"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 23:46:32 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 23:08:02 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 21:55:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:11:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:16:48 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 22:55:42 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 00:57:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 20:48:38 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 30 September 2018 17:04:57 UTC+1, Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:17:16 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Friday, 7 September 2018 23:00:05 UTC+1, Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 10:44:19 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 7 September 2018 00:26:18 UTC+1, Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:04:00 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 20:53:23 UTC+1,
bert
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 15:08:23 UTC+1,
Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 10:45:01 +0100,
whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 3 September 2018 16:52:41 UTC+1,
Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 16:06:21 +0100,
whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 3 September 2018 14:50:32
UTC+1,
Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:30:40 +0100,
whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 1 September 2018
21:59:36
UTC+1,
Jimmy
Wilkinson
Knife wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 20:54:02 +0100,
Rod
Speed
wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

wrote
Rod Speed

wrote





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804

The report doesn't say whose
fault
it
was.

But it does list a hell of a lot
of
other
similar
failures
and a well designed self driving
car
should
drive
the
car so it doesn't cause human
drivers
to
run
into
the
back of the car its driving
because
of
how
it
drives.

And of course human drivers never
****
up
like
this....

Which is why people don't want to
spend
Ł1000s
on
a
self
driving car that ****s up or kills
them,
they
can
have
that


No, they get 20 times less ****ups.

The California DMV said it has received
it
has
received
95
autonomous vehicle collision reports as
of
August
31.
Dozens of
companies have received permits to test
self-driving
vehicles on
California roads, but those permits
require
the
presence
of a human safety driver.

Just how amny of these atomomous cars
are
there
a
few
dozen
comparded to....

You say 95 collisions with autonomous
vehicles,
but
you
don't say
how many manually driven cars have had
collisions.

Because it's such a small sample, we don't
narrow
down
the
number
of manual collisons of 100 or so cars and
that
is
why
there
are so
many more collisins with manual cars because
we
count
the
cars in
millions NOT dozens.
What's needed is a rate of accidents a
figure
they
will
not
give out.

I've seen it, and it's 20 times larger for
human
driver
than
automated cars.

Then yuo should be able to cite it then
shouldn't
you
?
Presenntly there are NO automated cars, anyway
and
the
cars
that are
used as driverless aren't tested amonst real
road
users
they
just go
round and around on test tracks, no wonder they
don't
have
accidents.

But if they are so good why do they require a
human
at
the
wheel ?

Because they are not THAT good.

So humans are still better at driving cars than
humans,
that
is
the point.

Are you drunk again? Rewrite that sentence.

Nothing wronfg humans are humans they are all
difernt
even
if
only
slightl;y so have one faulty human driver isnlt such
a
dig
deal
like
yourself who can't see a deer in front of them and
can't
stop
in
time isnt such a big deal but when you have
100,000s
of
them
and
none for them cane yuo end up with serious problems
it;s
why
you
have to have recalls for faulty products.
With humans you remove their driving license if they
can't
drive
properly and it;s not big deal except for teh person
who
has
their
license removed do that to 100,000 cars in a day
and
you
have
problems.

Computerised cars can easily be updated with better
programs,
you
can't do that with humans.

Yes you can it's called training.

Not as easy as updating the software in every computer.

But that won;t work it's the semsors and hardware that
will
need
updating.

Much more likely its what the software that uses those
sensors and hardware that needs the updating.

It's like phone Apple haven't just upgraded the software
for
their
iPhone3GS

Thats providing more capability. They have in fact
radically
changed
what the software does as well as improving the sensors and
cameras.

so it's compatable with face recognition

It has in fact got a completely new way of looking at the
face
for
that.

and everything else have they. So you wouldn't
be able to do that with cars either.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying
something.

just software that might need changing, but then nyou;'d
have
to
understand
the technologies involved rather thsan just assume they
work
by
magic.

of course if you can't tell a real car from a fake
wooden
one
?,
Could you tell the differnce between a faked wooden car
and
the
real
thing ?

People make mistake...

The person saw the car, the co puter in the car didn't.
People are still better at driving cars than cars driving
themselve,

Thats very arguable with the routine driving.

and that is why currently all driverc assisted cars come
with
a steering wheel and pedals otherwise why put them in the
car just to waste money, to take up an extra seat, to make
the cars heavier and less efficient ?

Just saw an article in the BBC RSS feed which points out
that
one of the real downsides with that approach of supposedly
having the human checking how the computer is driving is
that many humans will just doze off or read a book etc
when the computer is doing all the work and it will be
interesting to see how real the supervision actually is.

Think of it like you're teaching someone to drive. Once
they
get
pretty
good at it, you won't be watching their every move.

But you do watch how they handle the more unusual situations
like when there has been an accident and there is lots of
congestion
and a real risk of them rubbernecking at the result of the
accident
as they drive past it and arent looking where they are going.

That isnt possible when checking on what the self driving
car is up to if you have dozed off because you arent driving.

Why would you be more likely to doze off with an automated car
than
with
a
person that you think is usually ok driving but might need
help?

Never said that you would be.

Dave quoted from an article: "many humans will just doze off or
read
a
book etc when the computer is doing all the work"

That was me, not Dave.

It appears that way now, either I was too drunk to read the
colours
correctly or Opera ****ed up.

So you're now admitting that you did say what you thought you
didn't?

Nope.

Your quotation (which I assume you agree with) states that many
people
will fall asleep when a computer is driving,

Yes.

yet you claim above that you "Never said that you would be" (likely
to
doze off).

Thats where you ****ed up.

It was your claim.

Nope, it was the claim made by that other individual.

The indents above clearly show that you were the one that posted "Never
said that you would be".

Thats not a claim.

It was a claim that you never said it.

Nope, that is a statement of fact.