Shno's House of Z

[imaSSnake]

I hit higher G's with my 245/275 (Pirelli/bfg) summer combo than I have with my 285 / 305 winter sottozero setup. But not by much

[2cnd chance]

“Autonomous Police Cars May Be Ticketing You In The Future

Just what drivers need…autonomous police cars that can issue tickets. Ford may be making robot cop cars the next big thing. If they can make it happen, Ford's new autonomous cop cars will issue tickets through wireless communication and the officers won't even have to get out of the car. Once the autonomous police car can identify the vehicle in the wrong, it could pull it over, scan the plates for a license and determine whether to issue a warning or a ticket. Ford filed a patent earlier this year and said this technology would free up officers for more important jobs than writing tickets. How do you feel about it?”

Thanks a lot Ford.

Houze what say you??

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

“Autonomous Police Cars May Be Ticketing You In The Future

Just what drivers need…autonomous police cars that can issue tickets. Ford may be making robot cop cars the next big thing. If they can make it happen, Ford's new autonomous cop cars will issue tickets through wireless communication and the officers won't even have to get out of the car. Once the autonomous police car can identify the vehicle in the wrong, it could pull it over, scan the plates for a license and determine whether to issue a warning or a ticket. Ford filed a patent earlier this year and said this technology would free up officers for more important jobs than writing tickets. How do you feel about it?”

Thanks a lot Ford.

Houze what say you??

Couldn't OnStar and similar services do that now with minimal modification?

[FenwickHockey65]

Yeah we have this thing called discretion and in most situations get to choose whether or not to cut you a citation based on the totality of circumstances.

Until an autonomous police car can gather all the information and have actual thoughts/feelings, it won't fly. People already get upset with the citations we write now, wait for the uproar when the number of citations skyrockets with this.

[JusticePete]

I won't say where, as I don't want to cause trouble for anyone, especially a police officer that gave me a break, but his discretion kept me out of jail.

[Supercup]

Easily could be done through tracking car GPS information, but that would violate our right to privacy and being presumed innocent and all! Lot of variables, but certainly can work for speeding without to much fuss - takes video of car being followed, logs speed - issues ticket - Video reviewed back at the office somewhere - tossed or ticket mailed to the driver - don't even need to pull you over. Just issues the car owner the ticket - let them figure out who the driver is - eventually if the owner they will slow down and if someone using their car, they will stop let them use it. This is a great way to generate revenue without much overhead - that will not be lost on them.

[FenwickHockey65]

Except that isn't how citations work.

[2cnd chance]

IMO it’s a total revenue grab. If it happens there will be a lot of Boss Hogs made in little towns across the US.

[Mr. Wyndham]

That's not right...I don't at all like automating law enforcement. There are too many variables. What will end up happening, in the long-run (robot future) is longer lines at the courthouse, and an increase in thrown-out tickets & wastes of time.

Plus, you'd lose the opportunity for an office to exercise some corrective policing...like "Ma'am, you realize that by switching lanes quickly without an indicator there, you could have run another driver off the road and into a ditch?" Sometimes people need to HEAR these things.

I dunno....I think we're all getting a little too gung-ho with robotics and automation. Has no one seen Wall-e?

[2cnd chance]

Or the Terminator.

[Number 3]

So many ways to do this today. OnStar and connected services for one. How about in states with toll roads? Simply time the car between collection points. Simply put a camera and radar on the side of the road. Not a lot different than getting an email with a "running a red light" ticket. It's a link to the video of your car running the light or simply not coming to a complete stop. That has happened to many people I know in the Chicago area. One of my communities leaders ran for state office on the premise that he eliminated the Red Light Cameras in our town. At least one of his accomplishments.

Besides, I think Ford only applied for the patent on the idea. Making it practical is a bit off.

But don't overlook the fact that we will have drone war machines and robot warriors in the future. A distant future, but you know it's being worked on.

"what the F*%^%$k, Kevin"

"I hope a robot doesn't burn your F$^))ing house down"

[JusticePete]

Sooner than we think #3. Sooner than we think.

[DGthe3]

I don't like getting a speeding ticket any more than the next guy. Thats why after my second one, I decided to never try pushing the limit. Haven't been pulled over (let alone received a ticket) in nearly 10 years. Probably saved a bit on gas money in the process too.

Originally Posted by Supercup

Easily could be done through tracking car GPS information, but that would violate our right to privacy and being presumed innocent and all! Lot of variables, but certainly can work for speeding without to much fuss - takes video of car being followed, logs speed - issues ticket - Video reviewed back at the office somewhere - tossed or ticket mailed to the driver - don't even need to pull you over. Just issues the car owner the ticket - let them figure out who the driver is - eventually if the owner they will slow down and if someone using their car, they will stop let them use it. This is a great way to generate revenue without much overhead - that will not be lost on them.

I don't know where the law sits on this, but I've always felt that if something is happening on PUBLIC property, you don't have much of a right to PRIVACY anymore.

Originally Posted by Number 3

But don't overlook the fact that we will have drone war machines and robot warriors in the future. A distant future, but you know it's being worked on.

You don't count the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles like the Predator or Reaper as 'drone war machines'? They fly over battlefields, blow things up, and there isn't a squishy meat bag inside piloting it.

Or were you thinking of something that can authorize itself to kill (ie, not having on someone in a 20' shipping container with a satellite feed pushing the button)? Like a gun with a sophisticated sensor system, capable of tracking & discerning objects (not too unlike what is being used in some cars today), and programmed rules of engagement? Because those have existed for decades. One of the first was the Navy's Phalanx CIWS missile defence system. They have their own radar & shoot any missiles (or aircraft) that get too close to naval vessels. And South Korea allegedly has a system that can work the same way against ground targets (vehicles, soldiers) along the DMZ with North Korea (though they say that a human still provides authorization before it fires).

The hurdle isn't the technology, its ethics. I doubt that will be much of a hassle though. The debate over 'is it unethical to let a robot decide kill a person' kinda glosses over the assumption that it is ethical for a person to decide to kill a person.

Its been accepted that its fine to condition people to kill other people, so long as they're soldiers. Mainly, this is achieved by dehumanizing the enemy. Some of this is done through propaganda ('save your loved ones from those savage beasts'), some through training (by calling that humanoid figure out on the firing range a 'target' instead of a potential father of 2). But the point is, as a society, we're fine with making the enemy seem less human because then there is no empathizing with them & thus they're easier to kill. And yet constructing robots utterly incapable of feeling empathy, the logical conclusion to that process, thats somehow crossing a line? I doubt it.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I don't like getting a speeding ticket any more than the next guy. Thats why after my second one, I decided to never try pushing the limit. Haven't been pulled over (let alone received a ticket) in nearly 10 years. Probably saved a bit on gas money in the process too.



I don't know where the law sits on this, but I've always felt that if something is happening on PUBLIC property, you don't have much of a right to PRIVACY anymore.


You don't count the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles like the Predator or Reaper as 'drone war machines'? They fly over battlefields, blow things up, and there isn't a squishy meat bag inside piloting it.

Or were you thinking of something that can authorize itself to kill (ie, not having on someone in a 20' shipping container with a satellite feed pushing the button)? Like a gun with a sophisticated sensor system, capable of tracking & discerning objects (not too unlike what is being used in some cars today), and programmed rules of engagement? Because those have existed for decades. One of the first was the Navy's Phalanx CIWS missile defence system. They have their own radar & shoot any missiles (or aircraft) that get too close to naval vessels. And South Korea allegedly has a system that can work the same way against ground targets (vehicles, soldiers) along the DMZ with North Korea (though they say that a human still provides authorization before it fires).

The hurdle isn't the technology, its ethics. I doubt that will be much of a hassle though. The debate over 'is it unethical to let a robot decide kill a person' kinda glosses over the assumption that it is ethical for a person to decide to kill a person.

Its been accepted that its fine to condition people to kill other people, so long as they're soldiers. Mainly, this is achieved by dehumanizing the enemy. Some of this is done through propaganda ('save your loved ones from those savage beasts'), some through training (by calling that humanoid figure out on the firing range a 'target' instead of a potential father of 2). But the point is, as a society, we're fine with making the enemy seem less human because then there is no empathizing with them & thus they're easier to kill. And yet constructing robots utterly incapable of feeling empathy, the logical conclusion to that process, thats somehow crossing a line? I doubt it.

I do count them. They have missile capability. But elimination of pilots in a fighter jet, or tank crew was what I meant.

But going from human controlled drones to AI? In a recent article more people are now afraid of AI than aliens. Aliens? What? I didn't know we we supposed to be afraid of aliens.