Funkstain wrote:I am tickled that we feel the same way! Off-piste: in the current affairs thread, the IsHam thing - it occurred to me after my last post on the subject that many people must feel similarly to the way I was feeling, when they argue with me. I can be obtuse, dogmatic, unresponsive to different inputs and highly responsive to confirmation bias. Reminded me of when I was defending the view that corporation tax is a bad idea, economically and does nothing to redress an unfair society; multiple people disagreeing, me sticking to guns no matter what. Humans are such flawed creatures.
GooberTheHat wrote:The car to plane analogy is so false. There is so little in common between the two systems of transportation that it's meaningless to compare them.
dynamiteReady wrote:a lot of the work that goes into insuring a safe flight takes place on the ground... not in the cockpit. That's very far from true for a bus route. Even something as simple as a zebra crossing is enough to fuck up a preplanned, automated bus journey. Let alone a roundabout with a faulty set of lights, or a box junction.
dynamiteReady wrote:
By launching in areas like Papua New Guinea and Bhutan — where its drones are sometimes flying over swaths of jungle or sparsely populated desert and where there isn't a strict existing aerial infrastructure — Matternet has fewer barriers to entry.
"The risk needs to be low if the UAV falls," NASA's Kopardekar tells Business Insider, noting that low-density areas make the most sense for drone testing and operations. "You need to be able to demonstrate the risk is very low and the benefits are high: That's where you will see implementation happening."
dynamiteReady wrote:GooberTheHat wrote:The car to plane analogy is so false. There is so little in common between the two systems of transportation that it's meaningless to compare them.
It's not a direct comparison we're (well... I;)m trying to make. It's more about trying to determine how much more work will go into one, or the other.
The articles I've read so far generally suggest that we'd be closer to automating flights, than buses...
For one, a lot of the work has already been done (that the phrase/word autopilot is in common parlance should be a big enough clue to this), and after that, (and this is me making this point) a lot of the work that goes into insuring a safe flight takes place on the ground... not in the cockpit.
but if something does go wrong what is the reversionary, or safety procedure? If the device that measures air speed stops working how do you compensate for that?
That's very far from true for a bus route. Even something as simple as a zebra crossing is enough to fuck up a preplanned, automated bus journey.
That's a simple problem though, if clear, go, if not, stop, if in doubt, stop.
Let alone a roundabout with a faulty set of lights, or a box junction.
Someone will automate a cargo flight...
I don't think that will be too far away either. Landing, et al.
And they'll have a good chance of doing so before they can do the same with a fleet of lorries... But then thinking laterally, why do it with a fleet of lorries?
Trains are limited to train tracks, of which there are far less of than roads. Automated trains to auto medium goods vehicles depots for delivery to the local area seems like the best fit solution to me
You might want to do most of that work by train... And they'd be much better targets for automation than either the car or plane...
Yossarian wrote:If all of this were true, how is it that driverless cars are currently undergoing testing for common use while pilotless planes are not?a lot of the work that goes into insuring a safe flight takes place on the ground... not in the cockpit. That's very far from true for a bus route. Even something as simple as a zebra crossing is enough to fuck up a preplanned, automated bus journey. Let alone a roundabout with a faulty set of lights, or a box junction.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) – Background
The UAV/UAS has become a staple of the mission options available to the Department of Defense, with its roles and capabilities increasing along with utilization. However, this increase in utilization has been accompanied by significantly higher failure rates when compared to conventional airframes. The general aviation mishap rate is about 1 per 100,000 flight hours, while military UAV systems have experienced failure rates 2 orders of magnitude higher, nearly 1 per 1000 flight hours [1]. By another metric, some UAV systems have a failure rate of 25% [7]
dynamiteReady wrote:Don't know. And that's more of a political question. That said, all the sources that I've found so far cite the lack of a business case. Furthermore - http://www.gizmag.com/uav-future-of-unmanned-flight/27478/ So it's not like it can't be done, because it is being done.
Lord_Griff wrote:Does my chauffeur count as a "driverless" car?
Elmlea wrote:Lord_Griff wrote:Does my chauffeur count as a "driverless" car?
Is your chauffeur a driver?
Brooks wrote:When robots can shrug convincingly, that's when we're proper fucked.
Hugh Abbott: I want a new driver. Get me a new driver. I don't wanna see this guy ever again.Lord_Griff wrote:Does my chauffeur count as a "driverless" car?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!