ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Pisci fantastike definitivno moraju sve vise da se trude ne bi li izbegli da ih sustigne tehnologija


A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater airplane that moonlights as a car.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html

Quote from: "Melkor"Pisci fantastike definitivno moraju sve vise da se trude ne bi li izbegli da ih sustigne tehnologija

Definitivno da, međutim, ono što KTM sprema se odavno smatra prežvakanim konceptom.
Iz mog iskustva sa tom firmom (model koji trenutno vozim spada u red onih projekata
"za nepoverovati" do pre samo godinu dana) imam razloga da verujem da možda nešto i bude od ovog
Acender is a gas-turbine powered flying vehicle

A evo i PAL-V-a

PAL-V the Flying Trike maiden flight

Nije baš leteći automobil, ali guglov auto-koji-se-sam-vozi (dakle, bukvalno automobil) daje sve boljije rezultate:

Google's Self-Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single Accident Under Computer Control 

Quote
The automated cars are slowly building a driving record that's better than that of your average American.

Ever since Google began designing its self-driving cars, they've wanted to build cars that go beyond the capabilities of human-piloted vehicles, cars that are much, much safer. When Sebastian Thrun announced the project in 2010, he wrote, "According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half."
New data indicate that Google's on the right path. Earlier this week the company announced that the self-driving cars have now logged some 300,000 miles and "there hasn't been a single accident under computer control." (The New York Times did note in a 2010 article that a self-driving car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light, so Google must not be counting the incidents that were the fault of flawed humans.)
For comparison, in the United States in 2009 there were 10.8 million traffic collisions, according to the Census Bureau. That same year, American cars logged some 2.954 trillion miles, for a collision rate of about .366 per 100,000 vehicle miles traveled. Now, you can't directly compare the two figures. Google's cars have been tested in pretty hospitable conditions, not facing, for example, the rigors of a New England winter. And, as Google engineer Chris Urmson, writes, they still "need to master snow-covered roadways, interpret temporary construction signals and handle other tricky situations that many drivers encounter." Additionally, the cars are still driving with "occasional" human control. But at the very least, the Google cars are slowly building a pretty good-looking driving record.
This technology is still at its very early stages and 300,000 miles is not all that big of a sample. According to a "cursory" analysis by Bryant Walker Smith of Stanford Law School, "Google's cars would need to drive themselves (by themselves) more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles." We're still a long way away from there.
Legally -- and ethically -- we will need to grapple with the questions about safety standards for autonomous machines. As Smith said to me over email, "How well must these vehicles ultimately perform? Perfectly? Or something less -- an average human driver, a perfect human driver, or a computer with human oversight? And how should this be measured?" And, perhaps toughest of all, how will we make those decisions, and, really, who will make them?

E, sad, da vidimo koliko dugo će proći pre nego što Lord Kufer ovo iskoristi kao dokaz za tezu o tome da korporacije oduzimaju ljudima sve zamislive vrste sloboda   

Nije baš leteći automobil  , ali je automobil koji ide na vazduh!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

This Tiny Car Runs On Air! 

Quote
  Electric cars have been the main source of hope in the alternative car market and have become largely accepted worldwide by many major motor companies, but Tata Motors (an Indian car manufacturer) is changing things up with the first car to run on air, the Airpod.

The Airpod's technology was originally created in France at Motor Development International but has since been bought buy Tata in hopes to bring it to the Indian consumer car market. With virtually zero emissions and at the cost of about a penny per kilometer, it is definitely one of the most environmentally and economically friendly vehicles in the world. The tank holds about 175 liters of compressed air that can be filled at special stations or by activating the on-board electric motor to suck air in from the outside. Costing about $10,000, this car could beat out most smart cars from the market.
The design is still being worked on, as well as inputting more traditional steering tools as it currently uses a joystick to control the rear differential, but this car certainly has a lot of potential for getting around the city. It may start in India but could spread like wildfire from there so keep an eye out for Airpod in your city in the coming years.

$10,000 Car - AirPod - That Runs On Air

A koje gorivo troši uređaj koji komprimuje vazduh? Peni po kilometru je i dalje više od litar goriva na 100 km, što za ovakve kutije nije nikakav problem. A Indusi će lako u njega potrpati celu familiju.

Ma, da se razumemo, deset hiljada dolara za ovakva kola u startu zvuči preskupo a peni po kilometru je, što ti kažeš skuplje od benzina. S druge strane, manje valjda zagađuje, pa ima neku prednos.

Jel ovo za vožnju po kući?

Kalifornija je legalizovala samovozeće automobile:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/techchron/2012/09/25/california-affirms-legality-of-driverless-cars/

Quote
California has become the third state to explicitly legalize driverless vehicles, setting the stage for computers to take the wheel along the state's highways and roads — at least eventually.
On Tuesday, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1298, which affirms that so call autonomous vehicles are legal in California, while requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish and enforce safety regulations for manufacturers. The governor put pen to paper at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, where the technology giant has been developing and testing driverless Toyota Prii for years.
"Today we're looking at science fiction becoming tomorrow's reality," Gov. Brown said. "This self-driving car is another step forward in this long, march of California pioneering the future and leading not just the country, but the whole world."
The law immediately allows for testing of the vehicles on public roadways, so long as properly licensed drivers are seated at the wheel and able to take over. It also lays out a roadmap for manufacturers to seek permits from the DMV to build and sell driverless cars to consumers. It requires the department to adopt regulations covering driverless vehicles "as soon as practicable," but at least by Jan. 2015.
In other words, don't expect the highways to be overrun with robot drivers just yet. Which is good, since most companies and researchers say there's much work still to be done.
But Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), who introduced the bill, and Google, which lobbied for it, say autonomous vehicles could vastly improve public safety in the near future. Google co-founder Sergey Brin added that driverless cars will provide the handicapped greater mobility, give commuters back the productive hours they now waste sitting in traffic and reduce congestion on roads (and by extension, pollution).
"It really has the power to change people's lives," he said.
The case for improved safety certainly makes intuitive sense, assuming the technology is adequately developed. A 2006 Department of Transportation study found driver error occurred in almost 80 percent of car accidents. Computers, on the other hand, never get tired or distracted. Presumably they also won't speed, run red lights, forget to signal or tailgate.
But it's worth noting that there's no wide-scale testing of the premise to date. And as every computer user knows well, machines are fallible and occasionally unpredictable. The artificial intelligence software operating these vehicles is making predictions about appropriate responses based on programmed rules and huge volumes of data, including maps and previous miles logged.
But there are always unknown unknowns, unique conditions the software might not have encountered before and might not react to in the way we'd hope.
Ryan Calo, an assistant professor of law focused on robotics at the University of Washington, noted in an earlier interview that a vehicle might know to avoid baby strollers and shopping carts; but might make the wrong choice if suddenly presented with a choice between the two.
Calo thinks autonomous vehicles can improve safety, but notes that public perception of the technology could turn on events like these, even if the machines prove statistically safer than humans. In other words, we'll be tough and unfair critics. That makes it all the more critical that the technology works well before it's widely deployed.
This leaves the DMV to tackle all sorts of weighty questions concerning safety and liability, including: How safe is safe enough? How should these vehicles be evaluated against that goal? And how do you create regulations for technology that's still under development?
"The hard work is left to be done by the DMV," said Bryant Walker Smith, a fellow at Stanford's Center for Automotive Research.
He has pointed to a statistical basis for safety that the DMV might consider as it begins to develop standards.
After crunching data on crashes by human drivers, Walker Smith noted in a blog post earlier this year: "Google's cars would need to drive themselves (by themselves) more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles. To my knowledge, Google has yet to reach these milestones."
On Tuesday, Brin said Google cars have now traveled more than 300,000 miles, the last "50,000 or so ... without safety critical intervention."
"But that's not good enough," he said.
Brin said there should continue to be extensive field tests, as well as safety evaluations in labs and closed courses.
"The self-driving cars will face far greater scrutiny than a human driver would, and appropriately so," he said.
In order for the DMV to adequately understand the safety issues potentially posed by an artificial intelligence program, it must reach out to a broad array of stakeholders, Calo said on Tuesday.
"It's crucial that the DMV speak to technologists, and not just Google," he said.
Calo added that the DMV should also talk to academic researchers and car companies developing new safety features that could tip into "autonomous" territory. Among other things, it should be cautious about defining "autonomous" vehicles in a way that could discourage companies from adding features that could improve safety, by subjecting them to rigorous new rules, he said.
Another concern about driverless cars is privacy. The machines will have to collect and store certain information as part of its basic functioning, as well as to improve over time.
Due to pressure from privacy advocates, the final version of law now requires manufacturers to provide a written disclosure describing what data is collected. But John Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog's privacy project, says that doesn't go far enough.
"We think the provision needs to be that information should be gathered only for the purpose of navigating the vehicle, retained only as long as necessary for the navigation of the vehicle and not used for any other purpose whatsoever, unless the consumer specifically gives their permission," he said.
Technically, driverless vehicles are already legal in many states insofar as no one ever thought to make them illegal. That's why Google has been able to test its cars on California's roads. But those sort of advances have pushed a number of states to take up the issue.
Nevada's governor signed a driverless car bill last year, as did Florida's earlier this year. Meanwhile, legislatures in Hawaii, Oklahoma and Arizona have considered similar measures.

Još malo o automobilima koji voze same sebe i asimovljevskim etičkim dilemama


Here's a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars With Adjustable Ethics Settings

QuoteDo you remember that day when you lost your mind? You aimed your car at five random people down the road. By the time you realized what you were doing, it was too late to brake.
Thankfully, your autonomous car saved their lives by grabbing the wheel from you and swerving to the right. Too bad for the one unlucky person standing on that path, struck and killed by your car.
Did your robot car make the right decision? This scene, of course, is based on the infamous "trolley problem" that many folks are now talking about in AI ethics. It's a plausible scene, since even cars today have crash-avoidance features: some can brake by themselves to avoid collisions, and others can change lanes too.
The thought-experiment is a moral dilemma, because there's no clearly right way to go. It's generally better to harm fewer people than more, to have one person die instead of five. But the car manufacturer creates liability for itself in following that rule, sensible as it may be. Swerving the car directly results in that one person's death: this is an act of killing. Had it done nothing, the five people would have died, but you would have killed them, not the car manufacturer which in that case would merely have let them die.


Even if the car didn't swerve, the car manufacturer could still be blamed for ignoring the plight of those five people, when it held the power to save them. In other words: damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
So why not let the user select the car's "ethics setting"? The way this would work is one customer may set the car (which he paid for) to jealously value his life over all others; another user may prefer that the car values all lives the same and minimizes harm overall; yet another may want to minimize legal liability and costs for herself; and other settings are possible.
Plus, with an adjustable ethics dial set by the customer, the manufacturer presumably can't be blamed for hard judgment calls, especially in no-win scenarios, right?  In one survey, 44 percent of the respondents preferred to have a personalized ethics setting, while only 12 percent thought the manufacturer should predetermine the ethical standard. So why not give customers what they want?
It Doesn't Solve Liability for the Company If the goal is to limit liability for the car manufacturer, this tactic fails, as even if the user ultimately determines the weighting of different values factored into a crash decision the company can still be liable. To draw out that point, let's make the ethical choices outrageous:
Imagine that manufacturers created preference settings that allow us to save hybrid cars over gas-guzzling trucks, or insured cars over uninsured ones, or helmeted motorcyclists over unhelmeted ones. Or more troubling, ethics settings that allow us to save children over the elderly, or men over women, or rich people over the poor, or straight people over gay ones, or Christians over Muslims.
In an accident that requires choosing one victim over another, the manufacturer could still be faulted for giving the user any option at all—that is, the option to discriminate against a particular class of drivers or people. Saving, protecting, or valuing one kind of thing effectively means choosing another kind to target in an unavoidable crash scenario.
Granted, some of these choices seem offensive and inappropriate in the first place. Some are rooted in hate, though not all are. But for many of us, it is also offensive and inappropriate to assume that your own life matters more than the lives of others—especially more than five, 10, 20, or 100 lives anonymous to you. (Is love of one's self much different than hatred or indifference toward others?)
To be that self-centered seems to be a thoughtless or callous mindset that's at the root of many social problems today. Likewise, many of us would be offended if life-and-death decisions about others were made according to costs (legal or financial) incurred by you. Doing the right thing is often difficult, exactly because it goes against our own interests.
Whatever the right value is to put on human life isn't the issue here, and it'd be controversial any which way. In the same survey above, 36 percent of respondents would want a robot car to sacrifice their life to avoid crashing into a child, while 64 percent would want the child to die in order to save their own life. This is to say that we're nowhere near a consensus on this issue.
The point is this: Even with an ethics setting adjusted by you, an accident victim hit by your robot car could potentially sue the car manufacturer for (1) creating an algorithm that makes her a target and (2) allowing you the option of running that algorithm when someone like her—someone on the losing end of the algorithm—would predictably be a victim under a certain set of circumstances.
Punting Responsibility to Customers Even if an ethics setting lets the company off the hook, guess what? We, the users, may then be solely responsible for injury or death in an unavoidable accident. At best, an ethics setting merely punts responsibility from manufacturer to customer, but it still doesn't make progress toward that responsibility. The customer would still need to undergo soul-searching and philosophical studies to think carefully about which ethical code he or she can live with, and all that it implies.
In an important sense, any injury that results from our ethics setting may be premeditated if it's foreseen. And it implies a lot. In an important sense, any injury that results from our ethics setting may be premeditated if it's foreseen. By valuing our lives over others, we know that others would be targeted first in a no-win scenario where someone will be struck. We mean for that to happen. This premeditation is the difference between manslaughter and murder, a much more serious offense.
In a non-automated car today, though, we could be excused for making an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to save ourselves instead of a child or even a crowd of people. Without much time to think about it, we can only make snap decisions, if they're even true decisions at all, as opposed to merely involuntary reflexes.
Deus in Machina So, an ethics setting is not a quick workaround to the difficult moral dilemma presented by robotic cars. Other possible solutions to consider include limiting manufacturer liability by law, similar to legal protections for vaccine makers, since immunizations are essential for a healthy society, too. Or if industry is unwilling or unable to develop ethics standards, regulatory agencies could step in to do the job—but industry should want to try first.
With robot cars, we're trying to design for random events that previously had no design, and that takes us into surreal territory. Like Alice's wonderland, we don't know which way is up or down, right or wrong. But our technologies are powerful: they give us increasing omniscience and control to bring order to the chaos. When we introduce control to what used to be only instinctive or random—when we put God in the machine—we create new responsibility for ourselves to get it right.

Isti autor o pitanju koje već izvesno vreme promiče kroz diskusije: kad autonomna kola uskoro postanu svačija realnost, da li će to promeniti način na koji se kola koriste kao terorističko oružje:



Don't fear the robot car bomb

QuoteWithin the next few years, autonomous vehicles—alias robot cars—could be weaponized, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fears. In a recently disclosed report, FBI experts wrote that they believe that robot cars would be "game changing" for law enforcement. The self-driving machines could be professional getaway drivers, to name one possibility. Given the pace of developments on autonomous cars, this doesn't seem implausible.
But what about robotic car bombers? If car bombs no longer require sacrificing the driver's life, then criminals and terrorists might be more likely to use them. The two-page FBI report doesn't mention this idea directly, but this scenario has caused much public anxiety anyway—perhaps reasonably so. Car bombs are visceral icons of terrorism in modern times, from The Troubles of Northern Ireland to regional conflicts in the Middle East and Asia.
In the first half of 2014, about 4,000 people were killed or injured in vehicle bombs worldwide. In the last few weeks alone, more than 150 people were killed by car bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, and Thailand. Even China saw car bombings this summer.
America is no stranger to these crude weapons either. In the deadliest act of domestic terrorism on US soil, a truck bomb killed 168 people and injured about 700 others in Oklahoma City in 1995. That one explosion caused more than $650 million in damage to hundreds of buildings and cars within a 16-block radius. In 1993, a truck bomb parked underneath the World Trade Center killed six people and injured more than a thousand others in the ensuing chaos. And earlier this year, jihadists were calling for more car bombs in America. Thus, popular concerns about car bombs seem all too real.
But what do automated car bombs mean to criminals and terrorists? Perhaps the same as anything else that is automated. Generally, robots take over those jobs called the "three D's": dull, dirty, and dangerous. They bring greater precision, more endurance, cost savings, labor efficiencies, force multiplication, ability to operate in inaccessible areas, less risk to human life, and other advantages.
But how would these benefits supposed to play out in robot car bombs? Less well than might be imagined.
Pros and cons. For the would-be suicide car bomber, a robotic car means eliminating the pesky suicide part. By replacing the human driver who is often sacrificed in the detonation of a car bomb, an autonomous vehicle removes a major downside. This aspect is related to the worry that nation-states may be quicker to use force because of armed drones, since those robots remove the political cost of casualties to their own side. When costs got down, adoption rates go up; therefore, we can expect to see an increase in suicide car-bombing incidents, driven by autonomous technologies.
Or so the thinking goes.
But this analysis is too pat. Part of the point for some guerilla fighters—though probably not for ordinary criminals—is martyrdom and its eternal benefits. So, dying isn't so much of a cost to these terrorists, but rather more of a payoff. This demographic probably wouldn't be tempted much by self-driving technology, since they are already undeterred by death.
Of course, it may be that a more calculating terrorist, who still seeks glory, would like to do as much damage as possible before he kills himself. (Though some suicide bombers are women, most of them are still men.) In this case, he may want to mastermind several car-bombing attacks before finally dying in one. Robot cars would enable him to do so, and still allow him to get credit for his work, an issue of importance to terrorists, if not to criminals.
And at the least, those not motivated by ideology might not want to die quite so soon. For them, a robotic driver would be an attractive accomplice.
However, other options are already available for terrorists who do not want to harm themselves—yet these options have not created any panic about car-bombing attacks. For instance, both criminals and guerilla fighters have been known to recruit and train others to do their bidding. Those designated as drivers sometimes are not even aware of their explosive cargo, which avoids the trouble of indoctrinating them toward fanatical self-sacrifice. Terrorists could kidnap innocent people and coerce them to become suicide bombers, which is reportedly occurring today in Nigeria.
So if ease and costs are considerations, there are better alternatives than transforming robot cars into mobile bombs. For one thing, the only production cars being built today with self-driving capabilities are the Mercedes Benz S-Class sedan (that sells for about $100,000) and the Infiniti Q50 sedan (about $40,000)—not exactly tools for the budget-conscious terrorist, even if prices do fall in the future. Even then, their capacity to operate autonomously is primarily limited to things such as staying within a lane and following the flow of traffic on a highway.
Google's self-driving car makes even less sense for this evil purpose. As the most advanced automated car today, it would cost more than a Ferrari 599 at over $300,000—if it were for sale, which as a research vehicle it isn't. (Even if a terrorist could steal it, good luck figuring out how to turn it on.) Anyway, the car can operate autonomously only around Google's headquarters, since ultra-precise maps beyond that area don't yet exist. In sum, it is not a good choice for targets outside Mountain View, California.
If a fanboy terrorist really did want to go high-tech, he could more easily rig his own car to be driven by remote control. Or kidnap engineers to do the work, as drug cartels in Mexico have done to build communication systems. Or just get some kamikaze micro-drones. All of these options are more likely and more practical, getting the same job done as autonomous car bombs.
Besides bombing, are there post-execution reasons for using a robot car, such as minimizing forensics evidence? A captured driver, or even the DNA of one who is blown up, can attribute an attack to a particular group. But the same could be achieved by stealing a car and coercing an innocent person to drive.
Robot cars may actually be worse for the criminal who wants to keep a low profile. If they are networked and depend on GPS for navigation, the cars could be tracked as soon as they leave the driveway of the suspect under surveillance. GPS records could be searched to piece together a timeline of events, including where the car has been on the days and weeks leading up to its use as a weapon.
Furthermore, a self-driving car without a human in it at all won't be in production any time soon. A human will always be "in the loop" for the foreseeable future; at the moment, any "self-driving" car is supposed to have someone in the driver's seat, ready to take the wheel at a moment's notice, such as when an unexpected construction detour or bad weather interferes with the car's sensors and a human operator must quickly retake control. So a robot car bomb with no driver in it would likely raise immediate suspicions, if the car would even move at all.
Admittedly, hacks have already appeared that disable the safety features meant to ensure a human is present and alert. Networked and autonomous cars present many more entry points for hackers, possibly allowing a very knowledgeable criminal to cyber-hijack a robot car.
Theoretically, a terrorist could want to use a robot car as a bomb while he's still in it—that is, forego the opportunity to spare his own life. It could be that he tends to get lost easily, wants to read last-minute instructions behind the wheel, has to stay in contact with his home base, or must baby-sit the trigger mechanism. A robot car would offer these benefits, however minor they may be.
Possible solutions. The threat of robot car bombers, then, seems unlikely but not impossible to become a reality. Some solutions to that possible threat include requiring manufacturers to install a "kill switch" that law enforcement could activate to stop an autonomous vehicle. This plan was already proposed in the European Union for all cars in the future. Or sensors inside the car could be used to detect hazardous cargo and explosives, similar to the sensors at airport security checkpoints. Or regulators could require special registration of owners of autonomous vehicles, cross-referencing customers with criminal databases and terrorist watch-lists.
But any of these options will face fierce resistance from civil rights advocates and other groups.
And a determined terrorist can get around technological safeguards and firewalls.
At the end of the day, there's still no substitute for good old-fashioned counterterrorism, human intelligence, and vigilance: in recent weeks, security checkpoints foiled car-bombing plots in Northern Ireland and Jerusalem. Overall, it makes more sense to use these traditional methods; it is easier to continue to use checkpoints, and regulate and monitor the ingredients used in car bombs, rather than oversee the cars themselves.
In truth, in the idea behind robot cars, domestic and international security is facing a very old threat. The problem isn't so much with robots but with stopping enemy vehicles from penetrating city walls with a destructive payload, which is a problem as old as the Trojan horse of ancient Greek mythology. (There's a reason why a certain kind of malware goes by the same name). Robot cars merely present a new way to deliver the payload.
Maybe this is a problem that doesn't demand immediate action and is just part of the "new normal"—if it even comes to pass. For hundreds of years, just about every kind of vehicle has been turned into a mobile bomb: horse-drawn buggies, boats, planes, rickshaws, bicycles, motorcycles, and trains.
This could be a case of misplaced priorities. Or, as journalists Matthew Gault and Robert Beckhusen phrased it in War Is Boring: "Americans freak out over small threats and ignore big ones," For example, a terrorist with a single well-placed match in California during the summertime could easily do a massive amount of economic damage and disrupt transportation, businesses, and ecosystems. It's the ultimate in low-tech terrorism, yet could plausibly cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.
But the appearance of just one robot car bombing could set back the entire autonomous-driving industry, in addition to the loss of life and the property destroyed. And there are other uses, misuses, and abuses related to autonomous cars that should be of just as much—if not more—concern.
First-world problems. Weirdly, robot cars bombs seem to be a decidedly Western—or even American—fear, even though the actual threat posed by car bombs is generally located far elsewhere. Most suicide car bombs happen in the Middle East in a low-tech way, whereas they are very rare in the United States. But because most of the news coverage about a hypothetical robot car bomb has occurred in the US media, it gives the false impression that it's a first-world problem. Autonomous cars would have a hard time operating on Afghanistan's dirt roads without lane markings, for instance, even if one could be obtained there.
Perhaps the reason for America's obsession is that the car bomb is a special, iconic weapon of terror—our prized possession turned against us. Different from rockets and drone missiles that fall from the sky, car bombs can be more insidious. They would infiltrate civilized society, sneaking up on its most vulnerable points. Like matches, cars are omnipresent in the modern world, and thus nearly impossible to control. But very few elaborate car bombings have been attempted, even though they could be done today via remote control or through the use of a kidnapped driver, for example. Simple still works. As an actual threat, the robot car bomb seems overblown.

ево нечег што ће скратити време до летећих аутомобила

Decentralized Control for UAV / UGV Landing

QuoteLike Voltron, robots will soon need to coordinate landings and docking with absolutely precision in difficult conditions. That's what a group of researchers have solved by allowing a robot and a movable landing platform to communicate in order to coordinate a perfect landing.

As you can see, the quadcopter and a tank-like platform both converge on a pre-set location and both robots move themselves into position as the quadcopter slowly descends. The rotors right the quadcopter properly and finally cut out just as the landing gear touches the ground. It's a satisfying sight.

The robot, described in a paper by John M. Daly, Yan Ma, and Steven L. Waslander, would allow military drones to come in for a landing on other autonomous land drones to recharge or move off the battlefield. It could also allow for commercial drones to land without risking getting tangled up in unseen grass or shrubbery. It's also really scary.

It may not look like much, but this process is difficult and time-consuming and it's fascinating to see how a pair of robots can work together to get things done.

Juče sam sa tastom diskutovao o tome kako će samovozeći automobili promeniti društvo, a danas naletim na ovu interesantnu razmenu mišljenja ljudi koji se time u principu i bave:


Teza:


Major auto industry disruption will lead to robotic taxis, Morgan Stanley says

I odgovor na istu:

  "Shared Autonomy" or "Control Society?"

U Audiju vele da su kreirali gorivo budućnosti: voda i... er.. ugljen dioksid. Dakle, gazirana voda???



Audi creates green 'e-diesel fuel of the future' using just carbon dioxide and water

QuoteGerman car manufacturer Audi says it has created the "fuel of the future" made solely from water, carbon dioxide and renewable sources.
The synthetic "e-diesel" was made following a commissioning phase of just four months at a plant in Dresden, Germany.
Unlike regular diesel, the clear fuel does not contain any sulphur or fossil oil, while it has an overall energy efficiency of around 70%.
Germany's federal minister of education and research, Dr Johanna Wanka, said she has already used the fuel in her Audi A8, while the company hopes the Dresden factory, operated by clean tech company Sunfire, will produce 160 litres of it every day in the coming months.
"This synthetic diesel, made using CO2, is a huge success for our sustainability research," Wanka said. "If we can make widespread use of CO2 as a raw material, we will make a crucial contribution to climate protection and the efficient use of resources, and put the fundamentals of the 'green economy' in place."


Creation of the fuel, which Audi and Sunfire are calling blue crude, first requires heating water to 800C (1,472F) to trigger a high temperature electrolysis to break down the steam to hydrogen and oxygen.
The hydrogen then reacts with the CO2 in synthesis reactors, again under pressure and at a high temperature. The reaction product is a liquid made from long‑chain hydrocarbon compounds, known as blue crude.
This synthetic fuel, which is free from sulphur and aromatic hydrocarbons, is suitable for mixing with fossil diesel or being used as a fuel in its own right.
Reiner Mangold, head of sustainable product development at Audi, said: "In developing Audi e-diesel we are promoting another fuel-based on CO2 that will allow long‑distance mobility with virtually no impact on the climate. Using CO2 as a raw material represents an opportunity not just for the automotive industry in Germany, but also to transfer the principle to other sectors and countries."

sunfire: Alternative fuels from air, water and renewable energy

Dileme koje ćemo već za koju godinu imati 



Should Cops Be Allowed to Take Control of Self-Driving Cars?



A few lines in a seemingly routine RAND Corp. report on the future of technology and law enforcement last week raised a provocative question: Should police have the power to take control of a self-driving car?

Here's a hypothetical scenario from the report's introduction:
   >The police officer directing traffic in the intersection could see the car barreling toward him and the occupant looking down at his smartphone. Officer Rodriguez gestured for the car to stop, and the self-driving vehicle rolled to a halt behind the crosswalk.   That seems like a pretty plausible interaction. Human drivers are required to pull over when a police officer gestures for them to do so. It's reasonable to expect that self-driving cars would do the same. To look at it another way: Self-driving cars are programmed to stop at red lights and stop signs. Surely they should also be programmed to stop when a police officer flags them down. It is, after all, the law.
   It's clear, then, that police officers should have some power over the movements of self-driving cars. What's less clear is where to draw the line. If a police officer can command a self-driving car to pull over for his own safety and that of others on the road, can he do the same if he suspects the passenger of a crime? And what if the passenger doesn't want the car to stop—can she override the command, or does the police officer have ultimate control?
   A brief section on connected and autonomous cars later in the report outlined other ways police could take advantage of the technology:
   

Imagine a law enforcement officer interacting with a vehicle that has sensors connected to the Internet. With the appropriate judicial clearances, an officer could ask the vehicle to identify its occupants and location histories. ... Or, if the vehicle is unmanned but capable of autonomous movement and in an undesirable location (for example, parked illegally or in the immediate vicinity of an emergency), an officer could direct the vehicle to move to a new location (with the vehicle's intelligent agents recognizing "officer" and "directions to move") and automatically notify its owner and occupants.

   Again, that all sounds benign enough, in itself. But if police have the capability to glean personal information from a sensor-equipped car, who will ensure that they have the appropriate clearances before doing so? And what if police want to direct the movements of a self-driving car when it does have humans inside?
   The RAND study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, did not attempt to answer those questions directly. Rather, it asked a panel of 16 experts in criminal justice and technology to identify imminent changes in information technology that might have an impact on law enforcement policies and procedures. What control police should have over self-driving cars was just one of numerous questions raised in the 32-page report, and it merited only a few paragraphs of discussion. Still, it's clearly an issue that is on the radar of law enforcement already. And it's likely to become more urgent in the coming years as self-driving cars attempt to cross the bridge from research project to commercial reality.

The report acknowledged that "the dark side to all of the emerging access and interconnectivity is the risk to the public's civil rights, privacy rights, and security." It added, "One can readily imagine abuses that might occur if, for example, capabilities to control automated vehicles and the disclosure of detailed personal information about their occupants were not tightly controlled and secured."
   You don't even have to imagine it, really: Hackers are already taking control of cars via their onboard computers even without a built-in mechanism designed to allow it.
   I asked the report's lead author, RAND Corp. operations researcher John S. Hollywood, whether he got the sense that the law enforcement representatives on the panel were eager to push for law enforcement control of Internet-connected and self-driving cars. He told me they weren't. Rather, in ranking their priorities, they put "developing policies and procedures for self-driving unmanned and automated vehicles" at the top of the list. Among the policy and procedure questions they may ponder: Will they need a warrant before accessing a self-driving car's data? John Frank Weaver discussed that issue in more depth in a recent Future Tense post.
   The panelists' lowest-ranked priority: "Develop an interface for officers to directly take control of unmanned vehicles."
   While the ranking is reassuring, it's a little unnerving that such an interface would register as a priority at all. It shouldn't come as a surprise, however. Given how hard the federal government and its spy agencies have pushed for backdoor access to our social networks and email servers, there's little doubt they'll want the same with our cars.

Geohot ponovo napada:



The First Person to Hack the iPhone Built a Self-Driving Car. In His Garage

Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw

Flying car receives U.S. airspace approval for testing

Quote
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has this month approved test flights for a flying car. The team behind TF-X, patented in 2011, will see a two-foot version of its unmanned aircraft headed to the skies.
The full-size prototype features four seats and has been designed to fit in a standard garage – wings included. The car does not require a runway for take off or landing, instead using helicopter-style rotors to lift itself off the ground. After take off, it engages side-panel wings to glide through the air.
The life-size design has a top cruising speed of around 200mph, and is able to fly at around 500 miles at a time. It will include rechargeable batteries that can be charged by the engine, or at electric car charging points. Terrafugia, the U.S.-based creator, is building the aircraft so that the driver does not have to train as much as would be required of an everyday pilot.
The scale model is permitted to reach a maximum height of 121 metres, and a maximum speed of 100mph. While it is allowed to use U.S. air space, the team must be in constant communication with FAA authorities.
The data collected during the special FAA-approved test runs will help Terrafugia plan the future development of design for its flying cars. The testing will also allow the engineers to assess the hovering capabilities of the drone.
'Extensive sub-scale flight testing of sUAS [small Unmanned Aircraft Systems], along with wind tunnel testing and aerodynamic simulation, are key to refining the vehicle's design,' Terrafugia noted in an official statement.
Although the miniature version, weighing in at 50 pounds, is now in testing stages, other rival designers are also working on competitor models of the flying car. The French Xplorair, is a one-seater aircraft first unveiled in 2013. The company hopes to reveal a larger model by 2017.

http://www.youtu.be/wHJTZ7k0BXU

Volvo says it will make 'death-proof' cars by 2020

Quote

Swedish automaker Volvo has long kept track of how many people are seriously injured or killed while driving its vehicles. It uses this data to see how much safer it can make its vehicles in the event of a crash. Now, the company has made a bold promise — by 2020 there will be no serious injuries or fatalities in a Volvo car or SUV.
Cars are getting smarter with the addition of autonomous technologies, and this is how Volvo hopes to reach its goal of zero deaths in its cars. This does not, of course, preclude someone from driving recklessly and getting themselves killed. However, conventional driving should be made much safer with the inclusion of a number of technologies. It starts with making the interior of the car safer with improved airbags and restraints. Then things get more futuristic.
Volvo already has various smart features in its cars, but by combining them all, it becomes much harder to end up in a serious accident. Adaptive cruise control for example, is already available on many cars. It allows you to set a maximum speed, but uses radar to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of you. It can even apply the brakes if need be. This can be taken a step further with full collision avoidance. When a crash is likely, the driver will be warned. If action isn't taken, the car can begin braking to avoid, or at least minimize the impact.
A relatively new technology that Volvo plans to make extensive use of is lane assistance. Cars will use cameras to detect lanes and alert the driver if they begin to drift. This has been found to dramatically reduce crashes from dozing off at the wheel and distracted driving. Road signs can be identified by cameras as well to help alert drivers to posted speed limits and upcoming hazards. Cameras will also be used to watch for pedestrians in the vicinity of the vehicle. This is similar to the technology that is used in self-driving cars to identify potential obstacles on the road. The driver can be alerted if a person is in the car's path and the brake can be automatically applied. In addition to people, cameras can be used to spot large animals in the roadway. For example, moose are common in Volvo's home territory, and they'll really mess your car up. Volvo has created a system that can act to avoid colliding with such a critter, saving both you and it.
Automakers like Ford and Tesla are moving quickly toward fully autonomous vehicles. Then there's Google's self-driving car program. Volvo too is in the early stages of driverless tech, and handing control over to a computer when it's clear something is wrong could be a step in that direction. Proving that vehicles can prevent deaths with automated technologies could go a long way toward convincing the public and regulators that self-driving cars are the best option. Volvo thinks these self-driving cars will be the safest of all.
Still, claiming something to be death-proof seems risky. They said the Titanic was unsinkable, after all.

Google Self-Driving Car Caused its First Accident

Quote
While driving in autonomous mode, a Google self-driving car was involved in a minor accident with a public transit bus in California on Valentine's Day, according to an accident report (PDF) filed with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
The accident report, signed by Chris Urmson, director of Google's self-driving car project, says the Google self-driving car was trying to get around some sandbags on a street when its left front struck the bus' right side. The car was going 2 mph, while the bus was going 15 mph.
MUST-READ: Google Self-Driving Cars Are Legal Drivers, U.S. Rules
Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield. No injuries were reported at the scene. Google's next monthly self-driving car report will be out in a couple days, hopefully Google will address this incident.
The report does not say who was at fault. However, if it's determined the Google self-driving car was at fault, it would be the first time one of its self-driving cars caused an accident while in autonomous mode.
Update at 3:20 PM ET: Google released a portion of its February self-driving car report early to address the bus crash. Google said the incident is something that happens "every day" on the road. Google also said it "clearly bear some responsibility." More from Google: "Our test driver, who had been watching the bus in the mirror, also expected the bus to slow or stop. And we can imagine the bus driver assumed we were going to stay put. Unfortunately, all these assumptions led us to the same spot in the lane at the same time. This type of misunderstanding happens between human drivers on the road every day.
"This is a classic example of the negotiation that's a normal part of driving — we're all trying to predict each other's movements. In this case, we clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn't moved there wouldn't have been a collision. That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that."
Here's how the accident report (PDF) describes the accident:
"A Google Lexus-model autonomous vehicle ("Google AV") was traveling in autonomous mode eastbound on El Camino Real in Mountain View in the far right-hand lane approaching the Castro St. intersection. As the Google AV approached the intersection, it signaled its intent to make a right turn on red onto Castro St. The Google AV then moved to the right-hand side of the lane to pass traffic in the same lane that was stopped at the intersection and proceeding straight.
"However, the Google AV had to come to a stop and go around sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. When the light turned green, traffic in the lane continued past the Google AV. After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane and pass the sandbags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind.
"The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later, as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane it made contact with the side of the bus. The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and traveling less than 2 mph, and the bus was traveling at about 15 mph at the time of contact.
"The Google AV sustained body damage to the left front fender, the left front wheel and one of its driver's-side sensors. There no injuries reported at the scene."


Here is a look at the intersection at which the accident occurred (via Google Maps):
The California DMV said it hoped to speak with Google today for further details of the accident. Robotics Trends has reached out to Google for comment.
Google has been testing two dozen self-driving Lexus SUVs near its Silicon Valley headquarters. Google's self-driving cars have driven more than 1.3 million miles since 2009. As of January 2016, they had been involved in 17 crashes, all caused by human error.

A onda i so na ljutu ranu:



New study: fully automating self-driving cars could actually be worse for carbon emissions

Quote
Self-driving cars are at a fascinating juncture right now. We know they're coming soon. We know they're going to change things. But we don't know how they're going to change things — in what directions, to what effect, how quickly — so there's no end of breathless speculation.
It stands to reason that vehicle automation could save energy and reduce emissions in some ways. Cars will be able to chain together more aerodynamically, drive at more consistent speeds, and perhaps serve as shared vehicles in lieu of individual vehicle ownership.
But it also stands to reason that automation could increase energy use and emissions in some ways. If driving is easier and more pleasant, people will do it more. Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled.
So how will these factors balance out? What effect will self-driving cars have, overall, on energy use and carbon emissions from transportation?
Confident predictions about these matters are folly. Nonetheless, we do have some sense of the factors involved, enough to construct scenarios and get a sense of the possibilities.


That's what researchers Zia Wadud (University of Leeds), Don MacKenzie (University of Washington), and Paul Leiby (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) have attempted in a new study: "Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles," in the journal Transportation Research Part A.
The study uses the ASIF model to assess emissions. That's this equation:

Emissions =

Activity Level * Modal Share * Energy Intensity * Fuel Carbon Content

It also considers how emissions effects differ at different automation levels. (In the US, automation levels run 1 through 4, where 1 is driver-assist stuff like adaptive cruise control and 4 is full, driverless automation.)
Anyway, I won't bore you with all the calculations. I'll just list the factors and let you know how they added up. Here they are in a quick chart:    (Wadud et al.) Let's break them out.Eight mechanisms by which self-driving cars could reduce overall energy and emissionsThe first six of these reduce energy intensity (the I in ASIF), while the seventh reduces driving activity (A) and the eighth reduces fuel carbon content (F).
1) Congestion mitigation: Self-driving cars can improve traffic flow, reducing congestion.
2) Automated eco-driving: This has to do with driving practices like avoiding sharp acceleration and deceleration and traveling at a consistent speed.
3) Platooning: This refers to cars linking together closely into vehicle trains, to reduce aerodynamic drag.    (USDOT) Platooning. 4) De-emphasized performance: If humans aren't driving, they won't demand the hyperperformance of today's cars and will settle for slower acceleration.
5) Improved crash avoidance: Self-driving cars presumably won't hit each other as often, also reducing congestion (and, y'know, death).
6) "Right-sizing" of vehicles: If there are fewer crashes, cars can be smaller and lighter.
7) Changes in mobility service models: Self-driving cars could reduce car ownership and increase car sharing, reducing overall driving.
Fuel mix changes: There are three ways self-driving cars could make alternative fuel vehicles ("electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, or compressed natural gas vehicles") more competitive. First, they could drive themselves to fueling stations (even if, like hydrogen stations, they are few and far between); second, they could reduce range anxiety (for, say, electric vehicles) by refueling themselves frequently; third, shared cars would be driven more frequently, which could create demand for cars that are more capital-intensive but last longer and use less fuel (like, say, electric vehicles).Four mechanisms by which self-driving cars could increase overall energy and emissionsThe first two increase energy intensity; the second two increase driving activity and modal share (more people switching from bikes, walking, and public transport to cars).
1) Higher highway speeds: Self-driving cars are safer and thus can drive at higher speeds on the highway, using more energy per mile.
2) Increased feature content: Passengers in self-driving cars will be spending longer in their vehicles and have more free time, which could lead to demand for additional features and amenities, increasing vehicle weight.    (Mercedes Benz) Passengers in Mercedes Benz's concept F 015 play with their gadgets. 3) Increased travel from reduced cost of driver's time: Right now, driving involves a cost, in time, attention, and stress. Automation could reduce or eliminate that cost, leaving "drivers" free to do whatever they want. When the cost of a service declines, demand rises (this is known as the "rebound effect").
4) Increased travel due to new user groups: As mentioned before, populations previously unable to drive will now have access to personal vehicles, leading to an increase in vehicle miles traveled.How do these mechanisms balance out?Obviously, how all these mechanisms and factors balance out will depend on a number of things, including choices and policies we make today. Here is the study's first approximation of the effects (the blue bars are ranges):    (Wadud et al.) As you can see, the big swing factor here is travel cost reduction — in other words, how cheap and easy driving gets. If that stays at the low end, then the effects of self-driving cars on energy use are almost certain to be a substantial net positive.
If it reaches the high end, a 60 percent boost in energy consumption for transportation, all the energy-saving benefits could be wiped out, for a net increase in energy and emissions.
Here's the key twist. Remember earlier we mentioned levels of automation, 1 through 4, with 4 being full automation?
It turns out that the energy-saving effects of vehicle automation are almost all captured at levels 1 through 3. You don't need full automation to do platooning, car sharing, and the like. You mainly just need cars to be able to communicate with one another better.
The energy-increasing effects of automated vehicles, on the other hand, mostly kick in at level 4: full automation. To put it simply, when driving is fully automated, it becomes super, super easy — the cost in time and attention falls to zero — so people are likely to do it way, way more.Maybe it's best to delay full automationThis leads to somewhat surprising policy implications. It may be that the socially optimal outcome, at least for now, is partial, not full, automation. That way the energy and emissions benefits of smarter driving practices can be fully captured, without allowing drivers to tune entirely out — without making it too easy.    (Shutterstock) The authors run four scenarios, involving various degrees of automation and changes in driving practices.
Scenario A involves all vehicles rising to level 3 automation. Scenario B involves stalling out at level 2. Scenario C involves higher-than-expected efficiency impacts from automation.
In scenario D — "dystopian nightmare" — everything lines up just wrong:

Policymaker and industry's eagerness leads to broad adoption of Level 4 automation, which totally redefines what it means to travel by car. Drivers totally disengage from driving responsibilities, and the perceived cost of the their time plummets. On the highways, vehicles travel safely at higher speeds, creating continued demand for big, powerful engines. Platooning is forestalled by a regulatory and liability quagmire, and policy inaction. In the cities, congestion relief from operational improvements is swamped by the sheer increase in traffic volume. Automated eco-driving fails to catch on, as drivers value shorter travel times over energy savings. Vehicle designs and ownership models are largely unchanged from today, as consumers buy for their peak requirements.

Here are the impacts of the four scenarios:    (Wadud et al.) As you can see, only in scenario D does net energy use rise.
In scenario D, we rush to full automation without getting the rules and regulations right first — to encourage platooning, eco-driving, car sharing, reasonable highway speeds, and all the rest. We end up with tons more cars on the road, traveling much farther, with little gain in efficiency.The future of vehicle automation is up to usThe larger message of this study is simple: The effects of vehicle automation are in the hands of today's decision makers.
With some foresight and smart policy, we can maximize the energy and emissions benefits of automation while steering clear of, or at least minimizing, the rebound effect.
Perhaps when we get farther down the road (ahem) — when more vehicles are electrified, when car sharing is more firmly established, when the benefits of automation have proven out — we can move to full automation without the risk of carbon blowback.

  India Aims to Become 100 Percent Electric Vehicle Nation by 2030: Power Minister

QuoteThe government is working on a scheme to provide electric cars on zero down payment for which people can pay out of their savings on expensive fossil fuels, with the aim of becoming 100 percent electric vehicle nation by 2030.
"India can become the first country of its size which will run 100 per cent of electric vehicles. We are trying to make this programme self financing. We don't need one rupee support from the government. We don't need one rupee investment from the people of India," Power Minister Piyush Goyal said at an event organised by CII Young India.
Elaborating further, he said, "We are working (on the scheme). Can we actually give electric car for free (zero down payment) and people can pay for that out of the savings on the petroleum products. Innovation is possible, it just needs an open mind. You need to think of scale and be honest."
The minister informed that a small working group under the leadership of Road Minister Nitin Gadkari has been created with Oil Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar on its board.
He said, "We are meeting in first week of April and see (if) India can be 100 percent on electric vehicles by 2030. We are trying to see if we can monetise the savings then you will have use cheaper electricity for charing of your cars."
"We are thinking of scale. We are thinking of leading the world rather than following the world. India will be first largest country in the world to think of that scale."
Mr. Goyal cited the example of LED lights where through the bulk tendering, the government has been able to reduce the procurement price of these bulbs to Rs. 64.41 in January this year from the market rate of Rs. 310 in February 2014. The government had started Domestic Efficient Lighting Programme last year under which it has already provided over 8.32 crore (83.2 million) LED bulbs to families through power distribution companies at an instalment of Rs. 10 per month for each bulb.
After the LED bulb distribution scheme, Power Ministry is working on a similar programme under which it will sell on EMI energy-efficient fans and air conditioners at prices much lower than market rates.
About any power tariff he said, "We don't need to increase any tariff in the country. We just need to work smart and bring technology and India can be powerhouse of affordable energy across the country. Cross subsidy across the state can handle the issue."
On the negative subsidy or payment of premium in recently concluded third round of gas auction for stranded power projects on Sunday, Mr. Goyal said, "There is no need of PSDF now. We have been successful in our mission. Now, they need zero support (subsidy)."
About continuing this scheme further, he said, "We will see after six months. For six months it is not required. After six months there will be another round (of auction for gas under PSDF)."
Under the Power System Development Fund scheme, government provides financial support to SGPs to buy imported gas.
However, in Sunday's auction, the bidders were allowed to quote negative gas subsidy or premium for booking gas quantities they need. Now, government will save Rs. 1,829 crore for providing gas under PSDF to nine SGPs for six months till September.
The outlay for the support from PSDF was fixed at Rs. 7,500 crore (Rs. 3,500 crore and Rs. 4,000 crore for 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively).
Addressing the event, Goyal said, "India is poised for decadal double digit growth in the days to come and is poised to become a superpower with a billion plus happy people.
"India has the potential to transform and can move into the big league very rapidly if we leverage the economies of scale, bring in greater degrees of transparency and monitor work that has been undertaken.
However, adding the caveat of the need to ensure equal opportunities for people at the bottom of the pyramid, Goyal said, "We cannot become a super economic power unless the person at the bottom of the pyramid gets equal opportunity to study, to be skilled and has the opportunity to move towards a better quality of life.
"To my mind, lack of electricity access in villages across the country is a serious concern for us as a nation. There are about 50 million homes which don't have access to electricity.
"In Arunachal Pradesh, there are about 808 villages which lack electricity access. While we are now working on building a grid in Sikkim and Arunachal, it will take time. Hence, we are looking at off-grid solutions in the interim."

 




http://youtu.be/soxxPyaAT1k

Larry Page navodno investira u R&D letećeg automobila.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-04-2016, 07:30:09





http://youtu.be/soxxPyaAT1k

Pametan i hrabar covek   

 Sweden opens one of the world's first electric roads

QuoteSweden is making headlines for a brilliant environmentally conscious move: electric roads. They just opened a two kilometer test stretch in Sandviken on the E16 where electric vehicles can connect to an overhead system similar to light rail. They are now among the first countries globally to test electric power on public roads for "heavy transports." The move could bring them closer towards the country's goal of operating a fossil fuel-free fleet by 2030.


The electric road system, which is similar to a light rail, allows trucks to run on electric power while on the unique road, and then on regular roads they operate as hybrid vehicles. On the electric road, trucks gain power from a pantograph which connects to power lines overhead. Not only does this allow the trucks to run on clean energy, but enables them to avoid recharging quite as much. Automotive company Scania is supplying the hybrid trucks, which also run on biofuel. Scania researcher Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt said electrification could result in sizable fuel savings.


Swedish Transport Administration Director General Lena Erixon said, "Electric roads will bring us one step closer to fossil fuel-free transports, and has the potential to achieve zero carbon dioxide emissions. This is one way of developing environmentally smart transports in the existing road network. It could be a good supplement to today's road and rail network."
The testing will go on until 2018 and allow Sweden to see how the technology functions in the real world. Along with the transport administration, Sweden's energy and sustainable growth agencies will help fund the project. Scania and Siemens, who developed the conductive technology, will also help pay. Region Gävleborg will act as the project coordinator.
Swedish Energy Agency Director-General Erik Brandsma said, "Electric roads are one more piece of the puzzle in the transport system of the future, especially for making the heavy transport section fossil fuel-free over the long term."

HPD: High-tech methods behind massive theft of Jeep, Dodge cars

QuoteHOUSTON (KTRK) --  It only took 6 minutes for high-tech thieves to steal Jeeps and Dodge cars, according to HPD. The department announced Thursday that it had caught two men who were behind that massive plot.

The two men apparently used a laptop and pirated software to start the vehicles and take off. HPD said the vehicles made it into Mexico.

It was in the middle of the day when Mike Hammette realized his Jeep was gone.
 
"(I) parked it around 1:30pm and walked out at 4," said Hammette. "My pride and joy was stolen."

<iframe width="476" height="267" src="http://abc13.com/video/embed/?pid=1456990" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was the same story HPD heard over and over from several Jeep owners in the Houston area. Police were aware Jeep and Dodge vehicles were being stolen for months, but they just didn't know how and who until home surveillance video surfaced from one victim.

"In that video, you see a guy walk up to the car carrying a laptop computer," said Jim Woods with HPD. "(He) uses the laptop and -- within 6 minutes -- starts the Jeep, backs up the Jeep out of driveway."

Police said two men were behind it all are Michael Arcee and Jesse Zelaya.
 
"There's a possibility they may not be the only ones that are doing this, but right now we feel if they are the only ones that are doing this, with this arrest we hope we will be able to curb the amount of thefts occurring," said Woods.

HPD said it's nearly impossible to stop this high-tech crime especially if someone else has the same pirated software.

"It was quite heartbreaking actually," said Hammette when he realized his Jeep was stolen.

Hammette isn't sure if his Jeep ended up on the other side of the border, but said the pair of thieves won't discourage him.

"Like I told my little boy, we will find another one and start over," he said.

Samsung shows off electric car battery that gives a 310 mile range on a 20 minute charge

Quote

Samsung has unveiled a battery that can give electric cars a driving range of up to 500 kilometers (310.7 miles) on a 20 minute charge, promoting technology that could be key to the future of autonomous driving.
The South Korean conglomerate's battery division known as Samsung SDI (Korea Stock Exchange: 640-KR), announced the cell on Monday, and said it can offer a complete driving range of up to 600 kilometers. A 20-minute charge will give the battery 80 percent capacity, allowing for a 500 km range.
"This means that only 20 minutes in the highway rest area will be enough for a battery to be charged, eliminating the range anxiety of electric vehicle drivers," Samsung SDI said in a press release, adding that mass production of the cell is slated for 2021.
One of the pain points for electric vehicles currently is the availability of charging stations and the frequency of charging. Samsung's battery technology could change that.
But it could also benefit driverless cars – also electric - with major automakers and technology firms talking about this new industry in the same timeframe which Samsung said it will begin mass production of the battery.
Samsung's claim of 310.7 miles on a 20-minute charge is ahead of what is currently on the market. For example, Tesla owners can use one of the company's superchargers to get a 170-mile range in 30 minutes.
But Tesla and Panasonic are currently working together on battery technology and have kicked off production of the 2,170 cell to be used in the carmakers Powerwall 2 and Powerpack 2 products, as well as the Model 3 car. Samsung is likely to face stiff competition from Tesla and Panasonic in the battery space

Nego, da se vratimo originalnoj temi ovog topika:

Flying car prototype ready by end of 2017, says Airbus CEO

QuoteAirbus Group plans to test a prototype for a self-piloted flying car as a way of avoiding gridlock on city roads by the end of the year, the aerospace group's chief executive said on Monday. Airbus last year formed a division called Urban Air Mobility that is exploring concepts such as a vehicle to transport individuals or a helicopter-style vehicle that can carry multiple riders. The aim would be for people to book the vehicle using an app, similar to car-sharing schemes.
"One hundred years ago, urban transport went underground, now we have the technological wherewithal to go above ground," Airbus CEO Tom Enders told the DLD digital tech conference in Munich, adding he hoped the Airbus could fly a demonstration vehicle for single-person transport by the end of the year.
"We are in an experimentation phase, we take this development very seriously," he said, adding that Airbus recognized such technologies would have to be clean to avoid further polluting congested cities.
He said using the skies could also reduce costs for city infrastructure planners. "With flying, you don't need to pour billions into concrete bridges and roads," he said.
Enders said Airbus, as the world's largest maker of commercial helicopters, wanted to invest to make the most of new technologies such as autonomous driving and artificial intelligence, to usher in what amounts to an era of flying cars.
"If we ignore these developments, we will be pushed out of important segments of the business," he said.
A spokesman for Airbus declined to say how much the company was investing in urban mobility.

Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

The race for autonomous cars is over. Silicon Valley lost.

QuoteUp until very recently the talk in Silicon Valley was about how the tech industry was going to broom Detroit into the dustbin of history. Companies such as Apple, Google, and Uber - so the thinking went -were going to out run, out gun, and out innovate the automakers. Today that talk is starting to fade. There's a dawning realization that maybe there's a good reason why the traditional car companies have been around for more than a century.

Last year Apple laid off most of the engineers it hired to design its own car. Google (now Waymo) stopped talking about making its own car. And Uber, despite its sky high market valuation, is still a long, long way from ever making any money, much less making its own autonomous cars.

To paraphrase Elon Musk, Silicon Valley is learning that "Making rockets is hard, but making cars is really hard." People outside of the auto industry tend to have a shallow understanding of how complex the business really is. They think all you have to do is design a car and start making it. But most startups never make it past the concept car stage because the move to mass production proves too daunting. Even Tesla, the only successful automotive company to come out of Silicon Valley so far, made but 80,000 cars last year and it's been in business for nearly 15 years.



When it came to autonomous cars the tech industry thought it would monopolize the technology, then dictate terms to the traditional Original Equipment Manufacturers. But the big OEMs did not sit on their hands. Ford, GM, Audi, Mercedes, Nissan and others launched vigorous in-house autonomous programs. So did a number of traditional Tier 1 suppliers like Delphi. They're now fully competitive. And they've been buying Silicon Valley companies to bolster their efforts, not the other way around.

This is where most in the Valley missed a crucial point. The history of the auto industry shows that all technologies get whittled down to a handful of global suppliers who then get caught up in a cost-cutting race to the bottom. When the tech companies decided to go after autonomous cars they were not dreaming of simply becoming automotive suppliers. It never dawned on them that maybe they'd only end up making - at best - 10% profit margins, not the 40% margins the Valley investment community feeds on.

Yet, while companies like Google and Apple are giving up on making cars, they're not giving up on the auto industry. There is another area where Silicon Valley could play a dominant role and it's all about accessing car-based data.

One billion people get in and out of a car every single day. They go to work, they go home, they shop, they play, they do a billion different things. Knowing where they're going and what they're doing can be very valuable. That data can be aggregated, sorted, and packaged. And then it can be sold to anyone.

Unlike automotive manufacturing, Big Data analytics driven by Artificial Intelligence does not require large capital investments in factories and equipment. That translates into meaty profit margins, reportedly as high as 90%.

There are basically two sets of data. One set is generated by the car, such as how all the parts and components are performing and how well the car is running. That allows automakers to mine the data for a variety of uses, such as trend analysis to quickly identify warranty issues or learn how to set more effective engineering specifications.

The other set of data is generated by the people in the car; a massive amount of information flowing in and out about where they're going and what they're doing. Last year in the U.S. market alone Chevrolet collected 4,220 terabytes of data from customer's cars. McKinsey forecasts that this could grow into a $450 to 750 billion market by 2030. Retailers, advertisers, marketers, product planners, financial analysts, government agencies, and so many others will eagerly pay to get access to that information. And it's a gift that keeps on giving. You can sell the same data again, again and again to a variety of different customers.

So the race to make autonomous cars is over and the traditional car companies still get to control who makes cars. But the race to control the data from those cars is just getting going. It's a brand new marketplace that will play to the strengths of Silicon Valley as the car companies lay their plans to grab what they can get.

This is the first footage of Larry Page's 'flying car'



https://youtu.be/mMWh4W1C2PM






Nije da je ovo baš "automobil", ali... hajde.

Takeoff and cruise: Toyota making 'flying car,' luxury boat

Quote
         TOYOTA, Japan        (AP) -- Toyota Motor Corp. is working on a "flying car."
A startup backed by the Japanese automaker has developed a test model that engineers hope will eventually develop into a tiny car with a driver who'll be able to light the Olympic torch in the 2020 Tokyo games. For now, however, the project is a concoction of aluminum framing and eight propellers that barely gets off the ground and crashes after several seconds.
Toyota has invested 42.5 million yen ($386,000) in startup Cartivator Resource Management to work on "Sky Drive ." At a test flight Saturday in the city where the automaker is based, the gadgetry, about the size of a car and loaded with batteries and sensors, blew up a lot of sand and made a lot of noise.
It managed to get up as high as eye level for several seconds before tilting and falling to the ground. Basketballs attached to its bottom served as cushions. After several attempts, the endeavor had to be canceled after one of the covers got detached from the frame and broke, damaging the propellers.
The goal of Cartivator's is to deliver a seamless transition from driving to flight, like the world of "Back to the Future," said the project's leader Tsubasa Nakamura.
"I always loved planes and cars. And my longtime dream was to have a personal vehicle that can fly and go many places," he told The Associated Press.
The group is now working on a better design with the money from Toyota with the plan to have the first manned flight in 2019. No one has ridden on Sky Drive yet, or any drone, as that would be too dangerous.
Still, dabbling in businesses other than cars is Toyota's trademark. In recent years, it has been aggressively venturing into robotics and artificial intelligence, investing a billion dollars in a research and development company in Silicon Valley. It's also working in Japan on using robotics to help the sick walk. It also just announced a five-year $35 million investment in its research center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for autonomous and connected vehicle technologies.
The idea that each generation must take up challenges is part of Toyota's roots, said auto analyst Takaki Nakanishi.
President Akio Toyoda's great-grandfather Sakichi Toyoda started out developing the loom and then its automated improvements from the 1890s, before the company became an automaker. More recently, Toyota sees software and services as central to the auto industry, as cars become connected, start driving themselves and turn into lifestyle digital tools, Nakanishi said.
As Toyota gets into the business of ecological vehicles, such as hybrids, electric cars and fuel cells, it's turning into an energy company as well.
"Toyota's business is centered on mobility, anything that moves, including people, things, money, information, energy," said Nakanishi.
Toyota is traveling not only in the skies but also to the waters, although that still remains a tiny part of its sprawling empire.
Toyota's boat operations began in 1997. Toyota now offers four models and has sold a cumulative 845 boats. In contrast, Toyota sells about 10 million vehicles a year around the world.
Reporters recently got a ride in Tokyo Bay of a Lexus luxury concept "yacht," which runs on two gas engines. With a streamlined curvaceous design, inspired by a dolphin and evocative of a Lexus car, it's being promised as a commercial product in the next few years.
Designed for executives zipping through resort waters, it comes with fantasy-evoking features, like an anchor pulled in by a chain into a tiny door in the bow, which opens then closes mechanically.
The engine, shiny like a chrome sculpture, is visible beneath the sheer floor surface. Shigeki Tomoyama, the executive in charge, said the boat was going for "a liberating effect." A price was not given. Many Americans have already expressed interest, according to Toyota.
The project started about two years ago under direct orders from Toyoda, who has with Tomoyama spearheaded Toyota's Gazoo internet business, another non-auto business for Toyota.
"He asked us to create a space that can work as a secret hiding place in the middle of the ocean," Tomoyama said. "We went for the wow factor, which requires no words."
---
Online: http://cartivator.com/
---
Yuri Kageyama can be reached on Twitter at https://twitter.com/yurikageyama
Her work can be found at https://www.apnews.com/search/yuri%20kageyama

Uber shows its flying car prototype, which looks like a giant drone

Ne verujemo da je Melkor, kada je pre jedanaest godina pokrenuo ovaj topik, očekivao baš ovakav razvoj situacije:


Uspeo eksperiment Željka Mitrovića: Da li će leteći automobil preleteti Beograd 1.avgusta 

Da prenebregnemo da je poslednjih godina postalo prihvatljivo da se upitne rečenice ne završavaju upitnikom, treba ovde ipak biti pribran i setiti se Beteridžovog zakona naslova: ako je u naslovu pitanje na koje se može odgovoriti sa "da" ili "ne", odgovor je "ne".

Koješta. Već se sudaraju i leteeeee!

Jel eksperiment uspeo kao ozoniranje?

Žeks je, kao što znamo, sa malo zakašnjenja spreman da leti. Ali dok čekamo njega, Japan uzvraća udarac:

  Japan's 'flying car' gets off ground, with a person aboard

Norway to hit 100 per cent electric vehicle sales early next year

Watch sci-fi become reality as hoverbike takes off in Michigan. 'Out of Star Wars'

Željko Mitrović na aparatima:


Take a look at the $300,000 electric flying car with a 110-mile range in the air that just got FAA approval for test flights