Debate on speeding, with a side order of "For $60, you can hack a connected car (original topic)"
-
Good to see that you recognize your own argumentative failings
-
TIL saying I don't support a mandatory hypothetical system isn't an opinion, it's an argumentative failing.
-
And I Just! Can't! Wait! for nanny-state bullshit like Ford's Intelligent Speed Limiter to come into widespread use. You'll be doing the speed limit soon enough, no matter how ludicrously low it is, slave.
I just had a thought: what will municipalities do when they realize how much revenue they'll lose from not being able to issue speeding tickets anymore? (LOL).
-
Well, I simply don't subscribe to the simplistic, fear-mongering worldview of "if it can happen it will happen!"
-
Windows has pretty much no penetration into the vehicle market. We're comparing Linux to QNX here, so Linux actually comes out pretty good.
Well yeah, but the thing is: I've never owned a device powered by embedded Linux that was easy to update, like that DVR Dish Network gave me back in the day. Most of them have been impossible to update. My Android phone required invalidating the warranty.
Like you can turn off the stupid fucking dialog that nags you every time you pair a Bluetooth phone to a Ford vehicle? Meaning, you have to turn it off every time you start the fucking car?
WTF? Do you have amnesia?
You had this EXACT conversation with me already. Remember? And now you're just starting it up again with absolutely zero accumulated memory or experience?
Spoilers for those of you with working memories:
-
He never actually read the error message, so in fact he has no idea whether or not it could be turned-off
-
It was a rental car he only had for a few days
-
He's an idiot
-
-
And neither do I.
Strawman.deaths++
-
-
Need to get to hospital.Someone is shooting at you.Earthquake.Twister.2012etc.
Stargate
Godzilla (1998 Sony version)
etc
-
Well this sucks, and there should be articles about that (and legal actions if possible), but articles about how you can do stuff if you connect to CAN ports are silly. At some point you need to assume you're in a secure environment and can trust each other. Just make sure those ports are not easily accessible from the outside.
-
StargateGodzilla (1998 Sony version)etc
Ex-Lax overdose.
Wife in labor.
Late for an airplane.
-
Someone is shooting at you.
Damn! Where do you live? I lived 25 years in the second most violent city in the world and I was never chased by someone shooting at me.
-
It's awesome to continue a joke you don't get.
-
Then you missed out on Houston traffic.
There's been shootings over road rage here.
-
Better ban technologies just in case governments use them for bad things then. Wait, where did I hear that argument before?
-
Could be a paintball battle.
"Ambush! Enemy squad behind us! Step on it!"
"I can't! This blasted F150 thinks the maximum speed limit for this segment of pasture is only 2 mph!"
-
No, you don't ban technology.
You ban government from using technology.
-
Better ban technologies just in case governments use them for bad things then. Wait, where did I hear that argument before?
Why does everyone think this is my view?
-
While a perfect world would indeed only use positive reinforcement to achieve its goals, I'm interested in your view on how you would react to an actual crime?
The only difference I would suggest is to base the sentence on a plan to rehabilitate rather than to punish the offender. For example, a drug user should probably get counseling and may employment help. Prison doesn't do anyone any good unless it's an extreme case.
-
Why does everyone think this is my view?
Because you made a pretty good case for it. Don't you read your own ramblings?
-
It could be fun to buy a UK spec one then take it to a country with speed limits in km/h
Or just drive a US car across the border into Canada. While most signs look like this:
"MAXIMUM 100 km/h -- Linking images makes my brain hurt"
There are still plenty of older ones which allow the driver to fill in the blanks:
"MAXIMUM 100 -- Editing posts make my brain hurt even more"
And you'd better hope that the speed limiting software can deal with these things, or you're going to in for a world of annoyance:
"60 MINIMUM -- Feel free to provide your own images here"
-
Or just drive a US car across the border into Canada. While most signs look like this:
Methinks the image is a tad borked here…
-
Wut?
Canadians, eh?
-
Uploaded That For You
-
I never said technology was bad and needs to be banned. That was a strawman you attacked when your shoulder aliens told you I said it.
-
Or just drive a US car across the border into Canada. While most signs look like this:
Oh yeah, ChristD.ca is HUGE in Canada.
-
And you'd better hope that the speed limiting software can deal with these things, or you're going to in for a world of annoyance:
The Confusing Computers With Strange Input thread is :P
-
I never said technology was bad and needs to be banned. That was a strawman you attacked when your shoulder aliens told you I said it.
You said that if it can be done someone will do it. This "someone", in your case, is the government.
The sentiment behind this argumentative tactic has been used time and again to argue against quite a lot of new developments.
-
You said that if it can be done someone will try to do it
FTFY. The bolded part makes a HUGE difference in meaning.
The sentiment behind this argumentative tactic has been used time and again to argue against quite a lot of new developments.
Yes it has, and it's a stupid tactic I don't condone.
-
The point you miss is that laws are human constructs that are intended to be applied case-by-case by human judges; a computer can only blindly follow whatever statutory logic was incorporated into its programming, so it shouldn't have law enforcement duties delegated to it because then you wind up effectively forbidding things that would be ruled as legal, or at least have a good chance of being ruled as legal, by a judge.
Filed under: this is why DRM is a bad idea
-
FTFY. The bolded part makes a HUGE difference in meaning.
Oh, yes, the weasel word. You made it sound like the try was guaranteed to succeed.
Here's a question for you: Why are you so worried about someone trying something?
@Rhywden:
The point you miss is that laws are human constructs that are intended to be applied case-by-case by human judges; a computer can only blindly follow whatever statutory logic was incorporated into its programming, so it shouldn't have law enforcement duties delegated to it because then you wind up effectively forbidding things that would be ruled as legal, or at least have a good chance of being ruled as legal, by a judge.
And? What does this have to do with Ford's implementation?
-
new developments.
If that development is specifically for overreaching government, then I don't see how it can not be banned.
Progress!!! isn't inherently good.
-
If that development is specifically for overreaching government, then I don't see how it can not be banned.
Progress!!! isn't inherently good.
So Ford was asked by the government to implement this technology?
I'll go get my tinfoil hat.
-
I just had a thought: what will municipalities do when they realize how much revenue they'll lose from not being able to issue speeding tickets anymore? (LOL).
Pay off Ford to deploy a patch that requires the vehicle to exceed the speed limit.
We're in the money!
-
I don't know that.
But I do know that governments are forcing cell phone companies to implement back doors.
This is bad.
Ban it.
-
You made it sound like the try was guaranteed to succeed.
I think you're reading something that was never said. Not by me, anyway.
Here's a question for you: Why are you so worried about someone trying something?
I'm not...I think you're worried about me being worried about something I'm not really worried about.
-
I'm not...
Right. Again, could've fooled me.
Ban it.
And exactly who is to enact this ban? The government?
-
And? What does this have to do with Ford's implementation?
It's why the concept isn't a particularly good idea to begin with...although the "double tap" override does ameliorate it quite a bit.
-
Case Study: DEF (diesel exhaust fluid).
Some doofus at the EPA decided squirting piss into your exhaust pipe is A Good Thing, and now it's mandatory on road diesels. It is absolutely NOT required for your vehicle to operate normally, however it's mandated that if and when the DEF tank goes empty your vehicle needs to go into limp mode which limits you to 15 mph or something and if you turn it off it won't start again until the DEF tank is re-filled.
If you're going to argue against "nanny governments", don't pick anti-pollution laws that aren't particularly bad. They're pretty necessary stuff.
-
It's why the concept isn't a particularly good idea to begin with...although the "double tap" override does ameliorate it quite a bit.
There's also an "off" button.
-
I don't know that.
But I do know that governments are forcing cell phone companies to implement back doors.
This is bad.
Ban it.
[citation needed]
-
Good, then -- just make sure that off button doesn't get deleted inexplicably twenty patches from now, and I think things will be O.K. in the end.
-
Director Comey called for companies to build security flaws into their
encrypted products so that the government can break through and wiretap
consumers or seize data stored on their devices. Director Comey
suggested that Congress should enact legislation to impose this
requirement on “all communications service providers.”U.S. government officials have recently proposed to compel companies to build backdoors in the security features of their products.
-
Good, then -- just make sure that off button doesn't get deleted inexplicably twenty patches from now, and I think things will be O.K. in the end.
That. Companies (and governments, sometimes) have a tendency to remove the optionality of "COOL FEETURZ" and really screw over people that don't like em...
-
the optionality of "COOL FEETURZ" and really screw over people that don't like em...
Progress!!! isn't inherently good
<empty>
-
Good, then -- just make sure that off button doesn't get deleted inexplicably twenty patches from now, and I think things will be O.K. in the end.
Well, if you had read the current implementation then you'd also have read that this is an opt-in technology...
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-introduces-bill-to-ban-government-mandated-backdoors-into-americans-cellphones-and-computers
"A senator proposing forcing backdoors" is a pretty far cry from "the government is forcing you."
-
Good, then -- just make sure that off button doesn't get deleted inexplicably twenty patches from now, and I think things will be O.K. in the end.
There aren't enough real problems in the world, let's focus on complaining about hypothetical problems that might occur decades from now.
-
Right. Again, could've fooled me.
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!"
-
@xaade said:
Progress!!! isn't inherently good
Agreed. I would be... wary... of this specific "improvement"Speed should be enforced by an officer on-scene. If you require more officers on-scene than are available due to too many people speeding, this is a sign that your speed limits are too low.
-
Spoilers for those of you with working memories: @Polygeekery is just trying to get blakey wound up.
FTFY
-
hypothetical problems that might occur decades from now.
That also have a pattern for occurring.