As reported by Huffington Post: Google Maps now provides people in Great Britain with real-time information about the best and quickest ways to get places -- regardless of whether commuters choose to travel by train, tube, bus, boat,dragon or Loch Ness Monster.
Another noteworthy route is the journey between Fort Augustus and Urquhart Castlein the Scottish Highlands. You can either take a bus, which will take you around 33 minutes, or the Loch Ness Monster -- a 22 minute ride.
As Buzzfeed notes, Google Maps' new easter eggs include traveling by “royal carriage” from Buckingham Palace to Windsor Castle, and by “punt” in Oxford and Cambridge. A punt is a flat-bottomed boat that’s commonly used for leisurely rides in both cities.
Google Maps has had real-time public transportation information for bigger British cities like London for a while now, but according to Google, that information is now available across Britain.
“You can now check the best time and route for millions of departures for trains, tubes, trams, buses and ferries every day. In total, 17,000 different routes across the UK are featured,” the company wrote in a blog post.
As reported by MIT Technology Review: Lawmakers in Washington state this month passed a bill that opens up the electric-vehicle charging sector to a group of players who have thus far been mostly absent: power utilities. The goal is to help the EV market get beyond its chicken-and-egg problem: EV charging stations are expensive to install, and there’s not yet enough of a critical mass of EVs on the road to make deploying them widely profitable; with few publicly accessible charging stations, meanwhile, many potential EV purchasers are still hesitant to trade in their gas guzzlers. Sponsored by Republican state representative Chad Magendanz, the bill enables investor-owned utilities in the state to invest in EV charging infrastructure and pass along those costs to ratepayers, subject to the approval of the state Utility and Transportation Commission. “We want people to be able to buy electric vehicles without regard to whether they can install a charging station at their home or afford the cost,” says Magendanz. “This is particularly directed at urban dwellers who live in condos or apartments, and need to be able to charge their vehicles at home or at work. If we can unlock that market, this could be a model for the rest of the country.” Others have tried to address the so-called “range anxiety” that’s holding back potential buyers of electric vehicles. Several startups appeared in the 2000s to build privately owned charging networks, but viable business models have not emerged, and some, like Ecotality and 350Green, have flamed out in spectacular fashion. High-end EV maker Tesla has solved this dilemma by building its own proprietary network of free stations known as Superchargers. “You don’t have seamless, available charging facilities, unless you own a Tesla,” says Mark Duvall, the director of energy utilization at the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent research organization for the power utility industry. “What’s lacking is consistent, adequate access to reliable charging infrastructure that’s not dependent on the kind of car you drive.” Utilities, which already operate ubiquitous electrical grids and have the capital to invest in major infrastructure projects without an immediate return on the investment, would seem to be ideal candidates to build out charging networks. But in many states, regulators either have not ruled or have explicitly prohibited investor-owned utilities from selling electricity at retail charging stations. In Indiana, for instance, an EV car-sharing service called Blue Indy has been stalled by utility commissioners’ refusal to allow charging investments by the local utility.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, which has invested more than $130 million to help establish a network of privately owned charging stations, there are now nearly 23,000 public charging outlets in the United States. That is not enough to keep up with accelerating demand—or, at least, to alleviate motorists’ range anxiety. In states where such participation is allowed, utilities have been surprisingly nimble in leaping into the market: Kansas City Power & Light, for instance, plans to install 1,000 public EV charging stations in Kansas City by the end of summer 2015—in a state where total EVs number fewer than 3,000. In California, meanwhile, the world’s largest market for EVs will soon be served by an extensive network of charging stations owned or supported by utilities. In late 2014 the state reversed its earlier stance banning utility participation in the market, and the state’s three largest utilities—Southern Cal Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric—have proposed programs that would deploy a combined total of nearly 60,000 stations, at a cost of nearly $1 billion. If approved by regulators, those facilities would outnumber gas stations by a wide margin. “The utilities excel at planning big infrastructure projects, at building systems that are reliable and durable,” says Duvall. “If they’re able and choose to get involved, they can provide a regional framework with uniform access, consistent pricing, and most importantly, reliability and longevity.”
Duvall and utility executives also acknowledge that EV charging could offer an important element of the business model for electricity providers. That model is changing rapidly as demand for power flattens and more consumers generate their own electricity via solar panels or other distributed resources. While regulated utilities in California are “decoupled”—meaning that their revenues are not dependent on selling more electrons—moving into the transportation market would spread their fixed costs over a broader customer base, while helping to mitigate the impact of thousands of new EVs on the power grid. The next phase for utilities would be the growth of the vehicle-to-grid market, known as V2G: vehicles could essentially serve as mobile electricity storage devices, charging during off-peak hours and transmitting power back onto the grid when it’s needed. Once that happens, the rollout of utility-owned charging infrastructure will have benefits for all ratepayers—not just those looking to top off their EV batteries.
As reported by Wireless Week: Sprint and T-Mobile have formed a rebel alliance of sorts to thwart AT&T and Verizon from garnering more low-band spectrum. The nation’s third- and fourth-largest carriers, along with a number of rural carriers and consumer advocacy groups, have launched a website that aims to increase the FCC’s reserve of 600 MHz spectrum in the upcoming incentive auction. The new website features letters written to the FCC by T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray, as well as one by Charter, among others. There’s also a call to action, where visitors to the website are asked to make their voices heard via a form letter addressed to the FCC. “I am writing in support of wireless choice and to make sure Verizon and AT&T do not control the future of wireless by dominating the nation’s airwaves and limiting consumer choice,” the form letter reads. “For the next auction of low-band spectrum, the FCC needs to do more to protect the quantity and quality of the low-band spectrum that’s available for competitive carriers challenging AT&T and Verizon in the marketplace.” Sprint, T-Mobile and Charter have all been vocal proponents of increasing the amount of spectrum reserved for smaller carriers. Sprint and T-mobile are arguing that 50 percent of the valuable low-band 600 MHz airwaves be set aside for smaller carriers. The two companies are also asking that the FCC not impose further delays on the auction. The new website is part of an ongoing battle that some say is about evening the playing field between Verizon and AT&T, and everyone else. A report from Reuters late last month stated that the FCC would not raise the reserve and would likely keep just 30 percent of the available spectrum for smaller carriers. AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon have all made public plans to participate in the auctions. Sprint is still undecided and has sat out the previous two FCC spectrum auctions, including the record-smashing AWS-3 auction that pulled in more than $40 billion in revenue. After the AWS-3 auction netted a much higher revenue than anticipated, expectations are higher for the 600 MHz auction. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is predicting $10 billion to $40 billion in net proceeds from the auction will go toward paying down the national deficit. The CBO expects anywhere from 20-100 MHz of broadcast spectrum will be cleared and open for bidding.
As reported by Time: Elon Musk’s SpaceX is planning a new network of satellites, and they’ll come with an interesting function: an Internet connection. According to an application filed with the FCC last week and first spotted by a Reddit user, the Hawthorne, Calif.-based space company wants to launch a network of satellites that will beam down Internet access to regions with little or no connection to the web. The application describes two satellites, the first of up to eight trial satellites that are each expected to last up to 12 months. The satellites will likely be built using the $1 billion that SpaceX raised mostly from Google earlier this year. For these first tests, the launch location will likely be Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast rather than Cape Canaveral in Florida, according to the orbital parameters in the application. The test satellites will beam Internet broadband to three locations: Redmond, Wash., (as Musk has said he wants to build satellites and plan launches in Seattle); Fremont, Calif., where Musk’s Tesla factory is located; and Hawthone, Calif., which is SpaceX’s hometown. Whether we’ll truly be able to connect to a SpaceX-provided Internet connection someday (it will likely take a long time before that gets approved) is still unclear. But Musk has said in the past that he believes such a communication system will be necessary for travel to Mars, his ultimate goal for SpaceX.
As reported by Engadget: Uber has rewritten its privacy policy to make it easier to grok and added some very important changes. According to the updated guidelines, the ride-sharing app will soon give drivers the power to track your locationif you allow it to, so long as it remains running in the background. This, Uber claims, will allow them to pick you up a lot faster than just dropping a pin to signal where you're waiting. Drivers will be able to meet you on the way, for instance, or right out the door you used to exit a large building. Also, the app will start asking for permission to access your contact list, so the service can send promotional materials to your friends and family.
This update comes after an external review of Uber's privacy program, prompted by a series of issues and PR catastrophes involving customer privacy. If you recall, some Uber employees used the "God View" tracker embedded in the app to spy on the whereabouts of a Buzzfeed reporter and a high-profile venture capitalist last year. All its corporate employees (but not its drivers) reportedly had access to God View and could monitor a user's activities. Let's not forget the time an exec made a remark about hiring a team todig up personal dirt on journalists that criticize the service, as well.
In addition to the aforementioned changes, the new privacy policy lists what kind of data it collects from customers. It makes clear that Uber keeps a record of your transactions (amount, distance traveled, date and time,et cetera) and gathers info about your device (model, OS version, serial number, UDID, mobile network, preferred language and more). Uber can access any call and SMS details between the driver and yourself, as well as see your device's IP address, browser, the website you visited before it, so on and so forth.
The new Privacy Statement will take effect on July 15th, so expect to see the app asking you for permission to switch on real-time tracking and to access your address book by then. If you're not exactly fond of these changes, don't worry: the company told TechCrunch that the app will work just fine even if you choose not to switch them on.
As reported by Transport Evolved: Just under a month ago, shortly after the launch of Apple’s highly-anticipated Apple Watch, we told you about Allen Wong, self-made app developer turned millionaire, car nut, and Tesla Model S owner. Working for what he said was three or four days of non-stop coding after his Apple Watch arrived, Wong — who codes under the Rego Apps and Smartest Apps company names — produced a fully-functioning Apple Watch app that enabled remote control of the Tesla Model S electric car. At the time — despite selling it online for $9.99 — Wong said that his Remote S Apple Watch app was built as something of a “fun hobby” rather than a commercial app that he expected to make much money out of. Despite treating this particular app as a hobby, we note from Wong’s YouTube channel (which we’ve been keeping an eye on) that he’s been busy, building an update to the Apple Watch App less than two weeks after the app debuted in the App store.
This time, he’s added voice control too, as the above video — uploaded about seven hours ago — shows. In the video, Wong uses the standard “Hey Siri” phrase known to Apple Users everywhere to activate the Apple Watch’s voice recognition mode. After the watch has responded to his voice, he then shows us the car responding to some simple commands. “Hey Siri…HVAC On,” he says, followed by a short pause while his iPhone and Apple Watch work together to accomplish the command. “Hey Siri… Unlock Car,” results in a similar pause, followed by the unlocking of his red Tesla Model S P85D. Wong also demonstrates the car’s keyless remote functionality by telling his watch to start the car. Sure enough, there’s a small pause, and the car turns itself on. Similarly, the video shows him remotely opening the car’s panoramic sunroof, all by voice commands. It’s an impressive update to the app, which Wong says he’s still in the process of training to accept a number of different commands. “I realize now that it sounds weird to say ‘Start Car’ instead of ‘Start the Car’,” Wong says in his description to his latest YouTube video. “I’ll change it to that phrase when I publish the app. I’m currently training my app so that it can understand multiple phrases, so you can say ‘KITT, start the car’ or ‘Start my Tesla’ or ‘Horn the horn at those morons,’ and the app will understand what you want it to do.” Wong says he hasn’t yet submitted the updated code to the App store, but will do at some point in the near future. “I’m just waiting for Tesla to implement the ‘summon car’ feature, so I can code the app that allows you to speak into your Apple Watch to make your Tesla drive up to you,” he adds, half-jokingly. As some of those who have already watched the video note, the time delay between the command being spoken and the app responding isn’t quite as quick as perhaps some might like. But hey, for those who grew up with Michael Knight and KITT, that’s really not important, is it?
That's the story badge for a post on Fusion today about a recent video of a Volvo XC60 driving into a group of bystanders. Labeled "Self-parking car accident!", the clip shows the vehicle backing up and then accelerating into a group of people who expect it to stop. But it doesn't.
Here's the problem: There was no system error. If there was any error, it was with the humans operating the vehicle. According to Volvo representative Johan Larsson, the video is mislabeled. Now, no one has talked to the people in the video, but Larsson says the demonstration is most likely of Volvo's pedestrian-detection and self-braking systems, not of any self-parking feature. And as Larsson also points out, this car does not appear to be one that has the pedestrian-detection feature, which is an option. If that's true—that they tried to test out the pedestrian-detection feature on a car that doesn't have it installed—then this is really just a case of dumb humans.
But that's not how Fusion decided to cast it, titling the story Volvo says horrible 'self-parking car accident' happened because driver didn't have 'pedestrian detection'. Fusion's Kashmir Hill sets up a scary scene of an automated future gone awry, but when all the facts are given proper context, the truth is quite the opposite.
We don't know if and when truly autonomous cars will hit the road. What we do know is that our vehicles are becoming increasingly sophisticated machines capable of incredible feats, and for exactly that reason reporting and writing about this topic in a responsible way is extremely important. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of a car that can drive itself, let alone park itself. When something really does goes wrong, the coverage is going to be everywhere and sensationalized. Is there really a need to create controversy where there is none? If anything, it's this kind of response that can create a chilling effect on innovation.
That said, let's run through some key paragraphs in the Fusion post to see what went wrong:
"A group of people stand in a garage watching and filming a grey Volvo XC60 that backs up, stops, and then accelerates toward the group. It smashes into two people, and causes the person filming the video with his phone to drop it and run. It is terrifying."
In trying to set a dramatic scene, Hill seems to imply that the car does not have a driver and is acting under its own volition. In fact, there is a passenger and driver in the car.
"The main issue, said Larsson, is that it appears that the people who bought this Volvo did not pay for the "Pedestrian detection functionality," which is a feature that costs more money."
When explaining Larsson's "disturbing" response, Hill uses italics to indicate that she is absolutely perplexed that an expensive and advanced technology might cost more money on top of the standard price. (Or, perhaps, she's astonished that Volvo wouldn't equip all of its cars with all available safety tech, no matter what the cost.) I think we're all in agreement that pedestrian-detection systems should one day be standard, but there are many different types of safety systems that cost extra money. If they were all standard or made mandatory by NHTSA, that extra cost would just be passed on to the buyer. For now, Volvo, one of the safest car manufacturers in the world, would rather give people the option here.
"The Volvo XC60 comes with City Safety as a standard feature, however, this does not include the Pedestrian detection functionality," said Larsson. The "City Safety system" kicks in when someone is in stop-and-go traffic, helping the driver avoid rear ending another car while driving slowly, or under 30 mph.
Keeping the car safe is included as a standard feature, but keeping pedestrians safe isn't. "It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection," said Larsson. "This is sold as a separate package."
To be fair, City Safe protects the cars you might hit and the people in them, but I guess it's more shocking to couch it this way. More importantly, the most common type of vehicle-on-vehicle accident is a low-speed rear-end collision, often combined with distracted driving. So it makes sense that City Safety would be the safety feature that comes standard, no?
But even if it did have the feature, Larsson says the driver would have interfered with it by the way they were driving and "accelerating heavily towards the people in the video." "The pedestrian detection would likely have been inactivated due to the driver inactivating it by intentionally and actively accelerating," said Larsson. "Hence, the auto braking function is overrided by the driver and deactivated."
So, what are we saying here? In this scenario—which is probably hypothetical, since the car most likely didn't have pedestrian detection—it sounds like Hill wants the reader to be bothered by the fact that the car wouldn't have just stopped itself and outright prevented the driver from accelerating into the passengers.
The fact is, today's safety systems require a tricky balance of aiding and warning drivers without completely removing their power to make steering and throttle inputs. Until cars become truly autonomous, the driver is ultimately responsible for understanding how the technology works and to use it appropriately.
Meanwhile, the people in the video seem to ignore their instincts and trust that the car assumed to be endowed with artificial intelligence knows not to hurt them. It is a sign of our incredible faith in the power of technology, but also, it's a reminder that companies making AI-assisted vehicles need to make safety features standard and communicate clearly when they aren't. According to the Dominican blog, the "two men hit were bruised but are ok."
Well, this is all mostly true, and Hill makes some good points! People shouldn't assume that every car has semiautonomous capabilities that will stop it from hurting them. They also probably shouldn't stand in front of a car to test those technologies, either. As for making all safety systems standard, that's a bit more complicated. But her final thought is spot on: Carmakers need to make sure people clearly understand what technology is in their car and what their vehicle is capable of. This is a very valid point to make as our cars only get more complicated. Too bad we had to wade through everything else to get there.
