> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:53:04 -0400
> Organization: I. V. G. A.
> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
> > > Ed:
> > > He never said anything about Possibility, he said Don Wilshe Driving
> > > Robot which I dont have or know of any!!!
> > > Don
> > Don
> > He was talking as much theory as you were.
> > You choose not to take "blame" for this, yet if it were perceived as a
> > good thing, I'm sure you would take credit.
> > Since to don't wish to take credit, I will.
> > I'll take credit for the THEORY of a driving robot. (We talked about it
> > on the phone)
> > The context of the conversation was what could people do, and how would
> > Papy/Ten be able to detect it.
> > This concept I termed as "Drive by Wire" was to have a 2nd computer do
> > packet spying.
> > The packets coming in would contain the locations of nearby cars. (used
> > for crash avoidence)
> > The packets going out would contain the location of your car. (Road
> > sensors)
> > A 2nd computer (with enough training) could simulate the joystick input
> > into the main racing computer to control the car and "drive" optimally.
> > With this setup, the Robot could never exceed the capability of Nascar2,
> > but it COULD be better than the best human.
> > "Driving" in this sense could be reduced to math equations.
> > Normal detection would be IMPOSSIBLE. The only computer talking to TEN
> > would be running a VALID COPY of the executable.
> > Nothing short of dynamic encryption would foil the packet spy. Maybe
> > not even that.
> > While you may think this is more work that it's worth, the context of
> > the conversations also include PRIZE MONEY.
> > If you remove the prize money, you reduce the probability of seeing a
> > "Robot" but maybe not eliminate it. I point you to Hawaii for proof of
> > that.
> > This is related to my question about Nascar sanctioning. If you make
> > winning too valuable (even if it's only recognition), some people will
> > spend time and money to cheat.
> > mykey
> Mykey:
> Make sure you post this on RAS..
> DON
???