And here I was complaining about the lack of flying cars...

Submitted by Goin South on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 6:03pm

I had missed the announcement a few days ago from Elon Musk and Tesla automobiles ("auto" as in self-driven--by the car) would be able to drive from L.A. to New York without human assistance by the end of 2017. On top of that, Tesla subtly threw down the gauntlet to Uber (as in Ubermensch?) and announced, in effect, that it will partially control what Tesla purchasers can do with their cars:

Please note that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year...

You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost ...

But wait, you might say, I have to take a driving test in order to pilot a very dangerous vehicle down public roads. What will Mr. Elon Musk have to do get his cars licensed?

While Musk's "Master Plan" (at least he's up front about it) does include some qualifying language about being approved by unspecified regulators, a Wired article on Monday noted rather ominously that Musk prefers "the ask for forgiveness, rather than permission, approach."

Musk has put himself forcefully on the record as pro-autonomy, and says he’s not waiting for the hand-wringers to catch up. Car crashes kill 1.2 million people a year, more than 30,000 of them in the US. “The foundation is laid for cars to be fully autonomous, at a safety level we believe to be at least twice that of a person, maybe better.

Well, la di da. Mr. Elon Musk apparently thinks that he can sell the self-drivers across the country and run the-gods-only-know how many of these robot cars as a taxi service without getting anybody's permission. It's a Propertarian legal, even federal Constitutional revision by private billionaire's fiat.

At the bottom of the Wired article, you'll find a video of the one of the world's smoothest double-talkers as he chooses to dodge several times the question of who will license these cars as he waxes deep and philosophical and even reminds people of his law school alma mater. Don't think that Musk can't get away with pushing these self-driving cars without getting them fully tested for safety by any neutral entity, state or federal.

It sure is comforting to know that our brave new world contains a wonderful Ubermensch and Master of the Universe like Mr. Elon Musk. While these cars don't fly, at least they provide one hell of a scary weapon for a hacker with the right skill and sick, sociopathic inclinations. That's pretty impressive.

Tags:

Tesla

uber

Vote

Comments

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 6:12pm

Elon Musk is an I.D.I.O.T.

He obviously supports and trusts the Incredibly Dangerous Internet Of Things, and insists that you do so as well.

Give me today's crash hazard any day!

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Goin South on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 6:42pm

Wait until he launches his fleet of self-driving 18-wheelers.

I see absolutely no need for any special government involvement in checking out the safety of that idea. Yeah, right.

The spawn of Ayn Rand.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 7:32pm

What if they are hauling beer?

Self-Driving Truck’s First Mission: A 120-Mile Beer Run

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by Goin South on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:45pm

What a lovely thought!

And to know that they're already testing on public highways, it just gives me goosebumps.

Who do you suppose gave them a permit to do that?

I'm so old-fashioned. Who are we citizens to think that we have any right to impose restrictions on the imaginations of Titans like Musk?

Submitted by boriscleto on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:35pm

It's a Beeracle

Praise FSM and his noodly appendage.

Ramen

—

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:03pm

Cool, fun for hackers, like

Cool, fun for hackers, like the AI drones which will likely soon be deciding themselves who to kill. See, corporations don't need people, they just have to figure out how to drain money out of robots they don't pay at all and they'll be fine.

This was linked on the page your link led to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/technology/daily-report-robots-can-kil...

Daily Report: Robots Can Kill and Deliver Beer. Do We Need Humans?

Bits

By JIM KERSTETTER OCT. 26, 2016

While Uber has been deploying self-driving technology for the task of delivering beer, military strategists have been considering weightier issues: autonomous weapons.

As Matthew Rosenberg and John Markoff write, the Pentagon is studying what some people call the “Terminator” conundrum. Weapons technology is advancing and merging with artificial intelligence to a degree that weapons like drone aircraft could soon decide for themselves what they should kill.

But should weapons be allowed to make that decision? Some military researchers believe a combination of humans and A.I. technology is wiser — what they call centaur warfighting, after the half-man, half-horse of Greek mythology. When it comes to decisions about life and death, “there will always be a man in the loop,” said Robert O. Work, the deputy defense secretary, who has been a driving force for the development of autonomous weapons.

And that brings us to the beer. Otto, the self-driving-truck operation acquired by Uber this year, revealed on Tuesday that one of its trucks made a beer run in Colorado this month. The beer — Budweiser, to be specific — was delivered without incident, the company said. It is not known if people in Colorado, where there is plenty of good beer to be had, asked for something besides Budweiser.

But for the record, Uber had its own centaur strategy, with a driver at hand in case something went wrong.

So, while the NSA implants vulnerabilities in computers to make them easily hackable:

http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/internet-of-things/fbi-...

FBI Warns Public on Dangers of the Internet of Things
September 17, 2015

... In a Public Service announcement issued last week, the law enforcement agency discussed the potential security risks of using interconnected devices such as smart light bulbs, connected cars, smart fridges, wearables, and other home security systems. The PSA included network connected printers as well as fuel monitoring systems. ...

... It’s Not Just Smart Devices or Home Security Systems Anymore

Since the conception of IoT, we’ve seen several incidents that involved attacks on smart home systems and devices, and the prevalent smartification process could only mean new security challenges. With the new developments in public-facing technologies, risks and actual attacks aren't limited to IoT devices, and are becoming widespread among public utilities as well.

Car hacking, or the exploitation of vulnerabilities in new built-in automotive smart systems, has become an eye-opening reality for many security researchers and consumers. According to German security specialist Dieter Spaar, vulnerabilities in the BMW ConnectedDrive technology could allow attackers to gain control of vehicles and enable them to remotely access related function apps.

[Read: Is Your Car Broadcasting Too Much Information?]

Last July, vehicle security researchers Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller demonstrated how a Jeep Cherokee’s brakes and other critical control systems can be remotely controlled by anyone with an internet connection. According to Valasek and Miller, they can easily take control of the vehicle by sending data to its interconnected entertainment system and navigation system via a mobile phone network. In response to this, Chrysler announced the recall of 1.4 million vehicles that may be affected by the security hole.

As if hacking vehicles isn’t enough, attackers have also begun targeting healthcare devices, traffic light controls, and energy or industrial systems like gas-tank-monitoring systems. Last month, Trend Micro published a research paper that discussed the possible risks that internet-facing components could come up against. ...

I can't seem to get anything that's been published within the last year to show up on search, but I expect everyone's heard about the massive DDOS attacks conducted using Smart devices... and knows about glitches... and knows that facial recognition software can be confused by smiling...

Personally, I might need devices which are smarter than I am - but if I could afford them, I wouldn't want them.

The more complex the gadget, the more likely it is to have something to foul up which used to be easy to jury-rig/cheap to fix and now quite possibly costs about as much as replacement. And if my fridge couldn't run without instructions from a Smartphone, I'd let Prince Albert out of the can. (No idea what the latter meant, but apparently it was once a common prank call thing for kids [edit: as with the 'is your refrigerator running?' thing']. Looked it up; it was a tobacco brand which came in a can.)

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Pricknick on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 7:13pm

And people ask me

why I hate cars?
I would likely live in an area with public transportation if I needed to. But I'm a treehugger.
I have an extreme aversion to large quantities of humanoid bipeds.
Yet, if forced to live in such a quandary, I would likely trust the machine.
My bad.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 7:40pm

Sitting in a driver-less car

in the wild and woolly world that is a Minnesota winter sounds downright scary to me.

I'd rather walk.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by Goin South on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:47pm

Not sure I'm too excited about being a pedestrian in a world...

where Musk's four-wheeled Cylons are buzzing around.

Submitted by Pricknick on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:58pm

Sounds about the same.

As riding behind the driver of a snowmobile.
I'd rather walk too.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by sojourns on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 8:14pm

I say

more bicycle usage, particularly in urban areas.

—

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Submitted by Goin South on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:48pm

How agile are you at dodging robot cars that have gone the

equivalent of blue screen?

Submitted by Pricknick on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:48pm

In that case,

I'll trust my bike.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by Ellen North on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 3:47pm

I hope that bike is armoured

I hope that bike is armoured and has a roll-cage...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by sojourns on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 7:54am

Ha! What pricknick said and

I trust me. Dodging cars where I live no matter how they are piloted is fact of cycling!

—

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Submitted by neoconned on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 8:19pm

Surrender, Dorothy!

Any flying cars will be "self-"driving, which means that someone has veto power over your transportation.

The only reason I can come up with for the massive interest in self-driving cars is that the cops can take control and steer you straight to the detention center before they send the car back out to attract the next Criminal Montag.

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by Pricknick on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 8:44pm

I can see it now.

Busted for soliciting a ride from a robot that says it knows where the red light district is.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by Goin South on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:58pm

I guess you and I are two of Musk's "hand-wringers."

There's absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes to these wonderful self-drivers. But...

Yet problems with Tesla’s Autopilot system—one death in Florida, possibly another in China—haven’t generated serious fallout. “We get increasingly big crashes and nothing seems to change,” says Walker Smith. German regulators asked Tesla to drop the term “Autopilot,” saying it could over-promise capability. Tesla basically just said nein.

How great when you can just say nein to a government! I think I'll try it. I'm sure they'll treat me just like they do Mr. Elon Musk when he does it.

Submitted by lotlizard on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 5:26am

Outraged by a Donald Trump, but enthralled by an Elon Musk

Oh, Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley, you could be Galt’s Gulch, if it weren’t for those meddling kids.

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:00pm

Wed, 10/26/2016 - 8:19pm —

Wed, 10/26/2016 - 8:19pm — neoconned

Surrender, Dorothy!

Any flying cars will be "self-"driving, which means that someone has veto power over your transportation.

The only reason I can come up with for the massive interest in self-driving cars is that the cops can take control and steer you straight to the detention center before they send the car back out to attract the next Criminal Montag.

Corporations don't have to pay drivers/truckers anymore - more jobs gone. Of course, they'll also have to sort out how to get the robots replacing soon-extinct-as-redundant humans to A.) drink beer and B.) print their own money on-the-spot to pay for it, since they won't have to pay anyone at all anymore. The perfect neo-con world; nothing but agreements of avoidance of personal responsibility and mechanical beings, no life necessary.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Goin South on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 1:59am

Philosopher Alan Watts had the solution nearly 50 years ago:

At the Houseboat Summit, held at Watts's houseboat anchored in San Francisco Bay in 1967, Watts was in a panel discussion with poet Gary Snyder, poet Allen Ginsberg and Timothy Leary. They were discussing Leary's call to "Turn on, tune in and drop out." Watts noted that automation would generate some "dropping out" on its own:

WATTS: What's going to happen is this: if we do not encounter the final political catastrophe of atomic war, biological warfare and wipe the whole thing out, we're going to have a huge leisure society--where they're going to reverse taxation and PAY people for the work that the machines do for them. Because there's no other solution to it. In other words, if the manufacturer is going to be able to sell his products, the people gotta have money to pay for the products. All these people have been put out of work by the machines the manufacturer is using. Therefore, the people have to be paid by the government--CREDIT of some kind, so they can buy what the machines produce--then the thing will go on. So this means that thousands and thousands of people are going to be loafing around, with nothing at all to do. A few people who are maniacs for work will go on...

There was lots of that kind of talk at the time. Nixon proposed a guaranteed income called the Family Assistance Plan in his first term. McGovern ran for the Democratic nomination on peace and "$1,000 a month."

How things have changed--for the worse.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 12:18pm

Great comment. Watts was right, of course.

There is simply no other way, and one cannot achieve liberty without it.

Major organizations all over the world are working on designing systems for economic security for all humans. I remember reading about the principles that seem common and necessary to all basic income programs. Without these principles, the social insurance system falls apart. Here are some of them:

1. The amount must be enough per month that a person can enjoy all basic human rights. (Human rights include health care, freedom from hunger, affordable shelter, access to the internet and other common communications, etc.)

2. Every human must receive the income, regardless of their wealth. There is no means testing.

3. The basic income is unconditional. All humans receive it from birth.

4. It must eliminate all poverty. (This removes the cost of much crime and incarceration.)

5. All other social welfare programs can be eliminated, saving vast amounts of money and resources

The interesting thing is, it's an old idea that came out of the Age of Enlightment. It's been in the works for hundreds of years and most of the great thinkers in the world have helped to shape it. It could have been implemented long ago, as well. People will continue to work and be rewarded for it. Life will go on as before, except much happier and safer.

Another interesting reality is that it costs much less to implement it that it does to not do so, and the social benefits are enormous. It was the original idea behind American concept of "Liberty" and, yes, our forefathers helped to fashion the basic income system being discussed today. There can be no liberty without it.

See: A Brief History of Basic Income Ideas

(I know that houseboat.)

Submitted by Goin South on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 3:43pm

That is a very solid list.

It would be so much simpler and fairer to have one, across-the-board benefit that took care of all basic needs.

I guess Watts was thinking that the Capitalists would have the common sense and decency to institute such a policy. He was apparently wrong.

There was a lot of interesting thinking going on in that houseboat back then.