Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Car Recalls And Computer Geeks

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Car Recalls And Computer Geeks

 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
"lily" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Rlz_a.11314$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>>Going by the average media computer geek cars are recalled if there's a
> >>>chance of the cars being damaged from an attack by some other bastard.
> >>>LOL
> >>
> >>Aren't they talking about door locks that don't work in this case?

> >
> > Because they were smashed off by a criminal...
> >

> Faulty weak design by Microsoft, fair and square.
> No weaselling out of that Nathan.


Yes, and the problem was fixed almost a month ago now.
Its still illegal criminal activity to write programs that comprimise
peoples computers


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
lily
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
Nathan Mercer wrote:

> "lily" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Rlz_a.11314$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>>>>Going by the average media computer geek cars are recalled if there's a
>>>>>chance of the cars being damaged from an attack by some other bastard.
>>>>>LOL
>>>>
>>>>Aren't they talking about door locks that don't work in this case?
>>>
>>>Because they were smashed off by a criminal...
>>>

>>
>>Faulty weak design by Microsoft, fair and square.
>>No weaselling out of that Nathan.

>
>
> Yes, and the problem was fixed almost a month ago now.


Well its bloody obvious to everyone else that it wasn't.
Just publishing a repair patch does NOT absolve Microsoft of the
responsibility for the development process that created the
vulnerability in the first place.


> Its still illegal criminal activity to write programs that comprimise
> peoples computers
>
>

"There will be no more buffer overruns in Microsoft operating systems"
It should be illegal for Bill Gates to make claims for Microsft that
they can't back up with actions


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bret
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:21:36 +1200, "Nathan Mercer"
<nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:

>"lily" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:Rlz_a.11314$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >>>Going by the average media computer geek cars are recalled if there's a
>> >>>chance of the cars being damaged from an attack by some other bastard.
>> >>>LOL
>> >>
>> >>Aren't they talking about door locks that don't work in this case?
>> >
>> > Because they were smashed off by a criminal...
>> >

>> Faulty weak design by Microsoft, fair and square.
>> No weaselling out of that Nathan.

>
>Yes, and the problem was fixed almost a month ago now.
>Its still illegal criminal activity to write programs that comprimise
>peoples computers
>

That sounds like windows Nathan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003

"Bruce Simpson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:53:59 +1200, "Peter Kenyon"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >When software manufacturers find out about a vulnerability in one of

their
> >products, normally (if they are any good) a patch is issued and made
> >available for free.
> >
> >Is that not the equivalent of replacing a faulty door lock or car alarm?

>
> Read yesterday's Aardvark to get my perspective on the matter:
>
> http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2003/0813.shtml
>
> In short, Microsoft's attitude is the equivalent of responding to the
> design fault in your new car's electronic door locking system by
> sending you a letter saying "you can come over and pick up the new
> parts but you'll have to fit them yourself or pay an expert to do it"
>
> That would never happen in the auto-industry because consumers would
> be outraged. Unfortunately, in the world of Big Bill, we've come to
> accept such tactics as normal.


Apart from new owner being notified. the manufacturer doesn't go round
trying to find every affected vehicle that's been sold. For a major recall
they might run a couple of ads in the papers, if you miss seeing them tough
luck.

VL Commodores had a known problem for cracking cylinder heads. They weren't
cheap to replace, and they weren't recalled either, and it was well after
warranty when the problems started. That was a build fault, not someone
bugger simply putting the boot into the side of the car while attacking it.

Paint recalls are good ones on cars. A near new car gets it fixed for
nothing, a slightly older car gets so much of the repair paid for with the
current owner paying the difference - could be 50/50 in some cases.

Bill is still patching Windows 98 - bless his little heart. He could simply
tell people to take the chance or buy the fully supported XP Windows version
until the next bugger rolls out.
Something breaks on your old 1999 car you don't get the parts for nothing,
you damn well pay for it. Same for oil filters and tune ups. All the tune
ups from Billy boy are FREE - for those that buy it off the software shelf
for $500 it should be too.

Try telling your new car dealer that you want new tyres because your tyres
weren't worn when you bought the car new 20,000kms ago.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Simpson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:42:33 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
<(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote:

>> That would never happen in the auto-industry because consumers would
>> be outraged. Unfortunately, in the world of Big Bill, we've come to
>> accept such tactics as normal.

>
>Apart from new owner being notified. the manufacturer doesn't go round
>trying to find every affected vehicle that's been sold. For a major recall
>they might run a couple of ads in the papers, if you miss seeing them tough
>luck.


Actually, in many cases where the vehicles are the current year's
model (like WinXP, and Win 2003 Server), the manufacturer or their
dealer *does* contact the individual owners and organise repairs.

>VL Commodores had a known problem for cracking cylinder heads. They weren't
>cheap to replace, and they weren't recalled either, and it was well after
>warranty when the problems started. That was a build fault, not someone
>bugger simply putting the boot into the side of the car while attacking it.


Did that problem affect every single Commodore (like every single copy
of WinXP and Win 2003 Server installed out of the box) or did it only
result in a relatively small number of vehicles actually cracking
heads?

>Paint recalls are good ones on cars. A near new car gets it fixed for
>nothing, a slightly older car gets so much of the repair paid for with the
>current owner paying the difference - could be 50/50 in some cases.


But cars wear out. Paint fades. Software doesn't wear out. No
matter how long you own it or how often you use it -- the bits remain
the same -- without fading, without wear and without corrosion.

>Something breaks on your old 1999 car you don't get the parts for nothing,
>you damn well pay for it. Same for oil filters and tune ups. All the tune
>ups from Billy boy are FREE - for those that buy it off the software shelf
>for $500 it should be too.
>
>Try telling your new car dealer that you want new tyres because your tyres
>weren't worn when you bought the car new 20,000kms ago.


Err yeah -- but we're talking about the current versions of Windows.
The software that, if you plonked down your hard earned cash
yesterday, you would now probably still have in its shrink wrap.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
 
Reply With Quote
 
The Flash
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
Yes it does, If you own a car it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and
protect it, you have to lock the doors, top up the oil and replace worn
items. It is NOT the car makers responsibility and never has been.

If you own a computer it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and protect
it, update software as needed and keep antivirus software installed and
current.

This current mindset of abdicating all personal responsibility and blaming
somebody else for any problem that comes along is flawed. If you cannot
accept the responsibility of operating a computer in the digital age with
all the legal and social implications and personal responsibilities that
ownership encompasses you have no right to use one and absolutely no right
to complain about it.

If we extract this current mindset to its end conclusion we end up with the
following... Man electrocuted using toaster in shower.... power company to
be sued. Woman sues car company and insurance company after her car is
stolen when keys were left in ignition.



> Well its bloody obvious to everyone else that it wasn't.
> Just publishing a repair patch does NOT absolve Microsoft of the
> responsibility for the development process that created the
> vulnerability in the first place.
>
>
> > Its still illegal criminal activity to write programs that comprimise
> > peoples computers
> >
> >

> "There will be no more buffer overruns in Microsoft operating systems"
> It should be illegal for Bill Gates to make claims for Microsft that
> they can't back up with actions
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Simpson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:14:32 +1200, "The Flash"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yes it does, If you own a car it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and
>protect it, you have to lock the doors, top up the oil and replace worn
>items. It is NOT the car makers responsibility and never has been.


Very true. But Microsoft's Windows XP, Windows 2K and Windows 2003
Server haven't failed because they're worn out or because a fault has
suddenly developed over time.

This is a vulnerability that has been there right from day one. It is
a DESIGN FAULT and manufacturers have a responsibility to rectify
design faults if they unreasonably compromise the performance of the
product.

I'd say that having WinXP regularly shut down on you when you didn't
ask or want it to is compromising the performance of the product.

>If you own a computer it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and protect
>it, update software as needed and keep antivirus software installed and
>current.


If the manufacturer of your car sent you a note saying "sorry, the air
bag in that model has proven to go off all by itself without warning"
would you expect:

1. That the design fault would be remedied for you with the
manufacturer paying for the replacement parts and the labour required
to fit them

2. That you'd be invited to come down to the dealership and pick up a
new airbag system that you'd then have to instal yourself or pay an
expert certified mechanic to install.

3. That you'd simply have to go and buy a new airbag system and pay to
have it installed.


>This current mindset of abdicating all personal responsibility and blaming
>somebody else for any problem that comes along is flawed. If you cannot
>accept the responsibility of operating a computer in the digital age with
>all the legal and social implications and personal responsibilities that
>ownership encompasses you have no right to use one and absolutely no right
>to complain about it.


Everyone has a right fo complain about a product that fails to work
properly because of a design flaw -- and that's exactly what's
happening with MS Windows XP/2K/2003 Server.

If there wasn't a buffer overrun bug in this code, people wouldn't be
having their systems shut down unexpectedly -- thus causing a loss of
data and significant inconvenience.

You might arge that if some little snot hadn't written a worm the
problem woukdn't exist -- but that's like a car manufacturer saying
"we know the seatbelts in this model are faulty -- but so long as you
don't hit anything then there's no problem".

Just as accidents on the road are a part of life, malicous viruses and
worm are also a part of life.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
 
Reply With Quote
 
lily
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
The Flash wrote:

> Yes it does, If you own a car it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and
> protect it, you have to lock the doors, top up the oil and replace worn
> items. It is NOT the car makers responsibility and never has been.
>
> If you own a computer it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and protect
> it, update software as needed and keep antivirus software installed and
> current.
>
> This current mindset of abdicating all personal responsibility and blaming
> somebody else for any problem that comes along is flawed. If you cannot
> accept the responsibility of operating a computer in the digital age with
> all the legal and social implications and personal responsibilities that
> ownership encompasses you have no right to use one and absolutely no right
> to complain about it.
>
> If we extract this current mindset to its end conclusion we end up with the
> following... Man electrocuted using toaster in shower.... power company to
> be sued. Woman sues car company and insurance company after her car is
> stolen when keys were left in ignition.
>


What a load of *******s
Microsoft is responsible for not checking the software for buffer
overruns before it was released.
Like Ford was responsible for releasing explosive Pintos into the market.
Blamining the end user for faulty design is taking rimming syncophantic
corporate adoration way too far.
Microsoft should apologise to their users, they will not do so because
it is an admission of liability.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
"Bruce Simpson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If the manufacturer of your car sent you a note saying "sorry, the air
> bag in that model has proven to go off all by itself without warning"
> would you expect:


If the manufacturer of your car provided, a month before any problems
started occuring, a free patch that would prevent problems, would you moan
on and on when you're hit and you didn't apply the patch?

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
art
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2003
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:00:05 +1200, Bruce Simpson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:53:59 +1200, "Peter Kenyon"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>When software manufacturers find out about a vulnerability in one of their
>>products, normally (if they are any good) a patch is issued and made
>>available for free.
>>
>>Is that not the equivalent of replacing a faulty door lock or car alarm?

>
>Read yesterday's Aardvark to get my perspective on the matter:
>
>http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2003/0813.shtml
>
>In short, Microsoft's attitude is the equivalent of responding to the
>design fault in your new car's electronic door locking system by
>sending you a letter saying "you can come over and pick up the new
>parts but you'll have to fit them yourself or pay an expert to do it"
>
>That would never happen in the auto-industry because consumers would
>be outraged. Unfortunately, in the world of Big Bill, we've come to
>accept such tactics as normal.


This worm was intended to crash the microsoft website. I am sure that
if it wasn't directed at microsoft, and it wasn't going to affect
them, that they wouldn't have bothered posting a fix on the front page
of their website. There reasons for doing this are totally selfish,
they simply don't want their own website to be affected by the worm.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CAR INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR Ahmed Digital Photography 3 10-31-2007 10:50 AM
CAR INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR Ahmed C++ 0 10-31-2007 02:25 AM
CAR INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR Ahmed C Programming 0 10-31-2007 02:24 AM
Re: Car Recalls And Computer Geeks Gavin Tunney NZ Computing 4 08-14-2003 11:11 PM



Advertisments