Robots vs Humans Driving

Reports show that Google's self driving cars are safer than actual human driver itself. Data has been collected via two automatic self-driving cars of the Lexus and the Prius. This report came from the MIT Technology Review report. The cars has driven over 482,700 kilometers without having any accident. The software that is used shows that these cars are able to maintain a safe distance behind another car, and they brake sharply than having a human driving it themselves. These cars are able to prove that technology has been advance enough that these cars are able to run on their own and in the future we don't even need a driver for a car because everything would be automatic. Accidents did happen with the car but was caused from different drivers who bumped into the car. In August 2011 and 2010 the Google car stopped at a traffic and got bumped by a self-driving which indicates that the fault came from the humans not the automatic car. Cars are still a technology that is evolving rapidly because every year we see different looking cars that are becoming more safety, in the next 100 years cars would change completely to what we have now. Every year there is a new interface, like self-driving that will be more improved and be able to imply for everyone in the future for sure.

Major Concepts

• Google's self driving cars are safer drivers than humans.
• These cars ran a total of 482,700 km without have a single accident.
• Although the accidents are not by the software, human drivers still bumped into the car.

Potential Strengths/Advantages

The strength of this article is that it is will linked to the evidence that is supported in their statement. I'm able to click to the report that was made showing the evidence that this car really did have no accidents. The article is precise, and summarized in way that allows people around the world to understand this complex system of automatic cars and give us a warning that these types of cars will appear in the industry very soon. Overall I think that the article is very good and easy to understand.

Potential Problems/Limitations/Disadvantages

There are a few disadvantages in the article because the author didn't point out any disadvantages, he made me think that the software is perfect but in the reality there are still many flaws in the self-driving technology. The flaws include detecting death because the car is unable to sense humans so it won't brake. Another disadvantage is the organization of the article they bring up points that are related too far apart from each other which might set some young article readers in a stage of confusion.

Discussion Questions

I would really like to discuss if people are for or against self-driving because many people might be against it. The argument comes up again that people are starting to become lazy because of these new inventions we have everything is doing most of the things for us now, like washing our clothes before the washing machine was introduced people would waste a lot of time washing their clothes, but now the washing machine does everything for us. I against this self-driving thing because if everybody uses it there might be still errors that can happen, because nothing is perfect. People are getting out of the path where we are doing things by ourselves but technology is going to take away the ability to do things in these days. Driving is suppose to be an important skill because it teaches people to concentrate on the things around which not just only benefits on the topic but on other real world situations too. The good side of this article is that it makes life easier, but I don't agree about this point because it's getting way too easy that we don't really need to do anything, which accounts as the bad side too.

Starr, Michelle. "Google: Self-driving Cars Safer than Professional Drivers." - Cars. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cnet.com.au/google-self-driving-cars-safer-than-professional-drivers-339345799.htm>.

Thought Questions

6. Did you have a computer in your home as you were growing up? If so, how did it influence your education to this point? If not, how did the right of everyone to have access to technology?

I did have a computer at home while I was growing up it was one of the old models of IBM that runs on a windows 95 platform. It really did influence me in the education because back then I would sit down and play with paint which is a sign of creativity. I also learned how to use the different Microsoft Office programs which is an important skill to have in typing these days. Having a computer back them allows you to type better in many different ways because you are used to using the keyboard. If I didn't have a computer I won't be this interested in studying the wonders of computer because getting to see how fast computers are growing inspires you to learn and know what computers really do. I would have not master the skill of using creativity of reading and writing stuff because a home computer means that you have free time and you are able to spend time learning by yourself rather than doing something that is not productive at home.

7. The digital divide puts those who have access to technology on one side and those who do not on the other side. Do yo feel that it is the right of everyone to have access to technology?

I think people should have the rights to technology, but it depends on the user itself because if the user is not willing to take in that technology its basically up to the person. Having the right for everyone to have technology is really good because the world will be more connected due to the amazing things that technology has brought to us. Technology allows us to have a huge basic comfort in our life that does so many things to us. With technology we are able to communicate, and enjoy many different entertainment systems that we do daily. I think it is good to keep everybody up on the technology trend, but as I said above it depends on the user themselves if they are willing to accept the technology or not.

8. I will cost a great deal of money to erase the digital divide. Who do you think should be responsible for paying the cost?

The question really does depend on the government themselves, because almost every government has been corrupt throughout the history of the humans. If the government has not been corrupt I think they would be able to erase this huge divide. These particular people should pay a particular technological company to provide the digital things for us, so they would be able to safe a lot of money using one particular technology. The government has the most money and the taxes we pay need to be refunded with technology.

9. Having access to technology is not enough; people must be taught to use the technology they have. How would you define computer literacy for each of the following groups of people?
a. High school students in an industrialized country
b. Kindergarten teachers in an industrialized country
c. College graduates in an industrialized country
d. Students in sub-Saharan Africa
e. College graduates in sub-Saharan Africa
f. Government officials in the Andes

a. The high school students have a basic understanding of using a computer they are able to use it efficiently for entertainment and school purposes, but they lack the understanding of what really is happening inside the computer. They are just a basic user that understands the purpose of the computer.

b. Kindergarten teachers know the basic of using a computer in which they are able to teach young students on what to do with the computer. These teacher also don't know what the real computer is like on how it functions but they are just a basic user and a teacher on how to use it.

c. College graduates will have a solid understanding of the computer in which they will know the main components and a bit more about the computers function depending on their major. College graduates will have more understandings than high school students, but have little understandings about how the computer really is.

d. Students here probably don't have a home computer or a pc but they know what it is because they have seen one or they might have one at school. Their knowledge about computers is very limited because their country is poor, in which they might only know how to do basic things like moving the mouse.

e. College graduates will have a better understanding than the students in which they might know how to use the computer for emails and doing work but may have struggles with the computer. They have no idea on how the real computer really is having the codes.

f. Government officials in the Andes probably have basic understandings of the computer but they have struggles in using it for sure because in places like mountains they would have like less than 10 computers so they might not be professional in using computers.      

Codes of Ethics Case 5

This case is about a consultant and a nonprofit organization board. The board wants some advice from the consultant on what software package to buy in order to invest a lot of money. The consultant then suggest the board different software packages and give the advantages and disadvantages for each of them. The consultant then suggest the board to buy a certain package, in which the consultant is a stock holder from that software company, but he doesn't tell the board about this.

This passage violates many codes of the ethics.

IEEE Codes of Ethics

1. To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest when ever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist.
• This person is creating a huge conflict of interest between him and the board because he has a benefit being a stock holder of a certain software. Here the consultant is clearly not avoiding the conflict.
2. To be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data.
• This person is not honest because he is not stating the whole claim, that he is one of the stock holders of the software he is suggesting.
3. To avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action.
• This personal is giving false information because the software he is suggesting might no be beneficial to that organization in which it could harm the employment rate of the organization because they needed to invest in that software.
4. To assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.
• This guy is not assisting or helping anything, he's just talking to benefit himself by not caring anything about the company who is going to invest on the software.

ACM Code of Ethics

1. Avoid harm to others.
• Creating harm to others by tricking them to invest in a software that gives the consultant profit, by not thinking about the money that the organization will invest in the software that might no be beneficial.
2. Be honest and trustworthy.
• The consultant is not honest by not telling the full truth, so he's not trustworthy.
3. Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
• This person is not providing the board with professional information about different soft-wares, in which he is suggesting the one that benefits him.

Consequences of doing it wrong

• Company will lose money investing in the wrong software.
• The organization that is already non profiting, depending on the software to be able to stand again will end up being bankrupt.
• The consultant will not only harm the organization but the workers who need to find new jobs in order to live their life.

The consultant should tell the absolute truth and suggest the company the real software that will allow the organization to benefit in their investment. He will be able to save many people from losing their job, if he did the right thing.

Consequences of doing it right

• The money that is invested on the software allows the company to form back up again.
• The organization that is non profiting, recovers and becomes a profitable organization.
• People get more money from bonuses, due to the peak of the profit made.
• The consultant is rewarded, but in a more honorable way than suggesting the wrong software an earning the money.

Resistive Touchscreen Presentation