It would be negligent to develop software in such a compartmentalised way, because the EPA asks for sign off on what sensors affect the smog, and if you do what you are suggesting, it would be damned difficult to sign off on that.
You're right, it's not illegal to perform differently in the test because traction control is off. But IF YOU DO, you have to fully document to the EPA what you are doing with that sensor, and why you are doing it, and get sign off that your excuse is acceptable. I'm guessing that didn't happen.
I don't think there is a flag to say we are in test mode. The car is not supposed to know that. There may well be a flag which says traction control is off. And yes, someone could wrongly use it. However we shouldn't forget the US smog laws explicitly ask the company to sign off that they are NOT using any such sensor flags to alter smog output. So if some engineer did that, and there was no audit procedure to check, then there was a lot of negligence going on.
Efficient in what sense? In energy losses? (Are you including the transmission network?) In cost? In greenhouse gases? In total lifetime energy use (Are you including the extra costs of manufacture?).
It might have happened like this, but we can't forget that the EPA explicitly asks for sign off that there are no defeat devices, aka sensors that alter smog output under certain conditions. Now you would think in 10 years of people signing off someone might have asked engineering to sign off on it, so that they could sign off and do an audit.
We'll see what comes out, but I suspect they don't even bother with different firmware. These EPA test conditions probably don't affect normal running.
I'm not sure that absence of malice will get you out of the fines. The law says something about knowingly breaking the rules, or where you SHOULD have known you were breaking the rules. I suspect shipping violating cars for 10 years without doing anything would probably come under a case of where you should have known it is in violation.
Depends. The EPA laws say you can't use sensors to alter smog output AT ALL unless you report it first to the EPA with justifications and get sign off on it. So yes you could have a learning system, no problem. But if that system gets input from say traction control off (which it is in testing) or steering wheel position, bonnet/hood up etc, then you are in violation.
It's possible, but the EPA laws specifically ask you to sign off on what sensors alter smog conditions, so if it was some rogue engineer, then there was certainly a lack of due diligence by whoever signed off to the EPA.
Except that the lawyers are supposed to sign off to the EPA on what sensors alter smog output and under what conditions. So somebody signed off on it. And you would think that person would have done some basic due diligence like asking the tech heads if these statements are true.
Except that you are supposed to report in your smog test to the EPA any car sensors that you use to alter smog output. So if you did what you suggest for good reasons, and didn't tell the EPA you are in violation.
If the code was like IF HOOD/BONNET is up DO NO SMOG MODE, then it could be one line of code. I suspect the conditions for this are actually relatively simple. The EPA suggested it was traction control off, steering straight ahead, etc.
The problem is there is no clear line between legitimate pricing and "scum of the earth". The truth is, all pills cost pennies to make, and the difference between that price and the selling price is to support a particular business model and share price. This is the same for Turing as for Big Pharma. Turing needs the money to expand his company. Big Pharma need the money for the same reason. Anytime you grant a monopoly on a product, capitalism is no longer capitalism, with all the assumptions about competition that are normally implied by capitalism.
No they can't. There are a million hoops to jump through to prove your generic is as good as the original. And if Turing won't sell you the original to test, then you are out of luck.
Once the enterprising company has spent the money developing it, there wouldn't be much incentive to stop just because another player dropped prices. It would be then just a battle for whoever had deeper pockets.
Surely the drug still sold by GSK in the UK would still be considered the "original drug", no? I mean, I would presume that when GSK was selling it in the US, they'd have been free to import it themselves from their UK subsidiary without anybody blinking an eye, right?
I suspect it would cost $5000 per car to do that, and a lot of these cars aren't worth $5000 any more. When you think of all the modifications necessary, it isn't trivial. Assuming the feds actually force VW to fix it, and don't let it slide with a fine only, the best thing VW could probably do is buy the cars back and sell them somewhere else in the world who doesn't care about this.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be negligent to develop software in such a compartmentalised way, because the EPA asks for sign off on what sensors affect the smog, and if you do what you are suggesting, it would be damned difficult to sign off on that.
You're right, it's not illegal to perform differently in the test because traction control is off. But IF YOU DO, you have to fully document to the EPA what you are doing with that sensor, and why you are doing it, and get sign off that your excuse is acceptable. I'm guessing that didn't happen.
I don't think there is a flag to say we are in test mode. The car is not supposed to know that. There may well be a flag which says traction control is off. And yes, someone could wrongly use it. However we shouldn't forget the US smog laws explicitly ask the company to sign off that they are NOT using any such sensor flags to alter smog output. So if some engineer did that, and there was no audit procedure to check, then there was a lot of negligence going on.
Unless you know the American laws, there is a fine line between optimising for the test and defrauding the test.
Efficient in what sense? In energy losses? (Are you including the transmission network?) In cost? In greenhouse gases? In total lifetime energy use (Are you including the extra costs of manufacture?).
It might have happened like this, but we can't forget that the EPA explicitly asks for sign off that there are no defeat devices, aka sensors that alter smog output under certain conditions. Now you would think in 10 years of people signing off someone might have asked engineering to sign off on it, so that they could sign off and do an audit.
We'll see what comes out, but I suspect they don't even bother with different firmware. These EPA test conditions probably don't affect normal running.
I'm not sure that absence of malice will get you out of the fines. The law says something about knowingly breaking the rules, or where you SHOULD have known you were breaking the rules. I suspect shipping violating cars for 10 years without doing anything would probably come under a case of where you should have known it is in violation.
Depends. The EPA laws say you can't use sensors to alter smog output AT ALL unless you report it first to the EPA with justifications and get sign off on it. So yes you could have a learning system, no problem. But if that system gets input from say traction control off (which it is in testing) or steering wheel position, bonnet/hood up etc, then you are in violation.
It's possible, but the EPA laws specifically ask you to sign off on what sensors alter smog conditions, so if it was some rogue engineer, then there was certainly a lack of due diligence by whoever signed off to the EPA.
Most people aren't that careful. Especially if the order actually came from above.
Except that the lawyers are supposed to sign off to the EPA on what sensors alter smog output and under what conditions. So somebody signed off on it. And you would think that person would have done some basic due diligence like asking the tech heads if these statements are true.
Funnily enough, top brass often seem to implicate themselves in emails. We'll have to see what comes out.
Except that you are supposed to report in your smog test to the EPA any car sensors that you use to alter smog output. So if you did what you suggest for good reasons, and didn't tell the EPA you are in violation.
If the code was like IF HOOD/BONNET is up DO NO SMOG MODE, then it could be one line of code. I suspect the conditions for this are actually relatively simple. The EPA suggested it was traction control off, steering straight ahead, etc.
This is a cool idea if the ad software gave the user a kickback on this. Hey, pay me to look at your ads, and I'll look at them! Nice.
Surely Pathfinder is the mars rover mission that has already gone, not any mission slated for 2028. This article looks like nonsense.
"NSA was down there with submarines patching."
If you say so. They can't patch every link though.
The problem is there is no clear line between legitimate pricing and "scum of the earth". The truth is, all pills cost pennies to make, and the difference between that price and the selling price is to support a particular business model and share price. This is the same for Turing as for Big Pharma. Turing needs the money to expand his company. Big Pharma need the money for the same reason. Anytime you grant a monopoly on a product, capitalism is no longer capitalism, with all the assumptions about competition that are normally implied by capitalism.
No they can't. There are a million hoops to jump through to prove your generic is as good as the original. And if Turing won't sell you the original to test, then you are out of luck.
Once the enterprising company has spent the money developing it, there wouldn't be much incentive to stop just because another player dropped prices. It would be then just a battle for whoever had deeper pockets.
Surely the drug still sold by GSK in the UK would still be considered the "original drug", no? I mean, I would presume that when GSK was selling it in the US, they'd have been free to import it themselves from their UK subsidiary without anybody blinking an eye, right?
Awww, since they design their own CPUs that's a bit harsh.
I'm sure almost every automotive company in the world is working on an electric car. Maybe Apple will rebrand and rebody one of them.
I suspect it would cost $5000 per car to do that, and a lot of these cars aren't worth $5000 any more. When you think of all the modifications necessary, it isn't trivial. Assuming the feds actually force VW to fix it, and don't let it slide with a fine only, the best thing VW could probably do is buy the cars back and sell them somewhere else in the world who doesn't care about this.