Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:That car behind you... (Score 1) 292

because in an electric car, changing the setting on the radio can actually change the setting on your brakes.

When connections are made via code, you have NO idea what changing one setting is going to do because it's writing to a common location that multiple things are reading from.

Is that scenario realistic? Of course not, but any one who programs has experience changing setting A and watching B, C and Q go haywire just because somebody didn't document what they were doing.

Comment Re: That car behind you... (Score 1) 292

home-built cars are exempt from most (if not all) of it.

Is there a source for this? I know things like ultra-light aircraft have very low regulatory hurdles, but cars on the open road? I thought there were minimums in place that get stricter every year. Like how all new cars need a tire pressure monitoring system?

Genuinely curious :)

Comment That car behind you... (Score -1, Flamebait) 292

had an idiot reprogram the brake software. Sure he's 'liable' but you're now dead...

On the same front, I've always marveled that anybody can work on their own brakes...and legally drive on the roads. Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes :)

Given how much more complex software can be than a physical mechanism, the implications of every yahoo reprogramming their cars does make me wonder. I agree with the EFF's idea here, it's my car I should be able to work on it, but is there something perhaps too far from that? The odometer is a good example. It's *possible* to roll one back, but there certainly tamper resistant preventions to this in place. Should computers in cars have the same thing?

How far do you take it? Do I simply disable the 'input' to the odometer, but not the spedometer...thereby 'rolling back' my odometer via omission rather than overt act.

It's going to be an interesting, ahem, ride :)

Comment Re:How 'bout.. (Score 1, Insightful) 212

the staff of the NSA does not have carte blanche to just spy on people

They had to create an entire CATEGORY of spying called LOVEINT because so many of them were spying on their spouses, partners or potential dates. While the semantics over what was 'authorized' can be debated, that large numbers of agency personnel had access to the data to troll at their leisure without fear of reprisal still hasn't been refuted.

Comment Re:Delete stuff. (Score 1) 279

Actually you should be compensating them for use of the laptop for non-business purposes. Now, granted most sane companies have it built into the contract to allow off time usage to a point.

But if you get the laptop infected with a virus on your personal time usage...do you compensate them for their work to clean it?

Comment Re:This is silly (Score 2) 30

You're link is something self contained 'outside' the helmet. What I'm suggesting is something inside where conditions are MUCH better for electronics.

And the robot still has the same problem with 'outside' environment, plus having to be dextrous enough to move through debris and failure leaving teams stranded. Way more complexity in that than fitting a small HUD into a helmet.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Working...