They will definitely need to get the costs down. I don't imagine even a wealthy person would much care to pay that much additional to add self-driving capability (it should at least be cheaper than a chauffeur, right?). Thanks for the article link, as you said, it was interesting.
They can't get this thing bullet proof and not charge an arm and a leg for it. One little tiny little problem and that thing crashes and THEN you are REALLY F'd up. Even a car that's maintained in brand new condition, which 99.999% of the cars aren't and there is STILL room for error. In a driverless car there is 0 room for error other wise people get hurt and then the lawsuits start piling up.
I don't care how much money you have. All it takes is one little electrical problem and that thing is then useless.
It's impossible to make things at NASA level reliability for the mass market and not have to charge a fortune for it. IMPOSSIBLE. Even NASA has problems from time to time and they are as close to bullet proof as you can get.
Just off the top of my head, that car has to constantly monitor the total weight, brake pad wear, tire wear, ball joints wearing as that impacts how the car has to drive itself. Then there is problems with hydraulic fluid leaking, electrical, etc. etc. I would think that Google and others have to have their cars go through a safety check each time they drive the damn thing on public roads. What happens when someone tries to modify their car (lots of people do that)? I just think there are too many areas that are exposed to screwing up and that can causes accidents, lost lives and/or lost limbs and lawsuits. Bottom line, it's a FAIL.
Nope. You're wrong. Since one of the concepts of a "smart fridge" is for it to know what you're running low on, expect to see "hey, you're almost out of Diet Coke - Kroger Home Delivery suggests you try Diet Pepsi - on sale today Just For You (R)"
That might happen but it wouldn't be AdSense as the article claims because AdSense only works in webpages. If the refrigerator had a browser it might work but only if I allowed it to. For it to upload my grocery inventory to a server without permission, seems like it would be a violation of applicable laws.
I don't know why people always blame Google for excessive advertising. Have you looked at a newspaper, magazine, television, billboards in the city, or listened to the radio recently? All packed with ads and Google had nothing to do it. Advertising is pervasive in modern society. It is not just Google?
I seriously doubt Google is going to make a refrigerator and put ads on it. That is not the way it works. They haven't put ads on any of their hardware to my knowledge, although Amazon has done that with their device.
It is not Google, but other companies that are responsible for the ads you see in search results and commercial website like AI. Those companies create the ads and pay for them to be displayed. Google simply maintains the algorithm that attempts to find an appropriate ad that will be of interest to a reader. If you are a tech guy, would you rather they displayed an ad for high tech gadgets or or some random ad for feminine hygiene? Either way there is going to be an ad there because that is how capitalism works.
This is an apples & oranges argument print, billboard, etc. ads do not collect personal data & sell it to anyone that will pay them.
That might happen but it wouldn't be AdSense as the article claims because AdSense only works in webpages. If the refrigerator had a browser it might work but only if I allowed it to. For it to upload my grocery inventory to a server without permission, seems like it would be a violation of applicable laws.
that is a shocking lack of imagination, which Google has not itself displayed. it'll upload your grocery inventory whenever and wherever it likes, and Google will use and sell that information, because its a service you implicitly agreed to when you purchased your GoogleFridge and broke the shrinkwrap. THAT'S THE MODEL.
that is a shocking lack of imagination, which Google has not itself displayed. it'll upload your grocery inventory whenever and wherever it likes, and Google will use and sell that information, because its a service you implicitly agreed to when you purchased your GoogleFridge and broke the shrinkwrap. THAT'S THE MODEL.
They can't get this thing bullet proof and not charge an arm and a leg for it. One little tiny little problem and that thing crashes and THEN you are REALLY F'd up.
Just think how f'd up it will be the first time a human driver crashes a car. We'll never be able to use them again.
Just think how f'd up it will be the first time a human driver crashes a car. We'll never be able to use them again.
This is different. What happens if a car has a malfunction and it causes the car to be in an accident? The auto maker gets sued. They have infinitely more money than the average person with some auto insurance.
This is different. What happens if a car has a malfunction and it causes the car to be in an accident? The auto maker gets sued. They have infinitely more money than the average person with some auto insurance.
FWIW Google asks to be held responsible for any moving violations that occur from someone using one of their self-driving cars rather that what the government considers the "driver". . I imagine Google expects to be held responsible if their car goes wonky and causes an accident. Those accidents would be expected to be far fewer than those attributed to human drivers.
This is different. What happens if a car has a malfunction and it causes the car to be in an accident? The auto maker gets sued. They have infinitely more money than the average person with some auto insurance.
It's just a matter of time. Cars with cruise control engaged have been in crashes, and we still have cruise control. Now we have adaptive cc and brake assist, lane line warnings, obstacle detection, etc. It's going to happen. If Apple has to implement a version for the rest of the public to trust it, then so be it, but it's going to happen.
FWIW Google asks to be held responsible for any moving violations that occur from someone using one of their self-driving cars rather that what the government considers the "driver". . I imagine Google expects to be held responsible if their car goes wonky and causes an accident. Those accidents would be expected to be far fewer than those attributed to human drivers.
What Google is doing now has nothing to do with full scale production for the masses, they are just talking about their prototypes. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Look at Toyota, GM and others with their various recalls and that's just simple stuff. This is logarithmically more complex of a system with a lot more room for error in the mechanical aspects of the system.
They are talking about these prototypes. Google won't be making the cars they sell on the open market. How often are the cars that Google is testing get a safety check? I'm sure they are running those cars through safety checks more often than the average person fills their tank with gas. They need to ensure that there are no hydraulic leaks, electrical issues, etc. Plus, Google isn't making these things by the tens or hundreds of thousands and right now it costs at least a good $75 to $85K to retro fit a Prius. I wouldn't drive one of those things.
Any moving violations? That means speeding tickets, running a red light, etc. First they have to get caught.
But Google isn't planning on selling these just anywhere are they? Like I'm going to send them a brand new car to retrofit? Those idiots can't even make a decent OS for a smartphone. And people are going to trust these idiots with a driverless car?
The biggest four problems why people get into accidents are due to drugs, alcohol, being tired, or someone just being stupid. If you remove people from being able to drive while being under the influence of drugs/alcohol you would drop the accident rates tremendously. It's that simple. Heaven forbid us to have cars that can be driven by someone that's drunk or stoned out of their mind.
FWIW Google asks to be held responsible for any moving violations that occur from someone using one of their self-driving cars rather that what the government considers the "driver". . I imagine Google expects to be held responsible if their car goes wonky and causes an accident. Those accidents would be expected to be far fewer than those attributed to human drivers.
These things aren't bumper cars at a local amusement park.
It's just a matter of time. Cars with cruise control engaged have been in crashes, and we still have cruise control. Now we have adaptive cc and brake assist, lane line warnings, obstacle detection, etc. It's going to happen. If Apple has to implement a version for the rest of the public to trust it, then so be it, but it's going to happen.
Apple isn't working on a driverless car, but there are universities that are using Apple computers to do it. There was one with an iPad, but it's the rest of the crap they put in/out of the car that the auto makers would have to do. It's not some issue where you simply plug in an iPad. The heart of these systems are the camera (expensive), more precise GPS systems, sensors and all of the actuators to monitors and control everything. It's just too costly now and in the future.
Just adding these pre braking systems costs a couple of grand and they just brake when the camera senses an object in front of the car, but driverless is a WHOLE lot more complex.
I read articles written in the auto industry and they basically indicated that we'll see certain features of a driverless car in production long before they start mass producing 100% driverless cars and it will take something like around 50 years before the technology becomes affordable for the masses. until then, it's just a marking ploy for Google. They haven't seen a dime from their efforts and probably won't for a LONG time.
Comments
They will definitely need to get the costs down. I don't imagine even a wealthy person would much care to pay that much additional to add self-driving capability (it should at least be cheaper than a chauffeur, right?). Thanks for the article link, as you said, it was interesting.
They can't get this thing bullet proof and not charge an arm and a leg for it. One little tiny little problem and that thing crashes and THEN you are REALLY F'd up. Even a car that's maintained in brand new condition, which 99.999% of the cars aren't and there is STILL room for error. In a driverless car there is 0 room for error other wise people get hurt and then the lawsuits start piling up.
I don't care how much money you have. All it takes is one little electrical problem and that thing is then useless.
It's impossible to make things at NASA level reliability for the mass market and not have to charge a fortune for it. IMPOSSIBLE. Even NASA has problems from time to time and they are as close to bullet proof as you can get.
Just off the top of my head, that car has to constantly monitor the total weight, brake pad wear, tire wear, ball joints wearing as that impacts how the car has to drive itself. Then there is problems with hydraulic fluid leaking, electrical, etc. etc. I would think that Google and others have to have their cars go through a safety check each time they drive the damn thing on public roads. What happens when someone tries to modify their car (lots of people do that)? I just think there are too many areas that are exposed to screwing up and that can causes accidents, lost lives and/or lost limbs and lawsuits. Bottom line, it's a FAIL.
That might happen but it wouldn't be AdSense as the article claims because AdSense only works in webpages. If the refrigerator had a browser it might work but only if I allowed it to. For it to upload my grocery inventory to a server without permission, seems like it would be a violation of applicable laws.
I don't know why people always blame Google for excessive advertising. Have you looked at a newspaper, magazine, television, billboards in the city, or listened to the radio recently? All packed with ads and Google had nothing to do it. Advertising is pervasive in modern society. It is not just Google?
I seriously doubt Google is going to make a refrigerator and put ads on it. That is not the way it works. They haven't put ads on any of their hardware to my knowledge, although Amazon has done that with their device.
It is not Google, but other companies that are responsible for the ads you see in search results and commercial website like AI. Those companies create the ads and pay for them to be displayed. Google simply maintains the algorithm that attempts to find an appropriate ad that will be of interest to a reader. If you are a tech guy, would you rather they displayed an ad for high tech gadgets or or some random ad for feminine hygiene? Either way there is going to be an ad there because that is how capitalism works.
This is an apples & oranges argument print, billboard, etc. ads do not collect personal data & sell it to anyone that will pay them.
I don't recall Google ever being proved guilty of that. Do you have any authoritative references?
I don't recall Google ever being proved guilty of that. Do you have any authoritative references?
How does google target advertising? Who pays Google for advertising & why? You didn't address the point of my argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/technology/google-engineer-told-others-of-data-collection-fcc-report-reveals.html?_r=0
That might happen but it wouldn't be AdSense as the article claims because AdSense only works in webpages. If the refrigerator had a browser it might work but only if I allowed it to. For it to upload my grocery inventory to a server without permission, seems like it would be a violation of applicable laws.
that is a shocking lack of imagination, which Google has not itself displayed. it'll upload your grocery inventory whenever and wherever it likes, and Google will use and sell that information, because its a service you implicitly agreed to when you purchased your GoogleFridge and broke the shrinkwrap. THAT'S THE MODEL.
that is a shocking lack of imagination, which Google has not itself displayed. it'll upload your grocery inventory whenever and wherever it likes, and Google will use and sell that information, because its a service you implicitly agreed to when you purchased your GoogleFridge and broke the shrinkwrap. THAT'S THE MODEL.
You have imagination. I'll give you that.
They can't get this thing bullet proof and not charge an arm and a leg for it. One little tiny little problem and that thing crashes and THEN you are REALLY F'd up.
Just think how f'd up it will be the first time a human driver crashes a car. We'll never be able to use them again.
Semantics. Google will sell access to your into to anyone.
Just think how f'd up it will be the first time a human driver crashes a car. We'll never be able to use them again.
This is different. What happens if a car has a malfunction and it causes the car to be in an accident? The auto maker gets sued. They have infinitely more money than the average person with some auto insurance.
This is different. What happens if a car has a malfunction and it causes the car to be in an accident? The auto maker gets sued. They have infinitely more money than the average person with some auto insurance.
It's just a matter of time. Cars with cruise control engaged have been in crashes, and we still have cruise control. Now we have adaptive cc and brake assist, lane line warnings, obstacle detection, etc. It's going to happen. If Apple has to implement a version for the rest of the public to trust it, then so be it, but it's going to happen.
FWIW Google asks to be held responsible for any moving violations that occur from someone using one of their self-driving cars rather that what the government considers the "driver". . I imagine Google expects to be held responsible if their car goes wonky and causes an accident. Those accidents would be expected to be far fewer than those attributed to human drivers.
What Google is doing now has nothing to do with full scale production for the masses, they are just talking about their prototypes. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Look at Toyota, GM and others with their various recalls and that's just simple stuff. This is logarithmically more complex of a system with a lot more room for error in the mechanical aspects of the system.
They are talking about these prototypes. Google won't be making the cars they sell on the open market. How often are the cars that Google is testing get a safety check? I'm sure they are running those cars through safety checks more often than the average person fills their tank with gas. They need to ensure that there are no hydraulic leaks, electrical issues, etc. Plus, Google isn't making these things by the tens or hundreds of thousands and right now it costs at least a good $75 to $85K to retro fit a Prius. I wouldn't drive one of those things.
Any moving violations? That means speeding tickets, running a red light, etc. First they have to get caught.
But Google isn't planning on selling these just anywhere are they? Like I'm going to send them a brand new car to retrofit? Those idiots can't even make a decent OS for a smartphone. And people are going to trust these idiots with a driverless car?
The biggest four problems why people get into accidents are due to drugs, alcohol, being tired, or someone just being stupid. If you remove people from being able to drive while being under the influence of drugs/alcohol you would drop the accident rates tremendously. It's that simple. Heaven forbid us to have cars that can be driven by someone that's drunk or stoned out of their mind.
Shocked.
FWIW Google asks to be held responsible for any moving violations that occur from someone using one of their self-driving cars rather that what the government considers the "driver". . I imagine Google expects to be held responsible if their car goes wonky and causes an accident. Those accidents would be expected to be far fewer than those attributed to human drivers.
These things aren't bumper cars at a local amusement park.
What more do you need? uninstall Google incredible.
Wait, so you can no longer operate Google search?
Not... quite what I said, but thanks for playing.
It's just a matter of time. Cars with cruise control engaged have been in crashes, and we still have cruise control. Now we have adaptive cc and brake assist, lane line warnings, obstacle detection, etc. It's going to happen. If Apple has to implement a version for the rest of the public to trust it, then so be it, but it's going to happen.
Apple isn't working on a driverless car, but there are universities that are using Apple computers to do it. There was one with an iPad, but it's the rest of the crap they put in/out of the car that the auto makers would have to do. It's not some issue where you simply plug in an iPad. The heart of these systems are the camera (expensive), more precise GPS systems, sensors and all of the actuators to monitors and control everything. It's just too costly now and in the future.
Just adding these pre braking systems costs a couple of grand and they just brake when the camera senses an object in front of the car, but driverless is a WHOLE lot more complex.
I read articles written in the auto industry and they basically indicated that we'll see certain features of a driverless car in production long before they start mass producing 100% driverless cars and it will take something like around 50 years before the technology becomes affordable for the masses. until then, it's just a marking ploy for Google. They haven't seen a dime from their efforts and probably won't for a LONG time.