Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 1) 354

How do you twist "hardware needed" to "Tests fraudulently passed with hardware that was removed for production cars"?

The pass was 100% in software. The hardware isn't to get it to pass the emissions, but to do so with acceptable performance.

You are confusing unrelated issues. The test would be passed by all those getting "hardware" without any hardware. But in that test-passing trim, would have poor performance.

If they cannot fix the car so it meets the specs they sold it with then they have broken the law. Bait and switch, fraud, and other shit that the lawyer gets paid to think up.

And what's the harm to the owner if the emissions were a lie? If the economy was a lie, then you are harmed by the amount of additional fuel used. But for emissions? A bit more NOx killed your cat?

Comment Re:Cultural? (Score 1) 354

Some of these vehicles are missing needed hardware.

None of them are "missing" hardware needed to pass the test. They are equipped as the vehicles that passed the test. The hardware "missing" was never there, and never intended to be there (unless they were caught). They passed the test without the hardware. The hardware just lets them get more power while passing the tests. So they can pass the tests with all cars, and get sued less for poor performance.

The EPA passed the cars without the hardware. There were no pieces in the passed cars that were removed for production cars.

Comment Re:yes, that sounds reasonable (Score 1) 354

Hans: You mean if we wrote a test-detection and -subversion routine into the car's firmware?

Why would he sound so surprised, when *every* maker already does this? The cars are run on a dyno with the front and rear wheels running independently. This requires a "test-detection and subversion" routine built into the car. Otherwise, the cars will not test properly.

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 1) 354

That they passed the test indicates it is quite possible to pass the test. They didn't cheat the test. They passed the test without the "expected" hardware being necessary. Nobody has taken the car, put it in test mode, and tested it out on a track to see what the actual "loss" in performance is while it's passing emissions.

Comment Re:Uh huh. (Score 1) 354

Cadillac cheated on the EPA tests in the '90s. GM paid a fine on the condition that the matter was treated as non-criminal. So they paid a fine for something they admitted to, under the condition that what they did was stated to be not illegal.

So the precedent here is that it's not illegal. That's what the government did when it was GM in the '90s.

What, we hold "foreign" comanies to a higher standard? That's a violation of a variety of treaties we've signed on to.

Comment Re:Cultural? (Score 2) 354

The software controlling what the emissions control computer reports is a pretty simple concept: pull readings from the on-board sensors and push them onto the output bus. Anything that deviates from that would need to have been driven explicitly by somebody. Code that detects emission testing equipment and conditions doesn't just get added by a couple of engineers on a whim.

It's possible (and likely) that engineering teams were given tasks to make things that would never be used in production. Team A told to optimize power, ignoring efficiency and emissions. Team B to optimize emissions, ignoring power and efficiency. Team C optimizing efficiency. The rationale is that you define the envelop, the maximums for each, with the hardware that's headed to production. Then in software you can tweak for markets (where the US is more strict on some things than Europe, and Europe more strict on different things). Team D optimizes between the code for the best overall performance. But the US market is harder on different things, and Team D isn't hitting the numbers they need, so someone modifies the code in the test program to call map B, rather than D while being tested, and map D at all other times.

What's the minimum number of people that would need to be in on it to get a few lines of code in the test program changed to call a different (and existing) ECU program? I think it'd be quite small. It may or may not include a manager.

Comment Re:Cheap you say? (Score 1) 208

Cached means used, not used as a disk cache. Notice your numbers don't add up. Cached = "in use" + modified. Available = standby + free. Use Resource Monitor (that little button at the bottom of task manager) to get a more detailed usage.

Where you'll see more performance without using the memory is when free is small. Standby is the OS's guesses as to what will end up in Cached. When it guesses right, you get better performance. This is closer to a "cache" in the way I think you are thinking of it. So as "free" shrinks, the OS shrinks standby to ensure you don't run out. This leads to fewer standby hits, making for a worse performance.

That's why in Windows (up to 7, have't tested with 8 and 10) Windows will if you have a page file page used memory, making the system slow as dirt. Leave your computer on overnight, and nearly everything will be paged, to maximize "Free" and "Standby", optimizing the system for new applications opened, and greatly punishing a user who locks his computer overnight with Chrome open with 20 tabs.

That's why someone with 16G should disable a paging file in Windows, for better performance.

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss