Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #18083 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-31 11:43 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-05-31 22:14 +1000
      Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-31 14:41 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-05-31 20:16 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-02 00:22 +0100
          Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-02 11:58 +0100
      Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2019-05-31 18:08 +0100
        Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-06-01 12:47 +1000
          Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-01 20:29 +0000
            Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-06-02 16:30 +0000
              Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-02 23:17 +0000
                Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-04 00:02 +0000
                  Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-04 18:43 +0100
                    Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is   Doomed to Fail) Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-04 21:55 +0100
                      Re: Driverless cars not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-04 22:57 +0000
                        Re: Driverless cars Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-05 11:53 +0000
                          Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-05 15:52 +0000
                            Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-05 16:28 +0000
                              Re: Driverless cars not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-05 23:10 +0000
                              Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-05 23:47 +0000
                            Re: Driverless cars The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-06-05 20:06 -0700
                              Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-06 08:55 +0000
                                Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 12:39 +0100
                                  Re: Driverless cars Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-06 16:51 +0000
                                    Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 20:35 +0000
                                      Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 23:39 +0200
                                      Re: Driverless cars Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-07 08:17 +0000
                                      Re: Driverless cars Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-06-07 09:39 +0100
                                    Re: Driverless cars Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-07 00:26 +0000
                                      Re: Driverless cars kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2019-06-07 18:08 -0400
                                        Re: Driverless cars not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-07 23:50 +0000
                                Re: Driverless cars The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-06-06 13:51 -0700
                                  Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 23:39 +0200
                                  Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-06 21:50 +0000
                          Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-05 16:28 +0000
                            Re: Driverless cars Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-06-05 16:58 -0300
                            Re: Driverless cars Stephen Hall <s__hall@gmail.com> - 2019-06-08 19:17 +0000
                              Re: Driverless cars Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-09 09:49 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-02 00:14 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#18118 — Re: Driverless cars

On 06/05/2019 08:52 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>
>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>> control" which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>>
>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an
>> operator set speed?
>
> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed
> limiter as appropriate.

And you can't disconnect it?  What kind is it?

> It has normal cruise control too.




-- 
Cheers, Bev
  When you wish upon a falling star your dreams can come true. Unless
  it's really a meteorite hurtling to the earth which will destroy all
  life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for.
  Unless it's death by meteor.                         --Demotivators

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18119 — Re: Driverless cars

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 20:06:18 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> On 06/05/2019 08:52 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>>
>>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>>> control" which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>>>
>>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator
>>> set speed?
>>
>> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed
>> limiter as appropriate.
> 
> And you can't disconnect it?  What kind is it?

Did I ever say you can't dosconnect it? In fact, you have to turn it on 
if you want it. Very good where speed limits constantly change.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18121 — Re: Driverless cars

On 6 Jun 2019, Bob Eager wrote
(in article <gls2n7Fafd0U4@mid.individual.net>):

> In fact, you have to turn it on
> if you want it. Very good where speed limits constantly change.

Yes - the fact it -can- be driverless doesn’t mean it has to be. This is 
what I meant by feeling more tense when autopilot was on - I’d chosen to be 
fully automatic, but in practice I was taking manual control way too often 
for me to relax properly.

I think there’s something with this particular car - likely the sensors too 
dirty or something. I’ve been in previous loaners with autopilot and not 
had the obsession with going to the left that this one is showing. It also 
put the breaks on hard for ’no reason’ - clearly it thought it had a 
reason, and I suspect that reason was it suddenly noticing a van to the left 
of it. Something up with the sensors on the left I think, and likely nothing 
a good clean couldn’t sort out.

Interesting though - I see relentless positivity from Tesla owners about 
autopilot so thought it might be worth posting my own experience, which is 
definitely mixed. A lot to like, but you have to concentrate still at which 
point you might as well have driven it yourself.

Cheers,
Ian

-- 
Checkout the new single Something out There and more, plus the albums Voix 
Sans Voix and Proto, all at:<http://studioicm.com>, stream 
at<https://soundcloud.com/mccalli> and<http://ianmccall.bandcamp.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18122 — Re: Driverless cars

On 2019-06-06, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

[snip]

> Interesting though - I see relentless positivity from Tesla owners 

They're a cult.

-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18123 — Re: Driverless cars

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-06-06, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Interesting though - I see relentless positivity from Tesla owners 
> 
> They're a cult.
> 

Well, I -am- a Tesla owner and I’m partly in the cult. Best car I’ve owned
in a long time, and I tend to have interesting cars. 

But they’re not perfect. Autopilot seems seriously oversold in talks - it’s
ok, but it’s a bit like watching your 17 year old learning to drive with no
situational awareness or smoothness yet. 

The over the air updates? Well, mostly good but I had a dodgy one two
releases ago that caused the main screen to reboot on occasion.  No toll
back to previous version available. Their media player is poor - looks
pretty but just doesn’t work well and keeps timing out. Bluetooth
integration poor and bugged to hell. No CarPlay or Android Auto.  But hey -
we get Atari games so that’s alright then...

But aside from the frippery - the actual drive is incredible. My 2014 one
still feels in advance of 90% of new cars. The AWD versions are even
better. The performance is great and lower delivery just so smooth at any
speed. I love the one-pedal driving style (heavy regenerative braking means
you rarely use the main brakes)...they’re fantastic cars overall. 

But yep, I get a bit fed up of the hype as well. A bug fix-focused release
(rather than more features) would be very welcome indeed. 


Cheers,
Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18126 — Re: Driverless cars

On 6 Jun 2019, Ian McCall wrote
(in article<884152410.581545678.905520.ian-eruvia.org@news.individual.net>):

> and lower delivery just so smooth

power. “power delivery just so smooth”...

Cheers,
Ian

-- 
Checkout the new single Something out There and more, plus the albums Voix 
Sans Voix and Proto, all at:<http://studioicm.com>, stream 
at<https://soundcloud.com/mccalli> and<http://ianmccall.bandcamp.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18129 — Re: Driverless cars

On 2019-06-06, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2019-06-06, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> Interesting though - I see relentless positivity from Tesla owners 
>> 
>> They're a cult.
>> 
>
> Well, I -am- a Tesla owner and I’m partly in the cult. 

Yes, but you seem to be relatively sane. Most Tesla owners online will brook no
criticism of any kind.

-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18130 — Re: Driverless cars

Ian McCall wrote:

> I -am- a Tesla owner [...] they’re not perfect. Autopilot seems
> seriously oversold
There's a chap whose Tesla videos keep cropping up on youtube for me, 
apparently it's got worse recently, if autopilot was a learner driver I 
think you'd have to have serious words with it ...

<https://www.youtube.com/user/ovvlog/videos>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18128 — Re: Driverless cars

On 2019-06-06, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> They're a cult.

The cars are interesting technology but only practical for a subset
of the population. (That last part is what the cultists don't want
to acknowledge.) A better mobile source of electrical power is still
needed. Maybe Mr. Fusion or Heinlein's DeKalb receptors?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18132 — Re: Driverless cars

Roger Blake  <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>On 2019-06-06, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> They're a cult.
>
>The cars are interesting technology but only practical for a subset
>of the population. (That last part is what the cultists don't want
>to acknowledge.) 

That's what people said about the Ford model F.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18135 — Re: Driverless cars

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Roger Blake  <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2019-06-06, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> They're a cult.
>>
>>The cars are interesting technology but only practical for a subset
>>of the population. (That last part is what the cultists don't want
>>to acknowledge.) 
> 
> That's what people said about the Ford model F.

Though they might have also said it about personal helicopters, based
on press coverage of small helicopter designs by Hiller Aircraft in
the 1950s. eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_YH-32_Hornet

And of course petrol was about to be replaced by miniature fission
reactors in everyone's car. Or if that turns out to be as unworkable
as it appears, at least fusion would be just around the corner. But
if things were really crook and even that couldn't be worked out, at
least fossil fuels could be harnessed more efficiently, and with
better reliability, using the new generation of gas turbine engines
about to revolutionise the car industry.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18124 — Re: Driverless cars

On 06/06/2019 01:55 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 20:06:18 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/2019 08:52 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>>>> control" which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>>>>
>>>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator
>>>> set speed?
>>>
>>> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed
>>> limiter as appropriate.
>>
>> And you can't disconnect it?  What kind is it?
>
> Did I ever say you can't dosconnect it? In fact, you have to turn it on
> if you want it. Very good where speed limits constantly change.

Sorry.  I'm a Californian and we frequently regard speed limits as 
suggestions.  The idea that a car would obey them against our wills is 
bothersome.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
                                          -- Nigel Molesworth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18125 — Re: Driverless cars

On 6 Jun 2019, The Real Bev wrote
(in article <qdbudd$dap$1@dont-email.me>):

> Sorry. I'm a Californian and we frequently regard speed limits as
> suggestions. The idea that a car would obey them against our wills is
> bothersome.

With the Tesla you set a ‘max above’. So you can tell it you’re fine 
driving 10 miles above the limit, for instance. Clearly only heathen 
criminals would so such a thing however. Clearly.

Cheers,
Ian

-- 
Checkout the new single Something out There and more, plus the albums Voix 
Sans Voix and Proto, all at:<http://studioicm.com>, stream 
at<https://soundcloud.com/mccalli> and<http://ianmccall.bandcamp.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18127 — Re: Driverless cars

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:51:57 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> On 06/06/2019 01:55 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 20:06:18 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/05/2019 08:52 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>>>>> control" which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>>>>>
>>>>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator
>>>>> set speed?
>>>>
>>>> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed
>>>> limiter as appropriate.
>>>
>>> And you can't disconnect it?  What kind is it?
>>
>> Did I ever say you can't dosconnect it? In fact, you have to turn it on
>> if you want it. Very good where speed limits constantly change.
> 
> Sorry.  I'm a Californian and we frequently regard speed limits as
> suggestions.  The idea that a car would obey them against our wills is
> bothersome.

It's not against my will, though. I choose to turn it on. Esay to get 
caught otherwise.

(the car also warns of upcoming speed cameras, but not following police 
cars!)



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18114 — Re: Driverless cars

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> there.
> 
> The issue here is not, per se., for the car with the auto stop feature.  
> It is being rear ended by the driver behind who does not have 
> "auto-stop" and can't react fast enough to the 'driverless' car's hard 
> stop to themselves stop in time.

Yes, but the car does more than that. In my case a hard stop was all that
was required,  but there are videos out there of Teslas also steering away
into safety as well - safety where they take account of all traffic around
them. 

It was very impressive to experience. Ideally of course you never will
experience it, but if you’re in some daft situation...


Cheers,
Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18115 — Re: Driverless cars

Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> writes:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> The issue here is not, per se., for the car with the auto stop
>> feature.  It is being rear ended by the driver behind who does not
>> have "auto-stop" and can't react fast enough to the 'driverless'
>> car's hard stop to themselves stop in time.
> 
> Yes, but the car does more than that. In my case a hard stop was all
> that was required, but there are videos out there of Teslas also
> steering away into safety as well - safety where they take account
> of all traffic around them.
> 
> It was very impressive to experience. Ideally of course you never
> will experience it, but if you're in some daft situation...

Fifty years ago, my room mate and I were heading home in his
baffed-out Hillman when a car ahead braked hard and unexpectedly.  My
room mate did the same but had a total brake failure.  He made a hard
right onto someone's lawn, dropped me off to explain to the outraged
lawn-owner, looped back onto the road and crept off home at 4 mph and
no brakes.  All was well.

I don't know what would have happened if, instead of a lawn, there had
been a ditch or stone wall there.  What will a (putatively) smart car
do with (A) the lawn or (B) the wall in such a case?

My father's notion of reaction to a threatening or problematic traffic
situation (he learned to drive around 1915) was to come to a full
stop.  I witnessed that policy save a life once and it never got him
into serious trouble.  But my own experience has included a couple of
cases where it would have involved me in a serious crash that I
avoided by doing something else.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18142 — Re: Driverless cars

Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

> Yes, but the car does more than that. In my case a hard stop was all that
> was required,  but there are videos out there of Teslas also steering away
> into safety as well - safety where they take account of all traffic around
> them. 

<https://www.torquenews.com/1083/how-many-tesla-autopilot-deaths-would-have-occurred-if-every-car-america-had-autopilot-thousands>

-- 
S. Hall

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18149 — Re: Driverless cars

On 2019-06-08, Stephen Hall <s__hall@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but the car does more than that. In my case a hard stop was all that
>> was required,  but there are videos out there of Teslas also steering away
>> into safety as well - safety where they take account of all traffic around
>> them. 
>
><https://www.torquenews.com/1083/how-many-tesla-autopilot-deaths-would-have-occurred-if-every-car-america-had-autopilot-thousands>

I surely hope it gets better than the first paragraph, which contains the
sensationalist (and grammaticallt incorrect) statement; "Every model that
Tesla sells has now killed an occupant while the vehicle operating on
Autopilot." So that's what, 3 or 4? (I'm not sure how many models Tesla
makes.)

Nope. It's full of fudge factors, proof by assertion and more
sensationalism. Perhaps someone who cares more than I do can work
out the number of people killed per vehicle mile on Autopilot, versus
"normal" driving, because ICBA. 

For example; "However, we can’t imagine a world where vehicles operating
autonomously drive their occupants at high speed into things on a daily
basis being allowed by regulators."

1) Autopilot isn't autonomous, so the point is specious.

2) Regulators permit human beings to kill 37,000 people a year with
cars (in the USA), so the point is specious.

Autonomous vehicles don't have to be perfect. They just have to
be better than human beings.

(FTAOD, I think Musk is an idiot, ownership of his cars has many of
the characteristics of a cult and the mainstream car manufacturers
will eat his lunch (and breakfast and dinner) once they catch up. But
this article is dross.)






-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 14th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3185
                  Rising above bedlam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18093

On 31/05/2019 13:14, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 9:43 pm, Rich wrote:
>> https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
>> l/
> 
> Perhaps some of the older readers here remember "The Last One" and the 
> hype surrounding it, which the computing press swallowed hook line and 
> sinker.
> 
> Where is it now?

"The Last One" was replaced by "The Last One, v2.0" without any 
acknowledgment of the irony.


-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web