Google Car

[scienceman]

You sure
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2007725/Google-gets-green-light-changes-law-make-driver-cars-legal.html

[Papillon]

You need more than a map. What about the many hazards that drivers have to watch for: deer, children, potholes. Not to mention that maps are sometimes incorrect, as my TomTom proves every so often.

Anyway, the Google CEO's attendance at this years Bilderberg was a combined with his comments against privacy wake up call to me. I no longer use Google as my main search engine.

[Sikufanya]

It does mention video cameras, radar sensors and laser range finders, but I would still like a lot of testing to make sure it can cope with the unexpected before I'd want to see them in common use.

Mind you, considering how distracted the vast majority of people are when driving, this may not be such a bad thing.

Presumably other companies will carry on with their own research. I know VW have got a long way with this, too.

Which search engine do you use now btw? I used to use Firefox but switched to Chrome as it generally seemed to work much better. I really don't like Explorer or trust MS any more than you currently trust Google

[Sikufanya]

Sorry, I just realised you meant search engine rather than browser.
Forget that last comment

[Papillon]

http://ixquick.co.uk/

It's a meta search engine that includes Google results and claims not to log IP addresses.

As a browser: Firefox.

[mikessss]

What's the point of a car driving with no one in it?

[Papillon]

It means you can have a lorry with no-one in it.

Same idea as robot soldiers.

And cameras everwhere with AI software to monitor them. (robot "police")

The elite won't need as many of us to do the work. We can be herded into urban, high-rise blocks while they enjoy an uncluttered countryside.

And from there, the more troublesome, the misfits (present company included) can be sent to camps.

And then euthanased.

[mikessss]

you can tell all that from a daily mail report on a car?

[Papillon]

Sure, I have a time machine and I just got back from 2020.

Of course, it's just a conjecture that conforms with clues that are present in embryonic form:

1. It is a constant elite litany that there are too many people and that we're ruining the Earth (for them). As one small example, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh expressed the wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus. Their "studies" state an optimal population of less than 1 bn.

2. They like to have all those secret meetings, and have been doing so for a very long time. The subtext that emerges is that they consider themselves the owners and the rest of us, a problem to be managed.

3. All the big corporations co-operate fully with governments which is a necessary part of why they are so big, whether its IG Farben, IBM or Google.

4. Indeed, the elite are symbiotic with the State and constitute a de facto government. Why else is it that no matter who gets elected, they always turn out to be the same lying predators that we had before? Is Cameron any different from Blair, or Obama from Bush? To answer that, look at what they're doing at both home and abroad. Now how they get there: the outomce of the elections are pre-determined by careful filtering, financing and in a worst case, assassination, by media conglomerates, banking interests, malevolent billionaires, and the intelligence agencies.

5. So many terrorist events turn out to be false flag operations and that so neatly serves the building of a stronger police state. Ten years ago, anyone who suggested that the IRA bombings for example were British government operations would be dismissed as insane, and now the evidence does tend to suggest just that. As each year goes by previously fringe conspiracy theories about violent events such as 9/11 and 7/7 become more solid, and more and more mainstream analysts and insiders come out in support.

6. But if you add up the preceding clues the picture is that they hate the human species and want to destroy us, either by annihilation or by "a boot stamping on a human face, forever."

[Sikufanya]

Or it could just be yet another almost pointless labour saving device.

Or even a safety device.
The car isn't meant to drive with no-one in it, it just drives for you. A rather large number of people drive because they have to (public transport being shit) rather than because they enjoy driving.
Instead of haveing tired,bored hungover drivers talking to passengers, talking on their mobile phones, smoking, drinking, eating, brushing hair, doing make up at the wheel by paying attention to a nice pair of legs, a bargain in a shop window, what to have for tea etc, they could be doing all that while a computer that pays attention drives them safely to their destination door to door.

So those people that enjoy driving can do it safer, because they don'thave to worry about inattentive idiots.


Of course, the same technology could be used for all of papillion's nefarious purposes as well.