OK, what now? I need a private server or the ability to run my own.

[MWRuger]

This came up with the CoH developers also.  Why are they wasting their time making costumes when everyone knows powersets are more important.  Why are they making more incarnate trials when we really need new zones?

Separate from the fact the developers saw different priorities, there was the more salient fact that the people who made costume parts didn't and couldn't make missions; the people who made powersets could not make zone maps.  The people who are making automated driving systems do not, and cannot, make engines.

I am talking about societal goals not individual enterprises. Should we as a society pursue automated driving or more efficient engines or something else entirely?

They are not mutually exclusive but neither are they linked.

I also think that the issues of the effects on our society should be factored into whatever the decision that they powers that be make. Obviously,  (unless you are conspiracist) there isn't a single monolithic entity that makes the decision. But the discussion about the topic needs to be more than just "can we". This specific conversation may not have any effect on anything, but somewhere there is one going on that will.

Further, development is going to be funded either privately or publicly. In either case, discussion beyond the technical merits and abilities will take place. Those discussions are going to help guide the path of development for future tech.  One of the greatest failings of technologists, despite incredible technical achievements, is completely discounting or ignoring the effect of that tech on society as whole.

If you're a technologist you can blithely say "that's someone else's job to worry about". But if you do, you have to expect that those who make the laws and run the businesses and deal with the fall out of your advance will certainly not include YOUR concerns when you dismiss theirs.

[JanessaVR]

More generally, how do you convince players to support shared servers, which cost money to run, when they have their own server and don't need the shared server to play the game?  There have to be incentives beyond classic access control (i.e. login access or gates to content) because on their own servers they have the keys to all the gates.

The answer might be that with the basics of access to the game wide open, that creates the opportunity to explore new incentives for people to support shared infrastructure beyond the desire to socialize.  Community generated content, for example.  Public notoriety for another - the desire to accomplish things in a communal forum rather than in a private area.  Maybe a critical mass of stuff can accumulate so that separate from the individual ways in which the shared servers are superior to the private ones a meta incentive would arise where people would support a shared server specifically for the things they don't even know might be coming in the future, but assume will be coming because of past history demonstrating the community system works in unpredictable ways.

Well, I contributed $1,000 to City of Titans, and if I had to pay $100 per month for "City of Heroes Classic" (private/community servers), well, I couldn't reach for my credit card fast enough.

[Arcana]

I am talking about societal goals not individual enterprises. Should we as a society pursue automated driving or more efficient engines or something else entirely?

They are not mutually exclusive but neither are they linked.

I also think that the issues of the effects on our society should be factored into whatever the decision that they powers that be make. Obviously,  (unless you are conspiracist) there isn't a single monolithic entity that makes the decision. But the discussion about the topic needs to be more than just "can we". This specific conversation may not have any effect on anything, but somewhere there is one going on that will.

The problem is that absent the mythical monolithic entity, the powers that be tend to be highly nebulous.  For example, even if it was possible to form a social consensus to prioritize energy efficient engines over automated driving systems, to whom would you convey that priority list to?  Google?  They don't make engines, so they can't enact that priority decision.

As Kirk said in Into Darkness, "I don't know what I'm supposed to do I only know what I can do."  Having a social conscience is a good thing, and it can drive you to do good things.  But only when there's a lever to push on, and there isn't always a convenient lever to push on.  If you want more effort put into researching fuel efficiency there are levers you can push on.  If you want the effort into fuel efficiency to override the effort into driver automation, there is no lever to push on to directly get that result, because no single person or even group of people you could fit into an auditorium directly makes that decision.

[Ohioknight]

If it doesn't see widespread adoption it will just be another toy for those with lots of disposable income. Personally, I would rather see development of cleaner and more efficient engines prioritized over automatic driving.

Do you see these cars as completely self-contained? Would there be communication with roadways and other traffic devices? Would these cars have to follow the same speed limits as non-automated cars? How much will our roadways have to be modified to accommodate this change?

I think this is a vastly more complex issue than just whether it is possible or even desirable.

Google cars use GPS devices and web connection coupled with expert driver software tied to optical, radar, inertial, etc. sensors.  They run in any mix of traffic and any road conditions (having the judgement to go on shoulder etc in the event of physical blockage) and require no special support.  Google's been running them on Nevada streets under special license for a couple of years now and they out-perform human drivers.  The obvious first application is delivery and taxi services -- they will rapidly make all professional drivers obsolete. 

The best application is urban settings and Zip-Car type arrangements.  Zip-Cars, if you don't know, are fleets of cars owned and maintained by a company that sells access by usage -- you use your smart phone to find an unused car in walking distance, register your use, then go and drive as much as you want, abandoning it by simply parking it when you're done (in the city).  They started in San Francisco and we have a similar company serving the OSU campus in Ohio, so they're spreading.

With self-driving cars, they would be distributed around town by control systems, you would use a smartphone to call one and the nearest would pick you up and drop you where you wanted, then rejoin the network.  Much faster, cheaper, and more efficient than cabs or rentals, especially in urban settings.

[MWRuger]

Granted. But I think the conversation drives the overall effort. While we may not all think or act as one, but a consensus view does eventually emerge.

It seems to be mostly driven by market forces, but even so, decisions are made by somebody and those decisions are informed by many nebulous factors. I think discussions like the one you and I are having are important. While it's pretty unlikely that either of us will be in a position to make that crucial call, someone who may be a lurker could be reading this thread and take away a point that they will use as basis for a choice.

I don't see it as one lever. I see it as many small nudges across diverse populations and interests. The snowball effect essentially.

I think there is room for examining almost any issue from multiple views based on observable evidence and logic. We may arrive at different conclusions, but as long as we in good faith discuss them, some good can come from them, even if it is only seeing a different point of view.

I love technology but I think that sometime we get blinded by the coolness of the gadget that we don't consider enough of the other aspects.

Here's an example of what I mean. We could debate whether the rise of the automobile was overall beneficial to society, but it's a relatively moot since it's already occurred. It's often tempting to see a result like that as inevitable, but certainly the people living in the early 20th century didn't believe so. They talked about the benefits of the automobile in eliminating unsanitary conditions in cities because widespread adoption would reduce the horse droppings in the streets and sewers. They discussed the cost effectiveness of feeding and stabling a horse versus the minimal maintenance of an automobile. No one considered what effect a vast number of these vehicles would have. Probably because they didn't foresee a rapid shift from agrarian living to city living or the consequences of switching from a capital based economy to a consumer based one.

While I freely proclaim that we may be just as blind as they were to considering factors we can't see, we should at least consider the ones we can.

[MWRuger]

Google cars use GPS devices and web connection coupled with expert driver software tied to optical, radar, inertial, etc. sensors.  They run in any mix of traffic and any road conditions (having the judgement to go on shoulder etc in the event of physical blockage) and require no special support.  Google's been running them on Nevada streets under special license for a couple of years now and they out-perform human drivers.  The obvious first application is delivery and taxi services -- they will rapidly make all professional drivers obsolete. 

The best application is urban settings and Zip-Car type arrangements.  Zip-Cars, if you don't know, are fleets of cars owned and maintained by a company that sells access by usage -- you use your smart phone to find an unused car in walking distance, register your use, then go and drive as much as you want, abandoning it by simply parking it when you're done (in the city).  They started in San Francisco and we have a similar company serving the OSU campus in Ohio, so they're spreading.

With self-driving cars, they would be distributed around town by control systems, you would use a smartphone to call one and the nearest would pick you up and drop you where you wanted, then rejoin the network.  Much faster, cheaper, and more efficient than cabs or rentals, especially in urban settings.

That's interesting. I didn't know about zip cars, they still have drivers right?

What happens when sunspots disrupt the GPS systems?

Also you should change that "especially" to "only". That kind of system will likely not work very well outside densely populated zones. There has to be enough demand to cover the capital investment and maintenance of a fleet of cars. Further, in less populated area or a suburb you essentially need to have more cars per person not less because are likely to be spread over a wider area and finding one near you will be more difficult. For people to use a service like that it needs to very convenient. More convenient that hopping in your car to go to the 7-11.

[Arcana]

What happens when sunspots disrupt the GPS systems?

The Google cars use a combination of GPS signals, an inertial navigation unit, and special odometer-like wheel sensors to determine their position on their internal digital maps.  The GPS is actually not critical to local navigation: GPS provides a low resolution position measurement while the inertial system and the wheel sensors determine fine positioning (and are calibrated over long distances by the GPS system).

Besides the positioning systems, the cars use radar to create three dimensional maps of their immediate surroundings and for collision detection, and optical vision systems to detect things like traffic signals.

[Ohioknight]

That's interesting. I didn't know about zip cars, they still have drivers right?

What happens when sunspots disrupt the GPS systems?

Also you should change that "especially" to "only". That kind of system will likely not work very well outside densely populated zones. There has to be enough demand to cover the capital investment and maintenance of a fleet of cars. Further, in less populated area or a suburb you essentially need to have more cars per person not less because are likely to be spread over a wider area and finding one near you will be more difficult. For people to use a service like that it needs to very convenient. More convenient that hopping in your car to go to the 7-11.

Yeah, Zip-Car is just a new model of subscription rental that works because of smartphones -- you always know where the nearest available cars are.  The question of "especially" or "only"  depends on the degree of adoption -- this is never going to be a model in Montana, but everywhere short of that... ? 

The point on the fleet ownership concept is that most people don't use their cars most of the time -- if you can deliver them "on demand", then the aggregate cost of maintaining the fleet is much lower than if all the subscribers were owning their own cars... even if you build lots of redundancy in to ensure car availability.  As for "hopping in your car"... well as you point out there are lots of people who can't afford cars or who are not good drivers (or like to drink and drive)

The self driving cars aren't going to eliminate human drivers (at first) but over time insurers probably will make non-automated models prohibitive.

[Takinalis]

I want an car that can drive me to Paragon City... how long before that one comes out?

[LadyVamp]

While I freely proclaim that we may be just as blind as they were to considering factors we can't see, we should at least consider the ones we can.

We do.  Everyday I run into people who are impressed with some system, ie a core switch with 100Gigabytes of bandwith per port or a vmware cluster with 13TB of ram and 576 cpu cores all backed with half a petabyte of storage.  Impressive?  Sure it is, but I'm more impressed with what those beasts can do.

[Kosmos]

Humans make life more difficult by making those choices harder to execute, for example by following another car too closely to make an emergency stop.  A computer would be programmed to simply not do that, so an emergency maneuver was always possible.

I realize you're deliberately simplifying here to illustrate a point and don't mean that "always" literally, but the comment makes me think it might be amusing to make a simulation to see just what a computer driver trying to achieve that "always" ends up doing in it's effort to maintain a safe following distance in an environment such as an LA freeway, where any gap is filled in seconds by an overly aggressive driver weaving through traffic.  A car programmed to literally "always" insist on safe following distance trying to merge onto such a freeway would just sit there for hours waiting for the traffic to thin out.  It's not quite so obvious what the "always follow at a safe distance" car would do once out in such traffic though.  I think it would look a bit like a particle caught in a turbulent eddy in a stream and it might in fact end up stationary under the right conditions (though I suspect the conditions under which that would happen would have to be contrived).

[MWRuger]

Also as long as everybody has a smart phone, which they don't.

I actually not that worried about this because I think pretty unlikely to occur. Maybe in a few places, but the bulk of population switching cars they can't afford to buy isn't a likely event, no matter how many insurance incentives their are. But even if what you suggest happens and insurers make it prohibitive people will just drive illegally. They just don't have a whole lot of options. They have to get to work, they have to feed, cloth, provide medical care and housing for their families.

With the distribution of wealth going the way it is, it will only get worse. We can talk about this as much as you like but a huge segment of the population can't afford the basics of living in the US, much less pricey, auto-driving cars. I don't think you realize just how bad it is getting out there.

Amazing technical advances living side by side with soul crushing poverty and hopelessness is no way to insure a bright future no matter what technological marvels we build.

[Arcana]

With the distribution of wealth going the way it is, it will only get worse. We can talk about this as much as you like but a huge segment of the population can't afford the basics of living in the US, much less pricey, auto-driving cars.

What makes you think they will be pricey?  It costs a lot to invent the technology.  It would cost very little to actually deploy it.  About as much as a good car stereo.

The poor in the United States can't afford a lot, but they can afford to use the largest supercluster of computers to perform distributed data slice retrieval queries running on billions of dollars of computational and communications infrastructure.  We call it "google search."  The most powerful technologies tend to become ubiquitous and inexpensive.  We don't all have jetpacks or yachts, but the majority of Americans have email.  Of course the very, very poor don't even have consistent access to the internet, but while that's unfortunate and should be addressed, that's not going to slow or stop technological progress.

In any event, thinking that poverty will prevent the adoption of technologies like self-driving cars seems inconsistent with recent history.  The one that saw the development of iPods, iTunes, smart phones, tablet computers, Netflix, email, twitter, facebook - poverty didn't prevent any of those inventions from changing the world in significant ways.  Who can afford an iPad?  Only a toy of the rich?  There are schools handing them out to students, and other schools handing out other tablets that wouldn't exist were it not for the introduction of the iPad.  Only rich people tweet?  Doesn't change the fact that twitter changed the way news propagates in the world, whether you are rich or poor.

When world society and governments collapse because of "how bad it is getting out there" the only survivors will be the people that stocked up on supplies purchased from Amazon, that novelty internet book store that won't change the world because how many people can really afford to spend any of their hard earned wages on a book.

This is not to minimize the problems of the world, but rather to dismiss completely the notion that you can predict what technologies will change the world from a social justice perspective.  It might be nice if that were true, but its never been true since the first man bashed his first victim with a rock tied to a stick.  Technological progress does not, and has never worked that way.

[Ohioknight]

Also as long as everybody has a smart phone, which they don't.

I actually not that worried about this because I think pretty unlikely to occur. Maybe in a few places, but the bulk of population switching cars they can't afford to buy isn't a likely event, no matter how many insurance incentives their are. But even if what you suggest happens and insurers make it prohibitive people will just drive illegally. They just don't have a whole lot of options. They have to get to work, they have to feed, cloth, provide medical care and housing for their families.

With the distribution of wealth going the way it is, it will only get worse. We can talk about this as much as you like but a huge segment of the population can't afford the basics of living in the US, much less pricey, auto-driving cars. I don't think you realize just how bad it is getting out there.

Amazing technical advances living side by side with soul crushing poverty and hopelessness is no way to insure a bright future no matter what technological marvels we build.

And my whole point is that this technology and it's cousins are going to amplify that effect by 100 times over the next 50 years... which is why I'm saying this generation of AI tech is the game changer that will require us to address the social issue. 

The LEAST invasive and destructive solution will be an assured minimum income powered by much more aggressive graduated federal taxes.  That allows us to keep most of our current social systems with the relatively minor tweak of accepting a more radical version of the "welfare state". 

While that goes contrary to the current political rhetoric, it's much better than the French Revolution and its aftermath or other alternative approaches.

[MWRuger]

Arcana,

None of those things you mentioned are necessities to life and there are vast numbers of people who don't have them. Sure,  in the circles that played City of Heroes, they are pretty common I suspect. They are luxuries. In addition, the scale of the expense is vastly different. A $500 iPad vs $18000 car.  "Google Search" is offered at no charge to the user with revenue being derived from sources that secondary or not visible to the consumer.

I also think you underestimate the rapacity of the companies who would be selling this technology. The system is set up to make as much as possible, regardless of cost incurred.  I can give you as many examples as would like of this. Why do you think this technology will be different?

Perhaps you are suggesting that these will cost the same as a new car does now? If so, then I couldn't afford one at that price and neither can most of the working poor. That is the class that is growing in numbers, not shrinking.

But maybe you're right. Maybe the privileged, wealthiest classes will suddenly realize that inequity is endangering they very system that supports and protects them and remedy it willingly. It's never happened before, but there is always a first time, right?

Ohioknight, I'm onboard with you as far as making adjustments to minimum income. But I think we will have to reach a crisis point for that to occur just as we did in 1932. My hope is also to avoid anything even close to the any of the three French revolutions. But that will depend on a lot factors that are not evident at this time. It will also take a leader of FDR caliber to make it happen I think.

(I need COH so bad right now to wash the latest stupid SCOTUS decision out of my head)

Edited: because it's a bad idea to post before coffee. More dropped words than normal!

[Felderburg]

More generally, how do you convince players to support shared servers, which cost money to run, when they have their own server and don't need the shared server to play the game?  There have to be incentives beyond classic access control (i.e. login access or gates to content) because on their own servers they have the keys to all the gates.

I guess for an MMO, that's a concern... maybe? But there's plenty of single-player (and non-MMO multi-player) games out there that have large communities, lots of social interaction, and even user-generated content - without shared servers. I guess I need to see the point of a shared server - do you (the game-maker) want social interaction? Money? Communal events?

The obvious first application is delivery and taxi services -- they will rapidly make all professional drivers obsolete. 

ALL delivery drivers will be obsolete? I don't know...

Guy at party: "I've just ordered the pizza!"

10 minutes later: Guy's cell phone dies / is misplaced / party happens.

20 minutes later: Robo car pulls up, no one hears it because, hey, party. Robo car texts and calls Guy's cell phone. Guy does not get communication due to phone being out of commission.

30 minutes later: Robo car's 10 minute delivery time window is up, it drives away.

OR

2 hours later: someone finally notices the robo car - meanwhile, Pizza company is telling customers who called in the last hour "Sorry, our robo car isn't back yet, your delivery will have to wait."

VS.

Guy at party: "I've just ordered the pizza!"

10 minutes later: Guy's cell phone dies / is misplaced / party happens.

20 minutes later: Ding dong!

Everyone at party: "Woo, pizza!"

22 minutes later: Delivery guy: "Man, what a lousy tip. You'd think I was just a robot!"

Not to mention the inconvenience of having to schedule FedEx deliveries, no matter what - no option to leave with an apartment complex's office, or under the door mat, or in a drop box or whatever.

[Ohioknight]

ALL delivery drivers will be obsolete? I don't know...

Not to mention the inconvenience of having to schedule FedEx deliveries, no matter what - no option to leave with an apartment complex's office, or under the door mat, or in a drop box or whatever.

Why do you think automated driving removes all other functions?  The Fedex guy and the pizza guy just don't need drivers licenses.  And if you use tele-operated delivery drone/robots to go from truck to door (segway style technology), you can run your deliveries with one employee doing the work that 25 do today since they only need to pilot at the delivery point, not between.

But the major area is truckers and cab driver like functions.

[Arcana]

Perhaps you are suggesting that these will cost the same as a new car does now? If so, then I couldn't afford one at that price and neither can most of the working poor. That is the class that is growing in numbers, not shrinking.

I'm suggesting that automated driving technology will primarily affect and its adoption be decided by car drivers.  And most car drivers can afford to own cars.  Over sufficient periods of time, virtually all those cars will eventually be replaced.  Long before all of them are, enough of them will be to decide if the technology becomes ubiquitous.

[Illusionss]

You are expressing yourself on an automated system connected to an automated system managed by a set of automated systems.  Without those imperfect automated systems, you would be expressing yourself to a crowd of eight people from a literal soap box.

The problem here is, us expressing ourselves on the Internet is not a thing that can get people killed!

Imperfect automated systems are not a big deal, until they can get people killed, or conversely, affect humans negatively by taking their way to make a living. Both of these things are coming, or already here. Or about to get worse. The consensus on that seems pretty much a done deal.

MEANWHILE I STILL NEED A PRIVATE SERVER, CONSARN IT 

[Illusionss]

I want an car that can drive me to Paragon City... how long before that one comes out?

You don't drive there, silly. You fly there. Or SJ there. Everyone knows this!!