Who'd have one? 

 

Personally can't imagine ever wanting one, but maybe if I'm still here in my 80s, could see the attraction then.

 

I can't see em catching on, but then again I said that about t'internet.

 

Actually, more I think about it, maybe they will, no more driving lessons/tests/licenses, can even see the day when it's illegal to drive.

 

 

 

Whether coming out of shadows or any other reason, surely the driverless vehicle uses infra-red technology to seek changes in the heat signature between a person and its surroundings. The ability to see into the shadows in a conventional way is irrelevant.

It had a safety driver in it as well

 

Points towards human error on the part of the poor lady who was killed

It had a safety driver in it as well

 

Points towards human error on the part of the poor lady who was killed

To which there is only one conclusion

To which there is only one conclusion

More guns

More guns

2 conclusions!

She stepped out in front of the car, not in a cross walk, that is her fault over here, if had not been a self drive car it would have been just another death by stupidity

The first passenger rail journey had a fatality when someone walked in front of the train.

Darwin at work

The first passenger rail journey had a fatality when someone walked in front of the train.

Not quite that simple, was a bit of a bit of bad luck, bit of clumsiness and a bit of ill health.

 

Call me a sad sack but got this book a couple of xmas’ ago - https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Railways.html?id=U36lBwAAQBAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y

The first passenger rail journey had a fatality when someone walked in front of the train.

Pretty sure I heard that some folk we scared shirtless of trains as they thought people wouldn't be able to breathe at speeds of 30mph+ and would Kark it.

Not quite that simple, was a bit of a bit of bad luck, bit of clumsiness and a bit of ill health.

 

 

I would suggest getting hit by a train was a bit more than a bit of bad luck mate.

Pretty sure I heard that some folk we scared shirtless of trains as they thought people wouldn't be able to breathe at speeds of 30mph+ and would Kark it.

I think folk born in 1800 who lived to 75 would have seen this country change more than any one else in history.

I would suggest getting hit by a train was a bit more than a bit of bad luck mate.

Not really if you read about the speed the train was going at and what he did to get out of the way!

I think folk born in 1800 who lived to 75 would have seen this country change more than any one else in history.

I think folk born in 1960s have seen the biggest amount of change.

Kinell a whole new topic there. Suppose the change from pre to post industrial revolution is a whopper

I think folk born in 1960s have seen the biggest amount of change.

 

it'll be an ongoing thing

 

the 40s will have seen more than the 50s, seen more than the 60s etc

 

tvs for example, and a world war

 

the rate things are going now, it'll be them born in the 00s before long

She stepped out in front of the car, not in a cross walk, that is her fault over here, if had not been a self drive car it would have been just another death by stupidity

This is the second time I've mentioned algorithms on WW today.

 

Ultimately in writing the software for the car - someone has to decide if in the event that someone steps in front of the car and a crash will result in either the driver or pedestrian losing their life - should the car brake?

Why would the driver lose his life? Surely car v pedestrian is no contest

Kent the car could have braked, we don't know that yet, also stepping out in front of a car say 20 feet away the car can brake (just as human driver would) and stop before hitting said idiot, now if the same idiot does it within a foot of the car you cant write algorithm's until hell freezes over the result will be the same, one dead or serious injured idiot ( you would get the same result if the car had a human driver)

My point is - do we write the software to brake and possibly kill the passenger as well as probably kill the pedestrian. Or programme the car not to slow down and definitely kill the pedestrian but probably save the passenger?

 

It's about ethics in AI.

My point is - do we write the software to brake and possibly kill the passenger as well as probably kill the pedestrian. Or programme the car not to slow down and definitely kill the pedestrian but probably save the passenger?

 

It's about ethics in AI.

 

42

I think folk born in 1960s have seen the biggest amount of change.

 

 

I think people working in banks have seen the biggest amount of change.

42

Don't panic!

Don't panic!

 

No worries, I know where my towel is!

looks like the fault of the car

 

https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/976585098542833664