[nfb-talk] The Google Car, what do you think?

Tue Oct 19 20:02:04 UTC 2010

I agree. I have not meant to indicate that I think we shouldn't do it or 
shouldn't be working on it, I was just speaking about combining resources 
and efforts. Both endeavors are good.
Sherri
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Evans" <drevans at bellsouth.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] The Google Car, what do you think?


>
> Dear all,
>  I can tell you that the NFb was interested in this idea before the idea 
> of cars that could drive themselves was really on the front burner.
> The concept of a blind person being able to drive a car themselves is just 
> "the vehicle" that is being used, but the reality is the spin offs that 
> will come from the research that makes the vehicle work.
> It is not just a car that the blind can drive that is the goal.  It is all 
> of the stuff that makes that possible and how it can be used and adapted 
> to other uses with products that never existed before.
>
> It is Because of the things that have to be worked out and invented to 
> make the car drivable by a blind person, that will advance other 
> applications and spin offs will happen the direction and ramifications we 
> can not yet foresee.
> If the past is an indication, such as the Space Program was, this will 
> lead to an explosion in new technologies and business that is the real 
> reward.
> You have to look beyond just the surface of a car that the blind can 
> drive. It is all of that  stuff underneath and what it can and will 
> inspire that is what we are really after.
> Radar was a spin off of early radio and came about when someone notice 
> that something was reflecting the signal back to the source when an 
> airplane flew pass the transmitter.  later some noticed that a candy bar 
> melted in their pocket when they got to close to the transmitter.  This 
> observation spun off the microwave oven.  Changing the frequency range in 
> to the microwave range made the oven cook things and the use of microwaves 
> was also found to improve radio and TV transmission too.
> Now we have the cell phone, HD TV and radio.  We can even use microwaves 
> to measure distances, speed and directions..  This made G.P.S. possible. 
> In the future microwaves will be used to help power Ion drive space 
> engines that will take us to the planets and the stars.
> No one knows just what powerful spin offs will come from the technologies 
> needed to let a blind person drive a car.  This is pure research, but the 
> potential for new gains is tremendous and worth the investment.
>
> David Evans, NFBF and GD Jack.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] The Google Car, what do you think?
>
>
>> The only thing I'd question is the timing of what the NFB is doing. Like 
>> I said when I first heard about the Blind Driver Challenge, it depends on 
>> how much of its resources the NFB is expending on the BDC. With the 
>> technology moving so fast in another direction, the NFB might be 
>> encouraging people to develop a better buggy whip. For example, in the 
>> Blind Driver Challenge, it was a big deal that a blind person piloted  a 
>> car around a track. But a driverless car can do that no sweat. On the 
>> other hand, its not entirely a wasted effort in that people are going to 
>> ask "What happens if google's computer goes down and the driver is 
>> blind?" The NFB is developing an answer to that question. The only thing 
>> is, the answer today will probably be nothing like the real answer if 
>> this thing ever actually happens.  I'm not sure that really matters 
>> though. Its more of a PR issue than anything else.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Michael D. Barber" <michael.nfbi at gmail.com>
>> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] The Google Car, what do you think?
>>
>>
>>>I think every project has its rightful place, whether it be the NFB 
>>>Project
>>> or the Google project.  Let's keep a very open mind here because we're 
>>> all
>>> going to be the winners eventually.  Frankly,  I'm intrigued by  both
>>> projects because of the new evolving technology breakthroughs that will
>>> result for all.  This is not NFB versus Google or NFB versus anything 
>>> else.
>>>
>>> Michael Barber
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 3:23 AM
>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] The Google Car, what do you think?
>>>
>>> yes, this is also more like the personal rapid transit PRT vehicles that
>>> they are beginning to test and use at various air ports. This seems much
>>> more practical than the NFB project.
>>> Chuck
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:56 PM
>>> Subject: [nfb-talk] The Google Car, what do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>>I really think this is more what we are looking for. This is a car 
>>>>"anyone"
>>>
>>>>could "drive". Google has lots of resources. Why don't we jump on their
>>>>bandwagon?
>>>>
>>>> Sherri
>>>>
>>>> Google is testing cars that drive themselves  Google announced Sunday
>>>>   that it has developed cars that drive themselves automatically in
>>>> traffic, and that it has been testing them on the streets of
>>>> California for months. It might seem like an unusual project for
>>>> Google, but it  could actually have big benefits.
>>>> We're not just talking about cars running Google Android.
>>>> This is the stuff of science fiction. The only accident that has
>>>> occurred so far: One of the cars was rear-ended by a driver at a stop
>>>> light. Human error!
>>>>
>>>> The vehicles have been tested on 140,000 miles of California road,
>>>> from Silicon Valley to Santa Monica.
>>>>
>>>> Each car is manned during the tests. One person sits in the driver's
>>>> seat, ready to take control of the vehicle instantly by grabbing the
>>>> wheel or touch the brake should something go wrong with the system.
>>>> The person in the passenger's seat is an engineer who monitors the
>>>> software operations on a computer.
>>>>
>>>> Google (Google) hired engineers who previously participated in
>>>> competitions and races involving automated cars -- important turning
>>>> points in the development of the technology, which has been coming
>>>> into its own since around 2005 according to The New York Times.
>>>>
>>>> If your first concern is one of safety, Google would argue that you're
>>>> going about it all wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Safety is one of the the project's purposes. Google believes that the
>>>> technology could nearly half the number of automobile-related deaths
>>>> because computers are supposedly better  at driving than humans in the
>>>> right circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> There are other hypothetical pluses, too. The vehicles' instant
>>>> reaction time and 360-degree awareness would allow them to drive
>>>> closer together on the highway than humans can, reducing traffic
>>>> congestion. They could be more careful when operating the gas,
>>>> reducing fuel consumption.
>>>>
>>>> But the biggest benefit for Google would be the hour or so of daily
>>>> commute time the car owner would save. Instead of driving, he or she
>>>> could either be productive or entertained in the vehicle, doing work
>>>> on a wireless Internet (Internet) connection or watching television.
>>>>
>>>> Google doesn't say it explicitly, but TechCrunch was quick to note
>>>> that this time could be spent using Google products and absorbing
>>>> Google-run advertising.
>>>>
>>>> The most optimistic projections put this technology at least eight
>>>> years away from market, though. Legal hassles are among the myriad
>>>> problems; all of the current traffic laws assume that a human driver
>>>> is present in the vehicle
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org