designed just as robust as mechanical links, if not better. But there is such a temptation to link All The Systems ttogethertogetherogether, creating a mess of potential dependencies