Is it just me, or are things getting to the point where nary a day goes by without some headline causing us to check and make sure it's not April Fool's?
I swear, I've never seen policies as ridiculous as what's coming out nowadays. Even Caligula would balk at some of this shite.
Ever wonder how they determine whether or not to do a recall? The decision has nothing to do with safety - these companies (and their lawyers) determine which is cheaper: Fixing the problem on millions of cars, or paying out settlements for the handful of people who get killed because they didn't fix the issue. If it turns out to be cheaper just to let their customers die, so be it.
Have you watched Fight Club again recently? Not really that good. Most companies care about their reputation as well as, you know, not just killing people.
Fight Club (incidentally, written by my dad's former roommate) has nothing to do with anything - and where do you get your information? I worked in the automotive field for several years, which is where I learned how recall decisions are made. Reputation is one thing, but when 'protecting your reputation' is projected to cost more than not doing so, the corporation will always take the side of 'less money lost.' Always. For example, people have been petitioning GM for 20 years to get a recall on the seats in 1978-1988 Chevy trucks - the lack of a headrest increases the likelyhood that a passenger's head will slam into the back window exponentially. Not only has GM refused to so much as consider the recall, those truck sold like hotcakes regardless (I've owned 3 myself), even with the potentially deadly consequences being fairly well known.
That said, I presume you're once again speculating based on your own biases, and thus probably shouldn't be taken too seriously in this regard.
On the other hand, I've never actually heard of or seen such an update occur, so I have to wonder if you're referring to an actual occurance, or just speculating.
How computerized is your car? I'm guessing from your attitude that your car starts with a key, not a button, and doesn't have a lot of software assistance. If you're not an early adopter of car technologies, I wouldn't expect much to bugfix in the firmware. Mine has quite a few complex firmware systems that are somewhat new to Nissan, and it does get patched from time to time (and yet I didn't get the mature 4-wheel steering technology, for fear of hardware maintenance issues, perhaps I'm not entirely rational about this).
Ah, I see, so your current vehicle had to be brought in for "bug fixes," so you extrapolate that to mean all vehicles have the same problems. However, that is patently not the case.
Kinda funny how you mention keys, as if keyed vehicles are all built on 20 year old technology. Fact is, they aren't - modern keys often contain coded transponders, which activate in the cylinder and handshake with the on-board computer, authenticating the key so that it will actually start the vehicle. To me, that assumption only furthers my contention that you don't really know very much about either modern nor antiquated automotive systems, and thus your assertions are likely dubious. Don't feel bad - not being a trained physicist, I have the same problem when trying to bullshit my way through conversations with actual physicists.
Not hard to sabotage? My ass - good luck getting access to the vehicle while it's parked in my garage, or at my work parking lot covered in security cameras. That's the problem - right now, sabotage requires physical access to the vehicle. With an automated car, an attacker could potentially sit in the apartment complex across from your workplace/home, remotely hack into your vehicle, and do his mischief, all without ever needing to physically touch the car.
Oooh, a scary scary hacker! Is he also a terrorist pedophile drug dealer? We were talking about the government, and the government doesn't have much practical difficulty in attaching GPS units to peoples cars (cars in people's driveway were an easy target until a recent court ruling). They certainly wouldn't be bothered by security cameras own
That's assuming no catastrophic failures in that time period. All it will take is a couple major accidents caused by bad GPS/LIDAR/What-have-you, and back on the shelf it goes.
I disagree. The mood about this seems to be "as long as they're in fewer accidents than human drivers".
The mood in the pro-automated-car echo chamber, sure. Out on the streets here in "flyover country," you'd hear a much different sentiment - a lot of folks around here are distrustful of large, uncontrollable entities such as multinational corporations and the federal government. Rightfully so, if you ask me.
Nobody could prove that it was any sort of actual malfunction, yet Toyota sales still suffered from all the bad PR.
The same thing happened to Audi before them. It's starting to get through to people that those are fake (and the few isolated real examples haven't hurt sales much). Car companies already deal with dangerous problems that affect an entire model year today via recalls, usually with little fanfare. Most people with newer cars don't even realize how many firmware updates their dealer has done when their car was in for routine service (it usually just shows on the bill as "Recall #123456, no charge").
Ever wonder how they determine whether or not to do a recall? The decision has nothing to do with safety - these companies (and their lawyers) determine which is cheaper: Fixing the problem on millions of cars, or paying out settlements for the handful of people who get killed because they didn't fix the issue. If it turns out to be cheaper just to let their customers die, so be it.
I think the 'feel-good-firmware-updates' you speak of (which I have never had done to any of my vehicles - as a trained mechanic, I pay close attention to everything a shop does to my ride, up-to-and-including researching any claimed recall or TSB work) are less about fixing a real electro-mechanical problem, and more about a type of security theater; the type designed to create an illusion of caring, and thus, develop unwarranted customer loyalty.
On the other hand, I've never actually heard of or seen such an update occur, so I have to wonder if you're referring to an actual occurance, or just speculating.
My issue? The potential for intentional tampering by clandestine agents - why bother arguing with dissidents, when you can literally arrange for their vehicle to have an "unfortunate accident?
Are you one of these guys who think everything can get a fresh patent if you append "... on a computer"? Who thinks everything needs a new law about doing the same old crime "on a computer"? No? Then why would you think that there's anything new or interesting about causing an accident for someone "on a computer"? It's not like it's hard to sabotage someone's car in a likely-fatal way today, or (if you're the government) just shoot them dead in the street and leave some evidence of a mugging behind.
Not hard to sabotage? My ass - good luck getting access to the vehicle while it's parked in my garage, or at my work parking lot covered in security cameras. That's the problem - right now, sabotage requires physical access to the vehicle. With an automated car, an attacker could potentially sit in the apartment complex across from your workplace/home, remotely hack into your vehicle, and do his mischief, all without ever needing to physically touch the car.
Or, even better - government TLAs have back-door access built in, so they don't even have to bother hacking your stuff. Say the wrong thing to/about the wrong person, and you become the next Micheal Hastings. Waaay cheaper method of disposing of dissidents than having to pay salaries to saboteurs, and a lot harder to trace.
The main obstacle to self-driving cars isn't technological, it's cultural. Even if they get a commercially viable product on the road in 2020, it'll be at least a generation of these things being on the roads before people become comfortable enough with the technology to trust their lives to it en mass.
That's assuming no catastrophic failures in that time period. All it will take is a couple major accidents caused by bad GPS/LIDAR/What-have-you, and back on the shelf it goes.
Hell, it wouldn't even take an actual technological failure, but merely a perceived one - remember all those incidents of "unintended acceleration" in several Toyota models? Nobody could prove that it was any sort of actual malfunction, yet Toyota sales still suffered from all the bad PR.
My issue? The potential for intentional tampering by clandestine agents - why bother arguing with dissidents, when you can literally arrange for their vehicle to have an "unfortunate accident?" Death by GPS is enough of an problem with human-controlled cars; What happens when your auto-car insists on taking that hard left over the bluff, and manual control is locked out?
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."
1) Can an attacker use this exploit to remotely alter the heat and A/C settings?
2) Presuming the answer to 1 is yes, couldn't they use said exploit to overheat the element or over-cycle the compressor, causing a fire?
Third, kinda related question: Knowing that compressor motors and heating coils are the biggest amp draws in any circuit, how much does heater or A/C usage affect range? As in, running the A/C | heat at full blast would reduce the range from ~300 miles to what?
and before you go all, 'dur, NSA + GCSB != private corporate interests,' try to keep in mind that the assault on Dotcom's privacy all began with the MPAA alleging that he was involved in copyright infringement.
"Credit scores based on your actual credit history are far more reliable."
The banks agree completely. This Facebook thing is specifically intended for applicants who don't have any credit history.
OK, so either Ralph Wiggam has never heard the term "scope creep," or he works for one of the banks/credit reporting agencies, and therefore has a vested interest in demonizing anyone who points out how fucked up this practice is.
Then again, this is a person who chose to name themselves after a (literally) mentally retarded cartoon character from one of the crappiest shows on TV today...
No, not really. Sure, they'll make a big show, pontificating on the virtues of their party platform whilst simultaneously demonizing the opposing extreme ideologues, but truth be told the TLA's (who operate outside the Constitution and thus, above the federal government) have enough dirt scraped up by now to bury each and every one of those motherfuckers in a mountain of their own shit, Commander-in-Chief included.
Truth be told, they're all in the same sinking dinghy. The 'he said, she said' back and forth is purely for show.
are you high?
I wish - 'twould make this sort of knowledge a lot easier to cope with.
Assuming a weight capacity of 200 lb/passenger (doesn't seem an unreasonable estimate), minus the weight of the driver, you'd be able to fit about 363 Kilos of coca... I mean, 'supplies,' for an 8 hour journey. Maybe a little longer since there'd only be 1 oxygen-user on board.
Will buying one of these put you on a watch list in one of the Wars on ?
Are you kidding? Just talking about it probably got us both added to a watchlist or two.
Side note, OT: How the hell do you escape greater/less than signs???
Unless you have the fiber to wage war, I suggest you remain submissive.
Who the fuck gave you permission to speak, worm? Did you hear me jiggle my zipper? No, so shut your worthless fucking mouth until I tell you to open it.
See what I did there? So, are you pissed, or do you still want to remain submissive?
Blah blah blah look dude, if you're expecting to have every single tiny element and allusion spelled out for you, you're barkin' up the wrong tree. I expect people to have the presence of mind to figure things out for themselves, and as such do not bother with lengthy explanations of what I meant. Whether or not you choose to accept that is your prerogative, but I don't make a habit of over-explaining myself to people who don't get it - I clarified my statement in my last post, and whether or not you choose to accept said clarification isn't really my problem.
But hey - it's supposed to be nice this weekend, you should enjoy it! I know I'm going to.
Slashdot Mirror
Just checked out the link, and had to say: Wow.
There's bat-shit crazy, and then there's this guy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+policy
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+precedent
Only in the sense that bigots get relief from making fun of minorities.
I have no idea what you're on about here.
Otherwise, as someone from NJ, this is some high-level bullshit that should be mocked
Pretty sure that's what I was doing, thanks.
Is it just me, or are things getting to the point where nary a day goes by without some headline causing us to check and make sure it's not April Fool's?
I swear, I've never seen policies as ridiculous as what's coming out nowadays. Even Caligula would balk at some of this shite.
No wonder everybody hates New Jersey.
Oh, stop exaggerating; everyone does not hate New Jersey.
I, for one, love the incessant comic relief they provide the rest of the nation (save, perhaps, Florida).
Ever wonder how they determine whether or not to do a recall? The decision has nothing to do with safety - these companies (and their lawyers) determine which is cheaper: Fixing the problem on millions of cars, or paying out settlements for the handful of people who get killed because they didn't fix the issue. If it turns out to be cheaper just to let their customers die, so be it.
Have you watched Fight Club again recently? Not really that good. Most companies care about their reputation as well as, you know, not just killing people.
Fight Club (incidentally, written by my dad's former roommate) has nothing to do with anything - and where do you get your information? I worked in the automotive field for several years, which is where I learned how recall decisions are made. Reputation is one thing, but when 'protecting your reputation' is projected to cost more than not doing so, the corporation will always take the side of 'less money lost.' Always. For example, people have been petitioning GM for 20 years to get a recall on the seats in 1978-1988 Chevy trucks - the lack of a headrest increases the likelyhood that a passenger's head will slam into the back window exponentially. Not only has GM refused to so much as consider the recall, those truck sold like hotcakes regardless (I've owned 3 myself), even with the potentially deadly consequences being fairly well known.
That said, I presume you're once again speculating based on your own biases, and thus probably shouldn't be taken too seriously in this regard.
On the other hand, I've never actually heard of or seen such an update occur, so I have to wonder if you're referring to an actual occurance, or just speculating.
How computerized is your car? I'm guessing from your attitude that your car starts with a key, not a button, and doesn't have a lot of software assistance. If you're not an early adopter of car technologies, I wouldn't expect much to bugfix in the firmware. Mine has quite a few complex firmware systems that are somewhat new to Nissan, and it does get patched from time to time (and yet I didn't get the mature 4-wheel steering technology, for fear of hardware maintenance issues, perhaps I'm not entirely rational about this).
Ah, I see, so your current vehicle had to be brought in for "bug fixes," so you extrapolate that to mean all vehicles have the same problems. However, that is patently not the case.
Kinda funny how you mention keys, as if keyed vehicles are all built on 20 year old technology. Fact is, they aren't - modern keys often contain coded transponders, which activate in the cylinder and handshake with the on-board computer, authenticating the key so that it will actually start the vehicle. To me, that assumption only furthers my contention that you don't really know very much about either modern nor antiquated automotive systems, and thus your assertions are likely dubious. Don't feel bad - not being a trained physicist, I have the same problem when trying to bullshit my way through conversations with actual physicists.
Not hard to sabotage? My ass - good luck getting access to the vehicle while it's parked in my garage, or at my work parking lot covered in security cameras. That's the problem - right now, sabotage requires physical access to the vehicle. With an automated car, an attacker could potentially sit in the apartment complex across from your workplace/home, remotely hack into your vehicle, and do his mischief, all without ever needing to physically touch the car.
Oooh, a scary scary hacker! Is he also a terrorist pedophile drug dealer? We were talking about the government, and the government doesn't have much practical difficulty in attaching GPS units to peoples cars (cars in people's driveway were an easy target until a recent court ruling). They certainly wouldn't be bothered by security cameras own
That's assuming no catastrophic failures in that time period. All it will take is a couple major accidents caused by bad GPS/LIDAR/What-have-you, and back on the shelf it goes.
I disagree. The mood about this seems to be "as long as they're in fewer accidents than human drivers".
The mood in the pro-automated-car echo chamber, sure. Out on the streets here in "flyover country," you'd hear a much different sentiment - a lot of folks around here are distrustful of large, uncontrollable entities such as multinational corporations and the federal government. Rightfully so, if you ask me.
Nobody could prove that it was any sort of actual malfunction, yet Toyota sales still suffered from all the bad PR.
The same thing happened to Audi before them. It's starting to get through to people that those are fake (and the few isolated real examples haven't hurt sales much). Car companies already deal with dangerous problems that affect an entire model year today via recalls, usually with little fanfare. Most people with newer cars don't even realize how many firmware updates their dealer has done when their car was in for routine service (it usually just shows on the bill as "Recall #123456, no charge").
Ever wonder how they determine whether or not to do a recall? The decision has nothing to do with safety - these companies (and their lawyers) determine which is cheaper: Fixing the problem on millions of cars, or paying out settlements for the handful of people who get killed because they didn't fix the issue. If it turns out to be cheaper just to let their customers die, so be it.
I think the 'feel-good-firmware-updates' you speak of (which I have never had done to any of my vehicles - as a trained mechanic, I pay close attention to everything a shop does to my ride, up-to-and-including researching any claimed recall or TSB work) are less about fixing a real electro-mechanical problem, and more about a type of security theater; the type designed to create an illusion of caring, and thus, develop unwarranted customer loyalty.
On the other hand, I've never actually heard of or seen such an update occur, so I have to wonder if you're referring to an actual occurance, or just speculating.
My issue? The potential for intentional tampering by clandestine agents - why bother arguing with dissidents, when you can literally arrange for their vehicle to have an "unfortunate accident?
Are you one of these guys who think everything can get a fresh patent if you append "... on a computer"? Who thinks everything needs a new law about doing the same old crime "on a computer"? No? Then why would you think that there's anything new or interesting about causing an accident for someone "on a computer"? It's not like it's hard to sabotage someone's car in a likely-fatal way today, or (if you're the government) just shoot them dead in the street and leave some evidence of a mugging behind.
Not hard to sabotage? My ass - good luck getting access to the vehicle while it's parked in my garage, or at my work parking lot covered in security cameras. That's the problem - right now, sabotage requires physical access to the vehicle. With an automated car, an attacker could potentially sit in the apartment complex across from your workplace/home, remotely hack into your vehicle, and do his mischief, all without ever needing to physically touch the car.
Or, even better - government TLAs have back-door access built in, so they don't even have to bother hacking your stuff. Say the wrong thing to/about the wrong person, and you become the next Micheal Hastings. Waaay cheaper method of disposing of dissidents than having to pay salaries to saboteurs, and a lot harder to trace.
The main obstacle to self-driving cars isn't technological, it's cultural. Even if they get a commercially viable product on the road in 2020, it'll be at least a generation of these things being on the roads before people become comfortable enough with the technology to trust their lives to it en mass.
That's assuming no catastrophic failures in that time period. All it will take is a couple major accidents caused by bad GPS/LIDAR/What-have-you, and back on the shelf it goes.
Hell, it wouldn't even take an actual technological failure, but merely a perceived one - remember all those incidents of "unintended acceleration" in several Toyota models? Nobody could prove that it was any sort of actual malfunction, yet Toyota sales still suffered from all the bad PR.
My issue? The potential for intentional tampering by clandestine agents - why bother arguing with dissidents, when you can literally arrange for their vehicle to have an "unfortunate accident?" Death by GPS is enough of an problem with human-controlled cars; What happens when your auto-car insists on taking that hard left over the bluff, and manual control is locked out?
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."
-- George Orwell, 1984
This brings 2 questions to mind:
1) Can an attacker use this exploit to remotely alter the heat and A/C settings?
2) Presuming the answer to 1 is yes, couldn't they use said exploit to overheat the element or over-cycle the compressor, causing a fire?
Third, kinda related question: Knowing that compressor motors and heating coils are the biggest amp draws in any circuit, how much does heater or A/C usage affect range? As in, running the A/C | heat at full blast would reduce the range from ~300 miles to what?
Read the article. This 'flaw' requires a Tesla owner's email address AND password to 'exploit'.
Well, then, thank $deity that email addresses are impossible to find out, and that passwords are uncrackable.
"RPMs" has been a standard abbreviation for "Revolutions Per Minute" since... well, probably since the advent of reciprocating assemblies.
Where the hell have you been?
Judging from his responses thus far, I'm inclined to believe he really is the son of Chief Wiggam.
Congrats on having heard the term "scope creep". Maybe one day you'll actually know what it means.
What're you, 10? Maybe 11?
Get off my lawn before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.
You're right. It's all a big conspiracy by The Man.
OK, judging from this blistering comeback, I may have been mistaken - this could be the person that Simpson's character Ralph Wiggam is modeled after.
Silk Road, duh.
Where else would you get one?
Only if you're applying for credit or an account at a financial institution as "bmo".
Riiiiiiight... because the government and massive corporate interests never ever abuse panoptic surveillance and collude to single out individuals for a good solid buggering...
and before you go all, 'dur, NSA + GCSB != private corporate interests,' try to keep in mind that the assault on Dotcom's privacy all began with the MPAA alleging that he was involved in copyright infringement.
"Credit scores based on your actual credit history are far more reliable."
The banks agree completely. This Facebook thing is specifically intended for applicants who don't have any credit history.
OK, so either Ralph Wiggam has never heard the term "scope creep," or he works for one of the banks/credit reporting agencies, and therefore has a vested interest in demonizing anyone who points out how fucked up this practice is.
Then again, this is a person who chose to name themselves after a (literally) mentally retarded cartoon character from one of the crappiest shows on TV today...
Having that come out would make me smile like very little else could.
I second that emotion.
Because no one in Congress wants to get Obama?
No, not really. Sure, they'll make a big show, pontificating on the virtues of their party platform whilst simultaneously demonizing the opposing extreme ideologues, but truth be told the TLA's (who operate outside the Constitution and thus, above the federal government) have enough dirt scraped up by now to bury each and every one of those motherfuckers in a mountain of their own shit, Commander-in-Chief included.
Truth be told, they're all in the same sinking dinghy. The 'he said, she said' back and forth is purely for show.
are you high?
I wish - 'twould make this sort of knowledge a lot easier to cope with.
Assuming a weight capacity of 200 lb/passenger (doesn't seem an unreasonable estimate), minus the weight of the driver, you'd be able to fit about 363 Kilos of coca... I mean, 'supplies,' for an 8 hour journey. Maybe a little longer since there'd only be 1 oxygen-user on board.
Will buying one of these put you on a watch list in one of the Wars on ?
Are you kidding? Just talking about it probably got us both added to a watchlist or two.
Side note, OT: How the hell do you escape greater/less than signs???
No, Mossad/Al Queda is going to plant three new surface to air missile launchers.
FTFM :)
No, Mossad is going to plant three new surface to air missile launchers.
FTFY.
Unless you have the fiber to wage war, I suggest you remain submissive.
Who the fuck gave you permission to speak, worm? Did you hear me jiggle my zipper? No, so shut your worthless fucking mouth until I tell you to open it.
See what I did there? So, are you pissed, or do you still want to remain submissive?
Blah blah blah look dude, if you're expecting to have every single tiny element and allusion spelled out for you, you're barkin' up the wrong tree. I expect people to have the presence of mind to figure things out for themselves, and as such do not bother with lengthy explanations of what I meant. Whether or not you choose to accept that is your prerogative, but I don't make a habit of over-explaining myself to people who don't get it - I clarified my statement in my last post, and whether or not you choose to accept said clarification isn't really my problem.
But hey - it's supposed to be nice this weekend, you should enjoy it! I know I'm going to.