I want EV's to succeed as well, but as much as I respect SpaceX and some of Musk's other accomplishments, I don't see Tesla as furthering the progress of EV's. The poster who called them a dystopian surveillance vehicle wasn't wrong.
This is the future of automobiles, like it or not (and I don't.) Every vehicle which adopts true level 3 autonomy (unlike Tesla, so far) will be spying on you and exchanging information at all times. Major automakers have already made agreements for information sharing with other automakers, and the companies they've agreed to use to transfer the data are poised to sell that information — which you can be sure will be insufficiently "anonymized". Tons of GM and Subaru vehicles have OnStar and are already [capable of] doing the same kind of spying, even if you don't have a subscription. They can't exactly "take over" your vehicle, but they can shut it down, and they can listen in on your conversations.
Meanwhile, I have a car that doesn't even have a PCM. The only electronics needed are in the glow system timer, and that could literally be replaced by a wind-up motor with a cam which actuates a switch. Engine shutoff is done with a vacuum switch attached to the rear of the ignition lock. There IS a computer attached to the motor... to activate the EGR system. It's irrelevant, and trivially bypassed with a BB. There is no computer to operate the transmission, which communicates with the engine via a steel cable, and a vacuum line — yet it has a hill sensor. If privacy is important to you, allow me to suggest you get such a vehicle (W126 300SD) while they're still cheap. 30 mpg freeway when the valves are nicely adjusted, not bad around town, pretty comfortable, phenomenally smooth ride as the factory shocks are Bilstein HDs. You can even get them with ABS, if you like. They're kind of a dog but with sufficient effort you can double their horsepower (to a whopping 240, heh. But they have boatloads of torque.)
With that said, I'd swap it for any credible EV (not a Leaf) in a heartbeat, so I never had to dick with the ICE again.
First off, SpaceX wouldn't destroy my argument, the technology necessary to send people into space is decades old
That's not the argument.
and at any rate, he's behind Blue Origin.
How many orbital flights has Blue Origin made?
Rather than hiring competent people to help set up the assembly line and whatnot, he's been calling for excessive increases in capacity above and beyond what they could reasonably achieve.
He tried lots of automation, he backed off from that, now they're producing lots of vehicles for their size. Naturally he hopes to get there eventually, like every manufacturer.
As for the Hyperloop, that's not a next generation transportation technology. He had the idea, but it's so bad that even Musk has backed away from it. They still aren't anywhere near competitive with regular high speed rail, let alone that maglev stuff that the Japanese already have in service.
Accomplished? Other than coasting on other people's work, what has he actually managed to accomplish? In this case, Tesla was already founded when he attached himself to it, and the company itself would be doing far better without him.
1) I notice you didn't mention SpaceX, since that would completely destroy your argument. 2) Tesla is a cult of Musk. Everyone but you understands that Tesla would not be doing better without him.
Those stupid Hyperloops that he's been pushing, are completely by other people now, he doesn't have any involvement.
So what you're saying is that he catalyzed next-generation transportation? Thanks for agreeing with me.
I don't care about you either. You are another moron on here. Space Nutter. Time to grow up.
There's only two ways for humanity to grow up. Either reduce resource consumption and energy expenditure dramatically, or expand into space. Any other course of action spells doom.
I know Elon Musk is your personal hero and savior, but to the rest of us he is a scummy salesguy.
Speak for yourself. I'm not in love with him like Rei, but I also respect what he's managed to accomplish, and where he's choosing to spend his money. I want EVs to succeed, and he's helped that. I want space to be developed more, and he's furthering that.
This is why app stores are bad. They can't (google) or won't (apple) put in the effort to properly vet all the apps, but the fact that they are in an app store lends them an undeserved legitimacy. The vendors have to drive traffic to their app store to make money, so it's not in their best interest to be too exclusive. Both Apple and Google have delivered malware via their app stores, and so has Microsoft for that matter, so this is a universal problem. With Google or Microsoft, at least you're not forced to use their app store. You can still use the old-fashioned method of going directly to trusted distributors.
It is possible to obfuscate subtle bugs within your code, so even if the EU had access to the source, it would require an incredibly thorough audit of the code. Just look at how multiple audits of open source packages such as openssl continue to turn up subtle, exploitable bugs that have been undetected for years. Finding those issues can be quite challenging.
Yes, but this is an issue even for in-house software development, so that really doesn't change the situation from home-grown.
I'm struggling with this entire post. Replace Huawei with Cisco and China with the USA and your post still makes perfect sense.
That's a good argument for any nation with the means to develop their own communications infrastructure. And also for any nation with the means to develop the means to do so. And also for OSS comms infrastructure wherever it is feasible. But it's not a valid argument against being concerned about employing Huawei equipment, so it boils down to whataboutism.
Besides, once they are widely installed, what are you going to do when you find out they can no longer be trusted (after a system-wide software update), rip out the entire infrastructure?
There's only one thing that would make this make the slightest sense, and that's to demand full, compilable/installable sources for all components, and also full documentation of all of the silicon — and also inspectors embedded in the company to make sure that the silicon is being produced from the provided data. Anything even slightly less invalidates the entire concept.
Windows is not open source, but users and developers are cheaper.
You're ignoring the cost of running Windows. Not just the up front costs, but the maintenance costs, and the lost opportunity costs when closed source makes something difficult or impractical.
I'd rather not pay the taxes needed to support all OSS.
OSS supports YOU at the same time you support IT. It's not all outlay, you get the software back, and you get improvements from others.
One has to "fight" with a situation where you have the same library named differently, installed in different locations, installed with older versions of the same depending on distribution...
Unix supports that scenario just fine. It was only Windows where it was ever a problem (DLL hell) though even Microsoft has largely solved it now.
(1) Offensive cyber weapons. If they are even allowed to exist at all, I don't want my government supplying script kiddies with scary dangerous zero-day exploits.
They shouldn't exist at all. The responsible thing for an agency tasked with securing the nation's communications (like the NSA) to do is to report vulnerabilities to vendors, so that holes can be patched, and the nation's communications can be made more secure. That's literally their first job.
Software used in weapon systems. Why should we make it easier for adversaries to clone our tech? And why should we make it easier for them to come up with countermeasures for those systems?
Agreed.
Some software used in the criminal justice, law enforcement, and federal court system. This is a bit more ambiguous, but it is plausible to me that someone could use that software to either game the court system and make sure their cases only came before judges who would rule more favorably towards them, or could use them to make it more difficult for law enforcement to detect and combat criminal activities.
It sounds like you're advocating security by obscurity...
If you go for presidency on a platform to "drain the swamp" (ie combat corruption) most sane people would argue that transparency is a key component in that fight.
Alas, even though he showed his tax returns, this precedent was somewhat set by Obama. How? He promised to run the most transparent administration in history, and wound up running the least transparent... at least until this one. I don't argue that it excuses anything, but it does make that argument a lot more difficult to carry off.
The point is, you have to make your case to convince others to believe as you do. Sending cops around to arrest them instead is a well-worn path to dystopia.
So is letting willfully ignorant tools spread disease. What's the lesser of evils, here?
This resulted in numerous employees being hit with overdraft and bounced check charges, which we covered, but it probably tarnished their credit scores.
It shouldn't tarnish their credit scores until they're reported to chex systems, which doesn't happen until they freeze your account for nonpayment. BofA pulled that trick where they don't process deposits but they do process withdrawals, which resulting in them reporting me... cocks.
Slashdot Mirror
I want EV's to succeed as well, but as much as I respect SpaceX and some of Musk's other accomplishments, I don't see Tesla as furthering the progress of EV's. The poster who called them a dystopian surveillance vehicle wasn't wrong.
This is the future of automobiles, like it or not (and I don't.) Every vehicle which adopts true level 3 autonomy (unlike Tesla, so far) will be spying on you and exchanging information at all times. Major automakers have already made agreements for information sharing with other automakers, and the companies they've agreed to use to transfer the data are poised to sell that information — which you can be sure will be insufficiently "anonymized". Tons of GM and Subaru vehicles have OnStar and are already [capable of] doing the same kind of spying, even if you don't have a subscription. They can't exactly "take over" your vehicle, but they can shut it down, and they can listen in on your conversations.
Meanwhile, I have a car that doesn't even have a PCM. The only electronics needed are in the glow system timer, and that could literally be replaced by a wind-up motor with a cam which actuates a switch. Engine shutoff is done with a vacuum switch attached to the rear of the ignition lock. There IS a computer attached to the motor... to activate the EGR system. It's irrelevant, and trivially bypassed with a BB. There is no computer to operate the transmission, which communicates with the engine via a steel cable, and a vacuum line — yet it has a hill sensor. If privacy is important to you, allow me to suggest you get such a vehicle (W126 300SD) while they're still cheap. 30 mpg freeway when the valves are nicely adjusted, not bad around town, pretty comfortable, phenomenally smooth ride as the factory shocks are Bilstein HDs. You can even get them with ABS, if you like. They're kind of a dog but with sufficient effort you can double their horsepower (to a whopping 240, heh. But they have boatloads of torque.)
With that said, I'd swap it for any credible EV (not a Leaf) in a heartbeat, so I never had to dick with the ICE again.
First off, SpaceX wouldn't destroy my argument, the technology necessary to send people into space is decades old
That's not the argument.
and at any rate, he's behind Blue Origin.
How many orbital flights has Blue Origin made?
Rather than hiring competent people to help set up the assembly line and whatnot, he's been calling for excessive increases in capacity above and beyond what they could reasonably achieve.
He tried lots of automation, he backed off from that, now they're producing lots of vehicles for their size. Naturally he hopes to get there eventually, like every manufacturer.
As for the Hyperloop, that's not a next generation transportation technology. He had the idea, but it's so bad that even Musk has backed away from it. They still aren't anywhere near competitive with regular high speed rail, let alone that maglev stuff that the Japanese already have in service.
Rome wasn't sacked in a day.
Accomplished? Other than coasting on other people's work, what has he actually managed to accomplish? In this case, Tesla was already founded when he attached himself to it, and the company itself would be doing far better without him.
1) I notice you didn't mention SpaceX, since that would completely destroy your argument.
2) Tesla is a cult of Musk. Everyone but you understands that Tesla would not be doing better without him.
Those stupid Hyperloops that he's been pushing, are completely by other people now, he doesn't have any involvement.
So what you're saying is that he catalyzed next-generation transportation? Thanks for agreeing with me.
I don't care about you either. You are another moron on here. Space Nutter. Time to grow up.
There's only two ways for humanity to grow up. Either reduce resource consumption and energy expenditure dramatically, or expand into space. Any other course of action spells doom.
I know Elon Musk is your personal hero and savior, but to the rest of us he is a scummy salesguy.
Speak for yourself. I'm not in love with him like Rei, but I also respect what he's managed to accomplish, and where he's choosing to spend his money. I want EVs to succeed, and he's helped that. I want space to be developed more, and he's furthering that.
This is why app stores are bad. They can't (google) or won't (apple) put in the effort to properly vet all the apps, but the fact that they are in an app store lends them an undeserved legitimacy. The vendors have to drive traffic to their app store to make money, so it's not in their best interest to be too exclusive. Both Apple and Google have delivered malware via their app stores, and so has Microsoft for that matter, so this is a universal problem. With Google or Microsoft, at least you're not forced to use their app store. You can still use the old-fashioned method of going directly to trusted distributors.
Nope.
Please explain "Play Protect"
Don't play stupid with me. These aren't applications, they're "apps".
Quick quiz, hotshot. What is "apps" short for?
It's commodified software for retards, and the normalization of not being in control of your own hardware.
As opposed to webapps, where you're not in control of your own data?
Apps literally exist because corps found the web sandbox too restrictive, and wanted to suck up vastly more data (especially accurate location data).
Applications existed before the web did. What are you on about?
They were. The Play Store is supposed to be curated.
It is possible to obfuscate subtle bugs within your code, so even if the EU had access to the source, it would require an incredibly thorough audit of the code. Just look at how multiple audits of open source packages such as openssl continue to turn up subtle, exploitable bugs that have been undetected for years. Finding those issues can be quite challenging.
Yes, but this is an issue even for in-house software development, so that really doesn't change the situation from home-grown.
I'm struggling with this entire post. Replace Huawei with Cisco and China with the USA and your post still makes perfect sense.
That's a good argument for any nation with the means to develop their own communications infrastructure. And also for any nation with the means to develop the means to do so. And also for OSS comms infrastructure wherever it is feasible. But it's not a valid argument against being concerned about employing Huawei equipment, so it boils down to whataboutism.
Besides, once they are widely installed, what are you going to do when you find out they can no longer be trusted (after a system-wide software update), rip out the entire infrastructure?
There's only one thing that would make this make the slightest sense, and that's to demand full, compilable/installable sources for all components, and also full documentation of all of the silicon — and also inspectors embedded in the company to make sure that the silicon is being produced from the provided data. Anything even slightly less invalidates the entire concept.
Apparently the submitter - and editors - fail to realize that many IT systems in the government are not PCs.
The non-PC systems are waning, though. These days, the government is more likely to use cloud services, or otherwise employ a cluster of PCs.
Windows is not open source, but users and developers are cheaper.
You're ignoring the cost of running Windows. Not just the up front costs, but the maintenance costs, and the lost opportunity costs when closed source makes something difficult or impractical.
I'd rather not pay the taxes needed to support all OSS.
OSS supports YOU at the same time you support IT. It's not all outlay, you get the software back, and you get improvements from others.
One has to "fight" with a situation where you have the same library named differently, installed in different locations, installed with older versions of the same depending on distribution...
Unix supports that scenario just fine. It was only Windows where it was ever a problem (DLL hell) though even Microsoft has largely solved it now.
(1) Offensive cyber weapons. If they are even allowed to exist at all, I don't want my government supplying script kiddies with scary dangerous zero-day exploits.
They shouldn't exist at all. The responsible thing for an agency tasked with securing the nation's communications (like the NSA) to do is to report vulnerabilities to vendors, so that holes can be patched, and the nation's communications can be made more secure. That's literally their first job.
Software used in weapon systems. Why should we make it easier for adversaries to clone our tech? And why should we make it easier for them to come up with countermeasures for those systems?
Agreed.
Some software used in the criminal justice, law enforcement, and federal court system. This is a bit more ambiguous, but it is plausible to me that someone could use that software to either game the court system and make sure their cases only came before judges who would rule more favorably towards them, or could use them to make it more difficult for law enforcement to detect and combat criminal activities.
It sounds like you're advocating security by obscurity...
Other municipalities started to use this software, and one of the commercial suppliers of a competing plugin was not amused.
The city wasn't amused by the incompetence of the commercial supplier.
The currently legislation prevents unfair competition by provision costs,
There is no unfair competition because the commercial vendor is free to distribute the open source product as well.
If you go for presidency on a platform to "drain the swamp" (ie combat corruption) most sane people would argue that transparency is a key component in that fight.
Alas, even though he showed his tax returns, this precedent was somewhat set by Obama. How? He promised to run the most transparent administration in history, and wound up running the least transparent... at least until this one. I don't argue that it excuses anything, but it does make that argument a lot more difficult to carry off.
The point is, you have to make your case to convince others to believe as you do. Sending cops around to arrest them instead is a well-worn path to dystopia.
So is letting willfully ignorant tools spread disease. What's the lesser of evils, here?
Darn. I thought boiling water sterilizes. Oh well...
It does, but it can take up to 30 minutes.
Sometimes I turn pessimistic and think that we need a good war (or maybe measles) to clear out the country of morons
Measles might work, but a war doesn't. The bravest volunteer, and the brightest can be hit with a mortar along with the dimmest.
Those vehicles (in the Nova era) had inadequate brakes from the factory :)
This resulted in numerous employees being hit with overdraft and bounced check charges, which we covered, but it probably tarnished their credit scores.
It shouldn't tarnish their credit scores until they're reported to chex systems, which doesn't happen until they freeze your account for nonpayment. BofA pulled that trick where they don't process deposits but they do process withdrawals, which resulting in them reporting me... cocks.
Who still uses banks? There's no reason for any regular person to use a bank, when there are plenty of great credit unions. None.
I agree, but beyond that, who still uses Wells Fargo? It's a criminal conspiracy.