... short. If they just blast away continuously for days that might be an issue. But if they do it for an hour or so every day that probably won't matter.
Think of it like the noisy neighbor... if they have a loud phone conversation or violent sex or blast party music for a couple hours every day... it probably won't be a literal threat to your health. It might be annoying but you're not going to get ill or die or something.
But if someone does it to you every day all day for days on end... then yeah... you might have a physiological reaction.
I'll take my chances. Any robo dialer that gets through a phone based captcha might just be interesting enough to listen to if only for the novelty. I've never heard of a robodialer that had advanced speech to text and AI to penetrate a phone based captcha.
I'm sure they could be made but I've never heard of them being implemented.
Simply starting with a message that says "To avoid robo calls, can you please tell me the sum of 1+1?"
I'm pretty sure that would filter 99.99 percent of robot calls right there.
Adblock removes most of the ads. I turn off for sites I want to support or that don't annoy me with obnoxious ads.
NoScript is on for any site I can use without javascript. Java slows a lot of sites down without providing me any useful functionality in most cases. Also most of the annoying things a site can do like throw pop ups at you is done in javascript. So I just keep it off for most things.
CookieMonster blocks cookies which I do anywhere the site I'm interacting with doesn't need me to have a cookie. If I'm not doing anything complicated on a site and there are no logins then there's no need for cookies.
Flashstop stops all those annoying flash animations and videos and audio files that otherwise would auto play when you load a site. Its even good with youtube because you can load up five or six different pages at once without them all auto playing.
This is how I interact with the web now. Come at me.
Any H1-B visa worker should be subject to all relevant labor laws which would include the same treatment of overtime, etc.
That said, the company will have more leverage over these workers then they would over americans. That's unavoidable. If they lose their employment their visa can be revoked. So the company is going to be able to put more pressure on them to work longer hours, harder, etc... and you won't be able to stop that because the leverage will cause the workers to aid the company in keeping it all secret.
Much as you have with illegal aliens... they're not paid minimum wage, overtime, etc... and they don't complain to the labor board.
I think the only way to do this is to force the companies to pay the workers more which can be tracked through the individual income taxes filed by those workers... which the companies won't be able to play shell games with since the money will be leaving their hands entirely.
If you give a company a choice of paying a foreign hire 80 grand a year or a native hire 60 grand then the only reason to hire the foreign hire is because they're actually better or in short supply.
And in that case I have no problem with the company importing labor.
The percentage was just a number I threw out there.
Would requiring double the rate be reasonable? The problem with setting the number too high is that it will read like a "go fuck yourself" law that will encounter a lot of push back. Its in your interest to set the penalty as low as you can while still getting the desired result. Set it too high and it won't be viable. Setting it too low of course as you point out leads to it not mattering.
20 percent seemed like a enough... I'd think 40 percent would be about the farthest you could push it reasonably without suffering overwhelming blowback.
After all, there are legitimate HB-1 Visa situations where there really isn't a domestic supply of some labor.
You don't want to punish good companies that are honestly just doing what they can to remain staffed... or punishing companies that are bringing in some very talented people.
Another thing we might do with this rule is exempt the penalty from any job being paid over X dollars. If the position is typically paid very well then maybe there is a legitimate lack of such people in the country. Perhaps any position over 100 thousand dollars a year would be exempted from the penalty. But jobs below that amount would be subject to 20-40% higher rate to encourage US businesses to employ US workers first.
That's too radical to work. It would start a global trade war. There are more subtle ways to go about it.
Furthermore, you're going to have to find bipartisan solutions.
Both democrats AND republicans want this problem solved but they're both beholden to large corporate interests. Unless the voters from BOTH parties stand united on this issue you're not going to get anywhere because the corps will just sit in the shadows bribing both sides.
Consider what you lose by going with an ultra partisan solution. You can't afford that option. Your political check will bounce.
I don't see how since if you pay US workers less a lot of them just won't show up which will mean you'll have to increase wages.
Companies generally don't pay people more then they have to pay them. If you cut pay you're going to get a labor shortage.
Its not hard to manage something like this... you could update the lookup tables by partnering with employment agencies. You could possibly keep current the full table for the whole country with less then ten people if you were efficient about it. Possibly a good deal less but at that level its irrelevant.
Obviously the government won't do that... they'll probably task thousands to keep the table updated. But that's almost entirely mismanagement.
Sorry if that comes off as insulting but hold your unrightous indignation for a moment and I'll back that up.
I said you pay the H1-B visa applicant MORE then the US worker.
So if they load up the requirements sheet they'll be increasing what they ultimately have to pay the H1-B visa holder.
They'll have a very strong incentive to NOT do what you just said because it will cost them more money.
I made that very clear. It was the centerpiece of my post.
You conclude that they'll pay 40 percent less for the H1-B visa applicants... again, your reading comprehension here was terrible... not an insult... a fact. As part of the H1-B visa requirement you require the company to pay them MORE then what the current going rate is for that worker in the US. I threw out 20 percent as a reasonable figure but that's negotiable.
Establish what the standard rate is for whatever position and say "you can have all the H1-B visa applicants you want so long as you pay 20 percent more then what you're paying for domestic labor.
If its not a matter of pay and is a matter of limited labor supply, they'll import the labor and pay them more.
If it is about wanting cheap labor then they'll go with the domestic labor which will by law be cheaper.
Okay, one idea would be discouraging planned obsolescence by encouraging industry to self audit for the practice and encouraging the public to avoid products that require a high degree of replacement.
Furthermore, we could encourage standardizing parts and encouraging interchangeability of parts. This will mean that parts lose utility less frequently.
The above will radically improve the efficiency of our industry since probably a majority of our industrial production is literally wasted through this practice. It was put in place to ensure the steady purchase of industrial goods for the profitability of factories.
That is why they do this... but its extremely wasteful.
Any plan to save the environment that doesn't include this idea is a waste of time. And what is more, this idea could be obtained largely through consensual action. There's no need to pass a law outlawing it or fining people. Information, awareness, and appeals for reform should be more then enough.
That is assuming pigheaded morons don't insist on claiming that the practice isn't either A1 not that wasteful or A2 somehow less wasteful to intentionally build things to self destruct.
I didn't say the free market, captain strawman. I said consensual solutions.
You clearly are a fan of non-consensual solutions... would it be fair for me to assume you're a fascist? Probably not... so why don't you keep your stupid assumptions locked down tight least the same stupid standards be applied to your stupid arguments and annihilate what little remains of your own delusions of intellectual worth.
You're right, I should totally define complex ideas completely every single time we touch on an issue that references them. How silly of me.
I've detailed them elsewhere many times. I'm disinterested in going through it unless you're actually curious. If you're just fishing for something to discredit my position then I've no patience for that silliness. But if you're really curious then I'll lay out a few things we could do.
I could suggest consentual systems that would have a big impact on our global carbon debt. The politicians won't like them because it won't give them any power.
It will help the environment though.
So... at some level, people are going to have to decide which matters more to them. Power and money or real change?
If you want real change now is the time drop these stupid programs and go with something consensual that will have a real impact.
Of course I am postulating that a hacker can break it. Why would the car be the only computer in human creation immune to hacking you completely absurd asshat?
Then its in my interest to kill you or stop you from breeding so I can claim more resources for my progeny.
Is that where you want this to go or do you want to rethink your solyent green argument?
This thomas malthus argument is deeply ignorant. Do you know the man himself disavowed his own theory?
Did you know that the theory was based on Irish people starving during the Potato famine... do you know why they were actually starving? Hint: The english were oppressing the shit out of them. They weren't starving because they were breeding like rats. They were starving because the english were burning their crops, trampling their crops, confiscating their livestock, and literally exporting food from a starving country because the english owned the land and the english were willing to pay more for the food then Irish who had nothing to pay for anything with besides their increasingly haggard labor.
And in that environment, Thomas malthus looks at the starving people and says "this stupid people just can't help themselves... breeding like roaches until they starve."
That is the genesis of your theory here. Its ignorant.
But you know what, I'm good with it. If your theory is that there isn't enough to go around for all of us... fine. Your share is zero.
What now? Now you're going to fight. Welcome to the party. That is precisely the same reaction you're getting from me with that stupidity because the people that make that argument always assume it will be someone else that will have to live with less.
No. Try to take food out of the mouths of our children and you're getting war.
Someone probably will release a remote control app for the cars. the app might be illegal but it will probably exist. There after programming it to crash into a car might be a question of changing AI parmeters or worst case requires that some criminal sits in front of a computer and manually tells the car to turn left right into a police car.
Again... show some imagination here or you really can't participate in a speculative discussion. Not having an imagination in a speculative discussion is like attempting a spelling bee while illiterate. It doesn't work. No offense. I think you MIGHT be able to be creative if you try but you're going to have to change gears and stop trying to prove me wrong at any price. Its blinding you to the issue. Think about it more expansively. Play devil's advocate with yourself a bit.
If you can't do that then this is just going to be annoying discussion where neither of us give the other anything the other recognizes as valuable.
I'm really tired of people presupposing your argument or outright ignoring your argument and then assuming a different argument is the one you're actually making.
here you're saying that the benefits of the new tech will outweigh the problems.
That may be but that wasn't what I was saying. I was rather saying that there "WILL" be problems and that those problems WILL have to be dealt with.
As to the two things... what the fuck are you even talking about?
lets apply your notion to other forms of security.
Such as a locked room full of cash.
Now I could say "well, there's a lot of money in there, you might want an armed guard, an electronic warning system, an automated alert to the police department, etc."
And you'd respond "that presupposes that people know how to pick a totally normal lock and are of criminal intent."
Are you fucking kidding? Is this a joke?
First in cities with tens of millions of people in them you're going to have lots of criminals. So those are a fucking given.
Second, you have the "skill"... but that skill only really needs to be developed a few times because once a criminal figures it out he'll have valuable information that he can sell or give away to other criminals at which point you'll have criminal kits and script kiddies hacking cars all over the place.
Lets say I run a chop shop. I hire people to steal cars, they deliver the cars to my shop, I strip the cars down to their parts, and then resell the parts. fairly typical criminal enterprise and you'll find such things in practically every city in the world. That chop shop is going to know how to compromise the auto driver computer. And they'll show teenagers how to do it so they can steal cars for the chop shop.
Again... you don't seen to know how these things work. The skills would be passed around very quickly.
As to what you call "blackboxing"... that doesn't work.
It fails the first rule of computer security.
You can SLOW someone down with something like that. But you won't stop them.
Furthermore, remember that drone that crashed in Iran? Were the Iranians able to download its operating system and copy its core components?
Yep.
So give me a fucking break. Not even the military gets that crap to work and you think the consumer cars are going to be more effective at it? In what fucking universe is that likely?
As to your counter ideas. You think its practical to stop every car on the road possibly disrupting tens if not hundreds of thousands of people?
The political outcry from that would be horrific.
As to guiding the suspect to where you want, I'm unsure of what you mean. If you mean having the police guide a criminal to where they want... if the car is hacked it won't be listening to the police.
Frankly I think many of you lack the imagination and experience to really have meaningful input on this topic. No offense.
All these comments about "well what if the police have a slow down command" or "what if there are safeties" fails to address the FIRST rule of computer security.
Physical security is the first rule.
if you don't have it then your system is not secure.
Physical security is having actual physical possession of the machine. Well, the criminal might have that. Which means all your safeguards and overrides might be shut off or hacked or bypassed.
If I'm a criminal, I can remote control the car and use it as a surface going drone. I don't even have to be in it. I can go on a car stealing spree and fill a garage with dozens of cars. And then all at once send them out onto the road as wingmen to assist in whatever I want to do. They could set up roadblocks all over town... they could ram police cars. They could shield me from pursuit. They could operate as get away cars.
You could do all sorts of stuff.
Saying "but but we could put in an override" is as ignorant as suggesting that you could stop all malware, internet piracy, child pornography, identity theft, etc with McAffee.
Can you? No? Then shut up, you idea is stupid and so are you.
Autonomous cars are going to be a problem. They might be great... I might own one... I might at some point love them.
BUT they will pose problems that will have to be dealt with and just putting in a safeguard into the OS would HELP but it would not be a panacea.
I'm not advocating password reuse. I'm advocating mnemonic rule reuse.
For example...
Marry had a little lamb who's fleece was white as snow
MhalLwFwwaS
The rain in spain falls mainly on the plane
tRiSfmotP
Both passwords are generated using the exact same mnemonic rules.
All I have to remember is the rules and the text string.
Human beings are really good at remembering lyrics, quotations of poetry, famous aphorisms... etc. We can hear those in our childhood and remember then flawlessly until we're old men.
Therefore, all you have to remember is which one is the right one and your rules for converting that into the password.
I use these devices for passwords all the time. I have a book of famous quotations that I keep in my desk. And I literally write in the book noting which line applies to which password. I have this backed up in a few other locations for important passwords. But the point is that I don't have to store the actual password anywhere.
I also can provide password hints literally at login any any machine and its totally secure. You're not going to be able to turn that hint into the password unless you know my rules.
I could take the second letter of every word. The last letter. I could do the whole thing in reverse. I could do all sorts of fun substitutions. And if I use the same rules consistently then I can do that conversion effortlessly. Like a second language. Potato patato.
Your counter argument is circular. You're saying it won't work because people don't do it that way.
Where as my point is that we should.
Saying we shouldn't do something a certain way because we don't do something a certain way is circular logic.
Imagine if all these appliances used standardized interconnects. There is no reason they couldn't.
What if every washing machine used the same interconnects to plug motors into the power supply and control board? They could.
What if every washing machine used standardized mounts for all those parts. What if there were a standardized form factor for the controller board?
Go through the list. They could all be standardized and it wouldn't hurt our ability to have great products. They'd be more easily maintained though. Because in addition to that, you'd want standardized access ports and release catches to access internal components.
These internal components should should likewise be standardized. I'm not saying only ONE of something. Like computers you can have lots of different models of all sorts of stuff. But they should be built in such a way that you can mix and match these parts with a high degree of flexibility.
You don't want to build that way? I'm not putting a gun against anyone's head and forcing them. I don't want to pass a law, impose a fine, or license people, or anything like that. This isn't required to get computer manufacturers to standardize and I don't think its needed to do this either. What we need is to organize and inform.
This will be great for the consumer and it will be really great for smaller manufacturers that don't have the capacity to produce a whole new machine from scratch. They might only be able to make ONE component. And because of this they'll be able to market that one component to a global market place that can use that bit in any number of machines decided not only at the fabrication level but also at the consumer level. That's huge.
its also great for small fabricators. Lets say you don't really have manufacturing facilities. But you understand the technology, paid a manufacturer to build you a custom housing, and then bought a bunch of components... so you just fabricate the machines using standardized parts.
Slashdot Mirror
... short. If they just blast away continuously for days that might be an issue. But if they do it for an hour or so every day that probably won't matter.
Think of it like the noisy neighbor... if they have a loud phone conversation or violent sex or blast party music for a couple hours every day... it probably won't be a literal threat to your health. It might be annoying but you're not going to get ill or die or something.
But if someone does it to you every day all day for days on end... then yeah... you might have a physiological reaction.
I'll take my chances. Any robo dialer that gets through a phone based captcha might just be interesting enough to listen to if only for the novelty. I've never heard of a robodialer that had advanced speech to text and AI to penetrate a phone based captcha.
I'm sure they could be made but I've never heard of them being implemented.
Simply starting with a message that says "To avoid robo calls, can you please tell me the sum of 1+1?"
I'm pretty sure that would filter 99.99 percent of robot calls right there.
Adblock
NoScript
CookieMonster
And Flashstop
Adblock removes most of the ads. I turn off for sites I want to support or that don't annoy me with obnoxious ads.
NoScript is on for any site I can use without javascript. Java slows a lot of sites down without providing me any useful functionality in most cases. Also most of the annoying things a site can do like throw pop ups at you is done in javascript. So I just keep it off for most things.
CookieMonster blocks cookies which I do anywhere the site I'm interacting with doesn't need me to have a cookie. If I'm not doing anything complicated on a site and there are no logins then there's no need for cookies.
Flashstop stops all those annoying flash animations and videos and audio files that otherwise would auto play when you load a site. Its even good with youtube because you can load up five or six different pages at once without them all auto playing.
This is how I interact with the web now. Come at me.
Any H1-B visa worker should be subject to all relevant labor laws which would include the same treatment of overtime, etc.
That said, the company will have more leverage over these workers then they would over americans. That's unavoidable. If they lose their employment their visa can be revoked. So the company is going to be able to put more pressure on them to work longer hours, harder, etc... and you won't be able to stop that because the leverage will cause the workers to aid the company in keeping it all secret.
Much as you have with illegal aliens... they're not paid minimum wage, overtime, etc... and they don't complain to the labor board.
I think the only way to do this is to force the companies to pay the workers more which can be tracked through the individual income taxes filed by those workers... which the companies won't be able to play shell games with since the money will be leaving their hands entirely.
If you give a company a choice of paying a foreign hire 80 grand a year or a native hire 60 grand then the only reason to hire the foreign hire is because they're actually better or in short supply.
And in that case I have no problem with the company importing labor.
The percentage was just a number I threw out there.
Would requiring double the rate be reasonable? The problem with setting the number too high is that it will read like a "go fuck yourself" law that will encounter a lot of push back. Its in your interest to set the penalty as low as you can while still getting the desired result. Set it too high and it won't be viable. Setting it too low of course as you point out leads to it not mattering.
20 percent seemed like a enough... I'd think 40 percent would be about the farthest you could push it reasonably without suffering overwhelming blowback.
After all, there are legitimate HB-1 Visa situations where there really isn't a domestic supply of some labor.
You don't want to punish good companies that are honestly just doing what they can to remain staffed... or punishing companies that are bringing in some very talented people.
Another thing we might do with this rule is exempt the penalty from any job being paid over X dollars. If the position is typically paid very well then maybe there is a legitimate lack of such people in the country. Perhaps any position over 100 thousand dollars a year would be exempted from the penalty. But jobs below that amount would be subject to 20-40% higher rate to encourage US businesses to employ US workers first.
That's too radical to work. It would start a global trade war. There are more subtle ways to go about it.
Furthermore, you're going to have to find bipartisan solutions.
Both democrats AND republicans want this problem solved but they're both beholden to large corporate interests. Unless the voters from BOTH parties stand united on this issue you're not going to get anywhere because the corps will just sit in the shadows bribing both sides.
Consider what you lose by going with an ultra partisan solution. You can't afford that option. Your political check will bounce.
I don't see how since if you pay US workers less a lot of them just won't show up which will mean you'll have to increase wages.
Companies generally don't pay people more then they have to pay them. If you cut pay you're going to get a labor shortage.
Its not hard to manage something like this... you could update the lookup tables by partnering with employment agencies. You could possibly keep current the full table for the whole country with less then ten people if you were efficient about it. Possibly a good deal less but at that level its irrelevant.
Obviously the government won't do that... they'll probably task thousands to keep the table updated. But that's almost entirely mismanagement.
You're apparently an abysmal reader.
Sorry if that comes off as insulting but hold your unrightous indignation for a moment and I'll back that up.
I said you pay the H1-B visa applicant MORE then the US worker.
So if they load up the requirements sheet they'll be increasing what they ultimately have to pay the H1-B visa holder.
They'll have a very strong incentive to NOT do what you just said because it will cost them more money.
I made that very clear. It was the centerpiece of my post.
You conclude that they'll pay 40 percent less for the H1-B visa applicants... again, your reading comprehension here was terrible... not an insult... a fact. As part of the H1-B visa requirement you require the company to pay them MORE then what the current going rate is for that worker in the US. I threw out 20 percent as a reasonable figure but that's negotiable.
This is so easy to fix.
Establish what the standard rate is for whatever position and say "you can have all the H1-B visa applicants you want so long as you pay 20 percent more then what you're paying for domestic labor.
If its not a matter of pay and is a matter of limited labor supply, they'll import the labor and pay them more.
If it is about wanting cheap labor then they'll go with the domestic labor which will by law be cheaper.
End of discussion.
Just put a captcha on your phone calls. Then only a human is getting through to your actual phone line.
Okay, one idea would be discouraging planned obsolescence by encouraging industry to self audit for the practice and encouraging the public to avoid products that require a high degree of replacement.
Furthermore, we could encourage standardizing parts and encouraging interchangeability of parts. This will mean that parts lose utility less frequently.
The above will radically improve the efficiency of our industry since probably a majority of our industrial production is literally wasted through this practice. It was put in place to ensure the steady purchase of industrial goods for the profitability of factories.
That is why they do this... but its extremely wasteful.
Any plan to save the environment that doesn't include this idea is a waste of time. And what is more, this idea could be obtained largely through consensual action. There's no need to pass a law outlawing it or fining people. Information, awareness, and appeals for reform should be more then enough.
That is assuming pigheaded morons don't insist on claiming that the practice isn't either A1 not that wasteful or A2 somehow less wasteful to intentionally build things to self destruct.
Do you have a basis for these insults or can I safely assume you've got nothing?
I didn't say the free market, captain strawman. I said consensual solutions.
You clearly are a fan of non-consensual solutions... would it be fair for me to assume you're a fascist? Probably not... so why don't you keep your stupid assumptions locked down tight least the same stupid standards be applied to your stupid arguments and annihilate what little remains of your own delusions of intellectual worth.
You're right, I should totally define complex ideas completely every single time we touch on an issue that references them. How silly of me.
I've detailed them elsewhere many times. I'm disinterested in going through it unless you're actually curious. If you're just fishing for something to discredit my position then I've no patience for that silliness. But if you're really curious then I'll lay out a few things we could do.
their strategy.
Forcing people to comply is failing.
I could suggest consentual systems that would have a big impact on our global carbon debt. The politicians won't like them because it won't give them any power.
It will help the environment though.
So... at some level, people are going to have to decide which matters more to them. Power and money or real change?
If you want real change now is the time drop these stupid programs and go with something consensual that will have a real impact.
Of course I am postulating that a hacker can break it. Why would the car be the only computer in human creation immune to hacking you completely absurd asshat?
We're done.
You're either a fool or a troll.
Either way, good day.
Then its in my interest to kill you or stop you from breeding so I can claim more resources for my progeny.
Is that where you want this to go or do you want to rethink your solyent green argument?
This thomas malthus argument is deeply ignorant. Do you know the man himself disavowed his own theory?
Did you know that the theory was based on Irish people starving during the Potato famine... do you know why they were actually starving? Hint: The english were oppressing the shit out of them. They weren't starving because they were breeding like rats. They were starving because the english were burning their crops, trampling their crops, confiscating their livestock, and literally exporting food from a starving country because the english owned the land and the english were willing to pay more for the food then Irish who had nothing to pay for anything with besides their increasingly haggard labor.
And in that environment, Thomas malthus looks at the starving people and says "this stupid people just can't help themselves... breeding like roaches until they starve."
That is the genesis of your theory here. Its ignorant.
But you know what, I'm good with it. If your theory is that there isn't enough to go around for all of us... fine. Your share is zero.
What now? Now you're going to fight. Welcome to the party. That is precisely the same reaction you're getting from me with that stupidity because the people that make that argument always assume it will be someone else that will have to live with less.
No. Try to take food out of the mouths of our children and you're getting war.
Someone probably will release a remote control app for the cars. the app might be illegal but it will probably exist. There after programming it to crash into a car might be a question of changing AI parmeters or worst case requires that some criminal sits in front of a computer and manually tells the car to turn left right into a police car.
Again... show some imagination here or you really can't participate in a speculative discussion. Not having an imagination in a speculative discussion is like attempting a spelling bee while illiterate. It doesn't work. No offense. I think you MIGHT be able to be creative if you try but you're going to have to change gears and stop trying to prove me wrong at any price. Its blinding you to the issue. Think about it more expansively. Play devil's advocate with yourself a bit.
If you can't do that then this is just going to be annoying discussion where neither of us give the other anything the other recognizes as valuable.
I'm really tired of people presupposing your argument or outright ignoring your argument and then assuming a different argument is the one you're actually making.
here you're saying that the benefits of the new tech will outweigh the problems.
That may be but that wasn't what I was saying. I was rather saying that there "WILL" be problems and that those problems WILL have to be dealt with.
Am I wrong?
So take your strawman arguments and walk.
As to the two things... what the fuck are you even talking about?
lets apply your notion to other forms of security.
Such as a locked room full of cash.
Now I could say "well, there's a lot of money in there, you might want an armed guard, an electronic warning system, an automated alert to the police department, etc."
And you'd respond "that presupposes that people know how to pick a totally normal lock and are of criminal intent."
Are you fucking kidding? Is this a joke?
First in cities with tens of millions of people in them you're going to have lots of criminals. So those are a fucking given.
Second, you have the "skill"... but that skill only really needs to be developed a few times because once a criminal figures it out he'll have valuable information that he can sell or give away to other criminals at which point you'll have criminal kits and script kiddies hacking cars all over the place.
Lets say I run a chop shop. I hire people to steal cars, they deliver the cars to my shop, I strip the cars down to their parts, and then resell the parts. fairly typical criminal enterprise and you'll find such things in practically every city in the world. That chop shop is going to know how to compromise the auto driver computer. And they'll show teenagers how to do it so they can steal cars for the chop shop.
Again... you don't seen to know how these things work. The skills would be passed around very quickly.
As to what you call "blackboxing"... that doesn't work.
It fails the first rule of computer security.
You can SLOW someone down with something like that. But you won't stop them.
Furthermore, remember that drone that crashed in Iran? Were the Iranians able to download its operating system and copy its core components?
Yep.
So give me a fucking break. Not even the military gets that crap to work and you think the consumer cars are going to be more effective at it? In what fucking universe is that likely?
As to your counter ideas. You think its practical to stop every car on the road possibly disrupting tens if not hundreds of thousands of people?
The political outcry from that would be horrific.
As to guiding the suspect to where you want, I'm unsure of what you mean. If you mean having the police guide a criminal to where they want... if the car is hacked it won't be listening to the police.
Frankly I think many of you lack the imagination and experience to really have meaningful input on this topic. No offense.
Which I acknowledged in my own post thus rendering your comment redundant.
All these comments about "well what if the police have a slow down command" or "what if there are safeties" fails to address the FIRST rule of computer security.
Physical security is the first rule.
if you don't have it then your system is not secure.
Physical security is having actual physical possession of the machine. Well, the criminal might have that. Which means all your safeguards and overrides might be shut off or hacked or bypassed.
If I'm a criminal, I can remote control the car and use it as a surface going drone. I don't even have to be in it. I can go on a car stealing spree and fill a garage with dozens of cars. And then all at once send them out onto the road as wingmen to assist in whatever I want to do. They could set up roadblocks all over town... they could ram police cars. They could shield me from pursuit. They could operate as get away cars.
You could do all sorts of stuff.
Saying "but but we could put in an override" is as ignorant as suggesting that you could stop all malware, internet piracy, child pornography, identity theft, etc with McAffee.
Can you? No? Then shut up, you idea is stupid and so are you.
Autonomous cars are going to be a problem. They might be great... I might own one... I might at some point love them.
BUT they will pose problems that will have to be dealt with and just putting in a safeguard into the OS would HELP but it would not be a panacea.
I'm not advocating password reuse. I'm advocating mnemonic rule reuse.
For example...
Marry had a little lamb who's fleece was white as snow
MhalLwFwwaS
The rain in spain falls mainly on the plane
tRiSfmotP
Both passwords are generated using the exact same mnemonic rules.
All I have to remember is the rules and the text string.
Human beings are really good at remembering lyrics, quotations of poetry, famous aphorisms... etc. We can hear those in our childhood and remember then flawlessly until we're old men.
Therefore, all you have to remember is which one is the right one and your rules for converting that into the password.
I use these devices for passwords all the time. I have a book of famous quotations that I keep in my desk. And I literally write in the book noting which line applies to which password. I have this backed up in a few other locations for important passwords. But the point is that I don't have to store the actual password anywhere.
I also can provide password hints literally at login any any machine and its totally secure. You're not going to be able to turn that hint into the password unless you know my rules.
I could take the second letter of every word. The last letter. I could do the whole thing in reverse. I could do all sorts of fun substitutions. And if I use the same rules consistently then I can do that conversion effortlessly. Like a second language. Potato patato.
Which is my point.
Your counter argument is circular. You're saying it won't work because people don't do it that way.
Where as my point is that we should.
Saying we shouldn't do something a certain way because we don't do something a certain way is circular logic.
Imagine if all these appliances used standardized interconnects. There is no reason they couldn't.
What if every washing machine used the same interconnects to plug motors into the power supply and control board? They could.
What if every washing machine used standardized mounts for all those parts. What if there were a standardized form factor for the controller board?
Go through the list. They could all be standardized and it wouldn't hurt our ability to have great products. They'd be more easily maintained though. Because in addition to that, you'd want standardized access ports and release catches to access internal components.
These internal components should should likewise be standardized. I'm not saying only ONE of something. Like computers you can have lots of different models of all sorts of stuff. But they should be built in such a way that you can mix and match these parts with a high degree of flexibility.
You don't want to build that way? I'm not putting a gun against anyone's head and forcing them. I don't want to pass a law, impose a fine, or license people, or anything like that. This isn't required to get computer manufacturers to standardize and I don't think its needed to do this either. What we need is to organize and inform.
This will be great for the consumer and it will be really great for smaller manufacturers that don't have the capacity to produce a whole new machine from scratch. They might only be able to make ONE component. And because of this they'll be able to market that one component to a global market place that can use that bit in any number of machines decided not only at the fabrication level but also at the consumer level. That's huge.
its also great for small fabricators. Lets say you don't really have manufacturing facilities. But you understand the technology, paid a manufacturer to build you a custom housing, and then bought a bunch of components... so you just fabricate the machines using standardized parts.
Why not... its great.