Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government The Almighty Buck United States

Obama Proposes $4 Billion Investment In Self-Driving Cars (transportation.gov) 276

Posted by Soulskill from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The Obama Administration has unveiled a proposal for a 10-year, $4 billion investment in the adoption of autonomous car technology. The money would fund pilot projects to, among other things, "test connected vehicle systems in designated corridors throughout the country, and work with industry leaders to ensure a common multistate framework for connected and autonomous vehicles." The administration says it has an interest in cutting the death toll — over 30,000 people each year in the U.S. — associated with traffic accidents. The proposal also calls for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to work with industry to resolve regulatory issues before they inhibit development of self-driving cars. "This is the right way to drive innovation," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Proposes $4 Billion Investment In Self-Driving Cars More

Obama Proposes $4 Billion Investment In Self-Driving Cars

Comments Filter:

  • Why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @08:59AM (#51306633)

    Why is he getting involved in this at all? We already have several companies working toward this goal. The only answer that makes sense is that he wants to fund those companies closest to him or his party.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TFlan91 ( 2615727 )

      I mean, if you're not going to RTFA, at least RTFS before making a stab...

      It says it right in the summary, the entire sentence is a setup for one of three links, and starts with "The administration says it has an interest in...".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I mean, if you're not going to RTFA, at least RTFS before making a stab...

        It says it right in the summary, the entire sentence is a setup for one of three links, and starts with "The administration says it has an interest in...".

        So you're agreeing with GP poster that this will be typical crony capitalism?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Exactly! It's hard to argue with a straight face that Google, Ford, Tesla and others need a handout from the government to push autonomous vehicles.

          • Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @04:56PM (#51310625)

            This.

            Private industry is already throwing billions at it. Why do the taxpayers need to throw even more at it? All he has to do is tell the NTSB to work with them rather than against them, which I'm sure can't cost more than a few million, nevermind billions.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        If they want to cut the death toll, the answer is obvious: spend the money on public transportation. I prefer PRT (e.g. Skytran [wikipedia.org]), because it offers all of the common practical advantages of automobiles yet also uses the best and most highly-developed technology for automated vehicle guidance: rail. As long as we continue to use vulcanized pneumatic tires for the bulk of our transport needs, we are failing.

        If the Obama administration is planning a handout for self-driving cars, it's because they are planning

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by smooth wombat ( 796938 )
          for automated vehicle guidance: rail.

          Because what I want when traveling across the country is to be jammed in with a horde of unwashed masses, unable to stop when and where I want.

          Maybe you like to be live like a rat in a cage but I prefer to have the freedom to do what I want, when I want without having to rely on someone else's schedule.

          • jammed in with a horde of unwashed masses, unable to stop when and where I want.

            So you never fly eh?

            But I digress.

            I still think there is an opening for rail here.
            First, avoid the insanity that are airports.
            Second, it's safer as one device can't destroy an entire train full of people.
            Third, you could load your car on the train and then use it at your destination.

            Key is to not force the service to stop at every podunk town between destinations. Just stick with Major Cities.

            I'd much rather drive my car into

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by uncqual ( 836337 )

              Second, it's safer as one device can't destroy an entire train full of people.

              Umm... Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it won't - esp. with HSR. When (not if) it happens, rail travel may become as annoying as air travel.

              There's a lot of track to protect. And with drones and robotics available to the "bad guys", it's hard to protect the track from small, but powerful explosives being planted at key points on the track in a curve (carefully timed for detonation based on train approach/position) t

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by SumDog ( 466607 )

            I think you're part of the problem. I've travelled through a lot of Europe and New Zealand on their train infrastructures and they're all quite nice. I haven't owned a car in 4 years. I come back to the US and it's like...what the fuck America.

            Cars are horrible. They take up so many resources just to move a single person. I don't want to own a car again for as long as possible. Have you even ridden a local bus? I took the bus to work every day in Wellington and it was awesome. I read my book on my phone and

          • You're a slave to your car. To the payments, the maintenance, the smog and the wars fought to keep gas cheap.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ooloorie ( 4394035 )

          If they want to cut the death toll, the answer is obvious: spend the money on public transportation.

          The answer is obvious and wrong. Even in places like Germany, France, and the UK, the countries with the most highly developed public transportation systems, 85% or more of passenger miles are traveled by passenger car (and that number is increasing over time), and less than 10% by rail. http://tinyurl.com/zw7bdos [tinyurl.com] So, even if we managed to achieve the same public transit ridership as, say, Germany, it woul

          • Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday January 15, 2016 @11:19AM (#51307683) Homepage Journal

            PRT is a wonderful boondoggle for privileged middle-class snobs like you.

            Privileged? I was born poor as shit, I was raised by a single parent... I'm a more-or-less white male, born in the first world, and who learned to read as a child... and that's pretty much the end. That's not inconsiderable, but calling me "privileged" like I'm unusually so is beyond ridiculous.

            However, when it comes to cost-efficient, sensible urban transportation that actually helps people who need public transit, buses are the right choice.

            You know, that's funny. Really, really funny. Because I grew up using buses, because my mother refused to own a car, in fact as far as I know she still can't drive at all. And I know personally how many hours of your day that consumes. I regularly had to spend an hour or even two on a bus to get to some shitty minimum wage job... and then just as much time to get back. Since most front doors are multiple blocks away from a bus stop, they are shit in inclement weather; you bundle up to get to the bus, then you overheat in the bus, then you get off again and have to walk some more. PRT can reasonably get closer to destinations than the bus.

            Of course, they are cheap and unglamorous, so people like you don't support them.

            I've been poor as fuck, mustard sandwiches and all that shit. I've ridden the bus. The bus is shit. That it is better than walking is not an endorsement.

            Buses also don't need massive federal spending.

            Bullshit [gao.gov], and also, bull fucking shit [wordpress.com].

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )
          You can easily make a PRT system out of self-driving cars with the advantage that they can use the existing road system rather having to create a new system from scratch.

      • Bah, they've been lobbied to help line the pockets of the multi-billion dollar companies who stand to gain from selling us this technology.

        That's pretty much what it always comes down to.

    • Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:10AM (#51306725)
      Because if government doesn't get in from the start and set up the rules of the road (pun intended), you will have Big Auto cutting corners, pumping out death traps, and assuming they can fix things with a recall like they always do. Problem is, recalls can't fix dead people. This is an important, life and death technology that has the potential to change life in America more than anything since the smart phone. It needs to be done correctly and there needs to be corporate accountability and oversight. That is exactly what the government is for.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Yes. Surrender to government micromanagement of everything. Otherwise the corporate bogeyman will get you.

        Can we agree that there's an important role for regulation and also agree that there's no incentive for GM and Google to kill their customers -- that hurting customers, even accidentally, is a huge negative for a company?

        Look at the e-coli outbreak at Chipotle for an example. Some people got sick and they lost $7 Billion in value -- 30+% of the company's value. Does anyone actually think fear of gov

        • Look at the e-coli outbreak at Chipotle for an example. Some people got sick and they lost $7 Billion in value -- 30+% of the company's value. Does anyone actually think fear of government regulatory agencies is a bigger problem for them than losing 30% of their company's value in 3 months?

          Without the regulations, the only people who'd have known about the Chipotle e-coli outbreak would have been Chipotle.

          Regulation doesn't exist to preserve shareholder value.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kohath ( 38547 )

            Without the regulations, the only people who'd have known about the Chipotle e-coli outbreak would have been Chipotle.

            Regulation doesn't exist to preserve shareholder value.

            So the regulation worked to inform people. Good.

            I think people would have found out anyway, but a rational person understands there's no way to know what would happen in an alternate future. Maybe a lot more people would have gotten sick in a lot more locations and, when people finally did hear about it, the company would have lost $10 Billion, or $12 Billion and would now be facing hundreds of lawsuits.

            The point is: hurting customers is bad for business. There's a big incentive to not hurt customers. I

            • The point is: hurting customers is bad for business

              Sadly, no:

              https://theintercept.com/2015/... [theintercept.com]

            • Without the regulations, the only people who'd have known about the Chipotle e-coli outbreak would have been Chipotle.

              Regulation doesn't exist to preserve shareholder value.

              So the regulation worked to inform people. Good.

              I think people would have found out anyway, but a rational person understands there's no way to know what would happen in an alternate future. Maybe a lot more people would have gotten sick in a lot more locations and, when people finally did hear about it, the company would have lost $10 Billion, or $12 Billion and would now be facing hundreds of lawsuits.

              The point is: hurting customers is bad for business. There's a big incentive to not hurt customers. It's easier and more lucertive to sell stuff to people when you you don't hurt them.

              http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ba... [cbsnews.com]

        • >Yes. Surrender to government micromanagement of everything. Otherwise the corporate bogeyman will get you.
          The government boogeyman is less scary. At least, when the corporations haven't actually *bought* the government - in which case it's the same boogeyman. Face it, the worst things governments ever do - are done because corporate donors demanded them. Just ask the people of Flint Michigan about their water.

          >Can we agree that there's an important role for regulation
          Yep. Everybody seems to have skip

      • Because if government doesn't get in from the start and set up the rules of the road (pun intended), you will have Big Auto cutting corners, pumping out death traps...
        (snip)
        ...It needs to be done correctly and there needs to be corporate accountability and oversight. That is exactly what the government is for.

        I think you have it exactly wrong. The automakers would love the government to step in and provide guidelines so that when people die, their liability is limited. "Safe? Who cares about safe, as long as we're compliant."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      I agree, self-driving cars seems to be pretty useless and a waste of money overall.

      Governments shall stick to maintaining the infrastructure itself, not the users of it.

    • Funding the development of standards (Score:5, Informative)

      by Crowd Computing ( 4269575 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:43AM (#51306941)
      From the .gov link:

      The President’s FY17 budget proposal would provide nearly $4 billion over 10 years for pilot programs to test connected vehicle systems in designated corridors throughout the country, and work with industry leaders to ensure a common multistate framework for connected and autonomous vehicles.

      So the administration is spending somewhat less than half a billion a year to test the road-worthiness of such autonomous vehicles and then ensure that the different models can operate with each other. It's not about crony capitalism but ensuring that the autonomous vehicle market doesn't degenerate into a Wild West of clashing, or worse crashing, standards. Of course, the ideal would for a world body to set the standards for autonomous vehicles, but waiting for that could mean some other country could get a head start in developing the technologies that would later be incorporated in those standards.

    • Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chacharoo ( 977107 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:55AM (#51307023)
      As someone who has had a family member who died in a car accident, (my mother, Buffalo, icy February roads, in a hurry, her Escort crushed under an SUV, thanks for asking) I will stand up and say in a clear voice that it is reasonable for the government to invest money in safer roads, cars, and automation. Government is one way we organize those tasks we agree everyone in the country has an interest in. I think it's great that private companies are working in this also, but I think there's often an incentive for competitive entities to create several disparate systems that have complicated, sometimes incompatible interactions (just like computers.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tsqr ( 808554 )

      Why is he getting involved in this at all? We already have several companies working toward this goal. The only answer that makes sense is that he wants to fund those companies closest to him or his party.

      Or maybe he thinks the government should know at all times where you are, where you're going, where you stay when you get there, and how long you stay there.

      • Found the paranoid schizophrenic.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by tsqr ( 808554 )

          Found the paranoid schizophrenic.

          Found the guy with no privacy concerns because he thinks he has nothing to hide.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by bigpat ( 158134 )

        Why is he getting involved in this at all? We already have several companies working toward this goal. The only answer that makes sense is that he wants to fund those companies closest to him or his party.

        Or maybe he thinks the government should know at all times where you are, where you're going, where you stay when you get there, and how long you stay there.

        Mostly not for law enforcement or nefarious statism, although that is a very valid concern. Having manufacturers put transponders on cars by default is mostly so the government can impose really elaborate tax schemes on road use beyond just a simple odometer tax or even just an excise tax or flat road use fee.

        The current gasoline tax funding mechanism doesn't work for electric and alternative fuel vehicles. That is a real problem. And vehicle to "vehicle" communication is mostly intended to be used to de

    • Why is he getting involved in this at all? We already have several companies working toward this goal. The only answer that makes sense is that he wants to fund those companies closest to him or his party.

      We have several companies working toward this goal? And, do they take federal money and give it to Democrats? Of course not. Given the normal rates, the Democrats should expect to see about 1/1000th of this money come back as "campaign donations".

    • Re: Why (Score:5, Informative)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @10:22AM (#51307193)

      The companies working on self-driving cars have complained that each state has different regulations about them. They asked the federal government to step in and make uniform regulations across the US. That's what Obama is doing.

      • Look at the drone industry. This is a bigger industry for autonomous drones (essentially these are ground drones), DOT sees the challenges via the FAA issues and the politician see $$$ and benefit to themselves as well when it comes to cars.

        Also don't be surprise if Obama's next job has something to do with big auto or tech.

    • > Why is he getting involved in this at all?

      Not a bad question at all. The US is one of the big three markets for vehicles along with China and the EU. Doubtless some government involvement will be needed if for no other reason than to define what "operation" of an autonomous vehicle consists of and who can operate one and when. e.g. Can your eight year old take an autonomous vehicle to school? And to play football after school? And how many of his/her friends can (s)he take along?

      BTW, Are these nati

    • Political influence. They want their name on it.

      Government built and builds roads, rails, and space ships because those infrastructure projects were *enormous* and not very profitable. When no private corporation can front the money *but* the return is huge, you ask if the Government can do it in reasonable taxation. The answer is usually "not yet," until it becomes financially feasible. Such infrastructures transition to the private sector if they don't require a centralized, non-direct-revenue admi

    • Why is he getting involved in this at all?

      Maybe because much of science and technology development is already funded by the government. The only thing new here is that this is an effort to saving lives rather than inventing new ways to end them which is what some other government funded programs are about.

    • He's tossing out silly but warm fuzzy proposals that will be shot down by Congress so Democrats can point fingers.

  • 2.5 powerballs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:15AM (#51306773) Journal
    Without government involvement and support, maintaining and upgrading the highways & byways to accommodate driver-less vehicles,the whole enterprise is an exercise in futility. Smart highways are the next logical step.

    Like it or not, government giveaways of your tax dollars will likely christen even the projects you support.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bigpat ( 158134 )

      Without government involvement and support, maintaining and upgrading the highways & byways to accommodate driver-less vehicles,the whole enterprise is an exercise in futility. Smart highways are the next logical step.

      Like it or not, government giveaways of your tax dollars will likely christen even the projects you support.

      That is completely the wrong approach to autonomous driverless vehicles. These vehicles will have to be able to use existing infrastructure. Smart highways are a bad idea.

  • God-Emperor of Dune (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:15AM (#51306775)

    "Have you not considered how much easier it is to control a walking population?"

  • WTF??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yodleboy ( 982200 )
    Clearly the most pressing issue the U.S. has at this point are those damn human controlled cars! I'm sure there's no better use for $4 billion than this. Nope, none at all...

    What we're seeing here folks is an outgoing president going into full "my legacy" mode. This frequently looks similar to "full retard" but the prez gets a pass...

    • Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:49AM (#51306997)

      It could amount to a very shrewd investment. We have about 30K traffic fatalities a year, which over the span of this proposal would amount to 300k deaths. If autonomous cars cut that number in half it'd cost us about $27k per life, again over the course of the ten years. The extra taxes you get to collect from those people over the course of the rest of their lives could quite possibly pay back that investment. And it's not like once the decade of funding is over autonomous cars would stop saving lives.

      I'm curious what other areas you feel we as a society would be better served by investing $4 Billion in? Personally I'd suspect some medical research avenues might have better potential, but are likely already well funded. Even if there are better ways to spend the money, it isn't like we can only fund one such area at a time.

      • I don't have the numbers (thanks to anyone who knows where they are), but I would guess that far more people are injured than killed, and far more money is spent on their medical care. For a severely injured person brought to an ER, they could blow past $27k in hours if not minutes. There would also be the costs of long term care, which could dwarf the initial medical costs.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        That number will be cut in half anyway if you look at the trend [wikipedia.org].

      • Autonomous driving will also reduce insurance costs, probably much more than 4 billion over a few years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bigpat ( 158134 )

      What we're seeing here folks is an outgoing president going into full "my legacy" mode. This frequently looks similar to "full retard" but the prez gets a pass...

      It is an Al Gore "I invented the Internet" moment... except Al Gore actually did help lift the ban on commercial use of the Internet. Obama is just kinda suggesting that the Federal government and states shouldn't ban autonomous cars yet. But if anything the whole vehicle to vehicle communications issue is going to delay autonomous cars if they end up requiring some trillion dollar roll out of vehicle to vehicle communications before they allow cars to stop killing people.

  • Go ahead and take your personal $4 Billion and invest it in driverless cars. As for me, I will go ahead and invest MY money in companies that I choose.

  • Taxpayers - I *order* you to cough up $4 billion! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:39AM (#51306919) Journal

    It's always easy to make yourself look good when you get to spend other people's money to do it.

    Last I checked, we had this little problem of a "national debt" and weren't exactly making ANY progress on paying it down. Yet Obama thinks he can just snap his fingers and pull another $4 billion out of the air, because he'd like to see driverless cars get some help from Federal government? (And let's face it.... whenever Federal government decides they can't bear to stay "hands off" of something any more, it means they want to micro-manage it and control it. That's the only kind of "help" they know how to dole out.)

    Last I checked, they already handed companies like Tesla Motors some pretty big subsidies to promote what they're working on. How about govt. just steps back and lets private industry continue working on that?

  • What About Liability Self-Driving Cars?

    That is what the gov needs to work on before you have some who it setting in the hospital with bills racking up as the courts are fighting over who will pay the bill.

    Or some one is doing hard time as them being the owner / renter of the car is found guilty of Vehicular homicide, accomplice (just by renting out the car you own and the rent / call a auto car app pulls a uber) / license auto suspension from (photo tickets that get lost in the owner / renter / user mix) /

    • That is what the gov needs to work on

      This is exactly the kind of thing that Obama is talking about. We need clear, nationally consistent regulations, so that companies can safely invest in R&D and know they'll get a return.

  • What about Basic income for the people who will lose there job from the this? and the then the GOP takes away there medicaid?

  • Take the damn four billion and invest it in the homeless (veterans especially).

  • Sky not falling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StatureOfLiberty ( 1333335 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @10:13AM (#51307145)

    1. I drive 40 minutes to work every morning and up to an hour and a half driving home in the evening. I would love to hand this boring and wasteful task to my car. I could certainly do something much better with the time.

    2. This technology will certainly become commonplace (look at aerospace, for example). It is going to take research to figure out how best to do this. It is going to require adjustments to how transportation is regulated. It may require changes to our infrastructure. You certainly don't to put these vehicles on the road without some thought to the implications of doing so. This costs money. What is the alternative?

    3. The part that does concern me is what will happen when autonomous commercial vehicles become common. Talk about a job killer. How many hours each year do long haul trucks sit idle because the driver is required by law to stop to rest? That issue would completely disappear (along with a whole lot of decent jobs). Of course, this also could eliminate those accidents caused by drivers falling asleep.

    As in almost all change, there are good points and bad points. There is also cost.

    Who would care if the US spent 4 billion dollars on research, regulatory updates and infrastructure updates if the benefits far outweigh the cost? Unfortunately, sometimes you have to spend money just to find out if spending more is warranted. Consider the trillions we've spent recently that had almost no prospect of providing any benefit to the average American citizen. I'd much rather see spending on something like this.

    • The issue isn't the money. $5 Billion is a pittance in Federal terms. The issue is the meddling. The potential for excessive mandates. Autonomous cars should be on the roads as soon as they can demonstrate they have an equivalent or better ability to drive than human drivers on existing roads.

      It is that simple. And that is the type of simple uniform state and federal laws that we should be working towards. A car company should be able to certify that their autonomous system is safe and effective on ex

  • Federal involvement done better (Score:3)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @10:38AM (#51307333)

    Commercial interests seem to be handing the development of autonomous car travel just fine. Rather than having Washington jump into its own program of vehicle development, better to facilitate the development of the numerous industry standards, many of which will involve state and federal infrastructure, that we are going to need to make autonomous vehicles pervasive.

    I'm thinking of cars that receive data from highways for local conditions, from NOAA for weather, and from each other to manage city traffic with least congestion.

    • Rather than having Washington jump into its own program of vehicle development, better to facilitate the development of the numerous industry standards, many of which will involve state and federal infrastructure, that we are going to need to make autonomous vehicles pervasive.

      Which is exactly what this story is about you stupid sonofabitch. Can't you even be bothered to read beyond the word, "Obama"?

      • Because there is no way that just acting as an arbiter for standards can cost $4 billion. The article is a little veiled about it, but this appears to be a research effort in addition to that. Such a research effort would totally commendable, but if it duplicates what Google, et. al. are already doing, then why? Given $4 billion, NASA could probably give us a Europa lander.

  • $4B investment in laying off 2% of US Workforce (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dr_Barnowl ( 709838 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @11:31AM (#51307823)

    Truck drivers. There sure are a lot of them in the US.

    Just how many will there be when you can slap a sensors and servos package on an existing vehicle and have it drive without pause, without pay, consuming 25% less fuel and requiring less maintenance and tyre changes? How many fewer truck stops, diners, mechanics, etc?

    • Traffic cops, insurance agents, replacement cars needed. The list goes on.

      The reality is companies are making the investment regardless. Once it's here, these jobs are dead anyways. Now I would be curious if some of these trucking jobs transition to security gigs as I would imagine independent self driving trucks would make for great robbery targets.

      And the reality is that more automation will continue to reduce jobs. Some sectors will still gain while others will not. I speculate that most needs for essent

    • News flash, progress cannot be halted indefinitely.

      History is filled with the wailing of the disenfranchised due to new technology.

      Trying to protect the jobs of an obsolete work force is an effort in futility.

      You may be able to hang on for a little while through lobbying and money, but eventually you will lose. The economic interest on the other side is too massive. This is our chosen system, all hail capitalism.

      At this point the writing is pretty clearly on the wall. If you don't adapt, you can't expect an

    • Finally, automation is gearing up to eliminate labor from entire industries! 2% of the workforce in trucking, 2.4% of the workforce in fast food, shit is getting real! Pretty soon, the choice between socialism and mass-starvation will be much more pressing than it has been in the past.
  • I see a vibrant private sector effort along these lines already. Government can do the most by eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers (or in rare instances putting up a few for safety, perhaps), but otherwise should stay out of the way. Government programs have a way of becoming jobs programs and therefore hard to shut down. The example of the Pentagon not wanting a new weapons system but Congress mandating it anyway comes to mind. Let the private sector risk its money and direct its deployment toward
  • It occurs to me that self-driving cars are rolling camera platforms, and I can foresee a future in which recordings and the coordinates of where they were made are kept and are mandated to be accessible by the police or government (or even more likely, Google/Tesla/GM/etc). The world of tomorrow will likely be one of unrelenting, unavoidable surveillance, infinitely more than it is today, bad as that already is.

  • Wrong answer (Score:3)

    by whitroth ( 9367 ) <whitroth@[ ]ent.us ['5-c' in gap]> on Friday January 15, 2016 @12:39PM (#51308473) Homepage

    Dump the $4G into public transit, starting in the Washington, DC metro area, where the Metro, decades newer than Philly, NYC, and Chicago's subway/el systems, is so vastly worse than any of them. Cheap crap, and bad management, too.

                          mark

  • A tipsy person could just tell their car to take them home.

    It would also help with parking. I could go to a meeting, restaurant, club, etc, get out in front of the place, and tell my car to go find a place to park. When I was ready to leave, I could call it on my cell phone, and tell it to come get me.

  • Remember the car Sandra Bullock drives in Demolition Man? Gets in, drives out of the city, engages auto-pilot on the freeway. Then when she gets near her destination re-takes the wheel for the drive through the city.

    Is there anyone who thinks we couldn't have this in production next year if we wanted to?

  • Thanks, Obama (Score:3)

    by santiago ( 42242 ) on Friday January 15, 2016 @01:31PM (#51308899)

    Great, now the Republicans will develop an irrational hatred of self-driving cars and repeatedly try to repeal the laws allowing them to be tested. "Obama's coming for your steering wheels!"

  • The below is from me originally from 2001: http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-f... [pdfernhout.net]

    Although see also this idea from a couple of weeks ago: http://www.pdfernhout.net/pled... [pdfernhout.net]
    ====
    Consider again the self-driving cars mentioned earlier which now cruise some streets in small numbers. The software "intelligence" doing the driving was primarily developed by public money given to universities, which generally own the copyrights and patents as the contractors. Obviously there are related scientific publications, but in prac

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close