Debate on speeding, with a side order of "For $60, you can hack a connected car (original topic)"
-
-
So, to re-cap:
@mott555: "Something"
@Rhywden: tirade against something I didn't say
@mott555: "I never said that!"
@Rhywden: "No you didn't, but I thought you did, so that makes me right!"
Right. As I said: Weasel words. "Oh, but I never said they would! They might!"
My dear, that's the very definition of an inhonest argumentative tactic - wrap your ideology in weasel words so you can fall back on uncertainty in case someones recognizes your FUD spreading for what it is.
-
My dear, that's the very definition of an inhonest argumentative tactic - wrap your ideology in weasel words so you can fall back on uncertainty in case someones recognizes your FUD spreading for what it is.
Except I didn't do that either. You're very good at jumping to incorrect conclusions. You should be a literature professor.
-
Except I didn't do that either. You're very good at jumping to incorrect conclusions. You should be a literature professor.
I merely recognize your type. They're easily spotted: They're the guys who say: "Wouldn't it be good if someone did something?" in a meeting while never being this "someone" themselves.
-
I don't have to cite speeding cameras and red light cameras, do I?
I'm not saying ban technology. I'm saying get on top of what the gov. is doing and keep them from misusing it.
I'm sure you have no problem saying the Patriot Act is bad.
-
It is. I have edited the post to reflect just how much heavy machinery I should be operating this morning.
-
I don't have to cite speeding cameras and red light cameras, do I?
I think I already adressed that particular argument as non-applicable.
-
I merely recognize your type. They're easily spotted: They're the guys who say: "Wouldn't it be good if someone did something?" in a meeting while never being this "someone" themselves.
Good thing I'm not that guy either then.
-
particular argument as non-applicable
Yeah I forgot. Under your head in the sand dreamland of debating, I suppose it's not applicable, even though it is an example of technology being misused.
-
Good thing I'm not that guy either then.
Yeah, you would have to say that, now, wouldn't you?
-
There's also an "off" button.
Does anyone know if this is something you can tell to fuck off once? Or do you have to tell it to fuck off every time you start the car?
Like that annoying prompt I discussed with @blakeyrat on Ford cars with Bluetooth that you had to hit the prompt every time you started the car.
-
Yeah I forgot. Under your head in the sand dreamland of debating, I suppose it's not applicable, even though it is an example of technology being misused.
Which technology would that be? Photography?
Yeah, I can see how that one could be easily abused.
-
Yeah, I can see how that one could be easily abused.
And you can't see how speed monitoring can be abused?
-
Does anyone know if this is something you can tell to fuck off once? Or do you have to tell it to fuck off every time you start the car?
Like that annoying prompt I discussed with @blakeyrat on Ford cars with Bluetooth that you had to hit the prompt every time you started the car.
It is a technology you have to enable. You drive up to the maximum speed you're comfortable with and then switch it on.
-
And you can't see how speed monitoring can be abused?
Well, I can think of a whole lot of technologies which can be abused. As of yet, however, we only have your word as to those things being "abuse".
-
It is a technology you have to enable. You drive up to the maximum speed you're comfortable with and then switch it on.
Uhmmmmm, that is not what the article is talking about? That just sounds like cruise control... This scans road signs for speed limits and enforces them...
-
Uhmmmmm, that is not what the article is talking about? That just sounds like cruise control... This scans road signs for speed limits and enforces them...
Read other articles. It is cruise control, just an adaptive one.
-
Read other articles. It is cruise control, just an adaptive one.
A camera mounted on the windshield scans the road signs on the sides of the highway and, when the vehicle enters a 20mph zone, the system reduces the top speed to match.
This quote from the article does not seem to support that assertion.
-
This scans road signs for speed limits and enforces them...
Photography?
<empty>Yeah, I can see how that one could be easily abused.
-
Which technology would that be? Photography?
Yeah, I can see how that one could be easily abused.
Given one of the very first photographs was of a topless barmaidā¦
-
> A camera mounted on the windshield scans the road signs on the sides of the highway and, when the vehicle enters a 20mph zone, the system reduces the top speed to match.
This quote from the article does not seem to support that assertion.
Keyword: "adaptive". You set your cruise control to 50 mph and this system reduces the speed automatically, so you don't blow through the 20 mph zone. Also, it doesn't brake, it reduces the fuel flow.
-
-
Yeah, image recognition is a dangerous thing!
-
That also have a pattern for occurring.
There's a pattern of car computers which automatically adjust speed based on computer vision becoming mandatory as a result of government legislation? Uh... 'kay?
-
There's a pattern of car computers which automatically adjust speed based on computer vision becoming mandatory as a result of government legislation? Uh... 'kay?
As I said, the tinfoil hat is strong with this one.
-
I don't believe you.
-
Like that annoying prompt I discussed with @blakeyrat on Ford cars with Bluetooth that you had to hit the prompt every time you started the car.
Now I believe you're posting like an idiot in a futile attempt to wind me up.
The first time, you just literally forgot we had the conversation.
-
A camera mounted on the windshield scans the road signs on the sides of the highway and, when the vehicle enters a 20mph zone, the system reduces the top speed to match.
I wonder what that system would do when it sees the vandalized 25 MPH sign on Main Street that some bored kid did an excellent job of repainting to 85 MPH.
-
The first time, you just literally forgot we had the conversation.
You believe what you wish, and I will believe what I know.
-
Keyword: "adaptive". You set your cruise control to 50 mph and this system reduces the speed automatically, so you don't blow through the 20 mph zone. Also, it doesn't brake, it reduces the fuel flow.
I have read several articles on the technology now. Not a single one of them says it is something you have to enable. All of them seem to give the impression that it is always on, with an option to turn it off. Do you have anything that says otherwise?
-
-
mandatory as a result of government legislation
I don't think I ever supported blocking the technology.
I think I've said the entire time that government has a habit of trying to make restrictive technology mandatory, and we have to be vigilant in making sure that doesn't happen.
-
+1 would like again
-
I have read several articles on the technology now. Not a single one of them says it is something you have to enable. All of them seem to give the impression that it is always on, with an option to turn it off. Do you have anything that says otherwise?
I've also never heard of an adaptive system that automatically changes the speed based on speed limits; normally, those systems reduce speed to maintain a safe distance from the car in front.
And yes, you have to explicitly turn it on.
-
Drivers begin by activating the system and manually entering the maximum speed at which they wish to travel, using controls on the steering wheel. Should they subsequently start to exceed that limit, the system will slow them back down by electronically limiting the fuel flow ā this is safer than simply applying the brakes.
Drivers can choose between speed limiting systems in the vehicle menu using the steering wheel controls, and activate them using the speed system controls. Maximum speed for Intelligent Speed Limiter can be set and then raised or lowered in 5 km/h (5 mph) increments. Between 30-200 km/h (20-120 mph) the technology utilises speed limit information from the Traffic Sign Recognition system. In vehicles equipped with onboard navigation, Intelligent Speed Limiter also uses map data for improved accuracy.
-
http://www.gizmag.com/ford-intelligent-speed-limiter/36723/
I have no idea what the correct answer is, but that article is completely contrary to all of the other articles written about the upcoming "feature". All other articles say that you are able to go at most 5mph over the speed limit and they all seem to indicate that it is on by default.
-
I've just added the description by Ford which essentially says the same thing. Would not be the first time that a bunch of articles are copy&pasted from each other, with a wrong outline being passed around.
-
I think I've said the entire time that government has a habit of trying to make restrictive technology mandatory,
Like what?
and we have to be vigilant in making sure that doesn't happen.
Why don't you defer your vigilance until someone actually tries to make it happen? Should that ever occur. Which it won't.
-
I've just added the description by Ford which essentially says the same thing.
Fair enough, but I would feel better if the Ford release explicitly said that it was off by default, or could be turned off for good with no nags.
Would not be the first time that a bunch of articles are copy&pasted from each other, with a wrong outline being passed around.
Agreed. That is also why I spoke in the non-definitive manner in my reply.
-
"A senator proposing forcing backdoors" is a pretty far cry from "the government is forcing you."
Reading comprehension fail: The Executive Branch (FBI, DOJ, NSA, ...) is trying to force companies to add "golden keys" or other backdoors so the government can bypass security features. They succeeded in at least one case: RSA BSAFE.Sen. Wyden, of the Legislative Branch, is trying to stop this bullshit. He knows it went over like a lead balloon with Clipper/Capstone. He also knows that the government itself can't be trusted to keep the information secure once exfiltrated, regardless of whether the exfiltration channel is secure. I don't know if he knows that having such a channel in any form necessarily lessens security, but I do note that he alone questioned why there were no non-governmental cybersecurity experts consulted on an (earlier) cybersecurity bill.@Polygeekery said:
Like that annoying prompt I discussed with @blakeyrat on Ford cars with Bluetooth that you had to hit the prompt every time you started the car.
Can you stop with this motte and bailey crap? You conceded the point in the earlier thread, and acknowledged that concession in this thread. You don't get to reassert it now.
-
Well, they probably thought it wouldn't be neccessary to mention that a technology you have to enable (which they stated) is off by default.
After all, that would be like saying: "The lights are off until you switch them on!"
And as this is most likely following the same mechanics as cruise control - how often are you nagged by cruise control?
-
Which it won't.
It might or might not happen, but won't happen for a good long while yet because the technology is not fitted in the first place to an overwhelming majority of vehicles. There are more important things to worry about, such as whether speed limits are posted clearly whether they make any kind of sense in the first place, and whether those setting the limits or imposing the fines are financially benefitting (as that invites legalised abuse of the system).
-
Can you stop with this motte and bailey crap? You conceded the point in the earlier thread, and acknowledged that concession in this thread. You don't get to reassert it now.
You need more coffee. Or less. The point is, your current caffeine level is out of whack and you need to chill the fuck out.
-
Reading comprehension fail: The Executive Branch (FBI, DOJ, NSA, ...) is trying to force companies to add "golden keys" or other backdoors so the government can bypass security features. They succeeded in at least one case: RSA BSAFE.
Sen. Wyden, of the Legislative Branch, is trying to stop this bullshit. He knows it went over like a lead balloon with Clipper/Capstone. He also knows that the government itself can't be trusted to keep the information secure once exfiltrated, regardless of whether the exfiltration channel is secure. I don't know if he knows that having such a channel in any form necessarily lessens security, but I do note that he alone questioned why there were no non-governmental cybersecurity experts consulted on an (earlier) cybersecurity bill.
The right question in all this is how anyone desiring a backdoor in their security systems is going to keep the information about the backdoor out of the hands of foreign hostile governments. By making telling anyone illegal? Ho ho hoā¦
-
-
Also, does this mean?
Under "Motte and Bailey Doctrines"
-
It is a technology you have to enable. You drive up to the maximum speed you're comfortable with and then switch it on.
Actually, that's just one of the available modes, Adjustable Speed Limiter. The bulk of the discussion is over the Intelligent Speed Limiter, which limits speed based on detected road signs such as speed limits, school zones, no passing restrictions, etc. From what I found, you choose which system you want to use.
Edit: Other articles are indicating they work in tandem. After reading more, I think I'll bet on that.
-
Under "Motte and Bailey Doctrines"
So...basically...he was telling me to stop trolling blakey?
If we don't do that here anymore, I didn't get the memo.
-
Motte: Unpalatable but true argument ā "In my one experience with one rental car where I didn't read the manual, I had to disable the nag screen every time I started the car."
Bailey: Delicious but unsound argument ā "You always have to disable the nag screen each start, there is no permanent setting."In the thread where that flamewar started, you ended up giving up the (proven false) bailey, asserting only the (true) motte. Several threads later, you can't just reassert the bailey again. We've already proven it false. It's gone. It's settled. We don't need to re-litigate this.
-
Actually, that's just one of the available modes, Adjustable Speed Limiter. The bulk of the discussion is over the Intelligent Speed Limiter, which limits speed based on detected road signs such as speed limits, school zones, no passing restrictions, etc. From what I found, you choose which system you want to use.
Again, from Ford's page itself:
Maximum speed for Intelligent Speed Limiter can be set and then raised or lowered in 5 km/h (5 mph) increments.
Sounds to me like no one ever bothered to go to the source and instead resorted to making things up.