The Department of Boneheadedness.

[jelgate]

But Annoyed has also shown to hate new things

[Gatefan1976]

Nope, he had a failed premise (calling my example irrelevant, when it was)
He doubled down on it calling my assumption invalid (when it was not an assumption)

That's conservatism 101, make up crap to deny (not disprove), then stick your fingers in your ears.

[Annoyed]

I think it's more of an old person thing than a conservative one. History does show that generally the elderly fear new technology

That's not the case at all. I am quite comfortable with new technology when used appropriately.

Garbage.
Annoyed is a mechanic, and he knows enough to set up a home server system.
He should know better -despite- his age.

I do know better.
But I also know enough to use new tech when it is appropriate, and also when NOT to use it. I'm not a lemming, I don't jump on every bandwagon that comes down the pike.
In this case, I maintain that the highway and driving environment is far too unpredictable for a machine to safely handle it. Yes, humans can make mistakes and be inadequate to situations as well, but that's a whole different topic.
There is no compelling reason strong enough to take the additional risk required by driverless cars. Aside from companies not having to pay drivers, and convenience for some private individuals, there is no real advantage to them, and to me those reasons do not warrant the risk to lives.

But Annoyed has also shown to hate new things

No, I don't hate all new things. But if something would like to replace what is already performing that task, it better perform that task better than what its replacing. In the case of driverless cars, it doesn't.

[Annoyed]

Nope, he had a failed premise (calling my example irrelevant, when it was)
He doubled down on it calling my assumption invalid (when it was not an assumption)
It certainly was an assumption.
That's conservatism 101, make up crap to deny (not disprove), then stick your fingers in your ears.

Are you kidding me?
What exactly about highway environment is so "unpredictable"?
Other vehicles? Nope, their automated car would adjust.
Unexpected road hazards? Nope, the sensors would spot them before you would.
At every turn, the threat of failure comes almost directly from the human element. Granted the -driver- might be good enough, or experienced enough to avoid the collision/event.
I'm not saying that there aren't times when the "human element" is superior, but on a highway, I'm simply not buying your argument, because it has no basis besides ego.

You are assuming that all cars or even the majority of them will be driverless, and in my opinion, that's simply not going to be the case anytime soon.

[jelgate]

No, I don't hate all new things. But if something would like to replace what is already performing that task, it better perform that task better than what its replacing. In the case of driverless cars, it doesn't.

They originally said the same thing about the steam engine compared to horses

[mad_gater]

It would be especially problematic if Bill Gates is designing the operating system for these "driverless cars"

could picture it now "general protection fault in braking module, please restart your car"

[SoulReaver]

This can't end well.

California Says Autonomous Cars Don't Need Human Drivers

in Star Trek fully AI-controlled vehicles operate without a prob so why wouldn't they also work today in real life?

[Annoyed]

Our technology isn't quite on a par with the federation.

[Gatefan1976]

I do know better.
But I also know enough to use new tech when it is appropriate, and also when NOT to use it. I'm not a lemming, I don't jump on every bandwagon that comes down the pike.

Is anyone advocating for mass implementation of this -now-?

In this case, I maintain that the highway and driving environment is far too unpredictable for a machine to safely handle it. Yes, humans can make mistakes and be inadequate to situations as well, but that's a whole different topic.

No, it is not. Your whole premise boils down to "you can't blindly trust a computer", guess what, you can't blindly trust a person either.
Same topic.

There is no compelling reason strong enough to take the additional risk required by driverless cars. Aside from companies not having to pay drivers, and convenience for some private individuals, there is no real advantage to them, and to me those reasons do not warrant the risk to lives.

Which is why I said it was a conservative answer.

No, I don't hate all new things. But if something would like to replace what is already performing that task, it better perform that task better than what its replacing. In the case of driverless cars, it doesn't.

They will, just not right now.

[Gatefan1976]

You are assuming that all cars or even the majority of them will be driverless, and in my opinion, that's simply not going to be the case anytime soon.

Of course not, it will take time, like any new technology. People still rode horses for years after the introduction of the horseless carriage, even longer after the introduction of the iron horse.

[garhkal]

No, it is not. Your whole premise boils down to "you can't blindly trust a computer", guess what, you can't blindly trust a person either.
Same topic.

What with the amount of hacks of all sorts of computers from banks, to government agencies to stores, can you blame him?

[Gatefan1976]

What with the amount of hacks of all sorts of computers from banks, to government agencies to stores, can you blame him?

Not at all, but that -is- beside the point. Hacking requires an overt act, a human can stuff up for many reasons.

[garhkal]

True hacking is done by humans. BUT the sher # of hacks we have had is why i am very hesitant to get a new car, CAUSE of how so much of it is computerized these days..


Also, in local news, many people attended a town hall designed to show case how many peole (well many being a few hundred) want Columbus OH to become another Sanctuary city.

IF THAT Happens, i will be doing my damndest to find a NEW town to call home, as i refuse to live in a city that is not willing to enforce federal law..

[Gatefan1976]

True hacking is done by humans. BUT the sher # of hacks we have had is why i am very hesitant to get a new car, CAUSE of how so much of it is computerized these days..

The question you have to ask yourself is, would anyone bother to hack -you- personally in a malicious way?

Also, in local news, many people attended a town hall designed to show case how many peole (well many being a few hundred) want Columbus OH to become another Sanctuary city.

IF THAT Happens, i will be doing my damndest to find a NEW town to call home, as i refuse to live in a city that is not willing to enforce federal law..

You understand that it is up to the fed to enforce fed law, right?

[Annoyed]

Is anyone advocating for mass implementation of this -now-?

If you recall, this discussion started when I posted an article about Calif. saying that drivers are not required NOW.