Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 565

Cane nectar would be a different product, and would be very expensive. The words have meaning, and if you don't know the meaning of the different word forms for foods, then you won't have any way to understand the ingredients or what they are communicating to the customers the product is targeting.

I can easily see cane nectar costing more than hummingbird tongues. You'd just about have to hire hummingbirds to collect it.

Generally speaking, people who eat oreos are only reading the label because they're bored. They're not actually choosing different products based on the ingredients, unless it is to avoid a food allergy. And if they don't know that calories are based on serving sizes, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Comment Re:GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 565

I'm in the US, and you can't do it here either. Sugar is listed not only in the ingredients, but also in the "Nutrition Facts" which tells you how many sugar calories there are. If there is no added sugar, there has to be no added sugar calories. Same as "sugar free." Evaporated cane juice isn't a checklist gimmick to pretend to be sugar-free, it is actually a much more expensive product than sugar, it is a more natural and less processed form of cane sugar. It still has all the non-sugar parts of the cane juice that give it a rich flavor. It is kindof funny in consideration of the above comment about non-processed foods. That is exactly why evaporated cane juice is on the label; because a lot of consumers these days want a less processed sweetener. If people didn't know what it meant, the product would have "sugar" which is cheaper, or "brown sugar" if they wanted a broader flavor.

There are apparently companies who label the sugar content wrong, and got in trouble and had to stop. Which in my view proves that it is illegal here, and explains why I've never actually seen an example of it. People who are cynical, but don't read labels, seem to latch onto the fact that it happened, without realizing that they know about it only because it was stopped.

In the case of reconstituted juice, I have indeed seen "110% juice." They're required to measure the amount of liquid they remove and put back the same amount, but I agree it is a likely area for abuse. Most labels here are pretty good. If it has added sugar, it isn't juice it is "juice cocktail."

Comment Re:GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 565

They sell canned water at whatever store the local survivalists are shopping at. In my area it is usually a "military surplus store" that is mostly civilian survivalist gear. In the Olden Days they used to make lots of canned water to fill the government bomb shelters built into school basements. If you see a public building that still has a civil defense sign, it might have some 50+ year old canned water in the basement.

Cans are way more expensive than plastic though. And yes they can be recycled; at a high electricity cost. Lower than the energy needed for mining, so recycling of metals often happens.

Here we put a 5 cent deposit on the plastic bottles. The plastic is recycled into new bottles.

Comment Re:GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 565

Oh, it still works just fine for people who read the labels. If you don't understand what evaporated cane juice is, then don't buy products that contain it. Simple simple. If you don't know what syrup is, or if it is something that you eat, then be on the safe side and don't eat it. Easy as home-baked apple pie. Which is either brain-dead simple, or unattainably hard, depending on if you can comprehend the recipe and the ordering of the steps.

Comment Re:Acceptable ads? (Score 1) 259

All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.

Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!

My goodness, it would be like somebody invented a time machine back to the Good Ol' Days, when the information glut was nearly half information. Now most of the information hides behind ten pages of clicky infotainment.

Comment Re:That's not a bomb, it's a clock! (Score 1) 657

OK smahty pants, now what would happen if I knew that, and stand by my statements? Would be capable of reasoned disagreement, including, uh, reasons? Odd that you post something that is content-free, presumptuous, and accusatory, and yet is pure speculation with no consideration for other possibilities, and yet you accuse me of "hatred."

I stand by my... quote of lol and also my analysis of the case.

If you're so smaht, when you converted the numbers and looked everything up... did you find the horseshit? Because you'll find 2 things; McDonalds was holding the coffee at an undrinkable temperature that was much hotter than everybody else in the industry, and also that anti-responsibility commenters here are lying or "misremembering" both about the common temperatures used in food service and also about the temperatures that McDonalds was using. It is hilarious that you would accuse me of not understanding number conversions, when you didn't do the conversion, didn't plug the numbers into the conversation to understand what they mean in the context.

You're doubling-down on known horseshit.

Comment Re:Open source ECM? (Score 1) 126

When I was talking about getting parts to fit, I'm talking about mechanical parts. These are mechanical engines, with an electronic controller. The controller doesn't need to have new code to replace existing functionality; for that you fiddle the constants. New mechanical parts that would need new controller code don't fit without doing real engineering. In practice it is rarely done.

And the reason that nobody is replacing their "PCM" for emissions is that vehicles don't generally have a separate PCM and ECU, they have an ECU and the PCM is only discussed separately because that functionality has a separate harness going into the ECU. The only usefulness of discussing "PCM" in the context of home-brew would be Pulse Code Modulation to test sensors. The Powertrain Control Module isn't even an actual part in most cases.

And yes, the reason people change them is to turn down the emissions controls. We're talking, over 99% of the actual use. People talk about "custom tuning," that is what they mean. They're not better engineers than the guys at the car company; and the electronics didn't get out of tune. Fiddling bits in the controller, or replacing it, isn't going to make magic ponies fly out of the exhaust. The only reason the narrow performance that the user cares about is going up is because emissions controls are going down.

The additional OBD-II reader is exactly the right approach for learning what is being flashed, and lots of people are already using an additional diagnostics system that connects to the OBD port internally. I do think you missed my main point there though. It wouldn't take "more than that," because what I described would end up with a better passive diagnostics system than the dealer has. Reading the codes for the active tests would be very useful; that is the only missing functionality right now. But if you spend any amount of time in the factory service manual for an ECU, you'll realize that almost everything the fancy tools (CONSULT-II/III, etc) can test actively, the GST (Generic Scan Tool) can also test passively in combination with a multimeter. You could have that whole diagnostics process built into the car with an open tool, and a shared database of code and repair history could be designed to uncover correlations programmatically. Using just the known GST techniques, open tools would have a best-case scenario of being able to far exceed the predictive power of the proprietary tools, because the proprietary tools don't try to correlate very much; they're mostly an expert system based on existing shop methods and practices.

The GST is the one most shops have, that they "only" paid a few thousand for. The CONSULT is the one that dealers have.

Comment Re:Open source ECM? (Score 1) 126

When people say something complicated "isn't feasible for home-brew," they're not saying it is rocket surgery or brain science.

Heck, a great example would be rocket science, something people absolutely do at home, using kits, but doing it entirely from scratch "isn't feasible for home-brew." You need to be some sort of smarty-pants who can understand the relevant details of the underlying technology, and take on the risk associated with doing it.

In the case of an auto ECM, it isn't just the owner's risk that needs to be consented to, so it is not obviously as simple and safe as home-brew manned rockets.

If you're literally just talking about driving things with a custom PCM in the shop, yeah I can do that on a breadboard with a 555 and nobody is going to get hurt unless I slip my thumb under the timing belt.

80s ECMs were doing very little, and sucked at it pretty bad. There was motivation for companies to sell replacements, and it still wasn't very popular or lucrative. Modern ECMs work very well. Few people even want to replace them, because they really do work well, and it is difficult to get parts to even fit unless the part is made as a replacement, in which case it already has sensors compatible with the original. It is not normal to add entirely new engine functionality onto an existing engine. What they want, and do, is usually to tweak the constants to reduce emissions control. That is way over 99% of the demand for alterations.

The other use case cited is diagnostics, but that is already available through a standardized access port. There is a lack of documentation that is limiting, sure. If somebody had some Free Software for the elm chip or something similar so that it would start creating a giant database of seen data, then in a decade we'd be able to correlate easily and be able to create something like the proprietary diagnostics, but that would run on-board and give you early warning of exactly what was failing. On my own vehicle, a 2000 Nissan, there is actually very little in the service manual that can't already be done with a Generic Scan Tool, which is approximately what a Elm+Android setup is. And yet, there is very little action happening in the areas that available. Why? Because most of the interest that cites diagnostics is not from people willing to put time into that sort of project; it is just a checklist reason to include when people want to increase their pollution to save 3 cents and prove that hippies suck.

Comment Re:Moon as a gas station (Score 1) 194

No, you're missing the point that it's actually cheaper to just burn once to get out of Earth orbit and be done with it, than it is to go to a "gas station" that's in orbit around the thing you're trying to escape the gravity well of

LMFAO click the wrong post, eh?

No, I didn't miss that point... that was the point I made! What I literally said was, "you don't need a gas station to land at, you can just float the stuff in orbit."

I sentence you to 1 hour of Hamster Dance on replay.

The physics are actually pretty simple, if you're capable of math, and reading.

I know you are but what am I!

Comment Re:Who Exactly Gets To View a Company's Code? (Score 2) 126

As a software guy I generally agree, but the idea that the software code and the configuration code are different is rather hair-splitting here, though obvious and important from system design and implementation perspectives.

That the code doesn't change just means that the formulas needed to manage that type of machine don't change from model to model. But the constants do. While it is normal and good for a software guy to think about data and code as being different, in this case it really doesn't matter. If they compile the constants into the code, or store them in some sort of separate memory, that doesn't actually change what they're building or how it interacts with the users. I know for a fact that some are using Harvard Architecture with physically separate storage for code and data, and in that case it is just the data portion that most people want access to. But still, both are probably stored on a single chip. So for the purposes of the DMCA, where it is the protection device rule that is at issue, they are the same. You can't access any of it without defeating the protections. If we had the exception for auto electronics, then the exact architecture used would affect the details of the Fair Use evaluation, but not by very much; once you get past the anti-access provision, whatever you need to interoperate is already Fair Use.

That said, I also know for a fact many ECUs do not use Harvard Architecture, do mix the code and data in the same storage, and people modify them by flipping bits in the binary to change the stored values. In that case the original value is literally compiled in. Sure, if you actually have access to the code it is just a different header file with those values. But just because software engineering practices encourage thinking about code and data as being different, in the actual implementation that is often an arbitrary distinction.

The real fear of the auto makers is that third-party ECUs could start to displace the vehicle brand, and people might start treating the body and engine as generic, and the ECU as the part that gives the vehicle its identity and performance tradeoffs. Instead of a "Ford Foo," maybe somebody is buying an aftermarket "Joe's FreedomCar (custom Foo model)" and then for their next car, they might get a "Joe's FeedomCar (custom Bar model)" based on a Honda. If they are also replacing driver instrumentation, they might really manage to change the driving experience enough to hijack the consumer association.

It is going to get much, much harder to stop all this when things go electric, because an electric ECU (MCU?) doesn't even need to be designed for a similar model motor; each feature can controlled entirely by sensor feedback, and the differences between ideal and actual parts can be detected by sensing voltage and current in different places. Existing third-party controllers already work easily with fairly random collections of home-brew parts. There is no complicated emissions technology to manage or worry about. If they want to lock us out, fine, in that case you can replace the whole controller.

Comment Re:Moon as a gas station (Score 1) 194

They're missing the fact that you don't need a gas station to land at, you can just float the stuff in orbit if you want a different number of Earth-to-orbit and Earth-orbit-to-Mars legs. Probably is a misguided concern mostly due to the use of multi-stage rockets.

Comment Re:Who Exactly Gets To View a Company's Code? (Score 4, Informative) 126

While I do think the code should be available for third-party review for safety reasons, I want to disagree with the claim that they don't sell software. They do not sell the hardware without the software, and the products always have the software. To put it another way, they distribute software, and the only way to receive it is to buy the controller with it. Saying they're not selling the software makes as little sense as saying they're not selling the hardware, they just give it away free when they sell the software. But no, they sell the software and hardware together.

The funny part of this whole story is that the linked PDF letter from EPA counsels against a DMCA exception for automobile enthusiasts specifically because they're concerned the main purpose it would be used for would be to reduce emission controls. And they're probably right about that point. The speculation here that this VW cheating will cause things to open up is exactly backwards. It will just create pressure to have the testing and validation process include a code review. But that won't actually happen, because road tests already solves the whole problem more cheaply.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye