Walker wrote:One could even say, suspiciously stupid. ...
You Yanks and your conspiracy theories - it was big gubberment wat done it!
She was an unanticipated variable.
Fault reality. It’s full of such things.
If the machines can’t adapt to reality, which includes unanticipated variables, then folks better adapt to the machines because somebody other than consumer demand is pushing hard to make these things the norm. Folks just better get used to not stepping outside that crosswalk. No more unmapped road trips for the spontaneous adventurer.
Get in line and know your place, which in her case is at fault.
If you go out and run over someone, and claim it was unavoidable, manslaughter charges for you. The machine gets a pass, the human gets blamed, and so many machine apologists!
You live in a very strange country as if that was my accident I'm pretty sure our courts would not even give me penalty points based upon that video.
Self-driving autos are kinda like the California so-called bullet train. Only the vested interests wanted that boondoggle of conception and faults, including the San Andreas.
I think it more that with 30,000 deaths a year you Americans just can't drive and they're looking to reduce the costs.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:14 amYou live in a very strange country as if that was my accident I'm pretty sure our courts would not even give me penalty points based upon that video.
The camera view is deceptive. Not nearly as sensitive as the human eye.
I think it more that with 30,000 deaths a year you Americans just can't drive and they're looking to reduce the costs.
Most licensed drivers can drive because most people are not suicidal.
Plenty of undocumented, untested drivers on the road, that's fer dang sure.
Based on this observation, who wouldn’t prefer a human navigator?
The Metaphysics
The eye-camera discussion sometimes entwines with the creation-evolution debate. Creationists point to the eye as evidence of design in nature, while evolutionists point to the eye as simply a point of progress in evolutionary history. Interestingly, the publication "Popular Photography" asserted that "comparing the camera to the human eye isn’t a fair analogy. The human eye is more like an incredibly advanced supercomputer with artificial intelligence, information-processing abilities, speeds and modes of operation that are far beyond any man-made device, computer or camera.” Whatever your view is, the eye continues to be a source of inspiration in the optics and bionics fields.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:49 pm
Your touching attention to my typo is absolutely hilarious. Of course, there could actually be a place called Anerica where nearly everyone drives automatics (just like America).
I think women demand the automatic transmissions. There’s just too much luxury to be bothered with shifting the gear stick thingy while driving. Attention goes to eating the Big Mac, drinking the half-gallon sized soda pop, smokin’ ‘em if you gottem, checking the GPS, adjusting the temperature of the heated seats, applying makeup to face, flossing the Big Mac out of the teeth, fielding the messages and phone calls, monitoring the movies for the soccer brats in the back, opening the moon roof, closing the moon roof, adjusting the rear-view mirror so it reflects back into the eyes of the asshole tailgating you, and not mowing down homeless women on bicycles even though interactive autos are supposed to apply the brakes in place of your inattentive self, if you can believe the commercials.
So it's only women who buy cars in your country? Or eat McDonalds?
Well since you’re being picky, so far women are the only human variables involved in actual topical content.
The driver, the victim, the special soccer mom.
The fewer hypotheticals (men on auto eating burgers) the better for clarity, it would seem.