If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Remote control of car
In message , Mayayana
writes: "Mark Lloyd" wrote | The same with computer GUIs. YOU aren't doing something, but informing | the computer of what you want. | I'm not sure how GUIs are different. Command-line can be just as opaque (second level). [] A computerized car is very different. Not only is there the risk of remote hacking or software failure. In the event of something like a massive solar flare that fries electronics, the older car will probably keep running. The newer car will be ruined and unusable. Indeed. "Law" "enforcement" agencies want us all to have cars they can zap (or control). There are all sorts of issues involved with software running cars. Bad updates can happen. The software can be used as an excuse to ban you from fixing your own car or allowing your mechanic to use 3rd-party parts.... Yes, you get arms race between the hackers and the manufacturers. Not just for using substitute parts, but tweaking performance and other parameters. (Then there are the cases when the manufacturers themselves are bad boys - the Diesel fiasco, for example, though I'm sure that's just a matter of they happened to get caught - I'm sure the petrol ["gas"] ones are no whiter.) None of that has much of anything to do with using a computer, so I wonder what point you were trying to make. Would you equate modern vs older car with computer vs pencil? There's no useful analogy to be found there. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey, quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013) |
Ads |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|