What I can't figure out is how incompetent the car industry's software engineers must be. The implication of this is that it's possible to clone a key based only on the signal it gives off. The implication of that is that they're sending out a static password.
I mean, why are these keys not just broadcasting an "I'm here" signal (possibly with a unique id), and then doing some challenge/response authentication ala SRP that can't have the key reverse engineered from the transmissions to actually perform the unlock.
How did the car companies think they could get away with such crappy security?
Of course evolution doesn't find optimal solutions. It finds a solution, sometimes. It happens to have found quite a few solutions on earth. None of them are optimal, as evidenced by the fact that they're mostly all still capable of killing each other.
However... Not all dogs are still wolves. That is, there are actually now sufficiently large differences between dog breeds that they can't interbreed, and hence could reasonably be classified as different species.
Similarly, these lizards are likely to become a new species too, because by living high up in the trees, they'll not come into contact with their less grippy cousins, and hence are likely to evolve in entirely incompatible ways.
No, again, not unfalsifiable. If you apply pressure and they don't adapt, then you falsified evolution. It just happens to be really hard to falsify, because it's actually happening, and we can observe it.
If you could give me a generalized description of how you would methodologically know that an organism we -know- is designed
That's the point though, we know it's not designed. We can sit there and observe how a new organism is produced from the parents. We can sit there and observe how this produces new things for natural selection to test, and we can set there and observe that the less successful ones don't get to breed. Finally we can sit there and observe that in not breeding their genes become less likely to be present in the following generations, and that the following generations develop general traits based on the above.
All of the above is trivially observable in the modern world. To deny it is like denying that the sun exists because "there might be other explanations for why there's lots of light and heat coming from the sky".
At this point, evolution isn't really falsifiable. But not because of it not being a valid theory (the theory is that if you have things breeding, and their genetic makeup changing as they breed, then any selection at all will cause changes over time), instead, it's simply because of the huge body of evidence - we have watched many species evolve at this point, and hence know without a shadow of a doubt that it does happen.
This is why it's so ridiculous for religious nuts to argue against evolution.
What's not trivially observable though is the idea that all of us, and all animals evolved from some origin of life. There's some pretty compelling evidence that that did happen (see the fossil record for example), but there are holes in the explanation that still need to be understood. I'm amazed that any religious person doesn't believe (if they must believe that god put us here) that god put some life here, and it subsequently evolved into its current state, given that we can see the evolution happening right in front of our eyes.
So what you're saying then is that it's fine to break the law, and put other people's lives at risk by speeding through a junction as the lights change, as long as your car is powerful?
No, just predicting income does not imply that you don't think the ideal income is 0. I can also predict that in an average job I'll have to go in and actually do work 40 hours a week, even though I think the ideal is 0.
The point of the cameras was revenue, not traffic safety.
Says the article...
No one else has claimed that. They merely predicted that driving was bad enough that it would happen to bring a certain revenue. It turns out that driving is better than they thought, and now they're happy.
No, you apparently don't. In every state I'm aware of yellow means "stop if you can". It's effectively red, but lenient enough that if you're close to it and can't stop when it appears, then you're still fine.
They're not - the judiciary and the government are entirely separate entities in the UK. Hence why the judiciary can preside over cases against the government.
The JVM is very language specific. For example it has op codes for allocating java objects. A truly cross language virtual machine doesn't have anything anywhere near that high level or specific to a particular language.
Second, javascript can be the compile target of LLVM bytecode. You can compile your favourite C program to js
But in doing so will lose all of the ability of the compiler to see what you actually wanted to do, and to optimise your code.
asm.js can be set as target for emscripten. The browsers supporting asm.js simply JIT it to bytecode, and those which don't still can run asm.js, but way slower.
Alternatively, we could skip the added complexity of javascript, and just provide the byte code directly to the browser.
Why the hell are we still stuck using Javascript for the web? Why have we not got some virtual machine (not a language specific one like the JVM), that we can compile any language we like to? Half the world is trying to hack around javascript's shortcomings. If even half that effort was directed at making PNaCl viable on all browsers, we would be so much further forward.
Sure it would –it just wouldn't last 20 years. With charging in a few minutes, I think he's perfectly capable of charging it while he's working. So that's 2 charges a day, or one every 12 hours. That means it'll last 13.7 years. To be honest, that's a pretty reasonable length of time for a car.
That's true in low speed impacts, especially ones where your head is otherwise protected. It's not at all true in accidents where a lot of energy is involved. When you're talking about 50g deceleration, the most important thing is to make sure that the head doesn't accelerate rapidly away from the spinal column. That's why Formula 1 drivers wear a HANS (Head And Neck Support) device - to stop the head pulling forward off the spine in a crash. The brace position does a similar thing.
Sadly, the typical crash involves the plane ripping itself apart and burning the passengers alive. Only a few rare accidents have the plane smash into a building.
Actually, no, surprisingly. Not only is your likelihood of being in a plane crash lower than that when driving, but... Even if you assume you're doing to be in a plane (or car) crash, your chance of surviving are actually higher in a plane. 75% of people involved in a plane crash survive. Meanwhile, only 50% of people involved in a car crash survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, it would be much more sensible to rely on the dwindling money that Scotland gets from north sea Oil, and not encourage new economies to grow.
pshaw! Vote Kang!
An SS number is 9 digits. That's 30 bits (round to 4 bytes if you want), not 9.
A telephone number is 34 bits (5 bytes if you want to round)
What I can't figure out is how incompetent the car industry's software engineers must be. The implication of this is that it's possible to clone a key based only on the signal it gives off. The implication of that is that they're sending out a static password.
I mean, why are these keys not just broadcasting an "I'm here" signal (possibly with a unique id), and then doing some challenge/response authentication ala SRP that can't have the key reverse engineered from the transmissions to actually perform the unlock.
How did the car companies think they could get away with such crappy security?
What, you mean you don't want to be able to be tracked by the police, but now you're offended by the idea that the police wouldn't want to be tracked?
Of course it is - we can observe how the design came about, as described above. It was not via a designer, therefore it was not designed.
What we can't prove is whether or not some root creature was designed or not.
Of course evolution doesn't find optimal solutions. It finds a solution, sometimes. It happens to have found quite a few solutions on earth. None of them are optimal, as evidenced by the fact that they're mostly all still capable of killing each other.
However... Not all dogs are still wolves. That is, there are actually now sufficiently large differences between dog breeds that they can't interbreed, and hence could reasonably be classified as different species.
Similarly, these lizards are likely to become a new species too, because by living high up in the trees, they'll not come into contact with their less grippy cousins, and hence are likely to evolve in entirely incompatible ways.
No, again, not unfalsifiable. If you apply pressure and they don't adapt, then you falsified evolution. It just happens to be really hard to falsify, because it's actually happening, and we can observe it.
If you could give me a generalized description of how you would methodologically know that an organism we -know- is designed
That's the point though, we know it's not designed. We can sit there and observe how a new organism is produced from the parents. We can sit there and observe how this produces new things for natural selection to test, and we can set there and observe that the less successful ones don't get to breed. Finally we can sit there and observe that in not breeding their genes become less likely to be present in the following generations, and that the following generations develop general traits based on the above.
All of the above is trivially observable in the modern world. To deny it is like denying that the sun exists because "there might be other explanations for why there's lots of light and heat coming from the sky".
Sometimes organisms adapt to selection pressure, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they go extinct.
Some going extinct is adaptation. The remaining life forms on the planet are more adapted to the situation. That's how evolution works.
At this point, evolution isn't really falsifiable. But not because of it not being a valid theory (the theory is that if you have things breeding, and their genetic makeup changing as they breed, then any selection at all will cause changes over time), instead, it's simply because of the huge body of evidence - we have watched many species evolve at this point, and hence know without a shadow of a doubt that it does happen.
This is why it's so ridiculous for religious nuts to argue against evolution.
What's not trivially observable though is the idea that all of us, and all animals evolved from some origin of life. There's some pretty compelling evidence that that did happen (see the fossil record for example), but there are holes in the explanation that still need to be understood. I'm amazed that any religious person doesn't believe (if they must believe that god put us here) that god put some life here, and it subsequently evolved into its current state, given that we can see the evolution happening right in front of our eyes.
So what you're saying then is that it's fine to break the law, and put other people's lives at risk by speeding through a junction as the lights change, as long as your car is powerful?
No, just predicting income does not imply that you don't think the ideal income is 0. I can also predict that in an average job I'll have to go in and actually do work 40 hours a week, even though I think the ideal is 0.
The point of the cameras was revenue, not traffic safety.
Says the article...
No one else has claimed that. They merely predicted that driving was bad enough that it would happen to bring a certain revenue. It turns out that driving is better than they thought, and now they're happy.
No, you apparently don't. In every state I'm aware of yellow means "stop if you can". It's effectively red, but lenient enough that if you're close to it and can't stop when it appears, then you're still fine.
It's amazing how many people who claim to have a sub 0.4s reaction time suddenly have a 4 second reaction time when faced with a yellow light.
They're not - the judiciary and the government are entirely separate entities in the UK. Hence why the judiciary can preside over cases against the government.
The JVM has opcodes for allocating objects and calling methods on them
And there are many languages out there that don't work in terms of objects and calling methods on them ;).
The JVM is very language specific. For example it has op codes for allocating java objects. A truly cross language virtual machine doesn't have anything anywhere near that high level or specific to a particular language.
Second, javascript can be the compile target of LLVM bytecode. You can compile your favourite C program to js
But in doing so will lose all of the ability of the compiler to see what you actually wanted to do, and to optimise your code.
asm.js can be set as target for emscripten. The browsers supporting asm.js simply JIT it to bytecode, and those which don't still can run asm.js, but way slower.
Alternatively, we could skip the added complexity of javascript, and just provide the byte code directly to the browser.
Why the hell are we still stuck using Javascript for the web? Why have we not got some virtual machine (not a language specific one like the JVM), that we can compile any language we like to? Half the world is trying to hack around javascript's shortcomings. If even half that effort was directed at making PNaCl viable on all browsers, we would be so much further forward.
Sure it would –it just wouldn't last 20 years. With charging in a few minutes, I think he's perfectly capable of charging it while he's working. So that's 2 charges a day, or one every 12 hours. That means it'll last 13.7 years. To be honest, that's a pretty reasonable length of time for a car.
Are you claiming you drive more than 274 miles average every single day for 20 years running?
That's true in low speed impacts, especially ones where your head is otherwise protected. It's not at all true in accidents where a lot of energy is involved. When you're talking about 50g deceleration, the most important thing is to make sure that the head doesn't accelerate rapidly away from the spinal column. That's why Formula 1 drivers wear a HANS (Head And Neck Support) device - to stop the head pulling forward off the spine in a crash. The brace position does a similar thing.
Sadly, the typical crash involves the plane ripping itself apart and burning the passengers alive. Only a few rare accidents have the plane smash into a building.
Actually, no, surprisingly. Not only is your likelihood of being in a plane crash lower than that when driving, but... Even if you assume you're doing to be in a plane (or car) crash, your chance of surviving are actually higher in a plane. 75% of people involved in a plane crash survive. Meanwhile, only 50% of people involved in a car crash survive.