anarchist

That didn't look like 30 years in the future. I am skeptical enough to have looked pretty hard to see if it was, in fact, some sort of gag. Seriously. Tell me that isn't autonomy. Yes, limited where it might be used...but by definition, i.e. no human intervention, total autonomy. That was real. You also would die in that car if you failed to take control. It stays within marked lines. It slows down when a vehicle comes into sight. If the lines get adjusted (ie, construction zone) or don't exist, you are screwed. If a car comes at you head-on, you are screwed. If the car ahead brakes in an emergency, you are screwed. Do you want to see a nice picture of a 'autonomous' Volvo that rear-ended a semi-truck? It is quite the warning. It is the degree of autonomy that is in question. The experts state that a fully-autonomous car won't be seen before 2030 because the technology doesn't exist. Per Volvo - again - The company stresses that the vehicles — which could be ready for the consumer market as early as 2020 if the necessary traffic and liability rules and regulations are in place — are not fully autonomous. Despite the low-speed Google autonomous vehicle, the highway legal driverless car with no steering wheel or other controls is still a thing of science fiction films. Partial autonomy - level 3 - is here. That isn't a self-driving car - it is a car that requires a human pilot to take over in various circumstances. Can you largely self-pilot on a marked, divided highway? Yes. In the city? Nope. In the country? Not a chance. The answer quite simply is to build an elevated road for all those interested in being commuters. For the rest of us drivers, leave us to the normal roads.

Ah, back to the usual behavior. I have provided multiple references (cites to at least a dozen sources) so don't bother with your johnny-come-lately personal attacks. I find Dave's enthusiasm and eagerness to be naive and boyish; similar to my desire to have an Iron Man suit and take to the skies. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't impugn his character in the least. See the difference between your responses and mine? Of course not.

Here is reality. These systems per Volvo will arrive incrementally. The Volvo's under test "will be equipped with seven radar units, seven cameras, a dozen ultrasound sensors, a laser scanner, a GPS system and a wireless connection to enable it to communicate with a Volvo-maintained traffic control center." Not much to go wrong there, is there? And those Volvo's can only manage to operate under clear weather conditions on a prepared and designated 30 mile stretch of road and can't be operated where there is cross-traffic. People will accept certain things but 65% (per the automobile industry) of people do not want nor trust fully autonomous vehicles. Audi - one of the leaders - states there will always be human involvement at some level. Dave's eager to buy his chauffeur and thinks its any day now. Others of us like to drive our cars. Some people like electric cars and others don't. We don't have the infrastructure to support electric cars yet somehow there is this belief the infrastructure is in place for iRobot. Some of us don't want to give the government or any other entity the ability to regularly monitor and interfere in our lives; Dave will be happy to suddenly have advertisements and official public service announcements getting his attention while riding around in the back of his soul-less transport.

Forget Volvo marketing brochures in understanding where the tech is, listen to Volvo R&D: "We first have to prove that self-driving cars can be made sufficiently safe for ordinary customers on a limited amount of roads under limited conditions. Our ambition is to achieve that in 2017," says Peter Mertens, Volvo's senior vice president for research and development. "After that a huge amount of work remains" before self-driving technology is available for all, adds Mertens, complaining that "this is sometimes neglected in public discussion" of autonomous cars. That Infiniti I showed above, the driver of that vehicle drove it for 35 miles. His thoughts: it hugs the paint far too often and the steering lacks any feel at all. Parking, lane detection, and adaptive cruise are all cool - they don't come close to replacing a human.

Please provide a citation to a source. Nothing I have seen suggests the above is true; every reputable source I have reviewed reveals exactly the opposite.

Steering wheel doesn't need to move. It isn't actually connected to the wheels. It's electric steering and drive by wire. Which by the way is the reason I bought a used car instead of a new car recently - they switched to electric steering (as a precursor of course.). End result: loss of feel and changing response during transitions from wet to dry roads. No thanks.

No need to wait 3 months. Parts of this have been around for a while. It ain't exactly new. You can buy cars already that will parallel park, or stay within lanes (and find stories of real fear in decreasing radius corners), or use adaptive cruise control, or stop if a pedestrian is detected or any of a dozen other discrete functions. The "new" (and the bad) will be autonomous systems that don't rely on a driver to correct the computer. This should make your day. http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/11358/autonomous-q-ship-letting-infiniti-q50s-hybrid-drive/ That isn't a fully autonomous car. Lux research offers the following statistics regarding your time frames: Breaking down the 2030 car market, Lux says that 92% of self-driving cars will only be “Level 2″ meaning that they have adaptive cruise control, lane departure warnings, and other semi-autonomous features. Level 3 cars will also be available but will not be as popular. According to Lux, Level 3 cars will work similarly to those being demonstrated by Google right now. Fully autonomous cars (AKA Level 4) could be available in extremely small quantities but there won’t be any by 2030 unless a technological breakthrough occurs.

That's absurd. How would you square that with the programs primary directive of protecting itself? Because you can't always protect yourself. You are faced with two choices. Neither is good. Your primary directive means squat. The case above is real simple... the car seeks to avoid total destruction of the impact of the semi, attempts to run on the shoulder to avoid the accident, and not having any ability to identify the shoulder is soft, goes right over the edge - just like so many cars traveling in South America. Listen, there is plenty of information on this and the problems inherent in the technology. There are seminars and books on 'prime directives' and the shortcomings of computer programs. I posted you links to various things that highlight those issues and more. You dispute them and think it is all so simple. Fantastic. You go right ahead and rely on HAL. There is a very big problem when you remove man's ability to reason from the equation. There is no dispute.

Sure you do. We will see if that's your sentiment when it decides to go off a cliff instead of facing a potential collision with a semi; wait, that is absurd, you won't be capable of sentiment. I should expect such bullish acceptance and simplification of technology and the inherent complications; you tend to enter these conversations with boyish naivete rather than thoughtful consideration. Autonomous cars? Of course, you think they are around the corner and will end world hunger as well. After all, you think we could construct a conveyor and mine the moon in the next 6 months or create a warp engine and travel to Mars next year. I have to ask myself what does it hurt and why bother to participate. Boys need to have dreams and I am glad age hasn't hurt your ability to dream. Go on and dream Dave.

Yes, it will, or at least ensure minimum undesirable event. Not sure why you are such a non-believer in technology. If you want everything handling manually in a hospital your survival chances are going down. Dave Uh, no it won't. NO ONE involved in this industry has claimed autonomous vehicles will stop such events and there have been repeated discussions that the ethics you espouse will not be a consideration in the programming of the software systems. Insurance companies say there will be MORE catastrophic incidents. There was simple situation discussed... your car recognizes it is going to be involved in an accident with one of two vehicles. One of them is a SUV while the other is a tiny car. (It of course doesn't recognize any difference nor does it know the passengers in each vehicle.) Which does it choose? You might consider a number of factors. There may be less damage (to your car) associated with hitting the tiny car but its passengers will be killed. The occupants of the SUV theoretically have more protection and will survive the accident but your car will suffer far more damage and you may be killed. There is no easy answer but your car won't be remotely concerned about your safety or the safety of other vehicles; it will be concerned about IT'S safety. It only takes a few minutes to identify a multitude of circumstances that will result in your car being involved in or triggering an accident; unless teleportation technology is arriving concurrent with your fully-autonomous car, accidents and fatalities are going nowhere.

But this requires "side loading" which is something only a geek would attempt. The Google Store apps are safe. I agree that IOS is superior, but obviously at a higher price all the way around. Actually, you can download apps from a variety of "official" stores that are both public and private and is something that many people do, not geeks. Geeks will bypass the store entirely. There are recent studies of the apps on the Google store and you will find that many contain malware; you just don't know what they are doing. As someone who writes mobile apps, I could tell you stories that would horrify you but if you are comfortable in your understanding, that works for me. To others who may believe this "Google Store" is safe or Android is bullet-proof, caveat emptor. You are advised to install an anti-malware app on your Android device. (Just ask yourself why such applications are in demand and available on an OS promoted as safe.) A couple things you should read before believing such 'safe' nonsense. Android and Windows most infected More malware found on Google Play Store I will make it simple. IOS and Blackberry are the only devices that can be considered safe.

Don't because that is full of misinformation. Android is not bulletproof, it is nowhere near as secure as IOS. Applications can be obtained anywhere. A recent study found a large amount of the most popular applications on the Android store have spyware in them. Apple has complete control over their store and does check every facet of the application; Android, not so much. I won't go into an exhaustive exam. Folks can do whatever they like; but if you think this argument (began life as Internet operating systems) has any substance, let me configure an open Linux system for you to use. The motivation behind security is the antithesis of the internet. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-play-store-suffers-from-malware/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/03/24/report-97-of-mobile-malware-is-on-android-this-is-the-easy-way-you-stay-safe/

You are kidding me. What business are you in? Every enterprise is moving away from Windows. 95% of what I do is Linux based. Sure, the 'users' are on Windows if they haven't moved to OSX but as a server platform, Windows is done and has been for a while. Don't screw with people - your browser can be whatever you want it to be but the servers you are connecting to are Linux. I can't remember the last Windows server I put into operation; of course, I deal with F500 companies. In fact, I am supposed to replace my laptop (windows 7) with a MacAir currently (I am a month behind in provisioning.) Your mileage may be different but if your suggestion is Windows - you are better off as a WalMart greeter than a technology consultant.

Dave, you aren't keeping up, you are trying to escape the hell that is 8; 10 gets you half-way there. Frankly, MS would do better if they took a core team of 10 developers and stuck them in a skunk-works project and said start from scratch.

I prefer to drive, not ride shotgun - to human or computer. I would rather drive cross-country than fly. I would really like if we had one lane where a guy with a specialized license could drive upwards of 120mph and not have morons in it. In Texas there are parts where qualified drivers should be able to exceed 180.

The answer my friends is Linux. Of course, then you have to figure out which Linux variant is best suited to the task at hand and is justifiable/usable to the particular audience.: CentOS, RHEL, FEDORA, UBUNTU, KUBUNTU, CoreOS, LinuxMINT (Cinnamon, XFCE, KDE, etc.) Frankly, my kids have quickly transitioned to using Linux on my main box even though they have the option to use OSX or Windows. Many of the issues currently associated with computing today will be solved (in the enterprise) by the transition to Docker. As far as db's, I do most of my work in DB2 while also being involved in MySQL and PostgreSQL. Then, of course, there is stuff like CouchDB or Redis. The focus at the moment is simplification, core function, and isolation; not aggregating every function into a particular server or OS.

I have Win10 here. I don't like it much. 7 was the last good one.

No anger directed towards anyone and I realize you are ever the optimist and 'imagine' how things will work - rosy glasses and all. I, however, am not feeling lucky given the various warnings from manufacturers and industry experts. While you offer a 'future is so bright' perspective, the reality according to the experts: "Hacking is one of the biggest threats facing future driverless or semi-autonomous vehicles, an expert on cyber-security has warned...He added that software systems had to become far more reliable before autonomous vehicles could be trusted not to go wrong. A recent report found that 98% of software applications tested had serious defects, some with 10 to 15 faults each, he pointed out." An FBI report warned that autonomous cars may be used as "lethal weapons". 'As driverless cars eventually become ubiquitous, we will hand over decision making in a potentially fatal incident to an autonomous system. So can a car really make that decision? And if it can, should it? “The short answer in human ethical terms is this: ‘The car is only trying to save itself,’” says Matthew Strebe, CEO of Connetic, who is developing autonomous cybersecurity defense solutions.' Regarding the crackpot idea that insurance will drop... an insurance industry report states “With less reliance on a human driver’s input, however, increased risk would be associated with the car technology itself,” says the report, pointing out how a car can do things like seeing through fog, which a human driver can’t. “However, [the technology] can also fail, and systems are only as good as their designers and programmers. With an increased complexity of hardware and software used in cars, there will also be more that can go wrong.” The authors of the report suggest that a computing error in cars could have a much more devastating effect in a crash than a human error. “A computer miscalculation or a faulty reading from a sensor could lead a car to do something that a human driver would instinctively realize is inappropriate,” they say. As it commonly goes with new Internet of Things devices, hacking and cyber threats are also a very real issue.Just last summer, a group of Chinese students demonstrated how they could compromise a Tesla Model S, opening its doors while driving. If the students were malicious actors, passengers could be at serious risk. In fact, there are some who are entirely assured that this is a matter of when, not if. [A]ll modern vehicles are Internet-connected, and the protections in place to prevent hacking are “haphazard” or nonexistent. These folks all discuss the autonomous car being 10 to 15 years away if the kinks get worked out and it should be noted that the most advanced vehicles today are limited to a pathetic 25MPH. No thank you.

Are you kidding? It is a software on a chip. One math error and we are all screwed. It is sensors, GPS, and a computer program. All of which have glitches. A half century later and we still can't eliminate major defects in software and you propose this is some tech wonder? Do you have an OBD2 diagnostic tool? You realize you can plug it into your Windows laptop and program your car yourself? You know, do things like set the windows to automatically roll down at a certain temperature, tell the ABS system to dump all its brake fluid, set when your lights turn on or specify what functionality they have... pretty much every system tied into the computer can be easily read (its using simple key/value) and set. The tool for my car: Our product communicates with your car just like the factory tool does, and can access all of the systems in the car. Activates functions Supports coding changes

I like driving. I don't ride in a car; I drive it. Insurance companies will never lower their premiums by 20% much less 90% - that is a pipe-dream. Never will all the existing cars on the road be replaced - that is nonsense of the highest order. But, hey, once people are driving autonomous cars and all the other pieces of personal monitoring sensors are in place, it won't be difficult for the government to issue a command that allows them to direct all targeted cars (and their passengers) to the train-car of the the governments choosing.

Feeling frisky stupid? Fight free speech? French Fries Supreme?

Yes, the constitution does not allow the US government to restrict the freedom of speech. Is it your opinion that a website sponsored by Klipsch Inc is the US government? We are a group of folks with some common interests. Each of us brings our own set of values and beliefs. Why not respect the fact that not everyone shares your values, nor should they need to. If the OP found it personally offensive, then it was. Nothing to discuss. I am making a statement period about "calls" for censorship. Klipsch can do as they want as do many corporations. However, people should be offended that society today thinks curbing free speech is a good idea; I am. I am offended that certain sites and certain companies are willing to claim that in the name of diversity, they force assimilation. I am offended that the list of words that are "offensive" grow daily. Now a series of letters offend. The OP stated he was offended. He has every right to be and there is no argument to that. But for those who don't share his particular belief, they are offended as well. My point is simply, if you are offended, "stiffen that upper lip up."

No one has a right to not be offended; it simply doesn't exist. The Constitution GUARANTEES me the right to offend and to use the F-word specifically. See Cohen v. California. In his opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." As a society we are becoming far too comfortable allowing the PC crowd to dictate what is acceptable speech - it is ALL acceptable, any one person's or group's sensitivities be damned. An example of the aforementioned stupidity is this story where a bi-racial guy was fired because he made unflattering remarks about Michelle Obama. The PC crowd erroneously claimed it was racist. He didn't even use a racist word but now apparently if you use ape in a sentence it is verboten. When unflattering equals racism, we have a problem. Personally, I found some of the apes in Planet of the Apes quite attractive. Then you have Universities with their panties in an uproar and want these words banned because they are deemed offensive: illegal alien, crazy, insane, retarded, “tranny,” ***, gypped, “***,” ghetto, and “*******,” Where does it stop? It doesn't once you start catering to every Tom, Dick, and Harry so as not to offend.