Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment It's not puritanical (Score 1) 706

And when The Intercept published a piece condemning the puritanical glee over the data dump...

It's not puritanical to value honesty. I have plenty of polyamorous friends who have multiple partners, but even in that scenario it is still important to be honest with the people you are intimate with.

Yes it's bad that a few "innocent" people are being caught up in this, but the site is *for* being dishonest with your partner(s).

Comment Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score 1) 204

Uber can claim whatever it wants, but it is each jurisdiction gets to decide on it's own business rules, including what counts as an employee.

All I am advocating for is better laws, and laws which are incapable of dealing with uber are not good laws.

Comment Re:We are stupid (Score 1) 378

There is apparently some trick you can do to get brother printers to keep printing even if low ink is "detected". This was the reason I bought the brother printer I bought HL-2270DW in the first place, but it never actually stopped printing. I just replaced the ink when it started to become illegible.

Comment Re:Keep it locked wndows up (Score 1) 373

Your commercial aircraft example is true, but the scarce availability of the equipment to general populace provides a good deal of protection, along with prevention cost is much less of an issue on a near billion dollar item compared to a 30k-ish car.

Software can be copied indefinitely. Even the hardware devices that provide security, are doing so through software running on that hardware. There is no reason a car OTA mechanism can't be as secure as anything else that does wireless communication.

Not to mention planes can and are grounded immediately if a problem is found.

If anything an OTA would make it possible to "ground" cars (i.e. disable them the next time their engine shuts off) if a severe problem is found, or simply fix it if a solution exists. If you rely on people to take there cars to dealerships to have them fixed, there will definitely be people who continue to use vehicles running unsafe software for a significant amount of time, even in the best case scenario.

I am not saying that there are no risks associated with allowing wireless updates. I am saying that these risks are acceptable given the security technology that is currently available, and the benefit that this capability provides.

Comment Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score 1) 204

Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident.

So they can just sue uber for those things... What's the problem?

Comment Re:Keep it locked wndows up (Score 1) 373

The cause(s) is/are actually disputed. It is likely that there were multiple causes. The specific bug I am referring to is this stack overflow bug:

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319903

Cars will always have issues with physical bugs (think exploding airbags recently) which cannot be fixed by a magical sw patch. Therefore, real recalls must be effective and timely.

The fact that some hardware bugs can't be fixed by OTA updates doesn't mean that we should fix the ones we can through OTA.

Yes, some problems will require people to bring cars into dealerships. And some people will no doubt experience those problems within the time frame of after knowing about the problem and before the car was brought into the dealership to be fixed.

The recalls can be effective and timely relative to the standard of a recall. They can't be timely compared to an OTA update.

I might argue that making OTA the norm will mean recalls requiring people to come in for physical objects to be replaced will get sloppier.

That seems highly speculative. I could just as easily argue that having less recalls wil allow the workers to concentrate their time and energy on performing the recalls that still happen properly. This is something that needs to be decided by empirical data and statistics, not speculation.

And I maintain by allowing OTA access to the machine means there will be bad actors who can hack the machine. Nothing is unhackable.

It doesn't need to be "unhackable" (which you could never prove anyway). It needs to save more lives than it costs to be worthwhile.

There are already so many things that are capable of wireless communication that our lives depend on. Why not focus on making the security better and better, rather than avoiding it.

Even commercial aircraft with hundreds of people on board are not unhackable. Should we strip all the communication equipment out of commercial aircraft because of the risk of being hacked?

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.

Working...