Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's Driverless Future

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#31

Post by cryptoz »

NoPiece wrote: post #26
roc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point that not all phones are truly off when the user thinks they're off? i.e. if you can ensure there's no power (removed battery) you can be confident there's no tracking. But if you can't ensure it...

You are conflating a hypothetical with a real claim. it is hypothetically possible, but it isn't actually true. And you can ensure in many ways. Like measuring the power usage when your phone is off. Like looking at the source code of the operating system.

Looking at the source code of the OS does not change anything, as you don't know which compiler was used or even if the same source was indeed compiled. Even further, if you compile it yourself you still don't know since at this stage you clearly wouldn't trust even your compiler.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#32

Post by ollysb »

raldi wrote: post #8
pkandathil wrote: post #6

A person in security told me that a big fear they have is car bombs. You would now be able to send groups of cars to a location without risking human life. That us good enough reason to not want self driving cars. I still think some of the functionality can be used for accident prevention.

Would that also have been a good enough reason not to want regular cars?

Yeah that's a bit like not allowing mobile phones because they can detonate bombs.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#33

Post by gcr »

NoPiece wrote: post #26
roc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point that not all phones are truly off when the user thinks they're off? i.e. if you can ensure there's no power (removed battery) you can be confident there's no tracking. But if you can't ensure it...

You are conflating a hypothetical with a real claim. it is hypothetically possible, but it isn't actually true. And you can ensure in many ways. Like measuring the power usage when your phone is off. Like looking at the source code of the operating system.

The version of Android bundled with several cell phone manufacturers' smartphones isn't open source. In many cases, it's not possible to just check out Google's tree and build it on your Samsung; you still have to fiddle with proprietary hardware modules, etc.

That said, i would only trust my cell phone to be off if I took out the battery.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#34

Post by h0w412d »

jareds wrote: post #11

"But is everyone really so eager to see the automobile, which stands as one of history’s great amplifiers of personal autonomy and liberty, evolve into a giant tracking device controlled by a $250 billion corporation that makes its money through an increasingly intimate and obtrusive knowledge of its customers? " As a blind person the short answer is yes. Unfortunately job opportunities don't always line up with the…

Not to mention the annual 40,000 lives lost and even more injured due to car accidents, and the huge swaths of land that would be freed up when parking lots are no longer necessary.

Not everything is about jobs.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#35

Post by elteto »

DasIch wrote: post #13
melling wrote: post #3

It's going to take a long time to get people comfortable with driverless cars. In the meantime, can the technology be immediately converted to "assisted" driving to help avoid collisions, crossing the center line, etc.? Make it a lot harder for people to "bump" into each other. We might be able to get some of the benefits of driverless cars sooner.

Assisted driving technology has existed for years and is deployed in a lot of cars. There is no need to convert this technology, it already exists and is widely deployed. The only thing that prevents this technology from being used in every car is that the price for that technology isn't low enough, yet. Self-driving cars are really just an incremental improvement to what high-end manufacturers like Mercedes or BMW a…

> Self-driving cars are really just an incremental improvement to what high-end manufacturers like Mercedes or BMW already offer.

So you are telling me that I can go to a Mercedez/BMW dealer right now and get a car that almost drives itself in regular traffic conditions? Simply not true. There's a lot of assisted driving technology (blind spots alarms, HUDs, assisted parking) out there, but nothing like Google's self-driving car.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#36

Post by NoPiece »

cryptoz wrote: post #31
NoPiece wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating a hypothetical with a real claim. it is hypothetically possible, but it isn't actually true. And you can ensure in many ways. Like measuring the power usage when your phone is off. Like looking at the source code of the operating system.

Looking at the source code of the OS does not change anything, as you don't know which compiler was used or even if the same source was indeed compiled. Even further, if you compile it yourself you still don't know since at this stage you clearly wouldn't trust even your compiler.

I think you guys are getting lost in the hypothetical vs the reality. Is it hypothetically possible, yes. Is there any evidence it is true, no. See my comment below to see how cnet confused a physical bug with some inherent bugging capability of the phone.

Even in the hypothetical, don't you think someone would have identified the "bug" by now? It would need to draw power while the phone is off, that would be measurable. It would need software on the phone. Even without the source code, the bug could be found in the OS or firmware. Do you think the FBI is working with ever phone manufacturer to install this and no one ever leaked that info? There isn't one piece of evidence that it is actually true.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#37

Post by elteto »

maxerickson wrote: post #12
melling wrote: post #3

It's going to take a long time to get people comfortable with driverless cars. In the meantime, can the technology be immediately converted to "assisted" driving to help avoid collisions, crossing the center line, etc.? Make it a lot harder for people to "bump" into each other. We might be able to get some of the benefits of driverless cars sooner.

Auto braking, adaptive cruise control and lane keeping are already on the road.

Yes, however the technology has not "trickled down" from high end cars (albeit some car makers are pushing hard on this). We still need to wait a little bit more before we can find some of these on a Civic/Corolla.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#39

Post by micampe »

elteto wrote: post #35
DasIch wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assisted driving technology has existed for years and is deployed in a lot of cars. There is no need to convert this technology, it already exists and is widely deployed. The only thing that prevents this technology from being used in every car is that the price for that technology isn't low enough, yet. Self-driving cars are really just an incremental improvement to what high-end manufacturers like Mercedes or BMW a…

> Self-driving cars are really just an incremental improvement to what high-end manufacturers like Mercedes or BMW already offer. So you are telling me that I can go to a Mercedez/BMW dealer right now and get a car that almost drives itself in regular traffic conditions? Simply not true. There's a lot of assisted driving technology (blind spots alarms, HUDs, assisted parking) out there, but nothing like Google's self…

“The company says it is preparing to launch in 2014 its first batch of autonomous vehicles capable of driving up to 31 miles per hour. The limited speed reflects the technology’s expected initial use in heavy traffic.

Volvo says it is working on higher-speed autonomous driving, but isn’t yet disclosing when it would be available. Its prototypes have run thousands of miles of test drives on public roads in Spain and on the company’s test track in western Sweden.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/12/03/volvo-plans-to-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syst...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrash_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_departure_warning_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_car#Notable_projects

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#40

Post by jareds »

riggins wrote: post #9

there's a fundamental assumption in this article that I think is very doubtful. this article assumes that part of the customers 'payment' for a self-driving car will be advertising. That seems like a very poor assumption. Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business. Just because the search business is free and makes their revenue through advertising doesn't me…

Could the self-driving tech be the automotive version of Android? Even if Google stripped out personally identifiable data the sheer amount of data they could get for their maps would have to be worth a lot of money. Whether it’s enough to partially subsidize the required research and development as well as weather the automotive industry would be willing to enter an agreement with them are questions I don’t have the answer to.
Post reply on HN