This isn't about backups, it is about not having a central repository. It isn't enough to have revision control, you have to actually be checking it in to a repository and sharing code. Even if you're only sharing with yourself, you still want your revision control to work well. And if you're not synchronizing anything, then you're not even getting feedback about if the system is working.
It isn't enough to commit the code, you also have to push it somewhere. Even if that is just a repo on the same box.
You don't want to restore this situation from backups, you want the restore to be from the repo. Much simpler and more to the point. And the backup would be of the repo, not the working directory!
The problem, you think you know a lot but you don't know shit.
For example, did you know that many dealers offer third party entertainment systems pre-installed? Obviously not, because the mere existence of that destroys your argument.
Knowing a few random factoids doesn't mean you can just extrapolate and know everything. Doesn't work that way.
And I fucking explained why you might see it on the CAN bus even though you can't actually activate the feature over the bus! Lots of information is spammed over the bus, so the your HUD can display random information, it does NOT mean that the features the information is about can be activated that way. You can't even tell what information you have, and what information you don't have, how can you even comprehend, much less argue?
Well, if nobody is reacting strongly and they have little medical care anyways, like in a third world situation, they're just another child mortality statistic and there is no reason for anything about peanuts to ever come up.
I'm sure there are lots of deadly problems they "don't have" because they wouldn't be able to measure things well enough to even detect it and label it.
Obviously, excess cleanliness makes allergies a lot worse, but they did already exist before soap was even invented.
If nobody is taking steps to protect them, they all died young, and every example of a person with peanut allergy will be of people who can survive casual exposure. Duh.
I just explained that Buddhism doesn't have gods, but that most Buddhists including Gautama Buddha believe in Gods, but explicitly told followers not to seek those answers.
There is no need to then provide a link to try to correct my understanding. If you don't understand, you could ask questions. If you think you do understand, you could express that understanding. But why link? No need for a link, I'm right here and I can explain it to you. If you don't understand it, how would you possibly convince me?
I didn't read your link but I can almost guarantee by the ignorance it was presented with that it involves one of the Mahayana branches of Buddhism and isn't even the same branch of Buddhism as the Thais follow. Thais are Therevada Buddhists, they follow any of the "sutras" and other stuff added later, they only consider the Pali Canon (the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama) to be religious texts. Any other writings are merely the ideas of some person, maybe educational but not special or part of the religion.
If you were intending to talk about Rama IX you'll really need more words to establish a point, because he didn't found modern Thailand. If it existed due to him that would require a more existential perspective that would now have transferred to Rama X. If it hasn't transferred, it would have to be a more secular historical perspective, and there he wasn't involved.
Your Bluetooth is built into your entertainment system, and your entertainment system is connected to your car's network.
Stop, stop, right at the start but stop. You don't know if that is true. If you can't even comprehend English grammar well enough to phrase your claim in a way that has any chance at being true then why would I listen to you? Not all entertainment systems are connected to the car's network, that is just insane bullshit containing an easily-disprovable absolute. Your basic premise isn't true, but you'd know that just by knowing that you can't see which entertainment system my car has and so you have no clue.
Where do you even get the idea that the CAN bus in involved? You blather some nonsense that certainly isn't true on my car, and you phrase it as if all cars are the same, so you should really provide a source. And by "source" I mean, did you learn this by looking at your own car? Did you read it on slashdot? Did you read it on some other social website? Did you read it in your car's factory service manual?
Have you ever even looked at wiring diagrams for a car? It sure as heck doesn't look like a ethernet closet! This isn't the sort of situation where communication has to happen over the network. In a datacenter that would be true because all the wires going into a box are either power or network. But in a car, that's not the case; there are way more direct wires doing one thing than there are network wires. When I was rewiring my door, was there some sort of microcontroller with a network connection to the other systems? No, there were simply servos with activation wires that lead all the way back to the central computer. In my case the security system is built into that same box, and that is where the remote door unlock lives.
Now, if you have no idea how any of this technology works but you have a code scanner and sit in my car looking at the bus activity, you do see bus events when I press the remote unlock. Because when the computer decides to unlock the door, it also sends out a message on the bus. But if that data is all you're looking at, you wouldn't even realize that generating a false message wouldn't unlock anything, that's just a status message.
Just looking at wiring diagrams and which wires different components have can teach you that much.
Some cars are designed differently; some route all the shit through the bus, and they have more than one bus because of that. And so you still can't fiddle anything important from somewhere silly.
Your argument is basically, "I don't know, and flaws are possible, so specific technical concern." That formula doesn't work at all.
Not all cars require installation of OnStar, that is crazy. You do realize I can make it up out of the basement to look around, and even drive my own car sometimes, right?
You may not know how your remote door locks work, but I do know how mine work.
I also know how bluetooth works. And if your bluetooth car stereo is connected to your ECM, you have other problems.
If you don't know how any of the technology works, no, that does not make everything an intrusion point.
I generally prefer to determine if a crime was committed by the outcome of the trial.
If there is an accusation, then rather than demanding evidence it would be more normal to ask if there was an investigation.
And if there is an investigation happening right now, it would be normal to expect to have to wait until the end of the process to find out if there is an indictment, and then still not to know what the evidence is in detail until the trial is happening.
It is not rational to demand the sort of details you're asking for at this point. Criminal investigations are conducted following certain norms, and being done in a fishbowl is not one of those norms. You want to argue, I get it, but there is nothing to argue over. We learned a Ukrainian hacker is cooperating with the FBI. We have no idea if that is significant, or what the significance is. Later, we'll find that out.
For example, consider that many of these people are married, and their activities are perhaps more interesting than trying to harass single women in a line somewhere.
Like, just think of any human activity that takes place outside the home, and is not your job. OK, you're out doing that thing, and at some point somebody gets hungry. Maybe you always carry a few burritos in a pocket, or something? But some people might not like that solution.
If you're so regimented that all meals are both planned and on-time, that really reduces the range of activities you might have participated in. Presumably no spontaneous activities that last more than an hour.
You may not have noticed the news in Thailand the past year, but the current King is Rama X.
Buddhism does not have Gods, though Gautama Buddha certainly believed in Gods. He made clear though that it wasn't part of the teaching, and worrying about it brings suffering.
The Dalai Lama is a Tibetan Buddhist. That's in a whole different branch of Buddhism than Thailand. Thai Buddhism is from the Theravada branch, so the only other place with similar religion is Sri Lanka. In Theravada Buddhism even they generally follow more strictly to the traditional teachings and avoid religious veneration, often referring even to Gautama Buddha as "a monk," or "Siddhartha," his given name.
Generally Thai people who are devoutly religious can be counted on primarily to venerate their royalty, and give humble respect to religious leaders. Do they also believe in Brahma? Yes, absolutely. As did Siddhartha. But it isn't part of Buddhism.
Because most Thai people do not consider insulting the King to be an OK thing, they might prefer not to have the law but also they hate people who they see doing it. If they only lock him up, people only know that he is bad in the eyes of the military government. If they accuse him of insulting King Rama, they will certainly hate him.
For the most part, central Thais are not going to question it if the King decides you are excessively meddlesome. Most of the dissidents are from other regions, and perhaps do not share as much of their culture with the central Thais.
It is absolutely not clear what power the King of Thailand has right now.
He just recently retook direct control of all royal property, which previously had been held in a sort of trust similar to the English system. A whole bunch of changes have been made over the past 6 months to give him increased power. If he actually wants to wield that power and be stuck living in Thailand instead of Germany is a whole different question, though.
From the military perspective, a stronger king would give them a lot more power than a stronger elected government. As long as the military rules directly, their weakness is that the King could make a public statement announcing an election timeline and they would have to follow it. The King taking powers is more beneficial to them than the King being a populist. They absolutely need him because the Thai people would follow the King to their deaths. Military leaders are easy to replace, almost any soldier can serve as a general in a nation with no military enemies.
The King does have absolute power to pardon people convicted of insulting the monarchy. His father Rama IX used that power frequently. But don't expect dissidents to get pardons while national unity is elusive.
It might be hard to comprehend the Thai situation from the west.
They have never had any sort of enlightened democracy, they never fought for political freedoms or had political freedom as a core part of their culture. Their elected governments have been almost uniformly corrupt and sleazy.
Furthermore, their versions of monarchy and dictatorship have been rather mild. They don't have freedom of speech, being a dissident is not safe, but the general population do not experience significant oppression or other suffering.
So for those reasons, the average person really doesn't care about politics. But they're against any group that wants to make violence in the streets. The coup followed grenade attacks in Bangkok, and a lot of Thai people were happy to see physical peace in the streets.
Like it says in the summary, other people shared the story and didn't get in trouble; the person who got in trouble is the person who is a political dissident. Most Thai people do not want agitators! They want democracy, at least weak democracy, but they're willing to wait and have it later after the agitators are sufficiently sidelined.
Thailand is the only country in their region who was never colonized by Europe, and they achieved that by having strong kings, strong national unity, and being very politically pragmatic. Most Thais have little reason to value democracy ahead of respect for the King, or national unity. Divisive messages are common in their election politics, but also it is very unpopular. They don't really have enough experience with democracy to even do it in a way that works well for them. Making it work is a low priority for most. There is no ego-driven despot that took over. There is substantial power-sharing between all the traditionalist forces right now.
Interestingly, in other news that might be patched soon by self-driving cars. And civilians in many cases might eventually be limited to small, light vehicles for manual control.
So don't plug shit into it. When you wire a new car stereo, plug in speakers, antenna, power, "memory" power, ground, and that's it! Maybe a CD changer or something. Don't plug into the car's control systems. Problem solved! If you don't trust the stereo that came with the car, don't get the entertainment option just install your own.
My question is, why are people using electronic doodads given to them by a car manufacturer, just because they're in the car? If you want doodads, choose your own doodads. Use your car as a car.
In most places you can probably just go to an auto locksmith and get third party ignition installed. They already install third-party systems that have both keyed and keyless access, just upgrade to one of those and turn off the keyless part.
antenna can be built right into the board like it is on IoT devices. There could be a backup antenna and you'd never know. For somebody trying to be paranoid, you're not doing a very good job at it.
You have to find brands that have a separate telemetry computer, and that can tolerate its removal.
Usually the Japanese brands are well engineered to continue functioning without all the doodads, so you can just unplug stuff you don't like.
That's why they put the word "or" in there strategically, so that the scary part could be complete bullshit and they could still claim their sentence was true.
Well, it's always been possible for someone with physical access to the car to sabotage it.
When I was a teenager one of my friends saw a beaten up old car with no windows on sale for $250 and on the sign it said "runs." My friend only had $40. So he popped the hood, (no windows) and removed the ignition rotor. Then he went and asked about the car. In the end he bought it for $40.
These car-hack stories are so weak. If you're inside my car, instead of fiddling with the electronics, you might just steal it. That would be way worse. If terrorists want to hold your car hostage by controlling the brakes... that sounds less scary than any of the old ways, and less likely to work.
Try it while waving your hands in the air and modulating your voice rapidly up and down, and see if you don't feel a little more freaked out by the FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about backups, it is about not having a central repository. It isn't enough to have revision control, you have to actually be checking it in to a repository and sharing code. Even if you're only sharing with yourself, you still want your revision control to work well. And if you're not synchronizing anything, then you're not even getting feedback about if the system is working.
It isn't enough to commit the code, you also have to push it somewhere. Even if that is just a repo on the same box.
You don't want to restore this situation from backups, you want the restore to be from the repo. Much simpler and more to the point. And the backup would be of the repo, not the working directory!
The problem, you think you know a lot but you don't know shit.
For example, did you know that many dealers offer third party entertainment systems pre-installed? Obviously not, because the mere existence of that destroys your argument.
Knowing a few random factoids doesn't mean you can just extrapolate and know everything. Doesn't work that way.
And I fucking explained why you might see it on the CAN bus even though you can't actually activate the feature over the bus! Lots of information is spammed over the bus, so the your HUD can display random information, it does NOT mean that the features the information is about can be activated that way. You can't even tell what information you have, and what information you don't have, how can you even comprehend, much less argue?
Well, if nobody is reacting strongly and they have little medical care anyways, like in a third world situation, they're just another child mortality statistic and there is no reason for anything about peanuts to ever come up.
I'm sure there are lots of deadly problems they "don't have" because they wouldn't be able to measure things well enough to even detect it and label it.
Obviously, excess cleanliness makes allergies a lot worse, but they did already exist before soap was even invented.
If nobody is taking steps to protect them, they all died young, and every example of a person with peanut allergy will be of people who can survive casual exposure. Duh.
I just explained that Buddhism doesn't have gods, but that most Buddhists including Gautama Buddha believe in Gods, but explicitly told followers not to seek those answers.
There is no need to then provide a link to try to correct my understanding. If you don't understand, you could ask questions. If you think you do understand, you could express that understanding. But why link? No need for a link, I'm right here and I can explain it to you. If you don't understand it, how would you possibly convince me?
I didn't read your link but I can almost guarantee by the ignorance it was presented with that it involves one of the Mahayana branches of Buddhism and isn't even the same branch of Buddhism as the Thais follow. Thais are Therevada Buddhists, they follow any of the "sutras" and other stuff added later, they only consider the Pali Canon (the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama) to be religious texts. Any other writings are merely the ideas of some person, maybe educational but not special or part of the religion.
If you were intending to talk about Rama IX you'll really need more words to establish a point, because he didn't found modern Thailand. If it existed due to him that would require a more existential perspective that would now have transferred to Rama X. If it hasn't transferred, it would have to be a more secular historical perspective, and there he wasn't involved.
Oh, I did understand. Read it again while giving the benefit of the doubt that I do understand, and you'll have a better chance at comprehension.
And all these questions are ones I already answered above. If you could read, you'd know that.
Your Bluetooth is built into your entertainment system, and your entertainment system is connected to your car's network.
Stop, stop, right at the start but stop. You don't know if that is true. If you can't even comprehend English grammar well enough to phrase your claim in a way that has any chance at being true then why would I listen to you? Not all entertainment systems are connected to the car's network, that is just insane bullshit containing an easily-disprovable absolute. Your basic premise isn't true, but you'd know that just by knowing that you can't see which entertainment system my car has and so you have no clue.
Where do you even get the idea that the CAN bus in involved? You blather some nonsense that certainly isn't true on my car, and you phrase it as if all cars are the same, so you should really provide a source. And by "source" I mean, did you learn this by looking at your own car? Did you read it on slashdot? Did you read it on some other social website? Did you read it in your car's factory service manual?
Have you ever even looked at wiring diagrams for a car? It sure as heck doesn't look like a ethernet closet! This isn't the sort of situation where communication has to happen over the network. In a datacenter that would be true because all the wires going into a box are either power or network. But in a car, that's not the case; there are way more direct wires doing one thing than there are network wires. When I was rewiring my door, was there some sort of microcontroller with a network connection to the other systems? No, there were simply servos with activation wires that lead all the way back to the central computer. In my case the security system is built into that same box, and that is where the remote door unlock lives.
Now, if you have no idea how any of this technology works but you have a code scanner and sit in my car looking at the bus activity, you do see bus events when I press the remote unlock. Because when the computer decides to unlock the door, it also sends out a message on the bus. But if that data is all you're looking at, you wouldn't even realize that generating a false message wouldn't unlock anything, that's just a status message.
Just looking at wiring diagrams and which wires different components have can teach you that much.
Some cars are designed differently; some route all the shit through the bus, and they have more than one bus because of that. And so you still can't fiddle anything important from somewhere silly.
Your argument is basically, "I don't know, and flaws are possible, so specific technical concern." That formula doesn't work at all.
> I generally prefer to determine if a crime was committed by the outcome of the trial.
The funny thing about that is that you need a FUCKING INDICTMENT first. That means you SPELL OUT EXACTLY what crime was committed and by whom.
Feel free to continue reading my comment past the first few words and you'll find the part where I talked about that stage of the process.
Not all cars require installation of OnStar, that is crazy. You do realize I can make it up out of the basement to look around, and even drive my own car sometimes, right?
You may not know how your remote door locks work, but I do know how mine work.
I also know how bluetooth works. And if your bluetooth car stereo is connected to your ECM, you have other problems.
If you don't know how any of the technology works, no, that does not make everything an intrusion point.
I generally prefer to determine if a crime was committed by the outcome of the trial.
If there is an accusation, then rather than demanding evidence it would be more normal to ask if there was an investigation.
And if there is an investigation happening right now, it would be normal to expect to have to wait until the end of the process to find out if there is an indictment, and then still not to know what the evidence is in detail until the trial is happening.
It is not rational to demand the sort of details you're asking for at this point. Criminal investigations are conducted following certain norms, and being done in a fishbowl is not one of those norms. You want to argue, I get it, but there is nothing to argue over. We learned a Ukrainian hacker is cooperating with the FBI. We have no idea if that is significant, or what the significance is. Later, we'll find that out.
Right, but that shows little imagination.
For example, consider that many of these people are married, and their activities are perhaps more interesting than trying to harass single women in a line somewhere.
Like, just think of any human activity that takes place outside the home, and is not your job. OK, you're out doing that thing, and at some point somebody gets hungry. Maybe you always carry a few burritos in a pocket, or something? But some people might not like that solution.
If you're so regimented that all meals are both planned and on-time, that really reduces the range of activities you might have participated in. Presumably no spontaneous activities that last more than an hour.
I merely stated a personal preference.
No, you stated what I know, and got it wrong. If you can't even comprehend your own words, don't get started complaining about mine.
I can haz Perl-Gtk+? I can haz multiple platforms? I can haz 1999 in 1998? I can haz 1999 in 2017? I can haz LUDDITE Gtk back?!
You may not have noticed the news in Thailand the past year, but the current King is Rama X.
Buddhism does not have Gods, though Gautama Buddha certainly believed in Gods. He made clear though that it wasn't part of the teaching, and worrying about it brings suffering.
The Dalai Lama is a Tibetan Buddhist. That's in a whole different branch of Buddhism than Thailand. Thai Buddhism is from the Theravada branch, so the only other place with similar religion is Sri Lanka. In Theravada Buddhism even they generally follow more strictly to the traditional teachings and avoid religious veneration, often referring even to Gautama Buddha as "a monk," or "Siddhartha," his given name.
Generally Thai people who are devoutly religious can be counted on primarily to venerate their royalty, and give humble respect to religious leaders. Do they also believe in Brahma? Yes, absolutely. As did Siddhartha. But it isn't part of Buddhism.
Because most Thai people do not consider insulting the King to be an OK thing, they might prefer not to have the law but also they hate people who they see doing it. If they only lock him up, people only know that he is bad in the eyes of the military government. If they accuse him of insulting King Rama, they will certainly hate him.
For the most part, central Thais are not going to question it if the King decides you are excessively meddlesome. Most of the dissidents are from other regions, and perhaps do not share as much of their culture with the central Thais.
It is absolutely not clear what power the King of Thailand has right now.
He just recently retook direct control of all royal property, which previously had been held in a sort of trust similar to the English system. A whole bunch of changes have been made over the past 6 months to give him increased power. If he actually wants to wield that power and be stuck living in Thailand instead of Germany is a whole different question, though.
From the military perspective, a stronger king would give them a lot more power than a stronger elected government. As long as the military rules directly, their weakness is that the King could make a public statement announcing an election timeline and they would have to follow it. The King taking powers is more beneficial to them than the King being a populist. They absolutely need him because the Thai people would follow the King to their deaths. Military leaders are easy to replace, almost any soldier can serve as a general in a nation with no military enemies.
The King does have absolute power to pardon people convicted of insulting the monarchy. His father Rama IX used that power frequently. But don't expect dissidents to get pardons while national unity is elusive.
It might be hard to comprehend the Thai situation from the west.
They have never had any sort of enlightened democracy, they never fought for political freedoms or had political freedom as a core part of their culture. Their elected governments have been almost uniformly corrupt and sleazy.
Furthermore, their versions of monarchy and dictatorship have been rather mild. They don't have freedom of speech, being a dissident is not safe, but the general population do not experience significant oppression or other suffering.
So for those reasons, the average person really doesn't care about politics. But they're against any group that wants to make violence in the streets. The coup followed grenade attacks in Bangkok, and a lot of Thai people were happy to see physical peace in the streets.
Like it says in the summary, other people shared the story and didn't get in trouble; the person who got in trouble is the person who is a political dissident. Most Thai people do not want agitators! They want democracy, at least weak democracy, but they're willing to wait and have it later after the agitators are sufficiently sidelined.
Thailand is the only country in their region who was never colonized by Europe, and they achieved that by having strong kings, strong national unity, and being very politically pragmatic. Most Thais have little reason to value democracy ahead of respect for the King, or national unity. Divisive messages are common in their election politics, but also it is very unpopular. They don't really have enough experience with democracy to even do it in a way that works well for them. Making it work is a low priority for most. There is no ego-driven despot that took over. There is substantial power-sharing between all the traditionalist forces right now.
You might want to refrain from telling people what they know, since you're not even from a planet with humanoids that have that capability.
I do know that most vehicles do not phone home. I also know that when I drive a rental car, it does.
Interestingly, in other news that might be patched soon by self-driving cars. And civilians in many cases might eventually be limited to small, light vehicles for manual control.
So don't plug shit into it. When you wire a new car stereo, plug in speakers, antenna, power, "memory" power, ground, and that's it! Maybe a CD changer or something. Don't plug into the car's control systems. Problem solved! If you don't trust the stereo that came with the car, don't get the entertainment option just install your own.
My question is, why are people using electronic doodads given to them by a car manufacturer, just because they're in the car? If you want doodads, choose your own doodads. Use your car as a car.
In most places you can probably just go to an auto locksmith and get third party ignition installed. They already install third-party systems that have both keyed and keyless access, just upgrade to one of those and turn off the keyless part.
antenna can be built right into the board like it is on IoT devices. There could be a backup antenna and you'd never know. For somebody trying to be paranoid, you're not doing a very good job at it.
You have to find brands that have a separate telemetry computer, and that can tolerate its removal.
Usually the Japanese brands are well engineered to continue functioning without all the doodads, so you can just unplug stuff you don't like.
"remote" only in the sense that he might be clinging to your undercarriage instead of crouching down under the driver seat.
Or way over on the passenger side floor, under the dash, where the CAN bus connects to the control computer(s).
That's why they put the word "or" in there strategically, so that the scary part could be complete bullshit and they could still claim their sentence was true.
Well, it's always been possible for someone with physical access to the car to sabotage it.
When I was a teenager one of my friends saw a beaten up old car with no windows on sale for $250 and on the sign it said "runs." My friend only had $40. So he popped the hood, (no windows) and removed the ignition rotor. Then he went and asked about the car. In the end he bought it for $40.
These car-hack stories are so weak. If you're inside my car, instead of fiddling with the electronics, you might just steal it. That would be way worse. If terrorists want to hold your car hostage by controlling the brakes... that sounds less scary than any of the old ways, and less likely to work.
What am I missing?
Try it while waving your hands in the air and modulating your voice rapidly up and down, and see if you don't feel a little more freaked out by the FUD.