The doctors are IT's customers not the patient. The patients are the doctor's customers not yours. It's the doctor's job to care for the patients. It's IT's job to make sure the computers doesn't get in the doctor's way while remaining secure and HIPAA compliant. I can see why the doctors would disrespect an IT department that doesn't cater to the customer's (as in doctors) needs.
Are you a doctor? IT isn't paid by the doctors - they're paid by the HOSPITAL. Doctors and IT workers are just two classes of people working at the hospital to take care of the HOSPITAL's cusomters - the patients. There is a legal fiction designed to shield hospitals from liability/etc which also makes the patients the doctor's customer's as well, but if you subscribe to that fiction then the doctors aren't even legally associated with the IT department at all.
I work in an IT department for a for-profit corporation and while I certainly have internal clients, ultimately we all work for the corporation and are supposed to look after its interests. Usually making my clients happy is the best thing for the company, but when their personal interests do not coincide with what is best for the company, then it is time to escalate issues and let the executives earn their pay. When a client wants me to spend $1M to save $20k/yr of their organization's time, then it is time to tell them to just live with the processes they have today. (And yes, I realize that there are reasons to do IT work besides productivity.)
And this ladies and gentlemen is why BYOD in more than a few types of work place is phenomenally fucking stupid idea. Oh I need to take this back now, let me undo the network things... oh the company data, i guess thats okay for now...
Yup. Companies want to treat "bring your own device" as if it meant "pay for the company's device" and it isn't surprising that this causes problems. They should simply provision employees with devices if they want them to work remotely/etc.
As pointed out, you only need local admin access, and if you're going to let people use their own computers on the network, then it stands to reason that they'll have local admin access.
The solution to this problem is to not attach computers to the hospital systems which aren't owned and administered by the hospital.
The problem with this is that you now are subject to somebody else's sole determination that you are/aren't "compatible"
and that's superior to letting every implementation decide if it is compatible? sort of like having the company that builds a bridge decide if the bridge meets all safety requirements?
I get why Sun did what they did with Java, since their whole goal was write-once-run-anywhere.
However, the end result was a legal mess, and as a result companies have an incentive to steer clear of stuff like this.
If you just need glibc to run, then maybe your code isn't quite write-once-run-everywhere, but at least you can come out with a new phone without getting sued...
This has nothing to do with using Java. It has to do with implementing your own incompatible version of the language. If all you want to do is use Java, or implement a compatible version, the license is good and you will have no problem.
The problem with this is that you now are subject to somebody else's sole determination that you are/aren't "compatible" or else you get stuck in endless litigation.
If you build entirely on free-licensed components, then nobody has any control over what you do.
They are tightly regulated, and it works - they are demonstrably the best taxi service in the entire world.
The same was once true of the US airline industry. Prices were controlled, and airlines had to compete on the quality of the china they used to serve you.
Then people decided that getting to their destination for half the price was more important than how many beauty contests their flight attendant won, and now we have price competition.
I use Waze myself and while it is brilliant, I would still trust a black cab to get there quicker when it involves anything remotely near zone 1.
Agree, but consumers might not want to pay more for a faster trip. That should be a choice that they have. The security concerns with private cabs are legitimate, but I think Uber has a decent solution for them. So, if you want to regulate, just require all dispatched cabs to record the identity of their drivers and log each trip before pickup.
The problem is that with the advance of technology the regulations are no longer as necessary as they were before.
With Uber the trips are all logged by a third party before somebody gets into the car. 100 years ago you just hailed a cab and nobody knew who picked you up. In the latter situation the driver can take you anywhere and rob you, and in the former situation they can't do that without getting caught.
Technology has changed the game. That said, there is no reason that you can't have a regulated cab service that people can choose to use in competition with the less-regulated service. Nothing says that the system has to be fair - the black car drivers can always sign up to drive for Uber if it turns out to be a better deal.
Actually, they are afraid of being undercut in cost as the Uber drivers don't have to undergo the same licensing and vetting process.
It's like a company coming in offering cheap medical operations with medical staff trained at DeVry instead of doctors licensed to practice.
The issue is whether consumers actually want to pay for those things. I imagine consumers care a bit more about the competency of their driver than the competency of their cab driver.
And many have suggested that the US healthcare system lacks flexibility around using lesser-trained staff for less-demanding tasks. Somebody who just needs a prescription renewed probably doesn't need a "doctor," and doctors could spend more time on matters that they're actually needed for if they didn't have quite as many administrative tasks.
Maybe this is a problem inherent in open source? Someone idealistic has an idea and is allowed to run with it, find other likeminded people, and so on.
You do realize that the source to Gnome 2, sysvinit, arts, and the rest are all still available, right? Nothing is stopping anybody from making another Gnome 2 release.
If you want people to write you free software, then you are going to have to be content with what they give you.
Whereas in the corporate world you often have managers what will try to keep the teams focused and steer them in directions that will improve the products or implement what the customers are actually asking for.
Slight correction - they direct people to implement what the customers are actually PAYING for. If you want to change the direction of FOSS, just hire a team of developers to do whatever you want with it, and they'll do whatever you ask them to as long as the paychecks keep coming.
I'm not sure what "keeping pace" means. If openrc does the job, it doesn't need to add features. The issues most people seem to have with systemd is that it keeps adding stuff that is not part of the traditional system init.
If somebody just wants a traditional init, then they'd be fairly happy with openrc.
I'd be for a system that voted on blame, with ties won by the local car, but to value the driver at exactly the same as everyone else, how do you decide? What if the pedestrian was pushed? How would it affect your decision (or your car's decision) if you knew they were pushed, how about if you only found out after?
Well, the right decision and the right algorithm will never be perfectly aligned. However, as long as the life of the pedestrian is treated no worse than the life of the driver, I don't have a problem with the design.
The reality is that every day we accept 100 people being killed by cars. If once every three years a car kills somebody because the algorithm wasn't perfect I think I can live with that.
You should have stopped one paragraph sooner - I can't count the logical fallacies in that last one. Reductio ad absurdum, non sequitur, false equivalence, strawman argument... the list goes on and on.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy - it is a form of argument, analogous to proof by contradiction, not that I'm claiming that any argument like this is equivalent to the precision of a mathematical proof.
I'll agree that it isn't a perfect analogy, but I don't think it is far off.
If you really have such a problem with other people having the freedom to choose to put their own livelihood above that of others, I recommend moving to some other country, one that does not have a constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom. England would be a good first choice, one would think
Are you referring to that "constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom" that explicitly gives the government the right to punish people for treason? What an infringement of the right of individuals to take up arms with the enemy! Next thing you know they'll amend the constitution to permit the collection of taxes - then you can go to the great walled institutions of personal liberty when you exercise your right to refuse to pay!
The very nature of government involves the restriction of individual liberty for the sake of collective security. As you point out there are already regulations regarding "protocols for non-occupant safety measures" so these laws would be just one more. I guess the elimination of the 35k people killed every year due to auto accidents will just be something we have to endure when we finally get rid of manually-driven cars.
Murder? So if I'm driving on a windy mountain road (pedestrians not allowed) and a pedestrian jumps out from behind a rock, my choices are reduced to "drive off the cliff and die" or "stop as quickly as possible" with the latter probably including the death of the pedestrian, you assert that not committing suicide is murder. I think killing someone who causes a crash is perfectly fine, so long as there's no non-fatal choice.
I have no issue with hitting a pedestrian in such a situation if those were your only options. One life is no more important than the other, and it was his mistake.
I'm not suggesting that the car should go out of its way to kill the driver, but only that it shouldn't treat the driver's life as being inherently more valuable than anybody else's.
You say that, but you don't own a car company, do you? Supply and demand, my friend, and nobody is demanding cars that protect other people before protecting the people actually in said car.
I'd be interested in cars like these.
Then you're either A) full of it, or B) an outlier. Either way, it would be impossible to deny that most people buy cars with high crash/impact safety ratings for their own protection rather than the protection of those around them.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about picking MY car. I'm talking about voting for laws that dictate what choices you are allowed to have when you go to buy YOUR car. Those same laws would also apply to me, of course.
I'm not suggesting that people would choose a car that doesn't favor themselves given a free choice. I'm saying that it is in everybody's interest to deny themselves and everybody else the opportunity to make that choice.
If I were given the choice of buying a machete that I could use to prune my bushes, or a machete which additionally comes with legal immunity if I use it to kill somebody, then I'm obviously going to pick the latter even if just to protect me in case I kill somebody with it by accident. Society would never let anybody sell such a machete, and it shouldn't let people sell cars that will endanger lives unnecessarily.
5) fork the distro of your choice and build all packages with smarter dependencies (or to depend on the packages of your choice)
Or run Gentoo, which generally does just that.:)
Systemd is becoming more and more mainstream on Gentoo, and I suspect that at some point it will take over as the default. However, I doubt support for openrc is going away anytime soon.
I think OpenRC is about as good as a traditional sysvinit/rc implementation is going to get. It is definitely superior to what most distros were using before upstart and systemd came along. However, I don't really see it keeping pace with systemd at this point.
You say that, but you don't own a car company, do you? Supply and demand, my friend, and nobody is demanding cars that protect other people before protecting the people actually in said car.
I'd be interested in cars like these. In my daily life I only encounter one car that might potentially kill me due to such a policy, and I encounter thousands of cars that might potentially protect me due to such a policy. Having all cars designed to minimize the risk to human life across the board is in everybody's interest.
Look at it this way, suppose action A carries a no risk of death to the driver of the car, and a 95% risk of death to a pedestrian nearby, and option B carries a 0.001% risk of death to the driver of the car, and no risk of death to anybody else. Is the near-certainty of killing a pedestrian worth a 0.001% reduction in risk of death to the driver? If you prioritize the safety of the driver above all, then the answer is yes. If not, then we just need to draw the line somewhere, and you've basically conceded that the safety of the driver is not the only consideration car manufacturers should take into account.
So, are you saying that a computer is infallible, or that society would be less likely to overlook mistakes made by it? If the former, that's insane; if the latter... yea, that's a pretty good summation of group-think.
A computer isn't infallible, but it can be made less fallible than a person. Few drivers are seriously trained in handling accident situations. I've never been in an accident, and while I can speculate as to how I'd perform in one, I really have no evidence to back up such a claim. Maybe if I spent 100 hours a year in a driving simulator dealing with accident situations I could wax philosophical about the advantages of having a human brain behind the wheel. Most likely any computer-driven car will have far more testing in collision scenarios than almost any driver on the road.
Which brings us back to the point of, nobody's going to pay good money for a vehicle that doesn't put occupant safety as the highest priority.
Well, they can always walk. I'm certainly not suggesting that people be allowed to choose a car that doesn't have this design feature. Once self-driving cars are a reality I'd be a strong advocate of banning manually-driven cars entirely - they're a huge cause of what would become preventable death, and rather inefficient in about 47 different ways as well. It isn't like manual drivers are going to be able to negotiate 8-lane intersections that don't have traffic lights anyway.
I doubt you'd want to sacrifice the life of the driver simply to have a chance at saving one other life. I'd think that you'd risk the life of the driver instead of driving into a crowd of pedestrians or something like that.
I wasn't suggesting that the car should value the life of the owner less than everybody else. I just don't don't think that it should value it all that much higher either.
Ah, I see now. I had reading comprehension problems. Didn't realize the choices were (X1 || X2) I thought it was (X1 && X2) || (!X1 && !X2). The vagaries of English.
I've been speaking English my entire life and have gained a true appreciation for just how messed up a language it is!
as stated in the article, what happens when microsoft releases the user's data and it is encrypted by a company independent of microsoft, do they now go after the user?
Just leave the Microsoft CEO in jail for contempt until they come up with the keys. I suspect they'll figure out a solution fairly quickly. Maybe after a year or two the court can decide that they really couldn't come up with it.
That's what courts routinely do to individuals who don't disclose their keys. Simply telling the court that you don't have it isn't likely to get you far.
Seems like the simpler approach is to ban unautomated vehicles from the roads. Give everybody a free car in compensation - we'd probably save more than enough on road construction and oil imports to pay for it.
When I'm losing control, I have a fraction of a second to think what to do, but I know what situation I'm in (including what I don't know). The programmer needs to come up with a program that will perform OK in all sorts of different situations. Different sort of thing entirely.
Not as different as you think. The reality is that in an emergency situation your training tends to take over. You're really only going to behave optimally in the situations that you've spent many hours in a simulator rehearsing. That's why pilots spend so much time in simulators. If you don't rehearse the right situations, then you'll be fairly limited in a crisis.
Oh, wait, you don't regularly practice evasive maneuvers in a car simulator? Well then, most likely you'll never behave in the optimal manner in any accident situation. The car which at least was programmed to handle a limited set of circumstances will probably do better.
Slashdot Mirror
The doctors are IT's customers not the patient. The patients are the doctor's customers not yours. It's the doctor's job to care for the patients. It's IT's job to make sure the computers doesn't get in the doctor's way while remaining secure and HIPAA compliant. I can see why the doctors would disrespect an IT department that doesn't cater to the customer's (as in doctors) needs.
Are you a doctor? IT isn't paid by the doctors - they're paid by the HOSPITAL. Doctors and IT workers are just two classes of people working at the hospital to take care of the HOSPITAL's cusomters - the patients. There is a legal fiction designed to shield hospitals from liability/etc which also makes the patients the doctor's customer's as well, but if you subscribe to that fiction then the doctors aren't even legally associated with the IT department at all.
I work in an IT department for a for-profit corporation and while I certainly have internal clients, ultimately we all work for the corporation and are supposed to look after its interests. Usually making my clients happy is the best thing for the company, but when their personal interests do not coincide with what is best for the company, then it is time to escalate issues and let the executives earn their pay. When a client wants me to spend $1M to save $20k/yr of their organization's time, then it is time to tell them to just live with the processes they have today. (And yes, I realize that there are reasons to do IT work besides productivity.)
And this ladies and gentlemen is why BYOD in more than a few types of work place is phenomenally fucking stupid idea. Oh I need to take this back now, let me undo the network things... oh the company data, i guess thats okay for now...
Yup. Companies want to treat "bring your own device" as if it meant "pay for the company's device" and it isn't surprising that this causes problems. They should simply provision employees with devices if they want them to work remotely/etc.
As pointed out, you only need local admin access, and if you're going to let people use their own computers on the network, then it stands to reason that they'll have local admin access.
The solution to this problem is to not attach computers to the hospital systems which aren't owned and administered by the hospital.
The problem with this is that you now are subject to somebody else's sole determination that you are/aren't "compatible"
and that's superior to letting every implementation decide if it is compatible? sort of like having the company that builds a bridge decide if the bridge meets all safety requirements?
I get why Sun did what they did with Java, since their whole goal was write-once-run-anywhere.
However, the end result was a legal mess, and as a result companies have an incentive to steer clear of stuff like this.
If you just need glibc to run, then maybe your code isn't quite write-once-run-everywhere, but at least you can come out with a new phone without getting sued...
This has nothing to do with using Java. It has to do with implementing your own incompatible version of the language. If all you want to do is use Java, or implement a compatible version, the license is good and you will have no problem.
The problem with this is that you now are subject to somebody else's sole determination that you are/aren't "compatible" or else you get stuck in endless litigation.
If you build entirely on free-licensed components, then nobody has any control over what you do.
Do engineers still learn blacksmithing?
Absolutely. They share the facilities with the chemists when they're not learning glassblowing.
They are tightly regulated, and it works - they are demonstrably the best taxi service in the entire world.
The same was once true of the US airline industry. Prices were controlled, and airlines had to compete on the quality of the china they used to serve you.
Then people decided that getting to their destination for half the price was more important than how many beauty contests their flight attendant won, and now we have price competition.
And then there is waze ...
I use Waze myself and while it is brilliant, I would still trust a black cab to get there quicker when it involves anything remotely near zone 1.
Agree, but consumers might not want to pay more for a faster trip. That should be a choice that they have. The security concerns with private cabs are legitimate, but I think Uber has a decent solution for them. So, if you want to regulate, just require all dispatched cabs to record the identity of their drivers and log each trip before pickup.
The problem is that with the advance of technology the regulations are no longer as necessary as they were before.
With Uber the trips are all logged by a third party before somebody gets into the car. 100 years ago you just hailed a cab and nobody knew who picked you up. In the latter situation the driver can take you anywhere and rob you, and in the former situation they can't do that without getting caught.
Technology has changed the game. That said, there is no reason that you can't have a regulated cab service that people can choose to use in competition with the less-regulated service. Nothing says that the system has to be fair - the black car drivers can always sign up to drive for Uber if it turns out to be a better deal.
Actually, they are afraid of being undercut in cost as the Uber drivers don't have to undergo the same licensing and vetting process.
It's like a company coming in offering cheap medical operations with medical staff trained at DeVry instead of doctors licensed to practice.
The issue is whether consumers actually want to pay for those things. I imagine consumers care a bit more about the competency of their driver than the competency of their cab driver.
And many have suggested that the US healthcare system lacks flexibility around using lesser-trained staff for less-demanding tasks. Somebody who just needs a prescription renewed probably doesn't need a "doctor," and doctors could spend more time on matters that they're actually needed for if they didn't have quite as many administrative tasks.
Maybe this is a problem inherent in open source? Someone idealistic has an idea and is allowed to run with it, find other likeminded people, and so on.
You do realize that the source to Gnome 2, sysvinit, arts, and the rest are all still available, right? Nothing is stopping anybody from making another Gnome 2 release.
If you want people to write you free software, then you are going to have to be content with what they give you.
Whereas in the corporate world you often have managers what will try to keep the teams focused and steer them in directions that will improve the products or implement what the customers are actually asking for.
Slight correction - they direct people to implement what the customers are actually PAYING for. If you want to change the direction of FOSS, just hire a team of developers to do whatever you want with it, and they'll do whatever you ask them to as long as the paychecks keep coming.
I'm not sure what "keeping pace" means. If openrc does the job, it doesn't need to add features. The issues most people seem to have with systemd is that it keeps adding stuff that is not part of the traditional system init.
If somebody just wants a traditional init, then they'd be fairly happy with openrc.
I'd be for a system that voted on blame, with ties won by the local car, but to value the driver at exactly the same as everyone else, how do you decide? What if the pedestrian was pushed? How would it affect your decision (or your car's decision) if you knew they were pushed, how about if you only found out after?
Well, the right decision and the right algorithm will never be perfectly aligned. However, as long as the life of the pedestrian is treated no worse than the life of the driver, I don't have a problem with the design.
The reality is that every day we accept 100 people being killed by cars. If once every three years a car kills somebody because the algorithm wasn't perfect I think I can live with that.
You should have stopped one paragraph sooner - I can't count the logical fallacies in that last one. Reductio ad absurdum, non sequitur, false equivalence, strawman argument... the list goes on and on.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy - it is a form of argument, analogous to proof by contradiction, not that I'm claiming that any argument like this is equivalent to the precision of a mathematical proof.
I'll agree that it isn't a perfect analogy, but I don't think it is far off.
If you really have such a problem with other people having the freedom to choose to put their own livelihood above that of others, I recommend moving to some other country, one that does not have a constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom. England would be a good first choice, one would think
Are you referring to that "constitution wholly based on the concept of individual freedom" that explicitly gives the government the right to punish people for treason? What an infringement of the right of individuals to take up arms with the enemy! Next thing you know they'll amend the constitution to permit the collection of taxes - then you can go to the great walled institutions of personal liberty when you exercise your right to refuse to pay!
The very nature of government involves the restriction of individual liberty for the sake of collective security. As you point out there are already regulations regarding "protocols for non-occupant safety measures" so these laws would be just one more. I guess the elimination of the 35k people killed every year due to auto accidents will just be something we have to endure when we finally get rid of manually-driven cars.
Murder? So if I'm driving on a windy mountain road (pedestrians not allowed) and a pedestrian jumps out from behind a rock, my choices are reduced to "drive off the cliff and die" or "stop as quickly as possible" with the latter probably including the death of the pedestrian, you assert that not committing suicide is murder. I think killing someone who causes a crash is perfectly fine, so long as there's no non-fatal choice.
I have no issue with hitting a pedestrian in such a situation if those were your only options. One life is no more important than the other, and it was his mistake.
I'm not suggesting that the car should go out of its way to kill the driver, but only that it shouldn't treat the driver's life as being inherently more valuable than anybody else's.
I looked at gentoo last time I decided I hated all linux distros, lost all interest when I saw they still don't have an installer script.
Probably just as well. :) Seriously, Gentoo is not really the best choice for anybody who wants an automated installation, as that is just the start.
You say that, but you don't own a car company, do you? Supply and demand, my friend, and nobody is demanding cars that protect other people before protecting the people actually in said car.
I'd be interested in cars like these.
Then you're either A) full of it, or B) an outlier. Either way, it would be impossible to deny that most people buy cars with high crash/impact safety ratings for their own protection rather than the protection of those around them.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about picking MY car. I'm talking about voting for laws that dictate what choices you are allowed to have when you go to buy YOUR car. Those same laws would also apply to me, of course.
I'm not suggesting that people would choose a car that doesn't favor themselves given a free choice. I'm saying that it is in everybody's interest to deny themselves and everybody else the opportunity to make that choice.
If I were given the choice of buying a machete that I could use to prune my bushes, or a machete which additionally comes with legal immunity if I use it to kill somebody, then I'm obviously going to pick the latter even if just to protect me in case I kill somebody with it by accident. Society would never let anybody sell such a machete, and it shouldn't let people sell cars that will endanger lives unnecessarily.
5) fork the distro of your choice and build all packages with smarter dependencies (or to depend on the packages of your choice)
Or run Gentoo, which generally does just that. :)
Systemd is becoming more and more mainstream on Gentoo, and I suspect that at some point it will take over as the default. However, I doubt support for openrc is going away anytime soon.
I think OpenRC is about as good as a traditional sysvinit/rc implementation is going to get. It is definitely superior to what most distros were using before upstart and systemd came along. However, I don't really see it keeping pace with systemd at this point.
You say that, but you don't own a car company, do you? Supply and demand, my friend, and nobody is demanding cars that protect other people before protecting the people actually in said car.
I'd be interested in cars like these. In my daily life I only encounter one car that might potentially kill me due to such a policy, and I encounter thousands of cars that might potentially protect me due to such a policy. Having all cars designed to minimize the risk to human life across the board is in everybody's interest.
Look at it this way, suppose action A carries a no risk of death to the driver of the car, and a 95% risk of death to a pedestrian nearby, and option B carries a 0.001% risk of death to the driver of the car, and no risk of death to anybody else. Is the near-certainty of killing a pedestrian worth a 0.001% reduction in risk of death to the driver? If you prioritize the safety of the driver above all, then the answer is yes. If not, then we just need to draw the line somewhere, and you've basically conceded that the safety of the driver is not the only consideration car manufacturers should take into account.
So, are you saying that a computer is infallible, or that society would be less likely to overlook mistakes made by it? If the former, that's insane; if the latter... yea, that's a pretty good summation of group-think.
A computer isn't infallible, but it can be made less fallible than a person. Few drivers are seriously trained in handling accident situations. I've never been in an accident, and while I can speculate as to how I'd perform in one, I really have no evidence to back up such a claim. Maybe if I spent 100 hours a year in a driving simulator dealing with accident situations I could wax philosophical about the advantages of having a human brain behind the wheel. Most likely any computer-driven car will have far more testing in collision scenarios than almost any driver on the road.
Which brings us back to the point of, nobody's going to pay good money for a vehicle that doesn't put occupant safety as the highest priority.
Well, they can always walk. I'm certainly not suggesting that people be allowed to choose a car that doesn't have this design feature. Once self-driving cars are a reality I'd be a strong advocate of banning manually-driven cars entirely - they're a huge cause of what would become preventable death, and rather inefficient in about 47 different ways as well. It isn't like manual drivers are going to be able to negotiate 8-lane intersections that don't have traffic lights anyway.
I doubt you'd want to sacrifice the life of the driver simply to have a chance at saving one other life. I'd think that you'd risk the life of the driver instead of driving into a crowd of pedestrians or something like that.
I wasn't suggesting that the car should value the life of the owner less than everybody else. I just don't don't think that it should value it all that much higher either.
Ah, I see now. I had reading comprehension problems. Didn't realize the choices were (X1 || X2) I thought it was (X1 && X2) || (!X1 && !X2). The vagaries of English.
I've been speaking English my entire life and have gained a true appreciation for just how messed up a language it is!
as stated in the article, what happens when microsoft releases the user's data and it is encrypted by a company independent of microsoft, do they now go after the user?
Just leave the Microsoft CEO in jail for contempt until they come up with the keys. I suspect they'll figure out a solution fairly quickly. Maybe after a year or two the court can decide that they really couldn't come up with it.
That's what courts routinely do to individuals who don't disclose their keys. Simply telling the court that you don't have it isn't likely to get you far.
Seems like the simpler approach is to ban unautomated vehicles from the roads. Give everybody a free car in compensation - we'd probably save more than enough on road construction and oil imports to pay for it.
When I'm losing control, I have a fraction of a second to think what to do, but I know what situation I'm in (including what I don't know). The programmer needs to come up with a program that will perform OK in all sorts of different situations. Different sort of thing entirely.
Not as different as you think. The reality is that in an emergency situation your training tends to take over. You're really only going to behave optimally in the situations that you've spent many hours in a simulator rehearsing. That's why pilots spend so much time in simulators. If you don't rehearse the right situations, then you'll be fairly limited in a crisis.
Oh, wait, you don't regularly practice evasive maneuvers in a car simulator? Well then, most likely you'll never behave in the optimal manner in any accident situation. The car which at least was programmed to handle a limited set of circumstances will probably do better.