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.
You're much more likely to be injured by human error behind the wheel, either yours or another drivers. Can you beat that light? Whos' calling you? Look at that girl/guy/car! What's the nav showing me for the next turn.
Self-driving cars won't suffer these distractions that even plague unimpaired drivers.
You're correct. Future autonomous cars are expected to be much safer than current cars driven by human beings. You're much more likely to be injured by human error behind the wheel, either yours or another drivers.
The problem is the reliability of these systems if/when they get massed produced and the level at which they are maintained by the owner.
How many cars on the road are properly maintained? I've been in a lot of other people's cars that have problems because the owner can't afford to fix them. it doesn't take much to get into an accident and these driverless cars are going to require a substantial amount more maintenance.
Think of it this way, if the car is in immaculate condition and it's designed properly, it might do OK, but it's STILL a ways off.
How much safety checks and maintenance does Google do on their test cars before they drive them in a parking lot?
How much additional maintenance are they going to require?
I'm usually pretty anal retentive when it comes to maintaining my own cars and even as often as I would do things, I think it wasn't in brand new showroom condition after the first year. Brake pads, brake rotors, tires, wear. After about 100,000 miles and taking my car in with a perfect maintenance record, it stated to have little issues and little things that just make the car not drive exactly as it did off the showroom and having all of these additional things involved would make it more expensive to maintain because the computer has to always take any changes in the car's abilities into account.
When mfg like Mercedes were working on their PreSafe technology they rolled out about 10 years ago, they were in development for at least a decade and they are STILL making small improvements to the high end system. I just think Google and the media is making this out to be a media promotion and that it's a LONG ways off from your average Joe buying one of these things.
my recent experience with what i now refer to as "the google mentality": i'm in a classroom with 7 other folks and the instructor. one of the other folks is someone i've been in other classes with several times before, and who i've known since our first class together to be a google employee.
mid-way through the this most recent class the google employee casually mentions something to me about "recording". turns out he has been recording all the audio from the class since it began in the morning. turns out he also recorded all the audio from every other class we had been in. he never asked anyone. he never got anyone's consent. he never told anyone. he just turned on his recorder and let it sit there. he just figured he was entitled to record it because he wanted it. (he was recording it via an inconspicuous pen device sitting atop an external drive.) when he said he was recording i asked him to stop. he got a little indignant about that but did turn it off.
he was in the class as a google employee. furthering my belief that google is just a bunch of schmucks who will take whatever they can as long as they think they can get away with it.
my recent experience with what i now refer to as "the google mentality": i'm in a classroom with 7 other folks and the instructor. one of the other folks is someone i've been in other classes with several times before, and who i've known since our first class together to be a google employee.
mid-way through the this most recent class the google employee casually mentions something to me about "recording". turns out he has been recording all the audio from the class since it began in the morning. turns out he also recorded all the audio from every other class we had been in. he never asked anyone. he never got anyone's consent. he never told anyone. he just turned on his recorder and let it sit there. he just figured he was entitled to record it because he wanted it. (he was recording it via an inconspicuous pen device sitting atop an external drive.) when he said he was recording i asked him to stop. he got a little indignant about that but did turn it off.
he was in the class as a google employee. furthering my belief that google is just a bunch of schmucks who will take whatever they can as long as they think they can get away with it.
do no evil, my ass.
When i was taking college classes years ago it was common to see several students recording the lectures. That was long before Google existed. :rolleyes:
I just think Google and the media is making this out to be a media promotion and that it's a LONG ways off from your average Joe buying one of these things.</span>
IMO you're right. For the "average Joe" it's probably years away.
You're much more likely to be injured by human error behind the wheel, either yours or another drivers. Can you beat that light? Whos' calling you? Look at that girl/guy/car! What's the nav showing me for the next turn.
Self-driving cars won't suffer these distractions that even plague unimpaired drivers.
I saw a video of one car that's being tested and they had people walking in front of the car, but the car slowed down to a crawl and stopped at least 50 feet in front of the person. I think these cameras might sense too many potential problems and the car will end up going too slow on public roads and slowing down and stopping every little time it senses some sort of potential danger, even though most people aren't going to stop before a pedestrian 50 feet away.
I think it's got a LONG way to go. I can only imagine these cars will drive much too cautiously and that's even a danger. Ever see those people that drive 35 mph on the freeway when everyone else is going 55mph? That's just as much of a danger as well.
I think the whole thing is getting far too much hype and people just need to know people are working on it, but not to expect anything affordable for the masses for a LONG time and be done with it.
The overhyping of this is what is getting or has gotten too old. It's just not something to worry about.
Now that Google Glass has been shown to give many people headaches (who would have guessed that?), Google could immediately post an aspirin commercial right to somebody's eyeballs. They could even send out a driverless car to go pick it up.
It doesn't matter what they put an ad on. They were asked to disclose the revenue from phones. It's simple. Disclose the information on phones. Keep ad revenue on all your other devices private. No one cares at the moment. It's a simple request with a simple answer.
You know it's not that simple. It's all going to come down to levels of tolerance vs. aversion.
My new TV was selected on a number of features unrelated to its Internet connectivity. But after connecting it thusly, I get an ad popup every time I adjust the volume. That, apparently, is the "price" for being connected. (And not "promoted" - your word - by the brand, nor mentioned by any salesperson prior to purchase...)
As a consumer, do I have options? Yes: I could choose another make and/or model that doesn't do this. But another model may not use the same display tech, may not have other characteristics (e.g., reliability) I consider desirable.
Just because I choose to keep this TV and use it, doesn't mean I strongly feel that ads suck. Purchasing this product should not necessarily extrapolate the idea that I have "accepted" ads.
Netflix has proven the ad model is a failure. People have voted with their wallets and prefer to pay for a service with no ads.
Netflix has proven the ad model is a failure. People have voted with their wallets and prefer to pay for a service with no ads.
The problem here is that we don’t necessarily have a single variable against which to weigh these systems.
We’d love to compare, say, iTunes, Netflix, and Hulu, but we can’t. The content isn’t the same, and neither is the system.
iTunes and Hulu have generally the same content (one with ads, one without), but iTunes downloads and Hulu streams. Hulu and Netflix stream, one with ads and one without, but the content base is different.
Didn't we all see this coming. This alone will kill sales of these devices. As cool as something like the Nest Thermostat is, I don't believe people will want a Google Ad on their thermostat and I doubt most would pay extra to not have ads. This is something that shouldn't have ads in the first place. Nest killed shot themselves in the foot as soon as they partnered with Google.
I don't need a Kraft Mac n Cheese ad running on the fridge when I go to open it. My kitchen isn't a friggin' Wal-mart. I don't need to be persuaded to purchase something every time I open the refrigerator door.
There are places for ads to be and wearable devices, appliances, and cars are not it. Google is throwing mud at the wall with all of this with hopes that something sticks.
Did you see the Kraft Ninja Turtle ad? Really funny!
Google doesn't say that advertising will appear on these other systems. They use the possibility as an argument against splitting out mobile revenue specifically since thermostats, refrigerators and the like wouldn't fit that category. In other words there could be more than two categories, mobile and desktop, at some future point and starting to define revenue by specific source now could become problematic from both an investor and competitive angle.
If consumers reject ads on refrigerators and such then I wouldn't expect them to be promoted. Kinda against the point of advertising if it's a turn-off isn't it?
Ads on every surface you look at? The thought is enough to make one throw up.
Too bad iOS doesn't let you install ad blockers. I am always shocked whenever I use my iPad to surf the web. That's another reason why I prefer my Mac - no ads!
Comments
You're correct. Future autonomous cars are expected to be much safer than current cars driven by human beings.
http://www.webpronews.com/google-driverless-car-tickets-should-come-our-way-2014-05 You're much more likely to be injured by human error behind the wheel, either yours or another drivers. Can you beat that light? Whos' calling you? Look at that girl/guy/car! What's the nav showing me for the next turn.
Self-driving cars won't suffer these distractions that even plague unimpaired drivers.
You're correct. Future autonomous cars are expected to be much safer than current cars driven by human beings. You're much more likely to be injured by human error behind the wheel, either yours or another drivers.
The problem is the reliability of these systems if/when they get massed produced and the level at which they are maintained by the owner.
How many cars on the road are properly maintained? I've been in a lot of other people's cars that have problems because the owner can't afford to fix them. it doesn't take much to get into an accident and these driverless cars are going to require a substantial amount more maintenance.
Think of it this way, if the car is in immaculate condition and it's designed properly, it might do OK, but it's STILL a ways off.
How much safety checks and maintenance does Google do on their test cars before they drive them in a parking lot?
How much additional maintenance are they going to require?
I'm usually pretty anal retentive when it comes to maintaining my own cars and even as often as I would do things, I think it wasn't in brand new showroom condition after the first year. Brake pads, brake rotors, tires, wear. After about 100,000 miles and taking my car in with a perfect maintenance record, it stated to have little issues and little things that just make the car not drive exactly as it did off the showroom and having all of these additional things involved would make it more expensive to maintain because the computer has to always take any changes in the car's abilities into account.
When mfg like Mercedes were working on their PreSafe technology they rolled out about 10 years ago, they were in development for at least a decade and they are STILL making small improvements to the high end system. I just think Google and the media is making this out to be a media promotion and that it's a LONG ways off from your average Joe buying one of these things.
mid-way through the this most recent class the google employee casually mentions something to me about "recording". turns out he has been recording all the audio from the class since it began in the morning. turns out he also recorded all the audio from every other class we had been in. he never asked anyone. he never got anyone's consent. he never told anyone. he just turned on his recorder and let it sit there. he just figured he was entitled to record it because he wanted it. (he was recording it via an inconspicuous pen device sitting atop an external drive.) when he said he was recording i asked him to stop. he got a little indignant about that but did turn it off.
he was in the class as a google employee. furthering my belief that google is just a bunch of schmucks who will take whatever they can as long as they think they can get away with it.
do no evil, my ass.
When i was taking college classes years ago it was common to see several students recording the lectures. That was long before Google existed. :rolleyes:
IMO you're right. For the "average Joe" it's probably years away.
And the geek filth legion will bend over backward defending their deity.
Meanwhile, Google's core product, Internet search, has become useless. Seriously, it's substituting words nowhere near what I entered.
Meanwhile Google has become the #1 most valuable brand in the world, usurping Apple.
You're correct. Future autonomous cars are expected to be much safer than current cars driven by human beings.
http://www.webpronews.com/google-driverless-car-tickets-should-come-our-way-2014-05
You're much more likely to be injured by human error behind the wheel, either yours or another drivers. Can you beat that light? Whos' calling you? Look at that girl/guy/car! What's the nav showing me for the next turn.
Self-driving cars won't suffer these distractions that even plague unimpaired drivers.
I saw a video of one car that's being tested and they had people walking in front of the car, but the car slowed down to a crawl and stopped at least 50 feet in front of the person. I think these cameras might sense too many potential problems and the car will end up going too slow on public roads and slowing down and stopping every little time it senses some sort of potential danger, even though most people aren't going to stop before a pedestrian 50 feet away.I think it's got a LONG way to go. I can only imagine these cars will drive much too cautiously and that's even a danger. Ever see those people that drive 35 mph on the freeway when everyone else is going 55mph? That's just as much of a danger as well.
I think the whole thing is getting far too much hype and people just need to know people are working on it, but not to expect anything affordable for the masses for a LONG time and be done with it.
The overhyping of this is what is getting or has gotten too old. It's just not something to worry about.
This is so awesome.
Now that Google Glass has been shown to give many people headaches (who would have guessed that?), Google could immediately post an aspirin commercial right to somebody's eyeballs. They could even send out a driverless car to go pick it up.
Keep innovating, Google!
Netflix has proven the ad model is a failure. People have voted with their wallets and prefer to pay for a service with no ads.
Netflix has proven the ad model is a failure. People have voted with their wallets and prefer to pay for a service with no ads.
I dunno. There's an awful lot of YouTube traffic too.
The problem here is that we don’t necessarily have a single variable against which to weigh these systems.
We’d love to compare, say, iTunes, Netflix, and Hulu, but we can’t. The content isn’t the same, and neither is the system.
iTunes and Hulu have generally the same content (one with ads, one without), but iTunes downloads and Hulu streams. Hulu and Netflix stream, one with ads and one without, but the content base is different.
There is no place or space without good ads. We are not far away "people with ads"
http://www.eBusinessIndya.com
Often recording of events for ones own personal use is acceptable, however not allowed for commercial use or unauthorized publishing.
Did you see the Kraft Ninja Turtle ad? Really funny!
Psh.
You're lucky. I would love to join you.
Reader solves that dilemma.
Then you've never had a Mcdonalds double cheeseburger.