There was an interesting frontline about chernobyl I saw. There is work going on there to build a new containment structure for the reactor. The old concrete jacket is wearing. The area is so "hot" that the new vessel must be built away from the old area and later will be craned over the old reactor. The thing they are building is massive. The theory is the new structure should hold it for another 100 years. Then they will do it again I guess. The thing will be hot for as long as we have a sun, I think they quoted 4 billion years this thing will need to be covered. It makes me rethink if nuclear is a good idea, given the fukashima thing may turn into the same problem. How many of these reactors can we have around the world that will need to be shielded until the end of times?
Or you can write and use a text editor for terminals. I redid the old Rand Editor and called it sre. I have the source on my website. Took awhile, but I use it for coding exclusively. I also have written over the past decade or so a integrated circuit layout editor that has a limited DRC/LVS along with a matching schematic editor. The performance of the layout editor exceeds that of the "big" guys. A solo programmer can do alot with the tools available.
So I wish them luck, but to do what they want means they need 3 billion degrees to ignite and they are at 10 million. Over two orders of magnitude seems difficult. I like that their reaction is not radioactive though. It means if they ever do hit the 3 billion, the reaction will not destroy the equipment from the radiation.
My mom used to tell me her mom would make tomato sandwiches during the war. She loved them and viewed them as a treat. Later she found out that the reason she got them was that was all there was. And my mom was lucky, her parents had some land with some fruit trees and a big garden. I think one of the unfortunate things of today is when you are short of money, it is fast food that is the tomato sandwich, and the tomato sandwich had less calories than a big mac and fries.
I do own art as a matter of fact. Maybe 30K worth. I do value art. Oddly the artists I have did not go to college. Colleges tend to graduate art dealers, not artists.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. 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. Not to mention planes can and are grounded immediately if a problem is found. I do agree the prius was likely a real bug, but went with the "published" car mat explanation.
To further the farmer analogy, farmers do not plant weeds. You can't eat them. While weeds may be pretty, they are minimally useful to society. College could be free for degrees that pay off to society, assuming the student holds a B or better. If your parents are rich and want to pay for your weed degree, go for it. If your parents are rich and want to pay for you as you flunk out and party your way thru school go for it.
Except according to the news, the problem was floor mats. Whether it was or was not in this case does not matter. 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. 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. And I maintain by allowing OTA access to the machine means there will be bad actors who can hack the machine. Nothing is unhackable.
Exactly what can be hacked if you disconnect the car from the interwebs AND keep your doors/windows locked so people cannot access the OBDII connector? Of course someone can always nick a brake line or puncture a tire, but no amount of OTA magic is going to prevent that. Not being connected has advantages.
Actually, the OTA makes it vulnerable. If the car is totally disconnected from the interwebs, then it cannot be hacked from the interwebs. My point was without physical security, there is no security, which is what happens if you leave the perp with access to the OBDII connector. The perp could also pop the hood and do nefarious things if you left the window open or door unlocked.
Many of these exploits I don't think of as exploits. They attach a device to the OBDII connector. Keep your doors and windows locked and voila not connectee. 2nd, be real, somebody really wants to mess with your brakes why not nick the hydraulic cable. Much easier. Much of this is hype. The exploit on the fob to unlock, I'd pay attention to. I thought I saw somewhere the land rover is so bad that insurance will not cover it in london unless parked in a garage.
I thought you could even reflash the transmission shift algorithm, reprogram the PCM for a "tune" to name a few. Yep, once you are connected to the OBDII, you are in. That is what is was designed for, so call me surprised when I find out people are doing that with it.
If the following premise is true, and I think it is, fully autonomous will not happen. My premise is that everything is hackable. If true, then I am not planning on riding in a vehicle which I am not controlling and would not support them in the wild. The one thing that helps prevent accidents is "skin in the game". IE, if I crash into you then I get hurt too. A hacker has no such worry. He/she can cause you to crash into another car and the hacker is not at risk. As all autonomous cars are going to be on the interwebs if for nothing else maps, they will be vulnerable. See Jeep. Just putting the infotainment system caused a vulnerability in the primary systems. If anything, maybe we need to rethink how car electronics are engineered with a complete firewall between any electronics internet connected and any that control the car.
I know this is going to be a very unpopular position on slashdot...
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman