Still trucking along on a Phenom II X6 1045T... 6x2.8 GHz or 3x3.2 GHz still seems like a lot. I can't remember the last time I was CPU-bound. I have to spend more than a hundred bucks on a GPU, I guess.
I was driving in Nevada one dark, moonless night, when out of nowhere came a cow in the middle of the road... I'd like to see how an autonomous vehicle would deal with that.
That's out of nowhere to you, but the computer is going to be able to see in the dark far outside the range of your headlights. Its headlights are going to be a convenience to other drivers, and an IR source for its night vision — which will have automatic gain control far outside the range of your pupils. It'll also likely have radar and lidar so even if it can't see the cow, it'll know it's there.
The full service gas station will come back!
For a moment. Then someone will invent a better fuel cap for robots to grasp, and then there will be a brief flurry in gas cap retrofit work.
Ahh.. rationalization of abuse, combined with more abuse!
Keep earning it, I'll keep providing it. I'm not your parents, you're not my special snowflake.
I will be the first to say that 1.4% is far too much, but you can also note that 98.6% follow procedure
What? No, you can't note that. We don't know anything about what they're doing at other times from that statistic.
Right, you can't use rail unless you have high utilization, and you can't have high utilization if the rail doesn't do the job you need to do, or if the public transportation systems along the rail line don't work. That's why PRT makes more sense than rail for most trips, and why we should use classic rail only for long hauls and PRT for short trips.
Freight Trains, you know, the topic of this entire article?
Yeah, you can't build rail just for freight, because it won't see enough utilization. It has to carry passengers, too. You can't take the efficiency of the freight-carrying system alone because it doesn't operate alone, it's dependent on being part of the passenger-carrying system (and vice versa.)
If you won't take criticism, you can never improve. But you can cry instead, if you want.
I am well aware of the concept of irony, but that was not the subject of my rebuttal.
It doesn't seem like you are particularly aware.
As it seems that you are more interested in playing word games rather than discussing the subject at hand
Hypocrite. I am discussing the subject at hand, with people who are doing better than playing clever word games. The "or not" in my comment addressed the point before you raised it: namely, that drivers might not in fact observe the information provided by local signage. So if you have anything to add, rather than ignoring what I wrote, that will elevate you above "clever word games".
Unless they can navigate ever present, always changing construction zones, those things will be useless in my state.
For now, a human driver will be on board to handle those occurrences. Later on, when regulatory acceptance is captured, they will be handled by a remote driver who operates the vehicle by telepresence. They will probably be located in regional service centers, organized into networks, and contracted by shipping lines which will be reduced primarily to corporations which own trucks and hire a manager, an accountant, and a receptionist who is occasionally replaced by a temp.
Absolutely. But constructing an argument that is predicated on negating a sentence through the use of an easily overlooked two word suffix, does not enhance comprehension.
Tacking "...or not" onto the end of a sentence is an extremely common construct in American English, which denotes acceptance of irony.
I would think that with increased stopping distances would mean farther forward camera's?
The long stopping distances should also mean lower speeds. some states limit speeds while towing, for example in California it is always illegal to exceed 55 mph while towing anything with any kind of vehicle. Of course, it's rare to see a big rig going less than 65 or 70 on any highway in California, so make of that what you will. Perhaps the self-driving trucks will obey the law in that regard, and as such do much better at holding their lane than human drivers — who I regularly see fail at this because they're driving faster than they ought to be. Regardless, the vehicles are much taller than others, so they clearly have a lot more sight range available...
Having driven a large rig before I can assure you that usually the problem is NOT the big rig driver. It is the idiots in passenger vehicles who cut them off
I do see idiots in passenger vehicles cut big rigs off, but I have just as frequently seen assholes in big rigs cut me off. They pull over to pass as I am rapidly advancing which is already illegal, then they take a literally illegal period of time to execute the passing manouver (in California, if you're not actively overtaking, you must stay out of the passing lane, thankyouverymuchassholes) and then they often lag long after the truck they've passed has flashed their lights to denote permission to merge, just because they're assholes and they can. I also see big rig drivers with a dozen or more drivers behind them fail to use a turnout even on flat ground, which is also illegal in the state of California — when there are a mere five drivers back there, you are required to pull over and let them by, at the first safe opportunity, and not just the first marked turnout. And if I see a big rig hold its lane these days, it's the exception and not the rule. If you can't hold your lane at that speed then slow down, asshole. And if you then hold people up, pull over, asshole.
We all already know that the average truck driver is untrained and unskilled, so there's no need for you to bullshit us. Driver training was already an issue a decade ago because of a lack of experienced drivers willing to sell their life for shit pay, and it's only worse now.
When even half of the truck drivers out there start obeying laws intended to preserve public safety and to make the road usable for everyone, not just freight, then I'll believe your claims that the problems are mostly caused by other drivers. But frankly, you're completely full of shit.
Currently, the trucks will be operated the old-fashioned way in towns, so there will still be a human behind the wheel reading the signs and responding to them, or not.
If that was the case then trucks wouldn't go down the wrong road ever.
You should really read text before quoting it. It would help with the quality of your replies.
I think you might have missed a few.
Again, we're now talking about your personal kitchen, not a commercial one. Commercial kitchens are regulated because anyone might just come in off the street and eat there. Your personal kitchen is not regulated (aside from electrical and gas connections, lighting, etc — all the stuff that applies within your house in general) because that's not the case. If you want to sell food to people outside your house, then sometimes your home kitchen will have to be regulated. Some states now allow you to sell baked goods and some other stuff which was prepared in your uncertified home kitchen, but dairy and meat products still require certification.
However, when you operate your automobile on public roads, you affect everyone, so it's reasonable that you should have to have safety inspections performed whether you're engaging in commercial behavior or not. It doesn't become more reasonable because your activity is commercial; it becomes more reasonable when your vehicle reaches a certain age or mileage. Each has its own effects, both of which need to be accounted for. Vehicles should have inspections at certain ages, probably about 6, 12, and 24 months, as well as probably 5 and 10 years, and then also at certain mileage intervals. Obviously, if a mileage interval event occurs in the same year (or perhaps less in the early life of the vehicle) as a timed event, you would skip one. You wouldn't skip two, however. This would naturally result in most taxicabs receiving more inspections than other vehicles, without a law specifically targeting taxicabs.