Hardly surprising. It's already well established that electrical engineers write lousy code. Granted, the tools for developing for embedded systems are beyond crappy and embedded microcontrollers are extremely cramped but that's still no excuse for ignoring well understood engineering practices in relation to security.
The real question is how many security incidents will need to occur before the industry is motivated to fix the problem.
Yes electrical engineers on average don't write code as well as developers but no one with a real degree writes code this stupidly. It smacks of a management decision.
"scientists at the British biofirm Oxitec have found a way to breed male Aedes aegypti with genetic fragments from E. coli bacteria and herpex simplex virus, along with coral and cabbage."
I mean besides gigantic Mosquitos that can reproduce on common food source surfaces with a retro virus capable of infecting and rewriting your DNA with tentacles around a central mouth probuscus having a giant cabbage for a head. Not that females would notice because that's pretty much how males are normally.
More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc will undoubtedly be silenced under the noise of "oh my goooooddddd I'm getting gmo material forcefully injected into me by the guberment!!!!!??????1!!" Or "will I be able to get mosquito superpowers if I'm bitten?"
I mean of course you wouldn't get superpowers. The Mosquitos aren't radioactive.
For the last 50 years people have had remote control aircraft. It's been simplicity itself to 'hack' them simply by using a stronger radio on the same channel. Even 20 years ago you could send them on 'autopilot' using relatively cheap gyros. Now suddenly after calling them 'drones' and a midnight drunken showboating excursion everything changes?!?!???
I'm really surprised they haven't been banned yet and anyone who purchased one branded an evil turrust! Won't someone please think of the children (in the government)?
Except these were quite wide where the pavement had been repaired. When you are in minnesota the roads are bad enough dodging potholes isn't practical.
Furthermore people have been ticketed for dodging them. Apparently its a minor crime to deviate from your lane even for potholes.
For example on my 2002 Subaru impreza wrx the antilock brakes have almost caused an accident. On dry clean pavement, but with a couple of potholes, the wheel speeds can differ enough to activate the abs system. Then that prevents you from actually braking hard for a time of almost two seconds. It makes me want to disable the system unless I actually need it such as when the roads are icy.
I was exiting the freeway when the driver ahead unexpectedly stopped in a dedicated turn lane for no real reason (probably just an over cautious bad driver). I went to brake and hit a pothole at the same time and found I couldn't. Then I had to panic press the brakes as hard as I could and wound up stopping much slower and came uncomfortably close to the stopped car.
Honestly it's better to optionally bypass the abs on that car unless you need it because it cripples the ability to stop properly in good conditions and an attentive driver can do better.
Lets say thier algorithms are 1000 times better than a human driver at avoiding accidents, at least statistically. Given that in 2009 over 40,000 auto deaths occured and over 250k childred were injured (http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/statistics.html) that would translate into hundereds or thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits against the navigation company per year. Not to mention the countless fender benders that the system would be responsible for. Even dumbasses running into the car at no fault to the navigation company will probably be dragged into court. You think you can code dumbassery avoidance into the car? They will build a better dumbass. You will see this technology in Japan and Germany well before the US simply due to the popular acceptance of these technologies as well as the legal ramifications. State of the art algorithms such as these are not nearly as good as a moderately competent driver under generalized circumstances - as a single example just put a google car on icy snowy roads and see how well its vision algorithm tracks the road or how well it's laser or sonic sensors work when fouled with snow.
This should only suprise people who think court cases are about facts and justice. It is well known that facts just get in the way of what's true and real.
On a trip to Florida, I found a neat clump of shells in shallow water. I picked it up and put it in a bucket along with some other shells thinking it was interesting. A few moments later I had a pile of shells and an octopus looking up at me angrily. So if it's smart enough to roll itself in shells, using it's suckers to keep them on, it’s not too surprising to me that these ones decided to use coconuts.
Funny thing is that split coconuts probably aren't too common unless people or animals split them.
I don't doubt the science behind the LHC or the scenarios presented. But I wonder if it is possible to make a device (probaby insanely expensive and massive like the LHC) whereby the MHB could be accurately force fed like a veal calf untill it hit a critical point (tons - ktons - Mtons) of mass and would be a worthy earth destroyer. Nuclear weapons just destroy a little area and make the world far less habitable. A good size black hole could
I am always interested in the CO2 output of these pure electric vehicles. After all, right now we power most of the electric grid with coal and until that changes it dosen't make sense to wish or just assert what things out to be instead of just doing some simple research and high school physics calculations.
Let's look at the real data from the real sources...
According to Tesla motors official specifications [teslamotors.com] the motor has a output of 248 peak horsepower (185kW) and 276 ft/lbs (375 Nm) of torque. Also, for full charge it takes "3.5 hours using the Tesla Motors Home Connector at 240 Volts and 70 amps" which for simplicity and because they have neglected to disclose the actual kwh of full empty to full charge at room temperature (capacity will degrade with use) lets assume is 3.5hrs * (240V * 70A) = 58.8 kwh. Most likely this is an overly conservative estimate because of the constant current constant voltage nature of charging lithium batteries. This is more important than battery capacity because it is the load the power plant feels to charge your car and is the important quantity of interest. This will take you 244 miles on average (from same site) of course flat straight stretches will get better but it is the average that is most important. Total is 58.8 kwh/ 244 miles or about.241 kwh/mile. You can do the math on charging, but it should be obvious at this point that it is much cheaper than gasoline since electricity costs from around 7-20 cents/kwh in the US depending on numerous factors.
Now go look at EPA official website for determining CO2 emissions [epa.gov] (in the US) and you can see that generating one kwh gives you 7.18x10^-4 metric tons of CO2. In addition, they also state on the same page you generate 8.81*10-3 metric tons of CO2 per gallon gasoline.
Lets do some simple math. At.241 kwh/mi this gives you (.241 kwh/mi * 7.18x10^-4 metric tons CO2/kwh) = 1.73 x 10^-4 tons of CO2/mile. At 8.81 x 10^-3 metric tons of CO2/gallon (from EPA) then you have the Tesla getting 50.91 MPG equivelant CO2 pollution. Note that hybrid vehicles and diesels both come close to or exceed this value making the CO2 pollution for a pure electric not as rosy as some have been led to believe.
Note that this is bested by emissions from diesel vehicles at this point. Untill fission or fusion or solar or whatever comes on line, and given the cost of these vehicles, it dosent make sense. Even if the battery were somehow cheap *now* it still wouldn't make much enviornental sense over a efficent chemical fuel based design. the best bang for the buck, since CO2 polluters aren't all rich, is to utilize efficent fossil fuel vehicles
You neglect that electric vehicles cost several times what an efficent chemical vehicle costs. Given that the bulk of CO2 polluters aren't rich, you can get the best effect now with the best $ to effect approach. People can't afford the high monthly payments and would rather pay more for thier fuel (about 6x cheaper for electricity over gasoline).
Also, you may not be aware, but electric motors are well over a hundred years old and have had about the same gains as chemical engines. There haven't been any big changes in the last 20 years compared to batteries - which have had substantial change.
I did not say that enviornmentalsts did ban nuclear power, just that they 'wanted' to do it for enviornmental reasons we now know are not scientfically sound.
you just cant use that argument now, or for the next decade, or perhaps even for the next 20 years. Wish thinking about what might or is likely to be is not the same as stopping pollution *now* which is what anyone in the field of enviornmental science would say is necessary to make the most positive change now.
you want a quicker end to enviornmental change? Start the masses on efficent chemical power - it is the most cost effective solution for the next decade at least and this is easy to show scientifically.
We could solve so many of these problems if people used rationality, evidence and the scientific foundation provided to us through centuries of effort instead of emotion, hopefulness and 'good intent'. A good analogy is the 'enviornemntalists' who tried to get nuclear power banned, accelerating global climate change and radiological pollution (through coal byproducts).
I am always interested in the CO2 output of these pure electric vehicles. After all, right now we power most of the electric grid with coal and until that changes it dosen't make sense to wish or just assert what things out to be instead of just doing some simple research and high school physics calculations.
Let's look at the real data from the real sources...
According to Tesla motors official specifications the motor has a output of 248 peak horsepower (185kW) and 276 ft/lbs (375 Nm) of torque. Also, for full charge it takes "3.5 hours using the Tesla Motors Home Connector at 240 Volts and 70 amps" which for simplicity and because they have neglected to disclose the actual kwh of full empty to full charge at room temperature (capacity will degrade with use) lets assume is 3.5hrs * (240V * 70A) = 58.8 kwh. Most likely this is an overly conservative estimate because of the constant current constant voltage nature of charging lithium batteries. This is more important than battery capacity because it is the load the power plant feels to charge your car and is the important quantity of interest. This will take you 244 miles on average (from same site) of course flat straight stretches will get better but it is the average that is most important. Total is 58.8 kwh/ 244 miles or about.241 kwh/mile. You can do the math on charging, but it should be obvious at this point that it is much cheaper than gasoline since electricity costs from around 7-20 cents/kwh in the US depending on numerous factors.
Now go look at EPA official website for determining CO2 emissions (in the US) and you can see that generating one kwh gives you 7.18x10^-4 metric tons of CO2. In addition, they also state on the same page you generate 8.81*10-3 metric tons of CO2 per gallon gasoline.
Lets do some simple math. At.241 kwh/mi this gives you (.241 kwh/mi * 7.18x10^-4 metric tons CO2/kwh) = 1.73 x 10^-4 tons of CO2/mile. At 8.81 x 10^-3 metric tons of CO2/gallon (from EPA) then you have the Tesla getting 50.91 MPG equivelant CO2 pollution. Note that hybrid vehicles and diesels both come close to or exceed this value making the CO2 pollution for a pure electric not as rosy as some have been led to believe.
Note that this is bested by emissions from diesel vehicles at this point. Untill fission or fusion or solar or whatever comes on line, and given the cost of these vehicles, it dosent make sense. Even if the battery were somehow cheap *now* it still wouldn't make much enviornental sense over a efficent chemical fuel based design.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly surprising. It's already well established that electrical engineers write lousy code. Granted, the tools for developing for embedded systems are beyond crappy and embedded microcontrollers are extremely cramped but that's still no excuse for ignoring well understood engineering practices in relation to security.
The real question is how many security incidents will need to occur before the industry is motivated to fix the problem.
Yes electrical engineers on average don't write code as well as developers but no one with a real degree writes code this stupidly. It smacks of a management decision.
Let's just use 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff 0xff .... !
I laughed pretty damn hard. Best laugh I've had today.
"scientists at the British biofirm Oxitec have found a way to breed male Aedes aegypti with genetic fragments from E. coli bacteria and herpex simplex virus, along with coral and cabbage." I mean besides gigantic Mosquitos that can reproduce on common food source surfaces with a retro virus capable of infecting and rewriting your DNA with tentacles around a central mouth probuscus having a giant cabbage for a head. Not that females would notice because that's pretty much how males are normally.
More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc will undoubtedly be silenced under the noise of "oh my goooooddddd I'm getting gmo material forcefully injected into me by the guberment!!!!!??????1!!" Or "will I be able to get mosquito superpowers if I'm bitten?" I mean of course you wouldn't get superpowers. The Mosquitos aren't radioactive.
For the last 50 years people have had remote control aircraft. It's been simplicity itself to 'hack' them simply by using a stronger radio on the same channel. Even 20 years ago you could send them on 'autopilot' using relatively cheap gyros. Now suddenly after calling them 'drones' and a midnight drunken showboating excursion everything changes?!?!??? I'm really surprised they haven't been banned yet and anyone who purchased one branded an evil turrust! Won't someone please think of the children (in the government)?
Except these were quite wide where the pavement had been repaired. When you are in minnesota the roads are bad enough dodging potholes isn't practical. Furthermore people have been ticketed for dodging them. Apparently its a minor crime to deviate from your lane even for potholes.
For example on my 2002 Subaru impreza wrx the antilock brakes have almost caused an accident. On dry clean pavement, but with a couple of potholes, the wheel speeds can differ enough to activate the abs system. Then that prevents you from actually braking hard for a time of almost two seconds. It makes me want to disable the system unless I actually need it such as when the roads are icy. I was exiting the freeway when the driver ahead unexpectedly stopped in a dedicated turn lane for no real reason (probably just an over cautious bad driver). I went to brake and hit a pothole at the same time and found I couldn't. Then I had to panic press the brakes as hard as I could and wound up stopping much slower and came uncomfortably close to the stopped car. Honestly it's better to optionally bypass the abs on that car unless you need it because it cripples the ability to stop properly in good conditions and an attentive driver can do better.
on average at least...
Wow, that's like the worst first /. post ever. Actually read the article...
Never assign malice when simple greed and stupidity will do.
Jesus saves, Everyone else takes full damage...
That's just what my computer model said too...
Now if they would just redefine unemployed as employed we could fix the entire US economy in one fell swoop!
Lets say thier algorithms are 1000 times better than a human driver at avoiding accidents, at least statistically. Given that in 2009 over 40,000 auto deaths occured and over 250k childred were injured (http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/statistics.html) that would translate into hundereds or thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits against the navigation company per year. Not to mention the countless fender benders that the system would be responsible for. Even dumbasses running into the car at no fault to the navigation company will probably be dragged into court. You think you can code dumbassery avoidance into the car? They will build a better dumbass. You will see this technology in Japan and Germany well before the US simply due to the popular acceptance of these technologies as well as the legal ramifications. State of the art algorithms such as these are not nearly as good as a moderately competent driver under generalized circumstances - as a single example just put a google car on icy snowy roads and see how well its vision algorithm tracks the road or how well it's laser or sonic sensors work when fouled with snow.
This should only suprise people who think court cases are about facts and justice. It is well known that facts just get in the way of what's true and real.
You are right, they will inherit the earth. Usually at a depth of around 6' time permitting.
http://www.mcplusplus.com/
That oughtta get some more recruits into the war on ignorance! One day I hope to be as cool as Monzy...
IMHO the decline into craptacularism and lowered expectations started with the re-release of an otherwise good film.
Funny thing is that split coconuts probably aren't too common unless people or animals split them.
I don't doubt the science behind the LHC or the scenarios presented. But I wonder if it is possible to make a device (probaby insanely expensive and massive like the LHC) whereby the MHB could be accurately force fed like a veal calf untill it hit a critical point (tons - ktons - Mtons) of mass and would be a worthy earth destroyer. Nuclear weapons just destroy a little area and make the world far less habitable. A good size black hole could
I am always interested in the CO2 output of these pure electric vehicles. After all, right now we power most of the electric grid with coal and until that changes it dosen't make sense to wish or just assert what things out to be instead of just doing some simple research and high school physics calculations.
Let's look at the real data from the real sources...
According to Tesla motors official specifications [teslamotors.com] the motor has a output of 248 peak horsepower (185kW) and 276 ft/lbs (375 Nm) of torque. Also, for full charge it takes "3.5 hours using the Tesla Motors Home Connector at 240 Volts and 70 amps" which for simplicity and because they have neglected to disclose the actual kwh of full empty to full charge at room temperature (capacity will degrade with use) lets assume is 3.5hrs * (240V * 70A) = 58.8 kwh. Most likely this is an overly conservative estimate because of the constant current constant voltage nature of charging lithium batteries. This is more important than battery capacity because it is the load the power plant feels to charge your car and is the important quantity of interest. This will take you 244 miles on average (from same site) of course flat straight stretches will get better but it is the average that is most important. Total is 58.8 kwh/ 244 miles or about .241 kwh/mile. You can do the math on charging, but it should be obvious at this point that it is much cheaper than gasoline since electricity costs from around 7-20 cents/kwh in the US depending on numerous factors.
Now go look at EPA official website for determining CO2 emissions [epa.gov] (in the US) and you can see that generating one kwh gives you 7.18x10^-4 metric tons of CO2. In addition, they also state on the same page you generate 8.81*10-3 metric tons of CO2 per gallon gasoline.
Lets do some simple math. At .241 kwh/mi this gives you (.241 kwh/mi * 7.18x10^-4 metric tons CO2/kwh) = 1.73 x 10^-4 tons of CO2/mile. At 8.81 x 10^-3 metric tons of CO2/gallon (from EPA) then you have the Tesla getting 50.91 MPG equivelant CO2 pollution. Note that hybrid vehicles and diesels both come close to or exceed this value making the CO2 pollution for a pure electric not as rosy as some have been led to believe.
Note that this is bested by emissions from diesel vehicles at this point. Untill fission or fusion or solar or whatever comes on line, and given the cost of these vehicles, it dosent make sense. Even if the battery were somehow cheap *now* it still wouldn't make much enviornental sense over a efficent chemical fuel based design. the best bang for the buck, since CO2 polluters aren't all rich, is to utilize efficent fossil fuel vehicles
Also, you may not be aware, but electric motors are well over a hundred years old and have had about the same gains as chemical engines. There haven't been any big changes in the last 20 years compared to batteries - which have had substantial change.
I did not say that enviornmentalsts did ban nuclear power, just that they 'wanted' to do it for enviornmental reasons we now know are not scientfically sound.
you want a quicker end to enviornmental change? Start the masses on efficent chemical power - it is the most cost effective solution for the next decade at least and this is easy to show scientifically.
We could solve so many of these problems if people used rationality, evidence and the scientific foundation provided to us through centuries of effort instead of emotion, hopefulness and 'good intent'. A good analogy is the 'enviornemntalists' who tried to get nuclear power banned, accelerating global climate change and radiological pollution (through coal byproducts).
Let's look at the real data from the real sources...
According to Tesla motors official specifications the motor has a output of 248 peak horsepower (185kW) and 276 ft/lbs (375 Nm) of torque. Also, for full charge it takes "3.5 hours using the Tesla Motors Home Connector at 240 Volts and 70 amps" which for simplicity and because they have neglected to disclose the actual kwh of full empty to full charge at room temperature (capacity will degrade with use) lets assume is 3.5hrs * (240V * 70A) = 58.8 kwh. Most likely this is an overly conservative estimate because of the constant current constant voltage nature of charging lithium batteries. This is more important than battery capacity because it is the load the power plant feels to charge your car and is the important quantity of interest. This will take you 244 miles on average (from same site) of course flat straight stretches will get better but it is the average that is most important. Total is 58.8 kwh/ 244 miles or about .241 kwh/mile. You can do the math on charging, but it should be obvious at this point that it is much cheaper than gasoline since electricity costs from around 7-20 cents/kwh in the US depending on numerous factors.
Now go look at EPA official website for determining CO2 emissions (in the US) and you can see that generating one kwh gives you 7.18x10^-4 metric tons of CO2. In addition, they also state on the same page you generate 8.81*10-3 metric tons of CO2 per gallon gasoline.
Lets do some simple math. At .241 kwh/mi this gives you (.241 kwh/mi * 7.18x10^-4 metric tons CO2/kwh) = 1.73 x 10^-4 tons of CO2/mile. At 8.81 x 10^-3 metric tons of CO2/gallon (from EPA) then you have the Tesla getting 50.91 MPG equivelant CO2 pollution. Note that hybrid vehicles and diesels both come close to or exceed this value making the CO2 pollution for a pure electric not as rosy as some have been led to believe.
Note that this is bested by emissions from diesel vehicles at this point. Untill fission or fusion or solar or whatever comes on line, and given the cost of these vehicles, it dosent make sense. Even if the battery were somehow cheap *now* it still wouldn't make much enviornental sense over a efficent chemical fuel based design.
I was totally overpaying for all that black market info. I went to my dealer and showed him the link, now I save 30%! Thanks Geik^H^H^H^H Symantec!