4 ms·

Michael Barr didn't find Toyota guilty, a court in Oklahoma did. Michael Barr provided testimony to that court. If you're implying that Michael Barr somehow st

Michael Barr didn't find Toyota guilty, a court in Oklahoma did. Michael Barr provided testimony to that court. If you're implying that Michael Barr somehow stretched the truth of what he found, and did so under a legal oath, then I think you're implying that he perjured himself, which is a pretty serious allegation.

jonny_eh 13y ago
Or that he has a conflict of interest which can subtly, and subconsciously, affect ones decisions and conclusions.
ajross 13y ago
Expressing an opinion via the use of concrete but in-this-case-not-actually-demonstrated examples from the code is not normally considered perjury. He believed what he said was true, and had good reasons for that belief. That doesn't mean it's the truth though. I too read through that looking for something more damning than I found: The memory wasn't ECC and the code didn't do anything to mitigate that risk, but that doesn't prove that a memory fault occured or even tell us what the likelihood is. Toyota screwed up the stack depth analysis. But AFAICT no stack overflow condition was found. Apparently some other stuff was found (probably with a static analysis tool) on which the article doesn't elaborate. These are bugs, and certainly don't make me feel good about the system. But they're not a specific finding of fault either.
kabouseng 13y ago
No I am not saying at all he lied, but the case can be argued various ways. What I am saying is that the court expected from Michael Barr to give expert testimony if the firmware was of "good enough" quality, given the constraints of the market and the risks. It's easy to overreact after a tragic incident (and I have full sympathy with the families), and to demand more stringent certification, but it comes at a cost as well, the price for the software goes up.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
Now lets take a moment to consider how one would go about charging a expert-in-a-field with perjury.

jonny_eh 13y ago

Or that he has a conflict of interest which can subtly, and subconsciously, affect ones decisions and conclusions.

ajross 13y ago

Expressing an opinion via the use of concrete but in-this-case-not-actually-demonstrated examples from the code is not normally considered perjury. He believed what he said was true, and had good reasons for that belief. That doesn't mean it's the truth though. I too read through that looking for something more damning than I found: The memory wasn't ECC and the code didn't do anything to mitigate that risk, but that doesn't prove that a memory fault occured or even tell us what the likelihood is. Toyota screwed up the stack depth analysis. But AFAICT no stack overflow condition was found. Apparently some other stuff was found (probably with a static analysis tool) on which the article doesn't elaborate. These are bugs, and certainly don't make me feel good about the system. But they're not a specific finding of fault either.

kabouseng 13y ago

No I am not saying at all he lied, but the case can be argued various ways. What I am saying is that the court expected from Michael Barr to give expert testimony if the firmware was of "good enough" quality, given the constraints of the market and the risks. It's easy to overreact after a tragic incident (and I have full sympathy with the families), and to demand more stringent certification, but it comes at a cost as well, the price for the software goes up.

AsymetricCom 13y ago

Now lets take a moment to consider how one would go about charging a expert-in-a-field with perjury.