Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/25/2010 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    If I donate $10, can I rank CSpec's posts down below the threshold point of -10? Seems like a fair trade off to me. We've been through this and said this before: This is a computer-based system. Computers can crash. A car can crash. Two wrongs don't make a right. They just about never do, you know? That should be common sense, but it's lost on some people. So, where's the payoff? ... Yeah, there isn't one here. The roads won't be any safer. These "road trains" will have to be 100 percent fail proof to work and that simply won't happen with a computer-operated system. Ever. Like Olds basically stated in one his earlier posts, as soon as one cog breaks down, what's to say the whole machine won't break down, following suit? The consequences could be even more dire. I don't think we've had a 300 car pile up on a major freeway in human history before and I would rather not see that one world record set because Joe Schmuck forgot to pump a fat Jackson into his tank. If you want to comb your hair, do it at home. If you want to brush your teeth, do it at home at your bathroom sink or in the shower. If you want to put on a shirt, do it at home. If you want to play with yourself, do it at home. Do not do anything I listed above or anything else along those lines in 5 o'clock rush hour traffic or while plowing down the Interstate at 85 mph. Face facts and quit whining. Don't tell me you need to "increase your productivity" as you drive because your stupid ass couldn't go to bed early enough to wake up at a reasonable time to start your day. Don't bitch to me that you're "not a morning person." I can't help the fact you have a paying 9 to 5 job, a family, a mortgage, a few bills, and hate your life. Seek counciling. If you don't like that way -- the LOGICAL WAY -- of doing things where you do stuff like dressing yourself, reading or whatever else at home, then sell your damn car, don't drive yourself anywhere, and take a frigging bus or call a damn cab immediately and indefinitely. And by the way, you still won't be doing the crap you should have done before you left home if you do take mass transit. Increased productivity as the sole reason as to why you have to have this farce of a technology forced upon us? Yeah, right. Keep that BS in the bullpen, thanks. If you're the kind of guy who just has to Twitter about his stupid, goddamn day while driving home from work, I hope your life is a living hell until the day you retire. Yeah, I might be harsh, but I can't tolerate such stupidity like this.
  2. 1 point
    I'm not addressing "two wrongs don't make a right" part because I don't think the automated cars are implementing vigilantism. Something you can't say about humans driving. As far as computers can crash... yeah, they can... but properly designed, they can operate regardless of failures. I work in the world of high availability and business continuity... and have worked with public communication systems and air traffic systems that CAN'T crash. Its all a matter of redundancy and the ability to catch failures. When your check engine light comes on... the car doesn't automatically stop in the middle of the road. It doesn't run the engine/tranny in a way to damage it further. It limits the damage and limps home. Sure, not everything in the car is redundant... but it could be made so IF the risk of failure was greater than the cost of extra hardware and software to implement it. Obviously, lawyers are not going to allow automated cars to roam the US if the manufacturers are in a position of liability for a risky system. Does it need to be 100% fail proof? No... nothing is... not even the computers keeping your airplanes in the sky. But you CAN make systems that are 99.999% fail proof... and then you make standby systems for that final gap... that's when the dash board lights up in red explaining that you have 30 second to resume manual control or else the car is going to park itself on the shoulder and call AAA. I would be more concerned with automated cars getting confused in the real world, rather than outright failure... but they've come a long way since the DARPA competitions... and in the long term, they will outperform the average, underqualified drivers out there. If humans were infallible, we've have no accidents now. Luckily, as far as automated car-trains go, automation on the freeways is pretty much the most unconfusing driving there is out there. Finland apparently has had a 300 car pile up. And humans controlling cars have created plenty of 70+ pile ups all over the world. Pile-ups are an interesting phenomenon... and they seem to happen because people will merrily blast down the freeway, ignoring required stopping distances, regardless of distraction, visibility or road conditions. Go watch a few pile ups forming on YouTube... its a combination of people panic stopping short and other people crashing into them while barely touching the brakes. When I drive, I don't watch the guy in front of me... I watch him, the guy he's watching and the guy he's watching's watching. And I watch the guy behind me like a hawk. If the guy three cars in front of me starts to break hard, I'm on the brakes already... and I stop right on the bumper of the guy in front of me... because stopping short is going to get me hit by the folks behind me dreaming of watching Dancing With The Stars. The networking ability of these automated cars is going to be listening all the time, probably on multiple radio frequencies. Notification of a major stopping event is going to propagate through the traffic virtually instantaneously... and _IF_ a few cars don't get the message, it still has multiple transmission paths or messages depending on traffic density of the trains of cars. Keep in mind, I don't advocate the automation of the roads, only the freedom of resisting it. Its going to happen. Unlike some, I'm not afraid of it. If you think running out of gas or a blown tire is going to cause a pile up, you're selling the technology WAY short, and you have WAY too much faith in the average poor driver that turns running out of gas or a blown tire into a upside-down-in-a-ditch-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-median adventure.
  3. 1 point
    Very smart move on Nissan's part. This will give first time owners of electric vehicles peace of mind, and free charging at the dealer? That's awesome.
  4. 1 point
    But you're not the Leaf's intended market. People who live in the city are, and cars like the Leaf and Volt make more sense in that situation. The geek squad is ingenious; GM should follow suit with the Volt. Having a dedicated group of professionals who know the car inside out is what will help ease the jitters of purchasing cars like this, in addition to making sure things work correctly if problems occur.
  5. 1 point
    So what's the problem? It's called piece of mind. Anyone purchasing one of these cars will want the extra insurance in case things go wrong, be it a dead battery or a complete electrical failure.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    I've been under the mistaken impression that a good portion of people come here to have babies and get on public assistance. Or maybe that's just around here. It cannot be anywhere else.
  8. 1 point
    You're full of it. It was in response to your comment which directly addressed immigration...You know, that thing when a person moves from one country to another? Except that they are illegal for a particular reason. They bypassed the LEGAL immigration process! What is so hard to understand? How is this at all difficult to comprehend? That is why we have immigration control. There are not enough jobs for every working American citizen. The absolute only reason illegals can get jobs is because companies can get away with compensating them on a far lesser scale, and even then, the barriers to entry for any true citizen to obtain a job that an illegal alien works is far too significant with how entrenched the illegal populous has become in certain job sectors. I find it absolutely insane that you believe the simple solution is to literally open up our borders. You believe that by allowing immigrants to just walk right in they will be greeted with a job. Have you seen the unemployment figures recently? How truly jaded are you? Oh, and maybe you'd like to explain why one would "pay low prices for berries". Guess what American citizens (both legal immigrants and native-born...you always seemingly overlook the glaring difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL) like to do? They like TO WORK! Guess what happens when unemployment rises? THEY CAN'T WORK! I'm sure many would love to work again, despite the type of work, but a huge amount of jobs are being worked by illegal aliens; illegal aliens who are hired based on the fact that companies can get away with compensating them far less than an American citizen. You mean to tell me there is a large market for cheap labor? WHO KNEW?!
  9. 1 point
    Last time I checked, much like many other nations, there is a legal way of entering into the country. They didn't enter into the country legally. That means they entered into the country illegally. It seems pretty clear to me. Their legal admission isn't blocked. They want to be here legally? Great! Ship them back and let them go through the process that every other legal immigrant has to go through. Let's put it this way...say I want to go see a movie, but I don't want to wait in line and buy a ticket, so instead I go in through the back door and sneak into a theater. If I get caught why should I get thrown out? There is no reason it shouldn't have been free to begin with! Who are you referring to as an anti-immigration zealot? I'd be willing to bet pretty much everyone is for immigration...LEGAL immigration. Are you seriously comparing immigration policies from over 100 years ago to those today? You need to brush up on your history over the years if you can't plainly see why regulation and deliberate numerical restrictions are indeed necessary. Hell, you don't even need a history book to figure that out. The current system makes no sense because it forces people to risk their lives if they choose to come here illegally? Where is the logic in that? They don't have to risk their lives to come here if they go through the legal immigration process. Many have participated in the process and many are now legal citizens who did not risk their lives. I work with a Persian, a Filipino, two Chinese, and a French Canadian. All of them are highly successful individuals who came to America in their lifetime by going through the legal immigration process; not illegally hopping the border. Believe it or not, there are many legal citizens in this country who want to work (you'd think the unemployment rate would do a good enough job of explaining that one). And before you say these people do jobs that citizens don't want to do, that is not only ignorant, but completely and utterly false. But no, let's not support the American citizens, let's support the "poor Mexicans who risked their lives to come here and just want to work" (and send their money back across the border, and leech off our welfare systems, and not make any attempt to assimilate). How is it not obvious that these people, for the most part do not give a rats ass about becoming legal citizens? Why should they when they can so easily take such great advantage of our current system?
  10. -1 points
    That's why I want to keep Cadillac out of Europe. Why does GM need to sell Cadillacs in Europe anyway? It should continue to be treated in a rarefied manner over there. Make them want the car as it is, don't try to fit in, that would be a continued disaster for the brand. BLSht.
  11. -1 points
    Oh boy, replace nationalized, subsidized air travel with nationalized, subsidized rail service. That sounds great.
  12. -1 points
    I'm so excited for this technology. It will increase mobility and productivity massively. Trains again? People abandoned that nonsense in the 30s. There's a reason everyone in every poor country buys a personal car as soon as they possibly can. Having your own transportation that you take from your own house, to precisely where you want to go, is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century.
  13. -1 points
    I think you dislike this technology because it will relegate your train fantasy useless.
  14. -1 points
    Just like the goverment a day late and a a dollar over budget. They knew these cars were coming and knew they needed a system in place. But here we were waiting for labels for cars already built. I wish they would turn to SAE to come up with a system that would be fair to all and make it a world wide strandard. If they can standardize bolts sizes and engine HP I am sure they can come up with a reliable standard.
  15. -2 points
    You don't understand how this technology works. You don't need a train, Google has a fleet of cars out there right now driving around entirely on their own. And if you want to maximize energy efficiency you would destroy all power plants. Also, it's quite ironic to criticize driverless cars because they let you do something else while you travel, but then loudly trumpet the advantages of rail travel because you can sleep on the move.
  16. -2 points
    It's the "purchasing" part that has me mystified. The thing is only useful in an EXTREMELY limited set of scenarios. And the geek squad to the rescue is ridiculosity on top of stupidity. This is hard-earned money, buying a car, at least for me. There is no way in hell I'd consider a full electric car, it is a monumental waste of money.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets