I would think that someone with your abilities might benefit from a "Tom Cruise in Minority Report" style UI rather than a bunch of pieces of paper scattered around on a desk.
There is apparently some trick you can do to get brother printers to keep printing even if low ink is "detected". This was the reason I bought the brother printer I bought HL-2270DW in the first place, but it never actually stopped printing. I just replaced the ink when it started to become illegible.
What choices do customers who want a sub-$1000 Lamborghini have? Sure they could buy some jalopy, but you're not going to tell me that it is as good as a Lamborghini.
Your commercial aircraft example is true, but the scarce availability of the equipment to general populace provides a good deal of protection, along with prevention cost is much less of an issue on a near billion dollar item compared to a 30k-ish car.
Software can be copied indefinitely. Even the hardware devices that provide security, are doing so through software running on that hardware. There is no reason a car OTA mechanism can't be as secure as anything else that does wireless communication.
Not to mention planes can and are grounded immediately if a problem is found.
If anything an OTA would make it possible to "ground" cars (i.e. disable them the next time their engine shuts off) if a severe problem is found, or simply fix it if a solution exists. If you rely on people to take there cars to dealerships to have them fixed, there will definitely be people who continue to use vehicles running unsafe software for a significant amount of time, even in the best case scenario.
I am not saying that there are no risks associated with allowing wireless updates. I am saying that these risks are acceptable given the security technology that is currently available, and the benefit that this capability provides.
Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident.
So they can just sue uber for those things... What's the problem?
Cars will always have issues with physical bugs (think exploding airbags recently) which cannot be fixed by a magical sw patch. Therefore, real recalls must be effective and timely.
The fact that some hardware bugs can't be fixed by OTA updates doesn't mean that we should fix the ones we can through OTA.
Yes, some problems will require people to bring cars into dealerships. And some people will no doubt experience those problems within the time frame of after knowing about the problem and before the car was brought into the dealership to be fixed.
The recalls can be effective and timely relative to the standard of a recall. They can't be timely compared to an OTA update.
I might argue that making OTA the norm will mean recalls requiring people to come in for physical objects to be replaced will get sloppier.
That seems highly speculative. I could just as easily argue that having less recalls wil allow the workers to concentrate their time and energy on performing the recalls that still happen properly. This is something that needs to be decided by empirical data and statistics, not speculation.
And I maintain by allowing OTA access to the machine means there will be bad actors who can hack the machine. Nothing is unhackable.
It doesn't need to be "unhackable" (which you could never prove anyway). It needs to save more lives than it costs to be worthwhile.
There are already so many things that are capable of wireless communication that our lives depend on. Why not focus on making the security better and better, rather than avoiding it.
Even commercial aircraft with hundreds of people on board are not unhackable. Should we strip all the communication equipment out of commercial aircraft because of the risk of being hacked?
Except it's not just "tool Y". It's "tool Y 95, 97, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013" And the whole time they are changing shit and people still need to be retrained regardless.
So what you are saying is that if AshleyMadison had received any tax money, it would be OK to leak all the customer data?
Like for example, lot's of medical facilities receive money from the government, so it's ok to hack and release all that information, because some of their funding comes from taxes which are stolen from tax payers?
We've changed the law to include crimes that are preparation to do something bad, rather than something bad in and of itself: Preparing for a terrorist attack, planning an abduction, owning a restricted weapon etc...
No, we've made the preparation of certain crimes, crimes themselves.
Planning to litter (and not littering) is not a crime. Planning to hire a prostitute (and then not doing it) is not a crime.
While "planning a terrorist attack" may be a crime, planning to plan a terrorist attack is not.
"planning a terrorist attack" isn't *just* planning to commit a crime, it is also a crime.
I wouldn't be so sure that no-one is interested in your medical records. Your boss might be. Maybe it looks like you might need a lot of time off to fight cancer, or expensive treatment on the company health insurance, or maybe you or your partner is pregnant and likely want to leave.
I didn't say no one is interested in anyone's medical records. I said no one is interested in *my* medical records. I don't have anything embarrassing or job threatening (yet).
And if you read what I said, it is not that I don't think anybody should want to keep their records secret. It is that I just don't think it is possible to do with any high level of certainty.
And maybe one day I will want my records to be secret, but I will have not be deluded into thinking that they are secret. Every action that creates a record is a decision weighing the benefit of that action with the risk of that record becoming public.
In the case of medical treatment, I will probably just accept the risk of public medical records, as that consequence is probably better than the consequence of avoiding treatment.
We need electronic records in the modern world, and we would expect them to be kept safe. When they are not, we should expect to be compensated. I imagine lawsuits against Ashley Madison are being filed as we speak.
What I am saying is that this will be impossible. You can sue as many people as you like, this is as much a certainty of compensation as the certainty that your information is safe.
I never said we need to have a 100% honest society. There is a difference between lying to preserve social harmony (i.e. "you look good", "No I never got you email", etc), and lying about an extramarital affair.
Of the countless different moral systems people have, I have never seen one that doesn't require some degree of honesty.
If you are advocating a moral system that has no requirement for honesty at all, I feel like you are just advocating that we shouldn't have any moral system at all.
I agree with the pressure of making them offer the no contract options, but why have the dropped the contract options?
I don't know what Sprint has or has not done exactly.
I know T-mobile still offers financing options for phones, but it is separate from the phone service contract (which no longer exists).
So if sprint still offers financing for phones, that becomes the "contract", but it is different sort of contract (e.g. the kind where you promise to pay for the phone they gave you, or else).
The free market. Even in a market with only 4 vendors, it still kind of albeit vary slowly.
Once one carrier (T-mobile) caved and did it as a way to attract customers, the others eventually felt enough market pressure to follow. It was enough to get me to switch to T-mobile and become a loyal enough customer to convince about 12 other people to switch. I do still feel loyalty to T-mobile, but I am certainly now more willing to switch to anyone but AT&T if the deal is good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that someone with your abilities might benefit from a "Tom Cruise in Minority Report" style UI rather than a bunch of pieces of paper scattered around on a desk.
There is apparently some trick you can do to get brother printers to keep printing even if low ink is "detected". This was the reason I bought the brother printer I bought HL-2270DW in the first place, but it never actually stopped printing. I just replaced the ink when it started to become illegible.
Well said. I agree 100%
What choices do customers who want a sub-$1000 Lamborghini have? Sure they could buy some jalopy, but you're not going to tell me that it is as good as a Lamborghini.
How many eyeballs do you have?
brother? I guess?
I suppose it serves customers in poor countries better.
Your commercial aircraft example is true, but the scarce availability of the equipment to general populace provides a good deal of protection, along with prevention cost is much less of an issue on a near billion dollar item compared to a 30k-ish car.
Software can be copied indefinitely. Even the hardware devices that provide security, are doing so through software running on that hardware. There is no reason a car OTA mechanism can't be as secure as anything else that does wireless communication.
Not to mention planes can and are grounded immediately if a problem is found.
If anything an OTA would make it possible to "ground" cars (i.e. disable them the next time their engine shuts off) if a severe problem is found, or simply fix it if a solution exists. If you rely on people to take there cars to dealerships to have them fixed, there will definitely be people who continue to use vehicles running unsafe software for a significant amount of time, even in the best case scenario.
I am not saying that there are no risks associated with allowing wireless updates. I am saying that these risks are acceptable given the security technology that is currently available, and the benefit that this capability provides.
Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident.
So they can just sue uber for those things... What's the problem?
I guess Christianity is true, by process of (now perfectly valid) non-scientific reasoning.
Sorry this is the link I meant to use
http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot-with-stack-overflow/
The cause(s) is/are actually disputed. It is likely that there were multiple causes. The specific bug I am referring to is this stack overflow bug:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319903
Cars will always have issues with physical bugs (think exploding airbags recently) which cannot be fixed by a magical sw patch. Therefore, real recalls must be effective and timely.
The fact that some hardware bugs can't be fixed by OTA updates doesn't mean that we should fix the ones we can through OTA.
Yes, some problems will require people to bring cars into dealerships. And some people will no doubt experience those problems within the time frame of after knowing about the problem and before the car was brought into the dealership to be fixed.
The recalls can be effective and timely relative to the standard of a recall. They can't be timely compared to an OTA update.
I might argue that making OTA the norm will mean recalls requiring people to come in for physical objects to be replaced will get sloppier.
That seems highly speculative. I could just as easily argue that having less recalls wil allow the workers to concentrate their time and energy on performing the recalls that still happen properly. This is something that needs to be decided by empirical data and statistics, not speculation.
And I maintain by allowing OTA access to the machine means there will be bad actors who can hack the machine. Nothing is unhackable.
It doesn't need to be "unhackable" (which you could never prove anyway). It needs to save more lives than it costs to be worthwhile.
There are already so many things that are capable of wireless communication that our lives depend on. Why not focus on making the security better and better, rather than avoiding it.
Even commercial aircraft with hundreds of people on board are not unhackable. Should we strip all the communication equipment out of commercial aircraft because of the risk of being hacked?
Except it's not just "tool Y". It's "tool Y 95, 97, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013" And the whole time they are changing shit and people still need to be retrained regardless.
Making UML models of software is not an edge case in a business setting either. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do it in a spreadsheet.
Why would you make that assumption?
For what service?
Yeah I read Atlas Shrugged too.
So what you are saying is that if AshleyMadison had received any tax money, it would be OK to leak all the customer data?
Like for example, lot's of medical facilities receive money from the government, so it's ok to hack and release all that information, because some of their funding comes from taxes which are stolen from tax payers?
We've changed the law to include crimes that are preparation to do something bad, rather than something bad in and of itself: Preparing for a terrorist attack, planning an abduction, owning a restricted weapon etc...
No, we've made the preparation of certain crimes, crimes themselves.
Planning to litter (and not littering) is not a crime. Planning to hire a prostitute (and then not doing it) is not a crime.
While "planning a terrorist attack" may be a crime, planning to plan a terrorist attack is not.
"planning a terrorist attack" isn't *just* planning to commit a crime, it is also a crime.
I wouldn't be so sure that no-one is interested in your medical records. Your boss might be. Maybe it looks like you might need a lot of time off to fight cancer, or expensive treatment on the company health insurance, or maybe you or your partner is pregnant and likely want to leave.
I didn't say no one is interested in anyone's medical records. I said no one is interested in *my* medical records. I don't have anything embarrassing or job threatening (yet).
And if you read what I said, it is not that I don't think anybody should want to keep their records secret. It is that I just don't think it is possible to do with any high level of certainty.
And maybe one day I will want my records to be secret, but I will have not be deluded into thinking that they are secret. Every action that creates a record is a decision weighing the benefit of that action with the risk of that record becoming public.
In the case of medical treatment, I will probably just accept the risk of public medical records, as that consequence is probably better than the consequence of avoiding treatment.
We need electronic records in the modern world, and we would expect them to be kept safe. When they are not, we should expect to be compensated. I imagine lawsuits against Ashley Madison are being filed as we speak.
What I am saying is that this will be impossible. You can sue as many people as you like, this is as much a certainty of compensation as the certainty that your information is safe.
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is not that hard a standard to meet. Juries convict people (sometimes falsely) based on that standard all the time.
I don't think convincing a jury that someone was going to commit a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is that much harder.
That's fine. What is immoral in your ethical system?
I never said we need to have a 100% honest society. There is a difference between lying to preserve social harmony (i.e. "you look good", "No I never got you email", etc), and lying about an extramarital affair.
Of the countless different moral systems people have, I have never seen one that doesn't require some degree of honesty.
If you are advocating a moral system that has no requirement for honesty at all, I feel like you are just advocating that we shouldn't have any moral system at all.
I agree with the pressure of making them offer the no contract options, but why have the dropped the contract options?
I don't know what Sprint has or has not done exactly.
I know T-mobile still offers financing options for phones, but it is separate from the phone service contract (which no longer exists).
So if sprint still offers financing for phones, that becomes the "contract", but it is different sort of contract (e.g. the kind where you promise to pay for the phone they gave you, or else).
The free market. Even in a market with only 4 vendors, it still kind of albeit vary slowly.
Once one carrier (T-mobile) caved and did it as a way to attract customers, the others eventually felt enough market pressure to follow. It was enough to get me to switch to T-mobile and become a loyal enough customer to convince about 12 other people to switch. I do still feel loyalty to T-mobile, but I am certainly now more willing to switch to anyone but AT&T if the deal is good enough.
They wouldn't, and neither would taxis in those countries.