New efforts!

[Paragon Avenger]

It's time for ...
The Weakly Update!

We ain't gotz da game back.

This has been ...
The Weakly Update!

[LadyVamp]

Glad I could come up with the most interesting question, Arcana.  And this is a far more interesting than discussing right vs left side driving.

I have no doubt that a computer can handle the statistics far better than I can.  Probably better than all of us and certain faster than any of us.  But I believe life is worth more than a statistical calculation.  And the answers to such calculations are only as good as the data.  GIGO.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Yes I know one life is statistically insignificant, but I'm sure many who agree with that statement would change their opinion if it was their own life or someone they cared for.

I also believe that while programmers are great (for the most part) at teaching computers skills, I often find that the programmers aren't very good at the skills they are teaching it.  My favorite example is encryption.  Encryption is based in math.  Not Computer Science.  So when some programmer comes up with the "greatest new encryption algorithm ever", I find it very interesting that it gets broken very quickly by professional crypt analysts in no time.

My other big concern would be changing the behavior of the car through updates or malware.  I'm sure everyone here wouldn't want a car that says, "Game over, Man!" just as it drove you off of a cliff.  While that's an extreme example, said car have just as easily decided to go play pinball with the other cars taking out pedestrians while it was at it.  Microsoft backs out patches for Windows.  Imagine your car company needing to backout a patch that causes it to steer into other objects/people instead of avoiding them.  And of course this does bring up support patching and life cycles for the car's apps.

And then there's the question of responsibility.  But who is responsible if the self driving car caused the accident?  The owner?  The manufacturer?  The programmer who tweaked a few values so you could have a quicker reaction time?  How about the hacker in another country out of reach of the law who created the virus that attacked your car?

Obviously, there are a great many questions.  Many of those need to be answered before the first car rolls off the dealership in the hands of its proud, new owner.  I believe Codewalker did say something prophetic though.  I will paraphrase:  We will wait until the disaster strikes enough people and the publicity gets high enough before we start to answer the questions.  To build on his prophecy, the answers will be knee-jerk reactions based on emotion instead of logic.

To quote a villain from Robot Jocks,  "If they're the future, I'm glad I'm history," Tex Conway.

[Arcana]

My other big concern would be changing the behavior of the car through updates or malware.  I'm sure everyone here wouldn't want a car that says, "Game over, Man!" just as it drove you off of a cliff.  While that's an extreme example, said car have just as easily decided to go play pinball with the other cars taking out pedestrians while it was at it.  Microsoft backs out patches for Windows.  Imagine your car company needing to backout a patch that causes it to steer into other objects/people instead of avoiding them.  And of course this does bring up support patching and life cycles for the car's apps.

The model most people have regarding how software works is Microsoft, or other well recognized software vendors.  But the dirty truth about software development is that contrary to the lie we keep telling the plebes, it is actually possible to make software relatively error free and bug proof.  The reason we don't is simple: modern software is written with two priorities, both operating counter to writing stable, well-behaved software.  One: we write software cheaply and quickly.  Slam coders are held in high esteem in many parts of our industry, whereas I tend to think feeding all of them through wood chippers would greatly improve the quality of code in the world.  Two: we constantly change software that is working because we need to give people a reason to pay us more money to buy more of it.  I actually sat down with the CEO of a start up and got into a heated discussion with him about where my priorities were with regard to software stability and he straight up admitted to me that he could devote more time to making their stuff stable, but there was extreme pressure to keep adding more and more features which would drive sales numbers upward.  Stability doesn't move enough numbers.  And this is a CEO talking about being pressured to lower quality control to promote software changes.  Guess where that pressure comes from.

But there are industries where that pressure doesn't exist.  If you're writing aircraft control software, say, there isn't any pressure to keep iterating the software.  If you're writing life support software, or satellite control system software, or industrial process control software, your professional existence is based solely on your ability to write code that doesn't do stupid things.  The first failure is likely to be your last.  There's no reward to do more than the spec demands, and a huge potential penalty to do anything that breaks anything.  In those fields, software is still not perfect but several orders of magnitude more stable.

You can even see this in actual cars.  There's a computer running the engine, and one running the cabin entertainment and information system.  The same company created both, intended to be shipped in the same actual product.  And yet, one of them is generally about a hundred times more stable and reliable.  Guess why?  The engine controller software was probably written by a programmer who worked in a industrial software environment where all of the pressure was on stability and precision.  The guys who wrote your dashboard system is probably someone that thinks software is stable if there's no core dump with yesterday's time stamp.  And remember when BMW decided to actually put Windows Mobile in their car?  Total disaster.  But the engine started.

Self-driving cars will never be perfect, just like no technology will be perfect.  But the model for self-driving car software isn't Windows and patch Tuesday.  It is aircraft autopilots and hospital EKG monitors.  You don't hear the captain announce to the passengers of a flight that there will be some turbulence due to having to reboot the aircraft after it patches itself.  Nor is that going to happen with self-driving cars.  Not unless manufacturers completely lose their minds or enjoy giving depositions in lawsuits.

[Vee]

I'm sure everyone here wouldn't want a car that says, "Game over, Man!" just as it drove you off of a cliff. 

If I shell out all that money for a car and it drives me off a cliff it damned well better have the decency to quote Bill Paxton on the way down.

[Victoria Victrix]

To hell with your self-driving cars and robot cars.  Where's that robot body Isaac Asimov promised me back in the 1970s?  Or at least a self-contained powered exoskeleton for crying out loud.

[Kaos Arcanna]

Personally, I'm looking forward to self-driving cars.

As a single person without kids, I'm hopeful that self driving cars will become commercially available and affordable by the time I need them so I can maintain my independence after it's no longer safe for me to drive. 

Beyond that, I think a car that could drop me off at the front of a store in the middle of winter and then park itself sounds pretty nifty.

Or one that could handle the driving chores on a six hour trip.

[Reaper]

  I'm sure everyone here wouldn't want a car that says, "Game over, Man!" just as it drove you off of a cliff. 

But what if you had the highest score?

  You don't hear the captain announce to the passengers of a flight that there will be some turbulence due to having to reboot the aircraft after it patches itself. 

Doh!  Not now... not now!  Why does IT wait until now to push through these patches??

  Not unless manufacturers completely lose their minds or enjoy giving depositions in lawsuits.

As we ALL know they enjoy doing from time to time.

[LadyVamp]

The model most people have regarding how software works is Microsoft, or other well recognized software vendors.  But the dirty truth about software development is that contrary to the lie we keep telling the plebes, it is actually possible to make software relatively error free and bug proof.  The reason we don't is simple: modern software is written with two priorities, both operating counter to writing stable, well-behaved software.  One: we write software cheaply and quickly.  Slam coders are held in high esteem in many parts of our industry, whereas I tend to think feeding all of them through wood chippers would greatly improve the quality of code in the world.  Two: we constantly change software that is working because we need to give people a reason to pay us more money to buy more of it.  I actually sat down with the CEO of a start up and got into a heated discussion with him about where my priorities were with regard to software stability and he straight up admitted to me that he could devote more time to making their stuff stable, but there was extreme pressure to keep adding more and more features which would drive sales numbers upward.  Stability doesn't move enough numbers.  And this is a CEO talking about being pressured to lower quality control to promote software changes.  Guess where that pressure comes from.

But there are industries where that pressure doesn't exist.  If you're writing aircraft control software, say, there isn't any pressure to keep iterating the software.  If you're writing life support software, or satellite control system software, or industrial process control software, your professional existence is based solely on your ability to write code that doesn't do stupid things.  The first failure is likely to be your last.  There's no reward to do more than the spec demands, and a huge potential penalty to do anything that breaks anything.  In those fields, software is still not perfect but several orders of magnitude more stable.

You can even see this in actual cars.  There's a computer running the engine, and one running the cabin entertainment and information system.  The same company created both, intended to be shipped in the same actual product.  And yet, one of them is generally about a hundred times more stable and reliable.  Guess why?  The engine controller software was probably written by a programmer who worked in a industrial software environment where all of the pressure was on stability and precision.  The guys who wrote your dashboard system is probably someone that thinks software is stable if there's no core dump with yesterday's time stamp.  And remember when BMW decided to actually put Windows Mobile in their car?  Total disaster.  But the engine started.

Self-driving cars will never be perfect, just like no technology will be perfect.  But the model for self-driving car software isn't Windows and patch Tuesday.  It is aircraft autopilots and hospital EKG monitors.  You don't hear the captain announce to the passengers of a flight that there will be some turbulence due to having to reboot the aircraft after it patches itself.  Nor is that going to happen with self-driving cars.  Not unless manufacturers completely lose their minds or enjoy giving depositions in lawsuits.

I used to work in the heavy construction industry, and I can tell you that getting the system up and running on schedule is where the pressure is.  Not so much new features thankfully but even there you have software vendors selling software that is under the life cycle management typical of commercial/consumer development.  As for those more reliable back ends, I've yet to see it.  I sit in a change control meeting every Wednesday afternoon where I work.  It includes installation of scheduled patching for the two mainframes we have. 

And you know it's funny you brought up rebooting the aircraft.  In early 2003, I sat down in 1st class for a business trip.  One of the VPs had to cancel at the last minute so it was cheaper to put me into his seat than to reschedule.  Anyway,  we were on the ground.  I was talking to the guy sitting next to me.  His copy of windows xp displayed the follow message:  New hardware detected.  Airbus A320.  It then displayed the where can I find the driver dialog box.  I pointed it out to the flight attendant.  They grounded that A320 and put us on a Boeing 737.  A aircraft technician I happened to take a class with a few years later told me what happened after we moved to another plane and took off.  He started talking in class about it.  I told him I was the guy who reported it.  As for what happened, Airbus rushed a patch out for that aircraft that happened to have the board that was detected.  He told us that what that laptop had detected was the flight control system.  As in the computer that runs the elevators, rudder, ailerons, and flaps.  I'm afraid I don't share your view that such systems are safer.

As for running some programmers through a wood chipper, I couldn't agree more.  Though I'd like to add a few other job positions like marketing.

I know the self driving cars are coming like it or not.  They will open up possibilities for many.  I have 2 cousins that are mentally handicapped.  One is what I call functionally dysfunctional.  He can get around in life but needs a little help.  He can't drive, but he can hold down a job and does so.  His mother has to take him around places.  He could otherwise live on his own.  A self driving car would be freedom to him.  And I also agree that advanced age can impair driving ability and so those of advanced age will have the freedom they once had with the self drivers.  Do I think this is a good thing?  Absolutely.  Do I think these systems need better attention to detail?  Absolutely.  They also need independent evaluation.  True independent.  Not a group that claims independence but is owned by the same people who want the self drivers on the road.

[LadyVamp]

If I shell out all that money for a car and it drives me off a cliff it damned well better have the decency to quote Bill Paxton on the way down.

Wasn't thinking of that scene from Aliens but that works well too.

[LadyVamp]

But what if you had the highest score?

Doh!  Not now... not now!  Why does IT wait until now to push through these patches??

As we ALL know they enjoy doing from time to time.

One would think with periodic product liability lawsuits, they would see to enjoy it.  Anybody remember the intel pentium math bug?  "We're not going to replace your cpu since you don't have a reason."  The PR from that was worth the lawsuit I'd say.

[Teikiatsu]

Self-driving cars have a place for elderly people who cannot drive safely by themselves anymore.  They also have a place on long stretches of highway, where a person could switch off manual control for a 50+ mile trip. 

But I like having control of my car.  Mobility = freedom, when I have the option where I want to go to and control the vehicle as I see fit.

On the other hand, if someone offered me a personal super-sized air drone I could climb into and fly to a location I plotted on GPS so long as I agreed that I would have no manual controls, I'd jump at it.  Air travel has made us more used to lacking control when we travel.

[blacksly]

And remember when BMW decided to actually put Windows Mobile in their car?  Total disaster.  But the engine started.

Remember all the old jokes about "What if your car ran like Windows"?

[ivanhedgehog]

Try practically every college campus.  The young adults often walk right out in front of traffic.  Often without looking.  On a small campus the problem isn't too bad but try a major university which happens to be in a major city or where the college engulfs the town itself.

I have worked at a university with 60k students for 25 years. We lose students every year to stupidity. We have train tracks running through town and you wouldnt believe some of the stupid student tricks we see.

what are the reaction speeds of a driver reading/talking on the phone/putting on makeup/texting/eating? can a self driving car have worse reactions then them?

[Sinistar]

Personally, I'm looking forward to self-driving cars.

As a single person without kids, I'm hopeful that self driving cars will become commercially available and affordable by the time I need them so I can maintain my independence after it's no longer safe for me to drive. 

Beyond that, I think a car that could drop me off at the front of a store in the middle of winter and then park itself sounds pretty nifty.

Or one that could handle the driving chores on a six hour trip.

Self driving cars......autonomous cars.........AUTOBOTS????  :)

[Reaper]

Self driving cars......autonomous cars.........AUTOBOTS????  :)

;D I like that!

[LadyVamp]

Self driving cars......autonomous cars.........AUTOBOTS????  :)

Well in that case, I agree with Victoria.  The hell with autonomous cars.  I want my robot body.  I could drive myself there by transforming into a car.  We'd solve a lot more problems too like advanced aging and disabilities.

Now to figure out what I'd want my transformed form to be.  How about a McClain F1

[Fireheart]

McLaren?  I'm afraid I can only afford the 'busted-ass Yugo' transformation.

Be Well!
Fireheart

[Arcana]

To hell with your self-driving cars and robot cars.  Where's that robot body Isaac Asimov promised me back in the 1970s?  Or at least a self-contained powered exoskeleton for crying out loud.

http://www.theonion.com/article/stephen-hawking-builds-robotic-exoskeleton-1629

[Arcana]

And you know it's funny you brought up rebooting the aircraft.  In early 2003, I sat down in 1st class for a business trip.  One of the VPs had to cancel at the last minute so it was cheaper to put me into his seat than to reschedule.  Anyway,  we were on the ground.  I was talking to the guy sitting next to me.  His copy of windows xp displayed the follow message:  New hardware detected.  Airbus A320.  It then displayed the where can I find the driver dialog box.  I pointed it out to the flight attendant.  They grounded that A320 and put us on a Boeing 737.  A aircraft technician I happened to take a class with a few years later told me what happened after we moved to another plane and took off.  He started talking in class about it.  I told him I was the guy who reported it.  As for what happened, Airbus rushed a patch out for that aircraft that happened to have the board that was detected.  He told us that what that laptop had detected was the flight control system.  As in the computer that runs the elevators, rudder, ailerons, and flaps.  I'm afraid I don't share your view that such systems are safer.

Let's just say that Airbus had some ... issues in the 2000s.  Another 320 issue involved a paperclip.

[Arcana]

Self driving cars......autonomous cars.........AUTOBOTS????  :)

I used to refer to the practice some users have of deliberately changing the Windows icon of popular apps into something goofy "Decepticons."

"Yeah, if you want to use Word on John's computer you have to click on the sunflower.  Its a Deception."




I'm pretty sardonic when it comes to my work so everyone assumes I'm always being serious.  Even I'm not sure myself in this case.