And we all know computers are flawless right? Microsoft never has any issues. Who do you think writes the code that runs the computers? Tests the code? Creates those test plans? uhhh people. This irrefutable data you refer to is only as good as the coding AND THE TESTING, behind it. We have a saying here...sure, anyone can program a PLC, very few can make that PLC control a process or system with complete repeatability, reliability and have it be problem free. These "computers" that everyone puts so much faith in were just responsible this week for allowing duplicate votes to be logged here in several local PA elections. Causing grief and delays and expense. Who's fault? What the remedy in a time critical application? Well now, that's about as simple a data gathering task as anyone could be asked to code and it got ef'd up. Shocking. Keep swallowing the kool-aide...once all this BS is in place, like anything else that's shoved down our throats, it'll never go away and we'll just be expected and required, by law, to keep dealing with the expense and aggravation of it all. I'd commented elsewhere about what the costs could easily look like for 'diag and repair' (if you could find anyone competent enough) of this whiz-bang-chit. That's an entirely different discussion really. You think a buck-twenty an hour for some wrench monkey to work on your car is robbery? Only to cause more harm than good? Just wait., you ain't seen nuthin'. You only see the benefits of all of this non-sense like most people. Then, when reality hits sfter-the-fact, are abhorred by the unintended consequences. We keep repeating history and never learn from it.KuroNekko wrote:more objective data as computers get involved.
And how about all them hackers out there who have their way, unrestricted and anonymous, with everything and anything connected to the good ole internet? Again and entirely different discussion, but yet a crucial reality in the autonomous effort. We haven't even begun to contemplate all the what-ifs that could transpire 'for no reason' while one is blissfully and mindlessly being shuttled down the highway in your satellite connected, GPS guided, bluetooth camera controlled rolling WiFi hotspot. So who's at fault then? I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of an 80,000 pound truck anywhere near me going 70mph w/ modern day, internet connected, technology behind the wheel. No thanks. You want to take decades to work this chit out, 'learning as time goes on as you say, fine, do it on a frigging deserted island somewhere and stay the hell off the roads I'm driving until the entire automation package achieves the unachievable flawlessness.
More vehicles on the road stopping for 'no reason' is going to cause MORE accidents and more traffic tie-ups, especially in the long-term interim, as was just proven. That's been my gripe with the entire concept. When automation doesn't know (read isn't programmed) how to handle a given situation, that's when the fun starts. That's the exception handling programming and testing I've referred to before. I'd also reported a long time ago that during a somewhat controlled 'test' of my car's AWD/traction control system, in some light greasy snow, I'd learned where its limits were and proved to myself that the systems (hardware,software) can be pushed to the limit of "can't deal with it" or, if you prefer, 'cannot compute' which then produces the infamous affect of automation: 'for no reason'. Furthermore, when the car gave up the ghost 'for no reason', disengaged, stopped computing, whatever you would like to call it, the vehicle was physically way out of control...as in non-recoverable. Quite simply I exceeded the cars hardware and software capability. This is the destructive testing in automation. Now the auto makers sure as hell aren't going to advertise to you where those limitations are because that would be like admitting fault or guilt...not going to happen. Hence the my "notions" regarding the in-justice system and "good time to be a lawyer"' and "lawmakers creating laws for that which they have <0 knowledge of" comments. The automation behind the car's systems allowed me, lulled me, to get in to the situation in the first place. Then said...ehh sorry man , I'm done, enjoy the ride. That's how automation works. It's not magic, it's not super-human. In fact it's very human in the sense that there's no way humanly possible to account for, in the coding, the entire spectrum of 'what-ifs'. This is my point. I've said it before... the fact is automation likes repeatability and predictability. Our road systems are everything but. I know what your going to say...that the automation wouldn't have allowed me, Mr. incapable human, get myself in to trouble. BS. This will be another gov controlled and monitored aspect of our humanly existence. Here's my not-so reactive concerns about the automation which I've mentioned previously in regards to the epically in-adequate traffic control systems I currently live with: all I'll say about a road system full of driverless robots is I hope you'll enjoy spending many, many, many hours sitting in the transportation device, in gridlock, trying to get where ever it is you're going.
Now, growing up driving hi-powered heavy RWD cars and trucks, this kind of horsing around is nothing I hadn't felt or experienced before. The point being in those vehicles w/o all the tech, I'd have never gotten nearly as far in to 'the situation' I was in during the test in the first place. My brain, and not some damn computer's, wouldn't have allowed me to since I'd have felt and known the inevitable was coming.
sold)
Anyway, it'll eventually, and likely, come back on again resulting in some more expensive, time consuming aggravation on our part for some POS technology that we never wanted, but none-the-less, had shoved down our throats, presumably, in the name of safety. So I say, the deal there is, an expensive government overreach.
