> If CDMA handsets had an equivalent of the GSM SIM chip
It's not a handset issue but an infrastructure issue. CDMA networks in general don't offer sufficient call management and accounting functionality to implement that sort of thing. It's understandable given that CDMA was developed in the US where at the time cooperation between the carriers (beyond roaming agreements) was the furthest thing from their mind. US carriers use "proprietary" handsets as yet another means of locking you in--if they provided SIM technology, why, you might simply move on to another carrier with their free/cheap phone.
Yeah, except UMTS has yet to win. So far it's a fiasco. And even if it does win, that still means brownie points for GSM, not CDMA (a.k.a. Qualcom), since it would have shown adaptability instead of stubborn adherence to its own ideas.
I've had a Siemens Gigaset 2415 (plus another 2400 handset) for the last couple of years and it takes two standard AA NiCad or NiMH rechargables. I'd be careful about inserting NiMH batteries into any old phone, since they have different charging characteristics from NiCADs. Still, even with NiMH the phone doesn't have a great talk- or standby-time, maybe two to three days standy. It seems that the current generation of digital cordless phones aren't as power thrifty as they could be, most 900 MHz analogs would beat them in terms of battery life. At least that's my experience and what I've heard of some other phones as well.
Still, even 15MB/month isn't bad given the data volume you're likely to transmit on this thing. Most likely email with occasional Googling and quick/. refreshers. Many news sites nowadays have a light mode, so you should be able to stay well within the 15MB.
He problably was less hung up on the Magic Gate and more on the Memory Stick thing. Personally I consider the Sonys the nicest Palm implementations at the moment, save for the damn Memory Stick. Yet another instance of Sony's obsession with knocking down a wall with their head until it bleeds and cracks open (the head, not the wall). Five or ten years down the road of nobody else adopting the MS and everyone else standardizing on CF or SD, and they'll finally quietly drop it from their products and pretend that it never existed. Why not do that now and spare a lot of buyers the nagging feeling of having purchased a great device with one fatal flaw?
> Ok, what is it with those damn Germans and David Hasselhoff?
It's not the quality of his acting per se but merely the idea that a German has made it to some level of prominence in US Entertainment. Besides, the kinds of Germans that would even express appreciation of him would be the same people that in the US would also be considered cheesers--they're sneered at in Germany, too.
Re:Pretty poor tech for 3D
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2
> The guys at Dresden 3d have already done this
I've read about them over a year ago, but haven't heard anything else from them since then. Of course, they might just be plugging away without releasing a stream of pre-announcement press releases.
Parallax occlusion might be the most economically feasible technology at the moment, but it's not that great. You can only see a good 3D image from certain angles and certain distances from the screen. Given a "Switching LCD" (their terminology) with a fine enough vertical grating (i.e. considerably higher than the horizontal resolution of the display LCD), and given a tracking system on the monitor (IR sensor or even a camera with position sensing software) that can sense where the viewer (singular!) is, the switching LCD could adjust the occlusion dynamically to make a sweet spot follow the viewer. This could also be done mechanically I guess, using a simple static grating, by moving the switching LCD left and right and forward and back as needed. This wouldn't work so well at the edges though, or anywhere the viewing angle deviates considerably from 90 degrees.
I'm still hoping to be able to buy a holographic monitor within my lifetime.
And this from someone who migrated to the Mac? No offense, but switching FROM JBuilder is mostly a downgrade, it's considered one of the best Java IDEs if not THE best.
> True, but having Audi and Lamborghini, why would one want Porsche?
Because Lamborghinis are oversexed power monsters for undersexed Hollywood producers, while Porsches are minimalist form-follows-function driving machines.
> none of the things you mention "enhance" steering feel. They piss me off.
If they're done right, I'd be neutral about them, especially if you can turn them off.
> Im talking more about things like feeling the texture > of the road, when the steering gets "light"
I know exactly what you're talking about, because I also value those things and BMWs for that reason. But you could simulate those effects quite well to the point where you couldn't tell the difference if you didn't know. For example, steering lightness occurs during upward acceleration where the pressure of the tires on the road diminishes. You can measure that with accelerometers and/or stress sensors inside the suspension (which are there anyway in sophisticated suspensions), and decrease steering wheel resistance proportionally, making it feel lighter. Rough road surfaces can be transmitted back to the steering wheel using the same stress sensors and steering wheel actuators. If anything, a system like this could put you just a software update away from BMW-like steering feel, even in a plusher car.
There's nothing sacred about having a metal rod reaching directly all the way from your fists down to the wheels. Up until now (and for a while yet) it merely was the most efficient and cheapest way of getting the job done, but once the job can be done equally well or better with new technology, I won't shed a tear for the old way. I'm sure there were those that cried for the old crank when electric starters became popular, feeling that merely turning a key to start an automobile wasn't sporting enough for a man. Or look at the dash instrumentation itself, which looks practically identical in a 50s car and a modern car, except that it works completely differently behind the scenes. As long as the driving experience is the same or better, I really don't care how it's done.
> By-Wire technology basically removes all of those complex > components and replaces them with much simpler electronic ones.
The chassis is unlikely to become simpler with fuel cell electrics, just different. Yes, you don't have a combustion engine and transmission anymore (ideally, though not everyone is following this approach), but now you have electric motors at each wheel, which sounds simpler, but isn't. Those aren't washing machine motors held in place by two #14 bolts, they're highly sophisticated motors that are either engineered to be efficient and quiet at a wide range of RPMs, or have an internal gearbox that can adapt the speed of the motor to the speed of the wheels while keeping the motor within acceptable efficiency and noise boundaries.
Say you mount the motors directly in the wheel hubs--now you have much more unsprung weight to contend with (weight not dampened by the suspension, i.e. anything travelling up and down with the wheel), which very seriously affects handling. Or you mount the motors onto the chassis, in which case you need drive shafts at each wheel, plus CV joints. This all isn't even addressing the fuel cells, fuel storage, and battery technology. Yes, a fuel cell vehicle still needs substantial batteries, otherwise it can't take advantage of regenerative breaking, one of the big advantages of electrics.
IOW, manufacturers will still have plenty of opportunities to differentiate the quality and performance of their chassis. A BMW will still strive to have a better weight distribution and tuned suspension, while a Cadillac most likely will still aspire to making you think you're sitting at home on a couch.
Don't mistake all this for skepticism about the technology itself. I've been excited about fuel cells for a long time and about the performance potential of electric cars. Given an adequate power source, electric motors have torque and acceleration potential beyond anything possible with combustion engines. I simply don't share the starry-eyed optimism about shared platforms that the article exhudes. I happen to think that for a long time cars will be built very much the same way they're build today, just using different technology. I'm not saying that it's better that way either, just that that's most likely what's going to happen anyway.
I'd be willing to bet money that Dodge will eventually disappear also, within the next 15-20 years at most. DaimlerChrysler is pushing hard for the global market, and Dodge is virtually unknown outside of the greater American market. It's also hard to pronounce in most non-English languages (then again, so is Chrysler, but you've got to stop somewhere:-), kind of like Buick. I'd say eventually it will be just three brands--Chrysler, Jeep and Mercedes. Outside the US brand diversification like that isn't that popular anyway--just look at Acura and Infinity, which simply sell as Honda and Nissan in most markets.
> The new Chrysler Crossfire contains significant Mercedes > componentry, such as the engine...
Yes, but not the chassis. From memory, in the book the Mercedes honchos were saying something like "components yes, engines yes, but the chassis--no way!" They strangely don't mind sharing engines (at least at the lower end), as can be seen also in the joint venture with Mitsubishi.
Well, it's the steering feel, but also the fact that no western country will currently approve a pure steer-by-wire vehicle.
> Until they can accurately recreate the subtle > road-feel transmitted to the steering wheel
There's no reason to believe that good sensor and actuator technology couldn't duplicate the steering sensations of a mechanical linkage. In fact, they could even enhance things by providing virtual feedback, such as vibrating the steering wheel when drifting out of a lane (similar to driving on the ribbed line on the edge of a freeway), or periodic vibrations to simulate driving over those slow-down lines across the road before stop signs or reduced-speed areas.
> I dont thinkt he BMW system should be considered "interim".
You might be right, we may never see pure steer-by-wire for various reasons, although I'm sure someone will try marketing it at some point. It just may never catch on, who knows.
> GM already owns several brands (Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc.) > and they commonly share chasis and bodies between these brands.
Yes, and that's why all those meaningless brands are disappearing fast. They're there just for historic and nostalgic reasons, but have no production rationale. People are catching on to this fast and simply choosing the cheapest version of a given platform. Chrysler faced this fact by shutting down Plymouth, and no doubt they will eventually terminate other brands as well.
What I'm really talking about is that the GM article hinted that in the future chassis production might be independent of body production, reverting back to the old days of the coach works. So GM could conceivably build the chassis, which VW would then buy and put their own bodies on. Of course, it would never actually happen in that combination, it's just an example. They basically think that chassis and body production will be commoditized to the point where you could mix and match from various manufacturers.
Yes, but the Japanese manufacturers have never been concerned with profitability. They just want to be the first there, costs be damned--the Apollo mission of car manufacturing. They're selling their hybrids at a loss as we speak just for the prestige of it. Nominally it's to lower costs through mass production, but whom are they kidding? It will take more than 10,000 Priuses to reach economies of scale.
> GM will be producing SUVs which *can* fit entire farms
They're starting with the Ford Titanic next year, followed by the Ford Continent the year after, incorporating all the know-how gained from the Ford Expedition, Excursion and Volvo Heavy Truck division.
They will. In fact, a whole industry of sound themes will sprout out of nowhere, making you wonder how you ever managed without engine sound themes before. You too can have a New Beetle with the engine sound of a Lamborghini.
That's what the government thinks, too, so that's still one major hurdle to overcome before you can buy one of these. BMW has a nice interim solution that is a sort of hybrid, using both mechanical linkage and steer-by-wire. It works somewhat like a differential, where the steering column enters a gearbox and the steering shaft exits the other end of the box and goes to the steering rack. This box is pretty fancy and contains the actuator motors for the drive-by-wire system, which act on the steering shaft that goes down to the wheels. They never act on the steering column that goes up to the steering wheel. When there's no power, the box acts a lot like a locked differential, where the incoming and outgoing steering shafts are directly mechanically linked. When the system is powered, the actuator motors kick in and can either diminish or enhance the steering wheel motions, depending on speed, wheel position and a bunch of other factors. In a way, you've got the best of both worlds, except that it's more expensive than current steering technology or pure drive-by-wire alone.
Slashdot Mirror
> If CDMA handsets had an equivalent of the GSM SIM chip
It's not a handset issue but an infrastructure issue. CDMA networks in general don't offer sufficient call management and accounting functionality to implement that sort of thing. It's understandable given that CDMA was developed in the US where at the time cooperation between the carriers (beyond roaming agreements) was the furthest thing from their mind. US carriers use "proprietary" handsets as yet another means of locking you in--if they provided SIM technology, why, you might simply move on to another carrier with their free/cheap phone.
> 3G GSM will be based on CDMA.
Yeah, except UMTS has yet to win. So far it's a fiasco. And even if it does win, that still means brownie points for GSM, not CDMA (a.k.a. Qualcom), since it would have shown adaptability instead of stubborn adherence to its own ideas.
I've had a Siemens Gigaset 2415 (plus another 2400 handset) for the last couple of years and it takes two standard AA NiCad or NiMH rechargables. I'd be careful about inserting NiMH batteries into any old phone, since they have different charging characteristics from NiCADs. Still, even with NiMH the phone doesn't have a great talk- or standby-time, maybe two to three days standy. It seems that the current generation of digital cordless phones aren't as power thrifty as they could be, most 900 MHz analogs would beat them in terms of battery life. At least that's my experience and what I've heard of some other phones as well.
Still, even 15MB/month isn't bad given the data volume you're likely to transmit on this thing. Most likely email with occasional Googling and quick /. refreshers. Many news sites nowadays have a light mode, so you should be able to stay well within the 15MB.
He problably was less hung up on the Magic Gate and more on the Memory Stick thing. Personally I consider the Sonys the nicest Palm implementations at the moment, save for the damn Memory Stick. Yet another instance of Sony's obsession with knocking down a wall with their head until it bleeds and cracks open (the head, not the wall). Five or ten years down the road of nobody else adopting the MS and everyone else standardizing on CF or SD, and they'll finally quietly drop it from their products and pretend that it never existed. Why not do that now and spare a lot of buyers the nagging feeling of having purchased a great device with one fatal flaw?
> Ok, what is it with those damn Germans and David Hasselhoff?
It's not the quality of his acting per se but merely the idea that a German has made it to some level of prominence in US Entertainment. Besides, the kinds of Germans that would even express appreciation of him would be the same people that in the US would also be considered cheesers--they're sneered at in Germany, too.
> The guys at Dresden 3d have already done this
I've read about them over a year ago, but haven't heard anything else from them since then. Of course, they might just be plugging away without releasing a stream of pre-announcement press releases.
Parallax occlusion might be the most economically feasible technology at the moment, but it's not that great. You can only see a good 3D image from certain angles and certain distances from the screen. Given a "Switching LCD" (their terminology) with a fine enough vertical grating (i.e. considerably higher than the horizontal resolution of the display LCD), and given a tracking system on the monitor (IR sensor or even a camera with position sensing software) that can sense where the viewer (singular!) is, the switching LCD could adjust the occlusion dynamically to make a sweet spot follow the viewer. This could also be done mechanically I guess, using a simple static grating, by moving the switching LCD left and right and forward and back as needed. This wouldn't work so well at the edges though, or anywhere the viewing angle deviates considerably from 90 degrees.
I'm still hoping to be able to buy a holographic monitor within my lifetime.
Sorry!
And this from someone who migrated to the Mac? No offense, but switching FROM JBuilder is mostly a downgrade, it's considered one of the best Java IDEs if not THE best.
> True, but having Audi and Lamborghini, why would one want Porsche?
Because Lamborghinis are oversexed power monsters for undersexed Hollywood producers, while Porsches are minimalist form-follows-function driving machines.
> none of the things you mention "enhance" steering feel. They piss me off.
If they're done right, I'd be neutral about them, especially if you can turn them off.
> Im talking more about things like feeling the texture
> of the road, when the steering gets "light"
I know exactly what you're talking about, because I also value those things and BMWs for that reason. But you could simulate those effects quite well to the point where you couldn't tell the difference if you didn't know. For example, steering lightness occurs during upward acceleration where the pressure of the tires on the road diminishes. You can measure that with accelerometers and/or stress sensors inside the suspension (which are there anyway in sophisticated suspensions), and decrease steering wheel resistance proportionally, making it feel lighter. Rough road surfaces can be transmitted back to the steering wheel using the same stress sensors and steering wheel actuators. If anything, a system like this could put you just a software update away from BMW-like steering feel, even in a plusher car.
There's nothing sacred about having a metal rod reaching directly all the way from your fists down to the wheels. Up until now (and for a while yet) it merely was the most efficient and cheapest way of getting the job done, but once the job can be done equally well or better with new technology, I won't shed a tear for the old way. I'm sure there were those that cried for the old crank when electric starters became popular, feeling that merely turning a key to start an automobile wasn't sporting enough for a man. Or look at the dash instrumentation itself, which looks practically identical in a 50s car and a modern car, except that it works completely differently behind the scenes. As long as the driving experience is the same or better, I really don't care how it's done.
> Rename 'cadillac' to 'sleep'
I prefer Couch myself. I've always pronounced the DeVille as Devil, because that's about how appealing they are.
> By-Wire technology basically removes all of those complex
> components and replaces them with much simpler electronic ones.
The chassis is unlikely to become simpler with fuel cell electrics, just different. Yes, you don't have a combustion engine and transmission anymore (ideally, though not everyone is following this approach), but now you have electric motors at each wheel, which sounds simpler, but isn't. Those aren't washing machine motors held in place by two #14 bolts, they're highly sophisticated motors that are either engineered to be efficient and quiet at a wide range of RPMs, or have an internal gearbox that can adapt the speed of the motor to the speed of the wheels while keeping the motor within acceptable efficiency and noise boundaries.
Say you mount the motors directly in the wheel hubs--now you have much more unsprung weight to contend with (weight not dampened by the suspension, i.e. anything travelling up and down with the wheel), which very seriously affects handling. Or you mount the motors onto the chassis, in which case you need drive shafts at each wheel, plus CV joints. This all isn't even addressing the fuel cells, fuel storage, and battery technology. Yes, a fuel cell vehicle still needs substantial batteries, otherwise it can't take advantage of regenerative breaking, one of the big advantages of electrics.
IOW, manufacturers will still have plenty of opportunities to differentiate the quality and performance of their chassis. A BMW will still strive to have a better weight distribution and tuned suspension, while a Cadillac most likely will still aspire to making you think you're sitting at home on a couch.
Don't mistake all this for skepticism about the technology itself. I've been excited about fuel cells for a long time and about the performance potential of electric cars. Given an adequate power source, electric motors have torque and acceleration potential beyond anything possible with combustion engines. I simply don't share the starry-eyed optimism about shared platforms that the article exhudes. I happen to think that for a long time cars will be built very much the same way they're build today, just using different technology. I'm not saying that it's better that way either, just that that's most likely what's going to happen anyway.
> the prior post was an attempt [...] at humor
Thanks. I also offered a mea culpa for the (accidental) brand switcheroo elsewhere.
> Disappearing fast? I don't know about that.
:-), kind of like Buick. I'd say eventually it will be just three brands--Chrysler, Jeep and Mercedes. Outside the US brand diversification like that isn't that popular anyway--just look at Acura and Infinity, which simply sell as Honda and Nissan in most markets.
I'd be willing to bet money that Dodge will eventually disappear also, within the next 15-20 years at most. DaimlerChrysler is pushing hard for the global market, and Dodge is virtually unknown outside of the greater American market. It's also hard to pronounce in most non-English languages (then again, so is Chrysler, but you've got to stop somewhere
> How much money have manufacturers made selling three covers at $19.95
I don't know--I'd say not a lot, since only one person I know ever bought a cover. But I could be wrong.
> The new Chrysler Crossfire contains significant Mercedes
> componentry, such as the engine...
Yes, but not the chassis. From memory, in the book the Mercedes honchos were saying something like "components yes, engines yes, but the chassis--no way!" They strangely don't mind sharing engines (at least at the lower end), as can be seen also in the joint venture with Mitsubishi.
> The reason BMW went to all this expense [...]
Well, it's the steering feel, but also the fact that no western country will currently approve a pure steer-by-wire vehicle.
> Until they can accurately recreate the subtle
> road-feel transmitted to the steering wheel
There's no reason to believe that good sensor and actuator technology couldn't duplicate the steering sensations of a mechanical linkage. In fact, they could even enhance things by providing virtual feedback, such as vibrating the steering wheel when drifting out of a lane (similar to driving on the ribbed line on the edge of a freeway), or periodic vibrations to simulate driving over those slow-down lines across the road before stop signs or reduced-speed areas.
> I dont thinkt he BMW system should be considered "interim".
You might be right, we may never see pure steer-by-wire for various reasons, although I'm sure someone will try marketing it at some point. It just may never catch on, who knows.
Oops, missed the brand switch there .
> GM already owns several brands (Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc.)
> and they commonly share chasis and bodies between these brands.
Yes, and that's why all those meaningless brands are disappearing fast. They're there just for historic and nostalgic reasons, but have no production rationale. People are catching on to this fast and simply choosing the cheapest version of a given platform. Chrysler faced this fact by shutting down Plymouth, and no doubt they will eventually terminate other brands as well.
What I'm really talking about is that the GM article hinted that in the future chassis production might be independent of body production, reverting back to the old days of the coach works. So GM could conceivably build the chassis, which VW would then buy and put their own bodies on. Of course, it would never actually happen in that combination, it's just an example. They basically think that chassis and body production will be commoditized to the point where you could mix and match from various manufacturers.
Yes, but the Japanese manufacturers have never been concerned with profitability. They just want to be the first there, costs be damned--the Apollo mission of car manufacturing. They're selling their hybrids at a loss as we speak just for the prestige of it. Nominally it's to lower costs through mass production, but whom are they kidding? It will take more than 10,000 Priuses to reach economies of scale.
> GM will be producing SUVs which *can* fit entire farms
They're starting with the Ford Titanic next year, followed by the Ford Continent the year after, incorporating all the know-how gained from the Ford Expedition, Excursion and Volvo Heavy Truck division.
> They better have some type of Speaker system
They will. In fact, a whole industry of sound themes will sprout out of nowhere, making you wonder how you ever managed without engine sound themes before. You too can have a New Beetle with the engine sound of a Lamborghini.
That's what the government thinks, too, so that's still one major hurdle to overcome before you can buy one of these. BMW has a nice interim solution that is a sort of hybrid, using both mechanical linkage and steer-by-wire. It works somewhat like a differential, where the steering column enters a gearbox and the steering shaft exits the other end of the box and goes to the steering rack. This box is pretty fancy and contains the actuator motors for the drive-by-wire system, which act on the steering shaft that goes down to the wheels. They never act on the steering column that goes up to the steering wheel. When there's no power, the box acts a lot like a locked differential, where the incoming and outgoing steering shafts are directly mechanically linked. When the system is powered, the actuator motors kick in and can either diminish or enhance the steering wheel motions, depending on speed, wheel position and a bunch of other factors. In a way, you've got the best of both worlds, except that it's more expensive than current steering technology or pure drive-by-wire alone.