Orange is still hoping to get more networks – and device manufacturers – onboard with HD Voice, so that the technology will pick up steam and become more prevalent. Until then, only Orange customers – and not thoseroaming from T-Mobile, either – will be able to take advantage of it. Still, a strong handset might be what HD Voice needs to break through into the mainstream, and it certainly won’t hurt Samsung in differentiating their hardware from other Windows Phone 7 manufacturers.
Get Genuine Ways To Earn Money Online With Payment Proofs. You Can Learn How To Make Money Blogging Along With Traffic Improvement Tips. Also You Get Scam Alerts About Fradulent Sites So That You Don't Waste Your Time And Money.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Samsung Omnia 7 gets HD Voice on Orange UK
Orange has confirmed that the Samsung Omnia 7 will be HD Voice enabled in the UK, allowing the Windows Phone 7 handset to make higher quality audio calls on their network. ”High Definition Voice” had previously been limited to a handful of Nokia devices, along with the Samsung Omnia Pro; calls between compatible phones promise much reduced background noise, hiss and crackle.

Orange is still hoping to get more networks – and device manufacturers – onboard with HD Voice, so that the technology will pick up steam and become more prevalent. Until then, only Orange customers – and not thoseroaming from T-Mobile, either – will be able to take advantage of it. Still, a strong handset might be what HD Voice needs to break through into the mainstream, and it certainly won’t hurt Samsung in differentiating their hardware from other Windows Phone 7 manufacturers.
Orange is still hoping to get more networks – and device manufacturers – onboard with HD Voice, so that the technology will pick up steam and become more prevalent. Until then, only Orange customers – and not thoseroaming from T-Mobile, either – will be able to take advantage of it. Still, a strong handset might be what HD Voice needs to break through into the mainstream, and it certainly won’t hurt Samsung in differentiating their hardware from other Windows Phone 7 manufacturers.
Toshiba REGZA IS04 Android phone packs 12.19MP camera
Toshiba has outed its latest smartphone, and it’s the second KDDI Android handset for the Japanese market that we’ve been envious of within the space of a month. The Toshiba REGZA IS04 doesn’t have the high-resolution display of the Sharp IS03 – it gets a 4-inch 854 x 480 touchscreen instead – but what it does have is a 12.19-megapixel autofocus camera.

Keeping things moving is a 1GHz Snapdragon processor, paired with WiFi b/g and Bluetooth 2.1, and the smartphone is waterproof and has a microSDHC card slot. It uses a new EVDO system, too, promising up to 9.2Mbps downlinks and 5.5Mbps uplinks.
In fact the only thing stopping us from weeping openly is the fact that the Toshiba REGZA IS04 will arrive in January 2011 running just Android 2.1, which is already behind the times and, by then, will be well superseded. It’s part of three new KDDI Android devices announced today. No word on any potential North American/European release.
Keeping things moving is a 1GHz Snapdragon processor, paired with WiFi b/g and Bluetooth 2.1, and the smartphone is waterproof and has a microSDHC card slot. It uses a new EVDO system, too, promising up to 9.2Mbps downlinks and 5.5Mbps uplinks.
In fact the only thing stopping us from weeping openly is the fact that the Toshiba REGZA IS04 will arrive in January 2011 running just Android 2.1, which is already behind the times and, by then, will be well superseded. It’s part of three new KDDI Android devices announced today. No word on any potential North American/European release.
Pandigital Novel Personal eReader gets epaper touchscreen
Pandigital has outed another two ereaders, and this time around they’ve gone back to basics and stuck with epaper displays. Unlike the Pandigital Novel, which uses a color LCD display, the Pandigital Novel Personal uses a 6-inch 800 x 600 Sipix/AUO epaper touchscreen, though you still get WiFi and a browser app along with PDF and ePub document support.

The two models are the PRD06E10WWH7, with 1GB of memory, and the PRD06E20WWH8, with 2GB. Each has a memory card slot, headphone jack and speakers, together with a USB port and a battery good for up to 6,000 page turns. The Pandigital Novel Personal will hit retailers this month, with an MRSP of $199.99. However the company expects that to be reduced to a street price of $179.99 from the get-go
The two models are the PRD06E10WWH7, with 1GB of memory, and the PRD06E20WWH8, with 2GB. Each has a memory card slot, headphone jack and speakers, together with a USB port and a battery good for up to 6,000 page turns. The Pandigital Novel Personal will hit retailers this month, with an MRSP of $199.99. However the company expects that to be reduced to a street price of $179.99 from the get-go
‘Shock Value’ isn’t worth it in the gaming industry
EA’s Medal of Honor went on sale this week amid the kind of controversy that’s usually only reserved for Grand Theft Auto games. Although the game is a standard first-person shooter featuring a campaign and multiplayer, it caught heat not from anti-violence groups, but from the military. The game’s multiplayer mode allowed gamers to play as Taliban fighters who could kill Allied soldiers in-game.

After getting leveled with complaints from the U.K. government, veterans, and other groups, Electronic Arts finally decided to remove “Taliban” from the game, and call the group an “Opposing Force.” It was a move that, the company hoped, would quell unrest.
It was a surprising move. For months, EA had been saying that it would support the inclusion of the Taliban in the game. And it wasn’t until a couple weeks before the title’s launch that it finally made the decision to ditch it.
But it didn’t matter. EA’s decision to wait so long to change the name helped keep Medal of Honor in headlines, as opposed to being ignored as it normally would without the controversial inclusion.
But the Taliban inclusion did little more than shock some who couldn’t believe that a video game would offer such content. The idea, critics said, that users could play as virtual Taliban fighters and kill virtual Allied soldiers was wrong. And the outcry didn’t end until EA finally relented.
But whether or not Medal of Honor really should have included the Taliban in its game from the beginning is decidedly up for debate. It didn’t need to be included in the title. And the game’s developers could have easily called the fighters an “Opposing Force” from the beginning.
The outcry over the Taliban inclusion reminds me of the “Hot Coffee” scandal with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It also didn’t need to be there. It was irrelevant to the game or the quality of the title.
That’s the problem I have with these games and others that try so hard to push the envelope and be different.
We don’t need “shocking” features to make a game great. We need an outstanding storyline, solid controls, and nice graphics to make a game great. We can live without the Taliban in our multiplayer modes. And we’ll do just fine without Hot Coffee-like scenes in games.
Believe it or not, what we’re looking for is actually quite simple: a high-quality gaming experience without all the frills that huge publishing houses think will sell more games.
Take, for example, the Call of Duty franchise. It’s arguably the most important gaming franchise in the business. And yet, controversy rarely surrounds it. Yes, the anti-violence groups don’t like it, but beyond them, we don’t hear a thing. Activision simply sets out to build a solid title each year and releases it. No more, no less.
I thought we would be over the “shocking” game content by now. After all, developers hoping to shock folks did so long ago with Leisure Suit Larry and countless other titles that missed the mark. The industry has come a long way since then. And gamers expect more than an attempt to capitalize on sheer shock.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that EA or Medal of Honor’s developers were trying to shock gamers. But it shouldn’t have been a distraction in the first place.
I understand that developers should be able to express themselves. And I realize that movies are pushing boundaries, as well. But pushing boundaries should not be the focus for either medium. Inevitably, game developers or filmmakers should be worried first and foremost about delivering a top-notch entertainment experience.
If they’re not doing that because of distractions elsewhere, it’s the person consuming that content that will lose. And nobody wins in that scenario.
After getting leveled with complaints from the U.K. government, veterans, and other groups, Electronic Arts finally decided to remove “Taliban” from the game, and call the group an “Opposing Force.” It was a move that, the company hoped, would quell unrest.
It was a surprising move. For months, EA had been saying that it would support the inclusion of the Taliban in the game. And it wasn’t until a couple weeks before the title’s launch that it finally made the decision to ditch it.
But it didn’t matter. EA’s decision to wait so long to change the name helped keep Medal of Honor in headlines, as opposed to being ignored as it normally would without the controversial inclusion.
But the Taliban inclusion did little more than shock some who couldn’t believe that a video game would offer such content. The idea, critics said, that users could play as virtual Taliban fighters and kill virtual Allied soldiers was wrong. And the outcry didn’t end until EA finally relented.
But whether or not Medal of Honor really should have included the Taliban in its game from the beginning is decidedly up for debate. It didn’t need to be included in the title. And the game’s developers could have easily called the fighters an “Opposing Force” from the beginning.
The outcry over the Taliban inclusion reminds me of the “Hot Coffee” scandal with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It also didn’t need to be there. It was irrelevant to the game or the quality of the title.
That’s the problem I have with these games and others that try so hard to push the envelope and be different.
We don’t need “shocking” features to make a game great. We need an outstanding storyline, solid controls, and nice graphics to make a game great. We can live without the Taliban in our multiplayer modes. And we’ll do just fine without Hot Coffee-like scenes in games.
Believe it or not, what we’re looking for is actually quite simple: a high-quality gaming experience without all the frills that huge publishing houses think will sell more games.
Take, for example, the Call of Duty franchise. It’s arguably the most important gaming franchise in the business. And yet, controversy rarely surrounds it. Yes, the anti-violence groups don’t like it, but beyond them, we don’t hear a thing. Activision simply sets out to build a solid title each year and releases it. No more, no less.
I thought we would be over the “shocking” game content by now. After all, developers hoping to shock folks did so long ago with Leisure Suit Larry and countless other titles that missed the mark. The industry has come a long way since then. And gamers expect more than an attempt to capitalize on sheer shock.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that EA or Medal of Honor’s developers were trying to shock gamers. But it shouldn’t have been a distraction in the first place.
I understand that developers should be able to express themselves. And I realize that movies are pushing boundaries, as well. But pushing boundaries should not be the focus for either medium. Inevitably, game developers or filmmakers should be worried first and foremost about delivering a top-notch entertainment experience.
If they’re not doing that because of distractions elsewhere, it’s the person consuming that content that will lose. And nobody wins in that scenario.
Lesance GSN801GAW Gaming Laptop Packs a Punch, Not the Looks
It seems that the bigger you get in the gaming laptop market, the faster the beautiful aesthetics drop off. The new GSN801GAW gaming laptop from Lesance follows this trend, packing enough power in the features department for anyone looking for their next gaming laptop to give it a second look, but it certainly won’t be winning any beauty pageants any time soon.

Like most gaming rigs, the Lesance GSN801GAW is a powerhouse. Featuring an 18.4-inch display, with a resolution of 1920 x 1080, and Windows 7 Home Premium under the hood, you’ll get to enjoy your video games in glorious HD. Inside, you’ll be able to take advantage of the quad-core 1.73GHz Intel Core i7 940XM Extreme Edition CPU, as well as 8GB of DDR3-1333 memory. If you aren’t happy with the choice of NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 480M (2GB) for your graphics needs, then you can also choose to have two ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870s in CrossFire.
Lesance also went with 160GB of SSD, a multicard reader, HDMI and DVI output, integrated WiFi, a gigabit Ethernet port, and a webcam built-in. There’s even a Blu-ray burner, too. The battery won’t last you very long off the charger, though, as it’s clocked at 1.5 hours. It also weighs just over 12 pounds. It’s expected to land in Japan here shortly, with a price tag of 439,800 yen, or about $5,420.
Like most gaming rigs, the Lesance GSN801GAW is a powerhouse. Featuring an 18.4-inch display, with a resolution of 1920 x 1080, and Windows 7 Home Premium under the hood, you’ll get to enjoy your video games in glorious HD. Inside, you’ll be able to take advantage of the quad-core 1.73GHz Intel Core i7 940XM Extreme Edition CPU, as well as 8GB of DDR3-1333 memory. If you aren’t happy with the choice of NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 480M (2GB) for your graphics needs, then you can also choose to have two ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870s in CrossFire.
Lesance also went with 160GB of SSD, a multicard reader, HDMI and DVI output, integrated WiFi, a gigabit Ethernet port, and a webcam built-in. There’s even a Blu-ray burner, too. The battery won’t last you very long off the charger, though, as it’s clocked at 1.5 hours. It also weighs just over 12 pounds. It’s expected to land in Japan here shortly, with a price tag of 439,800 yen, or about $5,420.
Windows Phone 7 tablets unlikely as Microsoft maintain screen limits
Reasonably positive first impressions from the Windows Phone 7 launch earlier this week has left some asking why Microsoft doesn’t focus on putting its new smartphone OS on tablet-scale touchscreen devices, rather than attempting to leverage Windows 7. According to ZDNet, however, we shouldn’t be holding our breath for it; despite the WP7 experience being far more finger-friendly than its desktop OS counterpart, Microsoft is apparently sticking firm to its roughly 4-inch limitation on screen sizes.

That’s the official party line, anyway, and with Microsoft seemingly more interested in keeping its platforms tightly segmented – witness the screen size limitations on using Windows on smaller netbooks, for instance – it might be some time before that changes, if at all. Instead, the company is pushing Windows 7 Embedded for larger slates.
Nonetheless, at least some of the elements are in place for a change of direction. Microsoft has licensed ARM technology and says it plans to use the access “to enhance our research and development activities for ARM-based products,” and there are ongoing rumors of Project Menlo. Frankly, we don’t care how Microsoft does it, we just want a Windows Phone 7 tablet.
That’s the official party line, anyway, and with Microsoft seemingly more interested in keeping its platforms tightly segmented – witness the screen size limitations on using Windows on smaller netbooks, for instance – it might be some time before that changes, if at all. Instead, the company is pushing Windows 7 Embedded for larger slates.
Nonetheless, at least some of the elements are in place for a change of direction. Microsoft has licensed ARM technology and says it plans to use the access “to enhance our research and development activities for ARM-based products,” and there are ongoing rumors of Project Menlo. Frankly, we don’t care how Microsoft does it, we just want a Windows Phone 7 tablet.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Google cars drive themselves, in traffic
Mountain View (California): Anyone driving the twists of Highway 1 between San Francisco and Los Angeles recently may have glimpsed a Toyota Prius with a curious funnel-like cylinder on the roof. Harder to notice was that the person at the wheel was not actually driving.
The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver.
With someone behind the wheel to take control if something goes awry and a technician in the passenger seat to monitor the navigation system, seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. Autonomous cars are years from mass production, but technologists who have long dreamed of them believe that they can transform society as profoundly as the Internet has.
Robot drivers react faster than humans, have 360-degree perception and do not get distracted, sleepy or intoxicated, the engineers argue. They speak in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided -- more than 37,000 people died in car accidents in the United States in 2008. The engineers say the technology could double the capacity of roads by allowing cars to drive more safely while closer together. Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today's personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently infected.
The Google research program using artificial intelligence to revolutionize the automobile is proof that the company's ambitions reach beyond the search engine business. The program is also a departure from the mainstream of innovation in Silicon Valley, which has veered toward social networks and Hollywood-style digital media.
During a half-hour drive beginning on Google's campus 35 miles south of San Francisco last Wednesday, a Prius equipped with a variety of sensors and following a route programmed into the GPS navigation system nimbly accelerated in the entrance lane and merged into fast-moving traffic on Highway 101, the freeway through Silicon Valley.
It drove at the speed limit, which it knew because the limit for every road is included in its database, and left the freeway several exits later. The device atop the car produced a detailed map of the environment.
The car then drove in city traffic through Mountain View, stopping for lights and stop signs, as well as making announcements like "approaching a crosswalk" (to warn the human at the wheel) or "turn ahead" in a pleasant female voice. This same pleasant voice would, engineers said, alert the driver if a master control system detected anything amiss with the various sensors.
The car can be programmed for different driving personalities -- from cautious, in which it is more likely to yield to another car, to aggressive, where it is more likely to go first.
Christopher Urmson, a Carnegie Mellon University robotics scientist, was behind the wheel but not using it. To gain control of the car he has to do one of three things: hit a red button near his right hand, touch the brake or turn the steering wheel. He did so twice, once when a bicyclist ran a red light and again when a car in front stopped and began to back into a parking space. But the car seemed likely to have prevented an accident itself.
When he returned to automated "cruise" mode, the car gave a little "whir" meant to evoke going into warp drive on "Star Trek," and Dr Urmson was able to rest his hands by his sides or gesticulate when talking to a passenger in the back seat. He said the cars did attract attention, but people seem to think they are just the next generation of the Street View cars that Google uses to take photographs and collect data for its maps.
The project is the brainchild of Sebastian Thrun, the 43-year-old director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, a Google engineer and the co-inventor of the Street View mapping service.
In 2005, he led a team of Stanford students and faculty members in designing the Stanley robot car, winning the second Grand Challenge of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a $2 million Pentagon prize for driving autonomously over 132 miles in the desert.
Besides the team of 15 engineers working on the current project, Google hired more than a dozen people, each with a spotless driving record, to sit in the driver's seat, paying $15 an hour or more. Google is using six Priuses and an Audi TT in the project.
The Google researchers said the company did not yet have a clear plan to create a business from the experiments. Dr Thrun is known as a passionate promoter of the potential to use robotic vehicles to make highways safer and lower the nation's energy costs. It is a commitment shared by Larry Page, Google's co-founder, according to several people familiar with the project.
The self-driving car initiative is an example of Google's willingness to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years, Dr Thrun said. Even the most optimistic predictions put the deployment of the technology more than eight years away.
One way Google might be able to profit is to provide information and navigation services for makers of autonomous vehicles. Or, it might sell or give away the navigation technology itself, much as it offers its Android smart phone system to cellphone companies.
But the advent of autonomous vehicles poses thorny legal issues, the Google researchers acknowledged. Under current law, a human must be in control of a car at all times, but what does that mean if the human is not really paying attention as the car crosses through, say, a school zone, figuring that the robot is driving more safely than he would?
And in the event of an accident, who would be liable -- the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software?
"The technology is ahead of the law in many areas," said Bernard Lu, senior staff counsel for the California Department of Motor Vehicles. "If you look at the vehicle code, there are dozens of laws pertaining to the driver of a vehicle, and they all presume to have a human being operating the vehicle."
The Google researchers said they had carefully examined California's motor vehicle regulations and determined that because a human driver can override any error, the experimental cars are legal. Mr Lu agreed.
Scientists and engineers have been designing autonomous vehicles since the mid-1960s, but crucial innovation happened in 2004 when the Pentagon's research arm began its Grand Challenge.
The first contest ended in failure, but in 2005, Dr Thrun's Stanford team built the car that won a race with a rival vehicle built by a team from Carnegie Mellon University. Less than two years later, another event proved that autonomous vehicles could drive safely in urban settings.
Advances have been so encouraging that Dr Thrun sounds like an evangelist when he speaks of robot cars. There is their potential to reduce fuel consumption by eliminating heavy-footed stop-and-go drivers and, given the reduced possibility of accidents, to ultimately build more lightweight vehicles.
There is even the farther-off prospect of cars that do not need anyone behind the wheel. That would allow the cars to be summoned electronically, so that people could share them. Fewer cars would then be needed, reducing the need for parking spaces, which consume valuable land.
And, of course, the cars could save humans from themselves. "Can we text twice as much while driving, without the guilt?" Dr Thrun said in a recent talk. "Yes, we can, if only cars will drive themselves."
One even drove itself down Lombard Street in San Francisco, one of the steepest and curviest streets in the nation. The only accident, engineers said, was when one Google car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light.
The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver.
With someone behind the wheel to take control if something goes awry and a technician in the passenger seat to monitor the navigation system, seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. Autonomous cars are years from mass production, but technologists who have long dreamed of them believe that they can transform society as profoundly as the Internet has.
Robot drivers react faster than humans, have 360-degree perception and do not get distracted, sleepy or intoxicated, the engineers argue. They speak in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided -- more than 37,000 people died in car accidents in the United States in 2008. The engineers say the technology could double the capacity of roads by allowing cars to drive more safely while closer together. Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today's personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently infected.
The Google research program using artificial intelligence to revolutionize the automobile is proof that the company's ambitions reach beyond the search engine business. The program is also a departure from the mainstream of innovation in Silicon Valley, which has veered toward social networks and Hollywood-style digital media.
During a half-hour drive beginning on Google's campus 35 miles south of San Francisco last Wednesday, a Prius equipped with a variety of sensors and following a route programmed into the GPS navigation system nimbly accelerated in the entrance lane and merged into fast-moving traffic on Highway 101, the freeway through Silicon Valley.
It drove at the speed limit, which it knew because the limit for every road is included in its database, and left the freeway several exits later. The device atop the car produced a detailed map of the environment.
The car then drove in city traffic through Mountain View, stopping for lights and stop signs, as well as making announcements like "approaching a crosswalk" (to warn the human at the wheel) or "turn ahead" in a pleasant female voice. This same pleasant voice would, engineers said, alert the driver if a master control system detected anything amiss with the various sensors.
The car can be programmed for different driving personalities -- from cautious, in which it is more likely to yield to another car, to aggressive, where it is more likely to go first.
Christopher Urmson, a Carnegie Mellon University robotics scientist, was behind the wheel but not using it. To gain control of the car he has to do one of three things: hit a red button near his right hand, touch the brake or turn the steering wheel. He did so twice, once when a bicyclist ran a red light and again when a car in front stopped and began to back into a parking space. But the car seemed likely to have prevented an accident itself.
When he returned to automated "cruise" mode, the car gave a little "whir" meant to evoke going into warp drive on "Star Trek," and Dr Urmson was able to rest his hands by his sides or gesticulate when talking to a passenger in the back seat. He said the cars did attract attention, but people seem to think they are just the next generation of the Street View cars that Google uses to take photographs and collect data for its maps.
The project is the brainchild of Sebastian Thrun, the 43-year-old director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, a Google engineer and the co-inventor of the Street View mapping service.
In 2005, he led a team of Stanford students and faculty members in designing the Stanley robot car, winning the second Grand Challenge of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a $2 million Pentagon prize for driving autonomously over 132 miles in the desert.
Besides the team of 15 engineers working on the current project, Google hired more than a dozen people, each with a spotless driving record, to sit in the driver's seat, paying $15 an hour or more. Google is using six Priuses and an Audi TT in the project.
The Google researchers said the company did not yet have a clear plan to create a business from the experiments. Dr Thrun is known as a passionate promoter of the potential to use robotic vehicles to make highways safer and lower the nation's energy costs. It is a commitment shared by Larry Page, Google's co-founder, according to several people familiar with the project.
The self-driving car initiative is an example of Google's willingness to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years, Dr Thrun said. Even the most optimistic predictions put the deployment of the technology more than eight years away.
One way Google might be able to profit is to provide information and navigation services for makers of autonomous vehicles. Or, it might sell or give away the navigation technology itself, much as it offers its Android smart phone system to cellphone companies.
But the advent of autonomous vehicles poses thorny legal issues, the Google researchers acknowledged. Under current law, a human must be in control of a car at all times, but what does that mean if the human is not really paying attention as the car crosses through, say, a school zone, figuring that the robot is driving more safely than he would?
And in the event of an accident, who would be liable -- the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software?
"The technology is ahead of the law in many areas," said Bernard Lu, senior staff counsel for the California Department of Motor Vehicles. "If you look at the vehicle code, there are dozens of laws pertaining to the driver of a vehicle, and they all presume to have a human being operating the vehicle."
The Google researchers said they had carefully examined California's motor vehicle regulations and determined that because a human driver can override any error, the experimental cars are legal. Mr Lu agreed.
Scientists and engineers have been designing autonomous vehicles since the mid-1960s, but crucial innovation happened in 2004 when the Pentagon's research arm began its Grand Challenge.
The first contest ended in failure, but in 2005, Dr Thrun's Stanford team built the car that won a race with a rival vehicle built by a team from Carnegie Mellon University. Less than two years later, another event proved that autonomous vehicles could drive safely in urban settings.
Advances have been so encouraging that Dr Thrun sounds like an evangelist when he speaks of robot cars. There is their potential to reduce fuel consumption by eliminating heavy-footed stop-and-go drivers and, given the reduced possibility of accidents, to ultimately build more lightweight vehicles.
There is even the farther-off prospect of cars that do not need anyone behind the wheel. That would allow the cars to be summoned electronically, so that people could share them. Fewer cars would then be needed, reducing the need for parking spaces, which consume valuable land.
And, of course, the cars could save humans from themselves. "Can we text twice as much while driving, without the guilt?" Dr Thrun said in a recent talk. "Yes, we can, if only cars will drive themselves."
One even drove itself down Lombard Street in San Francisco, one of the steepest and curviest streets in the nation. The only accident, engineers said, was when one Google car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
