Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How long before we see a virus in a car? (Score 1) 191

by Noishkel (#47182029) Attached to: Intel Wants To Computerize Your Car

Why thank you captain sarcasm. I REALIZED that the current generation of systems don't directly tie into engine management systems. However continually stick more and more crap into a system leaves for the potentiality of more and more problems. Hell, one day someone might actually make a virus that gets in there and screws with the in car systems.

Hell here's possibility: these systems become standardized. So instead of hardware hackers tinkering with the devices from one maker they all only have to learn how to mess around with the one most common system or OS. Well by general numbers a certain amount of those guys are going to be full on black hat and there's no telling what kind of 'fun' they'll have then. Personally I wonder what would happen if someone made a hack that locks the in car stereo at maximum. Or... hell... could someone make the display suddenly show a high rate flashing image that can trigger a seizure? That would cause all kinds of havoc.

I FREELY admit that these are all really out there concepts. However I still contend that this idea could lead to them actually becoming a reality. Especially if automakers end up being lazy with their code.

Comment: How long before we see a virus in a car? (Score 2) 191

by Noishkel (#47161501) Attached to: Intel Wants To Computerize Your Car

I'm honestly curious is this is going to happen. Much like the Smart house story from a few days back I wonder what's going to happen when more of this rather useless crap gets wedged into a car and someone has a real serious failure that results in a crash. Well... actually we may have already had that. There was some rumors out there that the whole Toyota brake system fiasco wasn't actually caused by some weird problem with the floor mat but was actually a software issue.

Either way I'm really wondering if all this extra technology is really all that useful. Compared to just keep the systems in a car kind of 'dumb' and just sticking to hardened PLC style systems for engine management. Nothing flashy, just something rugged that won't fail.

Comment: Re:Critical piece in The Verge (Score 1) 311

by Noishkel (#47139401) Attached to: Solar Roadways Project Beats $1M Goal, Should Enter Production
I long time interested in solar technology as well as having spent most of my adult life in the trucking industry and I've looked THOROUGHLY at this plan and . And I am fully confident in say that this is the most IDIOTIC idea I've seen in a long long time. Not only does this plan have ZERO chance of working, but trying to implement this will probably kill people. Not only does the basic concept show a complete lack of knowledge of the fundamental of the base materials science it's also making really outrageous claims of just what it can do. The guy's site claims you can part a TANK on it...

Comment: Re:I will NEVER understand the appeal of this syst (Score 1) 174

by Noishkel (#47108755) Attached to: Report: Apple To Unveil "Smart Home" System

Well I think there's a significant difference here between rather mundane conventional devices and trying to needlessly tie everything into the internet. What benefit is there to having, say, a washing machine that connects to the internet? Or a refrigerator? Or a microwave? Lighting could have a utility as related to the security system. But controlling your HVAC system through the internet?

This is not to say I'm saying that no one should have these things. I'm very libertarian about most things. So people should be able to spend their money on any kind of fluff that the wish. I simply can't understand why anyone would want such a set up. Hell, if nothing else this system is probably going to cost thousands of dollars to implement into a home. Money that could probably be better spent buying high quality appliances that aren't tired into an Apple system.

Comment: I will NEVER understand the appeal of this system. (Score 3, Insightful) 174

by Noishkel (#47095355) Attached to: Report: Apple To Unveil "Smart Home" System

Honestly I just do NOT see why anyone would ever want to have their own so crazily wired into the internet. What could you possibly ever use it for? I LOVE technology but I can't for the LIFE of me see why this is even remotely appeasing. Yeah, sure there are security applications. But you'll still probably be buying some expensive service to run it. Why in the HELL would you even WANT to wire up your blinder, oven, or washing machine into the friggin' internet? Given the general price tag attached to Apple gear you'll be having to pay a third again higher price for these features.

And hey... how about we talk about SECURITY? We've recent had an example of a hacker getting into a homes network. Using a baby monitor linked to the net to SCREAM at a sleeping baby. The more ways you connect your home to the internet the more likely you're going to leave yourself REALLY exploded to malicious actions.

Comment: Well... cant POSSIBLY be that he just sucks at it? (Score 1) 310

That's the first thing that came to mind there. The idea that maybe this guys lesson plans are stone boring and can't keep his pupils attention. I certainly know that was the problem when I was a kid. And I'm of an 80s/90s vintage. So I was around right when computers started to filter into the classroom. And i had some of the same problems in both classes with and without computers. Either a teacher that just couldn't give me a good explanation or one that was going so slow that I was bored to tears.

Heh. I even had this one female world history teacher that spoke in the EXACT general tone and cadence of Ben Stein. She also had a real penchant for writing detention slips for people that fell asleep. Save for ONE guy she gave everyone in that class detention at least once. Not only did she get me three times it was the only three times I got detention.

Comment: Re:...but that doesn't explain... (Score 2) 584

by Noishkel (#47047099) Attached to: Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates

You do realize there's and estimated 100 million gun owners in the United States. By basic probability you're going to have a certain percentage of them that are bug nuts. However that percentage is going to be exceptionally low. Otherwise the internet would have probably caught fire from all the hate mail and threats you're speaking of.

Do you make it a habit of using really idiotic generalizations often in life?

Comment: Pretty much spot on. (Score 5, Insightful) 584

by Noishkel (#47046975) Attached to: Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates

Don't forget New Jersey passed it's mandate before the technology had even been invented as a functional device. When it was passed it was merely a concept. Beyond that we don't even know how well the technology behind that Armatrex pistol is going to work out. The pistol in question itself is COMPLETELY ill suited for personal defense purposes. Being .22 LR, a round known for piss poor performance and reliably.

You could easily consider this as just kind of a test bed for future proper defensive arms. And we don't really know just how many ways this equipment might be up having points of failure. I personally imagine that it will be a good decade before any gun maker will consider offering this technology in a significant portion of their wares. We, as people of the gun, prefer things that we know will WORK. Reliability. Is. Critical. Case in point the 1911 is one of the biggest selling handguns on the market. A design invented in... 1911. Over a century old.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.