×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Auto Industry Teams Up With Military To Stop Car Hacking

bws111 Re:First rule of computer security!!! (113 comments)

Well, it is kind of hard to have wireless ignition (remote start) without having access to the engine controller, so they do need to be connected. And the remote start probably has connections to the body controller so it can do things like lock the doors, flash lights (for feedback) and monitor to brake pedal so it can kill the engine if the brake is touched (in order to shift into gear) without the key being present.

As for the radio, starting next year all new cars in the US must have backup cameras. The screen that shows the camera image is probably the same one that controls the radio. And the backup camera must know the gear selector position so it can change the display. And the gear position selector also must talk with transmission (obviously), which in turn talks to the engine.

Now, obviously you could do all that with separate switches and wiring, but that drives cost and complexity way up, and of course with each additional part comes an additional opportunity for failure. So no, you can't really have all those modern features with old style simple systems.

2 days ago
top

Auto Industry Teams Up With Military To Stop Car Hacking

bws111 Re:First rule of computer security!!! (113 comments)

Your traction/stability control operates the throttle and brakes, so they need to be connected at some point.

2 days ago
top

Revisiting Open Source Social Networking Alternatives

bws111 Re:cross compatability (85 comments)

Being unable to attract customers is not a barrier to entry. Having to build your own railroad in order to sell oil is a barrier to entry.

Your own statement shows you to be incorrect. 'Google couldn't do it'? Bullshit. Google DID it. The fact that nobody used it is not Facebooks, and certainly not the governments, problem. Google did not provide a good enough reason for people to switch, too bad for Google. Before FB there was MySpace, widely used and nobody could possibly compete with them. Then FB came along with a BETTER product. Before that were BBS systems, then the web came along and BETTER products were delivered. Apparently you think FB has made the perfect product so it will be impossible to compete with it. The only people who think that are idiots with no imagination who think the goverment has to solve everything for them.

Vendor lock-in? WTF. You mean that if you stop using FB you have absolutely no means to communicate with your friends? No, what you mean is 'I really like their product, but I don't like something else about them, so the goverment should step in and allow someone else to deliver their product'.

And your initial statement 'The only reason people use FB is because that is where their friends are' has to be one of the DUMBEST things I have ever read. It is right up there with 'nobody goes there, it is too crowded.'

2 days ago
top

Revisiting Open Source Social Networking Alternatives

bws111 Re:cross compatability (85 comments)

There is absolutely no parallel between Standard Oil and Facebook. Standard Oil did not get in trouble because it was the oil everybody used, it got in trouble because it formed trusts. These trusts made deals that made it impossible for anyone to compete with them. For instance, the trust not only controlled the oil supply, but also the transportation system used to deliver the oil. They also bought competing businesses just to shut them down. THAT is was antitrust laws are for, not stupid crap like 'you have too much business.'

Facebook does not control the internet. Facebook does not control all the Web servers. All they do is provide a service people like better than the competition.

3 days ago
top

Revisiting Open Source Social Networking Alternatives

bws111 Re:cross compatability (85 comments)

Facebook got their 'monopoly' by providing a service that many people like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it in no way needs to be 'prevented.'

3 days ago
top

Revisiting Open Source Social Networking Alternatives

bws111 Re:cross compatability (85 comments)

Unfortunately the only way I see this happening is via federal regulation, and I cringe at the thought of what other nonsense the feds would stick into such a law.

It is hard to imagine something more nonsensical than the idea of such regulation. What POSSIBLE reason could there be for such regulation?

3 days ago
top

"Advanced Life Support" Ambulances May Lead To More Deaths

bws111 Re:$1200+ for a 15 min trip! (111 comments)

It is amazing how many peope can't figure out this simple stuff. What you said is of course true, plus the cost of the equipment, buildings, staff, etc.

It is very simple - figure out how much it costs to run an ambulance service for a year (all costs, including debt service, etc). Divide that by how many calls you expect to respond to. There is your 'per call' price (minimum). Now add in the actual costs of disposables,etc.

3 days ago
top

Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

bws111 Re:Owning stock (203 comments)

Nobody said buying and selling do not influence the price of the stock, that is just a strawman you created. What you can't seem to grasp is that the price of the stock has no practical effect on the COMPANY. The price of the stock only affects the SHAREHOLDERS. And companies generally don't 'own' their own stock, they buy it and then cancel it. This drives the price of the stock UP.

And again, nobody said divestiture was not useful for acheiving political and social change, another strawman you built. The problem is, 'oil' is not a political or social problem, it is an economic and technical problem.

Let's say for some unimaginable reason you are correct, that divestiture harms a company. And for some unfathomable reason, everybody divests from all oil companies (an impossibility, since in order for you to sell your shares someone has to buy them). According to your theory, this would result in the destruction of the oil companies (which I guess is what the intent of divestiture is). Now what? Is the world suddenly all rainbows and unicorns? No, 'now what' is mass starvation and basically the end of civilization as we know it. Good luck selling that to anyone.

If you actually want to make a positive change, then it would make more sense to buy MORE shares of oil companies so you can have an influence on them (get them to invest in new technologies, etc).

about a week ago
top

Ask Slashdot: What's the Most Hackable Car?

bws111 Re:I just want to... (194 comments)

You do know about the 'accessory' key position, right?

about a week ago
top

Ask Slashdot: What's the Most Hackable Car?

bws111 Re:Automatically Holding Up (194 comments)

Well if you have that feature then there is no need to hack it, is there? The point is that having a SAFE 'automatic up' is considerably more difficult than just making it appear that the 'up' switch is held for an extended period of time.

about a week ago
top

Ask Slashdot: What's the Most Hackable Car?

bws111 Re:Remote starters are worse than you might expect (194 comments)

Oh, I'm sure that it is something like that. My only point is that it is very hard to 'hack' it to get the feature that the manufacturer could have put in. The systems are all related. I am sure that if you had the 'official' starter it would work correctly, because the car would know that you remote started it, thus the key fob should still let you in the car.

about a week ago
top

Ask Slashdot: What's the Most Hackable Car?

bws111 Re:Remote starters are worse than you might expect (194 comments)

This is true. I got a remote starter for a Hyundai Santa Fe, and it took the installer several days to get it working 'mostly' right. And this is a very experienced car electronics guy. It involves a whole lot of things - door locks, headlights, brake lights, security system, and obviously iginition and starting systems. He finally got it to the point that it starts the engine, but once the engine is started (with the remote) you can no longer use the factory remote door key, you have to use the physical key in the lock.

about a week ago
top

Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

bws111 Re:Harvard Charter (203 comments)

Then the FUTURE GENERATIONS would have standing.

about a week ago
top

Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

bws111 Re:Owning stock (203 comments)

No, you do not increase the capital available to the company. The only time that is true is if the company is issuing new shares, which is rare. Most of the time when you buy a stock you are buying from an existing shareholder and the company gets nothing at all from that transaction.

about a week ago
top

Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

bws111 Re:Sell everything (203 comments)

Are you really that stupid? Here are the glorious good old environmentally friendly days you want to return to.

Every house burning coal or wood
No synthetic (oil-based) fibers, animal skins and furs are used for warmth
Your reading lamp is burning whale oil
Want a new ship? Cut down an entire forest to build it
Streets are full of tons of horse manure and dead horses
Human waste is just dumped in the street. Maybe you have one of those fancy new sewers which takes that raw waste and dumps it in the nearest waterway

Yup, oil is just SO much more environmentally unfriendly than the good old days.

Now, I am not saying that we can't do better than oil, no doubt will will. But anyone claiming that things used to be better is truely an idiot.

about a week ago
top

Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

bws111 Re:Harvard Charter (203 comments)

To have 'standing' you must have personally been harmed by the action. The students were not harmed. They have no standing.

Now, maybe a DONOR could sue the endowment if the money was used in a way other than what the donor intended. And don't say 'the students should make a donation, then sue', because they already know how the money is being used, and if they are stupid enough to give money anyway that is their own problem.

about a week ago
top

City of Toronto Files Court Injunction Against Uber

bws111 Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (169 comments)

And yet yesterday there was a link to an article about an Uber driver running over a cyclist, and Uber response was 'drivers are not employees, we are not responsible, we suspended his account.'

about two weeks ago
top

Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech

bws111 Re:I am sure there will be a challenge (137 comments)

Holy crap that is stupid. Here is what would really happen.

Creditors would be extending credit essentially risk-free. Great for creditors.

Rich people and large investors would have people constantly looking for signs of trouble (much as they already do), and would dump their ownership at the drop of a hat

Ordinary investors (retirees, 401Ks, etc) would be left not only losing the value of their investment (which happens today), but would be on the hook for all the debts of the company? What fucking sense does that make? In what world is that 'nicer'?

about two weeks ago
top

Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech

bws111 Re:Nothing to do with freedom of speech of 1st ame (137 comments)

From TFA (emphasis mine):
 

The owner of a website called CoastNews, S. Louis Martin, argued that Google was unfairly putting CoastNews too far down in search results, while Bing and Yahoo were turning up CoastNews in the number one spot. CoastNews claimed that violated antitrust laws. It also took issue with Google's refusal to deliver ads to its website after CoastNews posted photographs of a nudist colony in the Santa Cruz mountains.

about two weeks ago
top

Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech

bws111 Re:I am sure there will be a challenge (137 comments)

So who gets to decide which groups are 'specifically formed to avoid moral and legal responsibility'? You?

Corporations are not 'specifically formed to avoid moral and legal responsibility'. They are formed to have limited FINANCIAL responsibility. My parents owned a pharmacy. It was a corporation. Dad was the president. Dad held most of the stock, some employees also had some. Did they do this so they could avoid moral and legal responsibility? No, they did it for the same reason everyone does - so that if something went wrong with the business we did not lose our house and everything else.

What you REALLY mean is that any group you do not like should not have rights.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

bws111 hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

bws111 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?