As the world’s Communist elites force wealth-grabbing green lifestyles on citizens the automobile is the latest round of sacrifice people will be doing without. While the automotive industry isn’t going away it will only appeal to the wealthy elites that can afford the high-cost that ownership requires. Besides the increase in the average cost of cars which now stands at $32,086 a new technology known as ‘driverless’ cars should put the average slave’s income beyond the reach of personal car ownership. After a period of time of training people will gradually accept trains and other mass-transit as ordinary and automobiles extraordinary. Elites are also funding start-ups which will make the slave seamlessly accept his or her new lifestyle where personal choice is a thing of the past.
By Chris Matyszczy July 6, 2014
The people who are changing the world aren’t going to wait for you.
It’s your job to understand what they’re doing and either approve of it or accept it.
Most people, of course, can’t be bothered to see where the world is going. They’re too wrapped up in their daily needs and lacks.
However, an interview given by Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to VC Vinod Khosla offered a clear picture their company’s destination.
Page and Brin see a world in which much needs fixing. Theirs is a company that works on a broad number of fronts in the hope that just a few will be world-changing winners.
You might have thought that this was just an engineer’s wheeze, something that faces vast obstacles in the real world. However, Brin would like you to know just how serious he is.
“I hope that that could really transform transportation around the world, and reduce the need for individual car ownership, the need for parking, road congestion and so forth,” said Brin.
Ownership of cars is, in essence, inefficient.
Brin described the future like this: “With self-driving cars, you don’t really need much in the way of parking, because you don’t need one car per person. They just come and get you when you need them. You can also make much more efficient road use, if you– and this is not something we’ve developed yet, but it’s certainly been simulated by many. They can form trains. They can go at high speed, perhaps much higher than our highway speeds here.”
Yes, the future is an uber-Uber world.
It’s also one in which Brin knows what is ideal for you: “It’s also really nice to not have a steering wheel, not have pedals. Maybe the seats should face each other, things like that. I’m not sure that the traditional car designs are ideal for self-driving.”
Take that, you steering wheel fetishists, you pedal pushers.
You might think you like being in charge of your own vehicle, going as fast as you like, turning off to go down a less-beaten path. You might have to stop thinking that way for the good of, well, everyone else who will have to stop thinking that way.
Page believes that this should be a time of abundance. Indeed, it doesn’t take much to make people happy.
“Housing, security, opportunities for your kids — anthropologists have been identifying these things,” he said. “It’s not that hard for us to provide those things.” Indeed, he estimates that we only need 1 percent of our resources to satisfy these needs.
Brin believes that government should use its fiscal power for what they see as the common good. He said: “Tax more of the things that we don’t want, like carbon.”
It’s quaint to believe that there is a “we” that agrees on everything that humanity wants and doesn’t want. Part of the problem with politics is that there isn’t that sort of agreement.
This is something Page acknowledged: “I do worry that when I look at the government– our interactions with governments around things we get interested in — spectrum or whatever — that it becomes pretty illogical.”
That’s always been the greatest frustration for those who believe that the world should be governed on rational principles. They seem not to accept that rationality isn’t a human’s natural state. How can it be when the stupidity of death hangs over us all the time?
Page would dearly love all laws to be limited to 50 pages. Every time a new law is enacted, he said, an old one should be removed.
However, he’s clearly frustrated that around the world there are different countries with different laws. This is getting in the way of Google’s universal mission. Can’t these countries get together and get with the program?
One criticism of clinging to rationality emerged at the same time as this interview.
In a piece called “The Curse of Smart People,” Avery Pennarun offered this: “Smart people have a problem, especially (although not only) when you put them in large groups. That problem is an ability to convincingly rationalize nearly anything.”
He added: “Smart people, computer types anyway, tend to come down on the side of people who don’t like emotions.”
For all the truth that logic is a very powerful tool, he said, the input needs to be very good. “If you know all the constraints and weights — with perfect precision — then you can use logic to find the perfect answer. But when you don’t, which is always, there’s a pretty good chance your logic will lead you very, very far astray.”
Pennarun is a Google Fiber engineer.
Google in your Government……
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA: About four years ago, the Google team trying to develop cars driven by computers — not people — became convinced that sooner than later, the technology would be ready for the masses. There was one big problem: Driverless cars were almost certainly illegal.
And yet this week, Google said it wants to give Californians access to a small fleet of prototypes it will make without a steering wheel or pedals.
The plan is possible because, by this time next year, driverless cars will be legal in the tech giant’s home state.
And for that, Google can thank an unorthodox lobbying campaign to shape the road rules of the future in car-obsessed California — and maybe even the rest of the nation — that began with a game-changing conversation in Las Vegas.
The campaign was based on a principle that businesses rarely embrace: Ask for regulation.
The journey to a law in California began in January 2011 at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where Nevada legislator-turned-lobbyist David Goldwater began chatting up Anthony Levandowski, one of the self-driving car project’s leaders. When talk drifted to the legal hurdles, Goldwater suggested that rather than entering California’s potentially bruising political process, Google should start small.
Here, in neighbouring Nevada, he said, where the legislature famously has an impulse to regulate lightly.
It made sense to Google, which hired Goldwater.
“The good thing about laws is if they don’t exist and you want one — or if they exist and you don’t like them — you can change them,” Levandowski told students at the University of California, Berkeley in December. “And so in Nevada, we did our first bill.”
Up to that point, Google had quietly sent early versions of the car, with a “safety driver” behind the wheel, more than 100,000 miles in California. Eventually, government would catch up, just as stop signs began appearing well after cars rolled onto America’s roads a century ago.
If the trigger to act was a bad accident, lawmakers could set the technology back years.
Feeling some urgency, Google bet it could legalize a technology that, though still experimental, had the potential to save thousands of lives and generate millions in profits.
The cars were their own best salesmen. Nevada’s governor and other key policy makers emerged enthusiastic after test rides. The bill passed quickly enough that potential opponents — primarily automakers — were unable to influence its outcome.
Next, Nevada’s Department of Motor Vehicles had to write rules implementing the law.
At the DMV, Google had an enthusiastic supporter in Bruce Breslow, then the agency’s leader.
Breslow had been fascinated by driverless cars since seeing an exhibit at the 1964 New York World’s Fair. Seeing a career-defining opportunity, Breslow shelved other projects and shifted money so he wouldn’t have to ask for the $200,000 needed to research and write the rules.
At first, DMV staff panicked — they only had several months to write unprecedented rules on a technology they didn’t know. But Google knew the technology, and was eager to help.
“Very few people deeply understand” driverless car technology, said Chris Urmson, the self-driving car pioneer lured from academia who now leads Google’s project. Offering policymakers information “to make informed decisions… is really important to us.”
The task fell primarily to David Estrada, at the time the legal director for Google X, the secretive part of the tech giant that houses ambitious, cutting-edge projects. Estrada would trek from San Francisco to Nevada’s capital, Carson City, for meetings hosted by DMV staff.
Breslow credited Estrada with making suggestions that made the regulations far shorter, and less onerous, than they would have been. “We quickly jumped in… to help figure out what the regulation should look like,” recalled Estrada.
While others attended the meetings, Google seemed to have a special seat at the table.
Bryant Walker Smith, who teaches the law of self-driving cars as a fellow at Stanford University, described one rule-drafting session where Google — not the DMV — responded to suggestions from auto industry representatives.
“It wasn’t always clear who was leading,” Smith said. It seemed to him that both Google and the DMV felt ownership of the rules.
By the end of 2011, Nevada welcomed the testing of driverless cars on its roads. Google, however, was focused on its home state, where its Priuses and Lexuses outfitted with radar, cameras and a spinning tower of laser sensors were a regular feature on freeways.
In many ways, Google replicated its Nevada playbook: Frame the debate. Wow potential allies with joy rides. Argue that driverless cars would make roads safer and create jobs.
In January 2012, Google met with state Senator Alex Padilla, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering graduate. Padilla was intrigued, and agreed to push a bill. Padilla said Nevada’s law helped him sell colleagues on the need to act.
“California is home to two things. Number one is the hotbed of innovation and technology. And second, we love our cars. So it only made even more sense to say, ‘OK we need to catch up and try and lead the nation’,” Padilla said.
Nevada’s swift action, he said, “sent the signal to a lot of colleagues that, ‘No, this is not one we want to overthink and study for five years before we take action’.” After all, who in California government wanted a flagship company moving jobs out of the state.
In March 2012, Padilla rode in the driver’s seat of a Google car with Levandowski riding shotgun to the news conference announcing his legislation.
In the months that followed, various groups tried to shape Padilla’s bill.
One was the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which objected that automakers would be liable for the failure of Google technology strapped onto one of their cars. Trial lawyers, a powerful constituency in the state, successfully lobbied to keep automakers on the hook.
Some inside the Capitol concluded that Padilla was most attuned to Google.
One thing that troubled Howard Posner, then the staffer on the Assembly Transportation Committee responsible for analyzing the bill and suggesting improvements, was that Padilla’s legislation would let cars operate without a human present.
Posner argued that lawmakers shouldn’t authorize this last step until the technology could handle it. The response, he said, was that Padilla didn’t want to do that — “which in my mind meant Google was not willing to do that.”
Padilla said that while Google’s high profile helped the bill succeed, his office made the decisions. “We’re always going to have the final say,” he said.
In September 2012, Governor Jerry Brown went to Google’s headquarters and signed Padilla’s bill.
Now, California’s motor vehicles officials face an end-of-year deadline to write regulations that will allow driverless cars to go from testing to use by the public in June 2015.
At a DMV hearing in March, two Google representatives sat next to DMV staff at the head tables. Their message: Now that self-driving cars were legal, the state should not regulate them too strictly.
Google in your mind……
By Jason Dorrier Nov 20, 2014
What technology has the most world-changing potential in the next decade or two?
Brad Templeton, Singularity University’s networks and computing chair, thinks it’s driverless cars. Then again, he would. Templeton has worked with Google on robot cars for several years. He thinks the technology will be transformative, not simply because it’s possible (which it is)—but because it solves a long list of problems.
Speaking at Singularity University’s Summit Europe yesterday, Templeton made the case for cars that drive themselves. You’ve likely heard some of it. The prime argument is that humans, frankly, aren’t that good at driving—1.2 million people die around the world each year in car accidents according to Templeton.
But it’s more than that. Some drive for the love of driving, but most drive to get places. Commuting takes up a huge fraction of our lives. If we don’t have to operate the car, we can use that time doing other things, like catching up with family or working. Further, while we’re mostly commuting to a job, we also drive to leisure activities. The great thing about robots is that they don’t drink, and they always pay attention.
Self-driving cars will also greatly benefit the elderly or disabled—taking them where they want to go, instead of taking their freedom.
And Templeton goes further. Why buy your own driverless car when you can simply hire one tailored to your need? Some of us purchase trucks to occasionally haul cargo or SUVs to visit the mountains a few times a year. Even so, we primarily use cars for normal stuff like shopping or going to work—things we don’t need a truck or SUV to accomplish.
Uber, or some other future car service, might simply deliver to your doorstep the right driverless car at the right time: a truck for hauling, an SUV for the mountains, but most of the time, an efficient city or comfortable commuting car. In such a scenario, there might not be a need to park very often at all—the cars would cycle through passengers day and night.
Ultimately, driverless cars would reduce accidents, congestion, even transform the design of cities. The question is, how soon?
Daimler promises near-driverless cars by 2020. Tesla says 2016. But definitions of “self-driving” vary. Tesla, for example, isn’t promising completely driverless cars by 2016, just more autonomy than at present.
Templeton thinks Google is way ahead of traditional players. And though we’ll have regular cars with humans at the wheel for awhile yet, he thinks driverless cars will begin noticeably infiltrating the fleet in the 2020s.
That said, there’s still plenty of work to be done. Google has racked up most of their 700,000 miles on highways. They’re only now tackling city streets—a more difficult problem. I recently heard of a (non-Google) car that, using cameras to detect and avoid obstacles, slammed on its brakes to avoid a column of steam from a manhole. I don’t know if Google’s system of lasers would be similarly fooled, but there are many specific situations in urban driving that will have to navigated.
And it isn’t just the technology that will have to be ready for the real world. The general public will need to adapt to the technology as well.
According to Templeton, regulators and policymakers are proving more open to the idea than expected—a number of US states have okayed early driverless cars for public experimentation, along with Singapore, India, Israel, and Japan—but earning the general public’s trust may be a more difficult battle to win.
No matter how many fewer accidents occur due to driverless cars, there may well be a threshold past which we still irrationally choose human drivers over them. That is, we may hold robots to a much higher standard than humans.
This higher standard comes at a price. “People don’t want to be killed by robots,” Templeton said. “They want to be killed by drunks.”
It’s an interesting point—assuming the accident rate is nonzero (and it will be), how many accidents are we willing to tolerate in driverless cars, and is that number significantly lower than the number we’re willing to tolerate with human drivers?
Let’s say robot cars are shown to reduce accidents by 20%. They could potentially prevent some 240,000 accidents (using Templeton’s global number). That’s a big deal. And yet if (fully) employed, they would still cause nearly a million accidents a year. Who would trust them? And at what point does that trust kick in? How close to zero accidents does it have to get?
And it may turn out that the root of the problem lies not with the technology but us.
Most laws so far require a human to be at the wheel of a driverless car (just in case). But Google took the steering wheel, brakes, and gas pedal out of their most recent driverless model. Why? Because they found the handoff from computer to human is dangerous. In fact, the driverless car being driven by a human is the only crash to date.
Templeton noted a similar trend in aviation with autopilot—the handoff from automated system to human controller is problematic. We may find the safest strategy is to go directly from full human operation to machine operation with no intermediary—a scenario that would, no doubt, be hard for regulators to accept.
Ultimately, Templeton thinks these and other challenges aren’t insoluble, and the benefits speak for themselves. Driverless cars will be on the road in the next decade or so. Salim Ismail, commenting onstage after Templeton’s talk, agrees. “I have a three year old son,” Ismail said,” who may never get a driver’s license.”
Elites with limitless cash fund start-ups…..
The Finnish capital has announced plans to transform its existing public transport network into a comprehensive, point-to-point “mobility on demand” system by 2025 – one that, in theory, would be so good nobody would have any reason to own a car.
Helsinki aims to transcend conventional public transport by allowing people to purchase mobility in real time, straight from their smartphones. The hope is to furnish riders with an array of options so cheap, flexible and well-coordinated that it becomes competitive with private car ownership not merely on cost, but on convenience and ease of use.
Subscribers would specify an origin and a destination, and perhaps a few preferences. The app would then function as both journey planner and universal payment platform, knitting everything from driverless cars and nimble little buses to shared bikes and ferries into a single, supple mesh of mobility. Imagine the popular transit planner Citymapper fused to a cycle hire service and a taxi app such as Hailo or Uber, with only one payment required, and the whole thing run as a public utility, and you begin to understand the scale of ambition here.
That the city is serious about making good on these intentions is bolstered by the Helsinki Regional Transport Authority’s rollout last year of a strikingly innovative minibus service called Kutsuplus. Kutsuplus lets riders specify their own desired pick-up points and destinations via smartphone; these requests are aggregated, and the app calculates an optimal route that most closely satisfies all of them.
All of this seems cannily calculated to serve the mobility needs of a generation that is comprehensively networked, acutely aware of motoring’s ecological footprint, and – if opinion surveys are to be trusted – not particularly interested in the joys of private car ownership to begin with. Kutsuplus comes very close to delivering the best of both worlds: the convenient point-to-point freedom that a car affords, yet without the onerous environmental and financial costs of ownership (or even a Zipcar membership).
But the fine details of service design for such schemes as Helsinki is proposing matter disproportionately, particularly regarding price. As things stand, Kutsuplus costs more than a conventional journey by bus, but less than a taxi fare over the same distance – and Goldilocks-style, that feels just about right. Providers of public transit, though, have an inherent obligation to serve the entire citizenry, not merely the segment who can afford a smartphone and are comfortable with its use. (In fairness, in Finland this really does mean just about everyone, but the point stands.) It matters, then, whether Helsinki – and the graduate engineering student the municipality has apparently commissioned to help it design its platform – is proposing a truly collective next-generation transit system for the entire public, or just a high-spec service for the highest-margin customers.
It remains to be seen, too, whether the scheme can work effectively not merely for relatively compact central Helsinki, but in the lower-density municipalities of Espoo and Vantaa as well. Nevertheless, with the capital region’s arterials and ring roads as choked as they are, it feels imperative to explore anything that has a realistic prospect of reducing the number of cars, while providing something like the same level of service.
To be sure, Helsinki is not proposing to go entirely car-free. (Many people in Finland have a summer cottage in the countryside, and rely on a car to get to it.) But it’s clear that urban mobility badly needs to be rethought for an age of commuters every bit as networked as the vehicles and infrastructures on which they rely, but who retain expectations of personal mobility entrained by a century of private car ownership. Helsinki’s initiative suggests that at least one city understands how it might do so.
Driverless cars pushed by Governments the world over…..
LA’s Mayor Promises Driverless Cars Within the Decade
21 Nov 2014 By Denyse Selesnick
MY TURN-At a recent conference City Lab, held in Los Angeles, Mayor Garcetti talked about his vision for autonomous vehicles–having entire neighborhoods devoted to driverless machines.
At a gathering of world-wide Mayors, civic leaders and educational institutions sponsored by Atlantic Magazine, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute, speakers spoke about solving urban problems. This was the second annual Conference. The first was held last year in New York and our Mayor was so impressed with the quality and the networking that he invited the Conference to be held in Los Angeles.
At the end of September, I had noticed an article about the event the week before it occurred and then did not see much if any followup in the metropolitan news. The article listed some innovations Cities were incorporating to make them more livable and sustainable…..
Driverless cars in Singapore are coming faster than you think. They’re already being tested here
23 Oct 2014
Singapore has driverless trains. But how about driverless cars? Making that happen is much more challenging due to the chaotic nature of road traffic. But today, the country has moved one step closer to having autonomous cars on the roads.
Stroll down the Chinese and Japanese Gardens, and you’d be able to see driverless buggies cruising down the paths at a leisurely 10km/h. These vehicles, which ferry passengers around free-of-charge, is part of a trial by researchers and engineers from the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) and the National University of Singapore (NUS).
The experiment will last from October 23 to November 1 from 8am to 2pm. It will resume again after an evaluation. Visitors to the gardens can book a ride through this website.
This is the first time two driverless vehicles have been unleashed for public use. Having two robot buggies in the vicinity also makes things interesting: vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Indeed, the two buggies can talk to one another and figure out ways to move passengers more efficiently……..
Driverless cars will hit British roads NEXT YEAR and minister suggests parents could bundle kids off to school on their own…
It comes just weeks before the Government announces who will run the first pilot schemes in Britain from January 1, as ministers accelerate plans to bring the hands-free cars onto the nation’s roads to make 2015 ‘the year of the driverless car.’
Highlighting the ‘great social benefits’ of driverless cars Mrs Perry said: ‘The advantage of driver assisting technology for disabled people or those with poor eyesight are clear’.
She said she had seen a video of a man reported to have lost 95 per cent of his vision driving a Google self-driving prototype car…….
City of Edmonton talking about driverless cars on city streets
Edmonton’s transportation committee tried to peer into the future Wednesday as they weighed their road development priorities.
The committee heard up to 60 interchanges need to be built in the next 50 years, costing between $4 billion and $7 billion, to deal with projected increases in traffic. Of those, 21 (up to $2 billion worth) are considered high-priority and should be built in the next 10-15 years.
But some believe the plans are missing the effect on homeowners and not considering future technology.
Paul Godsmark, an expert in autonomous vehicles, says the ultimate impact of driverless cars could mean much of the infrastructure may not be needed as each one of these cars will take an average of six of today’s vehicles off the road…….
Australian Researchers Claim There Will Be Affordable Driverless Cars
Friday, October 31, 2014
Australian researchers claim that in 10 years, driverless cars will be within reach for everybody, as they will be within the average price range.
This will be made a reality by a new ‘eyes and ears’ technology being developed by researchers from the Curtin University, located in Perth.
The technology will be possible by a dozen different sensors integrated in an average car, coupled with an algorithm that will help process the data received.
This will create sensible information which will tell the car about the nature and location of obstacles, say researchers…….
Denso Tests Autonomous Cars on Japan Roads
Denso Corp. began testing advanced driving support technology on a public road in Aichi Prefecture, Japan, this past June. Denso is testing automated driving scenarios in a single lane and testing automatic lane changes, as well as other driving maneuvers. Denso’s goal is to develop technologies that reduce driver workload and assist in safe driving.
Previously, Denso tested this technology on its test course in Japan. Denso’s goal with public road testing is to identify, analyze, and solve real-life problems that don’t occur on the test course.
Denso is conducting the field tests as part of activities led by the Vehicle Safety Technology Project Team to reduce traffic accidents. The project team is organized by the Aichi prefectural government and involves companies and organizations operating in the prefecture……
Driverless cars, sexy robots, and flying trucks – this is the future
During the forecast session at the Innoprom international industrial trade exhibition, which took place in Yekaterinburg (870 miles east of Moscow) in early July, futurologists predicted the development of technology over the next few years.
Flying trucks, gyroscopes, and driverless cars
The cars that we have gotten used to will become obsolete in the next 10-15 years. The classic car industry as we know it will cease to exist, along with the occupation of “auto designer”, which will be replaced by “mobility designer”……
Elites To Change The Auto Industry And Eliminate Individual Ownership….
“Our team has come to the realization that a prosecution of our craft along traditional lines will fade to irrelevance, ultimately ending in extinction,” begins the existential note “Death of an Auto Analyst,” by Adam Jonas, head of global auto research at Morgan Stanley.
Driverless cars and the end of individual ownership are coming faster than anyone thinks, he says. A great disruption is coming, and the message to his industry is clear: adapt or die. “In the internet of things, the automobile is the ultimate ‘thing’. Without embracing the change, we have no future as auto analysts,” he writes.
Jonas doesn’t say exactly when he expects steering wheels to be a thing of the past, but he compares the coming change to the switch from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles. He also sees a world in which everyone rents a car instead of owning one and more tech companies jump into the auto industry.
“We can debate the curvature of the journey, but to us the destination is crystal clear,” he says.