On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 02:10:55 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:

FLUSH the two brainless idiots endless sick drivel

"bert" wrote in message
news
In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim... wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news
In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a car. For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:10:55 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:28:04 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:


They're better than humans for two reasons. One, they always pay attention. Two, their cameras look in all directions simultaneously.

False statement it's not the camera that drives the car.

I didn't say it was. The camera is equivalent to our eyes. Nobody can look in all directions at once.

In the recent self drive car 'accident'

According to the NTSB report, the Uber vehicle struggled to identify Elaine Herzberg as she wheeled her bicycle across a four-lane road. Although it was dark, the cars radar and LIDAR detected her six seconds before the crash. But the perception system got confused: it classified her as an unknown object, then as a vehicle and finally as a bicycle, whose path it could not predict. Just 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system realised that emergency braking was needed. But the cars built-in emergency braking system had been disabled, to prevent conflict with the self-driving system; instead a human safety operator in the vehicle is expected to brake when needed. But the safety operator, who had been looking down at the self-driving systems display screen, failed to brake in time. Ms Herzberg was hit by the vehicle and subsequently died of her injuries.

Humans crash into bicycles too, they shouldn't be allowed on the same piece of tarmac as real vehicles. They wobble about and go far too slowly.. They have no indicators, no brake lights, nothing.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news
In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because
they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in
town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

Even you should have notice that the lane markings
are a bit hard to see thru the snow, and even the
edge of the road when the snow is deep enough.

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

I actually taught one to drive and she did
rather better than her husband who I also
taught to drive at the same time.

Her problem is lack of confidence.

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 06:42:43 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH idiots' bull****

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 07:16:57 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

I actually taught one to drive and she did
rather better than her husband who I also
taught to drive at the same time.

Her problem is lack of confidence.

And those two did NOT think that you are a complete asshole, Rot? Tell us
the truth! BG

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:16:57 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because
they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in
town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

Even you should have notice that the lane markings
are a bit hard to see thru the snow, and even the
edge of the road when the snow is deep enough.

No reason a computer would find that any more difficult than a human does.

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

I actually taught one to drive and she did
rather better than her husband who I also
taught to drive at the same time.

Her problem is lack of confidence.

Exactly, they dither at junctions and cause accidents. As for parking, oh my god.

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 �1000s 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.

And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

They will once they use a simialr system to planes were everyone is tracked and the information is shared between vehicals.
At the moment so called driverless cars are little more than tailgaters do relying on only on the immediate surroundings (which they get wrong) or just the car in front, humans have the ability to do more cars presetly don't.

Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front, behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only see in one direction.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:16:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because
they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country
road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in
town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case
that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice
to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving
a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

Even you should have notice that the lane markings
are a bit hard to see thru the snow, and even the
edge of the road when the snow is deep enough.

No reason a computer would find that any more difficult than a human does.

Corse there is when the human can remember
where the road was before the blizzard.

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

I actually taught one to drive and she did
rather better than her husband who I also
taught to drive at the same time.

Her problem is lack of confidence.

Exactly, they dither at junctions

She doesn't.

and cause accidents.

And doesn't do that either.

As for parking, oh my god.

Her parking is great. And no god will have you, try the devil.

On Thursday, 6 September 2018 21:53:54 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

It's difficult seeing through snow, it sort of optically opaque.



For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

Is yuor middle name Sheila, yuo couldn;t even avoid hitting a bloody deer and most deers aren't that small but you can't see them it seems.

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 �1000s 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.

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:21:38 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


and cause accidents.

And doesn't do that either.

As for parking, oh my god.

Her parking is great. And no god will have you, try the devil.

HE will have YOU ...to get his cocked sucked by you, every time he feels he
needs it, senile toothless Ozzie cocksucker! LOL
--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:44:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:

Are you drunk again? Rewrite that sentence.

Nothing wronfg humans are humans they are all difernt even if only slightl;y

BRUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! ****ing senile newsgroup this has become! LOL

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:33:30 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:



Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

Is yuor middle name Sheila, yuo couldn;t even avoid hitting a bloody deer and most deers aren't that small but you can't see them it seems.

Is yuor middle name Senile, yuo couldn;t even avoid feeding the filthy troll
but you can't see it it seems! BG

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 �1000s 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.

And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

They will once they use a simialr system to planes were everyone is tracked and the information is shared between vehicals.
At the moment so called driverless cars are little more than tailgaters do relying on only on the immediate surroundings (which they get wrong) or just the car in front, humans have the ability to do more cars presetly don't.

Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front,

No they don;t they can;t, most cant;l tell a plastic bag from a child.

Prove that stupid comment.

behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only see in one direction.

total crap humans turn their heads too, depending on what they see as a danger or important info.

But a computerised car can see all directions AT ONCE. There is no way for a human to do that.

This si why the uber car couldn;t break in time it had 6 seconds to hit the brakes but didn't most himans have a thinking time far less than 6 seconds even you could manged that I assume or am I being too generous..

I think the average is 300ms, and when I did a test I was well under that.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 10:33:30 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 6 September 2018 21:53:54 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

It's difficult seeing through snow, it sort of optically opaque.

No harder than for a human.

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

Is yuor middle name Sheila, yuo couldn;t even avoid hitting a bloody deer and most deers aren't that small but you can't see them it seems.

It crossed the road without looking. I had right of way.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 01:21:38 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:16:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article ,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because
they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country
road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's in
town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case
that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice
to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of driving
a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

Even you should have notice that the lane markings
are a bit hard to see thru the snow, and even the
edge of the road when the snow is deep enough.

No reason a computer would find that any more difficult than a human does.

Corse there is when the human can remember
where the road was before the blizzard.

Since when did computers have no memory?

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

I actually taught one to drive and she did
rather better than her husband who I also
taught to drive at the same time.

Her problem is lack of confidence.

Exactly, they dither at junctions

She doesn't.

Is she one of those er.... trannies?

and cause accidents.

And doesn't do that either.

As for parking, oh my god.

Her parking is great. And no god will have you, try the devil.

There is no god. If there was I'd prefer the devil anyway.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 01:21:38 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:16:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 21:42:43 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0100, tim...
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
news In article
,
whisky-dave writes

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

Because they are not THAT good. And probably never will be because
they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

I think that they easily ought to manage it for motorway & country
road
driving (with a fall back to the driver during congestion). It's
in
town
where they may struggle.

Unfortunately, it's the self driving in town that is the use case
that
makes
most sense from a social pov.

Having a car which I can set to autopilot on the motorway is a nice
to
have,
it isn't a game changer - except perhaps for trucks.

There's no reason a computer can't do the simple operation of
driving
a
car.

There is when the sensors arent economically viable like
when the road is under water or covered with snow.

Why could a camera not cope with snow?

Even you should have notice that the lane markings
are a bit hard to see thru the snow, and even the
edge of the road when the snow is deep enough.

No reason a computer would find that any more difficult than a human
does.

Corse there is when the human can remember
where the road was before the blizzard.

Since when did computers have no memory?

They don't have enough to remember that.

For goodness sake even some women manage it (just).

A likely story.

Have you ever seen a Sheila try to drive?

I actually taught one to drive and she did
rather better than her husband who I also
taught to drive at the same time.

Her problem is lack of confidence.

Exactly, they dither at junctions

She doesn't.

Is she one of those er.... trannies?

Nope. The midget is 4 now.

and cause accidents.

And doesn't do that either.

As for parking, oh my god.

Her parking is great. And no god will have you, try the devil.

There is no god. If there was I'd prefer the devil anyway.

He's not interested in unemployables either.

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 05:11:09 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


There is no god. If there was I'd prefer the devil anyway.

He's not interested in unemployables either.

NOBODY is really interested in you two unenmpoyable IDIOTS! That's why you
need to troll on Usenet!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

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 �1000s 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.
if a computersied car misses somehting there;s mot ethna 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 ?




Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front,

No they don;t they can;t, most cant;l tell a plastic bag from a child.

Prove that stupid comment.

already been done.

https://www.wired.com/story/self-dri...eption-humans/

But it is still dawn in autonomy-land, and at least for now, humanity holds an advantage: For all their sensors and computers, robocars still don't see or understand the world as well as we do with our eyeballs, ear canals, and brain folds.
"Youre probably safer in a self-driving car than with a 16-year-old, or a 90-year-old," says Schoettle. "But youre probably significantly safer with an alert, experienced, middle-aged driver than in a self-driving car."




behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only see in one direction.

total crap humans turn their heads too, depending on what they see as a danger or important info.

But a computerised car can see all directions AT ONCE. There is no way for a human to do that.

total crap responce from someone that doesn't understand either humans or technology used in driverless cars.



This si why the uber car couldn;t break in time it had 6 seconds to hit the brakes but didn't most himans have a thinking time far less than 6 seconds even you could manged that I assume or am I being too generous.

I think the average is 300ms, and when I did a test I was well under that..

the 100ms is the fastest and was measure using sprinters like usain bolts reaction time to the start gun.
which incidently using sound which while sound travels faster than light humans react faster to sound than light otherwoise they;d use lights to statr 100 metre races, but human take longer to process a light signal than a sound signal.



So why didn't the driverless car that saw the womem and the bike not stop in the 6 seconds it had ?
As you say even you could do that, but the car couldn't.






Humans have a responce time of around 0.1s which is about the fastest, which is how they decide if 100M sprint runners leave the blocks before the pistol has fired by timing their response to the sound.

Which is why some get done for false starts when they didn't, because some are faster than they thought.

No they try predict when the gun will go off.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 03:17:16 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:

FLUSH troll ****

....and much better air in here again!

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 �1000s 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.

if a computersied car misses somehting there;s mot ethna

mot ethna? Who's she?

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 mistakes too. Most often if they sneeze or the sun gets in their eyes.

Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front,

No they don;t they can;t, most cant;l tell a plastic bag from a child.

Prove that stupid comment.

already been done.

https://www.wired.com/story/self-dri...eption-humans/

But it is still dawn in autonomy-land, and at least for now, humanity holds an advantage: For all their sensors and computers, robocars still don't see or understand the world as well as we do with our eyeballs, ear canals, and brain folds.
"Youre probably safer in a self-driving car than with a 16-year-old, or a 90-year-old," says Schoettle. "But youre probably significantly safer with an alert, experienced, middle-aged driver than in a self-driving car."

Funny how I've read a report that says you're 20 times less likely to crash in a self driving car than being driven by an average human.

behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only see in one direction.

total crap humans turn their heads too, depending on what they see as a danger or important info.

But a computerised car can see all directions AT ONCE. There is no way for a human to do that.

total crap responce from someone that doesn't understand either humans or technology used in driverless cars.

The cameras point all directions at once, your eyes don't, simple fact.

This si why the uber car couldn;t break in time it had 6 seconds to hit the brakes but didn't most himans have a thinking time far less than 6 seconds even you could manged that I assume or am I being too generous.

I think the average is 300ms, and when I did a test I was well under that.

the 100ms is the fastest and was measure using sprinters like usain bolts reaction time to the start gun.

I'm 150ms.

which incidently using sound which while sound travels faster than light humans react faster to sound than light otherwoise they;d use lights to statr 100 metre races, but human take longer to process a light signal than a sound signal.

I don't believe you. More likely it means they don't have to be looking at a particular spot, plus all the spectators know when they're told to go.

Humans have a responce time of around 0.1s which is about the fastest, which is how they decide if 100M sprint runners leave the blocks before the pistol has fired by timing their response to the sound.

Which is why some get done for false starts when they didn't, because some are faster than they thought.

No they try predict when the gun will go off.

They changed the time after they discovered some were faster than they thought possible.

And how the **** could you predict it, easy enough to make it totally random.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
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 �1000s 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.

if a computersied car misses somehting there;s mot ethna

mot ethna? Who's she?

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 mistakes too. Most often if they sneeze or the sun gets in
their eyes.

Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front,

No they don;t they can;t, most cant;l tell a plastic bag from a child.

Prove that stupid comment.

already been done.

https://www.wired.com/story/self-dri...eption-humans/

But it is still dawn in autonomy-land, and at least for now, humanity
holds an advantage: For all their sensors and computers, robocars still
don't see or understand the world as well as we do with our eyeballs, ear
canals, and brain folds.
"Youre probably safer in a self-driving car than with a 16-year-old, or
a 90-year-old," says Schoettle. "But youre probably significantly safer
with an alert, experienced, middle-aged driver than in a self-driving
car."

Funny how I've read a report that says you're 20 times less likely to
crash in a self driving car than being driven by an average human.

Bet its just as mindless as that other steaming turd that claims that
cannabis cures cancer.

behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only
see in one direction.

total crap humans turn their heads too, depending on what they see as
a danger or important info.

But a computerised car can see all directions AT ONCE. There is no way
for a human to do that.

total crap responce from someone that doesn't understand either humans or
technology used in driverless cars.

The cameras point all directions at once, your eyes don't, simple fact.

This si why the uber car couldn;t break in time it had 6 seconds to
hit the brakes but didn't most himans have a thinking time far less
than 6 seconds even you could manged that I assume or am I being too
generous.

I think the average is 300ms, and when I did a test I was well under
that.

the 100ms is the fastest and was measure using sprinters like usain bolts
reaction time to the start gun.

I'm 150ms.

which incidently using sound which while sound travels faster than light
humans react faster to sound than light otherwoise they;d use lights to
statr 100 metre races, but human take longer to process a light signal
than a sound signal.

I don't believe you. More likely it means they don't have to be looking
at a particular spot, plus all the spectators know when they're told to
go.

Humans have a responce time of around 0.1s which is about the
fastest, which is how they decide if 100M sprint runners leave the
blocks before the pistol has fired by timing their response to the
sound.

Which is why some get done for false starts when they didn't, because
some are faster than they thought.

No they try predict when the gun will go off.

They changed the time after they discovered some were faster than they
thought possible.

And how the **** could you predict it, easy enough to make it totally
random.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 05:24:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH 230 lines of stinking troll **** unread

....and much better air in here!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

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 �1000s 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.
It's like phone Apple haven't just upgraded the software for their iPhone3GS
so it's compatable with face recognition and everything else have they.
So you wouldn't be able to do that with cars either.



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, 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 ?

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 05:41:46 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:

FLUSH most of the usual sick **** unread


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

Are you at it again, you notorious sucker of troll cock? tsk

"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 �1000s 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.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:48:38 +1000, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH over 180 lines of absolutely idiotic off topic sick ****!

....and much better air in here again!

--
Marland addressing bull****ting senile Rot:
"Stay in your wet paper bag you thick twit."
MID:

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 �1000s 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.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:41:46 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

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 �1000s 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.
It's like phone Apple haven't just upgraded the software for their iPhone3GS
so it's compatable with face recognition and everything else have they..
So you wouldn't be able to do that with cars either.



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 always saying "he came out of nowhere" after an accident. Humans make way more mistakes, they fail to spot things all the time.

People are still better at driving cars than cars driving themselve, 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 ?

For silly government regulations.

"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 �1000s 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.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:57:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH 220 lines of the usual idiotic **** unread

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Monday, 1 October 2018 20:48:53 UTC+1, 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 �1000s 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.

Not yet as the hardware hasn't been designed yet for mass market, so first they have to get the necessary hardware installed then they can start writting the software then update it when it fails.



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

Thats providing more capability.

Which is what the current battch of so called driverless cars need because they haven;t got the hardware needed for complete autonomy.


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

Yes and still not good enough for a driverless car they are still driver assisted, you can tell because they have a steering wheel and pedals.



so it's compatable with face recognition

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

What new way ?




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.

Gettign a car to drive around in circles or on set routes is pretty easy, I was doing that as a kid with scalectic racing cars.


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.

That's the problemand that;s why they aren't truely driverless.

On Monday, 1 October 2018 23:47:16 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:41:46 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:


The person saw the car, the co puter in the car didn't.

People are always saying "he came out of nowhere" after an accident. Humans make way more mistakes, they fail to spot things all the time.

You have such a small understanding of this it's amazing.
The car drove into the back of another obstruction something that a human would have seen and taken action to avoid, that is what needs fixing.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 04:07:13 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:


You have such a small understanding of this it's amazing. The car drove
into the back of another obstruction something that a human would have
seen and taken action to avoid, that is what needs fixing.

BOTH of you brain dead idiots need some things seriously fixed! BG

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:07:13 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 1 October 2018 23:47:16 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:41:46 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:


The person saw the car, the co puter in the car didn't.

People are always saying "he came out of nowhere" after an accident. Humans make way more mistakes, they fail to spot things all the time.

You have such a small understanding of this it's amazing.
The car drove into the back of another obstruction something that a human would have seen and taken action to avoid, that is what needs fixing.

So you've never heard of a human doing that?!

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 1 October 2018 20:48:53 UTC+1, 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 �1000s 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.

Not yet as the hardware hasn't been designed yet for mass market, so first
they have to get the necessary hardware installed then they can start
writting the software then update it when it fails.



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

Thats providing more capability.

Which is what the current battch of so called driverless cars need because
they haven;t got the hardware needed for complete autonomy.


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

Yes and still not good enough for a driverless car they are still driver
assisted, you can tell because they have a steering wheel and pedals.



so it's compatable with face recognition

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

What new way ?

It emits a very large number of IR beams at the face
and records what comes back with the camera.

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.

That's the problemand that;s why they aren't truely driverless.

No thats not why they arent yet truly driverless.