Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Google is preparing for the kill shot here in 24 months...
and getting very close

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g#t=46[/youtube]

It'll be a great day when self-driving cars are available, and an even greater one when they're widespread.

Keep up the good work Google!

∞∞∞ wrote:It'll be a great day when self-driving cars are available, and an even greater one when they're widespread.

Keep up the good work Google!

Ah... but the real trick is still up their sleeve
The law states that person has to be in the car at all times...
but can that person be somebody convicted of drunk driving
and who is banned from motor vehicle operation..?

Can than that person be disabled..?
Can they be blind..?
Can they be too old and feeble to drive..?

Interesting debate in the near future

Like I said before, think of all the man-hours that go into testing software that still do not eliminate the bugs. If there is a bug with this software people die. Can we really be confident enough that a machine can handle every possible situation safely?

That video is just a solicitation for Google investment.

Pwns wrote:Like I said before, think of all the man-hours that go into testing software that still do not eliminate the bugs. If there is a bug with this software people die. Can we really be confident enough that a machine can handle every possible situation safely?

That video is just a solicitation for Google investment.

They need to assign a drone to each one to monitor it!

Pwns wrote:Like I said before, think of all the man-hours that go into testing software that still do not eliminate the bugs. If there is a bug with this software people die. Can we really be confident enough that a machine can handle every possible situation safely?

That video is just a solicitation for Google investment.

There's no question about it, the technology will make mistakes and people will die from it. That said, I bet you WAY less people will die from self-driving cars than from human error (aka. what we have now).

Plus when a software mistake is discovered, it can be immediately updated. No such luck with people.

Unless they could make it hack proof, a hacker could take over your car and use it as a weapon to kill you and others.

Pwns wrote:Like I said before, think of all the man-hours that go into testing software that still do not eliminate the bugs. If there is a bug with this software people die. Can we really be confident enough that a machine can handle every possible situation safely?

That video is just a solicitation for Google investment.

I don't think Google has much trouble attracting investors. They're kind of the Scarlett Johansen of publicly traded companies.

YEah bad example.............She couldnt sell me a Yugo

Yeah, we all know your standards are higher than George Clooney's and Ryan Reynolds' combined, butterscotch.

Chizzang wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:It'll be a great day when self-driving cars are available, and an even greater one when they're widespread.

Keep up the good work Google!

Ah... but the real trick is still up their sleeve
The law states that person has to be in the car at all times...
but can that person be somebody convicted of drunk driving
and who is banned from motor vehicle operation..?

Can than that person be disabled..?
Can they be blind..?
Can they be too old and feeble to drive..?

Interesting debate in the near future

Interesting stuff! I wonder what the range is on a tank of gas?

I hope they bring one to Iowa to test with all the farm machinery on the roads, especially in the spring and fall. If it can figure out how to handle that we'll know we're there. And then the govt will come in and fuck it all up.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:YEah bad example.............She couldnt sell me a Yugo

Aim lower Butterscotch...

HI54UNI wrote: Interesting stuff! I wonder what the range is on a tank of gas?

I hope they bring one to Iowa to test with all the farm machinery on the roads, especially in the spring and fall. If it can figure out how to handle that we'll know we're there. And then the govt will come in and fuck it all up.

I just so happen to know EXACTLY what the range is on a Google Lexus RX 450h Hybred SUV as shown in the video - but I'm not talking... my butthurt is still raging from the last go round with you bastards

Chizzang wrote:Google is preparing for the kill shot here in 24 months...
and getting very close

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g#t=46[/youtube]

they need to figure out how to get it to avoid squirrels before we can have the higher philosophical discussions

Chizzang wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:YEah bad example.............She couldnt sell me a Yugo

Aim lower Butterscotch...

Not hot in any way shape or form, might as well be a dude and that is a HIGH probability.............Clooney is a fu*king loser douchebag who cares who he dates you homos.

Chizzang wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:It'll be a great day when self-driving cars are available, and an even greater one when they're widespread.

Keep up the good work Google!

Ah... but the real trick is still up their sleeve
The law states that person has to be in the car at all times...
but can that person be somebody convicted of drunk driving
and who is banned from motor vehicle operation..?

Can than that person be disabled..?
Can they be blind..?
Can they be too old and feeble to drive..?

Interesting debate in the near future

Interesting questions. If you tell the car where to go when you're drunk can you get a DUI? I would think there would be a GPS tracker that would show where the car is at all times in case it was stolen or an older person takes the car and gets lost. I guess you could track your teenagers and the whereabouts of your spouse.....

How does the car account for faster/slower moving traffic that aren't GPS controlled? What about the fact that Google Maps can be/is way behind on roads being closed/rerouted? How do they account for stop lights? Obstructions in the road such as wild life?

Never happen. The states won't allow it. If these cars are so good, there will be no traffic tickets to issue....thus, revenue is gone.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Pwns wrote:Like I said before, think of all the man-hours that go into testing software that still do not eliminate the bugs. If there is a bug with this software people die. Can we really be confident enough that a machine can handle every possible situation safely?

That video is just a solicitation for Google investment.

There's no question about it, the technology will make mistakes and people will die from it. That said, I bet you WAY less people will die from self-driving cars than from human error (aka. what we have now).

Plus when a software mistake is discovered, it can be immediately updated. No such luck with people.

But how do you "beta test" the software to eliminate the more obvious bugs?

Pwns wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: There's no question about it, the technology will make mistakes and people will die from it. That said, I bet you WAY less people will die from self-driving cars than from human error (aka. what we have now).

Plus when a software mistake is discovered, it can be immediately updated. No such luck with people.

But how do you "beta test" the software to eliminate the more obvious bugs?

Drive it? Throw variables at it? There are fake towns set up for all sorts of training. Why not use something like that? Have it drive on a smooth surface, then approach a "work crew". Simulate high winds, heavy run, black ice, snow, stopping short, being cut off, etc....

Ibanez wrote:

Pwns wrote:
But how do you "beta test" the software to eliminate the more obvious bugs?

Drive it? Throw variables at it? There are fake towns set up for all sorts of training. Why not use something like that? Have it drive on a smooth surface, then approach a "work crew". Simulate high winds, heavy run, black ice, snow, stopping short, being cut off, etc....

And that's my point...you would need to simulate traffic on both slower-moving roads and on interstates. The number of scenarios you would need to test it seem endless and it seems like it could get really expensive.

Pwns wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Drive it? Throw variables at it? There are fake towns set up for all sorts of training. Why not use something like that? Have it drive on a smooth surface, then approach a "work crew". Simulate high winds, heavy run, black ice, snow, stopping short, being cut off, etc....

And that's my point...you would need to simulate traffic on both slower-moving roads and on interstates. The number of scenarios you would need to test it seem endless and it seems like it could get really expensive.

I could see starting with something like an express lane devoted only to autonomous vehicles in the beginning as a training ground, and eventually begin allowing the vehicles into more dynamic situations like city traffic.

It would be pretty cool on a road trip to get your car to the interstate, put on the Google, and kick back for a nap for a while.

Chizzang wrote:

HI54UNI wrote: Interesting stuff! I wonder what the range is on a tank of gas?

I hope they bring one to Iowa to test with all the farm machinery on the roads, especially in the spring and fall. If it can figure out how to handle that we'll know we're there. And then the govt will come in and fuck it all up.

I just so happen to know EXACTLY what the range is on a Google Lexus RX 450h Hybred SUV as shown in the video - but I'm not talking...

Please, tell us more. We are all dying to hear. Really, we are.

Pwns wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: There's no question about it, the technology will make mistakes and people will die from it. That said, I bet you WAY less people will die from self-driving cars than from human error (aka. what we have now).

Plus when a software mistake is discovered, it can be immediately updated. No such luck with people.

But how do you "beta test" the software to eliminate the more obvious bugs?

With prisoners.

Pwns wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: There's no question about it, the technology will make mistakes and people will die from it. That said, I bet you WAY less people will die from self-driving cars than from human error (aka. what we have now).

Plus when a software mistake is discovered, it can be immediately updated. No such luck with people.

But how do you "beta test" the software to eliminate the more obvious bugs?

Montana.