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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:A very obvious statement (Score 1) 138

If you put any thought into this at all, you realize it is a massive conspiracy. Other automakers add expensive, space consuming devices to eliminate NO pollution. These is no way a single programmer could have made a change and all the engineers would go "Look, we don't need all the extra hardware, it passes the test!" Lots of people would notice immediately during the design phase.

Not really. A manager demands the feature in the software provided by Bosch, who warns him not to leave it in the final production, then they leave it on.

Not much of a conspiracy, but certainly a very deliberate decision from at least someone high enough to negotiate software deals with partners.

Comment Re:Engine control firmware is tightly controlled. (Score 4, Insightful) 138

I've worked as a partner for some car companies in both the US and the EU, and I know for a fact that the firmware that goes into their control systems is very tightly controlled, requiring sign-offs from senior execs for design and feature changes.

There's no way code this critical could have simply been dropped in by some R&D leads. No. Way.

Yeah, but we already know where it comes from. Bosch wrote it for VW supposedly for internal testing. From there it is just an order to leave it on in production.

Comment Re:weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 294

and libertarianism as originally defined was about social issues: i can wear what i want, say what i want, use what drugs i want, no constraints

then it got adapted as "don't tax the rich" by plutocrats and their sycophants in the usa and american morons lapped it up, and now it has a mostly economic meaning in the usa

I think you mean liberalism, which meaning has been drifting further left in the US, but drifted right in Europe. Libertarianism is an American neologism to compensate for that, and appears specifically used to by people who favors economic cronyism.

Comment Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score 1) 360

No it isn't. Apple LENT them a unit, and they tore it down. If I lend you a lawnmower, and with out my permission (unauthorised) you pull it apart, then I'm going to punish you too.

If iFixit waited till they could buy their own in store, then tore that down, then there wouldn't be a problem.

If you send a free lawnmover to a lawnmover pulling apart company, I would assume you intended for them to pull it apart, since that is the only thing they do with lawnmovers.

Comment Re:Bias? Or reality? (Score 1) 444

I would say behaviour learned from the parents is at least as important.

There is plenty of evidence that says you are wrong.

And just as much that he is right. The correlation is strong in children. In adults the IQ is much stronger correlated with length of education, guardians, teachers and friends.

Comment Re:No.... (Score 1) 315

We are going Chip-and-Signature in the U.S., but if we were going Chip-and-PIN it could shift liability to the cardholder. Chip-and-PIN is thought to be secure, so the presumption of innocence may not hold as it does today.

If the PIN-code has been entered correctly, then you are liable for insecure handling of your pin-code, then only amounts over a certain size are covered. If no pin-code was entered and the money stolen some other way, then you are not liable for anything. Usually the shop that allowed signature instead is.

Also you need a police report for having your card stolen. Been there done that, got my money back.

The thing with chip, is that the bank can tell if the card was in machine, which machine and if pin-code was demanded by the shop or not. Even if somehow through a security hole, fraud comes in from machines without a card, they can block those and trace back to who did it (who received the money is an easy question).

Comment Re:Why not both (Score 1) 101

Why can't Apple have motives that are altruistic, and then also point out how different those motives are from Google's?

Because Apple are not altruistic. It is a public traded company and are not supposed to, or even allowed to be in some placed. and on top of that it has a long history of a sociopathic corporate culture.

In this particular topic, they have even less respect for privacy than Microsoft does, the difference being that Microsoft users were user to more respect.

Comment Re: Of course, this is natural. (Score 1) 164

Except the two "4G" technologies and marketing that don't meet the 4G standard didn't come from U.S. carriers, they came from European and Asian carriers, who then pressured ITU-R into accepting that marketing as 4G even though it didn't meet the standard.

So, sorry to spoil your U.S. Americorp conspiracy, but we were late to the party on that bullshit.

Nope. The technology comes from Europe, but in Europe it was called 3.5G, only in the US was it marketed at 4G.

Comment Re:Maybe they don't even use RF (Score 1) 142

As soon as it starts spreading it rapidly becomes indistinguishable from background noise, especially over insterstellar distances. And all of that's assuming the laser isn't occluded by whatever it's targeting, which it probably would be 99% of the time. No, I fear the chances that random stray communications of whatever sort might hit us would probably be vanishingly unlikely, especially over the short period we've been listening.

Well, we could search for unexplained and very localized increases in white noise. Also the universe background noise isn't completely white.

Comment Re:Bjarne should not be writing that (Score 1) 262

I don't realy get why people write this nonsense.

You are at an ATM, you insert your card, the card can not be read: DamagedCardException.

The card can be read and you are asked to enter the code, code is wrong: InvalidCodeException

You enter the code three times wrong: CardSwallowedException

You enter the code correctly and want to withdraw $1000, but the bank does not acknowledge: TransactionNotPossibleException.

NONE of the above exceptions will terminate the ATM software but will return with a hopefully meaningful message to the main menu.

For the application it should be absolutely no difference if you handle errors with error codes or with exceptions. The user should not see any difference, the program should behave exactly the same.
However: working with exceptions is 100 times easier for developers than working with error codes.
If that is not true for you then for funk sake: you should definitely not be a programmer!!!!

I don't think you should be a programmer. None of those cases are exceptions, they are errors, errors needs to be handled through normal code path. if you haven't figured out how to handle the potential errors you need to think your design over again, instead of throwing an exception in a half-done transaction and hoping it get magically unwrapped to something that isn't completely fucked.

Comment Re:Bjarne should not be writing that (Score 2) 262

If your code isn't exception-safe, it's probably bad in several other ways. It's not that difficult to get it right, if you have a clue, and will avoid other problems. If you think industry best practice is C++ that isn't exception-safe, I don't want to work where you do.

If you think it is easy, you are doing it wrong. It is as difficulty as coding thread-safe code without using mutexes and semaphores. Execution might be cut at any point in time and the state has to be consistent at that time. If you set a pointer to an array and then the length to it, you are not doing it thread-safe because an exception might come inbetween, which means something as simple as setting data needs to be controlled by state-classes that can rollback half completed state changes in case of an exception.

The easiest way to get around it, is just to use functional programming style where you have little or no state, but that also implies reducing the multiparadigme langauge of C++ to just one paradigme

Nonsense. Space is blue and birds fly through it. -- Heisenberg