You can make similar argument for any life-saving treatment, for example cardiac-health related. Any serious heart-related issue used to be terminal, but we largely addressed this and in process greatly increased average lifespan. Now, if you get to a hospital in time you likely to survive.

Technically, your conclusion is invalid due to hidden premise tied to your Premise 1. What you are trying to implicate with your hidden premise is that life-extending treatment will be forever unaffordable to masses. While possible, this clearly goes against all historical precedent. The likely outcome that at first it will be expensive and unaffordable, then eventually due to economies of scale nearly everyone will have access to it. This "eventually" is short enough that it won't create H. G. Wells' morlocks out of treated population.

I am more interested in reinventing of John Romero, the old one only good as a bait for the inevitable flamewars. I am sure we can add more features.

So process is in place but is not actually followed. Absolutely no surprise, but it will be your company's problem when root cause analysis of this or that fiery crash turns out that quality review wasn't actually conducted.

I am more excited about spoofing V2V with 'no-movement-congestion-ahead' signal to get all autonomous cars clear from the highway while I drive home with no traffic.

No you don't have expectation of anonymity anywhere, but with Tor breaching your anonymity is prohibitively expensive for most scenarios.

It isn't about bug free on first compile, it is about a) failure-tolerant design b) multiple redundancies. We generally trust airplane auto-pilot systems, there is no reason why similar approach could not be used here.

The real concern is not 'autopilot' feature, it is V2V and introducing remote attack surfaces.

To play devil's advocate, highway driving (at least in North America) is rather simple tasks that does not require extensive computational and sensory demand that city driving would require.
 
I think the key is to clearly map system limitations and have it fail to engage when it isn't up to the task. (e.g. construction or bad weather).

You might realize that these are exaggerated stereotypes, but for people not "in" - these are accurate and realistic portrayals. That why this show is show harmful/awful.

Or you could just blast speed reading of 0km/h and then engage electronic parking gear, or auto-parking module, or ABS diagnostic mode. You might even be able to deploy air bags, but I am not 100% sure on that one.

>>>the show teaches people to laugh at geeks and nerds.

This.

It is now official - SJWcraft has confirmed: slashdot is dying. Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered /. community when recently IDC confirmed that /. accounts for more than a fraction of SJW on the Internets.

The above scenario is actually not as far-fetched as you think. There are proof-of-concept hacks of car infotainment systems over Bluetooth, and there are confirmed cases of infotainment systems directly connected to CANBUS giving attackers access to vehicle systems. Clearly, not all cars are so badly designed, but some are. So it is possible to chain cellphone-bluetooth-CANBUS and end up in a fiery crash.

While your highbrow insult of the poster above is likely baseless generalization, the "Google has allowed stupid people to X" is interesting concept. In my opinion, this is overwhelmingly positive societal benefit. If mediocre people can be more productive, then society as a whole can be more productive. It doesn't matter how smart is the person that solved the problem, all that matters is that the problem is solved.

The OBD-II dongles are not a threat until Metasploit module exploiting this overflow or that out of bound write comes out and cars start crashing. OBD of modern cars have been successfully exploited, considering that cars can easily stay on the road 15+ years and automotive industry only now started taking rudimentary first steps to secure it, it will be 20+ years until such dongles will be safe to use for general public.

Standardized testing, and teaching to the test does great disservice to students. It teaches them trivia. Why is this done? It is easiest to teach and test this way, and you can claim successful teaching without succeeding. Writing open book exam is actually hard, checking problem-solving process and giving out partial marks is time consuming. As a result both are avoided due to laziness.