Uber self driving vehicle hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona

[airplanemechanic]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

 

[petro]

So....Uber vehicles drive the same as any Somalian cab driver.

I will continue to drive myself.
Almost every car make has electronic recalls and software errors listed every year. I will never trust automated vehicles.

 

[MindWars]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

That's because your pea sized brain can't think any further than what's in front of your face.

 

[airplanemechanic]

MW, you do realize I was being sarcastic, right?

 

[MindWars]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

Lets' help some of your PEA sized brain friends think outside of that box too.....

Or take another situation: Imagine an accident is inevitable, and the on-board computer knows it — say, a toddler suddenly runs onto the road. Following road safety rules, the driver should pull the emergency brake without changing direction. That means a car autopilot, which blindly follows the rules, would hit the child, whereas a living person would break the rules and steer away to, say, hit a pole. That’s the better choice; the driver is likely to be fine thanks to airbags.

The dangers of self-driving cars

 

[MindWars]

MW, you do realize I was being sarcastic, right?

LOL yeah I was giving it back, notice my second post " lets help your friends" hehe

 

[MindWars]

MW, you do realize I was being sarcastic, right?

I should have put that < sarcasm> thingy there, oopsie sorry

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

Lets' help some of your PEA sized brain friends think outside of that box too.....

Or take another situation: Imagine an accident is inevitable, and the on-board computer knows it — say, a toddler suddenly runs onto the road. Following road safety rules, the driver should pull the emergency brake without changing direction. That means a car autopilot, which blindly follows the rules, would hit the child, whereas a living person would break the rules and steer away to, say, hit a pole. That’s the better choice; the driver is likely to be fine thanks to airbags.

The dangers of self-driving cars

And yet the author believes that the rise of self driving cars in inevitable.

Also, I think the author may be Russian, discussing Russian rules of the road. I certainly don't recall any US driving rules which state that when a driver is going to hit a pedestrian, the proper response is to pull the emergency brake and continue without changing direction.

 

[MindWars]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

Lets' help some of your PEA sized brain friends think outside of that box too.....

Or take another situation: Imagine an accident is inevitable, and the on-board computer knows it — say, a toddler suddenly runs onto the road. Following road safety rules, the driver should pull the emergency brake without changing direction. That means a car autopilot, which blindly follows the rules, would hit the child, whereas a living person would break the rules and steer away to, say, hit a pole. That’s the better choice; the driver is likely to be fine thanks to airbags.

The dangers of self-driving cars

And yet the author believes that the rise of self driving cars in inevitable.

Also, I think the author may be Russian, discussing Russian rules of the road. I certainly don't recall any US driving rules which state that when a driver is going to hit a pedestrian, the proper response is to pull the emergency brake and continue without changing direction.

It is Kaspersky....... the russian virus protector.

 

[MindWars]

Hackers
An autonomous vehicle can be hacked just as any other computing device. A competent hacker — of which there is no shortage — could soon figure out a way to take control of a vehicle’s steering or acceleration. The consequences are frightening.

Hijacking
If a hacker can take control of an autonomous vehicle, then that same person could gain access to personal information that could be sold or, more likely, held for ransom by the attacker. Accomplished on a large enough scale, hijacking autonomous vehicles — again for profit — could create chaos on a nation’s roads.

Weaponized Vehicles
This potential threat actually has an upside. The truck that drove into a crowded French beach and killed 86 people could have been stopped if authorities had had the ability to take control of the vehicle remotely. The downside, of course, is that a terrorist could gain control of an autonomous vehicle and use it as a weapon.

10 Dangers of Self-Driving Cars

And there are more reason than this, but of course you will only find those on infowars............. good luck staying UNINFORMED to those who can't think of " CONTROL YOUR CAR CONTROL THE POPULATION" ........ just one more way to control us.

 

[Lewdog]

Oh my! Artificial intelligence is already turning on us!

 

[MindWars]

Oh my! Artificial intelligence is already turning on us!

Can't wait to see how many jackasses think it's really funny when they can't pay their bills and their car gets shut down ahahah. That will be really funny.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

Lets' help some of your PEA sized brain friends think outside of that box too.....

Or take another situation: Imagine an accident is inevitable, and the on-board computer knows it — say, a toddler suddenly runs onto the road. Following road safety rules, the driver should pull the emergency brake without changing direction. That means a car autopilot, which blindly follows the rules, would hit the child, whereas a living person would break the rules and steer away to, say, hit a pole. That’s the better choice; the driver is likely to be fine thanks to airbags.

The dangers of self-driving cars

And yet the author believes that the rise of self driving cars in inevitable.

Also, I think the author may be Russian, discussing Russian rules of the road. I certainly don't recall any US driving rules which state that when a driver is going to hit a pedestrian, the proper response is to pull the emergency brake and continue without changing direction.

It is Kaspersky....... the russian virus protector.

Actually, while the site is Kasperskey, the author of this particular article seems to be someone named Ilja Shatilin.

 

[toobfreak]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

A computer AI is at best a rudimentary intelligence far less aware of its surroundings and goings-on than a human being. You could put me on dilaudid and a few shots of Jack and I'd still be 10X more aware and cognizant of my environment than a Uber Car. And that is the opinion of someone who turned down jobs at both Siemens Robotics as well as CMU where much of the robotic technology is created.

 

[MindWars]

Yes, we cannot have self driving cars because this car ran over and killed a pedestrian.

No driver of any vehicle has ever hit a pedestrian and killed them.

Lets' help some of your PEA sized brain friends think outside of that box too.....

Or take another situation: Imagine an accident is inevitable, and the on-board computer knows it — say, a toddler suddenly runs onto the road. Following road safety rules, the driver should pull the emergency brake without changing direction. That means a car autopilot, which blindly follows the rules, would hit the child, whereas a living person would break the rules and steer away to, say, hit a pole. That’s the better choice; the driver is likely to be fine thanks to airbags.

The dangers of self-driving cars

And yet the author believes that the rise of self driving cars in inevitable.

Also, I think the author may be Russian, discussing Russian rules of the road. I certainly don't recall any US driving rules which state that when a driver is going to hit a pedestrian, the proper response is to pull the emergency brake and continue without changing direction.

It is Kaspersky....... the russian virus protector.

Actually, while the site is Kasperskey, the author of this particular article seems to be someone named Ilja Shatilin.

David Knight discusses driverless cars and how they will be used to take your freedoms.


Believe it or don't sooner or later those who don't will realize how wrong they were...

Look at INDIA they are being fully controlled because why THEY ARE CHIPPED..

They can buy NOTHING with out using their assigned number

 

[toobfreak]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

No more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury - yes, because they will have taken control of the car from you and be able to simply radio ahead to shut your car off.
No more drunks killing themselves or others - not a bad point, if your car can detect you are sloshed and can drive you home safely without killing you or running someone else over. Machines running our lives because people can't manage themselves.
No need for cops policing the roadways - again, part of that glorious world of the future where machines run our lives in perfect clockwork harmony and we just sit and wait to get there, another skill forever lost to machinery.

WELCOME TO THE JETSONS, or maybe Woody Allen's SLEEPER. And when the machines break down, we are all screwed.

 

[MindWars]

So lesser thinkers don't stop to realize, as you are stopped at a stop light and your car is connected you information can be hi jacked, and yeah, yeah they say such great firewalls and nobody can hack it LMFAO you gotta be a fkn moron to believe that one because everything and anything can be hacked. ....

Sensors, radars and cameras on autonomous vehicles will be able to exchange data with other cars but also, perhaps, with "intelligent" roadways

Krzanich acknowledged that the technology posed great challenges in terms of privacy protection and secure sharing.






Read more at: Autonomous cars—"new oil" or "big brother"?

 

[toobfreak]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

You gotta think way outside the box. There are more dangers to this than you think.

It will also control if you get to drive it or not, for example lets say you missed paying a parking ticket that car can be shut down so you can not drive until you pay it.

Yes they have a boot that can do the same thing buuut this control is simpler, easier and this is just a very minor example.

This car will determine if you live or die.

This car can be easily, easily hacked

This car will control what you can or can't not do in your OWN CAR c'mon dude......

How easily can it be hacked, exactly?

The PENTAGON gets hacked. Go from there.

 

[Montrovant]

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

You gotta think way outside the box. There are more dangers to this than you think.

It will also control if you get to drive it or not, for example lets say you missed paying a parking ticket that car can be shut down so you can not drive until you pay it.

Yes they have a boot that can do the same thing buuut this control is simpler, easier and this is just a very minor example.

This car will determine if you live or die.

This car can be easily, easily hacked

This car will control what you can or can't not do in your OWN CAR c'mon dude......

How easily can it be hacked, exactly?

The PENTAGON gets hacked. Go from there.

That doesn't actually answer the question. I'm guessing the systems in the Pentagon are a bit different from those in an autonomous car.

It might be fairly easy for hackers to access an autonomous car's system, I don't know. I'm just guessing that MindWars doesn't actually know how easily it can be done.