Posted on 08/26/2016 7:04:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I didn’t say they don’t need it. I said NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THE OVER A DOZEN PLANS USE IT AT ALL. Because it’s a BAD IDEA and would make the whole self driving thing DRASTICALLY MORE DIFFICULT.
Conservative != paranoid luddite
Given that they already monitor and record every single communication, everywhere and can and do track everyone they want to and can't wait to completely limit firearms possession and non-approved political expression ("the Tea Party is a terrorist group"), how can you be so naïve?
Paranoia is just common sense when somebody's after you.
oh look and now he runs to the “expert knowledge”. Well too bad, I’m a QA engineer working software for 20 years. And i understand that getting information twice when you’re trying to process vast quantities of data very quickly doesn’t help. Which is why NONE of the companies working on this are working on centralized control, or even car to car communication. And it’s not just mentioning, these things are on the road RIGHT NOW with ZERO car to car communication.
Paranoia is just paranoia when you’re built 100% on false assumptions.
How do we deal with it using human drivers? I see a lot of deer roadkill out there.
I see. So no one has successfully hacked into car computers yet? You know that’s already happened. Nobody has to design in a communications capability - it’s already available.
You’re out of your depth, buddy. Need to keep driving your own car, while they’ll still let you.
Oh, lighten up on the caps button. Nothing spells “nitwit” like people who use caps to simulate shrieking.
You just gave another reason why they won’t be having self driving cars talking to a central control or other cars. It’s hacking vulnerability.
I’m in my depth just fine. I can tell because you’ve gone to all fallacy. Nothing spells nitwit like appeals to authority, poisoning the well and... well using nitwit.
I’m very happy you’ve decided to leave caps button alone: good for you!
And now you’re not even trying to address the issue. So since we both realize you’re wrong, conversation over. Have a good day some time.
Sorry to burst your bubble but haven’t you read about vehicles being hacked and their controls disrupted? It’s been in the news, assuming you can read. There’s even rumors that a murder was caused by just such a takeover.
Now, since you claim to be an engineer, how difficult would it be link the main computer to Bluetooth or a cellular system? And if it were mandated by law, how much of an effort would it require? Some current systems are already remotely accessible.
Our independence is a fragile thing: look what the Left has gotten away with our 2nd Amendment rights - and those are protected by the Constitution.
Our right to independent mobility isn’t protected by anything.
As I already said, stories about cars being hacked is another reason for self driving cars to NOT (you whine about the caps, but you don’t pay attention to anything else) communicate with other cars. If you’re in the tech industry as you claim you know the more your stuff communicates with the more susceptible it is to hacking.
It wouldn’t be difficult at all, but it would be painfully stupid to hook the main computer to a bluetooth or cellular system. Especially for self driving cars.
So now that you’ve fully shown exactly why none of the dozen companies working on this technology want them to communicate with other cars you see exactly why I point out that your stage 2 will never happen.
In this case our right to independent mobility is protected by good design. Everything necessary to make your stages 2 through 4 happen are terrible awful designs that any program manager or QA engineer worth a damn would reject in the earliest stages of the product.
Again, you fail to see that companies developing and hoping to exploit this technology aren’t the ones that will control those technologies, anymore than cell phone service providers or internet sites intended to be controlled, monitored, and restrained by the government. Yes, the government controls and licenses frequencies, so we allegedly gave them that power but the government owns our roadways and licenses us to drive vehicles on them so they have the power and we don’t.
We have already numerous restraints put on our driving. Speed limits, with plenty of law enforcement assets to make sure we behave, “Aggressive driving” cameras on our freeways, speed cameras to automatically ticket us, etc., etc. The chance for the same bureaucrats to firmly control our movements will be irresistible.
No, using the caps button to simulate shouting is childish.
The hell they aren’t. The government can whine and bitch all they want but if the tech isn’t there the tech isn’t there. Just look at how many times the postponed the Real ID act because a few states just couldn’t be bothered to get it together, hell it STILL isn’t in place. And in tech you know just how long it takes standards committees to get their act together. If the companies working on self driving cars started working out the protocol to have them talk to each other tomorrow they wouldn’t have the standard worked out until the 2030s, by then the cars will have been on the road NOT talking to each other for over a decade.
And we can see from this very story how wrong you are. Ohio is putting them on the road without them being able to talk to each other. You’ve forgotten the power of the lobbyist. In the end the government doesn’t work for us, it works for lobbyists, and the self driving car companies have put together a lobby arm. They don’t want their cars centrally controlled, so they won’t be, period.
Cameras are on their way out. People are voting them away. And they never generated as much revenue as promised.
I’m not simulating shouting, I’m adding emphasis. Too lazy to use tags and make italics. Sorry that bugs you, but in the end that’s on you.
Have a look at Drudge today: “Hacking fear cause anxiety as self-driving cars emerge”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/28/car-hacking-future-self-driving-security
Your Pollyanna view of the world and limited experience is restricting your vision.
(This post is Caps-free for your viewing pleasure)
Every time you post about hacking you provide another reason why none of these companies want their cars to talk to each other. Nothing Pollyanna about it, I’m just actually paying attention to what these stories MEAN. Which you are studiously ignoring.
You and your caps.. All very high school. If you can’t comprehend the issue, I can’t help you.
I do comprehend the issue. The issue is that car to car communication is a very bad idea and every story you post about cars being hacked proves it. And as for the caps GET OVER IT. I’ve been doing the caps my entire time on FR and you’re the first person to complain about it, talk about very high school. Suck it up buttercup, I always have and always will punch emphasis where I choose to with caps. And if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
The issue never has been car-to-car communication. It has been external, i.e., Big Computer in the Sky via cellular network or RF communications. Whether hacked in involuntarily or by a link installed by the manufacturer, the automated functions of the vehicle (ignition, accelerator, brakes, steering) as well as current position, direction, velocity can me monitored and directed. That same computer system would control vehicle interval, lane position and of course, speed.
As we have discussed ad nauseum, our wonderfully anonymous leaders would hardly restrain themselves if they had yet more chances to control our speed, consumption, routes taken, and maybe even miles driven. It’ll be for our “safety”, of course. That’s why we have lights lovingly timed to catch you at every intersection.
The caps stuff is annoyingly gay, if you must know.
The issue is having the communication system being able to talk to the control system. Doesn’t really matter what your intended end point is, once you allow somebody to screw with the engine via remote control you’ve screwed the pooch. Which is why car companies are putting layers in between there. And AGAIN why ZERO of the DOZEN companies working on this are doing it with centralized control, or car to car communication. They’ve figured out that’s a bad design, massive security, will get people killed, and most importantly get them sued.
And since their system will NOT be allowing remote control the opinions of our anonymous leaders don’t really matter.
Whining incessantly about somebody’s use of caps is annoyingly gay, if you must know. Been using caps for a decade and a half and you’re the the only one to complain. So again suck it up butter cup.
It’s very clear that you haven’t any experience at all with automated systems. Whatever engineering background you claim to have is pretty minimal. I have designed automated systems and have been PM for the design of very advanced sensor-to-shooter systems and I know that anything that can be taken over will be. I also know that the government can compel businesses to do what they tell them to do by law and by regulation.
That’s twice you’ve used “suck it up buttercup”. What does that say about you - besides the need to use caps all the time?
Once again you provided evidence that helped MY point. Yes, anything that can be taken over will be. Which is WHY they’re NOT designing the systems to talk to any other system, no communication, no take over.
I’ll KEEP saying suck it up buttercup until you stop being a whiny ass buttercup. All your whining makes sure I HAVE to use caps, never give in to whiners, it just encourages them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.