Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the who's-gonna-drive-miss-daisy? dept.

The race to bring driverless cars to the masses is only just beginning, but already it is a fight for the ages. The competition is fierce, secretive, and elite. It pits Apple against Google against Tesla against Uber: all titans of Silicon Valley, in many ways as enigmatic as they are revered.

As these technology giants zero in on the car industry, global automakers are being forced to dramatically rethink what it means to build a vehicle for the first time in a century. Aspects of this race evoke several pivotal moments in technological history: the construction of railroads, the dawn of electric light, the birth of the automobile, the beginning of aviation. There's no precedent for what engineers are trying to build now, and no single blueprint for how to build it.

Self-driving cars promise to create a new kind of leisure, offering passengers additional time for reading books, writing email, knitting, practicing an instrument, cracking open a beer, taking a catnap, and any number of other diversions. Peope who are unable to drive themselves could experience a new kind of independence. And self-driving cars could re-contextualize land-use on massive scales. In this imagined mobility utopia, drone trucks would haul packages across the country and no human would have to circle a city block in search of a parking spot.

If self-driving vehicles deliver on their promises, they will save millions of lives over the course of a few decades, destroy and create entire industries, and fundamentally change the human relationship with space and time. All of which is why some of the planet's most valuable companies are pouring billions of dollars into the effort to build driverless cars.

After automation puts everyone out of work, will anyone need to drive anywhere anymore?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:52PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:52PM (#277358) Homepage Journal

    First, I disagree with the heart disease thing. Maybe you're more likely to die of heart disease than car crash, but I'm quite sure that I am not. Not everyone has even remotely equal risk for medical things like that. Some people are at high risk for heart disease, other people are at very low risk for it, and being physically healthy is a huge part of that (basically obese people are the ones at high risk). So to me, dying in a car crash is a big worry, it's probably the most likely way I'll die if not of old age.

    Just so I understand, you're saying that since you're a statistical outlier, we should base our public policy on your life and experience, correct? Or are you saying "fuck you, jack! I got mine!"? Or are you saying, "I don't give a rat's ass about anyone but myself. And since this isn't affecting me, why are we having this pointless conversation?" Or is it something else you're trying to communicate, friend?

    I'd point out that in many cases, a poor understanding of health risk factors makes people more unhealthy. Hence my suggestion:

    I would love to see the amounts of money currently being spent on "national defense," "drug interdiction" and "counter-terrorism" scaled to the actual risks and have some part of the balance applied towards auto safety (including driver-less cars), health care and health education, substance abuse treatment and other areas which have higher risks of death/debilitation/injury. [emphasis added]

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 17 2015, @05:07PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday December 17 2015, @05:07PM (#277763)

    Just so I understand, you're saying that since you're a statistical outlier, we should base our public policy on your life and experience, correct?

    If I'm a statistical outlier because I'm *not* obese, then this country has some serious, serious problems and we should definitely make some huge changes to our public policy.

    Anyway, my point was only that for those of us who aren't obese, the risk factors are very different, and instead of worrying about heart disease, we have to worry a lot more about our lives being cut short by auto accidents, so for us, focusing on auto safety is more important. Sorry if that hurts your little feelings. I never realized relatively-healthy people were such a tiny minority.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 18 2015, @01:40AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 18 2015, @01:40AM (#278036) Homepage Journal

      If I'm a statistical outlier because I'm *not* obese, then this country has some serious, serious problems and we should definitely make some huge changes to our public policy.

      Gee, that's funny. I thought that was the initial point I made. It only took three tries for you to get it. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr