The beginning of the end for the Mustang?

[Bikeman315]

55 years of experience on IBM mainframe MVS and zOS operating systems, 20 years of game development in C, C++ and scripting, dating to Quake 2 and one of the first to write software that does heart scans using a Fresnel zone plate (forerunner to modern medical scanning technology). Controlling a car is fairly simple as it only has a very limited number of interfaces... unless they use Windows or some derivative as the operating system. The nature of programming has changed, too. It's a lot dumber now, or I should say more encapsulated. That won't help.

OK, now you’re just showing off. So if controlling a car is so simple why can’t Ford get our auto entry/exit system to work more than 50% of the time? Kidding, there is no answer for that question.

Sponsored

 

[Bullitt0819]

I truly believe we would be better off if many people got self driving cars because they can't drive worth a shit. Or maybe you have to do more than pass an easy test and have a pulse to get a driver's license in the US. In Germany you have to pass requirements such as:

• a mandatory eight-hour first aid course
• a minimum of 37 hours of instruction
• passing two exams (theoretical and practical) (Harder than the tests in the US)
• a cost of over $2,000

Why can't the US implement something like this... A drivers license in the US feels more like a right than a privilege. In my eyes driving is a privilege.

We do have something like this; it's called a "Pilot's License." Except, multiply numbers by (at least) 3 (x10 for the cost).

 

[Ebm]

55 years of experience on IBM mainframe MVS and zOS operating systems, 20 years of game development in C, C++ and scripting, dating to Quake 2 and one of the first to write software that does heart scans using a Fresnel zone plate (forerunner to modern medical scanning technology). Controlling a car is fairly simple as it only has a very limited number of interfaces... unless they use Windows or some derivative as the operating system. The nature of programming has changed, too. It's a lot dumber now, or I should say more encapsulated. That won't help.

Man, I feel like I just got sandbagged lol.

Nothing is as easy as they make it seem...

 

[IronG]

I would take that bet.

I would love to see the code you wrote that is more complex then the Windows hive.....nothing short of the fictional Matrix is more complex.

As for the code needed for self driving cars.....it is not just the code and the code needing to be perfect 100% of the time, it is the logistics of all the cars working together as one. It is also about the communications needed to make all the cars work as one. It is also about every car on the road be self driving, I could go on and on about the complexities of making self driving work everywhere all the time in every condition, but those are a few of the obvious ones. Now will it eventually happen, probably, but with the tech hurdles, political hurdles, general population hurdles financial hurdles etc etc in the way, it will take a very long time. If you think there will not be small to large disasters along the way that will further slow it down or stop it (most likely temporary), you are just kidding yourself. As I have said before, yes it will probably come, but only our kids or grand kids will see it replace what is here today....I am thinking grand kids .....2070 or further in the future. Heck, EV's won't even replace ICE fully for another 25-30 years. I think sports cars will have near the same niche they have today for quite some time.

 

[Balr14]

I would love to see the code you wrote that is more complex then the Windows hive.....nothing short of the fictional Matrix is more complex.

As for the code needed for self driving cars.....it is not just the code and the code needing to be perfect 100% of the time, it is the logistics of all the cars working together as one. It is also about the communications needed to make all the cars work as one. It is also about every car on the road be self driving, I could go on and on about the complexities of making self driving work everywhere all the time in every condition, but those are a few of the obvious ones. Now will it eventually happen, probably, but with the tech hurdles, political hurdles, general population hurdles financial hurdles etc etc in the way, it will take a very long time. If you think there will not be small to large disasters along the way that will further slow it down or stop it (most likely temporary), you are just kidding yourself. As I have said before, yes it will probably come, but only our kids or grand kids will see it replace what is here today....I am thinking grand kids .....2070 or further in the future. Heck, EV's won't even replace ICE fully for another 25-30 years. I think sports cars will have near the same niche they have today for quite some time.

I agree, 100%. The bet was about the complexity of the operating system needed for a self driving car; nothing to do with Windows. Windows defies logic. The original concept was flawed and always will be.You would be insane to use Windows for anything that requires reliability.

 

[Bikeman315]

I agree, 100%. The bet was about the complexity of the operating system needed for a self driving car; nothing to do with Windows. Windows defies logic. The original concept was flawed and always will be.You would be insane to use Windows for anything that requires reliability.

LOL, Ah, for the good old days...........

 

[Balr14]

Dude Quake II was awesome

Damn, you must be old, too! I did not write the engine. I modified it to add enhancements and create user mods. It was actually used for quite a few games. When Medal of Honor first came out, I taught a lot of people how to use that version of the engine and all of the tools.The kids in their teens and 20s could not believe some guy in his 60s was showing them how to mod MOHAA.

 

[Fetlock]

I would love to see the code you wrote that is more complex then the Windows hive.....nothing short of the fictional Matrix is more complex.

As for the code needed for self driving cars.....it is not just the code and the code needing to be perfect 100% of the time[...]

I'm not sure it needs to be 100% all the time, that's the wrong metric. It really only needs to be better than the average human to actually make roads safer. Somehow people would rather take twice the risk of getting killed by some yutz adjusting his radio or texting his girlfriend than being killed by a computer that has a very rare flaw. The computer just needs to kill less folks than the average yutz, if so, there will be less deaths.

 

[Balr14]

Computers sneak up on you. Before you know it, you are dependent on them. It will be the same with driver-less cars. Your Mustang already is loaded with computer assists.

 

[IronG]

I'm not sure it needs to be 100% all the time, that's the wrong metric. It really only needs to be better than the average human to actually make roads safer. Somehow people would rather take twice the risk of getting killed by some yutz adjusting his radio or texting his girlfriend than being killed by a computer that has a very rare flaw. The computer just needs to kill less folks than the average yutz, if so, there will be less deaths.

Sorry to disagree, but you are saying that letting a computer flaw kill you because you had zero chance to change the outcome is better than a human flaw almost killing you but you were able to do something that prevented it from happening is what you want? Excuse me if I want to have some say whether I live or die. Also, there is virtually no data that can prove self driving cars will be safer and kill less people. On paper and in theory it looks that way and may well turn out that way, but there is very little proof on if or when it may be true. So the metric I am looking for is actual data to back up the claim you are making that it only needs to be juuuuust better than a human. Can't wait to see how that is proven.

 

[Deleted member 35644]

I think self-driving cars will probably be safer....when the day arrives where only self-driving cars occupy the roads. As long as there's a mix of human & computers doing the driving, no one is safe. I've watched enough videos of self-driving cars attempting to negotiate every-day scenarios to know that there will always be a human driver in the car behind it, getting impatient. You know how that ends.

 

[Fetlock]

Sorry to disagree, but you are saying that letting a computer flaw kill you because you had zero chance to change the outcome is better than a human flaw almost killing you but you were able to do something that prevented it from happening is what you want? Excuse me if I want to have some say whether I live or die. Also, there is virtually no data that can prove self driving cars will be safer and kill less people. On paper and in theory it looks that way and may well turn out that way, but there is very little proof on if or when it may be true. So the metric I am looking for is actual data to back up the claim you are making that it only needs to be juuuuust better than a human. Can't wait to see how that is proven.

All I'm saying is that if you have computer driven cars driven a certain number of miles in certain conditions and you have N deaths vs. cars driven by people for the same distance in the same conditions and you end up with more than N deaths, that is the metric where they should be allowed. I think right now deaths for people are around one per hundred million miles; as you say, clearly we don't know enough about self driving cars yet. But nothing is ever going to be 100% safe, they just need to be safer than people in my view.

 

[gixxersixxerman]

A good friend has a Q7, it will automatically adjust the speed limit when it reads a sign in cruise control. Here in Vegas the 15 is 65, at one time the side road next to the highway was 45, they have since moved it up to 65. But anyway if the sensor saw that 45mph sign on the feeder it would abruptly slow the car to 45 while on the highway. One day maybe.. but not yet. I was impressed with a tesla in auto pilot and navigating through the Vegas traffic. But im not ready to give up my Mustang for a EV yet. my pops should or at least a nice hybrid. 160 miles for a commute round trip a day a hybrid or ev would be perfect for him since he is already using solar at his house and for 8 months out of the year doesnt have an electric bill and gets credit.

 

[3star2nr]

The air is getting dirtier, the planet warmer as the human population approaches 8 billion. EV's will be common place in ten years on the roads, its a change us Mustang owners are having a hard time coming to grips with. But it is inevitable. Enjoy it while we can folks..

I'm not disagreeing death is also an inevitability doesnt make me happy thinking about it...

The upsetting part is cars don't contribute not even half as much as large corporations do, but it's easy to target cars because ordinary people have no power...

I just wish ford didn't come after the mustang like that, names mean something, they could have marketted it as a focus, because really and truly it's a lot closer to that than a mustang.

This just feels like a weasel way to discontinue the mustang...

 

[3star2nr]

The mach e is targeted at Millennials who are Climate Huggers but want a suv but don't want to feel guilty buying a ICE powered suv. As long as Ford doesn't F up the launch and the Mach e has good quality I think it could be very successful and start to erode Tesla sales. I would predict that if this launch is screwed up Hackett will be gone.

Millenials cant afford new cars so I'm confused. I feel like its targetted at soccer moms or housewives from long Beach...

Sponsored