millions of miles? There's more to it than distance traveled. How many of these cars? 6? 12? 20? Let me know when they get it up to a few hundred-thousand in a single urban area, and have run the simulation for a year or so at least. Frankly, though, I wouldn't want to be one of the pedestrian guinea pigs in that study...you did read my whole post right? There's a lot more to driving safely than simple reaction time.
People are people. At the end of the day, it's the same political and social group dynamics at play. Who wants control over what, who wants this or that to do something else, etc.. so while you're right that embedded software meant for controlling machines is a lot different from a web search engine, the 'attitude' of the culture prevails. Also, the costs involved in writing bug free code skyrocket very quickly as complexity goes up, so assuming these things are 'ready now' is childish idealism at best. Needless complexity is never a good idea. At best it offers some cutesy features that work sometimes. At worst, it gets in the way at a critical moment and causes serious problems.
The moment the human has to verify everything is the moment the machine is now getting in the way of the process. Just let the human drive then! Give him a satnav and he's ready to go.. Why should everything be a damn 'negotiation?' Computers are supposed to do what they're told, not argue with the user. Google doesn't understand this anymore. They've got the passive aggressive 'concern troll' help style down pat. I would not want this in my car...even as a satnav system, nevermind something that controls the vehicle directly.
No it's not. People are always ready to trade freedom for safety, and safety for even the whiff of added convenience. That's why we have this hellpit of 'social change' you speak of. Even what you suggest (walling them off) would be a massive undertaking and hardly worth it. Better to just build high speed trains.
Hard to know since we don't have 250M autonomous cars on open roads being subjected to the uncertainties of traffic every day. We've only a few taken out on very well planned routes. If Toyota can't get a 'simple' microcontroller programmed correctly, I have no faith in any car manufacturer, any programmers really, in getting something many orders of magnitude more complicated correct. We can't even buy consumer internet routers with firmware that isn't loaded with vulnerabilities and bugs. A crashed router results in the loss of connectivity and can be reset.
Free roaming autonomous machines that correctly interpret the environment do not exist yet. We don't have the sensor technology, microprocessor performance, nor do the AI design for it. Navigating a plane though the sky is easier than navigating (sub)urban streets full of unknowns like kids and pets running around, or an icy patch in the road. The last thing I'd want is a bunch of these roaming the streets, one software bug/bored teenager script kid hack away from mauling someone or their property.
There's a lot more work to be done before these things are set loose on the road.
At some point you should be responsible for the things you create.
only to a point, otherwise no one would make much of anything in order to avoid sue-happy vultures. Perhaps a better way to deal with this is a design process that requires justification for complexity. Why use a programmable microcontroller to drive a throttle when a cable works just as well? Is an ECU really necessary at all, or does it just provide a bunch of newfangled featuritis that give toyota management and possibly state bureaucrats the warm and fuzzies?
The old scotty quote applies here: "The more they overdo the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Then maybe overly complex computers should be kept away from critical/risky processes that risk human life? Gratuitous automotive electronic control systems, like toyota's electronic throttle, really should not be when a cable works just as well. KISS works best for things like this.
Nevermind that, I'd never own (or ride in as the 'driver'/trip planner, whatever) a self-driving car unless it was blatantly legally clear that I am not to be held accountable for its behavior.
This is one of those scenarios where the cultural fascination with the concept is going to push it into practice before it's really ready...if it ever is. Open terrain autonomy is not an easily solvable problem as it relies more on contextual awareness via multiple mediums rather than raw reaction time. Humans are still far better at this than any computer. The fact that toyota, likely the most safety conscious car manufacturer in the world, could not account for all possible behaviors of their code in a relatively simple computer system speaks volumes about how far away we really are from safe autonomous, free range robots. On the road, drunk drivers and idiot soccer moms with cellphones are a lot easier to spot and avoid unlike the way out of box behavior caused by subtle programming bugs in complex hardware. Maybe the day will come, but it certainly won't be here by 2020. For now, I'd rather share the road with humans who get it right most of the time, than with (or be driven by) computers having only the tiniest fraction of the situational awareness.
No one said those uses you listed were valid (unless the warranty states otherwise). Faulty equipment is a valid reason. Censorship is never justified. A simple reply to the comment from an authorized apple employee that actually addresses the issue logically is all that's required. Deleting posts just makes people think apple is at fault and prevents resolution.
No, the reasonable assumption is that the forums are there for users to post, and so the content there does not represent apple's position unless the poster is an apple employee authorized to speak on behalf of apple.
The same question might be asked of you fanboys: Don't you get tired of defending the windmills?..or does it help compensate for lack of self-worth? That's what apple marketing predates on. It's right up there with scientology.
I'm sure sandy was nothing to people living elsewhere just as much as other storms aren't interesting to people living in the northeast US. It's not like slashdot doesn't cover other events in the world.
I'm about sick of people crying 'american-centric'. It's just a shitty ad-hom generalization implying americans as myopic, like other countries and cultures aren't also loaded with it. Hey, it happened here, so it's news here. Deal with it.
Because the problem lies above me, with the move towards centralized control of everything. Power wouldn't've been a problem if the system was more decentralized. Same with communications. Cellphones were designed as dependent devices from the beginning, no p2p mode to be found. Same with the data centers. A lot less productivity would've been lost had people taken charge of their data instead of trusting 'the cloud' for everything.
The rest of it is really just a case of shit happens. Most of the time, hurricanes aren't a big deal up here.. They knock some trees down and create a ruckus that is recovered from in a few days to a week or so, but that's about it.
Everyone talks like the patch treadmill is absolutely necessary. It's not. The only reason this treadmill is marched by IT depts is to protect their jobs from the logical fallacies of management. The proof is the false assumption that the system's secure once the latest patches are installed, coupled with the rash of new patches the following week. Windows is fundamentally insecure. Hell, just about every OS is insecure if setup incorrectly no matter how many vendor patches are applied. If you're going to use an OS in a networked environment, just accept that, and when planned for accordingly, it's not the biggest issue in the world. Everyone posting here should know how to mitigate risks like this by now, patches or no patches.
um. No he's revealing info to everyone.. No country claiming to be a bastion of freedom should be in the business of mass data collection of its citizens' comings and goings. The criminals are the politicians in washington DC. Hell, the russian government probably already knows more about the USA domestic spying activities than its own citizens do.
Slashdot Mirror
millions of miles? There's more to it than distance traveled. How many of these cars? 6? 12? 20? Let me know when they get it up to a few hundred-thousand in a single urban area, and have run the simulation for a year or so at least. Frankly, though, I wouldn't want to be one of the pedestrian guinea pigs in that study. ..you did read my whole post right? There's a lot more to driving safely than simple reaction time.
People are people. At the end of the day, it's the same political and social group dynamics at play. Who wants control over what, who wants this or that to do something else, etc.. so while you're right that embedded software meant for controlling machines is a lot different from a web search engine, the 'attitude' of the culture prevails. Also, the costs involved in writing bug free code skyrocket very quickly as complexity goes up, so assuming these things are 'ready now' is childish idealism at best. Needless complexity is never a good idea. At best it offers some cutesy features that work sometimes. At worst, it gets in the way at a critical moment and causes serious problems.
The moment the human has to verify everything is the moment the machine is now getting in the way of the process. Just let the human drive then! Give him a satnav and he's ready to go.. Why should everything be a damn 'negotiation?' Computers are supposed to do what they're told, not argue with the user. Google doesn't understand this anymore. They've got the passive aggressive 'concern troll' help style down pat. I would not want this in my car...even as a satnav system, nevermind something that controls the vehicle directly.
No it's not. People are always ready to trade freedom for safety, and safety for even the whiff of added convenience. That's why we have this hellpit of 'social change' you speak of. Even what you suggest (walling them off) would be a massive undertaking and hardly worth it. Better to just build high speed trains.
Hard to know since we don't have 250M autonomous cars on open roads being subjected to the uncertainties of traffic every day. We've only a few taken out on very well planned routes. If Toyota can't get a 'simple' microcontroller programmed correctly, I have no faith in any car manufacturer, any programmers really, in getting something many orders of magnitude more complicated correct. We can't even buy consumer internet routers with firmware that isn't loaded with vulnerabilities and bugs. A crashed router results in the loss of connectivity and can be reset.
Free roaming autonomous machines that correctly interpret the environment do not exist yet. We don't have the sensor technology, microprocessor performance, nor do the AI design for it. Navigating a plane though the sky is easier than navigating (sub)urban streets full of unknowns like kids and pets running around, or an icy patch in the road. The last thing I'd want is a bunch of these roaming the streets, one software bug/bored teenager script kid hack away from mauling someone or their property.
There's a lot more work to be done before these things are set loose on the road.
Get from A to B as fast as possible, as safe as possible, or along the most scenic route.
That in and of itself is a tall order, especially for the comparatively twitch-reflexed yet dimwitted, contextually unaware computers we have today.
You're ignoring the rather capricious looking and hard to track human errors that are 99.9% likely to be in the programming of these autonomous cars.
At some point you should be responsible for the things you create.
only to a point, otherwise no one would make much of anything in order to avoid sue-happy vultures. Perhaps a better way to deal with this is a design process that requires justification for complexity. Why use a programmable microcontroller to drive a throttle when a cable works just as well? Is an ECU really necessary at all, or does it just provide a bunch of newfangled featuritis that give toyota management and possibly state bureaucrats the warm and fuzzies?
The old scotty quote applies here: "The more they overdo the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Then maybe overly complex computers should be kept away from critical/risky processes that risk human life? Gratuitous automotive electronic control systems, like toyota's electronic throttle, really should not be when a cable works just as well. KISS works best for things like this.
Law is rarely rational. If not the driver, then who? The owner is the likely target because the manufacturer is too well heeled. No thanks.
Nevermind that, I'd never own (or ride in as the 'driver'/trip planner, whatever) a self-driving car unless it was blatantly legally clear that I am not to be held accountable for its behavior.
This is one of those scenarios where the cultural fascination with the concept is going to push it into practice before it's really ready...if it ever is. Open terrain autonomy is not an easily solvable problem as it relies more on contextual awareness via multiple mediums rather than raw reaction time. Humans are still far better at this than any computer. The fact that toyota, likely the most safety conscious car manufacturer in the world, could not account for all possible behaviors of their code in a relatively simple computer system speaks volumes about how far away we really are from safe autonomous, free range robots. On the road, drunk drivers and idiot soccer moms with cellphones are a lot easier to spot and avoid unlike the way out of box behavior caused by subtle programming bugs in complex hardware. Maybe the day will come, but it certainly won't be here by 2020. For now, I'd rather share the road with humans who get it right most of the time, than with (or be driven by) computers having only the tiniest fraction of the situational awareness.
No one said those uses you listed were valid (unless the warranty states otherwise). Faulty equipment is a valid reason. Censorship is never justified. A simple reply to the comment from an authorized apple employee that actually addresses the issue logically is all that's required. Deleting posts just makes people think apple is at fault and prevents resolution.
No, the reasonable assumption is that the forums are there for users to post, and so the content there does not represent apple's position unless the poster is an apple employee authorized to speak on behalf of apple.
The same question might be asked of you fanboys: Don't you get tired of defending the windmills?..or does it help compensate for lack of self-worth? That's what apple marketing predates on. It's right up there with scientology.
butbutbut...the housing is smoooooth and silllly whiiite...smoooth and shinyy...
butbutbut YES WE CAN!!
I'm sure sandy was nothing to people living elsewhere just as much as other storms aren't interesting to people living in the northeast US. It's not like slashdot doesn't cover other events in the world.
I'm about sick of people crying 'american-centric'. It's just a shitty ad-hom generalization implying americans as myopic, like other countries and cultures aren't also loaded with it. Hey, it happened here, so it's news here. Deal with it.
As anyone who deals with marine equipment can tell you, salt water and electronics don't mix well.
What about tornadoes?
That level of prep is meant to defend against societal collapse. A storm does not cause this.
Because the problem lies above me, with the move towards centralized control of everything. Power wouldn't've been a problem if the system was more decentralized. Same with communications. Cellphones were designed as dependent devices from the beginning, no p2p mode to be found. Same with the data centers. A lot less productivity would've been lost had people taken charge of their data instead of trusting 'the cloud' for everything.
The rest of it is really just a case of shit happens. Most of the time, hurricanes aren't a big deal up here.. They knock some trees down and create a ruckus that is recovered from in a few days to a week or so, but that's about it.
Everyone talks like the patch treadmill is absolutely necessary. It's not. The only reason this treadmill is marched by IT depts is to protect their jobs from the logical fallacies of management. The proof is the false assumption that the system's secure once the latest patches are installed, coupled with the rash of new patches the following week. Windows is fundamentally insecure. Hell, just about every OS is insecure if setup incorrectly no matter how many vendor patches are applied. If you're going to use an OS in a networked environment, just accept that, and when planned for accordingly, it's not the biggest issue in the world. Everyone posting here should know how to mitigate risks like this by now, patches or no patches.
he's using it as an example of a common trend.. get over it.
Obama did vote 'yes' for PATRIOT after all..and he renewed its provisions as president.
um. No he's revealing info to everyone.. No country claiming to be a bastion of freedom should be in the business of mass data collection of its citizens' comings and goings. The criminals are the politicians in washington DC. Hell, the russian government probably already knows more about the USA domestic spying activities than its own citizens do.