Early April 1st headline

Whatever it is, we have been dealing with this and a host of other issues from them for years.

Absolutely love the boards, and some of the staff is really cool, but the company really is abusive when it comes to this sort of stuff.

No doubt. What a terribly misleading article. However, the ruling is very interesting. The issue over disclosure of the source code is fascinating.

>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

Dear people who type in all lowercase,

We are the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Sincerely,
Capital Letters.

This problem has been solved in TOF laser range finders, like the hand held ones used on golf courses. An expander chip takes the incoming analog signal and stretches it out a million times with considerable precision. The signal can then be analyzed by standard low cost and low power processors.

The challenge here is that instead of a reflecting laser, you have the call/process/response in the equation. That process time will be orders of magnitude larger than the signal traversal. So, you'd have to have very accurate and standard processing times.

Agreed. The processing times of the ASICs in the car and the key would have to be extremely well calibrated with very low clock drift tolerances. Crypto would all have to be out of band, with some kind of signature exchange at the end of the process to validate the message chain.

Good luck with the patent.

No, they don't. The keys passively send out signals without user interaction, probably in response to a signal sent out by the car which has a bigger battery than the key. In either case, if you have a keyless car, the car communicates with the key without user interaction.

Solution:

(Assuming the key/car are using private/public key pairs)

You'd have to put a reasonably accurate clock in the key, and then have it encrypt and send timestamps to the vehicle using a sequence of rapidly fired request messages followed by response messages.

The car could then decrypt the messages and compare the timestamps from the sequence of messages measuring the distance between the key and the car. The clock in the key would have to have similar accuracy to a laser ranger finder.

The actual protocol would be a bit more complicated in the details, but the basics outlined above are what is needed.

Meanwhile companies that contribute to open source can write down the entire expense of development including salaries, benefits, software, facility, and equipment.

http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-c0...

Cut and paste.