Re: Car Recalls And Computer Geeks

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by colinco, Aug 13, 2003.

  1. colinco

    colinco Guest

    In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    > 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?
    colinco, Aug 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "colinco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    > > 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...
    Nathan Mercer, Aug 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. colinco

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "colinco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    > > 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?


    Cars with door locks are still broken into. In some cases some people don't
    even lock their cars, or they will hard a spare key on the car somewhere.
    Not all cars have car alarms as standard either, one could say that car
    manufacturers should be fitting the latest and best car alarm as well.
    In a lot of cases if a person is killed while driving a car, that's just
    simply bad luck. Only so much can be done to try to prevent it. Car
    manufacturer recalls have covered many things over the years, but not damage
    by another party. You don't even need to use the doors to get into a
    convertible. ;-)

    If you damage your cars computer tough luck. On one model you could jump
    start it, then find that a few months later the mem-cal in the computer has
    crapped out. There has been a recall where they found water could run down
    into a car computer over by a kick panal, sealer had to be applied to
    provent it.
    Modern computers cases should have filters on them to let the air in but not
    the damn dust that gets sucked in with it.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Aug 13, 2003
    #3
  4. colinco

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:Jsy_a.115438$...
    >
    > "colinco" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    > > > 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...


    What's been happening with computer viruses for years is nothing short of
    straight out vandalism, no different than some idiot rubbing a coin along
    the side of a car or smashing the outside mirrors off just to be a pain in
    the arse.
    The worse case would be your average car bomber, and it's not likely that
    any car recall is going to ever try to prevent it. Same with some bugger
    putting sugar in your fuel tank, the idiots behind the viruses are much the
    same in trying to do as much damage as possible.]

    And here we see a damn thick computer geek on the TV Breakfast show this
    morning trying to compare car recalls to some bugger that's trying to damage
    someone else's software and computer.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Aug 13, 2003
    #4
  5. colinco

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:Jsy_a.115438$...
    >
    > "colinco" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    > > > 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...


    What's been happening with computer viruses for years is nothing short of
    straight out vandalism, no different than some idiot rubbing a coin along
    the side of a car or smashing the outside mirrors off just to be a pain in
    the arse.
    The worse case would be your average car bomber, and it's not likely that
    any car recall is going to ever try to prevent it. Same with some bugger
    putting sugar in your fuel tank, the idiots behind the viruses are much the
    same in trying to do as much damage as possible.]

    And here we see a damn thick computer geek on the TV Breakfast show this
    morning trying to compare car recalls to some bugger that's trying to damage
    someone else's software and computer.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Aug 13, 2003
    #5
  6. colinco

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:Jsy_a.115438$...
    >
    > "colinco" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    > > > 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...


    What's been happening with computer viruses for years is nothing short of
    straight out vandalism, no different than some idiot rubbing a coin along
    the side of a car or smashing the outside mirrors off just to be a pain in
    the arse.
    The worse case would be your average car bomber, and it's not likely that
    any car recall is going to ever try to prevent it. Same with some bugger
    putting sugar in your fuel tank, the idiots behind the viruses are much the
    same in trying to do as much damage as possible.]

    And here we see a damn thick computer geek on the TV Breakfast show this
    morning trying to compare car recalls to some bugger that's trying to damage
    someone else's software and computer.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Aug 13, 2003
    #6
  7. colinco

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bhecqj$7pc$...

    LOL
    If I didn't have damn trouble trying to send that through the server for
    some reason before.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Aug 13, 2003
    #7
  8. colinco

    lily Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > "colinco" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
    >>
    >>>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.
    lily, Aug 13, 2003
    #8
  9. In article <rCA_a.115569$>, "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:
    >"lily" <> wrote in message
    >news:Rlz_a.11314$...
    >> >>>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


    I didn't think it was illegal to do this ... in many places at least. Isn't
    this one of the examples of technology getting well ahead of the legal and
    ethical arguments ? ... otherwise how is spam still legal ? :)

    Bruce

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oook !
    NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
    Bruce Sinclair, Aug 14, 2003
    #9
  10. On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:53:59 +1200, "Peter Kenyon"
    <> 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.

    --
    you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
    Bruce Simpson, Aug 14, 2003
    #10
  11. "lily" <> wrote in message
    news:Rlz_a.11314$...
    > >>>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
    Nathan Mercer, Aug 14, 2003
    #11
  12. colinco

    lily Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > "lily" <> wrote in message
    > news:Rlz_a.11314$...
    >
    >>>>>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
    lily, Aug 14, 2003
    #12
  13. colinco

    Bret Guest

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:21:36 +1200, "Nathan Mercer"
    <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:

    >"lily" <> wrote in message
    >news:Rlz_a.11314$...
    >> >>>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.
    Bret, Aug 14, 2003
    #13
  14. colinco

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Bruce Simpson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:53:59 +1200, "Peter Kenyon"
    > <> 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
    E. Scrooge, Aug 14, 2003
    #14
  15. On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:42:33 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    < (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/
    Bruce Simpson, Aug 14, 2003
    #15
  16. colinco

    The Flash Guest

    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
    >
    >
    The Flash, Aug 14, 2003
    #16
  17. On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:14:32 +1200, "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.


    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/
    Bruce Simpson, Aug 14, 2003
    #17
  18. colinco

    lily Guest

    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 bollocks
    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.
    lily, Aug 14, 2003
    #18
  19. "Bruce Simpson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Nicholas Sherlock, Aug 14, 2003
    #19
  20. colinco

    art Guest

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:00:05 +1200, Bruce Simpson
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:53:59 +1200, "Peter Kenyon"
    ><> 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.
    art, Aug 14, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cheg

    Question: DVD recalls site?

    Cheg, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,432
    Stan Brown
    Sep 30, 2003
  2. SD Card recalls

    , Jul 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    321
    BJ in Texas
    Jul 20, 2006
  3. Ahmed

    CAR INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR

    Ahmed, Oct 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    399
    ChrisM
    Oct 31, 2007
  4. Gavin Tunney

    Re: Car Recalls And Computer Geeks

    Gavin Tunney, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    316
    Gavin Tunney
    Aug 15, 2003
  5. William Brown

    Nice Car, Nissan Leaf electric car

    William Brown, Apr 13, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    677
    misanthropic_curmudgeon
    Apr 18, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page