Anonymous statements have zero credibility. I do not read them. Anybody can claim anything anonymously and it is pretty easy to make statements that sound credible, but are a complete fabrication.
Rather obviously, this is about a microphone the OS does not know about or where the OS thinks it is something else. One could even say that this is exceptionally exceedingly massively obvious. But apparently still not obvious enough for some people.
I am not able to find any account of what has happened that does not come with a strong political agenda attached. That is the core problem with public accusations as opposed to filing a complaint: It immediately muddies the waters as people on both sides jump on the issue and try to exploit it for their own agendas. I honestly have no idea of what to think of this because all possibilities from him having done exactly what is claimed to this being an orchestrated smear-campaign seem now equally probable. I even consider it possible that he was a mole and what happens now is the desired outcome. Not good at all.
This "enhancement" is not an enhancement. It consists of having a computer guess. If the computer guesses wrong, the sound quality is actually degraded. There is no technology in this universe than can reconstruct data that is missing from the signal, as that would require magic.
From the accelerometers I have seen, this is infeasible, as they can report far too few measurements per second. I think the fastest one I looked at had 200 measurements/sec, but only at reduced resolution, so it may not even pick up loud sound at that.
If you can physically manipulate the device, plant a proper microphone. If not, this is irrelevant, as there is no A/D input connected to that motor. The whole thing is an utterly worthless stunt by "researchers" greedy for attention but lacking in actual scientific skill. Why does this get reported here?
Indeed. The usual free-market fanatics routinely keep quite about the little problem that a corporate stranglehold can be even worse for market freedom than government control.
Indeed. BB OS 10 (being bases on QNX) is really snappy and nice. Since they dropped that now, they have lost any reason to stop QNX from doing what it can do really well. But with the current stupidity at the head of BB, they will probably just drag QNX down with them.
This will not be your average ElCheapo potentiometer as sensor on the pedal. Also, the A/D conversion will be by far fast enough to detect this and you would never use the full range when using a potentiometer as a sensor anyways and hence can detect failures. This is pretty much out as source of the problem.
Independent code audits. Tesla will make very sure the logs are accurate and that they can prove it. And no, logs, done right, show what was done to the pedal as well.
That is not a good idea: The typical situation where you floor the pedal is one where getting all the power available _now_ saves your life: Overtaking with oncoming traffic and you misjudged. Sure, you could prevent that when going at low speed, but once you start to mess with this, you will be facing lawsuits right and left, because some people will find situations where the automatics amplified damage, even if on average they reduced it.
Not all people are like that, and there will be some people that are honestly confused about what happened. But I agree, there are far too many liars around.
And hence the event recorder and they will make _very_ sure it records accurately. Eventually all cars will have one and that will curb this dishonorable and greedy behavior.
It will take a while, but eventually people will need to learn that with an event recorder in the vehicle, they have to actually fess up to the stupid things they did.
Of course, honest people did that l along, bit they seem to be increasingly hard to come by these days.
The article is mostly BS. These new vacuum tubes are not for logic, they are for RF. A primary reason is the problems you describe. Another is that they will _not_ get as small as logic transistors anytime soon. But for RF, they are superior to silicon.
It is also a factor of size, but vacuum tubes react differently to EMP. The thing is FETs suffer damage to the gate-insulation on EMP due to high voltages. Vacuum tubes are on some abstraction level similar to FETs, but they use a vacuum for that insulation and that cannot be damaged directly. Still, if the EMP is strong enough, it may dislodge metal particles due to high currents and those do damage, and more so with smaller vacuum tubes. They should still be a lot more EMP resistant.
That's exactly how I read it. All the excuses giving are weak at best. Microsoft doesn't want to invest the time and money. But figures, Microsoft's products that are non-office are mostly turning into trash.
I agree, but I think the same is happening with Office, just slower.
Fascinating. If did not call you a clueless idiot before, but I will do so now. The term "one way encryption" is not used for cryto-hashes, and in particular it is not found on the wikipedia-page you link. Apparently, you did not read it. And while there are certainly crypto-hash constructions based on block-ciphers, this is not a defining characteristic at all, and these are usually slower than proper crypto hashes. I also never said crypto hashes were "symmetric". If you were actually able to read, you would have seen that I said that signatures based on hashes are symmetric signatures. That is a rather large difference. Incidentally, many asymmetric signature algorithms do not need hashes at all, they just become slow and tedious without them. They are certainly not "defined" that way at all and they are not based on them either, because it is not the hash that provides the security functionality. The hash serves to speed things up and make the signed message smaller, but that is it.
I would however say that the gem in your collection is confusing certificates and keys. That is priceless to anybody with some real crypto knowledge.
Listen kid, get at least crypto 101 before you try to tussle with somebody on PhD level in the security field. You are so outclassed it is not funny anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous statements have zero credibility. I do not read them. Anybody can claim anything anonymously and it is pretty easy to make statements that sound credible, but are a complete fabrication.
... and which this story is not about at all. Seriously.
Rather obviously, this is about a microphone the OS does not know about or where the OS thinks it is something else. One could even say that this is exceptionally exceedingly massively obvious. But apparently still not obvious enough for some people.
I am not able to find any account of what has happened that does not come with a strong political agenda attached. That is the core problem with public accusations as opposed to filing a complaint: It immediately muddies the waters as people on both sides jump on the issue and try to exploit it for their own agendas. I honestly have no idea of what to think of this because all possibilities from him having done exactly what is claimed to this being an orchestrated smear-campaign seem now equally probable. I even consider it possible that he was a mole and what happens now is the desired outcome. Not good at all.
I would say that this gets reported is worse.
This "enhancement" is not an enhancement. It consists of having a computer guess. If the computer guesses wrong, the sound quality is actually degraded. There is no technology in this universe than can reconstruct data that is missing from the signal, as that would require magic.
From the accelerometers I have seen, this is infeasible, as they can report far too few measurements per second. I think the fastest one I looked at had 200 measurements/sec, but only at reduced resolution, so it may not even pick up loud sound at that.
If you can physically manipulate the device, plant a proper microphone. If not, this is irrelevant, as there is no A/D input connected to that motor. The whole thing is an utterly worthless stunt by "researchers" greedy for attention but lacking in actual scientific skill. Why does this get reported here?
Indeed. The usual free-market fanatics routinely keep quite about the little problem that a corporate stranglehold can be even worse for market freedom than government control.
Meeep, wrong.
Indeed. BB OS 10 (being bases on QNX) is really snappy and nice. Since they dropped that now, they have lost any reason to stop QNX from doing what it can do really well. But with the current stupidity at the head of BB, they will probably just drag QNX down with them.
This will not be your average ElCheapo potentiometer as sensor on the pedal. Also, the A/D conversion will be by far fast enough to detect this and you would never use the full range when using a potentiometer as a sensor anyways and hence can detect failures. This is pretty much out as source of the problem.
Incidentally, the brakes _must_ be designed so they win in ordinary cars. (Trucks are different.)
Independent code audits. Tesla will make very sure the logs are accurate and that they can prove it. And no, logs, done right, show what was done to the pedal as well.
That is not a good idea: The typical situation where you floor the pedal is one where getting all the power available _now_ saves your life: Overtaking with oncoming traffic and you misjudged. Sure, you could prevent that when going at low speed, but once you start to mess with this, you will be facing lawsuits right and left, because some people will find situations where the automatics amplified damage, even if on average they reduced it.
Not all people are like that, and there will be some people that are honestly confused about what happened. But I agree, there are far too many liars around.
And hence the event recorder and they will make _very_ sure it records accurately. Eventually all cars will have one and that will curb this dishonorable and greedy behavior.
That would likely put them in jail for an extended period of time...
It will take a while, but eventually people will need to learn that with an event recorder in the vehicle, they have to actually fess up to the stupid things they did.
Of course, honest people did that l along, bit they seem to be increasingly hard to come by these days.
The article is mostly BS. These new vacuum tubes are not for logic, they are for RF. A primary reason is the problems you describe. Another is that they will _not_ get as small as logic transistors anytime soon. But for RF, they are superior to silicon.
It is also a factor of size, but vacuum tubes react differently to EMP. The thing is FETs suffer damage to the gate-insulation on EMP due to high voltages. Vacuum tubes are on some abstraction level similar to FETs, but they use a vacuum for that insulation and that cannot be damaged directly. Still, if the EMP is strong enough, it may dislodge metal particles due to high currents and those do damage, and more so with smaller vacuum tubes. They should still be a lot more EMP resistant.
That would be nice. Another case of a technology being used not because it is good, but because it was hyped.
That's exactly how I read it. All the excuses giving are weak at best. Microsoft doesn't want to invest the time and money. But figures, Microsoft's products that are non-office are mostly turning into trash.
I agree, but I think the same is happening with Office, just slower.
Well, not really. The upgrade is free. But you have a point.
Fascinating. If did not call you a clueless idiot before, but I will do so now. The term "one way encryption" is not used for cryto-hashes, and in particular it is not found on the wikipedia-page you link. Apparently, you did not read it. And while there are certainly crypto-hash constructions based on block-ciphers, this is not a defining characteristic at all, and these are usually slower than proper crypto hashes. I also never said crypto hashes were "symmetric". If you were actually able to read, you would have seen that I said that signatures based on hashes are symmetric signatures. That is a rather large difference. Incidentally, many asymmetric signature algorithms do not need hashes at all, they just become slow and tedious without them. They are certainly not "defined" that way at all and they are not based on them either, because it is not the hash that provides the security functionality. The hash serves to speed things up and make the signed message smaller, but that is it.
I would however say that the gem in your collection is confusing certificates and keys. That is priceless to anybody with some real crypto knowledge.
Listen kid, get at least crypto 101 before you try to tussle with somebody on PhD level in the security field. You are so outclassed it is not funny anymore.