[FoRK] Air cars? Please?
<michaelslists at gmail.com> on
Thu Mar 27 00:40:04 PDT 2008
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> silky wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> >> We're actually ahead of a lot of his notions, especially on the
> >> computing / cell phone / software side.
> >> A lot of the rest is doable except for either monetization issues or
> >> more commonly the likely disruption of current monetization. Those local
> >> minima are tough to bust out of. House construction, for instance, could
> >> be simplified and greatly reduced in price except that high end builders
> >> already have high end margins and would risk cannibalizing their market
> >> before they'd get ahead.
> >> Domes aren't doable yet, but automated high speed traffic is totally
> >> within reach, except for those pesky manual drivers everywhere and poor
> >> (i.e. often difficult) roads taking up all of the public space. My car,
> >> which can be had starting at $25K, can already comfortably do 150mph,
> >> it's just not legal to go even half that anywhere in the US outside a
> >> race track. This is true even though many Interstates have zones that
> >> could handle at least 120mph without significant increase in accidents.
> > you've got to be kidding about the computer-driven traffic control
> > system? no way would i drive in a world where a internet-connected
> > computer system was controlling the scheduling.
> It depends on how such a system would work. Clearly, the Internet (or
> internet) connected part would only provide high level information, just
> slightly more detailed than we have now with Google maps in the Bay
> Area, as an example. This data would be suitable for people as well as
> All actual driving would have to be locally controlled in a sealed
> system, just like a person or, on the machine side, like an avionics
> system. If you are flown by large commercial airlines, you are already
> under computer control for pretty much the whole time, with humans on
> standby unless they want to get a little real stick time here and there
> to stay sharp.
> Barring something like turning all traffic lights green or changing
> lights / routing to send opposing traffic at each other or disabling
> railroad safety signs, things already potentially exposed, the only
> Internet-level threat would be traffic jams, not actual crashes.
> Most of the tech is a solved problem, at least for good conditions and
> most roads. If there were a big economic reason to do it, we could
> probably have some form implemented in 5 years. It's probably going to
> take 20 until we get around to it.
it's not a technical probably at all, it's a problem of security and
responsibility and system correct-ness.
if the system can't provably show that it will never enduce a crash,
never allow any unauthorised modification - yet STILL allow for
emergency adjustments, like a rock falling on the road, or a rogue car
attacking other cars, etc, etc, then i wouldn't want to use it. and
even if it could show that, how can we be sure? is our understanding
of technology and processes for writing it so well thought-out and
tested and implemented by that time that we do have languages and
operating systems that come with proof's of function?
i doubt it.
anyway, i'd argue that if computer-controlled traffic is what you
want, using that on cars is stupid/ineffective/wasteful. better to use
a series of tubes.
There's not a problem I can't fix, because I can do it in the mix.
More information about the FoRK