99.997% of people don't care about this kind of thing. In a decade or two it'll be almost impossible to buy computing devices that aren't locked down. There are advantages for the vendor, and whatever disadvantages there are for the customer require specialized knowledge to even understand, so there is no market force to balance.
Thus dies the freedom that led many into computing in the first place. It was a good run while it lasted.
Thing it sounds crazy? Well not that long ago, the very *idea* of such a locked down device was crazy. Today they are all over the place and people snap them up.
Understand your sentiment, but keep in mind that one of the reasons Android is selling so well these days is because it is considered an open system, even by those who don't really understand the implications, as opposed to iOS. So, in a world where everything is totally locked down, a product that is not locked down might actually appeal to enough people that they would vote with their wallet, and ensure at least a niche for that product, if not more.
The "market" is just not something that will stay in any one corner for eternity.
but I'm working on it! The only way to get Corporate/Management off of IE6 is to fix any web apps you have in your organization that won't work on anything but that.
At the same time, more and more important sites out there need to stop supporting IE6. Where I work now, we are forced to use IE6 because it is "company standard", but it is accepted, at the same time, that we need to look up stuff on external web sites all the time. If those sites no longer support our browser, that would be an increasingly urgent reason to upgrade.
Once that decision is taken, it would probably only take between 4 and 6 years to actually get the project implemented...
-- Thomas Jefferson, 223 characters.
He would have said that in two tweets.
To me, the 140-character limit of Twitter is more than offset by the conciseness of the information it thusly transports. I find it actually very stimulating to be limited to 140 characters. Forces you to think a little longer before you post.
As Goethe once said: Sorry for writing this long letter, I didn't have time for a shorter one.
But in any case, you can combine Twitter with a Blog and use that if you really think you need to say something longer than 140 characters, then post the link on Twitter. Posterous is an excellent site for that.
And to those who still think that Twitter is the place where people tell you they're having a sandwich -- you are obviously following the wrong people. It is the most efficient information engine I have ever seen -- and many other things beyond that.
So they speculate that code they wrote had an interrupt routine that was not bracketed with PUSHF/POPF instructions!!! Which is like Assembly 101.
I didn't read it that way. He's talking about an arithmetic carry condition being misremembered across an interrupt. This sounds to me like a CPU-internal hardware condition that might not have been included in the regular set of data that you save across an interrupt. Maybe the wrong type of PUSHF/POPF was used. It certainly doesn't sound like Assembly 101.
I'll grant you that, but what I don't understand is this:
If you test, and do find some bugs, does that allow you to put any more trust in your software than if you tested and didn't find any?
David Cummings does seem to know what he's talking about, but as it is written, there is some strange logic in the article.
If Toyota has indeed tested its software as thoroughly as it says without finding any bugs, my response is simple: Keep trying.
Testing cannot prove the absence of bugs, only their presence. There are two things that do not follow from this:
- If you don't find any bugs, then your software doesn't have any.
- If you don't find any bugs, then there must be some left in your software.
It sounds to me as if Toyota is saying the former, while Cummings says the latter. Neither is a correct conclusion.