autonomous vehicles

sundog said:
What do you think about driving on the highway with a driverless car in the next lane?
Click to expand...
Probably safer. As mentioned above, they're not easily distracted and computers are better at multi-tasking.

Now, pedestrians beware. See a Mercedes study that was done a while back -- they "expect" a certain amount of casualties, specifically of pedestrians. :eek:
 
OK as long as it's not playing with its phone like most of the humans are. Come to think of it the future could be kind of scary.
 
Sad thing is that I have many many more years to go in the future, sometimes I wonder what it will be like when I am 50 which is 35 years from now, most cars will probably be electric, drag racing, dirt track, go karts may not be around…at least with a motor that burns fuel. Almost every car will have self driving mode, and computers, what will computers be like, what will phones be like?
 
This country is at least 50 years from being able to supply enough electricity to make electric vehicles our only form of transport.
 
Mike97760 I couldn't agree with you more. As the GREENS try to do away with fossil fuel they fail to realize that is what generates a whole lot of our electricity.
Can you imagine the work involved to eliminate all our gas stations, refineries,
drilling rigs and pipelines. I don't have 50 years left ( unless I live to be 123 )
but I think you're right it's at least that far off.
 
^ ..."but the world will end in 12 years if we don't do something now!" We've been hearing that for the past 20 years.
This world WILL come to a firey end, but it won't be due to climate change. (2Pet 3:10)
 
My question for the greens is, do you have a PhD in Meteorology, 50 years experience as a research meteorologist, and have you headed up a major NOAA research institute? I bet the answer is no. Well, I don't have these qualifications either, but my late father did. When he read Al Gore's book (about a month after it was published), his comment was, "I have never before seen so much bad science, so much good science misapplied and so many outright errors in one publication in my entire life." He went on to explain that the temperature cycle (pick your starting point, warmest or coldest) is, on the average, 1500 years long, and this cycle has been going on for many tens of thousands of years. Once meteorologists, astronomers and geologists put all this together, they went looking for a reason and discovered a parallel cycle, also with an average length of 1500 years, that is the amount and intensity of sunspots and solar flares on our own sun, and is the overall driver of the temperature cycle. When I asked if CO2 content in the atmosphere could make any significant difference, he answered that it is not impossible that it could make a difference of as much as 1% or 2% in our temperature, but that the sun spot cycle was was and will remain the driver. We don't need to be making extreme financial efforts to reduce CO2, we need to be preparing for the inevitable as this warming portion of the cycle continues, because nothing we do about greenhouse gasses is going to make a difference in the inevitable weather actions that occur until it starts back into the cooling portion of the cycle. Of course, like a dummy, I didn't ask him approximately where we are in the current warming portion of the cycle.
 
^ Right on. 1500 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of carbon emissions...think about that. No industrial revolution yet, no coal plants, no steel mills, no China. Yet there was still a pattern of warming. In addition to sun flares, they've also shown that volcanic eruptions cause ridiculously larger amounts of affect on the environment than humans.

And to put your mind at ease, we're only seeing a 1-2*F change = big deal! So it'll be 95* instead of 93*, when it's hot out, either prepare or stay inside in the AC. :)

Many of these same hyper-environmentalists think that you can "change" sexes simply by how you "feel," or "identify."
And yet, we're considered "science deniers."
 
statistically speaking humans behind the wheels of cars have killed more people than computers behind the wheel.
as for the environment i don't want to get on any global weather debate but i do not want to breath polluted air and have smog advisories and not be able to leave the house like they do in California. i do not want companies to put their run off into my rivers and streams or mercury or lead into my water supply.
many years ago the pigeon river was being polluted by a paper company dumping their waste into the river. the area stank near the paper plant and you could not fish in the pigeon river. they made them clean up their act and the river got cleaner and people could go out on the water and boat and swim and fish. Now they want to deregulate. that means let them trash the river again. Sounds awesome!
As for regulation today's F1 car has more regulations than any other previous year. yet none of the former under regulated F1 cars can keep up with a modern F1 car. I welcome the advancements of the engineers have made in the ability to make a 1.6 liter v6 destroy a v10 from yesteryear. that technology does make its way to the populous. you can't live in the past forever and I personally don't want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top