Printable View
Just for fun, at the end of a camping trip in the Malaysian jungles I fired up a GPS app (Waze) and selected "Home" as destination and got the attached screenshot. Was amused at the result. (Cant find a road! heh - not surprised considering where I was!) [biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
Attachment 127662
Oh I've heard if insurance all right. It's taken four years to get to somewhere near the end of that tunnel for my hapless Brother In Law. He was cleaned up on his motorcycle, as he turned left into his driveway, by an Arsehole texting on a phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
His left leg is now not much better than something to prop him up. It gives him constant pain. He can no longer do the job he loves.
If he wasn't a tough, resourceful, stoic fighter he would have necked himself by now.
It's a clear cut case. The lawyers have had a field day. The Insurance Company has been making money on his money.
He himself is going to be constantly told time and time again that he is not fit for purpose, until he accepts that a desk job is all he'll get.
How long does anyone imagine a civil case will take if Distributor, Designe,r Manufacturer, and Occupant are all in the Defendants box pointing fingers at one another?
Ah! I see. So they put the insurance company in jail for causing the death of an innocent bystander.Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
Good grief, only poor people go to jail for running down a bystander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
Kapunda Road Royal Commission - Wikipedia
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:
Would you get on a pilotless plane? - Would you get on a pilotless plane? - BBC News
If human error causes 80 percent of plane crashes, could autonomous planes be any worse?
It's interesting that you link to something posted by the BBC, that links to A survey by financial services firm UBS. What would a financial services know about aviation, far less their likely audience?Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Pretty much every aspect of commercial aviation, and ALL Military jet fighter operation, is computer controlled. Anyone who thinks that Tom Cruise could fly an F35 without the computer is nuts.
We get in pilotless planes all the time, but we have pilots there in case. The Shinkansen trains are famous for their precision, but they never leave a station without a driver.
There is a reason for this, and it is illustrated dramatically in the recent film "Sully". It's a great film, if you haven't seen it. It is also very much a true story. I wonder if a computer could have made the assessments, and the decisions, that Captain Chelsey Sullenberger made, in the time frame he made them, and saved the lives of the 151 lives on that aircraft.
I don't need a pilot for when things are going right, but I sure as hell want one for when things have gone wrong. Computers are wonderful things, but they are completely incapable of predicting the future, as climate "science" demonstrates on a daily basis. So, if the aviation industry brings in pilotless planes, sure, get on.
You first.
And then there were the violent manoeuvres undertaken by an Airbus in WA a couple of years ago, which I think were traced to a software issue, situation apparently recovered by the pilots.
And that was not the first incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Funny word, 'software'. I understand it almost perfectly. What it's proponents DON'T understand is that when it goes wrong, the results are often NOT soft.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
You often hear the term 'computer error'. I'm going to give a free kick to the computer lovers here. The error isn't the computer. Fine. We get that. The error is the person that did the programming. OK?, is that right? OK, next question: who or what replaces the programmer? A better one? Who decides?
Or, do we let a computer decide the programming of the computer? So, who programs that computer?
You get ( I hope ) the picture. It goes on and on in a loop. The only thing that would save us from this idiocy would be an AI. Anyone here confident of that happening? ( Yes, you on CA may be, but I'll bet you can't prove it. Too caught up in lauding SA's generators. Whatever works, eh?).
As i've said before, there is at least one Manufacturer who's intention it is, to program their cars to save their occupants, in the event that their AV has to avoid an accident. This will happen even if it means taking innocent lives in process.
Think about the implications of this. No Vehicle programmed in such a way should ever be allowed on Australian roads.
It should me mandatory that an AV be programmed to save innocent lives rather than those of its occupants.
The arrogance of such arsehole manufacturers is staggering to say the the least. It does not matter how unlikely such an event might be, no vehicle should take an innocent life.
