4 ms·

I would say that this argues for the opposite - making firmware closed source and as hard to reverse engineer as possible. Let's say that the software is open

I would say that this argues for the opposite - making firmware closed source and as hard to reverse engineer as possible. Let's say that the software is open source, and you can buy your own microcontroller and turn it into an ECU. There will be people who make their own modifications to it to improve performance. Some of those modifications make the car fail an emissions test, so they make it so that the car acts like it's at stock settings during those tests.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago
What you describe already happens in the extremely-closed-source world of today. For most cars you can buy an ECU remap that can be switched from tuned to standard by the flick of a switch. An ECU is not actually that complicated. It reads a few tens of inputs (temperatures, air mass flow, lambda sensors, crank position, etc.), and controls a few tens of actuators (throttle body, fuel injectors, spark plugs, maybe variable valve timing), with time resolution measured in tens of microseconds. An Arduino doesn't break a sweat - see the Speeduino project.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  Crap. There will be more programmers in the future who will write defeat code for fun while learning, or pursue it as a business. That's obviously not great for the environment. Does anyone else feel our current government is not prepared to handle the changes pervasive software will create in the future?
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    If you think defeat code/devices are the worst of it, you've obviously not seen the people on YouTube "rolling coal"...
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      Haha, you're right that I am out of touch with American youth. Just this last year I realized I've aged and I'm only 35. I won't attempt to understand people who are staunchly anti-environment. I will continue to believe they are on the fringe until I'm convinced otherwise. I do wonder though if our way of achieving civilization will require significant change in the near future, since regulating code and encrypted code is going to be damned near impossible.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago

What you describe already happens in the extremely-closed-source world of today. For most cars you can buy an ECU remap that can be switched from tuned to standard by the flick of a switch. An ECU is not actually that complicated. It reads a few tens of inputs (temperatures, air mass flow, lambda sensors, crank position, etc.), and controls a few tens of actuators (throttle body, fuel injectors, spark plugs, maybe variable valve timing), with time resolution measured in tens of microseconds. An Arduino doesn't break a sweat - see the Speeduino project.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
unityByFreedom 9y ago
Crap. There will be more programmers in the future who will write defeat code for fun while learning, or pursue it as a business. That's obviously not great for the environment. Does anyone else feel our current government is not prepared to handle the changes pervasive software will create in the future?
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  If you think defeat code/devices are the worst of it, you've obviously not seen the people on YouTube "rolling coal"...
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    Haha, you're right that I am out of touch with American youth. Just this last year I realized I've aged and I'm only 35. I won't attempt to understand people who are staunchly anti-environment. I will continue to believe they are on the fringe until I'm convinced otherwise. I do wonder though if our way of achieving civilization will require significant change in the near future, since regulating code and encrypted code is going to be damned near impossible.