Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Idle

Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway 406

Posted by samzenpus
from the bad-idea dept.
cartechboy writes Self-driving cars are coming, that's nothing new. People are somewhat nervous about this technology, and that's also not news. But it appears self-driving cars are already here, and one idiot was dumb enough to climb out of the driver's seat while his car cruised down the highway. The car in question is a new Infiniti Q50, which has Active Lane Control and adaptive cruise control. Both of which essentially turn the Q50 into an autonomous vehicle while at highway speeds. While impressive, taking yourself out of a position where you can quickly and safely regain control of the car if needed is simply dumb. After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

Comments Filter:
  • hear hear! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    already "hear" huh? wow...

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @06:55PM (#47618561) Homepage

    After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles.

    No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine. If we could get this guy as far away from a steering wheel as possible, it'd be perfect.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Immerman (2627577) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:02PM (#47618619)

      Absolutely. Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen. Even if you remain in your seat, what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

      Either give me a car that will let me take a nap while it drives, or leave me in control. I've got better things to do than babysit a computer

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ichijo (607641) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:20PM (#47618743) Homepage Journal

        Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen.

        Like Asiana 214, where the pilots didn't know how to fly the plane manually.

        Or like the way that, in the name of safety, we've removed trees from the sides of roads because drivers kept hitting them. Now drivers go even faster on those same roads and hit pedestrians who are no longer protected by the trees. How's that for progress?

        • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

          by RogueyWon (735973) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @01:41AM (#47620557) Journal

          Actually, there are plenty of other reasons why we remove trees from the sides of roads. Dropped leaves (which can increase braking distances significantly), dropped branches, the chance of the tree falling onto the road during a storm, the risk of obscuring signage and, if the road is below the level of the terrain to either side of it, the chance of roots undermining the banks and causing a landslip.

          By and large, while it's never going to be economical or appropriate everywhere, you don't want trees close to major roads.

          I've worked in transportation for a good number of years and have been involved in this issue. I don't think "because drivers keep hitting them" ever came up as a reason.

          Oh, and it's even more important on the railway. People laugh at the thought on "leaves on the line" causing delays and assume it's just a bullshit excuse. It isn't. What leaves do to trains' ability to accelerate and brake is much, much worse than ice.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

        by fractoid (1076465) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:35PM (#47618855) Homepage

        what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

        Spot on. It doesn't improve safety in any way shape or form. It's just a liability dodge. So far, vehicle manufacturers have been able to offload responsibility for crashes onto the drivers involved unless it's provable that the car was engineered wrongly.

        Fully autonomous vehicles are scary for manufacturers because they potentially shift all liability to the manufacturer. This is made worse by the fact that, while people are willing to accept "human error" from a human driver, they become outraged if a machine makes a mistake, even if the machine is 100x more reliable than a human. This is a mindset that will have to change as machines become more aware of their surroundings and start making higher level decisions.

        • by Immerman (2627577)

          Good point with liability, and I'd have to say liability for autonomous driving systems *should* be 100% on the manufacturer. I'm looking forward to following the first case where one of these semi-autonomous systems kills someone because the driver-seat passenger was completely predictably distracted.

          >Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
          Slow down, will you? It took at least 50,000 years to sequester all that stuff, and the sun has

          • by fractoid (1076465)
            Yeah, I'm of the firm opinion that a vehicle should have one driver. If it's the machine itself, that's fine by me. If it's me, that's also fine. But don't go half-and-half because then you have communication issues to deal with. Automatic transmissions are bad enough (although somewhat inconsistently, I do like cruise control).

            As for the global warming stuff, it looks like some of the arctic methane ices are starting to be released due to warm currents going where they didn't used to. I think it's beyond
          • by devman (1163205)
            It is likely that if that is the case one of two things will happen. You'll be required to indemnify the manufacturer when you buy the car, individuals would then cover their risk with insurance policies, or you'll be required maintain an insurance policy on behalf of the manufacturer as a condition of using the vehicle, (or the cost of the policy for the life of the vehicle may be priced-in some how). Both of these have a nice feature that underwriting should provide a corrective market force (unsafe car
            • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Immerman (2627577) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:48AM (#47620387)

              I have no doubt that's what auto-makers would *like* to have happen - whether we let them or not is a separate question.

              But really, despite driving many cars there's only one AI - and every instance has exactly the same strengths and weaknesses. So why not insure the one driver, and thus incentivize the company to continuously improve it. Version 8.31.2036 has had an accident - get cracking boys, we want to fix the problem and deploy it as widely as possible before the next accident occurs.

              Make owners carry the liability and you're setting yourself up for a "smartphone" style ecosystem where most cars only get one or two updates, at best. Instead insurance will go up steadily for old cars as flaws are revealed, destroying the budget used-car market, much to the delight of the auto-manufacturers who created the flaws in the first place (unintentionally I hope).

          • by c6gunner (950153)

            Good point with liability, and I'd have to say liability for autonomous driving systems *should* be 100% on the manufacturer.

            That could be workable, with a few stipulations:

            1. The car costs significantly more to cover that liability.
            2. The "driver" is no longer legally required to have insurance, since the risk is assumed by the computer/manufacturer.

            I'd be willing to pay more for the car if I didn't have to pay for insurance, sine the balance should work out in my favour over time. But if you expect the car company to pay for the accidents, AND you want me to buy insurance ... that's just a non-starter.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:46PM (#47618925)

        Absolutely. Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen. Even if you remain in your seat, what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

        This is why autonomous cars are a long while away, sure we'll be 99% of the way there by 2018, it's that last 1% that's the bitch.

        We cant remove the human from the link until we are 100% certain that the computer can make decisions better than a very good driver.

        A few weeks ago a friend of mine was in a rear end collision with one of those new Ford Kuga SUV's which advertise automatic emergency brakes... They dont work, even if they did engage they wouldn't have stopped in time because their based on a dry stopping distance, not a wet one (it's winter here in Oz). We cant even get simple systems to work reliably.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Immerman (2627577) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:22PM (#47619143)

          Nonsense. The computer only needs to be markedly better than an *average* driver to be a huge safety win. It doesn't even need to *always* be better than the average driver - if it can reliably avoid 90% of the most common accidents, then even it it fails spectacularly in the last 10% of edge cases, and even if humans would have avoided 100% of those, the autonomous systems will still have reduced the number of accidents by a factor of 9.

          That said, I wouldn't trust the current auto manufacturers to do the job properly, they mostly can't even install a media system without also potentially letting anyone with a bluetooth rifle take complete control of the critical electronics. But there are folks doing some really impressive driving systems - I've even seen one that can drive professional road-racing courses flawlessly, with near-professional lap times. And yes, it can even do so in the rain.

          • Depends what the edge cases are.

            Whats better, 9 minor accidents or only 1 serious accident?
            Probably the 9 minor ones.

            In my area they really been big on putting in roundabouts in the last 10 years or so at a bunch of intersections. Minor accidents have gone way up but major accidents have gone way way down, so overall it is a win.

          • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:49PM (#47619303)

            Nonsense. The computer only needs to be markedly better than an *average* driver to be a huge safety win.

            Nope,

            Firstly people will never accept that. It needs to be far superior in order to be accepted by the general public.

            Secondly, the average driver in the US is considered a very poor driver by Australian standards... and the Germans/English are better than us.

            Thirdly, idiots tend to make different mistakes, computers will always make the same ones. For this reason, autonomous systems need to be far superior to the average driver as 1 in 1000 events on the road will catch maybe 1% of average drivers (because they fail in different ways) but if it gets 1 autonomous car, it will get others as well (because they all fail in the same way). For this reason, it needs to be able to avoid more risks than the average driver. Ironically, the unpredictability of bad drivers helps protect them and make them better than autonomous systems even thought their unpredictability is the biggest thing making them a bad driver.

            It's getting that last 1% right that will take the most time.

            That said, I wouldn't trust the current auto manufacturers to do the job properly, they mostly can't even install a media system without also potentially letting anyone with a bluetooth rifle take complete control of the critical electronics.

            Back to my example about the Ford SUV.

            Ford programmed it for dry conditions, it does not perform as well in the wet (sometimes it does not even work at all, as my friends Prelude found out the hard way). That system doesn't take into account the differing environmental conditions, it doesn't know if the road is smooth or coarse, wet or dry, tarmac or gravel. All of these factors make massive differences in braking distance.

            • by gordo3000 (785698)

              autonomous cars won't all fail the same way unless the situation is exactly the same. They are MORE sensitive to minor differences because they can actually comprehend all the minor differences. That isn't to say they won't do something incredibly stupid at some point, but you may want to learn a bit about how those systems work. And of course, the software won't be the same on every car.

              But I like your dig about American drivers. After spending my last year driving in the UK, I found the drivers there

              • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Harlequin80 (1671040) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @11:24PM (#47620027)

                Having lived in Australia and the UK as well as driven a motorcycle 20000km around Europe and a car from LA to Miami I feel that I can comment without the citation.

                Germany have the best drivers as they have the highest standard of awareness of other drivers on the road and they are very consistent in what they do. The behaviour on their autobahns and highways is completely predictable. The UK you need to learn what is the etiquette in order to be comfortable. They drive faster than their continental cousins on the same grade road, they tend to follow closer and generally require a lower gap. That said they are acutely aware of every other car on the road. They can do the zip merge and will let people in but if you are not from the uk you will find the spaces small.

                America tends to be the opposite end of the spectrum to the UK. Technically I am sure their driving skills are find but awareness of others on the road appears to be zero. Keeping to the slow lane also seems to be an unknown art. Also on smaller streets stop signs and the like seem to be on a do I feel like following this today setup. If you are merging onto a highway you can pretty much bet the cars on the highway won't speed up or slow down to make life easier for you.

                Australia sits half way between the UK and USA. There is slightly more awareness of other drivers (but not enough) people will accept a smaller gap and are more consistent drivers. Running stop signs and traffic lights is a big no no in Australia and most people don't do it.

          • by Dutch Gun (899105)

            I don't think the general public will happily trust a computer driver that fails spectacularly in edge cases. Look at the outcry over some edge-case computer-related brake malfunctions a few years ago. The computer can't just be better than the average driver, partly because everyone believes themselves to be better than the average driver*. It has to be better than nearly all drivers in most imaginable circumstances. People tend to get most nervous about things that are completely out of their control.

            • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by stdarg (456557) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @10:37PM (#47619867)

              People tend to think of average as mean, so it's entirely possible (and likely I think) that most drivers are better than the mean.

              That's because there are a bunch of decent drivers, and a few who are really atrocious and shouldn't be driving. I'm guessing the distribution looks something like:

              2% Excellent: not only do they not cause accidents, they avoid them and make everybody safer with their driving habits
              88% Good: not always 100% defensive so susceptible to things like sudden braking, but generally good drivers if nothing unexpected happens
              10% Bad: weaving through traffic, speeding in residential areas, turning or backing up without looking, etc

              So 90% of the population is "above average" (mean).

            • by sudon't (580652)

              Computers and code always function perfectly, and never fail. Have you ever had a computer crash while you were doing something important? Of course not. I will happily put my life, (and yours), in the hands of a computer.

          • by DarkOx (621550)

            No the computer needs to make better decision than the typical driver. The average driver is probably considerably worse than the mode, because there are some really horrible drivers out there.

      • by vakuona (788200)

        I couldn't agree more. I think any "autonomous" system that requires a driver to keep in the driving seat "just in case" is monumentally stupid. The worst thing a self-driving car could ever do is to attempt to give you control in an emergency situation. It's either completely autonomous, or not at all.

        A semi autonomous system is the worst of both worlds. It makes you less aware of the situation and give you control at the worst possible time, wuite possibly when you are asleep behind the wheel.

        • by gordo3000 (785698)

          not quite, there can be weird situations (like construction areas) where it comes to a stop because it doesn't understand and has you take control until it does again.

          But in emergency situations, it is always better to come to a full stop rather than hand of control while moving.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:07PM (#47618657)

      No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine

      That was my first thought. Idiots like this guy are the problem. Fully autonomous vehicles are the solution.

      • Semi-autonomous hackable vehicles:

        Didn't the green stripe site run a story a couple of minutes ago about Black Hat's presumption that the Jeep Cherokee and the Q50 were rife with cyber vulnerabilities?

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

        by twosat (1414337) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @05:05AM (#47621187)

        "...Fully autonomous vehicles are the solution".

        There's an aviation joke that says something similar: The cockpit of the future will contain a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      You'd think these cars would have a sensor in the seat to detect if there's a driver or not.
      I mean, newish cars already have them in the passenger seat to enable/disable the passenger side air bags.

      • by rasmusbr (2186518)

        You'd think these cars would have a sensor in the seat to detect if there's a driver or not.
        I mean, newish cars already have them in the passenger seat to enable/disable the passenger side air bags.

        They would need something better than that, like a camera that monitors the eyes of the driver and correlates the eye movements with the road and the traffic to determine if the driver is actively aware of the situation.

        One solution might be to have cars that are always in one of two modes:

        Mode 1: Fully autonomous.
        Mode 2: Fully manual. A warning signal will sound if the driver does something that the computer wouldn't do, or fails to do something that the computer would do. The computer may decide to switch

      • by beelsebob (529313)

        And what should they do if they detect the driver leaves? All they're capable of is following a lane, speeding up, and slowing down. The only way to get the driver back in the seat would be to stop, but that would be extremely dangerous in the middle of a freeway.

        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          The only way to get the driver back in the seat would be to stop, but that would be extremely dangerous in the middle of a freeway.

          At the bare minimum the car could turn on its hazards, honk the horn, and set off the car alarm (if separate from the horn).

          And maybe the default behavior should be a full stop on the roadway.
          If there's no driver in the seat, that's extremely dangerous too.

    • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:55PM (#47618997) Homepage

      No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine.

      That's right. Automatic lane keeping plus radar-based cruise control is right in the middle of the "deadly valley" - good enough to allow hands-off driving 98% of the time, not good enough to handle trouble. This is why that Cruise startup building a budget self-driving system [slashdot.org] worries me. Thos guys are from "social" apps. They're thinking they can ship something that sort of works, and that's good enough. It isn't.

      Auto manufacturers are held to a much higher standard than the computer industry is used to. GM is being sued because their ignition switches could turn off if people hung too much crap on their keychain. (Something unlikely to be caught in testing, because, at the test track, each key hangs on a separate key tag.) "Speeding, cellphone texting, intoxication... irrelevant. We are not looking at the driver, or the circumstances of the driver's negligence. We are looking at the automobile, and only the automobile." - terms of the GM settlement. [gmauthority.com]

      The minimum safe level of performance for a self-driving car is that the vehicle must be able to bring itself to a safe stop, preferably at the side of the road, in any emerging bad situation. Even after any single-point failure.

      Few computer based consumer products meet that standard, but a some do. The Segway is a good example. There's enough redundancy in a Segway to keep single failures from face-planting the user. Five rate gyros instead of three, two batteries, two processors, and a safety shutdown mode that brings the vehicle to a stop and sounds alarms to tell you to get off before it fails.

    • by sustik (90111)

      Imagine how pathetic it is when they have to take away someone's license to operate a self-driving car...

  • by mysidia (191772) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @06:57PM (#47618579)

    It's partially autonomous. And that's why it is so dangerous.

    After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.

    Once we actually have autonomous vehicles --- this won't be an issue as a human operator won't even be required for safe operation; only to provide instructions about where to go.

    • by slew (2918)

      a human operator won't even be required for safe operation; only to provide instructions about where to go.

      I dunno, but letting humans decide where an autonomous vehicle should go, might still be a recipe for unsafe operation...

      * Teenagers
      * Elderly people with dementia
      * Naïve people unfamiliar with local gang activity patterns
      * Suicidal depressives
      * etc...

      We should always be concerned when you have human decision in the loop of a potentially dangerous machine (car, airplane, nuclear power plant, etc). It doesn't mean autonomous operation isn't valuable assistance (ABS, ATC, etc), it just means it isn't a t

      • * Naïve people unfamiliar with local gang activity patterns
        * Suicidal depressives
        * etc...

        Those guys would go to the wrong places themselves anyway, autonomous cars notwithstanding.
        On top of that, Autonomous cars could have a certain form of biometric identification implemented (FPR, iris recognition or both), therefore effectively blocking any unauthorized person from giving commands.

      • I dunno, but letting humans decide where an autonomous vehicle should go, might still be a recipe for unsafe operation...

        Really? More unsafe than letting these people drive themselves because that is what we have now? Besides I imagine that it will be a lot easier to put restrictions on an autonomous car e.g. teenager can only go to destinations within a radius of x km from home, certain regions of a city can be blocked off as no-go areas, dementia patients could have destinations limited to certain fixed locations etc.

    • And that's why it is so dangerous.

      Is it dangerous? This was ONE idiot. I have not heard of anyone else doing the same, so it seems silly to extrapolate one incident. And even in this case, the car apparently did not crash. The automatic cruise control and lane control probably prevent dozens of accidents for every one caused by driver inattention. Before labeling this car as "dangerous", I would like to see some evidence.

  • What a jackass (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chas (5144)

    While an impressive tech display, it simply highlights why I don't trust fully automated driver systems, ESPECIALLY as the only control system.

    • by naasking (94116)

      Errr, this wasn't a fully automated driver system, that's why the guy's actions were unsafe. Your conclusion does not follow.

      Humans err far more often than automated systems do. Skepticism is warranted absent data, but the data supporting this conclusion is there, you're just ignorant of it.

    • by jc42 (318812)

      While an impressive tech display, it simply highlights why I don't trust fully automated driver systems, ESPECIALLY as the only control system.

      How so? I didn't see anying that says that. The video just ends suddenly, after the warning not to bump the steering wheel. But there was nothing I could see that said anything went wrong. It seems to be a video showing a perfectly functioning "self-driving car", despite the warning. Did something happen after the end of the video?

  • This is what happens when some entity like google tries to idiot proof. We just end up with better idiots. In this case, that infiniti is a far cry from google's claims for its own AV, and already we have morons who think the machine is infallible.

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:03PM (#47618629) Journal

    There's an old urban legend about a guy leaving the driver's seat of an RV (on cruise control) to use the bathroom. Personally I've never believed it, but it does serve to illustrate something about expectations.

    Judgement (and self-preservation) isn't a step function, it's more like a bell curve. And you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a hopefully small but nevertheless significant portion of the population, down on the left end of the curve, who will think it's ok to have nobody in the driver's seat, or (more likely) someone asleep in the driver's seat, while the car is driving itself. It's statistically inevitable.

    ...because the expectation, among the unwashed public, is that a self-driving car will, you know, drive itself. It's even in the name. That there still has to be an operator in the driver's seat with hands near controls and looking outside is counter-intuitive to the concept of "a self-driving car".

    I mean geeze, google "autopilot related accidents". And pilots get a lot more training than mere automobile drivers.

  • I'm not leaving the seat like this fellow did, but wow!

    That's why we have the internet isn't it?

    Cat videos and the derring-do of strangers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:07PM (#47618659)

    Hyundai did a similar stunt (though using professionals on closed road):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y

  • by dottrap (1897528) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:07PM (#47618661)

    No, this is proof we need autonomous vehicles. Consider the current alternative that these "idiots" are driving.

  • by gman003 (1693318) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:17PM (#47618721)

    The image I had in my head, for some reason, was the driver leaving the car itself, which drove off without him. Apparently he wasn't stupid enough to do that, which is unfortunate because that would have been absolutely hilarious.

    • Well, I remember the story of Hans Reiser who was reasonably famous for creating a new file system, who left the passenger seat of his car somewhere, the police thought it was because it was full of the blood of his murdered wife, and he had no better explanation.
    • That's actually kind of a funny idea...

      Step 1: Set Cruise Control to 90 MPH.
      Step 2: Activate Lane Control.
      Step 3: Exit the vehicle. Yes, I know this is the hard part.
      Step 4: Find a local bar and watch the police chase your car.

      You might need to place a mannequin or something in the drivers seat...

      • by gordo3000 (785698)

        not that hard, have a friend drive in front of you at 15 miles an hour (or even slower if the car has good enough adaptive cruise control) and deal with the discomfort of jumping out of the car (unfortunately, probably the window so the door isn't swinging along open)

  • by Calibax (151875) * on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:18PM (#47618729)

    It's pretty clear that this is merely a failed attempt to win a Darwin Award. Perhaps he needs to try the same thing on a windy road.

  • Most people receive no training and have no knowledge or skills on what to do in a emergency situation. Autonomous driving itself is being developed from technologies that were first developed to take over for the human in emergencies. I really don't understand the need of having the human ready to take over in a emergency.
    • by Obfuscant (592200)

      I really don't understand the need of having the human ready to take over in a emergency.

      Because the "emergencies" that an autonomous vehicle will have will mostly be created by the autonomous vehicle system itself. Like not correctly detecting a small human darting into the street ahead of it, coming to a halt in the middle of traffic because it lost communication with a critical sensor, etc. And because the computer, no matter how well programmed by the smartest people in the room, will not have covered every contingency that could pop up in real life. Humans are just more adaptable than fix

  • At least he had a self-driving engine, it is an improvement over the usual idiot that go to drive drunk and kill several in the way. And in some cases keep driving [time.com] after doing that.
  • by dmomo (256005)

    Autonomous cars already hear.

  • "OK, Google, I'm pretty sure that viaduct up ahead is flooded.

    "Searching, why a duck..."

    "OK, Google, slow down please, the viaduct up ahead is flooded"

    *SPLASH!*

    My guess is that self-driving cars will not become ubiquitous in the lifetime of anyone reading this. We may have personal jetpacks before any of us has a truly autonomous car. There won't be the required infrastructure expenditures to make the highways "smart" unless Google replaces the Federal Government. Which is a possibility, but probably not

  • by MrKaos (858439) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @09:14PM (#47619447) Journal

    You can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

  • I have not seen anyone yet comment on the obvious point that the video is a scripted advertisement for the Q50. I think the person leaving the driver's seat is not really deserving of the idiot or moron epithet. He is following the script.

    Where is the outrage directed at Infiniti?
  • To the dumbos who are down-modding comments on the atrocious use of the word "hear" instead of "here" in the summary, I offer you this piece from Mark Twain:

    A PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ENGLISH SPELLING

    For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet.

    The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later.

    Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "whi

  • Somebody actually did this? I thought the gag was ridiculously over the top when I saw it on "Anchorman 2."

  • When cruise control was new in the 1970s, there was a news story about a guy who wrecked his brand new RV. He said he turned on the cruise control then went to the back of the RV to make a sandwich.

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...