> Trust me, people don't have a clue about cell coverage not extending
> across every corner of the globe. I kayak and many people bring their
> cell phones to use the GPS. Trouble is they don't work out of range
> of a tower.
Weird. Even Google Maps these days has an offline mode (and can navigate
offline too.) Of course, they'd need to download offline maps for the
area they want beforehand and at least in my experience Goog's maps
aren't that useful anywhere outside a road... But other apps provide
maps for that too.
Reply by rickman●March 31, 20172017-03-31
On 3/28/2017 1:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:45:09 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley
>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-27, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/16/tesla-driver-stranded-desert-smartphone-app-failure/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unbelievable. :-(
>>>
>>> That's a failure on so many levels, starting with Tesla for designing
>>> such a fragile system without any obvious backups and ending with the
>>> driver who never thought of this.
>>
>>
>> But this *was* the backup system. The primary system was the key fob.
>> This let you drive you car in most cases even if you forgot to
>> actually take you car keys with you.
>>
>
> Oh, I see, thanks. I wonder if the driver knew that a usable signal was
> required for his mobile phone and I wonder if Tesla made that explicit
> in their manuals and user training. (Not everyone would think to ask
> these types of questions unprompted.)
Trust me, people don't have a clue about cell coverage not extending
across every corner of the globe. I kayak and many people bring their
cell phones to use the GPS. Trouble is they don't work out of range of
a tower. My hand held GPS continues to work as long as I have a
battery. They also don't understand a cell phone is a poor emergency
distress signal for the same reason. If you need to use it you are
likely too far from a cell tower.
--
Rick C
Reply by Robert Lacoste●March 29, 20172017-03-29
"pozz" wrote in message news:ob09tq$qj2$1@dont-email.me...
>I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud. My
>first impression is that they are "empty words" without a precise
>meaning: you can fill the "word" as you want.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:59:28 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2017-03-27, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:45:09 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley
>><clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2017-03-27, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/16/tesla-driver-stranded-desert-smartphone-app-failure/
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unbelievable. :-(
>>>
>>>That's a failure on so many levels, starting with Tesla for designing
>>>such a fragile system without any obvious backups and ending with the
>>>driver who never thought of this.
>>
>>
>> But this *was* the backup system. The primary system was the key fob.
>> This let you drive you car in most cases even if you forgot to
>> actually take you car keys with you.
>>
>
>Oh, I see, thanks. I wonder if the driver knew that a usable signal was
>required for his mobile phone and I wonder if Tesla made that explicit
>in their manuals and user training. (Not everyone would think to ask
>these types of questions unprompted.)
That's a good question, I have no idea how explicit Tesla's training
was/is. I suspect they emphasize that point more now, though...
I also suspect it was not really a failure mode in the forefront of
Tesla's engineer's minds. Sure, "it won't work if there's no phone
service" is obvious, but getting from there to "what if a user starts
the car with their phone and then drives someplace without phone
service and shuts it down" goes a couple of steps past the problem
they were trying to solve. Of course it *is* their responsibility to
think about that sort of thing. So I'd assume it was mentioned, but
not really emphasized. IOW "this won't work if you don't have phone
service" was probably mentioned, or at least implied, but "don't use
this to start your car and then drive off into the desert" was not,
and the user didn't make that connection either.
As I mentioned, Nissan has most of the same features (although I'm not
sure it has everything you need to create this particular problem),
and they certainly didn't go out of their way to even emphasize that
unlocking or starting my car from my phone wouldn't work if I didn't
have phone service. It might well have been in the fine print in the
click through license agreement, but how often do those actually get
read.
I suspect it'll be less than effective in any event - when was the
last time you could get a user to pay attention to a lecture on how
the primary system works, much less the peculiarities of the backup
system... I still can't convince my mom that she can actually unlock
all the doors by double tapping the button on her key fob. She
insists on just opening the driver's door, then hunting* for a while
for the door unlock button on the driver's door armrest. Usually
while I'm standing in the rain on the passenger side.
*I once got a call a couple of days after one of those events that
none of the windows worked anymore (the driver's window might still
have, I don't remember). She had hit the window lock in the process
of hunting for the door unlock...
>> Tesla's failure was in not realizing that a backup system might become
>> the primary system, because users are creative like that. That error
>> has bitten many designers - "we don't have to actually monitor X,
>> because the emergency limit sensor will shut it down when it goes too
>> far", "we don't have to handle the gun safely, the safety is on", "I
>> don't have to check the coolant level every day, because the backup
>> cooling system will kick in if the primary system runs low", "I can
>> take safety #1 and #2 off, because safety #3 is still there".
>
>Perhaps it might be better if we all just went back to using physical
>keys instead. :-)
The traditional approach, where the key was physically locked into the
ignition certainly had the advantage that you couldn't drive the car
anywhere without taking the ignition key with you!
But that was only the ignition key. GM, for example, was (in)famous
for decades for having different* door and ignition keys. So if you
had some way to *lock* the door without the door key (and that was
possible with at least some cars - sometimes via the
hold-up-the-latch-while-closing-the-door trick), you could have lost
the door key after unlocking the door, and then driven off with the
ignition key, and then gotten yourself locked out of the car, despite
having the ignition key. Of course most users just kept both keys on
the same keychain, which usually prevented that problem.
Most people, myself included, would be loathe to give up keyless entry
just because it introduces a few new (rare) failure modes. It is darn
convenient.
*They built steering columns and doors in different plants, and it
took them decades to figure out how to coordinate those assemblies so
the same key was configured for both.
Most people, myself included, would be loathe to give up keyless entry
just because it introduces a few new (rare) failure modes. It is darn
convinient.
*They built steering columns and doors in different plants, and it
took them decades to figure out how to coordinate those assemblies so
the same key was configured for both.
Reply by Simon Clubley●March 28, 20172017-03-28
On 2017-03-27, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:45:09 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley
><clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
>>On 2017-03-27, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/16/tesla-driver-stranded-desert-smartphone-app-failure/
>>>
>>
>>Unbelievable. :-(
>>
>>That's a failure on so many levels, starting with Tesla for designing
>>such a fragile system without any obvious backups and ending with the
>>driver who never thought of this.
>
>
> But this *was* the backup system. The primary system was the key fob.
> This let you drive you car in most cases even if you forgot to
> actually take you car keys with you.
>
Oh, I see, thanks. I wonder if the driver knew that a usable signal was
required for his mobile phone and I wonder if Tesla made that explicit
in their manuals and user training. (Not everyone would think to ask
these types of questions unprompted.)
>
> Tesla's failure was in not realizing that a backup system might become
> the primary system, because users are creative like that. That error
> has bitten many designers - "we don't have to actually monitor X,
> because the emergency limit sensor will shut it down when it goes too
> far", "we don't have to handle the gun safely, the safety is on", "I
> don't have to check the coolant level every day, because the backup
> cooling system will kick in if the primary system runs low", "I can
> take safety #1 and #2 off, because safety #3 is still there".
Perhaps it might be better if we all just went back to using physical
keys instead. :-)
Thanks for taking the time to do the above writeup.
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
Reply by Robert Wessel●March 27, 20172017-03-27
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:45:09 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2017-03-27, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/03/17 01:22, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-26, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Many vehicles that have coded ignition *keys* cannot be started if
>>>> their radio is damaged or removed. Most auto manufacturers now have
>>>> some kind of ignition lockout system - but some of them place the
>>>> circuitry in the stereo system. GM and Honda in particular are well
>>>> known for this, but they aren't the only ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what on earth happens if you need to get to the hospital in a
>>> hurry or if there's an accident out in the middle of nowhere that
>>> leaves the vehicle (sort of) drivable but damages the radio ?
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/16/tesla-driver-stranded-desert-smartphone-app-failure/
>>
>
>Unbelievable. :-(
>
>That's a failure on so many levels, starting with Tesla for designing
>such a fragile system without any obvious backups and ending with the
>driver who never thought of this.
But this *was* the backup system. The primary system was the key fob.
This let you drive you car in most cases even if you forgot to
actually take you car keys with you.
It's not so easy a problem to fix either - they used network
connectivity to check if your phone was still valid to unlock your
car. If they didn't (say the phone would also authenticate to the car
in pure Bluetooth mode), someone could just steal your phone, turn off
WiFi and the 3G/4G connection, and go nick your Tesla (of course
that's not any different than actually stealing your car keys, except
that grabbing a cell phone is practically much easier, since they're
so often out in the open, while keys tend to spend most of their time
in pockets and such). Which is not to say there aren't ways to fix
this, but none are completely straight-forward.
This is also a simple and straight-forward extension of a preceding
technology, which just makes that problem worse (it's just like what
we've already been doing, but with this little bit added). For
example, OnStar's long standing ability to unlock your car for you
(you've bean able to call them if you locked the keys in the car since
1996). Being able to do that from a phone app is a pretty trivial
enhancement, and being able to also *start* the car remotely is
another trivial enhancement (remote start by itself dates back
decades). Nor are either of those are uncommon - my Nissan will do
both - although I've never then tried to get into my car and drive
away without my key fob. I'll have to try that sometime, although I
suspect it would work - I *know* you can drive the car without the fob
after getting it unlocked and started in the conventional manner (it
does beep at you and display "no key" if you do). Which then lead to
similar failure mode. For example, what if you left your keys on the
sunroof (certainly close enough to make the door and starter sensors
happy), unlocked the car, started it, and then drove off into Death
Valley, stopping (and turning off the car) half way across to admire
the scenery. Again, you'd be stuck (assuming the keys had actually
blown off the roof).
Tesla's failure was in not realizing that a backup system might become
the primary system, because users are creative like that. That error
has bitten many designers - "we don't have to actually monitor X,
because the emergency limit sensor will shut it down when it goes too
far", "we don't have to handle the gun safely, the safety is on", "I
don't have to check the coolant level every day, because the backup
cooling system will kick in if the primary system runs low", "I can
take safety #1 and #2 off, because safety #3 is still there".
Reply by Simon Clubley●March 27, 20172017-03-27
On 2017-03-27, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/03/17 01:22, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2017-03-26, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Many vehicles that have coded ignition *keys* cannot be started if
>>> their radio is damaged or removed. Most auto manufacturers now have
>>> some kind of ignition lockout system - but some of them place the
>>> circuitry in the stereo system. GM and Honda in particular are well
>>> known for this, but they aren't the only ones.
>>>
>>
>> And what on earth happens if you need to get to the hospital in a
>> hurry or if there's an accident out in the middle of nowhere that
>> leaves the vehicle (sort of) drivable but damages the radio ?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/16/tesla-driver-stranded-desert-smartphone-app-failure/
>
Unbelievable. :-(
That's a failure on so many levels, starting with Tesla for designing
such a fragile system without any obvious backups and ending with the
driver who never thought of this.
In fairness to the driver however, depending on how it was explained
to him, he may never have fully realised the implications of not having
connectivity to the remote servers until he found out the hard way.
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
Reply by Tom Gardner●March 27, 20172017-03-27
On 27/03/17 01:22, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2017-03-26, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Many vehicles that have coded ignition *keys* cannot be started if
>> their radio is damaged or removed. Most auto manufacturers now have
>> some kind of ignition lockout system - but some of them place the
>> circuitry in the stereo system. GM and Honda in particular are well
>> known for this, but they aren't the only ones.
>>
>
> And what on earth happens if you need to get to the hospital in a
> hurry or if there's an accident out in the middle of nowhere that
> leaves the vehicle (sort of) drivable but damages the radio ?
> On 25/03/17 20:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:31 -0000, Paul
>> <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ob09tq$qj2$1@dont-email.me>, pozzugno@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud. My
>>>> first impression is that they are "empty words" without a precise
>>>> meaning: you can fill the "word" as you want.
>>>>
>>>> I want to start from a real simple application.
>>>> I have some Internet-connected embedded boards that I want to
>>>> control by
>>>> remote with my smartphone connected to Internet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before you go ANY further read this short article and think about
>>> security first
>>
>> Over here Siemens is advertising their household appliances by the
>> remote control features :-)
>
> Today's heavily advertised "solution looking for a problem":
> https://ring.com/
Just a curiosity.
The video doorbell connects to home WiFi network. Of course you need to
select the SSID and write a password to make a WiFi connection. The
setup guide says this process is done using a smart device (smartphone),
after pushing a button in the doorbell to put it in Setup mode.
How does it work? How the smartphone sends the WiFi configuration to the
doorbell that isn't connected to Internet yet (because it isn't
configured yet)?
Does it use a local connection (Bluetooth, NFC, ...), even if it isn't
explicit?
Reply by Simon Clubley●March 26, 20172017-03-26
On 2017-03-26, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Many vehicles that have coded ignition *keys* cannot be started if
> their radio is damaged or removed. Most auto manufacturers now have
> some kind of ignition lockout system - but some of them place the
> circuitry in the stereo system. GM and Honda in particular are well
> known for this, but they aren't the only ones.
>
And what on earth happens if you need to get to the hospital in a
hurry or if there's an accident out in the middle of nowhere that
leaves the vehicle (sort of) drivable but damages the radio ?
Perhaps everyone should switch to driving a Lada or in the US,
whatever the el-cheapo car is/was (Yugo?). :-) On the plus side, you
wouldn't have to worry about remote hacking of your vehicle. :-)
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world