Re: Robocar--a decade away?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:46:50 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvious@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:478620AE.8070201@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>> As far robocars dealing with human drivers, who brakes faster a human
or 
>>> ABS? or humans vs airbags? or humans vs a camera shutter? Human
drivers 
>>> could be dealt with simply by raw brute machine speed and reflexes.
>>
>> Only if you assume the people (especially on a highway) space
themselves 
>> out a LOT farther than normal. Because the robocar won't be able to set

>> its own spacing; if it tries to allow actual stopping distance (even
for a 
>> robot), a human will cut in. Humans don't actually allow stopping
distance 
>> at all; on a busy highway, there may be only a car length or two
between 
>> vehicles, which isn't NEARLY enough even for a robot to stop in.
>
>On busy highways at least around Chicago, there's LESS than a car length 
>spacing because people will cut in front of you. Plenty of room for a
robot 
>to stop in. ABS works by having the machine brake MULTIPLE TIMES per
second, 
>much less simply slamming the brakes for an emergency stop.

"LESS than a car length" is "Plenty of room," eh?  There are a bunch
of concepts with names like "inertia" and "momentum" and in particular
"kinetic energy" and "static friction" and "dynamic friction" with
which you really ought to have acquainted yourself before posting
retarded drivel like this.  (For that matter, there is an even more
im****tant and overarching concept called "common sense" that you
should have invoked before posting retarded drivel like this.)

Here are URL's for a few of the approximately 1.7 million metric
buttloads of easily-Googleable re****ts, reviews, ads, manufacturer's
specs, etc., etc.,  that you should have checked out before posting
retarded drivel like this:

<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/brakes/Phase2/COVER.html>
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TirePressure/LTPW3.html>
<http://www.c32life.com/C32reviews/autoweek2.htm>

>> And if we start from the beginning (i.e., one robot car, all other cars

>> human driven) the robot car has very little chance of understanding its

>> environment nearly as well as a decent human driver.
>
>Robocars wouldn't need to. Simple smart cruise control would prevent the 
>robocar from running into anything or anyone. Airbags work because the in

>the microseconds between when a car actually does collide into an object 
>sensors in the car not only INFLATE airbags to cu****on the passenger but 
>also DEFLATE airbags somewhat to take some of the sting out of it.
>
>Beat that kind of robot reflexes with humans inflating and deflating
bags.
>
>
>
>That all said, just because robocars *need* not "understand" its
environment 
>to not only survive but thrive, doesn't mean it won't understand its 
>environment. The problem is rather simple to break down into 3 steps:

Translation of this and subsequent retarded drivel for the
reality-impaired:  "Moving the Earth is dead easy; all you need is an
ANSI-standard immovable object for a fulcrum, an Unobtainium lever 10
miles in diameter and one million miles long, and Superman."

Even simpler translation and ObSF:  "'In five years, the ***** will be
obsolete,' said the salesman."

-- 
Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]