lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) (04/30/91)
I have just finished reading an article in the LA Times magazine of a couple of Sundays ago about "Automatic Freeways." This article expounds at great length on the development and use of automated freeway systems to solve the traffic problems in a metropolis such as LA. Basically, such a system would involve computer guided autos, and a network of machines that control the network under the roadway. This would mean that a network of computers (non-motile) would be controling and "conversing" with a large number of moving computers. All in all, a much considered concept, nothing new here. I wonder, however, if these designers have given any thought to the potential for techno terror. A "dick dastardly" finagles the computer in one sector of the system to change the destination of each vehicle passing through its control. The contollers would have to be able to re-route traffic around problems. Or a High-tech assasin targets one car and sets a program that alters its destination every few seconds/minutes. The victim car becomes the fellow who was lost on the MTA, forever going nowhere at top speed. -Boy! what an analogy for today.- If the entire network could be subverted, all of the vehicles in the net would be going nowhere at top speed forever... How would we react to such techno terror? How would we combat it? With the things we have learned about self replicating programs, I tend to believe that techno-terror has already happened and will become more pandemic in the future. Comments? -- | suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov | * S.T.A.R.S.! . + o | | lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil | The Revolution has begun! . + | | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (04/30/91)
In <9517@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: >I have just finished reading an article in the LA Times magazine of a >couple of Sundays ago about "Automatic Freeways." This article expounds >at great length on the development and use of automated freeway systems to >solve the traffic problems in a metropolis such as LA. >Basically, such a system would involve computer guided autos, and a network >of machines that control the network under the roadway. This would mean that >a network of computers (non-motile) would be controling and "conversing" >with a large number of moving computers. All in all, a much considered >concept, nothing new here. And this in itsself reminds me of the Byte Magazine Summit issue where they supposedly gathered "experts" to get their opinions on what computing would do in the next decade. These IDIOTS should have been ashamed of themselves! They said things like tiny computer chips implanted under the skin and whatnot. What a joke! Enough people would NEVER allow such a thing to happen. I'd bet with one whif of such a thing the ACLU would go mad, and in this one tiny case I would support them. The same could be said for a computer controlled freeway system. One of the best things about driving a car is "driving the car". People are never going to want to give up the freedom of controlling the vehicle themselves, and I do mean NEVER! >I wonder, however, if these designers have given any thought to the potential >for techno terror. A "dick dastardly" finagles the computer in one >sector of the system to change the destination of each vehicle passing through >its control. The contollers would have to be able to re-route traffic around >problems. Or a High-tech assasin targets one car and sets a program that >alters its destination every few seconds/minutes. The victim car becomes the >fellow who was lost on the MTA, forever going nowhere at top speed. -Boy! >what an analogy for today.- >If the entire network could be subverted, all of the vehicles in the net >would be going nowhere at top speed forever... Good point, but they could probably make all kind of claims about super-high security and closed systems and the like. If I were a "victim" of such a horrible system I (being a programmer myself) would be much more afraid of a bug or crash than a "terrorist". I know of NOBODY, including myself, that I would trust to write an application that had my very life in its hands so completely. Have you ever of an application that was completely free of bugs? >How would we react to such techno terror? What is the techno terror, the subverting of such a system or the implementations itsself? >How would we combat it? Fight it before it IS implemented. >With the things we have learned about self replicating programs, I tend to >believe that techno-terror has already happened and will become more pandemic >in the future. Yes, this is a perfect reason to keep computing and automation in proper perspective. Computers, for me, are the foundation for a good career, an enjoyable hobby, and sometimes an obsession. Still I, even more than many less technically involved people I know, keep my vision of computer's roles in society much more in their proper perspective. We have to limit what we expect of computers and the areas where we try to automate. Just as a manager has to know what to delegate, when to delegate, and who to delegate to, we must know what to automate, when to automate and how to automate. If a manager delegates responsibility properly the production of his unit is increased exponentially. If he delegates responsibility irresponsibly he will fail miserably. -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
uselton@nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) (05/01/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > >In <9517@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) >writes: > >>I have just finished reading an article in the LA Times magazine of a >>couple of Sundays ago about "Automatic Freeways." This article expounds >>at great length on the development and use of automated freeway systems to >>solve the traffic problems in a metropolis such as LA. >>Basically, such a system would involve computer guided autos, and a network >>of machines that control the network under the roadway. This would mean that >>a network of computers (non-motile) would be controling and "conversing" >>with a large number of moving computers. All in all, a much considered >>concept, nothing new here. > >..... >Enough people would NEVER allow such a thing to happen. I'd bet with >one whif of such a thing the ACLU would go mad, and in this one tiny >case I would support them. The same could be said for a computer >controlled freeway system. One of the best things about driving a car >is "driving the car". People are never going to want to give up the >freedom of controlling the vehicle themselves, and I do mean NEVER! I think such articles are optimistic about how soon such technology will be available, and especially economically justifiable. I think such a thing will eventually be possible, and may happen if we haven't created better alternatives. People will never give up driving cars, BUT... they may be willing to give up control *temporarily* in order to use a resource that will shorten (and increase safety of) a particular part of the trip. The entire road system will NOT be "wired" just a few high traffic arteries where it can make a difference. Sort of like putting your car on a train that is faster and avoids stops, but without the problems (or at least as many) of loading and unloading. You still drive your car between the ramps and the endpoints, you just relax for a while. > I know of >NOBODY, including myself, that I would trust to write an application >that had my very life in its hands so completely. Have you ever of an >application that was completely free of bugs? Do you know of any application to which people trust their lives? (It doesn't really matter if you know who wrote them.) How about astronauts in manned spacecraft? How about the air traffic control system? How about the train system? (And of course the medical arena too.) Yes there are occasional accidents and failures. More of them are caused by the humans than the computers. Sam Uselton uselton@nas.nasa.gov employed by CSC working for NASA (Ames) speaking for myself
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) (05/01/91)
In article <9517@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: ... >Basically, such a system would involve computer guided autos, and a network >of machines that control the network under the roadway. This would mean that >a network of computers (non-motile) would be controling and "conversing" >with a large number of moving computers. All in all, a much considered >concept, nothing new here. >I wonder, however, if these designers have given any thought to the potential >for techno terror. A "dick dastardly" finagles the computer in one >sector of the system to change the destination of each vehicle passing throug >its control. The contollers would have to be able to re-route traffic around >problems. Or a High-tech assasin targets one car and sets a program that >alters its destination every few seconds/minutes. The victim car becomes the ... >How would we react to such techno terror? >How would we combat it? > | suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov | * S.T.A.R.S.! . + o | As far as this and terrorism goes, i see it broken down into too areas: attacking the car computers and attacking the control computers As regards the control computers, I'm not worried. Worring about this is like worrying about terrorists modifying the control programs on airliners, train routers, or ATC stations. It would be of the same difficulty, both technically and security-wise. The mobile computers are something else. Yeah, i could see a problem if a car kept changing it's destination every second if it's in a local-control zone, but i'm under the impression these systems are meant for highway use. So what if the destination changes? if it's not an immeadeately upcoming exit it doesn't matter. And if it is, it's either in the "exit window" or it's too late. Another way mobile cmputers could be modified is to not pay attetion to the remote controls - but i imagine the controllers would sense this and be able to account for it. The worst case would be if the vehicale telltales were removed completely, but again, i imagine roadway sensors would pickup that -something- was there that didn't belong and in thge worst case, all traffic in that sector would be halted while the highway patrol or it's equivalent came out (most likely they'd be using helicopters with vehicle lift capability). If you to achieive similar results now, it's easy - get a pair of night goggles and go out driving at night with your lights off on highway interchanges. The worst thing would be terrorists making up fake central controllers, but again, this hasn't happened with airline instrument landings, why assume it would happen with cars? I see no particular problem, other than some people LIKE to drive. (personally i would HATE this system, i enjoy zipping thru traffic) I mean if terrorists wanted to cause massive traffic jams and accidents they could simply use the traffic light strobe controllers. Mike schechter Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu -- InterNet:Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu BITNET: SENSORY@SUNRISE
lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.020847.12423@osh3.OSHA.GOV> chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >Good point, but they could probably make all kind of claims about >super-high security and closed systems and the like. If I were a >"victim" of such a horrible system I (being a programmer myself) would >be much more afraid of a bug or crash than a "terrorist". I know of >NOBODY, including myself, that I would trust to write an application >that had my very life in its hands so completely. Have you ever of an >application that was completely free of bugs? No flames here but, when was the last time you flew in or out of a major airport? More and more, the number I heard was >80% of all commecial ariliners are automatically landed by a computer. Then there are the traffic computers on the rails. Plain and simple fact, clear to anyone who spends time behind the wheel in LA/DALWORTH/BOST-DC or CHI-GARY, is that we have to do something. I like to drive too, too fast and out where there ain't no traffic, but we are talking about terrible congestion and all of the problems attached there-to. -- | suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov | * S.T.A.R.S.! . + o | | lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil | The Revolution has begun! . + | | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|
mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) (05/01/91)
I think Chip and others overestimate the fanatical desire of people to
retain control of their vehicles at all times. After all, what about
automatic transmissions? What about cruise control? Aren't these cases
where the user relegates some of "the fun of driving" to an automatic
system? (And yes, a bug in that automatic system can be fatal: witness
the Audis that unpredictably lunged into first gear and killed people due
to a fault in the cruise control chip).
An automated highway system would be just another step along the same lines.
Look at it another way. Most people don't object to riding the subway,
even though they're not in control of the vehicle and could be killed in
an accident. What if the system were automated and the drivers replaced
by computers? Obviously the system might or might not be safe depending
on how well it was implemented, but I, for one, wouldn't be *inherently*
prejudiced against the automatic system. Computer failures are not
necessarily more frequent or more fatal than human error.
And if you agree that people would ride an automated subway, why wouldn't
they use an automatic highway? Statements like "people will NEVER give
up control of their cars" remind of statements like "people will NEVER
travel faster than thirty miles per hour", etc.
--
"These things are pure science fiction! And yet they are all true."
-M.O. Rabin
===================================================================
Richard Mason | mason3@husc9.harvard.edu | All opinions are my own.ccw@nvuxr.UUCP (christopher wood) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.225521.755@husc3.harvard.edu> mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) writes: >(And yes, a bug in that automatic system can be fatal: witness >the Audis that unpredictably lunged into first gear and killed people due >to a fault in the cruise control chip). No faults were ever discovered in the Audis. This is a popular misconception spread mostly by the media. The cars lunged forward because drivers stomped on the gas, thinking it was the brake. I saw the woman on 60 minutes: "I pressed harder and harder on the brake, and the car just kept going faster and faster". After the accident, no problems were found with either the cruise control or the brake system on that car (or what was left, after it was stopped) It is tragic that people were injured or killed by these incidents, and it's easy to "blame the engineers" rather than admit that the driver could have possibly made a mistake that had tragic consequences. Improved driver education is probably the only answer - If your car surges forward, take your feet OFF the pedals. then find the brake, and stop your car. (I have tried the following experiment, which convinced me: find an large, empty parking lot/road. Large and empty are the key words. Press the accelerator down to the floor. Car starts accelerating. Use your other foot to press the brake down hard. Car stops, while the throttle is wide open. Therefore, anyone who claims that they were pressing the brake as hard as they could, and the car was not stopping is either: having a failure of the braking system, or pressing the wrong pedal. The second symptom, the engine revving all the way up, makes it easy to figure out what was going on, especially when the brakes are investigated afterwards. -- Chris Wood Bellcore ...!bellcore!nvuxr!ccw or ccw@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (05/01/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > And this in itsself reminds me of the Byte Magazine Summit issue where > they supposedly gathered "experts" to get their opinions on what > computing would do in the next decade. These IDIOTS should have been > ashamed of themselves! They said things like tiny computer chips > implanted under the skin and whatnot. What a joke! > > Enough people would NEVER allow such a thing to happen. I'd bet with > one whif of such a thing the ACLU would go mad, and in this one tiny > case I would support them. Do you mean that you are against implanting computers into the human body in general, or that you are against the specific example of planting chips in people in order to track them? You say that the idea of implanted computers is a joke. Well, I for one would love to have some sort of electronic database / diary / alarm unit implanted; if it had a direct neural connection and allowed me to pull up the information and overlay it over my field of vision, that would be even better. And a neural-connected maths co-processor would be wonderful! I expect a lot of people reading this find the idea disturbing. Well, my point is that you are over-generalizing to say that nobody will allow such things to happen. If you're against implanted *tracking* chips, then the objection is surely a 'civil liberties' one and not a technology-based objection. > The same could be said for a computer > controlled freeway system. One of the best things about driving a car > is "driving the car". People are never going to want to give up the > freedom of controlling the vehicle themselves, and I do mean NEVER! Again, you are overgeneralizing. I would be much happier travelling by car if the car were controlled by a computer system to make it more efficient and safer. I love travelling by train, and trains are completely out of my control. > I know of > NOBODY, including myself, that I would trust to write an application > that had my very life in its hands so completely. I can only assume that you never travel by plane, because modern planes like the 767 are have many vital functions entirely computer-controlled for a large part of the journey. And, of course, the air traffic control systems rely heavily on computerization. > Have you ever of an > application that was completely free of bugs? Have you ever heard of a car that was completely free from design defects? It's not the presence of faults which is important, it's their number, and how frequently and severely they manifest themselves. Formal software development techniques are useful in ensuring that faults are acceptably rare and cause the systems concerned to fail in a reasonably safe way. > >How would we combat it? > > Fight it before it IS implemented. What's your alternative? Remember, you can't carry on with everyone owning his own car and driving it himself. Your state will be probably be paralyzed by the end of the century if you do. mathew -- mathew - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
seaotter@athena.mit.edu (Amazing Stace) (05/01/91)
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >... >I mean if terrorists wanted to cause massive traffic jams and accidents >they could simply use the traffic light strobe controllers. Or more simply, blow up enough overpasses/onramps/whatever. Why be so complicated? Better yet, set off a nice big'un in a tunnel -- Lincoln Tunnel in NY, for example? Ciao, Mike -- | Mike Zraly (the old ssrat) | ...if the church put in half the time | | | on covetousness that it does on lust, | | mzraly@ldbvax.dnet.lotus.com | this would be a better world. | | or c/o seaotter@athena.mit.edu | -- Garrison Keillor |
rjm@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robert J. McArthur) (05/02/91)
In article <16@nvuxr.UUCP> ccw@nvuxr.UUCP (22456-christopher wood) writes: >No faults were ever discovered in the Audis. This is a popular >misconception spread mostly by the media. The cars lunged forward >because drivers stomped on the gas, thinking it was the brake. I saw ... Fault or design error? Is there a difference? If the design of the pedals were such that an "average driver" would mistake the accelerator for the brake pedal, then IMHO there is a design fault. Robert -- Robert McArthur Centre for Resource and Environment Studies Australian National University ACSNet rjm@arp.anu.oz.au ACT Australia 2601 Pegasus|PeaceNet|EcoNet peg:robert (06) 249 4760
gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) (05/02/91)
>Basically, such a system would involve computer guided autos, and a network >of machines that control the network under the roadway. This would mean that >a network of computers (non-motile) would be controling and "conversing" >with a large number of moving computers. All in all, a much considered >concept, nothing new here. >I wonder, however, if these designers have given any thought to the potential >for techno terror. A "dick dastardly" finagles the computer in one >sector of the system to change the destination of each vehicle passing through >its control. The contollers would have to be able to re-route traffic around >problems. Or a High-tech assasin targets one car and sets a program that >alters its destination every few seconds/minutes. The victim car becomes the >fellow who was lost on the MTA, forever going nowhere at top speed. -Boy! I'd worry a lot more about (1) bugs, and (2) official tampering with the system. For example, if the car is reported stolen, or the owner supposedly has unpaid parking tickets (like from 10 minutes ago), or is wanted for a crime, or he's disputing his property taxes and hasn't paid them yet, his vehicle (with someone, not necessarily the owner, in it) ends up at the police station. People who annoy the mayor get home by going the long way around the city several times. Suspected drug dealers and people from the "bad" part of town find they can't get to the "good" parts, only out of town and back to where they came from. Of course, they could use the slow, non-automated route. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.033644.4529@newshost.anu.edu.au>, rjm@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robert J. McArthur) writes: > In article <16@nvuxr.UUCP> ccw@nvuxr.UUCP (22456-christopher wood) writes: >>No faults were ever discovered in the Audis. This is a popular >>misconception spread mostly by the media. The cars lunged forward >>because drivers stomped on the gas, thinking it was the brake. I saw... > Fault or design error? Is there a difference? If the design of the pedals > were such that an "average driver" would mistake the accelerator for the > brake pedal, then IMHO there is a design fault. No... the design of the pedals was fine... the last I heard of it was that it was 'dumb driver in fast car' error... The whole thing was started by someone who had a self-caused accident, and the news took it from there. The Government even cleared Audi... -- | C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax | | Between the politicians, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, the insurance | | salesmen, and the TV commentators- not to mention the fools, lovers, | | and idiots- we may be the only two honest people left in the world. | | And I can see that card you have up your sleeve... |
luke@modus.sublink.ORG (Luciano Mannucci) (05/03/91)
In article <1991Apr30.225521.755@husc3.harvard.edu>, mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) writes: > > An automated highway system would be just another step along the same lines. > And in article <1991Apr30.211635.8083@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) says: > > I see no particular problem, other than some people LIKE to drive. > (personally i would HATE this system, i enjoy zipping thru traffic) I agree. Some people LIKE to drive (me too), but once accepted, the driving automation cannot be stopped. The fact that a driver likes it or not is meaningless: once computer-driven, the car circulation will be to fast to be human operated, soon or later. luke. -- _ _ __ Via Aleardo Aleardi, 12 - 20154 Milano (Italy) | | | _ _| (__ PHONE : +39 2 3315328 FAX: +39 2 3315778 | | |(_)(_||_|___) Srl E-MAIL: luke@modus.sublink.ORG ______________________________ Software & Services for Advertising & Marketing
baumgard@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU (Jon Baumgardner) (05/04/91)
I like to drive too. I don't like to stop and go at a mximum of 15 MPH for 1/2 hour in the morning. I always get bored and eat breakfast, read, listen to the radio, or stare at the blond bombshell three lanes over. If I vould get on the highway, and get to work in under 30 minutes (its only 8 miles!) without having to shift gears 200 times it would be great! There are accidents almost every day because someone thinks another lane will be faster and they edge and squease (sp) their way into the next lane while the person being edged in on gets irate and tail gates them. Even at a constant 16 MPH it would be less stressful and I could stay in one gear. We already have a computer system that counts cars on major (non highway) cross walk lights, a controlled highway seems like the next step. We already have a 12 minute traffic report from a helicopter cop also. Maybe LED road signs describing the next major accident or estimated time of arrival to the next off ramp would help people calm down. arteries and controls the stop lights and even w
kiam.choo@rose.uucp (KIAM CHOO) (05/05/91)
From: kiam.choo@utoronto.ca MA>You say that the idea of implanted computers is a joke. Well, I for one wou MA>love to have some sort of electronic database / diary / alarm unit implante MA>if it had a direct neural connection and allowed me to pull up the MA>information and overlay it over my field of vision, that would be even MA>better. And a neural-connected maths co-processor would be wonderful! Same here. But, in the last sentence, "co-brain" might be a more suitable word than "co-processor". kiam ---
mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) (05/05/91)
In article <982@modus.sublink.ORG> luke@modus.sublink.ORG (Luciano Mannucci) writes: >> >> I see no particular problem, other than some people LIKE to drive. >> (personally i would HATE this system, i enjoy zipping thru traffic) > >I agree. Some people LIKE to drive (me too), but once accepted, the >driving automation cannot be stopped. The fact that a driver likes >it or not is meaningless: once computer-driven, the car circulation >will be to fast to be human operated, soon or later. > It's not necessarily true that the super-fast computerized cars will force all human drivers to conform and give up control of their cars. After all, not every sidestreet, back alley and farm road in America is going to be automated. At most, I expect a few central highways might be turned over to computer control, and perhaps just a single lane on those highways (if the cars can travel three feet apart at 90 mph, that's all you need!) So old cars and non-conformists aren't forced to participate -- if you like to drive and don't want to be flattened by a superfast automatic truck, just stay out of the computer-controlled lane. -- "These things are pure science fiction! And yet they are all true." -M.O. Rabin =================================================================== Richard Mason | mason3@husc9.harvard.edu | All opinions are my own.
frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) (05/07/91)
Richard Mason: >So old cars and non-conformists aren't forced to participate -- if you >like to drive and don't want to be flattened by a superfast automatic truck, >just stay out of the computer-controlled lane. In the same way that pedestrians are barred from motorway-class roads (Interstate highways, etc.), the "locally-driven" traffic must be separate from the "remotely-driven", or there will be disasters waiting to happen on every major road. Assuming that a completely safe computer-controlled system for traffic could be built, one of the things which is necessary to maintain safety is control over its operating environment. It seems to me that the only practical way to do this is to have a physically enforced separation, or one drunk driver or car with a blowout would be all it would take to orphan a neighborhoodful of children. Having said that, I don't think there's a good reason to object to the *principle* of controlled traffic flow; it's kind of like being in a taxi, just the driver is elsewhere. All you have to do is be able to trust the driver, and that's merely an absolutely staggering implementation problem. -- Frank Wales, Grep Limited, [frank@grep.co.uk<->uunet!grep!frank] Kirkfields Business Centre, Kirk Lane, LEEDS, UK, LS19 7LX. (+44) 532 500303
gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) (05/07/91)
>Do you mean that you are against implanting computers into the human body in >general, or that you are against the specific example of planting chips in >people in order to track them? >I expect a lot of people reading this find the idea disturbing. Well, my >point is that you are over-generalizing to say that nobody will allow such >things to happen. >If you're against implanted *tracking* chips, then the objection is surely a >'civil liberties' one and not a technology-based objection. There already are external tracking devices in popular use. People carry them around voluntarily. They provide a perceived benefit to the people who carry them unrelated to tracking, and many probably don't realize the tracking capability is there. These people even *PAY MONEY* for the tracking devices. The actual amount of tracking being done is unknown. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon P.S. Cellular phones may not be very *GOOD* tracking devices, but they can be located within a few miles.
AUGUST@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard B. August) (05/07/91)
Computers have been implanted in some animals (cows in particular) since the late '70s. We developed a system where a temperature measurement processor was implanted under the cow's skin. Each processor had a unique number. When the cows came in to be milked they walked through a door which housed a transmitter/receiver set/antenna. The temperature of the cow was transmitted to the central (via RF) and the temperature/health/production of the individual cow was made available to the farmer. The risk of this type of imbeded computer is that it could be used to monitor a person's travel/whereabouts. A definite invasion of one's privacy. Richard B. August august@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
ari@Mordor.Stanford.EDU (Ari Ollikainen) (05/07/91)
I'm somewhat surprised that no one has commented on the potentially disasterous failure mode associated with proposed designs of automated highways: NO provision for vehicles stopping due to mechanical failure or running out of fuel! If the system doesn't power the vehicles it controls AND the power CAN be interrupted then the vehicle MAY become an uncontrolled obstacle in a fast moving stream of otherwise controlled vehicles. Imagine the repercussions of the system deciding to decelerate ALL traffic to avoid damage to the uncontrolled obstacle...Would the automated system just hand control of vehicles in the vicinity of the stalled vehicle back to the drivers and expect them to deal with the "perturbation" in flow? Before thinking about the possible effects of techno terrorism, I suggest we consider the elements necessary in the design and implementation of automated systems to make them operate safely in obvious failure situations... Ari Ollikainen Networking Technology Analyst ESnet/NERSC Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Ari@Pohjola.NERSC.GOV
fraser@edc.UUCP (Fraser Orr) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May4.223805.847@husc3.harvard.edu>, mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) writes: |> |> At most, I expect a few central highways might be turned over |> to computer control, and perhaps just a single lane on those highways (if |> the cars can travel three feet apart at 90 mph, that's all you need!) You might all be interested to know that these highways already exist. They are called railroads :^> (And they use up a lot less of the earth, such as gas, and atmosphere). ==Fraser Orr <fraser@edc.uucp> +44 506 416778x206 UseNet: {uunet,sun}!atexnet!fraser JANet: fraser%edc@cs.hw.ac.uk
lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May7.003221.8585@morrow.stanford.edu> ari@Mordor.Stanford.EDU (Ari Ollikainen) writes: >I'm somewhat surprised that no one has commented on the potentially >disasterous failure mode associated with proposed designs of automated >highways: NO provision for vehicles stopping due to mechanical failure or >running out of fuel! In the article I was reading that was stated. The proposed vehicle is powered from the roadway. I believe my original post implied the same, "going nowhere at top speed forever." > >If the system doesn't power the vehicles it controls AND the power CAN >be interrupted then the vehicle MAY become an uncontrolled obstacle in >a fast moving stream of otherwise controlled vehicles. Imagine the >repercussions of the system deciding to decelerate ALL traffic to avoid >damage to the uncontrolled obstacle...Would the automated system just hand >control of vehicles in the vicinity of the stalled vehicle back to the >drivers and expect them to deal with the "perturbation" in flow? Such forseable, in a sense predictable, failures would be provided for. Ninty-nine percent of The Troubles, to misquote Murphy, will be caused by insignificant failures. The potential for failures due intentional intervention by person(s) unnamed at the time of the beginning of the system will be trivialized, (can't happen- a variant of the NIMBY synndrom ;-]), yet any failure will be non trivial to the people involved. Further, if the idea that the failure is caused by outside forces became part of the social meme, some large part of the public might refuse to use the system. > >Before thinking about the possible effects of techno terrorism, I suggest >we consider the elements necessary in the design and implementation of >automated systems to make them operate safely in obvious failure situations... What's obvious to us now will be old hat tomorrow. What is fiction to us now will be reality tomorrow. What we haven't thought of, ah, there's the rub. -LV :=> -- | suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov | * S.T.A.R.S.! . + o | | lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil | The Revolution has begun! . + | | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|
luke@modus.sublink.ORG (Luciano Mannucci) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May4.223805.847@husc3.harvard.edu>, mason3@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Mason) writes: > [ quite reasonable stuff deleted for brevity ] > > So old cars and non-conformists aren't forced to participate -- if you > like to drive and don't want to be flattened by a superfast automatic truck, > just stay out of the computer-controlled lane. Sure. I'm awaiting a no admittance road sign stating: "fast lane - computer-operated only", one of those days. I wonder what it will look like. luke. -- _ _ __ Via Aleardo Aleardi, 12 - 20154 Milano (Italy) | | | _ _| (__ PHONE : +39 2 3315328 FAX: +39 2 3315778 | | |(_)(_||_|___) Srl E-MAIL: luke@modus.sublink.ORG ______________________________ Software & Services for Advertising & Marketing