Apple certainly weighs on us all.
 

Many of us use Apple for eReading, for time telling, for computing (I eRead mostly on the computer myself), and CARS?

Some news on the CARs front.

"http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...iled_fast.htmlThe Apple Car’s Failure Looks Like a Bad Sign for Apple. It Isn’t."

I usually get the older cars of the family while my better half drives the latest and greatest, but this is of interest because it appears that there is no Apple Car on her horizon.

If Apple got an iCar to market they would claim ownership of engine compartments that hinge open on top. Millions of Apple fanbois would insist that iPple innovated the top opening engine compartment and the United States patent office would enforce their claim.

I sometimes get through entire weeks without ever thinking of Apple once. ;)

I guess you don't look under your bed!? :)

If Apple can get CarPlay accepted by most of the major car manufacturers, then that's going to be a win for them. Trying to make an electric or later self driving car was always a fool's errand for them as a company, just as the long rumored TV.

Apple would be better off staying focused with the various UI concerns of using Apple devices in a car (i.e. methods of controlling phone without looking at it). Bringing back audiobook playlists would be first on my list, for sure.

No, it's under bridges.
Trolls live under bridges.
That's in all the fairytales.
It should still apply to NeoHipster Patent Trolls.

If you mean the top opening over the whole front -- my 67 Spitfire opened that way. I used to sit on a tire to change the oil. I can think of other imported cars that did same. Apple going to ban them?

On the other post - some people like Android and some like nothing. I don't need a car chattering at me. I'd prefer to pay attention to the road visually.

I hope they finally sorted out mapping before trying a self driving car :)

I can't, every time I look outside my kitchen window, I see a tree full of apples! (the pears are on the side of the house)

Personally I think the autonomous cars are too damn dangerous to be allowed on the roads. Computers and software are too prone to failure. The technology looks cool, but it isn't safe enough and may never be. I sure don't won't to be on a road surrounded by autonomous vehicles. In the future they might be safer, but at present I hope the government outlaws them from public roads.

I am with you there, I am now retired but I made my living by fixing computer, hardware and troubleshooting software. I know that every computer made and every software application made have too many bugs and errors in them that cannot ever be all fixed. And the more they fix the more bugs they create. Most of the times they fix a bug and they fix that issue but they cause other bugs that were not there before.

I'd only be afraid of autonomous cars if they were forced to share the road with the current crop of incompetent, self-involved, risk-taking, moronic humans who use it.

I have to agree with you. :thumbsup:
Apache

Bugs can be worked out. Stupid is forever. ;)

I'm fairly certain a multi-processor can handle driving and texting at the same time. Humans can't.

Exactly.
It makes no sense to me that autonomous cars could somehow be more dangerous. It doesn't get any more dangerous than millions of humans whizzing around being humans in control of high-speed death-traps. The "buggiest" autonomous system imaginable couldn't possibly kill more people than sleepy, drunken, careless, reckless, incompetent, fallible human drivers could.

I'm more curious how a "really" driverless car will work, especially the ones without controls. How does the driverless car decide to stop at a roadside stand to get pistachios before proceeding to the destination? or more how does the driverless stop or know that it need to stop at the nearest place for a "potty" stop?

Going from point A to point B directly is easy but how about deciding to stop at a drive-thru to get a burger &/or coffee when not programmed to do so? How does the driverless car change the route when a passenger decides to check into a property along the way. There are multiple reasons that a person decide to change the direct route to the destination. Some may say to use a smartphone which I don't have to get the driverless car to go another way but that is "driving" the driverless car. No such thing as a fully driverless car especially the ones without car controls as proposed.

Having to take blood pressure medications play hell with my traveling & do wonder if other people will have the same problems with "driverless" cars.

I would love a driverless car. It would give me a lot more time to read. :D
Apache

Show me your real life multi-processor driving at the speed limit through Dallas at the speed limit on a Friday at five thirty PM. It must not creep below the speed limit, nor halt motionless when traffic should be moving.

Just to make it like routinely handled human driving, it should be August and the cooling system needs work that the owner can't afford (son broke his collarbone in a baseball game) to fix yet. The car may need to be turned off if there is a long wait at intersections. Best stick to the freeways even though there is so much construction at the big interchanges.

You can skip the whole texting thing.

The economy is bad, the car owner has had to go from a quality control position to a telemarketing job until something else comes up, so your system will need to be something a driver making twenty-five thousand a year can buy and maintain (unless your ultimate goal is to reserve travel to the wealthy only in which case you need to be honest about that) and must work in all weather while commuting twenty three miles each way.

I was kind, in that I did not set my real world test in Joplin, Tulsa, or Witchita. In those places frozen precipitation partially melts during the winter days and refreezes in the evenings and through the night. Much of the driving for nine-to-fivers is done on ice in heavy traffic.

Let's see this system.

I think that it will be a very long time before we see self-driving cars without manual controls.

For reasons of liability the human driver is ultimately responsible for vehicle safety and needs to be ready to take back control at any time to avoid accidents. I believe that cars will display a statement to that effect and the driver will need to agree to this before self-driving mode can be engaged. Despite this I foresee that since the auto manufacturer has big pockets they will be sued whenever an accident occurs, regardless of whether or not the accident was unavoidable even if a person was driving.

QFT!

Autonomous cars will only work if all cars on the road are autonomous. Computers are predictable, humans most certainly are not.

That's been my dream ever since I got my driver's license :p
Then people say: but you can take the train/bus! To which my answer is: I'd have to spend more time getting to a bus/train station from home and from a bus/train station to my work and vice versa than I'd spend driving from home to my work. So, that'd mean even less time reading, as reading in a packed bus/train isn't a pleasure either (I usually had an audiobook when I still went by train)

I'll stick to audiobooks, tyvm.

The idea of driverless cars scares me. Although maybe in 30 years or so, if I'm too old to drive myself, I'll be more open to the idea.

The biggest problem I see is how they'll ever be able to deal with bad weather, especially snow.

At times, Gail drives us nuts. Gail is our GPS.