Trouble is, all of the gadget geeks that willingly fork over huge sums of money to have all this home automation stuff have no idea how vulnerable they are. Sadly, it's going to take someone using the gaping security holes to break into the house and do physical harm to one or more of the people in the house before anyone starts to pay attention.
The first artificial satellite didn't do anything but send out a radio beep. Artificial satellites don't necessarily have to be all that sophisticated if they don't need to actually be useful.
I disagree. Computer controlled fuel injection in the last 20-30 years has done more to improve driveability, reliability, fuel efficiency, and emissions reduction than anything else anyone has ever been able to do with purely mechanical systems. A modern V6 makes as much power as a 1980's V8 at twice the economy or more. All due to computer control.
I grew up learning to work on cars and I can still tune a carburetor with the best of them. But I really love the new computerized systems. Once you figure out how they work, it's a cake walk to figure out what's going on with your car. Plug in your scanner and the car tells you what's wrong. No more farting around trying umpteen different things that "might" be the problem. You read the code and know exactly where the problem is manifesting itself.
Now, way too many people don't know both ends of it. They may know just the mechanics of old school engines and they're afraid of the new technology so they can't begin to figure out what's going on. And, worse, kids these days aren't learning how things work. They can master talking to the computer with ease but they have no idea what's going on behind the scenes so they have no idea how to fix what's wrong even when told what the problem is. And both sides seem to want to refuse to learn, which is the real tragedy.
I think they're talking about how to target advertisements at people once they are letting their autonomous car drive and they don't need to focus attention on the road.
I'm pretty sure they don't need to rebuild the existing mobile infrastructure to stream data to people in their cars. Passengers seem to be doing just fine with the apps on their mobile devices while the driver is worrying about the car.
Besides, autonomous cars are a very long ways off. Sure, we'll be getting more and more safety features as they work towards autonomy. And we'll get closer to autonomy over the years. But the last thing we want to do is to throw in a bunch of distracting crap while the driver still needs to stay focused on the road. For the passengers? Sure. Adding features for people who have no responsibility for controlling the vehicle is something that someone would buy. But until we have truly autonomous cars and the driver is 100% taken out of the loop, the last thing we need is a computer bombarding the driver with distractions.
Well sure. Pretty much anything would be better than this drek. But they're committed to continuing it despite the numerous protests. Not much we can do about it. I think I'll go read some stereo instructions for fun instead.
If you grant permission to search your car and they find a large amount of cash, it can be forfeit even if you haven't been convicted of a crime. That's the way civil forfeiture works in this country.
Unfortunately, many searches leading to civil forfeiture are made when a person doesn't realize he can say no when the cop asks to search his car. When you grant permission, all the rules about warrants and exigent circumstances get pitched because you gave consent. If there was ever a need to inform people of their basic rights, it's when a cop asks to search your car for no reason. They should be forced to read you your rights when they ask so that you can say no with confidence.
The FAA don't yet allow drone flights like this and that pretty much means it isn't yet acceptable safe.
There are a lot of good reasons for that. Some reasons aren't as good. But the reasons the FAA is careful is only partially driven by an avoidance of litigation. They do take their mission seriously and that mission is to ensure that the airspace is as safe as it can be. Quite frankly, drone technology is in its infancy. They have the birds in the air, sure, but they do lack many significant and necessary safety features because, as you suggest, the consequences of a significant weight moving through the air coming into contact with something it shouldn't at speed are non-trivial. Drones need to be able to mitigate the more significant problems better than they do now. Just throwing up your hands and saying "oh well" when a drone crashes isn't good enough.
I've worked on a number of military projects in my career. Saying it "should be built and controlled to military standards" is a very low bar to clear. I would want it to be held to a much higher standard than that. Even civilian FAA standards are substantially higher than military standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Trouble is, all of the gadget geeks that willingly fork over huge sums of money to have all this home automation stuff have no idea how vulnerable they are. Sadly, it's going to take someone using the gaping security holes to break into the house and do physical harm to one or more of the people in the house before anyone starts to pay attention.
The first artificial satellite didn't do anything but send out a radio beep. Artificial satellites don't necessarily have to be all that sophisticated if they don't need to actually be useful.
Fascinating. You say that as if you believe the automakers care about the environment.
I disagree. Computer controlled fuel injection in the last 20-30 years has done more to improve driveability, reliability, fuel efficiency, and emissions reduction than anything else anyone has ever been able to do with purely mechanical systems. A modern V6 makes as much power as a 1980's V8 at twice the economy or more. All due to computer control.
I grew up learning to work on cars and I can still tune a carburetor with the best of them. But I really love the new computerized systems. Once you figure out how they work, it's a cake walk to figure out what's going on with your car. Plug in your scanner and the car tells you what's wrong. No more farting around trying umpteen different things that "might" be the problem. You read the code and know exactly where the problem is manifesting itself.
Now, way too many people don't know both ends of it. They may know just the mechanics of old school engines and they're afraid of the new technology so they can't begin to figure out what's going on. And, worse, kids these days aren't learning how things work. They can master talking to the computer with ease but they have no idea what's going on behind the scenes so they have no idea how to fix what's wrong even when told what the problem is. And both sides seem to want to refuse to learn, which is the real tragedy.
They say you shouldn't be allowed to repair your own car because you might not do it right
They say that as if the dealers can do it right. Apparently they've never been to a dealer to get their car serviced.
What do you mean? A company might be dishonest when they audit themselves for marketing purposes? I don't believe you... /sarcasm
I think they're talking about how to target advertisements at people once they are letting their autonomous car drive and they don't need to focus attention on the road.
I'm pretty sure they don't need to rebuild the existing mobile infrastructure to stream data to people in their cars. Passengers seem to be doing just fine with the apps on their mobile devices while the driver is worrying about the car.
Besides, autonomous cars are a very long ways off. Sure, we'll be getting more and more safety features as they work towards autonomy. And we'll get closer to autonomy over the years. But the last thing we want to do is to throw in a bunch of distracting crap while the driver still needs to stay focused on the road. For the passengers? Sure. Adding features for people who have no responsibility for controlling the vehicle is something that someone would buy. But until we have truly autonomous cars and the driver is 100% taken out of the loop, the last thing we need is a computer bombarding the driver with distractions.
So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social.
Water is wet, the Pope is Catholic, and bears do their business in the woods.
What choice do I have? It is as if you have grabbed me by the base of my snarglies!
Careful. This is a US based website. Many clods won't know you're talking about 1 April. They think 1/4/15 is January 4th.
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
They don't cover many actual tech news stories on any other day, why should today be any different?
Well sure. Pretty much anything would be better than this drek. But they're committed to continuing it despite the numerous protests. Not much we can do about it. I think I'll go read some stereo instructions for fun instead.
It almost felt like they skipped it in the beginning.
Maybe we can come up with jokes that are less tedious and irritating than a 4 year old telling knock-knock jokes*.
* I didn't come up with this comparison. Someone in another story did. But it very accurately characterizes the "jokes" being posted today.
It would be tolerable if the jokes were, oh, I don't know... Funny?
It's like being rick-rolled, geek-style (shit... now /. is going to post one of those, I just know it...)
Now I have to be on the lookout for bad music in my bad jokes. Thanks a pantload, Chet.
Sorry. that should be "Beowulf cluster of ponies running Linux". My coffee hasn't kicked in yet...
Throw in building a beowulf cluster running ponies and you might be on to something...
Can we please stop with the idiotic stories? One was funny. Two was meh. Three was dumb. At this point it's gone past annoying.
If you grant permission to search your car and they find a large amount of cash, it can be forfeit even if you haven't been convicted of a crime. That's the way civil forfeiture works in this country.
Unfortunately, many searches leading to civil forfeiture are made when a person doesn't realize he can say no when the cop asks to search his car. When you grant permission, all the rules about warrants and exigent circumstances get pitched because you gave consent. If there was ever a need to inform people of their basic rights, it's when a cop asks to search your car for no reason. They should be forced to read you your rights when they ask so that you can say no with confidence.
The FAA don't yet allow drone flights like this and that pretty much means it isn't yet acceptable safe.
There are a lot of good reasons for that. Some reasons aren't as good. But the reasons the FAA is careful is only partially driven by an avoidance of litigation. They do take their mission seriously and that mission is to ensure that the airspace is as safe as it can be. Quite frankly, drone technology is in its infancy. They have the birds in the air, sure, but they do lack many significant and necessary safety features because, as you suggest, the consequences of a significant weight moving through the air coming into contact with something it shouldn't at speed are non-trivial. Drones need to be able to mitigate the more significant problems better than they do now. Just throwing up your hands and saying "oh well" when a drone crashes isn't good enough.
I've worked on a number of military projects in my career. Saying it "should be built and controlled to military standards" is a very low bar to clear. I would want it to be held to a much higher standard than that. Even civilian FAA standards are substantially higher than military standards.