In a video game they can. In the real world, they will fail to do so; Google and others are simply positing that the robot can drive better. It can on a test track. In the real world, no.

Again, I love this posting from 2010: (Great thread on this very subject, probably influenced me.) Better informed posters than I.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
This post http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

"we already fixed it. its called 'trains'. (Score:5, Insightful)
by decora(1710862) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @12:54AM (#38430976) Journal
the idea that a bunch of automatically piloted vehicles is somehow a better solution to city transport than mass-transit, it boggles my mind.
real people do not have money to maintain their cars properly. things are going to break. there are not going to be 'system administrators' to fix all the glitches that come up when cars start breaking down after a few years.
there will be problems. do i know which problems? no, but i know the main problem.
arrogance amongst revolutionaries. it is historically a pattern of the human species. declaring that nothing could go wrong is usually a precursor to a lot of things going wrong. not because the situation was unpredictable, but because human beings in an arrogant mindset tend to make a lot of mistakes, be reckless, and try to cover their asses when things go wrong.
but successful engineering is the anti-thesis of arrogance. nobody worth his salt is going to say 'what could go wrong'? they are going to have a list of 500 things that could go wrong, and all the ways they have tried to counter-act those wrong things happening."
Well said. Proof will be in the testing... on real roads with real cars. Oy.

http://it.slashdot.org/comment... Great thread on this subject. Here's a good post by a better writer than I:

"we already fixed it. its called 'trains'. (Score:5, Insightful)
by decora(1710862) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @12:54AM (#38430976) Journal

the idea that a bunch of automatically piloted vehicles is somehow a better solution to city transport than mass-transit, it boggles my mind.

real people do not have money to maintain their cars properly. things are going to break. there are not going to be 'system administrators' to fix all the glitches that come up when cars start breaking down after a few years.

there will be problems. do i know which problems? no, but i know the main problem.

arrogance amongst revolutionaries. it is historically a pattern of the human species. declaring that nothing could go wrong is usually a precursor to a lot of things going wrong. not because the situation was unpredictable, but because human beings in an arrogant mindset tend to make a lot of mistakes, be reckless, and try to cover their asses when things go wrong.

but successful engineering is the anti-thesis of arrogance. nobody worth his salt is going to say 'what could go wrong'? they are going to have a list of 500 things that could go wrong, and all the ways they have tried to counter-act those wrong things happening."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Medical[edit]
  A bug in the code controlling the Therac-25 radiation therapy machine was directly responsible for at least five patient deaths in the 1980s when it administered excessive quantities of X-rays.[13][14][15]
  A Medtronic heart device was found vulnerable to remote attacks in March 2008.[16]

Funny: I remember this story. The USS Yorktown BSODed at sea when it let Window NT helm the ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Smart ship testbed[edit]

From 1996 Yorktown was used as the testbed for the Navy's Smart Ship program. The ship was equipped with a network of 27 dual 200 MHz Pentium Pro-based machines running Windows NT 4.0 communicating over fiber-optic cable with a Pentium Pro-based server. This network was responsible for running the integrated control center on the bridge, monitoring condition assessment, damage control, machinery control and fuel control, monitoring the engines and navigating the ship. This system was predicted to save $2.8 million per year by reducing the ship's complement by 10%.

On 21 September 1997, while on maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Virginia, a crew member entered a zero into a database field causing an attempted division by zero in the ship's Remote Data Base Manager, resulting in a buffer overflow which brought down all the machines on the network, causing the ship's propulsion system to fail.[6]

Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian contractor with a 26-year history of working on Navy control systems, reported in 1998 that Yorktown had to be towed back to Norfolk Naval Station. Ron Redman, a deputy technical director with the Aegis Program Executive Office, backed up this claim, suggesting that such system failures had required Yorktown to be towed back to port several times.[7]

In 3 August 1998 issue of Government Computer News, a retraction by DiGiorgio was published. He claims the reporter altered his statements, and insists that he did not claim the Yorktown was towed into Norfolk. GCN stands by its story.[8]

Atlantic Fleet officials also denied the towing, reporting that Yorktown was "dead in the water" for just 2 hours and 45 minutes.[7] Captain Richard Rushton, commanding officer of Yorktown at the time of the incident, also denied that the ship had to be towed back to port, stating that the ship returned under its own power.[9]

Atlantic Fleet officials acknowledged that the Yorktown experienced what they termed "an engineering local area network casualty".[7] "We are putting equipment in the engine room that we cannot maintain and, when it fails, results in a critical failure," DiGiorgio said.[7]

You have no imagination and too much confidence in your coding abilities. The world isn't a video game. As I pointed out in my longer response, robot airliners and other craft have gone wild and hurt and killed people. Refusal to look is not a rebuttal. (But of course it is- any problem can be solved by a more expensive solution combined with a complete refusal to look at any evidence that contradicts the solution).

Software piloting is fine. On a plane, with a priesthood of techs looking after it daily, and with pilots who have (one would hope) both the opportunity and the ability to take control if the computer pilot goes fuckyup. In a car, there is no time to recover, worst case, the "pilot" is playing a video game, the car's maintenance is up to the pilot, and the car is surrounded by other cars that will be in a lot of trouble from the rogue car. No comparison.

You can't synthesize a general rule from systemic failures? Keep It Simple Shithead.
Planes do fail by software errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Antilock brakes are very simple systems, and you have a mechanical backup as well. But, for the record, I don't like computer controlled brakes. I drive a mechanical car.
If ABS do fail or malfunction, I doubt anyone is keeping track as to how or when. As no one keeps track, you can't perceive systemic failure as a problem. They'd have to fail massively for anyone to care.
Robots don't operate very much, and frankly I certainly don't want a piece of software cutting on me. It's not outlawed for the same reason automated cars aren't outlawed. Not enough experience to perceive failure, and an unwillingness to acknowledge failure when it does happen. And civilized countries allow voting via computer programs as well - the ultimate in unpercievable failure.
Pacemakers can fail via deliberate malware infestation, or an EMP attack or accident, or a software bug. Just because you don't know of a failure doesn'[t mean it doesn't happen.
Here's some automated software injuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://www.ccnr.org/fatal_dose...

As to your point about a software bug failure on Twitter being different than a software bug in a car running half a billion lines of code:

You make my point for me. Twitter failed from one point. Just one point. Half a million lines of code have damn near an infinite chance of:
1. Failure through complexity. Any real-world programmer knows that hyper-complex systems can have cascading weirdness.
2. Failure through sensor failure, processor failures, bus failures, and similar failures we can't anticipate.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachu...
And Google's robot car had to be rebooted twice during its certification run.
3. Failure through an the inability to program a PC to anticipate all the possibilities that a car swarming with other cars in a real world situation. One can't program that.
4. Failure through vulnerability to outside attack. Software on a network is very vulnerable; one hundred percent so. Physically, a high energy radio pulse fired at a car, or a whole highway of cars, would cause carnage. Carnage would be multilation and death, what happens when steel boxes swerve randomly around at 70 mph with no driver.
5. The problem isn't about ALL cars failing. One car can fail and crash the cars around it. For the system to work, all cars have to work 100% perfectly all the time.

An car - driver is eating a sandwich. Car computer failure would crash the car instantly, depending. Carnage.
An airplane - plane is, generally speaking, in the air most of the time. If the computers fail, somehow, the pilot can take control with time enough to avoid contact with other planes or the ground.
Car - failure, milliseconds to react, car may not even let you drive. Plane: seconds or minutes to recover and land.

I'm only pointing out the obvious failure points. Others will happen. I wistfully recall posting on Slashdot about the vulnerability of a NFC card being read without the owner's knowledge; I was mocked as an ignoramus. I just pointed out physics didn't rule out building a concealed reader, or very powerful pulse generator. Both have happened.

I await the stories of failed robot cars in the coming years, and either the panicked response or the determined refusal to acknowledge a problem

Try driving your own cars. If that isn't safe - and it ISN'T, cars kill more people than wars - think about building decent public trans.

Remember this conversation, about five years from now.

Think about this when they try to sell you on computer-driven cars. No amount of crazy-preparation and cleverness will save you from one, tiny mistake that blows it all to hell. This time, nothing much. With robot cars, carnage.

That can be adjusted.

Tom Bombadil served as a projection of absolute mystery in a fantasy world where much wonder was already well documented. Even the Valar didn't know who he was. Probably. Tolkien believed you should never tell all the secrets, and frankly HE didn't know what Tom was, and was happy that way. Even mysteries should have mysteries.

And TB was his young son Christopher's favorite doll, in the real world. He put it in to make his son happy, I think.

Middle Earth is never boring. I could watch a 100 hour travel documentary with NO dialogue and be fascinated. (It really would be fascinating! The place is bloody enormous, and that was just the NW tip of the northern continent)

As a cloaked and rather spiritually amnesiac Maia, Gandalf has, along with all the other Ainur now locked into Arda who listened to the Eru Illuvatar Lecture about how the new worlds would work, has sort of a feeling, based on impressive but never quite remembered foreknowledge, of how the rabbit is gonna jump. He's got prophetic mojo, in small amounts, and he's on a Really Real Mission from God, or at least God's lieutenant, Manwe.

(Ever wonder who foretold all those prophecies everyone keeps talking about? Foreknowledge is part of ME. Some have it).

The crap was in the LOTR appendices. Tolkien just never had time enough to fill in the blanks. Christopher won't let Jackson have the other books, but the story Jackson told IS what happened off-screen, as it were, in the Hobbit book. Galdalf went off mysteriously, met with the White Council, got imprisoned, went after Sauron with the others and drove him out of his body (again). He interacted with a lot of people off-book, and Tolkien wrote a history documenting it. There are other creatures under the ground than Tolkien listed - practically an infinite number left over from when Ea was a void- inumerable other sentient species and far-off lands and continents. I was happy to see a little fill - there's so much room to grow the world. Doesn't make the movie bad, unless you think the Hobbit was bad, which it kinda was, as a novel, being a child's story. The Battle of Five Armies *was* that vicious - Tolkien simply Knocked Out the Protaganist and moved the story past the hero, keeping the violence down. ME wasn't a bonnie bucholic place, not at all.

Tolkien wrote the Hobbit for small children. Twee in tone - the dwarves had green, and yellow, and blue beards, for instance. In his short piece, A Meeting in Erebor (adapted into the movie!), he had Gandalf and Aragorn meet at the Pony, I think, and they discussed dark and grave matters in an adult tone, setting the Hobbit events up for the LOTR. Had Tolkien not had a day job, he'd probably had rewritten the Hobbit to bring in in line with the LOTR and the older stories.

Jackson had the appendices of the LOTR to work with, but nothing else from the Simarillion or Untold Tales, because the Tolkien estate doesn't like what he did. Perhaps that was shooting themselves in their own feet, as he had little story material and so had to make up filler.

Do recall that the Hobbit, as a story, is rather thin.