FLM films - My Webpage

2003-12-27 06:37:08-06:00 - Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


Everyone is talking about SMG not reprising the role of "Buffy Anne Summers", you, the once and future, to quote a certain story teller: "Slayer . . . of Vampires". And I would be hard pressed to come up someone who could take over the role--after all, SMG was not the original person to play Buffy--until this year, and the perfect choice comes searingly blindingly to the fore: KATHRYN MORRIS www.cbs.com/primetime/cold_case She currently stars on CBS's new drama COLD CASE. In the pilot episode, her character, "Lilly Rush", taunts a murderer she's been investigating, who as a kid, was part of a rich family with the wealth and connections to cover up his crime so that he literally got away with murder (until decades later, a former housekeeper finally spills the beans). Sure, she does it in the parking lot of the police station, but it's late at night, there's no one else outside, she doesn't have her gun, and even if she did, she doesn't even have her hands near where it might be hidden, and she's right up close in the guy's face, literally daring him to beat her up like he beat up and beat to death a girl in the 1980s. It was then and there I knew she could play a grown-up Buffy. Plus she has somewhat of a resemblance to SMG. -- Ken from Chicago P.S. The character she plays, "Lilly Rush", while she loves the homicide beat, she keeps going back to cold cases is, not to give closure to the survivors (which was the answer I was expecting), but rather, because she hates "that some [bleep] got away with murder."

2003-12-27 15:55:15+01:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Wouter Valentijn <WouterValentijnwisheshewas@home.nl>)


"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> schreef in bericht news:n_2dnd3XlPZp4XCi4p2dnA@comcast.com... > Everyone is talking about SMG not reprising the role of "Buffy Anne > Summers", you, the once and future, to quote a certain story teller: "Slayer > . . . of Vampires". > > And I would be hard pressed to come up someone who could take over the > role--after all, SMG was not the original person to play Buffy--until this > year, and the perfect choice comes searingly blindingly to the fore: > > KATHRYN MORRIS > > www.cbs.com/primetime/cold_case > > She currently stars on CBS's new drama COLD CASE. > > In the pilot episode, her character, "Lilly Rush", taunts a murderer she's > been investigating, who as a kid, was part of a rich family with the wealth > and connections to cover up his crime so that he literally got away with > murder (until decades later, a former housekeeper finally spills the beans). > Sure, she does it in the parking lot of the police station, but it's late at > night, there's no one else outside, she doesn't have her gun, and even if > she did, she doesn't even have her hands near where it might be hidden, and > she's right up close in the guy's face, literally daring him to beat her up > like he beat up and beat to death a girl in the 1980s. > > It was then and there I knew she could play a grown-up Buffy. > > Plus she has somewhat of a resemblance to SMG. She does look like her a bit yeah. Could she stand in SMG's shoes? I don't know. Haven't seen 'Cold Case' yet. Hope some Dutch broadcaster will start carrying it, because from your discription I think I would really like it. > > -- Ken from Chicago > > P.S. The character she plays, "Lilly Rush", while she loves the homicide > beat, she keeps going back to cold cases is, not to give closure to the > survivors (which was the answer I was expecting), but rather, because she > hates "that some [bleep] got away with murder." O hell! If that's isn't reason enough! I like her already. -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl http://www.angelfire.com/ego/zeppodunsel/ With fanfics and essays. Some in Dutch. Some in English. www.nksf.nl De Nederlandstalige Nieuwsgroep voor SF, Fantasy en Horror.

2003-12-28 07:01:50+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


I was watching some awful movie on cable the other day and it struck me like a bolt of lightning, Nicole Eggert should be the next "chosen one". She doesn't seem to be getting much work these days in Hollywood and it was scary how much she reminded me of SMG in this particular movie. Of course the movie was 7 or 8 years old, so I'm not sure how she has aged, but I'm sure Hollywood can work its magic.

2003-12-28 17:03:17+01:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Wouter Valentijn <WouterValentijnwisheshewas@home.nl>)


"Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht news:ydvHb.12215$IM3.8104@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > I was watching some awful movie on cable the other day and it struck me like > a bolt of lightning, Nicole Eggert should be the next "chosen one". She > doesn't seem to be getting much work these days in Hollywood and it was > scary how much she reminded me of SMG in this particular movie. Of course > the movie was 7 or 8 years old, so I'm not sure how she has aged, but I'm > sure Hollywood can work its magic. > Her? http://makeashorterlink.com/?X32D257E6 -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl http://www.angelfire.com/ego/zeppodunsel/ With fanfics and essays. Some in Dutch. Some in English. www.nksf.nl De Nederlandstalige Nieuwsgroep voor SF, Fantasy en Horror.

2003-12-29 07:26:28+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <WouterValentijnwisheshewas@home.nl> wrote in message news:bsmupv$eco51$1@ID-43412.news.uni-berlin.de... > Her? > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?X32D257E6 Well, some of those seem to be of her, but some at the top looked fake or of other actresses. Nicole Eggert is probably most well known from her stint on "Baywatch". Physically, she looks like a healthy looking clone of a season 6 SMG(pretty much same height and all).

2004-01-14 23:02:53-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - ("Joseph S. Powell, III" <jpowell180@charter.net>)


No Buffy but SMG, period. Kristy Swanson is cute, but she was just in a 2-hour film that (even though Joss wrote it) pales in comparison to the series, and to be honest SMG is a far superior actress...when BTVS the Series came into it's own, the rold became solely Sarah's. I'd rather they never show the Buffy character again than have someone else play her. I really don't think I'm alone here, either. "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:n_2dnd3XlPZp4XCi4p2dnA@comcast.com... > Everyone is talking about SMG not reprising the role of "Buffy Anne > Summers", you, the once and future, to quote a certain story teller: "Slayer > . . . of Vampires". > > And I would be hard pressed to come up someone who could take over the > role--after all, SMG was not the original person to play Buffy--until this > year, and the perfect choice comes searingly blindingly to the fore: > > KATHRYN MORRIS > > www.cbs.com/primetime/cold_case > > She currently stars on CBS's new drama COLD CASE. > > In the pilot episode, her character, "Lilly Rush", taunts a murderer she's > been investigating, who as a kid, was part of a rich family with the wealth > and connections to cover up his crime so that he literally got away with > murder (until decades later, a former housekeeper finally spills the beans). > Sure, she does it in the parking lot of the police station, but it's late at > night, there's no one else outside, she doesn't have her gun, and even if > she did, she doesn't even have her hands near where it might be hidden, and > she's right up close in the guy's face, literally daring him to beat her up > like he beat up and beat to death a girl in the 1980s. > > It was then and there I knew she could play a grown-up Buffy. > > Plus she has somewhat of a resemblance to SMG. > > -- Ken from Chicago > > P.S. The character she plays, "Lilly Rush", while she loves the homicide > beat, she keeps going back to cold cases is, not to give closure to the > survivors (which was the answer I was expecting), but rather, because she > hates "that some [bleep] got away with murder." > > >

2004-01-15 00:17:03-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Joseph S. Powell, III" <jpowell180@charter.net> wrote in message news:100c7v1jv4rce47@corp.supernews.com... > No Buffy but SMG, period. > Kristy Swanson is cute, but she was just in a 2-hour film that (even though > Joss wrote it) pales in comparison to the series, and to be honest SMG is a > far superior actress...when BTVS the Series came into it's own, the rold > became solely Sarah's. > I'd rather they never show the Buffy character again than have someone else > play her. > I really don't think I'm alone here, either. <snip> Not even set 5-10 years into . . . THE FUTURE?! -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-15 07:05:11+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com>)


Ken from Chicago wrote: > > "Joseph S. Powell, III" <jpowell180@charter.net> wrote in message > news:100c7v1jv4rce47@corp.supernews.com... > > No Buffy but SMG, period. > > Kristy Swanson is cute, but she was just in a 2-hour film that (even > > though Joss wrote it) pales in comparison to the series, and to be > > honest SMG is a far superior actress...when BTVS the Series came > > into it's own, the rold became solely Sarah's. > > I'd rather they never show the Buffy character again than have > > someone else play her. > > I really don't think I'm alone here, either. > > <snip> > > Not even set 5-10 years into . . . THE FUTURE?! "The Future, Conan?"

2004-01-15 07:34:33-08:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (soylent_purple@hotmail.com)


"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<yuqdncpz2MDCrZvdRVn-hw@comcast.com>... > > I'd rather they never show the Buffy character again > > than have someone else play her. > > <snip> > > Not even set 5-10 years into . . . THE FUTURE?! > > -- Ken from Chicago "What happens to us in the future? Do we become assholes or something?" -Marty, Back to the Future, 1985 Roy, who's STILL waiting for his flying car

2004-01-15 19:02:55-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"David Samuel Barr" <dsbarr@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:40063B2E.7E35@mindspring.com... > Ken from Chicago wrote: > > > > "Joseph S. Powell, III" <jpowell180@charter.net> wrote in message > > news:100c7v1jv4rce47@corp.supernews.com... > > > No Buffy but SMG, period. > > > Kristy Swanson is cute, but she was just in a 2-hour film that (even > > > though Joss wrote it) pales in comparison to the series, and to be > > > honest SMG is a far superior actress...when BTVS the Series came > > > into it's own, the rold became solely Sarah's. > > > I'd rather they never show the Buffy character again than have > > > someone else play her. > > > I really don't think I'm alone here, either. > > > > <snip> > > > > Not even set 5-10 years into . . . THE FUTURE?! > > "The Future, Conan?" > In the year THREE thousaaaaaand! -- Ken from Chicago (who wonders why Conan's still stuck on two thousand)

2004-01-15 19:05:01-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Roy. Just Roy." <soylent_purple@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:da6fca96.0401150734.61add072@posting.google.com... > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<yuqdncpz2MDCrZvdRVn-hw@comcast.com>... > > > > I'd rather they never show the Buffy character again > > > than have someone else play her. > > > > <snip> > > > > Not even set 5-10 years into . . . THE FUTURE?! > > > > -- Ken from Chicago > > "What happens to us in the future? Do we become assholes or something?" > -Marty, Back to the Future, 1985 Heavy. > Roy, who's STILL waiting for his flying car I'd settle for a self-driving car (so I can nap, read, watch tv, or play video games while commuting, or send the car to the gas station to fillerup or get a lube job, or go to the store to pick up orders or take-out). -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-15 20:25:55-05:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <QtGdnSSymPojpZrdRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Roy. Just Roy." <soylent_purple@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:da6fca96.0401150734.61add072@posting.google.com... > > > Roy, who's STILL waiting for his flying car > > I'd settle for a self-driving car (so I can nap, read, watch tv, or play > video games while commuting, or send the car to the gas station to fillerup > or get a lube job, or go to the store to pick up orders or take-out). > > -- Ken from Chicago It's called a taxi. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-01-16 01:44:46-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:150120042025550310%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <QtGdnSSymPojpZrdRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Roy. Just Roy." <soylent_purple@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:da6fca96.0401150734.61add072@posting.google.com... > > > > > Roy, who's STILL waiting for his flying car > > > > I'd settle for a self-driving car (so I can nap, read, watch tv, or play > > video games while commuting, or send the car to the gas station to fillerup > > or get a lube job, or go to the store to pick up orders or take-out). > > > > -- Ken from Chicago > > It's called a taxi. > > -- > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > Quando omni flunkus moritati But with a self-driving car, an "Auto Auto", EVERYONE could have their own personal taxi--aka personal chaffeur. Plus I wouldn't have worry about so many slowpoke, sleepy, intoxicated or maniac drivers on *my* roads. -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-16 15:11:39+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message >news:150120042025550310%dsample@synapse.net... >> In article <QtGdnSSymPojpZrdRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago >> <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> > I'd settle for a self-driving car (so I can nap, read, watch tv, or play >> > video games while commuting, or send the car to the gas station to >> >fillerup or get a lube job, or go to the store to pick up orders or >> >take-out). >> It's called a taxi. >But with a self-driving car, an "Auto Auto", EVERYONE could have their own >personal taxi--aka personal chaffeur. Plus I wouldn't have worry about so >many slowpoke, sleepy, intoxicated or maniac drivers on *my* roads. The problem with self-driving cars is that it'll be very, very hard to make cars that can drive themselves as well as a highly-skilled driver could. The other problem is that while the vast majority of drivers aren't highly-skilled, they believe they are. So everyone is going to believe they can do a better job than the auto-car, even though that's not necessarily the case. So no one will want to buy one, or if they do buy one, they'll use the manual driving option even in cases where the automatic driving would be the better choice. Pete

2004-01-16 19:00:28-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message news:bu8uva$lgl$5@news3.bu.edu... > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > >news:150120042025550310%dsample@synapse.net... > >> In article <QtGdnSSymPojpZrdRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago > >> <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >> > I'd settle for a self-driving car (so I can nap, read, watch tv, or play > >> > video games while commuting, or send the car to the gas station to > >> >fillerup or get a lube job, or go to the store to pick up orders or > >> >take-out). > > >> It's called a taxi. > > >But with a self-driving car, an "Auto Auto", EVERYONE could have their own > >personal taxi--aka personal chaffeur. Plus I wouldn't have worry about so > >many slowpoke, sleepy, intoxicated or maniac drivers on *my* roads. > > The problem with self-driving cars is that it'll be very, very hard > to make cars that can drive themselves as well as a highly-skilled > driver could. The other problem is that while the vast majority Not conceptually. Plus by the time the technology advances to make Robochaffeurs feasible, wireless networking would allow cars to network with each other their intentions and work out seamless merges, maximum use of roads by driving far closer to each other at higher speeds than individual distractable human drivers. Radar, sonar, motion detectors would allow for full 360 degree continuous monitoring of roads, eliminating blind spots. Built in webcams and networking would allow for immediate detection and broadcasting of road hazards so the traffic FLOW can adapt and avoid seamlessly--plus with networked digital cameras built into cars, passengers can see and record roadside accidents for convenient viewing WITHOUT slowing down. > of drivers aren't highly-skilled, they believe they are. So everyone > is going to believe they can do a better job than the auto-car, Skill is irrelevant versus convenience. Everyone pretty much agree fast food is crap, but the CONVENIENCE of getting food in 5 minutes outweigh having to spend 10-20-30 minutes to cook one yourself. Sure a small minority would prefer manual driving, but as the technology gains in popularity, convenience and affordability than its use would spread. > even though that's not necessarily the case. So no one will want > to buy one, or if they do buy one, they'll use the manual driving > option even in cases where the automatic driving would be the > better choice. > > Pete Ah, but that argument has a major flaw that overlooks one fundamental basic rule about driving: The overwhelming majority of people LOVE DRIVING but HATE COMMUTING. In short, name the last 3 commercials for cars featuring the manufacturer's car in bumper to bumper traffic. It's no coincidence car ads feature the car on OPEN roads OR at least SPEEDING along thru traffic. -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-17 11:59:38-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message news:bubmtv$qqa$4@news3.bu.edu... > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message > >news:bu8uva$lgl$5@news3.bu.edu... > >> In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago > > >> The problem with self-driving cars is that it'll be very, very hard > >> to make cars that can drive themselves as well as a highly-skilled > >> driver could. The other problem is that while the vast majority > > >Not conceptually. > > There's a big difference between conceptual and actual, though. > > > Plus by the time the technology advances to make > >Robochaffeurs feasible, wireless networking would allow cars to network with > >each other their intentions and work out seamless merges, maximum use of > >roads by driving far closer to each other at higher speeds than individual > >distractable human drivers. > > I don't know about you, but I don't trust anything electronic to > do that safely. One mistake and you've got a huge accident on > your hands. > > Sure, if everything works perfectly, it'll be just like you say. > But it'll be a LONG time before everything can be made to work > perfectly, and I really don't want to be a guinea pig for the > trial and error process. > > Now that I think of it, you just know Microsoft will get involved > in a big way if this sort of thing ever becomes a reality. And > you think it's annoying when your computer crashes? > > > Radar, sonar, motion detectors would allow for > >full 360 degree continuous monitoring of roads, eliminating blind spots. > >Built in webcams and networking would allow for immediate detection and > >broadcasting of road hazards so the traffic FLOW can adapt and avoid > >seamlessly--plus with networked digital cameras built into cars, passengers > >can see and record roadside accidents for convenient viewing WITHOUT slowing > >down. > > But they won't. Unless you lock them into their cars and just plain > don't allow human input, the human drivers are still going to do all > sorts of stupid things that will mess up the system. To do what? Most of the gapers delay around accidents is due to commuters being bored out of their minds and roadside accidents being the only thing to truly break up the monotony. And if one can use networked cameras with digital zoom to record and monitor an accident while the car keep drivings toward, to and past said accident, why would the "driver", even want to take over the driving if they are truly interested in said accident and instead simply tap in the wireless network of car cams monitoring the accident? > >> of drivers aren't highly-skilled, they believe they are. So everyone > >> is going to believe they can do a better job than the auto-car, > > >Skill is irrelevant versus convenience. Everyone pretty much agree fast food > >is crap, but the CONVENIENCE of getting food in 5 minutes outweigh having to > >spend 10-20-30 minutes to cook one yourself. Sure a small minority would > >prefer manual driving, but as the technology gains in popularity, > >convenience and affordability than its use would spread. > > Only if people trust the technology. It's going to take a long time > for people to trust a machine to drive them in fast, heavy traffic. > > >> even though that's not necessarily the case. So no one will want > >> to buy one, or if they do buy one, they'll use the manual driving > >> option even in cases where the automatic driving would be the > >> better choice. > > >Ah, but that argument has a major flaw that overlooks one fundamental basic > >rule about driving: > > Honestly, I think you're overlooking a couple of fundamental basic > rules about people. They're not going to blindly trust a machine > to keep them safe, and they're not going to let any machine do its > job without interfering in some way. > > Pete That's the ILLUSION of human control. People ALREADY trust computers and machines, from individual automobile electronic braking systems, computerized engine monitoring, to similar controls in trucks, planes, ships, trains, skyscraper elevators, drawbridge controls, air traffc control systems, airplane monitoring systems, to say nothing of the more exotically dangerous rocket ships, space shuttles, satellites, water filtration plants, power systems, hospital monitors, nuclear plants, nuclear subs, military jets, etc., etc., etc. That or people THINK humans are controllng systems that are mostly, if not entirely, run by computer or mechanical systems. It's not you. I'm not attacking you personally, but the illusion is widespread. Humans may be at various checkpoints but their responsibility is just as reliant on the computers and machines running the show. Most planes, ships, subs and trains run on autopilot for the most par. People are not continuously monitoring every little move those vehicles make. Moreover there is the ILLUSION that Microsoft Windows Operating System is the be-all end-all of computers and operating systems--when nothing, happily, is further from the truth. And even MS OS can be bolstered by the simple use of triple redundancy and getting repairs at the first sign of trouble-which many people do not do. -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-17 14:35:29-05:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <buc024$nan$1@news3.bu.edu>, Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote: > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >Peter Meilinger wrote: > > >> The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. > >> But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the > >> illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're > >> not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily > >> give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" > >> > >> What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist > >> on driving the car themselves until they see proof that > >> it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, > >> they might not believe it. Because they're human, and > >> as illogical and dumb as all get out. > > >But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, where > >there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And the > >aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and > >computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer winning > >every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could > >*not* have pulled up without stalling. > > That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer > can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot > of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And > if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with > different species of humans all our lives. > > Pete The first automated roads will probably be expressways. If you want to use them, you *have* to surrender control of your car, and you will not be able to regain control until after you leave the expressway. Given a choice between zipping along at 90mph to their destination or poking through side streets at 30mph (when they aren't sitting still) a fair number of people will opt for surrendering control. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-01-17 16:12:10-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message news:bubtqp$hnm$1@news3.bu.edu... > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message > >news:bubmtv$qqa$4@news3.bu.edu... > >> > >> But they won't. Unless you lock them into their cars and just plain > >> don't allow human input, the human drivers are still going to do all > >> sorts of stupid things that will mess up the system. > > >To do what? Most of the gapers delay around accidents is due to commuters > >being bored out of their minds and roadside accidents being the only thing > >to truly break up the monotony. > > This might actually cut down on rubbernecking delays, yes. But > do you really think people are going to just sit back and let > the car drive itself, with no input at all from them? If you > do, you've been living among a different human race than I have > all my life. It's what people with chaffeurs do all the time. They give a destination, or maybe change destinations, but the chaffeur does the "grunt" work of driving--freeing the passenger to relax. > >> Honestly, I think you're overlooking a couple of fundamental basic > >> rules about people. They're not going to blindly trust a machine > >> to keep them safe, and they're not going to let any machine do its > >> job without interfering in some way. > > >That's the ILLUSION of human control. > > Sure. And you make some very good points in the paragraph I cut > here for space. > > >It's not you. I'm not attacking you personally, but the illusion is > >widespread. Humans may be at various checkpoints but their responsibility is > >just as reliant on the computers and machines running the show. Most planes, > >ships, subs and trains run on autopilot for the most par. People are not > >continuously monitoring every little move those vehicles make. > > Right. But people are involved at some level, usually at the very > top. A pilot is there to take over when the auto-pilot messes up, Except for the most part the problem is human error. The reason for the autopilot is to take over for when the human messes up, or to keep humans from messing up in the first place. How many times since 9/11 have there been pilots showing up to work drunk? > or when something happens that the auto-pilot is just not programmed > to deal with. And if you could actually program an auto-pilot to > deal with every conceivable situation, it'd probably fly the plane > better than any human ever could. The trick is programming for > every conceivable situation. It's just not possible. And even if > it were, people wouldn't trust the machines to be 100% reliable > and safe. And they'd be right to not trust them, because no > machine is 100% reliable and safe. They already do: elevators, automated public transportation, roller coasters. Sure, some people would resist the convenience of computer chauffeurs, just as some people still prefer typewriters, some even prefer MANUAL typewriters, but those are fewer and farther in between. > The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. > But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the > illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're > not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily > give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" > > What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist > on driving the car themselves until they see proof that > it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, > they might not believe it. Because they're human, and > as illogical and dumb as all get out. > > Pete Agreed. It wouldn't be absolute 100 percent usage. But the overwhelming majority would opt for it. Sure, some people like antique automobiles, but the overwhelming majority prefer computer electronic ignitions, power windows, power doors, power trunks, remote control door locks and trunks. I've had my '96 Bonneville for about 3 years now and weeks can go by with the only buttons I press are radio control buttons on the steering wheel, windshield wipers or driver-side windows for drive-thrus, due to the automatic air / heat systems, daylight sensing headlights, automatic door locks (which lock when the car is first put into drive and unlock when the car is put into park). And for those not convinced by safety, convenience is a selling point. Just like hybrid cars. Those not sold on their environmental safety would be more likely sold on convenience of having a car that gets maybe 50-75 mpg, only having to be refueled once a month, or go on road trips and only have to refuel 500-600 miles. The convenience of having your own personal chaffeur is very big selling point. Imagine going to somewhere, being dropped off at the front door, and having the car go park itself--or while on the way, noting it's low on fuel so after dropping you off, it goes to a refuelling station (be it gasoline, natural gas, swapping out batteries, whatever) and then returns and parks, maybe getting a car wash and a lube job. Imagine sending it to the store, into the shipping dock, popping its trunk while store clerks load up your car with an order (limiting access to the trunk or if an SUV, perhaps a chain net is unwound to screen off the passenger section). The CONVENIENCE of a computer-driven car is more than you riding in it. Moreover the elderly or challenged who wouldn't qualify for a license could regain independent mobility. Parents could send kids to school and use the car to go to work or vice versa (natch, internal and external vidcams would help to ward off unwanted passengers). -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-17 16:12:47+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message >news:bu8uva$lgl$5@news3.bu.edu... >> In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago >> The problem with self-driving cars is that it'll be very, very hard >> to make cars that can drive themselves as well as a highly-skilled >> driver could. The other problem is that while the vast majority >Not conceptually. There's a big difference between conceptual and actual, though. > Plus by the time the technology advances to make >Robochaffeurs feasible, wireless networking would allow cars to network with >each other their intentions and work out seamless merges, maximum use of >roads by driving far closer to each other at higher speeds than individual >distractable human drivers. I don't know about you, but I don't trust anything electronic to do that safely. One mistake and you've got a huge accident on your hands. Sure, if everything works perfectly, it'll be just like you say. But it'll be a LONG time before everything can be made to work perfectly, and I really don't want to be a guinea pig for the trial and error process. Now that I think of it, you just know Microsoft will get involved in a big way if this sort of thing ever becomes a reality. And you think it's annoying when your computer crashes? > Radar, sonar, motion detectors would allow for >full 360 degree continuous monitoring of roads, eliminating blind spots. >Built in webcams and networking would allow for immediate detection and >broadcasting of road hazards so the traffic FLOW can adapt and avoid >seamlessly--plus with networked digital cameras built into cars, passengers >can see and record roadside accidents for convenient viewing WITHOUT slowing >down. But they won't. Unless you lock them into their cars and just plain don't allow human input, the human drivers are still going to do all sorts of stupid things that will mess up the system. >> of drivers aren't highly-skilled, they believe they are. So everyone >> is going to believe they can do a better job than the auto-car, >Skill is irrelevant versus convenience. Everyone pretty much agree fast food >is crap, but the CONVENIENCE of getting food in 5 minutes outweigh having to >spend 10-20-30 minutes to cook one yourself. Sure a small minority would >prefer manual driving, but as the technology gains in popularity, >convenience and affordability than its use would spread. Only if people trust the technology. It's going to take a long time for people to trust a machine to drive them in fast, heavy traffic. >> even though that's not necessarily the case. So no one will want >> to buy one, or if they do buy one, they'll use the manual driving >> option even in cases where the automatic driving would be the >> better choice. >Ah, but that argument has a major flaw that overlooks one fundamental basic >rule about driving: Honestly, I think you're overlooking a couple of fundamental basic rules about people. They're not going to blindly trust a machine to keep them safe, and they're not going to let any machine do its job without interfering in some way. Pete

2004-01-17 17:18:19-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:WbfOb.5393$JL4.41768@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net... <snip> > But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, where > there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And the > aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and > computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer winning > every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could > *not* have pulled up without stalling. > -- > John Briggs The same exists in cars with power-steering. Some of the top military jets, especially the stealth jets, are simply impossible to fly manually, that the computers are constantly adjusting the controls to keep the plane in the air. With cars, you could have ASSISTED driving. The computer compensates for slow reflexes, warns you of cars in your blindspots, amplifies night driving with heads-up displays, enhanced traction for driving in the rain or on ice, or helps prevent you from spinning out or fishtailing on bad roads. If you're sleepy it can help keep you in the lane and prevent you from swerving all over the road or automatically slow gently to a stop at the next available open spot on the side of the road if you do nod off. -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-17 17:22:12-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message news:buc024$nan$1@news3.bu.edu... > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >Peter Meilinger wrote: > > >> The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. > >> But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the > >> illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're > >> not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily > >> give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" > >> > >> What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist > >> on driving the car themselves until they see proof that > >> it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, > >> they might not believe it. Because they're human, and > >> as illogical and dumb as all get out. > > >But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, where > >there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And the > >aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and > >computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer winning > >every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could > >*not* have pulled up without stalling. > > That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer > can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot > of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And > if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with > different species of humans all our lives. > > Pete True, but there are always early adaptors and late adaptors. There are still people who ... (GASP) ... insist on writing books in longhand. I'm not saying there would be total acceptance, but an overwhelming acceptance--like tvs. -- Ken from Chicago (who still has trouble accepting that black and white tvs are still sold in America)

2004-01-17 17:25:58-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:170120041435296238%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <buc024$nan$1@news3.bu.edu>, Peter Meilinger > <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote: > > > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > >Peter Meilinger wrote: > > > > >> The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. > > >> But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the > > >> illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're > > >> not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily > > >> give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" > > >> > > >> What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist > > >> on driving the car themselves until they see proof that > > >> it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, > > >> they might not believe it. Because they're human, and > > >> as illogical and dumb as all get out. > > > > >But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, where > > >there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And the > > >aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and > > >computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer winning > > >every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could > > >*not* have pulled up without stalling. > > > > That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer > > can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot > > of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And > > if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with > > different species of humans all our lives. > > > > Pete > > The first automated roads will probably be expressways. If you want to > use them, you *have* to surrender control of your car, and you will not > be able to regain control until after you leave the expressway. Given > a choice between zipping along at 90mph to their destination or poking > through side streets at 30mph (when they aren't sitting still) a fair > number of people will opt for surrendering control. > > -- > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > Quando omni flunkus moritati Agreed, altho I'd up the speed limit to 120-150 mph. I've seen people cruising down the expressway easily at 90-100 mph. A "bonus" would be by the time the tech reached that stage, toll road toll gates would be pointless. Every car would have built in wireless networking, so there wouldn't be those bottlenecks at toll gates, plus drivers could be charge for how much they actually used the road instead of giant chunks of road. -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-17 17:38:32-06:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message news:buc3v2$3vg$1@news3.bu.edu... > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > >In article <buc024$nan$1@news3.bu.edu>, Peter Meilinger > ><mellnger@bu.edu> wrote: > > >> That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer > >> can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot > >> of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And > >> if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with > >> different species of humans all our lives. > > >The first automated roads will probably be expressways. If you want to > >use them, you *have* to surrender control of your car, and you will not > >be able to regain control until after you leave the expressway. Given > >a choice between zipping along at 90mph to their destination or poking > >through side streets at 30mph (when they aren't sitting still) a fair > >number of people will opt for surrendering control. > > And a fair number of people will die while all the kinks are worked > out. Doesn't even have to be computer or human errors. Terrorists > would love to lob a stick of dynamite into whatever computer runs > everything. > > You're right, though, the best way to start would be highways > and expressways. And it'll be great if it all works as it should. > But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. > > Pete Less than 3,000 people died in America in 2001 due to terrorist attacks. OVER 1,000 percent of that amount died that same year and each year since due to car crashes. Plus central computers wouldn't be required to run the cars. While that's an old model for how it could be done, with wireless networking, central computers wouldn't be necessary. Sure, local and state transportation departments might have their own node in the traffic net to monitor for road hazards and needs for road construction, but not for central control. It's a possibility, but that would put a lot of onus, aka liability, on local and state governments. Wireless networks would be more efficient and more flexible. Basically each car would have a "bubble" and a "path". A car would basically periodically check the path its on in general for problems, obstacles, detours, kinda like a long-range scan on Star Trek. Meanwhile the bubble would be the more immediate local which would be constantly checked for immediate dangers, collisions or people, akin to the more detail short-range sensors on Star Trek. IOW, like how people occassionally check the road far ahead while constantly monitoring their immediate surroundings. -- Ken from Chicago

2004-01-17 18:10:33+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message >news:bubmtv$qqa$4@news3.bu.edu... >> >> But they won't. Unless you lock them into their cars and just plain >> don't allow human input, the human drivers are still going to do all >> sorts of stupid things that will mess up the system. >To do what? Most of the gapers delay around accidents is due to commuters >being bored out of their minds and roadside accidents being the only thing >to truly break up the monotony. This might actually cut down on rubbernecking delays, yes. But do you really think people are going to just sit back and let the car drive itself, with no input at all from them? If you do, you've been living among a different human race than I have all my life. >> Honestly, I think you're overlooking a couple of fundamental basic >> rules about people. They're not going to blindly trust a machine >> to keep them safe, and they're not going to let any machine do its >> job without interfering in some way. >That's the ILLUSION of human control. Sure. And you make some very good points in the paragraph I cut here for space. >It's not you. I'm not attacking you personally, but the illusion is >widespread. Humans may be at various checkpoints but their responsibility is >just as reliant on the computers and machines running the show. Most planes, >ships, subs and trains run on autopilot for the most par. People are not >continuously monitoring every little move those vehicles make. Right. But people are involved at some level, usually at the very top. A pilot is there to take over when the auto-pilot messes up, or when something happens that the auto-pilot is just not programmed to deal with. And if you could actually program an auto-pilot to deal with every conceivable situation, it'd probably fly the plane better than any human ever could. The trick is programming for every conceivable situation. It's just not possible. And even if it were, people wouldn't trust the machines to be 100% reliable and safe. And they'd be right to not trust them, because no machine is 100% reliable and safe. The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist on driving the car themselves until they see proof that it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, they might not believe it. Because they're human, and as illogical and dumb as all get out. Pete

2004-01-17 18:31:19+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Peter Meilinger wrote: > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Ken from Chicago > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >> "Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message >> news:bubmtv$qqa$4@news3.bu.edu... >>> >>> But they won't. Unless you lock them into their cars and just plain >>> don't allow human input, the human drivers are still going to do all >>> sorts of stupid things that will mess up the system. > >> To do what? Most of the gapers delay around accidents is due to commuters >> being bored out of their minds and roadside accidents being the only >> thing >> to truly break up the monotony. > > This might actually cut down on rubbernecking delays, yes. But > do you really think people are going to just sit back and let > the car drive itself, with no input at all from them? If you > do, you've been living among a different human race than I have > all my life. > > >>> Honestly, I think you're overlooking a couple of fundamental basic >>> rules about people. They're not going to blindly trust a machine >>> to keep them safe, and they're not going to let any machine do its >>> job without interfering in some way. > >> That's the ILLUSION of human control. > > Sure. And you make some very good points in the paragraph I cut > here for space. > >> It's not you. I'm not attacking you personally, but the illusion is >> widespread. Humans may be at various checkpoints but their >> responsibility is >> just as reliant on the computers and machines running the show. Most >> planes, >> ships, subs and trains run on autopilot for the most par. People are not >> continuously monitoring every little move those vehicles make. > > Right. But people are involved at some level, usually at the very > top. A pilot is there to take over when the auto-pilot messes up, > or when something happens that the auto-pilot is just not programmed > to deal with. And if you could actually program an auto-pilot to > deal with every conceivable situation, it'd probably fly the plane > better than any human ever could. The trick is programming for > every conceivable situation. It's just not possible. And even if > it were, people wouldn't trust the machines to be 100% reliable > and safe. And they'd be right to not trust them, because no > machine is 100% reliable and safe. > > The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. > But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the > illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're > not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily > give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" > > What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist > on driving the car themselves until they see proof that > it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, > they might not believe it. Because they're human, and > as illogical and dumb as all get out. > But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, where there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And the aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer winning every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could *not* have pulled up without stalling. -- John Briggs

2004-01-17 18:48:36+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Peter Meilinger wrote: >> The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. >> But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the >> illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're >> not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily >> give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" >> >> What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist >> on driving the car themselves until they see proof that >> it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, >> they might not believe it. Because they're human, and >> as illogical and dumb as all get out. >But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, where >there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And the >aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and >computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer winning >every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could >*not* have pulled up without stalling. That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with different species of humans all our lives. Pete

2004-01-17 19:35:35-05:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <2bidncZ88OQXWZTdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:170120041435296238%dsample@synapse.net... > > In article <buc024$nan$1@news3.bu.edu>, Peter Meilinger > > <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote: > > > > > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > >Peter Meilinger wrote: > > > > > > >> The illusion of control. You're absolutely right about that. > > > >> But what you don't seem to realize is that people LIKE the > > > >> illusion of control. If you point it out to them, they're > > > >> not going to say, "Why, you're right! I'll just happily > > > >> give over all control to the robot car, then, shall I?" > > > >> > > > >> What they'll actually do is disagree with you and insist > > > >> on driving the car themselves until they see proof that > > > >> it does the job better. And even if that proof exists, > > > >> they might not believe it. Because they're human, and > > > >> as illogical and dumb as all get out. > > > > > > >But you've got this situation with aircraft "fly by wire" systems, > where > > > >there is a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. And > the > > > >aircraft that ploughed into the ground at an air show as the pilot and > > > >computer wrestled for control of the aircraft. With the computer > winning > > > >every time, of course. And the computer was right - the aircraft could > > > >*not* have pulled up without stalling. > > > > > > That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer > > > can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot > > > of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And > > > if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with > > > different species of humans all our lives. > > > > > > Pete > > > > The first automated roads will probably be expressways. If you want to > > use them, you *have* to surrender control of your car, and you will not > > be able to regain control until after you leave the expressway. Given > > a choice between zipping along at 90mph to their destination or poking > > through side streets at 30mph (when they aren't sitting still) a fair > > number of people will opt for surrendering control. > > > > -- > > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > > Quando omni flunkus moritati > > Agreed, altho I'd up the speed limit to 120-150 mph. I've seen people > cruising down the expressway easily at 90-100 mph. A "bonus" would be by the > time the tech reached that stage, toll road toll gates would be pointless. > Every car would have built in wireless networking, so there wouldn't be > those bottlenecks at toll gates, plus drivers could be charge for how much > they actually used the road instead of giant chunks of road. > > -- Ken from Chicago Toll gates are obsolete now, and you don't need any sort of wireless technology. Highway 407 across the north side of Toronto has cameras on all the entry and exit ramps. They take a picture of your license plate getting on, and getting off, and send you a bill in the mail. (You can get a transponder, and then they charge you a little less.) -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-01-17 19:55:14+00:00 - Re: Buffy 2: Electric Bugaloo - (Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: >In article <buc024$nan$1@news3.bu.edu>, Peter Meilinger ><mellnger@bu.edu> wrote: >> That's the situation a nutshell, all right. I'm not saying a computer >> can't do a better job than a human driver. I'm just saying a lot >> of people won't believe that, no matter what the evidence says. And >> if you don't think that's true, then maybe we've been living with >> different species of humans all our lives. >The first automated roads will probably be expressways. If you want to >use them, you *have* to surrender control of your car, and you will not >be able to regain control until after you leave the expressway. Given >a choice between zipping along at 90mph to their destination or poking >through side streets at 30mph (when they aren't sitting still) a fair >number of people will opt for surrendering control. And a fair number of people will die while all the kinks are worked out. Doesn't even have to be computer or human errors. Terrorists would love to lob a stick of dynamite into whatever computer runs everything. You're right, though, the best way to start would be highways and expressways. And it'll be great if it all works as it should. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. Pete