|
Forum: General Talk
08-23-2018, 01:50 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: General Talk
08-05-2018, 01:34 PM
|
| |
Well, my point still stands whether you have OnStar or some other future development of communication to work with. I grant you that OnStar might be able to be contacted, but the tow truck will still be hours away or if it is after dark, the next day. There are places (as you well know) where services are few and far between. Remember, we are talking about getting around on back roads too, not just interstates. Having a service provider (Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Uber, Lyft, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis etc.) who will have enough cars to serve even a single locality is going to cost billions. And it order to get to the pie in the sky autonomous everywhere concept means that you will have to replace every single car on the road. That in it self will take multiple decades. Oh and reasonably clear view of the sky, don't get me started on that one as weather (water vapor) eats radio signals. Appropriate response may take quite a few hours in some sections of the more sparsely inhabited areas of the world. (Gee, we haven't even talked about places like Alaska and parts of British Columbia in Canada. Whoa, a whole new can of worms)
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-03-2018, 01:25 PM
|
| |
Have you ever tried to get ahold of AAA in the middle of the Red Desert in Wyoming - there is no cell coverage out there and it would take a "tow truck" quite a few hours to get there on a good day. If you live in an area where there are a lot of people, yes this may be true, but out where I grew up and in the city where I grew up, there were two tow trucks and the response time was measured in days when it got bad.
Oh, but I remember now, in the early threads you said that the autonomous vehicles would not rely on cell coverage or GPS to find out where they are. It will be magic - magic from Google. :o
---------- Post added 08-03-18 at 01:34 PM ----------
One, the human did stop the car, but only after the car hit the person. The car would have stopped or tried to maneuver around the obstruction IF the company would have not shut down the system. We have already discussed this to near death, suffice it to say that in a "normal" situation the autonomous car hit and killed a human. Even to the extent that Uber moved from AZ toe MD because AZ's restrictions were too high to continue the testing. Note the word testing.
As for rates, yes, cities and states regulate rental car daily rates. It is here and if you think that the local entities aren't going to take their pound of flesh you are sorely mistaken. I am just waiting for the "surcharge" to be added to access to National Parks by any vehicle. I am not advocating that cities or states set rates, they set surcharges - i.e. taxes.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-03-2018, 01:06 PM
|
| |
One word, Uber.
---------- Post added 08-03-18 at 01:12 PM ----------
And who will determine these costs? The service? The local city? (Seattle has different rental rates than say Yakima) The state? (Rental cars are few and expensive in Wyoming compared to Washington) Insurance Laws, chains (who is going to put chains on the autonomous car?) etc. etc. etc. Your idea is nice, but the reality is dirty and will take quite some time to get "fixed".
---------- Post added 08-03-18 at 01:17 PM ----------
And who is Waymo sharing their data with? What states are Waymo testing their cars in (AZ, CA others?) Are they running on Interstates and/or backroads, read unimproved and most likely not mapped? How is their record when driving in really bad rain, snow, sleet etc. (Not all that easy to find snowy roads in LA, Silicon Valley and Phoenix.[COLOR="Silver"]
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-03-2018, 09:53 AM
|
| |
Hence the issue with autonomous vehicles, what do you do when the unexpected happens to either a car or a truck. What does a car do when something "jumps" out in front of it? In the case of Uber it hit and killed it, granted that the built in Volvo emergency stop system had been disabled. However there is a dead person on the road. What happens to a autonomous car has a flat tire or better yet when someone acquires the attention of a autonomous car and it needs fuel and the carrying capacity to get to where I want it to go i.e. Call a car up, and after you get in you tell it that you want to go to Yellowstone National Park from Seattle and have it pull a camper trailer because you are "roughing it this time". Let alone drive by a playground with kids running out into the road to get the soccer (football) ball. Or if I order up a car capable of pulling my camper trailer to Yellowstone, stay with me while in the park (I come from Wyoming and I know there aren't all that many rental places out there) and haul everything back - and the Seattle area's long distance hauling vehicles are all out driving to the Olympic Peninsula (Olympic National Park) or Mt. Rainier (Mt. Rainer National Park) or Northern Cascade National Park, or Cannon Beach, or Yosemite (Yosemite National Park) then what.
To be honest I picked on Racer just to get his reaction. It appears to me that the infrastructure to dispatch trucks is in existence and does not need to be created - step one. The problem raises it self in the handling of edge conditions (which I have mentioned before), getting the vehicle to drive itself down a road and not hit things, stop when it needs to stop, obey STOP signs, traffic lights etc. is the first step part. The next steps is how do you handle breakdowns (flat tires, running out of fuel, rocks hitting the sensors and breaking them etc.). Beyond that are things that are not all that predictable, such as people/things crossing into the road, changing weather conditions (rain -> road grime covering the sensors, snow -> covering the sensors/confusing the sensors, fog, sand etc.).
And finally, who will set the standards and regulations that will govern these devices, Facebook, Uber, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Twitter or various city/state Governments or will it be the Federal Government in the US. Now when I cross into Canada, will the rules be the same? This is going to take a long time and a lot of work. I just hope it happens before I die because it would be cool. (As I sit in a B&B in York after getting off the train from Oxford) It is about time for me to go get a order of onion rings and a warm beer, Gin and Tonic or maybe a wee dram of very old whiskey (OK - a double maybe)
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-01-2018, 01:48 PM
|
| |
When I need a load of "stock" from Home Depot, I rent one of their trucks for a few hours or have it delivered. And for mulch, my wife used to fill up the trunk of her X-Type (Jaguar) once or twice a year. Which was a lot cheaper than owning a truck. When my son moves, we rent a U-Haul van for the day. Using the excuse that you need to go to Home Depot/Lowes once a year to buy and maintain a F-150 is the price we pay for letting little boys think that having a big bad truck makes them a man. A barmaid at the Victoria Arms in Oxford England tonight said it best. Men don't grow up, they just get old and their toys get bigger. I added that their toys get more expensive too.
I know all too well that most of the pickups on the road are driven by status seeking people. Back in the day when I was growing up, if you had a pickup that had a leather interior and air conditioning, most of the working cowboys would laugh you out of the bar for being a Urban Cowboy. Now if you have a scratch on your "macho machine" you are failing to keep up your "investment" - don't make me laugh.. a car/truck is just that, not an investment.
---------- Post added 08-01-18 at 01:53 PM ----------
Make that 1965 as seat belts were mandatory in the front seats of cars in 1996. Now your one-year-old would have been dead as they most likely would have been either standing up on the passenger seat or just sitting there. You may call it nanny state, but maybe you should thank the government for mandating safety equipment that actually saved your family. And believe me when I say that autonomous vehicles will be regulated to the nth degree.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-01-2018, 08:43 AM
|
| |
Mr. Optimist it is obvious that you do not drive all that much anymore. Just having a cop on the side of the road will cause a backup, just because everyone pounds the brakes when they see one. It happens in both lanes oncoming and ongoing, even on with roads with barriers. The thing with congestion is that since people go to work and get off work at the same relative time each day, the roads are crowded with people/cars for those hours, hence the term "rush hour", an oxymoron but that's the way it is.
Having autonomous cars that are independent of transit will only add to the situation since each individual is going to take up space on the road, just like they do now. Note this: Waymo pilot program shows how self-driving cars could boost transit | Ars Technica It is the last/first mile issue all over again.
---------- Post added 08-01-18 at 08:57 AM ----------
When I was younger, having the equivalent of a F-150 was a sign of someone who used it in their profession (rancher, farmer, construction worker etc.) now it is a status symbol. To think that the "autonomous car companies" are going to hand out large trucks on demand is to my mind a little ridiculous since most people who use trucks for business purposes have their tools stored in them. The idea of expecting a autonomous F-150 type vehicle to show up at a work site with all the tools necessary for a given job is a pipe dream. The tools are owned by the operators and if you think they are going to load/unload their tools every time the "order up" a truck, well,,,,, that ain't gonna happen. Today I know of several people who brag all about their SUV/Pickup's capabilities but when they do drive off of the pavement, they spend the next two weekends polishing out the scratches. Most commuters would get along just fine with trains for commuting, but the infrastructure for handling on demand out of band does not exist and it appears that that infrastructure is in its infancy. We will also need the public transit infrastructure to get people to work and back to their suburb homes which is going to take decades and demands that Government step in to build it out.
PS - edited entry #330 to add aritcle
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-01-2018, 04:08 AM
|
| |
Again, you and a few others seem to think that autonomous vehicles will replace personal cars. I for one don't, for those who are living in a place where you need to "get about" and do personal shopping etc. It is strange to me that you believe that an autonomous car will have the capability of say, a pickup, van or station wagon. Having such large vehicles on demand would be a interesting concept, but it would not really alleviate congestion or reduce the number of cars on the road. A autonomous vehicle with a single person takes up as much space on the road as a single human driven vehicle. I think autonomous cars would be best used to get individuals from their home to public transportation and back (note: I just left London where I had no car and used "the tube" to get around without and issue). Private vehicles with the required capability to carry what you need, when you need it just might be autonomous too, but personal just the same. I see autonomous cars becoming the next disruptor to taxi's and Uber/Lyft services, not a replacement for you F-150 or whatever you have.
It is interesting that Uber has pulled out of the truck business, which would appear to me to be a good place to start with autonomous free ranging vehicles. Having a non-human driver haul stuff across the country side would seem to me to be a more attainable starting point than having a personal vehicle replacement. (I am pretty sure that Racer x 69 would not agree).
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/07/30/212248/ubers-self-driving-trucks-division-is-dead
My point is that it is going to take a great deal of time and effort to implement autonomous vehicles and that all the arm waving and "all you have to do-isms" are not all that relevant at this stage. Optimism is one thing, but looking out side to see the real world flow by is a requirement. Heaven help us if Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google or Microsoft end up being the entities that determine what will happen.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-31-2018, 01:12 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: General Talk
07-24-2018, 12:14 PM
|
| |
While the transponders will be updated, they do not land the plane. I have some knowledge about the difficulties in getting "new" technology into the airframe business and it is not that the technology is available, but it is whether the airlines want to spend the money. ML370 is a good example, the operator decided to not purchase the tracking system. There has been a traditional pushback from the airlines, and some countries, about mandated equipment even though it is a great idea.
But to get sort of on track, transponders do not make aircraft autonomous, they make the airframe trackable. Now, to get back to cars, should the government require transponders on autonomous cars? Without some kind of communication to a distribution controller how would the car know where to go and pick up its next passenger. If autonomous cars are nothing more that a replacement for your car in the garage, that means that there will NOT be a reduction in the number of vehicles on the road and that is the crux of the problem trying to be solved.
---------- Post added 07-24-18 at 12:21 PM ----------
Well, I don't think that the cameras are going to be able to penetrate flying rock all that well. The same goes for ground blizzards, snow being blown horizontally at high speeds, even if you use non human areas of the spectrum. LIDAR may have the same issues where RADAR has issues with penetrating flying rock also. The detection/categorization of objects at 200, 100 etc. will be very difficult when visibility is less than 100 feet. How do you categorize what your sensors think is a fast moving brick wall or horizontal water fall? To be honest, these are edge conditions, but when you have new technology to work out the issues on, at some point you need to address the edge issues.
---------- Post added 07-24-18 at 12:23 PM ----------
No driving this time, the tube, trains and a taxi now and then - the only Gertrude will be on my phone - and she has lead me astray several times. :lol:
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-23-2018, 10:53 PM
|
| |
That is very true and to be honest I really had not thought all that much about dust storms. I would imagine that the dust being so small, that it would not have the same effect on cameras as a snowflake due to the fact that most dust does not appear to be pure white to a camera with headlights shining into a storm. Plus the size of the dust could have interesting consequences with the cameras, maybe they would see it as "dirty fog". I also wonder what would dust in the air do to LIDAR since it is little bitty rocks moving at relatively high velocity. The dust would be an interesting experiment to see how many "things" the system would have to track. Sound sensors would be pretty worthless.
Side note: you all will be missing my "helpful input" to this discussion over the next few weeks as I am off on a two week vacation to England. I might have a little time to stir the pot before I leave, but my wife really does not like it when I keep her up typing away. I have a protocol to follow getting my images onto a SSD and doing a little processing so I can share some images with family and she hates the noisy mouse I bought. So thanks for all the fish.... ;)
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-23-2018, 08:24 PM
|
| |
Isn't putting my car in the garage a landing?:lol:
My autopilot, my wife, tends to tell me I need to turn at the last light..... Is that a failure?
When I was in Europe last year, we called our built in GPS systems (3 different cars by 3 different manufacturers) Gertrude and Gertrude Scotland would lose its place at one three way highway junction NE of Oban. I would have really enjoyed having a true autonomous vehicle when driving around in France, I drove by way too many photo opportunities.
There, now we are back to cars. Just what is the state of autonomous cars outside the US, Enquiring minds would like to know.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-23-2018, 07:58 PM
|
| |
Please go back and read my comments about fog at SEA. While the planes were able to land using, as what you call "autoland", once on the ground the planes were guided back to the terminal by airport support ground cars. The planes sat on the ground for a few days, which is why the airport was closed, because the pilots were not able to take off or even see the taxiways to get to the runways. Just to be sure here, there is no "autotakeoff" on current commercial aircraft.
Yes, there are more than enough incidents where the pilots have missed or found the wrong runways. Spacing in aircraft control is a big deal and not all aircraft are equipped with the latest and greatest devices. Those airlines that choose not to include those systems are getting to be fewer and fewer but they are still out there. Remember also that some of the tracking equipment is an option not a requirement (ML317 comes to mind) and even the latest equipment has a circuit breaker that can be flipped by the pilots or an internal event that triggers the breaker to disengage.
Modern commercial aircraft does not carry a friend or foe type of RADAR. The pilots have the air traffic controllers around to keep up separation. That system is old, prone to outages and slow to be getting updated to newer technology. There are a lot of older airplanes out there that are not equipped with "autoland" capabilities and that system is very expensive as it has to be designed for each aircraft variant. You just do not go down to the local Best Buy and get a ILS for your 737-300.
Just to add fuel to the fire.
"An automatic landing system is fail-passive if, in the event of a failure, there is no significant out-of-trim condition or deviation of flight path or attitude - but the landing is not completed automatically. NOTE: For a fail-passive automatic landing system the pilot assumes control of the aircraft after a failure."
and
"Yes a plane can land by itself using a system that is often referred to as “autoland”. The pilots can program the auto pilot to carry out the landing automatically whilst the pilots monitor the aircraft. However there are limitations to when the autoland system can be used."
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-23-2018, 04:09 PM
|
| |
While I may agree to a certain extent what will be one of the most difficult aspects of autonomous vehicles on the road (not talking aircraft or watercraft here) will be the coordination of human controlled / autonomous vehicle cooperation. Some where along the line it will be regulated to a some degree. Who will draft/enforce the regulations is the question. Government, Facebook, Google, Uber, the car companies or some new startup that only drives on sunny days?
---------- Post added 07-23-18 at 04:16 PM ----------
Absolutely, plus add in aircraft carrier operations in foul weather.
For more exciting landings just go out to YouTube® and lookup Wellington NZ landings. Thankfully when I landed/took off from there it was a really nice calm summer day.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-23-2018, 03:34 PM
|
| |
Wait, wut?
Humans are at the controls for the majority of takeoffs and landings, I think you have the idea turned around in this case.
From a discussion on FlightAware
"Assuming that takeoff= landings minus crashes, and crashes are very rare, essentially zero on any given day, we can assume there are 106,000 takeoffs worldwide in 24 hours.
That works out to about 4400 takeoffs per hour averaged over a day. Since it’s worldwide and based on 24 hours, the day/night factor is sort of balanced out.
I believe the flightaware data includes commercial passenger flights as well as general aviation cargo, private aircraft registering flight plans including corporate jets, but not military flights."
I would imagine that the total percentage of "Autoland" landings is quite small. Just how many accidents occur per day? From the 50's to 2010 it was .04598 crashes per day. How many planes crash every day? - Quora
Not bad for something that humans suck at eh? I suggest that you look at this site.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/how-risky-is-flying.html
Take note of the first chart - Risk of death by Year
automobiles 1 in 700
aircraft 1 in 1,206,000
and to think - humans suck at landing...… Really
---------- Post added 07-23-18 at 04:00 PM ----------
All the existing evidence appears to show that in this case the humans involved were responsible for the aircraft loss, the use of ML370 as an example in this case is misleading since we really do not know what happened. We can speculate all you want, take educated guesses, blame aliens, hijackers and call out a myriad of other scenarios in the case of ML370. However, from my perspective, if ML370 was downed because of the overt actions of the pilot, that is not a failure, that is/was the intent. Failure and intent are two different things. Remember the aircraft was on autopilot and from all the available information the autopilot, transponder and other systems used to communicate with air control was intentionally turned off. In this case I would not classify the hull/human loss as a failure but as a success. Harsh, yes, but it appears as if the person(s) completed what they wanted to do.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-23-2018, 11:45 AM
|
| |
Where did I say that autonomous vehicles are only for military use?
I was referring to autonomous aircraft, which is where the thread has been for the last few posts, no plain old generic vehicles. Aircraft are not cars and it is much more difficult to take off an land than to fly. Heck most modern aircraft are somewhat autonomous now during the flight phase due to autopilot functionality. It is the takeoffs and landing that can get you killed the quickest and for the most part that part of the flight is under human control.
Name one human carrying autonomous aircraft and I mean an aircraft carrying a human passenger or passengers without a pilot. Even the so called autonomous cars out today run on restricted routes and under current law they require a steering wheel, accelerator pedal and break pedal. If you watch the video link that I posted before, you will note that all of the cars listed have humans who can take over.
The Waymo cars are apparently leading the pack with their autonomous cars, but they are being introduced in a limited way in Phoenix AZ.
Waymo self-driving cars will be used in a ridesharing service launching in Phoenix, Arizona, later this year. Vehicles will initially be limited to designated areas of the city, but Waymo plans to expand the area of operations and possibly add more cities in the future. Arizona has among the most permissive autonomous car laws of any state, which may have played into Waymo’s decision to launch its service there, rather than in its home state of California.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/waymo-self-driving-cars-reach-8-million-m...-public-roads/
Please note that not only is AZ used because of the "permissive autonomous car laws" but it does not have the really bad weather found in some parts of the country. AZ => Sunbelt.
Let me again state that I would really like to have autonomous cars that I could "rent" or "request" at my convenience. But having grown up in a state that has very bad weather during most of the year, I think that those people who are not living in the Sunbelt should demand more rigorous testing and development of the requirements for use by the general population.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-22-2018, 11:43 PM
|
| |
Not quite true here. Most of the armed drones are remotely piloted from Holloman AF base in NM. You need a pilot to fly the "drone" or UAV in circles around the target and another human set of eyes to lock onto the target. If I recall correctly most target strikes are verbally authorized before both members of the team fire the weapon. I also remember reading about the high incidence of PTSD on "drone" pilots because of the stresses of the job.
Inside a US Control Centre for Drones | Military.com
Also note, the "drones" do not carry humans, commercial and military aircraft carry humans and the avionics on those aircraft do cost millions to build, test and maintain. With unmanned aircraft you don't need the life support systems but then you don't have thousands of long haul drones the size of a 777 in the air at one time either. Check out this cool map.
Flight Tracker | Flightradar24 | Track Planes In Real-Time
---------- Post added 07-23-18 at 12:07 AM ----------
I think using ML370 is a false flag here, since the airframe has not been located it can't really be attributed to humans causing the incident although a system failure is difficult to imagine. AF447 was due to very poor training on Air France's part and to issues with the design (and replacement schedule) on the pitot tube heaters. On AF447 when the "regular" captain returned to the flight deck he did try to save the aircraft but there was just not enough time for him to do it. Yes, there have been very few incidents where the machine was the source of the problem. Even OZ214 was due to pilots not knowing how to fly the 777 manually and the reason they had to fly manually was that the ILS was off-line.
So here is a situation where even manned aircraft with automated systems need to communicate with the ground in order to survive. What would happen if a autonomous aircraft full of people could not land because it can't talk to the ground equipment. I would hope that there was a trained and qualified human at the controls fallible or not.
---------- Post added 07-23-18 at 12:16 AM ----------
So puzzle me this? Why if autonomous systems are so effective, why does the military still train humans to fly their aircraft. And yes, even the Navy has tested autonomous aircraft that can land on a carrier, but they have yet to demonstrate that a autonomous aircraft can land on a carrier at night, in the rain with 30 foot swells. Some humans have been doing that since carriers started running night operations.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-21-2018, 11:29 PM
|
| |
I worked for a airframe manufacturer (hint - Woodinville, WA is close to what airframe manufacturer - another hint - it begins with B) and the thought of having to go through FAA certification for pilotless aircraft is just a painful thought experiment. There have been several times over the last 20+ years that SeaTac (three letter code SEA) was closed down due to fog. Now SEA has a automated landing system that, for those aircraft equipped for it, will land an aircraft with extremely low available visibility. The only problem was the last time we had a "big fog" was that although the airplanes could land, they could not take off. The visibility was too limited to allow the planes to taxi from the terminal to the runway and the tower would not clear them for takeoff because they might run off the runway. We are talking visibility of 200-300 feet max i.e. visibility shorter than the wingspan of a B747. (See what I did there?) Plus if you add in the cost of adding the technology for autonomous flight into the existing aircraft, autonomous aircraft are not cost effective. Even a minor change in avionics or flight systems can run a few million per airframe and that cost is pulled back very slowly. Airplanes are heavily regulated by multiple countries and the manufactures need to satisfy them all in order to sell enough airframes to make money.
There have been instances where aircraft have lost all power while in flight, including the APU, and even with drop turbine generators (available on some but not all airframes) the loss of power would mean the loss of the airframe. Add into this the fallacy that we can track all aircraft positions at the drop of a hat (ML370 mean anything to you?) We are decades away from autonomous anything. (Which is too bad in my opinion - but just look at the link I provided above - watch the video and count all the cameras/lenses - how would you keep them clean enough to work when it is muddy or when the road gets wet and the road spray covers the car in dirt?)
Add into this mix the hand wavers are starting to get into the future planning business. Pave over the subway? Cities face tough bets on driverless-car future | The Seattle Times Just you wait, we will build out an infrastructure based on feel good prognostications rather than first hand knowledge.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-19-2018, 12:35 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: General Talk
07-15-2018, 09:47 PM
|
| |
It is interesting to note that the majority of automated trains listed in the US are at airports or relatively small routes that are somewhat circular in nature. I have been on a few of them at airports and in those situations they work really well, as for those out in the "wild" I have not personally been on most of them and you really don't hear about many accidents or outages. Of the sixteen automated trains listed at least nine are airport transportation systems. (I have been on the SeaTac, Denver and O'Hare airport trains)
When my wife an I were on vacation last year we spent a lot of time on trains and for the most part love it. I like trains and vehicle where someone else is driving so I can do other things, like look out the window, read or in one case have lunch and drink a cold beer. The only bad thing about trains was that they tend to block GPS signals so I can not tell for sure where the pictures were taken. And once you get into Hungary, Slovenia and Poland you can get some old Soviet era rolling stock that rocks and rolls (they are good Faraday cages too)
Maybe one component of autonomous cars will be more or less a cross between taxi's and a private bus/train ride. Routes that follow a basic prescribed pattern but with delivery/pickup at your front door. Complicated yes, but some of the basic infrastructure exists in most cities with transit systems now. Something to ponder.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-15-2018, 05:30 PM
|
| |
Really? I have been on the Monorail and there is an operator.
Seattle Center Monorail - Wikipedia
---------- Post added 07-15-18 at 05:35 PM ----------
Ghost ships are "coming" not here yet. I don't think that there will be airliners without pilots any time soon. Even the trains in the US are having a hard time getting "active control" systems installed. Autonomous vehicles (air, land, sea) would be great, but the protocols need to be worked out and coordinated between all the players. Do you really think that the US would let a autonomous ship into its territorial waters if it came from one of the countries on the current rouge country list?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-14-2018, 11:23 PM
|
| |
This thread is about cars not trains.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-12-2018, 06:57 AM
|
| |
I can not find the site now that said billions, but even millions is more chickens that have existed on the planet.
"Under this definition, total world oil production in 2016 averaged 80,622,000 barrels per day. Approximately 68% came from the top ten countries, and an overlapping 44% came from the fourteen current OPEC members"
List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia
I corrected the message.
---------- Post added 07-12-18 at 07:13 AM ----------
Emergency vehicles should have a easier path. But will they be autonomous too or will the people inside them be drivers? This will require that the emergency vehicles can communicate with the "civilians" other than using lights and sirens.
Now there goes another YouTube® set of videos down the tubes, if you will. No more car chases through the streets. Which raises another question --->
Will emergency vehicles have a kill switch over autonomous vehicles? That could be a good/bad thing.
No more car chases or getaways.
Potential government oversight. Next we will be discussing "nanny state highways" :lol:
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-11-2018, 09:40 PM
|
| |
Don't get me started, I have a bucket of pontification right here. 🦄🚌
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-11-2018, 06:57 PM
|
| |
I think that is more fat then there are animals or oily plants available. You do realize how many automobiles there are in the world.
Today the world is producing 81BM barrels of oil a day, do you really think that there are enough vegetable oils and chicken guts to replicate that?
---------- Post added 07-11-18 at 07:00 PM ----------
I disagree, why not take on a load of crude oil and use the long trip back to earth to refine it? That way you can take the waste and eject it into space and deliver the refined product at the end.
---------- Post added 07-11-18 at 07:07 PM ----------
Fallacy - a empty car on the road is worse than a car with one person. The car is still on the road. Add into this as you have stated before, the car does not use wireless, so just how will it know where to go and get the next passenger.
---------- Post added 07-11-18 at 07:11 PM ----------
Another fallacy, when I use the bus I park in a Park and Ride lot. When I am not using the bus that parking spot is used by someone else. (There are not enough parking spaces, so you have to be careful on timing to get a spot) Parking spots are not one-to-one with the number of cars. I prefer to have my wife take me to the Transit Center so we don't need a car on either end and she uses up her one "allocated" garage at my home.
---------- Post added 07-11-18 at 07:18 PM ----------
That is because the human drivers can listen to the radio or have the ability to tune into the local radio signals that show up on the signs spread up and down the highway. (In the Greater Seattle area, the freeways are getting upgraded - oh there is that dreaded infrastructure upgrade that you say we don't need - to have electronically controlled speed limits and warnings) Or the humans in the car can be alerted to a SDOT/WADOT app that gives warnings about these things. Oh - wait, does that mean we have to teach autonomous vehicles to read now? Remember you said that wireless is not necessary earlier in the thread.
|
