please go through it

Task 1 :

Read the article With Wireless Cars, Our Physical Safety Is Now on the Line Found under Content

Using concepts from Chapter 11 in DI what are some of the direct consequences and indirect consequences of wireless cars? What are some of the mistakes you see with the development of wireless cars? How can the “level of good” be raised in the case of wireless cars?

Respond with your first post by the second day the discussion is open to be eligible for full points. Make your first remark to another students comments by the third day to be eligible for full points. Respond to at least two other students remarks. Read all posts.

Points will be deducted from all papers and discussions for poor grammar, improper capitalization, and misspelled words. Proofread your work.

To receive full points you must use critical thinking and address all items. To receive full credit you must provide references from the text to support your remarks on the initial post and response to other students. Use this simple method for references in our discussions. Examples: For the Diffusion of Innovations text (DI p. 45) for The Tipping Point (TP p. 73). For other references use APA format.

Book to follow “

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation, New York, NY, Free Press (DI)

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point – How little things can make a big difference. Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (TP

Responses : For 1, Rachel Schultz “

In our Chapter 11 text from Diffusion of Innovations the author states that direct consequences are the changes to an individual or social system that occur in immediate response to adoption of innovation and indirect consequences are the changes to an individual or social system that occur as a result of the direct consequences of an innovation. (DI, p 445)

Using the definitions from the text as a guide, a direct consequence of wireless cars would be that people thinking that they don’t have to pay attention while driving because the automobile will take care of it. An example of this is the woman who thought that when she turned on her cruise control, it would do all the driving for her. This feature in cars is to help aid the driver, not fully take over for them. Another example, which goes with the text from Robinson’s article, is the overall digital and physical safety of the automobiles. If the interfaces between the two are not 100% or any piece of the system becomes compromised, then there can be some dire consequences for the driver as well as other people on the road.

An indirect consequence, that would be much farther down the road, could be that when cars become entirely autonomous and human interaction is vastly limited there should be a decrease in fatal accidents. Overall this is a good thing that people won’t lose their lives in senseless automobile accidents. However, the decrease of deaths from these accidents would also mean a drastic reduction in available organs for people who are in need of transplants. As a person who will be in need of a kidney transplant within the next five to ten years, this was a concern that was brought to my attention at a yearly Illinois Kidney Foundation conference. Kidneys are the only organs that you can get from a living donor but all of the other organs that people are waiting for come from people who are deceased. With the decrease of automobile accident deaths there will be many more people who will not get the needed lifesaving transplants. This may give more of a jump start to the 3D printing of organs and other areas to help bridge the gap of organs needed.

One of the mistakes I noticed with the development of wireless cars wasn’t really a mistake in my mind, I see it as stepping stone, was the overall lack of digital security of the automobile and its functions. In my previous course I did some research on the topic of smart homes and one of the problems that I noticed was the lack of any type of protection or security to keep people from digitally invading your home. I discovered that there are currently a few companies that are working to help keep your connected home safe and their products are “Cujo”, “Dojo” and “Keezel”. (Cruz) I won’t dive too deep into the details of these products but they offer different types of protection for your smart home and devices. I feel that there should be a product created either by the auto manufactures or outside companies that offer the same type of service that will be able to protect a person’s car from outside technological dangers.

To help increase the “level of good” when it comes to wireless cars, there should be more testing and possibly more legislation / regulation that requires such testing to be done prior to automobiles being released to the public. If there are restrictions for environmental reasons why shouldn’t there be some for the security of the automobile system to protect the consumer?

Citations