The CAN bus was developed decades ago when cars first got electronics.
It has no appreciable security standards. The devices on the bus can implement their own security features, but that becomes a problem when you want to include components from various vendors. Most of them never even thought of security.
The only security was physical security, and that vanished as soon as the wifi connected.
Linux needs a driver that supports this new RAID controller, then it should work fine.
Proprietary junk can take a while to get added to the kernel, so Linux laptop users should look elsewhere for the time being.
There is a huge difference between "not supported" and "locked out". Maybe those two are the same thing to clueless users, but they are very different situations for kernel developers.
it should not be a matter for the legal system, the family should sort it out between themselves.
She asked for the photos to be taken down, and her parents repeatedly refused.
What lawful choices does she have aside from asking nicely or filing suit?
And I hope she wins. I am not participating in this post-every-moment madness with my children; it's disgusting.
Let them decide if they want to share that stuff with the world or not. Digital content can spread quickly and live forever---it's not like the 1980s where you can just grab the photo back if it upsets someone.
Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit?
Current sensors can't determine age. This isn't a problem because in an emergency situation most human drivers can't make that distinction either.
The best answer is: whichever human it would strike with the lowest impact energy. This minimizes the trauma, and it is a factor that normal drivers cannot consider consciously in an emergency.
Who is liable for the vehicular homicide?
As long as it's the manufacturer or your insurance company, who cares? Let the courts sort it out.
If self-driving cars are actually safer, insurance rates should drop anyway.
Can I tell it to go past the oil changes? Can I tell it that I want to drive on bald tires? Can I tell it I don't want it to phone home?
I don't understand what this has to do with self-driving cars.
Newer cars already have phone-home functionality. There are dash alerts for oil/tires/gas, but nothing shuts down.
I'd rather like to have one for maintenance purposes. I can tell it to drive to the shop after I get to work and pick me up afterward.
Can I tell my AI to speed? Can I tell it I'm in a hurry and will it respond by acceding to my wishes?
I assume you'll enjoy some personal liability if an accident happens in that situation.
If you really need to speed, choose a car that allows the operator to set the speed when they come to market.
if I don't like driving, why am I buying a car?
Maybe you like to come and go on your schedule, not whatever public transit dictates. Or maybe you'd like public transit, but it's not an option where you live and work. Maybe public transit is dirty, noisy, or otherwise unpleasant where you live.
So, there are a lot of reasons to want a car even if you don't want to drive one all the time.
If self-driving primarily needs software to control off-the-shelf sensors and motors, there is less that can be patented compared to other areas of automotive engineering.
Algorithms cannot be patented, so advances can be "acquired" by hiring people who understand how it works---you can get the knowledge without paying to discover it yourself.
With physical products, you protect that research investment with a patent. Since software is copyrighted rather than patented in the US, you can only protect a single instance of the solution, not the entire method for solving the problem.
In a few years when self-driving vehicles start selling, Ford can pick up talent and catch up on a decade of research in a few years.
They see it as a general security improvement and cost avoidance. They won't have to deal with individual vulnerabilities in the future, so they will avoid expenses over time.
Since Android 5 and 6 will remain in the wild for years, they will be fixing those issues anyway---Lollipop and Marshmallow run on more than just the Nexus 5.
using illegal monopoly power to force companies to either sell computers with ONLY their software or NONE of their software
That happened a long time ago, and the law responded. Is there any evidence that this behavior continues?
Sony didn't decided "Hey, I want everyone to use Microsoft".
Sony doesn't care. They want to sell lots of computers while keeping their production and support costs low.
If that means only supporting one OS, it will be Windows because that is what most consumers expect on their PCs.
It's the poor consumer is forced to buy Windows that they do not want
Some manufacturers have offered PCs with alternative OSes or no OSes installed. Hardly anyone bought them.
So the consumers voted with their wallets, and they voted in favor of Windows. OEMs don't care if consumers have good reasons for their preferences or not. A landslide majority wants Windows, so they get Windows.
I'm curious what OEMs you're aware of that even offer the *option* of an alternate or no OS coming preinstalled.
Given the Linux desktop penetration, I'm not surprised.
Most users are not interested in learning an entirely new OS that won't run the apps they're used to, so there is no reason for manufacturers to offer it.
It costs money to validate the software and provide support. An OEM can't just install the OS, boot it up, and call it good. If the expected sales of the Linux version don't cover the expected costs, then the product probably won't be offered with Linux.
Honestly, it often seems like Slashdot doesn't understand that most people don't care about their OS or about open software.
There's some very small companies that sell computers with Linux preinstalled such as System76, but their visibility among non-Linux enthusiasts is fairly negligible.
Why would anyone seek out a company that sells a product they don't want?
A typical user is not interested in Linux, so I expect him to be unfamiliar with OEMs who support Linux.
This ruling should have had the caveat that if a user wants a different OS Pre-installed, Sony should have to offer a "Linux option"
That is entirely naive.
Can I get a ruling that forces Audi to offer Pioneer audio decks in their cars? Or maybe a ruling that forces Ford to offer Continental tires on all new vehicles?
The manufacturer makes what they believe they can sell, and you either buy it or walk away.
We need rules for safety and environmental issues because consumers can't reasonably assess those characteristics on their own---and even if someone could, there is no way to do it before taking possession of the product.
But the OS? It's right there on the spec sheet. If you don't like the option they've chosen, either replace it with an "aftermarket" OS or buy something else in the first place.
You are buying Sony's computer model # XYZ-123. It has a number of hardware components and software packages when delivered from the factory. Refer to the spec sheet, and you will likely see Windows 10 listed.
Maybe you only care about the hardware, but the product specs include the Windows OS. And since most buyers will want a preinstalled OS, I understand why Sony ships them that way.
Hell, it probably costs them less to ship it with Windows just so they don't have to take support calls from idiots who can't manage it themselves.
If those are Microsoft's exact words, then Microsoft is telling a pants-on-fire lie.
The CPU scheduler can be optimized for each new architecture to maximize performance and to improve power efficiency. Particularly on mobile devices, it is important to schedule work on the CPUs in a way that lets it keep cores in a low power state as much as possible.
But other parts of the OS have an affect on CPU load. This includes things like managing peripherals and IO properly. So this effort will branch out to APIs for accessing files and devices.
This means the OS developers must have a detailed understanding of the CPUs that they will support, and it means there will be significant efforts in the future.
Microsoft is basically abandoning Windows 7 in order to save money and to make Windows 10 more attractive since it will end up with better performance and battery life on new devices.
Saving money and making Windows 10 more appealing? That is a huge win for them. Sorry Windows 7 users, but Microsoft is 100% incentivized to leave you behind now.
I don't see FUD at all. I see a deliberate and well-planned engineering effort. If that effort also pushes users to Windows 10, well, that is just gravy.
The recovery of the vehicle, checking and the shear violence and wear and tear of the process just make it a dead-end IMO.
People with better qualifications than you believe otherwise.
My grandpa is a technology enthusiast, and he still remembers the naysayers in the 1950s and 1960s who were absolutely certain that travel to the moon was impossible. They had all kinds of reasons why it was nothing but a sci-fi dream and a boondoggle. And we know how that turned out.
Could they make a reusable rocket in 1969? Absolutely not. Since 1969, however, our modeling, materials, and avionics have all improved tremendously. The wall of "the impossible" has been pushed out further.
I don't know that the economics will work out in the end; no one really knows how many launches a rocket will last. I bet SpaceX has an estimate though, and their prices are set so they'll be comfortable even at the low end of the range.
But engineers are not stupid people. If the "violence and wear and tear of the process" were so bad that it couldn't work, they would know. Either beforehand (if it's not even close) or after the first test launches (if there is a problem that they cannot fix).
So where are the interviews from SpaceX employees claiming the tech won't work after their first couple of launches? Even if they're bound by NDAs, they can still interview anonymously.
SpaceX received government funding to develop capabilities the government wanted. Which they have done.
And competitors (specifically ULA) got the same deal with government-funded development---they just started decades ago as individual companies, so everyone forgot that it happened.
Private commercial launches are not subsidized in any way. If SpaceX survives at $62m per launch, that is an improvement over the status quo.
Because there's such a thing as satellite insurance, which considers the launch vehicle in determining its rates.
If reused rockets are as reliable as new ones, then this shouldn't be a factor at all. But if there is a difference, the customer will face a higher insurance bill.
Also, if a launch is particularly important to my company then I might want whichever vehicle is more reliable, regardless of whether it is new or rebuilt.
Traditionally, media companies have created intellectual or artistic content. Films, television, newspapers, music. Facebook, as a company, creates none of these things.
Facebook is a conduit for its users' content. In that respect, it is more like a sewage system---it simply transports material created by one party to another party.
I could have made a comparison to cable companies vs television stations, but those lines are blurred now that half of them own the other half. Plus the sewage comparison just felt right somehow.
I have a DVD+RW drive in case I need optical media, but I haven't used it since installing the OS on the system years ago. Even then, I would have used a USB flash drive if I hadn't lost it shortly beforehand.
The network has gotten faster in the last 10-20 years, and optical media really hasn't. I can copy encrypted data over my internet connection faster than I can burn it to disc.
Hard disk capacity has grown to the point where everything will fit for most users, so there is no need to dump audio/video/apps when space runs out. USB hard drives offer greater capacity and speed. Disk is more available than ever, which makes optical media increasingly pointless.
Optical media is basically for people who want archival backups, or as a last resort for transferring data.
Slashdot Mirror
just buy one of the existing products on the market that will work with today's devices
You mean all of the proprietary solutions like the Gear and the Rift?
Where you can choose between being locked to one hardware vendor or one notoriously capricious platform?
forget this turd
I rather like the idea of an open VR API, and I look forward to seeing how this develops.
But your opinion is good too. I heard you can polish turds, after all, so there is some hope for you.
They'll trim features before they stop sucking up all your personal info.
Selling your information gets them money. Delivering features only adds to their bandwidth and electric bills.
A useful side effect of capitalism---you may be nothing more than a revenue pump, but at least their motives are simple to understand.
Want to know what makes a good university? If they're willing to flunk out the students who can't hack it, they're fine.
The problem with ITT was that they offered almost nothing in terms of education and would "graduate" an idiot as long as they got their money.
Meanwhile, in legitimate higher education, we still have lots of students coming from abroad to study at our universities.
The CAN bus was developed decades ago when cars first got electronics.
It has no appreciable security standards. The devices on the bus can implement their own security features, but that becomes a problem when you want to include components from various vendors. Most of them never even thought of security.
The only security was physical security, and that vanished as soon as the wifi connected.
Mountain out of a molehill.
Linux needs a driver that supports this new RAID controller, then it should work fine.
Proprietary junk can take a while to get added to the kernel, so Linux laptop users should look elsewhere for the time being.
There is a huge difference between "not supported" and "locked out". Maybe those two are the same thing to clueless users, but they are very different situations for kernel developers.
If IKE is part of a FIPS-certified crypto implementation, then the new code will have to be recertified.
Assuming that is the case, Cisco is likely working with its validator to ensure their code will be approved.
This is in addition to the functional testing that you'd expect for any change to enterprise infrastructure.
Enterprise vendors don't just bang out a quick fix and pray that it works or gets regulatory approval.
it should not be a matter for the legal system, the family should sort it out between themselves.
She asked for the photos to be taken down, and her parents repeatedly refused.
What lawful choices does she have aside from asking nicely or filing suit?
And I hope she wins. I am not participating in this post-every-moment madness with my children; it's disgusting.
Let them decide if they want to share that stuff with the world or not. Digital content can spread quickly and live forever---it's not like the 1980s where you can just grab the photo back if it upsets someone.
Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit?
Current sensors can't determine age. This isn't a problem because in an emergency situation most human drivers can't make that distinction either.
The best answer is: whichever human it would strike with the lowest impact energy. This minimizes the trauma, and it is a factor that normal drivers cannot consider consciously in an emergency.
Who is liable for the vehicular homicide?
As long as it's the manufacturer or your insurance company, who cares? Let the courts sort it out.
If self-driving cars are actually safer, insurance rates should drop anyway.
Can I tell it to go past the oil changes? Can I tell it that I want to drive on bald tires? Can I tell it I don't want it to phone home?
I don't understand what this has to do with self-driving cars.
Newer cars already have phone-home functionality. There are dash alerts for oil/tires/gas, but nothing shuts down.
I'd rather like to have one for maintenance purposes. I can tell it to drive to the shop after I get to work and pick me up afterward.
Can I tell my AI to speed? Can I tell it I'm in a hurry and will it respond by acceding to my wishes?
I assume you'll enjoy some personal liability if an accident happens in that situation.
If you really need to speed, choose a car that allows the operator to set the speed when they come to market.
if I don't like driving, why am I buying a car?
Maybe you like to come and go on your schedule, not whatever public transit dictates. Or maybe you'd like public transit, but it's not an option where you live and work. Maybe public transit is dirty, noisy, or otherwise unpleasant where you live.
So, there are a lot of reasons to want a car even if you don't want to drive one all the time.
Let their competitors do all the hard work.
If self-driving primarily needs software to control off-the-shelf sensors and motors, there is less that can be patented compared to other areas of automotive engineering.
Algorithms cannot be patented, so advances can be "acquired" by hiring people who understand how it works---you can get the knowledge without paying to discover it yourself.
With physical products, you protect that research investment with a patent. Since software is copyrighted rather than patented in the US, you can only protect a single instance of the solution, not the entire method for solving the problem.
In a few years when self-driving vehicles start selling, Ford can pick up talent and catch up on a decade of research in a few years.
Rearchitecting a product so that it is inherently less vulnerable is exactly what every software developer should be doing.
Taking a stab at Google over this is something only an idiot would do.
They see it as a general security improvement and cost avoidance. They won't have to deal with individual vulnerabilities in the future, so they will avoid expenses over time.
Since Android 5 and 6 will remain in the wild for years, they will be fixing those issues anyway---Lollipop and Marshmallow run on more than just the Nexus 5.
using illegal monopoly power to force companies to either sell computers with ONLY their software or NONE of their software
That happened a long time ago, and the law responded. Is there any evidence that this behavior continues?
Sony didn't decided "Hey, I want everyone to use Microsoft".
Sony doesn't care. They want to sell lots of computers while keeping their production and support costs low.
If that means only supporting one OS, it will be Windows because that is what most consumers expect on their PCs.
It's the poor consumer is forced to buy Windows that they do not want
Some manufacturers have offered PCs with alternative OSes or no OSes installed. Hardly anyone bought them.
So the consumers voted with their wallets, and they voted in favor of Windows. OEMs don't care if consumers have good reasons for their preferences or not. A landslide majority wants Windows, so they get Windows.
I'm curious what OEMs you're aware of that even offer the *option* of an alternate or no OS coming preinstalled.
Given the Linux desktop penetration, I'm not surprised.
Most users are not interested in learning an entirely new OS that won't run the apps they're used to, so there is no reason for manufacturers to offer it.
It costs money to validate the software and provide support. An OEM can't just install the OS, boot it up, and call it good. If the expected sales of the Linux version don't cover the expected costs, then the product probably won't be offered with Linux.
Honestly, it often seems like Slashdot doesn't understand that most people don't care about their OS or about open software.
There's some very small companies that sell computers with Linux preinstalled such as System76, but their visibility among non-Linux enthusiasts is fairly negligible.
Why would anyone seek out a company that sells a product they don't want?
A typical user is not interested in Linux, so I expect him to be unfamiliar with OEMs who support Linux.
This ruling should have had the caveat that if a user wants a different OS Pre-installed, Sony should have to offer a "Linux option"
That is entirely naive.
Can I get a ruling that forces Audi to offer Pioneer audio decks in their cars? Or maybe a ruling that forces Ford to offer Continental tires on all new vehicles?
The manufacturer makes what they believe they can sell, and you either buy it or walk away.
We need rules for safety and environmental issues because consumers can't reasonably assess those characteristics on their own---and even if someone could, there is no way to do it before taking possession of the product.
But the OS? It's right there on the spec sheet. If you don't like the option they've chosen, either replace it with an "aftermarket" OS or buy something else in the first place.
Painfully wrong.
You are buying Sony's computer model # XYZ-123. It has a number of hardware components and software packages when delivered from the factory. Refer to the spec sheet, and you will likely see Windows 10 listed.
Maybe you only care about the hardware, but the product specs include the Windows OS. And since most buyers will want a preinstalled OS, I understand why Sony ships them that way.
Hell, it probably costs them less to ship it with Windows just so they don't have to take support calls from idiots who can't manage it themselves.
I just pay for them as an option. Including an OS or not is a pretty easy option.
The point is that the manufacturer decides what's an option and what isn't. If you don't like their decision, look for another manufacturer.
Using your car analogy: On some cars, automatic transmission is an option. On some models, it's baseline and you get it whether you want it or not.
Fortunately for computer users, it is much easier to change the OS on a laptop than to replace the transmission on a car.
If those are Microsoft's exact words, then Microsoft is telling a pants-on-fire lie.
The CPU scheduler can be optimized for each new architecture to maximize performance and to improve power efficiency. Particularly on mobile devices, it is important to schedule work on the CPUs in a way that lets it keep cores in a low power state as much as possible.
But other parts of the OS have an affect on CPU load. This includes things like managing peripherals and IO properly. So this effort will branch out to APIs for accessing files and devices.
This means the OS developers must have a detailed understanding of the CPUs that they will support, and it means there will be significant efforts in the future.
Microsoft is basically abandoning Windows 7 in order to save money and to make Windows 10 more attractive since it will end up with better performance and battery life on new devices.
Saving money and making Windows 10 more appealing? That is a huge win for them. Sorry Windows 7 users, but Microsoft is 100% incentivized to leave you behind now.
I don't see FUD at all. I see a deliberate and well-planned engineering effort. If that effort also pushes users to Windows 10, well, that is just gravy.
Does this "deep integration" mean sleep/suspend/hibernate will finally work right all the time on Windows machines?
Because that would be great.
That's all it takes. This is marketing.
Yeah, except there's no marketing value for being the first satellite operator to launch on a reused rocket.
Their customers are not the general public; their customers are enterprise, and features/prices matter more than some fleeting bit of newsprint.
I would agree if SES sold to consumers, but they don't. They have no branding in the mind of your average citizen.
The recovery of the vehicle, checking and the shear violence and wear and tear of the process just make it a dead-end IMO.
People with better qualifications than you believe otherwise.
My grandpa is a technology enthusiast, and he still remembers the naysayers in the 1950s and 1960s who were absolutely certain that travel to the moon was impossible. They had all kinds of reasons why it was nothing but a sci-fi dream and a boondoggle. And we know how that turned out.
Could they make a reusable rocket in 1969? Absolutely not. Since 1969, however, our modeling, materials, and avionics have all improved tremendously. The wall of "the impossible" has been pushed out further.
I don't know that the economics will work out in the end; no one really knows how many launches a rocket will last. I bet SpaceX has an estimate though, and their prices are set so they'll be comfortable even at the low end of the range.
But engineers are not stupid people. If the "violence and wear and tear of the process" were so bad that it couldn't work, they would know. Either beforehand (if it's not even close) or after the first test launches (if there is a problem that they cannot fix).
So where are the interviews from SpaceX employees claiming the tech won't work after their first couple of launches? Even if they're bound by NDAs, they can still interview anonymously.
SpaceX received government funding to develop capabilities the government wanted. Which they have done.
And competitors (specifically ULA) got the same deal with government-funded development---they just started decades ago as individual companies, so everyone forgot that it happened.
Private commercial launches are not subsidized in any way. If SpaceX survives at $62m per launch, that is an improvement over the status quo.
why would the rocket core be any different?
Because there's such a thing as satellite insurance, which considers the launch vehicle in determining its rates.
If reused rockets are as reliable as new ones, then this shouldn't be a factor at all. But if there is a difference, the customer will face a higher insurance bill.
Also, if a launch is particularly important to my company then I might want whichever vehicle is more reliable, regardless of whether it is new or rebuilt.
What is this tab-expansion black magic that you're talking about?
You know, this mystery thing that Silicon Valley apparently knows nothing about.
Otherwise known as "the feature which makes their entire analysis meaningless".
Not really.
Traditionally, media companies have created intellectual or artistic content. Films, television, newspapers, music. Facebook, as a company, creates none of these things.
Facebook is a conduit for its users' content. In that respect, it is more like a sewage system---it simply transports material created by one party to another party.
I could have made a comparison to cable companies vs television stations, but those lines are blurred now that half of them own the other half. Plus the sewage comparison just felt right somehow.
I have a DVD+RW drive in case I need optical media, but I haven't used it since installing the OS on the system years ago. Even then, I would have used a USB flash drive if I hadn't lost it shortly beforehand.
The network has gotten faster in the last 10-20 years, and optical media really hasn't. I can copy encrypted data over my internet connection faster than I can burn it to disc.
Hard disk capacity has grown to the point where everything will fit for most users, so there is no need to dump audio/video/apps when space runs out. USB hard drives offer greater capacity and speed. Disk is more available than ever, which makes optical media increasingly pointless.
Optical media is basically for people who want archival backups, or as a last resort for transferring data.