What is Digg?87 Comments
- FrequentFlyer29, on 01/07/2008, -8/+33First GM needs to survive the next decade without going bankrupt.
- WiseWeasel, on 01/07/2008, -0/+18Finally, to be able to use the commute time to catch up on some z's... This can't come soon enough.
- NeoCortex, on 01/07/2008, -0/+10It only counts if Mr. Feeny is my co-pilot.
- Error601, on 01/07/2008, -0/+7Sure make it easier to get out drinking after work too.
- Stalks, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6Little bit to the left, little bit more, 3rd gear, accelerate, brake, brake harder, 2nd gear, brake, indicate right, brake, 1st gear, brake, wait .... hard right, accelerate, harder right, 2nd gear, return steering to central position, accelerate, 3rd gear, accelerate .... *gasps for breath*
- Ryan2845, on 01/07/2008, -1/+7Welcome to Digg, you must be new here.
- ygrof, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6Actually, I bet this could make that even more intersting. With GPS navigation technology, the car will know a whole lot more about wherever you are. Imagine a setting that lets the car choose a random (safe) location to take you to on a whim. Or you put in somewhere new you want to go - "indian restaurant," for example, and it takes you to a new restaurant you've never been to. I think there are a lot of possibilities.
- BoneStamp, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6Know what else is cute? Toyota wants to partner with GM for their Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, because Toyota is 10 years behind GM on that front. Which hole do you think is going to get filled sooner... hydrogen cars or self driving cars? Obviously, one company has their priorities straight.
- cawpin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5@bbtrev - I now count you among the ignorant. The EV1 was an experiment. They got what they wanted out of it. Any other manufacturer would have done the exact same thing at the time. And to answer your not-so-useless question, it is coming out in while, it's called the Volt.
- CoachZed, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7These are the same people who say they can't even meet 35mpg CAFE standards by 2020. Don't count on a robocar by 2018.
- cawpin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5Good job fanboy. If by "bugs" you mean "It doesn't ***** work" then yes, they are working on it. Also, you might want to look up some facts for yourself instead of respouting Toyota's lies. US car makers are, for several years now, making more reliable and better built vehicles than their Japanese competitors.
- weeeezzll, on 01/07/2008, -1/+6I'd rather be driving a KARR
- joe122370, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7and when the windows software that runs it crashes, you really get to crash
- yikiad, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4if it valet parks itself with my watch, i'm sold
- stray, on 01/07/2008, -1/+5Yes, cars that drive themselves, a great PR idea that has been around since the 1950s at least and never gets implemented.
- spyd3rweb, on 01/07/2008, -1/+5So much for driving around for fun.
- thecrazyd, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4No, I would prefer something useful.
- ChronicColonic, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Driverless cars? I see that in traffic all the time. Just look at any SUV and I bet there will be a woman driving it with no one else in the car and she is yakking away on her cell phone. You can't get more driverless than that.
- Roger, on 01/07/2008, -3/+7The zero hour, Michael. It's the end of the line. I'm the firstborn. Sick of playing second fiddle. Always third in line for everything. Tired of finishing fourth. Being the fifth wheel. There are six things I'm mad about, and I'm taking over.
- BoneStamp, on 01/07/2008, -1/+5You need to update your information, a couple years ago this comment may be valid. Not anymore, GM is not going anywhere.
- bbtrev, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4First they need to concentrate on building vehicles that don't run on petroleum! Where is the EV1? :-(
- Double0Doug, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Except you will only be taken to those Indian restaurants that have paid to be listed in what ever directory that has a relationship with the manufacturer.
I know, I know… too cynical. - romistrub, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Cars that drive themselves could lead to huge changes in how energy is managed. For example, there could be train systems that run off the grid powered by [insert your green source of choice] that cars will join to streamline traffic. Additionally, if ALL cars were like this, then the speed of traffic would be *much* higher and denser, allowing for less travel time on the roads and less idling. All we need is cars that can hook up to the grid, and we're golden.
- Double0Doug, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5I can’t wait to see how much damage a single radio DJ would be able to do just by shouting “TURN LEFT NOW” on some random workday rush hour.
- SilasTomorrow, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Wow, a little bitter? Why the loathing and disdain for GM? The quality is solid (again), the styling is great, and the fuel economy is getting better. Why are you against them so much?
- fishface, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3KITT is being voiced by Will Arnett in the new series.
- Error601, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Yep...it needs to be able to spontaneously sprout roll bars just before a jump and them have them vanish right after.
- ChronicColonic, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3GM will be okay when they come out with their transforming Camaro in 2009.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2If that car can drive on crowded sidewalks without letting the police tracing it back to me, then count me in, how much?
- Vitiare, on 01/07/2008, -2/+4Sounds interesting. If only they could figure out a way to get humans to drive better instead of a computerized car that drives itself. But hey, Im all for it!
- bbtweb, on 01/07/2008, -2/+4speak for yourself
- j3one, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2He did!
- Error601, on 01/07/2008, -3/+5Stupidest comment gets the most diggs. Sad.
- Goobernutz, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2meh. i had a KITT way back in 1984. granted, it didn't talk or jump or nothing like that. and it died in a spectacular fireball after the line to the fuel pump ruptured.
but that T-top roof was phat (1984 term meaning, the shizzle) and it was still KITT to me! - cawpin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Yes, GM is doomed. It's not like Toyota is leading the world in recalls, err sorry, "Warranty Enhancements"
- Firehunter, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2I think it is a great idea. I watched the a good deal of the DARPA competition and it was amazing to see what those cars were able to do.
On a side note, you people who think GM is going to die are humorous. Search Google for "GM posts profit" and you will see many articles stating that GM is turning around. Last year they won both North American Car and Truck of the year. Also, the Chevy Malibu has won many quality awards (including some from J.D Power). - Evildudetx, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, they can keep it. I'll drive myself than you very much.
- Ryan2845, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Or, it could drive you into a lake when the GPS maps are wrong! Michael Scott approves.
- slayerab, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2A call center filled with William Daniel clones? I'm all for that! FEENY! FEENY!
- BoneStamp, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2You're right, they still need to give everyone at OnStar the KITT voice and it'll be pretty close to KITT.
- WiseWeasel, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I would assume the driver would be the autopilot, and you would just be a passenger, so you could be as trashed as you want to be...
- swizzcheez, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1The biggest issue I see with driverless cars, just like with the self-parking cars, is responsibility and insurance. If the car malfunctions and crashes who is liable? The car manufacturer or the human occupant that could have known how to prevent it? What if one party is under "manual control"?
- BoneStamp, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I suspect a Volt mention during GM's press conference at CES.
- slayerab, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Or the woman whose too short to see out of the windshield of her H2
- dimplemonkey, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Several years ago, I believe I read about a team in California that was able to retrofit current vehicles to do this already just by being able to mount some small equipment that spotted the reflectors and lines on existing highways. Anyone know what happened to them. I'd rather do that than drop another $25K.
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1The police will probably oppose this, think of all the fines they will miss out on when the computer cars are driving everyone.
No more speeding, no more DUI and probably a drastic reduction in parking fines too since you car can check the internet for free parking spots and drive you there.
There will be quite a lot of opposition to having computers in control too despite the fact they it will be safer than humans, and the occasional situations that they carn't handle incorrectly will happen less often than some idiot crashing.
It would be more effort to take control of the car and speed than it would to just sit back and relax and let the car figure it out while watching tv or listening to dvds. And in the end the robot cars will be faster because there will be almost no human cars around and they will be networked to find the best route. - br0ken1128, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1interesting point .. would DUI be an issue anymore? I mean could you get pulled over for being drunk with a driverless system? you could get in your car and push the "home" button and be totally trashed.. at any rate, it'd make it a lot more difficult for cops to spot a drunk "driver" at that point ..
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Maybe it will be in like Futurama and the car will need to drink.
In reality I assume the police will seize on this as an opportunity to get more income and fine people even if they aren't driving. I also assume there will be a knee jerk reaction against this technology outlawing it for quite a while and then still requiring drivers hands on the wheel and sober when it does come in despite the computer systems actually being safer than humans. - Double0Doug, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2I can go with that.
- onionoino, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1you're in a johnny cab
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is