Re: Software-centric automobiles | Boon or Bane? Quote:
Originally Posted by gharika Sharing a common bus is not the same as being accessible or configurable. A sensor is a output, so you can take them out of the picture here, software don't alter their behavior. Counting all semiconductors as processors is similarly faulty logic.
Think about things that can be altered, like disabling ABS, but that does not disable the brakes.
So the system won't accept a command to disable brakes, or switch off a sensor, they are not built into the system. Hence, a belief that more sensors and semiconductor leads to less control or chances of externally contrloed cars has no basis. |
I would be the first to admit I am, these days, just an old, propably partly senile, git, but I have no clue as to what you are banging on about?
Let me tell you one thing though, in more than forty years of having dealt with software development in some of the most critical mission areas (Aeronautical, Missiles, Telecoms) I have yet to find bug free software. And I am still meeting people that will tell me: Oh, don’t worry, the system won’t accept that command.
And that is before we start looking at the total system architecture beyond just the software.
I love automation and software. I am currently looking into how we are going to apply quantum computing to various industries. Still a long way to go. But guess what, if my grandson would follow in my steps, forty years from now he will still meet a guy that tells him:Oh, don’t worry, the system won’t accept that command. And the guy will still be wrong.
I consider myself a hard core techie. But I am hugely sceptical about relying on technology without understanding the technology fully. You are talking to a guy who will check the output of his scientific calculator with a slide rule. I am also still using a sextant to check my GPS. And guess what? I find the occasional error in these software base machines. No big accomplishment, it is a statistical given!
Jeroen |