On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:


Lots of people have driven over a mile without an accident.

You two endlessly blathering idiots ARE an accident!

On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:34:50 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 14:12:03 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:26:56 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 4 October 2018 17:30:43 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:43:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 16:30:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 11:15:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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.

And what does it use to transmit those IR beams ?

That thing on the top of the phone, often called
the notch because thats what it looks like.

So all phones have this notch do they ?

The iphones that do facial recognition do.

But yuo can;t get facial recognition by just a software update can you.
You needed new and extra hardware this meant a 2nd camera had to be fitted to the iPhone, you clouldn't just download facial recognition onto an old phone.


Apple doesn't seem to have them.

It isnt a physical notch, stupid.

Despite that though, the new iPhones lack one key hardware featu an IR blaster. While Apple has never included an IR blaster on an iPhone

Automatic cars don't need more hardware. They already have dozens of cameras.

You need more than just cameras.

Ok maybe a microphone.

https://www.sensorsmag.com/component...omous-vehicles

Fully autonomous driving by the model year 2021/2022 with security level 4 or 5 requires the use of multiple redundant sensor systems. Todays systems for semi-autonomous driving use various numbers and designs of radar and camera systems. The design of high-resolution, affordable LIDAR systems with ranges up to 300 m are still in the pre-development stage.

As I've said there are NO driverless cars so no miles have been driven by a driverless car they havent;l even reached that milestone ;-P

Apart from all the ones you keep quoiting as crashing.

Lots of people have driven over a mile without an accident.

Can you do this?
https://youtu.be/WsnKzK6dX8Q?t=100

Which sensors are required for autonomous driving from Levels 1 to 5? As already mentioned, there are three main groups of sensor systems: camera-, radar-, and lidar-based systems. Although, for parking, ultrasonic sensors are available today and are widespread, they are of minor importance for autonomous driving. Camera and radar systems are in the Level 1 and 2 vehicles today and are prerequisite for all further levels of automation.

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
�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.

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.

"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
�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.

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.

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 13:42:49 +1000, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH 500 lines of stinking troll ****

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

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

On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 04:42:49 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"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 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.

Only if the claim is correct.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 04:42:49 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"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 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.

Only if the claim is correct.

It is.

FLUSH yet more troll ****

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

On Friday, 5 October 2018 21:42:42 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:34:50 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 14:12:03 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:26:56 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 4 October 2018 17:30:43 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:43:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 16:30:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 11:15:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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.

And what does it use to transmit those IR beams ?

That thing on the top of the phone, often called
the notch because thats what it looks like.

So all phones have this notch do they ?

The iphones that do facial recognition do.

But yuo can;t get facial recognition by just a software update can you.
You needed new and extra hardware this meant a 2nd camera had to be fitted to the iPhone, you clouldn't just download facial recognition onto an old phone.


Apple doesn't seem to have them.

It isnt a physical notch, stupid.

Despite that though, the new iPhones lack one key hardware featu an IR blaster. While Apple has never included an IR blaster on an iPhone

Automatic cars don't need more hardware. They already have dozens of cameras.

You need more than just cameras.

Ok maybe a microphone.

https://www.sensorsmag.com/component...omous-vehicles

Fully autonomous driving by the model year 2021/2022 with security level 4 or 5 requires the use of multiple redundant sensor systems. Todays systems for semi-autonomous driving use various numbers and designs of radar and camera systems. The design of high-resolution, affordable LIDAR systems with ranges up to 300 m are still in the pre-development stage.

As I've said there are NO driverless cars so no miles have been driven by a driverless car they havent;l even reached that milestone ;-P

Apart from all the ones you keep quoiting as crashing.

Those are not driverless they are meant to have a driver in control.

I know you don;t understand this but it;s rather like lettign a 10 year-old drive a car sure they can do the basics they might even be able to drive a few miles but put them on a busy road with other car users andn they are far more likely to have a crash or cause one, that is why 10 year-olds aren;t allowed to drive even if yuo think they can.
Puttign a computer in crontol of a car is simialar that's why they need constant testing and why a hum,an always has to be at the wheel.


Lots of people have driven over a mile without an accident.

Can you do this?
https://youtu.be/WsnKzK6dX8Q?t=100

Peace of **** easy, especaily with no other cars on the road ow many times does that happen ?

Robertson says the technology is €œnot mature right now. The measure of success is how many times the engineer has to get involved. And were currently sitting at around three times [every 1,000 km]. Sounds pretty good €¦ however, thats three times too many. It has to be perfect.€�

Now how about you showing me where I can buy one of these cars ?.
If they really are that goodm then we should be able to buy them and use them as driverless cars.

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:

FLUSH over 100 lines of the two blathering idiots' usual endless idiotic
blather unread

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

On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:58:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 21:42:42 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:34:50 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 14:12:03 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:26:56 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 4 October 2018 17:30:43 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:43:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 16:30:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
....
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 11:15:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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.

And what does it use to transmit those IR beams ?

That thing on the top of the phone, often called
the notch because thats what it looks like.

So all phones have this notch do they ?

The iphones that do facial recognition do.

But yuo can;t get facial recognition by just a software update can you.
You needed new and extra hardware this meant a 2nd camera had to be fitted to the iPhone, you clouldn't just download facial recognition onto an old phone.


Apple doesn't seem to have them.

It isnt a physical notch, stupid.

Despite that though, the new iPhones lack one key hardware featu an IR blaster. While Apple has never included an IR blaster on an iPhone

Automatic cars don't need more hardware. They already have dozens of cameras.

You need more than just cameras.

Ok maybe a microphone.

https://www.sensorsmag.com/component...omous-vehicles

Fully autonomous driving by the model year 2021/2022 with security level 4 or 5 requires the use of multiple redundant sensor systems. Todays systems for semi-autonomous driving use various numbers and designs of radar and camera systems. The design of high-resolution, affordable LIDAR systems with ranges up to 300 m are still in the pre-development stage.

As I've said there are NO driverless cars so no miles have been driven by a driverless car they havent;l even reached that milestone ;-P

Apart from all the ones you keep quoiting as crashing.

Those are not driverless they are meant to have a driver in control.

But they manage without one, and probably better than a normal driver controlled car.

I know you don;t understand this but it;s rather like lettign a 10 year-old drive a car sure they can do the basics they might even be able to drive a few miles but put them on a busy road with other car users andn they are far more likely to have a crash or cause one, that is why 10 year-olds aren;t allowed to drive even if yuo think they can.
Puttign a computer in crontol of a car is simialar that's why they need constant testing and why a hum,an always has to be at the wheel.

No, test show they are 20 times better. Already.

Lots of people have driven over a mile without an accident.

Can you do this?
https://youtu.be/WsnKzK6dX8Q?t=100

Peace of **** easy, especaily with no other cars on the road ow many times does that happen ?

That was racing driver standard, above what most road users can do.

Robertson says the technology is €œnot mature right now. The measure of success is how many times the engineer has to get involved. And were currently sitting at around three times [every 1,000 km]. Sounds pretty good €¦ however, thats three times too many. It has to be perfect.€�

So they want them perfect, doesn't mean they're not already better than humans. Humans make a colossal amount of mistakes.

Now how about you showing me where I can buy one of these cars ?.
If they really are that goodm then we should be able to buy them and use them as driverless cars.

dunno, go to America where they're not as up tight as us.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:58:31 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 21:42:42 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:34:50 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 14:12:03 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:26:56 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 4 October 2018 17:30:43 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:43:31 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 16:30:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 11:15:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed
wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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.

And what does it use to transmit those IR beams ?

That thing on the top of the phone, often called
the notch because thats what it looks like.

So all phones have this notch do they ?

The iphones that do facial recognition do.

But yuo can;t get facial recognition by just a software update
can you.
You needed new and extra hardware this meant a 2nd camera had to
be fitted to the iPhone, you clouldn't just download facial
recognition onto an old phone.


Apple doesn't seem to have them.

It isnt a physical notch, stupid.

Despite that though, the new iPhones lack one key hardware
featu an IR blaster. While Apple has never included an IR
blaster on an iPhone

Automatic cars don't need more hardware. They already have dozens
of cameras.

You need more than just cameras.

Ok maybe a microphone.

https://www.sensorsmag.com/component...omous-vehicles

Fully autonomous driving by the model year 2021/2022 with security
level 4 or 5 requires the use of multiple redundant sensor systems.
Todays systems for semi-autonomous driving use various numbers and
designs of radar and camera systems. The design of high-resolution,
affordable LIDAR systems with ranges up to 300 m are still in the
pre-development stage.

As I've said there are NO driverless cars so no miles have been driven
by a driverless car they havent;l even reached that milestone ;-P

Apart from all the ones you keep quoiting as crashing.

Those are not driverless they are meant to have a driver in control.

But they manage without one, and probably better than a normal driver
controlled car.

I know you don;t understand this but it;s rather like lettign a 10
year-old drive a car sure they can do the basics they might even be able
to drive a few miles but put them on a busy road with other car users
andn they are far more likely to have a crash or cause one, that is why
10 year-olds aren;t allowed to drive even if yuo think they can.
Puttign a computer in crontol of a car is simialar that's why they need
constant testing and why a hum,an always has to be at the wheel.

No, test show they are 20 times better. Already.

You've never been able to cite any such test and google certainly can't find
it.

Lots of people have driven over a mile without an accident.

Can you do this?
https://youtu.be/WsnKzK6dX8Q?t=100

Peace of **** easy, especaily with no other cars on the road ow many
times does that happen ?

That was racing driver standard, above what most road users can do.

Robertson says the technology is €œnot mature right now. The measure of
success is how many times the engineer has to get involved. And were
currently sitting at around three times [every 1,000 km]. Sounds pretty
good €¦ however, thats three times too many. It has to be perfect.€�

So they want them perfect, doesn't mean they're not already better than
humans. Humans make a colossal amount of mistakes.

Now how about you showing me where I can buy one of these cars ?.
If they really are that goodm then we should be able to buy them and use
them as driverless cars.

dunno, go to America where they're not as up tight as us.

Still can't buy one there.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 05:16:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH 128 lines of stinking troll ****

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

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

On Saturday, 13 October 2018 18:53:33 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:58:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 21:42:42 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:34:50 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 5 October 2018 14:12:03 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:26:56 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 4 October 2018 17:30:43 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:43:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 16:30:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 11:15:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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.

And what does it use to transmit those IR beams ?

That thing on the top of the phone, often called
the notch because thats what it looks like.

So all phones have this notch do they ?

The iphones that do facial recognition do.

But yuo can;t get facial recognition by just a software update can you.
You needed new and extra hardware this meant a 2nd camera had to be fitted to the iPhone, you clouldn't just download facial recognition onto an old phone.


Apple doesn't seem to have them.

It isnt a physical notch, stupid.

Despite that though, the new iPhones lack one key hardware featu an IR blaster. While Apple has never included an IR blaster on an iPhone

Automatic cars don't need more hardware. They already have dozens of cameras.

You need more than just cameras.

Ok maybe a microphone.

https://www.sensorsmag.com/component...omous-vehicles

Fully autonomous driving by the model year 2021/2022 with security level 4 or 5 requires the use of multiple redundant sensor systems. Todays systems for semi-autonomous driving use various numbers and designs of radar and camera systems. The design of high-resolution, affordable LIDAR systems with ranges up to 300 m are still in the pre-development stage.

As I've said there are NO driverless cars so no miles have been driven by a driverless car they havent;l even reached that milestone ;-P

Apart from all the ones you keep quoiting as crashing.

Those are not driverless they are meant to have a driver in control.

But they manage without one, and probably better than a normal driver controlled car.

No they DO NOT they have crashes crashes which an alert human driver would aviod and that is why driverless cars MUST have a compedant driver in the driving seat otherwise the car isnlt legally allowed to be driven on the road.
You still don't understand this simple point do you.


I know you don;t understand this but it;s rather like lettign a 10 year-old drive a car sure they can do the basics they might even be able to drive a few miles but put them on a busy road with other car users andn they are far more likely to have a crash or cause one, that is why 10 year-olds aren;t allowed to drive even if yuo think they can.
Puttign a computer in crontol of a car is simialar that's why they need constant testing and why a human always has to be at the wheel.

No, test show they are 20 times better. Already.

No they DO NOT.


Lots of people have driven over a mile without an accident.

Can you do this?
https://youtu.be/WsnKzK6dX8Q?t=100

Peace of **** easy, especaily with no other cars on the road ow many times does that happen ?

That was racing driver standard, above what most road users can do.

running around a track, I had a scaletric set that did that.



Robertson says the technology is €œnot mature right now. The measure of success is how many times the engineer has to get involved. And were currently sitting at around three times [every 1,000 km]. Sounds pretty good €¦ however, thats three times too many. It has to be perfect.€�

So they want them perfect, doesn't mean they're not already better than humans. Humans make a colossal amount of mistakes.

Not as many as so called driverless cars make.
If that was the case you'd be able to buy them today, but you can't.



Now how about you showing me where I can buy one of these cars ?.
If they really are that goodm then we should be able to buy them and use them as driverless cars.

dunno, go to America where they're not as up tight as us.

They have the same ideas on guns don't they. If everyone has one everyone is safer, but the real stats don;t show that do they.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:07:51 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:

FLUSH 145 lines of the usual idiotic drivel unread