Ah yes.. So let's just condemn folks to a quicker death in horrible places like..... Mexico... Yea, that's the ticket.
Mexico's problems are largely a failure of the war on drugs. Don't get me started on that train wreck.
Nobody is starving or poor in the USA either? Hmmm...
Poor, yes. Starving, no, not typically. The U.S. has countless organizations that provide food for people who are unable to afford it or get it for themselves—soup kitchens, food banks, meals on wheels, and so on. And federal assistance (food stamps) is also available to pay for food (unless you're here illegally, of course). The extent of services that homeless have access to in most cities is really quite amazing. And even in rural areas, you'll rarely find an area with more than a few thousand people that doesn't have some sort of food bank.
In bigger cities, they even often have programs that help you learn how to interview for jobs, provide loaner clothing that you can use for your interview, and so on, to help the homeless get back on their feet, rather than just ensuring that they don't starve.
Mind you, I'm sure some people fall through the cracks for one reason or another, but that usually has to be solved by identifying the people in question and committing them to mental institutions, drug rehab programs, etc. until they are able to function well enough to ask for food on their own. You can't force people to take advantage of free food if they don't want to. And that largely isn't the result of a lack of funding.
Giving them shelter, of course, is another matter, and money could help with that. But that's an entirely different question than the issue of people "literally starving today".
The problem with this perspective is people are literally starving TODAY and you are discussing a future that is decades out.
And we could divert every penny of those credits towards aid for the nations where people are literally starving, and they would still be literally starving. People don't starve because of a lack of money. People starve because their leaders are skimming food aid money and using it to enrich themselves.
The 'fingerprint through the screen' rumor was probably never true.
Apple often works with multiple companies in parallel, trying various technologies to decide what they're going to ship. I would be shocked if Apple weren't well aware of it and hadn't been using engineering samples to see how it would work in real devices. Whether they decided to go with it based on incorrectly believing FaceID to be better or because of Qualcomm's production delays, I couldn't say, but my money would be on the latter, because I apparently have more faith in the competence of their security engineers than you do.
... if Apple were ever going to use fingerprint sensing through the screen, it would've been as a stopgap TO FaceID, not as a superior technology to FaceID.
It is likely that it would have been used exclusively until they could do FaceID without the notch, but I don't think for a minute that FaceID would have replaced TouchID had it not been for production ramping delays from Qualcomm. FaceID might have been eventually added in parallel, once they solved the notch problem, or maybe not, largely depending on how low they could get the BOM cost.
FaceID really is fundamentally inferior in at least two important ways:
From a security perspective, FaceID is a disaster, because too many siblings look too much alike. The people most likely to be able to grab your phone and mess with it are also most likely to be able to open it with FaceID, whereas with TouchID, there's roughly zero chance of that working, because even identical twins don't have similar enough prints. The theoretical 20x improvement in security actually turns out to be a huge reduction in security when tested in the real world. This should be unsurprising to pretty much anyone who has ever looked at two siblings and said, "I can barely tell them apart".
From a usability perspective, FaceID is still not as good, because it requires user attention to unlock the device (unless you disable that, in which case its security gets even worse). I would estimate that I'm looking at my current iPhone for fewer than 10% of unlocks. Most of the time, I unlock it as I'm pulling it off my belt before I even look down at the thing. Stealing my attention for those extra few seconds doesn't always matter, but often, it means I can be doing something else while I'm unlocking the device. And, of course, if you happen to have a car that lacks Siri integration and are unlocking the phone to start a phone call, those extra few seconds of attention could be fatal.
Other than a targeted attack by the sort of third party who would find a way to lift your prints and make a latex finger, there's nothing that FaceID handles better than TouchID, and in most of the common use cases, it is significantly worse. And in the case of a targeted attack by such a third party, they're likely to have their hands on hardware that can crack an iPhone externally anyway, making the differences between TouchID and FaceID moot.
So I strongly disagree that TouchID would be a stop-gap until FaceID was ready, because FaceID can never be ready. At a fairly fundamental level, facial biometrics are trash—even more so than fingerprint biometrics. At best, FaceID would have be added as a way to augment security for specific transactions (e.g. to use Apple Pay, you must use a fingerprint *and* a face match), not as a replacement. That really is the *only* way FaceID makes sense at all. As a replacement, it is downright bizarre.
That's actually a good question. Maybe we should see those same dire predictions for those brands, if not more dire. After all, the smartphone industry as a whole is growing, and if a company's sales are flat, that means they're losing market share. The question then becomes who they are losing market share to, and what impact that will have on their long-term business prospects.
For Apple, as long as people who buy iPhones tend to spend more money on apps and in-app purchases than the average Android user, losing a little market share won't hurt that much. For an Android vendor, losing a little market share could be the first step towards losing a *lot* of market share.
2. Apple's notch is not "Ridiculous"; because it is there for a purpose. what is TRULY "Ridiculous", however, is all the Android phones that slavishly COPIED Apple (yet again!) and their "Ridiculous" Notch, even though they don't actually NEED it!
It may not be ridiculous, but I was watching that keynote in a room full of Apple fans, and the number of "what the f**k" reactions was telling. The word that kept coming up over and over was "ugly".
What was ridiculous was not the notch so much as the fact that the product seemed to have clearly been rushed to market to hit a deadline. They shipped with that ugly notch because they couldn't get the fingerprint-through-the-screen tech in quantities soon enough, and if they had waited just a few months, they could have shipped the product they really wanted to ship, rather than watching as the rest of the industry made it happen a few months later.
And I say that as somebody who has used Apple hardware almost exclusively since the mid-1980s. If S.J. (requiescat in pace) were still alive and running things, I'm absolutely certain that he would have thrown it across the room and said, "This is the ugliest f**king piece of s**t I've ever seen. We're not shipping it until you find a way to get rid of that f**king notch," except that he probably would have used a greater number and variety of swear words.
The mobile homes are typically around 1800 square feet, and have 2x6 walls covered in drywall, vaulted ceilings, hot tubs, decent carpeting, often hardwood floors, nice porches, etc. Having been in both, California mobile homes are to southern U.S. mobile homes as the Tesla Model X is to a Ford Pinto without fixing the gas tank problem.
Hawaii has the nation's highest rate of homelessness, per state, but that number can be misleading. For one thing, it counts homeless individuals that were bussed from other states to get rid of them.
Those are really good buses!
I assume that part was meant to be about California, where that apparently actually happened.
With internal combustion engines we've just about reached the work limits, there isn't any more energy to be had in a gallon on gasoline with 93 octane. You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker), decreasing drag by making cars smaller or the tires harder and shorter. Hybrid technology helps re-use breaking energy but that doesn't help the EPA mileage numbers for highway and increases the weight. You can sell electrics... But only so many of those are even marketable...
Actually, if you've driven Bay Area highways, you'd know that regenerative braking makes the most difference on the highways.:-D
But seriously, the main problem with electrics is that the major automakers have limited interest beyond doing the bare minimum required by law. As clean air standards get more and more strict, it forces them to invest in driving the cost of electric vehicles down and removing barriers to adoption (e.g. by improving the charging networks, increasing battery capacity, increasing battery longevity, etc.), which makes them more marketable.
The alternative, should they choose not to do so, is that they can instead buy credits sold by companies whose vehicles produce lower emissions. This, in turn, means that companies like Tesla can sell those credits and use them to fund innovation that drives down the cost of electric vehicles and removes barriers to adoption, thus making EVs more marketable.
Either approach clearly benefits both the environment and national security (by making us less dependent on foreign oil), and as an added bonus, it drives technology forward and increases innovation. If the only impact is that your ICE car costs a few extra bucks, I'd call that a win.
On the one hand, getting public websites to use HTTPS is almost inarguably a good thing. On the other hand, getting intranets to use HTTPS is nearly useless, and getting mDNS devices to use HTTPS is impossible. That last one is going to be a real problem, and I'm really not sure how the industry is going to solve it. The only way I can think of would be to:
Define a new mDNS device name field in the certificate spec.
Require that all browsers and devices that implement that field use key pinning in lieu of any guarantee of global uniqueness to the names.
Require allowing multiple certs with the same name to be pinned with multiple keys (after issuing a stern warning that they are trusting a second device with the same name as an existing device).
Possibly require browsers to ignore the expiration date for those certificates (because those devices may not be directly connected to the Internet, and thus might not be practical to re-cert).
Possibly define a standard whereby a browser accessing a device with an old certificate can automatically obtain an updated certificate from the same registrar (or its designated replacement) and upload it to the device without user interaction.
Either way, I'm pretty sure it can't be done practically without making some sort of changes to the standards themselves. That said, I can't be certain of that, because contrary to security best practices, the people who designed the X.509 specification will not make the specification available to security researchers unless they pay $130. So I can only speculate on what the standards say. Aren't standards grand?
Now, if you start with a 20 kHz sine, and modulate it with 1 kHz, you could put it on a CD, and reconstruct it perfectly.
Only if you generate it in the digital domain to begin with. Otherwise, it will exhibit phase distortion caused by the bandpass filter while converting from analog to digital.
Intuitively, you would assume that this is the case, but for any frequency strictly less than half the sampling frequency, the sampling points would shift, giving you enough information to reconstruct the original waveform. If you sample at 22 kHz, and the signal is 20 kHz, you would see sample points near the zero crossing, as well as near the max.
How are you going to tell the difference between that 20 kHz wave and a slightly-under 22 kHz wave that pulses? If you don't have enough data to definitively know the phase of the original signal (3 samples per wave, I think), you can't be certain that you're constructing the right output. The best you can do is guess and hope for the best. (And realistically, you just smooth the resulting wave and hope no one notices that everything over 14.7 kHz is bizarrely wrong.)
Assuming you're talking about a pure waveform in isolation, human ears can't possibly hear the difference between a sine wave and a sawtooth wave at 22 kHz, because the first overtone created by the points is at 44 kHz.
In complex sounds, of course, the sampling rate could cause audible problems by being unable to faithfully reproduce the phase or the volume of frequencies that are anywhere close to half the sampling rate. The reason for this, of course, is that there's no way to know whether the original waveforms were sampled near their max or near their zero crossings. Thus, the output volume could be off by orders of magnitude, and so could the phase response, and there's no useful way for the DAC to know when this is happening, because it doesn't have enough points.
Actually, FM has pretty good fidelity and dynamic range, assuming you have full quieting in your receiving equipment.
Not as wide as a CD, but certainly not terrible. The reason music is compressed so much is that people tended to listen to it in cars, in restaurants, in shopping malls, and in other noisy environments, where even a 12 dB change in volume translates to going from being able to hear the music to not being able to hear it.
Of course, at some point, the reason for doing so got lost, and music became more and more dynamically flat, well beyond the original need. The result is that music became a poor caricature of itself, lacking the subtlety and nuance that gives it beauty.
Your analogy is wrong. If you are a plumber and you donâ(TM)t understand anything about waterflows, friction loss, and gravity height effects, then just knowing how to put PVC pipe together makes you a crappy plumber because when you run into a problem with GPM flows, you need to figure out the problem and alter your plumbing to fix it.
That's the engineer's problem. For anything significantly more complex than a small home, by the time the plumber arrives, you should have engineering diagrams telling them what size pipe to use.
A better analogy would be a plumber who doesn't understand how to cut and glue PVC, and instead tries to plumb an entire building using only screw-together pipes and hoses. They can put in your bathtub, but you'll have to move it a foot to the right, because they can't get the screw-together pipes in three-foot lengths, only four. Or maybe they could just leave a hose coiled up in the wall to make up the difference.
If you have a software team that contain 5 of these, you can easily beat a team of 100 average people, not only in cost but also in schedule, quality and features.
But only if you keep them on task. Otherwise, you'll end up with the most perfectly refactored version of the previous release, with no new features.
No, most ECUs are in a small metal box. They aren't practically invisible by any means. Of course, at high enough power, that's moot, but....
The gap required to hold in a microwave at 2.4GHz is actually significantly smaller than the holes in the front of your microwave, it's just that the holes in a microwave oven were chosen to be that size because it's "good enough".
A Faraday cage works with holes that are no larger than half the wavelength. For 2.4 GHz, that means the holes can be almost 2.5 inches in diameter (61 mm). You could shoot bullet holes through the screen, and it still wouldn't leak enough to worry about.
The preferred hole size for a Faraday cage is more like 1/10th the wavelength. That would still allow holes up to about 1.2 centimeters. In practice, most microwaves have holes that are closer to 3mm. They are way better than "good enough".
A device like a Tesla is considered a Dedicated Load, even if you unplug it or only plug it in periodically.
This has nothing to do with dedicated loads or inrush. I'm talking about continuous use derating (defined as being under load for more than three hours). Electric cars behave more like lighting in this regard, in that they can charge for many, many hours at a time. Thus, you have to treat them like continuous loads, not periodic loads.
It is possible to get breakers that are rated for continuous use at 100% of their rated load, but most household breakers are only rated for continuous use at 80% of their rated load. If you run those breakers at 50 amps continuous, you're going to trip the breaker before your car finishes charging. And either way, any wiring must be sized at 125% of the rated load for continuous use.
So when you say a 50 amp circuit, I automatically assume that you mean a standard 50 amp breaker that is derated to 80% for continuous duty use, rather than a specialty 100%-rated breaker, because in practice, that's what every Tesla charging installation that I've ever heard of uses. And I assume that the wiring was sized for 50 amps, rather than being sized for 62.5 amps as is required for a continuous 50 amp load.
If you want real fun, though, try using a Tesla on a 110V groundfault outlet. It turns out that some brands of groundfault outlet work fine, and some trip almost instantly during the Tesla's ground integrity check before charging even starts. Good times.
If the content is illegal, tell the police. If the website is down then it's their problem, not yours.
It's not just about illegal content. It's also about misleading content. It is about knowing where to send the subpoena if you need to sue. It is about preventing foreign meddling in American elections. And so on.
The Internet was not designed around domain owner anonymity, and forcing anonymity upon it breaks things in fairly fundamental ways.
There's a quick solution to all of this. ICANN and IANA jointly run the root servers. Announce that any TLD registrar that doesn't provide WHOIS service will no longer be listed, and see how many days it takes the EU to fix their law.
If there is a conflict between the GDPR and WHOIS, then contrary to popular belief here on Slashdot, this is a flaw in the GDPR. As far as I know, even in the EU, people are not allowed to do business as a fictitious entity without registering their identity in a way that someone defrauded can look them up. The WHOIS database is the Internet equivalent of that. It serves an important role in the governance of the Internet, particularly with regards to copyright enforcement, but also with regards to libel laws, etc.
What the EU has done, with GDPR, is try to override the laws of many, many other countries whose laws require WHOIS to exist in one form or another, and to tear down one of the foundational pillars of Internet governance itself.
IMO, the nuclear response is the correct one. If, after GDPR goes into effect, registrars drop WHOIS, the Internet as a whole should drop all domains from that registrar from being visible anywhere outside of Europe. If they don't want domains to have to identify their owners, they can feel free to create their own little ultra-anonymous hell, cut off from the rest of the world. If they want the rest of the world to be able to see their websites, keeping their contact information up-to-date publicly is one of the requirements.
More to the point, everyone who owns (rents) a domain name knows this. The GDPR was intended to prevent companies from using people's personal information without their knowledge or consent. No domain owner should be surprised by the fact that WHOIS exists or by the fact that his or her information is being used in this way, because it was made abundantly clear in the ICANN domain registration agreement that he or she had to sign prior to registering a new domain name.
Further, ICANN-based registrars typically even go beyond the requirements of GDPR by regularly reminding registrants of their contractual obligation to keep their information in WHOIS up-to-date, lest their domains be confiscated.
So either the people reading the GDPR are misinterpreting it grossly or the GDPR is a train wreck of a law that attempts to force the will of a whiny group of bureaucrats over the objections of everyone involved in Internet governance. If it is the first, then the registrars will ignore the GDPR with regards to WHOIS, and nothing will change. I strongly suspect that this is the case, and that this is all much ado about nothing.
That said, if it is the latter, then the right thing to do is to segregate the EU into its own private Internet until such time as it agrees to comply with the rules of Internet governance. Their choice.
The Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius both do better than 50mpg, and plenty of people are willing to buy them. They are both based on years-old technology, so there's no reason (outside of laziness and a race-to-the-bottom mentality) that carmakers can't do even better going forward.
And if you want a car with nore power behind it, you can always get a Tesla Model S P100D (102 MPGe) that will blow the doors off almost anything else on the road.
The problem with electric cars is the range and recharge time are both deal-breakers for many people.
If you mean the silly 100-mile-range toys that we often see coming from the major automakers, then yes, I would agree.
If you include Tesla, then I would disagree. Very few people drive 300 miles in a day unless they're making a long trip somewhere, and when they do, they have to stop for food anyway. The main problem with Tesla's electric cars is that the ones that are readily available cost a fortune, and the waiting lists are measured in double-digit months for the ones that don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Mexico's problems are largely a failure of the war on drugs. Don't get me started on that train wreck.
Poor, yes. Starving, no, not typically. The U.S. has countless organizations that provide food for people who are unable to afford it or get it for themselves—soup kitchens, food banks, meals on wheels, and so on. And federal assistance (food stamps) is also available to pay for food (unless you're here illegally, of course). The extent of services that homeless have access to in most cities is really quite amazing. And even in rural areas, you'll rarely find an area with more than a few thousand people that doesn't have some sort of food bank.
In bigger cities, they even often have programs that help you learn how to interview for jobs, provide loaner clothing that you can use for your interview, and so on, to help the homeless get back on their feet, rather than just ensuring that they don't starve.
Mind you, I'm sure some people fall through the cracks for one reason or another, but that usually has to be solved by identifying the people in question and committing them to mental institutions, drug rehab programs, etc. until they are able to function well enough to ask for food on their own. You can't force people to take advantage of free food if they don't want to. And that largely isn't the result of a lack of funding.
Giving them shelter, of course, is another matter, and money could help with that. But that's an entirely different question than the issue of people "literally starving today".
And we could divert every penny of those credits towards aid for the nations where people are literally starving, and they would still be literally starving. People don't starve because of a lack of money. People starve because their leaders are skimming food aid money and using it to enrich themselves.
Truly low-income people mostly buy used cars, whose value is largely unaffected by minor differences in the cost of new cars.
Apple often works with multiple companies in parallel, trying various technologies to decide what they're going to ship. I would be shocked if Apple weren't well aware of it and hadn't been using engineering samples to see how it would work in real devices. Whether they decided to go with it based on incorrectly believing FaceID to be better or because of Qualcomm's production delays, I couldn't say, but my money would be on the latter, because I apparently have more faith in the competence of their security engineers than you do.
It is likely that it would have been used exclusively until they could do FaceID without the notch, but I don't think for a minute that FaceID would have replaced TouchID had it not been for production ramping delays from Qualcomm. FaceID might have been eventually added in parallel, once they solved the notch problem, or maybe not, largely depending on how low they could get the BOM cost.
FaceID really is fundamentally inferior in at least two important ways:
Other than a targeted attack by the sort of third party who would find a way to lift your prints and make a latex finger, there's nothing that FaceID handles better than TouchID, and in most of the common use cases, it is significantly worse. And in the case of a targeted attack by such a third party, they're likely to have their hands on hardware that can crack an iPhone externally anyway, making the differences between TouchID and FaceID moot.
So I strongly disagree that TouchID would be a stop-gap until FaceID was ready, because FaceID can never be ready. At a fairly fundamental level, facial biometrics are trash—even more so than fingerprint biometrics. At best, FaceID would have be added as a way to augment security for specific transactions (e.g. to use Apple Pay, you must use a fingerprint *and* a face match), not as a replacement. That really is the *only* way FaceID makes sense at all. As a replacement, it is downright bizarre.
Fingerprint scanning through the screen. I would have thought that was obvious from the context.
That's actually a good question. Maybe we should see those same dire predictions for those brands, if not more dire. After all, the smartphone industry as a whole is growing, and if a company's sales are flat, that means they're losing market share. The question then becomes who they are losing market share to, and what impact that will have on their long-term business prospects.
For Apple, as long as people who buy iPhones tend to spend more money on apps and in-app purchases than the average Android user, losing a little market share won't hurt that much. For an Android vendor, losing a little market share could be the first step towards losing a *lot* of market share.
It may not be ridiculous, but I was watching that keynote in a room full of Apple fans, and the number of "what the f**k" reactions was telling. The word that kept coming up over and over was "ugly".
What was ridiculous was not the notch so much as the fact that the product seemed to have clearly been rushed to market to hit a deadline. They shipped with that ugly notch because they couldn't get the fingerprint-through-the-screen tech in quantities soon enough, and if they had waited just a few months, they could have shipped the product they really wanted to ship, rather than watching as the rest of the industry made it happen a few months later.
And I say that as somebody who has used Apple hardware almost exclusively since the mid-1980s. If S.J. (requiescat in pace) were still alive and running things, I'm absolutely certain that he would have thrown it across the room and said, "This is the ugliest f**king piece of s**t I've ever seen. We're not shipping it until you find a way to get rid of that f**king notch," except that he probably would have used a greater number and variety of swear words.
Just saying.
The mobile homes are typically around 1800 square feet, and have 2x6 walls covered in drywall, vaulted ceilings, hot tubs, decent carpeting, often hardwood floors, nice porches, etc. Having been in both, California mobile homes are to southern U.S. mobile homes as the Tesla Model X is to a Ford Pinto without fixing the gas tank problem.
Hawaii has the nation's highest rate of homelessness, per state, but that number can be misleading. For one thing, it counts homeless individuals that were bussed from other states to get rid of them.
Those are really good buses!
I assume that part was meant to be about California, where that apparently actually happened.
Actually, if you've driven Bay Area highways, you'd know that regenerative braking makes the most difference on the highways. :-D
But seriously, the main problem with electrics is that the major automakers have limited interest beyond doing the bare minimum required by law. As clean air standards get more and more strict, it forces them to invest in driving the cost of electric vehicles down and removing barriers to adoption (e.g. by improving the charging networks, increasing battery capacity, increasing battery longevity, etc.), which makes them more marketable.
The alternative, should they choose not to do so, is that they can instead buy credits sold by companies whose vehicles produce lower emissions. This, in turn, means that companies like Tesla can sell those credits and use them to fund innovation that drives down the cost of electric vehicles and removes barriers to adoption, thus making EVs more marketable.
Either approach clearly benefits both the environment and national security (by making us less dependent on foreign oil), and as an added bonus, it drives technology forward and increases innovation. If the only impact is that your ICE car costs a few extra bucks, I'd call that a win.
I think it's more a reaction to browsers popping up security warnings on all non-HTTPS sites.
On the one hand, getting public websites to use HTTPS is almost inarguably a good thing. On the other hand, getting intranets to use HTTPS is nearly useless, and getting mDNS devices to use HTTPS is impossible. That last one is going to be a real problem, and I'm really not sure how the industry is going to solve it. The only way I can think of would be to:
Either way, I'm pretty sure it can't be done practically without making some sort of changes to the standards themselves. That said, I can't be certain of that, because contrary to security best practices, the people who designed the X.509 specification will not make the specification available to security researchers unless they pay $130. So I can only speculate on what the standards say. Aren't standards grand?
Only if you generate it in the digital domain to begin with. Otherwise, it will exhibit phase distortion caused by the bandpass filter while converting from analog to digital.
How are you going to tell the difference between that 20 kHz wave and a slightly-under 22 kHz wave that pulses? If you don't have enough data to definitively know the phase of the original signal (3 samples per wave, I think), you can't be certain that you're constructing the right output. The best you can do is guess and hope for the best. (And realistically, you just smooth the resulting wave and hope no one notices that everything over 14.7 kHz is bizarrely wrong.)
Assuming you're talking about a pure waveform in isolation, human ears can't possibly hear the difference between a sine wave and a sawtooth wave at 22 kHz, because the first overtone created by the points is at 44 kHz.
In complex sounds, of course, the sampling rate could cause audible problems by being unable to faithfully reproduce the phase or the volume of frequencies that are anywhere close to half the sampling rate. The reason for this, of course, is that there's no way to know whether the original waveforms were sampled near their max or near their zero crossings. Thus, the output volume could be off by orders of magnitude, and so could the phase response, and there's no useful way for the DAC to know when this is happening, because it doesn't have enough points.
Not as wide as a CD, but certainly not terrible. The reason music is compressed so much is that people tended to listen to it in cars, in restaurants, in shopping malls, and in other noisy environments, where even a 12 dB change in volume translates to going from being able to hear the music to not being able to hear it.
Of course, at some point, the reason for doing so got lost, and music became more and more dynamically flat, well beyond the original need. The result is that music became a poor caricature of itself, lacking the subtlety and nuance that gives it beauty.
That's the engineer's problem. For anything significantly more complex than a small home, by the time the plumber arrives, you should have engineering diagrams telling them what size pipe to use.
A better analogy would be a plumber who doesn't understand how to cut and glue PVC, and instead tries to plumb an entire building using only screw-together pipes and hoses. They can put in your bathtub, but you'll have to move it a foot to the right, because they can't get the screw-together pipes in three-foot lengths, only four. Or maybe they could just leave a hose coiled up in the wall to make up the difference.
But only if you keep them on task. Otherwise, you'll end up with the most perfectly refactored version of the previous release, with no new features.
No, most ECUs are in a small metal box. They aren't practically invisible by any means. Of course, at high enough power, that's moot, but....
A Faraday cage works with holes that are no larger than half the wavelength. For 2.4 GHz, that means the holes can be almost 2.5 inches in diameter (61 mm). You could shoot bullet holes through the screen, and it still wouldn't leak enough to worry about.
The preferred hole size for a Faraday cage is more like 1/10th the wavelength. That would still allow holes up to about 1.2 centimeters. In practice, most microwaves have holes that are closer to 3mm. They are way better than "good enough".
Just give it a few hundred years and someone will find a way to spread it from chimpanzees to humans again.
This has nothing to do with dedicated loads or inrush. I'm talking about continuous use derating (defined as being under load for more than three hours). Electric cars behave more like lighting in this regard, in that they can charge for many, many hours at a time. Thus, you have to treat them like continuous loads, not periodic loads.
It is possible to get breakers that are rated for continuous use at 100% of their rated load, but most household breakers are only rated for continuous use at 80% of their rated load. If you run those breakers at 50 amps continuous, you're going to trip the breaker before your car finishes charging. And either way, any wiring must be sized at 125% of the rated load for continuous use.
So when you say a 50 amp circuit, I automatically assume that you mean a standard 50 amp breaker that is derated to 80% for continuous duty use, rather than a specialty 100%-rated breaker, because in practice, that's what every Tesla charging installation that I've ever heard of uses. And I assume that the wiring was sized for 50 amps, rather than being sized for 62.5 amps as is required for a continuous 50 amp load.
If you want real fun, though, try using a Tesla on a 110V groundfault outlet. It turns out that some brands of groundfault outlet work fine, and some trip almost instantly during the Tesla's ground integrity check before charging even starts. Good times.
Do you really want to sit for eight or ten hours straight without standing up or walking around?
It's not just about illegal content. It's also about misleading content. It is about knowing where to send the subpoena if you need to sue. It is about preventing foreign meddling in American elections. And so on.
The Internet was not designed around domain owner anonymity, and forcing anonymity upon it breaks things in fairly fundamental ways.
There's a quick solution to all of this. ICANN and IANA jointly run the root servers. Announce that any TLD registrar that doesn't provide WHOIS service will no longer be listed, and see how many days it takes the EU to fix their law.
If there is a conflict between the GDPR and WHOIS, then contrary to popular belief here on Slashdot, this is a flaw in the GDPR. As far as I know, even in the EU, people are not allowed to do business as a fictitious entity without registering their identity in a way that someone defrauded can look them up. The WHOIS database is the Internet equivalent of that. It serves an important role in the governance of the Internet, particularly with regards to copyright enforcement, but also with regards to libel laws, etc.
What the EU has done, with GDPR, is try to override the laws of many, many other countries whose laws require WHOIS to exist in one form or another, and to tear down one of the foundational pillars of Internet governance itself.
IMO, the nuclear response is the correct one. If, after GDPR goes into effect, registrars drop WHOIS, the Internet as a whole should drop all domains from that registrar from being visible anywhere outside of Europe. If they don't want domains to have to identify their owners, they can feel free to create their own little ultra-anonymous hell, cut off from the rest of the world. If they want the rest of the world to be able to see their websites, keeping their contact information up-to-date publicly is one of the requirements.
More to the point, everyone who owns (rents) a domain name knows this. The GDPR was intended to prevent companies from using people's personal information without their knowledge or consent. No domain owner should be surprised by the fact that WHOIS exists or by the fact that his or her information is being used in this way, because it was made abundantly clear in the ICANN domain registration agreement that he or she had to sign prior to registering a new domain name.
Further, ICANN-based registrars typically even go beyond the requirements of GDPR by regularly reminding registrants of their contractual obligation to keep their information in WHOIS up-to-date, lest their domains be confiscated.
So either the people reading the GDPR are misinterpreting it grossly or the GDPR is a train wreck of a law that attempts to force the will of a whiny group of bureaucrats over the objections of everyone involved in Internet governance. If it is the first, then the registrars will ignore the GDPR with regards to WHOIS, and nothing will change. I strongly suspect that this is the case, and that this is all much ado about nothing.
That said, if it is the latter, then the right thing to do is to segregate the EU into its own private Internet until such time as it agrees to comply with the rules of Internet governance. Their choice.
And if you want a car with nore power behind it, you can always get a Tesla Model S P100D (102 MPGe) that will blow the doors off almost anything else on the road.
If you mean the silly 100-mile-range toys that we often see coming from the major automakers, then yes, I would agree.
If you include Tesla, then I would disagree. Very few people drive 300 miles in a day unless they're making a long trip somewhere, and when they do, they have to stop for food anyway. The main problem with Tesla's electric cars is that the ones that are readily available cost a fortune, and the waiting lists are measured in double-digit months for the ones that don't.