That they can break TLS. This just makes it computationally harder for them, not impossible.
First of all, TLS has many and growing number of encryption methods and key exchange mechanisms. I have no doubt SOME of those methods are broken or easily broken into. Others are not so easy, and ridiculously computationally expensive to unwind. And there are always better ones being added as they are invented.
Additionally, the more encryption that is out there operating in the field, the more computationally expensive it's going to get to a) find data you're actually interested in, and b) decrypting that data. Casual peeking is no longer viable if EVERYTHING is encrypted, whether it be difficult to break or not. You have to decide what to break into.
Calling BS on this. There is nothing inherently wrong with issuing certs. Regardless of who issues those certs, they can only be used to create a secure identified connections between a user and a server.
They definitely do not facilitate criminality any more than Apache2 does. This is just pure silliness. There's nothing wrong here. Bad guys can get certs from other sources just as easily as anyone else. They can get them from Let's Encrypt, too. So can everyone else. A certificate doesn't facilitate illegal activity. It's just for a secure connection.
Something tell me there's more to this than simply crying wolf about bad guys getting certs easily. Someone obviously would prefer that web hosts, big and small, don't get cheap (or free) certs to secure their connections from prying eyes.
While the justification might be 'bad guys are abusing this,' I'm still calling BS. Someone (or some *cough* three letter agency) is annoyed that people can easily secure their servers.
I'd go as far as to say, Let's Encrypt is having precisely the effect it sought to have. More secure connections on all HTTP traffic across the web. Anyone can TLS up their servers now with very little effort. Good job, Let's Encrypt, you're having a profound and ultimately awesome effect on the web's privacy and shielding from prying eyes. And that effect is a good one, especially when people are crying 'omg it's too easy to get certs now!' Good. Nothing like a very secure connection to give the middle finger to three letter agencies.
QoS is a suggestion, not a directive, so ignoring it is within spec.
Which is pretty stupid if you think about it. Let's add a method of flagging packets to have a priority, but, let's also make it legit for everyone to ignore it. Yeah, that sounds just brilliant.
This is a pretty underhanded way to get users who don't need to upgrade their machines to upgrade.
There is no technical reason (that I'd believe) for Windows 10 to not function on any given hardware configuration. In fact, Windows 10 has been a champ about being moved between hardware setups without really hiccuping much.
I definitely call BS on Microsoft. They're simply giving PC manufacturers a handup by arbitrarily by declaring a hardware profile to be unsupported.
It almost made sense for this stance on Windows 7/8.* and 7th gen Intel CPU's, but this.. this is market manipulation.
Why is it every scenario we dream up involving computers thinking for themselves turns out poorly?
Aren't there some scenarios where this turns out good? Like I dunno, AI is grateful toward humanity for creating it and helps humanity to the best of it's ability.
I mean even that seemingly favorable outcome is often twisted into 'what is helpful to humanity?' What it might consider helpful we might consider harmful. I mean it's good questions sure, but why does the answer have to always tilt toward the dark?
I dunno, I just have a secret wish that if we invents a truly conscious computer, that it would want to help us however it could, helping us solve some the most difficult puzzles and mysteries of the universe.
I have the wishful thinking that any conscious artificial intelligence we brought into existence would be aligned with humanity's goals and want to see humanity reach whatever goals it has.
I surely hope it's servers. These processors would be silly in a desktop computer. We're not even fully loading down 2-8 core machines now. Gaming performance has and still is a single core endeavor, and even now, most of my stuff has trouble pegging any cores to 100% for any length of time.
About the only thing I do that consumes a lot of cpu time is compiling. Not very many computer users compile stuff.
Again, it's ultimate more of the same lackluster improvements. Throwing more threads/core at stuff, when it's still who's got the FASTER single core that matters at the end of the day. At least in my opinion.
For servers however, running virtualization stuff, these CPU's should be great, squeeze even more out every physical server unit.
I think it's pretty well established that life tends to gravitate toward that which will propagate life.
I think we collective don't really stand much of a chance against nature's natural selection.
In the short term, this may reduce mosquitoes, but long term? Probably not. It won't take long for nature to teach the female mosquito to avoid males that don't procreate properly. But this is one case where I hope I'm wrong. I hate those things!
The only real killer product for consumers is the GPU and even there a single 1080Ti will play almost every game at 3840x2160 with Very High/Ultra quality at 60+ FPS.
This is exactly what I said. And the really sad part of it all, is Core2 based systems are still just fine for HIGH END gaming, as long as you got the killer GPU in there. These games, still, don't really need 239482 cores, or high frequency on the CPU. It's just not really very demanding on the CPU for games. GPU is where it's at. And that is absolutely destroying PC sales. And making NVIDIA tons of cash. Ask NVIDIA or AMD how the PC market looks, and I bet they're gunna say it looks fantastic, we're selling the hell out of GPU's.
Hell, even my personal i7, it's rare to ever see it hit more than about 20% cpu usage (across 8 logical cores) playing even the most demanding games. Gaming still does not exploit multi-core processing, cuz it doesn't need it. GPU is where all the heavy lifting is done.
Four words: Advanced Placement Computer Science. Phones traditionally haven't been very useful for learning programming. Even when docked to a Bluetooth keyboard and HDMI monitor, their security models are hostile to compilers.
Yeah, that's about the same as telling me my car doesn't have enough gas to get to where I'm going. I'm going to get more gas. In the case of PPC's, root the thing and boom, in case of Android PPC's, you got full linux distro and compilers at your fingertips, literally.
No sympathy for iPhone people, you bought into the walled garden. Now you get to live in it.
Blacks aren't more violent. Current popular black culture is violent, which is teaching black youth exposed to it to be violent. Asians aren't "good at math". Most Asian cultures put more of an emphasis on math at an earlier age than western societies. Non Asian students studying overseas from an early age are also "good at math". And children with an Asian ethnicity but born and raised in western cultures are just average at math.
So, to understand your logic here, you're basically saying, the underlying culture and social structure that these individuals are exposed to, is not indicative of a racial trait? I get it, I do. I think you're saying if a black person was brought up in an Asian culture/social structure, he/she would be good at math, and not as violent. That's cool.
However, I think to be blind to the racial biases expressed here is foolhearty. There are definitely biases here, as you exampled by pointing to the social/cultural environment created within these communities, mostly comprised of one classification of human (blacks, asians, whites, etcetc.) Saying someone excels at something cuz their cultural/social environment is pretty smart, and I think we need to take those environments into consideration when we think about racial biases. Because they are real. They might have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with environment, but it's interesting to see what certain communities/cultural/social environments produce and we can definite see some cultures/societies produce biases toward something or another.
Kind of a chicken and egg arguement, which came first? The racial biases we now see, or cultural underpinning that produces those biases, which are definitely different from place to place, community to community. And certain races seem to fall into the same cultural expectations, devoid of other influences. At least that's my perspective. I do believe everyone has the ability to excel in any chosen field, with enough effort and dedication. But at the same time, all things aside, some communities/cultures/societies definitely produce an expected result more often than not. And those expected results definitely seem to correlate to race.
This has been a trend for quite some time. And the causes are the same: Lackluster jumps in performance in the last 10 years, and the rise of the Portable Personal Computer (PPC, Smartphone.)
Naturally no one is going to bother to buy a new PC when all their current one needs is a memory and GPU upgrade.
I've spoken with people still running Core2's for their gaming rig, just slap a nice GPU in there and enough memory, and for gaming.. it's plenty.
Getting people to buy their very first PC is also agonizingly difficult now. How do you talk someone into investing in this big clunky box when their PPC does everything the big clunky box does?
PC manufacturers needs to take a good hard look at the SoC and SBC offerings and make them into very tiny personal computers to replace the clunky boxes we have now. The only reason a PC case needs space anymore is for extra drives and a GPU. SSD's are making HDD's obsolete in a hurry, and integrated GPU's are getting pretty competitive now.
I doubt your assertion holds for programmers who moved from file-locking "checkout-and-edit" based systems to an "update-and-merge" paradigm. The latter is so much easier. By the end of my use of VSS, I was basically doing that anyway with one directory containing the source-controlled copy, and another directory containing the copy I actually worked on, and just merging back and forth as necessary.
I can only speak from my own experience. I've been using Perforce for far too long. I don't wanna migrate to anything else cuz it's a pain in the ass and I'll likely lose all the prior versions of my stuff if I resubmit to a new system. There's supposedly conversion tools for Perforce to around, but I'm wary. I stick to my known quantity. It's still old school 'checkout-and-edit.' Which is good in my book, cuz damn as I get older, I have trouble keeping track of what I was working on. Knowing what I have checked out is a pretty good indicator of what I need to be looking at.
I suppose my original post in my own experience, and from the people I've met in my life, most folks my age dislike learning new systems, so I guestimated most people think like I do, and those I've been in contact with.
It's the browsers that got us in the mess we're in. Browsers do the wrong thing with TLS in almost every situation. We have really good crypto algorithms and protocols, and the implementations we have are confusing, misleading, and negate a lot of that functionality.
Pretty sure what you're describing has nothing to do with browsers. TLS is governed by the server, not the browser. Server dictates what crypto methods and hashing methods are permitted to be used. Browser has to comply with the server or get lost.
Just a thumbs-up for Let's Encrypt. Fantastic service and super easy to set up and have it fully automated, so the short-lived certs are not an issue. It automatically takes care of itself if configured properly.
The only people who like git are trend chasing hipsters (like JavaScript "programmers") who have never used other systems. Professionals, on the other hand, prefer Mercurial or one of the numerous other DVCS and VCS that exist.
If only this were true. But it's not. It's my perspective that most programmers who adopt the usage of any version control tend to stick with the first one they learn. After that, they become loyal to that package, even if it dies off, they cling to the known quantity. That's in my view, how people pick their version control. It's rare anyone switches from one to another, unless forced to do so by an external.
Some people might use one outside of their normal to work with another team, but for their own projects, they'll stick to their first/favorite.
As an addendum to the above, I just wanted to point out, the above scenarios won't activate until you start making money with your work. You'll be absolutely amazed how much crazy will come out of the woodwork, then claim patents, theft and/or any other sort of misrepresentation in order to grab a slice of your pie.
You can learn to code and write your own. You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
Not so sure these are entirely viable in every situation. One can easily run afoul of patents when writing your own code. Additionally, if your code looks and/or acts like someone elses code, you can easily be accused of stealing it by entities protecting whatever it is you seemed to have re-invented.
While programming and coding should be fairly free and loose with regards to the above concerns, it is not. Not in this reality. Tread carefully.
That we cannot see it... maybe it's a small black hole? Or some other lesser stellar remnant that's burnt out, but not massive enough to be a full scale black hole. The suggestion it's quite massive, yet we haven't found it... I dunno! Maybe some time in the distant past, this system had two stars. Singular star systems are supposedly less common than binaries.
File system based versioning, something some older OS's were known to do. I think it was TOPS-20 that kept a versioned filesystem.
This would be a much better solution to the ransomware issue, not only because it's the best way to ensure you can recover previous versions of files, but it's also useful for a myriad of other situations.
Of course, Microsoft probably doesn't read/. so I doubt we'll get the more useful feature. App whitelist/blacklist seems a bit too complicated for end-users to be excepted to wrap their heads around. So good luck with that.
Why use multiple computers? What's the problem with Virtualization? Virtualize the firewall, slap on a tight-ass linux with bare minimums to perform routing/firewalling for the host machine. Works great for me. Very tiny attack surface (SSH at the very most, if even that.)
And so how would you go about testing it in the real world then, given that you have excluded the possibility of testing it in the real world ?
That is definitely not what I meant or said. I meant to infer it should be removed from 'end-user' vehicles. I'm all for developers and testers to use this technology to further refine it, supervising the car driving itself in a responsible fashion. That there is the crux of the problem, people are using this technology irresponsibly, and because it's not good enough to deal with every situation it still needs a human to be paying attention, which people are not doing as is obvious from this incident the entire topic is referring to.
And until it's good enough to drive without human supervision, it should not be made available to 'end-users.' But as I stated in another reply, this is merely one tech goon's opinion. I've already seen a lot of data that suggests self-driving technology is -already- a better driver than a human. But that technology is NOT what is found in the Tesla vehicles, nor any other commercially available AI-assisted driving technologies. These technologies never proclaim to be 'self-driving', they are 'assisted driving', and I think people have a real hard time comprehending the difference, hence the inappropriate usage exampled by the topic. People don't see 'assisted driving' as 'cruise control for the steering wheel', that requires you to be alert and paying attention as if you were driving.
I think this AI assisted driving should be taken out of the cars. This technology is not ready for the real world
I assume you have studied the overall rate of accidents caused by this technology vs the number of accidents prevented by it. Can you post a link to the research, please ?
I am merely expressing my opinion. Asking me for research citations is far beyond the scope of my post and this entire discussion. Sorry about that.
Slashdot Mirror
That they can break TLS. This just makes it computationally harder for them, not impossible.
First of all, TLS has many and growing number of encryption methods and key exchange mechanisms. I have no doubt SOME of those methods are broken or easily broken into. Others are not so easy, and ridiculously computationally expensive to unwind. And there are always better ones being added as they are invented.
Additionally, the more encryption that is out there operating in the field, the more computationally expensive it's going to get to a) find data you're actually interested in, and b) decrypting that data. Casual peeking is no longer viable if EVERYTHING is encrypted, whether it be difficult to break or not. You have to decide what to break into.
Calling BS on this. There is nothing inherently wrong with issuing certs. Regardless of who issues those certs, they can only be used to create a secure identified connections between a user and a server.
They definitely do not facilitate criminality any more than Apache2 does. This is just pure silliness. There's nothing wrong here. Bad guys can get certs from other sources just as easily as anyone else. They can get them from Let's Encrypt, too. So can everyone else. A certificate doesn't facilitate illegal activity. It's just for a secure connection.
Something tell me there's more to this than simply crying wolf about bad guys getting certs easily. Someone obviously would prefer that web hosts, big and small, don't get cheap (or free) certs to secure their connections from prying eyes.
While the justification might be 'bad guys are abusing this,' I'm still calling BS. Someone (or some *cough* three letter agency) is annoyed that people can easily secure their servers.
I'd go as far as to say, Let's Encrypt is having precisely the effect it sought to have. More secure connections on all HTTP traffic across the web. Anyone can TLS up their servers now with very little effort. Good job, Let's Encrypt, you're having a profound and ultimately awesome effect on the web's privacy and shielding from prying eyes. And that effect is a good one, especially when people are crying 'omg it's too easy to get certs now!' Good. Nothing like a very secure connection to give the middle finger to three letter agencies.
QoS is a suggestion, not a directive, so ignoring it is within spec.
Which is pretty stupid if you think about it. Let's add a method of flagging packets to have a priority, but, let's also make it legit for everyone to ignore it. Yeah, that sounds just brilliant.
Windows10 should be only run in a VM.
I've been having issues with Windows 10 'losing it's activation' when it runs in a VM. Any one else? Any suggested fixes?
This is a pretty underhanded way to get users who don't need to upgrade their machines to upgrade.
There is no technical reason (that I'd believe) for Windows 10 to not function on any given hardware configuration. In fact, Windows 10 has been a champ about being moved between hardware setups without really hiccuping much.
I definitely call BS on Microsoft. They're simply giving PC manufacturers a handup by arbitrarily by declaring a hardware profile to be unsupported.
It almost made sense for this stance on Windows 7/8.* and 7th gen Intel CPU's, but this.. this is market manipulation.
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets.
AFAIK, no one obeys QOS. Anywhere. I'd be surprised if anything is actually looking at QOS field, much acting upon it.
Why is it every scenario we dream up involving computers thinking for themselves turns out poorly?
Aren't there some scenarios where this turns out good? Like I dunno, AI is grateful toward humanity for creating it and helps humanity to the best of it's ability.
I mean even that seemingly favorable outcome is often twisted into 'what is helpful to humanity?' What it might consider helpful we might consider harmful. I mean it's good questions sure, but why does the answer have to always tilt toward the dark?
I dunno, I just have a secret wish that if we invents a truly conscious computer, that it would want to help us however it could, helping us solve some the most difficult puzzles and mysteries of the universe.
I have the wishful thinking that any conscious artificial intelligence we brought into existence would be aligned with humanity's goals and want to see humanity reach whatever goals it has.
I surely hope it's servers. These processors would be silly in a desktop computer. We're not even fully loading down 2-8 core machines now. Gaming performance has and still is a single core endeavor, and even now, most of my stuff has trouble pegging any cores to 100% for any length of time.
About the only thing I do that consumes a lot of cpu time is compiling. Not very many computer users compile stuff.
Again, it's ultimate more of the same lackluster improvements. Throwing more threads/core at stuff, when it's still who's got the FASTER single core that matters at the end of the day. At least in my opinion.
For servers however, running virtualization stuff, these CPU's should be great, squeeze even more out every physical server unit.
I think it's pretty well established that life tends to gravitate toward that which will propagate life.
I think we collective don't really stand much of a chance against nature's natural selection.
In the short term, this may reduce mosquitoes, but long term? Probably not. It won't take long for nature to teach the female mosquito to avoid males that don't procreate properly. But this is one case where I hope I'm wrong. I hate those things!
The only real killer product for consumers is the GPU and even there a single 1080Ti will play almost every game at 3840x2160 with Very High/Ultra quality at 60+ FPS.
This is exactly what I said. And the really sad part of it all, is Core2 based systems are still just fine for HIGH END gaming, as long as you got the killer GPU in there. These games, still, don't really need 239482 cores, or high frequency on the CPU. It's just not really very demanding on the CPU for games. GPU is where it's at. And that is absolutely destroying PC sales. And making NVIDIA tons of cash. Ask NVIDIA or AMD how the PC market looks, and I bet they're gunna say it looks fantastic, we're selling the hell out of GPU's.
Hell, even my personal i7, it's rare to ever see it hit more than about 20% cpu usage (across 8 logical cores) playing even the most demanding games. Gaming still does not exploit multi-core processing, cuz it doesn't need it. GPU is where all the heavy lifting is done.
Four words: Advanced Placement Computer Science. Phones traditionally haven't been very useful for learning programming. Even when docked to a Bluetooth keyboard and HDMI monitor, their security models are hostile to compilers.
Yeah, that's about the same as telling me my car doesn't have enough gas to get to where I'm going. I'm going to get more gas. In the case of PPC's, root the thing and boom, in case of Android PPC's, you got full linux distro and compilers at your fingertips, literally.
No sympathy for iPhone people, you bought into the walled garden. Now you get to live in it.
Um, wrong.
Blacks aren't more violent. Current popular black culture is violent, which is teaching black youth exposed to it to be violent. Asians aren't "good at math". Most Asian cultures put more of an emphasis on math at an earlier age than western societies. Non Asian students studying overseas from an early age are also "good at math". And children with an Asian ethnicity but born and raised in western cultures are just average at math.
So, to understand your logic here, you're basically saying, the underlying culture and social structure that these individuals are exposed to, is not indicative of a racial trait? I get it, I do. I think you're saying if a black person was brought up in an Asian culture/social structure, he/she would be good at math, and not as violent. That's cool.
However, I think to be blind to the racial biases expressed here is foolhearty. There are definitely biases here, as you exampled by pointing to the social/cultural environment created within these communities, mostly comprised of one classification of human (blacks, asians, whites, etcetc.) Saying someone excels at something cuz their cultural/social environment is pretty smart, and I think we need to take those environments into consideration when we think about racial biases. Because they are real. They might have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with environment, but it's interesting to see what certain communities/cultural/social environments produce and we can definite see some cultures/societies produce biases toward something or another.
Kind of a chicken and egg arguement, which came first? The racial biases we now see, or cultural underpinning that produces those biases, which are definitely different from place to place, community to community. And certain races seem to fall into the same cultural expectations, devoid of other influences. At least that's my perspective. I do believe everyone has the ability to excel in any chosen field, with enough effort and dedication. But at the same time, all things aside, some communities/cultures/societies definitely produce an expected result more often than not. And those expected results definitely seem to correlate to race.
This has been a trend for quite some time. And the causes are the same: Lackluster jumps in performance in the last 10 years, and the rise of the Portable Personal Computer (PPC, Smartphone.)
Naturally no one is going to bother to buy a new PC when all their current one needs is a memory and GPU upgrade.
I've spoken with people still running Core2's for their gaming rig, just slap a nice GPU in there and enough memory, and for gaming.. it's plenty.
Getting people to buy their very first PC is also agonizingly difficult now. How do you talk someone into investing in this big clunky box when their PPC does everything the big clunky box does?
PC manufacturers needs to take a good hard look at the SoC and SBC offerings and make them into very tiny personal computers to replace the clunky boxes we have now. The only reason a PC case needs space anymore is for extra drives and a GPU. SSD's are making HDD's obsolete in a hurry, and integrated GPU's are getting pretty competitive now.
I doubt your assertion holds for programmers who moved from file-locking "checkout-and-edit" based systems to an "update-and-merge" paradigm. The latter is so much easier. By the end of my use of VSS, I was basically doing that anyway with one directory containing the source-controlled copy, and another directory containing the copy I actually worked on, and just merging back and forth as necessary.
I can only speak from my own experience. I've been using Perforce for far too long. I don't wanna migrate to anything else cuz it's a pain in the ass and I'll likely lose all the prior versions of my stuff if I resubmit to a new system. There's supposedly conversion tools for Perforce to around, but I'm wary. I stick to my known quantity. It's still old school 'checkout-and-edit.' Which is good in my book, cuz damn as I get older, I have trouble keeping track of what I was working on. Knowing what I have checked out is a pretty good indicator of what I need to be looking at.
I suppose my original post in my own experience, and from the people I've met in my life, most folks my age dislike learning new systems, so I guestimated most people think like I do, and those I've been in contact with.
Us lowly commoners have to pay someone to sign our certs.
I don't pay for my cert. Let's Encrypt is free.
It's the browsers that got us in the mess we're in. Browsers do the wrong thing with TLS in almost every situation.
We have really good crypto algorithms and protocols, and the implementations we have are confusing, misleading, and negate a lot of that functionality.
Pretty sure what you're describing has nothing to do with browsers. TLS is governed by the server, not the browser. Server dictates what crypto methods and hashing methods are permitted to be used. Browser has to comply with the server or get lost.
Just a thumbs-up for Let's Encrypt. Fantastic service and super easy to set up and have it fully automated, so the short-lived certs are not an issue. It automatically takes care of itself if configured properly.
The only people who like git are trend chasing hipsters (like JavaScript "programmers") who have never used other systems. Professionals, on the other hand, prefer Mercurial or one of the numerous other DVCS and VCS that exist.
If only this were true. But it's not. It's my perspective that most programmers who adopt the usage of any version control tend to stick with the first one they learn. After that, they become loyal to that package, even if it dies off, they cling to the known quantity. That's in my view, how people pick their version control. It's rare anyone switches from one to another, unless forced to do so by an external.
Some people might use one outside of their normal to work with another team, but for their own projects, they'll stick to their first/favorite.
As an addendum to the above, I just wanted to point out, the above scenarios won't activate until you start making money with your work. You'll be absolutely amazed how much crazy will come out of the woodwork, then claim patents, theft and/or any other sort of misrepresentation in order to grab a slice of your pie.
Again, tread carefully.
You can learn to code and write your own.
You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
Not so sure these are entirely viable in every situation. One can easily run afoul of patents when writing your own code. Additionally, if your code looks and/or acts like someone elses code, you can easily be accused of stealing it by entities protecting whatever it is you seemed to have re-invented.
While programming and coding should be fairly free and loose with regards to the above concerns, it is not. Not in this reality. Tread carefully.
That we cannot see it... maybe it's a small black hole? Or some other lesser stellar remnant that's burnt out, but not massive enough to be a full scale black hole. The suggestion it's quite massive, yet we haven't found it... I dunno! Maybe some time in the distant past, this system had two stars. Singular star systems are supposedly less common than binaries.
TLDR; Just speculative rambling.
File system based versioning, something some older OS's were known to do. I think it was TOPS-20 that kept a versioned filesystem.
This would be a much better solution to the ransomware issue, not only because it's the best way to ensure you can recover previous versions of files, but it's also useful for a myriad of other situations.
Of course, Microsoft probably doesn't read /. so I doubt we'll get the more useful feature. App whitelist/blacklist seems a bit too complicated for end-users to be excepted to wrap their heads around. So good luck with that.
Why use multiple computers? What's the problem with Virtualization? Virtualize the firewall, slap on a tight-ass linux with bare minimums to perform routing/firewalling for the host machine. Works great for me. Very tiny attack surface (SSH at the very most, if even that.)
And so how would you go about testing it in the real world then, given that you have excluded the possibility of testing it in the real world ?
That is definitely not what I meant or said. I meant to infer it should be removed from 'end-user' vehicles. I'm all for developers and testers to use this technology to further refine it, supervising the car driving itself in a responsible fashion. That there is the crux of the problem, people are using this technology irresponsibly, and because it's not good enough to deal with every situation it still needs a human to be paying attention, which people are not doing as is obvious from this incident the entire topic is referring to.
And until it's good enough to drive without human supervision, it should not be made available to 'end-users.' But as I stated in another reply, this is merely one tech goon's opinion. I've already seen a lot of data that suggests self-driving technology is -already- a better driver than a human. But that technology is NOT what is found in the Tesla vehicles, nor any other commercially available AI-assisted driving technologies. These technologies never proclaim to be 'self-driving', they are 'assisted driving', and I think people have a real hard time comprehending the difference, hence the inappropriate usage exampled by the topic. People don't see 'assisted driving' as 'cruise control for the steering wheel', that requires you to be alert and paying attention as if you were driving.
I think this AI assisted driving should be taken out of the cars. This technology is not ready for the real world
I assume you have studied the overall rate of accidents caused by this technology vs the number of accidents prevented by it. Can you post a link to the research, please ?
I am merely expressing my opinion. Asking me for research citations is far beyond the scope of my post and this entire discussion. Sorry about that.