Ford Showcases Self-Parking Car Technology 233
MojoKid writes "Although the dream of roads full of driverless cars is a ways off, several companies such as Tesla and Google are taking steps toward that goal by developing self-driving car technology. Ford is now also demonstrating self-parking technology called Fully Assisted Parking Aid that will actually help a driver locate a spot and then make the car automatically park itself--without the driver inside. Indeed, you'll be able to hop out of the car and use a smartphone app to tell your car to park itself. This is ideal for both parking in tight spaces (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door) and for those who are just terrible at parking to begin with."
Fully Asisted Parkin Aid (Score:4, Funny)
or FAP-Aid for short?
Re:Fully Asisted Parkin Aid (Score:4, Informative)
This is just an incrimental improvement; Ford has had self-parking cars for years. I know a guy who has one. What's new is you can get out and tell it to park with your phone. I guess what Bill has is partially assisted parking? But he doesn't touch the wheel or pedals when it's parking itself.
Much more interesting is the object avoidance, which is afaik is completely new. It warns you if you're going to hit something, and if you ignore it it will brake and take over steering. Too bad this lady [sj-r.com] didn't have it. Or this guy [sj-r.com] (does Ford make semis?)
Not really new (Score:4, Interesting)
I was in the passenger seat of a high-end BMW the other day that did exactly that: the driver drove slowly along the row of parked cars until the car beeped, then he let go of the steering wheel, reversed and let the car park itself. Quite amazing really...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was in the passenger seat of a high-end BMW the other day that did exactly that: the driver drove slowly along the row of parked cars until the car beeped, then he let go of the steering wheel, reversed and let the car park itself. Quite amazing really...
Over here we get that in a Ford Focus, etc.
Use in driving tests? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the stance is if you have a car capable of doing it for you in the test? Maybe not too common now, but in the future..
You have this now, Even thirty years ago when I took my test, when most of us had to hone clutch control for the slow manoeuvres like the three point turn and reversing round the corner , a friend of mine took hist test in a Land Rover and just engaged low ratio. Now my car has hill-start assist, turns the wipers on when it rains, the lights on when it gets dark - many will parallel park - all things that could make the difference between a pass and a fail. Oh and an emergency stop in the wet required more
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and an emergency stop in the wet required more judgement before ABS.
My class 1 license test (for everyone abroad, that's the biggest trucks you can drive on UK roads) I screwed up my emergency stop... I forgot to drop the clutch. Stalled the truck, stopped. He gave me a minor for it, and I passed.
Also... most of the trailers I use have ABS. A little while ago, driving up the A1, a van in front of me dropped a couple of wheelbarrows on the carriageway. I stopped quickly, needless to say, and thoug
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Similarly, in the future, I believe there will be multiple types of licenses based on the level of automation you want your car to have. If you have a license for fully automatic cars, you may only drive those. If your lic
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not just in Japan. You definitely need different licenses to drive a truck and a motorcycle. I see self-parking to fully autonomous vehicles being treated as totally different categories of vehicles.
You don't need fancy biometrics to enforce the system. Right now our driving license system is mostly enforced by the honor system and the medium threat of getting pulled over by a police officer. Even now you can theoretically drive a truck without a license, just don't do something that makes you sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can get an automatic transmission only license already, so I think in the future it isn't hard to imagine people getting "self parking only" licenses.
2008 called (Score:4, Informative)
So you can expect to come back.. (Score:2)
This is ideal for both parking in tight spaces (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car. I've had this done to me manually occasionally (one parking forward and one reverse so both drivers' doors face away) and it's very annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car.
If I come back and see you've done that to me then your door's getting banged up.
So much for this technology saving you from dents and scratches...
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this happen to me manually too - if the guy on your passenger side backs in, you can't get into the car at all. It doesn't help my car is a 2 door... one of the big disadvantages of 2 door cars is that their doors are a lot longer, so you need more space to get out.
I have in the past a couple of times leant in, got the handbrake off, and pushed my car out of a tight spot.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car.
Have you thought that the car would try to wirelessly communicate with the nearby cars to see if they support a similar parking feature and only park in a tight spot if they reply YES?
TFA certainly doesn't mention this - is Ford including it?
Re: (Score:2)
Without the driver inside? (Score:2)
Don't know about your area but around here it is illegal to leave a running vehicle unoccupied.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that make the already-common remote ignition feature illegal?
I know that this is a pretty wild concept, but maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to change such laws if this sort of feature becomes common.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that make the already-common remote ignition feature illegal?
Yes, which is why it's not already-common in those countries where it is illegal (like the UK AFAIK).
I know that this is a pretty wild concept, but maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to change such laws if this sort of feature becomes common.
I think you might have that part backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might have that part backwards.
Well, evidently not, if we are to take remote ignition as an example -- the feature is widespread already, and the laws are lagging behind.
Godwin Law and car analogy in one (Score:2)
Seems that competitors already developed similar technology, which can stop WW2 as an extra...
http://vimeo.com/72718945 [vimeo.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Ford Fusion that has the Assisted Parking Technology. The driver has to remain in the car, shift gears, and hit the gas and brake pedals. The new system takes care of all of that.
Volkswagen (Score:2)
Unfortunate acronyms (Score:2)
Heh, "Ford FAP-Aid". That'll be popular...
What is the smartphone for? (Score:2)
Why should I need a smartphone to park my car? All the necessary electronics are BUILT INTO THE CAR. It comes with a tiny remote control built into the key or fob. Put the button to park the car on the fob.
Handicap spots? (Score:2)
Very Cool! (Score:2)
Now can I get this for my motorcycle?
Re:Dumber and dumber (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it all started downhill when we let others figure out what plants were edible, dispatch animals to provide our meat, and where to shit w/o contaminating the water we drink....
Then they invented the syncro-mesh so we didn't have to learn how to double clutch to avoid crashing the gears...
Did I miss anything else?
Re:Dumber and dumber (Score:4, Funny)
Did I miss anything else?
That whole fire thing.
Should have secured the IP on that before we let it get away from us.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss anything else?
That whole fire thing.
Should have secured the IP on that before we let it get away from us.
I hear that some real legal-eagle is on that one.
Re:Dumber and dumber (Score:5, Insightful)
And obvious response, but not quite right. Arguably, if you lack the skills to park, you shouldn't be driving in the first place. In different words, self-parking is fine when it goes with self-driving cars, but it isn't fine when it goes with drivers that are expected to be able to drive in complex and tight situations.
Re:Dumber and dumber (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that more driver skill is generally desirable it's a question of balance -- there are all sorts of potentially useful driving skills that we don't even teach let alone require for the typical driver, instead relying on vehicle, roadway, and traffic engineering to provide the desired outcomes. We try pretty hard to design public roads to not require complex or tight maneuvering specifically because many drivers lack those skills (and more generally because it improves safety even among drivers who have those skills, as accidents *do* happen even among highly skilled drivers).
I also object to the idea that there's an externally-relevant distinction between a driver using technology in place of manual skill. We only really care about the effective skill of the combined vehicle-driver system; I couldn't care less if a bus doesn't crush me because the driver has super-human skills or because the computer stopped on behalf of a sub-par driver -- in both cases I avoided potential injury. If you want recognition for your driving skills enter a race; the rest of us only care that your vehicle doesn't do something harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My dad installed aftermarket cruise control for the first time because a drive that should have taken 5 hours took 3. It just use to be hard to maintain speed for a long time: some people always followed others, some people checked the speedometer all the time, some people drifted faster or slower, and maybe a tiny number actually managed to keep a more or less constant speed; but it certainly wasn't some skill that everyone use to have and now no one has. It was invented to overcome a shortcoming.
Re:Dumber and dumber (Score:4, Interesting)
My dad installed aftermarket cruise control for the first time because a drive that should have taken 5 hours took 3.
If cruise control is the difference between 3 hours at 50 mph average and 5 hours at 30 mph average then there's something very seriously wrong with his driving skills. Yeah some people don't stick to the posted speed limits but the road rage and percieved loss is vasty exaggerated compared to actual time lost. Spending five minutes behind a guy that does 48 mph instead of 60 mph feels like forever but all it means is an hour's drive takes 61 minutes instead of 60. I don't know how it could take two hours longer unless he's practically asleep at the wheel and constantly down to half the posted limit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My drivers test (Atlantic Canada) consisted of:
-Pulling out of a parking spot
-Making a really tight turn into a stop sign (probably the hardest part of the test.. the place was basically at the end of a parking lot, and you had maybe a car and a half length to between the end of the lane and a stop sign, go past the stop sign or have your back wheels over the middle line and it was an instant fail.
- Drive up one street
- Make an easy right turn
- Drive around for maybe 10 minutes
- Park on a hill
- Come back to
Re: (Score:2)
That's all I care about too. For example, you may get stuck in a narrow one-way street and have to back out of it. You may need to merge into a slowly moving tight stream of traffic. There are a lot of situations that are enough like parking that if you can't park you can't do them well, and where you end up creating a hassle or a hazard for other people. So, if you automate
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> in every aspects of the machine
how technically competent are you? can you change your oil? how about pulling the transmission? when was the last time you personally made sure that the emergency hood-latch on your car is functioning?
you might think I'm trolling, but talk to a mechanic -- they have a really good understanding of what will happen to you and your car if, say, a tie-rod fails.
Quick -- if you've been driving for a long time and have a great feel for your car -- how will your car beha
Re: (Score:3)
Most folks can do any of those repairs. They might lack the tools, but with a chiltons book just about any car repair is doable. None of it is any more complex than putting a computer together. It might be dirtier and more dangerous, but none of it requires more skill.
Re: (Score:2)
I said it was not more complex. Sure it is dirtier and more dangerous. I would gladly pay $50/hr in labor. around here it tends to be over $100/hr and the guy doing the work is lucky if he can get $15/hr out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but maybe in dangerous things like cars I would prefer people have good skills in every aspects of the machine
I'm not sure I would expect a driver to be able to assemble a gearbox or isolate an electrical fault in a car. But I emphatically DO expect a driver to have the requisite knowledge and coordination to park his/her vehicle.
If they do not completely satisfy this requirement, they should not be permitted to pass the test. Simple.
For some reason, many people seem to have an expectation that being permitted to drive a vehicle is a right, as opposed to a privilege. There are far too many drivers on the roads
Re: Dumber and dumber (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong. It is a right and we need to stop letting people with agendas try to redefine it otherwise.
Having to demonstrate competence with something dangerous that can hurt others and not being permitted to engage in that activity otherwise is not an infringement on a right.
A privilege, on the other hand, can be regulated for reasons unrelated to the activity. Allowing control freaks to call driving a privilege is what spawns idiot laws like revoking drivers licenses for unrelated stuff like dropping out
Re: (Score:3)
Arguably, if you lack the skills to park, you shouldn't be driving in the first place
That utopia hasn't worked out too well. They figured out how to get licenses anyway. The best we can do now is sell these to the idiots so they don't bang *our* cars up in car parks.
(Seriously, has anybody ever failed to get a license given enough attempts? Did they ever tell anybody, "Sorry, driving isn't for you..."?)
Re: (Score:3)
Arguably, if you lack the skills to park, you shouldn't be driving in the first place
This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving. You don't need to know mechanics of the car very well, you don't need to know how it reacts to weather conditions; you don't need to understand traffic flow and rules and make quick and safe decisions, etc. Parking is about undestanding how the car moves at low speeds and especially in reverse and how to combine a number of moves to move the car sideways.
In the Dutch lesson system, parallel par
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they would teach it better in the US. I encounter a situation every morning that is perfect for parallel parking yet most people fail at it. I've taken parking spaces in bigger vehicles that people in small cars passed up. What's even worse is that people can park in this area much more compactly because there are no marked spaces yet they continue to leave almost enough space for a car to park between them.
Re: (Score:3)
This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving.
I agree. I can parallel park easily. But on the highway, I tend to daydream instead of watching traffic conditions. My wife is the opposite. Her driving is perfect, but she was never able to parallel park, until we got a new car with a backup camera.
In the Netherlands driving tests are quite difficult, and there are certainly people who give up at some point.
In Europe, it is possible to live a normal life without driving. In America, it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving.
No, that's nonsense. you should be able to park your car like this [youtube.com]. Don't try this with a heavy truck, it won't work... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what it's about. And you must know how to do that. Sooner or later, you'll have to back up through a narrow passage to make room for an emergency vehicle or because your way is blocked. It doesn't happen frequently but it does h
Re: (Score:2)
You're mistaken about what licenses can and should accomplish. They are not a perfect indicator of people's ability to drive, they are merely a simple check to weed out some fraction of people who obviously shouldn't be on the road right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably every driver has the skills to park because they passed a driving test. Maintaining those skills is a different matter, but that's an issue for all drivers, not just ones who choose to let their car park for them. I'd love the feature, personally.
Some states do not require you to park to get your driver's license. In some places just driving on a dirt road for 5 minutes gets you your license, which later can be changed to another state's license without another test.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that. People get better through practice. While that lane holding system keeps grandma on track most of the time, without practice, she may then completely fall apart when she can't use it. And your girlfriend may be less likely to ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dumber and dumber (Score:5, Funny)
I agree, and dont get me started on computers. Smart folk post our slashdot comments by encoding an HTTP response directly onto a ethernet cable with a steady hand, some copper wire, and a pair of AA batteries in series. Honestly, the shortcuts kids take these days with their "operating systems" and "networking stacks".
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't we just encouraging people to become less skilled and overall less intelligent when we remove the necessity to actually learn skills like driving?
Ever since lathes were invented, craftsmen have been hopelessly lame at carving proper cylinders by hand. Our civilization is surely going downhill!
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't we just encouraging people to become less skilled and overall less intelligent when we remove the necessity to actually learn skills like driving?
That cat's already out of the bag.
Might as well use all available technology to stop them destroying our cars/property.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, more like a few hundred thousand years. Before then, modern homo-sapiens didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Assinine (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, previously, you could slap the donkey on her ass ...
tautology
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
I am sure Ford engineers haven't thought about this. They couldn't have come up with ideas like (1.) the car getting out of the parking spot the same way it came in (with a press of a button on the user's smartphone), or (2.) wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure Ford engineers haven't thought about this. They couldn't have come up with ideas like (1.) the car getting out of the parking spot the same way it came in (with a press of a button on the user's smartphone), or (2.) wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
It always amazes me on Slashdot what negative attitude some posters have. They declare immediately that some idea is useless or impossible to implement, where a person with a more positive attitude to life would think about how they can make something useful and how to implement it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ford has released info saying their cars will park into a spot you normally couldn't fit. Ford hasn't released info about how the other guy is supposed to get out. It's valid to call Ford out on this.
Re: (Score:2)
More ridiculous is the fact that the link in the summary takes you to a video that shows exactly the feature the poster was requesting.
You use your smartphone to tell the car to 'unpark' and then climb in.
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing people tend to miss is few things are achieved with a single step.
If your grand vision is cars that can "valet" park themselves, some import first steps are getting a vehicle to successfully and safely navigate a parking lot ( something human drives often fail at ) recognize a designated and legal space ( like not marked handicapped only ), and put itself there.
Sometimes you have to cross the hurdles when you get to them.
Here is a computer analogy since we are talking about cars. Imagine you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, as we all know, these exact cars will stay there until *we* decide to leave and will never be replaced by other cars.
And your point is? If the other car doesn't support the auto parking feature, then the driver probably would not park in that tight spot, because they wouldn't be able to get out of their car...?
Re: (Score:2)
When the other driver leaves, and their passenger tries to get in, they will road rage bash in your windshield.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Except... (Score:4, Insightful)
(i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
I'm more worreid that the technology does not work as advertised and will end up crashing into my parked non-autonomous car because it didn't detect it and through the space was empty (If you believe the advertising, I have a bridge to sell you... It comes with several cars). Seeing as I almost always reverse park, a bump is enough to kick start the dash cam. A driverless car should make for some interesting footage.
However who's responsible for a self driving car? Do I (or more accurately, my insurer) sue the owner (who was not in control of the vehicle at the time) or the car company (who has no doubt waived responsibility for this with a ream of paperwork when they sold it).
Beyond this, does the vehicle have the capacity to deal with arsehole parkers. People who are across multiple bays or cut in and steal parking spaces. I can see the first law suit now when Andy Arsehole cuts off an autonomous car to steal the parking bay and gets T-boned by it. However, knowing Ford the system is probably designed to be an arsehole parker.
Re: (Score:2)
However who's responsible for a self driving car? Do I (or more accurately, my insurer) sue the owner (who was not in control of the vehicle at the time) or the car company (who has no doubt waived responsibility for this with a ream of paperwork when they sold it).
I'm sure that lawyers everywhere are salivating at the thought of self-driving cars but I fail to see why we should ban them for that reason. Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I think the opposite is true. Sure there might be a couple of big class actions from which a handful of lawyers will become incredibly wealthy. Lawyers everywhere on the other hand, they can probably anticipate a dramatic decline in personal injury claims and claims for property damage. Likely there will also be a substantial reduction in the need for lawyers to defend tickets for moving violations.
Re: (Score:2)
whos responsible? whos responsible if you park with aid of a mirror and parking radar.. the driver, the initiator of the action, and the cars insurance. those are who are responsible.
btw don't go on a road trip to southern europe if you're worried about someone nudging your car when parking. if anything if they had automata for it then you'll have less problems.
I see a bigger problem in the fact that with this you're supposedly able and expected to park your car so that there's not enough space to get out o
Re: (Score:3)
Or when somebody breaks in and steals it?
Or when your car breaks down and you can't get it out of your spot?
And once you give regular cars to everybody, they'll be parking forwards and backwards in spots other than parking?
No, this isn't a pandoras box. Aside from defining a framework of safety regulations for automated cars, all of this is being handled with
Re:Except... (Score:5, Informative)
(i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
Well if anyone RTFAs (and RTFVs) then it's clear that there is indeed an "unpark" feature. That is pretty obviously necessary.
Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
As more and more cars get parking assists it'll happen more and more that it's tightly parked on both sides of your car boxing you in. On the other hand, if the parking assists make an effort to park in the middle of every parking spot where possible you might end up with less squeezed places to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
But this has always been a limitation to parking, particularly parallel parking. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are at getting into a space, you still have to account for how useless the drivers of the cars next to you may be. You may be able to skilfully squeeze in and out without scratching anyone's paintwork, but that's no comfort when they don't.
And there's nothing more annoying than coming back to your car and finding some a*hole has parked so close to you that it's nearly impossible (or tota
Re: (Score:2)
We can't use something until everybody uses it?
Re: (Score:3)
Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
And if you can't, you can always still break the window out of one of the vehicles that parked you in, destroy the ignition lock with a massive screwdriver and a small wrench, put it in neutral and push it out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
You know how I know you didn't read the article...?
Re: (Score:2)
But now it's wireless, so the attack surface just got a whole lot larger.
Re:Same as all other cars? (Score:4, Informative)
So it works exactly like the autoparking on Toyotas, Volvos, Mercedes and probably many other cars with the only distinction that you don't need your foot on the brake?
Nope. Those can only parallel-park.
(Clue: Try reading the article before posting...it works wonders)
Re: Right (Score:4, Interesting)
if you can drive 1000miles why cant you park in small tight spaces
If you can get a computer to do it more safely and more efficiently, why wouldn't you? And I'm talking about parking and driving.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see how well the sensors work in winter season here in Finland when your car is covered in snow, ice and thick layer of dirt 4-5 months of the year...
As a matter of interest how well do the existing "parking sensors" work?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that driver could have parked more squarely within his spot-- the solution to this problem 90% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as all of the drivers doors are on the same side that's not really a problem -- this system still lets you reduce the amount of slack space between parked cars by 50% because you only need room for doors to open on one side rather than both. In the case where both cars support auto-parking you can further reduce the amount of space required, but that's just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have that much control. It works the same as the automatic parallel parking systems we have had for a few years now. The space has to be considerably larger than necessary for a human driver to squeeze in, and the computer will always leave a fairly large space in front and behind. Otherwise the person in front might not be able to get their shopping into their boot (er... trunk I think you call it in the US), and neither would you if it was too close to the car behind.
I imagine the minimum allowa
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if I'm the driver in the adjacent car I'd make very sure that your brand new Ford has a shiny new scratch on its side. I'll take my keys out of I have to.
In other words, you are a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
True, except that the driver of the other car still might have to do exactly that (or hit other cars from the front or rear) because some asshole with FAP-Aid parked his car too close to the others.
I know one parking garage where you find a series of three parking spaces between two walls. If two cars can park their cars very closely to the walls, it's a lot easier for the one in the middle. I'll just repeat: It's amazing how Slashdotters can find only the negative in anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose someone in a van could throw broken packets or random interference and somehow DOS, disrupt or crash the session though.