[ennui2]

Yeah, the ONLY reason police pull people over for speeding is to generate revenue. Come on.

[vox_mundi]

UPS Testing Drones for Use in Its Package Delivery System

One of the world's largest package delivery companies is stepping up efforts to integrate drones into its system.

UPS has partnered with robot-maker CyPhy Works to test the use of drones to make commercial deliveries to remote or difficult-to-access locations.

The companies began testing the drones on Thursday, when they launched one from the seaside town of Marblehead. The drone flew on a programmed route for 3 miles over the Atlantic Ocean to deliver an inhaler at Children's Island.

The successful landing was greeted by jubilant shouts from CyPhy Works and UPS employees on the island to witness the test.

... "Drones aren't going to take the place of all delivery, but there are places where you have inaccessible location, an emergency situation where the infrastructure is down, you want or need the package quickly — these are the areas where drones will be the best way to get a package to a location," Greiner said.

United Parcel Service Inc., based in Atlanta, isn't the only company testing drones. Wal-Mart is testing drones it says will help it manage its warehouse inventory more efficiently, and Amazon.com is testing them for home delivery.

also ...

... Just imagine doing wild swerves from one side of the freeway to the other, and watching the auto cars having heart attacks. By rights the human could just go anywhere, and the autos would just give way.

And now imagine a thousand cameras on the cars recording your license and recording and relaying your wild ride to the police in real time.



It's called Reckless Endangerment

Reckless Endangerment is a serious offense. A conviction for the crime of New York Penal Law 120.20 can land you in jail for as long as one year. Further, a judge could sentence you to three years of probation, community service and restitution (should there be damage as a result of your criminal recklessness). Not to mention, your license will be revoked. (yah, i know, so what)

First Degree Reckless Endangerment is quite different than its misdemeanor counterpart. A felony conviction for the crime of New York Penal Law, NY PL 120.25 can land you in jail for a maximum of two and one third to seven years in prison (2 and 1/3 to 7 years). As such, a judge could sentence you to a conditional discharge, probation, one to three years, two to six years or some variation that does not ultimately exceed seven years in a New York State penitentiary

.
They will be waiting for you when you come home.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I have considered redundancy- and its amazing how many redundant systems crash anyway. In fact, the complexity added by all the redundancy can be a source of the crash (and provide many, many extra entry points for hackers).

Of course car navigation systems do not have the luxury of being taken off-line to troubleshoot problems- people will be using the system 24/7 and expect it to work continuously- any sudden take down of the system for diagnostics would lead to multiple crashes

The irony of all this is that we are discussing this on a website that repeatedly crashes!

So let's pretend that because computers aren't perfect, they can't possibly do things.

Oh wait, since you're on here, you obviously use computers. If you drive a modern car, it's already full of computers.

But let's all be Luddites and be afraid to make any progress, even slow and careful progress (as is being done with autonomous car develpment), because something might go wrong.

And let's lie and state that car navigation systems can't be taken offline to try and make our point. Because, gosh, no individual car could EVER be taken offline. And no roadway system in a localized area could ever be taken down for a while, even if it were scheduled down ahead of time at a minimum traffic time, for testing. Because no traffic testing facility could possibly exist to test self driving cars, even though such facilities already exist.

And we all know how widespread cries of computer doom are always correct. Look how accurate the doomer foresight was on Y2K, for example!

Your credibility is looking like that of the constant hard economic crash proclaimer who knows nothing about economics.

[C8]

I have considered redundancy- and its amazing how many redundant systems crash anyway. In fact, the complexity added by all the redundancy can be a source of the crash (and provide many, many extra entry points for hackers).

Of course car navigation systems do not have the luxury of being taken off-line to troubleshoot problems- people will be using the system 24/7 and expect it to work continuously- any sudden take down of the system for diagnostics would lead to multiple crashes

The irony of all this is that we are discussing this on a website that repeatedly crashes!

So let's pretend that because computers aren't perfect, they can't possibly do things.

Oh wait, since you're on here, you obviously use computers. If you drive a modern car, it's already full of computers.

But let's all be Luddites and be afraid to make any progress, even slow and careful progress (as is being done with autonomous car develpment), because something might go wrong.

And let's lie and state that car navigation systems can't be taken offline to try and make our point. Because, gosh, no individual car could EVER be taken offline. And no roadway system in a localized area could ever be taken down for a while, even if it were scheduled down ahead of time at a minimum traffic time, for testing. Because no traffic testing facility could possibly exist to test self driving cars, even though such facilities already exist.

And we all know how widespread cries of computer doom are always correct. Look how accurate the doomer foresight was on Y2K, for example!

Your credibility is looking like that of the constant hard economic crash proclaimer who knows nothing about economics.

Name calling, strawman, card stacking, generalization, exaggeration, tons of emoticons- you are pretty thorough in your use of propaganda techniques! Let me know when you develop a real argument.

[C8]

It should also be noted that there is a serious legal problem here. If courts rule navigation software companies can be made liable for fatalities from crashes caused by software issues (which is almost certain) then juries will hit companies with punitive damages.

Insurance companies survive b/c they have a fixed limit on losses (usually the policy limit). They avoid the civil suits which are directed to the driver. But a software malfunction leaves the software company (or car maker) as liable for everything! It will have to pay for the crash and bills AND can be sued in civil court for further damages. The lawsuits will not be spread out among drivers sued individually- all lawsuits will concentrate on a single manufacturer or software company.

A single software glitch resulting in multiple crashes could bring thousands of lawsuits all directed toward the same party.

Companies may find themselves bankrupt after only one glitch. Since juries like giving big punitive damages against corporations this is a certain recipe for financial ruin. Any company that runs a navigations system is exposing themselves to far higher risk than an insurance company does (which does not accept liability).

This is such a risky business model that it has to fail eventually.

[vox_mundi]

... But a software malfunction leaves the software company (or car maker) as liable for everything! It will have to pay for the crash and bills AND can be sued in civil court for further damages. The lawsuits will not be spread out among drivers sued individually- all lawsuits will concentrate on a single manufacturer or software company.

A single software glitch resulting in multiple crashes could bring thousands of lawsuits all directed toward the same party.

Companies may find themselves bankrupt after only one glitch. Since juries like giving big punitive damages against corporations this is a certain recipe for financial ruin. Any company that runs a navigations system is exposing themselves to far higher risk than an insurance company does (which does not accept liability).

This is such a risky business model that it has to fail eventually.

So how does this differ from exploding airbags or gas tanks. Or airplanes falling out of the sky.

The car companies and airlines seem to have weathered those catastrophes fairly profitably. They're all still in business.

That's what commercial insurance (and class action lawsuits) are all about. That's why Swiss Re and Munich Re are there as a backstop.

Based on current implementation, the systems are driving way better than humans. They still have 5-10 years of technical improvement (2-4 generations of computer hardware and software upgrades) before even 20% of vehicles on the streets are self-driving.

Based on your criteria the Wright Brothers would have never gotten off the ground because their risky business model might fail eventually.

[kublikhan]

Companies may find themselves bankrupt after only one glitch. Since juries like giving big punitive damages against corporations this is a certain recipe for financial ruin. Any company that runs a navigations system is exposing themselves to far higher risk than an insurance company does (which does not accept liability).

This is such a risky business model that it has to fail eventually.

Lawsuits over defective products are nothing new to automotive companies. They get sued all the time. Here's just a few examples of recent lawsuits and fines:

Toyota $1.6 Billion Sudden Unintended Acceleration Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Approved

$300M Settlement Reached in GM Ignition Switch Securities Class Action Lawsuit

$200M Settlement Imposed on Takata for Defective Air Bags

Fiat Chrysler to Pay $105M in Fines Over Defective Safety Recalls

Toyota Defective Steering Class Action Reaches Settlement

Honda to Pay $70M in Fines for Under-reporting Injuries and Deaths

Nissan Defective Infiniti Brake Class Action Reaches Proposed Settlement

Ford Settles SUV Rollover Lawsuit for $21M

Settlements - Automotive

Still, the question of liability of self driving cars remains. Here was a recent article on the liability question of self driving vehicles:

In one sense, this is not a difficult question to answer: Just leave it to the tort system. As new technologies emerge, product liability and accident compensation have been handled traditionally through a variety of legal mechanisms, including: strict liability, negligence, design-defects law, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and so on. In fact, that’s essentially what happened a century ago with the rise of the old-fashioned automobile. Generally speaking, we should let these new liability norms evolve freely as intelligent-vehicle and driverless-car technologies become more ubiquitous.

If the autonomous car maker of the future ends of up putting a fleet of defective robot cars on the road that they knew had serious programming issues, courts would force them to pay for any resulting damages. As a result, those driverless car makers will need to invest in better insurance policies to protect against that risk. It may be necessary to limit liability in some fashion to avoid the chilling effect that excessive litigation can have on life-enriching innovation.

One potential model to solve this problem can be found in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the law, Congress passed the bill “after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.” Importantly, while the law shielded vaccine creators from punishing liability to ensure they would continue to produce life-saving drugs, it did not ignore the potential risks to a small subset of the population who might be injured by taking them. The law included a compensation fund (made up of money collected from a small excise tax on vaccines) for those children suffering some harm from vaccines. Thus, this reform combined a no-fault legal regime (for the creators of the life-saving technology) with a compensation fund (for the handful of victims of that technology) to strike a sensible public health balance. This model might provide a solution to future litigation over driverless car technology.

Initially, the tort system should be allowed to run its course because it may be the case that the gains are so enormous that frivolous lawsuits are not even a cost factor. But if excessive litigation ensues over just a handful of incidents and begins discouraging more widespread adoption, Congress might need to consider an indemnification regime that ensures the technology is not discouraged but which also compensates the victims. Creating this system will have challenges of its own, but the life-saving benefits of driverless cars are well worth overcoming a few roadblocks.

When the Trial Lawyers Come for the Robot Cars

[toolpush]

Yeah, the ONLY reason police pull people over for speeding is to generate revenue. Come on.

I realize the stated reason for police on the road is all for safety reasons, but observations show often there is other motivations. A few examples. Here in Oz, i have found doing legal speeds on good down hill straight sections of divided is the best way to avoid speeding tickets, meanwhile get into the single lane bendy stuff, then open the throttle and go for your life. You will be very unlucky to find a random cruising cop to book you. But certainly there will be no stationed cars hiding in wait.
Now for an American example. How many small towns have financed their police budgets by having their cop lying in wait exactly on the change of speed limit line to pick up unsuspecting out of townees, rather than seeing who is not complying with speed limits a little further into town where safety is the issue?

[toolpush]

[b]


also ...

... Just imagine doing wild swerves from one side of the freeway to the other, and watching the auto cars having heart attacks. By rights the human could just go anywhere, and the autos would just give way.

And now imagine a thousand cameras on the cars recording your license and recording and relaying your wild ride to the police in real time.

Vox.

You paint a picture of 1984 revisited. Maybe that will be the life we will lead, in heavy populated areas anyway.
But to roll back from totally wild, recklessly endangerment type driving, just changing lanes should be fun when you, a human driver knows exactly how the none human will react. Currently with all human drivers, one never knows how the other will react, and therefore when changing lanes you need to ensure the other driver has seen you and actually allowing you into his space. With the autos, a human will "know" the auto will give way. Well at least until the autos fully develop their road rage programs!

[ennui2]

Self-driving cars doesn't mean passenger-free driving. While this reckless driving is going on, the people inside the self-driving cars are going to be giving you the same sorts of road-rage looks they would if they were behind the wheel, plus their hands will be free to call the cops.

[vox_mundi]

Other variations on the theme

Automated cars from Minority Report

iRobot Car Attack Scene

... plus their hands will be free to call the cops.

... or roll down the window and fire off a couple of warning shots



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -AXES.html

Mericans are funny that way.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Name calling, strawman, card stacking, generalization, exaggeration, tons of emoticons- you are pretty thorough in your use of propaganda techniques! Let me know when you develop a real argument.

I call them as I see them. The main thing I called you was a liar, because you lied. And I pointed out specifically how. Boo hoo. Don't like that, then don't do that.

Of course, if you have nothing meaningful to say, attack style like emoticons, as though that substitutes for substance. Epic fail. Just like pretty much all your claims about how driverless cars can't succeed, which many on this thread have pointed out are bogus.

[vox_mundi]

Google Self-Driving Car Gets Into Worst Accident Yet: Is The Autonomous Car At Fault This Time?

One of Google's self-driving vehicles sustained significant damage Friday, Sept. 23, after it met an accident while traversing the city streets in Mountain View.

Accounts from witnesses revealed that the automated vehicle was a Lexus sedan that was hit by a commercial van after its driver took the red light. The van crashed into the vehicle's passenger side.

Google later confirmed that the car was “in control” — or, in other words, self-driving mode — when the incident occurred.

It is important to note that the Google's self-driving vehicle was not at fault.

It supports the dominant narrative that the accidents for self-driving cars today, particularly those involving Google's automated vehicles, are mostly caused by humans. This is also true in the case of vehicular accidents in general.

Self-driving minibus to hit streets in Las Vegas

Later this year, Arizona-based Local Motors expects to deploy an autonomous minibus in Las Vegas through a partnership with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, state officials announced today.

Local Motors, a startup known for manufacturing 3D-printed vehicles, plans to demonstrate the safety and reliability of the new vehicle, known as Olli, at UNLV and eventually deploy a fleet in the city of Las Vegas.

Olli, an autonomous minibus that seats 12, could be used for public transportation or to take passengers on short rides.

Before the vehicles appear in Las Vegas, they will debut in Washington, D.C., through the summer. Miami-Dade County also will run a pilot program for the vehicles.

“Self-driving vehicles are part of a portfolio of new transportation options which are changing our approach to transit and travel,” Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval said in a news release. “I’m proud to see so many local government partners share in this exciting announcement and look forward to the advancement of this partnership with Local Motors.”

IBM’s artificial intelligence technology, IBM Watson, is providing the computing framework for the Olli minibus, making it the first self-driving vehicle to use the IBM technology.

Uber testing self-driving cars in San Francisco

[vox_mundi]

... How about the occupants? Can they be reprinted also?

They're self-replicating

[C8]

So how does this differ from exploding airbags or gas tanks. Or airplanes falling out of the sky.

The car companies and airlines seem to have weathered those catastrophes fairly profitably. They're all still in business.

Its the scale of the accidents that matter- those airbags and gas tanks were rather few in number- a software issue could cause thousands of accidents- you are smart enough to know this is a very real possibility

That's what commercial insurance (and class action lawsuits) are all about. That's why Swiss Re and Munich Re are there as a backstop.

I am not sure even re-insurers want to touch this

Based on current implementation, the systems are driving way better than humans. They still have 5-10 years of technical improvement (2-4 generations of computer hardware and software upgrades) before even 20% of vehicles on the streets are self-driving.

But those humans are sued individually- a software company will get hammered with all the lawsuits- and juries like to give really big nasty punitive penalties out to corporate America

Based on your criteria the Wright Brothers would have never gotten off the ground because their risky business model might fail eventually.

Way off base. Airplanes don't start to collectively fall from the sky as a group due to software issues b/c the Wright Bros. didn't use software. I am speaking of a systems failure- the kind that brought Delta Airlines to its knees.

The reality is that air travel is much safer with software than street travel. Planes are kept apart by air traffic controllers- if a mechanical or software malfunction occurs there is a large cushion of sky that gives a trained pilot time for a recovery. Planes are safe b/c they are in such a remote, forgiving environment.

On the road it is a different story- hundreds of vehicles are streaming at high speeds only feet (or inches) apart from each other. A one second error can lead to a horrible chain reaction which will lead to a massive class action lawsuit. Computers have never been asked to manage such a dangerous, random, unpredictable environment before. On the road drivers face flash showers, tire treads ripping off trucks, fog, cars changing lanes too quickly (we aren't going to outlaw self-driving). This isn't just a baby step from computer assisted airplane travel- it is a giant leap- the biggest challenge software has ever faced in its history by far.

Planes operate in a very remote, safe space for the most part. And the number of planes in the air is puny compared to the number of cars on the road and the variety of conditions they face (such as "loss of internet service")

[Outcast_Searcher]

You have never argued a case well outcaste. Always angry. I almost have you on ignore, but I don't bother.

And you should tell me this because you argue cases well? LOL

And I get the ignore thing. Ignoring everyone outside your echo chamber would make this site seem much more agreeable, I'm sure.

[ralfy]

Related:

"On the cusp of collapse: complexity, energy, and the globalised economy"

http://fleeingvesuvius.org/2011/10/08/o ... d-economy/