ABS and Traction control do not need to be networked to a larger system that is wireless accessible or even programmable.
Ideally, these systems should hardwared. By all means, give them some updatable firmware but have that be something that requires a per chip hardware connection to facilitate.
You can't hack a VCR from 1995 with a bluetooth radio even though the VCR has some sort of computer in it.
Lawsuits seem to only be useful for catching defects rather then actual design flaws.
As to congress, you're talking about people that went into politics young in many cases. Most of them aspired to office from a fairly early point in their career. And therefore they tend to have very specialized skills which have little utility outside of strong arming other politicians.
Depends on how complicated the system is actually.
If all you want is remote starting, then have a simple radio/computer system that interfaces with another very simple non-programmable bit of hardware. All the radio/computer unit can do is send a "GO" command to the ignition unit. The ignition unit should have a hardware fail safe that prevents it from operating if the alternator is producing power. In this way, the remote start will only start a car that is off and will have zero impact on a car that is on. Furthermore, compromising the system will not give one access to anything else since the remote start doesn't have to be interfaced with anything but the secure hardware failsafe ignition system.
Assuming that is correct, does that system need to be connected to anything else?
If the traction control system is connected to the brake servos and throttle servo, does that system need to be linked to the wireless ignition system or my bluetooth stereo? What is more, I do want manual over rides for all these things.
I have an older car and it is profoundly simple in the way that everything works. I don't see why I can't have all the relevant modern features without compromising the underlying robustness of the system.
No, the military's physical security is a soldier with a loaded rifle trained to kill you if you touch things you're not supposed to touch
Lets say I took any bit of modern military hardware and just dump it in the middle of a hacker convention. What exactly are the odds that someone there won't be able to break the lockouts?
Military gear is not designed to be hack proof. It is designed to be deadly and robust. How long did it take the Iranians to reverse engineer the drone we lost in their territory? They had pretty comprehensive access to its systems almost immediately.
Physical security is the first rule. If the hacker can TOUCH the computer then you're basically fucked.
I'm going to have to side with the Colonial Fleet on this one and say the systems should not be networked at all.
Each of these systems has their own internal sensor package and programming. My fuel air sensors do not need to be coordinated with my anti lock breaks. The two operate just fine isolated.
What is more, some systems should be dumb. Toaster simple. Simplicity means not just more secure but more robust. Simple systems tend to be less prone to failure and error.
If you let the machine get into the hands of hackers... they will break it the controls. And that is doubly certain if the device is mostly functional regardless. It will interact and that will let people either exploit flaws in the security or just decrypt it.
If you want to stop hackers from getting into the system then the first thing you have to do is make it pretty much impossible for a hacker to physically access the system. As in steel. And beyond that, the wireless connections are a serious vulnerability. Scale them back or secure systems from the wireless radios.
If you can't do that, then at the very least don't let a hacker turn my engine off while I'm driving down the free way. Some features are simply not worth that vulnerability.
The sad thing is that they have been around long enough to know better. They're just hamming it up for the camera.
Think of those soccer players that fall to the ground weeping over their kicked shin right when a penalty would be very convenient for their team. Same thing basically.
You point this out and they call it "victim blaming"... even when the people you're blaming have admitted to faking it. It is still called victim blaming.
You're missing the point. I'm not taking anything away from you.
If I replaced what you have now with a PC made to appear to be the same thing you wouldn't even notice the difference.
The big difference would be that porting games from the console to the PC would be instant because they'd literally be the same thing.
What you want is a standardized system with less configuration, a small specialized form factor, and a TV centric GUI.
Do you honestly think a PC cannot have these things? If it can... then I could replace your Xbox with a gaming PC with an identical GUI, squeeze the machine into a similar looking box, and how exactly would you tell the difference? And if you could... why would you care?
See my point? Consoles are an anachronism. They made sense at one point but today they are pointless.
The primary difference between a PC and a console is software. That means the hardware distinctions are an utter waste of time.
If you like. Though really, I think all we need is something like the Microsoft TV GUI or something like XBMC but for games. In fact, steam already has a TV GUI which you can use right now. I think they call it big... something. It is under view or something in steam. I've turned it on a few times by accident. If all your games are loaded into steam, you can have steam auto load with the boot and then open into that mode.
I use some wireless keyboards and nice to interact with computers that are across the room. You plug them into a big tv and then control them from the other side of the room.
First off, a gaming machine that can beat a modern console is about 1000 dollars. Second, the basic machine you own to do email and taxes costs about 500 to 600 dollars.
The price difference is the cost of a gaming machine. The game machine is not an additional expense beyond a normal computer but rather the cost of buying a computer that is ALSO a gaming machine. In my experience, this difference in cost is about two to four hundred dollars for a mid range gaming machine.
High end machines are very expensive and really are not what we are talking about because they have VASTLY more computing power then the consoles. If we want to talk about an apples to apples comparison between consoles and PCs, then we need to address that range.
For example, I am currently using a gaming laptop which cost me about 1200 USD. It crushes pretty much every game I play at 1080p. It also has HDMI out, optical out, a display port, USB 3, a micro SSD for the boot partition, and a spindle harddrive for data.
It is a very nice machine and it cost me about 1200 USD. And it should be noted that 100 of that was a custom alligator skin that I had applied to it because I thought it looked cool.
Can it play blueray? Yep. Who cares though. I don't think I've ever even owned a blueray disc. The whole disc concept is dying rapidly and going to join 8 tracks in the near future.
As to 7.1 sound, PCs can do that as easily as the consoles.
As to sitting on the couch, I think I made clear that the PC could as easily sit in your living room as anywhere else. In my case, I use laptops because they're easy to move around.
As to getting 65 inches... again, the laptop can be plugged into a tv and you can play the game on the tv. I do that all the time. I have a bunch of emulators on my laptop that I like to play on my TV.
Can your console play every game from the NES to the N64? Any modern PC can do that easily.
And if you want to talk about newer games... we have those too.
I agree. I wasn't implying further that AA missiles are not killer robots. I was pointing out rather the pros and cons of autonomous drone warfare and its reasonable applications.
I found that annoying as well. I had to install a lot of different extensions to effectively roll the UI back. It looks classic now. But it was a pain in the ass to do it.
I'm used to this sort of thing though. Did the same thing for my windows 7 laptop. It has all the classic menus and attributes I got used to in XP. I had to manually modify arcane registry entries and install a lot of third party UI hacks though.
This has largely been my experience as well. I don't understand why we're not seeing a lot more from this company when their budget is 100 times I had imagined.
For the love of god, please get Mozilla to update Thunderbird into a more robust email client. The damn thing is embarrassing sometimes.
Anyway, while I'm sure Mozilla does a lot of stuff, that number still shocks me. I had no idea your team was that large. Every time I hear about Mozilla, I hear about them being starved for cash and on the brink of shutting down Firefox. Then I see this budget and have to wonder what the hell they are talking about.
An idea might be to save some of that money for a rainy day. Possibly invest it or create some sort of endowment so that you can get some independence from Google. It appears that you're utterly dependent on their funding which means they can kill you at will. Ideally, you should have a more robust financial position.
What is more, focusing on your core products is not a bad idea. Firefox and Thunderbird could both use a lot more love.
I am currently watching my firefox browser creep up to 2061 MB of ram with three tabs open. I'm sure there is a bad extension that is doing it but I have no means of monitoring or controlling memory usage on that basis. And Firefox itself doesn't appear to be able to control it or detect it either. All I can do is periodically restart the browser.
The whole point of firefox is supposed to be these cool extensions. And yet we're not given good tools to manage them. Come now. I could go on and on.
I'm sure it is harder then I think it is... but 314 million dollars per year tells me you've got more then enough money to deal with it.
It is an EU shake down. We've seen it before and if you read what the europeans are saying about Google in their press it is clear they are looking for any excuse to push google out.
I'm fine with that. Simply put an easily bypass-able block between Google and the EU. Something along the lines of a notice "sorry, due to EU regulations Google is blocked in your country."...
The point being to piss people off enough that they politically lynch the stupid EU committee causing the problem and then you restore service.
The fact of the matter is that the EU doesn't have a competitive alternative and thus has a poor bargaining position. They might be able to pass regulations or levy taxes or whatever. But at the end of the day, their people want google more then they want those taxes. And so there should be some way to leverage that to undermine any attempt to roll google back.
The programming in my brain might well be IF/THEN statements at a very granular level but the emergent intelligence that sits on top of that is not IF/THEN statements.
What is more, our current AI systems are absurdly primitive compared to even the simplest life forms on this planet. There is no comparison.
No seriously... try it. All your bitching and moaning accomplished with MS was a decades long circle jerk. Exactly what do you think is going to happen if you try this with google?
They'll appeal... and then appeal the appeal... and so on... and when we all die of old age they'll still be appealing and screwing you around until no one even remembers what it was about anymore.
Here is the brass tacks... The EU sees a big rich american company doing business in the EU and they're not paying EU taxes. So they're going to fuck around with it until they figure out how to get money from it.
personally, I think Hungry had the right idea... just tax bandwidth... do I ACTUALLY think that is a good idea? no, it is retarded. But it would neatly remove the idiots in government that see everyone making money without paying them as a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
ABS and Traction control do not need to be networked to a larger system that is wireless accessible or even programmable.
Ideally, these systems should hardwared. By all means, give them some updatable firmware but have that be something that requires a per chip hardware connection to facilitate.
You can't hack a VCR from 1995 with a bluetooth radio even though the VCR has some sort of computer in it.
Lawsuits seem to only be useful for catching defects rather then actual design flaws.
As to congress, you're talking about people that went into politics young in many cases. Most of them aspired to office from a fairly early point in their career. And therefore they tend to have very specialized skills which have little utility outside of strong arming other politicians.
Depends on how complicated the system is actually.
If all you want is remote starting, then have a simple radio/computer system that interfaces with another very simple non-programmable bit of hardware. All the radio/computer unit can do is send a "GO" command to the ignition unit. The ignition unit should have a hardware fail safe that prevents it from operating if the alternator is producing power. In this way, the remote start will only start a car that is off and will have zero impact on a car that is on. Furthermore, compromising the system will not give one access to anything else since the remote start doesn't have to be interfaced with anything but the secure hardware failsafe ignition system.
I don't have to buy that feature. Most cars in fact don't have a remote starter. Remote door locks are pretty common but the starter is unusual.
You can still buy a dead simple new car.
Assuming that is correct, does that system need to be connected to anything else?
If the traction control system is connected to the brake servos and throttle servo, does that system need to be linked to the wireless ignition system or my bluetooth stereo? What is more, I do want manual over rides for all these things.
I have an older car and it is profoundly simple in the way that everything works. I don't see why I can't have all the relevant modern features without compromising the underlying robustness of the system.
No, the military's physical security is a soldier with a loaded rifle trained to kill you if you touch things you're not supposed to touch
Lets say I took any bit of modern military hardware and just dump it in the middle of a hacker convention. What exactly are the odds that someone there won't be able to break the lockouts?
Military gear is not designed to be hack proof. It is designed to be deadly and robust. How long did it take the Iranians to reverse engineer the drone we lost in their territory? They had pretty comprehensive access to its systems almost immediately.
Physical security is the first rule. If the hacker can TOUCH the computer then you're basically fucked.
I'm going to have to side with the Colonial Fleet on this one and say the systems should not be networked at all.
Each of these systems has their own internal sensor package and programming. My fuel air sensors do not need to be coordinated with my anti lock breaks. The two operate just fine isolated.
What is more, some systems should be dumb. Toaster simple. Simplicity means not just more secure but more robust. Simple systems tend to be less prone to failure and error.
cars worked just fine without this nonsense. They can clearly work just fine without it again.
The easiest way to make sure the tech is not insecure is to not have it. It think the tech should be optional.
Those that want it for whatever reason can have it. Those that don't can omit it.
You're expecting the government to understand computer security?
All I know is that there will be mods on the market to cripple these systems and I'll be using them.
1. Physical security.
If you let the machine get into the hands of hackers... they will break it the controls. And that is doubly certain if the device is mostly functional regardless. It will interact and that will let people either exploit flaws in the security or just decrypt it.
If you want to stop hackers from getting into the system then the first thing you have to do is make it pretty much impossible for a hacker to physically access the system. As in steel. And beyond that, the wireless connections are a serious vulnerability. Scale them back or secure systems from the wireless radios.
If you can't do that, then at the very least don't let a hacker turn my engine off while I'm driving down the free way. Some features are simply not worth that vulnerability.
The sad thing is that they have been around long enough to know better. They're just hamming it up for the camera.
Think of those soccer players that fall to the ground weeping over their kicked shin right when a penalty would be very convenient for their team. Same thing basically.
You point this out and they call it "victim blaming"... even when the people you're blaming have admitted to faking it. It is still called victim blaming.
You're missing the point. I'm not taking anything away from you.
If I replaced what you have now with a PC made to appear to be the same thing you wouldn't even notice the difference.
The big difference would be that porting games from the console to the PC would be instant because they'd literally be the same thing.
What you want is a standardized system with less configuration, a small specialized form factor, and a TV centric GUI.
Do you honestly think a PC cannot have these things? If it can... then I could replace your Xbox with a gaming PC with an identical GUI, squeeze the machine into a similar looking box, and how exactly would you tell the difference? And if you could... why would you care?
See my point? Consoles are an anachronism. They made sense at one point but today they are pointless.
The primary difference between a PC and a console is software. That means the hardware distinctions are an utter waste of time.
If you like. Though really, I think all we need is something like the Microsoft TV GUI or something like XBMC but for games. In fact, steam already has a TV GUI which you can use right now. I think they call it big... something. It is under view or something in steam. I've turned it on a few times by accident. If all your games are loaded into steam, you can have steam auto load with the boot and then open into that mode.
I use some wireless keyboards and nice to interact with computers that are across the room. You plug them into a big tv and then control them from the other side of the room.
First off, a gaming machine that can beat a modern console is about 1000 dollars.
Second, the basic machine you own to do email and taxes costs about 500 to 600 dollars.
The price difference is the cost of a gaming machine. The game machine is not an additional expense beyond a normal computer but rather the cost of buying a computer that is ALSO a gaming machine. In my experience, this difference in cost is about two to four hundred dollars for a mid range gaming machine.
High end machines are very expensive and really are not what we are talking about because they have VASTLY more computing power then the consoles. If we want to talk about an apples to apples comparison between consoles and PCs, then we need to address that range.
For example, I am currently using a gaming laptop which cost me about 1200 USD. It crushes pretty much every game I play at 1080p. It also has HDMI out, optical out, a display port, USB 3, a micro SSD for the boot partition, and a spindle harddrive for data.
It is a very nice machine and it cost me about 1200 USD. And it should be noted that 100 of that was a custom alligator skin that I had applied to it because I thought it looked cool.
Can it play blueray? Yep. Who cares though. I don't think I've ever even owned a blueray disc. The whole disc concept is dying rapidly and going to join 8 tracks in the near future.
As to 7.1 sound, PCs can do that as easily as the consoles.
As to sitting on the couch, I think I made clear that the PC could as easily sit in your living room as anywhere else. In my case, I use laptops because they're easy to move around.
As to getting 65 inches... again, the laptop can be plugged into a tv and you can play the game on the tv. I do that all the time. I have a bunch of emulators on my laptop that I like to play on my TV.
Can your console play every game from the NES to the N64? Any modern PC can do that easily.
And if you want to talk about newer games... we have those too.
PCs are better.
I agree. I wasn't implying further that AA missiles are not killer robots. I was pointing out rather the pros and cons of autonomous drone warfare and its reasonable applications.
That is a good point... that is utterly disgusting if they're still relying on volunteers while a tiny group are basically buying yachts and hookers.
I found that annoying as well. I had to install a lot of different extensions to effectively roll the UI back. It looks classic now. But it was a pain in the ass to do it.
I'm used to this sort of thing though. Did the same thing for my windows 7 laptop. It has all the classic menus and attributes I got used to in XP. I had to manually modify arcane registry entries and install a lot of third party UI hacks though.
This has largely been my experience as well. I don't understand why we're not seeing a lot more from this company when their budget is 100 times I had imagined.
For the love of god, please get Mozilla to update Thunderbird into a more robust email client. The damn thing is embarrassing sometimes.
Anyway, while I'm sure Mozilla does a lot of stuff, that number still shocks me. I had no idea your team was that large. Every time I hear about Mozilla, I hear about them being starved for cash and on the brink of shutting down Firefox. Then I see this budget and have to wonder what the hell they are talking about.
An idea might be to save some of that money for a rainy day. Possibly invest it or create some sort of endowment so that you can get some independence from Google. It appears that you're utterly dependent on their funding which means they can kill you at will. Ideally, you should have a more robust financial position.
What is more, focusing on your core products is not a bad idea. Firefox and Thunderbird could both use a lot more love.
I am currently watching my firefox browser creep up to 2061 MB of ram with three tabs open. I'm sure there is a bad extension that is doing it but I have no means of monitoring or controlling memory usage on that basis. And Firefox itself doesn't appear to be able to control it or detect it either. All I can do is periodically restart the browser.
The whole point of firefox is supposed to be these cool extensions. And yet we're not given good tools to manage them. Come now. I could go on and on.
I'm sure it is harder then I think it is... but 314 million dollars per year tells me you've got more then enough money to deal with it.
It is an EU shake down. We've seen it before and if you read what the europeans are saying about Google in their press it is clear they are looking for any excuse to push google out.
I'm fine with that. Simply put an easily bypass-able block between Google and the EU. Something along the lines of a notice "sorry, due to EU regulations Google is blocked in your country."...
The point being to piss people off enough that they politically lynch the stupid EU committee causing the problem and then you restore service.
The fact of the matter is that the EU doesn't have a competitive alternative and thus has a poor bargaining position. They might be able to pass regulations or levy taxes or whatever. But at the end of the day, their people want google more then they want those taxes. And so there should be some way to leverage that to undermine any attempt to roll google back.
The programming in my brain might well be IF/THEN statements at a very granular level but the emergent intelligence that sits on top of that is not IF/THEN statements.
What is more, our current AI systems are absurdly primitive compared to even the simplest life forms on this planet. There is no comparison.
the politics of that are unworkable. Everyone claims the moon. Some random asteroid though... it is politically possible to grab it.
The "AI" these days is just a collection of IF/THEN statements.
No seriously... try it. All your bitching and moaning accomplished with MS was a decades long circle jerk. Exactly what do you think is going to happen if you try this with google?
They'll appeal... and then appeal the appeal... and so on... and when we all die of old age they'll still be appealing and screwing you around until no one even remembers what it was about anymore.
Here is the brass tacks... The EU sees a big rich american company doing business in the EU and they're not paying EU taxes. So they're going to fuck around with it until they figure out how to get money from it.
personally, I think Hungry had the right idea... just tax bandwidth... do I ACTUALLY think that is a good idea? no, it is retarded. But it would neatly remove the idiots in government that see everyone making money without paying them as a problem.