Too often im forced to fill out forms and am directed to the forums instead of a CS rep.

Even that would not be so bad IF THEY ORGANIZED THEIR FORUMS AND FIXED THE SEARCH FUNCTION.

If I have version X of product Y then I should be able to search on product Y with a sub-search on version X.

I should NOT be getting results that apply to product A, B or C. UNLESS the company tech support people have specifically gone through and WRITTEN an answer and specifically labelled it as applying to A, B, C and X (version 1, 2, 3 and 4).

It cannot be that difficult to build a flow chart for the most common searches / problems that are appearing in your forums.

You said that the car doesn't need to know the difference between a bridge and a ditch and I'm saying that it definitely does.

No, retard. You said "bridge" and "child". Now you're trying to change it to "ditch". Go back and read what you posted, retard.

You said that the car should only stay on course
with it's only recourse being to stop and I'm not sure that's enough.

That's because you are retarded.

I'm not saying the computer needs to do something it's not programmed to do.

Yes you did. You said it had to break with the program. Fuck you, retard.

I'm saying the computer needs to be programmed to do stuff that violates standard road rules when that is the safest option.

No, retard. Because that means that the robot-car needs to be programmed to recognize "child" and "bridge" and to have different decision paths for those.

And that at least one of those decision paths results in the car driving off a bridge.

Fuck you, retard.

It can't stay on a predefined path ignoring
everything on the side of the road with it's only recourse being to stop.

Who said it was ignoring anything, retard? You are retarded. It scans the side of the road for approaching obstacles.

But it treats every obstacle the same. There is no "child" decision path.

And when there is an obstacle that it is not programmed to avoid, it stops and turns control over to the person in it.

There is NEVER a "drive off a bridge" option. Never. You are retarded for suggesting it.

So are you saying that it's never ok to take the ditch?

Is that your best troll? Fuck, you are retarded.

You were talking about driving off a "bridge" if a "child" ran in front of the car.

Now you're going on about a "ditch".

They aren't even spelled the same.

Try again but try to focus on using the words that are spelled the same, okay?

... but a self driving car still needs the ability to be able to break with the program ...

Hey, retard. This is the real world, not TV. If it does not run its programming then it is "broken". Like you are.

This is where ethics comes in.

No. The car should treat any and all obstacles the same. And the reaction should be the same. Stop.

If you happen to be on a bridge you have to choose between plowing into the child in front of you or driving
off the bridge.

Bullshit. You've just introduced the requirement that the car be programmed to understand "bridge" and "child" AND to have separate decision routines for those.

AND that at least one of those decision routines results in the vehicle driving YOU off of a bridge.

Fuck you.

For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?

If this ever comes up as a question than the person asking the question is obviously NOT an engineer.

Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid

Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?

The cars should be programmed to stop and revert to human control whenever there is a problem that the car is not programmed to handle.

And the car should only be programmed to handle DRIVING.

That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life, ...

No. The car should not even be able to detect other occupants. Adding more complexity means more avenues for failure.

The car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE.

911 vehicles on the other hand ...

No. Again, the car should understand obstacles and how to avoid them OR STOP AND LET THE HUMAN DRIVE. Emergency vehicles should ALWAYS be human controlled.

From TFA:

With the exception of roboticists, everything we assume we know is based on science fiction, ...

As is that entire article.

The entirety of the car's programming should be summed up as:
a. Is the way clear? If yes then go.
b. If not, are the obstacles ones that I am programmed for? If yes then go.
c. Stop.

Think about living in a city. If I could "rent" a robot-car as easily or easier than a taxi then it might be worth it.

And I think it WOULD be easier with robot-cars and smart phones. I need a car with X capacity at this location at 7:30.

With good analysis it should be possible to get cars carrying people at least 80% of the time. So you only pay for the time you use it.

And with enough robot-cars on the road and reporting back to HQ about road conditions, congestion and such they should be the fastest means of inner-city travel.

Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.

Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?

Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.

... but I think you'll find a whole lot of opposition to government processes to check competence and capability and to restrict ownership to those who pass the tests.

Now imagine a proposal that such tests be used to validate voting rights. If you fail the test, you cannot vote.

There would be a massive uproar.

"gun fondlers"

Troll... Didn't read beyond that point.

That post is currently mod'ed +5 insightful.

Moderation +4
70% Insightful
20% Interesting
10% Troll

Which indicates a problem with having a discussion on this issue. Some people do not see that language as offensive or trolling. They believe it to be "insightful".

if gun fondlers ...

And I'm sure that you believe yourself to be a rational person.

Yet you could not stop yourself from including denigrating language in a post complaining about the behaviour of others.

Don't feed the trolls?

I'd agree with not engaging them. At least not the trolls we have today.

But mod'ing them down? I like that. It means I don't have to wade through hundreds of trash messages to find anything worth reading.

And a clarification. "Troll" is NOT the same as "I have a different opinion".

For developers, it's skills like big data, cloud computing, and HTML5.

Buzz word, buzzword, markup language.

As a result, we do find that we face a shortage of older, more seasoned developers. And it's not because we don't want older candidates. It's often because the older candidates haven't successfully modernized their developer skills.

I find it difficult to believe that a developer would NOT be able to pick up HTML5 in a weekend.

Use "the cloud" and in addition to the LAN you need connectivity between your LAN and where ever the server might actually be.

And if you've ever had to work with vendors when there's an outage you will know how bad that is.

Even with a single vendor the discussion usually goes like this:

Are you sure it isn't YOUR equipment?
We don't service YOUR equipment.
No one else is having a problem.
We aren't showing any problems on your line.
Have you tried rebooting your CSU/DSY and/or router?

Once you add a second and third vendor (the "cloud" vendor and whomever they use for their connectivity) you'll end up with a mass of denials.

It doesn't matter that your business is down for a day. They'll be happy to refund you one day of the cost of their service.

And once it FINALLY comes back up everyone involved will deny that any changes / repairs were performed on THEIR network.

First off, who cares what "Curtis Peterson says"?

Person who works for company producing X says everyone needs X.

If I move to "the cloud" then I have the ADDITIONAL worries of:

1. YOUR connection going down.
2. MY connection going down.
3. Getting access to YOUR facility to troubleshoot a problem. Physical / remote / whatever. Why isn't that server booting?
4. SOMEONE ELSE at your facility annoying the government so that the FBI / CIA / NSA / whatever takes ALL the servers.
5. How do I know that what I legally have to keep private really is private?
6. What happens to my systems when all of your CxO's decide that they need more yachts so they jack up the pricing?

Fuck you, Curtis Peterson. RingCentral is the LAST place I'd put my data. You don't even understand why people are avoiding "the cloud" but you're happy to make up stupid insults to describe them.

My question is do they take out the Chinese backdoors or do they leave those in with the NSA backdoors?

That doesn't matter. We now know that the NSA has backdoors in them. We highly suspect that the Chinese also have backdoors in them.

The question is how long it will take the other nations to start their own chip fabrication plants and build their own routers / switches / etc.

Since nothing from us can be trusted (even by us) then they should be building their own stuff which they can trust more than our stuff.