|
Devices are being sent to market with Beta software on the device, watch with a tiny bug is not a big deal sending a software update OK (or what we have come to expect).
Time to ship in a competitive industry will always be driven down as much as possible.
http://doubin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Modern cars (and aircraft) already include a lot of "drive (fly) by wire" technology, which can go horribly wrong (see Toyota's braking issues, a few years back). While bad software has the potential to cause crashes, it also has the potential to reduce them - no more drunken driving, for example.
On the whole, trying to improve software is much easier (and much less frustrating) than trying to improve people. 
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we are going to improve the software, meanwhile they hopefully scrape our remains off that tree the software smacked us against.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
And how does this differ from the results of car accidents caused by human driver error?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
The results are the same. I just have more confidence in a driver's abilities than in a mindless machine.
At the moment I'm looking at the firmware for the control module of a model helicopter. It's open source, a real little autopilot. Last summer I lost one of the servos at the swashplate while I was flying. The result usually is a crash. My improvised reaction prevented that and then I even managed to land it. A rough landing, but one without any further damage. Most important of all, no people were in danger of being hit by a crashing heli out of control.
Now, how shall I teach the firmware of the autopilot to detect the loss of any one of the three servos and perform a controlled landing with the broken servo frozen in its last position and a totally different model of control?
As it is now, the program will try to compensate and not take into account that one servo is gone. Or I can keep on flying myself, which is a lot more fun.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: I just have more confidence in a driver's abilities than in a mindless machine.
A mindless machine has some advantages - it never gets tired, drunk, or distracted.
I agree that the current state of the art is inadequate for driverless cars. Where we appear to disagree is on whether the state of the art will ever advance sufficiently.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think I would approach the problem with some kind of evolved (GA) neural network, with the initial training (both good and bad results - you have to do both) done inside a simulator. Once the initial training is done, you could probably then continue training using a real machine with methods to fake the issues. With enough training (and constant update during regular flight), the system likely could even recover somewhat gracefully with a problem it hadn't seen before (with the exception of a complete and total failure of all systems - not even a human can recover from that).
|
|
|
|
|
I love evolutional algorithms, but they have the devilish habit tp follow your directives to the letter and still do all kinds of things you never intended.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
be drip-fed intead of eating?
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
... it is from Apple, it probably won't let me in and I'd have to walk behind.
If it is from Microsoft, I would wait till version 3+.
|
|
|
|
|
You missed Google: it rides a detour (while it knows your shopping because of your smartphone position) to update the maps database. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Because it will be tested extremely carefully, and let's be honest here:
1) The testing will be a lot, lot more careful and rigorous than the testing given to teenagers before they are allowed on the road.
2) Even a computer with no IQ or common sense is going to be a better driver than 90% of the idiots already on the road.
I mean, come on! Never mind people driving while on their mobile / cell, or texting: I've seen people reading the paper while driving in heavy traffic; searching in the glove box for the right CD; so drunk they can't stand up unaided; once I saw someone with his laptop open on his dashboard, typing away and steering with his elbows!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, might be better if those other drivers would try self-driving cars first. 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on! Most geeks are early adopters!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Most geeks are early adopters
I guess I just lost any hope of becoming a geek.
I always wait for others (early adopters as you called them) to take the first bullet. Or three.
Saves lots of time, expense, and it extreme cases, getting in line for two days for the latest Apple phone which has a massive improvement over the last: they gave it a new and higher number!
Or perhaps I'm a new improved version of geek: having learned from observation I find waiting for something that actually works supplies that satisfying thrill (in this case, because I didn't buy something that either needed six upgrades or was beta-max'd off of life's shelf)
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see myself as a particulary good driver, but at least I don't run into infinite loops, stack overflows, null references (well, not often anyway), security exceptions, deadlocks, timeouts, out of memory exceptions, file not founds, typeloader exceptions or general exceptions... 
Lots of cars don't even have their on board computers right. Like that time my navigation wanted to send me straight out in a grassy field 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Once I had to take the 8th exit of a roundabout that had 5 -> I took the 8th but the right one was the 2nd... It only costed me 15 kms at 01:00 AM. I couldn't turn back right away because it put me on a high speed way.
Several day later it asked me to take the 5th exit on a roundabout that had 3. And the maps were the latest and I know for sure nobody changed anything in the roads.
Nay, I wouldn't use a car programmed by the smae ID-10Ts that deploy the shotty web applications now online. As I wouldn't drive a car developed by a company that in any moment could ask me to buy an optional upgrade if I wish to take the highways.
My freedom, even to make poor choices, is my freedom. I won't give it to a machine.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
hummmm (thinking!)... my wife would have someone else to blame for the wrong turns!
Yeah, I would!
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Thomas A. Edison
"Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason." Eça de Queiroz (1845 - 1900)
|
|
|
|
|
only if it have dual - manual and auto both...
As its already in culture there is auto-pilot mode, metro is automatic.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second that - IF something goes wrong (can't be ruled out) I'd prefer to be able to take over...
|
|
|
|
|
I think the idea of "driver-less" cars, is just another example of mankind distancing themselves from one another. Everyday, we become less and less, sociable.
I think the title of this silly poll should have started as, "As a human..."
|
|
|
|
|
To put the question of the poll in other words: As a software developer, do you trust software to drive you safely and secure from A to B?
Wondering, what society criticism has to do with this plain question...
|
|
|
|
|
I guess your answer may reveal how well you trust the integrity of your own code... 
|
|
|
|
|
...developers assure that there is no infinite loop in the code...
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Rohan Leuva wrote: assure that there is no infinite loop in the code
That's impossible. See the Halting Problem[^]
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
