We don't have 100% autonomous trains yet, yet we're supposed to have self driving cars next year?!

Can you get self driving lorries too? (Asking for a friend.)

theDGshow wrote:

Welcome to the DG show! Where everything is made up and logic doesn't matter!

Essentially his argument is that even if it saves thousands of lives, he doesn't like it anyway so it should be outlawed. It's been astounding watching his mental gymnastics over the years.

No. I am saying that if 10,000 autonomous cars were crashed by hackers in one year, then EVERYONE would be demanding that they be outlawed except for you and Xanax. It takes mental gymnastics to imagine how the tech could survive such a hit.

I'm also saying that the designers have been very lax on this so far, and if that doesn't change they will have big problems selling this.

DiscoGary wrote:

No. I am saying that if 10,000 autonomous cars were crashed by hackers in one year, then EVERYONE would be demanding that they be outlawed except for you and Xanax. It takes mental gymnastics to imagine how the tech could survive such a hit.

I'm also saying that the designers have been very lax on this so far, and if that doesn't change they will have big problems selling this.

I conceded the fact that people might react irrationally to such incidents. I was just giving that number as an example how logic will justify the tech, but logic doesn't guide most of our laws.

To reiterate, though, there will not be 10,000 hacking-caused-crashes in a single year. Security has not been the focus and never is in a dev environment for software. Most of what we're talking about now is still in the proof-of-concept phase, which almost never focuses on security but focuses on value propositions. So like I said, I anticipate, given the amount of resources and energy being focused on this, that when it comes time for a production release the security measures will be there such that any maliciously-caused incidents are minimal.

DiscoGary wrote:

theDGshow wrote:

Welcome to the DG show! Where everything is made up and logic doesn't matter!

Essentially his argument is that even if it saves thousands of lives, he doesn't like it anyway so it should be outlawed. It's been astounding watching his mental gymnastics over the years.

No. I am saying that if 10,000 autonomous cars were crashed by hackers in one year, then EVERYONE would be demanding that they be outlawed except for you and Xanax. It takes mental gymnastics to imagine how the tech could survive such a hit.

I'm also saying that the designers have been very lax on this so far, and if that doesn't change they will have big problems selling this.

Kind of like when someone "hacks" a firearm and kills innocent people? I agree with you that such dangerous technologies should be outlawed.

Disco logic wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

No. I am saying that if 10,000 autonomous cars were crashed by hackers in one year, then EVERYONE would be demanding that they be outlawed except for you and Xanax. It takes mental gymnastics to imagine how the tech could survive such a hit.

I'm also saying that the designers have been very lax on this so far, and if that doesn't change they will have big problems selling this.

Kind of like when someone "hacks" a firearm and kills innocent people? I agree with you that such dangerous technologies should be outlawed.

Morans. I'm surrounded by morans.

If there are fewer fatalities with self-driving cars compared to human-driven cars, but the fatalities are due to hacking rather than user error, would you still want to outlaw self-driving cars?

Xanax wrote:

Security has not been the focus and never is in a dev environment for software.

You are clueless. Unix was designed with security as its primary focus. Microsoft DOS (later Windows) was designed for running applications and it has had security problems for almost 40 years. To go from a "dev environment" to a commercial industrial strength system which is close to 100% secure takes MUCH more time than the initial letsseeifwecanrunthiscarwithoutadriver phase.

theDGshow wrote:

If there are fewer fatalities with self-driving cars compared to human-driven cars, but the fatalities are due to hacking rather than user error, would you still want to outlaw self-driving cars?

Of course.

You have to remember that quite a few people have expressed a desire to kill me over the years because of my politics both online and in person. If cars could be hacked, then I might be on the list of people targeted for a crash, so statistically speaking I would probably be much safer in a standard car no matter what the safety record is for autonomous cars. That's why I am so concerned about the hacking angle.

Those of us in the Basket of Irredeemable Deplorables have a different view of the world than those of you in the Ivory Tower of Liberalism.

Even though more people will die with the old system, you'd rather stick with it because it makes you more comfortable. Thankfully the rest of society doesn't have this viewpoint or we'd never develop any new technology. Interesting that in your head that last sentence seemed at all relevant.

I guess when in doubt, make irrelevant political accusations?

They divide autonomous cars into 5 levels. Drunk in the back would require Level 5.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/what-are-the-different-levels-of-self-driving-cars/2017/02/21/444a2a80-f877-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story.html?utm_term=.1aaeee17d42d

You could do Level 5 now in a highly controlled and uniform environment. Doing Level 5 now in the real world with real-world conditions and dealing with encounters with pedestrians and unautomated vehicles with human drivers is a pipe dream.

The deal in France sounds like they will have to create some sort of controlled environment along the route for it to work.

Just keep Microsoft away from the software in my car.

No wonder that idiotic company is not involved in this.

Just imagine a moment if autonomous cars WERE a thing right now. Windows cars would be like Windows computers. People here would say "use a Mac" car or "use a Linux car," and everyone would freak out. Who is to say Rojo's car can't run wild and kill an entire schoolyard of children? Who am I to say a basement-dwelling Linux user's car doesn't fail to start, instead showing a black screen after an update? Why am I such an elitist Mac car user?

Yeah, we're nothing if not inconsistent. Throw all the right-wing, nationalistic, xenophobic conspiracy-theory garbage this site constantly spews, and, well, we get what we deserve, right Trumpers?

1 disengagement for every 5000 miles driven. it's not a pipe dream.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/1/14474790/google-waymo-self-driving-car-disengagement-dmv-california

theDGshow wrote:

Even though more people will die with the old system, you'd rather stick with it because it makes you more comfortable. Thankfully the rest of society doesn't have this viewpoint or we'd never develop any new technology. Interesting that in your head that last sentence seemed at all relevant.

I guess when in doubt, make irrelevant political accusations?

It's relevant. Obama targeted Tea Party groups with the IRS and no one in his administration or the IRS paid any price at all. I see people like me being targeted by people in power, and then not paying the price after being caught. Yeah, I believe people are out to get me because some of them SAY SO!

I have every reason to believe that someone could crash my car and that no investigation would happen. I will not be driving an autonomous car no matter what their safety record is. I will never feel comfortable in such a thing.

Also, for 25 years, I designed, built, and trouble shot various computer based hardware systems. I know how hard it is to get something working at the nearly perfect level needed for fully autonomous control of a car. I also know how much pressure there is to declare things "working" while there are still serious bugs present or corner cases which have not been tested. And I also know how companies try to cover up the fact that they released a flawed product.

Most of the time both the manufacturer and consumer understand that the product will have flaws and they work something out with support agreements, etc. In the case of this technology I don't see that kind of understanding unfolding between the public and those selling the tech. People will expect it to be nearly flawless but it won't be. As long as the accidents are few and not due to hacking, the tech will work and people will live with it.

Overall, in the long run I trust the tech, but not the people.

security is THE big deal wrote:

Xanax wrote:

Security has not been the focus and never is in a dev environment for software.

You are clueless. Unix was designed with security as its primary focus. Microsoft DOS (later Windows) was designed for running applications and it has had security problems for almost 40 years. To go from a "dev environment" to a commercial industrial strength system which is close to 100% secure takes MUCH more time than the initial letsseeifwecanrunthiscarwithoutadriver phase.

And Microsoft is the most widely adopted/commercially successful OS in the world, and has little-to-no security issues for those who don't idiotically disregard updates/patches and cling to XP/versions that are 10 years old. So not sure what point you were trying to make but it failed.

And like I said, they're in the proof-of-concept phase, which might be what you call letsseeifwecanrunthiscarwithoutadriver phase. I didn't say we were 6 months from a commercially viable product. Security considerations and concerns will take a significant amount of brainpower and investment. That in no way means it will never happen, just like it didn't prevent the autonomous software in planes or the digitization of banking records.

First of all Sean, no one cares about you enough to target you. People on this board just like to insult you because you're an idiot.

Second of all, we were posing the hypothetical situation in which the self-driving cars save lives and you somehow came out against that. All your decision-making seems to be based on fear for your own safety. What happened to you to make you think the world is such a dangerous place and everyone is out to get you? You need to get a grip on reality. Not everything is some big political conspiracy.

I agree with discogary in that autonomous driving will have to be far safer than human driving for the public to accept it and for widespread adoption to occur. getting comfortable having a computer with your life in its hands will not be easy.

DiscoGary wrote:

theDGshow wrote:

Welcome to the DG show! Where everything is made up and logic doesn't matter!

Essentially his argument is that even if it saves thousands of lives, he doesn't like it anyway so it should be outlawed. It's been astounding watching his mental gymnastics over the years.

No. I am saying that if 10,000 autonomous cars were crashed by hackers in one year, then EVERYONE would be demanding that they be outlawed except for you and Xanax. It takes mental gymnastics to imagine how the tech could survive such a hit.

I'm also saying that the designers have been very lax on this so far, and if that doesn't change they will have big problems selling this.

What an absolutely ridiculous premise.

DiscoGary wrote:

Of course.

You have to remember that quite a few people have expressed a desire to kill me over the years because of my politics both online and in person. If cars could be hacked, then I might be on the list of people targeted for a crash, so statistically speaking I would probably be much safer in a standard car no matter what the safety record is for autonomous cars. That's why I am so concerned about the hacking angle.

If someone wanted to kill you I'm sure they would find an easier way than waiting until you got in a self-driving car and hacking it.

Why do you have such a compulsion to turn somewhat interesting conversations into a cesspool of asinine assertions?

biogen wrote:

I agree with discogary in that autonomous driving will have to be far safer than human driving for the public to accept it and for widespread adoption to occur. getting comfortable having a computer with your life in its hands will not be easy.

What you said is perfectly reasonable, but doesn't seem to be what DG believes.