Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Short-term numbers versus long-term (Score 1) 158

My opinion has nothing to do with bad drivers. Everybody gets tired. Everybody gets distracted. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself.

Besides, more than 70% of all drivers eat while driving, and that's responsible (according to one study) for about 80% of all crashes. When I say humans suck as drivers, I mean that the overwhelming majority of human drivers (if not all) suck at driving at least some of the time. The only reason we don't have orders of magnitude more wrecks than we do is that split-second reaction time is only important on very rare occasions (perhaps five-seconds in a typical hour of driving), so being distracted usually doesn't result in an accident.

Comment Re:Short-term numbers versus long-term (Score 1) 158

I'm anti-antibiotic and modern medical intervention because I think knowing that they're available just makes people careless and sloppy when they travel in areas where those interventions aren't available. I would much rather a few more people die because we don't use antibiotics at all than for people to become reliant on them and just become careless and unfit.

First, antibiotics are available nearly anywhere in the world you might go. By contrast, these sorts of autopilot features are available on a tiny fraction of a percent of vehicles, and probably will be for some time to come.

Second, the technology is highly limited, basically useful only on the highway, which means that if people get used to having that extra support during highway driving, it could easily result in an increase in accidents in cities, where accidents are much more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities. So there's a good possibility that this could actually make traffic deaths worse on the whole over the long term.

Early studies strongly suggested that partial self-driving solutions did more harm than good, which is why I think we should wait to make self-driving technology available until it can truly take the place of the human driver, rather than introducing a solution that only works part of the time and can lead to false confidence the rest of the time. I could be wrong, and I'd like to be wrong, but my gut says we'd be better off waiting a few more years for a more complete solution, rather than deploying a partial solution more broadly.

Comment Re:Short-term numbers versus long-term (Score 1) 158

I'm not saying that the challenge of coming up with software that allows a car to autonomously drive itself better than a human isn't possible. I just challenge the assertion that a computer with multiple cameras is likely superior to a human.

I say that for several reasons:

  • Human vision is inherently focused on a single thing at a time. They teach you to move your eyes around and scan for things that might be problems, but the reality is that we're very limited in our ability to do so. Computers don't have that problem. They can see that kid on the side of the road who might fall out into traffic long before a human driver would happen to randomly glance in that direction, which means that on average, they can take corrective action much sooner even if their actual reaction time is much slower.
  • Computers can also look behind and beside them constantly. You might look in your side or rearview mirror when you're about to turn or change lanes or back up. However, the odds of seeing someone cutting into your side or flying up behind you in time to avoid a collision is remarkably small. A computer, however, would see those vehicles every time, and would often be able to prevent the resulting accidents.
  • Statistically, one in five collisions happens in parking lots, where human vision is hopelessly obstructed by other vehicles. Computers should be able to trivially avoid essentially all of those collisions. So right off the bat, even if computers were no better than human drivers while on the road, you'd expect a 20% drop in accidents just from having complete 360-degree vision while pulling out of parking spaces. And nearly half of all pedestrian accidents occur in parking lots, so the seemingly excessive caution that computer-controlled cars use should dramatically decrease pedestrian injuries and deaths as well.

Besides, Tesla's autopilot feature is designed exclusively for highway driving. (AFAIK, it still ignores stop signs and traffic lights entirely.) Highway driving is, on the whole, some of the safest driving possible, with nearly every accident caused by some combination of fatigue, distraction (particularly involving food/drinks), and/or drunkenness on the part of one of the drivers involved. To beat a human driver under those conditions, all Tesla's autopilot really has to do is keep the car in the current lane, reliably detect cars that have stopped in front of it without nodding off after half an hour or chugging one for the road, and avoid other people who have fallen asleep or are drunk. Of those, only the last one is particularly challenging, which is almost certainly why the crash numbers are only down by 40% instead of 80% or more. :-)

Comment Re:Short-term numbers versus long-term (Score 1) 158

I think that two numbers would be deceptive because almost no-one is capable of acknowledging their inattention.

They don't have to. With as much data collection as the Tesla systems do, assuming they collect the same data with autopilot disabled, too, it should be possible to do a post-mortem (so to speak) on a random sampling of accidents and determine whether a reasonable person should have noticed the stopped car in front of them (for example) or not and whether the driver failed to react in a timely fashion or not.

I think that two numbers would be deceptive because almost no-one is capable of acknowledging their inattention. If you found at that that 50% of accidents are caused by inattention, but the autopilot is a 20% *worse* driver than someone paying attention, you *know* that everyone would flee from AutoPilot it on the assumption they won't be part of the 50% failing to pay attention.

On the contrary. If the autopilot is 20% worse than a driver who is paying attention, then having those concrete statistics would provide the motivation to change the behavior of the autopilot feature to be more sensible, such as looking for signs that the driver isn't paying attention, and then automatically engaging when the driver's hands leave the wheel, when the driver's eyes leave the road, when the driver's grip on the wheel relaxes too much, etc., rather than making things worse by engaging when the driver would have done a better job. And as the statistics become more complete, you'd probably decide to add other weighting factors, such as time of day, whether they're driving away from home at night (e.g. to work the night shift) or towards it, etc.

Comment Short-term numbers versus long-term (Score 1) 158

One would expect that. Even a bad computer program with a dozen eyes is likely to be better than a bag of meat with only two.

I'm more concerned about the long-term secondary effects. Do drivers who get used to this technology become dependent on it, and thus have higher accident rates when driving rental cars that lack this technology?

Additionally, I'm less than convinced by the use of a single number here. To be meaningful, you need at least two numbers: the number of crashes avoided because of software intervention and the number of crashes caused by driver inattention. After all, if the system saves a bunch of lives because of things that a human driver couldn't have predicted, but costs a small number of lives because some humans depended too much on the vehicle to drive for them, then it is great from a statistical perspective, but that's little comfort for the families of people who died because the autopilot lulled them into a false sense of security.

Comment Re:One Repository (Score 1) 25

One repository isn't necessary, but one interface would be tremendously useful. If I want to watch a show, I don't care if it is being offered by Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, BBC, Amazon, etc. I just know the name of the show and want to watch it. If I subscribe to the service, it should be trivial for me to key in the name of the show and have it play, no matter which service it came from.

Comment That's what we call a buying opportunity. (Score 4, Insightful) 163

Wait for Trump to say something stupid that knocks a chunk of money off of a stock, wait a few hours for it to crash, buy low, and sell it after a week when the price rebounds. Once again, the ultra-wealthy with their high-frequency traders get richer, and normal people's retirement funds get poorer....

Comment Re:That depends, some can land the plane unassiste (Score 1) 186

Well, *technically* it's not supposed to be zero, but the plane is 200 feet long and you're supposed to have 150 feet of visibility. In other words, you can see only half a second in front of you.

The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal. That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked up—the 767—the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second. :-)

Comment Re:They might have reversed cause and effect (Score 1) 146

But it is at least as likely that having shorter telomeres predisposes you to be less active, choosing to sit more than other people. In fact, I would argue that genes affecting behavior is far more likely than behavior affecting genes. Without a truly randomized study with a control group, I don't see how you can convincingly prove causation.

Comment Re:IAPs (Score 1) 172

I thought Apple was only renting space to developers [slashdot.org], and got a fixed percentage from them. Isn't setting/raising prices something developer's should decide to do? Or are things somehow different in the UK?

Basically, when you sell something in any of Apple's stores, you choose a price tier in your default currency, and prices in other currencies are based on that price combined with the current exchange rates. For example, if I create a book right now, and specify tier 10 everywhere, that's $9.99 in USD, or $13.99 in CAD. If the Canadian dollar increases relative to the dollar, in a year, tier 10 could be $9.99 in the U.S. and $12.99 in CAD. In theory, the amount paid will always be approximately equal to $9.99 in USD.

To add further complexity, Apple provides some alternate price tiers that let you charge lower prices in developing countries, and for books, even lets you set per-country price tiers, IIRC, which could distort pricing even further... but that's a side discussion. :-)

Comment Re:love the subtle anti-brexit push (Score 1) 172

A better measure is the Big Mac Index [wikipedia.org]. A McDonalds Big Mac contains more commodities, and a significant portion of the price is in the service sector. In the UK, the average price of a Big Mac is 2.99UKP. In America, it is $4.79. So the fair market conversion should be about 0.62. So the pound is currently undervalued against the dollar, and Apple is screwing the Brits.

That's silly. The Big Mac in the UK is likely made with British beef, British bread, British lettuce, British tomatoes, etc. Expecting the same exchange rate is completely unrealistic when you're talking about buying goods that are made outside the EU.

Mind you, I'm not saying the 1:1 conversion rate that Apple is using isn't Apple's way of giving the middle finger to the UK for Brexit, nor am I saying that I agree with it, but the rate ought to be set based on roughly the average conversion rate over the past few months or so, and that rate isn't anywhere near 0.62:1. Realistically, looking at recent trends, a 0.82:1 rate is probably pretty reasonable. Add to that Apple's usual safety margin, and I'd expect more like 0.85:1.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...