Tesla's Elon Musk Talks With Google About Self-Driving Cars 199
Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has been thinking about bringing autonomous driving technology to Tesla's electric cars. Quoting Bloomberg:
"Musk, 41, said technologies that can take over for drivers are a logical step in the evolution of cars. He has talked with Google about the self-driving technology it’s been developing, though he prefers to think of applications that are more like an airplane’s autopilot system. 'I like the word autopilot more than I like the word self- driving,' Musk said in an interview. 'Self-driving sounds like it’s going to do something you don’t want it to do. Autopilot is a good thing to have in planes, and we should have it in cars.' ... Google’s approach builds on a push for the driverless-car technology long pursued by the U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which held vehicle competitions for carmakers and research labs. Anthony Levandowski, product manager for Google’s self-driving car project, has said the company expects to release the technology within five years. 'The problem with Google’s current approach is that the sensor system is too expensive,' Musk said. 'It’s better to have an optical system, basically cameras with software that is able to figure out what’s going on just by looking at things.' ... 'I think Tesla will most likely develop its own autopilot system for the car, as I think it should be camera-based, not Lidar-based,' Musk said yesterday in an e-mail. 'However, it is also possible that we do something jointly with Google.'"
Musk later warned not to take this as an actual announcement.
Vision systems are probably the future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the Grand Challenge winner use a computer vision system, augmented with LIDAR because computer vision is still an evolving field with plenty of risk.
No, LIDAR works fine, but there's a range problem because of the power limits needed for eye safety. For a nanosecond, a pulsed LIDAR must far outshine the sun.
Camera's have more problems than Lidar (Score:2)
While cameras may be more cost effective than Lidar, they have problems that lidar doesn't. For example, what does the camera sensor do when it's under direct sunlight and can't make sense of what it's seeing? What about rain / fog? I have a feeling google is has the right idea here.
Re: (Score:2)
While cameras may be more cost effective than Lidar, they have problems that lidar doesn't. For example, what does the camera sensor do when it's under direct sunlight and can't make sense of what it's seeing? What about rain / fog? I have a feeling google is has the right idea here.
What do *you* do when you're driving and there is direct sunlight in your eyes, or you encounter rain/fog?
If you could get the software to be half as near as good as peoples eyes and simply take peoples stupidity out of the equation then you'd end up with a system that was miles ahead of manual driving.
Re: (Score:2)
So the answer is: your eye compensates via a number of mechanisms not available to cameras.
So "[getting] to be half as near as good as peoples [sic] eyes" will require an improvement in cameras of about 500,000 times.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly you've never seen what humans do on highways in foggy days...
People will drive recklessly when they can't see crap. They'll drive too fast, out of a sense of security, out of stupidity, out of an illusion effect coming out of the foggy conditions. And you... well, you can't do much about it, since you only control one gas pedals over the entire highway.
Computers, on the other hand, can "see" in different wave lengths than we do. Potentially wavelengths that are visible through fog. So, when you don'
Re: (Score:2)
I half agree with you. The right approach is probably a combination of millimeter-wave radar, lidar, and computer vision. Not only can you cross-check between systems but at least one of them is sure* to work.
* for values of sure reasonably near 1.0
Camera Based? (Score:2)
Lidar might be expensive, but it gives you the shape and depth of the surrounding environment. Camera based imaging will have a harder time determining the distance to the objects in views. I would think the lidar would also have an advantage with fog or rain that might hinder a camera based system much more. In the end I think having multiple systems that corroborate their view of the world and cover for each other when one has difficulty getting a good sense of the environment is the best way to go. But i
Major problem here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Major problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
Some humans want control of their car, but many would rather do other things. The idea of automobiles being an extension of the driver did not really develop until car companies started advertising vehicles that way in the 1950s. Before that automobiles tended to be seen as either luxury items or utility vehicles.
Re:Major problem here (Score:4, Insightful)
Cars, OTOH, have never been called "driving machines".
Remind me again what BMW's tagline is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cars, OTOH, have never been called "driving machines".
I take it you've never seen a BMW ad; their main tagline is (and has been, for as long as I can remember*) "BMW: The Ultimate Driving Machine"
* I wasn't around way back when they were making engines for the Luftewaffe.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of control in an airplane is one of the reasons why the newest "anti-"terrorism security measures are so easy to implement in the airport.
People want control. Period.
Re:Major problem here (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans love to bask in the feeling of being in control, especially when it comes to cars.
Specifically, there's an important cognitive bias at work here, in that people feel safer about things they control than about things they don't control. That's why people who feel perfectly safe driving feel unsafe riding a commercial aircraft, even though planes are much much safer than driving. That's also why geeks feel comfortable with computers, while non-geeks are frequently scared of them - geeks know how to control those machines, non-geeks don't.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why people who feel perfectly safe driving feel unsafe riding a commercial aircraft, even though planes are much much safer than driving.
Not that I drive as safely as I potentially could, but in the case of plane it's sit back and hope the pilot is competent, whereas when driving there's lots of things you can do to mitigate the potential danger like driving defensively (I do that, anyway) and driving slowly and driving a vehicle which does well in crash tests and taking breaks etc etc. (too many ands, too lazy to edit.) You can choose your routes as well, within parameters. So even if it never gets as safe as a plane on average, you still h
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I feel unsafe in a commercial aircraft is because they've proven that a system such as the one Musk proposes where the autopilot cuts out and hands control to the pilot when it doesn't know what to do often results in the plane crashing and burning (or splashing and sinking, in the AF447 case)
It's really quite simple, if you compare 1 statistic: Death per billion km
Air - 0.05 Car - 3.1
It feels safer to deal with your stupidity or the stupidity of the drivers around you rather than potential pilot stupidity, but it's simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
3) auto deaths generally - but not always - include pedistrian deaths which can inflate the number 10-15%
4) air deaths do not generally include people killed by airplanes (9/11) only the passengers
I don't think the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were counted as road deaths, even though the bomb was in a van. On the other hand, people killed on the ground during the Concorde crash in Paris CDG were counted as victims. Some of your arguments are flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with air travel being so safe is that the statistics are skewed. The problem is almost all air travel deaths take place during take off and landing, and all flights no matter how short or long have one take off and one landing. Consequently a flight from London to Tokyo is hardly any more dangerous than a flight from London to Paris. However the safety figure is deaths per billion km, rather than deaths per passenger flight.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that the flight control computer c
Re: (Score:2)
The AF447 crash shows exactly the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate.
Yes it does, but that's only one case. How many thousands of times has the autopilot kicked out and the human pilot(s) handled it just fine?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more we're conditioned to feel that way about our cars, thanks to decades of advertising designed to do so.
The reality is that we have very little control over our driving. Collectively we're spending billions of hours each year stuck in traffic. We burn billions of gallons of gas going nowhere.
Replace that with a largely automated system that can route around traffic issues, reduces the number of cars needed on the road, and you actually return control to folks.
Plus cars are old technology. Th
Re: (Score:2)
The younger crowd doesn't really care any more (more and more teens are waiting on getting a license until absolutely necessary).
Wait, what? I find that very difficult to believe. I'd ask for statistics, but it seems difficult to separate out just teenagers living in areas rural enough that you need a car. Where I grew up there's no transit at all; everyone gets a license as soon as possible as the alternative is to never leave home except via school bus or ride from your parents. I can't see that changing and the US isn't exactly pushing for more transit.
Strange but true. See this article. [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Humans love to bask in the feeling of being in control, especially when it comes to cars. With planes, this was different
Haven't met many pilots, have you?
Re: Major problem here (Score:3)
You forgot about buses, taxis, and also ordinary passengers in your own car. People will happily cede control to a driver they trust.
I enjoy driving as much as the next guy, but not all the time, not when I'm too tired/drunk, and rarely in traffic. A significant majority of driving is done for utility, not enjoyment. Personally I would welcome a car with the option of an autopilot.
Um...are u sure about that? (Score:2)
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Innovations/onething.aspx [bmwusa.com]
"The Ultimate Driving Machine"
Er, TFA? (Score:5, Funny)
Missing Link to Bloomberg Article (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/tesla-ceo-talking-with-google-about-autopilot-systems.html [bloomberg.com]
LIDARm but not Google's LIDAR (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who's actually done this stuff, LIDAR gives solid data, but is range-limited. Cameras have more ambiguous results. Cameras are most useful when things are going well, as on a highway under good conditions. That was Stanford's approach in the Grand Challenge. All their vision system really did was answer the question "is the near section of road (within LIDAR range) like the far section of road"? If the LIDAR said the near section was OK to drive on and the vision system said the far section was like the near section, then the vehicle could speed up and out-drive the LIDAR range. That sped up travel on good sections of road.
Google is using Velodyne LIDAR units, which are effective but an expensive mechanical kludge. A better approach is from Advanced Scientific Concepts [advancedsc...ncepts.com], which has an eye-safe flash LIDAR. No moving parts.
ASC's units cost about $100K each, but that's because they're hand-made for DoD. The technology isn't inherently expensive if made in volume. It uses custom imaging ICs, and because they're made by tens, not millions, they cost far too much. If the cost can be brought down, the vehicle can have multiple LIDAR units around the car to get full coverage, rather than one big spinning thing up on the roof.
Millimeter radar is also useful. It's good to have a Dopper anticollision radar as a backup system. It provides an unambiguous "rapidly approaching big solid object" signal. We had one of those on our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle as a backup to the fancier LIDAR system.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why virtually all jet aircraft have more than one engine and, in the case of a 747, more than 3 engines...
Plane / Car Distinction (Score:5, Informative)
Autopilot is a good thing to have in planes, and we should have it in cars.
I like the notion, and it's a great frame of reference for consideration. One major distinction between planes and cars: When a plane is on autopilot in a relatively sparse chunk of sky, the time between sensor warning and twisted burning wreckage is tens of seconds to minutes. Most of the time in an ordinary flight plan the plane can wander hundreds of feet without a problem. On a typical chunk of sparsely populated two lane highway, however, If your car's autopilot travels twenty feet out of its lane -- things get exciting very quickly.
Moreover, most airplanes are like long-haul trucks -- they spend most of their miles in transit between heavy traffic areas. A major chunk of American automotive miles are spent with other vehicles within a few dozen feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, all planes have some at least 2 highly trained professionals sitting in the cabin overseeing everything. People who have to log a minimum number of flight hours in order to keep their skills sharp. In the event of a pre "burning wreckage" moment, they can take control if necessary.
I can't see your average car driver (who probably is not paying attention on the road) do the same, especially if they have gotten a bit rusty from constantly allowing the car to drive for them.
Autopilots for cars and planes
Re: (Score:2)
False. Many planes require only one crewmember - the pilot. This is true whether the pilot is flying for himself and friends (e.g., private pilot) or doing it as part of a charter (air taxi).
And even the dinky little Cessnas
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance (Score:5, Interesting)
At the same time I can see the insurance companies realizing that a huge huge HUGE market will simply go away when car accidents become unlikely enough for car companies to be able to cover it. Think about it. Every car that you see is paying in around $1,000+ for insurance. The only insurance people will want after robotic cars will be theft (hard to do with a hi-tech upgradable car), vandalism, trees falling on them kinds of insurance. Plus nearly every jurisdiction says you must have something like 2 million in liability; that need will vanish or at least be covered by the manufacturers.
So my robotic car prediction is that car companies will be trying to terrorize us into hating robotic cars. They will show videos of families being driven off cliffs, or saying it is our god given right to have control of our cars. And of course they will spend ungodly amounts of money lobbying everyone from the president down to your school board to stop this.
But the simple reality is that 35,000 people are killed every year in the US and robotic cars might take this down to a few hundred. (mechanical failure, trees falling on them, sinkholes, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
Car companies or insurance companies?
Re: (Score:2)
criminal liability (Score:2)
criminal liability
Who pays a ticket? Who get's points? Can you have a bot take traffic school?
Now on to bigger stuff What it does some thing that you can get jail time / big fines / ect...
What it drives into some one at speed and does not even to try to stop? misses a road closed and hits people in the street?
Hit's a work worker? Will Mushishkabishalishdish Jaboodiboodi do the 14 years and pay the 10K fine? Will all people get off how fast will that EULA be cut down in a court? will Google take the 5th?
Destonationless (Score:2)
Often I sight-see, get intentionally lost, or even prefer to visit locations with no name (to hike, to consider buying, etc).
Are driving cars another round of "consumer" vs "creator"?
Re:Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another. Driving is one of the most boring tasks imaginable, except on a few roads like BC's Sea to Sky Highway when the traffic is light. The vast majority of driving situations are tedious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tedious and dangerous. A combination practically designed to induce stress.
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. When I drive to work I usually arrive highly stressed. When I take the train I usually arrive relaxed and productive. It takes longer, but it is a far nicer trip.
Regardless of wanting one, their time will come (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind taking the bus except for 2 factors:
1. Comfort. The city buses I've been on have been far less comfortable than any of my car seats. I know there have to be car seats out there that are less comfortable, but I haven't found them.
2. Time. I can decide to go somewhere, jump in my truck and be at my destination in about 10 minutes most of the time. With the bus I have to pay attention to the time, wait for the bus out in the weather, take an extra hour of time getting to within a couple bloc
Re: (Score:2)
I can decide to go somewhere, jump in my truck and be at my destination in about 10 minutes most of the time.
With a decent bus service you could do the same, except you might have to walk a few hundred yards to a bus stop.
With the bus I have to pay attention to the time, wait for the bus out in the weather, take an extra hour of time getting to within a couple blocks of my destination, normally arrive there an hour early, etc..
That just means you've got a crappy bus service, it's nothing inherent in the idea of buses.
Re: (Score:2)
I find driving incredibly relaxing. It requires just enough focus to get me into a zen like state, but not enough that it ever gets taxing except under unusual circumstances. Sometimes if I'm really stressed, I'll hop behind the wheel and drive for an hour or two in some random direction, then come back and feel totally relaxed.
But, right now my car is in the shop, and I'm taking the bus, and it's stressful as hell. Buying groceries is either an expensive taxi or a painful ordeal, sleeping in 10 minutes
Re: (Score:2)
I find driving incredibly relaxing.
Then, like most people, you're not doing it right.
Try riding a motorcycle for a while and see what happens if you don't concentrate 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I find driving incredibly relaxing.
Then, like most people, you're not doing it right.
Try riding a motorcycle for a while and see what happens if you don't concentrate 100% of the time.
It's the need to concentrate that makes it relaxing.
It's like rock climbing. You have to focus on the immediacy of the moment. It relieves my overactive mind from cycling over emotionally charged thoughts and leaves me unable to return to them because I'll die if I do.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet statistically speaking, a hundred years after the last manually driven car comes off the road, we'll probably still have laws on the books that ban texting while in the front left seat.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of a car is to get you from one place to another.
1st. He was taking about a sports car. That type of car is meant for the journey not the destination.
2nd. There are people in the world that love to drive. They are called car enthusiasts. Here I'll explain this with a computer analogy. Just like there are people that like to use command lines edit config files instead of using iPads etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Would love to have autopilot on the large US highways - I-40, I-80. 500 miles at a stretch with barely a turn.
No "enthusiast" is going to be enthused by that drive.
Re:Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another.
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
You may not believe or understand this, but some of us actually enjoy driving.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people enjoy driving, but many do not, particularly the miserable drives that many people have to endure to get to and from work, or to move around in badly designed cities. Driving can be a lot of fun, particularly if you do most of your driving in areas that do not have a lot of traffic. Most of the time, though, driving is just something that you tolerate because you need to go somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. Driving conversations online almost always turn into insult contests
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. Driving can be fun, and I pointed out a nice highway to drive on. However, most people do not enjoy their morning commutes, or darting around from shop to shop, or sitting still in bumper to bumper traffic with three miles to go until the next exit. These are common driving conditions for most people. If the only driving that I ever did was in a BMW 3 Coupe on a lightly used road in the Rockies I would be very happy, but in the real world driving is not quite that much fun.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not have occurred to you, but people don't generally commute by car through traffic-clogged cities for the sake of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, that's only a tiny portion of the driving I ever do. Most of it is spent in a congested commute, 5 days a week. I'd *love* to be able to just let my car take me to and from work as I browse Slashdot on my phone.
A self driving car would give me a precious 40-50 minutes of extra free time.
Re: (Score:2)
Some may, but most don't. And the ones that do are usually out in the country away from the other drivers.
The main point of cars is to get from Point A to Point B. Some people do enjoy driving, but I have yet to find anybody for whom driving in traffic is something they find to be enjoyable.
I think a car analogy is in order. It's like if you had the choice between sitting in traffic cursing out the idiots around you, or could use that time to check up on email or read a book.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Roughly 15 years ago, when I was 22, I was working in Chicago as a consultant making $30 an hour, not salaried. Being stuck in traffic for a few hours at a time was some of the most enjoyable times I had. I was getting paid the same either way. I'd roll down the windows, crank the music and sing out-loud to my heart's content. I put a smile on a few faces doing that. People thought I was crazy. If they only knew. :)
I bet you're one of those "wearing seatbelts and having airbags means I could be trapped in my car upside down in a ditch with two broken arms and suffocate" guys.
Yes, there are exceptions to almost every rule. That's why they're outliers and don't apply to the vast majority of people.
People on slashdot often moan about mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, but seem to find it perfectly reasonable that their own special interests should be pandered to whatever happens.
Re:Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? (Score:4, Insightful)
You may not believe or understand this, but some of us actually enjoy driving.
But how many enjoys driving all the time? All traffic, all road conditions, never tired, never busy, never wanted for a button to push to make the car drive itself while you do something else? I have friends who are quite car conscious but they also like cruise control, automatic gearbox and all that, it's more about going around in comfort and style than pretending to be a rally driver. I think there's a solid market of people that aren't looking for the "basic transport from A to B" but the "private limo driver from A to B" experience, particularly since the computer has even more discretion than a human. And it's not like they're going to take away the "off" switch any time soon, so if you want to go ahead...
but think of the benefits! (Score:4, Interesting)
When our roads are autonomous, you will get to point B faster, safer, with less fuel, less wear on the car, and better rested. You can also stop worrying about parking, fueling, and maintaining you car as it can go and do all these things automatically while you go about your business.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also stop worrying about parking, fueling, and maintaining you car as it can go and do all these things automatically while you go about your business.
Mod parent up. I'd never thought about that before, but you're right. If you had an appointment/meeting, you could just drive up to the door and let the car worry about itself.
Cool.
Re: (Score:2)
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
Even a fairly unreasonable troll would like to get there with their colon in good working order, and some of us live where there are potholes. But you're probably near being right, in that most of the vehicles on the market would go away tomorrow. Of course, most of them should do that anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another.
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
You may not believe or understand this, but some of us actually enjoy driving.
I enjoy driving. I also have to get to work. I do not enjoy commuting by car particularly, but there is no realistic public transport alternative where I live. If I had a Ford Fiesta or a Ferrari F12 it would make little difference to the enjoyment of my daily journey. A daily personal taxi (i.e. self-driven car with no taxi driver trying to talk about immigration) would be great. At least I could read there and back.
If I want a fun drive, I'll go out at the weekend or very early morning or something, n
Re: (Score:3)
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another. Driving is one of the most boring tasks imaginable, except on a few roads like BC's Sea to Sky Highway when the traffic is light. The vast majority of driving situations are tedious.
Well, in a self-driving car, you could play Need for Speed or Gran Turismo videogames on the HUD to make things more exciting while you wait. Ever imagined your finger was a bazooka while you're in traffic, and you could just blow up the cars in the way? Well, now we can use Altered Reality to superimpose images of Actual Explosions!
My extensive research has proven that "Time Flies when you're having fun"... Ergo, there's a loveseat in the back.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever imagined your finger was a bazooka while you're in traffic, and you could just blow up the cars in the way? Well, now we can use Altered Reality to superimpose images of Actual Explosions!
Yes I do and that would be awesome. I use the e-brake release button and pretend that my car has missile launchers or machine guns instead so it would be nice if the fire button was mapped to the e-brake release button.
Re: (Score:2)
My extensive research has proven that "Time Flies when you're having fun"... Ergo, there's a loveseat in the back.
As this is slashdot, I'm assuming it's solo?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true programmer. Why make something elegant and fun when it can just work?
Driving is supposed to be fun. The sound of the engine, the shifting of gears, the lateral forces as you take a curve, all make driving enjoyable.
If you consider driving boring and tedious, I'm presuming you're one of those who thinks eating is equally boring and tedious and looks forward to the day when we can just inject nutrient rich sludge directly into our stomachs.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving is supposed to be fun.
No it isn't, it's supposed to get you from A to B. The fact that can be made fun is a totally distinct argument. I highly doubt anyone has fun doing mundane commutes and sitting in traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Why do I get the impression that none of the people posting that "driving is fun" actually have to drive? It's a week day, if they have to drive it's a fair bet that the last time they drove was this morning, to work. If they had fun doing that, well...
It's slashdot. Most of them are probably 17 and occasionally drive to their high school or to McDonalds when they're allowed to borrow their mom's Prius. Probably they're not commuting daily for 45 minutes each way stuck in traffic going 10 mph.
Re: (Score:3)
Spoken like a true programmer. Why make something elegant and fun when it can just work?
I think cars started downhill when that newfangled synchromesh eliminated the need for double clutching, and as in so many other areas technology continues to destroy the simple pleasures of life. Imagine a train without the joy of stoking the fire while cinders fly in your eyes and you watch the pressure gauge to avoid a boiler explosion. Or a ship where you don't have to climb the ratlines in a storm. Or turning a tap labeled "hot" instead of fetching well water and starting a fire to warm it. Or of not h
Re: (Score:2)
Given the alternative [businessinsider.com], I would prefer a cruse ship that let you man the sails.
From the article:
Hallways were flooded with human waste, there was no A/C or running water, and passengers were left to survive on limited food and water.
In the days of sailing ships, you only got those conditions in first class.
Re: (Score:2)
you're one of those who thinks eating is equally boring and tedious and looks forward to the day when we can just inject nutrient rich sludge directly into our stomachs.
we already do that its called they are called "frozen burrito" or "cup'o noodle"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it will be for the Roadster, but more towards more normal consumer cars, probably planned in the future.
Having to drive 5 1/2 hours from VT to Niagara Falls NY and back to VT. I would love to have a basic "Autopilot" settings, that kept me at speed, in my lane on the highway, and not running into a car in front of me. I would be OK with having to change lanes myself and other more "advanced tasks" but the hours of tedium is just hard on my eyes, and my concentration. Just to be able to take
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? Terrorists.
Self driving bomb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just pure boring. Isn't the whole point of such a car that you drive it yourself for your enjoyment?
If you want enjoyment buy a motorbike. Cars are for moving people and things from A to B.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Driving in the US of A is more boring than in other places
I presume this is more of an issue in the densely populated coastal regions of the country? Come visit the midwest, we have miles of nice country roads begging to be driven.
Re: (Score:3)
I have lived in Indiana, and driven through the midwest several times. My experience has been that the roads are mostly flat and boring, and that the drivers are suicidal. For example, the Indiana habit of deliberately turning on you high beams when you see an oncoming car.
Re: (Score:2)
I have lived in Indiana, and driven through the midwest several times. My experience has been that the roads are mostly flat and boring, and that the drivers are suicidal. For example, the Indiana habit of deliberately turning on you high beams when you see an oncoming car.
Sounds like an Indiana problem.
FTR, when I say "Midwest," I refer mainly to the region bordered by the Missouri River, Mississippi River, Rocky Mountains, and some part of Texas that doesn't suck (don't travel south much). Get much farther north than the Missouri, and yea, it's pretty much just flat nothing sprinkled with corn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? (Score:5, Insightful)
really nice roads along the Mississippi in southeastern Minnesota
You country wusses. If you want some excitement in driving, try Manhattan. Driving on an empty road is no more challenging than flying with nothing around you, but Manhattan is like the Battle of Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that before. And I'm going to have to go and see that for myself.
Even around here where the problem with drivers is primarily the opposite, it's no fun to drive. You get the occasional driver that's extremely aggressive, but for the most part folks are so passive that nothing moves. Driverless cars would go a long way towards solving that problem.
I imagine that it would also greatly improve traffic as you'd reduce the time it takes for the cars to get moving again at stop lights.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Paris, or Moscow. Manhatten driving is for wimps.
Manhattan is for people who want excitement. Paris and Moscow are for people who are suicidal.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on manual transmission.
It's one thing to use a manual instead of an automatic if you need a transmission, but in an electric car? Talk about refusing to change with the times. Maybe when these newfangled horseless carriages came out, there were those who yearned for buggy whips and eau de equestrian posterior.
Re:Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? (Score:5, Interesting)
Electric motors need a transmission too.
If by transmission you mean a fixed ratio reduction gear. Electric motors have actually been used for years to eliminate the need for variable ratio transmissions, which often don't work well w/ high torques or other situations that electric motors handle gracefully. That's what the electric part of a diesel-electric locomotive is - an electric motor used in place of a transmission. They're built that way because mechanical transmissions can't cut it.
Teslas engineers were just too incompetent to build one correctly.
Tesla subcontracted the transmission design, and three companies, all of which have extensive experience, couldn't produce something that worked right. Tesla's solution was to improve the electric motor and drive electronics, which gave them equal or better performance than was originally anticipated with a transmission, but without the weight or unreliability of a mechanical transmission. Tesla's "incompetence" led to a better car.
Actual Bloomberg.com Article (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/tesla-ceo-talking-with-google-about-autopilot-systems.html [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sick of this over-promoted hipster (Score:4, Informative)
If his name was Joe Smith nobody would care about him.
Wrong. Musk has a track record of making major projects work in areas where others have failed big-time. Tesla and Space-X make stuff that works, at a profit.
There are overpromoted hipsters. Vivek Wadhwa (Y2K COBOL code conversion), Nicholas Negroponte (One Laptop Per Child), Shai Agassi (Better Place), and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Empirica Capital) come to mind. All are heavily into self-promotion, but each of their startups failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah except there is no "he". Each of his endeavors involved many other people and their money.
Is it the other people's money that is noteworthy, or the other people whose ideas and work made these ventures a success?
Who is heavily into self-promotion again?
Of course Musk is a self-promoter. You rarely hear about people who aren't self promoters (unless they invented the polio vaccine or something). So what?
I also get tired of hearing about tech billionaire garbage. It's usually more about business strategy and getting away with monopolistic practices and a bunch of luck. However, if money is your interest, why not talk about the Waltons
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, you are very close to the high crime of lese-majeste. You may also note that questioning our future in space or the utility of 3D printing are equally unwelcome here.
Bah. Slashdotters are a bunch of wimps who "punish" blasphemers by saying unkind things to them. In the old days we'd burn 'em at the stake (bring your own marshmallows).