I would not want Google, a massive data mining company, to use its access to private and confidential information to sell anyone insurance. Just imagine "You searched 'hit and run' twice in the past year, and 'how to dispose of a dead body' once, your premium goes up by 1000%".
Imagine having to use 2 inch tablet to send out emails. That how using a regular-sized tablet would feel like to a legally blind person. I have one in the extended family, and while they could see the tablet, reading from it is out of the question.
It is one thing to be supportive, it is another thing to set them up for failure. There are limitations imposed by their condition, and it is unwise to ignore these.
I love the idea of electric cars, and Tesla is on my "lottery win" shopping list. With that said, if you apply hard numbers these cars do not make any sense at the current gas prices. Tesla's battery mega factory may change these numbers, but as of right now electric car premium substantially overshadows any and all gas savings. This is even before we start talking about hidden costs of scaling electric car ownership up.
As to mass-producing these cars, I have doubts that infrastructure could handle mass-adoption. The key issue is time it takes to charge, with gasoline one fuel pump can get driver in and out under 5 minutes. With charging stations you need 30 minutes or so. So Tesla has to build lots and lots concurrent "charging slots" and then develop congestion-mitigating techniques at the popular sites. Then they will have to invest into electric grid to support massive loads incurred by charging stations (ironically, the cost effective way to do this is by building 'load balancing' natural gas generators). Then they will have to mitigate inevitable increase in electricity costs due to supply&demand curves. Imagine what will happen to electricity costs during peak usage when everyone runs AC AND charges electric cars at the same time!
So we have following major roadblocks: a) cost of batteries b) cost of expanding charging stations network c) cost of electric grid infrastructure upgrades d) cost of accommodating increased load during peak times . Could all of these challenges be met? Sure, but it is unlikely achievable without public funds.
Well, I advocate and practice usage separation. Have a secure device dedicated for "important" tasks like banking. This way you can have usability in most cases, and security in cases that requires it.
As to how do you educate users that their keyboard, smart TV, smart thermostat, router, in-car infotainment system, child monitoring system, fitness band, implanted defibrillator all require security patches? You can't. Unless they are Dick Cheney, who has a very well deserved reason to be paranoid.
I work in InfoSec, and insecure implementation is widespread and the norm. This is unlikely to change, not until consumers start demand product certification.
In my experience, common implementation flaws are 1) hard coded keys, 2) leaking of secrets 3) weak randomization leading to predictable keys, 4) use of weak cryptography.
Sorry, but no. There is no need for a fallback for infotainment. Inability to browse cat pictures or watch youtube is not an emergency that has to be planned for, with redundancy acquired at a great overall expense. These infotainment systems increase car costs, you end up paying for them regardless of usage.
Also, if you don't already own a smart device, yet can afford a car equipped with infotainment system, it is clearly a matter of choice.
Car are for driving, why would anyone want to pay for bolted-on infotainment system that will sit most of its time in the garage or in the parking lot outside your office? The same infotainment system that would be obsolete in 4 years, when most consumers still consider 4 year old car "recent"?
Most people already have tablets, smartphones, laptops and other multipurpose infotainment devices. We can bring them in and out of the car, and (ideally only when riding as passengers) use them in the car. These devices are generally supported by manufacturers and developers that specialize in electronics and software. They get frequent security updates and adequate security measures built-in. When in a couple of years these electronic devices become obsolete, it is relatively inexpensive (you don't have to take out 8 year financing to get one) to replace.
Meanwhile, in-car infotainment systems are serious security and safety concern. There are known and demonstrated issues (look up work by Dr. Charlie Miller & Chris Valasek) that allow remote and local attackers to hijack car functionality and potentially cause a car crash via exploiting infotainment systems.
In closing: Dear Car Manufacturers, Please limit yourself to designing cars. Your infotainment systems are not desirable, and are not competitive with better and cheaper systems offered by Apple/Samsung/Microsoft. Bundling infotainment into unwanted "technology" packages makes your automobiles too expensive compared to competition. Don't confuse consumer demand for backup camera or in-dash GPS for demand for infotainment system. -Consumers
Is this a way to generate... gravity? I am not a theoretical physicist, but aren't pions once-removed from gravitons? I remember reading and failing to understand something about pion-graviton scattering.
Car manufacturers will have to learn that they will have to a) patch cars b) support them out of warranty with security patches c)educate users and independent mechanics to apply security patches. Soon, it will be "Quick Lube and Patch" service stations.
Personally, I prefer my cars air-gaped. I place negative value into infotainment systems and any car functionality that is no directly related to driving. Unfortunately, I am in the minority.
My magic 8 ball tells me that in 2015 we will learn that proprietary and embedded software is even more vulnerable. My Tarot Card deck tell me that we will see a lot of hacked car wrecks in 2015, now that Volvo released the demon by putting a web browser into in-dash system. Rest of the lemmings are sure to follow. Not that you really need a browser to pwn a car, with Bluetooth-to-CAN-BUS exploits shutting down cars demonstrated as early as 2012.
I am frequent movie-goer, and I am not happy with a quality of service your typical movie theater offers. First, there are endless commercials - easily 15 minutes of my time wasted by pure advertising and pointless splash screens. If you add previews, this can easily end up with 40 minutes wasted. Second, food is hugely expensive and massively unhealthy. On top of that, alcohol is generally not available. Third, seats seems to be suffering from the airlines syndrome - uncomfortable and cramped.
About the only exception to this is Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Sadly, they are not available outside of Texas.
Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.
Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.
I disagree, you argument could be boiled down to "we should value mediocrity more". While there are some sectors, like social working or nursing, where "daring, aggressive behaviour that involves a lot of risk" is not desirable, in STEM it is universally must-have quality.
Very good question with a simple answer. Our economy is built on assumption of perpetual growth that comes from increased productivity. If productivity stands still we experience recessions. Some of the productivity gains come from technology, but majority of it comes from grinding more out of workers.
Did you ever notice than your grandfather was a sole bread winner and only worked 9-5 with serious overtime pay, while both you and your spouse are grinding out 80 hours work weeks? That is your answer why we can't have it both.
Function properly means "fit into behavior that could be described by predictive models". We assume participants in transaction are informed, rational, and free to turn down a bad deal because these are necessary elements of market's self correcting mechanisms. Otherwise, it becomes functionally impossible to distinguish it from "might makes it right".
For example, if I were to point to Enron case and claim it is a result of market forces, you'd quickly object and point out that Enron was a case of fraud and is outside of "normal" market conditions. Well, you can't have it both ways - ether market operates within certain parameters, or both Enron and price gougers are result of market forces.
Women make safer choices and give higher priority to work-life balance.
Males tend to take more risks, this is evolved trait that greatly benefited hunter-gatherers (e.g. going after mammoth). Males also tend to fail more, server rooms and call centers are littered with dead-end careers. In reality, few men success, but few that do skew the statistics because of the nature of success.
No, price gouging is a failure of elasticity of demand. For the market to function properly, both parties to transaction must be rational and able to walk away from the deal. In most cases of gouging, one party has another 'over the barrel'. Such scenarios could not be properly described with market theory, but I theorize criminal law would be much more appropriate tool.
Exactly right, tactile feedback and muscle memory. So you don't have to look.
Context-sensitive menus (so you have to look) is a fundamentally bad idea in this situation. Unfortunately, chasing fads over functionality plagues nearly all industries, not just automotive.
Slashdot Mirror
The only readable phrase so far translates to "Never gonna..."
What could this possibly mean? We will have to wait until the rest of the text is scanned and translated.
I would not want Google, a massive data mining company, to use its access to private and confidential information to sell anyone insurance. Just imagine "You searched 'hit and run' twice in the past year, and 'how to dispose of a dead body' once, your premium goes up by 1000%".
Imagine having to use 2 inch tablet to send out emails. That how using a regular-sized tablet would feel like to a legally blind person. I have one in the extended family, and while they could see the tablet, reading from it is out of the question.
It is one thing to be supportive, it is another thing to set them up for failure. There are limitations imposed by their condition, and it is unwise to ignore these.
Connect laptop or desktop to a large TV and put a high-contrast scheme.
I love the idea of electric cars, and Tesla is on my "lottery win" shopping list. With that said, if you apply hard numbers these cars do not make any sense at the current gas prices. Tesla's battery mega factory may change these numbers, but as of right now electric car premium substantially overshadows any and all gas savings. This is even before we start talking about hidden costs of scaling electric car ownership up.
As to mass-producing these cars, I have doubts that infrastructure could handle mass-adoption. The key issue is time it takes to charge, with gasoline one fuel pump can get driver in and out under 5 minutes. With charging stations you need 30 minutes or so. So Tesla has to build lots and lots concurrent "charging slots" and then develop congestion-mitigating techniques at the popular sites. Then they will have to invest into electric grid to support massive loads incurred by charging stations (ironically, the cost effective way to do this is by building 'load balancing' natural gas generators). Then they will have to mitigate inevitable increase in electricity costs due to supply&demand curves. Imagine what will happen to electricity costs during peak usage when everyone runs AC AND charges electric cars at the same time!
So we have following major roadblocks: a) cost of batteries b) cost of expanding charging stations network c) cost of electric grid infrastructure upgrades d) cost of accommodating increased load during peak times . Could all of these challenges be met? Sure, but it is unlikely achievable without public funds.
A device that broadcast over sufficiently large range random flood of mouse clicks would be a very effective DoS tool in a corporate settings.
Well, I advocate and practice usage separation. Have a secure device dedicated for "important" tasks like banking. This way you can have usability in most cases, and security in cases that requires it.
As to how do you educate users that their keyboard, smart TV, smart thermostat, router, in-car infotainment system, child monitoring system, fitness band, implanted defibrillator all require security patches? You can't. Unless they are Dick Cheney, who has a very well deserved reason to be paranoid.
Please listen to the above poster.
I work in InfoSec, and insecure implementation is widespread and the norm. This is unlikely to change, not until consumers start demand product certification.
In my experience, common implementation flaws are 1) hard coded keys, 2) leaking of secrets 3) weak randomization leading to predictable keys, 4) use of weak cryptography.
You are suffering from depression. Go see your doctor.
Sorry, but no. There is no need for a fallback for infotainment. Inability to browse cat pictures or watch youtube is not an emergency that has to be planned for, with redundancy acquired at a great overall expense. These infotainment systems increase car costs, you end up paying for them regardless of usage.
Also, if you don't already own a smart device, yet can afford a car equipped with infotainment system, it is clearly a matter of choice.
Car are for driving, why would anyone want to pay for bolted-on infotainment system that will sit most of its time in the garage or in the parking lot outside your office? The same infotainment system that would be obsolete in 4 years, when most consumers still consider 4 year old car "recent"?
Most people already have tablets, smartphones, laptops and other multipurpose infotainment devices. We can bring them in and out of the car, and (ideally only when riding as passengers) use them in the car. These devices are generally supported by manufacturers and developers that specialize in electronics and software. They get frequent security updates and adequate security measures built-in. When in a couple of years these electronic devices become obsolete, it is relatively inexpensive (you don't have to take out 8 year financing to get one) to replace.
Meanwhile, in-car infotainment systems are serious security and safety concern. There are known and demonstrated issues (look up work by Dr. Charlie Miller & Chris Valasek) that allow remote and local attackers to hijack car functionality and potentially cause a car crash via exploiting infotainment systems.
In closing:
Dear Car Manufacturers,
Please limit yourself to designing cars. Your infotainment systems are not desirable, and are not competitive with better and cheaper systems offered by Apple/Samsung/Microsoft. Bundling infotainment into unwanted "technology" packages makes your automobiles too expensive compared to competition. Don't confuse consumer demand for backup camera or in-dash GPS for demand for infotainment system.
-Consumers
Is this a way to generate... gravity? I am not a theoretical physicist, but aren't pions once-removed from gravitons? I remember reading and failing to understand something about pion-graviton scattering.
I really hope you are wrong, but I know that unless government regulators step in with massive fines your prediction will likely be true.
The only reason we see so many recalls recently is because Toyota was massively fined for gross negligence with uncontrolled acceleration issue.
Car manufacturers will have to learn that they will have to a) patch cars b) support them out of warranty with security patches c)educate users and independent mechanics to apply security patches. Soon, it will be "Quick Lube and Patch" service stations.
Personally, I prefer my cars air-gaped. I place negative value into infotainment systems and any car functionality that is no directly related to driving. Unfortunately, I am in the minority.
My magic 8 ball tells me that in 2015 we will learn that proprietary and embedded software is even more vulnerable. My Tarot Card deck tell me that we will see a lot of hacked car wrecks in 2015, now that Volvo released the demon by putting a web browser into in-dash system. Rest of the lemmings are sure to follow. Not that you really need a browser to pwn a car, with Bluetooth-to-CAN-BUS exploits shutting down cars demonstrated as early as 2012.
I am frequent movie-goer, and I am not happy with a quality of service your typical movie theater offers. First, there are endless commercials - easily 15 minutes of my time wasted by pure advertising and pointless splash screens. If you add previews, this can easily end up with 40 minutes wasted. Second, food is hugely expensive and massively unhealthy. On top of that, alcohol is generally not available. Third, seats seems to be suffering from the airlines syndrome - uncomfortable and cramped.
About the only exception to this is Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Sadly, they are not available outside of Texas.
Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.
Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.
I disagree, you argument could be boiled down to "we should value mediocrity more". While there are some sectors, like social working or nursing, where "daring, aggressive behaviour that involves a lot of risk" is not desirable, in STEM it is universally must-have quality.
>>>Why can't men and women have both?
Very good question with a simple answer. Our economy is built on assumption of perpetual growth that comes from increased productivity. If productivity stands still we experience recessions. Some of the productivity gains come from technology, but majority of it comes from grinding more out of workers.
Did you ever notice than your grandfather was a sole bread winner and only worked 9-5 with serious overtime pay, while both you and your spouse are grinding out 80 hours work weeks? That is your answer why we can't have it both.
Function properly means "fit into behavior that could be described by predictive models". We assume participants in transaction are informed, rational, and free to turn down a bad deal because these are necessary elements of market's self correcting mechanisms. Otherwise, it becomes functionally impossible to distinguish it from "might makes it right".
For example, if I were to point to Enron case and claim it is a result of market forces, you'd quickly object and point out that Enron was a case of fraud and is outside of "normal" market conditions. Well, you can't have it both ways - ether market operates within certain parameters, or both Enron and price gougers are result of market forces.
Women make safer choices and give higher priority to work-life balance.
Males tend to take more risks, this is evolved trait that greatly benefited hunter-gatherers (e.g. going after mammoth). Males also tend to fail more, server rooms and call centers are littered with dead-end careers. In reality, few men success, but few that do skew the statistics because of the nature of success.
No, price gouging is a failure of elasticity of demand. For the market to function properly, both parties to transaction must be rational and able to walk away from the deal. In most cases of gouging, one party has another 'over the barrel'. Such scenarios could not be properly described with market theory, but I theorize criminal law would be much more appropriate tool.
I am sorry Dave, I cannot open the door because there is a driver issue with the device.
Exactly right, tactile feedback and muscle memory. So you don't have to look.
Context-sensitive menus (so you have to look) is a fundamentally bad idea in this situation. Unfortunately, chasing fads over functionality plagues nearly all industries, not just automotive.