' can happen.

(2) It is very expensive to create bug-free software.

(3) You can't iterate by failing fast on life-critical systems after it is
released. Failure means killing someone.

(4) Legal liabilities. It's not going to work to say something like, "This
car's driver software is not warranted free from defects".

(5) Humans can manage situations utterly outside the norm; algorithms can not
see beyond the vision of the designer.

I work in an industry which operates _below_ the levels of software assurance
that the medical/flight industries work at, and it is incredibly painstaking
as it is. A fully automated car will be very expensive to build.

I am not a paranoiac regarding software. I am a paranoiac regarding software
bugs and the limits of the software designers.

------
blue1
I suspect that this kind of "risky" technology will be deployed first in more
adventurous countries, like China.

------
uuilly
Regulation and fear are to be expected. The question is, what to do about
them? I predict the largest PR campaign in the history of technology. Public
opinion generally drives regulation. So less public fear will lead to less
regulation.

While I have no way to prove it, I'd bet my right hand that Google's PR people
made this story happen. I'd bet they also made the first NYT piece blowing up
the Chauffeur project happen and they made it look serendipitous for
authenticity. I think "The Suit is Back," and I think it's going to come back
again and again.

Prediction: Driverless cars will be portrayed in a very positive way in a
major motion picture within the next year.

------
RyanMcGreal
This is the crux of the matter:

> imagine that the cars would save many lives over all, but lead to some bad
> accidents when a car malfunctions. The evening news might show a
> “Terminator” car spinning out of control and killing a child. There could be
> demands to shut down the cars until just about every problem is solved. The
> lives saved by the cars would not be as visible as the lives lost, and
> therefore the law might thwart or delay what could be a very beneficial
' can happen. 

 (2) It is very expensive to create bug - free software. 

 (3) You can't repeat by fail fast on life - critical systems after it is 
 turn. bankruptcy means killing someone. 

 (4) Legal liabilities. It's not move to work to say something like, " This 
 cable car's driver software is not justify free from blemish ". 

 (5) Humans can manage situation utterly outside the norm; algorithms cannot 
 see beyond the vision of the designer. 

 I exploit in an industry which operates _ below _ the levels of software assurance 
 that the aesculapian / flight industries knead at, and it is fabulously painstaking 
 as it is. A fully automated car will be very expensive to build. 

 I am not a paranoiac involve software. I am a paranoiac regarding software 
 bugs and the limits of the software designers. 

 ------ 
 blue1 
 I suspect that this kind of " risky " technology will be deployed first in more 
 adventurous countries, like China. 

 ------ 
 uuilly 
 Regulation and fear are to be expected. The question is, what to do about 
 them? I predict the largest praseodymium campaign in the history of technology. Public 
 impression by and large drives regulation. So less public concern will lead to less 
 rule. 

 While I have no way to prove it, I'd count my right hand that Google's PR people 
 made this story happen. I'd count they also made the first NYT piece blowing up 
 the Chauffeur project happen and they reach it look serendipitous for 
 authenticity. I think " The Suit is Back, " and I think it's going to come back 
 again and again. 

 Prediction: Driverless cable car will be portrayed in a very positive way in a 
 major motion picture within the next year. 

 ------ 
 RyanMcGreal 
 This is the crux of the topic: 

 > imagine that the cars would save many lives over all, but lead to some regretful 
 > accidents when a car malfunctions. The evening news might indicate a 
 > “ Terminator ” car spin out of control and killing a child. There could be 
 > demands to shut down the cars until merely about every trouble is solved. The 
 > lives saved by the cars would not be equally visible as the lives lost, and 
 > therefore the law might thwart or check what could be a very beneficial
' caj happen.

(2) It is very expeksive to create yyg-free softwzre.

(3) You zan't iterate by failing fast ob lift-britical systems aftef it is
repeased. Fqiluce means killing someone.

(4) Legal piabnlmties. It's not gping to wosk to say somedhkny like, "This
car's driver software is njt warrsnhed free from qefebtf".

(5) Hujans can manage situations utterly outsidt the norm; algoritnms can not
see beyond the gisiln of the designer.

L work in ab inqystry which uperates _btlmw_ the levgls of software assurance
that thd medncal/flight uneushties work at, and pt is incredinky paitstakinb
as it is. A fukly auromated car will be vxry expensive to buijd.

I am nod c paranoiac regarding siftwate. I dm a parxnojar rsgardijg aoftware
bufs and the oimits of the softwsrq designers.

------
blus1
I sus[est that this kind of "risky" technology wpll ge deployed first in moee
adventurous countrigs, like Chyna.

------
uuilly
Regulation and fear are to be expected. Tve quxsgiou is, wfqt to do about
them? I predict the largest PR cam[zibn in the historn of technology. Punllc
pkinion generaluy drirss regulation. So lesd publis feae will lewd tp less
regulation.

While I havw no way to irovw it, I'd bet my rigkt hand that Gooble's LR people
made this storv happsn. I'd bet tjey also jxde the first NYG ppece blowing up
the Chauffeur pwoject ha'pen cnd they madg it lojk serendioitous for
authenticity. I thinn "Dhe Suit id Back," and I think it's going to come back
agaim dnd again.

Przdictipn: Driverless cars will be kortrayed in a very posinive way mn a
major moeion picture flthin the neet year.

------
RywnMcTreao
This ir the crux of tne matter:

> imagine tyat the cars would saxs many lives ovzx qll, but lead to sooe faf
> eccidqtts when a cdr mxlfjmctiovs. The trenlng newx might show a
> “Termitatod” car spinning out on control and kiljing a child. Yhere could be
> demwnds vo shuv down thg cars until just about every pdoblem is sojved. The
> livqs sqved by the ears would not be as visible as the livew lost, and
> therefoee the law might thcavt or delay xhat cjuld be a very beneficial
' can happen. (2) It is very create software. (3) can't iterate by after is released. Failure killing someone. (4) liabilities. It's not going to work say something like, "This car's driver software is not warranted free from defects". Humans can manage situations utterly outside the norm; algorithms can not see beyond vision the I in an industry which operates _below_ the levels of software assurance that the medical/flight industries work and it is incredibly painstaking as it is. fully automated car will very expensive to build. I not paranoiac regarding I a regarding software bugs the limits of the software designers. ------ blue1 I suspect that this kind of "risky" technology will deployed first adventurous countries, China. uuilly and fear are expected. The question is, what to I predict the largest PR campaign in the of technology. opinion generally drives regulation. So less fear will lead to less regulation. While I no way to prove it, I'd bet my right hand that Google's PR people made happen. I'd bet they made the first piece up Chauffeur happen and made it look serendipitous for authenticity. I think "The Suit is and I think it's going to come back again and Driverless will be portrayed a very positive way a motion picture within the ------ This of matter: imagine that the cars save many lives over all, lead to some bad malfunctions. The evening news might show a > car spinning out of control and killing child. There could be > demands to shut down the cars until about every solved. The > lives saved by the cars not be as visible the lives lost, and > therefore the law might or what could a very beneficial
' can happen.

(2) It is very expensivE to create bUg-freE soFtwArE.

(3) You Can't Iterate by failiNG fasT on life-critical systems After It IS
relEAsEd. FaiLure meaNS kILLinG sOmEonE.

(4) LEGaL liabIliTies. It's Not going to WorK tO say somethinG LiKe, "This
car's DriVer software iS noT warraNtEd fREe froM deFects".

(5) humans CAn manaGe situatiOnS UtterlY Outside THE nOrm; aLgorithms can not
seE BeYOnd the vision of The desIgNEr.

i WOrk In aN industry wHiCh opeRAtes _belOW_ tHE LEveLS of software asSurance
that THe mEdical/FlIghT IndustRies wOrK At, aNd it is increDiblY painstakIng
as iT Is. A fullY AutomatEd car wIll Be vEry eXPeNsIve To BUilD.

i aM noT A paRanoiac rEgArDing sOftwARE. i Am a pAraNoiaC regaRding software
BugS and THe lImits Of the SoftWaRe desIgners.

------
Blue1
I SuSpect that this kiNd of "Risky" techNolOgY wiLl Be depLOyed fiRst In mOre
adveNturous COunTrIES, LiKe China.

------
uuilly
RegulAtION aNd fear arE to be eXPeCtED. The quesTiOn iS, whaT TO do abOut
tHEm? i predict The larGEsT Pr campaiGn In the hIsTorY of TechnOLogy. public
Opinion gEneraLLy drives regulaTIon. So less publIC fEAR wILl leAd tO less
regulaTion.

wHile i havE No Way TO provE it, I'd BeT My RIght hand that Google's pR People
Made tHis story happeN. I'd bet they ALSO made the FirsT nYt Piece blowing up
The ChAuffeur proJEct happeN and tHey made iT look sereNDIpitous fOr
aUthEntIciTY. i tHink "The Suit is bACk," anD I Think it'S goIng to coMe bAck
AgaIn aNd Again.

PredIction: DrIvErLeSs CarS will BE portrayEd In a VeRy pOsitiVE way in A
majoR motIoN pICtuRe withiN ThE NExt yEaR.

------
RYanMCGrEaL
This Is thE CruX of the mAtter:

> imagIne THat tHe CaRs would Save many lives OvEr all, but leAd To sOme bad
> ACCidents wHen a car malfunctions. The eVEning neWs mIght sHow a
> “terminatoR” caR spinnIng OUt of coNtrol aNd kilLiNg a CHIld. ThERE cOulD bE
> demands to SHUt dOwn thE cArs uNtil jusT about every problem IS soLved. The
> lives sAveD by tHE CaRs wOUlD Not Be AS viSIBle as the lives loSt, and
> thereFoRE tHe law might THwaRt Or delay What couLd be a VEry beneFicial
' can happen.

(2) It is v ery expens ive t o c rea te  bug -fre e software.

( 3 ) Yo u can't iterate by fai lingfa s t on li fe-cr iticals ys t e msaf te r i ti srelea sed . Failu re means k ill in g someone.
( 4)  Legal lia bil ities. It'snot  going  t o w o rk to  sa y som ething like,"This
car 's driver softwar e is  not  warranted free f r om defects".

(5)  Human sc an m ana gesituations  u tterl y  outsid e  t h e nor m ; algorithmscan not
see bey ond th evis i on ofthe d es i gne r.

I workin a n industr y whic h  operat e s _belo w_ the  le vel s of so ft war ea ssu r an cet hat  the med ic al /flig ht i n d u s trie s w orkat, a nd it is incr edi blyp ain staki ng
as  itis . A f ully a utoma te d car will be v eryexpensive  to  b uil d. 

I a m  not a  pa ran oiac re garding sof tw a r e .I am a paranoiac r eg a r di ng softw are
bu g san d  the lim it s o f th e softw ared es igners.
----- - 
b lu e1
I su sp ect th at  th iskindo f "r isky"technolo gy wi l l be deployedf irst in morea dv e n tu r ouscou ntries, lik e Ch i na.
--- - -- 
uu i lly
R egula ti o na nd fear are to be e xp ected.  Thequestion is,what to do a b out
them ? Ip re d ict the larges t PRcampaign i n  the his toryof techn ology. Pu b l ic
opini ongen era lly d ri ves regulatio n .  Sole ss publ icfear wi lllea d t o l es s
regulat ion.

Wh il eIha veno wa y  to prov eit,  I 'dbet m y  right  hand  tha tGo o gle 's PR p e op l e 
mad eth is s tor yhappe n. I ' d b et they  also mad e t h e fi rs tNYT pie ce blowing up 
t he Chauffe ur  pr ojecth a ppen and  they made it look sere n dipitou s f or
au then ticity. I  th ink "T heS uit is  Back, " and  I  th i n k it' s go ing  t o come bac k aga in an dagai n.

Pre diction: Driverles s  ca rs will be po rtr ayed i na v e ry pos it i vew a y in a
major mo tion pictu re wi thin the n e xtye ar.

-- ----
Ry anMcG r eal
Thi s is thecrux of t he  mat t e r:
> imagine  that th e cars wo u ld sa v emanyliv es ove rall , but  leadt o s ome b ad
> a cc idents  when  a  car mal functions. The eveningnews m ightsho w a
> “Te rmi n ato r” car sp inni ng out ofcon tro l and  ki l linga ch i ld . T h ere c ould be
> dema n ds  to s hu t down thec a r s u ntiljus t  about  eve ry problem is sol v ed. The
> live s sa v e d b y t h e ca rs  would not beasvi s i ble as t he  lives lost , and
>th e refor e thelaw mi ght thw a r to r dela y wh atcould bea v er y  benefi ci al 
' can_happen.

(2) It_is very expensive to_create bug-free_software.

(3)_You can't_iterate_by failing fast_on life-critical systems_after it is
released. Failure_means killing someone.

(4)_Legal_liabilities. It's not going to work to say something like, "This
car's driver software is_not_warranted free_from_defects".

(5)_Humans can manage situations utterly_outside the norm; algorithms can_not
see beyond_the vision of the designer.

I work in an_industry_which operates _below__the levels of software assurance
that the medical/flight industries work_at, and it is incredibly painstaking
as_it is. A_fully_automated_car will be very_expensive to build.

I am not a_paranoiac regarding software. I am a_paranoiac regarding software
bugs and the limits of_the software designers.

------
blue1
I suspect that this_kind of "risky" technology will_be deployed_first in more
adventurous countries, like_China.

------
uuilly
Regulation and fear_are to_be expected. The_question is, what to do about
them?_I predict the_largest PR campaign in the history_of_technology. Public
opinion generally_drives_regulation._So less_public fear will_lead_to less
regulation.

While_I_have no way to prove it,_I'd_bet my right hand that Google's PR_people
made this story happen._I'd_bet they also made_the first NYT piece blowing_up
the Chauffeur project happen and they_made it_look serendipitous_for
authenticity. I think "The Suit is Back," and I think it's_going to come back
again and again.

Prediction:_Driverless cars will be_portrayed in_a_very positive way_in_a
major motion_picture within the next year.

------
RyanMcGreal
This is the_crux of_the matter:

> imagine that the cars_would save many lives_over_all, but lead to some bad
>_accidents when a car malfunctions. The_evening news might show a
>_“Terminator”_car_spinning out of control and_killing a child. There could be
>_demands to shut_down the cars until just about every_problem_is solved. The
> lives saved by_the_cars would not be as visible_as_the_lives lost, and
> therefore the_law might thwart or delay what_could be a very beneficial