Slashdot Mirror

GM would never make transmissions for BMW and Range Rover. Or engines for Honda.

<a href="http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environm ent/products/adv_tech/autonomy1_010702.html">Click here!</a>

Yes, but why don't we have plans to switch away from fossil fuels? Why don't we have plans to make a more self-reliant society? Why don't we have plans to benefit all of mankind?

Christ, I need to take a break from Slash.

Your argument is questionable, GM has an article about an Ethanol fueled car and station in Missouri: http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/ne ws_issues/news/e85_awareness_103003.html

A number of General Motors products have had head-up displays for a couple of years. Most notably the Chevrolet Corvette, but the technology has now trickled down into several lower-end models like the Pontiac Grand Prix (which they're positioning as a BMW 3-series fighter - but in typical GM fashion they then neuter the GP by not offering a manual transmission).

I've not actually seen one running, but I gather the killer feature that makes it work well is the ability to unclutter the display (leaving only one or two features like speed and RPM) - and turn off the interior instrument panel lights when driving at night so your eyes can adjust 100% to looking outside and at the HUD.

"With its robust 42-volt electrical system, the car is configured to run any number of devices in the passenger compartment, from homes to entire farms."

This was actually on Slashdot last fall.

The two links within were pretty informative too.

Browser integration is not dead! Microsoft works on it everyday. MS constantly innovates new features that crash Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera but provide no value. Innovation will truly end when we can no longer use any browser other than IE and at the rate things are doing it won't be long.

I would ask all the developers out there to support more than IE on your extranets. I am talking to YOU Mr. Webdeveloper in that Fortune 100 company like Ford, GM, Diamler, EBAY (Is Ebay Fortune 500 yet?). Ask yourself this, "Do I really want to limit the web to a Microsoft ONLY browser?" The point of the web was platform independence. I especially love developers who code in Java then create an O/S specific dependency.

Think about this next time you decide to implement a feature that only works in IE but provides little to no value to the end user experience. If we all wake up one morning and find we are living in a "one-browser", "one-platform" world, it is going to be horrible. However, if it makes you feel any better, I fight these battles every year and lose to the developers. Usually the management will wine and say, "it costs too much to develop for two browers" or "but if I can just let developers wiggle the mouse and use a tool to generate HTML they won't have to think and can get my project done faster".

However, web browers in general suck for application development. I think the old mainframe character terminal had better input screen capability than the modern web browers. In fact, if you compare the two they work just about the same (Push screen to terminal/browser from, Fill In Screen, send screen back to server, repeat ... ) As you can tell I am not the least bit bitter. I hate tools that generate bloated, crappy, IE specific HTML laden with self destructing Java script.

The whole "embrace and extend" concept is getting old. Can't we all just get along and make things better instead of creating a fragmented incompatible mess. A company like MS is sitting on piles of cash, the likes of which the world has never seen and instead of putting together a Bell Labs or Xerox Parc they spend their cash on marketing and lawyers. There are so few great men in our age and even fewer visionaries. I was holding out a glimmer of hope for Bill when he took over as chief software architect. So much for Utopia.

"There is nothing new under the sun." -Solomon

It's gotten better, but one of the major problems is the 4GB limit. Specifically, Win2K lets you have 2G of user space. Basically it boils down if you want your assemblies to much larger than 1.5-2GB, forget it. The whole system starts bogging down at 1.5 GB, and when you hit 2GB the system dies and throws up its hands. Needless to say, many product designers at a certain major auto manufacturer are still running on Solaris boxes. Microsoft, of course, has been profusely promising a fix, but still haven't delivered of course.

Pro/E of course will eventually run on Linux, :)

One problem is the GM IS&S directorate that no open source software shell be used. This came, interestingly enough, right after they began to move to Windows platforms for Unigraphics. More interesting is that their servers all run HP-UX, and that they integrate with their existing Win2K DFS system using CIFS 9000. Hmmm...no open source, huh? (For the uninitiated -- CIFS 9000 is just Samba relabelled by HP)

Ah well. I did the best I could to advocate Open Source while I was there and was told to just 'drink the kool-aid.' *sigh*

Just a little side note here:

We did have to change our IG software. We were using Performer, now we use a third party developed renderer. For years our the company that developed our renderer has supported both Linux and Windows. Now they only support rendering on Windows. They still support the API for Linux though.

But I'll bet the company that developed your renderer now has their hands in Microsoft's back pocket.

For years, Unigraphics (currently owned by EDS), was available on RISC-based Unix workstations only. They wanted to develop the stuff for Intel processors, so the first Intel platform they ported to was Solaris x86. They had a fully-working Linux port in progress. Then they started doing a Windows port. The first Windows port required Hummingbird Exceed (or other X server) to be running on the NT machine. Well, Microsoft jumped in, gave them free developers and free development tools and other free resources to make their Windows port into a logo-compliant application. They immediately dropped the Linux port, and rumours have it that they are dropping the Solaris x86 port. If it weren't for their existing customer base, they'd be dropping their Unix ports too.

Much the same story for CATIA and SDRC (now EDS, coincidentally?) I-DEAS.

There really isn't much to do in the way of research here. Most of the major manufacturers list their affiliations on their web sites.

• Ford makes it easy. They list their brands right on the front page. Along with the previously mentioned Volvo, Jaguar, and Mazda, there's the surprise of Aston Martin (think it was a coincidence that the major cars in the last Bond movie were a Ford, a Jaguar, and an Aston Martin?).
• GM makes you have to look a little more. Aside from the previously mentioned Opel, Isuzu, and Suzuki, GM also has ties to Fiat and Subaru, as well as owning Saab. (Toyota isn't listed, but I mentioned it before because Toyota sells the Cavalier under the Toyota brand in Japan.)
• Chrysler/Dodge make you work harder. You have to know that they're part of Daimler-Chrysler, and then you'll see that they not only have Chrysler, Dodge, and Mercedes Benz, but also Maybach and Jeep as well as "strategic relationships" with Mitsubishi and Hyundai.
• Similarly, Volkswagen makes it pretty difficult to find their list of brands, but it can be found. They're pretty small-time, only having Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Skoda alongside the Volkswagen moniker.
• Porsche actually makes you have to learn history before you can get to its complex relationship with other brands. For instance, did you know that Dr. Ferdinand Porsche founded Volkswagen on Hitler's request? Also, before Porsche even formed Volkswagen, he did designs for Mercedes and Daimler. Over the years, Porsche (the company) and Porsche Design (separate company, same family) have consulted for quite a few different firms. As well, ties to Volkswagen have remained strong (the original 356 was based around a Volkswagen engine, as was the 914; lots of parts in all models of cars have been shared with VW; and the most recent model, the Cayenne, shares a base platform with VW's Touareg).

0-60mph in 9 secs
Top speed(electronically regulated): 80 mph
Range: 75 to 130 miles per charge

This is the car GM says it could not sell. Maybe it's because it was only for lease... Or maybe because there was a 6-month waiting list to get one...

Heh...sorry. I live in Japan...don't see too many of either of those company's cars over here. Oh well...

I bet you do and just don't know it. For instance, Toyota sells Chevrolet's Cavalier/Pontiac's Sunfire under the Toyota name in Japan . As well, GM and Ford own or cooperate with many other brands (Ford owns or works with other brands like Volvo, Jaguar, Mazda, and even Aston Martin, while GM has brands that include Saad, Opel, and Hummer). You may not see Mustangs or Corvettes, but chances are you see a number of Ford or GM cars every day. The same holds true for many other car makers like Chrysler/Mercedes-Benz/Daimler/Dodge/Mitsubishi, Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche/Lamborghini (Porsche is indpendent, but shares parts and designs with VW and Audi, the rest are part of the Volkswagen Automotive Group, and so on (that's ignoring the low-end/high-end relationships like Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, etc).

Hence Flash. Hence most "official" sites for movies, cars, etc. are useless without Flash and Javajunk.

Yeah! Go General Motors!!

I wonder if they're ramping up the AUTOnomy project ahead of schedule. If they're planning to get their hydrogen vehicle off the blocks and on the road in the next few years, they might not want to confuse the issue by having it compared to the EVI. I can't think of another reason for having the cars destroyed rather than just sold.

We are barely moving towards environmentally safe cars. Think of the horrible traffic accidents in the air!

Looking at the available technologies (fuel cells,battery electric, and hybrids to name a few), there isn't a lot of choices right now on the market. One of the more interesting ones I saw were the bi-fueled vehicles, takes ethanol or gas and runs the same. Don't forget to check out GM's alternative vehicles in addition to Ford's. You can easily grab a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid like I did.

Well, General Motors managed to get very offended when an NBC news program assaulted a Chevy pickup (and the truth, generally) with model rocket engines.

The Hy-wire name comes from the fact that it is a fuel-cell vehicle (therefore nominally "hybrid") with an entirely computerized control system (i.e. drive-by-wire). But what is exciting is that the Hy-wire is a real "back to the drawing board" resdesign of the automobile. Most of the features you see in a conventional car are gone. Instead the entire power train and fueling system is contained in a 12" thick "skateboard" chassis to which many different styles of body can be attached. Since the control cluster is connected to the rest of the car only by wires, it can be placed litterally wherever you want. The upshot is a car that is totally reconfigurable, with the potential for 100% visibility and improved crash protection. And, while the car is very "high tech", it is actually simpler than a conventional car and should be more reliable: compared to a conventional car, there are almost no moving parts to wear out or break. And although the Hy-wire concept car is not specifically designed for high recylceability, this same fundemental simplicity should make it a whole lot easier to design for recycling.

More Hy-wire information here.

DETROIT - General Motors Corp. dealers sold 309,263 new cars and trucks in November in the United States, down 18 percent versus November 2001. GM's overall truck sales (171,862) were down 26 percent; car sales (137,401) were down 6 percent.

So they brought in all sorts of incentives (0.9 percent financing, rebates, etc) to pump up their year-to-year sales figures.

Experience shows that it takes about 5 years for the marketplace to "correct" from abberations introduced by such marketing schemes.

Just look at their financials (quarter ending september 30th 2002) Quote from yahoo financials

Gross profit of almost $13 billion, and a loss of almost a billion bucks *cough*after expenses*.cough*

It wasn't a sustainable business model in the '70s, it didn't work for the dot-bombs in the '90s, and we're going to see SUV sales go through the floor when SUVs are required to meet the same standards (safety, fuel economy, etc) as other passenger vehicles.

So who's going to benefit? Not the big three, who can't see past the latest quarter. My money is on Toyota.

As for the drive by wire, brake by wire, does that mean we will finally have real "backseat drivers"?

Control theory is more of a traditional engineering discipline, studied by electrical, mechanical, and industrial engineers. It takes a strong math background: calculus, linear and nonlinear equations, tensors, Laplace and Z transforms. There isn't yet "Control Systems for Dummies", although some friends of mine are trying to change that by writing a controls curriculum, accompanied by a parts kit, for bright high-school students.

The path to low-level AI (moving around, not bumping into stuff, not falling down) may lie in the region between model-based control and machine learning. That region is now open for business, due to cheap compute power. Control systems used to be powered by computers with well under 1 MIPS; most of them still are. With cheap gigaflops available, approaches that were once far out of reach can be used. Real-time stereo vision finally works, and is about to get cheap. Stability enhancement systems for cars are quite impressive today. Self-balancing machines, from the Segway to the Asimo, are showing up as products.

Mobile robots, which have been sluggish machines for decades, typically have rather low-performance control systems. The DARPA LA to Las Vegas robot race may change that.

" And I don't doubt that Apollo 11 was the real deal. For one thing I watched it on TV as it happened"

And last night I watched Jean Luc Piccard be assimilated by the Borg in a Startrek TNG rerun. Does that make it real?

Or what about that "news item" screened by NBC which allegedly showed GM pickup trucks exploding like bombs when hit by other vehicles.

What about CNN's report that the CIA and US military had used nerve gas on American defectors during the Vietnam war?

Hey, we saw all this on TV too -- but it doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.

If you believe everything (or anything) you see on TV then it's about time you cashed in that reality check :-)

Actually, it was Cadillac back in the 80s...
Click HERE (Page 7) for a complete history of Cadillac's Northstar engines.

Slashdot search is down, but I managed to find at least a press release for what I'm talking about at GM's website here.

Toyota's plan will add more weight, bulk, and complexity to the car, while simultaneously reducing acceleration, handling, and passenger space. With all the cons above, I don't think many people will consider it a viable alternative to straight combustion engines.

GM's AUTOnomy project not only has the potential for greater acceleration, being a transmissionless electric auto platform, but having motors in each wheel means most vehicles will be able to (literally!) turn on a dime. It's a 100% fuel cell vehicle, and all the workings fit in a 6" high plate at the bottom of the vehicle. It makes the car safer, lighter, easier to handle, and since there is no engine, no battery packs, and basically nothing above ankle-height, passenger safety is vastly improved (no engine to break your legs in a crash) along with comfort.

Which car will Americans choose? Well, I guess it actually all depends on who's marketing their car more agressively. :(

Has anyone noticed that General Motors is selling cars equipped with XM Radio. This will hide the initial cost well, since no one thinks about that when its included. They will also be a lot more likely to continue paying for the service. If a lot of people buy these cars, this may give XM a chance.

• GM 8.1L (494CI) V8 340 horsepower@4200RPM/455 lb.-ft. of torque @3200RPM
• Ford 6.8L (414CI) V10 310HP@4250RPM/425lb-ft@3250RPM
• Dodge 8.0L (488CI) V10 305HP@2800RPM/450lb-ft.@2,800RPM

I've heard that GM will debut this car at this years Paris Auto Show. According to GM the real driver for development on this car is emerging economies like China. Your typical Chinese farmer lives in a house that's miles and miles off of any electrical grid. With the AUTOnomy platform, he can buy one transport that can serve as Tractor, Truck and power generation for his house when he comes home at night. Pretty cool. Of course, where is a Chinese farmer going to get a reliable source or Hydrogen??

Last year, GM acquired 24 percent of Hydrogenics; 20 percent of Quantum Technologies, a hydrogen-storage company; and 15 percent of General Hydrogen of Vancouver [sorry, no link].

It looks like this is many people's first discussion on the concept of alternate fuel vehicles.

First of all, forget everything you've seen about electric powered vehicles that look like golf carts with bad style. You have fallen hook, line, and sinker for what the oil companies wanted you to do. They wanted you to say "yuck" and underpowered and go back to the big hairy SUVs and sports sedans. Point 1 for petro companies, 0 for the geeks.

If you look at the electric powered vehicle outside of a climate like California (why do they introduce them in a place where battery power will always be at a peak?), you know without even starting pilot tests that this technology is doomed to failure in climates that get a touch of winter. Even if you get only 4 cold days a year, if that means you can do limited range and no hills, it is a failure. Batteries as energy storage make no sense in a territory where people have problems starting their gas powered cars with lead acid batteries.

The real solutions will be in hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. The electricity will be generated on demand from fuel cells, and there will be the same range of power available in the future as there is now. One benefit in going this way is 4 wheel drive available by putting a motor on each wheel.

Ballard Power and Stewart Energy Systems are two companies prepared to offer fuel cells and electrolysis systems to the market. Many of the big automakers have been involved with one or both of these companies. There are others.

GM is developing its own fuel cell solution.

Today there are limits on range, power and performance for hydrogen. These are getting better every year as competing companies break down the old technological walls.

The concept machines have little to do with the over all picture. The auto makers are targetting 2010 for the year you will be able to pick up a hydrogen powered car and then go around the block to Shell or whatever for a fill up.

Did you actually *read* my coment?

I said nothing about the bulid quality of Thinkpads.

If I did, I would say that they are excelent - THATS WHY I OWN SEVERAL.

They are preceved, rightly or wrongly, by the market as being expensive.

As for IBM slapping a sticker on someone elses product - they have done it already with the Aptiva.

I also did not say the *will*, I said they could, and this would explain the dropping of Linux support.

It seems that we both agree that, *if* they did this, it would be a mistake - I'd stop buying Thinkpads if they did, and I imagine a lot of other people would as well.

PS. The BMW 5 and 3 series automatic transmissions are designed and built by GM. So yes, BMW does stick it's sticker on a Chevy ;)
more info - look at the application notes.

For those of you who don't already know, GM has shown a concept car called AUTOnomy which is fuel-cell-powered too, but has a bunch of other interesting features.

It justhappens that the single largest opponent of Open Source and the GPL is also the single largest corporation

Hmm...since when have these guys ever said anything bad about anything pertaining to open source? They're not even in the computer business!

(Just because Microsoft's market cap is bigger than everyone else's doesn't make it a bigger company. There are no doubt other companies besides GM that "outweigh" Microsoft.)

The Duramax would be a great choice, I've read nothing but stellar things about it.

If 520 lb-ft of torque is simply not enough for you, then drop in a Caterpillar 3126B -- that's the plant which Ford put in their F-650 SuperCrewzer. It sports 860 lb-ft of torque, along with the same 300bhp.

In any case, this vehicle (however nice it is, otherwise) is clearly tainted by the fact it has a mere petrol engine. Convert to DERV immediately.

-cheers, csb

So I went though all the domains, and noticed that only z.com seems to be a functioning website (redirects to Nissan's website.)

Since you also mentioned two-letter domain names in your post as being verboten, what about Hewlett-Packard or Texas Instruments? (You need the "www." in front of them, though, to access their websites. General Motors, OTOH, works without the "www.")

Why? No one believed that certain (ford/chevy?) trucks would blow up like a bomb when hit from the side...what did they do? Yep, they *Proved IT*, by staging a scenario.

Though I agree with most of your points, this is a bad example. Supposedly, because the gas tank was between the door and the frame rails, it could get pinched in a side collision and rupture, possibly exploding (sounds like a '70 Pinto). Staged is right, as Dateline had a small incindiery device that caused the tanks to blow. GM has a blurb on their 90's history page (see 1993).

Shades also of the Audi 5000 controversy where folks said they had unintended accelration and their cars took off when they weren't hitting the gas. 60 Minutes got it to work too. Well, after pumping random stuff into the transmission, yes. So there you have it folks, if you pump pressure into your trans, expect unexpected accelleration.

One day, I'll make a car powered by stupidity

Already been done... look here.

Penis
Ass Raped Monkey
Rhenquest

Uh oh. They're going to sue me now! Oh no! Well I guess they'll just have to blow me!

By the way, they're getting off lightly with a simple taunting given how atrocious their web page is.

Penis
Ass Raped Monkey
Rhenquest

Uh oh. They're going to sue me now! Oh no! Well I guess they'll just have to blow me!

By the way, they're getting off lightly with a simple taunting given how atrocious their web page is.

Penis
Ass Raped Monkey
Rhenquest

Uh oh. They're going to sue me now! Oh no! Well I guess they'll just have to blow me!

By the way, they're getting off lightly with a simple taunting given how atrocious their web page is.

Penis
Ass Raped Monkey
Rhenquest

Uh oh. They're going to sue me now! Oh no! Well I guess they'll just have to blow me!

By the way, they're getting off lightly with a simple taunting given how atrocious their web page is.

I don't see how General Motors has a cause at all. And if they do, better start hiding any hyperlinks you might have used to say something sucks. When you use your page to point visitors (via worded-link) to something that you think blows, you could argue that people aren't even sure what they're going to until they get there. They click a word like 'blows' and it takes them to something which may or may not blow. Hell, if people are as stupid as GM would have us believe, then anyone who clicked that last link is forever convinced that GM BLOWS. But obviously, this is just me expressing my opinion. The issue I'm making is that for GM to have a case, they would have to argue even beyond my use of links, by saying that someone who goes to fuckgeneralmotors.com might be confused, or might think that GM is somehow involved with it, and thusly wants to fuck themselves. GM wants to argue that people don't have the right to link to them in a critical manner, and that people who do are misusing their bandwidth by linking to a publicly accessable website, that is a completely valid target for criticism or parody.

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

Is there a difference?

I don't see how General Motors has a cause at all. And if they do, better start hiding any hyperlinks you might have used to say something sucks. When you use your page to point visitors (via worded-link) to something that you think blows, you could argue that people aren't even sure what they're going to until they get there. They click a word like 'blows' and it takes them to something which may or may not blow. Hell, if people are as stupid as GM would have us believe, then anyone who clicked that last link is forever convinced that GM BLOWS. But obviously, this is just me expressing my opinion. The issue I'm making is that for GM to have a case, they would have to argue even beyond my use of links, by saying that someone who goes to fuckgeneralmotors.com might be confused, or might think that GM is somehow involved with it, and thusly wants to fuck themselves. GM wants to argue that people don't have the right to link to them in a critical manner, and that people who do are misusing their bandwidth by linking to a publicly accessable website, that is a completely valid target for criticism or parody.

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

Is there a difference?

I saw something interesting in the posting. A proposed boycott of Compaq?

I'm going to make a comparison here.

You go to the corner store and buy a few 5 cent candies. All well and good. For whatever reason you decide to boycott the store that sells them.

A nationwide chain isn't going to be affected by the loss of your penny candy sales. Besides, you couldn't afford their bigger items anyway.

And along comes a company or two. They give exclusive purchasing contracts to this chain of corner stores. Two multinational companies have just destroyed any effectiveness a consumer boycott might have possibly had.

Compaq doesn't care about end user sales. They have at least those two companies providing more revenue than personal sales ever could and buying up new rounds of hardware (bundled with Microsoft Software I might add) every five years.

The plant that's local to me has 2500 nodes in the engine plant alone, all Compaqs. And this is a small plant.

A boycott won't even make them blink.


--

Trademarks have to be protected, no matter how little you care, or else they will become invalid and anyone can use them. If he doesn't go after OpenSSH, tomorrow it'll be Microsoft using the name.

I did a quick search on altavista and found this article with one picture and here is that piture a little bigger.

The largest corporation in the wold uses it if thats enough reason...