Jump to content

jonnyrotten

Regulars
  • Posts

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jonnyrotten

  1. It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing. It isn't and won't be mainstream. Some of the technology will of course make it's way into cars and has done. As I said, who is the target audience? Old people that can't drive? Kids? I drive. I could think of nothing worse that getting in to a driver less car and not driving. Most people that drive don't sit there thinking "jes' i'd much prefer a driver (less) car to ferry me round". Really? We can go forward 30 years from now and you won't be seeing roads full of driverless cars. What you will see is cars that embrace certain technologies. Be that auto parking (which is really for lazy people that can't park), sensor technology you could apply to keep a distance from the car in front etc. And the road won't be full of electic cars either because (a) they are too expensive and will remain so and (b) most people enjoy driving cars that are not electric. That's my view too, spot on. Another thought was, who will be to blame when somebodies driverless car kills someone ( and it will happen). Most computers develop faults at some point and nobody can deny there are massive problems ahead. By the way. Still waiting for you to explain which parts of my original post were bollocks. It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing. It isn't and won't be mainstream. Some of the technology will of course make it's way into cars and has done. As I said, who is the target audience? Old people that can't drive? Kids? I drive. I could think of nothing worse that getting in to a driver less car and not driving. Most people that drive don't sit there thinking "jes' i'd much prefer a driver (less) car to ferry me round". Really? We can go forward 30 years from now and you won't be seeing roads full of driverless cars. What you will see is cars that embrace certain technologies. Be that auto parking (which is really for lazy people that can't park), sensor technology you could apply to keep a distance from the car in front etc. And the road won't be full of electic cars either because (a) they are too expensive and will remain so and (b) most people enjoy driving cars that are not electric. That's my view too, spot on. Another thought was, who will be to blame when somebodies driverless car kills someone ( and it will happen). Most computers develop faults at some point and nobody can deny there are massive problems ahead. By the way. Still waiting for you to explain which parts of my original post were bollocks. Not saying there's anything wrong in your views. I just think the whole concept is bollocks and a massive waste of money when half the population is dying of hunger and disease or living in squalor. That's all. Actuallly, that's precisely what you DID say. To wit - there's more bollocks in that post than in some wheelbarrow or other. So - which bits are the bollocks?
  2. It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing. It isn't and won't be mainstream. Some of the technology will of course make it's way into cars and has done. As I said, who is the target audience? Old people that can't drive? Kids? I drive. I could think of nothing worse that getting in to a driver less car and not driving. Most people that drive don't sit there thinking "jes' i'd much prefer a driver (less) car to ferry me round". Really? We can go forward 30 years from now and you won't be seeing roads full of driverless cars. What you will see is cars that embrace certain technologies. Be that auto parking (which is really for lazy people that can't park), sensor technology you could apply to keep a distance from the car in front etc. And the road won't be full of electic cars either because (a) they are too expensive and will remain so and (b) most people enjoy driving cars that are not electric. That's my view too, spot on. Another thought was, who will be to blame when somebodies driverless car kills someone ( and it will happen). Most computers develop faults at some point and nobody can deny there are massive problems ahead. By the way. Still waiting for you to explain which parts of my original post were bollocks.
  3. Too late. It's already mainstream. Target audience? Every commuter in every city in the world. Every day-tripper on the M25 this Easter. The fact that you don't like/understand it doesn't mean it's unattractive to everyone. And what does "embracing certain technologies" mean? Just think of self-driving as cars with really, really clever cruise control. You can buy them now - radar controlled, they maintain station in traffic, and don't crash into the car in front. They stay in lane too, and negotiate bends. People are paying a premium for cars with this stuff on them because they want to take the stress out of commuting. At weekends, they might prefer to drive themselves, but if you've ever seen the weekend traffic in LA or San Francisco, or London come to that, you can understand why they wouldn't. People were afraid of the horseless carriage once.
  4. Just more than a bit worrying that we have to fly to the UK to download apps from the Google Play store onto our phones as they have no idea where the IOM is, and yet somehow we trust that Google cars will know exactly where they are and we believe they are 100% safe on Manx roads. It's a bit odd isn't it? Amusing as it is in your post, I think it would be a mistake to confuse the vagaries of Google Play's marketing arrangements with Google's abilities to locate the Isle of Man geographically. I can see my house on Google Earth, so I think they know where I live. .
  5. It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing.
  6. Oh, don't worry dilligaf. I've done the research for you: Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-cars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/ All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars. http://worldif.economist.com/article/11/what-if-autonomous-vehicles-rule-the-world-from-horseless-to-driverless They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars. http://www.national.co.uk/tech-powers-google-car/ They can drive and park themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIa1mWr1kNs If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do. http://inhabitat.com/volvo-unveils-new-safety-system-that-automatically-brakes-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians/ 90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea. The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen. http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-detroit-motor-show/new-mercedes-e-class-edges-closer-autonomy America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that. http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-proposes-spending-4-billion-on-driverless-car-guidelines-1452798787 Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue. http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/car-companies-intend-to-accept-full-liability-for-self-driving-car-accidents/ The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/isle-of-man-could-become-self-driving-car-testbed-by-summer/ You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers. http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-case-for-making-self-driving-cars-think-like-humans/ This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside. http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/new-cars/why-mercedes-e-class-drivers-should-embrace-autonomy Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true. Google “autonomous” or “self driving” together with the name of any major car maker At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers. Don't need a link for this. I've sat there, watching and waiting...
  7. Can't agree. There's more bollocks in that post than there is in "The stinking Enigma's" wheelbarrow. Obviously you can inform us all which parts of it are untrue?
  8. Answers to some of the silly questions: Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars. All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars. They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars. They can drive and park themselves. If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do. 90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated. Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error. All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea. The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen. America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that. Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue. The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast. You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers. This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside. Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true. At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers.
  9. My memory is not what it was but thanks for crediting the Isle of Man with these developments. I assume you do mean the Isle of Man when you say " remember you're living in a country " People on here keep reminding me this is an independent nation. If you don't like it, there's always a boat in the morning, apparently... And if the IoM Govt hadn't done what the UK refused to do and made road racing legal, where would we be now? What sort of capital could we claim to be? So don't let's be afraid of a bit of new technology now. And I don't believe in all the job losses. Driverless cars will still have humans on board. Buses and lorries ditto, except there will be fewer opportunities for foreign drivers to fall asleep or text their families while driving over the car in front at 80mph. This can only be a good thing. I can see a case for completely driverless shuttle buses an airports and the like, and if the ill-mannered louts at Gatwick are anything to go by then this too represents a major step forward.
  10. Lots of moral, philosophical and eithical problems arise from the introduction of new tecnologies, but in general automation replaces jobs that weren't veryy much fun in the first place. Car factories now use robots to build cars, and the benefit is that modern cars are much better made than old ones were. The downside is all those jobs that were lost. However you could argue that people who were once sweating their cobs off fitting heater boxes to Vauxhall cavaliers at Luton are now working in much more amenable surroundings selling pot plants and DIY gear or coffee and cake etc, If Starbucks and Homebase have replaced the production line, the quality of life has risen all round. Saving people from dying in car accidents does not of course prevent them from dying of other things later on. However the point is that all those lives can be saved. The WHO regards auto accident fatalities as a major epidemic. If they get cancer soon afterwards then that's not really the issue. Amazingly all the sensors on cars seem to work well in the case of everyday road grime. Maybe that's because they've been designed that way. Car makers may possibly have thought all this through. Autonomous-mode cars do not rely on a single sensor or type of sensor per function, they have multiple sensors and computers which combine the information to provide decisions. Thus they assess traffic on the basis of several radars, several infra-reds, several normal camers, information from GPS and GSM and the internet. They may not be perfect now but they will be foolproof and failsafe in the future. Remember you're living in a country that was the first to be unafraid of that bnew-fangled invention, the horseless carriage. If it wasn't for that we might still all be driving along behind a man with a red flag. And thank god we didn't believe the man who said that it was impossible for human beings to travel above 30 mph without suffocating.
  11. So does the Royal Mail, Fedex and so on. We seem to manage okay, despite the fact that all manner of explosives and other nasties have been successfully delivered over the years. We have driverless trains already. And Cliff, they have cost a few jobs I'm sure, but so does all automation, like ticket machines and check-in desks and so on. Hope you're not suggesting we halt the march of progress in order to preserve certain types of employment over and above others which might arise frpom the application of technological advance?
  12. Benefits of driverless cars: Statistics say 90 per cent of accidents are caused by human error. Eliminate the human from the situation and you eliminate 90 per cent of accidents. For the most part driving = commuting, and is neither enjoyable nor convenmient, just a daunting necessity. Driverless cars change all that. You can work, rest or play and still travel in your own car. Autonomous mode can be switched off. So when the roads are clear, or when you visit a place like the Isle of Man where there are fewer speed retstrictions, you're free to drive for pleasure as much as you want, or until you have that accident. Platooning: networked and mutually aware vehicles will be able to form little groups, or platoons. Since driverless cars are capable of driving very much closer to each other front to back and side to side than mere humans, you get more cars on existing motorways, easing traffic congestion and saving a fortune on future investment. Parking: same applies here, with added benefits that self-parking cars can make appointments at airports or hotels or even tourist attractions, drop you off at the main gate and come back for you later. Because they aren't afraid of underground car parks we can use more city centre real estate for parks and buildings and park the cars out of sight underground, far more densely than any human driver can mange. (Insert sexist joke here.) Downside of autonomous cars: Erm...
  13. Seven times faster than 3g and 95% coverage is what it says on the MT webpage right this moment. If we have unreasonable expectations, whose fault is that? Obviously snail mail is about as fast as 3G where I live, so at least that part could be right.
  14. Thanks. So what does the "E" number mean when my mobile data is on? I could have sworn it used to say G. In terms of speed it goes: G, E, 3G, H, H+, 4G So the EDGE is better than GPRS but ideally you should be receiving 3G or HSPA Sadly you may struggle to get any of the above. 3G is better switched off in our part of Douglas, so you can avoid the disappointment of watching your phone flatten its battery in a couple of hours while it struggles to make contact with the network. 2G (E and H if you prefer) works but rather stone age and pathetically, and often drops out. This morning I had an unintelligible conversation with an important business contact in Germany who made the silly mistake of imagining it would be a good idea to call me on my mobile while I was still at home, and just now I have been unable to reply to a text message while in my office. If I go and stand on one leg in the car park with the phone aimed hopefully at arm's length I can usually get through at the second or third attempt (not even the fourth time today, despite having four out of five bars of signal strength showing) but it means leaving my desk and my train of thought to achieve it. It works in my garden too but it's much harder to have a conversation when the phone is that far above you, and of course all the neighbours can hear what you're shouting at it. 4G? Fur coat no knickers. Only works in the phone shop because the link is in the ceiling 2 feet above your head.
  15. It's hard to imagine them being less effective and more disreputable as a government. Let's be fair, you could put Bonnie and Clyde in charge and there's be less robbery going on.
  16. So hands up all those who believe John Shimmin gave all that public money to the Sefton Group without the explicit knowledge and permission of the nice Mr Bell. So where is the Bell resignation then? He says Shimmin had done the honourable thing. Time to follow suit and pick up his cards on the way out the door.
  17. Shimmin did his best not to resign because he didn't believe it was necessary, and he only did so initially becausae he knew it wouldn't be accepted. Bell did his best not to accept but the whole thing stank so bad he had to cave in. He's made it clear he doesn't think he or Shimmin have done anything wrong. It's equally clear that there's a sweetener at the end of a not-too-distant road for Shimmin. I'd like to bet £1.6m of public money he's the next CM. Then everything will be all right and the Old Boys Club can get another round of doubles in. Have I missed anytyhing?
  18. Sadly this is another of the lies perpetuated in recent years by a Government anxious to justify the spending of millions on a UK TV contractor. The constant barrage of plaudits from Government abouut North One has deliberately set out to creat e the belief that TV coverage was some kind of ghetto in the past and only the cleverness of our politicians has saved it from the grave. Sadly that's not true, The TT was seen same night on BBC and ITV before North One, and all over the world too. These days the S100 gets more TV exposure than the TT and it costs a hell of a lot less to produce. The clue is in the press releases they issue, which continually harp on about how the coverage has gone up every year since the new company took over. What it doesn't mention is that it fell through the floor the year they started and the only way after that is in fact, up. And at half a million pounds a year I'd be seriously pissed off if they didn't do a bloody good job. However, don't believe all you read. Or you might start to wonder how it is that TT attendances have gone up between 5 and 10 per cent every year for the past ten years but there's still only 30 thousand people showing up each year. How does that work? Easy. Government maths. Means what they want it to mean. Fact is, the film idustry f*cked off because everyone else brought their tax incentives in line with ours, the banks are leaving because the Island isn't a tax haven any more, and apart from e-gaming, another business model of dubious morality, Bell & Co haven't got a pot to piss in or an idea worth having. Getting the TT World Championship off the ground is their last hope. Still, better than fishing and farming. They don't make headlines, so where's the glamour in a decent production-based economy.
  19. Go on then. Show us where we are going wrong and get the thread back on track. The stage is yours. Let's go back to the OP. Imported bread and milk in schools, right or wrong. Personally can't see one reason how it could be a good idea, but I'm willing to have it explained, as long as it doesn't involve Stu's street signs and dog piss.
  20. Amazing. Just read this thread from start to finish and I am minded to retract everything I said about that nice Mr Corkish. Ill-informed gossip like this has no actual place in the real world. No wonder we are blessed with a form of government which is not democratic, but a self-perpetuating oligarchy. No wonder politicians think they can do and say what they like and it won't matter a damn. Faced with a subject worthy of actual debate - should we buy local at all costs, or at some cost, or just not bother - the best you can come up with is to seize the moment to stick a knife in Stu Peters because he's just about the only one with enough balls to come on here under his real name, and then spend pages talking about pasteirised milk, egg boxes and signs on pavements. TBT thinks it's funny gettinjg his dog to piss on it. And while you're all obsessed with that, your government in pissing itself laughing, and pissing on you. No wonder, if this is your best effort at expressing the will of the people. You get what you deserve, and on this showing, what you deserve is being pissed on.
  21. Yes haven't they. Greenlight introduced helicopter filming in 1995 and used it every year until they lost the contract in 2008. Ditto on-board cameras. It's been shot in HD since 2009, and shown as such in some countries. The DVD is available in Blu-Ray from Duke.
  22. Do us all a favour: make a list. Preferably with some idea of how much extra we can expect from each?
  23. Yeah, I did. I suppose I am just selfishly hoping someone with more money than sense comes along and builds Laguna Seca in my back garden, then pays for bikes and cars to race around it for my gratification.A man can dream You never know, where do you live? The best thing about Laguna Seca (which is actually quite a dreary circuit) isn't The Corkscrew. It's Monterey, just ten miles down the road. And that's the point we've got to live with. An Isle of Man racetrack won't be close to ANY population group large enough to sustain it, and it will always be four days and four hundred quid away. That is all.
  24. Not larger, just more staff. Once aupon a time you had to wait ten minutes for the single person on duty at the shop and cafe to make you a cup of coffee. Now there's loads of them, but it takes ten minutes to make the coffee in those posh machines...
×
×
  • Create New...