fineman

15 ms·

91.
by fineman 11y ago
And you're going to pay for it? Because there's a big difference in simply not having a latte, and having paid for one only to have to knocked all over your shirt...
92.
by fineman 11y ago
Well, they could disappear an App that many people used, or ... anything else really. What they went with was pretty customer-hostile. It illustrates the problem with a closed eco-system. Two other parties have a fight and you end up stuck
93.
by fineman 11y ago
"Consequences" seems like the very definition of retaliation. And yeah, the App being deleted was a mistake. Gotcha.
94.
by fineman 11y ago
No, iFixit engaged in corporate behavior with a corporation - no trust ventured, none lost. Maybe there was harm - a lawsuit can settle that. But Apple broke the trust of their users - by deleting a perfectly valid app in retaliation for a
95.
by fineman 11y ago
It seems pretty reasonable. As in, can be answered honestly without ruining your chances and reveals valuable information to the applicant and the employer. But I assume that the applicant actually honestly believes themselves to be fit f
96.
by fineman 11y ago
> They made a judgement call, and now we are all upset at their poor judgement. Yeah, unreasonably so. But, I get that you're upset. > You are unqualified to determine the level of risk that was imposed on the other drivers. I th
97.
by fineman 11y ago
That a mild slowing of the vehicle ahead would cause a fatal collision that wouldn't have happened otherwise, yeah. This called for the same reaction as would adjusting speed to match any car that took their foot off the accelerator;
98.
by fineman 11y ago
I didn't. I was quite distinct.
99.
by fineman 11y ago
But the unnecessary risk is so close to 0 that it's obviously just manufactured outrage. If you read about this and came here to comment and that's all you can talk about you might as well be trolling. It's harmful. You'
100.
by fineman 11y ago
> For example CAN does not have a notion of source, it's really in the abstract a whole lot like a bus, just with cables. I get that. And if it did, the attack would by spoofing that. Which is why the solution needs to filter what g
101.
by fineman 11y ago
This happens all the time as part of normal driving. It's not like the car stopped suddenly, or veered wildly, etc. Some traffic may have backed up for a minute until he restarted the car.
102.
by fineman 11y ago
What's the baseline risk? Did this triple anyone's risk, or increase it by 0.01%? Then combine that with the recall it spurs. The value of a live highway hack is very high. It got all the media to pay attention and got a commitm
103.
by fineman 11y ago
Yeah, that is valid. The vehicle shouldn't be visible on the net. But that's the least useful way to protect us. Literally. If the vehicles remained visible they'd have to fix the bugs - this way they'll simply pretend t
104.
by fineman 11y ago
Then it would have crashed into any other car that slowed a little. Traffic speed changes with conditions and that changes constantly. The issue is what the extra risk is compared to the baseline risk.
105.
by fineman 11y ago
They sent known commands to a known vehicle, they weren't live-fuzzing an unknown system. The experiment seems less dangerous than not following decent tire-rotation policy, etc. It's not that there's finite extra risk, it&#x
106.
by fineman 11y ago
Right, it's like a password or a door lock. The strength of them isn't the issue, it's more that they communicate the owner's intent. Effective would probably have more to do with covering all the routes of ingress rathe
107.
by fineman 11y ago
> responsible disclosure to the company When are you going to start discussing the criminal implications of the company in ignoring that disclosure? > a way that isn't quite so expensive or rushed. Since when is the company'
108.
by fineman 11y ago
... and the car slowly drifted to a stop. The only crap stunts here are by the car company pretending to fix the issue and knowingly leaving everyone vulnerable.
109.
by fineman 11y ago
The issue isn't vulnerabilities, it's connecting those vulnerabilities to the net. This isn't about software quality in general.
110.
by fineman 11y ago
Yeah, bad press about the ability of someone to remotely kill you in their products.
111.
by fineman 11y ago
The problem is that a fix for this particular problem doesn't actually make anyone secure, it only blocks the one specific attack the hacker told them about. (Hopefully the hackers kept another bug in reserve so they can trigger anothe
112.
by fineman 11y ago
The post isn't complaining they'll only block it at the network level, it's complaining that they're trying that at all. The issue is vulnerable cars - not the lack of a firewall between the net and those vulnerable cars
113.
by fineman 11y ago
What does it mean to you to "eliminate the ability for ..."? To patch the known bug? Or do an audit and fix all the bugs they find? Or unplug the system? If they were yanking the cellular connection that'd be pretty good... I
114.
by fineman 11y ago
It's perfectly reasonable to use the same bus to carry driving and infotainment commands from the wheel - those are simply physical switches. Also, the steering wheel isn't connected to the cellular network. It's the infosyst
115.
by fineman 11y ago
Changing your door lock setting doesn't require the infotainment system, the GUI for it currently does. That's vitally important to understand. The systems are mingled but they don't have to be and in fact shouldn't be
116.
by fineman 11y ago
>> This is a terrible decision. > It's the only one available to them. No, it's the only easy option they have. Take all the vulnerable vehicles off the road. That's another option they have. > How would you fix
117.
by fineman 11y ago
If we all ignored them, and their products, they would go away. Capitalism. I don't care to offer them a way to improve; their future success isn't my problem. Why do you feel the need to make Microsoft the victim?
118.
by fineman 11y ago
> Can we begin to move on a little? Why? Why should we forget that the entire company (currently) is funded by the crimes of the past? Are they a person who made mistakes when young and now deserves a second chance? I'm not anti-cap
119.
by fineman 11y ago
I think Carmack always has but id software used to claim a patent(!) on the Doom WAD file format made all user editing illegal.
120.
by fineman 11y ago
Technically it could be translated from more traditional pictures. (Instead of being an original creation.)

More ›