Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
You were talking to both me and Greta, but to me first on 3/7/2017.

Who says what I'm getting like? No name calling from me. No insults. And it is my right to have you prove to me what you're claiming on this thread for which you haven't provided a shred of evidence. I already know you can't back up what you claim on this thread. And by the way, I do know what you get like when you pretend to debate.

PhilX

Please refer to the answers I made to you earlier today.

I've already done that. Where is the evidence that backs up your claims?

PhilX

Run along and find out

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Please refer to the answers I made to you earlier today.

I've already done that. Where is the evidence that backs up your claims?

PhilX

Run along and find out

I suggest you run along and clear your mind.

PhilX

Stationary satellites have the right idea; go into orbit and wait for your destination to rotate in. Use the speed of the earth to your advantage. It's pretty quick.

Dalek Prime wrote:Stationary satellites have the right idea; go into orbit and wait for your destination to rotate in. Use the speed of the earth to your advantage. It's pretty quick.

Not a very good vehicle, since its not that easy to get up there in the first place.

BTW. A stationary satellite stays above the SAME PLACE on the earth's surface. (there is no "rotating in").

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Stationary satellites have the right idea; go into orbit and wait for your destination to rotate in. Use the speed of the earth to your advantage. It's pretty quick.

Not a very good vehicle, since its not that easy to get up there in the first place.

BTW. A stationary satellite stays above the SAME PLACE on the earth's surface. (there is no "rotating in").

Yeah, my mistake. Shouldn't have put 'stationary'.

Of course I've used GPSs. I'm just not cut out for it. I always misinterpret the directions or it will announce that a turn is coming in 500 metres and then doesn't say another thing until it says "turn now" as I sail past the turn. I have no instinct for navigation and am very literal-minded anyway, so the directions given by GPSs, along with the irregular tempo and inconsistencies of the announcements can lead me into difficult or dangerous situations. I know, I know, if we lived in the wild I would have died 50 years ago.

Doc, may I also ask that you guys don't demand that people like me (and many older people) remain housebound for the sake of your fun driving. I don't want to push drivers off the road, just to be a participant again, for both driven and driverless cars to be on the road.

Greta wrote: Doc, may I also ask that you guys don't demand that people like me (and many older people) remain housebound for the sake of your fun driving. I don't want to push drivers off the road, just to be a participant again, for both driven and driverless cars to be on the road.

Greta, if you look at my posts you will see that I am very much in favor of self driving cars for people who are afraid to drive, or have some other problem. But I think the problems are much more serious and complicated than the proponents want to admit, also I don't want those in favor of the self driving car to force everyone into one especially if they don't want a self driving car.

thedoc wrote:But I think the problems are much more serious and complicated than the proponents want to admit, also I don't want those in favor of the self driving car to force everyone into one especially if they don't want a self driving car.

You risk losing some control. Others risk not being mobile.

Greta wrote:

thedoc wrote:But I think the problems are much more serious and complicated than the proponents want to admit, also I don't want those in favor of the self driving car to force everyone into one especially if they don't want a self driving car.

You risk losing some control. Others risk not being mobile.

It does not need to be an all or nothing solution, and this is what those on the extremes aren't willing to admit.

“That means a driverless car, like Nvidia’s, could soar headfirst into a tree and we would have no idea why it decided to do so.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3306890/h ... r-species/

Well that’s just great.

Walker wrote:“That means a driverless car, like Nvidia’s, could soar headfirst into a tree and we would have no idea why it decided to do so.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3306890/h ... r-species/

Well that’s just great.

I don’t think I could ever trust a driverless car because I would be constantly wondering if today was the day when a solar flare or a faulty motherboard would create a problem with its electronics just as an 18 wheeler is approaching at 60 mph in the opposite lane.

How do the sensors react to heavy rain, or snow, or the occasional startled bird on the road, or a large insect that might splat its goo on them?
_______

seeds wrote: I don’t think I could ever trust a driverless car because I would be constantly wondering if today was the day when a solar flare or a faulty motherboard would create a problem with its electronics just as an 18 wheeler is approaching at 60 mph in the opposite lane.

How do the sensors react to heavy rain, or snow, or the occasional startled bird on the road, or a large insect that might splat its goo on them?
_______

These are all problems, along with many others, that will need to be addressed, except that the proponents of driverless cars are not willing to admit that they exist. When they happen the proponents will just sweep them under the rug and wave the few successes as proof that they were right.

seeds wrote:

Walker wrote:“That means a driverless car, like Nvidia’s, could soar headfirst into a tree and we would have no idea why it decided to do so.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3306890/h ... r-species/

Well that’s just great.

I don’t think I could ever trust a driverless car because I would be constantly wondering if today was the day when a solar flare or a faulty motherboard would create a problem with its electronics just as an 18 wheeler is approaching at 60 mph in the opposite lane.

How do the sensors react to heavy rain, or snow, or the occasional startled bird on the road, or a large insect that might splat its goo on them?
_______

Exactly. Coroners will have a new box to check. Cause of death: Glitch.

Why the big push for these things anyway? In the US, why aren’t the Teamsters cracking heads to stop it?
The ostensible reason is safety, which is bull.

The record of your trip will go into metadata so the moment-to-moment timeline of your existence can be summoned by anyone who has the notion and connections to access the database. By the time steering wheels are obsolete, plastic will have replaced cash completely and your credit card will be implanted into your flesh, which is already an option. It will be an option but if you don't take it, you won't be able to buy food or go anywhere.

That way, anyone with the notion can point a scanner at you, much like those that will be stationed beside the street cameras in urban zones, to get a full bio of you, right up until the moment you are being scanned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGCZh5A8T4

Walker wrote:...
The ostensible reason is safety, which is bull. ...

Given your road fatalities compared to ours I think you need something to improve your safety record.

The rest I found an interesting take and agree with or at least that this a use it could be put to but if you have a modern car then this info is already available.
Who uses cash anymore? So we're tracked by purchase already over here but I was gobsmacked on a recent trip to the states that the waitress takes your card away and that you still sign for and not use a PIN on cards. Credit card fraud must still be a piece of piss over there as we stopped that exactly because the waiters and waitresses were card scanning to make clones.