I meant to say it's seen as unfair by the line workers.
Dress codes make a slight amount of sense when the company has a requirement that many employees must wear uniforms. It's not fair to say, "you people who stand in front of customers all day must wear a blue shirt, green tie, and khaki pants" but then say, "you people are in the main office, so you're exempt from dressing like a dork." Some of the line workers resent it. Management can then decide if they want to settle the matter by subjecting everyone to a dress code.
Of course HP doesn't require line workers to wear uniforms, so that's not the case here. This is just another stupid and capricious management decision by a company that's become famous over the last decade for having the most incompetent management of any (formerly) major corporation. HP's executives have been so bad it's easy to imagine an evil Michael Dell offered HP's board of directors one hundred million dollars -each- to sabotage HP into oblivion. (Hey, it makes a lot more sense than any other reason for imposing a dress code on engineers.)
Good point. First, IANAAEE (I am not an automotive electrical engineer) so much of this is speculation, but not all of it. I do think small, hardware firewalls ("data diodes") could help prevent a lot of these problems. I also agree with you in that I don't think the direct access is necessary, but I think it might loop around in such a way that the holes end up being present anyway.
Consider: the crash message from the airbag sensors, which is on the high speed engine control bus (ECB) goes to the door locks. The door locks are on the low speed bus (security network), but bridge both networks. A data diode could stop messages from the door locks from flowing back to the high speed ECB. The door locks, ignition key, and immobilizer are all on the security network. The ignition key talks to the immobilizer. Finally, the immobilizer talks to the ECU, which is on the high speed ECB.
The security network is supposed to be isolated from the cabin comfort network (where the infotainment system, navigation system, and cell phone stuff are.) But the crash signal has to travel to the cell modem somehow, so another component has to allow messages from the ECB to the cabin bus. Plus, some of these cars have "remote start via cell phone", so something still has to enable messages from the cell modem to travel to the immobilizer. How do they get to the security network? (Bigger question: do the Chryslers even have a security network, or do all low speed messages share a common bus?)
If everything were perfect, the immobilizer would be the only potential spot for the bridge; and because the immobilizer's entire job is to prevent the engine from starting unless all the security is perfectly aligned, it seems like the natural place where the engineers would focus their security attention to isolate the low speed bus from the ECB. But obviously not everything's perfect.
It seems like they should have a set of dedicated data protection devices that would be similar in concept to a traffic signal's conflict monitor, somehow hard-wired with a rule that allows only whitelisted messages from the modem to go to the immobilizer.
Want a more adventuresome automotive experience? Go to India. During the three weeks I was there, our driver's car was struck more times by more vehicles and pedestrians than I've seen in my 35 years of driving in the US.
The drivers are worse than you can imagine. "Keep left" is more of a guideline than an actually obeyed rule; "keep center" seems to be the observed behavior. The few traffic police I saw were standing in small gazebo-like boxes in intersections - they were not driving interceptors or squad cars. Peddlers and beggars wander among cars slowed down on the roads, selling umbrellas and toys, and asking for handouts. Fuel tankers have signs lettered across the back: "KEEP BACK 25 FEET", but nobody pays attention. Lane markers are apparently nothing more than wasted white paint decorating the road. On the road in front of you you may encounter a farmer with a pony cart, bicycles, pedestrians, elephants carrying loads, and yes, the occasional unattended cow.
And the honking! Seriously, India, WTF is up with the continual honking? You can drive a full week in many cities in the USA without hearing a single car horn.
We saw all this on every single trip, including a 2AM drive from the airport.
An inattentive driver would cause an accident within a split second; this may be why minor accidents and collisions are so common.
Consider the safety network, which has data from the crash sensors, rollover sensors, seatbelt sensors, and seat occupancy sensors, and mixes all of that data together in a set of rules that instantly trigger the correct airbags and seatbelt pre-tensioners. It also needs to connect to the infotainment system to take over the car's data or phone connection to send a message to emergency services. In turn it may also get data from the navigation system to report location information. It may trigger an unlock of the car doors to assist bystanders in rescuing the occupants, and it may shut off the engine to prevent further injury. It may talk to the signalling systems to turn on the 4-way flashers to help first responders find the car. The car door lock system is part of the security bus, which talks to the engine immobilizer, responsible for talking to the ECU to start and run the car. All of those data feeds that seem like they could be isolated have real operational needs to come together in multiple devices.
The rules in a car are exponentially more complex than ever before, and they're increasingly vital for safety; not just comfort or entertainment. Consider how many lives have been saved because their airbags deployed, and the emergency responders were able to dispatch an ambulance in time to save a crash victim from dying. Now consider how many people have died from crashes directly induced by CANBUS hacking.
The safety systems of today are doing their jobs better than ever, which is the topmost goal of the engineers. Also consider the safety systems need to guarantee reliable operation to work for the first time ever in an actual crash. If they can layer on system security without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of crash survivability.
so we do it like the movie "Armageddon"
but instead of oil rig workers we send wrestlers
send WWE personalities. send john cena and people built like him
when i said the west, i meant, literally from the west of easter island, which would be what we call the eastern part of the world
sorry if that was misleading
the pacific has a north and a south cyclone of prevailing wind (and also an oceanic gyre if you're just floating with no wind). it's just a matter of what latitude you use for the prevailing direction
thor's journey is awesome, and we do find native american dna at easter island, but the vast majority of the south pacific is austromelanesian. easter island's people came from the west, not from the east
... following Kim Kardashian.
they got to south america
it's just a matter of trusting your life to the winds
slashdot does have problems. such an anonymous stalking cowards
You sure showed us you're not one of those "creepy socially inept douchebags".
and who here is hiding and hating on whom?
you know this has been an awesome review of my character and my behavior by a random stalking nutcase using this social network to seek justice against me. you are truly a brave warrior
you accuse me of racism which is completely random and unfounded. i am not a racist and i never said a racist thing. show me where i ever said anything racist
should i just go around now calling you a pedophile? same thing
i don't know who you are, you came and found me and sought me out here. you hide your identity, a coward. you accuse me based on a supposed longstanding awareness of my past (really just smearmongering insults). so are clearly a bully and a stalker
you are the warpath against me, a *warrior*, out to seek *justice* against my behavior on this *social* network
you're such a blind loser
i think my description of people who engage in sexism is pretty objectively accurate. stupidity is actually something that exists in this world and actually forms the source of some people's low grade opinions. this is objectively true. someone who doesn't believe in climate change, for example, is a low information person fed propaganda rather than proof. they are therefore, objectively, low iq, stupid people. these are opinions and people you do not respect. not because i am disrespectful by default, but because such people have earned disrespect by having ignorance as their primary motivation. we don't live in a world where you don't get judged by having ignorant and stupid opinions. if you say something ignorant and stupid, is that really the same thing as ignorance and hate itself? if you say some thing stupid, i will call you stupid. you don't have to like that, but it doesn't make me the same as a stupid person
meanwhile, you seem pretty angry at me, a warrior almost, out to seek justice against me on this social network. and who lacks self awareness?