Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:This Screams, get real computers in cars. (Score 1) 54 54

Average car on the road is 11 years old right now. Assuming it is possible to design secure OS (see Programming Satan's Computer for many reason why not), crypto of that vintage is susceptible to bruteforce. This is assuming over that period of time nobody dropped the ball and lost signing keys and such.

Thing is, what you proposing is fundamentally is a feature bloat. It doesn't help you drive.

Comment Re:This Screams, get real computers in cars. (Score 3, Interesting) 54 54

Seeing all these vulnerabiltieis pop up in all these cars, knowing how malware-ridden is typical user's GPC, you are asking for more GPC in cars?!?! What is wrong with you?!

If your grandma's AOL-connected computer gets infected, it will at most become a nameless bot zombie and a minor nuisance. On other hand, under similar scenario your grandma's networked car, probably with her screaming in terror until the bitter end, could realistically become a remotely controlled weapon and seriously ruin everybody's day. Just consider than only a couple of big accidents can pretty much shut down an entire urban highway system, the bar for extreme mayhem in this case is much, much lower.

Comment Re:Swift (Score 1) 352 352

Very interesting to read your perspective. Do you think "normal people don't want to code" would stay unchanged? We are well past "computers are a fad" public opinion stage, you'd think that coding attitude would also shift? Especially for situations typically applicable for scripting languages.

Anecdotally, many people learned Lua when WoW came out.

Comment Re:Swift (Score 1) 352 352

I think it would be better if programming languages borrowed some of the logic nomenclature used in philosophy. That is, problem of readability have been repeatedly solved in other fields. The only reason I could see this hasn't been done in coding is cultural. It has roots in RTFM culture so prevalent in the computer science world, where knowledge of obscure trivia is valued over logic and clarity.

Comment Re:Swift (Score 1) 352 352

Formal logic statements, math, statistics are all very precise without being unreadable by a third-party who is familiar with nomenclature. I might not understand the logic behind any given theorem, but I certainly have an ability to read it. This is not the case for programming languages. For example, C code for LSFR is absolutely not human readable, yet I can write a paragraph, pseudo-code, or diagram that precisely explains it.

Comment Re:Swift (Score 0) 352 352

I respectfully disagree. I hate programming because syntax in every language out there is about as obnoxious as it gets. The biggest issue is that programming languages are all written by coders, for coders. With no concept that the language doesn't have to be obscure or convoluted to be efficient. That is what compilers are for.

Just like there could be no functional /. comments (or any other natural language statement) that only author could read, there should be no functional code that could not be easily read by others. Most people here worked with code written by others - no matter what, it is at best difficult to understand. That is key symptom that the language itself is flawed.

Comment Criminal intent? (Score 3, Insightful) 312 312

>>>We are attempting to determine if any laws have been violated at this point

What happens to first determining if there was any criminal intent or adverse consequences?

... and this is why you should never talk to police. They might just determine that you have been violating something while talking with you.

"Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias

Working...